Views wanted on updated Isle of Man government land use plan
The consultation asks for feedback on a series of detailed documents covering issues such as patterns of development, and balancing the pressures and opportunities for new projects in the countryside.It also asks for views on targets, as outlined in the Objective Assessment of Housing Need report, which suggests almost 10,000 homes would need to be built by 2041 for the Manx government to reach population and job growth targets.The reports also look at how new infrastructure may be needed to meet long-term needs for local communities, such as housing, transport, energy or waste, and explains that such schemes may overlap with sensitive areas.
'Careful balance'
The Cabinet Office said the consultation responses would informs any draft document, after a similar consultation in 2023 was used to create the updated papers.As a draft plan did not follow within 12 months of that exercise, the information and consultation had to be reissued, the department confirmed.Cabinet Office Minister David Ashford said the island had "changed in many ways" since the 2007 plan was created."As we look to the future, we must now carefully balance the need for sustainable growth with the protection of our island's distinctive character," he said. The consultation is available online until 27 October and details on drop-in sessions across the island are set to be confirmed at a later date.
Read more stories from the Isle of Man on the BBC, watch BBC North West Tonight on BBC iPlayer and follow BBC Isle of Man on Facebook and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
23 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Nicola Sturgeon memoir reveals letters from Donald Trump
In 2019, a judge ruled Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd had to pay the legal bills incurred by the Scottish Government following his unsuccessful challenge. Ms Sturgeon has never met the US President – a fact she said she is not 'unhappy about'. Following the dispute over wind farms, the now-President also sent Ms Sturgeon cuttings of newspaper articles about the 'evils of wind power' around 2018 while building his Aberdeenshire golf course. She said he had underlined passages, writing 'CRAZY!!!!' in 'all thick black Sharpie'. While Ms Sturgeon has not met Trump, she said she received a 'green ink' letter – a term used to describe eccentric views. Read more: Nicola Sturgeon memoir: Why former first minister cried for Boris Johnson 'I hated it': Sturgeon on the SNP's #ImWithNicola branding He had taken 'umbrage' to a proposed offshore windfarm amid fears it would ruin the view from his Aberdeenshire golf course. 'He sent me cuttings of newspaper articles about the evils of wind power,' she writes. 'He underlined passages and scrawled single words followed by multiple exclamation marks in the margins – 'CRAZY!!!!' for example, all in thick black Sharpie.' Later, Ms Sturgeon had a phone call with Trump ahead of his first inauguration in January 2017. Ms Sturgeon was in her constituency office in Govanhill for the phone call and described the exchange ranking 'amongst the most absurd of my entire time in office'. She said she felt she had to 'say her piece' immediately and emphasised the need for the 'longstanding' relationship between Scotland and the US continue. But she also condemned some of the rhetoric used during his presidential campaign and said she hoped policies like a Muslim ban would not be part of his administration. She also asked about his Scottish businesses. 'I doubt he heard a single world,' she said. The President then launched into a 'monologue', according to the former first minister. Paraphrasing the President, she said he asked whether Ms Sturgeon was aware he was Scottish on his mother's side, before describing Scotland as having a 'mad obsession' with wind farms. 'Had I noticed what had happened to the US economy since his election?' she writes. 'No President had ever created since a strong economy and he wasn't even in office yet. His popularity ratings were soaring too. It was unprecedented. And his sons? Did I know he had the smartest sons any father had ever had? And so it went on.' Ms Sturgeon then said: 'When the call ended, I wondered if I had just woken from a very bad acid dream.' A few minutes after that call, Ms Sturgeon's chief of staff, Liz Lloyd received a call from President Trump's national security adviser General Mike Flynn. He was calling to 'ask Liz if it was true that the President-elect had just spoken to the First Minister, and if so, could she tell him what had been discussed? It seemed that he had known nothing about it.' The bizarre exchange comes as the President made a parting dig at Ms Sturgeon following his visit to Scotland last moth. He praised John Swinney but said he did not "have a lot of respect" for the "woman that preceded him", adding that she was a "terrible first minister".
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
American Bar Association adopts resolution against Trump's law firm crackdown
Aug 11 (Reuters) - The American Bar Association's policymaking body on Monday adopted a resolution opposing government efforts to punish 'lawyers, law firms, or other organizations for representing or having represented any particular client or cause disfavored by the government.' The resolution, opens new tab is the latest in an escalating conflict between the Trump administration and the ABA, which is the nation's largest voluntary lawyer organization with about 170,000 dues-paying members. In recent months, the ABA has publicly clashed with the administration over officials' attacks on judges and law firms, while government officials have dismissed the ABA as a 'snooty' organization of 'leftist lawyers' and alleged that some of its diversity efforts are illegal. The U.S. Department of Justice has barred its attorneys from participating in ABA events and curtailed the organization's ability to vet new federal judicial nominations. Trump in April threatened to revoke the ABA's status as the federally recognized accreditor of law schools. The rule of law 'will not long survive if lawyers and law firms are threatened and punished for doing their jobs and if judges are threatened with punishment for doing their jobs,' the ABA's new resolution said. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the resolution. The ABA has brought multiple lawsuits against the Trump administration, including a pending case filed in July that seeks an order barring the White House from pursuing what the ABA called a campaign of intimidation against major law firms. The ABA said Trump's actions, including executive orders targeting specific firms, have chilled the ability of some public-interest organizations to find lawyers for new matters. Reuters in a special report last month described how some firms were retreating from public interest legal work in the wake of Trump's pressure campaign. The Justice Department on Friday asked, opens new tab a federal judge in Washington D.C., to dismiss the ABA's case, arguing that there's no certainty that Trump will target the business operations of another firm, and that the claims could only be brought by individual plaintiffs, and not the "monolithic" ABA. The DOJ also said the ABA hadn't shown Trump's actions had dissuaded lawyers from taking certain cases. The ABA's House of Delegates is meeting Monday and Tuesday in Toronto to consider a slew of resolutions, many of which relate to the federal government and the rule of law. The resolution opposing attacks on lawyers and law firms also opposes threats to impeach judges 'based solely on disagreement with the merits of the rulings made by those judges.' Since returning to the White House, Trump has issued a series of executive orders targeting law firms over their past clients and lawyers they hired. Nine law firms have struck deals with the president, pledging nearly $1 billion in free legal services on mutually agreed legal issues with the White House in order to stave off similar executive orders. Four law firms successfully sued the administration to block the orders against them, which stripped their lawyers of security clearances and restricted their access to government officials and federal contracting work. Read more: How Trump's crackdown on law firms is undermining legal defenses for the vulnerable What Republican, Democratic judges said about Trump's law firm orders ABA ramps up defense of judges as White House dismisses 'snooty' lawyers American Bar Association sues to block Trump's attacks on law firms
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Palestine Action co-founder accuses ministers of making defamatory claims
The co-founder of Palestine Action has accused ministers of making false and defamatory allegations about the banned group and contradicting their own intelligence assessments in an attempt to justify the arrest of more than 500 people. The government has come under pressure to justify the detention of 532 people arrested over the weekend under the Terrorism Act – half of whom were 60 or older – on suspicion of showing support for Palestine Action. The number of people arrested for peaceful protests, together with the images of older people being led away and the demands placed on the criminal justice system have led many to call into question the criminalisation of so many people. On Monday, a Downing Street spokesperson responded by saying that Palestine Action, which last month became the first direct action protest group to be banned, was 'a violent organisation that has committed violence, significant injury, extensive criminal damage'. The home secretary, Yvette Cooper, told the BBC that Palestine Action 'is not a non-violent organisation' and claimed that court restrictions meant people 'don't know the full nature of this organisation'. But Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, said: 'Yvette Cooper and No 10's claim that Palestine Action is a violent organisation is false and defamatory and even disproven by the government's own intelligence assessment of Palestine Action's activities … 'It was revealed in court during my ongoing legal challenge to the ban that the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre's (JTAC'S) assessment acknowledges that 'Palestine Action does not advocate for violence against persons' and that the 'majority' of its activities 'would not be classified as terrorism'. 'Spraying red paint on war planes is not terrorism. Disrupting Israel's largest weapons manufacturer, Elbit Systems, by trespassing on their sites in Britain is not terrorism. It is the Israeli Defense Forces and all those who arm and enable their war crimes who are the terrorists.' JTAC, a government body based within MI5, produced a secret report on 7 March which was disclosed in the high court. While recommending banning Palestine Action, JTAC said the group 'primarily uses direct action tactics', which typically resulted in minor damage to property. 'Common tactics include graffiti, petty vandalism, occupation and lock-ons,' it added. Defend Our Juries, which has organised multiple demonstrations, including Saturday's, in support of Palestine Action, also highlighted Whitehall officials' description – again in documents revealed in court – of a ban as 'relatively novel' as 'there was no known precedent of an organisation being proscribed on the basis that it was concerned in terrorism mainly due to its use or threat of action involving serious damage to property'. A Defend Our Juries spokesperson said: 'It is despicable that under political pressure, Yvette Cooper is now actively misleading the British public about the nature of Palestine Action, knowing that if people come to their defence to counter her disinformation, she can have them jailed for 14 years [because they could be deemed to supporting a proscribed group].' The group said many hundreds of people had already committed to the next protest, which is likely to take place in early September and will be on an even larger scale. Uncertainty remains over the status of charges and prosecutions. Tom Franklin, chief executive of the Magistrates' Association, said: 'Based on the information that we currently have, and the statement put out by the Metropolitan Police yesterday, it could take days and possibly weeks for decisions to be made on whether or not to charge any of those arrested over the weekend. Many of these cases may also be heard in the crown courts, rather than magistrates courts.' Magistrates courts hear less serious cases although some charges under section 13 of the Terrorism Act are 'either way', meaning the defendant can choose whether to be tried before magistrates or a jury in the crown court. The Defend Our Juries spokesperson said: 'Personally I would go to the crown court because I know where the British public is, both on the genocide in Gaza and secondly on the British government's support for it, and thirdly on people not being allowed to express their opinions.' However, they added that they expected most charges to be laid under section 13, which are all heard in the magistrates courts, as the criminal justice system would not be able to cope with so many jury trials.
