DOCSLIB.ORG

Delays at the Verification and Count for the May 2014 Elections in Tower Hamlets

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Delays at the Verification and Count for the May 2014 Elections in Tower Hamlets * Embargoed until 00:01 Tuesday 1 July * Delays at the verification and count for the May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets Report of the Electoral Commission’s review July 2014 1 Translations and other formats For information on obtaining this publication in another language or in a large- print or Braille version please contact the Electoral Commission: Tel: 020 7271 0500 Email: [email protected] We are an independent body set up by the UK Parliament. We regulate party and election finance and set standards for well-run elections. We work to support a healthy democracy, where elections and referendums are based on our principles of trust, participation, and no undue influence. 2 Contents Summary 4 1 About this report 9 2 Background to the May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets 11 3 Analysis of verification and count processes 21 4 Conclusions and recommendations 35 Appendix A: Submissions to our review 40 3 Summary About this review Following the European and local elections that took place on 22 May 2014, the Electoral Commission announced a review of how the verification and count for the elections in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets in London were administered. The purpose of this review has been to understand why the count for the 22 May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets took so long, and to identify recommendations for the management of future election counts in the borough. Our review has considered evidence from the Returning Officer for Tower Hamlets and the Regional Returning Officer for the European Parliament election for the London region, and submissions from candidates, election agents and others involved in the conduct of the count. We have also drawn on the direct observations of three Electoral Commission representatives who were present during the verification and count on Friday 23 May. We are aware that an election petition challenging the result of the election for the mayor of Tower Hamlets was lodged with the High Court on 10 June 2014. We have therefore amended the contents of this report to exclude any conclusions relating to the appointment and behaviour of counting agents and other attendees at the verification and count, to ensure that our review does not prejudice the outcome of that challenge. The May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets The May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets included three sets of polls: the election of Tower Hamlets councillors; the election of Tower Hamlets executive mayor; the election of members of the European Parliament for the London electoral region of the UK. Ten candidates stood for election as the executive Mayor of Tower Hamlets, and a total of 204 candidates stood for election as councillors in 20 wards. Turnout in for the local elections in Tower Hamlets was 47.6%, and turnout for the European Parliament elections was 50.8%. In total, 252,837 ballot papers were included in the count for the May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets. Verification of the contents of ballot boxes for the May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets and the count for the Tower Hamlets Mayoral and local ward elections was intended to take place from 8am on Friday 23 May 2014 at the Troxy, a venue on Commercial Road in Limehouse which was originally a cinema. The count for the members of the European Parliament for the 4 London electoral region of the UK was intended to take place from 4pm on Sunday 25 May at the Mile End Leisure Centre. Summary of key points during the verification and count process which were delayed The result of the election of the executive Mayor for Tower Hamlets was announced at 01.15am on Saturday 24 May, after the count of first and second preference votes. Count totals for Tower Hamlets for the election of members of the European Parliament for the London Region were announced by 02.40am on Monday 26 May The results of 13 local council ward elections were declared by 09.00am on Saturday 24 May, and a further five ward results were declared by 02.40am on Monday 26 May after recounts which took place from 14.30pm on Sunday 25 May. The result for the final ward election was declared by 21.30pm on Tuesday 27 May, after a further recount which took place from 19.00pm that evening. Based on data provided by the Returning Officer and observations from others who submitted evidence to this review, we have identified the following key points during the verification and count which were delayed: Starting verification: The process of opening ballot boxes and beginning the verification of the contents against the ballot paper accounts started approximately two and a half hours later than planned. Verification: The process of verifying the contents of ballot boxes against the ballot paper accounts took approximately one and a half hours longer than planned. Mayoral first preference count: The process of counting the first preference votes for the Mayoral election took approximately two and a half hours longer than planned. Mayoral second preference count: The process of counting the second preference votes for the Mayoral election took nearly an hour longer than planned. Local authority ward counts: The process of counting the votes for the local authority ward elections took place over three separate sessions between the early hours of Saturday 24 May and the evening of Tuesday 27 May. Overall, including recounts, the process of counting the votes for the local authority wards took approximately 23 and a half hours,1 significantly longer than the scheduled duration of six hours. 1 Comprising nine hours between Friday 23 and Saturday 24 May; 12 hours between Sunday 25 and Monday 26 May; and two and a half hours on Tuesday 27 May. 5 European Parliamentary count: Overall, the process of counting the votes for the European Parliament election (which took place alongside unexpected local election recounts) took seven and a half hours longer than originally planned. Conclusions Having considered the comments and evidence submitted to us as part of this review, we have identified two primary factors which appear to have caused the overall delay in completing the counts for the May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets: Access to the count venue on Friday 23 May: delays in allowing count staff and those entitled to attend the verification and count meant that verification was delayed by approximately two and a half hours. Inadequate resource management during the verification and count on Friday 23 May and Saturday 24 May, and on Sunday 25 May: in addition to the significant delay to the start of the verification process on Friday 23 May, the number of count staff available was insufficient either to recover from the initial delay or to manage the number of ballot papers to be verified and counted within the Returning Officer’s planned timetable. By the time the count for the council wards began at 1am on Saturday 24 May, count staff (and those attending to observe the count as candidates or agents) had been present at the venue for more than 17 hours. Fatigue and subsequent errors by count staff meant that further delays during the local election counts, including those caused by requests for recounts, were significantly more frequent and were also likely to have magnified the overall delay to the completion of the count. Underlying both of these main factors were plans for the management of the verification and count on Friday 23 May which proved inadequate for the number of ballot papers to be counted and the intense focus of candidates and agents on the count process. Given the context for the elections, summarised in this report, the Returning Officer should have anticipated many of the factors which appeared to have contributed to the length of the count. A realistic assessment of the potential for higher than average turnout in such a close and hard-fought contest should have identified the need for more staff in order to meet the Returning Officer’s planned schedule. Likewise, given the large number of count staff and other attendees expected to enter the count venue through a relatively small foyer area, the Returning Officer should have been able to anticipate that there would be problems ensuring everyone was in place inside the venue in time to begin counting according to the planned timetable. 6 Recommendations There are significant lessons for the Returning Officer to learn from the experience of the count for the May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets. We set out below our recommendations for the Returning Officer and others for planning and managing future election counts in Tower Hamlets. Immediate and sustained action must be taken to provide reassurance to voters, candidates and campaigners that future election counts will be well-managed and efficiently delivered. We will monitor closely the response to these recommendations, but we are also ready to provide support and advice to the Returning Officer to help ensure that he can deliver the improvements which are required. Our full recommendations are set out in detail in Chapter 4 of this report, and the key areas are summarised below. Ahead of the count for the Blackwall and Cubitt Town ward election on Thursday 3 July the Commission recommends that: The Returning Officer ensures all attendees at the count fully understand the process for conducting the count and the standards of behaviour which are expected of them at all times. The Police ensure that their plans for managing the public space outside the count venue enable people entitled to attend the count to enter and leave the venue freely and without obstruction. The Returning Officer ensures that all verification and count processes are transparent and provide appropriate opportunities for those who are entitled to observe to object to doubtful ballot paper adjudication decisions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • To Consider Motions Submitted by Members of the Council Pdf 153 Kb
    LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL MEETING WEDNESDAY 18th NOVEMBER 2015 MOTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF LAW, PROBITY AND GOVERNANCE SUMMARY 1. Eleven motions have been submitted by Members of the Council under Council Procedure Rule 13 for debate at the Council meeting on Wednesday 18th November 2015. 2. The motions submitted are listed overleaf. In accordance with the protocol agreed by the Council on 21st May 2008, the motions are listed by turns, one from each group, continuing in rotation until all motions submitted are included. The rotation starts with any group(s) whose motion(s) were not reached at the previous meeting. 3. Motions must be about matters for which the Council has a responsibility or which affect the Borough. A motion may not be moved which is substantially the same as a motion which has been put at a meeting of the Council in the previous six months; or which proposes that a decision of the Council taken in the previous six months be rescinded; unless notice of the motion is given signed by at least twenty Members. 4. There is no specific duration set for this agenda item and consideration of the attached motions may continue until the time limit for the meeting is reached. The guillotine procedure at Council Procedure Rule 9.2 does not apply to motions on notice and any of the attached motions which have not been put to the vote when the time limit for the meeting is reached will be deemed to have fallen.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Party Registration Decisions-English Version
    2018 Party registration decisions Decisions by the Commission to approve or reject applied for party names, descriptions and emblems in date order You can find the current registration details of the applicants by clicking on their name An overview of the rules on registering a political party names, descriptions and emblems can be found here Type of Application Identity Date of The identity mark applied applies to Registration Further information/ Reason for Applicant name Mark decision for which part decision rejection applied of the UK? for 10.12.18 Both Unions Party Name Both Unions Party All of Great Approve Britain 10.12.18 Both Unions Party Description Scotland for Both Unions: All of Great Approve UK Europe Britain 10.12.18 Both Unions Party Description Together we are all All of Great Reject Does not meet the requirements of strongest Britain a description 10.12.18 Both Unions Party Emblem All of Great Reject Confusingly similar to another Britain already registered party 10.12.18 Both Unions Party Name Both Unions Party of Northern Approve Northern Ireland Ireland 10.12.18 Ein Gwlad Name Ein Gwlad Wales Reject Application incomplete 10.12.18 Future Shepton Description Future Shepton – Working England Approve together for Shepton 10.12.18 Future Shepton Description A fresh approach with Future England Approve Shepton 1 Decisions on party registration applications made in 2018 Type of Application Identity Date of The identity mark applied applies to Registration Further information/ Reason for Applicant name Mark decision for which
    [Show full text]
  • Somalis in London
    Somalis-cover-final-LONDON_20140929_Layout 1 2014.09.29. 20:04 Page 1 AT HOME IN EUROPE SOMALIS SOMALIS IN Minority communities – whether Muslim, migrant or Roma – continue to come under LONDON intense scrutiny in Europe today. This complex situation presents Europe with one its greatest challenges: how to ensure equal rights in an environment of rapidly expanding diversity. IN LONDON At Home in Europe, part of the Open Society Initiative for Europe, Open Society Foundations, is a research and advocacy initiative which works to advance equality and social justice for minority and marginalised groups excluded from the mainstream of civil, political, economic, and, cultural life in Western Europe. Somalis in European Cities Muslims in EU Cities was the project’s first comparative research series which examined the position of Muslims in 11 cities in the European Union. Somalis in European cities follows from the findings emerging from the Muslims in EU Cities reports and offers the experiences and challenges faced by Somalis across seven cities in Europe. The research aims to capture the everyday, lived experiences as well as the type and degree of engagement policymakers have initiated with their Somali and minority constituents. 01 somalis-LONDON-inc-publish-2014-0930_publish.qxd 2014.09.30. 14:59 Page 1 Somalis in London At Home in Europe 01 somalis-LONDON-inc-publish-2014-0930_publish.qxd 2014.09.30. 14:59 Page 2 ©2014 Open Society Foundations This publication is available as a pdf on the Open Society Foundations website under a Creative Commons license that allows copying and distributing the publication, only in its entirety, as long as it is attributed to the Open Society Foundations and used for noncommercial educational or public policy purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Value Inspection of London Borough of Tower Hamlets Report 16 October 2014 Best Value Inspection of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets
    www.pwc.co.uk Best Value Inspection of London Borough of Tower Hamlets Report 16 October 2014 Best Value Inspection of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Contents Section Page 1. Introduction 1 2. Summary and conclusions 12 3. TheAuthorityandtheBoroughofTowerHamlets 42 4. The Authority’s payment of grants and connected decisions 51 5. The transfer of property to third parties 99 6. SpendingandthedecisionsoftheAuthorityinrelationtopublicity 146 7. Processes and practices for entering into contracts 160 16 October 2014 PwC Contents Best Value Inspection of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets List of terms and abbreviations The table below includes a description of the defined terms and abbreviations used within this report. Term Description the 1972 Act Local Government Act 1972. the 1999 Act Local Government Act 1999 (as amended by the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014). theAgressoFinancialData AcopyofthedataheldintheAgressoFinancialSystem. the Agresso Financial System The primary financial / Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system employed by the Authority from April 2013. AHWB or AHW Adults Health and Wellbeing directorate. AMCSB Asset Management and Capital Strategy Board. AMCSWG Asset Management and Capital Strategy Working Group. the Appointment Letter Letter dated 4 April 2014 appointing PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP to carry out the Inspection. theAuthority ThelocalauthorityoftheLondonBoroughofTowerHamlets. BAFO Best and Final Offer. BBC Panorama BBC Panorama programme aired on 31 March 2014 titled 'Panorama: The Mayor and Our Money'. BNP Paribas BNP Paribas Real Estate Advisory & Property Management UK Limited. the Borough Tower Hamlets as a geographical and electoral area. theCabinet AcommitteecomposedoftheMayor,theDeputyMayorandeight Lead Members appointed by the Mayor. Call in Process through which Executive decisions are brought for consideration and/or challenge by the O&S Committee.
    [Show full text]
  • Events in the Local Elections in Tower Hamlets Have Provoked National Interest and Display Worrying Signs of Division
    democraticaudit.com http://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=5902 Events in the local elections in Tower Hamlets have provoked national interest and display worrying signs of division By Democratic Audit The Tower Hamlets political scene has long been known for its unique flavour and numerous idiosyncrasies. May 22nd’s Mayoral election was one of the most interesting chapters yet, with the incumbent Lutfur Rahman winning re-election in controversial circumstances. Here, the former Leader of Tower Hamlets Council Michael Keith, reflects on what the election means for the Borough, and argues for the cultivation of a new politics for the area that transcends racial, religious or ethnic division. Lutfur Rahman was re-elected as Mayor of Tower Hamlets in controversial circumstances (Credit: Timrich27, CC BY NC ND 2.0) Following a conversation at the vote counting, Ted Jeory asked for a personal reaction to the outcome of last week’s local elections. It followed what I think was a sense shared that regardless of party affiliation the divisive politics of Tower Hamlets had reached a particularly worrying moment. Occasionally boisterous, too frequently threatening, the scenes at the Tower Hamlets mayoral count prompted a storm. Shut inside the Troxy venue when supporters of the independent mayor Lutfur Rahman and his party Tower Hamlets First began pre-emptively celebrating his re-election, the mass surge to access the vote count prompted anger amongst council officers and campaigners alike. Some with a longer memory may cast their minds back to similar scenes outside York Hall that greeted the success of Peter Shore in 1987 and 1992 and fairly protest that mainstream parties commented on this less at the time.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Leadership in a Global Era
    Amy M. Hochadel LOCAL LEADERSHIP IN A GLOBAL ERA Policy and Behaviour Change in Cities Local Leadership in a Global Era Amy M. Hochadel Local Leadership in a Global Era Policy and Behaviour Change in Cities Amy M. Hochadel London, UK ISBN 978-3-319-58980-0 ISBN 978-3-319-58981-7 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-58981-7 Library of Congress Control Number: 2017945368 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the pub- lisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institu- tional affiliations.
    [Show full text]
  • Securing the Ballot Report of Sir Eric Pickles' Review Into Electoral Fraud
    Securing the ballot Report of Sir Eric Pickles’ review into electoral fraud FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................ 2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 4 POLLING STATIONS ................................................................................................................... 8 REGISTRATION ......................................................................................................................... 15 POSTAL VOTING ....................................................................................................................... 22 PROXY VOTING ........................................................................................................................ 29 ELECTION COUNTS ................................................................................................................. 33 ELECTION PETITIONS .............................................................................................................. 33 NOMINATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 41 OFFENCES ................................................................................................................................ 42 HIGHER RISK AREAS ............................................................................................................... 46 GOVERNANCE
    [Show full text]
  • Local Election Results 2021
    Local Election Results 2021 Andrew Teale September 3, 2021 2 ELECTION RESULTS 2021 Compilation and design © Andrew Teale, 2021. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled “GNU Free Documentation License”. This le is available for download from http://www.andrewteale.me.uk/ Please advise the author of any corrections which need to be made by email: [email protected] Change Log Contents Referendums 5 Referendums in 2021 6 Newham mayoral abolition referendum . 6 Sheeld governance referendum . 6 Tower Hamlets mayoral abolition referendum . 6 Croydon mayoral referendum . 6 By-elections 7 Parliamentary by-elections 8 By-elections to devolved assemblies, the European Parliament, and police and crime commissioner- ships 10 Greater London Authority . 10 National Assembly for Wales . 10 Scottish Parliament . 10 Northern Ireland Assembly . 10 Police and crime commissioners . 10 Local by-elections and unlled vacancies 11 North London . 11 South London . 13 Greater Manchester . 14 Merseyside . 14 South Yorkshire . 15 Tyne and Wear . 15 West Midlands . 16 West Yorkshire . 16 Bedfordshire . 17 Berkshire . 17 Bristol . 17 Buckinghamshire . 17 Cambridgeshire . 17 Cheshire . 18 Cornwall . 18 Cumbria . 18 Derbyshire . 19 Devon.................................................. 20 Dorset . 21 Durham . 21 East Sussex . 21 East Yorkshire . 22 3 4 ELECTION RESULTS 2021 Essex................................................... 22 Gloucestershire . 23 Hampshire . 24 Herefordshire . 24 Hertfordshire . 24 Isle of Wight .
    [Show full text]
  • OFFICIAL REPORT (Hansard)
    OFFICIAL REPORT (Hansard) Vol u m e 2 (15 February 1999 to 15 July 1999) BELFAST: THE STATIONERY OFFICE LTD £70.00 © Copyright The New Northern Ireland Assembly. Produced and published in Northern Ireland on behalf of the Northern Ireland Assembly by the The Stationery Office Ltd, which is responsible for printing and publishing Northern Ireland Assembly publications. ISBN 0 339 80001 1 ASSEMBLY MEMBERS (A = Alliance Party; NIUP = Northern Ireland Unionist Party; NIWC = Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition; PUP = Progressive Unionist Party; SDLP = Social Democratic and Labour Party; SF = Sinn Fein; DUP = Ulster Democratic Unionist Party; UKUP = United Kingdom Unionist Party; UUP = Ulster Unionist Party; UUAP = United Unionist Assembly Party) Adams, Gerry (SF) (West Belfast) Kennedy, Danny (UUP) (Newry and Armagh) Adamson, Ian (UUP) (East Belfast) Leslie, James (UUP) (North Antrim) Agnew, Fraser (UUAP) (North Belfast) Lewsley, Patricia (SDLP) (Lagan Valley) Alderdice of Knock, The Lord (Initial Presiding Officer) Maginness, Alban (SDLP) (North Belfast) Armitage, Pauline (UUP) (East Londonderry) Mallon, Seamus (SDLP) (Newry and Armagh) Armstrong, Billy (UUP) (Mid Ulster) Maskey, Alex (SF) (West Belfast) Attwood, Alex (SDLP) (West Belfast) McCarthy, Kieran (A) (Strangford) Beggs, Roy (UUP) (East Antrim) McCartney, Robert (UKUP) (North Down) Bell, Billy (UUP) (Lagan Valley) McClarty, David (UUP) (East Londonderry) Bell, Eileen (A) (North Down) McCrea, Rev William (DUP) (Mid Ulster) Benson, Tom (UUP) (Strangford) McClelland, Donovan (SDLP) (South
    [Show full text]
  • London's Political
    CONSTITUENCY MP (PARTY) MAJORITY Barking Margaret Hodge (Lab) 15,272 Battersea Jane Ellison (Con) 7,938 LONDON’S Beckenham Bob Stewart (Con) 18,471 Bermondsey & Old Southwark Neil Coyle (Lab) 4,489 Bethnal Green & Bow Rushanara Ali (Lab) 24,317 Bexleyheath & Crayford David Evennett (Con) 9,192 POLITICAL Brent Central Dawn Butler (Lab) 19,649 Brent North Barry Gardiner (Lab) 10,834 Brentford & Isleworth Ruth Cadbury (Lab) 465 Bromley & Chislehurst Bob Neill (Con) 13,564 MAP Camberwell & Peckham Harriet Harman (Lab) 25,824 Carshalton & Wallington Tom Brake (LD) 1,510 Chelsea & Fulham Greg Hands (Con) 16,022 This map shows the political control Chingford & Woodford Green Iain Duncan Smith (Con) 8,386 of the capital’s 73 parliamentary Chipping Barnet Theresa Villiers (Con) 7,656 constituencies following the 2015 Cities of London & Westminster Mark Field (Con) 9,671 General Election. On the other side is Croydon Central Gavin Barwell (Con) 165 Croydon North Steve Reed (Lab [Co-op]) 21,364 a map of the 33 London boroughs and Croydon South Chris Philp (Con) 17,410 details of the Mayor of London and Dagenham & Rainham Jon Cruddas (Lab) 4,980 London Assembly Members. Dulwich & West Norwood Helen Hayes (Lab) 16,122 Ealing Central & Acton Rupa Huq (Lab) 274 Ealing North Stephen Pound (Lab) 12,326 Ealing, Southall Virendra Sharma (Lab) 18,760 East Ham Stephen Timms (Lab) 34,252 Edmonton Kate Osamor (Lab [Co-op]) 15,419 Eltham Clive Efford (Lab) 2,693 Enfield North Joan Ryan (Lab) 1,086 Enfield, Southgate David Burrowes (Con) 4,753 Erith & Thamesmead
    [Show full text]
  • Dear , Our Ref: FOI 014/18 Thank You for Your Email to the Electoral Commission Dated 26 January 2018. the Commission Aims to Re
    From: FOI To: [email protected] Subject: FOI 014/17 Aspire Application Process Response Date: 23 February 2018 15:00:26 Attachments: 2017-10-11-Aspire-Financial scheme decision record REDACTED.pdf 2018-01-25 - Aspire - Decision record - REDACTED.pdf Dear , Our Ref: FOI 014/18 Thank you for your email to the Electoral Commission dated 26 January 2018. The Commission aims to respond to requests for information promptly and has done so within the statutory timeframe of twenty working days. Your request is in bold below followed by our response. 1. Can you tell me how many public comments were made in regards to the application to register Aspire as a political party? 2. Can you publish the assessment of the application? Can you tell me which officer considered the application or was there a panel? Our response is as follows: We hold the information you have requested. Question 1 42 comments were received by the Commission in regards to the application to register Aspire as a political party. Question 2 We have released to you two documents. The first is the decision record relating to the party’s application. The Commission assesses all applications to register political parties carefully against the requirements set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA). A registration application is assessed initially by the Registration Team. The member of the Registration Team that conducts that initial assessment makes a recommendation to either approve or reject that application based on whether or not the application meets the PPERA requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Consultation Arrangements
    Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report Local Development Plan 2032 Consultation Arrangements The LDP draft Plan Strategy (dPS) is a consultation document, to which representations can be made during a formal consultation period from Monday 2nd December 2019 to Monday 27th January 2020. Representations received after this date will not be considered. The dPS document is available, together with the associated documents, at http://www. derrystrabane.com/Subsites/LDP/Local-Development-Plan These documents are also available to view, during normal opening hours, at: . Council Offices, 98 Strand Road, Derry, BT48 7NN . Council Offices, 47 Derry Road, Strabane, BT82 8DY . Public Libraries and Council Leisure Centres throughout the District. Public Meetings and Workshops will be held throughout the District during December 2019 / January 2020; see the Council’s website and local press advertisements for details: http://www.derrystrabane. com/Subsites/LDP/Local-Development-Plan The LDP draft Plan Strategy is considered by the Council to be ‘sound’; if you have any comments or objections to make, it is necessary to demonstrate why you consider that the Plan is not ‘sound’ and / or why you consider your proposal to be ‘sound’. Comments, or representations made in writing, will be considered at an Independent Examination (IE) conducted by the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) or other independent body that will be appointed by the Department for Infrastructure (DfI). The IE will determine whether the dPS satisfies statutory requirements and also consider the ‘soundness’ of the LDP dPS - against the Procedural Tests, Consistency Tests and the Coherence & Effectiveness Tests. Before submitting a representation, you are strongly advised to read DfI’s guidance on soundness in Development Plan Practice Note (DPPN) 06 (See https://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/advice/ practice-notes/common-newpage-9.htm).
    [Show full text]