DOCSLIB.ORG

Response to the Draft Lancashire Division Boundaries

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Response to the Draft Lancashire Division Boundaries RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT LANCASHIRE DIVISION BOUNDARIES My name is Anthony Robert Greaves I am a member of the House of Lords (Lord Greaves) and an elected member of Pendle Borough Council for Waterside Ward (known as Councillor Tony Greaves). I was a member of Lancashire County Council for 24 years between 1973 and 1997. My academic training was as a geographer. (1) I oppose the draft proposals for new divisional boundaries for Lancashire County Council as they apply to the district of Pendle. I do so because they do not reflect local community identities nor the relationships between communities in Pendle, and are worse in this regard than the existing County divisions. I specifically oppose the proposed Pendle Rural 2-member division (in which I would live) which seems bizarre and unnecessary. (2) I recognise that given the constraints within which you work, the fact that Pendle has a surplus of electors which makes the drawing of boundaries within the +10% constraint more difficult, and the size of the polling districts in the central urban parts of Pendle, it is not possible to create ideal divisions (and some of us have spent some time trying!) But it is possible to improve on the draft proposals. (3) In the circumstances I consider that the alternative proposals for Pendle proposed by Lancashire County Council (and supported by Pendle Borough Council) should be accepted. They are not ideal but they are much better than the draft scheme. When Pendle Council discussed the matter, only six Councillors voted against the LCC alternative which had strong cross-party support including ALL the West Craven area (Barnoldswick and Earby ward) members. COMMENT ON SOME OF THE AREAS. WEST CRAVEN and “PENDLE RURAL”. Last time round, some 20 years ago, it was possible to argue that the former Yorkshire area of West Craven could remain intact as one County area even though it exceeded the quote by some margin. (Indeed it has since then carried most of the Pendle surplus of electors). This is no longer possible and in any case population changes would make it less acceptable. The distinctive character of that area really lies with the two discrete towns of Barnoldswick and Earby which historically and at the present day fit together like gloves. The smaller parishes of Kelbrook and Salterforth (based on former mill villages substantially suburbanised) have steadily come to be more like those on the “Lancashire” side of the old border, notably Foulridge, Laneshaw Bridge and Trawden/Winewall (where I live); all are now first of all suburban villages. The surrounding countryside is also now deceptively suburban as farm holdings have amalgamated and barns been converted. Higherford and Blacko are similar in socio-economic character (though in either scheme Blacko is somewhat “out on a limb” and it is only the fringe of Colne which is anomalous – in either the draft 2- member proposal or the LCC/Pendle alternative proposal. But there seems no way around that problem given the numbers. (It is worth adding that Bracewell and Brogden are more similar to Blacko than to any other parish area.) I would argue therefore that splitting the two-member Pendle Rural into two seats makes sense from a socio-economic point of view. From a communications and links point of view, the 2- member seat would probably be seen as centred on Barnoldswick in spite of the Colne polling districts because the latter are largely fringe areas of the town. Such places as Trawden and Laneshaw Bridge have no links and little in common with Barnoldswick and Earby which do indeed sit together as distinct twin towns. There is surprisingly little knowledge in Trawden and Laneshaw Bridge about how the draft proposal affects them, but the people I have spoken to in the past fortnight are amazed and rather aghast at the idea they should “go in with Barnoldswick”. The inclusion of WF polling district of Waterside ward, an area of urban working class terraced housing, is an anomaly (and I declare my interest as a member for that ward on the Borough Council) but I am satisfied it is regrettably unavoidable. The arguments against a two-seat division, if it can possibly be avoided, are obvious in terms of its being an anomaly, being huge in terms of representation, and clumsy in terms of the system of accountability of County Councillors where (from my experience, and observation since then) members are still very much regarded as the “voice of their patch” and respected for that. In the community “the County Councillor” is still a position different in kind from that of a local Councillor. NELSON AND THE PENDLESIDE VILLAGES The proposal to include most of Bradley Ward (but not all) with Barrowford and Pendleside is seen locally as being very odd. The sharpest division in Pendle in terms of community identity is certainly that between Nelson and the villages across the river to the north (of which Barrowford still thinks of itself as one in spite of its size and strong growth in recent decades). These villages, and most of Barrowford, do not really function as suburbs of Nelson – they provide most of their commuters to further afield (some to Burnley, many to Blackburn, Preston and a growing number to Manchester). Nor do many people in Barrowford/Pendleside shop or “play” in Nelson. Equally, the large Asian populations in Nelson and Brierfield do not by and large look across the river. It is true that the present division boundaries in the Brierfield/Reedley area are not ideal, with Reedley joining Higham, Fence (Old Launch Booth) and the Pendleside parishes in Pendle West. But I would argue that the shock of putting Bradley with Pendleside would be much greater than any advantages of uniting Brierfield and Reedley. The fact is that the existing arrangement is long-standing and has come to be accepted – working arrangements are in place which the draft scheme would disrupt. Reedley Hallows Parish (as apart from the part of the ward in Brierfield parish) sees itself as part of the “Pendle Parishes” that stretch through Higham, Old Laund Booth (Fence), the Pendleside Parishes of Goldshaw Booth, Barley and Roughlee, to the boundaries of Barrowford. Even the top half of the South Ward of Brierfield parish looks to the rest of Reedley and beyond rather than down the hill to Brierfield. In any case much of Reedley Ward actually functions as a suburb of Burnley. It looks west rather than east or north, for work, shopping and recreation and there is a reciprocal movement to schools. It’s arguable that the Pendle/Burnley boundary is in the wrong place, but that is beyond this discussion… Perhaps the main reason for rejecting the changes in the draft scheme in Nelson and Brierfield are that they are simply not necessary. If it works (as by and large it does) why try to fix it? COLNE/PENDLE CENTRAL Both schemes propose the same Pendle Central division. It is a pity that part of Marsden has to be included and the WF polling district of Waterside excluded, thus preventing the formation of a “perfect division”! From the point of view of Colne itself, the new division will be an improvement. My recommendation is that the bland name Pendle Central should be dropped and it should be named “Colne”. I doubt that a lot of people in Marsden would object to that. SUMMARY A lot of these things that seem obvious to many local people are not obvious on a map, particularly if the contour lines are not prominent, and local traffic flows and bus services are not clearly shown. It is my submission that while there is no obvious ideal solution to the county division boundaries in Pendle, the LCC counter-proposal is much better than the draft scheme. It avoids the undesirable two- member division anomaly, it involves less disruption (an important consideration in a three-tier system), and it will, I firmly believe, be clearly more acceptable to most people in Pendle. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Local Development Framework for Pendle Conservation Area Design and Development Guidance Supplementary Planning Document Final
    Local Development Framework for Pendle Conservation Area Design and Development Guidance Supplementary Planning Document Final Consultation Statement (Regulation 17 (1)) August 2008 For an alternative format of this document phone 01282 661330 Conservation Areas Design and Development SPD Regulation 17(1) Statement Consultation undertaken in accordance with Regulation 17 (1) The Council is required to prepare its Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) in accordance with procedures set out in the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amended) Regulations 2008. Regulation 17 requires that before an SPD is adopted, a Consultation Statement be prepared setting out who was consulted in connection with the preparation of the SPD, how they were consulted, a summary of the main issues raised in those consultations and how those issues have been addressed in the SPD. The SPD has also been prepared and consulted upon in accordance with the Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). Pre-production stage Before work began on drafting the SPD a number of organisations were consulted on the SPD objectives. These are listed in appendix A. These groups/people were sent a list of SPD objectives that had been prepared, in draft, by the Council and covered issues that the Council considered should be covered by the SPD. This was a four week consultation period which ran from 21st May to 15th June 2007. In line with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement these groups/persons were consulted by letter which included the proposed objectives and copies of the relevant Local Plan policy (policy 10). In addition copies of ‘Framework’, the newsletter which keeps organisations up to date on the progress of the Local Development Framework, was distributed.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Core Strategy Publication Report
    Local Plan for Pendle Core Strategy Publication Report September 2012 For an alternative format of this document phone 01282 661330 Pendle Core Strategy Publication Report 1 Foreword Foreword Pendle is a unique and special place: attractive, diverse, yet constantly changing. We care about our community, so it is important that we recognise the challenges that the future holds, and that we plan for those changes. We live in an age where rapid advances in technology are changing how we communicate, the way we shop, where and how we work and the life choices we make. We are living longer too; and have higher expectations for a future where we expect to enjoy good health and greater prosperity. We must direct future growth to the right locations and carefully manage regeneration activity. We need to provide guidance so that new development benefits those people who live and work in our towns and villages, whilst continuing to protect and enhance those assets that make the area both attractive and locally distinctive. In doing so we must carefully consider the social, economic and environmental impacts of our actions. Only in this way can we hope to realise our vision of making Pendle a better place to live, work, learn, play and visit. The Core Strategy will work alongside Our Pendle, Our Future: Pendle’s Sustainable Community Strategy, to help us shape the future of Pendle, by addressing issues that are important to our locality as well as matters of wider concern such as climate change. The policies in the Core Strategy have been influenced by the evidence available to us.
    [Show full text]
  • Actuarial Valuation Report
    HEALTH WEALTH CAREER ACTUARIAL VALUATION REPORT LANCASHIRE COUNTY PENSION FUND AS AT 31 MARCH 2016 ACTUARIAL VALUATION A S A T 31 MARCH 2016 LANCASHIRE COUNTY PENSION FUND CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1 2. Funding Strategy – Key Elements 2 3. Key results of the funding assessment 3 · Solvency funding position 3 · Primary contribution rate 4 · Correcting the shortfall – secondary contribution rate 4 4. Experience since last valuation 5 · Summary of key inter-valuation experience 5 · Reasons for the change in funding position since the last actuarial valuation 6 5. Cashflows, risks and alternative funding positions 7 · Benefit cashflows 7 · Projected funding position at next actuarial valuation 8 · Material risks faced by the Fund 8 · Sensitivity of funding position to changes in key assumptions 8 · Minimum risk funding position 9 APPENDICES A. Assumptions 11 · How the benefits are valued 11 · Financial assumptions used to calculate the funding target 12 · Demographic assumptions used 12 · Assumptions used to calculate the primary contribution rate 15 B. Summary membership data 17 C. Assets 18 D. Scheme benefits 19 E. Summary of income and expenditure 20 F. Analysis of membership experience 21 G. Rates and adjustments certificate issued in accordance with Regulation 62 22 · Primary contribution rate 22 · Secondary contribution rate 22 · Contribution amounts payable 22 · Further adjustments 22 · Regulation 62(8) 23 H. Schedule to the rates and adjustments certificate dated 31 March 2017 24 I. Glossary 44 MERCER ii ACTUARIAL VALUATION A S A T 31 MARCH 2016 LANCASHIRE COUNTY PENSION FUND 1 INTRODUCTION This report is addressed to the Administering Authority of the Lancashire County Pension Fund (“the Administering Authority”) and is provided to meet the requirements of Regulation 62 of the Local Government Scheme Regulations 2013 (as amended) (“the Regulations”).
    [Show full text]
  • Download Blacko and Higherford
    1 Blacko and Higherford Profile Contents 1. Population.............................................................................................................................. 3 1.1. 2011 actuals.................................................................................................................... 3 1.2. Marital Status .................................................................................................................. 3 1.3. Ethnicity .......................................................................................................................... 4 1.4. Social Grade ................................................................................................................... 4 2. Labour Market ....................................................................................................................... 5 2.1. Economic Activity............................................................................................................ 5 2.2. Economic Inactivity ......................................................................................................... 5 2.3. Employment Occupations ............................................................................................... 6 2.4. Key Out-of-Work Benefits ............................................................................................... 6 3. Health .................................................................................................................................... 8 3.1. Limiting Long-Term Illness.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lancashire Historic Town Survey Programme
    LANCASHIRE HISTORIC TOWN SURVEY PROGRAMME BURNLEY HISTORIC TOWN ASSESSMENT REPORT MAY 2005 Lancashire County Council and Egerton Lea Consultancy with the support of English Heritage and Burnley Borough Council Lancashire Historic Town Survey Burnley The Lancashire Historic Town Survey Programme was carried out between 2000 and 2006 by Lancashire County Council and Egerton Lea Consultancy with the support of English Heritage. This document has been prepared by Lesley Mitchell and Suzanne Hartley of the Lancashire County Archaeology Service, and is based on an original report written by Richard Newman and Caron Newman, who undertook the documentary research and field study. The illustrations were prepared and processed by Caron Newman, Lesley Mitchell, Suzanne Hartley, Nik Bruce and Peter Iles. Copyright © Lancashire County Council 2005 Contact: Lancashire County Archaeology Service Environment Directorate Lancashire County Council Guild House Cross Street Preston PR1 8RD Mapping in this volume is based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Lancashire County Council Licence No. 100023320 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Lancashire County Council would like to acknowledge the advice and assistance provided by Graham Fairclough, Jennie Stopford, Andrew Davison, Roger Thomas, Judith Nelson and Darren Ratcliffe at English Heritage, Paul Mason, John Trippier, and all the staff at Lancashire County Council, in particular Nik Bruce, Jenny Hayward, Jo Clark, Peter Iles, Peter McCrone and Lynda Sutton. Egerton Lea Consultancy Ltd wishes to thank the staff of the Lancashire Record Office, particularly Sue Goodwin, for all their assistance during the course of this study.
    [Show full text]
  • LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION for ENGLAND N N 2 D 4 O M Round Wood Le 8 M R 65 O W L N
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND ROAD NOGGARTH S Noggarth End A N D Farm Y H A L L L A N E Final Recommendations for Ward Boundaries in Colne and Nelson PERIODIC ELECTORAL REVIEW OF PENDLE Laund House H i Farm g g e n C l o u g h Quarry (disused) September 2000 ROAD S A N D Y Cemetery H A L L L A N E W HE AT LEY WH LA EATLEY LAN NE E ROAD RO B Trough LaitheAD 6 2 4 Farm 9 OLD LAUND BOOTH WARD BARROWFORD WARD OLD LAUND BOOTH CP Laund Farm BA RR OW FO RD C R R A BARROWFORD CP O I R AD D R G E H W A L D A L I Y X R O O N A D S T APP O LEGARTH Gdns A K L A N B D A S RR P OW A B A R O F V O L R R E D T O RO O A C N D HI G K G P HE Mill R R R e C O A O n U V S d E A E W l A D e Y W C a t A e L R ST E N r LE E O R END ST P R S RE A I E D T S E T D R L L U A E C O O Y R E S Raven's Clough Wood W T N T UR E B M IS CH R G UR O CH C U ILL L C WAY College O N LOWERFORD A U T GH R S R S T Allotment Gardens T H L A O C Recreation Ground L C W A A L L E R D Lower Park Hill R A E R R 6 O 0 R 6 M P V R A RIVE 8 A A L D A U D L O HA LE D RR R CA A S R D S T O A D N NEWBRIDGE OA Cricket Ground C D R K Y RN Mills L U R A B N IS O E G AD A B D RO D A MON R RICH R O UE W AVEN F ARK O AD RTH P R O NO D R D R N r K M 6 e 5 at W I O le R d A n Pe B P L Y R AR UE A TL IN OA K A AVEN S D O D D VE K U C Waterside RE N PAR S D UE R RO R AD E Y R O A Playing er Cricket Wat D C Pendle Chamber C Ground Field Waterside H Football Ground O B P E U e U Farm Hill A R n Victoria Park L L C d T E H l O e I Industrial Estate R L N W O L R A M W a ON D T O t FOR A e D
    [Show full text]
  • Jonas Moore Trail
    1 The Pendle Witches He would walk the three miles to Burnley Grammar School down Foxendole Lane towards Jonas Moore was the son of a yeoman farmer the river Calder, passing the area called West his fascinating four and a half called John Moore, who lived at Higher White Lee Close where Chattox had lived. in Higham, close to Pendle Hill. Charged for crimes committed using mile trail goes back over 400 This was the early 17th century and John witchcraft, Chattox was hanged, alongside years of history in a little- Moore and his wife lived close to Chattox, the Alizon Device and other rival family members and known part of the Forest of Bowland, most notorious of the so called Pendle Witches. neighbours, on the hill above Lancaster, called The Moores became one of many families caught Golgotha. These were turbulent and dangerous an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. up in events which were documented in the times in Britain’s history, including huge religious It explores a hidden valley where there are world famous trial. intolerance between Protestants and Catholics. Elizabethan manor houses and evidence of According to the testimony of eighteen year Civil War the past going back to medieval times and old Alizon Device, who was the granddaughter of the alleged Pendle witch Demdike, John earlier. The trail brings to light the story of Sir Moore had quarrelled with Chattox, accusing her In 1637, at the age of 20, Jonas Moore was Jonas Moore, a remarkable mathematician of turning his ale sour. proficient in legal Latin and was appointed clerk and radical thinker that time has forgotten.
    [Show full text]
  • Der Europäischen Gemeinschaften Nr
    26 . 3 . 84 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften Nr . L 82 / 67 RICHTLINIE DES RATES vom 28 . Februar 1984 betreffend das Gemeinschaftsverzeichnis der benachteiligten landwirtschaftlichen Gebiete im Sinne der Richtlinie 75 /268 / EWG ( Vereinigtes Königreich ) ( 84 / 169 / EWG ) DER RAT DER EUROPAISCHEN GEMEINSCHAFTEN — Folgende Indexzahlen über schwach ertragsfähige Böden gemäß Artikel 3 Absatz 4 Buchstabe a ) der Richtlinie 75 / 268 / EWG wurden bei der Bestimmung gestützt auf den Vertrag zur Gründung der Euro­ jeder der betreffenden Zonen zugrunde gelegt : über päischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft , 70 % liegender Anteil des Grünlandes an der landwirt­ schaftlichen Nutzfläche , Besatzdichte unter 1 Groß­ vieheinheit ( GVE ) je Hektar Futterfläche und nicht über gestützt auf die Richtlinie 75 / 268 / EWG des Rates vom 65 % des nationalen Durchschnitts liegende Pachten . 28 . April 1975 über die Landwirtschaft in Berggebieten und in bestimmten benachteiligten Gebieten ( J ), zuletzt geändert durch die Richtlinie 82 / 786 / EWG ( 2 ), insbe­ Die deutlich hinter dem Durchschnitt zurückbleibenden sondere auf Artikel 2 Absatz 2 , Wirtschaftsergebnisse der Betriebe im Sinne von Arti­ kel 3 Absatz 4 Buchstabe b ) der Richtlinie 75 / 268 / EWG wurden durch die Tatsache belegt , daß das auf Vorschlag der Kommission , Arbeitseinkommen 80 % des nationalen Durchschnitts nicht übersteigt . nach Stellungnahme des Europäischen Parlaments ( 3 ), Zur Feststellung der in Artikel 3 Absatz 4 Buchstabe c ) der Richtlinie 75 / 268 / EWG genannten geringen Bevöl­ in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe : kerungsdichte wurde die Tatsache zugrunde gelegt, daß die Bevölkerungsdichte unter Ausschluß der Bevölke­ In der Richtlinie 75 / 276 / EWG ( 4 ) werden die Gebiete rung von Städten und Industriegebieten nicht über 55 Einwohner je qkm liegt ; die entsprechenden Durch­ des Vereinigten Königreichs bezeichnet , die in dem schnittszahlen für das Vereinigte Königreich und die Gemeinschaftsverzeichnis der benachteiligten Gebiete Gemeinschaft liegen bei 229 beziehungsweise 163 .
    [Show full text]
  • INSPECTION REPORT BLACKO PRIMARY SCHOOL Blacko, Nelson
    INSPECTION REPORT BLACKO PRIMARY SCHOOL Blacko, Nelson, Lancashire LEA area: Lancashire Unique reference number: 119167 Headteacher: Mrs L A Harper Reporting inspector: Mr A S Kingston 21585 Dates of inspection: 7 – 8 February 2000 Inspection number: 186307 Inspection carried out under section 10 of the School Inspections Act 1996 © Crown copyright 2000 This report may be reproduced in whole or in part for non-commercial educational purposes, provided that all extracts quoted are reproduced verbatim without adaptation and on condition that the source and date thereof are stated. Further copies of this report are obtainable from the school. Under the School Inspections Act 1996, the school must provide a copy of this report and/or its summary free of charge to certain categories of people. A charge not exceeding the full cost of reproduction may be made for any other copies supplied. INFORMATION ABOUT THE SCHOOL Type of school: Primary School category: Community Age range of pupils: 4 – 11 Gender of pupils: Mixed School address: Gisburn Road Blacko Nelson Lancashire Postcode: BB9 6LS Telephone number: 01282 616669 Fax number: 01282 616669 Appropriate authority: The Governing Body Name of chair of governors: Mr A G Stephenson Date of previous inspection: 27 – 30 November 1995 Blacko Primary School - 3 INFORMATION ABOUT THE INSPECTION TEAM Team members Mr A S Kingston Registered inspector Mrs N Walker Lay inspector The inspection contractor was: Quality Education Directorate Reginald Arthur House Percy Street Rotherham S65 1ED Any concerns
    [Show full text]
  • Results of Polling Station Review
    Ward Name A - Barnoldswick Parliamentary Constituency Pendle Changes due to LGBCE review Coates (part) and Craven (part) Proposed Polling Polling No of Change to Polling Place District Parish (if any) County Division Polling Place District 1 electors (if any) 1 Feb 2020 March 2020 AA CQ and CR Barnoldswick (Coates Pendle Rural St Joseph’s Community Centre, Bolland 2565 No change to polling place part Ward) (Coates Ward Street, Barnoldswick BB18 5EZ for CQ, CR part moved for 2023) from Gospel Mission AB CV1 Barnoldswick (Craven Pendle Rural Independent Methodist Sunday School, 1565 No change to polling place Ward) (Barnoldswick Walmsgate, Barnoldswick, BB18 5PS North from 2023) AC CV2 None (parish meeting) Pendle Rural Independent Methodist Sunday School, 203 No change to polling place Walmsgate, Barnoldswick, BB18 5PS AD CW part Barnoldswick (Craven Pendle Rural The Rainhall Centre, Rainhall Road, 2508 No change to polling place Ward) (Barnoldswick Barnoldswick, BB18 5DR South from 2023) 6841 Ward Name B - Barrowford & Pendleside Parliamentary Constituency Pendle Changes due to LGBCE review: Merging of Wards Barrowford, Blacko & Higherford, Higham & Pendleside (part) Polling Polling No of Change to Polling Place District 1 District at 1 Parish (if any) County Division Polling Place electors (if any) March 2020 Feb 2020 BA BA Barrowford (Carr Hall Pendle Hill Victoria Park Pavilion, Carr Road, Nelson, 930 No change to polling place Ward) Lancs, BB9 7SS BB BB Barrowford (Newbridge Pendle Hill Holmefield House, Gisburn Road, 1533 No change to polling place Ward) Barrowford, BB9 8ND BC BC Barrowford (Central Pendle Hill Holmefield House, Gisburn Road, 1460 No change to polling place Ward) Barrowford, BB9 8ND BD BD Barrowford (Higherford Pendle Hill Higherford Methodist Church Hall, 890 No change to polling place Ward) Gisburn Road, Barrowford, BB9 6AW BE BE Blacko Pendle Rural Blacko County School, Beverley Road 538 No change to polling place Entrance, Blacko, BB9 6LS BF HJ Goldshaw Booth Pendle Hill St.
    [Show full text]
  • Lancashire Behaviour Support Tool
    Lancashire Behaviour Support Tool Introduction Lancashire is committed to achieving excellent outcomes for its children and young people. Our aim for all our young people is for them to have the best possible start in life so that all have the opportunity to fulfill their learning potential. Schools and other settings should be safe and orderly places where all children and young people can learn and develop. The consequences of behaviour which challenges others can, if not addressed effectively, impact negatively on individual pupils and groups of pupils. The need for the Local Authority, schools and other partners to work together to address behavioural issues is essential if we are to promote high standards of achievement and attainment for all. The purpose of the Behaviour Support tool is to produce accessible, and accurate information for schools and settings in one place, on sources of training, support and advice led by Lancashire services and clear pathways in relation to meeting pupil's social, emotional and behavioural needs. Aims 1. To develop safe, calm and ordered school environments within which pupils are able to learn and develop and thrive. 2. To develop skills for emotional literacy, positive social relationships and emotional health and well-being among pupils to take into their adult lives beyond school. 3. To Improve capacity within our schools and other settings to include all our pupils including those children and young people who, at times, may present very challenging behaviour, as a result of a variety of factors originating both within the child or young person or resulting from their social environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Countryside Access Strategy 2019 - 2023
    Countryside Access Strategy 2019 - 2023 This document contains the Council’s Strategic Plan for the Countryside Access Service. Contents 1. Countryside Access and Pendle’s Strategic Plan ............................................................................. 2 2. SWOT analysis of Pendle’s Countryside Access Provision .............................................................. 2 3. Countryside Access - Main Objectives ............................................................................................ 6 4. Strategy Actions – PROW maintenance .......................................................................................... 7 5. Strategy Actions – Public Path Orders .......................................................................................... 10 6. Strategy Actions – Pendle Walking Festival .................................................................................. 12 7. Performance Indicators and Strategy Monitoring ........................................................................ 13 8. Future Development of the Countryside Access Service .............................................................. 13 Appendix 1 – Rights of way reports - Prioritisation Matrix .................................................................. 14 Page 1 1. Countryside Access and Pendle’s Strategic Plan 1.1. The Countryside Access Strategy aims to contribute to Pendle Borough Council’s Strategic Plan. The vision statement in the Strategic Plan sees Pendle as a place where quality of life continues to improve
    [Show full text]