DOCSLIB.ORG

3 October 2019 REF: SHA/22113 APPEAL AGAINST NHS ENGLAND

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
3 October 2019 REF: SHA/22113 APPEAL AGAINST NHS ENGLAND 3 October 2019 REF: SHA/22113 Arena Point Merrion Way APPEAL AGAINST NHS ENGLAND DECISION TO REFUSE Leeds AN APPLICATION BY ASCENT HEALTHCARE LTD FOR LS2 8PA INCLUSION IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL LIST OFFERING UNFORESEEN BENEFITS UNDER REGULATION 18 Tel: 0203 928 2000 WITHIN 150M OF MORRISONS SUPERMARKET, Fax: 0207 821 0029 BELLONA DRIVE, STANGROUND, PETERBOROUGH, PE2 Email: [email protected] 8GP 1 Outcome 1.1 The Pharmacy Appeals Committee (“Committee”), appointed by NHS Resolution, quashes the decision of NHS England and redetermines the application. 1.2 The Committee determined that the application should be refused. Arena Point REF: SHA/22113 Merrion Way Leeds LS2 8PA APPEAL AGAINST NHS ENGLAND DECISION TO REFUSE AN APPLICATION BY ASCENT HEALTHCARE LTD FOR Tel: 0203 928 2000 INCLUSION IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL LIST OFFERING Fax: 0207 821 0029 UNFORESEEN BENEFITS UNDER REGULATION 18 Email: [email protected] WITHIN 150M OF MORRISONS SUPERMARKET, BELLONA DRIVE, STANGROUND, PETERBOROUGH, PE2 8GP 1 A summary of the application, decision, appeal and representations and observations are attached at Annex A. 2 The Committee held an oral hearing at the Queensgate Hotel, 5-7 Fletton Avenue, Peterborough PE2 8AX. The Committee comprised of Mrs S. Hewitt [Chairman], Mrs L. Summers, and Mr. M. Beaman [Pharmacist member]. Each declared that they had no conflicts of interest. 3 Attendees were as follows: 3.1 APPLICANT/APPLICANT 3.1.1 Mr. Qammar Nazir (Ascent Healthcare) and Mrs. Saira Nazir 3.2 INTERESTED PARTIES 3.2.1 Emma Griffiths-Mbarek (Well Pharmacy) 3.2.2 Wayne Clark (Well Pharmacy) 3.2.3 Shabbir Damani (Repeat Prescription Orderline Limited) 3.2.4 Matt Cox (Lloyds Pharmacy) 3.2.5 Anil Sharma (Cambs and Peterborough LPC) 3.2.6 Karen Cox (Cambs and Peterborough LPC) 3.3 DECISION MAKING BODY 3.3.1 Sharon Grey, Contract Manager Pharmacy and Optometry (NHS England) 3.4 OBSERVING 3.4.1 Fiona Richardson (Primary Care Appeals) 4 Site Visit 4.1 Before the hearing commenced, the Committee conducted a site visit which was read out to the parties. There were no corrections or observations made upon it. 4.2 At 10am the Committee set off from the location of the hearing, the Queensgate Hotel, Peterborough. It travelled into Fletton Avenue, and reached the Stanground Community Centre. This had a busy car park and a nursery school at the side. A patron spoken to said it was always in use by various community groups including for children’s parties etc. 4.3 From there we went along Whittlesey Road and the A605 to the Cardea Housing Development. We walked around the central hub of the development surrounding a substantial car park. We noted the Cardea Community and Sports Pavilion and a large Morrison’s Supermarket. On one side of the car park was a row of 7 small retail units, two of which were vacant. The occupied units were two take away food outlets, a barber shop, a charity shop and a hair and beauty salon. 4.4 We were told that currently no buses drop off or pick up at the Morrison’s site, although a staff member of Morrison’s and the driver of a parked bus, Stage Coach 5, told us this was to change in the near future. The nearest bus stop from Morrison’s was approximately 400 metres away and was served by the Stage Coach No. 5 bus to Peterborough City Centre. We noted that it runs every 20 minutes from Monday to Saturday and hourly on Sundays. We noted a pub/restaurant called “Apple Cart” on the boundary of the Morrison’s car park. 4.5 The Committee returned to Morrison’s and began its walk towards the Stanground Surgery and the Well Pharmacy. We walked past St Michael’s Church School, along Apollo Avenue. We turned on to a path which leads to Oakdale School, which appears to mark the edge of the Cardea estate. 4.6 The Cardea estate comprised a combination of detached and terraced houses and flats. They were well kept and the pavements and paths were in very good condition with dropped kerbs, and are well lit. There were 5 mph speed limits visible and most houses had off street car parking and many had cars parked in them. 4.7 From there we went along Oakdale Avenue, which comprises of older housing, almost all with off street parking and with many cars visible. The pavements were flat and wide. 4.8 At the junction with Whittlesey Road, we saw the No 5 bus en route. We turned left and noted that the pavement was separated by white markings for pedestrians and a cycle route, wide enough to take both. Following the pathway, we entered the Stanground Surgery and the Well Pharmacy. There was a pharmacy sign in the car park, which was of a good size, with plenty of spaces available. The walk had taken us 25 minutes at average pace. Well Pharmacy was located within the GP surgery and shared the same waiting area. Opening hours reflected those of the Surgery, a seven GP practice, these being 8.30-6pm Monday- Fridays. There was reasonable amount of seating and capacity and disabled access was good. 4.9 From there we continued along the pathway back to Whittlesey Road and noted Halls the Chemist, a short distance along. It had parking for approximately 8 cars, and there were spaces free at the time of inspection. The pharmacy hours were 9am-6pm Monday-Friday and 9am-1pm on Saturday. It advertised a free collection and delivery service. 4.10 From there we took the car back, going via Kingston Park Industrial Estate, which contained some large distribution warehouses including Amazon, DHL and Debenhams, and a number of medium sized units, some very new. There was space for further development. The distance from Morrison’s was such that the Committee was of the view that employees of this estate would be unlikely to frequent the Morrison’s hub during their working day. 4.11 From the industrial estate we continued by car to the Old Fletton Surgery and Odedra Pharmacy, purpose build c.2009. 4.12 The car park was full but spaces were coming free regularly. The Surgery is a six GP dispensing surgery, open from 8am-6pm Monday-Friday, and the pharmacy opens 8.30am-6.15pm Monday-Friday. Disabled access was good and there was ample capacity. This pharmacy also did free deliveries. 4.13 The Site visit finished at the Old Fletton Surgery and returned to the Queensgate Hotel, Peterborough. 5 Oral Hearing Submissions 5.1 The Chairman confirmed with all parties that they had been previously been served with the document bundle consisting of 260 pages. As a preliminary matter, Mr Damani of Halls the Chemist, wished to circulate a letter dated 11 September 2019 from the Chairman of the Patient Group at Halls, opposing the appeal. As there were no objections from the parties, this was done and it appears below within Mr Damani’s submissions. 5.2 Mr Nazir asked for permission to circulate an email of support dated 13 September 2019 from Councillor Ray Bisby. This too is reproduced below. 5.3 The Chairman indicated that there was no need to address the Committee on Regulation 31. 5.4 Ascent Healthcare, the Applicant was represented by Mr Qammar Nazir, accompanied by his wife, Mrs Saira Nazir, also a pharmacist. 5.5 Supporting email provided by Mr. Nazir: 5.5.1 From: Cllr Bisby Ray Sent: 13 September 2019 08:17 To: Qammar Nazir Dear Mr. Nazir I am one of the Councillors for Stanground South, Peterborough that covers Cardea. I am in support of a new pharmacy in Cardea for the following reasons: 1 The CCG and local surgery did not take up the option to build a new surgery in Cardea for the 1800+ homes on the development. 2 The local surgery is planning an extension but have had issues over a small area of land that is preventing the extension being progressed. 3 The two chemists/Pharmacy are located in and very close to the doctor’s surgery. 4 These Pharmacy/chemist is well away from some areas and people who need medication but have no transport find it hard to get there, especially if ill. 5 A pharmacy in Cardea, would enable people in the Cardea and Park Farm areas to get prescriptions and medical advice for minor ailments. 6 The continued population growth is putting pressure on the Doctors surgery until such times as there is capacity from the extension. 7 Cardea has shopping facilities that would be a draw for people and make a pharmacy a logical addition and convenience for the public even after the Doctors surgery extension. 8 The health and wellbeing of the local public is paramount and this addition would be in my opinion, a welcome addition. Kindest regards Cllr R Bisby Stanground South Peterborough 5.6 Mr. Nazir handed out colour maps of the local area in A2 size. 5.7 By way of introduction, he stated that Stanground is a residential area in the south east of Peterborough. The area is made up of the two wards – Fletton & Stanground and Stanground South. The total population of Stanground was approximately 18,500 in 2016 and the population is estimated to increase to around 22,000 in the next 2 years (2021). This area of Peterborough has seen a significant population increase. The majority, if not nearly all of this population increase is due to the Cardea development, within Stanground South.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Draft Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan This Determination Statement
    24 August 2021 Strategic Environmental Assessment Determination Statement: Draft Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan This determination statement has been produced by Fenland District Council (FDC) as “responsible authority”, to meet the requirements of Regulation 9 of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004. This Determination Statement forms a Submission Document for the purposes of neighbourhood planning, as required by The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended) (reg. 15(e)(ii)). A Screening Assessment was undertaken by FDC during the preparation of the draft Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan. As part of this assessment, FDC consulted the statutory bodies. The SEA Screening Report follows this Determination Statement. The Screening Report examines the strategic policy and environmental context relevant to Whittlesey, and presents the findings of the screening assessment. The report identifies that the draft Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan does not seek to increase the overall quantum of growth beyond that which has already been permitted through the planning system. Other policies generally accord with the adopted Local Plan, the potential environmental effects of which were duly assessed through the plan-making process. The Screening Report was sent to consultation bodies for comment (13 July to 23 August 2021). Responses were received from Environment Agency, Historic England and Natural England. Through its response to the draft Screening Report consultation, Historic England concurred with the Council that the preparation of a Strategic Environmental Assessment is not required. Natural England confirmed it agrees with the report’s conclusions that the Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan would not be likely to result in a significant effect on any European Site, either alone or in combination and therefore no further assessment work is required.
    [Show full text]
  • Baseline Report Contents
    Whittlesey DRAFT Neighbourhood Plan Baseline Report Contents Introduction...............................................................1 Relevant Planning Policy.........................................4 Basic Conditions......................................................5 People and Place......................................................6 Flooding...................................................................11 Greenspace.............................................................16 Heritage...................................................................20 Land Use.................................................................24 Roads....................................................................... 28 Walking, Cycling and Public Transport..................32 Introduction This baseline report accompanies the Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan and provides some context for the policies set out within it. It aims to give a high-level impression of the Neighbourhood Plan Area; it is not intended to be a detailed technical report but rather an introduction to the Parish, signposting to more detailed information and supplementary documents where necessary. Whittlesey Buttercross 1 Whittlesey Location The map opposite shows the Neighbourhood Plan Boundary. Whittlesey Edinburgh Town Council applied to Fenland District Council to designate the whole of the Peterborough Newcastle Parish of Whittlesey as a ‘Neighbourhood Wisbech Area’. Planning Committee on 29 April 2015 determined the application: The Leeds March entire Parish
    [Show full text]
  • Fenland Infrastructure Delivery Plan February 2016
    Fenland Infrastructure Delivery Plan February 2016 Fenland Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) February 2016 1 Contents Section Page 1. Introduction 3 2. What is meant by Infrastructure? 6 3. Evidence Background 8 4. Infrastructure Requirements and Constraints 9 Highways and Transport 10 Road Network 10 Rail Based Transport 12 Cycle and Walking Improvements 13 Car Parking 13 Public Transport and Buses 13 Waterways 13 Market Town Transport Strategies 13 Utilities Infrastructure 15 Water Supply 15 Waste Water 16 Electricity 18 Gas 18 Broadband 18 Flood Risk Management Provision 19 Social and Community Infrastructure 21 Health and Elderly Care Provision 21 Education Provision 21 Community Facilities 25 Culture and Heritage Attractions 25 Emergency Services 26 Open Space and Green Infrastructure 27 5. Potential Funding and Delivery Options 28 6. Monitoring 33 7. Report Summary and Recommendations 33 8. Infrastructure Delivery Schedule 34 2 1 Introduction 1.1 The purpose of the Fenland Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) is to outline the key infrastructure requirements needed or desired to support growth in Fenland up to 2031. The IDP will help to coordinate infrastructure provision and ensure that funding and delivery timescales are closely aligned to those in the Local Plan. It is a living document which will be updated regularly to incorporate changes in project progress or the availability of funding. 1.2 This IDP supersedes the Fenland IDP adopted in February 2013. The previous document mainly set out the high level strategic infrastructure required to support the adoption of the Local Plan. With an adopted plan (May 2014) now in place this updated IDP seeks to provide a basis for the delivery of the policies in that plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Group Submissions to the Cambridgeshire County Council Electoral Review
    Political group submissions to the Cambridgeshire County Council electoral review This PDF document contains submissions from Political Groups. Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks. Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document. Submission to the Boundary Commission on the Review of the Divisions in Cambridgeshire by the Liberal Democrat Group on Cambridge City Council. 1. The Timing of this Submission. The Commission has allowed submissions from Cambridge City Council to be sent after the official closing date of 19th January up to 31st January, This submission is by the Liberal Democrat group on Cambridge City Council. It would have been impossible to have got a meaningful submission in by the 19th January as the correct numbers were not available at that date (see item 2). We contend that the scheme submitted by the Cambridge Labour Party through the City Council is fundamentally flawed as it is based on incorrect numbers and not compliant with the rules governing reviews of County Council electoral arrangements in two-tier areas (see item 3). 2. The Numbers of Electors. The numbers of electors in Cambridge has changed in two ways since summer 2014 when the Commission indicated that it was “minded to” fix the numbers of members of the County Council (and hence the Divisions) at 63. Number of students underestimated. The original numbers overlooked new student accommodation in the city which is projected to house 2,410 students. As Cambridge University records show that approximately 16% of students are not citizens of the UK, EU or a Commonwealth country, it is reasonable to assume that 84% (ie 2,025) are expected to be eligible to vote in some UK elections.
    [Show full text]
  • 0900265S73 (Renewal of Consent/Vary Conditions)
    AGENDA ITEM NO. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PANEL 15 JUN 09 Case No: 0900265S73 (RENEWAL OF CONSENT/VARY CONDITIONS) Proposal: VARIATION OF CONDITION 16 OF PLANNING PERMISSION 0213092OUT TO STATE AS FOLLOWS:' THE USE HEREBY PERMITTED SHALL BE CARRIED ON ONLY BY COLLMART GROWERS LTD AND QUALITY FRUIT AND VEG LTD Location: COLLMART GROWERS LTD THE DROVE PONDERSBRIDGE Applicant: COLLMART GROWERS LTD Grid Ref: 525914 292082 Date of Registration: 10.03.2009 Parish: FARCET RECOMMENDATION - REFUSE 1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION 1.1 This application has been referred to Panel at the request of a local Member. 1.2 The proposal is to vary condition 16 of outline planning permission 0213092OUT for the erection of buildings for packing, grading, preparation and distribution of vegetables. A copy of the Panel report and decision notice for that application are attached. The condition states "The use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by Collmart Growers Ltd". This application is to vary the condition to also allow Quality Fruit and Veg Ltd (QFAVL) to use the land and buildings. 1.3 The site is in the countryside approximately 11km south-east of Peterborough and 20 km north of Huntingdon. The applicant’s existing operation includes a 1.47ha site which fronts onto The Drove with a building, yard and weighbridge used in association with grading, washing, bagging and distributing vegetables, particularly onions but also other root vegetables such as carrots, potatoes, parsnips and swede. 1.4 The outline permission is for the erection of buildings with a floor space of 10,000sqm on a site of 8.2ha to the north of the existing premises.
    [Show full text]
  • Highways and Community Infrastructure Committee
    HIGHWAYS AND COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE Date:Tuesday, 12 March 2019 Democratic and Members' Services Fiona McMillan Monitoring Officer 10:00hr Shire Hall Castle Hill Cambridge CB3 0AP Kreis Viersen Room Shire Hall, Castle Hill, Cambridge, CB3 0AP AGENDA Open to Public and Press CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 1. Apologies for absence and declarations of interest Guidance on declaring interests is available at http://tinyurl.com/ccc-conduct-code 2. Minutes of the Highways & Community Infrastructure meeting held 5 - 16 15th January 2019 3. Petitions and Public Questions OTHER DECISIONS 4. Finance and Performance Report- Jan 2019 17 - 64 5. Library Service Transformation 65 - 74 Page 1 of 316 6. Highway Infrastructure Asset Management 75 - 280 7. Local Highway Improvement Schemes 2019-20 281 - 296 8. Parish Energy Recharging (Street Lighting) 297 - 300 9. Road safety Action Plan 301 - 314 10. Highways and Community Infrastructure Committee -Agenda Plan 315 - 316 The Highways and Community Infrastructure Committee comprises the following members: Councillor Mathew Shuter (Chairman) Councillor Bill Hunt (Vice-Chairman) Councillor Ian Gardener Councillor Mark Goldsack Councillor Lynda Harford Councillor David Jenkins Councillor Simon King Councillor Tom Sanderson Councillor Jocelynne Scutt and Councillor Amanda Taylor For more information about this meeting, including access arrangements and facilities for people with disabilities, please contact Clerk Name: James Veitch Clerk Telephone: 01223 715619 Clerk Email: [email protected] The County Council is committed to open government and members of the public are welcome to attend Committee meetings. It supports the principle of transparency and encourages filming, recording and taking photographs at meetings that are open to the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Fenland Local Plan
    Fenland Local Plan Core Strategy Proposed Submission February 2013 Foreword A Fantastic Future for Fenland Our local communities care passionately about Fenland - and who can blame them? The fantastic scenery, friendly atmosphere and picturesque towns and villages help to make Fenland a great place to live, work and visit. As the district continues to grow and prosper, Fenland District Council wants to work with partners and local communities to help further improve the quality of life for all Fenland residents. We also feel it is important to retain the special qualities that make our district unique. Growth will not only be in housing and population but also in economic activity, jobs and infrastructure. There are also important social and environmental aspects which need tackling, health inequalities to address, and education and skills to be improved. We need to provide services for an ageing population and also deal with migration issues. Fenland District Council has produced this Core Strategy document to explain how the district is expected to grow, in a sustainable way, over the next 20 years and beyond. We believe this document will deliver a bright and prosperous future for Fenland. However, if you think we have not got it quite right, you do have an opportunity to let an independent inspector know, and that inspector will carefully consider your views before the final plan can be adopted. Details of how you can submit your comments to the inspector are shown over the page. We really have valued your input on draft versions of this important document, which will help to shape the next 20 years of key investments by public and private sector businesses and help build a fantastic future for Fenland.
    [Show full text]
  • D|S|Pdevelopment & Viability Consultants
    Fenland District Council D|S|P Development & Viability Consultants D|S|P Development & Viability Consultants Appendix III Market and Values Research For: Fenland District Council Community Infrastructure Levy Viability Scoping & Assessment Final (DSP v7) Dixon Searle LLP The Old Hayloft 28C Headley Road Grayshott Hindhead GU26 6LD www.dixonsearle.co.uk 1 Fenland District Council D|S|P Development & Viability Consultants Appendix III – Contents outline Page Introduction 1 Overall residential market review – re-sales based (by settlement) 3 Fenland context map extract (Local Plan Key Diagram) 4 Re-sale market overview research – values patterns – rightmove 5 Zoopla sourced information and indicative ‘heat maps’ – overall local market 21 DSP New-build housing research 39 Sheltered (Retirement) Housing 44 Economic and housing market context 45 Residential values summary (range of value levels) 55 Commercial market, values & context 56 Stakeholder Consultation and local soundings 117 Land values context and indications 119 EGi property resource extracts for research base follow the above. 2 Fenland District Council D|S|P Development & Viability Consultants Introduction As noted within the main report, this Appendix III document acts as a market report and provides a summary of the comprehensive information review of property values (commercial and residential), land values, general market commentary and wider economic conditions. Collectively, this research helps inform the assumption setting process for the residential and commercial appraisals stage and underpins the assessment by building a picture of values patterns and levels in Fenland District. This also provides the Council with a guide as to the type of information that may be monitored and reviewed in order to inform future updated views where appropriate for keeping an eye on market trends – including for future CIL or related viability considerations.
    [Show full text]
  • Councillors Submissions to the Cambridgeshire County Council Electoral Review
    Councillors submissions to the Cambridgeshire County Council electoral review This PDF document contains submissions from Councillors. Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks. Response to LGBCE Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire ‐ New Draft Recommendations Consultation, 17th June 2016 I am the current Cambridgeshire County Councillor for the Ely South & West Division and East Cambridgeshire District Councillor for the Downham Villages Ward and I live in Ely. I therefore have extensive knowledge of the East Cambridgeshire area and its dynamics. I am concerned with three aspects of the LGBCE’s electoral review of Cambridgeshire: 1) I do not agree with the new draft recommendations in relation to a proposed Council size of 61, or with the proposed boundaries in East Cambridgeshire and Fenland. I support the submission put forward by Cambridgeshire County Council for a Council size of 63 and the proposals put forward by East Cambs District Council for 9 Councillors in East Cambridgeshire and Fenland District Council for 10 Councillors in Fenland. In particular, I support the most recent response of East Cambs District Council submitted to LGBCE in June 2016. 2) I am very concerned that LGBCE has not had an open mind about Council size and other aspects of the review, as evidenced by their internal correspondence, and therefore that the process by which the review has been conducted is questionable and open to legal challenge. 3) It is clear that this latest round of consultation is in fact a new review. The review process is dictated by statute, the effect of which determines that in fact the previous review has exhausted its process and we are now into a completely new review.
    [Show full text]
  • Cabinet and Corporate Management Team
    Cabinet and Corporate Management Team Portfolio Holder Briefing Report January 2018 BUSINESS PLAN AREA: Communities Business Plan Priority: Support vulnerable members of our community Business Plan Action: Support residents to claim the benefits they are entitled to. Process applications promptly and accurately through our shared service with Anglia Revenues Partnership (ARP) Business Plan Action: Continue to respond to changing government policy regarding Welfare Reform. Support Job Centre Plus with the roll out of Universal Credits across Fenland Portfolio Holder: Portfolio Holder for Finance Description Target 17/18 Achieved Cumulative for Variance (in-month 17/18 only) Performance Measure LPI CS4 8 days 8.6 days 9.5 days 1.5 Days taken to process Council days Tax support – new claims and changes LPI CS5 8 days 8.5 days 9.5 days 1.5 Days taken to process Housing days Benefit – new claims and changes The outstanding work position has remained healthy and relatively up to date since our Team Challenge day back in the summer. This ‘days to process’ figures continue to move but only marginally. We are continuing to work with staff to ensure best practices are followed and decisions on new claims and changes in circumstances are made in as timely a fashion as possible. Universal Credit The rollout of Universal Credit (UC) continues; we’ve been live in Fenland for single people for a year. Peterborough Jobcentre Plus went live with full service (that’s a move from just single people to all people) on 15/11/17, affecting PE7 1 and PE7 2 postcodes of Whittlesey and surrounding area.
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure Delivery Plan Infrastructure Delivery Plan
    Huntingdonshire District Council Huntingdonshire District Council Infrastructure Delivery Plan Infrastructure Delivery Plan | This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client. It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party. Job number 252705-00 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd 13 Fitzroy Street London W1T 4BQ United Kingdom www.arup.com Huntingdonshire District Council Huntingdonshire District Council Infrastructure Delivery Plan Infrastructure Delivery Plan Contents Page Executive Summary 2 1 Introduction 8 1.1 Purpose of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan 8 1.2 Structure of this Report 8 2 Policy Context for Infrastructure Delivery 12 2.1 National Policy Context 12 2.2 Sub-Regional Context 13 2.3 Local Policy Context 14 3 Social and Economic Portrait of Huntingdonshire District 18 4 Methodology 22 4.1 Assessment of Scope 22 4.2 Overview of Methodology 23 4.3 Development Quantum 26 4.4 Infrastructure Commitments 28 4.5 Forecast Modelling 28 5 Transport 34 5.1 Highways 34 5.2 Rail network 43 5.3 Bus Network 45 5.4 Walking and Cycling 51 5.5 Funding Mechanisms 54 6 Education 58 6.1 Early Years and Childcare 58 6.2 Primary Schools 62 6.3 Secondary Schools and Post 16 Education 69 6.4 Post-16 Education 74 6.5 Funding Mechanisms 75 6.6 Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) 76 7 Libraries and Lifelong Learning 82 7.1 Libraries and Lifelong Learning 82 8 Health and Social Care 88 8.1 Primary Healthcare Overview 88 | | \\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\LONDON\PTG\ICL-JOBS\252000\252705-00
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
    160loaeqJrv lelrlsnpul rol uo!le!cossv ASlrr Ual3d oNv NlHS'rvs 13clN I 1; I r.. i lb*- '' ----.,-ltf' ,l I I ! ,l HCnOUOsUfrfd ? futHsfcoluguuvc lo Aco'roSvHcuv lVIUISNONI f Hr or f ornc v col{TE1{TS ntroduct on 1 5 Hunt ngdonsh re 1 Cambridge I 6 Peterborough 46 2 South Cambridgesh re 17 Blbliography 50 3 East Cambridgeshire 2l lndex of places 52 4 Fen and 34 Key l\.4ap to Distr cts 53 Published by the Association for lndustrial Archaeology 2001 O The aulhors and the Associaton for lndustra Archaeology 2001 Photographs @ Nigel Balchin 2001 tsBN0952893045 While we have attempted to ensure that the deta ls in this Guide are correct, neither the authors nor the publishers can accept liabilty for any loss or damage resulting from inaccuracy. All maps reproduced lrom Ordnance Survey mapping on behaH ol The Controller ol Her Maiesty's Stationary Office: O Crown Copyflghl MC 100026772 2oo1 SITE INFORI\,4ATION The Gazetteer is arranged in sections, according to the e ectoral Districts. Entries are arranged n alpha- betical order oi town/village Each gazetteer record has a letter showing the D str cl, fo lowed by a site number shown on the location rnaps at the beg nning of each section. An entry for'Access'rnd cates whetherthe site s visible f rom the road, or how it can be seen from a point to wh ch the pub ic has access, such as a publc or permitted footpath. ln the case of N,4useums and other sites regularly open to the publ c there w ll be an ndication of opening hours, and machinery running t mes f app icable, in 2001, and phone numbers and other contact points.
    [Show full text]