Sovereignty or dictatorship?

David Cameron did not discuss EU referendum with his Cabinet before he called it, claims Ken Clarke:

“David Cameron never discussed his decision to call a referendum on Britain’s membership in the European Union with his Cabinet, former Tory Cabinet minister Ken Clarke has claimed.

The 76-year-old Tory veteran criticised how Mr Cameron ran his Cabinet meetings, which he said met for 90 minutes one morning each week.

In his book, which is being serialised by The Sunday Times, Mr Clarke wrote: “This was an almost comically inadequate time within which to discuss any important subject.”

In particular, he said Mr Cameron failed to adequately discuss “his startling and catastrophic decision to call a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU in cabinet”.

“… In my opinion, this is a disastrous way to run the government of a complex modern nation state,” he said. “It is a reaction to the hysterical constant 24/7 chatter that now dominates political debate.

“Media handling and public relations are now regarded as the key elements of governing, and a small army of advisers who are supposed to be PR experts but who are of frankly variable quality have far too big a role in policy-making.

“Next week’s headlines are given more priority than serious policy development and the long-term consequences for the nation.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-eu-referendum-brexit-ken-clarke-memoirs-pm-did-not-discuss-with-cabinet-a7342856.html

Yet another example of EDDC’s similarity to national government – secrecy and spin much more important than transparency and proper discussion.

Swire’s puzzling parliamentary questions on retrospective planning applications

Owl thinks the third question is most interesting – where he asks about fees paid by developers. Why “developers” rather than “people” or “applicants” or “homeowners”?

Just who is he representing? Local residents or developer pals?

1. To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what estimate his Department has made of the cost of retrospective planning applications to local councils in (a) Devon and (b) the UK in the last five years.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-09-02.44219.h&s=speaker%3A11265#g44219.q0

2. To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what proportion of the cost of a retrospective planning application is covered by the (a) applicant and (b) local authority.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-09-02.44220.h&s=speaker%3A11265#g44220.q0

3. To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whether he plans to change the proportion of the cost of retrospective planning applications currently paid by developers.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-09-02.44221.h&s=speaker%3A11265#g44221.q0

NB The answers from the Secretary of State are pretty useless!

Exmouth beach huts: to be or not to be? Depends whether you think the Development Management Committee makes decisions!

There is currently a planning application submitted – 16/2087/DEM to demolish the DJ’s Diner building on Exmouth Seafront.

At the DMC on 8th March Cllr Williamson (Littleham) proposed the condition (which was agreed) for the road move application that the cafe and the beach huts should not be demolished, nor any start to be made on the road, until there was a timescale, etc. for the water sports centre.

No timescale yet exists, yet the planning application seems to be completely ignoring this decision.

Unfortunately, the working that went in the final planning application is ( surprise, surprise) rather vague (approval document listed under application – 15/2487/MRES). However for those who were at the DMC, they are quite certain that the proposed condition was for no work – including demolition.

And of course there is also the issue of the town poll being ignored and EDDC ploughing ahead with leaving the area derelict regardless.

Boundaries, election boundaries, constituency statistics and more: interactive election and statistical website

Lots and lots of useful information including AONB boundaries, parliamentary constituencies, census statistics, etc.

http://www.boundaryassistant.org/PlanBuilder2018.html

More on that “extra” money for “housing” and its ?(un)intended consequences

“… The £3bn fund will be made up of £1bn in short-term loan funding. This will be used for small builders, custom builders, and innovators, delivering 25,500 homes this parliament. A further £2bn of funding for infrastructure will be used to unlock sites for up to 200,000 homes over the longer term. Of this, £1.15bn is new money.

The action will see the government use surplus public land to build more homes more quickly by encouraging new developers with different models to enter the market, and to support small and medium-sized firms and constructors. This will help to close the housing supply deficit, ministers stated.

In addition, local planning authorities will be able to grant permission in principle on sites suitable for housing-led development, as well as turning abandoned shopping centres into new communities and increasing housing density around transport hubs.

Javid said that the government had made progress in boosting construction, with over 700,000 net additional homes delivered between April 2010 and March 2015, but it was now time to go further.

“We want to ensure everyone has a safe and secure place to live and that means we’ve got to build more homes,” he added.

“It is only by building more houses that we will alleviate the financial burden on those who are struggling to manage.”

Hammond stated there had been a housing shortage in this country for decades, and that the government was determined to tackle it.”

“We’ll use all the tools at our disposal to accelerate housebuilding and ensure that over time, housing becomes more affordable, that is why we are committing £2bn of additional investment towards this.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/10/chancellor-pledges-ps3bn-build-25000-homes-2020

So, it’s short-term loans, selling off “public land” that the public will never get back or probably be able to replace, subsidising infrastructure that developers are supposed to pay for, decreasing the number of shopping centres and building little boxes near bus stations and railway stations.

And that’s a PLAN? The small builders will have to pay back the loans, public realm will be flogged off to developer friends at rock- bottom prices, WE pay for infrastructure instead of developers who still charge the same or more for the housing it leads to – AND we won’t be able to shop nearer home OR park our cars near bus stations and railways!