Northamptons residents worry about 'voting blind' in referendum
The plan has been under development since 2017, when it was first designated by the now-defunct Northampton Borough Council, which has been replaced by the West Northants unitary council, which Reform UK won control of last month.Consultation on the neighbourhood plan took place initially in 2020 and the council said it received feedback from 118 residents.The plan document said that by 2038 Semilong and Trinity "will be a distinctive, vibrant neighbourhood which is making a significant contribution to the prosperity and diversity of Northampton".It also delves into the delivery of new housing and says it will support applications where residential buildings "do not jeopardise the function of the area as a place of work, leisure and shopping". Feedback from the community also demonstrated a preference for starter homes and private housing and low support for additional rented houses of multiple occupation (HMOs).
Mr Atkinson told the Local Democracy Reporting Service he thought the plan looked great "but I'm guessing most people who got the polling card think 'what on earth's that?What's this plan? Bin it'. "My view is that each resident should have received a copy of the plan, to help them decide how to vote."However, a West Northamptonshire Council spokesperson said: "The Semilong and Trinity Neighbourhood Plan has been developed by Northampton Town Council and local community leaders over several years with public consultation throughout."We understand some residents were unaware of the plan. "While poll cards don't include the full document, information has been shared via websites, public consultations, and local venues."Farzana Aldridge, a newly elected Labour councillor to the Kingsley and Semilong ward, said she would hold meetings with residents to talk through the plan.She added: "Residents did contact me regarding the Neighbourhood Plan and expressed their concerns about their insufficient information."
Follow Northamptonshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Recognising Palestine is not only reckless, it may be unlawful
The Government's defeat in court over migrants being housed at the Bell Hotel in Epping seems to have alarmed the Government and shocked some commentators, particularly on the Left. But really it shouldn't. In case anyone else had not noticed, the expansion of judicial review over the years means that judges regularly block ministers from doing things. It usually boils down to whether the court thinks the government is being 'irrational'. Housing migrants in a way that breaches planning laws will have that effect. Other cases might potentially prove the same point. The Prime Minister's move to formally recognise Palestine as a sovereign state, goes beyond political misjudgement. It is administratively incompetent for the UK to recognise a state which has two rival Palestinian governments; in the West Bank where Mahmoud Abbas has not held elections for 20 years and which is in a state of fierce enmity with the terrorists who are the controlling force in Gaza. It is irrational and bitterly inconsistent with British post-war policy to empower Hamas to such an extent that they have been crowing loudly that the recognition being promised is justification for the most murderous pogrom against Jews since the Second World War, their savage slaughter of over a thousand civilians on October 7, 2023. Judicial review allows judges to assess whether a government decision is so irrational or unlawful that it must be struck down. Although not a judicial review, the result at the Bell Hotel appears to fulfil those criteria. This power has actually been expanding for decades. Just recently, a judge allowed a legal challenge to proceed against Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group, the first time a court has agreed to review such a designation under the Terrorism Act. Could the courts now intervene in Starmer's decision to recognise Palestine? Traditionally, foreign policy decisions have been protected from judicial interference, resting on ancient royal prerogatives. But that protection may not last for ever. In 2015, a court suggested that if a foreign policy decision was sufficiently irrational, it could be subject to legal review. We may now have reached that point with Palestinian recognition. This is because Starmer wants to recognise a 'state' not only with no clear government, but with no internationally recognised borders, and where any UK diplomatic representative to the new state visiting Gaza would be holding court with a proscribed terror group Hamas, which throws gay people off buildings and keeps hostages in such torturous and starving conditions that even Henry VIII's stomach would have turned. This is not just reckless, it may be unlawful. Worse still, the Prime Minister and his Attorney General, Lord Hermer, have been fixated with international law, or at least their selective understanding of it, to such an extent that they have been blind to the UK's national security interests. Their legal idealism is overriding basic strategic sense. And what's more, instead of focusing on the real issues facing Britain, a faltering economy, a failing welfare state and unsustainable immigration, Starmer is wasting time trying to placate a Parliamentary Labour Party he clearly can't control whilst also giving succour to extremists who have brought sectarian tensions to the streets of the UK for nearly two years now. If no one challenges the recognition of a Palestinian state in court, it will not be because it is a sound decision. It would probably just be because no one has raised the money to initiate the challenge. And I wouldn't place a bet on that. If it does get tested in court the Prime Minister may find himself embarrassed, and not for the first time.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Met police's facial recognition plans fall foul of European law, says watchdog
Scotland Yard's plan to widen the use of controversial live facial recognition technology is unlawful because it is incompatible with European laws, the equalities regulator has claimed. As the UK's biggest force prepares to use instant face-matching cameras at this weekend's Notting Hill carnival, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said its use was intrusive and could have a 'chilling effect' on individuals' rights. The development will be a blow to Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan police commissioner, who has backed the use of the technology at mass events such as this weekend's carnival, when 2 million people are expected to descend upon west London. The EHRC has been given permission to intervene in an upcoming judicial review launched last month by the anti-knife campaigner Shaun Thompson. Thompson, a Black British man, was wrongly identified by live facial recognition (LFR) as a criminal, held by police, then faced demands from officers for his fingerprints. Data seen by the EHRC shows that the number of black men triggering an 'alert' while using the technology is higher than would be expected proportionally, when compared with the population of London, it said. A letter last week from 11 anti-racist and civil liberty organisations, disclosed in the Guardian, urged the Met to scrap the use of the technology over concerns of racial bias and the impending legal challenge. LFR technology captures and analyses the faces of individuals passing in front of real-time CCTV cameras. It extracts unique biometric data from each face and compares it against a 'watchlist' of thousands of people sought by the police. There is at present no specific domestic legislation regulating police use of LFR, with police using common law powers instead. The Met insists that the Equality Act 2010 places legal obligations upon them to eliminate discrimination. The EHRC said that the claim brought forward by Thompson 'raises issues of significant public importance' and will provide submissions 'on the intrusive nature of LFR technology' which focus on the way in which the technology has been used by the police. The Met's policy on LFR technology is unlawful because it is incompatible with articles 8 (right to privacy), 10 (freedom of expression), and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European convention on human rights, the watchdog says. Rebecca Vincent, the interim director of Big Brother Watch, said the EHRC's intervention was 'hugely welcome'. She added: 'The rapid proliferation of invasive live facial recognition technology without any legislation governing its use is one of the most pressing human rights concerns in the UK today. 'Live facial recognition surveillance turns our faces into barcodes and makes us a nation of suspects who, as we've seen in Shaun's case, can be falsely accused, grossly mistreated and forced to prove our innocence to authorities.' John Kirkpatrick, chief executive of the EHRC, said: 'There must be clear rules which guarantee that live facial recognition technology is used only where necessary, proportionate and constrained by appropriate safeguards. We believe that the Metropolitan police's current policy falls short of this standard.' The Met said last month it would deploy specially mounted cameras at entries and exits of the two-day event in west London. Rowley wrote on Tuesday that the technology would target the 'small minority' who commit serious crimes including violence and sexual offences. The Met has been approached for comment.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Kneecap rapper gets Irish translator at terror hearing despite speaking English
A Kneecap rapper who can speak English used an Irish interpreter when he appeared in court for allegedly supporting a proscribed terror organisation. Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh, who performs under the stage name Mo Chara, is accused of displaying a flag in support of Hezbollah at a gig in November last year. Hundreds of Kneecap supporters waving flags and holding banners gathered outside Westminster magistrates' court as the rapper arrived on Wednesday. The Metropolitan Police has imposed conditions limiting where the demonstration outside the court can take place to 'prevent serious disruption'. In response, the rap group described this move as a 'calculated political decision' that was 'designed to try and portray support for Kneecap as somehow troublesome'. The group asked supporters to 'go out of your way to be compliant with all instructions issued, irrespective of how pitiful'. Ó hAnnaidh, who arrived at court alongside fellow bandmates Naoise Ó Cairealláin and JJ Ó Dochartaigh, was swamped by photographers outside. The rapper, who performs in both English and Irish, was granted the use of an Irish interpreter as previously requested. Ó hAnnaidh's defence team are seeking to have the case thrown out, citing a technical error in the way the charge against him was brought. Brenda Campbell KC told the court the case should be dismissed because the Attorney General's consent was not obtained by the CPS before charges were laid against Ó hAnnaidh. Michael Bisgrove, prosecuting, rejected this, arguing that the Terrorism Act allows charges to be laid against an individual before any approach is made to the Attorney General, if necessary, to obtain his consent. He further argued that such consent from the Attorney General was not required under the legislation. Hundreds of supporters greeted the Kneecap rapper with cheers as he made his way from a silver people-carrier to the building. Fans held signs that read 'Free Mo Chara', while others waved Palestinian and Irish flags before the rapper arrived at court. A chant of 'free, free, Mo Chara' could also be heard over a megaphone, which was repeated by the crowd. Susan Folan, Ó hAnnaidh's interpreter, said she provided him with both a verbatim translation and occasional clarification, as required. The singer left the court building to a hero's welcome from the large crowd. Speaking briefly from the impromptu stage, he thanked them for their support, adding: 'While we're here, genocide is taking place in Palestine. Free Palestine!' A man was detained by police outside the court because of a placard he was holding. Surrounded by officers, he told reporters his hand-made sign made no reference to any proscribed organisations. The court previously heard the 27-year-old defendant was 'well within his rights' to voice his opinions on the Israel-Palestine conflict, but the alleged incident at the O2 Forum in Kentish Town, north London, was a 'wholly different thing'. Ó hAnnaidh was released on unconditional bail to return to court on Sept 26, when Judge Paul Goldspring will hand down his ruling. He is yet to enter a plea to the charge.
