Newport councillors in Twitter spat over incinerator (From South Wales Argus)

james.dyer7@ntlworld.com says...
11:37am Fri 27 Jul 12

Haven't read the Twitter but Cllr Al-Nuami is a sound fella and sticks to his guns.

Report this post »

Mervyn James says...
11:40am Fri 27 Jul 12

But a NIMBY who says one thing and does another...

Report this post »

james.dyer7@ntlworld.com says...
11:46am Fri 27 Jul 12

MJ - How do you work that one out Mervyn? He voted the way he thought right.

Report this post »

james.dyer7@ntlworld.com says...
12:10pm Fri 27 Jul 12

Gets more interesting. Pity they knocked Rogerstone Power Station down and built houses there. excellent site for an incinerator eh.

Report this post »

Severn40 says...
12:12pm Fri 27 Jul 12

Perhaps we should remember that planning committee is non political and that members of the committee have to have an open mind and come to their own conclusions independently. I'm sure all councillors at that meeting followed this requirement.

Report this post »

james.dyer7@ntlworld.com says...
12:17pm Fri 27 Jul 12

Severn - Rubbish ! If you believe that you do not know local government politics.

Report this post »

Severn40 says...
12:22pm Fri 27 Jul 12

As I said I'm sure all councillors acted non politically, had an open mind and came to their own conclusions independently. That's the law.

Report this post »

james.dyer7@ntlworld.com says...
12:25pm Fri 27 Jul 12

Severn - You must be having a joke. Totally political decision. Be honest you are having a laugh.

Report this post »

Severn40 says...
12:30pm Fri 27 Jul 12

Of course I am. By their actions, they have actually made the likelihood of an incinerator more likely but critically have undermined the integrity of the planning process.

Report this post »

james.dyer7@ntlworld.com says...
12:37pm Fri 27 Jul 12

Severn - We are on same channel.

Report this post »

james jackson says...
1:03pm Fri 27 Jul 12

A scrap! What fun. We haven't seen one of those for a long time in Newport.
It's usually "solidarity" all the way brothers (and sisters!!!)
Labour councillors in the soup. Acting against planning procedures and likely landing Newport with the incinerator or eye-watering costs when the inspector makes the decision for them.
In the past we would not know the brothers had fallen out, but thanks to tiresome social networks we can all view the histrionics of spoilt men as they bat back and forth, their prejudices.
Miqdad-Al_Nuami, being an educated man, has taken a view on the incinerator, whereas Evans and his like are out to make a name for themselves.
After all, there's no point in being little fish in a big Labour pool. The new crop, with no political experience whatever, are desperate to make their name and fight the old guard, who are strangely silent.
Hannon's comment is just nonsensical. He needs to act like a deputy chair and not a spoil boy and accept that Labour campaigned on the incinerator when they should not have done. Planning is NON-political - or that's what we've been told.
Keep up the exchanges though, it's brightened my day.
If Labour's majority was small, this wouldn't be out in the open. Well done Argus!

Report this post »

james.dyer7@ntlworld.com says...
1:07pm Fri 27 Jul 12

James Jackson - Excellent comment. Seems you, me and Severn are akin - and on the skullduggery in politics.

Report this post »

Howie' says...
2:30pm Fri 27 Jul 12

I was in New Zealand during the Council Elections & did not read any of the campaigning literature but if Labour campaigned in the election against this incinerator & it is Labour Policy that Cllr Al-Nuami has voted against then I am surprised that he has not been suspended.

Report this post »

james.dyer7@ntlworld.com says...
2:33pm Fri 27 Jul 12

howie - suspended from what? Can only suspend him from Labour Group not the council

Report this post »

james jackson says...
4:05pm Fri 27 Jul 12

In fact, if you take it down to basics, Councillor Al-Nuami has voted in a proper manner. The other Labour members have acted, one might say, improperly. Maybe the rest of the group could be suspended!

Report this post »

james.dyer7@ntlworld.com says...
4:07pm Fri 27 Jul 12

Good idea - you know it makes sense

Report this post »

Howie' says...
4:53pm Fri 27 Jul 12

james.dyer7@ntlworld
.com wrote:
howie - suspended from what? Can only suspend him from Labour Group not the council

Thats what I meant.

Report this post »

james.dyer7@ntlworld.com says...
5:10pm Fri 27 Jul 12

Howie - Big deal! Hardly going to cause a nuke war is it. He wouldn't be the first to have the whip taken away.

Report this post »

Howie' says...
11:38pm Fri 27 Jul 12

james.dyer7@ntlworld
.com wrote:
Howie - Big deal! Hardly going to cause a nuke war is it. He wouldn't be the first to have the whip taken away.

No James, you are quite right it is hardly likely to cause a Nuclear war.

I was expressing surprise as he has gone against Policy & what I have heard that Labour promised in their Manifesto & Labour has not suspended him.

I'm sorry if you think I have gone off topic, James!

Note too self: Howie must stay on topic...............
Naughty Howie

Report this post »

CM1 says...
1:40am Sat 28 Jul 12

Howie, you don't appear to understand the legislative role of the Local Planning Authority and Planning Committee. You cannot vote on Party lines, as the LPA is independant from the Council and has to vote on the merits of the application that it is considering. The Argus does not appear to understand this either, so you are certainly not alone!

Report this post »

pinpong says...
4:13am Sat 28 Jul 12

Great. LOL. I also thought planning was non political and i think that the incinerator company is starting to build up lots of evidence for an appeal. The argus editor says a promise to stop the incinerator kept. Labour manifesto pledge to block incinerator and their committee dutifully vote it out.
BIG BIG BIG APPEAL COSTS ON THE WAY.

Report this post »

pinpong says...
4:13am Sat 28 Jul 12

Great. LOL. I also thought planning was non political and i think that the incinerator company is starting to build up lots of evidence for an appeal. The argus editor says a promise to stop the incinerator kept. Labour manifesto pledge to block incinerator and their committee dutifully vote it out.
BIG BIG BIG APPEAL COSTS ON THE WAY.

Report this post »

Howie' says...
9:21am Sat 28 Jul 12

CM1 wrote:
Howie, you don't appear to understand the legislative role of the Local Planning Authority and Planning Committee. You cannot vote on Party lines, as the LPA is independant from the Council and has to vote on the merits of the application that it is considering. The Argus does not appear to understand this either, so you are certainly not alone!

Thanks CM1, your right I did not know that.

Report this post »

james.dyer7@ntlworld.com says...
9:32am Sat 28 Jul 12

To all - How do you think a non-political Planning Committee can be set-up in a politically controlled council.? It is political and is the same in every authority under political control. Also it is not independent from the council - where did you get that daft idea?

Report this post »

Howie' says...
11:26am Sat 28 Jul 12

james.dyer7@ntlworld
.com wrote:
To all - How do you think a non-political Planning Committee can be set-up in a politically controlled council.? It is political and is the same in every authority under political control. Also it is not independent from the council - where did you get that daft idea?

James, I hate to labour the point but I am somewhat confused now. Would Cllr Miqdad Al-Nuaimi have been expected, as a Labour Cllr to have followed the party line?

Report this post »

james jackson says...
11:28am Sat 28 Jul 12

I think CM1 meant it is "independent", rather than independent from, the Council.
Mr Dyer is correct. In essence, it's not possible to be politically neutral, no matter how hard you try.
However, there are rules and mostly planning committees try to follow them. Prejudice will abound, however, and the "not in my ward" triumphs whether people like it or not.
That's why it's difficult for a ward councillor to be in favour/or against a particular application in their own ward.
No matter which way the councillor votes, it will upset someone, and if people have good memories, they will turn them out at the next election, for their treachery.
Planning committees can be influenced though and sometimes officers' recommendations aren't always the best. Sometimes the people do know better.
But with the incinerator, something stinks and Newport people should demand answers..

Report this post »

james.dyer7@ntlworld.com says...
1:12pm Sat 28 Jul 12

Howie - It depends whether they put a three-lined whip on it. Yes i suppose he was expected to vote against.

James Jackson - Don't understand. It is clear to me what will happen. There will be an appeal and the council will lose. They know that NOW. BUT they can turn round to the objectors and their wards and say 'well we tried didn't we. Don't blame us'. A common political ploy for councillors. Forget the cost eh!!!!

Report this post »

james jackson says...
1:21pm Sat 28 Jul 12

Yes, James there will be an appeal I'm sure. And what you say is right, all councillors use that excuse. We tried, but somebody else over-ruled us!

Just one point: There can be no three-line whip on planning or licensing.
Some political parties try this, though whether it ever needs to be spoken, I don't know, but he issue is, they all know they shouldn't.

Report this post »

james.dyer7@ntlworld.com says...
1:28pm Sat 28 Jul 12

JJ - Yes i know but they do have them for whatever committee, unless you know different. Fascinating stuff local politics. Small big cheeses in a big pond eh

Report this post »

CM1 says...
9:39pm Sat 28 Jul 12

No probs Howie.

Re other comments; whether you choose to believe that Members on the Planning Committee vote along Party lines is up to you and, on that basis, a matter of opinion. However, the LPA is independent and decisions need to be made on the basis of planning law and policy. That is just a fact.

Report this post »

james.dyer7@ntlworld.com says...
9:49pm Sat 28 Jul 12

CMI - Yes that is a fact but in practice not always the case. If that was the case in the Incinerator they would have voted for it. All the surveys indicate that and will form the basis of an appeal, which will succeed if it is lodged. Most planning applications are pretty straightforward but you get 'big' uns now and then. This is when party politics come into play so forget about planning law CMI. If you think the LPA is independent you must have led a sheltered life.

Report this post »

CM1 says...
11:34pm Sat 28 Jul 12

I didn't say what I thought; just gave the facts, so that the Argus' slightly misleading slant on this story, whether deliberate or otherwise, was given a little perspective. If you want to know my opinion...Councillor
s often do not understand planning law and the basis of the important decisions they are asked to make; decisions are often made in ignorance and personal interest.

Report this post »

james.dyer7@ntlworld.com says...
3:50pm Sun 29 Jul 12

cmi - comments noted

Report this post »

Cwmderi says...
12:46pm Wed 1 Aug 12

Didn't Cllr. Bright put something in the Labour Party manifesto that they would oppose this plan. If so, then it would follow that the whole Labour group on NCC who attended the planning committee would have had 'closed minds' and as such, should have declared their interest and taken no part in the debate or the voting on this planning application.
Not sure how they were advised by their Head of Legal Services on this matter but they do appear to have left themselves wide open to a possible penalties and investigation by the Ombudsman for Wales.
I understand that Planning committees are an Independent body of the council but it is clear that the controlling Labour group have campaigned against this application and I have no doubt that the legal profession will have many bumper pay days in the months to come and that will be paid out of local taxpayers rates.
Does anyone kmow if there are any financial penalty clauses for NCC in the decisions they have now taken?

Report this post »

james.dyer7@ntlworld.com says...
1:12pm Wed 1 Aug 12

Cwmderi - yes its a farce and Al Nuami's letter today defending the planning committee is a tripe. Yes they will have to pay the costs with such a strong case for approval. Serves them right but they do know the consequences and are making a sop to defend their election position.

Report this post »

BishtonVoice says...
2:33am Sun 5 Aug 12

I have read more rubbish posted on this site than would be available to burn in an incinerator. Incidentally one of the key economic arguments against incineration is that black bag waste flows are in headlong decline and Newport taxpayers would have to compensate an incinerator company for 25 years under a ruinous PFI-type contract drawn up under the previous Council if they fail to supply enough "fuel" ie non-recyclable waste to feed the monster.
None of you seem to be aware that the laws on views taken by councillors on planning committees were changed earlier this year by Eric Pickles’ famous Localism Act. This actually allows a much greater degree of freedom to Councillors to hold and express views which might previously have been held to be prejudicial to their role on a planning committee. Provided Councillors do not close their minds entirely to other viewpoints they are now free to hold and express such “prejudices” - in other words they are free to express and take account of the views of the voters who elected them, including in this case the unanimous views opposing the incinerator of virtually every single Community and Town Council in Eastern Newport and South West Monmouthshire, and most of the electorate.
I attended the Planning Committee and they actually rejected the application on lawful, carefully selected PLANNING grounds, designed to stand up in appeal. So the question of paying penal costs should certainly not arise. I agree that the Argus leader was a bit off beam in mentioning the Labour manifesto - and I guess its understandable that readers may follow that lead without realising that this was NOT a factor at the Planning Committee where there was cross party consensus of Conservative, Labour and Independent Councillors who were all strongly and rationally opposed to the application, with the single exception of Cllr Al-Nuami who IMHO appeared only to have digested the officers highly biased assessment. He gave no specific arguments to counter the detailed PLANNING grounds against the incinerator application (eg conflict with wildlife designations, conflict with Glan Llyn, conflict with rules for a flood risk area and underestimated effects of HGV flows) identified by the meeting as the strongest grounds for rejecting the application.
Having read the comments from those posting on the site I am left with the question – do you support the construction of an expensive incinerator under PFI rules by a foreign-based multinational right next to the Gwent levels and Glan Llyn when there are alternative sites and alternative waste treatment systems available which are made in UK and are far cheaper, far healthier and far more sensitive to the environment – and can even supply energy from gasification ? It is a slam dunk when you look at all the arguments. Do you want to risk your children or grandchildren losing an average 6-12 months of their lives because of being brought up near an incinerator which we sat back and let them build ? This issue is far more important than what any individual Councillor thinks, or what we think of them, or what advantage each political Party may or may not derive, or which one to blame (or praise). It’s about stopping the incinerator to protect our people and our City. We do not want to become the incinerator capital of South Wales. Full stop.

I have read more rubbish posted on this site than would be available to burn in an incinerator. Incidentally one of the key economic arguments against incineration is that black bag waste flows are in headlong decline and Newport taxpayers would have to compensate an incinerator company for 25 years under a ruinous PFI-type contract drawn up under the previous Council if they fail to supply enough "fuel" ie non-recyclable waste to feed the monster. None of you seem to be aware that the laws on views taken by councillors on planning committees were changed earlier this year by Eric Pickles’ famous Localism Act. This actually allows a much greater degree of freedom to Councillors to hold and express views which might previously have been held to be prejudicial to their role on a planning committee. Provided Councillors do not close their minds entirely to other viewpoints they are now free to hold and express such “prejudices” - in other words they are free to express and take account of the views of the voters who elected them, including in this case the unanimous views opposing the incinerator of virtually every single Community and Town Council in Eastern Newport and South West Monmouthshire, and most of the electorate. I attended the Planning Committee and they actually rejected the application on lawful, carefully selected PLANNING grounds, designed to stand up in appeal. So the question of paying penal costs should certainly not arise. I agree that the Argus leader was a bit off beam in mentioning the Labour manifesto - and I guess its understandable that readers may follow that lead without realising that this was NOT a factor at the Planning Committee where there was cross party consensus of Conservative, Labour and Independent Councillors who were all strongly and rationally opposed to the application, with the single exception of Cllr Al-Nuami who IMHO appeared only to have digested the officers highly biased assessment. He gave no specific arguments to counter the detailed PLANNING grounds against the incinerator application (eg conflict with wildlife designations, conflict with Glan Llyn, conflict with rules for a flood risk area and underestimated effects of HGV flows) identified by the meeting as the strongest grounds for rejecting the application. Having read the comments from those posting on the site I am left with the question – do you support the construction of an expensive incinerator under PFI rules by a foreign-based multinational right next to the Gwent levels and Glan Llyn when there are alternative sites and alternative waste treatment systems available which are made in UK and are far cheaper, far healthier and far more sensitive to the environment – and can even supply energy from gasification ? It is a slam dunk when you look at all the arguments. Do you want to risk your children or grandchildren losing an average 6-12 months of their lives because of being brought up near an incinerator which we sat back and let them build ? This issue is far more important than what any individual Councillor thinks, or what we think of them, or what advantage each political Party may or may not derive, or which one to blame (or praise). It’s about stopping the incinerator to protect our people and our City. We do not want to become the incinerator capital of South Wales. Full stop. BishtonVoice

Report this post »

james.dyer7@ntlworld.com says...
5:36am Sun 5 Aug 12

bishton voice - Good points you make,some of which i never knew. In fact they are so good i think i recognise who you are. Well done Peter.

Report this post »

Newport councillors in Twitter spat over incinerator (From South Wales Argus)

News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos

Newport councillors in Twitter spat over incinerator

click2find

Jobs

Dating

Homes

Cars

About cookies