DOCSLIB.ORG

Tender Price Studies Location (Using 2000 Boundaries Data)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Tender price studies Location (using 2000 boundaries data) Base: UK mean = 100 Updated: 03-Oct-2014 Location Index 90% confidence interval Standard deviation Range Sample North East 92 92 - 93 11 70 - 165 452 Durham County 91 90 - 93 10 71 - 121 106 Chester-le-Street 91 88 - 94 7 80 - 104 15 Derwentside 93 85 - 102 15 79 - 121 9 Durham 93 90 - 97 10 74 - 113 27 Easington 90 87 - 94 9 75 - 111 16 Sedgefield 91 87 - 95 11 71 - 111 23 Teesdale 90 83 - 98 10 76 - 104 6 Wear Valley 91 87 - 95 7 81 - 101 10 Northumberland 95 92 - 98 14 75 - 165 56 Berwick-upon-Tweed 107 86 - 133 31 93 - 165 5 Blyth Valley 91 87 - 95 8 75 - 103 14 Castle Morpeth 96 89 - 104 15 81 - 124 11 Tynedale 96 91 - 101 12 81 - 124 15 Wansbeck 92 89 - 96 6 86 - 101 8 Tees Valley 94 92 - 96 12 70 - 136 91 Darlington 99 95 - 103 11 81 - 127 21 Hartlepool 90 84 - 96 15 70 - 136 15 Middlesbrough 95 91 - 99 12 79 - 120 21 Redcar and Cleveland 90 87 - 94 7 79 - 100 11 Stockton-on-Tees 93 89 - 97 11 73 - 117 23 Tyne and Wear 91 90 - 93 11 70 - 129 199 Gateshead 93 90 - 97 13 75 - 126 42 Newcastle Upon Tyne 92 90 - 95 11 73 - 129 56 North Tyneside 93 89 - 96 12 77 - 123 36 South Tyneside 90 88 - 93 8 70 - 107 28 Sunderland 88 86 - 90 7 73 - 110 37 North West 89 89 - 90 10 59 - 146 972 Cheshire 89 88 - 90 9 68 - 118 184 Chester 91 88 - 93 8 77 - 106 27 Congleton 87 81 - 93 13 74 - 118 12 Crewe and Nantwich 88 84 - 92 9 76 - 105 17 Ellesmere Port and Neston 90 87 - 93 7 79 - 107 15 Halton 88 84 - 92 9 69 - 103 18 Macclesfield 95 92 - 98 9 80 - 113 27 08-Oct-2014 18:30 © RICS 2014 Page 1 of 12 Location Index 90% confidence interval Standard deviation Range Sample Vale Royal 89 86 - 92 10 72 - 111 30 Warrington 88 85 - 90 8 70 - 110 37 Cumbria 89 87 - 92 11 59 - 118 74 Allerdale 94 86 - 102 12 79 - 109 9 Barrow-in-Furness 93 87 - 99 8 87 - 104 6 Carlisle 89 84 - 93 10 72 - 118 16 Copeland 92 89 - 95 6 82 - 102 11 Eden 91 85 - 97 12 67 - 113 13 South Lakeland 85 80 - 90 12 59 - 104 18 Greater Manchester 89 88 - 90 11 61 - 140 325 Bolton 89 86 - 91 9 76 - 108 34 Bury 89 85 - 93 9 71 - 104 16 Manchester 92 90 - 94 11 70 - 121 66 Oldham 88 85 - 91 9 67 - 105 30 Rochdale 89 86 - 91 9 71 - 106 33 Salford 90 87 - 94 11 61 - 115 34 Stockport 88 84 - 92 13 69 - 115 30 Tameside 89 82 - 95 16 78 - 140 13 Trafford 89 87 - 92 10 75 - 114 44 Wigan 87 84 - 90 9 72 - 103 25 Lancashire 89 88 - 90 10 67 - 127 187 Blackburn With Darwen 92 89 - 95 9 73 - 112 30 Blackpool 92 88 - 95 11 74 - 127 24 Burnley 93 87 - 99 11 75 - 109 11 Chorley 89 83 - 94 9 77 - 104 9 Fylde 83 76 - 91 7 75 - 93 4 Hyndburn 81 73 - 91 10 67 - 94 5 Lancaster 83 81 - 86 7 71 - 98 23 Pendle 95 86 - 105 11 86 - 112 5 Preston 88 85 - 91 8 74 - 105 25 Ribble Valley 93 90 - 96 7 84 - 106 14 Rossendale 87 78 - 96 9 78 - 99 4 South Ribble 87 84 - 91 7 79 - 102 12 West Lancashire 91 85 - 98 13 74 - 122 11 Wyre 90 85 - 95 9 80 - 104 10 Merseyside 89 88 - 90 10 67 - 146 202 Knowsley 87 83 - 92 10 78 - 114 13 Liverpool 87 86 - 89 10 67 - 126 89 Sefton 93 89 - 97 14 77 - 146 30 St Helens 90 88 - 93 9 71 - 109 30 Wirral 90 88 - 93 10 71 - 115 40 Yorkshire and the Humber 92 91 - 93 11 70 - 174 616 08-Oct-2014 18:30 © RICS 2014 Page 2 of 12 Location Index 90% confidence interval Standard deviation Range Sample East Riding and North Lincolnshire 91 89 - 92 9 72 - 115 136 East Riding of Yorkshire 93 90 - 95 9 76 - 115 44 Kingston Upon Hull 91 89 - 94 10 72 - 113 41 North East Lincolnshire 87 84 - 90 9 72 - 106 24 North Lincolnshire 90 88 - 93 8 76 - 107 27 North Yorkshire 97 95 - 98 11 70 - 146 99 Craven 98 91 - 106 10 91 - 120 6 Hambleton 98 93 - 103 10 84 - 115 14 Harrogate 97 93 - 101 10 80 - 118 21 Richmondshire 95 85 - 105 9 83 - 105 4 Ryedale 94 91 - 97 6 86 - 106 12 Scarborough 100 95 - 105 10 85 - 123 11 Selby 93 89 - 98 9 76 - 107 12 York 97 91 - 104 18 70 - 146 19 South Yorkshire 93 91 - 94 13 70 - 174 148 Barnsley 88 86 - 91 7 77 - 110 33 Doncaster 99 95 - 104 12 81 - 123 19 Rotherham 89 87 - 92 8 70 - 102 37 Sheffield 95 92 - 98 15 75 - 174 59 West Yorkshire 90 89 - 91 10 70 - 135 233 Bradford 89 87 - 90 9 73 - 117 66 Calderdale 88 85 - 91 7 71 - 96 21 Kirklees 93 90 - 97 13 76 - 133 36 Leeds 91 89 - 93 11 73 - 135 75 Wakefield 90 88 - 92 8 70 - 108 35 East Midlands 95 94 - 95 11 62 - 135 628 Derbyshire 95 93 - 96 12 62 - 134 145 Amber Valley 93 90 - 97 12 76 - 124 26 Bolsover 93 86 - 102 9 83 - 105 5 Chesterfield 98 94 - 102 9 84 - 113 17 Derby 89 87 - 92 10 62 - 112 35 Derbyshire Dales 95 89 - 102 11 78 - 116 11 Erewash 92 87 - 97 12 76 - 124 15 High Peak 103 97 - 109 12 79 - 123 14 North East Derbyshire 101 92 - 111 17 76 - 134 10 South Derbyshire 96 90 - 101 11 80 - 118 12 Leicestershire and Rutland 93 92 - 95 11 72 - 125 103 Charnwood 93 87 - 99 11 72 - 108 12 Harborough 98 88 - 110 11 86 - 112 4 Hinckley and Bosworth 90 85 - 96 7 78 - 97 7 Leicester 93 90 - 95 9 77 - 120 41 Melton 97 92 - 103 6 90 - 106 5 08-Oct-2014 18:30 © RICS 2014 Page 3 of 12 Location Index 90% confidence interval Standard deviation Range Sample North West Leicestershire 93 87 - 100 16 73 - 125 18 Oadby and Wigston 93 85 - 102 12 74 - 109 7 Rutland 97 90 - 105 9 85 - 108 6 Lincolnshire 94 92 - 95 9 75 - 127 87 Boston 95 88 - 101 13 82 - 127 11 East Lindsey 96 92 - 99 8 84 - 110 13 Lincoln 91 87 - 94 8 81 - 111 17 North Kesteven 99 94 - 104 8 89 - 110 8 South Holland 92 86 - 98 7 85 - 101 6 South Kesteven 93 89 - 96 9 75 - 115 20 West Lindsey 94 90 - 99 9 81 - 114 12 Northamptonshire 99 98 - 100 10 75 - 123 145 Corby 94 89 - 99 11 75 - 114 13 Daventry 98 96 - 101 7 88 - 114 20 East Northamptonshire 104 100 - 108 8 92 - 116 13 Kettering 99 96 - 102 9 83 - 119 24 Northampton 99 96 - 101 11 75 - 123 51 South Northamptonshire 101 96 - 107 11 91 - 122 11 Wellingborough 99 95 - 104 9 79 - 120 13 Nottinghamshire 93 91 - 94 10 72 - 135 148 Ashfield 88 82 - 94 10 72 - 106 9 Bassetlaw 92 84 - 101 12 76 - 109 7 Broxtowe 94 91 - 97 7 82 - 108 17 Gedling 91 87 - 95 8 78 - 105 13 Mansfield 89 86 - 92 6 80 - 100 14 Newark and Sherwood 93 87 - 100 11 77 - 111 10 Nottingham 94 92 - 96 12 74 - 135 64 Rushcliffe 95 92 - 99 8 84 - 118 14 West Midlands 95 95 - 96 10 66 - 162 886 Herefordshire 93 90 - 95 10 77 - 125 46 Shropshire 95 93 - 96 10 76 - 121 94 Bridgnorth 94 92 - 96 3 88 - 98 7 North Shropshire 96 91 - 100 8 79 - 108 12 Oswestry 100 93 - 107 11 82 - 118 9 Shrewsbury and Atcham 97 92 - 101 11 77 - 121 17 South Shropshire 101 94 - 108 12 80 - 118 10 Telford and Wrekin 91 89 - 93 9 76 - 113 38 Staffordshire 94 92 - 95 10 68 - 129 146 Cannock Chase 96 88 - 105 12 80 - 116 7 East Staffordshire 88 85 - 91 8 68 - 107 22 Lichfield 99 94 - 105 12 89 - 126 13 Newcastle-under-Lyme 94 91 - 98 10 78 - 116 27 08-Oct-2014 18:30 © RICS 2014 Page 4 of 12 Location Index 90% confidence interval Standard deviation Range Sample South Staffordshire 96 88 - 104 9 85 - 110 5 Stafford 97 93 - 102 11 77 - 118 20 Staffordshire Moorlands 91 86 - 96 9 75 - 107 11 Stoke-on-Trent 93 91 - 96 10 70 - 129 35 Tamworth 88 82 - 94 7 76 - 95 6 Warwickshire 98 96 - 99 10 72 - 152 109 North Warwickshire 97 92 - 102 8 89 - 112 9 Nuneaton and Bedworth 94 91 - 98 10 72 - 117 24 Rugby 97 94 - 101 9 82 - 116 17 Stratford-on-Avon 99 97 - 102 8 87 - 121 22 Warwick 99 96 - 102 13 78 - 152 37 West Midlands 95 94 - 96 10 66 - 133 392 Birmingham 96 94 - 97 10 66 - 133 136 Coventry 95 93 - 97 10 72 - 129 68 Dudley 94 92 - 96 10 78 - 131 50 Sandwell 97 95 - 99 9 80 - 122 46 Solihull 95 92 - 98 10 79 - 124 36 Walsall 92 88 - 97 11 77 - 111 17 Wolverhampton 94 92 - 97 10 76 - 120 39 Worcestershire 98 96 - 100 12 74 - 162 99 Bromsgrove 95 93 - 98 7 79 - 108 22 Malvern Hills 103 94 - 114 21 85 - 162 11 Redditch 92 89 - 96 9 76 - 116 17 Worcester 97 90 - 103 15 74 - 128 16 Wychavon 102 99 - 106 8 90 - 122 14 Wyre Forest 100 97 - 104 10 87 - 123 19 East of England 107 107 - 108 12 71 - 160 947 Bedfordshire 109 107 - 111 11 79 - 148 82 Bedford 106 103 - 110 11 79 - 132 29 Luton 112 109 - 116 11 93 - 148 28 Mid Bedfordshire 110 106 - 114 10 95 - 130 16 South Bedfordshire 110 103 - 118 12 89 - 125 9 Cambridgeshire 105 104 - 107 12 71 - 152 198 Cambridge 108 106 - 110 11 89 - 138 66 East Cambridgeshire 106 99 - 114 15 91 - 139 12 Fenland 108 104 - 113 11 94 - 130 16 Huntingdonshire 102 99 - 104 9 90 - 126 32 Peterborough 103 100 - 106 13 71 - 152 53 South Cambridgeshire 105 102 - 110 11 89 - 136 19 Essex 110 109 - 111 12 81 - 160 260 Basildon 113 110 - 116 11 89 - 141 31 Braintree 111 108 - 113 9 93 - 136 30 08-Oct-2014 18:30 © RICS 2014 Page 5 of 12 Location Index 90% confidence interval Standard deviation Range Sample Brentwood 106 100 - 112 9 95 - 121 8 Castle Point 118 110 - 126 10 106 - 137 6 Chelmsford 107 104 - 111 12 87 - 129 32 Colchester 106 102 - 110 12 87 - 131 23 Epping Forest 112 109 - 116 11 94 - 146 25 Harlow 112 107 - 117 12 95 - 141 15 Maldon 115 107 - 124 18 100 - 160 12 Rochford 126 118 - 133 11 109 - 146 8 Southend-on-Sea 108 104 - 111 10 91 - 125 20 Tendring 108 103 - 114 11 97 - 132 12 Thurrock 107 102 - 113 10 81 - 120 13 Uttlesford 109 106 - 113 10 88 - 124 25 Hertfordshire 113 112 - 115 12 89 - 158 142 Broxbourne 120 110 - 130 14 98 - 137 7 Dacorum 118 112 - 124 14 91 - 151 17 East Hertfordshire 112 108 - 116 10 98 - 141 18 Hertsmere 112 108 - 116 10 89 - 130 21 North Hertfordshire 113 107 - 120 13 94 - 150 13 St Albans 109 106 - 113 10 92 - 134 22 Stevenage 109 103 - 115 9 95 - 124 8 Three Rivers 116 110 - 121 8 103 - 126 7 Watford 114 107 - 122 18 94 - 158 16 Welwyn Hatfield 114 108 - 121 13 99 - 145 12 Norfolk 102 100 - 104 11 75 - 132 115 Breckland 100 97 - 104 9 87 - 126 22 Broadland
Recommended publications
  • Alnwick District Council

    Alnwick District Council

    APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 1 ALNWICK DISTRICT COUNCIL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL JUBILEE HALL, ROTHBURY TUESDAY, 16TH OCTOBER, 2007 AT 6.30 P.M. PRESENT: Councillors P. Dawson (Chairman), Mrs. A.M. Jones (Vice- Chairman), G.R. Arckless, Mrs. E. Bainbridge, L.G. Bilboe, E.M. Blakey, S.C. Bridgett, G. Castle, K. Gray, Miss C. Grey, Mrs. M.E. Haddow, A.M. Harrington, J.M. Hedley, I. Hinson, J.E. Hobrough, J.M. Hope, C.M. Mills, Mrs. M. Mills, H.W. Philipson, D.J.C. Rixon, T.M. Spence, R. Styring, J.A. Taylor, T.N. Thorne, J.G. Watson. Officers: Chief Executive, Director of Environment and Regeneration, Head of Legal and Democratic Services. Apologies: Councillors S.A. Bell, Mrs. S.E. Bolam, Mrs. Z.B. Frais, Mrs. E. Gray. Aldermen J. Hobson and R.H. Huggins. (* Denotes a Delegated Matter) 189. DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS BY MEMBERS AND OFFICERS The Chairman reminded Members that it had been agreed that previous disclosures did not need to be made again at the Council meeting provided that this was agreed by Members after a motion had been moved and seconded. RESOLVED: that all disclosures of interest previously made by Members and Officers at the meetings of Committees, etc., the minutes of which are to be considered at this meeting, are also to be regarded as disclosures for the purposes of this meeting by those Members and Officers present. The Chairman also advised that interests should be disclosed at this meeting:- a) if they were not disclosed at previous meetings, the minutes of which were to be considered at this meeting or b) in respect of any other or new item on the Agenda.
  • THE LONDON GAZETTE, 3 JUNE, 1924. 4447 in the County of Lancaster

    THE LONDON GAZETTE, 3 JUNE, 1924. 4447 in the County of Lancaster

    THE LONDON GAZETTE, 3 JUNE, 1924. 4447 In the county of Lancaster. 8. An Area comprising: — The county boroughs of St. Helens and In the county of Gloucester. Warrington. The borough of Leigh. The petty sessional division of Campden. The petty sessional division of Warrington, In the county of Oxford. and The parishes of Claydon, Clattercote, The parishes of Bold, Ashton-in-Makerfield, Mollington, Copredy, Bourton, Hamwell, Abram, Lowton, Kenyon, and Culcheth. Horley, Hornton, Wroxton, Dray ton, North Newington, East Shutford, West Shutford, In the county of Salop. Swalcliffe, Sibford Ferris, Sibford Gower, The borough of Oswestry. Epwell, Shenington, and Alkerton. The petty sessional division of Oswestry, and In the county of Northampton. The parishes of Ellesmere Rural, Bllesmere The borough of Daventry. Urban, Welshampton, Whitchurch Rural, Whitchurch Urban, Ightfield, and Ruyton of The petty sessional division of Daventry, the Eleven Towns. and The parishes of Upper Boddington, Lower In the county of Denbigh. Boddington, Bugbrooke, Kislingbury, Upton, The borough of Wrexham, and Harpole, Upper Heyford, Nether Hey ford, The petty sessional divisions of Bromfield, Floore, Brington, Althorp, Harlestone, Church liuabon, and Brampton, Chapel Brampton, Spratton, Holdenby, East Haddon, Ravensthorpe, The parish of Chirk. Teeton, Great Creaton, Cottesbrooke, Hollo- In the county of Flint. well, Coton, Guilsborough, Thornby, Cold The petty sessional divisions of Hope, and Ashby, Welford, Sulby, Hothorpe, Marston Overton, and the detached part of the petty Trussell, Sibertoft, Olipston, Naseby, Hasel- sessional division of Hawarden. bech, Kelmarsh, and Maidwell. 6. An Area comprising: — In the county of Worcester. In the couniy of Stafford. The borough of Stourbridge.
  • Judicial Review Portfolio Holders

    Judicial Review Portfolio Holders

    Appendix Title: Local Government Re-organisation – Judicial Review Portfolio Holders: Cllr Graham Payne, Leader Cllr Rod Eaton, Change and Integration Portfolio Holder Reporting Officer: Nicola Mathiason - Head of Legal and Democratic Services Andrew Pate - Chief Executive Key Decision: No ______________________________________________________________ Purpose • To decide whether to redirect the Council's legal efforts and resources, from a separate judicial review, to support for the Shrewsbury and Atcham and Congleton appeal. Background • On 8 August 2007 Cabinet agreed that the Council should commence legal proceedings for Judicial Review against the Secretary of State’s decision about Local Government Reorganisation in Wiltshire. The Council’s case has been ‘on hold’ until the result of the Shrewsbury and Congleton Judicial Review was known. The judgement in this case has now been delivered. The judicial review was unsuccessful. The High Court Judge held that the Secretary of State had common law powers available to her to carry out the process, that she did not have to be satisfied that a proposal met the criteria at the time of the assessment and that she had not acted irrationally. Key Issues • Advice has been taken from our Counsel (who also acts for Shrewsbury and Congleton) on whether we should now continue with our case in the light of the Shrewsbury judgement. We have been advised that unless the Shrewsbury judgement is appealed successfully we cannot effectively progress our case. The grounds of our case are similar and the arguments we would raise are much the same as Shrewsbury raised. We have been advised that we should focus on supporting an appeal by Shrewsbury and Congleton.
  • Durham Dales Map

    Durham Dales Map

    Durham Dales Map Boundary of North Pennines A68 Area of Outstanding Natural Barleyhill Derwent Reservoir Newcastle Airport Beauty Shotley northumberland To Hexham Pennine Way Pow Hill BridgeConsett Country Park Weardale Way Blanchland Edmundbyers A692 Teesdale Way Castleside A691 Templetown C2C (Sea to Sea) Cycle Route Lanchester Muggleswick W2W (Walney to Wear) Cycle Killhope, C2C Cycle Route B6278 Route The North of Vale of Weardale Railway England Lead Allenheads Rookhope Waskerley Reservoir A68 Mining Museum Roads A689 HedleyhopeDurham Fell weardale Rivers To M6 Penrith The Durham North Nature Reserve Dales Centre Pennines Durham City Places of Interest Cowshill Weardale Way Tunstall AONB To A690 Durham City Place Names Wearhead Ireshopeburn Stanhope Reservoir Burnhope Reservoir Tow Law A690 Visitor Information Points Westgate Wolsingham Durham Weardale Museum Eastgate A689 Train S St. John’s Frosterley & High House Chapel Chapel Crook B6277 north pennines area of outstanding natural beauty Durham Dales Willington Fir Tree Langdon Beck Ettersgill Redford Cow Green Reservoir teesdale Hamsterley Forest in Teesdale Forest High Force A68 B6278 Hamsterley Cauldron Snout Gibson’s Cave BishopAuckland Teesdale Way NewbigginBowlees Visitor Centre Witton-le-Wear AucklandCastle Low Force Pennine Moor House Woodland ButterknowleWest Auckland Way National Nature Lynesack B6282 Reserve Eggleston Hall Evenwood Middleton-in-Teesdale Gardens Cockfield Fell Mickleton A688 W2W Cycle Route Grassholme Reservoir Raby Castle A68 Romaldkirk B6279 Grassholme Selset Reservoir Staindrop Ingleton tees Hannah’s The B6276 Hury Hury Reservoir Bowes Meadow Streatlam Headlam valley Cotherstone Museum cumbria North Balderhead Stainton RiverGainford Tees Lartington Stainmore Reservoir Blackton A67 Reservoir Barnard Castle Darlington A67 Egglestone Abbey Thorpe Farm Centre Bowes Castle A66 Greta Bridge To A1 Scotch Corner A688 Rokeby To Brough Contains Ordnance Survey Data © Crown copyright and database right 2015.
  • Local Government Boundary Commission for England Report No.391 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION for ENGLAND

    Local Government Boundary Commission for England Report No.391 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION for ENGLAND

    Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No.391 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Sir Nicholas Morrison KCB DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J M Rankin MEMBERS Lady Bowden Mr J T Brockbank Mr R R Thornton CBE. DL Mr D P Harrison Professor G E Cherry To the Rt Hon William Whitelaw, CH MC MP Secretary of State for the Home Department PROPOSALS FOR THE FUTURE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE COUNTY OF CHESHIRE 1. The last Order under Section 51 of the Local Government Act 1972 in relation to the electoral arrangements for the districts in the County of Cheshire was made on 28 September 1978. As required by Section 63 and Schedule 9 of the Act we have now reviewed the electoral arrangements for that county, using the procedures we had set out in our Report No 6. 2. We informed the Cheshire County Council in a consultation letter dated 12 January 1979 that we proposed to conduct the review, and sent copies of the letter to the district councils, parish councils and parish meetings in the county, to the Members of Parliament representing the constituencies concerned, to the headquarters of the main political parties and to the editors both of » local newspapers circulating in the county and of the local government press. Notices in the local press announced the start of the review and invited comments from members of the public and from interested bodies. 3» On 1 August 1979 the County Council submitted to us a draft scheme in which they suggested 71 electoral divisions for the County, each returning one member in accordance with Section 6(2)(a) of the Act.
  • Local Government Review in the Derwentside District Council Area, County Durham

    Local Government Review in the Derwentside District Council Area, County Durham

    Local Government Review in the Derwentside District Council Area, County Durham Research Study Conducted for The Boundary Committee for England April 2004 Contents Introduction 3 Summary of Key Findings 5 Methodology 7 Definitions of Social Grade and Area 11 Topline Findings (Marked-up Questionnaire) 13 Introduction This summary report presents the key findings of research conducted by the MORI Social Research Institute on behalf of The Boundary Committee for England in the Derwentside District Council area, County Durham. 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 in this report ‘districts’) 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 a referendum at a later date. 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.
  • TEESDALE MERCURY—WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, Is;E. M ISC EL LAN Tj from GENOA It Is Reported That a Strict ENGLAND HAS DECLINED to Join in the Austro- JKJTHB BAI-ON F

    TEESDALE MERCURY—WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, Is;E. M ISC EL LAN Tj from GENOA It Is Reported That a Strict ENGLAND HAS DECLINED to Join in the Austro- JKJTHB BAI-ON F

    TEESDALE MERCURY—WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, is;e. M ISC EL LAN tJ FROM GENOA it is reported that a strict ENGLAND HAS DECLINED to join in the Austro- JKJTHB BAI-ON F. TON DiEiiGARDr has given the and the military and poli-e wer; BOapellid to watch is being kept over Garibaldi's movements. Italian League for the restoration of peace, whioh munificent donation of X10.000 to the committee of interfere. HEAVY COMPENSATION FOR A RAII At Caprera a Government Bteamer is continually in had been proposed by Count von Beast. The league the German Hospital at Dalston, for the purposes of At tbe late Manchester Assi| TdE CBINESE MISSION, which is A SPECIAL SITTING OF STIPENDIARY MAG I >T.til l;, sight, and all communication between the two neigh­ was intended to protect both France and Germany the charity. A special general court of the governors was held at Derry on Saturday evening, for the in>. graves, commercial traveller, bp Madrid, 13 causing much curiosity. bouring islands of Caprera and La Madeleine is for from any I033 of territory; but, in oaseof the defeat has been called for Friday next for the purpose of mediate trial of the parties implicated in the .lots of against tbe Lancashire and Yorktl FOOTPRINTS ON THE SANDS OP TIME Crows' bidden without special permit. of Prussia, it would not have prevented the dissolu­ giving the committee power to invest the money. the 12th. Several of the rioters were sent to gaol injuries sustained in a oollition - feet —Fit*. I ON FRIDAY the new act to shorten the time tion of the North Gorman Confederation.
  • What the Crown May Do

    What the Crown May Do

    WHAT THE CROWN MAY DO 1. It is now established, at least at the level of the Court of Appeal (so that Court has recently stated)1, that, absent some prohibition, a Government minister may do anything which any individual may do. The purpose of this paper is to explain why this rule is misconceived and why it, and the conception of the “prerogative” which it necessarily assumes, should be rejected as a matter of constitutional law. 2. The suggested rule raises two substantive issues of constitutional law: (i) who ought to decide in what new activities the executive may engage, in what circumstances and under what conditions; and (ii) what is the scope for abuse that such a rule may create and should it be left without legal control. 3. As Sir William Wade once pointed out (in a passage subsequently approved by the Appellate Committee2), “The powers of public authorities are...essentially different from those of private persons. A man making his will may, subject to any rights of his dependants, dispose of his property just as he may wish. He may act out of malice or a spirit of revenge, but in law this does not affect his exercise of power. In the same way a private person has an absolute power to release a debtor, or, where the law permits, to evict a tenant, regardless of his motives. This is unfettered discretion.” If a minister may do anything that an individual may do, he may pursue any purpose which an individual may do when engaged in such activities.
  • Derwentside College

    Derwentside College

    REPORT FROM THE INSPECTORATE Derwentside College August 1997 THE FURTHER EDUCATION FUNDING COUNCIL THE FURTHER EDUCATION FUNDING COUNCIL The Further Education Funding Council has a legal duty to make sure further education in England is properly assessed. The FEFC’s inspectorate inspects and reports on each college of further education every four years. The inspectorate also assesses and reports nationally on the curriculum and gives advice to the FEFC’s quality assessment committee. College inspections are carried out in accordance with the framework and guidelines described in Council Circular 93/28. They involve full-time inspectors and registered part-time inspectors who have knowledge and experience in the work they inspect. Inspection teams normally include at least one member who does not work in education and a member of staff from the college being inspected. Cheylesmore House Quinton Road Coventry CV1 2WT Telephone 01203 863000 Fax 01203 863100 © FEFC 1997 You may photocopy this report. CONTENTS Paragraph Summary Introduction 1 The college and its aims 2 Responsiveness and range of provision 10 Governance and management 19 Students’ recruitment, guidance and support 30 Teaching and the promotion of learning 40 Students’ achievements 50 Quality assurance 61 Resources 70 Conclusions and issues 80 Figures GRADE DESCRIPTORS The procedures for assessing quality are set out in the Council Circular 93/28. During their inspection, inspectors assess the strengths and weaknesses of each aspect of provision they inspect. Their assessments are set out in the reports. They also use a five-point grading scale to summarise the balance between strengths and weaknesses. The descriptors for the grades are: • grade 1 – provision which has many strengths and very few weaknesses • grade 2 – provision in which the strengths clearly outweigh the weaknesses • grade 3 – provision with a balance of strengths and weaknesses • grade 4 – provision in which the weaknesses clearly outweigh the strengths • grade 5 – provision which has many weaknesses and very few strengths.
  • 2004 No. 3211 LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ENGLAND The

    2004 No. 3211 LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ENGLAND The

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2004 No. 3211 LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ENGLAND The Local Authorities (Categorisation) (England) (No. 2) Order 2004 Made - - - - 6th December 2004 Laid before Parliament 10th December 2004 Coming into force - - 31st December 2004 The First Secretary of State, having received a report from the Audit Commission(a) produced under section 99(1) of the Local Government Act 2003(b), in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by section 99(4) of that Act, hereby makes the following Order: Citation, commencement and application 1.—(1) This Order may be cited as the Local Authorities (Categorisation) (England) (No.2) Order 2004 and shall come into force on 31st December 2004. (2) This Order applies in relation to English local authorities(c). Categorisation report 2. The English local authorities, to which the report of the Audit Commission dated 8th November 2004 relates, are, by this Order, categorised in accordance with their categorisation in that report. Excellent authorities 3. The local authorities listed in Schedule 1 to this Order are categorised as excellent. Good authorities 4. The local authorities listed in Schedule 2 to this Order are categorised as good. Fair authorities 5. The local authorities listed in Schedule 3 to this Order are categorised as fair. (a) For the definition of “the Audit Commission”, see section 99(7) of the Local Government Act 2003. (b) 2003 c.26. The report of the Audit Commission consists of a letter from the Chief Executive of the Audit Commission to the Minister for Local and Regional Government dated 8th November 2004 with the attached list of local authorities categorised by the Audit Commission as of that date.
  • Rural Microbusinesses in North East England

    Rural Microbusinesses in North East England

    RURAL MICROBUSINESSES IN NORTH EAST ENGLAND: FINAL SURVEY RESULTS Marian Raley Andrew Moxey Centre for Rural Economy Research Report RURAL MICROBUSINESSES IN NORTH EAST ENGLAND: FINAL SURVEY RESULTS Marian Raley Andrew Moxey July 2000 Preface This report presents the final results of a major postal survey of agricultural and non-agricultural microbusinesses carried out in the rural north east of England. The overall project focuses on microbusinesses, defined as those which employ fewer than 10 staff (full-time equivalents), in the rural areas of the counties of Durham, Northumberland and Tees Valley. The project’s broad aims are to ascertain the nature and needs of rural microbusinesses and to understand their existing relationships with business support agencies and where these relationships could be usefully developed. Other reports produced so far by the project include a review of business support services under the title Providing Advice and Information in Support of Rural Microbusinesses and an interim review of the survey of microbusinesses Rural Microbusinesses in the North of England: A Survey . This report has been prepared by Marian Raley and Andrew Moxey of the Centre for Rural Economy (CRE) at the University of Newcastle. Other members of the microbusiness team at CRE include Matthew Gorton, Philip Lowe, Jeremy Phillipson and Hilary Talbot. CRE would like to thank Mike Coombes and Simon Raybould of CURDS at the University of Newcastle for providing the Urbanisation Index scores underpinning the survey, and UK BORDERS at the University of Edinburgh for providing the digital map data allowing the mapping of Urbanisation Scores onto postcodes and business addresses.
  • Case Study for Cornwall by REOC Renewable Energy for Commercial

    Case Study for Cornwall by REOC Renewable Energy for Commercial

    Case study for Cornwall by REOC Renewable energy for commercial and industrial buildings in Cornwall. REOC report WP5 “Contribution to the planning process” for SEIPLED TECHNO-ECONOMICAL PLANNING DOSSIER (TEP) November 2007 Contents 1 PROJECT AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................... 4 2 LOCAL CONDITIONS............................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 CORNWALL ECONOMIC STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT............................................................................ 4 2.2 CONVERGENCE PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................... 6 2.3 CORNWALL INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL SECTORS........................................................................ 7 2.4 CORNWALL INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS..................................................................... 8 3 CORNWALL INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL ENERGY USE ............................................. 14 3.1 HEAT DEMAND .................................................................................................................................... 16 4 BARRIERS TO RE IN INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE IN CORNWALL..................................... 18 5 OVERCOMING OBSTACLES TO RE IN CORNISH INDUSTRY.................................................. 19 5.1 DEVELOPMENT PHASE........................................................................................................................