DOCSLIB.ORG

Bedfordshire Bedford BC 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bedfordshire Bedford BC 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Total complaints Maladministration No No determined (excluding and injustice Maladministration maladministration maladministration Ombudsman's Outside premature complaints) reports Local settlements reports reports without report discretion jurisdiction Authority 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 Bedfordshire Bedford BC 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 Bedford BC (former authority) 5 7 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 2 Bedfordshire CC (former authority) 6 29 2 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 7 2 6 Central Bedfordshire C 7 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 Luton BC 33 32 1 3 10 3 0 0 0 0 12 13 6 6 4 7 Mid Bedfordshire DC (former authority) 5 12 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 4 1 1 South Bedfordshire DC (former authority) 3 9 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 1 1 0 Berkshire Bracknell Forest C 6 15 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 5 3 1 5 0 0 Reading BC 27 30 0 0 5 9 0 0 0 0 7 9 7 4 8 8 Slough BC 22 39 0 1 5 13 0 0 0 0 9 13 3 9 5 3 West Berkshire C 13 32 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 7 17 4 8 1 4 Windsor & Maidenhead RB 18 25 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 5 10 7 6 2 5 Wokingham C 35 21 0 0 9 5 0 0 0 0 15 11 5 3 6 2 Bristol Bristol City C 96 120 0 30 19 11 0 0 0 0 42 37 17 23 18 19 Buckinghamshire Aylesbury Vale DC 11 18 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 9 2 7 5 1 Buckinghamshire CC 89 64 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 1 46 44 15 9 22 4 Chiltern DC 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 1 2 Milton Keynes C 24 33 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 11 16 3 3 8 7 South Bucks DC 6 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 5 0 0 0 1 Wycombe DC 20 18 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 9 10 2 3 5 2 Cambridgeshire Cambridge City C 20 10 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 8 4 6 0 3 0 Cambridgeshire CC 18 23 0 0 7 6 0 0 0 0 4 10 5 4 2 3 East Cambridgeshire DC 10 9 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 3 1 1 1 Fenland DC 13 8 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 9 5 1 1 1 0 Huntingdonshire DC 7 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 4 1 1 1 Peterborough City C 24 24 0 1 4 5 0 0 0 0 12 8 6 9 2 1 South Cambridgeshire DC 22 17 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 10 10 7 2 3 3 Cheshire Cheshire CC (former authority) 17 38 1 1 4 5 0 0 0 0 4 26 6 4 2 2 Cheshire East C 41 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 18 0 3 0 Cheshire West & Chester C 19 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 7 0 2 0 Chester City C (former authority) 7 8 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 2 1 1 Congleton BC (former authority) 4 4 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 Crewe & Nantwich BC (former authority) 2 17 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 8 1 1 Ellesmere Port & Neston BC (former authority) 1 9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 4 0 0 Halton BC 16 18 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 8 8 1 6 4 2 Macclesfield BC (former authority) 9 15 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 3 5 0 2 Vale Royal BC (former authority) 4 11 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 4 2 0 Warrington BC 21 41 0 0 5 8 0 0 0 0 7 18 7 13 2 2 Cleveland Hartlepool BC 10 11 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 5 5 3 1 2 Total complaints Maladministration No No determined (excluding and injustice Maladministration maladministration maladministration Ombudsman's Outside premature complaints) reports Local settlements reports reports without report discretion jurisdiction Authority 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 Middlesbrough BC 14 18 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 7 7 4 3 1 3 Redcar & Cleveland BC 22 20 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 6 9 10 4 2 4 Stockton-on-Tees BC 18 24 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 11 11 3 6 3 2 Cornwall Caradon DC (former authority) 14 35 0 4 *311 0 0 0 0 5 11 5 8 1 1 Carrick DC (former authority) 10 17 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 2 7 4 3 1 3 Cornwall C 50 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 4 0 17 0 Cornwall CC (former authority) 12 38 0 1 4 15 0 0 0 0 7 15 0 5 1 2 Isles of Scilly, Council for the 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Kerrier DC (former authority) 10 22 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 5 10 3 2 0 2 North Cornwall DC (former authority) 4 16 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 10 0 3 0 1 Penwith DC (former authority) 6 30 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 18 0 6 0 4 Restormel BC (former authority) 8 23 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 4 8 0 10 1 3 Cumbria Allerdale BC 4 19 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 7 2 5 Barrow-in-Furness BC 6 6 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 1 0 0 Carlisle City C 5 11 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 8 2 1 1 0 Copeland BC 3 13 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 7 1 2 0 2 Cumbria CC 33 23 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 9 7 13 10 6 3 Eden DC 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 South Lakeland DC 9 12 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 7 6 0 2 0 3 Derbyshire Amber Valley DC 13 11 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 7 6 3 2 2 1 Bolsover DC 11 12 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 7 5 1 4 1 2 Chesterfield BC 12 20 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 6 11 3 4 1 1 Derby City C 50 37 0 0 27 17 0 0 0 0 11 10 9 8 3 2 Derbyshire CC 28 30 0 0 8 6 0 0 0 0 9 9 7 11 4 4 Derbyshire Dales DC 6 7 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 1 0 1 Erewash BC 5 21 0 0 1 10 0 0 0 0 2 4 1 4 1 3 High Peak BC 11 13 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 4 7 4 2 0 2 North East Derbyshire DC 15 19 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 7 7 3 6 3 4 South Derbyshire DC 13 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 4 1 2 2 1 Devon Devon CC 38 26 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 0 15 13 10 2 9 5 East Devon DC 18 40 0 2 *014 0 0 0 0 11 13 5 4 2 7 Exeter City C 17 18 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 10 9 2 4 3 3 Mid Devon DC 12 15 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 8 8 1 2 2 1 North Devon DC 17 25 0 5 *22 0 0 0 0 10 11 4 2 1 5 Plymouth City C 48 59 0 1 11 6 0 0 0 0 25 33 5 9 7 10 South Hams DC 11 8 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 4 3 1 1 Teignbridge DC 8 12 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 9 3 1 2 1 Torbay BC 26 35 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 11 19 4 6 7 7 Torridge DC 12 20 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 6 14 2 2 3 0 West Devon BC 10 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 1 2 0 Dorset Bournemouth BC 28 26 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 18 10 5 8 3 4 Christchurch BC 10 9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 5 6 2 1 1 Dorset CC 15 23 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 8 9 6 6 1 2 Total complaints Maladministration No No determined (excluding and injustice Maladministration maladministration maladministration Ombudsman's Outside premature complaints) reports Local settlements reports reports without report discretion jurisdiction Authority 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 East Dorset DC 11 5 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 1 4 1 North Dorset DC 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 Poole BC 23 50 0 1 3 6 0 0 0 0 12 21 5 11 3 11 Purbeck DC 4 7 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 2 1 West Dorset DC 8 11 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 3 1 4 1 3 Weymouth & Portland BC 6 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 1 2 1 2 Durham Chester-le-Street DC (former authority) 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 1 0 2 Darlington BC 21 27 0 1 7 11 0 0 0 0 8 6 3 5 3 4 Derwentside DC (former authority) 6 16 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 3 7 2 5 0 1 Durham C, County of 36 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 7 0 9 0 Durham CC (former authority) 20 17 0 0 7 3 0 0 0 0 6 10 5 3 2 1 Durham City C (former authority) 8 16 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 2 9 3 2 0 1 Easington DC (former authority) 1 24 0 3 *09 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 0 2 Sedgefield DC (former authority) 7 9 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 4 2 1 2 1 3 Teesdale DC (former authority) 2 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 Wear Valley DC 5 8 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 1 1 2 East Sussex Brighton & Hove City C 67 85 1 0 17 10 0 0 0 0 32 46 10 16 7 13 East Sussex CC 27 39 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 12 19 8 12 2 4 Eastbourne BC 14 14 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 4 5 3 4 3 4 Hastings BC 14 26 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 6 18 3 3 1 3 Lewes DC 5 7 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 1 0 0 Rother DC 12 18 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 5 8 4 2 3 2 Wealden DC 9 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 20 0 6 4 3 East Riding of Yorkshire C 62 70 0 0 10 13 0 0 0 0 29 34 14 17 9 6 Kingston upon Hull City C 72 57 0 0 22 15 0 0 0 0 34 29 11 7 5 6 Essex Basildon DC 38 39 0 4 *1015 0 0 0 0 18 14 4 3 6 3 Braintree DC 7 15 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 11 6 1 0 1 Brentwood BC 7 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 3 2 0 0 1 Castle Point BC 12 10 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 6 2 3 4 0 2 Chelmsford BC 10 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 3 1 1 0 Colchester BC 21 27 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 10 12 6 12 1 1 Epping Forest DC 8 10 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 4 0 2 1 3 Essex CC 80 78 1 1 11 13 0 0 0 0 38 37 15 15 15 12 Harlow DC 19 15 0 0 7 6 0 0 0 0 8 3 2 4 2 2 Maldon DC 4 8 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 1 3 Rochford DC 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 1 1 2 0 Southend-on-Sea BC 19 31 0 0 4 10 0 0 0 1 7 12 3 4 5 4 Tendring DC 12 22 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 6 13 3 3 2 3 Thurrock BC 46 39 1 0 15 14 0 0 0 0 19 14 10 10 1 1 Uttlesford DC 7 10 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 4 6 1 2 1 0 Gloucestershire Cheltenham BC 11 8 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 5 3 3 4 1 0 Cotswold DC 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 1 2 0 2 Forest of Dean DC 12 8 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 3 4 4 2 Gloucester City C 9 15 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 8 10 0 1 1 0 Total complaints Maladministration No No determined (excluding and injustice Maladministration maladministration maladministration Ombudsman's Outside premature complaints) reports Local settlements reports reports without report discretion jurisdiction Authority 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 2009/10 2008/09 Gloucestershire CC 26 25 0 1 4 6 0 0 0 0 12 14 5 2 5 2 South Gloucestershire C 33 30 0 0 7 10 0 0 0 0 15 11 5 8 6 1 Stroud DC 13 9 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 2 1 0 Tewkesbury BC 8 12 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 1 1 6 Greater Manchester Bolton MBC 44 48 0 0 10 8 0 0 0 0 21 28 8 11 5 1 Bury MBC 34 34 1 0 8 11 0 0 0 0 10 10 13 8 2 5 Manchester City C 101 80 1 0 30 27 0 0 0 0 27 18 26 18 17 17 Oldham MBC 28 43 0 0 8 9 0 0 0 0 5 16 8 10 7 8 Rochdale MBC 23 21 0 0 4 9 0 0 0 0 7 6 7 4 5 2 Salford City C 34 50 0 0 10 13 0 0 0 0 11 24 9 7 4 6 Stockport MBC 50 47 0 0 11 8 0 0 0 0 17 17 12 16 10 6 Tameside MBC 27 31 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 11 21 9 4 4 3 Trafford MBC 22 34 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 14 14 0 15 5 0 Wigan MBC 45 39 0 0 11 5 0 0 0 1 15 25 14 7 5 1 Hampshire Basingstoke & Deane BC 16 8 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 8 4 2 1 5 1 East Hampshire DC 12 12 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 12 0 0 1 Eastleigh BC 12 11 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 6 3 1 3 3 3 Fareham BC 11 14 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 4 2 7 0 2 Gosport BC 19 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 1 9 1 3 1 Hampshire CC 38 34 0 0 7 3 0 0 0 0 19 20 6 9 6 2 Hart DC 8 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 1 0 1 0 Havant BC 13 8 2* 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 3 0 1 3 New Forest DC 19 15 0 0 2 0
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sid Site Detail
    SID SITE DETAIL Community Area Field1.FileData Salisbury Parish Salisbury Location Brown Street Postcode SP1 2AS Speed Limit Date of Last Metrocount 20mph Direction of traffic 85%ile Speed Mounting Location No of Vehicles Lamp column outside Alzheimers Society ID Next Metrocount Due 232 Community Area Field1.FileData South West Wiltshire Parish Chilmark Location B3089 Salisbury Road, Chilmark Postcode SP3 5AH Speed Limit Date of Last Metrocount 30mph Direction of traffic 85%ile Speed Mounting Location No of Vehicles On HGV sign opp The Reeds ID Next Metrocount Due 240 02 January 2013 Page 47 of 71 SID SITE DETAIL Community Area Field1.FileData South West Wiltshire Parish Bishopstone Location High Rd Bishopstone Postcode SP5 4AG Speed Limit Date of Last Metrocount 30mph Direction of traffic 85%ile Speed Mounting Location No of Vehicles Nr Whitlock Rise Development ‐ new pole required ID Next Metrocount Due 241 Community Area Field1.FileData South West Wiltshire Parish Dinton Location Hindon Road, Dinton Postcode SP3 5DX Speed Limit Date of Last Metrocount 30mph Direction of traffic 85%ile Speed Mounting Location No of Vehicles 30mph repeater nr Tynedale's Meadow ID Next Metrocount Due 243 02 January 2013 Page 48 of 71 SID SITE DETAIL Community Area Field1.FileData South West Wiltshire Parish Broad Chalke Location High Lane Postcode SP5 5HA Speed Limit Date of Last Metrocount 30mph Direction of traffic 85%ile Speed Mounting Location No of Vehicles On warning sign post outside Timperley House ID Next Metrocount Due 245 Community Area Field1.FileData
    [Show full text]
  • THE LONDON GAZETTE, 3 JUNE, 1924. 4447 in the County of Lancaster
    THE LONDON GAZETTE, 3 JUNE, 1924. 4447 In the county of Lancaster. 8. An Area comprising: — The county boroughs of St. Helens and In the county of Gloucester. Warrington. The borough of Leigh. The petty sessional division of Campden. The petty sessional division of Warrington, In the county of Oxford. and The parishes of Claydon, Clattercote, The parishes of Bold, Ashton-in-Makerfield, Mollington, Copredy, Bourton, Hamwell, Abram, Lowton, Kenyon, and Culcheth. Horley, Hornton, Wroxton, Dray ton, North Newington, East Shutford, West Shutford, In the county of Salop. Swalcliffe, Sibford Ferris, Sibford Gower, The borough of Oswestry. Epwell, Shenington, and Alkerton. The petty sessional division of Oswestry, and In the county of Northampton. The parishes of Ellesmere Rural, Bllesmere The borough of Daventry. Urban, Welshampton, Whitchurch Rural, Whitchurch Urban, Ightfield, and Ruyton of The petty sessional division of Daventry, the Eleven Towns. and The parishes of Upper Boddington, Lower In the county of Denbigh. Boddington, Bugbrooke, Kislingbury, Upton, The borough of Wrexham, and Harpole, Upper Heyford, Nether Hey ford, The petty sessional divisions of Bromfield, Floore, Brington, Althorp, Harlestone, Church liuabon, and Brampton, Chapel Brampton, Spratton, Holdenby, East Haddon, Ravensthorpe, The parish of Chirk. Teeton, Great Creaton, Cottesbrooke, Hollo- In the county of Flint. well, Coton, Guilsborough, Thornby, Cold The petty sessional divisions of Hope, and Ashby, Welford, Sulby, Hothorpe, Marston Overton, and the detached part of the petty Trussell, Sibertoft, Olipston, Naseby, Hasel- sessional division of Hawarden. bech, Kelmarsh, and Maidwell. 6. An Area comprising: — In the county of Worcester. In the couniy of Stafford. The borough of Stourbridge.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Review Portfolio Holders
    Appendix Title: Local Government Re-organisation – Judicial Review Portfolio Holders: Cllr Graham Payne, Leader Cllr Rod Eaton, Change and Integration Portfolio Holder Reporting Officer: Nicola Mathiason - Head of Legal and Democratic Services Andrew Pate - Chief Executive Key Decision: No ______________________________________________________________ Purpose • To decide whether to redirect the Council's legal efforts and resources, from a separate judicial review, to support for the Shrewsbury and Atcham and Congleton appeal. Background • On 8 August 2007 Cabinet agreed that the Council should commence legal proceedings for Judicial Review against the Secretary of State’s decision about Local Government Reorganisation in Wiltshire. The Council’s case has been ‘on hold’ until the result of the Shrewsbury and Congleton Judicial Review was known. The judgement in this case has now been delivered. The judicial review was unsuccessful. The High Court Judge held that the Secretary of State had common law powers available to her to carry out the process, that she did not have to be satisfied that a proposal met the criteria at the time of the assessment and that she had not acted irrationally. Key Issues • Advice has been taken from our Counsel (who also acts for Shrewsbury and Congleton) on whether we should now continue with our case in the light of the Shrewsbury judgement. We have been advised that unless the Shrewsbury judgement is appealed successfully we cannot effectively progress our case. The grounds of our case are similar and the arguments we would raise are much the same as Shrewsbury raised. We have been advised that we should focus on supporting an appeal by Shrewsbury and Congleton.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Government Review in the Derwentside District Council Area, County Durham
    Local Government Review in the Derwentside District Council Area, County Durham Research Study Conducted for The Boundary Committee for England April 2004 Contents Introduction 3 Summary of Key Findings 5 Methodology 7 Definitions of Social Grade and Area 11 Topline Findings (Marked-up Questionnaire) 13 Introduction This summary report presents the key findings of research conducted by the MORI Social Research Institute on behalf of The Boundary Committee for England in the Derwentside District Council area, County Durham. The aim of the research was to establish residents’ views about alternative patterns of unitary local government. Background to the Research In May 2003, the Government announced that a referendum would take place in autumn 2004 in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber regions on whether there should be elected regional assemblies. The Government indicated that, where a regional assembly is set up, the current two-tier structure of local government - district, borough or city councils (called in this report ‘districts’) and county councils - should be replaced by a single tier of ‘unitary’ local authorities. In June 2003, the Government directed The Boundary Committee for England (‘the Committee’) to undertake an independent review of local government in two-tier areas in the three regions, with a view to recommending possible unitary structures to be put before affected local people in a referendum at a later date. MORI was commissioned by COI Communications, on behalf of the Committee, to help it gauge local opinion. The research was in two stages. First, in summer 2003, MORI researched local residents’ views about local government and how they identify with their local community.
    [Show full text]
  • What the Crown May Do
    WHAT THE CROWN MAY DO 1. It is now established, at least at the level of the Court of Appeal (so that Court has recently stated)1, that, absent some prohibition, a Government minister may do anything which any individual may do. The purpose of this paper is to explain why this rule is misconceived and why it, and the conception of the “prerogative” which it necessarily assumes, should be rejected as a matter of constitutional law. 2. The suggested rule raises two substantive issues of constitutional law: (i) who ought to decide in what new activities the executive may engage, in what circumstances and under what conditions; and (ii) what is the scope for abuse that such a rule may create and should it be left without legal control. 3. As Sir William Wade once pointed out (in a passage subsequently approved by the Appellate Committee2), “The powers of public authorities are...essentially different from those of private persons. A man making his will may, subject to any rights of his dependants, dispose of his property just as he may wish. He may act out of malice or a spirit of revenge, but in law this does not affect his exercise of power. In the same way a private person has an absolute power to release a debtor, or, where the law permits, to evict a tenant, regardless of his motives. This is unfettered discretion.” If a minister may do anything that an individual may do, he may pursue any purpose which an individual may do when engaged in such activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Derwentside College
    REPORT FROM THE INSPECTORATE Derwentside College August 1997 THE FURTHER EDUCATION FUNDING COUNCIL THE FURTHER EDUCATION FUNDING COUNCIL The Further Education Funding Council has a legal duty to make sure further education in England is properly assessed. The FEFC’s inspectorate inspects and reports on each college of further education every four years. The inspectorate also assesses and reports nationally on the curriculum and gives advice to the FEFC’s quality assessment committee. College inspections are carried out in accordance with the framework and guidelines described in Council Circular 93/28. They involve full-time inspectors and registered part-time inspectors who have knowledge and experience in the work they inspect. Inspection teams normally include at least one member who does not work in education and a member of staff from the college being inspected. Cheylesmore House Quinton Road Coventry CV1 2WT Telephone 01203 863000 Fax 01203 863100 © FEFC 1997 You may photocopy this report. CONTENTS Paragraph Summary Introduction 1 The college and its aims 2 Responsiveness and range of provision 10 Governance and management 19 Students’ recruitment, guidance and support 30 Teaching and the promotion of learning 40 Students’ achievements 50 Quality assurance 61 Resources 70 Conclusions and issues 80 Figures GRADE DESCRIPTORS The procedures for assessing quality are set out in the Council Circular 93/28. During their inspection, inspectors assess the strengths and weaknesses of each aspect of provision they inspect. Their assessments are set out in the reports. They also use a five-point grading scale to summarise the balance between strengths and weaknesses. The descriptors for the grades are: • grade 1 – provision which has many strengths and very few weaknesses • grade 2 – provision in which the strengths clearly outweigh the weaknesses • grade 3 – provision with a balance of strengths and weaknesses • grade 4 – provision in which the weaknesses clearly outweigh the strengths • grade 5 – provision which has many weaknesses and very few strengths.
    [Show full text]
  • 2004 No. 3211 LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ENGLAND The
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2004 No. 3211 LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ENGLAND The Local Authorities (Categorisation) (England) (No. 2) Order 2004 Made - - - - 6th December 2004 Laid before Parliament 10th December 2004 Coming into force - - 31st December 2004 The First Secretary of State, having received a report from the Audit Commission(a) produced under section 99(1) of the Local Government Act 2003(b), in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by section 99(4) of that Act, hereby makes the following Order: Citation, commencement and application 1.—(1) This Order may be cited as the Local Authorities (Categorisation) (England) (No.2) Order 2004 and shall come into force on 31st December 2004. (2) This Order applies in relation to English local authorities(c). Categorisation report 2. The English local authorities, to which the report of the Audit Commission dated 8th November 2004 relates, are, by this Order, categorised in accordance with their categorisation in that report. Excellent authorities 3. The local authorities listed in Schedule 1 to this Order are categorised as excellent. Good authorities 4. The local authorities listed in Schedule 2 to this Order are categorised as good. Fair authorities 5. The local authorities listed in Schedule 3 to this Order are categorised as fair. (a) For the definition of “the Audit Commission”, see section 99(7) of the Local Government Act 2003. (b) 2003 c.26. The report of the Audit Commission consists of a letter from the Chief Executive of the Audit Commission to the Minister for Local and Regional Government dated 8th November 2004 with the attached list of local authorities categorised by the Audit Commission as of that date.
    [Show full text]
  • Green Infrastructure
    Wiltshire Local Development Framework Working towards a Core Strategy for Wiltshire Topic paper 11: Green infrastructure Wiltshire Core Strategy Consultation January 2012 Wiltshire Council Information about Wiltshire Council services can be made available on request in other languages including BSL and formats such as large print and audio. Please contact the council on 0300 456 0100, by textphone on 01225 712500 or by email on [email protected]. This paper is one of 16 topic papers, listed below, which form part of the evidence base in support of the emerging Wiltshire Core Strategy. These topic papers have been produced in order to present a coordinated view of some of the main evidence that has been considered in drafting the emerging Core Strategy. It is hoped that this will make it easier to understand how we have reached our conclusions. The papers are all available from the council website: Topic Paper 1: Climate Change Topic Paper 2: Housing Topic Paper 3: Settlement Strategy Topic Paper 4: Rural Signposting Tool Topic Paper 5: Natural Environment Topic Paper 6: Retail Topic Paper 7: Economy Topic Paper 8: Infrastructure and Planning Obligations Topic Paper 9: Built and Historic Environment Topic Paper 10: Transport Topic Paper 11: Green Infrastructure Topic Paper 12: Site Selection Process Topic Paper 13: Military Issues Topic Paper 14: Building Resilient Communities Topic Paper 15: Housing Requirement Technical Paper Topic Paper 16: Gypsy and Travellers Contents 1. Executive summary 1 2. Introduction 2 2.1 What is green infrastructure (GI)? 2 2.2 The benefits of GI 4 2.3 A GI Strategy for Wiltshire 5 2.4 Collaborative working 6 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Waste Collection Commitment Signatories
    Signatories to the Waste Collection Commitment North East Eastern Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council Peterborough City Council Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Fenland District Council Hartlepool Borough Council Tendring District Council Darlington Borough Council Maldon District Council Gateshead Council Colchester Borough Council Durham Council Chelmsford Borough Council Middlesbrough Council Castle Point Borough Council North Tyneside Borough Council Braintree District Council North Norfolk District Council North West St Edmundsbury Borough Council Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council Forest Heath District Council Hyndburn Borough Council Central Bedfordshire Council Fylde Borough Council South Cambridgeshire District Council Blackburn with Darwen Council Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Cheshire East Council Dacorum Borough Council Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council Broadland District Council Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council Hertsmere Borough Council Wyre Borough Council South Ribble Borough Council East Midlands Stockport Council Chesterfield Borough Council North West Leicestershire District Council West Midlands Charnwood Borough Council Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council Blaby District Council Stratford-on-Avon District Council West Lindsey District Council Shropshire Council North Kesteven District Council Wolverhampton City Council South Holland District Council Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Boston Borough Council Lichfield District Council South Kesteven District Council Stafford Borough Council Lincoln City
    [Show full text]
  • Case Study for Cornwall by REOC Renewable Energy for Commercial
    Case study for Cornwall by REOC Renewable energy for commercial and industrial buildings in Cornwall. REOC report WP5 “Contribution to the planning process” for SEIPLED TECHNO-ECONOMICAL PLANNING DOSSIER (TEP) November 2007 Contents 1 PROJECT AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................... 4 2 LOCAL CONDITIONS............................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 CORNWALL ECONOMIC STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT............................................................................ 4 2.2 CONVERGENCE PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................... 6 2.3 CORNWALL INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL SECTORS........................................................................ 7 2.4 CORNWALL INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS..................................................................... 8 3 CORNWALL INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL ENERGY USE ............................................. 14 3.1 HEAT DEMAND .................................................................................................................................... 16 4 BARRIERS TO RE IN INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE IN CORNWALL..................................... 18 5 OVERCOMING OBSTACLES TO RE IN CORNISH INDUSTRY.................................................. 19 5.1 DEVELOPMENT PHASE........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • THE RURAL ECONOMY of NORTH EAST of ENGLAND M Whitby Et Al
    THE RURAL ECONOMY OF NORTH EAST OF ENGLAND M Whitby et al Centre for Rural Economy Research Report THE RURAL ECONOMY OF NORTH EAST ENGLAND Martin Whitby, Alan Townsend1 Matthew Gorton and David Parsisson With additional contributions by Mike Coombes2, David Charles2 and Paul Benneworth2 Edited by Philip Lowe December 1999 1 Department of Geography, University of Durham 2 Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies, University of Newcastle upon Tyne Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Scope of the Study 1 1.2 The Regional Context 3 1.3 The Shape of the Report 8 2. THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE REGION 2.1 Land 9 2.2 Water Resources 11 2.3 Environment and Heritage 11 3. THE RURAL WORKFORCE 3.1 Long Term Trends in Employment 13 3.2 Recent Employment Trends 15 3.3 The Pattern of Labour Supply 18 3.4 Aggregate Output per Head 23 4 SOCIAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL DYNAMICS 4.1 Distribution of Employment by Gender and Employment Status 25 4.2 Differential Trends in the Remoter Areas and the Coalfield Districts 28 4.3 Commuting Patterns in the North East 29 5 BUSINESS PERFORMANCE AND INFRASTRUCTURE 5.1 Formation and Turnover of Firms 39 5.2 Inward investment 44 5.3 Business Development and Support 46 5.4 Developing infrastructure 49 5.5 Skills Gaps 53 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 55 References Appendices 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The scope of the study This report is on the rural economy of the North East of England1. It seeks to establish the major trends in rural employment and the pattern of labour supply.
    [Show full text]
  • To Download Your Cornwall Guide to Your Computer
    THE OFFICIAL MAGAZINE BRTRAVEL CULTURE HERITAGE ITA STYLE INDIGITAL GUIDE Explore CORNWALL'S COUNTRY LANES AND COASTLINE www.britain-magazine.com BRITAIN 1 The tiny, picturesque fishing port of Mousehole, near Penzance on Cornwall's south coast Coastlines country lanes Even& in a region as well explored as Cornwall, with its lovely coves, harbours and hills, there are still plenty of places that attract just a trickle of people. We’re heading off the beaten track in one of the prettiest pockets of Britain PHOTO: ALAMY PHOTO: 2 BRITAIN www.britain-magazine.com www.britain-magazine.com BRITAIN 3 Cornwall Far left: The village of Zennor. Centre: Fishing boats drawn up on the beach at Penberth. Above: Sea campion, a common sight on the cliffs. Left: Prehistoric stone circle known as the Hurlers ornwall in high summer – it’s hard to imagine a sheer cliffs that together make up one of Cornwall’s most a lovely place to explore, with its steep narrow lanes, lovelier place: a gleaming aquamarine sea photographed and iconic views. A steep path leads down white-washed cottages and working harbour. Until rolling onto dazzlingly white sandy beaches, from the cliff to the beach that stretches out around some recently, it definitely qualified as off the beaten track; since backed by rugged cliffs that give way to deep of the islets, making for a lovely walk at low tide. becoming the setting for British TV drama Doc Martin, Cgreen farmland, all interspersed with impossibly quaint Trevose Head is one of the north coast’s main however, it has attracted crowds aplenty in search of the fishing villages, their rabbit warrens of crooked narrow promontories, a rugged, windswept headland, tipped by a Doc’s cliffside house.
    [Show full text]