DOCSLIB.ORG

3. Preferred Patterns of Local Government 23

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
3. Preferred Patterns of Local Government 23 Local Government Review in the Lancashire County Council Area Research Study Conducted by MORI for The Boundary Committee for England April 2004 Contents Page Introduction 5 Executive Summary 9 1. Attitudes to Local Governance 11 2. Attitudes to Issues under Review 19 3. Preferred Patterns of Local Government 23 Option A 27 Option B 31 Option C 35 4. Preferred New Council Name 39 APPENDICES 1. Option Showcards 2. Research Methodology 3. Definitions of Social Grade and Area 4. Marked-up County-wide Questionnaire 3 Introduction This report presents the findings of research conducted by the MORI Social Research Institute on behalf of The Boundary Committee for England in the Lancashire County Council area. The aim of the research was to establish residents’ views about alternative patterns of unitary local government. Background to the Research In May 2003, the Government announced that a referendum would take place in autumn 2004 in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber regions on whether there should be elected regional assemblies. The Government indicated that, where a regional assembly is set up, the current two-tier structure of local government - district, borough or city councils (called ‘districts’ in this report) and county councils - should be replaced by a single tier of ‘unitary’ local authorities. In June 2003, the Government directed The Boundary Committee for England (‘the Committee’) to undertake an independent review of local government in two-tier areas in the three regions, with a view to recommending possible unitary structures to be put before affected local people in the autumn 2004 referendum. MORI was commissioned by COI Communications, on behalf of the Committee, to help it gauge local opinion. The research was in two stages. First, in summer 2003, MORI researched local residents’ views about local government and how they identify with their local community. These findings can be found at the Committee’s web site (www.boundarycommittee.org.uk) and MORI’s web site (www.mori.com). The findings were taken into account by the Committee in formulating its draft recommendations for consultation. The second part of the research, which took place in Stage Three of the Committee’s review, has been primarily concerned with residents’ reactions to the Committee’s preliminary proposals and the reasons for local people’s preferences. The findings from the second part of the research are the subject of this report. Coverage of Main Research MORI has undertaken research in all 44 districts in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber regions. Within each district, at least 300 face-to-face interviews were carried out in-home, between 1 December 2003 and 23 February 2004. A total of 13,676 interviews took place across the three regions. 5 Additional Interviews In addition to the main research described above, the Committee also asked MORI to undertake further research where it considered it needed further evidence. This related to its reviews in Cheshire, Lancashire and North Yorkshire. First, in districts which the Committee identified may be split in the event of local government reorganisation, it asked MORI to interview additional respondents in order to gauge in more detail their views about options which would directly affect them. The districts were Selby (North Yorkshire), Crewe & Nantwich and Vale Royal (Cheshire), and Fylde, Rossendale, West Lancashire and Wyre (Lancashire). A total of some 2,000 interviews took place across these areas. Second, MORI was asked to interview a representative sample of some 300 residents in each of four single-tier councils adjacent to review areas - Sefton, Wigan, Wirral and York. Findings from the additional interviews have been reported separately. Style Protocols in this Report We have adopted a number of protocols throughout this report: • Unless otherwise stated, reference is made to districts rather than towns. For example ‘Chorley’ refers to the Borough Council area of that name, rather than to the town. • Two-tier borough, city or district council areas are referred to as ‘districts.’ • The Boundary Committee for England is referred to as ‘the Committee’. • CC refers to ‘County Council’, BC to ‘Borough Council’ and DC to ‘District Council’. • An asterisk in a table or chart refers to a percentage between zero and 0.5. • Definitions for ‘social grade’, and ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ areas, are provided in Appendix 3. • ‘Review’ refers to the Committee’s review of local government. • Some figures in charts and tables, and in the marked-up questionnaires at Appendix 4 may not add up to 100%. Occasionally figures may also vary by 1%. In both cases, this is due to rounding. The definitive figures may be found in the computer tabulations provided under separate cover. • Base sizes have been given throughout this report. Where the base is under 50, particular caution should be applied when making any inferences. 6 The Lancashire County Council Area 7 This Report This report presents MORI’s findings in the Lancashire County Council area (in the North West region). Reports and data for the other five counties under review have been provided separately. Within each two-tier district, at least 300 face-to-face interviews were carried out in-home between 1 December 2003 and 23 February 2004. A total of 3,676 interviews took place across all two-tier authorities in the Lancashire County Council area. Quotas were set by age, gender and work status using 2001 Census data. Data have been weighted back to the known demographic profile of each district by age, gender and work status. For aggregated county data, findings have also been weighted by the population size of each individual district. The methodology applied in this research, along with showcards showing the options put forward for consultation and a marked-up questionnaire, are set out in the appendices to this report. Full computer tabulations have been provided separately. County-wide reports for each county under review, and summary reports for each district, have also been provided under separate cover. Publication of the Data As part of our standard terms and conditions, the publication of the data in this report is subject to the advance approval of MORI. This would only be refused on the grounds of inaccuracy or misinterpretation of the findings. Mapping The maps in the Introduction and Chapter 3 of this report are reproduced by kind permission of The Boundary Committee for England from those it used during its Stage Three consultations. MORI Contact Details Simon Atkinson, Research Director Renuka Engineer, Senior Research Executive Emma Holloway, Senior Research Executive Paul Samuels, Research Executive Neil Wholey, Senior Research Executive 79-81 Borough Road London SE1 1FY Tel: 020 7347 3000 Fax: 020 7347 3800 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.mori.com © MORI/20362 8 Executive Summary • The most important issues which Lancashire residents consider should be taken into account when deciding how council boundaries should be changed are the quality of services and being responsive to local people’s wishes. Other important factors are the need for accountability to local people and the cost of services. • Respondents were briefed during the interview about the review of local government and shown cards setting out the main patterns of unitary local government on which the Committee consulted (Appendix 1). The options were: - Option A: a unitary council based upon the majority of the County Council area, with part of Rossendale combined with Rochdale and part of Wyre combined with Blackpool; - Option B: seven unitary councils (see p.19 for details); - Option C: eight unitary councils (see p.19 for details). • Overall, preferences are finely balanced between the three options. Each is preferred by around a fifth of residents. • One in seven residents specify, unprompted, a preference for no change. One in four do not have a view (a notably higher proportion than MORI found in the other five counties under review). • The main reason for preferring Option A is the view that it would be more efficient or provide better value for money. For Options B and C, residents’ main reason is that they would like a council which covers a small area. • There is a rather clearer view overall in the county about residents’ least preferred option. Option A is nominated by over a third of residents, the main reason being their preference for a council which does not cover a large area. One in ten residents would least prefer Option B, the main reasons being that it would not reflect local people’s views or identity. One in seven residents would least prefer Option C, the main reason being its perceived lack of efficiency and value for money. • There is considerable variation by district with regards to the most preferred option. However, Option A is the least preferred in all districts with the exception of West Lancashire. • Most Lancashire residents do not claim know a great deal about local government. Two in five residents claim to know a great deal or fair amount about local councils and the services they provide, compared with three in five who know little or nothing at all. • At the time of the interview, just one in seven claimed to know more than a little about the review of local government – nearly half had not heard of it. As might be expected, knowledge of the review tends to be least evident among social grades DE, younger people and those who have moved relatively recently to their area. 9 1. Attitudes to Local Governance Knowledge of Local Government The main purpose of MORI’s survey was to establish residents’ reactions to the Committee’s preliminary proposals for patterns of unitary local government. However, in order to understand residents’ views, a range of contextual questions were also asked – concerned with residents’ knowledge and understanding of local governance and their attitudes towards it.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 5. Network Planning for Walking
    Central Lancashire Walking and Cycling Delivery Plan 5. Network Planning for Walking The future walking network has been derived through identifying those areas which would benefit from creating a sustainable link between trip origins and trip destinations within a reasonable walking distance of approximately 2km. Trip origins predominantly include densely populated residential areas and trip destinations include educational, employment and retail areas which are likely to attract a significant number of trips. As part of this process, funnel routes have been identified which incorporate the route which most pedestrians will follow to access a particular destination, however given the diverse nature of pedestrian movements, the routes do not extend into particular destinations since the route of each individual user will vary depending on their individual trip origin/end. In alignment with LCWIP guidance, Core Walking Zones have also been identified from identifying the area within each town which encompasses the greatest amount of trip attractors and therefore likely the generate the greatest levels of walking. The Four Core Walking Zones (CWZ) identified are: • Preston CWZ; • Lostock Hall CWZ; • Leyland CWZ; and • Chorley CWZ. 41 Central Lancashire Walking and Cycling Delivery Plan 5.1 Proposed Walking Routes 5.1.1 Preston Core Walking Zone Figure 5-1 Preston CWZ / Funnel Routes The Preston CWZ proposals will improve facilities for both pedestrians and cyclists alike, making it safer and easier to access Preston inner city centre, UCLAN, Cardinal Newman College, and transport hubs such as Preston Railway and Bus Stations. Measures predominantly involve pedestrian priority / informal streets, to improve the safety and accessibility of the town centre for pedestrians.
    [Show full text]
  • A.L.L. S.A.F.E. ALLSAFE ALLSAFE Was Implemented to Combat the Upsurge in Anti Social Behaviour in the Wai Ms Ley Close Area of Accrington
    Lancashire Constabulary The Tilley Award 2003 Category: Partnership A.L.L. S.A.F.E. ALLSAFE ALLSAFE was implemented to combat the upsurge in anti social behaviour in the Wai ms ley Close area of Accrington. Hyndburn Council Community Wardens and CBW have first identified this, which was further evidenced by the rise in the number of Police incidents being reported. A letter drop to 70 residents revealed the main concerns were that the area was run down, insufficient household security, the streets were badly lit, which contributed to a greater "fear of crime' factor. Anti-Social behaviour was rife, they identified that most offenders were congregating around 2 problematic addresses. To combat the problems, ALL-SAFE commenced in September 2002. The Police, Social Services, Wardens, Housing and Maundy Grange Charity joined forces to deal with the 2 addresses and their associate problems, to either re-integrate the occupants or, as eventually occurred, to re-locate them. Juvenile nuisance immediately reduced dramatically. Once the occupants left, so did the problem youths. Fear of crime was tackled by encouraging the charity 'Age Concern' to embrace the project. Funding was obtained resulting in all elderly residents in the area having free security devises installed in their houses (alarms, door locks, chains, window locks.) 'Community E-mail*, was introduced, in order to improve reassurance. Funding for email telephones, installed in homes in the Close, was obtained, and encourages "involvement*. The system was so successful that it was extended throughout Hyndburn. A media campaign promoted our work in the area, and challenged other agencies to get involved.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Lancashire Open Space Assessment Report
    CENTRAL LANCASHIRE OPEN SPACE ASSESSMENT REPORT FEBRUARY 2019 Knight, Kavanagh & Page Ltd Company No: 9145032 (England) MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Registered Office: 1 -2 Frecheville Court, off Knowsley Street, Bury BL9 0UF T: 0161 764 7040 E: [email protected] www.kkp.co.uk Quality assurance Name Date Report origination AL / CD July 2018 Quality control CMF July 2018 Client comments Various Sept/Oct/Nov/Dec 2018 Revised version KKP February 2019 Agreed sign off April 2019 Contents PART 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Report structure ...................................................................................................... 2 1.2 National context ...................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Local context ........................................................................................................... 3 PART 2: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 4 2.1 Analysis area and population .................................................................................. 4 2.2 Auditing local provision (supply) .............................................................................. 6 2.3 Quality and value .................................................................................................... 7 2.4 Quality and value thresholds ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • North Road Retail Park North Road, Preston, Pr1 1Ru
    NORTH ROAD RETAIL PARK NORTH ROAD, PRESTON, PR1 1RU On behalf of the Joint Administrators, A P Berry & M J Magnay www.avisonyoungretail.co.uk INVESTMENT NORTH ROAD RETAIL PARK SUMMARY INVESTMENT SUMMARY ■ Preston is the principal commercial and ■ Preston benefits from excellent road communications ■ North Road Retail Park is fully let with a total administrative centre for Lancashire, with a primary with easy access from the M6, M61, M65, income of £217,000 per annum. catchment population of 338,000 people. and M55 motorways. ■ The park totals 21,554 sq ft and is occupied ■ The park is prominently located on the A6, which is ■ North Road Retail Park is a modern scheme having by Evans Cycles and Pure Gym. the main road into Preston from the M55 to the north. been developed in 2014. ■ The scheme has a WAULT of 6.7 years to expiry ■ Asset management opportunities include repurposing and 3.7 years to break. the scheme and potential for redevelopment of the ■ The Pure Gym lease benefits from a fixed uplift overflow car park. on 12 October 2024 to £145,200 per annum. ■ Freehold. Offers sought in excess of £2,044,000 (Two Million and Forty Four Thousand Pounds), subject to contract and exclusive of VAT. A purchase at this level would reflect an attractive net initial yield of 10.00% after purchaser’s costs of 6.16%. Based on the fixed uplift in the Pure Gym lease, the reversionary yield will rise to 10.60% in October 2024. The overflow car park is available for a consideration of£100,000 , giving a total lot size of £2,144,000 (Two Million, One Hundred and Forty Four Thousand Pounds).
    [Show full text]
  • The Seven Wards: a Focus on Skelmersdale Date: March 2015
    The Seven Wards: A Focus on Skelmersdale Author: Simon Collins (Public Health Knowledge and Intelligence analyst) Contributors: Dr Angela Tucker (Public Health Registrar) , Dr Farha Abbas (Public Health Knowledge and Intelligence analyst) Project sponsor: Karen Thompson (Public Health Consultant) Date: March 2015 The seven wards Map of the West Lancashire Wards (seven wards in Skelmersdale highlighted) 1 The seven wards Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 4 MOSAIC Profiling ........................................................................................................................... 5 Population breakdown .................................................................................................................. 6 Rural/urban classification and deprivation.................................................................................. 6 Rural/urban classification ...................................................................................................... 6 Income Deprivation (%) ......................................................................................................... 7 Children 0–15 living in income-deprived households (%) ...................................................... 8 Older People in Deprivation (%) ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lancashire County Council
    Agenda Item 16.0. Lancashire Health and Wellbeing Board Minutes of the Meeting held on Thursday, 29th October, 2015 at 2.00 pm in Cabinet Room 'C' - The Duke of Lancaster Room, County Hall, Preston Present: Chair County Councillor Jennifer Mein, Leader of the County Council Committee Members County Councillor Tony Martin, Cabinet Member for Adult and Community Services (LCC) County Councillor Matthew Tomlinson, Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Schools (LCC) Dr Sakthi Karunanithi, Director of Public Health, Public Health Lancashire Bob Stott, Director of Children's Services Dr Gora Bangi, Chorley and South Ribble CCG Dr Mike Ions, East Lancashire Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) Councillor Tony Harrison, Burnley Borough Council Councillor Bridget Hilton, Central Lancashire District Councils Michael Wedgeworth, Healthwatch Lancashire Interim Chair Dr Tony Naughton, Fylde & Wyre CCG Richard Cooke, Health Equity, Welfare and Partnerships Manager Dr Dinesh Patel, Greater Preston CCG Sarah Swindley, CEO, Lancahire Women's Centres, VCFS Rep Gary Hall, Lancashire District Councils Margaret Flynn, Independent Chair, Lancashire Adult Safeguarding Board Jane Booth, Independent Chair, Lancashire Safeguarding Children's Board Councillor Hasina Khan, Chorley Borough Council David Tilleray, Chair West Lancs HWB Partnership Apologies County Councillor David Whipp Lancashire County Council Louise Taylor Corporate Director Operations and Delivery (LCC) Tony Pounder Director of Adult Services Dr Simon Frampton West Lancashire Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) Dr Alex Gaw Lancashire North Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) Graham Urwin NHS England, Lancashire and Greater Manchester Mark Bates Assistant Chief Constable, Lancashire Constabulary Dee Roach Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust (on behalf of Heather Tierney-Moore) 1. Welcome, Introductions and Apologies Chair welcomed group, apologies were noted and introductions were made.
    [Show full text]
  • Streetscene Enforcement Policy
    Streetscene Enforcement Policy INTRODUCTION Burnley Burough Council wants to make the Borough a place where the streets and open spaces are clean, safe and well, maintained. Sustainable lifestyles will be promoted which emphasise waste minimisation, recycling and respect for the environment. It is the aim of the Council to protect the public and the environment and promote health, safety and welfare and enhance the quality of life of all residents, workers and visitors to the Borough. This will be achieved by education, providing advice and by regulating the activities of others. Enforcement action will play an important role in helping the Council to secure compliance with regulatory requirements. The Council will work with other regulators, such as the Environment Agency and Central Government to ensure co-ordinated and cohesive regulation. The Council will seek to share good practise and local intelligence with appropriate enforcing bodies. The Council will also work with community and voluntary groups in order to achieve common goals. The Council views prosecution as a last resort and will seek to prevent rather than remediate. The Council will offer information, advice and education in order to secure co-operation, avoiding bureaucracy or excessive cost. The policy will set out what residents, businesses and the community can expect from Streetscene Enforcement Officers. It sets out the general principles, which the Council intends to follow when taking enforcement action. More detailed, operational guidance may be developed for staff in respect of specific functions. The policy commits the Council to good enforcement policies and practises. PURPOSE The purpose of enforcement action is to ensure that preventative or remedial action is taken to protect the public and the environment or to secure compliance with a regulatory system.
    [Show full text]
  • Applying for Building Regulations Consent
    work, preferably two days prior to commencing. An officer will arrange to visit and discuss your proposals BUILDING REGULATIONS to determine what inspections are required during Your Local the course of the work. Information Leaflet No.1 COMPLETION OF WORK Building Control When the work is completed (excluding decorating Service and furnishing) you must arrange for a completion inspection by your Building Control Officer. Where the Full Plans procedure has been followed a The Building Control Service is here to Completion Certificate will be issued providing the help, if you are in any doubt over Building work is satisfactory. Regulation requirements or require further information, please telephone or It is strongly recommended that this completion call at your local Building Control Office. certificate is obtained before final payment is made to the contractor. Solicitors may also require a copy Whilst every care has been taken in compiling this of this certificate which confirms that the work has been completed in accordance with the Building information leaflet and the statements contained Regulations. herein the publishers and promoters cannot accept responsibility for any inaccuracies. Building PLANNING PERMISSION Regulations are changed from time to time, if you did not receive this leaflet directly from your Local Applying Planning Permission and Building Regulation Building Control Authority, check with them that the approval are not the same. Building Regulations will information here is still current. often apply when Planning Permission is unnecessary, for Building and vice-versa. You should always check with the For further advice on this subject or any other Development Control Section of the Council to find Building Control matter please contact your Local out if your proposal needs Planning Permission.
    [Show full text]
  • Health and Housing Committee
    RIBBLE VALLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL please ask for: OLWEN HEAP Council Offices direct line: 01200 414408 Church Walk CLITHEROE e-mail: [email protected] Lancashire BB7 2RA my ref: OH/CMS Switchboard: 01200 425111 your ref: Fax: 01200 414488 date: 1 June 2015 www.ribblevalley.gov.uk Dear Councillor The next meeting of the HEALTH & HOUSING COMMITTEE is at 6.30pm on THURSDAY, 11 JUNE 2015 at the TOWN HALL, CHURCH STREET, CLITHEROE. I do hope you will be there. Yours sincerely CHIEF EXECUTIVE To: Committee Members (Copy for information to all other members of the Council) Directors Press AGENDA Part I – items of business to be discussed in public 1. Apologies for absence. 2. To approve the minutes of the last meeting held on 19 March 2015 – copy enclosed. 3. Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests (if any). 4. Public Participation (if any). FOR DECISION 5. Appointment of working groups to confirm arrangements/membership of any working groups that belong to this Committee: (a) Strategic Housing Working Group (4 Members); (b) Health and Wellbeing Partnership (6 Members). Chief Executive: Marshal Scott CPFA Directors: John Heap B.Eng. C. Eng. MICE, Jane Pearson CPFA 6. Capital Outturn 2014/15 – report of Director of Resources – copy enclosed. 7. Allocation of Capital Funding for Provision of Foundation Beams at Clitheroe Cemetery – report of Chief Executive – copy enclosed. 8. Animal Boarding (Home Boarding) – report of Chief Executive – copy enclosed. 9. Nationally Described Space Standards – report of Chief Executive – copy enclosed. 10. Request to Waive Contract Procedure Rules to Purchase Domestic Abuse Support Service – report of Chief Executive – copy enclosed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Prospects Foundation Annual Report
    THE PROSPECTS FOUNDATION ANNUAL REPORT 2016 - 2017 FORWARD FROM THE CHAIRMAN MISSION AND THEMES Next year in December we will be celebrating the twentieth anniversary of the Foundation – although The PROSPECTS Foundation is Hyndburn’s community owned environmental charity and we are PROSPECTS as a whole has already passed that milestone. This means we are approaching the time to something of a unique and wonderful organisation. We were established in 1998 by local people and reflect on what we have all achieved together. But there is no time to sit back on our laurels - this year have lots of skills and environmental knowledge which we use and pass on when delivering projects we look forward to continuing the good work. around the Borough. We support a network of PROSPECTS Panels as well as schools and community groups to help them develop their own ideas to improve the environment. In the tumultuous and “interesting” political year we have just seen, the environment, as ever, has been pushed to the back seat. While President Trump rows back on US commitments to combatting climate We focus our work on 6 Themes of Sustainability, which means that our actions are not harmful to change our own Government has signalled its policy of reliance on fossil fuels by consenting fracking the environment, they take account of both local and global issues and positively contribute to the in Lancashire. Globally environmental indicators are not good – habitat loss, species extinction rates, reduction of climate change. Our 6 Themes are: ocean plastic, city air quality, loss of polar ice - you could get discouraged! BIODIVERSITY One interesting reflection though is that experience shows that giving up, just sitting back and expecting protecting and enhancing local wildlife and plant life “them” to come up with solutions is not going to get us very far.
    [Show full text]
  • Accrington Adopted Area Action Plan
    ACCRINGTON AT THE HEART OF PENNINE LANCASHIRE HYNDBURN BOROUGH COUNCIL LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK ACCRINGTON AREA ACTION PLAN PUBLICATION EDITION MARCH 2010 PAGE // Accrington AAP PAGE // Accrington AAP PAGE // Accrington AAP CONTENTS CONTENTS PART A THE PLAN AND ITS CONTEXT Policy Index 1.0 Introduction and Background Plans and Figures .0 Strategic and Local Forward Policy Context .0 Characteristics and Key Issues .0 Vision, Objectives and Proposals Hyndburn Borough Council Planning & Transportation Services Scaitcliffe House Ormerod Street Accrington Lancashire BB5 0PF Tel: 01254 388111 Fax: 01254 391625 [email protected] If you require this information in a different format, for example large print, audio or in different languages please let us know. PAGE // Accrington AAP PART B PART C PART D APPENDICES POLICIES SPATIAL QUARTERS IMPLEMENTATION .0 11.0 1.0 1.0 Range of Uses within the SPATIAL QUARTERS AND IMPLEMENTATION AND APPENDICES Town Centre, Employment PROPOSAL SITE POLICES MONITORING FRAMEWORK Development and Housing The Blackburn Road Quarter Delivering Accrington Appendix 1: Accrington 6.0 Town Centre Area Action Urban Design and Plan Proposal Map Environmental Quality The Arndale Quarter Strategic Business Plan Appendix : Accrington Area 7.0 The Cannon Street Quarter The Town Centre Action Plan: Key Boundaries The Historic Environment Development Board The Grange Quarter Appendix : Policy 8.0 Marketing Strategy ATC: Active Shopping Transport and Access Frontages plan The Scaitcliffe Quarter Performance Indicators
    [Show full text]
  • Blackpool Town Prospectus
    BLACKPOOL TOWN PROSPECTUS Photo: By Gregg Wolstenholme, @wolstenholmepic 2030 AGENDA FOR ACTION FOREWORD We are proud to be jointly sponsoring this Prospectus. Its purpose is to articulate We now ask the government to create a long term strategic partnership with a collective vision and agenda for Blackpool, leveraging the full force of our Blackpool through a Town Deal, as set out in this Prospectus and the supporting resources to develop the town’s many strengths and address its complex Town Investment Plan. pattern of deprivation in a strategic and cohesive way. We want people in and outside of Blackpool to be proud of this special town. Simon Blackburn Leader, Blackpool Council We have a clear and well-developed plan for action which is contained in this Steve Fogg Chair, Lancashire Enterprise Partnership Prospectus. It has been created by the Blackpool Pride of Place, a unique partnership of local government, business, and the voluntary sector. The Christine Hodgson CBE Chair, Blackpool Pride of Place, Chair, Severn Trent partnership was created in 2018 and has made great progress to understand Blackpool’s challenges and has set out a clear plan to address the issues. The Blackpool Pride of Place partnership, supported by Business in the Community, continues to champion the delivery of this ambitious agenda, especially by leading the Towns Fund Board. The renewal of Blackpool is a prominent objective in the Lancashire Enterprise Partnership’s Strategic Economic Plan, and this document will be a contribution I spent a fascinating and moving couple of days in Blackpool to the new Local Industrial Strategy.
    [Show full text]