Employment tribunal with a crystal ball

I was intrigued to read a recent story about an ex-Labour councillor in Birmingham. Apparently, he was given the boot because of suspicion of wrong doing in the election process. Having thrown a wobbly about this rejection, said councillor stormed off to an employment tribunal – yes that’s right, an employment tribunal, even though he was attempting to become ‘elected’ and not ’employed’ as a councillor.

Even more surprising, having won his case, he was awarded a six figure sum for loss of, well I’m not sure really. According to the judgement, he was awarded, ‘£80,000 for loss of earnings that he would have received in the form of allowances between 1998 and 2004 – the period during which, the tribunal decided, Mr Ahsan would have most likely been a councillor.’

As an elected member, this judgement strikes me as entering some very dangerous territory.

Firstly, it appears to have reclassified councillors’ allowances as salary, which, in the real world, is something that is earned by carrying out a recognised activity, with measurable outcomes, something normally called a job.

These employment tribunal members also appear to have the ability to read the minds of Birmingham’s voters, not just once, but twice. How else could they award this non-councillor cash for a period of greater than 4 years, the normal period between local elections, when he was never actually elected, having been deselected by his Labour Party Association?

Taken to it’s logical conclusion, I think I might well have a case for not being elected Prime Minister – I wonder who Mr Ahsan’s no win no fee lawyer was? Read the full story below.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-14890600

Newspapers now digging for dirt on NPPF

The link below is to a blog page referring to a Sunday Guardian story. The blog comment makes the point that, somewhat late in the day, the newspapers have realised that a major vested interest, in the form of a Taylor Wimpey director was one of the four people involved in drafting the NPPF that is now causing something of a storm in the press.

Although the story has some legs, in that asking a major developer to help draft the policies designed to control the excesses of his industry, is akin to giving a fox the keys to the hen house, I hope the focus remains on the planning issues and doesn’t deteriorate into personality based mud slinging. The flawed nature of some of the key elements of the NPPF now needs to be examined in a way that the public can understand and that enables them to make their concerns known to their MPs.

Sunday Times – ‘Wimpey Director Wrote New Planning Law’ #NPPF

Why can’t central trust local on NPPF goals?

Is it possible that government will ever trust local government, or are we to be condemned to a constant tirade of abuse from Eric Pickles, combined with the sham politics that is called Localism?

The NPPF is a major worry to many organisations concerned about caring for the green areas of this country (and not just the Green Belt I hope). Yet, despite all the detailed concerned being put forward by the experts, I think there are a few reasonable changes that could be made to overcome the vast majority of the public’s concerns at least.

The first of these would be to delete the statement that, where a local plan is silent, indeterminate or out of date, planning permission should be given. This requirement puts too much pressure on councils and will either see local plans being rushed through, or great resent being generated in the communities the government claims to want to empower, when development is imposed on them.

The second thing government should do, is delay the implementation of the NPPF, in order to give councils a sensible time period to deliver their local plans.

Third, government should make it a requirement for councils to produce an evidence based assessment of their local housing need. This in itself would not be any easy exercise, as a significant amount of local information and forecasting would be needed to achieve the required evidence base. However, once done, as well as placing a requirement on a council to deliver that housing, it would put that council in control and not the developers.

Of course such changes would suggest that government was willing to trust local government to deliver and with people like Eric Pickles in the government it’s difficult to see that happening.

Renewable energy policies give me that sinking feeling

Two articles in today’s Telegraph demonstrate the ludicrous situation our politicians have gotten us in to on renewable energy. The first, gives an insight in to the damage the Chinese are doing to the north of their country, in pursuit of the coal to needed to power their ever increasing chain of coal fired power stations. However, it’s not the fact that the Chinese are causing areas of their landscape to cave in to vast underground mines that caught my attention, but the scale of their appetite for coal, compared to the rest of the world. Quoting from the article by Malcolm Moore:

‘To keep its glittering skylines alight, China now uses more coal than the United States, Europe and Japan combined. But voracious mining has hollowed out vast tracts of the north of the country, leaving three million people living on ground that could collapse at any moment.’

The second article is entitled, Wind turbines ‘will treble under Coalition planning reforms’, by Louise Gray and contains the statement that demonstrates perfectly how the government is getting things so wrong. ‘A separate analysis by the Department of Energy and Climate Change says the reforms are essential to “deliver the infrastructure we need to reduce our carbon emissions”.

It’s that last statement that demonstrates to me, that it is the liberal fanatics who are in the driving seat when it comes to renewable energy in this country, not the pragmatists who understand how pointless the pursuit of carbon reduction is, when the Chinese so obviously don’t give a damn about their massive and ever increasing contribution to this global problem.

For me, a third article, written by Geoffrey Lean, actually strikes the right note and is much more likely to gain wider public support than continuing to bang on about reducing the UK’s measly 2% contribution to the global carbon emissions figure. This country is currently pursuing the ambitious goal of a low carbon economy, something we need to do reduce our continued reliance on fossil fuels.

I don’t agree with the emphasis we are currently seeing government place on the construction and installation of wind turbines. It would be far more beneficial to this country, if we could encourage as many residential and commercial properties as possible to install some form of renewable energy generation. Installing solar panels, air and ground source heat pumps, or maybe even anaerobic digesters, is far more likely to be both possible and productive than a wind turbine is every likely to be.

The sooner we stop the obsession with wind turbines and start using some of the ridiculous amounts of money given in subsidy to the operators across a wider audience, the sooner more of us will be making our own contribution to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and yes, our carbon emissions (a bit!).

John Howell MP proves the deceit that is the NPPF

I was going to have a rant about this myself, but Andrew Lainton says it all in his blog so much than I could: http://wp.me/pNECF-1yv

It beggars belief that the individual who so proudly admits to being the author of the document that spawned the national planning policy framework, would go on record saying the complete opposite of what is in black and white for all to read. 

Can it be that he has not actually read the NPPF and is basing his deluded comments on his precious Open Source Planning document?  I hope the answer is yes, because otherwise one can only draw the conclusion that he is little better than his fellow MPs, who set out to deceive and defraud the public by submitting false claims for their expenses.

Just so there is no doubt about why I am challenging the veracity of this MP’s statement, here are a couple of extracts from the NPPF.

Greg Clark’s Foreword: ….a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision.

Para 14.  At the heart of the planning system is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking.

Para 55. The relationship between development management and plan-making should be seamless and both should recognise the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the positive approach to planning set out in this Framework.

Para 63. In assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Another statement in the NPPF that should be of major concern to everybody outside of the development industry because the bit in bold applies to some 95% of councils in England is (again at para 14):

….grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date.

Paras 116 and 118 also so give me cause for concern becuase of their apparent contradictory nature.   Para 116 says, ‘…respond to local character and reflect the identity of local surroundings,‘ whilst para 118 says, ‘Planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes’.

What is local character and identity, if not an architectural style or particular taste?

Pickles opens mouth without engaging brain again

I see Eric Pickles has once again decided to jump in to the middle of an issue, without explaining how the situation came about in the first place. Pickles was probably suffering withdrawal symptoms, having not seen his name in a newspaper headline for at least a week, so has decided to criticise local government for something imposed on it by central government.

This week’s issue has the catchy title equality and diversity. Pickles’s predecessors in government, decided that it needed to ensure that everybody and his dog was being given access to local government services, so came up with the E&Q Police. This meant that every time central government’s auditors appeared on the council’s doorstep to inspect one of its services, one of the tick boxes was about E&Q performance. If they didn’t think the council was performing to the required standard in this area, then it didn’t matter how good the service itself was, you still took a hit on equality and diversity.

The problem was, how does a council prove that it is meeting the government imposed E&Q targets, without asking the questions now being criticised by Eric Pickles? So instead of criticising councils for simply trying to meet targets imposed by his predecessors, why doesn’t he just announce that central government will no longer require this information and therefore councils can stop collecting it? Because that wouldn’t get him any newspaper headlines would it. It also seem that Pickles thinks that he isn’t doing his job properly unless he is beating up local government at every opportunity.