DOCSLIB.ORG

Newcastle-Under-Lyme and Stoke-On-Trent Core Spatial Strategy Examination

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Newcastle-Under-Lyme and Stoke-On-Trent Core Spatial Strategy Examination NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME AND STOKE-ON-TRENT CORE SPATIAL STRATEGY EXAMINATION DOCUMENT CCD3 Response to Planning Inspector’s Question (ICD3) Question 1 1.1 Have there been any changes made to the content of the CS document since it was published, for example updating of references to more recent policy documents or correction of typos? Do the Councils wish to make any such changes? If so they should start to prepare a schedule. 1.2 No changes have been made to the content of the Core Spatial Strategy since it was published. The Councils believe the updating, formatting, factual and grammatical corrections in the schedule of amendments (see CCD3 Appendix 3) could help improve the document, subject to approval from the Inspector. The Councils would welcome the opportunity to add to the schedule, subject to approval from the Inspector, should the need arise. Question 2 2.1 Explain the reasons underlying the Addendum to the CS, the evidence on which it is based, whether it has been the subject of public consultation (and if so what was the response) and whether it raises any issues regarding sustainability appraisal or Appropriate Assessment. 2.2 In accordance with the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/184) a ‘screening’ assessment was carried out to determine whether it was likely that the policies and proposals in the Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on- Trent Core Spatial Strategy would have any significant effect upon any European site. 2.3 The Screening Report for Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Spatial Strategy set out the methodology and the outcomes of the screening process. The report concluded that the Core Spatial Strategy would not have any significant impact upon any European site and therefore it would not be necessary to carry out a full Appropriate Assessment. 2.4 In accordance with the Habitats Regulations 2006 85B (2), consultation with Natural England on the process and outcomes of the Screening 1 Report took place in May 2008. Natural England’s comments are included in CCD3 Appendix 2 of this paper. 2.5 Following this, the final Screening Report (SUB/008) was produced taking into account the improvements suggested by Natural England and re-submitted to Natural England for further consultation in July 2008. 2.6 Natural England confirmed in August 2008 (see CCD3 Appendix 2) that they were satisfied that the Screening Report presented a robust case for not having to undertake a full Appropriate Assessment, subject to a strengthening of the Core Spatial Strategy Policy CSP4 – Natural Assets to address the possibility of significant effects upon Black Firs and Cranberry Bog Ramsar site due to waste water from any additional development within the water catchment area of the site. 2.7 The Core Spatial Strategy Submission Draft was finally cleared for publication in May 2008. Officers were also authorised to make any minor textual changes necessary to improve the accuracy and quality of the Strategy. Following this, bulk copies of the Strategy were printed for consultation purposes. 2.8 As the decision to incorporate Natural England’s additions to CSP4 into the Submission Draft was made after printing, it was necessary for them to be included as an addendum. 2.9 The addendum was subject to the full 8 week publication period. There were no specific comments/objections regarding the additional text included in the addendum. 2.10 It was considered that because the addendum only added local detail to the original policy aims of protecting and enhancing important natural assets, which had been subject to a full Sustainability Appraisal, it was not considered to have any fundamental impact on sustainability principles. Therefore it was not necessary to undertake further work, especially since the Core Spatial Strategy does not propose any major development within the area encompassing the Balterley Heath Settlement. Question 3 3.1 The Councils’ response CCD 1 explains the relationship of Staffordshire County Council’s Community Strategy to the Core Strategy (CS) and the Sustainable Community Strategy for Newcastle. Wording should be prepared to add a sentence to Para 2.15 to show that regard has been had to the County Council’s Community Strategy. 3.2 The following sentence should be added to paragraph 2.15. This addition has been included in the schedule of amendments (see CCD3 Appendix 3):- 2 ‘The preparation of the Core Spatial Strategy has also had regard to the vision and aims of the Staffordshire Community Strategy 2005-2010 undertaken by the Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire Strategic Partnership. The revision of this Strategy, published in September 2008, is also closely aligned with the Borough’s Sustainable Community Strategy, adopted February 2008.’ Question 4 4.1 In Para 6.34 of the CS, an Appropriate Assessment is mentioned. Does this mean the Screening Report SUB/008? 4.2 Yes, the Appropriate Assessment mentioned in Para 6.34 is the Screening Report (SUB/008). A minor textual amendment to this paragraph would improve the clarity and accuracy of the Core Spatial Strategy. 4.3 It is suggested that the second sentence of paragraph 6.34 should read:- “A screening exercise was carried out to identify any potential significant effects and therefore the need to carry out a full Appropriate Assessment of the Core Spatial Strategy. As a result of this exercise, it was determined, in consultation with Natural England, that a full Appropriate Assessment of the Core Spatial Strategy was not necessary. The process and outcomes of this exercise are set out in the ‘Screening Report for Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Spatial Strategy (July 2008).” 4.4 This proposed amendment will be included in the schedule of amendments referred to in CCD3 Appendix 3. Question 5 5.1 The Appendices are missing from both Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (please provide). Has the Environment Agency confirmed it is satisfied with both SFRAs? 5.2 The appendices for both Strategic Flood Risk Assessments have been added to the end of Core Documents EB/021 and EB/060a. The SFRA maps have also been added to the Core Documents (see CCD3 Appendix 1 for details). 5.3 The ‘sign-off’ letter from the Environment Agency (EB/086), confirming their satisfaction with the SFRA, has been added to the Core Documents (see CCD3 Appendix 1 for details). 3 Question 6 6.1 Do the Councils intend to produce a brief schedule responding to the main points raised in the representations? If so when? 6.2 Yes. The Councils will produce a schedule responding to the main points identified by ICD3a. This will be completed by the 26th February 2009. Question 7 7.1 A brief response to the Highways Agency representations is requested at this stage. This should include a bullet point explanation of the situation as regards park and ride, including whether any services are already in operation, where they are situated, when they operate and by whom. Future proposals should be listed in terms of location, date and who would operate them. 7.2 The Core Spatial Strategy along with associated evidence has been produced in accordance with appropriate guidance and is considered to be at an appropriate level for a strategic document. Highway Agency Representation 76/273 7.3 Arrangement for monitoring delivery of the transportation elements of the document are set out section 8 of the Core Spatial Strategy. Additional monitoring of the North Staffordshire transportation system will be carried as part of the Local Transport Plan (EB/052) monitoring regime. 7.4 Details regarding delivery of core strategic infrastructure planning are provided (EB/061). 7.5 Adopted Regional Spatial Strategy identifies the North Staffordshire Conurbation as the focus for strategic urban renaissance. The Regional Spatial Strategy review continues the emphasis on Major Urban Area Renaissance and strategic development targets are being brought forward to that effect. At the strategic planning level there are no known ‘show stoppers’ to delivery of the Core Spatial Strategy or revised Regional Spatial Strategy. Indeed the preferred strategy based on rejuvenation of the inner urban core of the conurbation and maximising use of sustainable transportation systems will assist reduction in the demand for travel when compared with more dispersed patterns of development. Preliminary investigations have been carried out regarding the transportation impacts of the proposed development (EB/028). Further detailed, iterative modelling is required to determine detailed site allocations having regard to capacity constraints together with associated determination of mitigation measures and apportionment of costs. Delivery does not rely on the Highways 4 Agency making additional investment to the transport network although we would not rule out co-operative initiatives if they were found to be of mutual benefit. Highway Agency Representation 76/274 7.6 Maintaining the strategic function of the trunk road network and securing the sustained regeneration of the North Staffordshire Major Urban area are both national objectives. Delivery of those objectives are interrelated and securing development of the conurbation is likely to give rise to additional traffic generation which will undoubtedly have an impact of the network. PPS12, paragraph 5.4 indicates that Area Action Plans should attempt to resolve conflicting objectives. It is at this stage that appropriate remedial measures should be considered to deliver appropriate levels of service on the trunk road. Paragraph 5.56 attempts to apply the same principle to the preparation of the Core Spatial Strategy. The Councils contend that paragraph 5.56 is sound although remain open to consideration of alternative text which the Highways Agency may find less offensive. Highway Agency Representation 76/275 7.7 The approved Local Transport Plan (EB/052) supports the Core Spatial Strategy.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1444 the London Gazette, Ist February 1974
    1444 THE LONDON GAZETTE, IST FEBRUARY 1974 STAFFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL Objections to the Order including the grounds on which The Borough of Stafford (Lammascote Road) (Restriction they are made should be sent to the undersigned by 1st of Waiting and Restriction on Loading and Unloading) March 1974 Order 1974. D. E. Almond, Chief Officer and Town Clerk. Borough Hall, ° The Borough of Stafford (Lloyd Street) (Prohibition of Stafford. Driving) Order 1974 1st February 1974. (597) The Borough of Stafford (Barn Bank Lane) (Prohibition of Driving) Order 1974 The Borough of Stafford (Victoria Street) (Prohibition of Driving) Order 1974 STAFFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL Notice is hereby given that the Stafford Borough Council The Borough of Stafford (Marston Road) (Prohibition of propose to make Orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Waiting) Order, 1974 Act 1967, as amended by Part IX of the Transport Act The Borough of Stafford (Weston Road) (Prohibition of 1968, the effect of which will be: Waiting) Order, 1974 (1) to prohibit waiting at any time Mondays to Satur- The Borough of Stafford (Telegraph Street) (Prohibition of days (inclusive) in the lengths of road referred to in Waiting) Order, 1974 Schedule I ; The Borough of Stafford (Marsh Street) (Restriction of (2) to prohibit vehicles in the length of road referred Waiting) Order, 1974 to in Schedule II except for access ; (3) to introduce a loading and unloading ban between The Borough of Stafford (Alexandra Road) (Restriction of 8 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. and 6 p.m. Mondays Waiting) Order, 1974 to Saturdays (inclusive) in the lengths of road referred Notice is hereby given that the Borough Council propose to in Schedule III ; to make Orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1967, (4) to revoke insofar as is necessary any existing Orders.
    [Show full text]
  • Additional Provision 2 Paper of Amendments.Pdf
    IN PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSION 2017 - 2019 High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill ADDITIONAL PROVISION (February 2019) Note: 1. Page and line references are to the Bill as introduced on 17 July 2017 [Bill 6] 2. The amendments marked with an asterisk are presented in substitution for amendments at the same place in the Bill which were deposited on 23 March 2018. The amendments now presented represent amended versions of the previous amendments. The new elements are shown by underlining. Clause 53 Page 21, line 33, leave out “ in July 2017” *Page 21, line 35, at end insert— “( ) The plans and sections referred to in subsection (1) are— (a) those deposited in July 2017 but excluding sheets 1-16 and 1-18 and as altered by (i) replacement sheets 1-12, 1-25, 1-69, 1-70, 2-05, 2-08, 2-09, 2-44 and 2-50 deposited in March 2018, and (ii) replacement sheets 1-01, 1-02, 1-05, 1-06, 1-07, 1-09, 1-10, 1-11, 1-13, 1-14, 1- 15, 1-17, 1-19, 1-20, 1-21, 1-23, 1-24, 1-26, 1-28, 1-29, 1-30, 1-31, 1-32, 1-33, 1- 34, 1-35, 1-36, 1-37, 1-38, 1-39, 1-40, 1-41, 1-42, 1-43, 1-44, 1-45, 1-46, 1-47, 1- 48, 1-49, 1-50, 1-51, 1-52, 1-53, 1-54, 1-57, 1-58, 1-59, 1-60, 1-61, 1-62, 1-64, 1- 65, 1-66, 2-04, 2-06, 2-17, 2-21, 2-23, 2-28, 2-29, 2-31, 2-32, 2-35, 2-45, 2-46, 2- 52, 2-55, 2-66, 2-71 deposited in February 2019; (b) sheets 1-07A, 1-07B, 1-07C, 1-15A, 1-15B, 1-15C, 1-15D, 1-15E, 1-15F, 1-15G, 1- 26A, 1-39A, 1-43A, 1-43B, 1-45A, 1-53A, 1-53B, 1-53C, 1-53D, 1-53E, 1-53F, 2- 06A, 2-06B, 2-21A, 2-46A, 2-50A and 2-66A deposited in February 2019.” Schedule 17 Page 139, line 11, leave out sub-paragraph (4) Page 139, line 36, after “arrangements” insert “to be approved” Page 146, line 29, at end insert – “Termination of approval relating to road transportation arrangements 21A (1) An approval under paragraph 6 of arrangements relating to transportation to an authorised site ceases to have effect at the end of the relevant period if the nominated undertaker gives a termination notice to the planning authority which approved the arrangements.
    [Show full text]
  • Accommodation, Support and Advice Services NHA.Accommodation, Support and Advice Services
    Accommodation, support and advice services NHA.Accommodation, support and advice services Contents Accommodation and Support Providers 90 Hope Street 3 Affinity Sutton Homes 3 Alpha Ltd 3 Anchor Housing 3 ARCH North Staffs 4 Aspire Housing 4 BAC O’Connor Centre 4 Brighter Futures 5 Choices Housing 5 Elizabeth House 5 Gingerbread 5 Hopwood House 6 Lyme Trust 6 NACRO 7 Restart 7 Salvation Army 7 Sanctuary Housing Group 7 Staffordshire Housing 8 Wrekin Housing Trust 8 YMCA 8 Advice Organisations and Helplines Childline 9 Mediation Advisory Service 9 Mediation North Staffs 9 Men’s Advice Line 9 NACRO 9 Newcastle Housing Advice 9 North Staffs Domestic Violence Helpline 10 Pathway Project 10 Refuge - Asian Womens Service 10 Relate 10 Savana 10 Shelter 10 Victim Support 10 Women’s Aid 11 Other Useful Addresses Ciizens Advice Bureau 12 Job Centre 12 Local Authorities 12 Social Services 12 2 NHA.Accommodation, support and advice services ACCOMMODATION AND SUPPORT In Trentvale there are around 300 properties, consisting PROVIDERS of family homes with two and three bedrooms. There is also a warden assisted scheme with independent 90 Hope Strret accommodation for the over 55’s. This consists of one and two bedroomed flats. Telephone: 01782 279 234 Fax: 01782 406 006 In Kidsgrove, Affinity Sutton has around 80 properties Address: 90 Hope Street, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent consisting of two bedroomed flats and three bedroom Website: www.brighter-futures.org.uk houses. 90 Hope Street offers emergancy accommodation to Alpha Ltd single homeless people aged 16-65. Priority is given to those sleeping rough or involved in prostitution.
    [Show full text]
  • Stafford Borough Partnership Sustainable Community Strategy 2008-2020
    Stafford Borough Partnership Sustainable Community Strategy 2008 – 2020 ‘Shaping our Borough for the Future’ Creating Competitive The Partnership Advantage’ Foreword Welcome to Stafford Borough Council’s Sustainable Community Strategy This Sustainable Community Strategy is a document that sets out our aspirations of what we want Stafford Borough to look like in 2020. It is a strategy that will shape the future of our Borough. The Strategy promotes the economic development, enterprise and wellbeing of the area and contributes towards the achievement of long-term sustainability for both our communities and the environment. As well as looking to the future it is also a reflection of how far we have come on our journey to being a stronger and prosperous Borough. It is important that this is not just seen as producing another plan or creating a vision, it is about working together to tackle important issues such as transport, community safety, affordable housing, health inequalities local prosperity, and the protection and enhancement of the wider environment, all of which affect peoples’ lives on a daily basis. All these issues need a shared response from partner agencies in order to improve the life chances and wellbeing of people living within the Borough. The Stafford Borough Partnership will be working closely with agencies in the Borough to oversee the development and implementation of various projects contained within this strategy and will continue to act as a network in order to raise awareness of community aspirations and service provision across a broad spectrum of activity. Judith Dalgarno – Chair, Stafford Borough Partnership 2 Contents Foreword..................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The London Gazette, I?Th June 1988 7077
    THE LONDON GAZETTE, I?TH JUNE 1988 7077 STAFFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL EAST STAFFORDSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL Castletown Area, Stafford—Various Traffic Regulation Orders (A) The East Staffordshire District Council (Experimental Notice is hereby raven that on 10th June 1988, the Council made Pedestrianisation of Part of Station Street, Burton Upon Trent) the Orders specified below under sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the (Extention No. 1) Order 1988 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The effect of the Orders (B) The East Staffordshire District Council (Part of Station which will come into operation on 26th June, 1988, will be as Street, Burton upon Trent) (Experimental Prohibition of follows: Right-Hand Turn) (Extension No. 1) Order 1988 (i) The Borough of Stafford (Castle Street, Stafford) (Restriction (C) The East Staffordshire District Council (Part of Station of Waiting) Order 1988 Street, Burton Upon Trent—Experimental One-Way Traffic) To prohibit waiting between 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday to (Extention No. 1) Order 1988 Saturday on the north-western side of Castle Street, Stafford, from a point 15 metres north-east of its junction with Castle Notice is hereby given that on the 14th June 1988 the East View to a point IS metres south-west of its junction with Staffordshire District Council pursuant to arrangements made North Castle Street, and from a point IS metres north-east under section 101 of the Local Government Act, 1972 with the of its junction with North Castle Street to a point IS metres Staffordshire County Council made Orders under section 9 of south-west of its junction with Doxey Road.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Stoke-On-Trent Incorporating Staffordshire Care and Support Directory 2020
    City of Stoke-on-Trent incorporating Staffordshire Care and Support Directory 2020 The essential guide to understanding and choosing care and support In association with www.carechoices.co.uk Trentside Manor Care Home Our Commitment to Care Everyone at Trentside Manor Care Home has a personal and professional commitment to providing excellent care. We know that the thought of moving into a care home can often be very traumatic for both residents and relatives but that it is sometimes the only option available in order to maintain personal safety, security and provide appropriate levels of care. Prior to admission, each new resident is encouraged to visit the home to satisfy themselves that the ambience is to their liking. We provide a unique care and support plan that works for each individual. We encourage and support people to continue doing as many daily tasks as possible, pursue their interests and hobbies, stay active and spend quality time with family and friends. We will ensure that we work with you and your family, friends, advocates and other professionals involved in your life in gathering all the information we need to make sure we can meet your needs. Our family caring for your family Endon Road, Norton Green, Stoke-on-Trent ST6 8PA T: 01782 535402 E: [email protected] W: www.trentsidemanor.com Our mission is to support our residents to live their lives the way they wish. We understand the importance of personal choice and our aim is to make our residents, staff, families and friends feel valued and respected as individuals.
    [Show full text]
  • Advisory Visit River Trent, Stoke-On-Trent October 2014
    Advisory Visit River Trent, Stoke-on-Trent October 2014 Introduction This report is the output of a site visit undertaken by Tim Jacklin of the Wild Trout Trust (WTT) to the River Trent in Stoke on Trent on 17th October, 2014. Comments in this report are based on observations on the day of the site visit and discussions with Liz Horton and Nick Mott of Staffordshire Wildlife Trust (SWT) and subsequent discussion with (and addition of diagrams by) Paul Gaskell of WTT. SWT are the catchment hosts for the Staffordshire Trent Valley area under the government’s Catchment Based Approach to the Water Framework Directive (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/catchment-based-approach- improving-the-quality-of-our-water-environment). This advisory visit focussed on areas of the urban River Trent where significant lengths of the river are in single ownership, for example the City Council. Normal convention is applied throughout the report with respect to bank identification, i.e. the banks are designated left hand bank (LHB) or right hand bank (RHB) whilst looking downstream. 1.0 Area Overview Stoke on Trent is located on the headwaters of the River Trent, the source of the river being a short distance north of the city on Biddulph Moor. The river flows south from its source, is impounded by Knypersley Reservoir, then enters the urban area at Norton Green and Milton. Tributaries within the city include Ford Green Brook (confluence at National Grid Reference SJ90404960), Fowlea Brook (confluence SJ88004500 approximately) and Lyme Brook (confluence SJ86504250). Other small tributaries include Causley Brook, Chitlings Brook, Adderley Green Brook, Bagnall Brook, Barnfield Brook, Scotia Brook, Longton Brook, and Longton Cockster Brook.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic and Housing Development Needs Assessment
    Stafford Borough Council Economic and Housing Development Needs Assessment EHDNA Stafford Borough Council January 2020 © 2020 Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Ltd, trading as Lichfields. All Rights Reserved. Registered in England, no. 2778116. 14 Regent’s Wharf, All Saints Street, London N1 9RL Formatted for double sided printing. Plans based upon Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. © Crown Copyright reserved. Licence number AL50684A 42180/01/SPM/CR [Reference] Stafford Borough Council : Economic and Housing Development Needs Assessment Executive Summary Housing Market Area / Functional Economic Market Area Over the past ten years or so, the Borough has experienced a strengthening level of self-containment, with migratory patterns expanding and more people moving into the Borough from the adjoining Staffordshire authorities than before. There are very strong migration links between the Borough, Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme. The Borough has a self-containment rate of 71% for in-migration, and 73% for out- migration when short household moves are considered and therefore exceeds the threshold for a self- contained Housing Market Area (HMA) set out previously in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). Median house prices vary significantly across the Borough, but are in line with those in adjacent areas in neighbouring local authorities. As the Borough is a predominantly rural district with overlapping HMAs and a number of other authorities nearby, it is considered both reasonable and pragmatic to take the administrative boundaries of the Borough as being a ‘best fit’ HMA for planning purposes. ONS Travel to Work Areas [TTWA] suggests that the Borough is a self-contained TTWA, albeit with some overlap with the Wolverhampton TTWA to the south.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Nomination in Respect of Lana at Beech Road, Eccleshall
    Community nomination in respect of Land at Beech Road, Eccleshall Notice under section 91 of the Localism Act 2011 1 Nomination On 1 April 2021 the Council received a nomination under section 89 of the Localism Act 2011 ('the Act') to list the land at Beech Road, Eccleshall as an asset of community value. The nomination was made by Eccleshall Parish Council. A copy of the nomination is attached at Appendix 1 and plan showing the boundaries of the nominated land is attached at Appendix 2. 2 Law and Statutory Guidance Under section 87 of the Act the Council must maintain a list land of community value in its area. A building or other land is of community value if in the Council's opinion an actual current use of the building or other land that is not ancillary use, furthers the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community, and it is realistic to think that there can continue to be non-ancillary use of the building or other land, which will further (whether or not in the same way) the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community. Under section 89 the Council can only include land in its list of assets of community value in response to a community nomination or where permitted by regulations. A community nomination in England can only be made by either a parish council in respect of land within its area or by a person that is a voluntary or community body with a local connection. Where a valid community nomination is made the Council must consider it and must accept the nomination if the land is within its area and is of community value 3 Decision and Reasons The Council accepts the nomination by Eccleshall Parish Council and includes the land at Beech Road, Eccleshall in its list of assets of community value.
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 Annual Monitoring Report
    Newcastle-under-Lyme Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report December 2009 Newcastle-under-Lyme Annual Monitoring Report 2008/09 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – 2008/09 ........................................................................... 3 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 6 2. The monitoring framework................................................................................... 7 3. Local Development Implementation.................................................................... 8 4. The key characteristics of the Borough of ....................................................... 11 5. Policy monitoring................................................................................................ 19 5.1 Sustainability ................................................................................................... 19 5.2 Housing ........................................................................................................... 26 5.3 Employment .................................................................................................... 32 5.4 Town centres................................................................................................... 36 5.5 Community facilities ........................................................................................ 38 5.6 Natural environment........................................................................................ 39 5.7 Historical environment....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Newcastle Under Lyme Borough Council and Stoke-On-Trent City
    Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council and Stoke-on-Trent City Council Water Cycle Study: Phase 1 January 2020 JBA Consulting Website WCS - FINAL ACCESSIBILITY1.docx i JBA Project Manager Hannah Coogan BSc FCIWEM C.WEM JBA Consulting The Library St Philips Courtyard Church Hill Coleshill Warwickshire B46 3AD Revision History Revision Ref/Date Amendments Issued to V1.0 – 25 March 2019 Draft Report Melanie Hughes V1.4 – 14 January 2020 Draft Final Report Jemma March Incorporating Client comments V2.0 – 16 January 2020 Final Report Jemma March Contract This report describes work commissioned by Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council and Stoke-on-Trent City Council in October 2018. Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council’s representative for the contract was Pete Atwell. Emily Jones and Richard Pardoe of JBA Consulting carried out this work. Prepared by Emily Jones BSc Assistant Analyst, Richard Pardoe MSc MEng Analyst Reviewed by Paul Eccleston BA CertWEM CEnv MCIWEM C.WEM, Technical Director Purpose This document has been prepared as a Final Report for Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council and Stoke-on-Trent City Council (the Councils). JBA Consulting accepts no responsibility or liability for any use that is made of this document other than by the Councils for the purposes for which it was originally commissioned and prepared. JBA Consulting has no liability regarding the use of this report except to Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council and Stoke-on-Trent City Council. Acknowledgements JBA Consulting would like to thank Jack Robinson from Severn Trent Water and Leanne Crook from United Utilities for their assistance in producing this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Recommendationsанаwest Midlands Contents 1. Initial/Final
    Final recommendations ­ West Midlands Contents 1. Initial/final proposals overview p1 6. Sub­region 1: Coventry and Warwickshire p13, recommendations p15 2. Number of representations received p4 7. Sub­region 2: Solihull p16, recommendations p17 3. Campaigns p5 8. Sub­region 3: Herefordshire, Shropshire (including Telford and Wrekin), and Worcestershire: p17, recommendations p22; and West Midlands (less Coventry and Solihull) p23, recommendations p29 4. Major issues p6 9. Sub­region 4: Staffordshire and Stoke­on­Trent p30, recommendations p33 5. Final proposals recommendations p8 Appendix A Initial/revised proposals overview 1. The West Midlands region was allocated 53 constituencies under the initial and revised proposals, a reduction of six from the existing allocation. In formulating the initial and revised proposals the Commission decided to construct constituencies using the following sub­regions: Table 1A ­ Constituency allocation Sub­region Existing allocation Allocation under initial Allocation under revised proposals proposals Staffordshire (and 12 11 11 Stoke­on­Trent) Herefordshire, Shropshire 47 42 n/a (including Telford and Wrekin), Warwickshire, West Midlands, and Worcestershire Herefordshire, Shropshire n/a n/a 32 (including Telford and Wrekin), West Midlands (excluding Coventry and 1 Solihull), and Worcestershire Coventry and Warwickshire n/a n/a 8 Solihull n/a n/a 2 2. Under the initial proposals seven of the existing 59 constituencies were completely unchanged. The revised proposals retained six of the existing constituencies unchanged. Under the initial proposals there were four constituencies that crossed county boundaries. These were: one cross­county constituency between Worcestershire and Warwickshire (Evesham and South Warwickshire), one between Herefordshire and Shropshire (Ludlow and Leominster), one between Herefordshire and Worcestershire (Malvern and Ledbury), and one between West Midlands and Warwickshire (Shirley and Solihull South).
    [Show full text]