Showing posts with label All Wards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label All Wards. Show all posts

Monday, 27 October 2014

Positive Discrimination

POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION LAWYER STYLE

I was "accosted" by a conservative solicitor from Dewsbury last week, who for some reason wanted to complain about the Labour Party Policy of "All Women Short Lists". Apparently he wanted us to introduce "All Muslim Short Lists", he hadn't introduced himself as a Conservative by the way.

I don't know how the discussion got to where it did, but ended up with him saying the Labour Party should have had an "All Muslim Women Short List" for Batley & Spen.

The only thing I can think inspired him to this view was remembering there was a Dewsbury Woman Solicitor who desperately wanted to be an MP. When she found out that the Labour Party, didn't have an "All Women, All Muslim (All Solicitor) Short Listing Policy" and unreasonably to her mind did insist that candidates were members of the Labour Party decided to join the Conservative Party.

Her choice for her paid off, for despite never winning an election in her life ended up in the Cabinet.

A further irony is that any member of the legal proffesion that has anything to offer on the subject of equal oppertunities as members of the profession that is only exceeded in nepotism by membership of the Royal Family.

Tuesday, 14 January 2014

PLANNING: Developers to get more power to push through applications

This latest news comes from the LGiU:

The Coalition is preparing to mount a new attack on planning laws by giving developers the power to push through applications without the need for council approval or environmental assessments.

In a move described by planning experts as a "nuclear option", developers will be allowed to ignore local authorities if they delay decisions on conditions attached to planning applications.

The Coalition is also planning to remove the need for developers to assess the impact of some large housing estates, shopping centres and industrial estates on the countryside.

Campaigners warned that the reforms could see local communities held to ransom by
developers and force councils to wave through unpopular planning applications. Nick Boles, the planning minister, said that the reforms will "significantly cut the burdens of unnecessary planning applications" and "save the industry precious time and money".

Monday, 6 January 2014

The Great Tory give-away...Right to Buy/Steal

If the government were to introduce a Right to Buy Scheme for private rented property, and set discounts of up to £75,000 how many people would think that fair? So why do they not object to houses they jointly own through their local authorities being subjected to just such a scheme?

How many people think it fair that someone who has never paid any rent, has had their rent paid by benefits, can now buy the house they were allocated in front of others because they were in greater need at a discount of up to £75,000?

How many people think it right that someone who has never paid a penny in tax in this country can buy the house they were allocated to meet their need can be bought with up to £75,000 discount?

The Tory Government is giving thousands away for rich people to put down a deposit on houses they are purchasing. There is no question of the home owners being expected to fund these discounts, so why should you, through your council?

Taxpayer subsidy to Big Banks

"We are all in it together" or so the government say. Whilst Northern Local Authorities have their budgets slashed, in the interests of the economy, the Tory Cabinet, with their Fib-Dem mates, are handing out billions to the big four banks.

Barclays, RBS, HSBC and Lloyds were given £23b to help business borrowing, they spent £3.6b, pocketing £19.4b.

I suppose someone has to subsidise the bonuses of the, to quote Vincent - pretending I told you so - Cable, of "the Spivs and Speculators". I am sure most people could think of better descriptions for our esteemed Bankers.

Monday, 23 December 2013

Be vigilant this Christmas!


What is Provisional Open Land?

Just because we expect Tory MPs to speak with forked tongues, we should not rule out the fact that this time they are talking a load of rubbish because they don’t understand. One should expect more from a Barrister and Journalist (does anyone else find it ironic that our two Tory MPs come from professions that are only a smitten behind politicians in the public distrust stakes). But to be generous, few people do understand what POL is.

POL stands for Provisional Open Land. It may be a green field that has never been developed but it is not green belt. The last time that the allocation of land was decided, the UDP, Unitary Development Plan the council had to decide what land it wanted to see housing on, what land was reserved for Industry and what it wanted to see left undeveloped, to stop towns joining up, “Green Belt”. There are a few other designations, but understanding these will do for now. POL is the land that was decided would be developed when the allocations were used up and the decision as to when the land is deemed to be used up, is set down in planning law. The presumption was always that POL land would be developed, the only point in question was when?

 
Our Tory MPs seem to be saying that the Fat Controller is telling us to ignore the law, or to interpret it in a way that is not set out in statute. He is not telling us he will pick up the bill when his inspector awards costs against the council for not obeying his law. He is not saying he is willing to change the law, what he is saying is, I will cover up the mess he has created by making announcements then not doing what I said I will do.

 
The Planning Inspectors work for Eric, they impose his will, he can over rule any decision they make as a result of a public enquiry on a whim. He can make his decision behind closed doors and does not have to give a reason, raising the question, should one person have so much power? It is said that Power Corrupts and that Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely.  

Summary comments to the media are;

1. The Pickles letter does not contain anything new, the council cannot arbitrarily use the latest ONS data set to pluck out of the air a lower housing number to get under the five year supply rule.

2. The five year supply is based on the latest tested housing numbers i.e. the UDP and Planning Inspectors will not accept any other data set.

3. Future numbers in the LDF will be based on delivery, ONS population growth, migration and economic growth, these will tie in with neighbouring authorities.

4. The lack of a LDF is due to government prevarication on the abolition of RSS and that the Inspector insisted that Kirklees council apply the previous RSS figures in the LDF Core Strategy.

5. Reevel campaigned for abolition of the LDF, so in effect the POL sites would be at risk, if Reevel had delivered on his election pledge.

6. Reevel is misleading local people and should lobby government to reduce the five year rule to three years.

Monday, 16 December 2013

Lib-Dems display their democratic credentials

In a by-election in Horsforth (Leeds) the Labour candidate defeated the Lib Dem candidate, but was out of the country when he should have signed the bit of paper to accept office. So even though he had won the election he was chucked off the council.

The controlling Lib-Dems decided there was no need to re run the election and that the council should co-opt a member to the vacant seat. The Labour and Tory councillors moved that the person who actually won the election should co-opted. The Lib-Dem majority outvoted them and co-opted the Lib-Dem candidate who had lost the election. Lib-Dems loosing/winning here.

Thursday, 12 December 2013

National Planning Framework: We have no choice...

"Since the new national planning framework came into force last year, the 10 largest “unplanned” housing developments that councils across the country have refused have all been overturned on appeal, leaving councils to pick up the very substantial costs and potentially losing Government bonus grant.

“The Secretary of State and planning inspectors have allowed development on green field sites even when this is in an area of outstanding natural beauty, so even these cannot prevent the approval of new housing developments.

“At a time when we must find £22 million of cuts by 2016 due the deepest cuts in local government grant in 70 years, we cannot risk public funds in such a way. It would be akin to a gambler putting all their life savings on a three legged donkey in a very long field of thoroughbreds  – the chance of success is virtually zero, the costs very high.

“We have no choice but carry out the instruction of government or face a very big legal bill. If people don’t like this they should take this up with their MP and the Government, not the Council.”

No, not Kirklees, Telford Council. It appears that the Fat Controller is sticking his snout in everywhere!

Related Articles:
Anger as Skelmanthorpe residents left alone by Kirklees Council to fight planning inquiry (Huddersfield Examiner)
Local Development Framework: The strange case of Pickles' “letter” to Reevell
Denby Dale Planning Issues: an update from Cllr Graham Turner
Planning Issues in Denby Dale: Piggeries and Pilling Lane

Thursday, 5 December 2013

Tribute to former Labour Councillor, George Speight

The opening sequence of the Kirklees Full Council meeting webcast, pays tribute to the fond memory of former Labour Councillor and Mayor of Kirklees, George Speight, who passed away recently. Click on the image below to view the tributes.

Watch tributes to George Speight
George Speight, Labour


Tuesday, 3 December 2013

Local Development Framework - Eric Pickles's Mess!

(Picture via the Morley Observer)
There is only one person responsible for the mess we are now in – Eric (I hate the North) Pickles.

Not Grant Shapps, who said before the election “If elected we will scrap LDF”. Not even the Under Minister who had secret meetings with KKAN (the not in anyone’s back yard pressure group), who told them you build as few houses as you want. And defiantly not Simon Reevell, who said “there will be no Local Development Framework” after all he is a lawyer so his concept of reality is different to ordinary people.
No, the fault is well and truly nestled in the ample body of Eric Pickles.

Eric said, soon after the election that he would scrap the targets for house building set in the RSS. Kirklees Council (all groups in agreement) took the decision to delay the submission of their plan until after the abolition of the targets, to allow for a smaller number of houses. Unfortunately Eric took over 2 years to fulfil his pledge to abolish the targets. In the meantime, with later consequences, he introduced a “Duty to Consult”. This was very late in the process.
So when Eric eventually got round to abolishing the targets, Kirklees submitted their plan. This was against the officers’ advice that there was a high risk that the Inspector would say there were not enough houses, and even with that warning the Conservative Group wanted an even lower target.

Also in the meantime, Eric changed the rules of how councils were funded; the only way that Councils could raise income to pay for its services, was to build more houses. True to form houses built in the South paid them twice as much money than houses built in the North.
Now we come to “Eric’s Inspector”. He, as our Officers predicted, decided we did not have enough houses in our plan. Rather than saying this clearly, obviously not wishing to expose his master’s duplicity, he tried to hide his views with nonsensical arguments around the “Duty to Consult”. What he is saying is that the fact that we moved away from the Targets, unlike other West Yorkshire Authorities, is evidence that we did not consult. Remember we did exactly the same consultation as Leeds, who has been deemed to have consulted properly. This is ignoring the fact that when we allegedly, did not consult, there was no duty to consult.

So now that we have no plan (the one that the Conservatives were going to abolish),local Conservative MPs  have a private meeting with Eric, to cobble together a statement that makes it look like they want to build less houses, to try to pin the blame on Kirklees for the mess engineered by Eric and Eric alone.
We should be asking him to come clean and tell us how many houses he wants us to build, rather than pose with objectors for Conservative leaflets and, rather than have secret meetings, he should spell out publicly what target he is setting us.

Tuesday, 19 November 2013

Festival of Light’s 2013

Huddersfield’s 10th Festival of Light is shaping up to be the best yet.

Visitors can expect amazing, interactive light installations that put you right at the heart of the action; food and drink, live music and all of the wacky street theatre that we’re famous for.

The event will run from 6 – 8 December and this year.
 
The rest of this story can be found on Cllr Mehboob Khan's site.