The most destructive planning phenomena we now face in Scotland is the resort to appeals when an elected council rejects a wind farm application.
Some Reporters may uphold the refusals decided democratically but that is not always the case. Communities face division and destruction of amenity as a result.
MSPs who have signed up the Scottish Parliament's pro wind policies and diktats, and whose parties all back subsidies and DECC line to the hilt, sit smugly away from the realities. I have yet to see or hear of my local MSP, for example, going to a community council meeting discussing wind issues, to see the effect of these policies on the community's constituents.
Whilst UKIP policy is that planning appeals would not be taken "out of county" by unelected officers but be decided by binding local referenda amongst the concerned communities/planning area, such trust of the electorate is an anathema to the other parties. It won't happen until UKIP has sufficient elected power in Westminster and Holyrood - on a par with our now being the second largest British party in the European Parliament.
Meantime, why do we have MSPs? Is it their role to sit smugly and aloof in Holyrood, and not carry the buck for what the laws they passed?
I say make them all, sitting in committee of the whole house, decide all wind farm appeals, with their votes recorded, so that we may know them for what they earn.
Mike Scott-Hayward
Chairman UKIP Scotland
Showing posts with label Balmullo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Balmullo. Show all posts
Sunday, 26 August 2012
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
Affodable Homes - Right to Buy not a barrier
Shelter Scotland are urging the Scottish Executive to abolish the right to buy.
The reasons are ostensibly understandable - there is a shortage of affordable homes to rent. Their thinking, however, is flawed: retaining a sitting tenant (by preventing them from buying) does not create a new home or shorten the waiting list.
Allowing a council house to be bought, does not make it disappear from overall stock. The occupants who, up to the time of purchasing, are council tenants, become home owner occupiers; owners indeed, of a house bought affordably. The Right to Buy is truly an affordable home purchase scheme. Well done Mrs Thatcher.
Some reforms are necessary. For example, all revenues raised should have to be used to support further access to affordable homes. The best way, I believe, would be to turn the revenue into grants to those on the waiting lists, towards deposits for new homes - in other words, used to subsidise purchase, making purchase more affordable. A variety of ways could be devised.
Let's stop knocking a policy that has achieved a high home ownership ratio - an advance from the time when Scotland had fewer home owners proportionately than then communist East Germany.
The reasons are ostensibly understandable - there is a shortage of affordable homes to rent. Their thinking, however, is flawed: retaining a sitting tenant (by preventing them from buying) does not create a new home or shorten the waiting list.
Allowing a council house to be bought, does not make it disappear from overall stock. The occupants who, up to the time of purchasing, are council tenants, become home owner occupiers; owners indeed, of a house bought affordably. The Right to Buy is truly an affordable home purchase scheme. Well done Mrs Thatcher.
Some reforms are necessary. For example, all revenues raised should have to be used to support further access to affordable homes. The best way, I believe, would be to turn the revenue into grants to those on the waiting lists, towards deposits for new homes - in other words, used to subsidise purchase, making purchase more affordable. A variety of ways could be devised.
Let's stop knocking a policy that has achieved a high home ownership ratio - an advance from the time when Scotland had fewer home owners proportionately than then communist East Germany.
Wednesday, 2 November 2011
Fife Council - Pick a School - but only the one we allow....
Mike Scott-Hayward, UKIP councillor, has declared that Fife Council is now seen BY MANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC as being guilty of using guesswork to determine public opinion, and technological flannel to circumvent consultation.
"The councillors on the Education Committee should avoid the mistakes made by the Policy Finance and Asset Management Committee (PFAM) when deciding the future of secondary education in North East Fife. PFAM rejected a proposal to have a referendum of parents and locals to assess whether or not full reliance should fall on a single new, and therefore large, secondary on a site in St Andrews, or two smaller schools - one for St Andrews and the other for the Tay Bridgehead.
"The view in support of two schools has been quoted in local newspapers, but mention of that is ruled out, almost forbidden, by the parties in power; one of which was elected on the promise of two schools. Labour opposition also stands against a Bridgehead school.
"The rejection of asking the people, whom we trust to elect governments, means we are now either in the hands of the unelected wielding complex matrixes, the tick box approach, or in the hands of ad hoc groups pushing single views. I applaud the effort of those who have raised a petition of over 2000 names but note that sadly, those signing were offered only one choice to support.
"Others have raised the very valid point that one option, South Street, is ruled out simply because the size of school serving the whole area won't fit there, and on transportation grounds, too many busses: a two school option would allow that choice to be on the table and also cut bussing - now a seemingly also banned topic.
"No one now knows what level of support there is in reality for two schools; nor does anyone really know the level of support for each possible site in St Andrews. We would do, though, had PFAM not chucked out the idea of a referendum, which the Conservatives and I had proposed. This way, the Council's way, means we will all still be in the dark. The lid will not go back on this can of worms by these means. Do the public even know that they could have had a referendum?"
Cllr Scott-Hayward was also critical of the consultation with parents. "The first meeting of the so called working group, decided that the impact of public opinion had to be a criteria in the magic matrix, the table to be used to assess options. I asked if the assessing group would include parents or public and was soundly told that the assessment was a matter for the experts! At the meeting of Fife Council, I asked how officers would determine 'public opinion' and the Leader of the Administration told me that there are officers who are well versed in assessing public reactions. Yet at the meeting informing parents of the result of the deliberations, the first point made by officers was that they had decided to merge that criteria with others as they found it too difficult to assess and so public views will only be able to made as part of the planning application process. That, of course, is post decision.
"It's a mess"
"The councillors on the Education Committee should avoid the mistakes made by the Policy Finance and Asset Management Committee (PFAM) when deciding the future of secondary education in North East Fife. PFAM rejected a proposal to have a referendum of parents and locals to assess whether or not full reliance should fall on a single new, and therefore large, secondary on a site in St Andrews, or two smaller schools - one for St Andrews and the other for the Tay Bridgehead.
"The view in support of two schools has been quoted in local newspapers, but mention of that is ruled out, almost forbidden, by the parties in power; one of which was elected on the promise of two schools. Labour opposition also stands against a Bridgehead school.
"The rejection of asking the people, whom we trust to elect governments, means we are now either in the hands of the unelected wielding complex matrixes, the tick box approach, or in the hands of ad hoc groups pushing single views. I applaud the effort of those who have raised a petition of over 2000 names but note that sadly, those signing were offered only one choice to support.
"Others have raised the very valid point that one option, South Street, is ruled out simply because the size of school serving the whole area won't fit there, and on transportation grounds, too many busses: a two school option would allow that choice to be on the table and also cut bussing - now a seemingly also banned topic.
"No one now knows what level of support there is in reality for two schools; nor does anyone really know the level of support for each possible site in St Andrews. We would do, though, had PFAM not chucked out the idea of a referendum, which the Conservatives and I had proposed. This way, the Council's way, means we will all still be in the dark. The lid will not go back on this can of worms by these means. Do the public even know that they could have had a referendum?"
Cllr Scott-Hayward was also critical of the consultation with parents. "The first meeting of the so called working group, decided that the impact of public opinion had to be a criteria in the magic matrix, the table to be used to assess options. I asked if the assessing group would include parents or public and was soundly told that the assessment was a matter for the experts! At the meeting of Fife Council, I asked how officers would determine 'public opinion' and the Leader of the Administration told me that there are officers who are well versed in assessing public reactions. Yet at the meeting informing parents of the result of the deliberations, the first point made by officers was that they had decided to merge that criteria with others as they found it too difficult to assess and so public views will only be able to made as part of the planning application process. That, of course, is post decision.
"It's a mess"
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
RAF Leuchars closure and UK's Defences
Whilst the impact on St Andrews matters locally, the economic implications will be balanced by the use of the base by the army.
The real implications of what the Cameron and Clegg Government, however, is doing is unforgiveable.
From the time he first came forward to lead the Conservatives, in a contest against David Davies, Cameron dismayed me - he showed then in answers to questions about restoring our traditional regiments, that he has a poor grasp of the overall value of the Armed Forces. It is one reason why I left the Conservatives and joined UKIP.
Other politicians have been parochially vigorous but have not put their careers on the line in the defence of the Armed Services overall. This base closure is just another drastic step in a disastrous chain of events which MPS have sat and watched - indeed, condoned.
Coupled with the concept of building aircraftless aircraft carriers, scrapping ships and reducing the Britsih Army to the point where they couldn't fill Wembley Stadium, this new round of cuts puts us in a position now where we will not be able properly to defend the interests and safety of Britons. The Coalition clearly believes our future role is to play a second fiddle within a European Union Force. Holding on to the nuclear deterrent is all that will gives us credibility within that Force. Balance has gone - the impact is greater than any local disruption we may see North East Fife in the base changing from the RAF to the Army. Folk need to look at policies in future and not have simple pavlovian responses when we have the chance to influence, or choose, future governments.
The real implications of what the Cameron and Clegg Government, however, is doing is unforgiveable.
From the time he first came forward to lead the Conservatives, in a contest against David Davies, Cameron dismayed me - he showed then in answers to questions about restoring our traditional regiments, that he has a poor grasp of the overall value of the Armed Forces. It is one reason why I left the Conservatives and joined UKIP.
Other politicians have been parochially vigorous but have not put their careers on the line in the defence of the Armed Services overall. This base closure is just another drastic step in a disastrous chain of events which MPS have sat and watched - indeed, condoned.
Coupled with the concept of building aircraftless aircraft carriers, scrapping ships and reducing the Britsih Army to the point where they couldn't fill Wembley Stadium, this new round of cuts puts us in a position now where we will not be able properly to defend the interests and safety of Britons. The Coalition clearly believes our future role is to play a second fiddle within a European Union Force. Holding on to the nuclear deterrent is all that will gives us credibility within that Force. Balance has gone - the impact is greater than any local disruption we may see North East Fife in the base changing from the RAF to the Army. Folk need to look at policies in future and not have simple pavlovian responses when we have the chance to influence, or choose, future governments.
Tuesday, 5 July 2011
Fife Health Board Experiment going wrong........
It is time to question the value of the elected local Health Board being piloted in Fife.
The Health Board is in charge of NHS Fife - with half its members being elected. This is a move designed to make the Board more accountable to users, more democratic and in tune with local need.
Well, that is falling apart, as far as I am concerned. I have watched in disbelief as the Board has jiggled pharmacy services in Leuchars and Balmullo, going from bad to worse. In an exercise which now seems to me to have been designed to kick the issue into long grass, the Board set up a special sub committee to examine and resolve the question of who gets what pharmacy in this rural part of Fife.
Two appointed board members were joined by two elected members, none of whom, I understand, represents East Fife, to make the important decision to either allow the GPs in Balmullo to have a pharmacy, or not.
The vote against the local plans, supported by the local people, was 3 to 1 against local needs. I don't call that a system designed to represent local views.
UKIP has a policy whereby this is exactly the sort of issue that should be decided by a local referendum - especially where a so-called local board is seen to be biased against local views.
The Health Board is in charge of NHS Fife - with half its members being elected. This is a move designed to make the Board more accountable to users, more democratic and in tune with local need.
Well, that is falling apart, as far as I am concerned. I have watched in disbelief as the Board has jiggled pharmacy services in Leuchars and Balmullo, going from bad to worse. In an exercise which now seems to me to have been designed to kick the issue into long grass, the Board set up a special sub committee to examine and resolve the question of who gets what pharmacy in this rural part of Fife.
Two appointed board members were joined by two elected members, none of whom, I understand, represents East Fife, to make the important decision to either allow the GPs in Balmullo to have a pharmacy, or not.
The vote against the local plans, supported by the local people, was 3 to 1 against local needs. I don't call that a system designed to represent local views.
UKIP has a policy whereby this is exactly the sort of issue that should be decided by a local referendum - especially where a so-called local board is seen to be biased against local views.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)