DOCSLIB.ORG

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Decision Notice

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Decision Notice Reference: FS50673271 Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Decision notice Date: 6 September 2017 Public Authority: Bury Council Address: Town Hall Knowsley Street Bury BL9 0SW Decision (including any steps ordered) 1. The complainant has requested information about instances of abuse and hate crimes that have been ignored by Bury Council, and the number of staff paid £52,000 or more per annum. 2. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bury Council has correctly applied the provision for vexatious requests at section 14(1) of the FOIA. 3. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Request and response 4. On 13 March 2017, the complainant wrote to Bury Council (‘the Council’) and requested information in the following terms: “As you know I have been abused by Rochdale MBC. This is a hate crime. I reported the matter to Greater Manchester Police but instead of addressing it they abused me themselves. Another hate crime. Greater Manchester Police and the Crown Prosecution Service even harassed me and prosecuted me, for nothing more sinister than telling the truth and trying to get the abuse addressed, in order to assist offenders and affect a cover up. Thankfully after years of hell I was eventually acquitted by the Crown Court. 1 Reference: FS50673271 GMP and the CPS refuse to take any action against the perpetrators who have clearly harassed and abused a vulnerable disabled person and then repeatedly and deliberately lied (including to courts of law) and withheld evidence in order to cover it up. GMP even lied themselves. You are all aware of the abuse but have done nothing and clearly condone and/or actively support hate crimes and abuse against the disabled. Rochdale MBC continues to employ a good many people who have been party to the abuse despite a claim in their 'Dignity at Work Policy' to 'do everything in their power to address abuse'. Sadly Rochdale MBC is a liar, a bully and a hypocrite and its policies aren't worth the paper they are printed on. They continue to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds of 'scarce' public money defending the abuse and the abusers. I believe that Oldham Council continues to employ one of the abusers too. The Police & Crime Commissioner Mr Tony Lloyd is also aware but has done nothing. Clearly he condones and/or actively supports abuse and corruption. The 'independent' Police Complaints Authority is aware but has done nothing. Clearly they condone and/or actively support lawbreaking and abuse. As does my own Member of Parliament Mr Jake Berry and the MP for Rochdale Mr Simon Danczuk. Indeed even the former Prime Minister Mr Cameron and the current one Mrs May. I intend standing in the upcoming election of a mayor for Greater Manchester. 1) How many more instances of abuse have you been aware of but ignored? 2) How many more hate crimes have you ignored? 3) How many people do you pay £52,000 per year or more?” 5. The Council responded on 17 March 2017 and refused to provide the requested information citing the exemption for vexatious requests at section 14(1) of the FOIA. The complainant requested an internal review on the same day. 6. Following an internal review the Council wrote to the complainant on 9 May 2017 and stated that the decision was upheld. 2 Reference: FS50673271 Scope of the case 7. The complainant contacted the Commissioner 9 May 2017 to complain about the way his request for information had been handled. 8. The Commissioner has considered whether the Council was correct to apply section 14(1) of the FOIA to the request. Background 9. On 11 March 2017 the complainant requested information in the same terms to 9 councils in the Greater Manchester area, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Greater Manchester Police. He also copied it to MPs and 90 news organisations. 10. On 4 April 2017 the complainant sent a link to his petition “Expose / Address hate crimes and abuse and corruption by Rochdale MBC and GMP” to the same councils and a number of news desks and other public organisations, also stating “Please pass my email on to the chief executive and confirm you have done so. In addition please take this as a formal request under the freedom of information act. What is the email address of the chief executive of your council?” 11. A number of the Councils have refused the requests siting section 14(1) of the FOIA. In response the complainant typically raises a complaint with the Information Commissioner in terms similar to this: “xx council have indicated they believe hate crimes and corruption are 'vexatious'. That's ok. They are entitled to their opinion. They can go at the top of the list of people/organisations who condone and support hate crimes and corruption which will be published in due course.” 12. Related Decision Notice FS50672933 (August 2017), which upholds that the Greater Manchester Police (GMP) were entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA, gives useful background to the complainants various information requests: “The background to this matter is that the complainant was dismissed from his job, and at the subsequent Employment Tribunal, he maintained that key witnesses perjured themselves. He reported these concerns to GMP, but was dissatisfied with its investigation of them. Subsequently he embarked on a course of action which resulted in him being convicted of harassment (although he has told the Commissioner that this conviction was recently quashed). Decision Notice reference FS50663939 (July 2017) is also related and upholds that information requests on a similar theme made by the complainant to Oldham Council were vexatious. In this Decision Notice the Commissioner considered that the request sought to reopen issues 3 Reference: FS50673271 which have already been adjudicated upon in the courts which reduce the serious purpose and value of the requests. Reasons for decision Section 14(1) – Vexatious requests 13. Section 14(1) of the FOIA states that section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious. There is no public interest test. 14. The term ‘vexatious’ is not defined in the FOIA. In the case of Information Commissioner vs Devon County Council & Dransfield1, the Upper Tribunal took the view that the ordinary dictionary definition of the word vexatious is only of limited use, because the question of whether a request is vexatious ultimately depends upon the circumstances surrounding that request. The Tribunal concluded that ‘vexatious’ could be defined as the “…manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure” (paragraph 27). The decision clearly establishes that the concepts of ‘proportionality’ and ‘justification’ are central to any consideration of whether a request is vexatious. 15. The Commissioner has published specific guidance2 on vexatious requests. The guidance includes a number of indicators that may apply in the case of a vexatious request. The fact that a request contains one or more of these indicators will not necessarily mean that it must be vexatious. All the circumstances of the case will need to be considered in reaching a judgement as to whether a request is vexatious. 16. As discussed in the Commissioner’s guidance, the relevant consideration is whether the request itself is vexatious, rather than the individual submitting it. A public authority can also consider the context of the request and the history of its relationship with the requester when this is relevant. The Commissioner’s guidance states: 1 UKUT 440 (AAC) (28 January 2013) 2 https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1198/dealing-with-vexatious-requests.pdf 4 Reference: FS50673271 “The context and history in which a request is made will often be a major factor in determining whether the request is vexatious and the public authority will need to consider the wider circumstances surrounding the request before making a decision as to whether section 12(1) applies”. 17. Sometimes, it will be obvious when requests are vexatious, but sometimes it may not. In this respect the Commissioner’s guidance states: “In cases where the issue is not clear-cut, the key question to ask is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress.” This negative impact must then be considered against the purpose and public value of the request. The Complainant’s position 18. The complainant contests that his request is vexatious, arguing that the Council are therefore treating abuse and hate crimes as vexatious: “It is not often I am shocked by how inept some elements of the public sector are but I truly am gob smacked. Bury council view abuse and hate crimes as 'vexatious' Does the information commission?” 19. The complainant states that: “Quite clearly I have been the victim of hate crimes and abuse because I happen to be disabled. What has Bury Council (or anyone else) done about it? Nothing. At least nothing I am aware of. They could publicly condemn such action and collectively insist that Rochdale MBC (who they work with collectively under the AGMA umbrella) address the issue and bring those responsible to account. Instead they spend 'scarce' public funding arguing that the matter is 'vexatious'”. 20. The complainant states that he has asked the Council for help: “but they ignored me. Given they ignored me it is reasonable to question how many other people they have ignored”. 21. The Commissioner understands that the complainant does not agree that his request is vexatious, and that he believes that he has a valid reason for requesting the information. 5 Reference: FS50673271 The Council’s position 22.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mr Simon Danczuk 1
    Mr Simon Danczuk 1 Contents 1. Letter from Mr Paul Turner-Mitchell, 23 October 2014 2 2. Letter from the Commissioner to Mr Paul Turner-Mitchell, 30 October 2014 4 3. Letter from the Commissioner to Mr Simon Danczuk MP, 30 October 2014 4 4. Letter from Mr Simon Danczuk MP to the Commissioner, 18 November 2014 7 5. Letter from the Commissioner to the Registrar, 24 November 2014 8 6. Letter from the Commissioner to Mr Simon Danczuk MP, 24 November 2014 9 7. Letter from the Registrar to the Commissioner, 26 November 2014 9 8. Enclosures to letter of 26 Nov ember 2014 10 9. Letter from the Commissioner to Mr Simon Danczuk MP, 16 December 2014 13 10. Letter from the Commissioner to Mr Simon Danczuk MP, 12 January 2015 14 11. Email from Mr Danczuk MP to the Commissioner, 14 January 2015 16 12. Email from the Commissioner’s office to Mr Danczuk MP, 14 January 2015 17 13. Email from Mr Danczuk MP’s office to the Commissioner’s office, 26 January 201517 14. Email from the Commissioner’s office to Mr Danczuk’s office, 26 January 2015 17 15. Telephone call from the Commissioner’s office to Mr Danczuk’s office, 29 January 2015 18 16. Email from Mr Danczuk MP to the Commissioner, 29 January 2015 18 17. Letter from the Commissioner to Mr Danczuk MP, 2 February 2015 20 18. Extract from the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as of 6 January 2015 20 19. Email from the Commissioner’s office to Mr Danczuk MP, 16 February 2015 22 20.
    [Show full text]
  • Electoral Review of Rochdale Borough Council Submission on Council Size
    Electoral Review of Rochdale__________________________________________________________ Electoral Review of Rochdale Borough Council Submission on Council Size Introduction 1. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) has informed Rochdale Borough Council of its decision to carry out an Electoral Review of the Council size (number of elected Councillors) and the number of wards and ward boundaries for the Council. 1.1 Rochdale Council has not had an electoral review since 2003. It will have been 19 years since the current boundaries were set by the time this review’s recommendations are in place. The LGBCE believes this is a reasonable interpretation of Section 56 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 1.2 This review began in July 2019; any changes that are made in regards to council size and ward boundaries will come into effect for the local government elections in May 2022. 1.3 Section 56 states that electoral arrangements of a principal local authority’s area should be reviewed ‘from time to time’. The LGBCE will be reviewing all Greater Manchester boroughs that haven’t had a review since the programme began in the early 2000s. 1.4 At present there are wards with electoral imbalances across the borough of Rochdale; therefore providing an unfair representation at local government elections. In two wards the size of the electorate has a variance of greater than +/- 10% in comparison to the average (Kingsway 11% and West Middleton 14%) 1.5 This document is Rochdale Borough Council’s council size submission, which provides the LGBCE with the Council’s view on the appropriate council size and supporting evidence across the following three broad areas (as stated in the LGBCE guidance on council size for local authority elected members and staff): Governance and decision making – determining the role of councillors in decision making, and how work and responsibilities are distributed across the Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting of the Council Summons and Agenda
    MEETING OF THE COUNCIL 17th March 2021 SUMMONS AND AGENDA BOLTON COUNCIL ________________________________ Members of the Council are hereby summoned to attend a meeting of the Council to be held via Microsoft Teams Live Event on Wednesday next, 17 March, 2021 at 7.00 p.m. when the following business is proposed to be transacted: - 1. Minutes To approve as a correct record the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting of the Council held on 17th February, 2021. 2. Constitution (a) Motion in the name of Councillor Greenhalgh – That the quarterly report on Executive decisions made under the special urgency provisions, as circulated, be noted. (b) Motion in the name of Councillor Greenhalgh – That the amendments to the Council’s Scheme of Delegation for 2020/2021, as circulated, be approved. 3. Recommendations to Council (a) Motion in the name of Councillor Greenhalgh - (1) Agree to the establishment of joint committees and to delegate to those committees the Authority’s functions as set out in the report to the Cabinet on 8th March, 2021 regarding Clean Air (‘the Report’) at paragraph 8.5 and the terms of reference as set out in Appendix 6 to the report; (2) Agree to appoint the Executive Cabinet Member for Environmental Service Delivery to sit on both committees for purposes as set out in the Report at paragraph 8.5 with specific terms of reference as set out in Appendix 6 to the report; and (3) Agree to appoint the Executive Cabinet Member for Children’s Services as substitute for both committees for purposes as set out in the Report at paragraph 8.5 with specific terms of reference as set out in Appendix 6 to the Report.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Councils in England by Type
    List of councils in England by type There are a total of 353 councils in England: Metropolitan districts (36) London boroughs (32) plus the City of London Unitary authorities (55) plus the Isles of Scilly County councils (27) District councils (201) Metropolitan districts (36) 1. Barnsley Borough Council 19. Rochdale Borough Council 2. Birmingham City Council 20. Rotherham Borough Council 3. Bolton Borough Council 21. South Tyneside Borough Council 4. Bradford City Council 22. Salford City Council 5. Bury Borough Council 23. Sandwell Borough Council 6. Calderdale Borough Council 24. Sefton Borough Council 7. Coventry City Council 25. Sheffield City Council 8. Doncaster Borough Council 26. Solihull Borough Council 9. Dudley Borough Council 27. St Helens Borough Council 10. Gateshead Borough Council 28. Stockport Borough Council 11. Kirklees Borough Council 29. Sunderland City Council 12. Knowsley Borough Council 30. Tameside Borough Council 13. Leeds City Council 31. Trafford Borough Council 14. Liverpool City Council 32. Wakefield City Council 15. Manchester City Council 33. Walsall Borough Council 16. North Tyneside Borough Council 34. Wigan Borough Council 17. Newcastle Upon Tyne City Council 35. Wirral Borough Council 18. Oldham Borough Council 36. Wolverhampton City Council London boroughs (32) 1. Barking and Dagenham 17. Hounslow 2. Barnet 18. Islington 3. Bexley 19. Kensington and Chelsea 4. Brent 20. Kingston upon Thames 5. Bromley 21. Lambeth 6. Camden 22. Lewisham 7. Croydon 23. Merton 8. Ealing 24. Newham 9. Enfield 25. Redbridge 10. Greenwich 26. Richmond upon Thames 11. Hackney 27. Southwark 12. Hammersmith and Fulham 28. Sutton 13. Haringey 29. Tower Hamlets 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Z675928x Margaret Hodge Mp 06/10/2011 Z9080283 Lorely
    Z675928X MARGARET HODGE MP 06/10/2011 Z9080283 LORELY BURT MP 08/10/2011 Z5702798 PAUL FARRELLY MP 09/10/2011 Z5651644 NORMAN LAMB 09/10/2011 Z236177X ROBERT HALFON MP 11/10/2011 Z2326282 MARCUS JONES MP 11/10/2011 Z2409343 CHARLOTTE LESLIE 12/10/2011 Z2415104 CATHERINE MCKINNELL 14/10/2011 Z2416602 STEPHEN MOSLEY 18/10/2011 Z5957328 JOAN RUDDOCK MP 18/10/2011 Z2375838 ROBIN WALKER MP 19/10/2011 Z1907445 ANNE MCINTOSH MP 20/10/2011 Z2408027 IAN LAVERY MP 21/10/2011 Z1951398 ROGER WILLIAMS 21/10/2011 Z7209413 ALISTAIR CARMICHAEL 24/10/2011 Z2423448 NIGEL MILLS MP 24/10/2011 Z2423360 BEN GUMMER MP 25/10/2011 Z2423633 MIKE WEATHERLEY MP 25/10/2011 Z5092044 GERAINT DAVIES MP 26/10/2011 Z2425526 KARL TURNER MP 27/10/2011 Z242877X DAVID MORRIS MP 28/10/2011 Z2414680 JAMES MORRIS MP 28/10/2011 Z2428399 PHILLIP LEE MP 31/10/2011 Z2429528 IAN MEARNS MP 31/10/2011 Z2329673 DR EILIDH WHITEFORD MP 31/10/2011 Z9252691 MADELEINE MOON MP 01/11/2011 Z2431014 GAVIN WILLIAMSON MP 01/11/2011 Z2414601 DAVID MOWAT MP 02/11/2011 Z2384782 CHRISTOPHER LESLIE MP 04/11/2011 Z7322798 ANDREW SLAUGHTER 05/11/2011 Z9265248 IAN AUSTIN MP 08/11/2011 Z2424608 AMBER RUDD MP 09/11/2011 Z241465X SIMON KIRBY MP 10/11/2011 Z2422243 PAUL MAYNARD MP 10/11/2011 Z2261940 TESSA MUNT MP 10/11/2011 Z5928278 VERNON RODNEY COAKER MP 11/11/2011 Z5402015 STEPHEN TIMMS MP 11/11/2011 Z1889879 BRIAN BINLEY MP 12/11/2011 Z5564713 ANDY BURNHAM MP 12/11/2011 Z4665783 EDWARD GARNIER QC MP 12/11/2011 Z907501X DANIEL KAWCZYNSKI MP 12/11/2011 Z728149X JOHN ROBERTSON MP 12/11/2011 Z5611939 CHRIS
    [Show full text]
  • Chilling Day Special Branch Swooped to Seize ANOTHER Dossier on VIP Abusers: 16 Mps' Names Mentioned in 1984 Report on Paedophile Lobby's Influence in Westminster
    Chilling day Special Branch swooped to seize ANOTHER dossier on VIP abusers: 16 MPs' names mentioned in 1984 report on paedophile lobby's influence in Westminster • Police raided newspaper offices of Don Hale, editor of Bury Messenger • He'd recently been given sensitive files by Labour politician Barbara Castle • Documents included typewritten minutes of meetings that had been held at Westminster in support of paedophile agenda • Included details of a host of Establishment figures who had apparently pledged support to their cause • Also mentioned multiple times was Tory minister Sir Rhodes Boyson, a well-known enthusiast for corporal punishment, and Education Secretary Sir Keith Joseph By Guy Adams for the Daily Mail Published: 00:59 GMT, 19 July 2014 | Updated: 20:03 GMT, 19 July 2014 X Barbara Castle: Worried about rising influence of paedophile lobby The knock on the door came early one day in the famously dry summer of 1984. It was just after 8 am, and Don Hale, the young editor of the Bury Messenger, was reading the daily papers at his desk as his reporters were beginning to arrive at the office. As Hale, then 31, answered the door, a trio of plain-clothes detectives barged in, followed by a dozen police officers in uniform. What happened next was, in Hale’s words, ‘like something out of totalitarian East Germany rather than Margaret Thatcher’s supposedly free Britain’. The detectives identified themselves as Special Branch, the division of the police responsible for matters of national security. ‘They began to flash warrant cards and bark questions,’ says Hale.
    [Show full text]
  • Download (9MB)
    A University of Sussex PhD thesis Available online via Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/ This thesis is protected by copyright which belongs to the author. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Please visit Sussex Research Online for more information and further details 2018 Behavioural Models for Identifying Authenticity in the Twitter Feeds of UK Members of Parliament A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF UK MPS’ TWEETS BETWEEN 2011 AND 2012; A LONGITUDINAL STUDY MARK MARGARETTEN Mark Stuart Margaretten Submitted for the degree of Doctor of PhilosoPhy at the University of Sussex June 2018 1 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................ 1 DECLARATION .................................................................................................................................. 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 5 FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................... 6 TABLES ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2019-2020
    Annual report 2019-20 Guided by you Guided by you | Healthwatch Rochdale 2 Guided by you | Healthwatch Rochdale 3 Contents Message from our Chair 4 About us 6 Highlights from our year 8 How we’ve made a difference 10 Helping you find the answers 16 Our volunteers 21 Our finances 25 Our plans for next year 27 Thank you 29 Contact us 30 Guided by you | Healthwatch Rochdale 4 Message from our chair As Chair of Healthwatch Rochdale this year’s report comes at a time of uncertainty and change, except in that we will be there to help and support the residents of Rochdale and listen to their experiences. Those who share their views can be assured that we will use these to help develop and influence health and social care within the borough. As we start to work differently with all staff working from home for their safety and the safety of others, we are making much more use of technology, but also ensuring that those who are not able to use this are not forgotten. As Chair I want to thank our dedicated staff and volunteers for all their help and support over the past year, whether that has been as a Board member, an Enter & View representative, admin support in the office or helping at our events in the community. We have welcomed three new Board members this year, Rosemary Nunwick, Heather Harrisson and David Bradshaw as well as saying goodbye to Racheal Law and Taufeeq Rauf. As we move forward through 2020 it is inevitable that change will happen but, as Healthwatch Rochdale, we will work to make a difference for the residents of the borough in as positive a manner as possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Council Summons
    BOLTON COUNCIL ________________________________ Members of the Council are hereby summoned to attend a meeting of the Council to be held via Microsoft Teams Live Event on Wednesday next, 17 March, 2021 at 7.00 p.m. when the following business is proposed to be transacted: - 1. Minutes To approve as a correct record the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting of the Council held on 17th February, 2021. 2. Constitution (a) Motion in the name of Councillor Greenhalgh – That the quarterly report on Executive decisions made under the special urgency provisions, as circulated, be noted. (b) Motion in the name of Councillor Greenhalgh – That the amendments to the Council’s Scheme of Delegation for 2020/2021, as circulated, be approved. 3. Recommendations to Council (a) Motion in the name of Councillor Greenhalgh - (1) Agree to the establishment of joint committees and to delegate to those committees the Authority’s functions as set out in the report to the Cabinet on 8th March, 2021 regarding Clean Air (‘the Report’) at paragraph 8.5 and the terms of reference as set out in Appendix 6 to the report; (2) Agree to appoint the Executive Cabinet Member for Environmental Service Delivery to sit on both committees for purposes as set out in the Report at paragraph 8.5 with specific terms of reference as set out in Appendix 6 to the report; and (3) Agree to appoint the Executive Cabinet Member for Children’s Services as substitute for both committees for purposes as set out in the Report at paragraph 8.5 with specific terms of reference as set out in Appendix 6 to the Report.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Authority / Combined Authority / STB Members (July 2021)
    Local Authority / Combined Authority / STB members (July 2021) 1. Barnet (London Borough) 24. Durham County Council 50. E Northants Council 73. Sunderland City Council 2. Bath & NE Somerset Council 25. East Riding of Yorkshire 51. N. Northants Council 74. Surrey County Council 3. Bedford Borough Council Council 52. Northumberland County 75. Swindon Borough Council 4. Birmingham City Council 26. East Sussex County Council Council 76. Telford & Wrekin Council 5. Bolton Council 27. Essex County Council 53. Nottinghamshire County 77. Torbay Council 6. Bournemouth Christchurch & 28. Gloucestershire County Council 78. Wakefield Metropolitan Poole Council Council 54. Oxfordshire County Council District Council 7. Bracknell Forest Council 29. Hampshire County Council 55. Peterborough City Council 79. Walsall Council 8. Brighton & Hove City Council 30. Herefordshire Council 56. Plymouth City Council 80. Warrington Borough Council 9. Buckinghamshire Council 31. Hertfordshire County Council 57. Portsmouth City Council 81. Warwickshire County Council 10. Cambridgeshire County 32. Hull City Council 58. Reading Borough Council 82. West Berkshire Council Council 33. Isle of Man 59. Rochdale Borough Council 83. West Sussex County Council 11. Central Bedfordshire Council 34. Kent County Council 60. Rutland County Council 84. Wigan Council 12. Cheshire East Council 35. Kirklees Council 61. Salford City Council 85. Wiltshire Council 13. Cheshire West & Chester 36. Lancashire County Council 62. Sandwell Borough Council 86. Wokingham Borough Council Council 37. Leeds City Council 63. Sheffield City Council 14. City of Wolverhampton 38. Leicestershire County Council 64. Shropshire Council Combined Authorities Council 39. Lincolnshire County Council 65. Slough Borough Council • West of England Combined 15. City of York Council 40.
    [Show full text]
  • Electoral Review of Rochdale Borough Council Submission on Council Size
    Electoral Review of Rochdale__________________________________________________________ Electoral Review of Rochdale Borough Council Submission on Council Size Introduction 1. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) has informed Rochdale Borough Council of its decision to carry out an Electoral Review of the Council size (number of elected Councillors) and the number of wards and ward boundaries for the Council. 1.1 Rochdale Council has not had an electoral review since 2003. It will have been 19 years since the current boundaries were set by the time this review’s recommendations are in place. The LGBCE believes this is a reasonable interpretation of Section 56 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 1.2 This review began in July 2019; any changes that are made in regards to council size and ward boundaries will come into effect for the local government elections in May 2022. 1.3 Section 56 states that electoral arrangements of a principal local authority’s area should be reviewed ‘from time to time’. The LGBCE will be reviewing all Greater Manchester boroughs that haven’t had a review since the programme began in the early 2000s. 1.4 At present there are wards with electoral imbalances across the borough of Rochdale; therefore providing an unfair representation at local government elections. In two wards the size of the electorate has a variance of greater than +/- 10% in comparison to the average (Kingsway 11% and West Middleton 14%) 1.5 This document is Rochdale Borough Council’s council size submission, which provides the LGBCE with the Council’s view on the appropriate council size and supporting evidence across the following three broad areas (as stated in the LGBCE guidance on council size for local authority elected members and staff): Governance and decision making – determining the role of councillors in decision making, and how work and responsibilities are distributed across the Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Rochdale Borough Transport Strategy June 2010
    Rochdale Borough Transport Strategy June 2010 www.rochdale.gov.uk ROCHDALE BOROUGH TRANSPORT STRATEGY JUNE 2010 Peter Rowlinson Service Director Planning & Regulation Services Enquiries: please contact :- Strategic Planning Service Email: strategic.planning@rochdale.gov.uk Tel: (01706) – 924361 John Cheetham Highways & Transportation Director - Impact Partnership 1 Introduction 1 contents Role and Purpose of the Transport Strategy 1 The Challenge 2 2 Strategic Context 5 Community Strategy 5 Rochdale Borough Renaissance Masterplan 5 Local Transport Plan 5 LTP3 - The Next Steps for Transport 6 Greater Manchester Transport Fund 7 Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and Local Development Framework (LDF) 8 Economic Development Strategy 10 Climate Change and Air Quality 10 Health and Well Being 11 Regional Funding Allocations (RFA2) 11 Wider Governance Changes 12 Programme Deliverability 13 3 Current Situation - Movement Patterns in Rochdale Borough 15 Township Travel Patterns 17 Sustainable Transport Network 18 4 Key Issues 21 Connecting to Jobs, Education and Training Opportunities 21 Taking Advantage of our Strategic Location - Access to the Regional Centre 21 Improving Access to Town and Local Centres and Transport Hubs 21 Minimising Travel 22 Encouraging Walking and Cycling 22 Prioritising Public Transport Improvements 23 Getting More from Heavy Rail Passenger Services 24 Maximising the Benefits of Metrolink 25 Improving Bus Service Reliability and Frequency on Key Routes 25 Congestion and Sustainable Improvements to the Highway Network 26 Tackling
    [Show full text]