General Discussion
Pecuniary interests affect all councillors irrespective of their political party affiliation or lack of same.
I know NPs were introduced as part of the Localism Act but I was under the belief that the Dawlish NP#1 was a pilot project that commenced before the Localism Act came into effect. The Localism Act and the NPPF came into operation after the date when the Dawlish NP#1 Steering Group had already started to meet. The NP#1 was thus formulated before the Teignbridge Local Plan was. It was all ...
Wasn't the problem with the Neighbourhood Plan # 1 that it preceded the Localism Act ergo it didn't conform with what the Act required (or something similar to that?). So, the Lib Dems feel okay about referring to the potential CPOing of Warren Farm but not it seems other candidates. It's a big local issue. Beyond me why other candidates are keeping silent on the matter.
This is what is on page 5 Clarifying the rules on predetermination In parallel with the abolition of the Standards Board, the Government has used the Localism Act to clarify the rules on ‘predetermination’. These rules were developed to ensure that councillors came to council discussions - on, for example, planning applications - with an open mind. In practice, however, these rules had ...
Yes I understand the sequence of events being planning application first then CPO. Brilliant! So we are being asked to vote for candidates when questions concerning a very contentious issue in Dawlish and what their thoughts are about it cannot be answered by them! I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I asked the question about the compulsory purchase because the Lib Dems refer to it in ...
A supplementary question - if any or all of those three Independent candidates were to be elected are they aware NOW of any reason whereby they would need to declare a pecuniary interest in Warren Farm when any issue relating to it was debated/voted upon at TDC? I am aware of the predetermination regulation with regard to planning applications. (Not that, as I see it, that would be of any ...
Well if they follow the Conservative Party line re Warren Farm (and I see no reason why they shouldn't) then I think we know exactly how they will vote on issues relating to Sangs, the coastal park and Warren Farm. However, there have been 'developments' (how ironic a phrase!) since 2011. Please can you or someone tell us how the Independent candidates will vote on these issues should they ...
The object of the exercise (well my object at least) is to get elected on to TDC, councillors who are 1).pro Richard's cause and who 2).do not have to declare a pecuniary interest. That way they can both speak for and vote on his behalf. (More votes for him). They can also speak about the issue in public. With regard to that clause that you quote. Wouldn't that need a quite ...
I need to correct my comment above when I wrote" I am wondering how many other councillors/candidates might be subject to that same omerta". Because I have very good reason to believe that there are at least two more. I don't know where they stand on the question of Warren Farm because even if they are pro Richard's cause they can't say so publicly, can't participate in any discussion at ...
Oh I agree totally. If any councillor has to declare an interest on any matter to do with Warren Farm but is not inclined to bang the drum for Mr Weeks then the fact that they have to declare an interest is not an issue for them . Which might explain why no action has been taken to remove the cause of the need to declare an interest. (and those really really cynical like me might say that if ...
