Does Shepway District Council belong in the Rotten Borough section of Private Eye, when it comes to Princes Parade?
On Wednesday (Tomorrow) 6th April 2016 SDC Resources Committee controlled by a Conservative Majority will convene at the Civic Centre at 7pm
On the Agenda at Points 7 & 8 the public will once again be excluded. These points are with regard to Princes Parade and the new leisure complex SDC wish to build there SDC’s it seems wish to abuse the law by using paragraph3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (LGA) which states
‘Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).’ ‘Financial or business affairs includes contemplated as well as current activities’
Now when SDC went to print there were no ‘commercially sensitive matters’, which involved a third party, to be considered. Within hours and possibly discussing things with the third party who have given SDC planning advice regarding the leisure complex on Princes Parade, SDC suddenly changed there minds and decided to exclude the public.
It is our belief and many others, SDC can’t pull this trick as the LGA 1972, schedule 12A, clause 9 states:
‘Information is not exempt information if it relates to proposed development for which the local planning authority may grant itself planning permission pursuant to regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992’
So in short the exemption must not relate to a proposed development for which the council may grant itself planning permission.
We at Shepwayvox, like many others believe that SDC have acted ultra vires (beyond their powers) when considering whether the public should be excluded from the meeting on Wednesday 6th April at 7pm.
SDC abuse of the LGA 1972 and the Local Government Finance Act 1972 is getting beyond a joke. This is public money which has been used to pay for the planning advice, therefore it IS in the public interest to know what advice we are getting, as it probably costs us a pretty penny or two.
Alistair Stewart (58) (below)
who has applied for 6 jobs since 2011 and many more prior to this, doesn’t care for Shepway as he lives in Scotterthorpe Lincolnshire. Perhaps now that he is eligible to collect his full pension he might consider stepping down and allowing a local to take over his position, one who particularly cares for our district and believes in transparency and accountability unlike Mr Stewart.
I would be more than happy for Mr. Stewart to take any offered position divorced from SDC. ‘Good Riddance’ may possibly be appropriate. Mr. Stewart has shown himself to be flagrant to both the needs of his residents and the law of the land.
It remains my intention to bring Mr. Stewart to account for allowing false representation to pass, despite his prior knowledge, and causing evidence to be destroyed even after questions had been raised.
Should he go, his staff would be left exposed to answer my issues alone. It would be interesting to note how their responses may differ from those originaly given under his tutelage.
I offer that Mr. Stewart is both a lair and a cheat as regards my election issues and would invite him to challenge me throught the Courts should he have the balls.
From what you post, the Public cannot be excluded from this meeting. To exclude the Public has to, therefore, be illegal.
I would wish to know if SDC has re-considered their position in this light and published the relevant details to enable the Public to attend such meeting.
Should SDC advice have come from Alistair Stewart I would suggest that the words: Trust, throw him, I would not, as far as I can, him. Should be arranged in a different order to properly examine the failings of SDC to address the rights of the electorate and their denial of such rights.
It remains to be seen what, if any, retraction will be undertaken by SDC regarding this meeting.
Perhaps Mr. Alistair Stewart should desist in his miriad applications for employment within other municipal authorities and direct his efforts to the theatrical community.
He is undoubtedly adept at employing ‘Smoke and mirrors’ to considerable effect.
I would welcome his departure from SDC and would wish him well within the arena to which he is better suited. A personal opinion you understand!
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Discover more from ShepwayVox Dissent is not a Crime
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
I would be more than happy for Mr. Stewart to take any offered position divorced from SDC. ‘Good Riddance’ may possibly be appropriate. Mr. Stewart has shown himself to be flagrant to both the needs of his residents and the law of the land.
It remains my intention to bring Mr. Stewart to account for allowing false representation to pass, despite his prior knowledge, and causing evidence to be destroyed even after questions had been raised.
Should he go, his staff would be left exposed to answer my issues alone. It would be interesting to note how their responses may differ from those originaly given under his tutelage.
I offer that Mr. Stewart is both a lair and a cheat as regards my election issues and would invite him to challenge me throught the Courts should he have the balls.
From what you post, the Public cannot be excluded from this meeting. To exclude the Public has to, therefore, be illegal.
I would wish to know if SDC has re-considered their position in this light and published the relevant details to enable the Public to attend such meeting.
Should SDC advice have come from Alistair Stewart I would suggest that the words: Trust, throw him, I would not, as far as I can, him. Should be arranged in a different order to properly examine the failings of SDC to address the rights of the electorate and their denial of such rights.
It remains to be seen what, if any, retraction will be undertaken by SDC regarding this meeting.
Regards,
ASIAL
Perhaps Mr. Alistair Stewart should desist in his miriad applications for employment within other municipal authorities and direct his efforts to the theatrical community.
He is undoubtedly adept at employing ‘Smoke and mirrors’ to considerable effect.
I would welcome his departure from SDC and would wish him well within the arena to which he is better suited. A personal opinion you understand!
ASIAL