DOCSLIB.ORG

Communications and Engagement Strategy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Communications and Engagement Strategy Communications and Engagement Strategy Clinically Led, Quality Driven Communications and Engagement Strategy 3 Communication and Engagement Strategy Contents 1. Executive Summary 4 2. Background 5 3. Duty to Engage 8 4. Principles of Good Practice 10 5. Conclusion of our Situational Analysis 12 6. Engaging with Stakeholders 13 7. Key Messages 30 8. Positioning 32 9. Branding 33 10. Emergency Planning and Business Continuity 34 11. Risks 35 12. Roles and Responsibilities 36 13. Equality 37 14. Monitoring and Evaluation 38 15. Communications and Engagement Plan 39 Appendices A-H Appendix A: Stakeholder Analysis 44 Appendix B: PEST Analysis 46 Appendix C: Competitor Analysis 51 Appendix D: Mosaic Profiling 52 Appendix E: Measuring Our Effectiveness 55 Appendix F: Media Handling Protocol 57 Appendix G: Summary of Stakeholder Event September 2012 59 Appendix H: How Patient Insight and Engagement Informs 61 Decision-Making NHS South East Staffordshire & Seisdon Peninsula CCG 4 1. Executive Summary 1.1 This Communications and Engagement Strategy sets out how South East Staffordshire and Seisdon Peninsula Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) is and will in the future engage and communicate at all levels with its stakeholders. The Strategy sets a framework for current and intended communications and engagement that will support and achieve five key aims developed by the CCG, which are to: • Ensure that for all those involved in the work of the CCG that they buy into the principle of a ‘quality led organisation’ • Understand the profile of the local population, external influencers and stakeholders including disadvantaged groups, which will be used to shape our commissioning intentions and support our planned and proactive communications • Put patients, carers and the public at the heart of the CCG by effectively engaging and involving them in our commissioning activities and reflecting their experiences and insight in our commissioning cycle and decision-making processes • Raise awareness of the existence of the CCG amongst patients and the general public and establish a positive reputation for the CCG as the local leader of the NHS, fostering effective relationships and a culture of two-way communications with all stakeholder groups, particularly communicating ways in which interested members of the general public can become involved in informing commissioning decisions • Ensure that GP members, staff and other internal stakeholders feel part of the CCG and drive the agenda of the organisation and are well informed, engaged and motivated and are committed to the CCG’s vision and priorities Clinically Led, Quality Driven Communications and Engagement Strategy 5 2. Background 2.1 This Strategy provides a framework for improving the communication and engagement activities required to support the delivery of the CCG’s mission, and priorities. South East Staffordshire and Seisdon Peinsula CCG is formed of two separate localities which were originally two separate CCGs (South East Staffordshire CCG and Seisdon Peinsula CCG). The two merged in April 2012 and commissions services on behalf of a total population of approximately 210,000 patients. The CCG is located within three council boundaries which are South Staffordshire Council, Tamworth Borough Council and Lichfield District Council. Using the Rural and Urban Area Classification 2004, 39% of South Staffordshire’s and 29% of Lichfield’s population is classified as urban, whilst all of the Tamworth population live in an urban area. The CCG is structured into two localities – South East Staffordshire (including Tamworth, Lichfield and Burntwood) which has 150,000 patients and 24 GP practices; Seisdon Peninsula (including Wombourne, Codsall, Perton and Kinver) has a population of 50,000 and 9 GP practices. The main acute hospitals which provide services to the South East Staffordshire population are Heart of England Foundation Trust in Birmingham and Queens Hospital in Burton upon Trent. Whilst in the Seisdon Peninsula the main acute hospitals which provide services are Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust and Dudley Group of Hospitals. Other providers which cover both localities are South Staffordshire and Shropshire Foundation NHS Trust (Mental Health) and Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Partnership NHS Trust (community health and social care services). Whilst our two localities do not share geographical borders, we opted to create one large CCG as the two localities shared an ethos of quality – a unique holistic understanding that member practices have of their patients’ needs which can be brought together to help shape the design of services in ways that enhance quality, improve outcomes and promote the most effective use of NHS resources. Our two localities also share the same commissioning geography and we have a desire to function as one body. 2.2 Our mission “We are a clinically led, quality driven needs focussed organisation. Working in partnership to reduce inequalities to transform and improve local healthcare within the available resources” 2.3 Our vision “Improve the health and wellbeing of our population by commissioning high quality services” NHS South East Staffordshire & Seisdon Peninsula CCG 6 2.4 The things that define our CCG • Our local health needs • Our approach to quality • Our financial challenge • Our vision and priorities 2.5 Principles We will follow the seven principles of Public Life (Nolan Principles): Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty and Leadership. 2.6 Health Challenges We understand the health challenges that our patients and population face and the marked inequalities that exist between our communities, which we have highlighted in Appendix B. The most significant challenge for our CCG area is that overall our population is expected to grow between now and 2035 by 14% in Tamworth, 7% in South Staffordshire and 18% in Lichfield, and specifically we will experience growth in people aged 65 and over and in particular those aged 75 and over (65 and over: 91% Tamworth; 65% South Staffordshire and 74% Lichfield. 75 and over: 145% Tamworth; 112% South Staffordshire and 128% Lichfield). With this ageing population our CCG population is predicted to see an increase in the numbers of long-term conditions. This will place an increased burden on future health and social care resources in our area. These challenges have therefore defined our five CCG priorities:- 2.7 Our priorities • Frail older people • People with long-term conditions • Quality With our two enablers as: • Working in Partnership • ‘Getting the basics right’ Clinically Led, Quality Driven Communications and Engagement Strategy 7 2.8 CCG Structure Our CCG comprises of 33 member GP practices with a mixture of small and multi-partner practices. This in itself can create particular challenges and therefore it is essential that we develop robust internal systems of communications and engagement. The organisation has grown and now employs approximately 25 people, in addition there are a number of Commissioning Support staff who work closely with the CCG, but are not directly employed by us. The CCG is currently reviewing clinical leadership, to bring more GPs into managerial roles. To support partnership working the CCG has collaborative commissioning arrangements across the whole of what was the former South Staffordshire Primary Care Trust area (East Staffordshire, Stafford and Surrounds and Cannock Chase). Organisationally, the CCG will operate at three levels: Level one Individual member practices Level two locality groups formed of ‘leaders’ from each practice Level three Governing Body which includes the Chair, an Accountable Officer, a Chief Finance Officer, one registered nurse, one secondary specialist doctor and at least two lay people, one with a chief role in championing patient and public engagement. The diagram below describes the accountability of practices to the CCG. Detail of accountability, together with roles and responsibilities of member practices is documented throughout the constitution. Member Practices ting e tion ability eam Me Governing Body a T nt t n Overall accountability and assurance orm ou f c n I Ac eme Decision Making g Locality Committees Mana Decision-making and delegated authority NHS South East Staffordshire & Seisdon Peninsula CCG 8 3. Duty to Engage 3.1 Section 242 of the NHS Act 2006 requires NHS organisations to have arrangements in place to involve users, carers and families in the planning, development, delivery and operation of services. Section 234 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act (2007) places an additional responsibility on commissioners to report on consultations planned or carried out before commissioning decisions are made and also evidence what influence any feedback from consultations has had on those decisions. The model of engagement that we have adopted has been designed around this responsibility; to not only involve its population in commissioning deliberations, but also to evidence tangible change and improvements as a result. In this way we believe that health services will be tailored more to need, with the local population having a greater understanding of the challenges we face. The Equality Delivery System operational tool is helping us to deliver our legal duty under the Equality Act 2010. Working through the goals identified with staff, patients and partners we will ensure that we not only deliver and act on the outcomes required, but that we fully appreciate the impact
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Draft Letter to the Prime Minister
    HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDO sw 1A OAA Rt. Hon. David Cameron MP Prime Minister 10 Downing Street London SW1A2AA Dear Prime Minister, As Members of Parliament for Staffordshire, we write to express our deep concern at the withdrawal of 3rd Battalion, the Mercian Regiment (The Staffards) from the Order of Battle. The Battalion has a proud history which can be traced back to its first raising at the King's Head Inn, Lichfield, in 1705. It served in Martinique, South Africa, Flanders, Gallipoli, Anzio and Arnhem. More recently, photographs of 3 Mercian fighting in Basra, became defining images of the Iraq campaign. We all recognise the difficult financial climate and the constraints that imposes on the Ministry of Defence. We understand that savings must be made. However, we also know that the decision to withdraw 3 Mercian will be distressing for all those currently serving, particularly those that might face redundancy, for their families and for those former Staffards who proudly recall their service. We know that it is the responsibility of the Mercian Regiment, as reorganised, to decide how best to reflect its history and antecedents. But as there is no longer any senior former Stafford serving on its staff, we hope that you will do all you can to encourage the Regiment to preserve and cherish the symbols, traditions and heritage of 3 Mercian within its ranks. 2 Mercian is known now as the Worcester and Sherwood Foresters as a result of previous amalgamations and we hope that a similar formula can be found to remember the Staffords.
    [Show full text]
  • Surgery Reconfiguration Public Engagement Report
    Surgery Reconfiguration Public Engagement Report PB March 2015 Executive Summary After an extended period of public engagement, over 18 weeks from 16thOctober 2014 to 9th February 2015, the feedback has been collated in this report. Overall, there appears to be an acceptance that the Trust cannot continue to provide surgical services in the current form given the external factors influencing healthcare delivery and the evidence that centralisation of services improves clinical outcomes. It is clear that the population is passionate about the retention of their local hospitals and the proposal to keep all outpatient appointments and investigation services delivered locally is popular. Concern remains over transport and travel and whilst the Trust is exploring possible solutions to this there is a degree of public scepticism that the issues will be resolved satisfactorily, which is likely to remain until such time as concrete plans have been developed and implemented. There has been almost no feedback from patients or the public relating to how the changes will affect the likely outcomes of undergoing surgery. This was explained at events with provision of the evidence on the website and so the lack of feedback may indicate it is not a contentious issue. There is little difference between the feedback received from each site although there has been a better response from Good Hope in terms of numbers, possibly due to the additional awareness created by local lobby groups. Whilst there appears to be acknowledgement that redesigning surgical services is the right approach, it is likely that individuals will resist change when it directly affects them or the services they access.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission to the Local Boundary Commission for England Further Electoral Review of Staffordshire Stage 1 Consultation
    Submission to the Local Boundary Commission for England Further Electoral Review of Staffordshire Stage 1 Consultation Proposals for a new pattern of divisions Produced by Peter McKenzie, Richard Cressey and Mark Sproston Contents 1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................1 2 Approach to Developing Proposals.........................................................................1 3 Summary of Proposals .............................................................................................2 4 Cannock Chase District Council Area .....................................................................4 5 East Staffordshire Borough Council area ...............................................................9 6 Lichfield District Council Area ...............................................................................14 7 Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council Area ....................................................18 8 South Staffordshire District Council Area.............................................................25 9 Stafford Borough Council Area..............................................................................31 10 Staffordshire Moorlands District Council Area.....................................................38 11 Tamworth Borough Council Area...........................................................................41 12 Conclusions.............................................................................................................45
    [Show full text]
  • THE 422 Mps WHO BACKED the MOTION Conservative 1. Bim
    THE 422 MPs WHO BACKED THE MOTION Conservative 1. Bim Afolami 2. Peter Aldous 3. Edward Argar 4. Victoria Atkins 5. Harriett Baldwin 6. Steve Barclay 7. Henry Bellingham 8. Guto Bebb 9. Richard Benyon 10. Paul Beresford 11. Peter Bottomley 12. Andrew Bowie 13. Karen Bradley 14. Steve Brine 15. James Brokenshire 16. Robert Buckland 17. Alex Burghart 18. Alistair Burt 19. Alun Cairns 20. James Cartlidge 21. Alex Chalk 22. Jo Churchill 23. Greg Clark 24. Colin Clark 25. Ken Clarke 26. James Cleverly 27. Thérèse Coffey 28. Alberto Costa 29. Glyn Davies 30. Jonathan Djanogly 31. Leo Docherty 32. Oliver Dowden 33. David Duguid 34. Alan Duncan 35. Philip Dunne 36. Michael Ellis 37. Tobias Ellwood 38. Mark Field 39. Vicky Ford 40. Kevin Foster 41. Lucy Frazer 42. George Freeman 43. Mike Freer 44. Mark Garnier 45. David Gauke 46. Nick Gibb 47. John Glen 48. Robert Goodwill 49. Michael Gove 50. Luke Graham 51. Richard Graham 52. Bill Grant 53. Helen Grant 54. Damian Green 55. Justine Greening 56. Dominic Grieve 57. Sam Gyimah 58. Kirstene Hair 59. Luke Hall 60. Philip Hammond 61. Stephen Hammond 62. Matt Hancock 63. Richard Harrington 64. Simon Hart 65. Oliver Heald 66. Peter Heaton-Jones 67. Damian Hinds 68. Simon Hoare 69. George Hollingbery 70. Kevin Hollinrake 71. Nigel Huddleston 72. Jeremy Hunt 73. Nick Hurd 74. Alister Jack (Teller) 75. Margot James 76. Sajid Javid 77. Robert Jenrick 78. Jo Johnson 79. Andrew Jones 80. Gillian Keegan 81. Seema Kennedy 82. Stephen Kerr 83. Mark Lancaster 84.
    [Show full text]
  • FDN-274688 Disclosure
    FDN-274688 Disclosure MP Total Adam Afriyie 5 Adam Holloway 4 Adrian Bailey 7 Alan Campbell 3 Alan Duncan 2 Alan Haselhurst 5 Alan Johnson 5 Alan Meale 2 Alan Whitehead 1 Alasdair McDonnell 1 Albert Owen 5 Alberto Costa 7 Alec Shelbrooke 3 Alex Chalk 6 Alex Cunningham 1 Alex Salmond 2 Alison McGovern 2 Alison Thewliss 1 Alistair Burt 6 Alistair Carmichael 1 Alok Sharma 4 Alun Cairns 3 Amanda Solloway 1 Amber Rudd 10 Andrea Jenkyns 9 Andrea Leadsom 3 Andrew Bingham 6 Andrew Bridgen 1 Andrew Griffiths 4 Andrew Gwynne 2 Andrew Jones 1 Andrew Mitchell 9 Andrew Murrison 4 Andrew Percy 4 Andrew Rosindell 4 Andrew Selous 10 Andrew Smith 5 Andrew Stephenson 4 Andrew Turner 3 Andrew Tyrie 8 Andy Burnham 1 Andy McDonald 2 Andy Slaughter 8 FDN-274688 Disclosure Angela Crawley 3 Angela Eagle 3 Angela Rayner 7 Angela Smith 3 Angela Watkinson 1 Angus MacNeil 1 Ann Clwyd 3 Ann Coffey 5 Anna Soubry 1 Anna Turley 6 Anne Main 4 Anne McLaughlin 3 Anne Milton 4 Anne-Marie Morris 1 Anne-Marie Trevelyan 3 Antoinette Sandbach 1 Barry Gardiner 9 Barry Sheerman 3 Ben Bradshaw 6 Ben Gummer 3 Ben Howlett 2 Ben Wallace 8 Bernard Jenkin 45 Bill Wiggin 4 Bob Blackman 3 Bob Stewart 4 Boris Johnson 5 Brandon Lewis 1 Brendan O'Hara 5 Bridget Phillipson 2 Byron Davies 1 Callum McCaig 6 Calum Kerr 3 Carol Monaghan 6 Caroline Ansell 4 Caroline Dinenage 4 Caroline Flint 2 Caroline Johnson 4 Caroline Lucas 7 Caroline Nokes 2 Caroline Spelman 3 Carolyn Harris 3 Cat Smith 4 Catherine McKinnell 1 FDN-274688 Disclosure Catherine West 7 Charles Walker 8 Charlie Elphicke 7 Charlotte
    [Show full text]
  • Download (9MB)
    A University of Sussex PhD thesis Available online via Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/ This thesis is protected by copyright which belongs to the author. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Please visit Sussex Research Online for more information and further details 2018 Behavioural Models for Identifying Authenticity in the Twitter Feeds of UK Members of Parliament A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF UK MPS’ TWEETS BETWEEN 2011 AND 2012; A LONGITUDINAL STUDY MARK MARGARETTEN Mark Stuart Margaretten Submitted for the degree of Doctor of PhilosoPhy at the University of Sussex June 2018 1 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................ 1 DECLARATION .................................................................................................................................. 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 5 FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................... 6 TABLES ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Daily Report Thursday, 29 April 2021 CONTENTS
    Daily Report Thursday, 29 April 2021 This report shows written answers and statements provided on 29 April 2021 and the information is correct at the time of publication (04:42 P.M., 29 April 2021). For the latest information on written questions and answers, ministerial corrections, and written statements, please visit: http://www.parliament.uk/writtenanswers/ CONTENTS ANSWERS 11 Energy Intensive Industries: ATTORNEY GENERAL 11 Biofuels 18 Crown Prosecution Service: Environment Protection: Job Training 11 Creation 19 Sentencing: Appeals 11 EU Grants and Loans: Iron and Steel 19 BUSINESS, ENERGY AND INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY 12 Facebook: Advertising 20 Aviation and Shipping: Carbon Foreign Investment in UK: Budgets 12 National Security 20 Bereavement Leave 12 Help to Grow Scheme 20 Business Premises: Horizon Europe: Quantum Coronavirus 12 Technology and Space 21 Carbon Emissions 13 Horticulture: Job Creation 21 Clean Technology Fund 13 Housing: Natural Gas 21 Companies: West Midlands 13 Local Government Finance: Job Creation 22 Coronavirus: Vaccination 13 Members: Correspondence 22 Deep Sea Mining: Reviews 14 Modern Working Practices Economic Situation: Holiday Review 22 Leave 14 Overseas Aid: China 23 Electric Vehicles: Batteries 15 Park Homes: Energy Supply 23 Electricity: Billing 15 Ports: Scotland 24 Employment Agencies 16 Post Offices: ICT 24 Employment Agencies: Pay 16 Remote Working: Coronavirus 24 Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and Renewable Energy: Finance 24 National Minimum Wage Research: Africa 25 Enforcement Unit 17 Summertime
    [Show full text]
  • Order of 19 July 2016
    No. 28 1 House of Commons Tuesday 19 July 2016 Votes and Proceedings The House met at 11.30 am. PRAYERS. 1 Speaker’s Statement: Resignation of the Chairs of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and of the Science and Technology Committee 2 Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer 3 Urgent Question: Turkey (Sir Alan Duncan) 4 Income Tax (Non-Military Expenditure): Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a bill to require HM Commissioners of Revenue and Customs to record income tax revenues where the payee self-certifies as holding a conscientious objection to public spending on defence purposes and report to Parliament thereon; to place a duty on HM Treasury to take account of the amount and proportion of such self-certified income tax income in preparing the supply estimates; and for connected purposes; That Ruth Cadbury, Mr Virendra Sharma, Mr Roger Godsiff, Alan Brown, Caroline Lucas, Michelle Thomson, Hywel Williams, Martyn Day, Kate Green and Liz Saville Roberts present the Bill. Ruth Cadbury accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 2 December, and to be printed (Bill 54). 5 Higher Education and Research Bill: Second Reading Motion made and Question put, That the Higher Education and Research Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. Division No. 47. Ayes: 294 (Tellers: Guy Opperman, Mr Robert Syms). Noes: 258 (Tellers: Sue Hayman, Jeff Smith). Question accordingly agreed to and Bill read a second time.
    [Show full text]
  • Christopher Pincher MP
    Christopher Pincher MP Overview Christopher Pincher is the new Housing Minister, appointed by Prime Minister Boris Johnson in his February re-shuffle. He is the 10th Housing Minister since 2010 and 19th since 1997, taking over the position from Esther McVey. He is the member of Parliament for Tamworth and was first elected in 2010. During his time as an MP he has served as Deputy Government Chief Whip and Treasurer of the Household, alongside Minister of State for Europe and the Americas. Background Before entering Parliament, Pincher’s professional background was as an IT Consultant. He has been an active member of the Conservative Party since the political turbulence of the 80s, previously serving as Chairman of the Islington North Constituency Association. He was vocal on housing issues before he was elected to Parliament, once calling on housebuilding giant, Persimmon, to resume and complete construction of the Tame Alloys Estate in Wilnecote when it was half built at the time. Pincher’s parliamentary career has featured him being vocal on a number of occasions. Notably, he was once a strong critic of HS2 because of the initially proposed route to go through parts of his Tamworth constituency and defended most affected residents against accusations of nimbyism. What can we expect? There is already a significant amount of speculation about what we can expect to see from the new Housing Minister. Based on his past, we know that Pincher has a balanced approach to development without clear biases; this can be seen with his proactive approach to pushing Persimmon with the Tame Alloys Estate on the one hand and taking the side of residents with HS2 on the other.
    [Show full text]
  • June 2013 1Pm – 3Pm Hill Street Health & Well-Being Centre, Burton Upon Trent
    EAST STAFFORDSHIRE CLINICAL COMMISSIONING GROUP GOVERNING BODY A G E N D A OPEN SECTION Thursday 27th June 2013 1pm – 3pm Hill Street Health & Well-being Centre, Burton upon Trent Lead Time 1. Apologies Chair 13:00 2. Declarations of Interest Chair If an Executive member has any pecuniary/non-pecuniary interest in any contract, proposed contract or other matter under consideration at this meeting, he/she shall disclose the fact to the Chair and shall not take part in the consideration or discussion of the matter or vote on any question with respect to it. 3. Minutes of Meeting held on 23rd May 2013 Paper Chair 13:02 4. Actions from Meeting held 23rd May 2013 Paper Chair 13:05 5. Chair’s Report Paper Chair 13:10 6. Accountable Officer’s Report Paper Tony Bruce 13:20 Strategic Matters 7. Primary Care Development Plan Paper Sarah Laing 13:30 8. Staffordshire Health & Well-being Strategy Paper Charles Pidsley 13:35 Quality & Safety 9. Quality Report Paper H Johnstone 13:45 Performance 10. Finance Report Paper Wendy Kerr 14:00 11. Performance Report Paper Wendy Kerr 14:10 12. QIPP Monitoring Paper Sarah Laing 14:20 Governance 13. PCT Operational Hand-over Paper Wendy Kerr 14:30 14. Issues Arising from Governing Body requiring Verbal All 14:40 entry on CCG Risk Register 15. Minutes of Committees – Issues to be raised by exception by Chairs of Committees Quality Paper 14:45 QIPP Finance and Performance Committee Paper Steering Group – 9th May 2013 – deferred until September 16. Any Other Business Verbal 14:50 Questions/Comments from the Public Private Agenda The Chairman to move the following resolution: - "That representatives of the press and other members of the public be excluded from the remainder of this meeting, having regard to the confidential nature of the business to be transacted, publicity on which would be prejudicial to the public interest" (Section 1(2) Public Bodies (Admissions to Meetings) Act 1960).
    [Show full text]
  • Site Allocations Document (SAD)
    South Staffordshire Council South Staffordshire Local Plan Site Allocations Document (SAD) Pre-Submission Consultation Statement Appendices SAD Pre-Submission Consultation Statement – Appendices June 2017 Contents Appendices Appendix A List of Main Bodies/Organisations/People Consulted 1 Appendix B Sample Letter & Response Form 19 Appendix C Public Notice and Extracts from Review Newspaper 24 Appendix D Example Exhibition Poster 25 Appendix E Summary table of SAD consultation 26 Appendix F Breakdown of Responses by Site 27 Appendix G Links to Copies of and links to Responses 8 SAD Pre-Submission Consultation Statement – Appendices June 2017 Appendix A List of Main Consultation Bodies/Organisations South Staffordshire Parish Councils Acton Trussell, Bednall & Teddesley Hay Bilbrook Parish Council Blymhill and Weston under Lizard Parish Council Bobbington Parish Council Brewood and Coven Parish Council Cheslyn Hay Parish Council Codsall Parish Council Dunston with Coppenhall Parish Council Enville Parish Council Essington Parish Council Featherstone and Brinsford Parish Council Great Wyrley Parish Council Hatherton Parish Council Hilton Parish Council Himley Parish Council Huntington Parish Council Kinver Parish Council Lapley, Stretton and Wheaton Aston Parish Council Lower Penn Parish Council Pattingham and Patshull Parish Council Penkridge Parish Council Perton Parish Council Saredon Parish Council Shareshill Parish Council Swindon Parish Council Trysull and Seisdon Parish Council Wombourne Parish Council Staffordshire Authorities Cannock
    [Show full text]
  • 19-00044-LBC the Plough
    Lucy Duffy - Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 17th September 2019 19/00044/LBC Mr Richard Carroll TRYSULL & SEISDON MAJOR Councillor V Wilson R And R Inkeepers Limited Plough Inn School Road Trysull WOLVERHAMPTON South Staffordshire WV5 7HR Change of use for former public house into 5 residential units 1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY 1.1 Site Description 1.1.1 The site is a redundant public house sited to the west side of School Road within the small service village of Trysull. The site consists of a Grade II listed building along with a large expanse of hardstanding which was parking ancillary to the pub. The building is painted white and has been extended in the past and as a result, it is now a sizable structure. There are pitched roof dormer windows to the south elevation. There are two protected yew trees to the rear of the pub, in what was the dedicated beer garden. 1.1.2 The site is bounded with mature landscaping to the front alongside the public house and sporadically to the sides. The site is predominantly within the Development Boundary of Trysull with an area to the rear being designated Green Belt. There is residential development to the north and south with open fields to the east and west. 1.2 Planning History 1995, Children's play equipment, Approved (95/00610) 1999, Pitched roof to kitchen and toilet area, Approved (99/00136/FUL) 2005, Pictorial sign to be fitted to existing gibbet and pole, Approved (05/00967/ADV & 05/00968/LBC) 2006 Erection of open sided patio shelter, Refused (06/00834/FUL & 06/00835/FUL) 2007 Removal of brick column and relocation of toilets into part of beer store to allow expansion of kitchens, Withdrawn (07/00466/LBC) 2015 Proposed minor improvements.
    [Show full text]