DOCSLIB.ORG

Rotherham | Local Development Framework January 2012 Feedback Report Draft Core Strategy and Sites and Policies Core Strategy Dr

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rotherham | Local Development Framework January 2012 Feedback Report Draft Core Strategy and Sites and Policies Core Strategy Dr Rotherham | Local Development Framework Draft Core Strategy and Sites and Policies Issues and Options Consultation July 2011 Core Strategy Draft: July 2011 Feedback Report January 2012 www.rotherham.gov.uk Rotherham Local Development Framework Feedback Report January 2012 Addendum Sites and Policies Issues and Options Development Plan Document: July 2011 Executive Summary This Report is an addendum to the January 2012 Feedback Report which seeks to provide a more detailed overview of the planning issues put forward in writing during the consultation period 4 July – 16 September 2011 in response to the Sites and Policies Development Plan Document. These issues have been used to guide the drafting of policies for the Sites and Policies Development Plan Document and assisted in establishing a methodology for the selection and identification of sites for future development. 1 Contents NB These sections relate to the chapter & appendices’ headings from the Sites & Policies Issues and Options Consultation 2011 available at: http://rotherham.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/sp/sitespolicies Chapter 3: How have we identified site allocation options? – P5 Chapter 4: Designations – P8 Chapter 5: Directions: Working Towards Development Policies – P21 Appendices 1-13 Site Options: ‐ Appendix 1: ROTHERHAM URBAN AREA - P28 ‐ Appendix 2: DINNINGTON, ANSTON, LAUGHTON COMMON – P37 ‐ Appendix 3: WICKERSLEY, BRAMLEY & RAVENFIELD COMMON – P44 ‐ Appendix 4: WATH-UPON-DEARNE, BRAMPTON, WEST MELTON – P50 ‐ Appendix 5 : KIVETON PARK & WALES – P53 ‐ Appendix 6: MALTBY & HELLABY – P59 ‐ Appendix 7: ASTON, AUGHTON & SWALLOWNEST – P64 ‐ Appendix 8: SWINTON & KILNHURST – P68 ‐ Appendix 9: CATCLIFFE, ORGREAVE, TREETON & WAVERLEY – P71 ‐ Appendix 10: THURCROFT – P74 ‐ Appendix 11: NON-GREEN BELT VILLAGES – THORPE HESLEY, TODWICK, HARTHILL, WOODSETTS & LAUGHTON-EN-LE MORTHEN – P77 ‐ Appendix 12: GREEN BELT VILLAGES – P81 ‐ Appendix 13: AUTOMATICALLY EXCLUDED SITES - P82 Appendix 14: METHODOLOGY: IDENTIFICATION OF SITE ALLOCATIONS - P83 2 Between 4 July and 16 September 2011, the Council consulted on its Sites and Policies Development Plan Document: Issues and Options. In response to this, in January 2012, a Feedback Report was produced which extracted the most pertinent issues that consultees raised. Due to the number of comments received it was not possible to respond to individual consultees through our on- line consultation portal, however this addendum serves to compliment, enhance and update the January 2012 Feedback Report through providing a more detailed overview of comments made. Taken collectively these documents form the Final Feedback Report for the Sites & Policies Issues and Options document. http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/6243/draft_core_strategy_and_sites_and_policies_2011_feedback_report_january_20 12 It is important to note that the Council has difficult choices to make and seeks to identify the most appropriate sites for future development. These sites are the ones that in our view are the most sustainable sites, that will meet the needs of local communities, are not remote from existing communities and will have the lowest impact on the wider environment. These decisions are often a balance between competing criteria, and the views of the community and stakeholders are one of the factors taken into consideration in identifying the best sites for future development. In preparing the latest version of the Sites and Policies Development Plan Document, the Council has had regard to the comments received to individual sites. These comments have assisted the Council in selecting its sites for future development and in preparing appropriate policies to help alleviate some of the key concerns raised in the representations. Further consultation will be undertaken on sites before they are finally ‘allocated’ (identified) for future development. These sites will in due course be presented to an independently appointed planning inspector for his consideration. It is important to note that there will be a need for the Council to allocate sites that are currently within the Green Belt to meet our future development needs. We are not seeking comments from members of the public or other key stakeholders on this Feedback Report addendum. It is for information only and will help people to understand the breadth and complexity of the comments made. 3 Issues and responses to representations The following tables which are structured on the basis of the chapter & appendix breakdown of the Sites and Policies: Issues & Options document (2011) provide a detailed overview of the issues identified within the representations, with the breadth of these issues forming the foundation for the methodology used to assist in the selection and identification of sites for future development as well as guiding the drafting of policies for the draft Sites and Policies document May 2013. 4 Chapter 3: How have we identified site allocation options? CHAPTER 3 Issue 1: Do you have any comments on the methodology (or way in which) we have identified the Site Allocation Options? Overview: Nature of Response Comments Support ‐ Ward Hadaway (on behalf of the Colliery operators Hargreaves) Support the need for Green Belt boundaries to be reviewed to meet housing and employment requirements. A local resident stated that in the context of the Government’s requirements, the Council had done a good job. Support with ‐ No comments received Conditions Object ‐ The Environment Agency have concerns that the text in Chapter 3 does not reference the use of the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for Rotherham in determining preferred sites. It is emphasised that preferred sites will be required to demonstrate that they have passed the Sequential Test and where necessary the Exception Test before they can be allocated in the LDF. ‐ DLP (on behalf of Fowler Sandford) consider that changes are necessary to the increase the overall level of housing with reference to the provisions of the (then) draft NPPF. A particular assertion is that is that over reliance should not be placed on large single housing allocations as these on their own will not provide a range of choice either for the population nor in terms of developers as they represent a restricted market for housing land. Allied to this, duty to cooperate is highlighted both in terms of the levels of future emigration from Sheffield and an approach that allows consideration of the housing needs in one authority to be meet within another. The changes in the approach to the overall level of housing are analysed with an approach which uses population rather that existing households as a starting point to consider the future pattern of distribution. ‐ Smiths Gore (on behalf of Sheffield Diocesan Board of Finance - SDBF) argue that there would be more benefits to delivery of a wider geographical spread of smaller, sustainable sites rather than the delivery of one or two large strategic sites. It is contested that by developing a variety of sites 5 throughout the Borough, the Council will provide a greater housing choice to a variety of different communities, both urban and rural. It will also serve to provide a range of house prices, types and tenures. Furthermore, the Council needs to ensure that rural settlements are provided with opportunities for sustainable, long term growth, supporting rural services and facilities as well as the larger urban settlements. In recognition of this SDBF support the development of various identified sites. Observations ‐ The Highways Agency state that they are satisfied with the methodology used in the identification of preferred sites and recognition given that comments submitted in earlier consultations had been taken into account. ‐ SYPTE are unsure as to how employment sites have been appraised as there is no reference to the use of the Employment Land Review in the evidence base. SYPTE see access to employment as key element of the Sheffield City Region (SCR) Transport Strategy. They consider that ensuring that employment sites are accessible by all modes of transport will help promote economic growth and allow for a well connected workforce where access to the private car is not a barrier to employment opportunities. ‐ CPRE SY believe the Green Belt review should have occurred before the assessment of sites, not as part of the assessments themselves. It is argued this should have examined where the Green Belt is required strategically to deliver its objectives and purposes and then factored this into the site assessment as a key piece of evidence. ‐ DLP (on behalf of Persimmon Homes, CISWO and Taylor Wimpey Ltd) as detailed within their objection above highlight that they consider changes are necessary to the increase the overall level of housing with reference to the provisions of the (then) draft NPPF. ‐ English Heritage do not have any particular issues with the methodology used to identify potential site allocations, nevertheless, they consider that before deciding upon which sites to proceed with there will be a need, at some time, to undertake a more detailed assessment of what impact their development might have on the significance of heritage assets either on the site itself or in its vicinity. Furthermore, Many of the areas which have been put forward as potential allocations lie within, or would impact upon the setting of, one of the many Conservation Areas within Rotherham. English Heritage strongly recommend that the Council prioritise the production of Conservation Area 6
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Barron V Collins 2017 EWHC 162 (QC)
    Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 162 (QB) Case No: HQ14D04882 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 06/02/2017 Before: MR JUSTICE WARBY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: (1) SIR KEVIN BARRON MP Claimant (2) RT HON JOHN HEALEY MP (3) SARAH CHAMPION - and - JANE COLLINS MEP Defendant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Gavin Millar QC and Sara Mansoori (instructed by Steel & Shamash) for the Claimants The defendant did not appear, but Mr Mick Burchill was permitted to make representations on her behalf. Hearing date: 31st January 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Judgment Approved by the court for handing down (subject to editorial corrections) If this Judgment has been emailed to you it is to be treated as ‘read-only’. You should send any suggested amendments as a separate Word document. Judgment Approved by the court for handing down Barron v Collins [2017] EWHC 162 (QB) (subject to editorial corrections) Mr Justice Warby : 1. This has been a hearing to assess compensation pursuant to the Defamation Act 1996, following the claimants’ acceptance of an offer of amends. BACKGROUND 2. The three claimants, Sir Kevin Barron, Rt. Hon. John Healey, and Sarah Champion, are all Labour Party MPs for constituencies in and around Rotherham, Yorkshire. The defendant, Ms Collins, is the MEP for Yorkshire, a member of the UK Independence Party. The claim arises from a speech made by Ms Collins at the UKIP Party Conference on 26 September 2014. The speech was broadcast live on the BBC Parliament channel, and republished in whole or in part on the UKIP website, Twitter, and the Press Association Mediapoint wire service.
    [Show full text]
  • Conduct of Ms Emily Thornberry
    House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges Conduct of Ms Emily Thornberry Eleventh Report of Session 2005–06 Report and Appendix, together with formal minutes Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 27 June 2006 HC 1367 Published on 28 June 2006 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Committee on Standards & Privileges The Committee on Standards and Privileges is appointed by the House of Commons to oversee the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; to examine the arrangements proposed by the Commissioner for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members’ Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House; to review from time to time the form and content of those registers; to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests referred to it by the Commissioner; to consider any matter relating to the conduct of Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches in the Code of Conduct which have been drawn to the Committee’s attention by the Commissioner; and to recommend any modifications to the Code of Conduct as may from time to time appear to be necessary. Current membership Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt MP (Conservative, North West Hampshire) (Chairman) Rt Hon Kevin Barron MP (Labour, Rother Valley) Rt Hon David Curry MP (Conservative, Skipton & Ripon) Mr Andrew Dismore MP (Labour, Hendon) Nick Harvey MP (Liberal Democrat, North Devon) Mr Brian Jenkins MP (Labour, Tamworth) Mr Elfyn Llwyd MP (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) Mr Chris Mullin MP (Labour, Sunderland South) The Hon Nicholas Soames MP (Conservative, Mid Sussex) Dr Alan Whitehead MP (Labour, Southampton Test) Powers The constitution and powers of the Committee are set out in Standing Order No.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study in Political Complexity
    THE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD A.LENT LABOUR'S TRANSFORMATION 1983 -1989: A STUDY IN POLITICAL COMPLEXITY THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE Of PhD. 1997 (/ (., "", './1",' . ";~j'- i LABOUR'S TRANSFORMATION 1983 -1989: A STUDY IN POLITICAL COMPLEXITY ADAM LENT THESIS SUBMITTED FOR TilE DEGREE OF PhD. DEPARTl\IENT OF POLITICS SHEFFIELD UNIVERSITY AUGUST 1997 ii CONTENTS Acknowledgements III Abstract v A Note on References VII 1. Introduction 1 PART I: COMPLEXITY AND POLITICS 2. Towards Complexity in Political Analysis 14 3. Complexity and Analysis of Labour in the 1980s 77 PART n: LABOUR'S TRANSFORMATION 1983-1989 4. The Early Days of the Leadership 126 5. The Miners, Militant and the Rates 184 6. Organisational Change 232 7. The New Agenda 270 8. Election Defeat and Leadership Challenge 311 9. Policy Reform and the New Establishment 354 10. Conclusion: Acknowledging Simplification 400 References. 424 iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank: the following for their help, support and advice regarding this thesis: Tim Bale, Iulian Bass, David Blunkett, Roger Charlton, Andrew Chipperfield, David Donald, Daniel Fox, Andrew Gamble, Stephen George, Alan Haworth, Bill Hughes, Tim Jordan, Mike Kenny, Sheena MacKenzie, Hugh McLachlan, Patrick Seyd, Eric Shaw, Martin Smith, Gary Taylor and to all those who attended and contributed to seminars at which I presented papers based on this thesis. The libraries used in this research were as follows: Sheffield University Library; Sheffield Hallam University Library; Sheffield City Library; the library at The Museum of Labour History; Glasgow Caledonian University Library; the British Library of Political and Economic Science; and the newspapers and periodicals branch of the British Library.
    [Show full text]
  • Fitting the Bill: Bringing Commons Legislation Committees Into Line with Best Practice
    DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE FITTING THE BILL BRINGING COMMONS LEGISLATION COMMITTEES INTO LINE WITH BEST PRACTICE MEG RUSSELL, BOB MORRIS AND PHIL LARKIN Fitting the Bill: Bringing Commons legislation committees into line with best practice Meg Russell, Bob Morris and Phil Larkin Constitution Unit June 2013 ISBN: 978-1-903903-64-3 Published by The Constitution Unit School of Public Policy UCL (University College London) 29/30 Tavistock Square London WC1H 9QU Tel: 020 7679 4977 Fax: 020 7679 4978 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/ ©The Constitution Unit, UCL 2013 This report is sold subject to the condition that is shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. First Published June 2013 2 Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 4 Executive summary ............................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 7 Part I: The current system .................................................................................................... 9 The Westminster legislative process in
    [Show full text]
  • Otc Medicines Independent Report Prepared by Standout Media Limited for South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw Ics
    OTC MEDICINES INDEPENDENT REPORT PREPARED BY STANDOUT MEDIA LIMITED FOR SOUTH YORKSHIRE AND BASSETLAW ICS DECEMBER 2018 2 OTC MEDICINES INDEPENDENT REPORT Contents Introduction and purpose 3 About the South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw area and its population 4 Who was involved? 5 About the insight and engagement campaign 6 Who were our target audiences? 7 Methodology 7 Toolkits 9 About the people who engaged with us 11 Patient and public survey 14 What did the patients and public tell us? 16 Staff engagement 19 Community engagement 21 Social media 22 Website statistics 24 How our insight campaign compares 26 What we propose – next steps 27 Awards 29 Appendices Appendix 1 – SYB ICS partner organisations 30 Appendix 2 – Rotherham CCG Start Well, Choose Well, Stay Well campaign assets 32 Appendix 3 – SYB ICS Citizens’ Panel 33 Appendix 4 – Patient and public survey results in graphs 34 Appendix 5 – Prescriber survey results in graphs 41 Appendix 6 – Doncaster prescriber survey results 45 Appendix 7 – Barnsley consultation report 67 Appendix 8 – GP practices by CCG area 89 Appendix 9 – Community pharmacies by CCG area 95 Appendix 10 – Parish councils by CCG area 105 Appendix 11 – Libraries by CCG area 107 Appendix 12 – Community centres by CCG area 109 Appendix 13 – ONS data by CCG area 112 Appendix 14 – MPs by CCG area 117 Appendix 15 – Comms toolkit 118 3 OTC MEDICINES INDEPENDENT REPORT Introduction and purpose In early 2018 NHS England carried out a public consultation on reducing prescribing of over the counter (OTC) medicines for minor, short-term health concerns which could save the NHS high costs and encourage more people to self-care.
    [Show full text]
  • Politica Sobria”
    L’addio di Blair e la “politica sobria” di Leo GIUNTI Oggi che ascoltiamo l’appello per una “politica sobria” e per una riforma dei suoi strumenti, non possiamo non volgerci con rispetto e ammirazione al modello dei Parlamenti europei. L’Aula di Westminster, dove con asciutta eleganza, ma anche nobiltà di accenti, si è chiusa una grande carriera politica. In occasione del tradizionale Premier question time del mercoledì, mezz’ora di confronto corretto, efficace, franco e asciutto. Che ha toccato tutti i temi dell’attualità. Ed è stato anche l’occasione per il congedo, di fronte a una straordinaria classe parlamentare. Che ha mostrato la sua compattezza nell’esibizione di toni degni del più elegante e aristocratico club. L’omaggio asciutto del leader dell’opposizione al Primo Ministro uscente, che “senza ombra di dubbio ha fatto i più alti sforzi a servizio della nazione”. Cui il Premier ha replicato ringraziando questi sentimenti generosi. “Nonostante tutti i disaccordi politici tra noi, è sempre essenziale poter lavorare su temi di importanza nazionale, al di là delle divisioni politiche, e io - ha detto il Premier - ho sempre trovato il leader dell’opposizione perfettamente giusto, corretto e cortese nei miei confronti”. Una battuta di pochi secondi, che descrive una realtà dell’Aula verde dei Comuni, che per noi è l’auspicio di una buona politica futura. Un auspicio che proprio in questi giorni, e per essere compreso da un pubblico e dalla stampa italiani, è stato proposto, ripetuto e ribadito, nel discorso di Walter Veltroni a Torino, con frasi ricche di aggettivi e piene di immagini, percorrendo la lancetta dei minuti la stessa distanza che oltre Manica aveva percorso quella dei secondi.
    [Show full text]
  • Sir Kevin Barron MP and Others -V- Jane Collins
    Neutral Citation Number: Case No: HQ14D04882 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 16/05/2016 Before : MR JUSTICE WARBY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : (1) SIR KEVIN BARRON MP Claimants (2) RT HON JOHN HEALEY MP (3) SARAH CHAMPION - and – JANE COLLINS MEP Defendant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Gavin Millar QC and Sara Mansoori (instructed by Steel & Shamash) for the Claimants The Defendant in person, assisted by Mr Mullen as “McKenzie” Friend Hearing date: 16 May 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Judgment Approved by the court for handing down (subject to editorial corrections) Judgment Approved by the court for handing down Barron & Others v Collins (subject to editorial corrections) Mr Justice Warby : Introduction 1. Listed for hearing before me today are two applications in this action for damages for slander and libel. However, the defendant has recently applied to stay further proceedings against her until after the European Parliament has expressed an opinion on whether the proceedings violate the immunities enjoyed by the defendant in her capacity as a Member of the European Parliament. It is clear that where a request for the Parliament to defend an MEP’s immunity is made by the MEP, and the court is notified that the procedure to defend immunity is under way the Court is bound to stay its own process. In this case the grant of such a stay would risk a considerable waste of time and costs. That would not deter me from carrying out the duty imposed by European law, if I was convinced that it applied on the facts of the case.
    [Show full text]
  • Whole Day Download the Hansard
    Tuesday Volume 677 16 June 2020 No. 70 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Tuesday 16 June 2020 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2020 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 623 16 JUNE 2020 624 changes to the UK insolvency framework will result in House of Commons net benefits to business of over £1.9 billion in today’s prices, which is a much needed boost for businesses at Tuesday 16 June 2020 this uncertain time. Aaron Bell: I welcome the Secretary of State back to The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock the Dispatch Box after his recent illness. Businesses in Newcastle-under-Lyme and across the country face the PRAYERS risk of insolvency, especially those with business models that are dependent on socialising. In addition to what [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] he has set out, which I welcome, can he tell us what Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, Companies House proposes to do to support businesses 4 June). at threat of insolvency? [NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.] Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend raises an important Speaker’s Statement point, and this is part of the Bill. While Companies House has extended the period for filing accounts, we Mr Speaker: Today marks the fourth anniversary of will give businesses the maximum period available under the death of our friend and colleague Jo Cox, who was the powers in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance murdered on her way to meet constituents in her Batley Bill for filing their accounts, confirmation statements and Spen constituency.
    [Show full text]
  • General Election 12Th December
    SNAPSHOT OF RESULTS IN THE NORTHERN REGIONS - NORTH EAST, NORTH WEST AND YORKSHIRE & HUMBER What does a Conservative government mean for housing? The Conservative Party has gained significant ground in Northern constituencies, making 30 gains, and taking control of constituencies which have been safe Labour seats for many decades. The last time the North had such a significant presence within a governing party at Westminster was after Tony Blair’s third victory in 2005. It is worth considering the potential impact of the national and regional results for housing in the North. Below, we re-cap what the Conservative manifesto promised on housing and regional investment and outline key results – where seats have changed parties, or new candidates have been elected Likely policy priorities for the new government The Conservative manifesto promised the levelling up of the regions and investment in Northern infrastructure and the Northern Powerhouse. With Conservative gains in many traditional Labour constituencies in the North, this pledge takes on greater resonance for those newly elected Northern Conservative MPs : we can expect the new government to have a greater stake and interest in the region. These are the headlines from the Conservative manifesto • A continued pledge to build 300,000 homes a year by the mid-2020s – but no target for social housing within the overall number. • Commitment to renew the Affordable Homes Programme. • Incentives for homeownership will be key to housing policy. • Full implementation of the Homelessness Reduction Act, and to end rough sleeping. • For private renters, a continued promise to scrap Section 21 and end no-fault evictions.
    [Show full text]
  • Kevin Barron
    House of Commons Committee on Standards Kevin Barron Second Report of Session 2016–17 Report, together with an appendix and formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 19 October 2016 HC 676 Published on 20 October 2016 by authority of the House of Commons The Committee on Standards The Committee on Standards is appointed by the House of Commons to oversee the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; to examine the arrangements proposed by the Commissioner for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members’ Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House; to review from time to time the form and content of those registers; to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests referred to it by the Commissioner; to consider any matter relating to the conduct of Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches in the Code of Conduct which have been drawn to the Committee’s attention by the Commissioner; and to recommend any modifications to the Code of Conduct as may from time to time appear to be necessary. Current membership Kevin Barron MP (Labour, Rother Valley) (Chair)* Sir Paul Beresford MP (Conservative, Mole Valley) Tom Blenkinsop MP (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) Mrs Jane Burgess (Lay member) Miss Charmaine Burton (Lay member) Mr Christopher Chope MP (Conservative, Christchurch) Mrs Sharon Darcy (Lay member) Mr Dominic Grieve MP (Conservative, Beaconsfield) Mr Peter Jinman (Lay member) Susan Elan Jones MP (Labour, Clwyd South) Dr Arun Midha (Lay member) Mr Walter Rader (Lay member) Sir Peter Rubin (Lay member) Tommy Sheppard MP (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East) * On 10 March 2016 Kevin Barron stood aside from all Committee proceedings until the matter under consideration in this report was resolved.
    [Show full text]
  • High Court Judgment Template
    Case No: HQ14D04882 Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 162 (QB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 06/02/2017 Before : MR JUSTICE WARBY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : (1) SIR KEVIN BARRON MP Claimant (2) RT HON JOHN HEALEY MP (3) SARAH CHAMPION - and - JANE COLLINS MEP Defendant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Gavin Millar QC and Sara Mansoori (instructed by Steel & Shamash) for the Claimants The defendant did not appear, but Mr Mick Burchill was permitted to make representations on her behalf. Hearing date: 31st January 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Judgment Mr Justice Warby : 1. This has been a hearing to assess compensation pursuant to the Defamation Act 1996, following the claimants’ acceptance of an offer of amends. BACKGROUND 2. The three claimants, Sir Kevin Barron, Rt. Hon. John Healey, and Sarah Champion, are all Labour Party MPs for constituencies in and around Rotherham, Yorkshire. The defendant, Ms Collins, is the MEP for Yorkshire, a member of the UK Independence Party. The claim arises from a speech made by Ms Collins at the UKIP Party Conference on 26 September 2014. The speech was broadcast live on the BBC Parliament channel, and republished in whole or in part on the UKIP website, Twitter, and the Press Association Mediapoint wire service. 3. On 29 April 2015 I gave judgment after the trial of preliminary issues in the action: [2015] EWHC 1125 (QB). The full text of Ms Collins’ speech is set out in paragraph [9] of that judgment, in which I held that it bore three defamatory meanings about each of the claimants: (1) That they knew many of the details of the scandalous child sexual exploitation that took place in Rotherham over a period of sixteen years, in the course of which an estimated 1,400 children were raped, beaten, plied with alcohol and drugs, and threatened with violence by men of Asian origin, yet deliberately chose not to intervene but to allow the abuse to continue.
    [Show full text]
  • Barron V Vines 2016 EWHC 1226
    Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 1226 (QB) Case No: HQ15D00453 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 02/06/2016 Before: MR JUSTICE WARBY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: (1) SIR KEVIN BARRON MP Claimants (2) RT HON JOHN HEALEY MP - and - CAVEN VINES Defendant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Gavin Millar QC and Sara Mansoori (instructed by Steel and Shamash) for the Claimants The Defendant in person Hearing date 18 May 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Judgment Approved by the court for handing down (subject to editorial corrections) If this Judgment has been emailed to you it is to be treated as ‘read-only’. You should send any suggested amendments as a separate Word document. Judgment Approved by the court for handing down Barron v Vines [2016] EWHC 1226 (QB) (subject to editorial corrections) Mr Justice Warby : 1. My task in this judgment is to assess damages for a libel of the claimants published by the defendant via a broadcast TV interview in January 2015. The claim 2. The claimants, Sir Kevin Barron and the Rt Hon John Healey, are Labour MPs for constituencies in the Rotherham area. The defendant, Caven Vines, was the leader of the UKIP group on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC). 3. As is well-known, Rotherham was at the centre of a child sexual exploitation scandal which came to prominence on the publication in August 2014 of a report commissioned by RMBC from Professor Alexis Jay. She concluded that over a sixteen year period some 1,400 children had been abused by Asian men. The first public accounts of the scandal emerged in September 2012, in articles by Andrew Norfolk published in The Times.
    [Show full text]