DOCSLIB.ORG

SF Appendix C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SF Appendix C LA Benchmarking Tables 2010-11 - Additional Information Table APPENDIX C Statistical Neighbours Col 1 Col 2 Col 3 Col 4 Col 5 Col 6 Col 7 Col 8 Col 9 Col 10 To print use the buttons below. Primary/secondary 2010-11 DSG Increase in DSG Planned Planned ratio of planned Percentage of nursery Guaranteed Unit per pupil from expenditure in Increase in nursery Increase in primary Increase in secondary Increase in special expenditure expenditure per schools receiving of Funding £ / baseline 2009-10 addition to DSG ISB per pupil from ISB per pupil from ISB per pupil from 2009- ISB per pupil from devolved to pupil (Total Schools Minimum Funding pupil to 2010-11 (£'000) in 2010-11 2009-10 to 2010-11 2009-10 to 2010-11 10 to 2010-11 2009-10 to 2010-11 schools (%) budget) for 2010-11 Guarantee for 2010-11 ENGLAND - Average (mean) 4,398 4.3% - 5.0% 4.0% 3.5% 5.0% 88.8% 82.5% 35.3% ENGLAND - Average (median) 4,308 4.2% 0 4.2% 3.8% 3.5% 3.3% 88.5% 81.0% 0.0% ENGLAND - Minimum 3,888 3.8% 0 -57.5% -7.1% -12.3% -33.0% 82.3% 66.7% 0.0% ENGLAND - Maximum 6,792 5.0% 7,794 171.5% 14.9% 26.7% 497.4% 95.1% 105.9% 100.0% Average (median) 4,212 4.3% 0 5.3% 4.0% 4.0% 3.7% 87.5% 79.8% 0.0% Minimum 4,093 4.0% 0 -42.4% -1.1% 1.5% -15.0% 82.3% 75.0% 0.0% Maximum 4,378 4.6% 3,321 29.6% 5.3% 10.2% 497.4% 90.2% 90.2% 100.0% 867 Bracknell Forest 4,367 4.6% 0 .. 4.1% 10.2% 10.4% 84.2% 75.1% 0.0% 919 Hertfordshire 4,212 4.3% 0 1.8% 5.3% 3.1% 2.5% 89.8% 75.0% 0.0% 823 Central Bedfordshire 4,094 4.0% 0 -42.4% 3.6% 5.7% 7.0% 88.9% 90.2% 75.0% 869 West Berkshire 4,321 4.5% 0 3.4% 3.9% 4.1% 107.6% 90.2% 79.0% 100.0% 825 Buckinghamshire 4,216 4.3% 0 0.2% 4.6% 4.6% 497.4% 82.3% 86.1% 0.0% 850 Hampshire 4,132 4.2% 128 8.8% 3.3% 2.7% 3.9% 87.5% 81.0% 0.0% 936 Surrey 4,313 4.4% 1,324 5.2% 4.2% 3.5% 3.7% 87.8% 77.6% 100.0% 868 Windsor and Maidenhead 4,378 4.4% 0 5.3% -1.1% 1.5% -15.0% 86.0% 82.6% 75.0% 895 Cheshire East 4,110 4.2% 0 29.6% 2.7% 4.5% 2.8% 84.5% 82.6% 0.0% 931 Oxfordshire 4,182 4.3% 3,321 5.8% 5.1% 3.7% 3.0% 86.4% 78.2% 8.3% 873 Cambridgeshire 4,093 4.3% 1,109 17.2% 4.0% 4.0% 1.0% 88.8% 79.8% 0.0% * denotes pupil/population figures are not available ^ denotes zero pupils/ population in this category .. Pupil numbers in this category are zero in either or both years Section 251 data as at 26th August 2010 26/01/2011 1 of 4 LA Benchmarking Tables 2010-11 - Additional Information Table APPENDIX C Statistical Neighbours Col 11 Col 12 Col 13 Col 14 To print use the buttons below. Percentage of Central Expenditure Percentage of primary secondary schools Percentage of special from the Schools schools receiving receiving Minimum schools receiving Budget as a proportion Minimum Funding Funding Guarantee for Minimum Funding of allowed limit for Guarantee for 2010-11 2010-11 Guarantee for 2010-11 2010-11 ENGLAND - Average (mean) 25.6% 17.0% 20.9% 100.6% ENGLAND - Average (median) 19.6% 7.9% 0.0% 100.2% ENGLAND - Minimum 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 61.8% ENGLAND - Maximum 73.9% 100.0% 100.0% 150.9% Average (median) 14.9% 5.0% 0.0% 97.0% Minimum 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 80.0% Maximum 68.9% 76.9% 38.5% 106.7% 867 Bracknell Forest 3.2% 33.3% 0.0% 104.7% 919 Hertfordshire 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 97.0% 823 Central Bedfordshire 32.6% 15.2% 0.0% 90.0% 869 West Berkshire 34.8% 0.0% 0.0% 94.6% 825 Buckinghamshire 14.9% 6.1% 0.0% 95.2% 850 Hampshire 28.3% 16.9% 0.0% 99.1% 936 Surrey 14.9% 3.8% 13.0% 99.9% 868 Windsor and Maidenhead 68.9% 76.9% 0.0% 102.2% 895 Cheshire East 12.1% 5.0% 0.0% 96.1% 931 Oxfordshire 4.3% 0.0% 38.5% 80.0% 873 Cambridgeshire 4.9% 3.3% 0.0% 106.7% * denotes pupil/population figures are not available ^ denotes zero pupils/ population in this category .. Pupil numbers in this category are zero in either or both years Section 251 data as at 26th August 2010 26/01/2011 2 of 4 LA Benchmarking Tables 2010-11 - Additional Information Table APPENDIX C Statistical Neighbours Col 15 Col 16 Col 17 Col 18 Col 19 Col 20 Col 21 Col 22 Further gross per capita breakdown (Seleted lines from Table 1 divided by relevant pupils/ Further net per capita bre To print use the buttons below. population) Pupils at independent special Pupils at independent special schools & abroad (line 1.2.4) schools & abroad (line 1.2.4) and fees to independent Total children and young and fees to independent schools for pupils without SEN Pupil referral units Education out of SEN transport (line Total children looked after people's safety (line schools for pupils without SEN Pupil referral units (line (line 1.2.6) (line 1.3.1) school (line 1.3.3) 1.2.5) (line 6.0.13) 6.1.5) (line 1.2.6) 1.3.1) ENGLAND - Average (mean) 47,653 16,591 25,713 2,545 47,183 10,535 46,622 15,605 ENGLAND - Average (median) 51,744 18,436 30,354 2,521 46,546 8,453 50,943 16,925 ENGLAND - Minimum 8,020 1,772 0 0 23,787 360 7,493 1,216 ENGLAND - Maximum 146,522 66,312 1,259,962 8,026 93,580 33,805 146,522 66,312 Average (median) 64,037 16,287 43,738 2,695 53,547 8,958 63,305 16,263 Minimum 8,020 12,824 9,379 2,014 40,308 3,701 7,493 12,760 Maximum 115,139 30,208 149,161 3,483 64,893 16,401 115,139 27,304 867 Bracknell Forest 50,943 13,325 ^ 2,014 52,329 13,861 50,943 13,184 919 Hertfordshire 66,809 22,019 42,442 2,879 53,516 6,380 66,809 22,019 823 Central Bedfordshire 52,566 ^ 149,161 3,483 * * 39,320 ^ 869 West Berkshire 67,361 16,263 29,676 2,695 57,757 9,936 63,305 16,263 825 Buckinghamshire 64,037 12,824 9,379 2,208 60,763 16,401 64,037 12,760 850 Hampshire 45,914 13,247 45,034 3,326 40,308 3,701 45,914 13,247 936 Surrey 58,024 30,208 72,260 3,480 52,621 11,345 58,024 27,304 868 Windsor and Maidenhead 65,309 21,866 35,468 2,014 53,547 7,129 65,309 21,718 895 Cheshire East 8,020 ^ 65,449 2,684 * * 7,493 ^ 931 Oxfordshire 115,139 16,287 121,797 2,855 53,735 8,958 115,139 15,942 873 Cambridgeshire 87,644 19,696 21,884 2,316 64,893 7,790 85,304 18,059 * denotes pupil/population figures are not available ^ denotes zero pupils/ population in this category .. Pupil numbers in this category are zero in either or both years Section 251 data as at 26th August 2010 26/01/2011 3 of 4 LA Benchmarking Tables 2010-11 - Additional Information Table APPENDIX C Statistical Neighbours Col 23 Col 24 Col 25 Col 26 eakdown (Seleted lines from Table 1 divided by relevant pupils/ To print use the buttons below. population) Total children Total children and Education out of SEN transport looked after (line young people's safety school (line 1.3.3) (line 1.2.5) 6.0.13) (line 6.1.5) ENGLAND - Average (mean) 24,246 2,500 43,543 9,160 ENGLAND - Average (median) 29,688 2,513 44,520 7,665 ENGLAND - Minimum 0 0 22,063 360 ENGLAND - Maximum 1,259,962 4,709 90,106 32,872 Average (median) 42,490 2,694 52,650 6,807 Minimum 8,738 2,005 38,903 3,548 Maximum 142,307 3,450 60,394 15,980 867 Bracknell Forest ^ 2,014 51,626 13,394 919 Hertfordshire 39,945 2,879 52,978 6,380 823 Central Bedfordshire 142,307 3,450 * * 869 West Berkshire 25,907 2,694 54,457 6,807 825 Buckinghamshire 8,738 2,202 58,667 15,980 850 Hampshire 45,034 3,326 38,903 3,548 936 Surrey 72,260 3,427 49,222 10,989 868 Windsor and Maidenhead 35,468 2,005 52,650 6,665 895 Cheshire East 64,588 2,684 * * 931 Oxfordshire 118,165 2,854 47,829 8,469 873 Cambridgeshire 21,584 2,304 60,394 6,713 * denotes pupil/population figures are not available ^ denotes zero pupils/ population in this category .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Luton & Central Bedfordshire
    Luton & Central Bedfordshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment Refresh 2014 Report of Findings June 2014 Opinion Research Services | The Strand • Swansea • SA1 1AF | 01792 535300 | www.ors.org.uk | info@ors.org.uk Opinion Research Services | Luton & Central Bedfordshire SHMA Refresh 2014 – Report of Findings June 2014 Opinion Research Services The Strand, Swansea SA1 1AF Jonathan Lee | David Harrison | Nigel Moore enquiries: 01792 535300 · info@ors.org.uk · www.ors.org.uk © Copyright June 2014 2 Opinion Research Services | Luton & Central Bedfordshire SHMA Refresh 2014 – Report of Findings June 2014 Contents Summary of Key Findings ................................................................................... 6 Luton and Central Bedfordshire SHMA Refresh 2014 6 Key Challenges ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Private Rented Sector .................................................................................................................................. 6 Local Economy ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Housing Delivery .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Benefit Reform ...........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • County Unitary/District Project Name Project Applicant
    Item 1 - Declarations of Interest County Unitary/District Project Name Project Applicant LOCAL GROWTH FUND £265m Buckinghamshire County Council The Exchange, Aylesbury (formerly known as Waterside North) AVDC Buckinghamshire County Council Digital Manufacturing Centre KWSP Bedford Borough Council Bedford Western Bypass Bedford Borough Council Bedford Borough Council Advanced Engineering Centre, Bedford College Bedford College Bedford Borough Council I-WORX Bedford Borough Council Bedford Borough Council Transporting Bedford 2020 Bedford Borough Council Bedford Borough Council Mark Rutherford School Trust STEM Training Centre Mark Rutherford School Trust Bedford Borough Council Hydroponics Growpura Ltd Central Bedfordshire Council Cranfield University Forensic Sciences Institute Cranfield University Central Bedfordshire Council /Milton Keynes Council MK: U - educational acceleration in digital skills Cranfield University Central Bedfordshire Council Dunstable High Street Central Bedfordshire Council Central Bedfordshire Council Smarter Routes to Employment Central Bedfordshire Council Central Bedfordshire Council Engineering and Construction Skills Leighton Buzzard Central Bedfordshire Council Central Bedfordshire Council Woodside Link Central Bedfordshire Council Central Bedfordshire Council A421 dualling Central Bedfordshire Council Central Bedfordshire Council MUEAVI Cranfield University Central Bedfordshire Council Millbrook Innovation Centre Millbrook Proving Ground Ltd Central Bedfordshire Council Millbrook Tyre Testing and Handling
    [Show full text]
  • Central Bedfordshire Council
    Central Bedfordshire Council 2011-12 Actuals and 2012-13 Estimates Comparison group: (r) Cheshire West and Chester (x) Bedford (f) Cheshire East (n) Warrington (m) Stockport (g) Wiltshire (t) South Gloucestershire (d) Solihull (h) Bury (w) Swindon (k) Bath & North East Somerset (z) Medway (u) West Berkshire (e) Milton Keynes (a) Calderdale Libraries_Profile Page 1 26/02/2013 FOREWORD I am pleased to be able to present the second edition of the CIPFAstats Comparative Profile for Public Library Services. These profiles provide a comprehensive analysis of public libraries data covering all the major topics collected in the CIPFAstats Public Libraries collection. This means that there should be something for everyone interested in the running of public library services. The analysis is simple and non-judgemental. You will not find any quartiles, traffic lights or subjective commentary. Instead the report seeks to visualise the data and to enable readers to draw their own conclusions. The "Executive Report" acts as a high level summary, but is also designed as an introduction to the whole report. Most readers will find reading through these pages helpful as an introduction to the style and logic of the more detailed pages. It is pleasing that DCMS have seen fit to commission these profiles for all English library authorities enabling local authorities and the public access to these reports without charge. This will aid everyone interested in public library services to ask informed questions and come up with informed proposals for how the services should be delivered in the future. We hope you find this report interesting and helpful.
    [Show full text]
  • BBC New Creatives 2020 – South East Frequently Asked Questions
    BBC New Creatives 2020 – South East Frequently Asked Questions Application Deadline: 17:00 Tuesday 23rd February 2021 When will applications open and close for Round 4b? Applications open on the 26th January 2021 and close on the 23rd February 2021 (17:00). Is it free to enter? Yes. Will I own my audio work? You, the Lead Creative will own the IP in the film, audio or interactive work and, after a ‘holdback’ period (between 3 months and 1 year, depending on whether the BBC broadcast your work), you will be able to share and promote it. Who is the Lead Creative? Lead Creatives are classified as the Writer, Producer and any other key person whose vision is being portrayed. Will I be paid? This is a talent development and training scheme, rather than a purely a commissioning scheme. All production costs come out of the budget for the film, including any artist fees. Allocation of funds will be a matter of discussion between you and your Producer. Why is it only for 16-30 years old? The project grants that fund the New Creatives opportunity are looking to address accepted challenges around diversity and entry points for younger people into the creative industries. And so, whilst this programme has a focus on giving opportunities to younger artists, there are many other schemes and funds available offered by Arts Council England and the BBC which have no age limit or are focused on other groups and demographics. Creatives looking for funding for digital focused projects are welcome to consider the Arts Council’s National Lottery Project Grants - an open funding scheme with opportunities for funding all year round.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Review 7Th May 2021 to 8Th June 2021
    Public Review 7th May 2021 to 8th June 2021 UK GIGABIT PROGRAMME REQUEST FOR INFORMATION Index 1. Introduction 3 2. Purpose of this Public Review 4 3. Proposed Areas - Eligible for Subsidy 5 4. Procurement and Commercial Approach 6 5. Participating / responding to this Public Review 7 6. Supplier Submission Requirements 8 7. Next Steps 9 Annex A: Data Submission Format 10 Annex B: Supporting Evidence 11 Annex C: Technology Definition 13 Annex D: Maps to show intervention areas 15 Annex E: Subsidy Control 16 2 Public Review - Lot 5 Cambridgeshire & Peterborough and surrounding areas New procurement to extend coverage of gigabit-capable broadband across Cambridgeshire & Peterborough and surrounding areas (including Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Rutland, Lincolnshire, Norfolk and Suffolk) Duration: To commence on 7th May 2021 and close on 8th June 2021. 1. Introduction The Government’s ambition is to deliver nationwide gigabit-capable broadband as soon as possible. We recognise that there is a need for government intervention in the parts of the country that are not commercially viable, this is why the Government has committed £5bn for the hardest to reach parts of the country, ensuring that all areas of the UK can benefit. This will be spent through a package of coordinated and mutually supportive interventions, collectively known as the UK Gigabit Programme. Connecting Cambridgeshire conducted an Open Market Review (OMR) for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough in December 2020. This OMR was then extended in February 2021 to include parts of Northamptonshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Rutland, Lincolnshire, Norfolk and Suffolk to understand from suppliers if there was any current or planned investment over the next three years in broadband infrastructure (Next Generation Access broadband, ultrafast and gigabit-capable).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Bedford Borough and Central Bedfordshire Adults Safeguarding
    Bedford Borough and Central Bedfordshire Adults Safeguarding Board Safeguarding Adult Review regarding Ms A: Executive Summary Introduction 1.1 This paper provides an executive summary of the process and outcomes of a safeguarding adult review (SAR) regarding Ms A, an adult at risk, which was undertaken due to ‘concern that partner agencies could have worked more effectively to protect the adult’. There were concerns that Ms A had been at risk of neglect and modern slavery when she was an in-patient on a Mental Health Ward. There had been a prolonged multi-agency investigation process, which endeavoured to safeguard Ms A. The decision to arrange a SAR was taken, under section 44 of the Care Act 2014, by the Bedford Borough and Central Bedfordshire Adults Board at its meeting on 15th August 2015. 1.2 The Safeguarding Adult Review was requested following a recommendation from the closing Adult Protection Case Conference held on 5th June 2015, due to ‘the complexity of the case, communication difficulties between agencies and the outcome of the case for the individual’. At this Case Conference it had been concluded that neglect within a situation amounting to modern slavery had been substantiated. 1.3 The Safeguarding Adult Review Report regarding Ms A was presented to the Bedford Borough and Central Bedfordshire Adults Safeguarding Board on 8th November 2016, and the recommendations agreed. 1.4 The Safeguarding Adults Board, in accepting the report, concluded that, whilst Ms A’s circumstances had been far from ideal, and the outcome of her leaving the UK suddenly left agencies with a sense of unease, there was no evidence that any agency had failed Ms A and she had been safeguarded as far as had been possible throughout the period.
    [Show full text]
  • Report to Central Bedfordshire Council
    The Planning Inspectorate Temple Quay House Report to Central 2 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN Bedfordshire Council 0117 372 8000 by John R Mattocks BSc(Sp. Hons) DipTP MRTPI FRGS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Date 18 September 2009 for Communities and Local Government PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE ACT 2004 SECTION 20 REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION INTO THE MID-BEDFORDSHIRE CORE STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT POLICIES DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT Document submitted for examination on 12th February 2009 Examination hearings held between 23rd June and 9th July 2009 Inspectors: Lead Inspector – John R Mattocks BSc(Sp.Hons) DipTP MRTPI FRGS Assistant Inspector – Jill C Kingaby BSc(Econ) MSc MRTPI File Ref(s): PINS/J0215/429/5 (LDF000980) Central Bedfordshire Council – Mid-Bedfordshire Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD Inspector’s Report 2009 Abbreviations used in this report AMR - Annual Monitoring Report Doc. No. - Document Number, reference to a document in the Examination Library DPD - Development Plan Document an LDD within the LDF EEP - The East of England Plan (the RSS) EERA - The East of England Regional Assembly ELR - Employment Land Review GI Plan - The Green Infrastructure Plan ha. - hectare(s) LDD - Local Development Document within the LDF LDF - Local Development Framework LDS - Local Development Scheme LNR - Local Nature Reserve MKSM - The Milton Keynes and South Midlands sub-regional strategy (a part of the RSS) pdl - previously developed land PPS (No.) - Planning Policy Statement
    [Show full text]
  • 2 the Geology of Greater Essex
    Essex County Council, Southend-on-Sea Borough Council and Thurrock Council Local Aggregate Assessment for Greater Essex October 2012 This document is published by Essex County Council Minerals & Waste Planning and forms part of the Minerals Planning evidence base for Essex County Council and Thurrock Council. You can contact us in the following ways: Helpline: 01245 435 555 (during office hours, Monday to Friday) Contact Essex: 0845 603 7624 (8am to 8pm, Monday to Friday, 9am to 12 noon, Saturday Mincom: 0845 758 5592 By fax: 01245 437 213 By post: Minerals and Waste Planning Environment, Sustainability and Highways Essex County Council Freepost CL 3636 E3 County Hall Chelmsford CM1 1QH By email: mineralsandwastepolicy@essex.gov.uk This document is available electronically at: INSERT WEBLINK The information contained in this document can be translated and / or made available in alternative formates on request CONTENTS 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Contents and Necessary Assumptions .................................................................... 1 1.3 Updating the Local Aggregate Assessment ............................................................ 2 1.4 Essex Minerals Document: Contextual Baseline Report, 2009 ............................... 2 1.5 Southend-on-Sea Core Strategy, 2007 ..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Older People Housing Needs Assessment Report for Brighton & Hove City Council
    Older People Housing Needs Assessment Report for Brighton & Hove City Council November 2019 – Final version Housing Learning and Improvement Network Ian Copeman, Lois Beech & Reuben Hastings Contents Executive summary ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................... 8 2. Context: The demographic profile and housing circumstances of the older population in Brighton & Hove .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 9 3. Existing supply of specialist housing and accommodation for older people .......................................... 15 4. Qualitative research with older people in Brighton & Hove ........................................................................... 20 Focus groups ........................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Older peoples housing preferences: survey results ................................................................................................. 22 5. Assessment of demand for specialist housing for older people ..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove, Local Aggregate
    East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Local Aggregate Assessment December 2017 East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove, Local Aggregate Assessment, December 2017 NOTE In September 2017 East Sussex County Council, Brighton & Hove City Council and the South Downs National Park Authority commenced a Review of their Waste and Minerals Local Plan. This year's LAA has been drafted for consideration by SEEAWP before the end of the consultation period for the Call for Evidence and Sites. In addition, adoption of the LAA is planned before formal consideration of the responses to the Call for Evidence and Sites. It would not therefore be appropriate to pre-empt possible changes in aggregate supply in this document and so discussion of future demand and supply scenarios will not be included. These details will be assessed at the next stage of the Waste and Minerals Local Plan Review process in 2018. East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove, Local Aggregate Assessment, December 2017 Contents Executive Summary 3 1 Introduction 9 2 Geology and mineral uses 12 3 Demand 14 4 Supply 20 5 Environmental constraints 32 6 Balance 34 7 Conclusions 37 A Past and Future Development 39 B Imports into plan area 44 C LAA Requirements 45 Map 1: Geological Plan including locations of aggregate wharves and railheads, and existing aggregate sites 48 Map 2: Origin of aggregate imported, produced and consumed in East Sussex and Brighton & Hove during 2014 50 Map 3: Sand and gravel resources in the East English Channel and Thames Estuary (Source: Crown Estate) 52 Map 4: Recycled and secondary aggregates sites 2016/17 54 East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove, Local Aggregate Assessment, December 2017 3 Executive Summary Executive Summary Executive Summary The first East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Local Aggregate Assessment (LAA) was published in December 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Bedfordshire Council
    Central Bedfordshire Council CIL DLP BRIEFING NOTE 218 Prepared by DLP Planning Ltd July 2015 DLP Planning Ltd Bedford Bristol Cardiff Leeds London Milton Keynes Nottingham Rugby Sheffield Disclaimer DLP Consulting Group Ltd, and its constituent companies disclaims any responsibility to the client and others in respect of matters outside the scope of this Report. This Report has been prepared with reasonable skill, care and diligence, is the property of DLP Consulting Group, and is confidential to the client, DLP Consulting Group Ltd accepts no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties, to whom this report has been provided. Central Bedfordshire Council Executive Committee on the 31st March voted through the latest viability report recommending the CIL charging rates for residential and non-residential schemes in Central Bedfordshire. This sets out the draft charging schedule and Regulation 123 list to enable them to publish the document for consultation with a view to submission to the Secretary of State for Examination prior to formal adoption. In doing so Officers were given delegated powers to agree changes to the buffers and other minor changes, future exemptions and payment plan timeframes following consultation and Examination where necessary. Council has now published a Draft Charging Schedule and supporting documents for public th th consultation subject to approval of Full Council from the 13 July until the 24 August 2015. CIL charges are a fixed, non-negotiable and enforceable land development tax. The charges are based on the size of the proposed development or changes above that which exists and are expressed as a charge per square metre of net additional floor space created.
    [Show full text]
  • JCEB Revised Soft Sand Statement of Common Ground May 2020
    Central and Eastern Berkshire Authorities Joint Minerals and Waste Plan Statement of Common Ground between The Central and Eastern Berkshire Authorities and Buckinghamshire Council Central Bedfordshire Council Hampshire County Council Oxfordshire County Council Surrey County Council South Downs National Park Authority West Berkshire Council West Sussex Council Wiltshire Council On Soft sand supply 131 1. Introduction 1.1 This Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) is made between Bracknell Forest Council, Reading Borough Council, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and Wokingham Borough Council (collectively referred to as ‘Central & Eastern Berkshire Authorities’) and relevant authorities (the parties) that have some common interests in soft sand. 1.2 The SoCG is being prepared in line with plan-making guidance1, in order to comply with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)2. 1.3 The SoCG includes the administrative areas for the parties shown in Figure 1. It is recognised that as newer data becomes available on soft sand, the list of parties to this Statement may need to be reviewed. Figure 1: Administrative areas of Central & Eastern Berkshire Authorities 1.4 The parties are entering into this SoCG to address strategic cross-boundary soft sand supply issues that affect Central and Eastern Berkshire. 1 Planning Practice Guidance, Guidance on Plan-making, 13 September 2018, Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/plan-making 2 NPPF, para 27, July 2018, MHCLG - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy- framework--2 132 1.5 This SoCG is provided without prejudice to other matters of detail that the parties may wish to raise in the ongoing requirement to engage constructively and actively in plan preparation through the Duty to Cooperate, or in subsequent participation in the plan making process.
    [Show full text]