DOCSLIB.ORG

Reigate and Banstead District

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reigate and Banstead District 7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Reigate and Banstead District Personal Details: Name: E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I do not agree that Tattenham Way should be in the Nork area. The name of the road suggests in itself that it should be part of Tattenhams. The shops at Tattenham Corner are the most convenient for the residents of Tattenham Way. If we move into the Nork area, hopefully our postcode will change too, to bring us in line with the surrounding roads. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13444 1/1 7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Reigate and Banstead District Personal Details: Name: E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: resident of subrosa drive Comment text: I would like Subrosa Drive to be part of Merstham as this, along with my neighbours, is where I consider myself to be and local concerns are connected with Merstham and not Redhill. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13470 1/1 7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Reigate and Banstead District Personal Details: Name: E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: The new proposal does not reflect community interests and identities such as village events and groups. It doesn’t include areas where local people go for shops and leisure facilities. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13473 1/1 7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Reigate and Banstead District Personal Details: Name: E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: Please save Woodmansterne. Woodmansterne is a lovely little village & it needs to be left that way. It is a lovely little community, with the school, church, pub & village shops. Stop meddling & leave things be. The council need to act on proper issues Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13475 1/1 7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13479 2/2 7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Reigate and Banstead District Personal Details: Name: E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I disagree with the proposal to split the Woodmansterne ward resulting in the removal of the Woodmansterne Village name from the electoral wards. Woodmansterne is a very old village, mentioned in the Doomsday Book and has its own sports teams and village traditions (e.g. cricket, football, lacrosse & hockey teams and The Village May Queen celebrations). It will be wrong and unfair to erase Woodmansterne from the electoral system and there does not appear to be any clear advantage in doing so. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13481 1/1 7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Reigate and Banstead District Personal Details: Name: E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I have lived in Woodmansterne village for 8 years, . I moved here as it was a community that cared. we attend St. Peter’s church, the divide in the middle of Chipstead Way would mean we are not part of the St. Peter’s church area or the school. We attend the schools summer fetes and village may queen that we are so proud of. This would be taken away from my end of Chipstead way and the community feeling would be lost. Chipstead way is the backbone of Woodmansterne and dividing the road would create a split community. If a boundary is to be in place I think the end of Chipstead way and rectory lane is more appropriate and would not leave a community without an identity. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13490 1/1 7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Reigate and Banstead District Personal Details: Name: E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: As part of the local group, building a community in Meadvale, the new boundaries cut off the the west end of Meadvale from the centre of Meadvale (Old oak pub and swing common), Suggest that the western end is extended further towards Reigate School and include Arbutus Road, Arbutus Close and Willow Road as a minimum. Also the boundary appears to go straight down Arbutus Road dividing one side from the other side whilst in other places it uses backgardens to divide wards which is more sensible. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13492 1/1 7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Reigate and Banstead District Personal Details: Name: E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I have lived in Woodmansterne for about 40 years, . The village has always been very close to my heart and I am proud of the roots that I have grown up in. I find this proposal to eradicate our village name ludicrous and think this is bureaucracy god mad. The boundaries have been in place for 1000 of years and I fail to see why the need to even up the amount of voters is more important than us losing our identity. As voters do we not have the right to choose were we live and we all chose to live in Woodmansterne. To find communities such as ours are rare these days, we pride ourselves on being a village, we all look out for each other and help each other when needed. To lose our identity just so some politician can have a few more votes does seem the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13493 1/1 7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Reigate and Banstead District Personal Details: Name: E-mail: Postcode: Comment text: I am writing this e-mail to say I think it is despicable to change the Boundary regarding Woodmansterne village. I have lived in Woodmansterne for 35years plus and do not understand why they want to change the bounderies. Please could they explain the reason behind these changes, are they residents of Woodmansterne? Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13497 1/1 Reigate and Banstead District Personal Details: Name: E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I don't agree with the boundary changes and have no wish to lose the village identity of Meadvale. We have a strong community here, with our community events, scout and guide groups, and successful nurseries, and I think that identity should be promoted not removed. I would prefer to see a sign showing the village name when people enter so everyone knows they are in Meadvale. Cutting the village of Meadvale in half is unhelpful and unnecessary, particularly when the divide runs down the middle of a road (east/west Arbutus Road). If the boundaries must change then the village should be encompassed whole, and either grouped with Woodhatch & South Park, which in my view makes more sense since the majority of secondary school children in Meadvale will attend Reigate School (and Meadvale is closer to Reigate town centre than Redhill in any case), or with Earlswood Common - but in either case, the village name and identity of Meadvale should be preserved. I also don't believe that cutting Reigate itself in half is helpful either, and calling one proposed ward St Mary's and Redhill common when it doesn't even cover St Mary's Church seem bizarre. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District Personal Details: Name: E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I have sent an email already which focused on the stupidity of the suggested boundary but I now wish to add a bit more. The boundary has for some reason cut houses from Meadvale in Redhill Surrey, not the whole road, not a side, not the end but just 6 houses. These houses from Meadvale in Redhill surrey are to for some reason to be joined up with a neighbouring village in a neighbouring town (Woodhatch in Reigate) Am I to understand that if I have a problem that effects me in my village (and town) that I should expect a councillor for a neighbouring town that has no other interest in my village to deal with my concerns. One politician deals with 99.9% of our village needs and another politician deals with the 0.01 %, does this make sense to you (Or anyone else) Am I still able to vote on things related to my village / town or am I only allowed to vote on a village / town I don't live or have an interest in? Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District Personal Details: Name: E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: Sorry if this question seems ridiculous but it looks as if the Meadvale boundary of Copse road RH1 6NW excludes 6 of the houses within that road the boundary doesn't cut the road off half way or more intelligently at the end of the road, it cuts out a chunk so all the houses on one side of the road are in Meadvale and the other is too bar these 6 houses. Are we to get a new postcode to put us in the Reigate area or are we going to keep our Redhill postcode but be in a different ward to our neighbours.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Drakes Field, Rectory Lane, Woodmansterne (S2011CHW06)
    Drakes Field, Rectory Lane, Woodmansterne (S2011CHW06) Eastlands Farmhouse 122.8m The Cottage Blencathra ´ The Well House 116.7m The Old Rectory (Caravan Site) CF CW CF Prospect Plantation RH 8 12 AD RO D RE IF IN 112.2m W 8 13 CF 8 14 1 3 3 4 1 3 2 R H C F Path T 60 k H 5 5 2 m 3 3 9 9 5 2 8 . 8 0 CF 1 M R B H 1 8 L Y 106.7m N 9 D 2 H C 7 F U 1 R S T R 1 O 6 C A W D 4 0 7 7 C F E 7 E 5 2 1 R , B o r o R C H o n s t , G L A s l y C o n 2 s t 5 2 6 & 8 L B B d y E U N C E F V A 1 El Sub Sta W A H S P M E H Und 1 1 5 1 m 4 4 . 2 0 1 8 A D C O R F N OW ND SA 91.5m 9 3 F W 2 C F F W F W Allotment Gardens e nd us U B o M H ix 89.0m n 9 e 9 ho . 1 P 7 m 2 10 C F 6 47 20 8 97.5m 47 87.1m U n d 8 48 AD RO 1 Y 3 1 E LL VA D EA ST 7 IP 3 H 0 C 50 BM 87.71m 87.5m 2 51 7 2 94.5m Chipstead Valley Primary School SP 9 2 52 2 59 88.4m K L A 6 W E LB IN P PO 8m .2 89 BM 1 0 4 n Su y GP 8 a 4 92.0m ) e d H rn id (P te h M s rc e PCB n u Th a h m C Prospect d t E E o is Wells AN N o t L A D L p House W W a OO D B W W Works T O OU H 89.5m Shelter E MP 18 R N E A Playing Field 0 L 1 Manse C D T O O O R W Y T 1 U L TCBs O A N E SP 90.7m 0 2 91.5m 1 m 0 7 0 .4 1 9 M B Crown Copyright Reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Tadworth Kt20 5RX Introduction03
    tadworth Kt20 5RX introduction03 introDuction An Arts & Crafts inspired development of 11 two bedroom luxury apartments, Morris House enjoys a prime location surrounded by the Surrey countryside in tranquil Tadworth. All of the apartments are finished with Vanderbilt Homes’ unwavering and award-winning attention to detail – combining traditional craftsmanship with contemporary luxury. Apartment 1 enjoys its own private garden, while all the other ground floor apartments offer direct access to the secluded communal gardens. The first floor apartments benefit from private or Juliet balconies. The two spacious penthouses are the literal pinnacle of Morris House’s offering, with enclosed roof terraces and glazed casement doors that enable you to welcome the great outdoors into your home. morris house, dorking road, tadworth, surrey kt20 5rx tadworth surrey Morris house 04morris house exterior view 05 Computer Generated Image tadworth surrey Morris house EM CUDDINGTON golf course OAKS SPORTS CENTRE GOLF COURSE local area Banstead downs golf course map 06 EPSOM 07 REEDHAM TED WOODCORE PARK GOLF COURSE WOODMANsterne EPSOM GOLF COURSE EPSOM DOWNS RACECOURSE HTED CHIPSTEAD TATTENHAM CORNER CHIPSTEAD GOLF CLUB Kingswood SURREY DOWNS GOLF CLUB KINGSWOOD TDRTH TADWORTH KINGSWOOD golf course and country club M25 DORKING ROAD HEDE BRIGHTON ROAD A24 HEADLEY CRICKET CLUB GROUND Walton Heath golf course a217 REIGATE HILL golf course MERSTHAM M25 BOX HILL tadworth surrey Morris house BETCHWOOD 08 local area tadworth09 tadworth Appearing in the Domesday Book as Tadeorde and Tadorne, Tadworth has come a long way from its Domesday assets of two hides. A thriving suburban village with great train links to Central London and road connections to the surrounding areas, fortunately its growth hasn’t come at the expense of its tranquil surroundings.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Borough Election Results
    2010 Borough election results This page provides information on the 2010 Borough election results. 6 May 2010 - Results of Borough Council Elections Following the elections the council is currently made up of: 39 Conservative Councillors 6 Residents' Associations Councillors 3 Liberal Democrat Councillors 1 Green Councillor 1 Independent Councillor 1 Labour Councillor. Banstead Village Ward Other Candidate's names in Home address in full Description (if any) Votes surname full 13 Denton Close, Redhill, Mendis Rohitha Liberal Democrat 1,223 Surrey 30 Pound Road, Banstead, UK Independence Russell Paula 492 Surrey, SM7 2HT Party Melrose, 11a Longcroft Samuel The Conservative 2,686 - Walsh Avenue, Banstead, Surrey, Thomas Party Candidate Elected SM7 3AE Turnout: 68.86% Chipstead, Hooley and Woodmansterne Ward Other Candidate's Description (if names in Home address in full Votes surname any) full Red Lodge, Park Road, British National Brown Keith 306 Banstead, Surrey, SM7 3DS Party Christoper 2 Reed Drive, Redhill, Surrey, Howell Liberal Democrats 1,313 Ian RH1 6TA Hill Farm, Woodmansterne Richard The Conservative 2,961 - Mantle Street, Banstead, Surrey, Stanley Party Candidate Elected SM7 3NF Turnout: 69.69% Earlswood and Whitebushes Ward Other Candidate's names in Home address in full Description (if any) Votes surname full 10 Redstone Park, The Labour Party Norgrove Rosie 818 Redhill, Surrey, RH1 4AT Candidate 21 Southcote Road, Oddy Steve Keith Merstham, Surrey, RH1 Liberal Democrats 1,378 3LJ 1 Daneshill Close, The Conservative 1,712
    [Show full text]
  • Download Network
    Milton Keynes, London Birmingham and the North Victoria Watford Junction London Brentford Waterloo Syon Lane Windsor & Shepherd’s Bush Eton Riverside Isleworth Hounslow Kew Bridge Kensington (Olympia) Datchet Heathrow Chiswick Vauxhall Airport Virginia Water Sunnymeads Egham Barnes Bridge Queenstown Wraysbury Road Longcross Sunningdale Whitton TwickenhamSt. MargaretsRichmondNorth Sheen BarnesPutneyWandsworthTown Clapham Junction Staines Ashford Feltham Mortlake Wimbledon Martins Heron Strawberry Earlsfield Ascot Hill Croydon Tramlink Raynes Park Bracknell Winnersh Triangle Wokingham SheppertonUpper HallifordSunbury Kempton HamptonPark Fulwell Teddington Hampton KingstonWick Norbiton New Oxford, Birmingham Winnersh and the North Hampton Court Malden Thames Ditton Berrylands Chertsey Surbiton Malden Motspur Reading to Gatwick Airport Chessington Earley Bagshot Esher TolworthManor Park Hersham Crowthorne Addlestone Walton-on- Bath, Bristol, South Wales Reading Thames North and the West Country Camberley Hinchley Worcester Beckenham Oldfield Park Wood Park Junction South Wales, Keynsham Trowbridge Byfleet & Bradford- Westbury Brookwood Birmingham Bath Spaon-Avon Newbury Sandhurst New Haw Weybridge Stoneleigh and the North Reading West Frimley Elmers End Claygate Farnborough Chessington Ewell West Byfleet South New Bristol Mortimer Blackwater West Woking West East Addington Temple Meads Bramley (Main) Oxshott Croydon Croydon Frome Epsom Taunton, Farnborough North Exeter and the Warminster Worplesdon West Country Bristol Airport Bruton Templecombe
    [Show full text]
  • Public Notices
    11410 THE LONDON GAZETTE, STH SEPTEMBER 1981 apply to the High Court for the suspension or quashing of DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT the Scheme or Order or of any provision contained therein. HIGHWAYS ACT 1980 W. G. Gathercole, Controller of Administration, South. The M23 London-Crawley Motorway (Variation) Scheme Eastern Road Construction Unit, Department of 1981 Transport. The M23 London-Crawley Motorway (Woodmansterne- 1st September 1981. (SSI) Merst ham Section Side Roads Variation) Order 1981 The Secretary of State for Transport hereby gives notice INLAND REVENUE that he has made: (1) a Scheme under sections 16 and 326 of the Highways STAMP DUTIES Act 1980 which varies the M23 London-Crawley Motor- way Scheme 1968 by deleting therefrom reference to Whereas Section 12 (2) of the Finance Act 1899 provides the section of the route between Mitcham in the that Her Majesty's Commissioners of Inland Revenue may London Borough of Merton and Hooley in Surrey; substitute, as respects any foreign or colonial currency mentioned in the Schedule to that Act, any rate of (2) an Order under sections 18 and 326 of the Highways exchange for that specified in the Schedule and may add Act 1980 which varies the M23 London-Crawley to the Schedule the rate of exchange for any foreign or Motorway (Woodmansterne-Merstham Section Side colonial currency not mentioned therein, and that such Act Roads) Order 1971 by deleting therefrom reference to shall be construed as if any rate of exchange for the time Site Plans and Schedules 1 to 4. being substituted or added
    [Show full text]
  • Shabden and Upper Gatton Parks Circular Walk
    grassland. chalk the to returning now is wildlife and more once land the grazing sheep in resulted has Farm Park Shabden of farmer tenant species. scarce and rare many the and Services Countryside Trust Wildlife supporting habitats, wildlife richest our of one views. extensive and trees specimen Surrey by methods farming wildlife-friendly now is grassland chalk of kind this and livestock fine mansions, large its with parkland, century traditional, more use to efforts Determined grazing the alongside thrive to wildlife other 18th through you guides and century, 7th the 1980s. the in stopped were methods Such and flowers wild chalk-loving of variety wide in recorded were which of some villages, pretty disappear. to wildlife the of much caused This a allowed This centuries. many for grazing and hamlets isolated past you lead will walk This structure. its destroyed and soil the enriched sheep for used traditionally was area the activity. human of centuries of result which 70s, and 1960s the in here used and fertile very not are area this of soils chalky the is here explore can you countryside beautiful were fertilisers, of use the and ploughing dry The years. the over changed also has N I M the but landscape, this shaped has ature including methods, farming ntensive which farmland, is countryside this of uch Enjoy and Explore Explore and Enjoy This leaflet is best used with OS maps: This leaflet was produced on behalf of Reigate and Banstead Borough Council by the 1:25000 Explorer 146 Old Surrey Downs Project. (Dorking, Box Hill & Reigate) 1:50000 Landranger 187 (Dorking & Reigate) Suitability This 7 mile, 11km walk takes you through some Restoring our beautiful chalk grassland Much of this walk is level, although of Surrey’s most scenic countryside.
    [Show full text]
  • Asset Register Dataset.Xlsx
    Unique Asset Ownersh UPRN Identity Name Street Numbers Street Name Locality Postal Town Postcode Easting Northing Ownership Occupied Ground Lease Leasehold Licence Vacant Sublease ip Detail Land Only 68170412 A00001 The Park allotments, Carshalton Road, Woodmansterne The Park allotments Carshalton Road Woodmansterne Banstead 527550 160278 Freehold - Owned by local authority Yes No No No No N/A Yes 68164102 A00002 Holly Lane allotments, Banstead Holly Lane allotments Holly Lane Banstead 525484 159283 Freehold - Owned by local authority No No No Yes No N/A Yes 68170097 A00003 Lakers Rise allotments, Woodmansterne Lakers Rise allotments Lakers Rise Woodmansterne Banstead 527475 159076 Freehold - Owned by local authority No No No Yes No N/A Yes 68160122 A00004 Lambert Road allotments, Banstead Lambert Road allotments Lambert Road Banstead SM7 2QW 525498 160193 Freehold - Owned by local authority No No No Yes No N/A Yes 68164101 A00005 Merland Rise allotments, Tadworth Merland Rise allotments Merland Rise Tadworth 523045 157602 Freehold - Owned by local authority No No No Yes No N/A Yes 68163597 A00006 Parsonsfield Road allotments, Banstead Parsonsfield Road allotments Parsonsfield Road Banstead 523800 159769 Freehold - Owned by local authority No No No Yes No N/A Yes 68159587 A00007 Partridge Mead allotments, Banstead Partridge Mead allotments Bridgefield Close Banstead 523387 159817 Freehold - Owned by local authority No No No Yes No N/A Yes 68158076 A00008 Tattenham Way allotments, Reigate Road, Burgh Heath Tattenham Way allotments Reigate
    [Show full text]
  • Reigate & Banstead Local Plan Development Management Plan
    Reigate & Banstead Local Plan Development Management Plan Adopted September 2019 This document is available in large print or another language on request Ten dokument jest dostępny w języku polskim na życzenie. Este documento está disponível em português a pedido. Ce document est disponible en français sur demande. Ang tekstong ito ay magagamit sa filipino kapag hiniling. Este documento está disponible en español bajo pedido. Please contact the Planning Policy Team: [email protected] 01737 276178 Foreword “This Development Management Plan (DMP) will take forward the vision of our adopted Core Strategy, to make Reigate & Banstead one of the most desirable and attractive places to live, work in and visit. “Alongside the Core Strategy, the detailed policies and proposals in the DMP will guide planning applications across the borough, helping to ensure that we deliver the right development, in the right places and at the right time. “The wide ranging policies in the DMP will enable us to continue protecting and enhancing the things that make Reigate & Banstead a great place: our characterful towns and villages, our beautiful countryside and open spaces, and our healthy economy. “They will also support us in our ambitions to provide high quality homes that are affordable to local people, and which meet their needs whatever their stage of life. In addition, these policies will help us to ensure that our residents and businesses continue to have access to the services, facilities and infrastructure which they rely upon day to day. “We recognise that development can bring pressures and challenges. The policies in the DMP will mean that we are well placed to manage these so that that the impacts of growth on our residents, businesses and environment are minimised, but also that opportunities and benefits are maximised.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning Applications: Received and Determined Week Ending – 09.03.2016
    Planning Applications: R eceived and D etermined Week ending – 09.03.2016 Viewing Planning Applications All of these applications, including forms, plans and supporting information can be viewed online by following this link. http://planning.reigate-banstead.gov.uk/online-applications/ The new planning applications search will enable viewing, tracking and commenting on planning applications Commenting on Planning Applications Any observations you may have should be sent as soon as possible to the Head of Places and Planning or by following the link to the Council’s new planning application search facility http://planning.reigate-banstead.gov.uk/online-applications/ This will enable viewing, tracking and commenting on planning applications In the interests of economy, comments regarding planning applications will not be acknowledged. Access to Information The Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, allows members of the public, including the applicant, the right to examine and receive copies of any letters received in relation to an application three days in advance of the matter being considered by the appropriate Committee and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 affords any person a similar right at any time. Furthermore, the Council operates an “open file” procedure allowing public access to planning application files held at the Town Hall and placing copies of representations received on its web site. Data on the website is redacted to avoid releasing personal information. Explanatory Notes - A glossary of the terms used within this publication is set out below. Type of Application Outline: - approval is sought in principle without full details (these would follow in Reserved Matter applications) Reserved Matter: - a detailed application following Outline approval Full planning: - a single, detailed application, including full plans and elevations, as appropriate, instead of Outline and Reserved Matter applications Change of use: - application seeking approval to use land or buildings for a new purpose (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Coal Post Walk on Banstead Heath
    Coal post walk on Banstead Heath Map: Explorer 146 Dorking, Box Hill & Reigate. Total length: about 13.5 km (8½ miles). Start: Tattenham Corner station (shorter option: start from Tadworth station); finish: Kingswood station. There is a particular concentration of posts in the area of Banstead and Walton heaths, there being nowhere else where so many posts can be seen in such a short distance. This walk passes 26 – more than an eighth of the surviving total – though all are Type 2 posts (no railway or canal marks are passed). The countryside is very attractive too: this walk is entirely on the North Downs, starting on the chalk of Epsom and Walton Downs, then crossing Banstead and Walton Heaths where the chalk is overlain by clay with flints, and reaching the scarp slope of the downs at Colley Hill. The walk follows the boundary of the former parish of Banstead along a salient projecting south from the main area of the parish, between the former parishes of Walton on the Hill to the west and Kingswood (once a detached part of the parish of Ewell) to the east. Parishes in the former Banstead Urban District were abolished by the Local Government Act 1972, so although the walk follows ancient boundaries these are not marked on current Ordnance Survey maps. The walk starts from Tattenham Corner station, which is the final station on a branch line from Purley. Trains run from London Bridge or Victoria depending on the time of the day. Although the branch is largely outside Greater London it is included in Transport for London Zone 6 and so travelcards valid for Zone 6, Freedom Passes, etc are valid to all the stations mentioned in this description.
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) Addendum
    Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) Addendum LDF Evidence Base March 2015 Contents Section Title Page 1 Introduction 3 2 Updates to the IDP Schedules 4 Schedule 1 – Borough-wide Infrastructure 4 Schedule 2 – Horley Regeneration Infrastructure 10 Schedule 3 – Merstham Regeneration Infrastructure 11 Schedule 4 – Preston Regeneration Infrastructure 11 Schedule 5 – Redhill Regeneration Infrastructure 12 Annex 1 Organisations Consulted 14 Schedule 1 Borough-wide Infrastructure 15 Schedule 2 Horley Infrastructure 29 Schedule 3 Merstham Infrastructure 33 Schedule 4 Preston Infrastructure 34 Schedule 5 Redhill Infrastructure 35 2 1. Introduction 1.1 This Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) Addendum provides an update on the Council’s IDP (September 2012) document, which delivers an overview of provision for physical, social and green infrastructure, and an assessment of future needs, based on the levels of growth in the Council’s Core Strategy. At the time of the 2012 IDP, the Core Strategy was a Proposed Submission Document, but has since been adopted by the Council in July 2014. The Council has recently consulted on its Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule for the Community Infrastructure Levy (which ran to 12 January 2015). This Addendum has been prepared to support the Council’s Draft Charging Schedule, publication of which is anticipated in April 2015. 1.2 The schedules at the end of the IDP 2012 document, which set out in detail the individual projects and items of infrastructure that are considered to be both realistic and necessary to support growth, have been updated as part of this Addendum to ensure that the latest information on the various schemes is presented, and to capture any new projects or needs which have arisen.
    [Show full text]
  • LINKING LIST Version 1 for NFWI AGM 2021
    LINKING LIST version 1 FOR NFWI AGM 2021 A delegate is invited from the WI in column 1 to represent the votes from the other 6 or 7 WIs in that row. If no delegate can be found in the 1st WI please contact the WI in column 2 to ask them if they can provide a delegate. If none of the WIs in the row can provide a delegate please contact the office Row Column 1 Column 2 Column3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 1 Merrow Aft Brockham Eve Kingswood Camberley Banstead Lightwater Mytchett Camberley Diamond 2 Hersham Eve Sidlow Bridge Capel Charlwood Eve Churt Haselmere Chiddingfold Morning 3 Egham Pirbright Camberley West End Woking Hersham Aft Claygate Malden Claygate Athena Eve Village Manorettes 4 Maple Village East Horsley Stoke Cobham Cedar Burstow and Horley Felbridge Copthorne d’Abernon Club Smallfield 5 Warlingham Eve Sanderstead Kenley Flyers Croydon Crocuses Worcester parkers Morden Stoneleigh Cuddington Village 6 Seale and Sands Bagshot Camberley- Deepcut & Frimley Windlesham Tilford Elstead Hale Heatherside Afternoon 7 Dorking Larks Bookham Bees Dorking Dorking Hens Ash Hill Eve Normandy Christmas Pie Worplesdon Ranmore Nightingales 8 Molesey Chertsey Englefield Ottershaw Night Hook and Cheam Epsom Ewell Court Green Owls Chessington Bishopsgate 9 Cranleigh Eve Alfold Eve Cranleigh Ewhurst Eve Leigh Walton on Winterdown Thames Ditton Village Thames 10 Bookham Great Bookham Wimbledon Fetcham Village Mole Valley Ashtead WIng Eastwick Little Bookham Butterflies Belles 11 Beacon Hill Tillingbourne Busbridge Grayswood Outwood
    [Show full text]