DOCSLIB.ORG

9Th West Midlands HECA Forum Conference

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
9Th West Midlands HECA Forum Conference Fuel Poverty – when will it end? 9th West Midlands HECA Forum Conference Delegate list Mike Atherton Borough of Telford & Wrekin Helen Atkins Leicester City Council Chris Banks Powergen Plc Loraine Bassett British Gas Darren Bate JSL (Joatrad Services Ltd) Phil Beardmore Birmingham Sustainable Energy Partnership Keith Bennett Hestia Services Ltd. Chris Briggs Black Country Chamber & Business Link Alastair Brookes Practical Help Neil Brookes Borough of Telford & Wrekin John Burns Birmingham City Council Martin Chadwick Beat the Cold Roy Colman Gas Care Central Heating Ltd Ellie Cooper Central Midlands EEAC Les Craggs Oswestry Borough Council Kim Cross Testa Teres Rita Cudd EDF Energy Liz Daykin East Staffordshire Borough Council Nigel Dewbery Enact Energy Tracy Dexter Warwickshire EEAC Sarah Duckers North Shropshire District Council Richard Dyer Worcester Bosch Toni Evans Shropshire, Herefordshire & Stoke EEAC John Gallagher JSL (Joatrad Services Ltd) Helen George Cannock Chase District Council Steve Gillon NEA Fiona Gough Shropshire, Herefordshire & Stoke EEAC Nina Green Testa Teres Robert Gregory Black Country Housing Group Rick Groves CURS Martyn Hammond Birmingham City Council Sam Haseen Central Midlands EEAC Jamie Hope Vital Energi Chris Hopkins Npower Tony Jackson Vital Energi Paul Johnson Enact Energy Karen S. Johnston Coventry City Council Graham Jones South Shropshire District Council Julie Jones Borough of Telford & Wrekin Lynn Jones Borough of Telford & Wrekin Roger Jones National Energy Services Ltd. Claire Jukes Black Country Chamber & Business Link Paul Kelly Bridgnorth District Council George Kinnell Borough of Telford & Wrekin Joanne Lacey Energy Saving Trust Paul Leeman Warwick District Council David Lowe Catch 22 Solutions Ltd. Eddie Lumley Alpine Environments Angie Madden Wolverhampton City Council Chris Mantle South Staffordshire District Council Grant Mitchell Lichfield District Council Peter Molyneux Health & Regeneration Consultant Hugh Moreton Walsall MBC Councillor David Morgan Borough of Telford & Wrekin Angie Nicholls EAGA Michael O'Connor Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council Donna O'Keefe Vital Energi Claire Page National Energy Services Ltd. Jackie Park Blyth Valley Borough Council/Government Office NE Stephen Parker Vaillant Ltd. Alan Pither Energy Efficiency Consultant & Trainer Chris Porter Powergen Plc Jane Poxon British Gas Louise Round Npower Sian Sankey CURS Ifat Shanaz Whitefriars Housing Group Tracy Simcox Borough of Telford & Wrekin James Smith Central Midlands EEAC Paul Smith Cannock Chase District Council Andy Snade Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council Adrian Soble Herefordshire Council Mo Steer EAGA Janet Stonehouse Environment Agency Rachel Strivens Marches Energy Agency Alison Taylor Borough of Telford & Wrekin Mark Thomas Borough of Telford & Wrekin James Thompson Shrewsbury & Atcham Borough Council Mick Trollope Black Country EEAC Louise Twinam NEA Midlands Anna Warmington Enact Energy Steve Webster Redditch BC Don Williams VNR Contracting Services Ltd. Richard Williams Nuaire Home Ventilation William Williams Gas Care Central Heating Ltd. Chris Winter Borough of Telford & Wrekin Graham Wood ART Homes Ltd. Simon Wright Hestia Services Ltd. .
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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]