DOCSLIB.ORG

COUNTY of JEHYSH AN] I~S BOUNDARY WTH NOT" NGHAMSHHE LOCAL Govehhlfeht

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
COUNTY of JEHYSH AN] I~S BOUNDARY WTH NOT Review of Non-Metropolitan Counties COUNTY OF JEHYSH AN] I~S BOUNDARY WTH NOT" NGHAMSHHE LOCAL GOVEHHlfEHT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR EMC LAND REPORT -599 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Mr G J Ellerton MEMBERS Mr K F J Ennals Mr G R Prentice Mrs H R V Sarkany Mr C W Smith Professor K Young Hotelnghan.BC THE RT RON MICHAEL HESELTINE HP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REVIEW OF NON-METROPOLITAN COUNTIES THE COUNTY OF DERBYSHIRE: BOUNDARY WITH NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT AND PROPOSALS INTRODUCTION 1. On 2 September 1986 we wrote to Derbyshire County Council announcing our intention to undertake a review of the county under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. Copies of the letter were sent to the principal local authorities and constituent parishes in Derbyshire and in the surrounding counties of Cheshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire; to the National and the County Associations of Local Councils, to the 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, water authorities, and electricity and gas boards which might have an interest; and to British Telecom, the English Tourist Board, the local government press, and to local television and radio stations serving the area. 2. To enable the Commission to fulfil its obligations under Section 60(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, we requested the County Councils, in co-operation as necessary with other local authorities, to insert a notice for two successive weeks in local newspapers to give wide publicity to the start of the review in the areas concerned. We also asked the County Councils to ensure that the consultation letter was drawn to the attention of those services, such as the police and the administration of justice, in respect of which they had a statutory function. 3. A period of six months from the date of the letter was allowed for all local authorities, including those in the surrounding counties, and any person or body interested in the review, to send us their detailed views on whether changes to the county boundary were desirable; and, if so, what those changes should be and how they would best meet the criterion of effective and convenient local government as prescribed by Section 47(1) of the 1972 Act. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE TO US 4. In response to our letter of 2 September 1986, we received representations from Derbyshire County Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, a number of other local authorities and a Member of Parliament, as well as from various organisations and bodies in the area. These are listed in Schedule 1 to this report. We also received individual representations from 40 members of the public. 5. The submissions made included several suggestions for change to Derbyshire's boundary with Nottinghamshire. These were essentially for minor rectification to take account of residential or industrial developments or changes in natural features such as the course of the River Erewash. They ranged from Steetley in the north, towards the South Yorkshire boundary, to Attenborough in the south. Details of these, and of our conclusions regarding them, are set out in the paragraphs below. 6. Suggestions for changes to Derbyshire's boundaries with Cheshire, Leicestershire and Staffordshire have already been considered in the context of the reviews of those counties. Reports concerning the boundaries with Cheshire (No 562), Leicestershire (No 577) and Staffordshire (No 582) have been sent to you separately. Derbyshire's boundaries with Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire are still under review and reports on them will be sent to you on completion. SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGES AND OUR INITIAL PROPOSALS (a) Attenborough to Trowell 7. Derbyshire County Council proposed realignment of the boundary, where necessary, to follow the new course of the River Erewash from Attenborough through Long Eaton, Toton Sidings and Sandiacre to Trowell. Nottinghamshire County Council's proposals corresponded with those of Derbyshire as they affected Toton . Sidings and Stapleford and the Council supported the remainder of Derbyshire County Council's proposals which affected Attenborough, Long Eaton and Trowell. Erewash Borough Council and Sandiacre Parish Council supported these suggestions. Sandiacre Parish Council commented that the current boundary, which had become less clear due to the altered course of the River Erewash, had been a source of contention resulting in duplication of services between Sandiacre (in Derbyshire) and Stapleford (in Nottinghamshire). The Parish Councils of Ockbrook and Trowell objected to any boundary change. 8. Most of the local authorities affected supported the proposed realignment of the boundary. We considered that, because Ockbrook parish was not coterminous with any part of the county boundary, the suggested changes would not directly affect that parish, and that any effect upon 'the parish of Trowell would be minimal. We concluded that the new course of the River Erewash would provide a clearly identifiable boundary between the two counties from Attenborough to Trowell and we therefore decided to adopt Derbyshire County Council's suggestion as our draft proposal. (b) Lanaley Mill/Eastwood 9. Derbyshire County Council suggested that the part of Eastwood, west of the A610, should be transferred from Nottinghamshire to Derbyshire, on the grounds that even the new course of the River Erewash no longer significantly separated the communities of Langley Mill and Eastwood. This would involve the transfer of a number of industrial premises and estate plots, a public house, and some residential properties in Mewmanleys Road, from Nottinghamshire to Derbyshire. The County Council's suggestion was supported by Aldercar and Langley Mill Parish Council. Nottinghamshire County Council and Eastwood Town Council opposed the suggestion on the grounds that the river-was a natural boundary; that the residents of Newmanleys Road looked to Eastwood for their services and shopping; and that if the suggestion was accepted it would have a detrimental effect on the provision of services. Two residents of Eastwood also expressed opposition to Derbyshire County Council's suggestion. 10. Although we considered the A610 was currently a substantial barrier between the two communities, we also accepted that residents 'of Newmanleys Road probably looked to Eastwood for their immediate requirements because of its easy access. We therefore decided to adopt as our draft proposal Derbyshire County Council's suggestion, but in part only. Our revision involved realignment of the boundary to follow the A610 from where it crossed the River Erewash, north of Eastwood, and as far south as the point where Anchor Road ran west from the A610. This route incorporated a minor technical amendment suggested by Ordnance Survey. We also considered that the River Erewash, south of Anchor Road, was no longer suitable as a boundary. We believed that the Erewash Canal, where it flowed between Anchor Road and the existing boundary to the south, would serve better as the county boundary and this realignment was included in our draft proposal. (c) Lanalev Mill to Pinxton Wharf 11. Derbyshire County Council suggested that its boundary with Nottinghamshire, from Langley Mill to Pinxton Wharf, be realigned where necessary, to follow the new course of the River Erewash. This would effectively transfer several small parcels of land between Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. Nottinghamshire County Council suggested a similar adjustment to the boundary but extended their suggestion to include the course of the river from Stapleford to Pinxton Wharf. (We explain our boundary proposals affecting the River Erewash between Stapleford and Langley Mill in paragraphs 17-10 above). 12." We noted that the river no longer followed the boundary at places where it had either altered course or had been diverted. We considered that the course of the river, from Langley Mill to Pinxton 'Wharf, would provide a clear natural boundary, and in view of the local agreement, we decided to adopt Derbyshire County Counci1' s suggestion as our draft, proposal. (d) Pinxton i >13. Derbyshire County Council, supported by Bolsover District i Council and Pinxton Parish Council, proposed realignment of its , boundary with Nottinghamshire where the parish of Pinxton formed part of the county boundary. This realignment would follow the mineral railway line, the base of the eastern embankment of the Ml i and Maghole Brook. This would transfer from Nottinghamshire to i Derbyshire residential and industrial premises east of Town Street and Beaufit Lane; residential properties in the part of Pinxton Green that lay between the Ml and Maghole Brook; and properties along the part of Station Road that lay between the mineral railway line and the River Erewash. 14. Nottinghamshire County Council and Ashfield District Council each suggested that only the properties between Town Street and the Ml should be transferred from Nottinghamshire to Derbyshire. They considered the remainder of the boundary at Pinxton to be adequate and easily identifiable and that properties affected in Station Road had strong ties with Selston. Ashfield District Council said that if the Ml were to be considered a suitable boundary beyond the part that would be affected by the transfer of the properties east of Town Street, then consideration should also be given to extending the boundary further north along the motorway and eastward along the A38. 15. We noted that all the relevant local authorities agreed that the affected properties east of Town Street.looked to Pinxton for schools and medical services. The existing boundary divides industrial development on both sides of Beaufit Lane and we considered that it would be in the interest of effective and convenient local government to unite the industrial estate in one county. We considered that the properties affected in Pinxton Green were sufficiently separated from Pinxton by the Ml.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report of Annual Survey 2013
    DRAFTD Report of Annual Survey 2013 EAST MIDLANDS AGGREGATES WORKING PARTY REPORT OF ANNUAL SURVEY FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2013 CHAIR: Lonek Wojtulewicz, Head of Planning, Historic and Natural Environment, Community Services Department, Leicestershire County Council County Offices, Glenfield, Leicester, LE3 8RJ Tel: 0116 3057040 TECHNICAL SECRETARY: Ian Thomas, assisted by Karen Down, National Stone Centre, Porter Lane, Wirksworth, Derbyshire, DE4 4LS Tel: 01629 824833 The statistics and statements contained in this report are based on information from a large number of third party sources and are compiled to an appropriate level of accuracy and verification. Readers should use corroborative data before making major decisions based on this information. This publications is also available electronically free of charge on www.communities.gov.uk and www.nationalstonecentre.org.uk . E&OE EMAWP2013Report December 3, 2014 2 2013 REPORT CONTENTS Chapter Page 1. Introduction 4 2. National and Local Aggregates Planning 5 3. Monitoring Landbanks 8 4. Monitoring Planning Decisions 20 5. Development Plans 24 6. Production and Market Influences 28 7. Sustainable Aggregate Supplies 31 8. Recycling and Secondary Aggregates 33 9. Marine Sources 38 10. Research 39 TABLES IN TEXT PAGES Table 1 Assumptions in Guidance about provision 2005-2020 6 Table 2 Apportionment of Regional Guidelines 2005-2020 7 Table 3 & 3a Sales for Aggregate Purposes 2004-2013 11&12 Table 4a Landbanks for Crushed Rock Aggregates as at 31 December 2013 16 Table 4b Landbanks for Sand & Gravel Aggregates as at 31 December 2013 17 Table 9 Summary of Planning Status of Aggregate Applications expressed 23 as Tonnages 2013 Preparation of Local Aggregate Assessments 26 Key Milestones for Minerals and Waste Plans in East Midlands, Sept.
    [Show full text]
  • Nottinghamshire's Sustainable Community Strategy
    Nottinghamshire’s Sustainable Community Strategy the nottinghamshire partnership all together better 2010-2020 Contents 1 Foreword 5 2 Introduction 7 3 Nottinghamshire - our vision for 2020 9 4 How we put this strategy together What is this document based on? 11 How this document links with other important documents 11 Our evidence base 12 5 Nottinghamshire - the timeline 13 6 Nottinghamshire today 15 7 Key background issues 17 8 Nottinghamshire’s economy - recession and recovery 19 9 Key strategic challenges 21 10 Our priorities for the future A greener Nottinghamshire 23 A place where Nottinghamshire’s children achieve their full potential 27 A safer Nottinghamshire 33 Health and well-being for all 37 A more prosperous Nottinghamshire 43 Making Nottinghamshire’s communities stronger 47 11 Borough/District community strategies 51 12 Next steps and contacts 57 Nottinghamshire’s Sustainable Community Strategy 2010-2020 l p.3 Appendices I The Nottinghamshire Partnership 59 II Underpinning principles 61 III Our evidence base 63 IV Consultation 65 V Nottinghamshire - the timeline 67 VI Borough/District chapters Ashfield 69 Bassetlaw 74 Broxtowe 79 Gedling 83 Mansfield 87 Newark and Sherwood 92 Rushcliffe 94 VII Case studies 99 VIII Other relevant strategies and action plans 105 IX Performance management - how will we know that we have achieved our targets? 107 X List of acronyms 109 XI Glossary of terms 111 XII Equality impact assessment 117 p.4 l Nottinghamshire’s Sustainable Community Strategy 2010-2020 1 l Foreword This document, the second community strategy for Nottinghamshire, outlines the key priorities for the county over the next ten years.
    [Show full text]
  • Jubilee 1960
    LONG EATON GRAMMAR SCHOOL JUBILEE BOOK 1960 An Account of the Origin of the School and its First fifty Years in the Tamworth Road Buildings FOREWORD " Derby, Leicester and Notts are we, Boys and girls of counties three, Here as scholars of the school, We're one folk and obey the rule." So wrote the first Headmaster of Long Eaton Grammar School in 1912 in the first School Magazine, then called the Annual. Since those early days many hundreds of pupils, coming from homes in the valleys of " Derwent, Trent and Soar," have studied together, and in their individual ways built up the traditions we inherit. We who follow feel it a privilege to review past days in this jubilee Year. We are, therefore, indebted to Mr. R. Hough for his writing this short history of the first fifty years. I wish to place on record the School's thanks, and also to express our appreciation of the work done by Miss Brooks. Our official sources of information have been the Sadler Report 1905, the County and Divisional Executive Records, the Minutes of Governors' Meetings, and the School Log-book kept by Mr. Clegg. Facts so recorded have been enlivened by reports in the Gossamer and the recollections of many past and present members of staff and former pupils. We must especially thank Canon J. D. Hooley for the lively account, incorporated in the text, of the 1914-18 period. Mr. Roberts, Mr. Pritchard, Mr. Wright, Miss Taylor and Mr. Calton have kindly read the proofs and made valuable suggestions, while Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Aligned Core Strategy Accessibility of Settlements Study January 2010
    Greater Nottingham Aligned Core Strategy Accessibility of Settlements Study January 2010 Greater Nottingham Accessibility of Settlements Study January 2010 2 Greater Nottingham Accessibility of Settlements Study 1. Introduction 2. Overview – purpose and background 3. Methodology 4. Definition of settlements and origin points 5. Identifying and classifying facilities 6. Weightings for classifications of facilities 7. Measuring access to facilities 8. Accession model and scoring system 9. Model results and conclusions 10. Limitations to the study and potential further work APPENDICES Appendix 1 - Results tables Appendix 2 - Figures illustrating results Appendix 3 - Facility classification & sub-categories with weightings Appendix 4 – List of facilities with thresholds and sources of data Appendix 5 - Maps of settlements and areas, bus services, facilities. Appendix 6 – Evidence base for justification of weightings and travel time thresholds given to facilities Appendix 7 - Discussion of factors influencing the results produced by the accessibility modelling process Appendix 8 - Glossary Greater Nottingham Accessibility of Settlements Study January 2010 3 1. Introduction 1.1. Ashfield, Broxtowe, Erewash, Gedling, Nottingham City and Rushcliffe Councils are working jointly in order to prepare evidence to support the emerging aligned Core Strategies and Local Development Frameworks within their districts. Nottinghamshire County Council is assisting in this work. Part of the evidence base will be to inform the authorities about suitable settlements for the location of appropriate levels of development. 1.2. The aim of any spatial development strategy is to ensure that new development takes place at the appropriate scale in the most sustainable settlements. Most development should be concentrated within those settlements with the largest range of shops and services with more limited development within local service centres and villages.
    [Show full text]
  • The Derby, Derbyshire, Peak National Peak
    Derby, Derbyshire, Peak District National Park Authority and East StaffordshireGypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment 2014 Final Report June 2015 RRR Consultancy Ltd Derbyshire and East Staffordshire GTAA 2014 Table of Contents Glossary ..................................................................................................................................... viii Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... xiv Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... xiv Local context ....................................................................................................................................... xiv Literature review .................................................................................................................................. xv Policy context ...................................................................................................................................... xvi Population Trends .............................................................................................................................. xvii Stakeholder Consultation................................................................................................................... xvii Gypsies and Travellers living on sites ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Heanor Midsummer Festival 10K Results
    HEANOR MIDSUMMER FESTIVAL 2021 Shipley Park, Derbyshire Fri 25 June 10K RACE O/Po Cat Adjusted No. Name Club Age Time Handicap s Posn Time 1 3 Ryan Haw Long Eaton Running Club MV35 1 33:25 0:00 33:25 2 5 Mark Boot Long Eaton Running Club SM 1 33:52 0:00 33:52 3 2 Anthony Hatswell Long Eaton Running Club MV35 2 34:04 0:00 34:04 4 4 Aston Perrin Long Eaton Running Club SM 2 35:40 0:00 35:40 5 14 Ty Farrer Huntingdonshire AC MV45 1 35:53 0:00 35:53 6 10 Alex Vize Long Eaton Running Club SM 3 36:12 0:00 36:12 7 11 Paul Williams Long Eaton Running Club MV35 3 36:45 0:00 36:45 8 176 Kenny Malton Shelton Striders SM 4 38:08 1:20 36:48 9 12 Chris Wilshaw Shelton Striders SM 5 37:00 0:00 37:00 10 21 Ian Hunter Ilkeston Running Club MV35 4 37:03 0:00 37:03 11 6 Joshua Mitchell SM 6 37:11 0:00 37:11 12 19 Jack Surgay Derby Athletic Club SM 7 37:19 0:00 37:19 13 7 Aaron Needham Long Eaton Running Club MV35 5 37:20 0:00 37:20 14 27 Adam Newman Long Eaton Running Club SM 8 37:20 0:00 37:20 15 16 Ian Chant Long Eaton Running Club MV45 2 37:29 0:00 37:29 16 13 Darlington Magalela Long Eaton Running Club MV35 6 38:11 0:00 38:11 17 17 David Laws Holme Pierrepont RC MV35 7 38:26 0:00 38:26 18 29 Naomi Elliott Notts AC SL 1 38:56 0:00 38:56 19 18 Peter McNally Redhill Road Runners MV55 1 39:00 0:00 39:00 20 23 Dean Cross Sutton in Ashfield Harriers & AC MV45 3 39:11 0:00 39:11 21 24 Kurt Fitch MV45 4 39:17 0:00 39:17 22 35 Adam Joseph-Kerr SM 9 39:59 0:00 39:59 23 54 Carl Baxter MV35 8 40:39 0:20 40:19 24 45 Beatrice Munro SL 2 41:00 0:20 40:40 25 26 David
    [Show full text]
  • Although This Report Was Commissioned by Highways England, the Findings and Recommendations Are Those of the Au
    Although this report was commissioned by Highways England, the findings and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Highways England. While Highways England has made every effort to ensure the information in this document is accurate, Highways England does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of that information; and it cannot accept liability for any loss or damages of any kind resulting from reliance on the information or guidance this document contains. Post Opening Project Evaluation of Major Schemes M1 Junction 25 to 28 Widening Five Years After Opening Study – Key Points What is the scheme? Situated between Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, the scheme opened to traffic in 2010. The scheme involved widening a 14 mile (23km) section of carriageway on the M1 motorway between junction 25 at Sandiacre, Derbyshire and junction 28 at Pinxton, Derbyshire. The road was widened from 3 to 4 lanes in each direction. Soon afterwards a controlled motorway technology scheme was implemented on the same scheme section. What are the main findings from the study? Overall, there has been a negligible change in traffic flows across the scheme extent. Average journey times across the scheme have reduced by around 1 minute. There has been decrease in the number of personal injury collisions since the scheme opened, with an average annual saving of 26 collisions and 50 casualties on the scheme itself. The majority of environmental impacts are as expected. The investment cost of building the scheme was 13% lower than forecast. The scheme delivers a Benefit Cost Ratio of 1.7, lower than expected due to the lower traffic levels giving lower benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • Lowland Derbyshire Biodiversity Action Plan 2011-2020
    Published by the Lowland Derbyshire Biodiversity Partnership 2011 Biodiversity Lowland 2011 Derbyshire ‐ 2020 Action Plan Contents Click links to go the various sections of the LBAP Section Quick start Guide Introduction Generic Action Plan Area Action Plans and Targets Action Area 1: Magnesian Limestone Action Area 2: Rother and Doe Lea Valleys Action Area 3: Peak Fringe Action Area 4: Erewash Valley Action Area 5: Claylands Action Area 6: Derby Action Area 7: Trent and Dove Valleys Action Area 8: National Forest area Cumulative Targets UK Priority Habitats—Background Information Farmland Grassland Heathland Wetland Woodland List of Lowland Derbyshire LBAP Partners Appendix 1: Detailed Maps of All Eight Action Areas (with Priority Habitats) these are available as eight 4MB files on CD or from www.derbyshirebiodiversity.org.uk Cover photos, clockwise from top left: Bulfinch. Credit: Laura Whitehead White Admiral. Credit: Debbie Alston Green Lane, north‐east Derbyshire. Credit: Debbie Alston www.derbyshirebiodiversity.org.uk Quick Start Guide 2 Quick Start Guide This Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) covers the Lowland Derbyshire region for the period 2011 to 2020. It identifies the basic actions we must collectively take if we are to protect and enhance the key biodiversity of this region. The UK Government recognises its international obligations and the economic urgency to protect biodiversity and ecosystems. This LBAP is part of that delivery and local reporting mechanism. Only those habitats and species meeting the UKBAP definitions of ‘Priority Habitat’ or ‘Priority Species’ are included in the targets for the Lowland Derbyshire Action Plans. The history and rationale behind the Local Biodiversity Action Plan is given in the Introduction.
    [Show full text]
  • THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION for ENGLAND the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright
    KEY This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. BOROUGH COUNCIL BOUNDARY Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. PROPOSED ELECTORAL DIVISION BOUNDARY The Local Government Boundary Commission for England GD100049926 2012. WARD BOUNDARY ELECTORAL REVIEW OF DERBYSHIRE PARISH BOUNDARY PARISH WARD BOUNDARY TIBSHELF ED PROPOSED ELECTORAL DIVISION NAME Scale : 1cm = 0.08500 km Draft recommendations for electoral division boundaries in WARD NAME Grid Interval 1km BLACKWELL WARD SOUTH NORMANTON CP PARISH NAME the county of Derbyshire April 2012 EAST PARISH WARD PARISH WARD NAME Sheet 5 of 6 COINCIDENT BOUNDARIES ARE SHOWN AS THIN COLOURED LINES SUPERIMPOSED OVER WIDER ONES. SHEET 5, MAP 5b Proposed division boundaries in Codnor SHEET 5, MAP 5a Proposed division boundaries in South Normanton C GE O RID D E N TH B M Knowts Hall O 6 Farm R 1 4 0 L 6 A Butterley Park E T N E IRONVILLE AND RIDDINGS WARD BLACKWELL WARD A E L R T W S Butterley Park BLACKWELLFish Farm CP E ALFRETON AND SOMERCOTES ED W N E N (1) Fish Farm Normanton Brook Depot D ROA NEW Opencast Mine (coal) Normanton Brook Butterley Sewage Works RIPLEY WARD High Holborn B E Codnor Gate E V R I Industrial Estate R R ROAD I D OLBORN S HIGH H T N I F O A O W T R T L I D A R B N B R E I Industrial Estate D G NE E SPORTON LA L NOTTINGHAM ROAD A N G E TIBSHELF
    [Show full text]
  • Agency Information - Environmental Health (V3.0 2020 July) Page 1 of 2
    Information about agencies to be shared in ‘Making Enquiries under S.42’ training 1. Who are we? Environmental Health Service 2. Who are we? Each Local Authority, with the exception of Derbyshire County Council (DCC), has environmental health professionals in the form of Environmental Health Officers (EHOs)/ Environmental Health Practitioners (EHPs)/ Environmental Health Technical Officers (EHTO), Enforcement Officers who can enforce various types of public health, housing, pollution, food and health and safety legislation. They are primarily regulatory officers but do play a major role in protecting public health, maintaining a safe environment and have both technical and scientific expertise to offer support and advice to partnering agencies, businesses, community groups and the public. 3. What do we do? (The below text sets out some of the relevant areas in s.42 enquiries, but is not limited to these items). EHOs/EHPs/EHTOs/Enforcement Officers have a regulatory role in ensuring public safety in a wide number of areas; being responsible for carrying out measures to protect public health, enforcing legislation relating to the natural and built environments that benefit human health and providing support to minimize health and safety hazards. Particular statutory obligations relate to domestic home environments to ensure ‘fitness for habitation’ by the removal of serious hazards (known as Category 1 hazards*) to achieve the ideal standards within a property. The risk of harm to a person may arise given physical and psychological hazards in the home environment i.e. structural collapse, carbon monoxide from defective appliances, or excess cold from poorly heated and insulated homes. Table 1 below indicates some of the key hazard areas which are checked when a property is assessed by an EH Professional.
    [Show full text]
  • STATEMENT of PERSONS NOMINATED, NOTICE of POLL and SITUATION of POLLING STATIONS Election of a Member of Parliament for the Ashf
    STATEMENT OF PERSONS NOMINATED, NOTICE OF POLL AND SITUATION OF POLLING STATIONS Election of a Member of Parliament for the Ashfield Constituency Notice is hereby given that: 1. A poll for the election of a Member of Parliament for the Ashfield Constituency will be held on Thursday 12 December 2019, between the hours of 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. 2. One Member of Parliament for the Ashfield Constituency is to be elected. 3. The names, home addresses and descriptions of the Candidates remaining validly nominated for election and the names of all persons signing the Candidates nomination paper are as follows: Names of Signatories Names of Signatories Names of Signatories Name of Description (if Home Address Proposers(+), Seconders(++) & Proposers(+), Seconders(++) & Proposers(+), Seconders(++) & Candidate any) Assentors Assentors Assentors ANDERSON (Address in the The Conservative Self Christine J(+) Flowers Carina(++) (+) (++) (+) (++) Lee Mansfield Party Candidate Saddington Dale Flowers Alan Constituency) Flowers Carol A Flowers Shaun A Hughes Michael Hughes Lesley M Wiggins Michael T Wiggins Carol DAUBNEY (Address in the Brexit Party Peck Andrew(+) Baillie Carl A(++) (+) (++) (+) (++) Martin Edward Ashfield Ellis Daniel Haskey Amanda Constituency) Penny Joanne Dawn Curtis Scott Marriott Simon A Breach Gary Pearce Alan P Webster Carl R FLEET (Address in the Labour Party Evans Christine L(+) Mcdowall (+) (++) (+) (++) Natalie Sarah Ashfield Blasdale David R Thomas A(++) Constituency) Flint Nicholas Mcpherson Anne Ball Kevin A Varnam Christopher
    [Show full text]
  • NHS Derby and Derbyshire Clinical Commissioning Group Constitution V3.8
    NHS Derby and Derbyshire Clinical Commissioning Group Constitution NHS Derby and Derbyshire Clinical Commissioning Group Constitution v3.8 VERSION CONTROL Version Effective Date Changes 1.0 August 2018 Standard model 2.0 15 October 2018 Draft NHS Derby and Derbyshire CCG Constitution 2.1 13 November 2018 Updated Draft NHS Derby and Derbyshire CCG Constitution with NHSE Feedback 2.2 28 November 2018 Updated Draft NHS Derby and Derbyshire CCG Constitution with NHSE Feedback 2.3 11 December 2018 Updated Draft NHS Derby and Derbyshire CCG Constitution with NHS Feedback, E Polgar NHS England , Derbyshire CCG’s Lay Members and Engagement with the Derbyshire CCGs membership 2.4 25 January 2019 Updated Draft NHS Derby and Derbyshire CCG Constitution following approval of the draft at the Derbyshire CCGs Governing Body Meetings in Common 24 January 2019 3.0 31 January 2019 Updated Draft NHS Derby and Derbyshire CCG Constitution following formal feedback from NHS England received 31.1.19 3.1 19 February 2019 Final Approved NHS Derby and Derbyshire CCG Constitution 3.2 13 February 2020 Updated Terms of Reference for Primary Care Commissioning Committee and Audit Committee. 3.3. 8 April 2020 Updated 1.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.10 and 4.1of Annexure 1: Decisions, Authorities and Duties Delegated to Officers of the CCG Governing Body; for the duration of the COVID-19 emergency, as approved by the CCG Governing Body on 2 April 2020 3.4 16 April 2020 Updated Section 3.6 GB Quorum of Appendix 3: Standing Orders, for the duration of the COVID-19 emergency, as approved by the CCG Governing Body on 16 April 2020.
    [Show full text]