Please do share the link around. I'm sure Caludia would welcome all the help she can get.
Click to visit the funding web site |
Click to visit the funding web site |
Click to read the whole notice |
Subject : Re: Your email dated 24th September 2018
Dear Mr GreenbaughThank you for your letter. We have read it carefully and also considered the paper put before the Standards Committee on dispensations at its meeting last week. At this stage we are responding only to your query about the practice in other local authorities.We, of course, accept that a potential conflict exists if a councillor owns a flat in the City. We also accept that it is important to preserve public confidence in local government, but from the point of view of that part of the public that are your residents, that also means that we need to be confident that our elected councillors can adequately represent our interests - by at least speaking and sometimes voting - on matters which affect some or all of their constituents and do not relate in particular to their own DPI.The act provides a mechanism for balancing DPIs against the need for citizens to be represented though requiring declarations but issuing a dispensation where it is "in the interests of persons living in the authority's area." Our argument is that this provision is widely used by councils throughout the UK, and we would like the City to also apply this common practice. There is plenty of evidence that local authorities grant dispensations to councillors who are tenants or leaseholders of council property and do so on a "blanket basis" for a councillor's term of office. Certainly an application has to be made, but the policy then says that it should be granted.I refer you to a paper presented to Manchester's council in 2017 which asked the Standards committee:"To agree that it is appropriate for any Members of the Council who aretenants of Manchester City Council to be granted a dispensationpursuant to section 33(2) (e) of the Localism Act to allow them toparticipate and to vote on matters in relation to housing (provided thatthose functions do not relate particularly to the tenancy or lease of theCouncil Member concerned). Such requests should be submitted inwriting to the Monitoring Officer."[The Manchester Standards Committee did agree at its meeting on 15 June 2017.]Tower Hamlets has a similar policy:As does Oxford:So do Wakefield, Ipswich, Barnet … and many other local authorities.We are not asking for special treatment – only standard practice within local authorities throughout the land.Best wishes
Chair, Barbican Association
To
The Members of Planning sub Committee A London Borough of Islington
Town Hall
Upper Street
N1 2UD
Re: P2016/1803/FUL: Installation of floodlighting at Prior Weston School, Golden Lane Campus, 101 Whitecross Street, EC1Y 8JA (the Application)
We the below named who would all be affected by the approval of the Application, request that, if the same is to be approved, additional conditions are imposed to ensure that:
- Effective acoustic screening, as proposed in the planning application P approved on 28 January 2006 but waived by Building Control 05 April 2006, is installed around the MUGA to half a metre higher than the proposed floodlighting, as soon as practically possible and before installation of the floodlighting;
- The use of the floodlighting after 6.00 pm be restricted to term time and to one day per week, with no such use on Fridays; and
We trust that you will both note and take proper account of our request when considering the Application.
- Only Golden Lane Campus pupils be permitted to use the MUGA at any time.
8 October 2018
Name Address