It’s all getting a bit silly in Westminster at the moment. We are all working towards May 6th as the date for the General Election and cranking up our campaign teams on the ground in anticipation.
Yet we are going through the motions of business as normal with new bills being scrutinised and a full Budget next Wednesday that may be completely overturned in less than 50 days time.
If ever there was a case for fixed term parliaments this is it. Whether for four or five year terms, each parliamentary year would be fixed so no time and effort would be wasted in a phoney period of uncertainty as to when exactly an election is going to take place.
Just about every other Parliament in the world works to fixed terms, but then most countries have written constitutions, fair voting systems and a bill of rights. Nevertheless it’s time we changed, and perhaps a Parliament where no party leader has an overall majority will be the chance to take the decision away from the Prime Minister of when to call an election.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I’m a great fan of social networking sites like Facebook and Myspace and have built up many hundreds of local contacts with young people who wouldn’t otherwise have come into contact with their MP.
Every week I pick up casework, get lobbied, or receive questions from young people who might not have contacted me through other ways.
But as with every technological development there is a dark side, and the recent murder of a young woman is a case in point.
It is very disappointing that Facebook, which was used by the murderer Peter Chapman to make contact with his victim Ashleigh Hall, is the only big social networking site not to install the button that allows users to get advice on, and to report, suspicious on-line activity from so-called friends.
If Bebo and MSN can install the button from the Child Exploitation and On-line Protection Centre, then so can Facebook.
Until Facebook acts on this, its protestations that it cares passionately about the safety of people who use its site will look like empty words. Facebook urgently needs to take this clear, simple and practical step.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
It is a common misunderstanding by the public, and sometimes by Councillors themselves, that Councils are free to determine applications on the basis of the number of objections or letters of support.
In fact what Councillors (and their professional advisers) have to do is judge applications against planning guidance laid down by Parliament and against the Local Development Framework, or local plan as we used to call it, drawn up by the local Council and approved by Parliament – or in reality approved by the Secretary of State on behalf of Parliament.
Our system of planning law presumes in favour of the applicant. Those affected by a decision cannot appeal. This is unfair because an applicant can appeal if their planning application is rejected.
If Councillors have not found good reasons in planning law for an application to be turned down a Court will find in favour of the applicant and not only charge the costs of the appeal against the local authority but sometimes an additional charge for the costs of delaying the development.
Only if the Council failed to follow the procedures laid down by Parliament in the way it dealt with an application could a case be made for that application to be looked at again. This could be a failure to advertise the application or a decision taken contrary to the Local Development Framework (LDF) - such as a change of use from a previous designation to whatever the applicant was proposing to do.
In short, under the existing rules, Councils cannot turn down applications simply because local residents are against them. Consequently this skews the planning system in favour of an applicant who has researched the LDF and the latest Government planning guidance. The only concessions a Council can extract are minor restrictions on design and/or operation, and/or to negotiate infrastructure improvements through what are called Section 106 agreements.
I am in no doubt that too much power rests with the developer and our planning laws need major reform to change the bias against rather than for development.
I voted a couple of years ago for amendments to planning rule changes that would have allowed a right of appeal to third parties affected by an application. Sadly, not enough MPs agreed.
My view is that we also need to find a better mechanism than Section 106 agreements for compensating the community for planning permissions. Section 106 agreements are messy and inconsistent and only apply to developments over a certain size. Land value taxation would be a better way of taxing the unearned value of a development.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
A new community radio station for the Bay, Riviera.FM, has begun broadcasting on the internet.
The demand for community radio station licences has massively exceeded the expectations of the Government and the regulator Ofcom, so there is a backlog in dealing with applications to transmit on the fm band, but Torbay’s Riviera.fm is very much in the frame to get one eventually.
With backing from the lottery and a partnership with BBC Radio Devon a full schedule is being developed offering a mix of information, music and entertainment.
I should declare an interest as I present a modest classic rock show on Friday evenings between 9 and 10. I’m on after the far more professional and entertaining duo of Smashie and Nicey from this newspaper, or Guy Henderson and Jon Paul Hedge as they are known in real life. Have a listen at www.riviera.fm
Recent Comments