DOCSLIB.ORG

Report on the Distribution of BME Populations in Greater Manchester

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report on the Distribution of BME Populations in Greater Manchester Report on the distribution of BME populations in Greater Manchester William Shankley Sociology, Centre of Dynamics of Ethnicity (CoDE) University of Manchester Aim The aim of this report is to consider ethnic residential settlement across Greater Manchester. This is in order to support the investigation of the Ahmed Iqbal Ullah Education Trust: does the archival material on ethnic minorities across Greater Manchester libraries, archives and museums reflect the residential settlement patterns and diversity of ethnic groups living in the area? The project’s aim was to provide an up-to-date analysis of the residential settlement patterns of the major ethnic minority groups across Greater Manchester at district and ward levels of geography. The project additionally aimed to examine the percentage change of the major ethnic groups between 2001 and 2011 at district level across Greater Manchester. 1. Background Studies such as Brown and Cunningham (2016) have highlighted that Greater Manchester; particularly wards such as Moss Side and Hulme have been significant sites of immigration, both locally and nationally. Britain has experienced large-scale migration throughout the past decades, which Vertovec (2007) has claimed has led to the country becoming super-diverse. This is where the sending countries of migrants has diversified and expanded beyond the traditional patterns of migrants that linked to Britain’s colonial legacy, position in Western Europe and ties with the Commonwealth. One significant change that has affected British migration patterns has been the result of the expansion of the European Union (EU) in 2004 and again in 2007. Eight countries (Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, and Slovenia) predominantly from Central and Eastern Europe were admitted into the European project in 2004 (Burrell, 2009). This was followed by the additional accession of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007. At the same time as Britain’s migration patterns were diversifying, the country also experienced an increase of immigration along its asylum and refugee pathway. Greater Manchester was part of the Home Office’s refugee dispersal mechanism and the Gateway project and more recent Syrian Resettlement Scheme. These have arguably changed the dimensions of ethnic diversity in the region. New migration has challenged our understanding of ethnic residential settlement in the local area and raises the question of whether the public archival material reflects the current diversity of the region. 2. Method and Data There has been a recent move across academic disciplines to harness the power of geographic information systems (GIS) for multiple uses. These uses include mapping community needs, increase community engagement and participation, and mapping the geographies of disease and illness (Beyer and Ruston, 2009; Brown and Kyttä, 2014). Advances in the use of GIS have resulted in the current study taking a quantitative approach to the residential mapping of ethnic minorities in Greater Manchester. Due to ethnicity and the spatial aims of the projects it was deemed the Census 2001 & 2011 England and Wales were the most appropriate data to map the ethnic minorities across Greater Manchester given the censuses total population coverage, ethnicity questions, and geographical dimensions. I. Ethnic Minority Group Residential Settlement Mapping To permit the mapping of the residential settlement of ethnic minority groups across Greater Manchester, the self-reported ethnicity write-in data was used from the Census 2011 to analyse the 1 residential patterns of established and newer immigrant and ethnic minority groups. 1 Sixteen ethnic groups were chosen to visually map their residential settlement across districts and wards in Greater Manchester. These groups were; Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi, Chinese, African, Caribbean, Iranian, Irish, Baltic States, Polish, Sri Lanka, Somali, Arab, Turkish and Gypsy Traveller. II. Ethnic Minority Percentage Change To analyse the percentage change in ethnic groups’ population over the decennial censuses, the prescribed ethnicity question was used to measure the percentage change in population between 2001 and 2011. This was conducted for all eight of the established ethnic minority groups (Irish, White Other, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chinese, African, & Caribbean). The Census tables that were used included the KS006 and KS201EW tables. Table KS006 was used for data on ethnic group for 2001 at local authority district level for England and Wales; whereas table KS201EW was used for data on ethnic group for 2011 at local authority district level for England and Wales. Descriptive methods were then used to calculate the percentage change for each ethnic minority group over the decade interval for each district in Greater Manchester. (See section 4 & appendix table 1) 3. Ethnic Group Residential Settlement in Greater Manchester To get an insight into the total number of ethnic minorities in Greater Manchester prior to mapping the following table provides a breakdown of the ethnic populations for Greater Manchester and their percentage of the total population in 2011. Table 1: Raw Count of Ethnic Minorities in Greater Manchester Order Ethnic group Frequency Percentage of by Greater Populat Manchester ion Size Population (%) 1 Pakistani 130265 4.86 2 Indian 53655 2.00 3 African 46353 1.73 4 Irish 34710 1.29 5 Bangladeshi 34231 1.28 6 Chinese 26422 0.98 7 Polish 20433 0.76 8 Caribbean 18107 0.67 9 Arab 15616 0.58 10 Iranian 5701 0.21 11 Baltic States 2678 0.10 12 Somali 1811 0.07 13 Sri Lankan 1781 0.07 14 Turkish 1610 0.06 15 Gypsy or Irish 1541 0.06 Traveller 1 Where an individual ticks a broad category (eg Black-Other) the self-reported ethnicity allows further definition. 2 Understanding the Census Residential Settlement Map The following explanation assists understanding of the mapping of the Census 2011 data for ethnic minority groups across wards in Greater Manchester. It is important to understand that the ethnic minority groups size for each of the fifteen groups varies in size – with the ethnic Pakistani group being the most numerous and the ethnic Gypsy/Traveller group being the most scarce across Greater Manchester. In order to create a map that illustrated the wards with the largest concentration of an ethnic group and to overcome issues associated with different population sizes, it was decided that the ‘exposure’ of the group would be a useful indicator. This calculated the difference in size of a groups’ population for a ward compared to their population if it was spread evenly between all the wards (of equal) size in Greater Manchester. This follows the technique used in demographic work on ethnic minority population settlement by Liberson (1981) and Simpson (2007). This statistics was calculated for each ethnic minority group and for each ward in Greater Manchester. The data was then, using ArcGIS mapping software, linked to a visual representation (or shapefile) of Greater Manchester. To gain an insight into the residential concentration of a particular group ‘black’ was used to show wards with high residential concentration. This was where a specific ethnic minority group was ≥ 4 times the expected concentration of the group if they were evenly spread throughout all the wards in Greater Manchester. This technique allowed the maps to be comparable between different ethnic minority groups and to overcome problems visualising population groups of different sizes. Caveats to understanding the mapping data It is important to note that a number of caveats are needed in the reporting and interpretation of ethnic minority groups from the Census 2011 data for Greater Manchester. First, many new migrants are often missing from the Census 2011 data. This is because of the recent nature of their migration but also due to their short-term accommodation and residence in accommodation classed as a ‘non fixed address’. This creates a problem for data collection because even though its methodology seeks to gain complete population coverage (to sample everyone in the UK population) it focuses on collecting data on individuals in households who are living at registered addresses across the United Kingdom (Coleman, 2013). As a result of this data collection strategy, the Census often misses the collection of data on multiple vulnerable groups, for example, the street homeless population, human trafficking victims, and migrant populations. Second, certain ethnic groups, for example, the Irish Traveller/Gypsy/Roma groups are hard to access. Due to their transient settlement patterns, and a history of marginalisation that discourages self-reporting, this has often contributed to their numbers being under-reported in Census data (Powell, 2013). Third, ethnic groups such as the Somali population have been found to have a large proportion of their diaspora that have further migrated from other EU countries and posses other EU citizenship (Van Liempt, 2011). This has been argued to be the result of many ethnic Somali seeking citizenship in countries such as the Netherlands and seeking to further migrate after their citizenship to join the larger Somali population residing in the UK (Van Liempt, 2011). The fluid nature of their EU migration arguably could have contributed to their under-reporting in the current mapping report. Fourth, the sample of the data that the maps are based on uses the ethnic minority write-in response box. This is used to provide respondents with a self-report box to the question
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Submission to the Boundary Commission for England 2013 Review North West Region Greater Manchester and Lancashire
    Submission to the Boundary Commission for England 2013 Review North West Region Greater Manchester and Lancashire Andrew Teale December 4, 2011 Abstract This submission disagrees with and presents a counter-proposal to the Boundary Commission for England’s proposals for new parliamentary con- stituency boundaries in Greater Manchester and Lancashire. The counter- proposal allocates seven whole constituencies to the boroughs of Stockport, Tameside and Oldham, nine whole constituencies to the boroughs of Man- chester, Salford and Trafford, and twenty-four whole constituencies to the rest of the region. No comment is made on the Boundary Commission’s proposals for the rest of the North West region or for any other region. Contents 1 Introduction2 1.1 The statutory criteria.........................2 1.2 Splitting of wards...........................3 2 Theoretical entitlements4 3 Southern Greater Manchester5 3.1 Manchester, Salford and Trafford..................5 3.2 Oldham, Stockport and Tameside.................. 10 4 Lancashire and Northern Greater Manchester 14 4.1 Crossing the boundary between Greater Manchester and Lancashire 16 4.2 Rochdale................................ 17 4.3 Bolton, Bury, Wigan and Rossendale................ 18 4.4 South Lancashire........................... 22 4.5 East Lancashire............................ 23 4.6 North Lancashire........................... 24 4.7 Summary................................ 25 5 Closing remarks 28 1 1 Introduction This document is my submission to the 2013 Review of Parliamentary constit- uency boundaries. I should first introduce myself. I am the editor and webmaster of the Lo- cal Elections Archive Project (http://www.andrewteale.me.uk/leap/), the in- ternet’s largest freely available collection of British local election results. I have been for some years a contributor to election-related web forums, and this submission is based on material originally posted on the Vote UK forum (http://www.vote-2007.co.uk/) and in some cases modified in the light of comments made.
    [Show full text]
  • Area Profile
    A profile of needs and s Services about children, young people and their families In the Hyde, Hattersley & Longdendale area of Tameside September 2007 Hyde, Hattersley & Longdendale: Profile of need and services Introduction This is a selective statistical profile of needs and services in the Hyde, Hattersley & Longdendale area, this is one of four areas chosen as a basis from which future integrated services for children, young people and their families will be delivered. The other areas are Ashton-under-Lyne: Denton, Droylsden & Audenshaw and Stalybridge, Mossley & Dukinfield. Companion profiles of these other areas are also available. This profile has a focus on data that has relevance to children and families rather than other community members (e.g. older people). The data selected is not exhaustive, rather key indicators of need are selected to help produce an overall picture of need in the area and offer some comparisons between localities (mainly wards) within the area. Some commentary is provided as appropriate. It is expected that the profile will aid the planning and delivery of services. The profile has two parts: Part 1 focuses on the presentation of basic need data, whilst Part 2 focuses on services. The top three categories of the new occupational classification are ‘Managers & Senior Officials; Professionals’ and Associate Professional & Technical’ (hatched at the top of the graph on right) Tameside as a whole comes 350 th out of 376 in the country for Professional; and bottom in Greater Manchester for all three categories
    [Show full text]
  • Tameside Housing Need Assessment (HNA) (2017) Provides the Latest Available Evidence to Help to Shape the Future Planning and Housing Policies of the Area
    Tameside Housing Need Assessment (HNA) 2017 Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council Final Report December 2017 Main Contact: Michael Bullock Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0800 612 9133 Website: www.arc4.co.uk © 2017 arc4 Limited (Company No. 06205180) Tameside HNA 2017 Page | 2 Table of contents Executive summary ......................................................................................................................... 8 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 8 The Housing Market Area (HMA) ........................................................................................ 8 The current housing market ................................................................................................ 9 Understanding the future housing market ....................................................................... 11 The need for all types of housing ...................................................................................... 11 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 14 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 15 Background and objectives ............................................................................................... 15 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) and other requirements
    [Show full text]
  • (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Scrutiny Co-Ordinating Board, 13/10
    Date: 5 October 2016 Please note the earlier start time Town Hall, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 7QF Tel: 01768 817817 Email: [email protected] Dear Sir/Madam Special Scrutiny Co-ordinating Board Agenda - 13 October 2016 Notice is hereby given that a special meeting of the Scrutiny Co-ordinating Board will be held at 6.00 pm on Thursday, 13 October 2016 at the Council Chamber, Town Hall, Penrith. 1 Apologies for Absence 2 Declarations of Interest To receive declarations of the existence and nature of any private interests, both disclosable pecuniary and any other registrable interests, in any matter to be considered or being considered. 3 2018 Review of Parliamentary Constituencies (Pages 3 - 48) To consider report G30/16 of the Deputy Chief Executive which is attached and which is to inform Members of the proposals of the Boundary Commission for England in relation to the 2018 Review of Parliamentary Constituencies and how they will affect Cumbria and Eden in particular, and to determine a means to enable the Council’s response to the consultation on them. RECOMMENDATION: That Members comment upon the proposals of the Boundary Commission with a view to recommending a response to Council. 4 Any Other Items which the Chairman decides are urgent 5 Date of Next Scheduled Meeting Yours faithfully M Neal Deputy Chief Executive (Monitoring Officer) Matthew Neal www.eden.gov.uk Deputy Chief Executive Democratic Services Contact: L Rushen Please Note: Access to the internet in the Council Chamber and Committee room is available via the guest wi-fi
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Manchester
    Chapter 1 Greater Manchester 1.1 Bolton Left = Left List You = You Party Astley Bridge Farnworth Hilary Fairclough C 2,358 Jim Lord Lab 1,151 Clive Atty LD 733 Tariq Aziz LD 955 Muhammad Rafiq Lab 572 Michelle Ionn C 531 Andy Allen You 138 Bradshaw Great Lever [Lab gain from C] Walter Hall C 2,535 Mohammed Iqbal Lab 1,657 James Cottam Lab 620 Mudasir Dean C 1,299 Lauren Alergant LD 342 Alan Johnson Grn 374 Anne Mumberson Grn 195 Mian Akhtar LD 245 Halliwell Breightmet Cliff Morris Lab 1,875 Arthur Norris C 1,696 Shahid Mahmood C 632 William Gallagher Lab 1,182 Riaz Gul LD 494 Carl Hemmings BNP 350 Stephen Howarth LD 163 Harper Green Norma Armston You 137 Lynne Hyland Grn 74 Champak Mistry Lab 1,181 Bill Dawson C 1,071 David Connor LD 390 Bromley Cross Heaton and Lostock Alan Wilkinson C 2,933 Jeremy Foster Lab 705 Alan Rushton C 3,378 David Wibberley LD 331 John Gillatt Lab 831 Liz Spencer Grn 147 Jonathan Evans LD 326 Andy Openshaw You 141 Daniel Mann Grn 249 Horwich and Blackrod [C gain Crompton [Lab gain from LD] from LD] Hanif Darvesh Lab 1,985 Pat Barrow C 1,469 John Partington C 1,113 Kevan Jones Lab 1,021 Yakub Khoda LD 873 Ian Hamilton LD 869 4 1.2. BURY 5 Consolidated Results — Bolton Conservative . 29,254 41.8% 9 councillors Labour . 22,644 32.4% 7 councillors Liberal Democrat . 14,221 20.3% 4 councillors Green Party .
    [Show full text]
  • Sexual Health Needs Assessment for Tameside
    SEXUAL HEALTH NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR TAMESIDE June 2015 Ruth du Plessis [email protected] Contents 1. Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 4 Prevention ......................................................................................................................... 5 Demography ...................................................................................................................... 6 Service Provision ............................................................................................................... 6 Spend ................................................................................................................................ 7 Sexually Transmitted Infections ......................................................................................... 7 Contraception .................................................................................................................... 7 Sexual Violence ................................................................................................................. 8 Young people .................................................................................................................... 8 Commissioning across Greater Manchester ...................................................................... 8 Gaps in knowledge and services ....................................................................................... 8 2. Introduction ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Final Recommendations on the Future Electoral Arrangements for Tameside
    Final recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for Tameside Report to The Electoral Commission August 2003 © Crown Copyright 2003 Applications for reproduction should be made to: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Copyright Unit. The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by The Electoral Commission with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number: GD 03114G. This report is printed on recycled paper. Report no. 349 2 Contents Page What is The Boundary Committee For England? 5 Summary 7 1 Introduction 11 2 Current electoral arrangements 13 3 Draft recommendations 17 4 Responses to consultation 19 5 Analysis and final recommendations 21 6 What happens next? 33 Appendices A Final recommendations for Tameside: Detailed mapping 35 B Guide to interpreting the first draft of the electoral change Order 37 C First draft of electoral change Order for Tameside 39 3 4 What is The Boundary Committee for England? The Boundary Committee for England is a committee of The Electoral Commission, an independent body set up by Parliament under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The functions of the Local Government Commission for England (LGCE) were transferred to The Electoral Commission and its Boundary Committee on 1 April 2002 by the Local Government Commission for England (Transfer of Functions) Order 2001 (SI 2001 No. 3692). The Order also transferred to The Electoral Commission the functions of the Secretary of State in relation to taking decisions on recommendations for changes to local authority electoral arrangements and implementing them.
    [Show full text]
  • Steven Pleasant – Chief Executive and Returning Officer
    Report To: COUNCIL Date: 25 May 2021 Reporting Officer: Steven Pleasant – Chief Executive and Returning Officer Subject: ELECTION OF COUNCILLORS Report Summary: To receive notification from the Chief Executive, the Returning Officer for the Local Elections held on 6 May 2021, as to which persons were elected in accordance with the Representation of the People Acts to hold the Office of Councillor for the Wards within Tameside Borough Council. Recommendations: That the report is noted. Links to Community The Constitution and democratic framework provides an Strategy: effective framework for implementing the Community Strategy. Policy Implications: There are no policy implications. Financial Implications: There are no additional budgetary implications. (Authorised by the Borough Treasurer) Legal Implications: Complies with the Representation of the People Acts. (Authorised by the Borough Solicitor) Risk Management: Publication of the outcome of the Elections ensures compliance with the Representation of the People Acts and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Access to Information The background papers relating to this report can be inspected by contacting Robert Landon, Head of Democratic Services by: phone: 0161 342 2146 e-mail: [email protected] ANNUAL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL – 25 MAY 2021 TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL REPORT OF THE RETURNING OFFICER ON THE PERSONS ELECTED TO THE OFFICE OF COUNCILLOR FOR THE WARDS INDICATED BELOW The following persons, at the elections held on 6 May 2021, were elected to the Office of Councillor for the Wards respectively indicated, to hold office for a period of four years:- WARD NAME AND PARTY OF COUNCILLOR ELECTED ASHTON HURST Dan Costello (Conservative) ASHTON ST.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Government Boundary Commission for England
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REVIEW OF GREATER MANCHESTER THE BOROUGH OF STOCKPORT Boundaries with : TAMESIDE HIGH PEAK IN DERBYSHIRE MACCLESFIELD IN CHESHIRE MANCHESTER HIGH STOCKPORT PEAK MACCLESFIELD REPORT NO. 616 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT NO 616 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Mr G J Ellerton MEMBERS Mr K F J Ennals Mr G Prentice Mrs H R V Sarkany Mr C w Smith Professor K Young Stockport. BC THE RT HON MICHAEL HESELTINE MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REVIEW OF GREATER MANCHESTER THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF STOCKPORT AND ITS BOUNDARIES WITH TAMESIDE, WITH HIGH PEAK IN DERBYSHIRE AND WITH MACCLESFIELD IN CHESHIRE COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT INTRODUCTION 1 . On 1 September 1987, we wrote to Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council announcing our intention to undertake a review of Stockport, as part of our review of the Metropolitan County of Greater Manchester and its Metropolitan Districts under section 48(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. Copies of our letter were sent to the adjoining Metropolitan District Councils, to the County and District Councils bordering the Metropolitan County; to Parish Councils in the adjoining districts; to the Local Authority Associations; to Members of Parliament with constituency interests; and to the headquarters of the main political parties. In addition, copies were sent to those government departments, regional health authorities and statutory undertakers which might have an interest, as well as to the English Tourist Board, the local press and the local television and radio stations serving the area. 2. The Metropolitan District Councils were requested, in co- operation as necessary with the other principal authorities, to assist us in publicising the start of the review by inserting a notice for two successive weeks in local newspapers so as to give a wide coverage in the areas concerned.
    [Show full text]
  • The Appendices
    THE APPENDICES Appendix A: The Consultation Findings Appendix B: The Joint Strategic Needs Assessment for Tameside Appendix C: Tameside Homelessness Review Appendix D: Linkages with Key Strategies Appendix E: Housing Needs Assessment 1 Appendix A: Consultation Responses Topic Theme Comment Causes of homelessness in Tameside Finance Lack of money A lot more people not coping financially Unemployment Debt People getting used to a certain standard of living that they cannot sustain Causes of homelessness in Tameside Properties/Accommodation National housing shortage, particularly social housing Causes of homelessness in Tameside Age Homeless people tend to be under 35 Hospital discharges picks up people over 55, so they do not get sent straight from the hospital to Housing Advice Causes of homelessness in Tameside Properties/Accommodation 8 million people on housing waiting list Causes of homelessness in Tameside Properties/Accommodation Lack of housing options Causes of homelessness in Tameside Properties/Accommodation ‘Affordable’ housing is not affordable People cannot afford to get in housing if not in work Bedroom tax stops people from moving into available accommodation 2 Topic Theme Comment Causes of homelessness in Tameside Breakdown in Family Breakdown of family Relations relationships Causes of homelessness in Tameside Substance Misuse Lifestyle ‘choices’ such as drugs, alcohol Causes of homelessness in Tameside Mental Health Mental health issues/problems Causes of homelessness in Tameside Combination of Factors
    [Show full text]
  • Name First Name Last Name Position
    Name First Name Last Name Position Cllr David Topping David Topping Cllr Jeremy E Hilton Jeremy E Hilton Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group Cllr Brian Coleman Brian Coleman Cllr Roger H Price Roger H Price Cllr Navin Shah Navin Shah Cllr Sian J Timoney Sian J Timoney Cllr Paul Shannon Paul Shannon Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group Cllr Mrs Brenda Forster JP Brenda Forster Cllr Tony Arbour Tony Arbour Cllr Mrs Ann E Holland Ann E Holland The Mayor Cllr Kay Hammond Kay Hammond Cllr John Bell John Bell Leader of the Conservative Group Cllr Maurice A Heaster Maurice A Heaster Deputy Leader of the Council Cllr John Joyce John Joyce The Mayor Cllr Richard G Hobbs Richard G Hobbs Cllr Paul E Bryant Paul E Bryant Cllr Frederick B Walker Frederick B Walker Cllr Christopher Newbury Christopher Newbury Leader of the Independent Group Organisation Telephone Fax Cheshire East Council 01260-272987 Gloucestershire County Council 01452-501206 Greater London Authority 020-7983-4366 Hampshire County Council 01329-280446 Harrow Council Luton Borough Council 07939-543419 Manchester City Council 0161-613-9362 0161-274-0058 Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council 01642-476855 Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council 020-8977-4457 Southend-on-Sea Borough Council 01702-580855 Surrey County Council 020 8541 9733 01342-844975 Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council 0161-366-9874 Wandsworth London Borough Council 020-8874-4681 020-8877-0217 Warrington Borough Council 01925-227381 01925-220353 Warwickshire County Council 01789-730331 01789-731162 West Berkshire
    [Show full text]
  • Full Council 22 May 2012
    ITEM NO: 5 Report To: COUNCIL Date: 22 May 2012 Reporting Officer: Steven Pleasant – Chief Executive and Returning Officer Subject: ELECTION OF COUNCILLORS Report Summary: To receive notification from the Chief Executive, the Returning Officer for the Local Elections held on the 3 May 2012, as to which persons were elected in accordance with the Representation of the People Acts to hold the Office of Councillor for the Wards within Tameside Borough Council. Recommendations: That the report is noted. Links to Community The Constitution and democratic framework provides an Strategy: effective framework for implementing the Community Strategy. Policy Implications: There are no policy implications Financial Implications: There are no additional budgetary implications (Authorised by the Borough Treasurer) Legal Implications: Complies with the Representation of the People Acts. (Authorised by the Borough Solicitor) Risk Management: Publication of the outcome of the Elections ensures compliance with the Representation of the People Acts and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Access to Information The background papers relating to this report can be inspected by contacting Robert Landon, Head of Democratic Services by: phone: 0161 342 2146 e-mail: [email protected] ANNUAL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL – 22 MAY 2012 TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL REPORT OF THE RETURNING OFFICER ON THE PERSONS ELECTED TO THE OFFICE OF COUNCILLOR FOR THE WARDS INDICATED BELOW The following persons, at the elections held on 3 May 2012, were elected to the Office of Councillor for the Wards respectively indicated, to hold office for a period of four years:- WARD NAME AND PARTY OF COUNCILLOR ELECTED ASHTON HURST Leigh Drennan (Labour) ASHTON ST.
    [Show full text]