Mcjrpc
'Beware of any b/s about having to listen to arguments'. Lynne, if you look at guidance notes about predetermination you will see that is precisely what councillors should be saying. Predisposed yes, predetermined no. Tread carefully or your quest for certainty could backfire on Mr Weeks in the long run.
Thanks for the background. I do think it's risky trying to second guess pecuniary interest or predetermination but either way, if it does come down to CPO or legal challenges on predetermination, it will be a long ride.
Michael, it was before I moved to Dawlish but didn't I read that you were motivated to become a councillor because you were horrified at the prospect of the Manor being sold off by the council? How is that different? Sorry if I'm completely mistaken about that.
See Page 5 of the summary. Has this been superseded? https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5959/1896534.pdf
That's interesting Michael I wasn't even aware of it. However more reading up leads me to wonder if the issue of predetermination has been modified: http://www.localism-agenda.com/2012/01/abolishing-predetermination-what-it-really-means/
But if they're not pro Richard's cause, wouldn't that be good for him - fewer votes against him? Or maybe this clause would be relevant to obtaining a dispensation to vote: without the dispensation the representation of different political groups dealing with that business would be so upset as to alter the likely outcome of any vote,
Well it would be very noble if she did but unless she's been banging the drum for Mr Weeks I wouldn't hold it against her if she doesn't. It's surely not her fault that a planning dispute coincides with where the family caravan is kept. Has she voiced an opinion on it previously?
She declared her interest as rental of land for a family caravan. Maybe if she feels strongly for Mr Weeks' plight she'll move it!
I don't know Lynne but I found this: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/240134/Openness_and_transparency_on_personal_interests.pdf Sounds like she has no input on this vote unless she gets a dispensation. Are you thinking it diminishes the value of voting for her if that's a priority issue?
Except they don't see it as a mistake, it was a vote winner for them and to hell with the consequences for those most in need of housing down the line. I just hope no one is fooled by it this time.
