DOCSLIB.ORG

Views of Residents in the Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council Area

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Views of Residents in the Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council Area MORI/21540/4 Topline for: Local Government Review – Views of Residents in the Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council Area Technical Note • Results are based on interviews with 307 residents aged 18+ across the administrative council area of Sefton Council. • Interviews were conducted face-to-face, in home between 1 December and 23 February 2004. • A representative quota sample was interviewed in at least 30 randomly selected Enumeration Districts (EDs) within Sefton Council area, with quotas set by age, gender and work status using 2001 Census data. • Data are weighted by age, gender and work status to the known profile of the area. • Where results do not sum to 100% this may be due to multiple responses, computer rounding, or the exclusion of don’t know/not stated. • An asterisk (*) indicates a value of less than 0.5%, but not zero. • Where the base size to a particular question is below 30 respondents, the percentage figure is replaced with the actual number of respondents (N) to that question. • Results are based on all respondents unless stated otherwise. INTRODUCTION Q1. Can I just check, is this your main home, or a second home? % Main 100 Second home 0 Don’t know/refused 0 Q2. Are you or other members of your household employed by a council? Respondent Other household members %% Yes: (5) (4) Borough/District/City/ 43 Metropolitan/Unitary council County council *1 Don’t know which council *0 No 95 71 Don’t know * 2 No other household members N/a 24 BACKGROUND Q3. Can I ask how long have you lived in this area? By this area, I mean within around one mile or 10-15 minutes walk from your home. % Less than 1 year 7 1-2 years 4 3-5 years 11 6-10 years 8 11-20 years 13 Over 20 years 40 All my life 18 Don’t know/can’t remember 0 Q4. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with this local area as a place to live? % Very satisfied 39 Fairly satisfied 43 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 5 Fairly dissatisfied 8 Very dissatisfied 5 Don’t know * INVOLVEMENT Q5. Overall, how involved do you feel in your local community? % A great deal 3 A fair amount 19 Not very much 41 Not at all 37 Don’t know 1 KNOWLEDGE OF/ATTITUDES TO LOCAL GOVERNANCE I would now like to ask you some questions about local government services in your area. Q6. Firstly, do you know the name of the council which provides local government services in this neighbourhood? Are there any others? % Sefton Council 82 Other(s) 2 Don’t know 17 In fact/as you said, most local government services in this area are provided by Sefton Council. As you may know, Sefton is in the Merseyside area. Q7. From this card, how much would you say you know about your local council and the services it provides? % A great deal 4 A fair amount 28 Not very much 49 Nothing at all 18 Don’t know 2 This card shows you some of the key services provided by your local council. Q8. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way Sefton Council is running the area? % Very satisfied 8 Fairly satisfied 44 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 20 Fairly dissatisfied 15 Very dissatisfied 8 Don’t know 5 Q9. And how strongly do you feel that you belong to each of the following areas? Very Fairly Not very Not at all No strongly strongly strongly strongly opinion The Sefton Council %153721224 area The Merseyside area %173416284 The county of %201518415 Lancashire Q10. Now thinking about getting in touch with your local council. If all these methods were available, which one would you prefer to use to contact your council in the first instance? % In person 10 By phone 68 In Writing: By fax * By email 3 By letter 6 Through a councillor 3 Through someone else 4 Other * Don’t know 6 ATTITUDES TO ISSUES UNDER REVIEW Q11. The Boundary Committee for England has been asked by the Government to review the way local government is currently organised in the North West in the counties of Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria, prior to a referendum on elected regional assemblies. As part of its review, The Boundary Committee can also recommend some changes to the boundaries of authorities within Merseyside and Greater Manchester. For example, your council’s boundary could be expanded to include areas which are currently part of Lancashire Before this interview today, how much, if anything, would you say you knew about this review of local government? % A great deal * A fair amount 9 Just a little 27 Heard of but know nothing about it 11 Never heard of it 52 Don’t know * Q12. Where did you hear about the review? Base: all who have heard of the review of local government (153) % Leaflets (12) Leaflet delivered to your door 10 Leaflets – don’t know which source 1 Leaflet in library/offices, etc 0 Leaflet from Boundary Committee for 0 England Newspapers (54) Article in local newspaper 45 Advertisement in local newspaper 6 Advertisement in national newspaper 2 Article in national newspaper 2 Council newsletter/magazine 0 Other Media (24) Programme/News on TV 19 Advertisement on Radio 3 Programme/News on Radio 3 Advertisement on TV 1 Poster 0 Councils (3) Conversation with a councillor or council 2 staff Parish/town council 1 Websites (1) Other website 1 Lancashire County Council website 0 Sefton Council website 0 The Boundary Committee for England 0 website Other (23) Friends/neighbours/family 17 Other 5 Residents’ Association 1 Don’t know 9 PREFERENCES The Boundary Committee for England is considering suggestions for organising local government as part of its review. One of the suggestions is that Sefton Council (which is in the Merseyside area) and part of West Lancashire Council (which is in Lancashire) could be combined into a single unitary council. Q13. Looking at the scenarios on these cards, please tell me which, if any, you would most prefer for the Sefton area, or whether you do not have a preference? % Sefton Council (which is in 18 Merseyside) and part of West Lancashire Council (which is in Lancashire) could be combined into a single unitary council No change to the current Sefton 37 Council area I don’t have a preference 31 Southport area in Lancashire 8 Some other option * Don’t know 5 PREFERRED OPTION I would now like to ask you some questions about your most preferred scenario, which is … Q14a. Looking at this card, which reasons best describe why you like this scenario most? Just read the letter/s that apply. Base: all who have a preference for Sefton Council and part of West Lancashire Council to be combined (58) % Community/Residents (71) It would reflect the right mix of local communities 25 I would like my council to cover a large area 25 It would reflect local history 24 It would reflect local geography 19 It would reflect local identity 13 It would reflect local people’s views 10 It would reflect similar communities 10 I would like my council to cover a small area 4 Council (61) It would improve council services 30 It would create a strong council 19 The Council would be more efficient/value for money 14 The option goes back to how it used to be 9 The Council would be more accountable 8 I don’t like present council 2 I like present council 0 Other (38) It’s my instinct/I just think it would be the best 20 Other 10 It’s the best of the available options 8 No particular reason 1 Don’t know 1 Q14b. Looking at this card, which reasons best describe why you like this scenario most? Just read the letter/s that apply. Base: all who prefer no change to the current Sefton Council area (119) % Community/Residents (56) I would like my council to cover a small area 39 It would reflect local people’s views 20 It would reflect local identity 12 It would reflect local history 10 It would reflect local geography 10 It would reflect the right mix of local communities 6 It would reflect similar communities 4 I would like my council to cover a large area 0 Council (46) I like present council 23 The Council would be more efficient/value for money 17 The Council would be more accountable 11 It would improve council services 9 It would create a strong council 4 The option goes back to how it used to be 3 I don’t like present council 0 Other (55) It’s my instinct/I just think it would be the best 32 No particular reason 9 It’s the best of the available options 7 Other 11 Don’t know 1 Q15a. And still thinking about your preferred scenario, how strongly would you say you prefer this compared to the other scenarios on the showcard? Base: all who have a preference for Sefton Council and part of West Lancashire Council to be combined (58) % Very strongly 34 Fairly strongly 38 Not very strongly 18 Not at all strongly 0 Don’t know 9 Q15b. And still thinking about your preferred scenario, how strongly would you say you prefer this compared to the other scenarios on the showcard? Base: all who prefer no change to the current Sefton Council area (119) % Very strongly 43 Fairly strongly 43 Not very strongly 9 Not at all strongly 0 Don’t know 5 Q16. When deciding on how to change the boundaries of council areas, which one of the things on this list, if any, do you think is the single most important issue to take into account? Just read out the letter that applies.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City World Heritage Site Supplementary Planning Document – Liverpool City Council Consultation – Wirral Council Response ______
    WIRRAL COUNCIL CABINET – 9th April 2009 REPORT OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE/DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE SERVICES LIVERPOOL MARITIME MERCANTILE CITY WORLD HERITAGE SITE SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT – LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL CONSULTATION – WIRRAL COUNCIL RESPONSE _________________________________________________________________________ 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Liverpool City Council has issued a consultation draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on the Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City World Heritage Site (WHS), which includes the Liverpool Waterfront and parts of Liverpool City Centre. The Liverpool Waterfront has a buffer zone extending to the centre of the River Mersey, with rigorous controls on development to be provided in that zone by policies in the emerging Liverpool Local Development Framework. The City Council’s draft SPD sets out a more detailed planning policy framework for the WHS, which has an overall aim of encouraging economic regeneration, whilst ensuring the protection of the outstanding universal value of the WHS. 1.2 Consultation responses are required by 14 th April and Cabinet is asked to agree that the comments of the Director of Corporate Services within this report form the response to Liverpool City Council on the Liverpool World Heritage Site Supplementary Planning Document. 2. The Consultation Supplementary Planning Document Outlined 2.1 The Liverpool WHS was defined by the United Nations Educational and Scientific Organisation (UNESCO) in 2004 as: ‘the supreme example of a commercial port at the time of Britain’s greatest global influence’ . Both the port and parts of the city centre were included to reflect the influence on the built environment of the early development of dock construction, port management and international trading systems in the 18 th and 19 th centuries.
    [Show full text]
  • Household Flood Resilience and Protection
    Household flood resilience and protection: a Defra consultation workshop (E8515) Manchester United Football Club, Sir Matt Busby Way, Old Trafford, Manchester - NAME POSITION ORGANISATION STATUS Mr Shaun Alexander Merseyside Waste & Disposal Delegate Mr Mark Bartlett Civil Contingencies Lancaster City Council Delegate Officer Mr Geoff Baslett Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Delegate Mr John Batty Director Bluejohn Marketing Chairman Mr David Beddoes Student University of Wolverhampton Delegate Mr David Bithell Public Health Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council Delegate Services Manager Mr Rob Bromley Emergency Planning Trafford Metropolitan Borough Delegate Officer Mr Samuel Brougham Architect/Sustainabilit PRP Architects Delegate y Consultant Mr Mark Camborne Health,Safety & Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council Delegate Resilience Manager Ms Rita Carletti Project Officer Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council Delegate Mr Philip Charles Project Manager CIRIA CIRIA Staff Mr Ian Clark Principal Engineer RSK Group Ltd Delegate Mr Derek Cochrane Director Derek Cochrane Associates Delegate Ms Aimee Conroy Traniee Emergency Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council Delegate Planning Officer Mr Stephen Corrigan Head of Emergency Liverpool Primary Care Trust Delegate Planning Mrs Maureen Denham Claims Handler RBS Delegate Mr Ian Dixon Watch Manager Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service Delegate Mr Mark Ellis Regeneration Team Capita Symonds Ltd Delegate Leader Miss Emma-Jane Ellison Emergency Planning Shropshire County Council Delegate Officer Mr Glenn Finch Special
    [Show full text]
  • Historical and Contemporary Archaeologies of Social Housing: Changing Experiences of the Modern and New, 1870 to Present
    Historical and contemporary archaeologies of social housing: changing experiences of the modern and new, 1870 to present Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Leicester by Emma Dwyer School of Archaeology and Ancient History University of Leicester 2014 Thesis abstract: Historical and contemporary archaeologies of social housing: changing experiences of the modern and new, 1870 to present Emma Dwyer This thesis has used building recording techniques, documentary research and oral history testimonies to explore how concepts of the modern and new between the 1870s and 1930s shaped the urban built environment, through the study of a particular kind of infrastructure that was developed to meet the needs of expanding cities at this time – social (or municipal) housing – and how social housing was perceived and experienced as a new kind of built environment, by planners, architects, local government and residents. This thesis also addressed how the concepts and priorities of the Victorian and Edwardian periods, and the decisions made by those in authority regarding the form of social housing, continue to shape the urban built environment and impact on the lived experience of social housing today. In order to address this, two research questions were devised: How can changing attitudes and responses to the nature of modern life between the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries be seen in the built environment, specifically in the form and use of social housing? Can contradictions between these earlier notions of the modern and new, and our own be seen in the responses of official authority and residents to the built environment? The research questions were applied to three case study areas, three housing estates constructed between 1910 and 1932 in Birmingham, London and Liverpool.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Engagement Plan Southport Town Deal
    Community Engagement Plan Southport Town Deal June 2020 Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Town Deals 2 3. Engagement Plan and Programme 5 4. Next steps 11 Appendix 1: Towns Fund Prospectus 1 1. Introduction 1.1 This Community Engagement Plan has been produced to support the emerging Southport Town Investment Plan. Its purpose is to outline the key engagement activities that have been undertaken to date with stakeholders, including elected members and representatives of the local community, and to detail the planned engagement and consultation prior to finalisation of the Southport Town Investment Plan. 1.2 This document is structured to provide: • An introduction to Town Deals and Town Investment Plans • Details of the engagement activities carried out to date and the proposed Engagement Plan and Programme • The proposed next steps 1.3 This Community Engagement Plan has been informed by information set out in the ‘Towns Fund Prospectus’ published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) in November 2019. The Prospectus is included as Appendix 1 to this document. 1.4 The Community Engagement Plan has been produced by Turley on behalf of Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC). It will be published by SMBC to ensure transparency over the engagement process to inform preparation of the Southport Town Investment Plan. 1 2. Town Deals 2.1 In November 2019 the Local Government Secretary invited 101 towns, including Southport, to develop proposals for a Town Deal with the Government, each one potentially receiving up to £25 million investment from the national £3.6 billion Towns Fund. 2.2 While Government has entered into a number of ‘City Deals’ to stimulate growth in large urban areas, smaller towns have been overlooked by that process and not always benefitted from economic growth even where located in close proximity to more prosperous areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Its Integrated Coastal Zone Management The
    Sustainable Development and Planning II, Vol. 1 475 The ‘Sefton Coast Partnership’: an overview of its integrated coastal zone management A. T. Worsley1, G. Lymbery2, C. A. Booth3, P. Wisse2 & V. J. C. Holden1 1Natural, Geographical and Applied Sciences, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, Lancashire, U.K. 2Coastal Defence Unit, Ainsdale Discovery Centre Complex, Southport, Merseyside, U.K. 3Environmental and Analytical Sciences Division, Research Institute in Advanced Technologies (RIATec), The University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, U.K. Abstract The Sefton Coast Partnership (SCP), based in Sefton, Merseyside, UK, is set within the context of and reported as an example of Integrated Coastal Zone Management. It has developed out of a well-established and successful Management Scheme and, since its inception, attempted with varying success to develop a ‘working partnership’ which has sustainable management at its heart and which is responsible for conservation and the needs of the local community. The history, function and structure of the SCP are described together with the problems that emerged as the partnership developed. Keywords: ICZM, partnership, sustainable management, Sefton. 1 Introduction The coastal zone is hugely significant in terms of sustainable management since this is where human activities affect and are inseparable from marine and terrestrial processes and environments both in developed countries and the Third World. Integrated management therefore requires a holistic, geographic approach and, in order to be successful, action at the local and regional level which is supported by the national government. This paper introduces the Sefton Coast Partnership as an example of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol 84, © 2005 WIT Press www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line) 476 Sustainable Development and Planning II, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Framework Users (Clients)
    TC622 – NORTH WEST CONSTRUCTION HUB MEDIUM VALUE FRAMEWORK (2019 to 2023) Framework Users (Clients) Prospective Framework users are as follows: Local Authorities - Cheshire - Cheshire East Council - Cheshire West and Chester Council - Halton Borough Council - Warrington Borough Council; Cumbria - Allerdale Borough Council - Copeland Borough Council - Barrow in Furness Borough Council - Carlisle City Council - Cumbria County Council - Eden District Council - South Lakeland District Council; Greater Manchester - Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council - Bury Metropolitan Borough Council - Manchester City Council – Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council - Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council - Salford City Council – Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council - Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council - Trafford Metropolitan Borough - Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council; Lancashire - Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council – Blackpool Borough Council - Burnley Borough Council - Chorley Borough Council - Fylde Borough Council – Hyndburn Borough Council - Lancashire County Council - Lancaster City Council - Pendle Borough Council – Preston City Council - Ribble Valley Borough Council - Rossendale Borough Council - South Ribble Borough Council - West Lancashire Borough Council - Wyre Borough Council; Merseyside - Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council - Liverpool City Council - Sefton Council - St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council - Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council; Police Authorities - Cumbria Police Authority - Lancashire Police Authority - Merseyside
    [Show full text]
  • Annex F –List of Consultees
    ANNEX F –LIST OF CONSULTEES Local highway authorities Leicester City Council Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council Leicestershire County Council Bath & NE Somerset Council Lincolnshire County Council Bedfordshire County Council Liverpool City Council Birmingham City Council Local Government Association Blackburn & Darwen London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Blackpool Borough Council London Borough of Barnet Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council London Borough of Bexley Borough of Poole London Borough of Brent Bournemouth Borough Council London Borough of Bromley Bracknell Forest Borough Council London Borough of Camden Bradford Metropolitan Borough Council London Borough of Croydon Brighton and Hove City Council London Borough of Ealing Bristol City Council London Borough of Enfield Buckinghamshire County Council London Borough of Greenwich Bury Metropolitan Borough Council London Borough of Hackney Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council London Borough of Hammersmith and Cambridgeshire County Council Fulham Cheshire County Council London Borough of Haringey City of York Council London Borough of Harrow Cornwall County Council London Borough of Havering Corporation of London London Borough of Hillingdon County of Herefordshire District Council London Borough of Hounslow Coventry City Council London Borough of Islington Cumbria County Council London Borough of Lambeth Cumbria Highways London Borough of Lewisham Darlington Borough Council London Borough of Merton Derby City Council London Borough of Newham Derbyshire County Council London
    [Show full text]
  • Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council
    Annex A SEFTON METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL GAMBLING ACT 2005 STATEMENT OF GAMBLING LICENSING POLICY Draft V.2 SEFTON METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL – STATEMENT OF GAMBLING LICENSING POLICY CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 General Statement 2.0 Scope • Premises Licence • Permits • Provisional Statements • Temporary Use Notices • Occasional Use Notices • Small Lotteries 3.0 Gambling Licensing Objectives 4.0 Casino Licences 5.0 The Licensing Process • Interested Parties • Responsible Authorities • Delegation of decisions and functions • Hearings • Review of licences 6.0 Licensing Conditions • Mandatory conditions • Default conditions • Door Supervisors 7.0 Information Protocols 8.0 Enforcement Protocols ANNEXES The following annexes do not form part of the approved Statement of Gambling Licensing Policy but are included to assist applicants in meeting the requirements of the licensing process. Annex 1 - Map of Sefton Annex 2 - Responsible Authorities Annex 3 - Gaming Machine Definition Tables 1 SEFTON METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL – STATEMENT OF GAMBLING LICENSING POLICY 1.0 GENERAL STATEMENT 1.1 Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) is the Licensing Authority (the Authority), under the Gambling Act 2005 (the Act), responsible for granting Premises Licences, issuing certain Permits and Provisional Statements, receiving and endorsing Temporary Use Notices, receiving Occasional Use Notices and registering Small Lotteries under the Act. 1.2 Section 349 of the Act requires that all Licensing Authorities prepare and publish a statement of the principles that they propose to apply in exercising their functions under the Act during the period to which the policy applies. 1.3 In carrying out its licensing functions the Authority will promote the Gambling Licensing Objectives which are: • Preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime; • Ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way; and • Protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling.
    [Show full text]
  • Merseyside Leaders and Chief Executives' Meeting
    Liverpool City Region Port Access Steering Group Terms of Reference 1. Introduction The Terms of Reference set out below outline context, governance, focus and responsibilities of the Liverpool City Region (LCR) Port Access Steering Group. The Group has been established to support the City Region Cabinet and Local Enterprise Partnership and the delivery of the LCR City Region Deal commitment to address transport access to the Port of Liverpool in support of the wider Superport proposals. 2. Terms of Reference Purpose . To deliver the commitments in the Liverpool City Region Deal relating to access to the Port of Liverpool. To facilitate the delivery of the packages of transport measures across all modes that will provide the required transport access improvements for the future of the Port of Liverpool through the development and implementation of an agreed work programme. Shared priority statement . To see the realisation of the economic benefits of SuperPort and the Port of Liverpool expansion for the wider City Region and for the local communities near the Port. To support interventions that will mitigate and manage the environmental impacts of port expansion and associated transport activity Accountability . The partners within the Group will be accountable to each other to ensure that partnership working is productive, sustainable and supportive. Partners responsible for specific interventions will be accountable to the Steering Group for ensuring the delivery those interventions. The Steering Group will be directly accountable to the Liverpool City Region Cabinet. Reports on progress will also be provided for information to and engagement with the Local Transport Plan Board, the Local Transport Body, the Local Enterprise Partnership Superport Committee and the City Region Deal Implementation group.
    [Show full text]
  • Effectiveness of SRB Programmes Scrutiny
    Scrutiny Report to City Council The Effectiveness of Birmingham SRB Programmes in Getting People into Work safeguarded’ be retained only as an ancillary outcome measure of the employment impact. 5. Thematic regeneration schemes such as Enterprise Link, Core Skills and the CEBP were designed to focus on one particular aspect of the problems facing the community or business. Arguably this single focus has enabled the schemes to have greater impact. The early programmes arose partly because the funding previously allocated to those types of actions was brought into the SRB. Many of the comments we received about the early rounds indicated concern because the various agencies “who were said to be trying to get their money back.” However the schemes in Birmingham such as the Core Skills Programme have been nationally recognised as innovative best practice and several comments were received on the positive impact the schemes have had on mainstream services. 6. The area-based schemes are all complex initiatives targeting large densely populated urban areas. Within the scope of the SRB the programmes have tried to create a balance between projects designed to address social, economic and physical issues. In SRB 1 for example the total grant was £12.8m and the key actions included commercial area improvements, housing and education and labour market initiatives. The nature of the market failure in these areas is so severe that the programmes are in danger of spreading themselves too thinly to achieve a significant impact. This point was made several times by programme managers and board members alike. 6.3 The Partnership Process and Management arrangements 6.3.1 The Partnership Process A central feature to the SRBCF has been the partnership approach to regeneration.
    [Show full text]
  • Administrative & Public
    VINCENT FRASER QC Year of call: 1981 Year of silk: 2001 Clerked by: Gary Smith Mark Ronson AREAS OF EXPERTISE: Administrative & Public Law Environment Licensing Local Government Planning Administrative & Public Law Vincent is a leading practitioner in many aspects of Administrative, Public and Local Government Law, advising regularly on several areas which are closely associated with Vincent's other practice areas, including Education, Highways, and Licensing. Amongst other matters he has dealt with Byelaws and orders, Constitutional issues, Council finance including council Tax and domestic rating, Education, highways and public rights of way, ombudsman's powers and procedures, Road traffic regulations and Standards, conduct and probity of local government officials and boundary reviews. Significant Reported Cases Education Vincent advises on wide range of education issues, including special needs, education reorganisation and finance. Highways Vincent regularly advises on and appears in cases involving highways and rights of way including litigation and footpath and rights of way inquiries. He has appeared in cases addressing the existence, extent and status of highways. He has regularly appeared in court and at inquiries addressing stopping up and diversion of highways. He has advised on and promoted traffic regulation orders at inquiry. He has appeared in arbitration addressing utilities in the highway. Human Rights Vincent advises on and appears in litigation addressing human rights. Judicial Review Vincent has extensive experience advising on and appearing in judicial reviews. Local Government Vincent deals with local authority powers, administration and finance. Election law Vincent has experience of boundary reviews, for example successfully representing Wirral BC at the review into the Merseyside constituencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloadable Claim Form
    ex_44396_pd00530_sefton_benefit_claim_form_insert_V2_Insert 19/03/2013 12:24 Page 1 Sefton Council Notes for filling in your claim form About this form This Housing Benefit and Council Tax Reduction claim form has been specially designed to be easy to fill in. It may look rather long, but we have to ask a lot of questions to make sure that you get the right amount of benefit. You may not have to fill in all parts of the form, but you must fill in any part that is relevant to you. Every part starts with a question to help you decide if you need to fill in that part. Write in black ink. Do not write in pencil. If you make a mistake, just cross it out and put the right answer next to it. Do not use correction fluid or tape. Answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ questions by putting a tick in the relevant box. If you are picking an answer from a list of answers, put a tick in the box next to your answer. Do not put a cross in any boxes. If you answer a question with a cross we will have to send the form back to you, and this will delay your claim. If someone else fills in the form for you, there is a space for them to sign so we know the form was filled in for you. If you need help filling in the form If you need any help, phone 0845 140 0845. If you have problems hearing, our textphone number is 0151 934 4327.
    [Show full text]