Not when a planning application is being decided at full council, so I was quite surprised to see on the front page of today’s paper, that it said there would be a whip when the China Gateway is decided.
News, Local history and Thanet issues from Michael's Bookshop in Ramsgate see www.michaelsbookshop.com I publish over 200 books about the history of this area click here to look at them.
Friday, 22 August 2008
When are you allowed to whip a councillor?
Not when a planning application is being decided at full council, so I was quite surprised to see on the front page of today’s paper, that it said there would be a whip when the China Gateway is decided.
15 comments:
Comments, since I started writing this blog in 2007 the way the internet works has changed a lot, comments and dialogue here were once viable in an open and anonymous sense. Now if you comment here I will only allow the comment if it seems to make sense and be related to what the post is about. I link the majority of my posts to the main local Facebook groups and to my Facebook account, “Michael Child” I guess the main Ramsgate Facebook group is We Love Ramsgate. For the most part the comments and dialogue related to the posts here goes on there. As for the rest of it, well this blog handles images better than Facebook, which is why I don’t post directly to my Facebook account, although if I take a lot of photos I am so lazy that I paste them directly from my camera card to my bookshop website and put a link on this blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Quite correct Michael, strange that in the unedited version on Thom Morris's Blog there is no mention of whipping.
ReplyDeleteI cant speak for the Tory Group but Labour Group rules are quite specific about there NOT being a whip on ANY Planning application.
I also believe its against the law.
I beleive it is against the law to whip on planning decisions, the change I believe was the result of a enquiry into Castle Point plannning decisions and masonic influence.
ReplyDeleteAs a not very interested bystander, what exactly are the concerns of the anti lobby that are not covered by the explanations of the people whose job it is to make sure all the t's are crossed and i's dotted?
ReplyDeleteThe people who frequent this blog seem to be against everything.
The full council meeting is not a planning decision-making meeting and therefore the rules and protocols for planning committees determining applications do not apply.
ReplyDeleteOn that basis it seems to be claimed that party group position-taking on the applications and a party whip are permissible.
11.13 The fundamental problem here is not really about pro or anti the development in principle, but the fact that the hundred space HGV park and associated X type warehouses would need to be moved to the other end of the site, to have any chance of the development conforming to the water discharge consent.
ReplyDeleteSince the X types are as large as aircraft hangers this means that the whole layout of the site would need to be changed, so the application is not ready in any sense to come before planning.
11.13 You seem to be saying that this meeting is not to decide on approval of the plans, can I draw your attention to the relevant part of the letter sent by council officers to all of the councillors, below.
"I write to advise you that an Extraordinary Meeting of Council will beheld on Thursday 11 September 2008 at 7pm.The agenda will be despatched on Monday 1 September.There will be one item on the agenda (apart from Declarations of Interest) - F/TH/08/0400 LAND AT MANSTON BUSINESS PARK, MANSTON ROAD, MANSTON, RAMSGATE - Redevelopment of land for B1c, B2, and B8(Industrial and warehouse uses) mixed commercial use with ancillary parking and landscaping.This application was considered at the meeting of the Planning Committee on Wednesday 20 August 2008. The Committee agreed an amendment to defer the matter to Full Council for determination."
Mike sorry got there in the end, the info about the whip comes from a small anonymous introductory article on the front page, and Thom’s article on his blog is the same as that on page 9 of the paper.
ReplyDeleteI assume from what I have heard that if they use a whip a judicial review would be bound to nullify the permission.
Tony not sure, I know some councillors and the developer were members of the same Masonic lodge and failed to declare the fact and withdraw from the meeting. However I am not certain if the LGA rule stems from this.
ReplyDeleteMichael. Yes, but surely if the water board or whoever know that the plans doesn't conform to the water discharge consent, then they would say so in the report, and refusal would be automatic? Why are the officers putting forward plans that don't have approval of the water board?
ReplyDelete16.31 They have click here to read it the simple significance of what they say is that like all the previous industrial developments on the site the runoff from the lorry parks will have to go into ponds full of wildlife, so if there is a spillage of poison the operators will notice the dead fish floating on the surface an not let the water go into our drinking water.
ReplyDeleteThe layout of the site would have to be completely changed to enable the inclusion of these ponds between the lorry park and loading bays and the pumping station, in short the developer has only submitted plans to dig the toilet near the well
Sorry for appearing to be an idiot, but what part of this are you alleging is being hidden by the report? And have the Environment Agency accepted the plans?
ReplyDelete16.17 click on the link in my previous comment and read the basic documents, I think you will find then that it isn’t you that appears to be an idiot
ReplyDeleteMichael, I think you are running away from providing an answer. In the report, are the water board and the Environment Agency content with the proposals that have been put forward for the application?
ReplyDelete17.17 Absolutely not and we all run at times but not me this time, read the basic documents two comments ago.
ReplyDeleteMichael, your reluctance to answer the questions concern me, because as a self proclaimed "man of integrity" I would have thought that you would use every opportunity to say what the people at the Council are not doing right. Nothing in what you post tells me what the Environmental Agency have said in the report, and I do not know if the conditions required by the water board have been addressed in the report either. It seems I will have to ask the council for a copy of the report next week.
ReplyDeleteBut I was amazed at how comprehensive all the different reports that you can find on the UK Planning website are. And it was fascinating to see in ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT CHAPTER 15 - SOCIO ECONOMIC just how backward Thanet is in terms of job prospects. If you look at the Annex to the document you will see just why ordinary people who want to have the same level of jobs as the rest of the country has and why people are so desparate to welcome new companies to the area.
So once again, for me and everyone else who doesn't understand why you don't think the council or the councillors have any integrity, please tell me what you have seen that the rest of us haven't.
18.45 I think you must have missed the link I put up, I have published the relevant documents (Southern Water, Environment Agency letters etc) on ordinary web pages as they are far too long to put on blog postings, at the top of these web pages are links to the different documents you want click here to go to those pages please let me know if you have any difficulty finding them.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the integrity of some of the councillors, a bag of documents was discovered that appeared to show irregularities in the relationship between some councillors and the developer.
The matter is now the subject of an investigation by the serious economic crime unit at Kent police HQ click here to read my previous post about it.