DOCSLIB.ORG

Submission Regarding the Number of Councillors for the Northumberland Unitary Council

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Submission Regarding the Number of Councillors for the Northumberland Unitary Council Submission regarding the number of Councillors for the Northumberland Unitary Council By Cllr Ed Brown (Haydon Parish Councillor and Tynedale District Councillor) Table of Contents Background .......................................................................................................................... Structure of County .............................................................................................................. Appendix 1 – NCC draft response dated 11 Sept 2009........................................................ Appendix 2 – Scrutiny proposal papers................................................................................ Appendix 3 – Committees and meetings.............................................................................. Appendix 4 – Travelling times .............................................................................................. Background In November 2004 residents in Northumberland took part in referendum about the structure of Local Government. As part of this referendum they were asked whether they wanted one unitary authority or two unitary authorities. The majority voted for two unitary authorities. Following the Referendum the Government stated that it accepted the outcome but later enforced the implementation of a single unitary authority. The public were not consulted by the government on whether or not they wished to have a single unitary council. However every local poll conducted by newspapers showed universal opposition to the single unitary authority. When announcing the decision the Secretary of State acknowledged that the public were against the establishment of the single unitary authority but said that the majority of stakeholders were in favour of a single unitary authority. Following the announcement Northumberland County Council began consultations with residents and Parish Councils on the implementation of Belonging Communities – a key part of the approved bid. The strength of opposition to Belonging Communities, the imposed boundaries, and the total lack of democratic accountability led to the idea of 27 Belonging Communities being abandoned as unworkable. At present there is no structure in place below the approved 3 area levels. However there is a commitment from Northumberland County Council to work form the “bottom up” to establish a new locality framework led by the parish and Town Councils within Northumberland. This background is important in examining the future structure of the Unitary Council as the lack of engagement with the Unitary Council due to the lack of accountability and the way the new Unitary has been imposed against the wishes of the electorate and without consultation with existing democratic bodies such as Parish Councils. Many Parish Councils are keen to take on additional responsibilities together with funds and resources delegated from the Unitary Council. However, Parish Councillors are part-time, unpaid community representatives who dedicate several hours a week to Parish business. They are not in a position to take over the role of District Councillors. Since the elections in May 2008 there has been little progress in developing the Unitary Authority political and managerial structures. This means that any submission made is made against a background of uncertainty and confusion. The main document used for this submission is the official submission made by Northumberland County Council (appendix 1) although I understand from NCC Democratic Services that this was modified following the meeting on the 11 September 2008 to state that 79 councillors are required. At the time of writing this modified version has not been made available to the public. In addition to the main document in Appendix 1 the original Unitary authority bid documents, the Unitary Authority Blueprint, Minutes of the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee (JOSC), Minutes of the Joint Implementation Team (JIT) and The Development of Overview and Scrutiny in Local Government - September 2002 from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have been used in an attempt to provide some analysis of the number of councillors needed. It is hoped that by providing some analysis rather than commentary this will enable a more robust debate about the number of councillors required. This submission approaches the number of councillors required from the position of the roles and responsibilities of the councillors, the time required to fulfil those roles and responsibilities, and therefore the number of councillors required. It then goes on to look at the voters required per councillor and possible adjustments to be made across the county. It can be seen that based on these calculations that 94 councillors is recommended and it is hoped that by putting forward this suggested number it will stimulate debate and a factual based analysis of what is required as opposed to the proposal from Northumberland County Council that does not appear to be based on defined roles and responsibilities. Structure of the new Authority Unfortunately the overall structure of the new Authority is not clearly defined and the two prime documents for a discussion of the structure of the new Authority are the submission by NCC to the Boundary Committee (appendix 1), and the minutes of the various JOSC and JIT meetings including the 1 April 2008 meeting on Scrutiny arrangements (appendix 2). What is of particular importance here is the extensive debates that were held regarding whether 3 or 5 areas committees would be implemented and the role of the area committees in Scrutiny arrangements. The outcome of these discussions was that 3 area committees would be implemented as contained in the original bid with scrutiny powers devolved to those area committees. The 1 April 2008 meeting proposed the roles and responsibilities of the County and Area Scrutiny Boards and these appear to have been carried forward in the proposal made to the commission where it is stated that “each committee will operate area based scrutiny of service delivery”. The submission also goes on to define the additional committees such as planning and regulatory committees. Taking the submission (appendix 1), the proposed Scrutiny arrangements (appendix 2), and the confirmed commitment of all parties demonstrated in the minutes of the JOSC and JIT to include scrutiny at area level together with devolving power to localities wherever practical the overall political structure of the council – although not specifically define in one place is clear. The structure of the New Unitary will be a Chair and Vice-chair of the council who will chair meetings and take on the majority of ceremonious roles across the whole county. There will be a leader and deputy-leader of the council together with 6 or 8 portfolio executive members (a total of 8-10). Each of the Executive portfolio members will have a deputy who takes an active participatory role in the Executive process supporting and substituting for the Portfolio holder where required. Since the current executive is 8 members (Leader, deputy and six portfolio holders) and it is expected the workload will increase significantly with added District services it would seem reasonable to accept a 10 person Executive (Leader, Deputy plus 8 Portfolio Holders). This leads to a total of 18 elected members (including 8 deputy portfolio holders) actively involved with management of the Council. Those involved as Executive members and deputies are unable to serve of Overview & Scrutiny committees. The Chair and vice-chair of the council could serve on Overview & Scrutiny committees. There will be full-council meetings and a variety of other committees and sub-committees (see appendix 3) and a range of appointments to outside bodies (see appendix 1 & 5). It is difficult to comment on the appointments to outside bodies as these are still being reviewed by the New Authority and the only details I have available are the details for Tynedale outside bodies and those for the County as provided in appendix 1. Tynedale District Council currently appoints to 46 outside bodies (see appendix 5). Of these outside bodies 23 (marked) are bodies where members are also appointed by Northumberland County Council. It is reasonable to expect these duplicates will disappear or be greatly reduced. Eight 8) are bodies associated with NCC and all are likely to disappear. The remaining 15 bodies (23 member places) are likely to continue to require representation to protect the long term interests of taxpayers. It is unclear at what level these outside bodies will report into the council but for this exercise it is sufficient to know that they exist and the numbers of such bodies are greater than those specified in appendix 1. A full analysis of these bodies across all council is already underway to establish what rationalisation can be undertaken. However it is clear that given the financial and officer support given to many of these organisations that it would be sensible for appointments to continue to the majority of these bodies to protect taxpayers interests. In summary this leaves us with: Chair and Vice-chair of Council – both likely to have their full time allocation taken by specific duties. Leader of the Council – likely to have their full time allocation taken by specific duties Deputy-leader of the Council – likely to have their full time allocation taken by specific duties Ten (10) Executive members – likely to have their full time allocation taken by specific duties Ten deputy Executive
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2004 No. 3211 LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ENGLAND The
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2004 No. 3211 LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ENGLAND The Local Authorities (Categorisation) (England) (No. 2) Order 2004 Made - - - - 6th December 2004 Laid before Parliament 10th December 2004 Coming into force - - 31st December 2004 The First Secretary of State, having received a report from the Audit Commission(a) produced under section 99(1) of the Local Government Act 2003(b), in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by section 99(4) of that Act, hereby makes the following Order: Citation, commencement and application 1.—(1) This Order may be cited as the Local Authorities (Categorisation) (England) (No.2) Order 2004 and shall come into force on 31st December 2004. (2) This Order applies in relation to English local authorities(c). Categorisation report 2. The English local authorities, to which the report of the Audit Commission dated 8th November 2004 relates, are, by this Order, categorised in accordance with their categorisation in that report. Excellent authorities 3. The local authorities listed in Schedule 1 to this Order are categorised as excellent. Good authorities 4. The local authorities listed in Schedule 2 to this Order are categorised as good. Fair authorities 5. The local authorities listed in Schedule 3 to this Order are categorised as fair. (a) For the definition of “the Audit Commission”, see section 99(7) of the Local Government Act 2003. (b) 2003 c.26. The report of the Audit Commission consists of a letter from the Chief Executive of the Audit Commission to the Minister for Local and Regional Government dated 8th November 2004 with the attached list of local authorities categorised by the Audit Commission as of that date.
    [Show full text]
  • Participatory Evaluation of the Inspire Public Art Project
    Participatory Evaluation of the Inspire Public Art Project Four Case Studies: Newbiggin Sailing Club, Second Avenue Home Zone, Wildspace Network, Young People’s Perception of the Project Prepared by: Barefoot Research and Evaluation [email protected] September 2005 Table of Contents Page Number Summary 2 Introduction 4 Case Studies Newbiggin Sailing Club 7 Second Avenue Home Zone 15 Wildspace Network 26 Research With Young People 37 Conclusion 45 Appendix 1: Methodology 49 Appendix 2: People and Organisations Interviewed 51 Appendix 3: Timeline for the Consultation for the Second Avenue Home Zone 52 List of Abbreviations Acronym Description BVBC Blyth Valley Borough Council CAA Cramlington Area Assembly CAP Community Area Partnership CVS Council for Voluntary Services EADT East Ashington Development Trust LSP Local Strategic Partnership NCC Northumberland County Council NOF New Opportunities Fund PE Participatory Evaluation SVA Seaton Valley Assembly WDC Wansbeck District Council WI Wansbeck Initiative 1 Summary This evaluation was commissioned to contribute to the assessment of several of Inspire’s objectives. The first of these was Objective 2: Increase the attractiveness of the environment to: local communities; stakeholder organisations; visitors; and businesses. The indicators or evidence for judging whether this objective has been achieved was the level of support for public art within local communities and stakeholder organisations. Based on the research evidence, we can conclude that there has been support from local communities and stakeholder organisations and the programme has increased the attractiveness of the environment to local communities, stakeholder organisations and visitors (no businesses were consulted). The research indicates that the programme has made every effort to consult with, and include stakeholders, within its remit for the development of public art.
    [Show full text]
  • Shotton-Restoration-Strategy.Pdf
    3 4 0 5 52 32 0 3 0 8 5 5 0 6 56 3 2 3 4 3 6 3 0 50 8 4 3 8 0 2 4 4 2 4 46 4 5 5 4 2 5 0 4 4 8 KEY 4 5 0 4 6 6 6 2 3 6 6 0 5 6 6 86 0 44 5 8 54 Site Boundary 0 8 6 5 3 62 8 9 0 Restoration contours 4 @ 2m intervals (indicative, depending on 2 6 8 5 4 exact bulkage figures achieved on the site) 5 4 4 50 6 5 Plessey Hall Farm House 5 V P i le a s d s u e c 2 y t H 4 a ll D BLYTH VALLEY DISTRICT e 0 5 n e 4 4 CASTLE MORPETH DISTRICT BLYTH VALLEY BORO CONST 60 0 C 6 R 0 8 0069 72004 8 4600 6 5 4 Ordnance survey contours 5 Pond 6 2 4 3200 7200 Pond 0 6 @ 2m intervals 5 4 0 BLYTH VALLEY DISTRICT CRAMLINGTON WEST ED 5 HEXHAM CO CONST BLYTH VALLEY BORO CONST P 6 0 2 le s se y H 5 a 6 5 l l D e n e 6 5 4 0 4 4 2 6 7 0 Plessey 0 8 0 5 Wood 6 Mixed agricultural land B P 5 o r a o t 0 h C 0 0 o ( n u s t m C B 6 5 o d ) C y o n s t, 48 5 le C a P 56 5 V a n n to 6 d g E 0 4 in D 6 n B 0 n d ta 4 y S 8 7 6 Plessey3 6 C R 4 Wood3 2 ) 4 m th (u ly th B 4 a 2 Permanent pasture P er 6 6 iv R 4 6 8 7 Issues 0 8 6 S 0 5 to 0 tt 5 fo r 4 d D 2 6 e 6 n 7 e 7 2 4 5 5 4 0 52 4 MP 12 D r 5 6 a i 5 n 2 5 52 5 5 6 7175 6 4 6 5 5 2 4 5 Woodland areas 0 5 5 4 42 2 6 5 4 54 4 0 4 0069 4 6 7 8 0 5 6 5 58 3 56 0 0 6 2 6 8 58 6 565 8 0069 4 5 0 Species rich grassland 5 6 4 5 7 (no topsoil to be applied) 3 4446 6 0 Issues 80 2 C 8 0062 R 5 D SL 0062 5 r 5 0 a 66 in 0 72 2 4 4 5 5 2 D E Landform Park T S A ) m E (u h at P Plessey Wood D A 14 MP 0.75 N U A n d e l L a V n E to 50 g T n i 6 n n N ta S 6 15.5ha O WA10 P Existing Woodland 9450 50 Bridge House 26.5ha 5847 C o C o n B s o t , r o C P A 15 C 0 o a n n s d t Ponds managed as closed reed beds E B 5 6 D d y B d 2 y 10.0ha P C WA 9 N 7 O T 0 G Restoration soil profile will be 700mm of subsoil put 6 ) N Stannington m I 6 u 5 ( N h Bridge t a N 6 0.16ha P A 6 5 6 T down in a single layer, with 300mm of topsoil put Vale 5 S 4 A 13 House 2 8 SRG 2 6 0 40 7 down in a single layer.
    [Show full text]
  • Performance Standards for 2007/8 Consultation
    Proposed Planning Best Value Performance Standards for 2007/8 Consultation A consultation paper Proposed Planning Best Value Performance Standards for 2007/8 Consultation October 2006 Department for Communities and Local Government On 5th May 2006 the responsibilities of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) transferred to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Department for Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone: 020 7944 4400 Website: www.communities.gov.uk © Crown Copyright, 2006 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified. Any other use of the contents of this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply for a Click-Use Licence for core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp, or by writing to the Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich, NR3 1BQ. Fax: 01603 723000 or email: [email protected] If you require this publication in an alternative format please email [email protected] DCLG Publications PO Box 236 Wetherby West Yorkshire LS23 7NB Tel: 08701 226 236 Fax: 08701 226 237 Textphone: 08701 207 405 Email: [email protected] or online via the DCLG website: www.communities.gov.uk October 2006 Product Code: 06 PD 04181 Introduction The Government proposes to set further planning Best Value performance standards in 2007/08 under section 4 of the Local Government Act 1999.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a National Transport Tokens A
    Appendix A National Transport Tokens A sample of councils offering tokens: Selby District Council (£8) Telford & Wrekin (£16) West Lindsey District Council (£18) City of York Council (£20) Stroud District Council (£20) Wellingborough Borough Council (£22) Wear Valley District Council (£25) West Oxfordshire District Council (£31) Councils offering tokens, on payment of a fee: North Wiltshire District Council (Pay £1 fee, receive £18 worth of tokens) Kettering Borough Council (Pay £11 fee, receive £30 worth of tokens) Wycombe District Council (Pay £15 fee, receive £30 worth of tokens) Cherwell District Council (Pay £1 fee, receive £31 worth of tokens) Braintree District Council (Pay £15 fee, receive £40 worth of tokens) East Northamptonshire District Council (Pay £10 fee, receive £47 worth of tokens) Colchester Borough Council (Pay £12 fee, receive £48 worth of tokens) Aylesbury Vale District Council (Pay £5 fee, receive £60 worth of tokens) Blyth Valley Borough Council (Pay £20 fee, receive £70 worth of tokens) Councils offering tokens to the over 60s only: West Lancashire District Council (£28) Councils offering tokens to disabled people only: Shrewsbury & Atcham Borough Council (£25) Bridgnorth District Council (£30) Christchurch Borough Council (£30) Daventry District Council (£30) East Dorset District Council (£30) Fareham Borough Council (Pay £5, receive £35 worth of tokens) Councils offering tokens of differing amounts according to age: East Hampshire District Council (£24 for 60-69 yrs, £30 for 70+ yrs, £50 for wheelchair users/blind,
    [Show full text]
  • Community Research in Blyth Valley Borough Council Area 2003
    Community Research in Blyth Valley Borough Council Area 2003 Research Study Conducted for The Boundary Committee for England October 2003 Contents Introduction 1 Executive Summary 4 Local Communities 6 Defining Communities 6 Identifying Communities 6 Identity with the Local Community in the Blyth Valley Borough Council Area 7 Overall Identity 7 Effective Communities 9 Involvement 13 Affective Communities 16 Bringing Effective and Affective Communities Together 17 Local Authority Communities 19 Belonging to Blyth Valley Borough Council Area 19 Belonging to Northumberland County Council Area 22 Knowledge and Attitudes towards Local Governance 25 Knowledge of Local Governance 25 Involvement with Local Governance 26 Administrative Boundary Issues 26 Appendices 1. Methodology – Quantitative 2. Methodology - Qualitative 3. Sub-Group Definitions 4. Place Name Gazetteer 5. Qualitative Topic Guide 6. Marked-up Questionnaire Community Research in Blyth Valley Borough Council Area 2003 for The Boundary Committee for England Introduction Research Aims This report presents the findings of research conducted by the MORI Social Research Institute on behalf of The Boundary Committee for England (referred to in this report as "The Committee") in the Blyth Valley Borough Council area. The aim of this research is to establish the patterns of community identity in the area. Survey Coverage MORI has undertaken research in all 44 two-tier district or borough council areas in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber regions. The research covers
    [Show full text]
  • 2000 No. 2490 LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ENGLAND The
    0 R STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2000 No. 2490 LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ENGLAND The County of Northumberland (Electoral Changes) Order 2000 Made---- 11th September 2000 Coming into force in accordance with article 1(2) and (3) Whereas the Local Government Commission for England, acting pursuant to section 15(4) of the Local Government Act 1992(a), has submitted to the Secretary of State a report dated November 1999 on its review of the county of Northumberland together with its recommendations: And whereas the Secretary of State has decided to give effect, with modifications, to those recommendations: Now, therefore, the Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sections 17(b) and 26 of the Local Government Act 1992, and of all other powers enabling him in that behalf, hereby makes the following Order: Citation, commencement and interpretation 1.—(1) This Order may be cited as the County of Northumberland (Electoral Changes) Order 2000. (2) This article and articles 2 and 5 shall come into force— (a) for the purpose of proceedings preliminary or relating to any election to be held on 3rd May 2001, on 10th October 2000; (b) for all other purposes, on 3rd May 2001. (3) Articles 3 and 4 of this Order shall come into force— (a) for the purpose of proceedings preliminary or relating to any election of a parish councillor for the parish of Hexham or Morpeth on 1st May 2003, on 10th October 2002; (b) for all other purposes, on 1st May 2003. (4) In this Order— “county” means the county of Northumberland; “existing”, in relation to a division or ward, means the division or ward as it exists on the date this Order is made; (a) 1992 c.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Loan Charge Awareness Letters
    2019 loan charge awareness letters Country1 Number of letters4 England 33320 Wales 1030 Scotland 2560 Northern Ireland 570 Outside UK 1720 Address not available on system2 1580 UK Constituency3 Number of letters Aberavon 70 Aberconwy 10 Aberdeen North 90 Aberdeen South 160 Airdrie and Shotts 20 Aldershot 70 Aldridge-Brownhills 20 Altrincham and Sale West 80 Alyn and Deeside 30 Amber Valley 10 Angus 50 Arfon 10 Argyll and Bute 20 Arundel and South Downs 60 Ashfield 30 Ashford 90 Ashton-under-Lyne 40 Aylesbury 90 Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock 20 Banbury 60 Banff and Buchan 80 Barking 210 Barnsley Central 20 Barnsley East 10 Barrow and Furness 30 Basildon and Billericay 110 Basingstoke 100 Bassetlaw 40 Bath 40 Batley and Spen 20 Battersea 250 Beaconsfield 140 Beckenham 150 Bedford 80 Belfast East 150 Belfast North 70 Belfast South 60 Belfast West 30 Bermondsey and Old Southwark 270 Berwick-upon-Tweed 20 Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk 20 Bethnal Green and Bow 150 Beverley and Holderness 20 Bexhill and Battle 40 Bexleyheath and Crayford 140 Birkenhead 40 Birmingham, Edgbaston 60 Birmingham, Erdington 40 Birmingham, Hall Green 60 Birmingham, Hodge Hill 40 Birmingham, Ladywood 50 Birmingham, Northfield 50 Birmingham, Perry Barr 50 Birmingham, Selly Oak 40 Birmingham, Yardley 40 Bishop Auckland 10 Blackburn 20 Blackley and Broughton 50 Blackpool North and Cleveleys 20 Blackpool South 10 Blaenau Gwent 20 Blaydon 20 Blyth Valley 30 Bognor Regis and Littlehampton 30 Bolsover 20 Bolton North East 20 Bolton South East 20 Bolton West 30 Bootle 30 Boston
    [Show full text]
  • 'A Future for Blyth Valley' Development Control Policies
    ‘A Future for Blyth Valley’ Blyth Valley Local Development Framework Development Control Policies Development Plan Document 2007 This document is also available in other languages, large print and audio format upon request. ‘A Future for Blyth Valley’ Development Control Policies Development Plan Document 2007 ‘A Future for Blyth Valley’ Foreword The existing Blyth Valley Local Plan sets out policies and proposals in the District up to 2006. The Council has started to review the plan under the new-style local development framework system so we can take it forward to 2021. The Council released ‘Key Issues’ papers for discussion in 2003 which was the first stage of the review followed by consultation on a set of alternative options in July 2005. The Council consulted on a set of Core Strategy preferred options in September 2005. It was accompanied by the Development Control Policies DPD Preferred Options which contained a set of draft, more detailed development control policies in order to provide the framework for deciding planning applications. The Core Strategy was adopted July 2007 and sets out the overall vision and spatial strategy for the Borough. It provides the framework for the Development Control Policies DPD. The Development Control Policies DPD has been prepared following extensive consultation on a set of Alternative Options in July 2005; Preferred Options in September 2005 and; the ‘Submission Draft’ in April 2006. The Development Control Policies DPD was considered by an independent inspector at an Examination in Public in May 2007. The inspector who considered the Development Control Policies DPD concluded that the document was ‘sound’ and set out a series of binding recommendations in his report of 14 August 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • Download PDF on Electoral Pacts and The
    Electoral pacts and the constitution A briefing note Andrew Blick 2 An electoral Pact between Greens, Labour, and Liberal Democrats could deprive the Conservative Party of office. It might, in turn, bring about major changes in the United Kingdom (UK) constitution itself. Last month’s elections have prompted increased interest in the idea of an electoral pact between Opposition parties, aimed at defeating the Conservatives. At present the Conservatives enjoy structural and political advantages that aid their chances of maintaining a comfortable majority in the House of Commons, despite significantly more than 50 per cent of electors voting for other parties at general elections (as is normal under the UK system). However, the Conservatives’ electoral performance would be weakened to the extent that non-Conservative voters coalesced behind a single opposition candidate in individual parliamentary constituencies. One means of bringing this outcome about would be through some kind of electoral pact. A group of parties could agree to give each other clear runs against the Conservatives, to encourage a consolidation of the non-Conservative vote behind a single parliamentary candidate in each constituency. It seems likely that an agreed objective of such a Pact would be electoral reform, moving to a more proportional means of determining the composition of the House of Commons. Such a goal, were it achieved, would have radical implications for the operation of the UK constitution. The targeted non-contestation of seats has a firm historical place in the UK political- constitutional repertoire. Within the context of the ‘First-Past-the-Post’ (FPTP) or Single Member Plurality system used for elections to the House of Commons, it can potentially make a significant difference to the outcome.
    [Show full text]
  • The Statistical Bias Against Unitary Counties
    THE STATISTICAL BIAS AGAINST UNITARY COUNTIES How local government reorganisation has hidden deprivation and threatens to strip authorities of funding Steve Fothergill and Tony Gore Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research Sheffield Hallam University Final report October 2011 This report has been funded by Durham County Council. An additional input of Prof Fothergill’s time was provided by the Industrial Communities Alliance, the all-party association of local authorities in Britain’s industrial areas. 1 Contents Summary 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE REPORT The nature of the problem The report 2. THE AVAILABILITY OF STATISTICS The authorities affected by reorganisation Review of published data Data availability: some conclusions 3. THE IMPACT ON THE MEASUREMENT OF DISADVANTAGE A working method Indices of Deprivation DWP benefits data The impact: an assessment 4. A SPECIAL CASE? The counter-argument The scale of the new unitary counties Why size matters Special case: an assessment 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS An unintended by-product of reorganisation Recommendations 2 Summary The reorganisation of local government in parts of England in 2009 has created a statistical anomaly. Whereas data for 36 former district councils is now being discontinued, figures continue to be produced for 201 districts within the surviving two-tier counties. This threatens to hide deprivation in the new unitary counties and, in turn, to erode the likelihood that some of these unitary counties will benefit from funding streams that target areas of disadvantage. This could develop into a major, on-going problem. It would be astonishing if, in the long run, statistics for local disadvantage did not continue to guide policy and funding even though current area-based initiatives are being run down.
    [Show full text]
  • Westminster Parliamentary Constituency Parking Or Street Parking Off-Street Parking Households Parking Or Parking Or Parking Potential Potential Potential
    Households Households Proportion of with off-street without off- households with Total Westminster Parliamentary Constituency parking or street parking off-street parking households parking or parking or parking potential potential potential Aberavon 30,961 25,333 5,628 82% Aberconwy 27,199 20,518 6,681 75% Aberdeen North 48,559 19,064 29,495 39% Aberdeen South 42,026 24,004 18,022 57% Airdrie and Shotts 39,055 31,129 7,926 80% Aldershot 44,189 27,841 16,348 63% Aldridge-Brownhills 33,805 26,280 7,525 78% Altrincham and Sale West 41,944 30,917 11,027 74% Alyn and Deeside 36,961 31,455 5,506 85% Amber Valley 41,344 31,160 10,184 75% Angus 41,484 27,980 13,504 67% Arfon 25,905 18,713 7,192 72% Argyll and Bute 45,328 28,918 16,410 64% Arundel and South Downs 45,198 31,353 13,845 69% Ashfield 46,670 35,789 10,881 77% Ashford 51,896 33,761 18,135 65% Ashton-under-Lyne 41,806 28,585 13,221 68% Aylesbury 50,372 33,036 17,336 66% Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock 44,651 33,150 11,501 74% Banbury 55,532 36,232 19,300 65% Banff and Buchan 42,808 33,899 8,909 79% Barking 48,575 29,210 19,365 60% Barnsley Central 41,968 33,389 8,579 80% Barnsley East 42,702 34,711 7,991 81% Barrow and Furness 43,219 28,344 14,875 66% Basildon and Billericay 40,526 25,249 15,277 62% Basingstoke 49,808 28,152 21,656 57% Bassetlaw 48,182 37,251 10,931 77% Bath 36,621 21,906 14,715 60% Batley and Spen 46,795 33,733 13,062 72% Battersea 47,129 5,976 41,153 13% Beaconsfield 43,559 26,972 16,587 62% Beckenham 39,262 25,385 13,877 65% Bedford 45,939 26,677 19,262 58% Bermondsey and
    [Show full text]