DOCSLIB.ORG

Governance Decision Template with Guidance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Governance Decision Template with Guidance APPENDIX 1 TO ECC CABINET MEMBER ACTION DATED 24 JUNE 2016, FP/511/05/16 ECC RESPONSE TO THE CASTLE POINT NEW LOCAL PLAN (PRE-SUBMISSION), MAY 2016 (the New Plan) 1. INTRODUCTION Essex County Council (ECC) supports the preparation of a new Local Plan for Castle Point Borough Council (CPBC) and welcomes the opportunity to comment on the New Plan (public consultation from 16 May 2016 – 30 June 2016). In preparing the New Plan, a high level Issues Consultation took place in 2012 followed by a detailed Draft New Plan Consultation (Draft Plan) in 2014. Since the 2014 Draft Plan, substantial changes have been made by CPBC. These changes raise significant concern and necessitate an ECC objection to the New Plan. In March 2014 ECC submitted a response to CPBC raising the following objections and concerns: a. Proposed level of housing growth - concerns and implications on how the potential shortfall could be accommodated elsewhere. b. Two site objections, on highway grounds at: i. Land at North West Thundersley (Policy H18) safeguarded for 1,200 homes. Transportation objections to the inappropriate access opportunities to the strategic (A127/A130); in addition to other viability issues. ii. Land East of Rayleigh Road (H10) for 450 homes. Transportation objections to the omission of a site requirement for a ‘spine road’. c. Five site concerns, on evidence and infrastructure requirements at: i. Land at Thorney Bay Caravan Park, Canvey Island (600 homes) (H5). ii. Land West of Benfleet (800 homes) (H14). iii. Land off Kiln Road, Thundersley (450 homes) (H4). iv. Land South of Eastwood Old Road, Eastwood (50 homes) (H12). v. Land East of Canvey Road (275 homes) (H16). The objection to land at North West Thundersley on highway grounds was further endorsed by ECC in a letter dated 30 October 2015 (see attached). In summary, the 2016 New Plan now proposes: a. A reduction in the housing target to 2,000 new homes (equating to a quarter of the OAN of 8,000); to be met from six housing site allocations with the capacity to provide 2,140 new homes; and a reduction in site allocations identified from 4,925 to 2,140, due to the removal of specific Green Belt allocations. b. Retention of safeguarded land at North West Thundersley proposal (former site H18) despite ECC objection in 2014 and 2015. c. The removal of seven housing allocations and their specific site requirements, such as access arrangements (including the ‘spine road’ associated with the Land East of Rayleigh Road – despite ECC objection in 2014). There are direct implications for ECC Services as a result of the proposal set out in the New Plan, most notably for Transportation and Education, concerning the provision of current and future services and improvements. The shortfall in housing growth in the borough may need to be met in other areas of south Essex leading to further costs and changes to infrastructure provision and could prejudice the adoption of the Local Plans in those areas. ECC would also lose its share of council tax and other funding based on numbers of new dwellings for the Castle Point Borough. The New Plan does not adequately provide for the stream of developer contributions from new development that is needed to fund new infrastructure. The ongoing absence of an adoptable Local Plan in Castle Point is likely to mean opportunistic planning applications in relation to land in that area, which ECC will need to negotiate contributions without the backing of a coherent Local Plan strategy. This could result in appeals being brought, which would have the effect of absorbing additional ECC (as well as CPBC) resource and expenditure. ECC, as a service provider and deliverer of enabling infrastructure would struggle to promote funding bids because of the lack of return on investment in what is a competitive funding environment. In addition, ECC may not be able to maintain, or grow, services to meet demand at such a low level of growth. ECC therefore seek the revision of the New Plan which would put Castle Point on a more sustainable path for the future. CPBC will need to satisfy itself that the New Plan has been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate, is legally compliant and meets the tests of soundness. ECC would argue that CPBC has failed to meet these requirements. 2. DUTY TO CO-OPERATE The duty to cooperate (the Duty) was introduced by the Localism Act in November 2011. The Act inserted a new Section 33A into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. This placed a legal duty on all local authorities and public bodies (defined in regulations) to ‘engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis’ to maximise the effectiveness of local plan preparation relating to strategic cross boundary matters, and in particular with County Councils on strategic matters. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides detail on how strategic planning matters should be addressed in local plans (paragraphs 178-181). Local planning authorities are expected to work ‘collaboratively with other bodies to ensure that strategic priorities across local authority boundaries are properly coordinated and clearly reflected in individual local plans’ (paragraph 179). ‘Strategic priorities’ to which local planning authorities should have particular regard are set out in paragraph 156 of the NPPF. Specific guidance on how the Duty should be applied is included in the Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG). This makes it clear that the Duty requires a proactive, ongoing and focussed approach to strategic matters. Constructive cooperation must be an integral part of plan preparation and result in clear policy outcomes which can be demonstrated through the examination process. The PPG makes it clear that the Duty requires cooperation in two tier local planning authority areas and states ‘Close cooperation between district local planning authorities and county councils in two tier local planning authority areas will be critical to ensure that both tiers are effective when planning for strategic matters such as minerals, waste, transport and education.’ ECC object to the New Plan as proposed, for reasons of non-compliance with the Duty, for the following reasons: a. There has been no engagement with ECC, since CPBC’s decision on 23 March 2016, to reduce the housing provision by half. There is no supporting evidence to substantiate the change or to consider the wider implications on the New Plan in its entirety, which as proposed seeks to retain the previously identified infrastructure requirements. 2 b. There has been no consideration or engagement with ECC to review the implications of the proposed changes in housing provision on the New Plan in its entirety, including viability and deliverability and further costs and changes to the provision of infrastructure and services. The housing chapter has been significantly changed so that allocations over the New Plan period have been “halved” from 4,000 homes to circa 2,000 homes. No engagement has been undertaken with ECC since the decision to half the housing provision in March 2016. ECC has not been engaged with the process to review the implications of the changes in housing provision whilst retaining the previously identified infrastructure requirements. The wider implications of the shortfall in housing growth should it be met in other areas of south Essex will lead to further costs and changes to infrastructure provisions. c. The New Plan is not justified by new evidence to support the reduction in housing provision and consistency with the remainder of the Plan’s requirements and proposals. d. There is no supporting evidence that the Duty has been undertaken to consider where and how the 6,000 new homes comprising the “unmet need for housing” within CPBC will be accommodated by neighbouring local authorities within the South Essex Strategic Market Housing Area, or as part of the wider South Essex duty to co-operate framework. e. There is little to no evidence of a structured (and transparent) approach for the de-selection of sites previously identified and consulted on. f. ECC maintains its objection to the retention of the allocation of the land at North West Thundersley (site H11) as Highway Authority and wider concerns regarding deliverability. ECC’s objections have not been addressed and the site as proposed is contrary to CPBC’s own evidence (SA/SEA) and viability assessments. It is not evident how these significant issues have been addressed or how the sites could be delivered and brought forward for both the 400 homes and the long term Area of Search for 800 homes. The proposal has little regard for viability or deliverability and how the proposal fits with the Local Plan’s overall strategy. g. ECC acknowledge the reference to the Essex Minerals Local Plan 2014 (MLP) (para 3.35) however, ECC objects to the non-compliance with Policy S8 (re Mineral Safeguarding Areas and Minerals Consultation Areas). There has been no engagement on the requirements of the MLP to incorporate the requirements of Policy S8 within the site selection process. h. ECC object to the omission of up to date technical evidence including a fundamental review of the Pre-Submission Local Plan, as now proposed, to demonstrate it is sound in respect of strategy, deliverability, viability and supporting evidence. The CPBC has therefore failed in its Duty requirements with ECC under Section 110 of the Localism Act. 3. LEGAL COMPLIANCE The New Plan is not legally compliant as it is; a. not supported by an adequate Sustainability Appraisal (SA) justifying the change in housing allocation; b. it is not consistent with national policy; and 3 c. issues which have a significant impact across administrative boundaries and across the county of Essex have not been adequately addressed in line with the Duty.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Schools Admission Policies Directory 2020/2021
    Schools Admission Policies Directory 2020/2021 South Essex Basildon, Brentwood, Castle Point and Rochford Districts Apply online at www.essex.gov.uk/admissions Page 2 South Essex Online admissions Parents and carers who live in the Essex You will be able to make your application County Council area (excluding those online from 11 November 2019. living in the Borough of Southend-on-Sea or in Thurrock) can apply for their child’s The closing date for primary applications is 15 January 2020. This is the statutory national school place online using the Essex closing date set by the Government. Online Admissions Service at: www.essex.gov.uk/admissions The online application system has a number of benefits for parents and carers: • you can access related information through links on the website to find out more about individual schools, such as home to school transport or inspection reports; • when you have submitted your application you will receive an email confirming this; • You will be told the outcome of your online application by email on offer day if you requested this when you applied. Key Points to Remember • APPLY ON TIME - closing date 15 January 2020. • Use all 4 preferences. • Tell us immediately in writing (email or by letter) about any address change. • Make sure you read and understand the Education Transport Policy information on www.essex. gov.uk/schooltransport if entitlement to school transport is important to you. School priority admission (catchment) areas are not relevant to transport eligibility. Transport is generally only provided to the nearest available school where the distance criteria is met.
    [Show full text]
  • Colchester Borough Council
    Colchester Borough Council Weekly List of Planning Applications Received NOTE: Application type Codes are as follows: Advertisement ADC Consent MLB Listed Building O99 Outline (Historic) Outline (8 Week COU Change of Use MLD Demolition of a Listed Building O08 Determination) Outline (13 Week ECC County Council MOL Overhead lines O13 Determination) ECM County Matter MPA Prior Approval F99 Full (Historic) Agricultural Reserved Matters (8 Week Full (8 Week MAD Determination MRM Determination) F08 Determination) Reserved Matters (13 Week Full (13 Week MCA Conservation Area MRN Determination) F13 Determination) Certificate of Reserved Matters (16 Week Full (16 Week MCL Lawfulness MRO Determination) F16 Determination) Planning Portal Demolition in Removal/Variation of a Applications (Temporary MDC Conservation Area MRV Condition PX* Code) Government Department Renewal of Temporary MGD Consultation MTP Permission The undermentioned planning applications have been received by this Council under the Town and Country Planning Acts during the period of the week ending: 19/10/18 Where HOUSEHOLDER appears under application detail, the application and any associated Listed Building application can be determined under delegated authority even if objections are received by the Council, unless the application is called in by Members within 21 days of the date at the foot of this list. Please note: 1. The Planning database has now changed - consequently application numbers may no longer be sequential as they are also used for Preliminary Enquiries (not
    [Show full text]
  • Highways and Transportation Department Page 1 List Produced Under Section 36 of the Highways Act
    Highways and Transportation Department Page 1 List produced under section 36 of the Highways Act. DISTRICT NAME: CASTLE POINT Information Correct at : 01-APR-2017 PARISH NAME: CASTLE POINT ROAD NAME LOCATION STATUS AALTEN AVENUE CANVEY UNCLASSIFIED ABBOTSWOOD THUNDERSLEY UNCLASSIFIED ABENSBURG ROAD CANVEY UNCLASSIFIED ABERDEEN GARDENS HADLEIGH UNCLASSIFIED ABREYS THUNDERSLEY UNCLASSIFIED ACCESS ROAD OFF FERRY ROAD SOUTH BENFLEET PRIVATE ROAD ADELAIDE GARDENS SOUTH BENFLEET UNCLASSIFIED ADELSBURG ROAD CANVEY UNCLASSIFIED ALBERT ROAD SOUTH BENFLEET UNCLASSIFIED ALBION ROAD SOUTH BENFLEET UNCLASSIFIED ALDERLEYS THUNDERSLEY UNCLASSIFIED ALDERWOOD WAY THUNDERSLEY UNCLASSIFIED ALEXANDRA ROAD SOUTH BENFLEET UNCLASSIFIED ALLANDALE THUNDERSLEY UNCLASSIFIED ALMA CLOSE HADLEIGH UNCLASSIFIED ALMA ROAD HADLEIGH UNCLASSIFIED ALMERE SOUTH BENFLEET UNCLASSIFIED ALMOND WALK CANVEY UNCLASSIFIED AMBLESIDE WALK CANVEY UNCLASSIFIED AMELAND ROAD CANVEY UNCLASSIFIED AMID ROAD CANVEY UNCLASSIFIED ANDYK ROAD CANVEY UNCLASSIFIED ANTLERS CANVEY UNCLASSIFIED ANTONY CLOSE CANVEY UNCLASSIFIED APELDOORN SOUTH BENFLEET UNCLASSIFIED APPLETON ROAD SOUTH BENFLEET UNCLASSIFIED APPROACH ROAD CANVEY PRIVATE STREET ARCADIA ROAD CANVEY UNCLASSIFIED ARCADIAN GARDENS HADLEIGH UNCLASSIFIED ARJAN WAY CANVEY PRIVATE ROAD ARMADALE CANVEY PRIVATE ROAD ARMADALE CANVEY UNCLASSIFIED ARMSTRONG ROAD SOUTH BENFLEET PRIVATE ROAD ARTERIAL ROAD THUNDERSLEY UNCLASSIFIED ARUNDEL ROAD SOUTH BENFLEET UNCLASSIFIED ASCOT CLOSE THUNDERSLEY UNCLASSIFIED ASH ROAD CANVEY UNCLASSIFIED ASH ROAD HADLEIGH
    [Show full text]
  • Parish Profile 2016
    THUNDERSLEY St. PETER and St. MICHAEL & ALL ANGELS PARISH PROFILE 2016 F Our priest retired in May this year and we have a vacant post for a Priest-in-Charge (Team Vicar Designate). The Diocesan and Deanery vision is for a new Team Ministry with our 2 churches combining with the 2 Hadleigh Parish churches, St. James-the-Less (SS7 2PA) and St. Barnabas (SS7 2EJ). The Hadleigh Parish also has a vacancy and the to-be appointed Team Rector Designate at St. James will be the head of the Team Ministry, assisted by a focal minister at St. Barnabas. The Team Vicar Designate will be at our parish, assisted by our Curate. Not everything we do, or wish to do, can be covered in this profile. If you have what we need and you can lead us to greater things then we would be happy to talk to you, informally, about any questions you might have. Overview: Thundersley is in Castle Point in SE Essex, close to the Thames Estuary. The Parish of Thundersley has 2 churches, 2 miles apart, overseen by one PCC. Our churchmanship is Central. We are committed to the Diocese’s and Deanery’s vision (pages 6, 7 & 8) and to realise that vision here we need a Priest who will inspire us to grow this parish and who can operate within a Team Ministry. We need someone with a unique blend of talents to attract people into church, help us grow spiritually and respect our traditions. 1 The Gifts, Skills, and Experiences we need: We have taken the opportunity at two outreach events (Daws Heath Village Fayre and St.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 4.1 – SE/13/03751/FUL Date Expired 17 April 2014
    4.1 – SE/13/03751/FUL Date expired 17 April 2014 PROPOSAL: Demolition of the former Birchwood Primary School, and the construction of 65 No. dwellings with associated infrastructure provision. Additional information received 28 March 2014. LOCATION: Birchwood County Primary School, Russett Way, Swanley BR8 7TP WARD(S): Swanley White Oak ITEM FOR DECISION This application is referred to Development Control Committee at the discretion of the Chief Planning Officer RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:- The proposed development of the site for 65 dwellings with associated infrastructure provision represents inappropriate development which by definition is harmful to the Green Belt. The proposals are therefore unacceptable in principle. Furthermore, by virtue of the scale, design and degree of the development on the site the proposals would be harmful to the purposes of the Green Belt, would significantly erode the openness of the Green Belt and adversely affect the character and appearance of the Green Belt in this location. The Very Special Circumstances advanced fail to clearly outweigh the harm identified above and the other harm identified. The proposals are thus contrary to Government advice in the form of the National Planning Policy Framework. The application site is considered to have a predominantly open and verdant character, which acts as a visual buffer between the open land to the east and the dense urban area to the west and as such contributes positively to the setting of Swanley and Hextable and the separation of these urban areas. By virtue of the density, scale and extensive spread of development across the site, the proposals would introduce a form of development which would be seriously harmful to the landscape character and setting of the urban areas in this location and to the character and appearance of this part of the Green Belt.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 South Essex Parking Partnership Sub Committee
    SOUTH ESSEX PARKING PARTNERSHIP SUB COMMITTEE THURSDAY 24 SEPTEMBER 2020 – 10.00AM AGENDA ITEM 4 Subject THE SOUTH ESSEX PARKING PARTNERSHIP (CASTLE POINT BOROUGH) (PERMITTED PARKING AREA AND SPECIAL PARKING AREA) (AMENDMENT NO.43) ORDER 201* Relating to Avondale Road & Thundersley Park Road, Benfleet Report by South Essex Parking Partnership Manager Enquiries contact: Nick Binder, South Essex Parking Partnership Manager, 01245 606303, [email protected] Purpose To report the receipt of representations made on part of the South Essex Parking Partnership (Castle Point Borough) (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (Amendment No.43) Order 201* Options The Joint Committee has the following options available: 1. to agree that the proposed Order be made as advertised; 2. to agree that the proposed Order be made subject to modifications which result in less restrictive provisions or reduced scope; or 3. to agree that the proposed Order should not be made. Recommendation(s) 1. The Order be made as advertised; and 2. The people making representations be advised accordingly. Consulters South Essex Parking Partnership Policies and Strategies The report takes into account the South Essex Parking Partnership Document setting out how the SEPP will deal with requests for parking restrictions requiring TROs. 1. Background 1 1.1 The purpose of this Order is to vary The Essex County Council (Castle Point Borough) (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (Consolidation Order) 2008 set out below: In September 2018 an application form was received accompanied by a 33- person petition with support by a local Councillor requesting parking restrictions on the junction of Avondale Road and Thundersley Park Road to improve sight lines for motorists exiting Avondale Road.
    [Show full text]
  • Surname Forenames Date Died Age Service Number Rank Battalion Regiment / Unit / Ship Where Buried / Remembered History
    Surname Forenames Date Died Age Service Number Rank Battalion Regiment / Unit / Ship Where Buried / Remembered History Died of wounds. Enlisted August 1916 to Army Service Corps (serial number T4/21509). Only Brandhoek New Military Cemetery No 3 Abrey James 18/08/1917 37 Army 42772 Private 12th Royal Irish Rifles Royal Irish Rifles is recorded on Medal Card. Born Rochford. Married to Miriam of 4 Bournes Belgium Green Southchurch in 1903 Died of wounds received while serving as a stretcher bearer. Enlisted April 1916. Born Rayleigh son of Harry of Weir Cottages. Married to Lily, 8 Guildford Road Southend. Employed as a carman. A member of the Peculiar People religious group. Remembered on Rayleigh Memorial. Adey Fred William 22/10/1916 23 Army 40129 Private 2nd Essex Regiment Etaples Military Cemetery France His brother Harry enlisted 1/9/191 into Middlesex Regiment (service number 2897) and transferred to Machine Gun Corps (13419) being discharged 30/9/1916 through wounds. Inscription on his headstone "Free from a world of grief and sin with God eternally shut in" Died at Shamran Mamourie. Went overseas 5/12/1915. Born Tooting and lived in Rochford. Son Affleck William 05/09/1916 Army 8379 Sergeant 1st Oxfordshire & Buckingham Regiment Basra Memorial Iraq of William and Rebecca The Stores Ashingdon Rochford. Married to Mary in 1915. Killed in action. Born Plaistow. Son of Walter and Eliza of Mount Bovers Lane Hawkwell. Married Feuchy Chapel British Cemetery Wancourt Allen John Charles 10/05/1917 28 Army 33626 Private 2nd Suffolk Regiment (Alice / Sarah) with two children, occupation groom-gardener.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Batch 9 – Lines & Signs Maintenance
    Appendix A Batch 9 – Lines & Signs Maintenance High Road, Laindon Basildon 9 3,250.00 Crompton Close Basildon 9 750.00 Wick Drive, Wickford Basildon 9 400.00 Great Oaks Basildon 9 6,000.00 Southernhay Basildon 9 5,000.00 Rectory Road Basildon 9 1,500.00 Dukes Road / Little Norsey Road Basildon 9 1,500.00 Radford Way, Billericay Basildon 9 4,000.00 Davids Walk, Billericay Basildon 9 500.00 High Cloister, Billericay Basildon 9 2,200.00 TOTAL 25,100.00 The Drive, Warley Brentwood 9 3,250.00 Myrtle Road, Warley Brentwood 9 1,500.00 Great Eastern Road, Warley Brentwood 9 1,500.00 Avenue Road, Warley Brentwood 9 1,500.00 Deepdene, Ingatestone Brentwood 9 550.00 Bishop Walk, Shenfield Brentwood 9 600.00 Hutton Road, Shenfield Brentwood 9 3,250.00 William Hunter Way Brentwood 9 3,000.00 Various - West Horndon Brentwood 9 3,750.00 Shenfield Place, Shenfield Brentwood 9 3,500.00 Gerard Cr / Downsland Drive Brentwood 9 2,250.00 Cricketers Row Brentwood 9 75.00 Sir Francis Way Brentwood 9 1,250.00 Kavanaghs Road Brentwood 9 350.00 The Parade Brentwood 8 1500.00 TOTAL 27825.00 Leigh Road/Western Esplanade Castle Point 9 782.69 Runnymeade Chase, Thundersley Castle Point 9 258.40 High Road, Benfleet Castle Point 9 85.10 Vicarage Hill, Thundersley Castle Point 9 634.64 Gowan Brae, Benfleet Castle Point 9 1,495.68 Sherwood Crescent, Hadleigh Castle Point 9 188.10 Gwendalen Avenue, Canvey Castle Point 9 133.00 Korndyk Avenue, Canvey Castle Point 9 239.40 Vaagen Avenue, Canvey Castle Point 9 390.00 Kennington Avenue, Benfleet Castle Point 9 36.00 Craven
    [Show full text]
  • (Castle Point Borough) (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (Amendment No.27) Order 201*
    The Essex County Council (Castle Point Borough) (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (Amendment No.27) Order 201* Notice is hereby given that the Essex County Council proposes to make the above Order under Sections 1(1), 2(1) to (3), 3(2), 4(1), 4(2), 32(1), 35(1), 45, 46, 49, 53 and Part III & IV of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Effect of the order: To introduce ‘No Waiting 8am to 7pm’ restrictions on Chapel Lane, Hadleigh in the Borough of Castle Point as specified: Road Description Chapel Lane, NORTH-WEST SIDE (NORTHBOUND DIRECTION): From a point 45 Hadleigh metres south-west of the southern kerb line of A13 London Road south- westwards for a distance of 114 metres. Map Tile: TQ800 870 Issue No. 01 to be replaced with map tile TQ800 870 Issue No. 02 and TQ805 870 Issue No. 02 to be replaced with map tile TQ805 870 Issue No. 03 BOTH SIDES: a. From the south-western boundary line of 66 Chapel Lane property south-westwards to the entrance of the Business Units, a distance of 282 metres. b. From its junction with the length of road specified above in point (a) south westwards to the Hub Car Park access road, a distance of 81 metres. Map Tile: TQ800 867 Issue No. 01 to be replaced with map tile TQ800 867 Issue No. 02 The Essex County Council (Castle Point Borough) (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (Consolidation) Order 2008 will be varied by substituting tile number TQ800 867, TQ800 870 revision 1 to revision 2, TQ805 870 revision 2 to revision 3.
    [Show full text]
  • (2) Boss Bentham Ben Foley " David Maxwell Tony Upton " Paul T
    GREEN PARTY CANDIDATES FOR THE 2009 LOCAL ELECTIONS. The list is ordered alphabetically by Region (e.g. South West, West Midlands) then by County (e.g. Warwickshire, Worcestershire, then by District Council area (e.g Bromsgrove, Malvern Hills), then by Division. The number in brackets after the Division name is the number of seats up for election. GREEN CANDIDATES Notes EASTERN ENGLAND BEDFORD UNITARY Castle (2) Lucy Bywater Cauldwell (2) Boss Bentham Harpur (2) Ben Foley " David Maxwell Kingsbrook (2) Tony Upton " Paul Taylor Queens Park (1) Justina McLennan CENTRAL BEDFORDSHIRE UNITARY Flitwick East (2) Cllr. Gareth Ellis Gareth was elected to Mid Beds Council, which is being replaced by Central Beds. " Chris Fryer Maulden and Houghton Conquest (2) Saqhib Ali Sandy (2) Kate Layden " Cllr. Ken Lynch Ken was an Independent on Mid Beds Council, which is being replaced by Central Beds. Southcott (2) Ken Barry CAMBRIDGESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (Cambridge City) Abbey (1) Simon Sedgwick-Jell The Green Party won an Abbey City Council seat in 2008. Arbury (1) Catherin Terry Castle (1) Stephen Lawrence Cherry Hinton (1) Neil Ford Coleridge (1) Valerie Hopkins East Chesterton (1) Peter Pope Kings Hedges (1) James Youd Market (1) Keith Garrett Newnham (1) Robert Yound Petersfield (1) Shayne Mitchell Queen Edith's (1) Brian Wescott Romsey (1) Philip Richards Trumpington (1) Ceri Galloway West Chesterton (1) Alexander Collis Cambridge City Council - by-election East Chesterton (1) Peter Pope (Fenland) Waldersey (1) Paul Carpenter (Huntingdon) Huntingdon
    [Show full text]
  • Deliveringthefuture Tgessex.Co.Uk
    Deliveringthefuture tgessex.co.uk Welcome to ThamesGateway SouthEssex "The Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership has made significant progress since its launch in September 2001. This new strategic framework establishes for the first time an ambitious and challenging sub-regional agenda for the growth, development and regeneration of Thames Gateway South Essex over the next 20 years". "The framework provides a solid basis for the ongoing work of the Partnership and provides an important focus for delivery". "The framework also makes an important contribution towards meeting the government's own objectives for the Thames Gateway, which we have outlined in our Communities Plan". "I congratulate the Partnership for its broad vision and endorse the strategic direction this framework sets in train". THE RT HON LORD ROOKER MINISTER OF STATE FOR HOUSING AND PLANNING 1 In 2001, the Partnership laid The regeneration of Thames Delivering the Future has been out its Vision for the future of south Gateway South Essex is of regional developed in collaboration with a Essex, and the opportunity provided and national importance. The wide range of contributors from by the area’s inclusion in the Thames government has recently given around south Essex and the East of further impetus to the growth of the England region. It is based on an Gateway. The government has area through the national action ambitious, but realistic and shown its confidence in that Vision, plan, ‘Sustainable Communities: achievable, set of objectives for by identifying funding to kick start the Building for the Future’, which Thames Gateway which will process of regeneration and growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Project Business Case Fairglen New Link Road
    Capital Project Business Case Fairglen New Link Road The template This document provides the business case template for projects seeking funding which is made available through the South East Local Enterprise Partnership. It is therefore designed to satisfy all SELEP governance processes, approvals by the Strategic Board, the Accountability Board and also the early requirements of the Independent Technical Evaluation process where applied. It is also designed to be applicable across all funding streams made available by Government through SELEP. It should be filled in by the scheme promoter – defined as the final beneficiary of funding. In most cases, this is the local authority; but in some cases the local authority acts as Accountable Body for a private sector final beneficiary. In those circumstances, the private sector beneficiary would complete this application and the SELEP team would be on hand, with local partners in the federated boards, to support the promoter. Please note that this template should be completed in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the HM Treasury’s Green Book. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book- appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-governent As described below, there are likely to be two phases of completion of this template. The first, an ‘outline business case’ stage, should see the promoter include as much information as would be appropriate for submission though SELEP to Government calls for projects where the amount awarded to the project is not yet known. If successful, the second stage of filling this template in would be informed by clarity around funding and would therefore require a fully completed business case, inclusive of the economic appraisal which is sought below.
    [Show full text]