EU Areas Official List of the European PSK Club ( )
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Funtley Parish Council: How a Community Governance Review Was Triggered in Funtley, Hampshire
Funtley Parish Council: How a Community Governance Review Was Triggered in Funtley, Hampshire Page 1 of 9 Headlines: The village of Funtley is in the Borough of Fareham, in the county of Hampshire. Funtley Village Society triggered a Community Governance Review in Fareham Borough by collecting signatures for their residents on a petition and submitting it to the Borough Council. The Borough Council were initially unaware of the legal changes relating to a Community Governance Review (the process by which a new parish council is created) which caused tension between the Village Society and Fareham Borough Council. On 24th May 2016 the campaign group was informed that Fareham Borough Council may reject their request to create a parish council in Funtley, recommending that the status quo should be maintained. The Borough Council did finally reject the creation of a new Funtley Parish Council on 28 July, 2016 citing the creation of an additional burden to residents of an uncapped precept as the main reason. This is a study revealing the difficulty in persuading principal authority councillors that a new parish council will be beneficial for residents when such councillors may feel that their traditional mandate will be undermined by such a new governance model in an area unused to creating new parish councils. It also reveals that the Community Governance Review process needs to be changed again to ensure that mandatory resident referenda are introduced the outcomes of which are binding. Why A Council Is Wanted: Having gathered over 300 signatures, the Funtley Village Society submitted its petition to Fareham Borough Council triggering a Community Governance Review (the process by which it hoped the Borough Council will ultimately agree to the creation of a new parish council in Funtley). -
In the Borough of Ashford Prow
‘Honey Hill’ and the field boundary where the path no longer follows PROW - IN THE BOROUGH OF ASHFORD the stream, for a distance of 1km. Notice of the makiNg of aN order to temporarily close There is no alternative route. public footpath AU67 iN ashford For detailed enquiries please contact Andrew Hutchinson Contact In the borough of ashford Centre no. 03000 417171 keNt couNty couNcil Or for further details on temporary closures on the Rights of Way Network see: www.kent.gov.uk/prowclosures (public footpath AU67) (prohibitioN of traffic) temporary order 2017 PROW - IN THE BOROUGH OF SWALE Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Section 14(1), As Amended By The Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Act 1991 Notice of the makiNg of aN order to temporarily close kent county council has made an order the effect of which is to restricted byWays ZSX47, ZSX48 aNd ZSX90 iN the town of temporarily close public footpath AU67, between its junction with sheerNess public footpath AU66 and tQ 9939 4386 from the 13th November In the borough of Swale 2017. keNt couNty couNcil The path will be closed for a maximum of six months, although it is expected that it will reopen before the end of December 2017. (restricted byWays ZSX47, ZSX48 aNd ZSX90) (prohibitioN of traffic) temporary order 2017 The path is closed because works are planned on or near it. Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Section 14(1), As Amended By The The alternative route is via the tarmac track through Lodge Wood and Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Act 1991 will be signed for the duration of the closure. -
The Fareham and Gosport Primary Care Trust (Establishment) Order 2002
DOH700567-0001 STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2002 No. l120 NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, ENGLAND The Fareham and Gosport Primary Care Trust (Establishment) Order 2002 Made - 25th March 2002 Coming into force 1st April 2002 The Secretary of State for Health, in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by sections 16A(1), (2) and (3) and 126(4) of, and paragraph 1 of Schedule 5A to, the National Health Service Act 1977(a) and of all other powers enabling him in that behalf, following compliance with the consultation requirements contained in regulations made under section 16A(5) of the Act(b), hereby makes the following Order: Citation, commencement and interpretation 1.--(1) This Order may be cited as the Fareham and Gosport Primary Care Trust (Establishment) Order 2002 and shall come into force on 1st April 2002. (2) In this Order, unless the context otherwise requires-- "operational date" is to be construed in accordance with paragraph 1 (2) of Schedule 5A to the National Health Service Act 1977; "the trust" means the Fareham and Gosport Primary Care Trust established by article 2 of this Order. Establishment, operational date and name of the Primary Care Trust 2. -(1) There is hereby established with effect from l st April 2002 a Primary Care Trust to be called the Fareham and Gosport Primary Care Trust. (2) The operational date of the trust shall be 1st April 2002. Area of the trust 3. The trust shall be established for the area specified in the Schedule to this Order. (a) 1977 cA9; section 16A was inserted by the Health Act 1999 (c.8) ("the 1999 Act"), section 2(1); section 126(4) was amended by the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (c.19) ("the 1990 Act"), section 65(2) and by the 1999 Act, Schedule 4, paragraph 37(6); Schedule 5A was inserted by the 1999 Act, Schedule 1. -
Local Government Boundary Commission for England Report No
Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No. Principal Area Boundary Review Borough of Gravesham/Borough of Dartford/District of Sevenoaks LOCAL GOVEHNICWT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND HEK)hT NO. LOCAL GOVKRflUEJlT BOI'NJJAHY COMMISSION FOR CHAIRMAN Mr C J Ellerton CMC MB1C Mr J U Powell PRICE FGV* Lady Aoknur lir T Brockbank DI^ Professor G E Cherry Mr K J L Newell Me B Qcholee QBE THE RT. HON. PATRICK JENKIN MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT 1. At present the New Barn residential area is split between Dartford Borough, Sevenoaks District and Gravesham Borough; the part situated in Dartford is in the parish of ^outhfleet; the part in Sevenoaks is in the parish of Longfield, whilst the part in Gravesham is unparished. On 30 November 1979» Gravesham Borough Council requested ue to review the boundaries between the districts of Gravesham, Dartford and Sevenoaks in the vicinity of New Barn. Their request was in response to representations from the New Barn Ratepayers Association for the whole of the New Barn residential area to be incorporated within Gravesham Borough. The Association based their representations on a survey of opinion which they carried out in 1978 among the residents of New Barn on the question of whether the area should be under one authority, and if so, which one. The results indicated that a majority (8?#) of residents indicating a view preferred to see New Barn under one authority and a large proportion (6990 of these considered that this should be Gravesham. 2. We noted that Kent County Council, Dartford Borough Council, Sevenoaks District Council, and Longfield Parish Council were all opposed to a review beinp undertaken at that time, although Kent County Council and Dartford BOrough Council did a^ree that the current boundaries in the New Barn area were not wholly satisfactory. -
Appendix B KENT YOUTH SERVICE
Appendix B KENT YOUTH SERVICE: NEEDS ANALYSIS AND OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK FOR THE COMMISSIONING OF YOUTH WORK PROVISION IN KENT 1. Introduction 1.1 The publication ‘Bold Steps for Kent’ outlines the medium term plan for Kent County Council for the next four years; one of its three aims is to ‘put the citizen in control’: “power and influence must be in the hands of local people and local communities so they are more able to take responsibility for their own community and service needs, such as creating new social enterprise”. In line with this aim, Kent Youth Service is seeking to commission a range of providers to deliver youth work within local communities. This document lays out the intended outcomes for young people and the communities in which they live as a result of this commissioning process. 2. Service Context 2.1 The Education and Inspections Act 2006 (Section 6) places a duty on local authorities to provide for young people aged 13-19 (and up to 24 for those with learning difficulties and/or disabilities) sufficient recreational and educational leisure time activities and facilities for the improvement of young people’s well-being and their personal and social development. 2.2 The focus on the ages 13-19 reflects the fact that these ages are commonly understood to represent a transition period for young people during which the engagement in positive leisure time activities as described in the Education and Inspection Act 2006 can offer significant benefits to young people. The statutory guidance for this duty states that local authorities should be clear that they are able to secure access to positive activities in order to accommodate individuals with early or delayed transitions. -
Bootle Community Plan 2009
BCAP Issue 1 (Final) Page 1 25/02/2009 Community Action Plan for Bootle Parish Issue 1 – February 2009 Produced for the Community of Bootle By the Bootle Community Action Plan Steering Group With assistance from: Rural Cumbria (formerly Voluntary Action Cumbria) Lake District National Park Authority Cumbria Rural Housing Trust DEFRA For our Implementation Partners: The South Copeland Partnership (of Parish Councils) Cumbria Association of Local Councils Copeland Borough Council Cumbria County Council Westlakes Renaissance Cumbria Vision 1 BCAP Issue 1 (Final) Page 2 25/02/2009 1. Introduction In the Government White Paper “Our Countryside, The Future” published in 2000, it was stated that ‘parish (community action) plans are an important step in helping local rural communities to take charge of their own destinies and also an opportunity to strengthen the first, and the most local form of government we have in this country’. Since then several other key papers and guidance have been produced to assist villages understand services and attributes they have and wish to retain or improve on. In addition they describe what is needed to protect and enhance rural areas so that they can remain or become vibrant and sustainable well into the future. Some of these generic and Cumbria-specific documents and strategies include:- Sustainable Communities Act 2007 Pathways of Influence, Community Led Planning-why it matters, Carnegie Trust, March 2008 Charter for Rural Community, Carnegie Trust, 2008 Future Generations-A strategy for sustainable communities in Cumbria 2007-27 Britain’s energy coast – master plan for West Cumbria Local matters – Cumbria County Council Cumbria Economic Plan, (sustaining the rural economy), Cumbria Vision, 2008. -
ZRBG – Ghetto-Liste (Stand: 01.08.2014) Sofern Eine Beschäftigung I
ZRBG – Ghetto-Liste (Stand: 01.08.2014) Sofern eine Beschäftigung i. S. d. ZRBG schon vor dem angegebenen Eröffnungszeitpunkt glaubhaft gemacht ist, kann für die folgenden Gebiete auf den Beginn der Ghettoisierung nach Verordnungslage abgestellt werden: - Generalgouvernement (ohne Galizien): 01.01.1940 - Galizien: 06.09.1941 - Bialystok: 02.08.1941 - Reichskommissariat Ostland (Weißrussland/Weißruthenien): 02.08.1941 - Reichskommissariat Ukraine (Wolhynien/Shitomir): 05.09.1941 Eine Vorlage an die Untergruppe ZRBG ist in diesen Fällen nicht erforderlich. Datum der Nr. Ort: Gebiet: Eröffnung: Liquidierung: Deportationen: Bemerkungen: Quelle: Ergänzung Abaujszanto, 5613 Ungarn, Encyclopedia of Jewish Life, Braham: Abaújszántó [Hun] 16.04.1944 13.07.1944 Kassa, Auschwitz 27.04.2010 (5010) Operationszone I Enciklopédiája (Szántó) Reichskommissariat Aboltsy [Bel] Ostland (1941-1944), (Oboltsy [Rus], 5614 Generalbezirk 14.08.1941 04.06.1942 Encyclopedia of Jewish Life, 2001 24.03.2009 Oboltzi [Yid], Weißruthenien, heute Obolce [Pol]) Gebiet Vitebsk Abony [Hun] (Abon, Ungarn, 5443 Nagyabony, 16.04.1944 13.07.1944 Encyclopedia of Jewish Life 2001 11.11.2009 Operationszone IV Szolnokabony) Ungarn, Szeged, 3500 Ada 16.04.1944 13.07.1944 Braham: Enciklopédiája 09.11.2009 Operationszone IV Auschwitz Generalgouvernement, 3501 Adamow Distrikt Lublin (1939- 01.01.1940 20.12.1942 Kossoy, Encyclopedia of Jewish Life 09.11.2009 1944) Reichskommissariat Aizpute 3502 Ostland (1941-1944), 02.08.1941 27.10.1941 USHMM 02.2008 09.11.2009 (Hosenpoth) Generalbezirk -
1994 Appendices
APPENDICES Footnotes I Chronology of Evolving Architecture/Design II List of Consultees III Principal Issues Raised by Consultations IV Principal Contacts V Summary List of Strategic Policies VI List of Illustrations VII APPENDIX I: FOOTNOTES 1 London Planning Advisory Committee : 1993 Draft Advice on Strategic Planning Guidance for London (para. 8.14) 2 Royal Fine Art Commission: Thames Connections Exhibition (May 1991) 3 Judy Hillman: A New Look for London (Royal Fine Art Commission 1988) ISBN 0 11 752135 3 4 Kim Wilkie Environmental Design: Landscape Strategy for the Thames between Hampton Court and Kew: Elements for the Project Brief (July 1992) Kim Wilkie Environmental Design: Report on Consultation (July 1992) 5 Sherban Cantacuzino Eddington Charitable Trust Johnny Van Haeften Mick Jagger Richard Lester Prince and Princess Rupert Loewenstein 6 David Lowenthal: The Historic Landscape Reconsidered (George Washington Univ. 1990) 7 English Nature: Strategy for the 1990s: Natural Areas (1993) 8 Richmond Council demolition of Devonshire Lodge at the foot of Richmond Hill in 1960s 9 Countryside Commission, English Heritage, English Nature: Conservation Issues in Strategic Plans (August 1993) ISBN 0 86170 383 9 10 Greater London Council, Department of Transportation and Development: Thames-side Guidelines, An Environmental Handbook for London’s River (March 1986) 11 London Ecology Unit A Nature Conservation Strategy for London (Ecology Handbook 4) Nature Conservation in Hounslow (Ecology Handbook 15) 1990 Nature Conservation in Kingston -
Central European Horizons
Central european Horizons VOL. II https://horizontok.hu ISSUE 1 2021 ISSN 2732-0456 The City Left Behind: Changes in the Ethnic Composition of Vilnius During and After World War II Péter Bedők Doi: 10.51918/ceh.2021.1.4 [email protected] Pázmány Péter Catholic University Abstract The population of Wilno/Vilnius numbered over 200 000 people when the Second World War broke out. The city found itself at the crossroads of Po- lish, Lithuanian and belated Belarusian nation building efforts. In the first phase of the war, the multi-ethnic city which was also a centre of a voivods- hip and where Poles were the majority community, came under Lithuanian authority. The Soviet military and diplomatic actions played a key role in this change. The arrival of the Soviet troops halted the extensive “Lithua- nianization” process that had begun. As a result, tensions between the Polish community and the Lithuanian state eased. The Extermination of the Jewish population the city commenced with the German invasion on 24 June 1941. Before the Soviet troops reached the Vilnius Region, the Polish Home Army (AK) gained control over the rural areas. Despite the Polish plans, Vilnius was liberated with the help of the Soviet Red Army on 13 July 1944. The relationship between the Polish and the Soviet army quickly turned hostile. Moreover, violence continued to accompany population movement. Even though the Old Town remained largely intact, the demographic profile of Vilnius altered dramatically. First, it became a Russian dominated space. Following the collectivization, as a result of the influx of the Lithuanians intensified and they gradually became the majority in the city. -
Scoping Opinion
SCOPING OPINION: Proposed M25 Junction 10/A3 Wisley Interchange Improvement Case Reference: TR010030 Adopted by the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government) pursuant to Regulation 10 of The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 January 2018 [This page has been intentionally left blank] 2 Scoping Opinion for M25 Junction 10/A3 Wisley Interchange CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 5 1.1 Background ................................................................................. 5 1.2 The Planning Inspectorate’s Consultation ........................................ 7 1.3 Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union ..................................... 7 2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .......................................................... 8 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................ 8 2.2 Description of the Proposed Development ....................................... 8 2.3 The Planning Inspectorate’s Comments ........................................... 9 3. EIA APPROACH ................................................................................ 13 3.1 Introduction .............................................................................. 13 3.2 Relevant National Policy Statements (NPSs) .................................. 13 3.3 Scope of Assessment ................................................................. -
BMF-Ghettoliste Positivbearbeitung
BMF-Ghettoliste in Überarbeitung Ort: Gebiet: Eröffnung: Liquidierung: Abaújszántó [Hun] Ungarn, Operationszone 16. April 1944 15. Juni 1944 (Szántó) I (Gebiet Abaúj) Reichskommissariat Abol’tsy [Bel] Ostland (1941-1944), (Oboltsy [Rus], Generalbezirk 14. August 1941 Oboltzi [Yid], Obolce Weißruthenien, heute [Pol]) Gebiet Vitebsk Abony [Hun] (Abon, Ungarn, Operationszone Nagyabony, 28. April 1944 27. Juni 1944 IV Szolnokabony) Alba Iulia Rumänien 01.07.1941 23.08.1944 Ungarn (Pest-Pilis-Solt- Alberti Kiskun County) 01.05.1944 Ende Juni 1944 Operationszone VI Aleksandriya [Rus] Reichskommissariat (Aleksandria [Pol, Ukraine (1941-1944), Yid], Oleksandriia heute: Ukraine, Gebiet 1. September 1941 23. September 1943 [Ukr], Aleksandriia, Riwne; früher: Polen, Aleksandrija, Gebiet Wolyn Aleksandrya) Aleksandrów Lódzki [Pol] (Aleksander Reichsgau Wartheland [Yid], Aleskandrów, (1939-1945); heute: 27.12.1939 Aleksandrova, Polen, Gebiet Lódzkie Aleksandor) Alytus [Lith] (Olita [Pol, Rus], Alita [Yid], Litauen Ende Juli 1941 09.09.1941 Al īta [Latv], Alytaus, Alitus, Alyta) Ambarowo, Ambrose, Transnistrien, Bezirk Kornejewo-Dalni 30.08.1941 18.03.1944 Odessa (Rus), Lichtenfeld, Amsterdam (Judenviertel I, II und Niederlande 15. September 1941 September 1943 III) BMF-Ghettoliste in Überarbeitung Ort: Gebiet: Eröffnung: Liquidierung: Amsterdam- Niederlande 01.04.1942 30.09.1943 Asterdorp Anan'yiv, Anan'yer, Ukraine, Odessaer Ende August 1941 Ende März 1944 Anan'yev, Anan'yer Oblast Transnistrien, Bezirk Androtefca Oceacov, Rajon 01.08.1942 18.03.1944 (Avdotefca) Varvarovca Andrychów [Pol] (Yandrichov [Yid], Preußen (Provinz Andrichau [Ger], Oberschlesien); heute 01.09.1941 12.11.1943 Andrichov, Polen, Gebiet Andrikhov, Małopolskie Yendrikhov) Annopol [Pol] (Anapol [Yid], Generalgouvernement, Annopol (Lublin), Distrikt Lublin (1939- 01.06.1942 01.10.1942 Annopol-Rachów, 1944); heute: Polen Rachów-Annopol) Antonowka, (Antonovka [Rus, Ukraine, Gebiet Rowno, Yid], Antonówka 1. -
Thames Gateway Risk Profile
Review of Emergency Response Provision: Thames Gateway Cluster Risk Profile RERP - Thames Gateway Cluster Risk Profile Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4 Description of Cluster ............................................................................................................ 5 Cluster Demographics and Population Risk Factors.............................................................. 6 Deprivation .......................................................................................................................... 10 Overall Cluster Risk ............................................................................................................ 11 Dwellings ......................................................................................................................... 11 Special Service ................................................................................................................ 12 Geodemographic Segmentation .......................................................................................... 13 Cluster Geodemographic Segmentation .......................................................................... 14 Building Usage as a Risk Identifier ...................................................................................... 16 Other Building Risk ............................................................................................................. 17 Sleeping Accommodation