4 ms·

I don't think you do need to prove this is better for everyone instead of just locals, the local government's primary responsibility is to the electorate - whic

I don't think you do need to prove this is better for everyone instead of just locals, the local government's primary responsibility is to the electorate - which in the UK is the people who live in the local area. It's obviously quite limited what local councils can actually do though - they can determine council tax, and they can determine what types of business operate where - which is what this would be covered by. There are obviously limits to how far the responsibility to local residents extends - but I don't think it's unreasonable for it to be the highest priority. Ultimately, if the council did something that was really damaging nationally there are plenty of levers that national government can pull to overcome that (they provided significant funding to councils and ultimately national legislation takes precedence). A case in point - recently one MP came out and said he didn't have confidence in Boris Johnson. Hilariously in retaliation the government announced they were green lighting a fracking site in his constituency. (this isn't very relevant, but it is very funny and demonstrates the limits local councils have)

maratc 4y ago
I think that if this vote was legally binding, it could end up being challenged in courts, as national laws overcome the local ones, and I doubt there's a national law that can limit the right of people do things — even things that I personally consider stupid (like owning Rolls-Royces, private jets, or multiple summer houses.) Seeing this was just an official opinion poll, though, it's mostly irrelevant.
- SilverBirch 4y ago
  This is just about how you phrase the rule. In the UK local planning authorities have the right to approve or deny planning applications so it's perfectly within the council's power to stop people from doing anything covered by planning approval, so that's one way they could limit it.
  - maratc 4y ago
    The application writers and the approving authorities can't make whatever rules they want. I think that if there is anything outrageous in the planning application, and it gets approved by the local authority, it can still be challenged in a court. I am certain, for example, that if the planning application would include a clause banning e.g. blacks, LGBT, or non-Anglicans from buying a property, this would be shot down later, even if approved. The question is, whether limiting current homeowners from buying a property would stand up to the courts' scrutiny or not.
    - SilverBirch 4y ago
      Sure, it's possible it would get challenged, but I don't think this really comes anywhere close to something obviously discriminatory.

maratc 4y ago

I think that if this vote was legally binding, it could end up being challenged in courts, as national laws overcome the local ones, and I doubt there's a national law that can limit the right of people do things — even things that I personally consider stupid (like owning Rolls-Royces, private jets, or multiple summer houses.) Seeing this was just an official opinion poll, though, it's mostly irrelevant.

SilverBirch 4y ago
This is just about how you phrase the rule. In the UK local planning authorities have the right to approve or deny planning applications so it's perfectly within the council's power to stop people from doing anything covered by planning approval, so that's one way they could limit it.
- maratc 4y ago
  The application writers and the approving authorities can't make whatever rules they want. I think that if there is anything outrageous in the planning application, and it gets approved by the local authority, it can still be challenged in a court. I am certain, for example, that if the planning application would include a clause banning e.g. blacks, LGBT, or non-Anglicans from buying a property, this would be shot down later, even if approved. The question is, whether limiting current homeowners from buying a property would stand up to the courts' scrutiny or not.
  - SilverBirch 4y ago
    Sure, it's possible it would get challenged, but I don't think this really comes anywhere close to something obviously discriminatory.