Ft Wm, Inv & Tor CC talk:About: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Ft Wm, Inv & Tor CC talk:About (view source)

Revision as of 19:19, 7 August 2021

2,157 bytes removed , 2 years ago

m

→‎Permissions

VisualWikitext

Ftwm

Bureaucrats, Administrators

92

edits

Revision as of 20:39, 6 May 2021 (view source) Ftwm (talk \| contribs) m (→‎LPP consultation question) ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 19:19, 7 August 2021 (view source) Ftwm (talk \| contribs) m (→‎Permissions)
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: == TODO list ==▼ This discussion page doubles as the main project page for this wiki. ▲== TODO list == Things to do include: * Permissions▼ Right now, you don't even have to log in to edit just about anything.▼ The actual CCors should probably all be Admins, but not even EMD is yet.▼ ==Ease of use== * =====Visual Editor===== ** Only the MainPage seems to be WYSIWYGed * The VisEd is installed but only new pages (plus the [[Main_Page\|Main Page]], oddly) seem to be WYSIWYGed, whereas (for example) this page is not (ie the 'Edit source' click-tab appears above, but the VisEd's 'Edit' doesn't). * =====Discussion ~~(options are:-)~~pages===== * It's vital these are easy to use! The options seem to be:= (as is) ie WP-style Discussion pages Structured Discussions (aka 'Flow', see eg https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Structured_Discussions ) PageDisqus - DQ embed per page (see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:PageDisqus ) SectionDisqus - DQ embed per section (but has issue: see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SectionDisqus ) ==Administration== * Corpus ▲ * =====Permissions===== LPPs ▲ Right now, you don't even have to log in to edit just about anything. Shocking! FW2040 & LDP (& Locality Plan?)▼ ▲ The actual ~~CCors~~CCllrs should probably all be Admins~~, but not even EMD is yet~~. ** SCDC (why?)▼ * Wikimedian Namespaces will probably become essential before very long, and will need to be administered consistently. ==Content== =====[[Corpora]]===== * [[LPPs/Corpus\|LPPs]] ▲ FW2040 & LDP (& Locality Plan? LOIP?) ▲ SCDC (why?) =====Other bodies===== * PARCA * UARG? ~~== LPP consultation question ==~~ Since 2019, local communities in Scotland have had the right to create a so-called 'Local Place Plan' for their area (eg a village, suburb or estate). Local Place Plans have to be "taken into account" by the planning authority (ie Highland Council, for Lochaber). However, the planning authority has the right to 'invalidate' (ie ignore) a Local Place Plan in certain circumstances; these are to be laid down in forthcoming planning regulations. The Scottish Government is presently consulting on those forthcoming regulations. Many of the points at issue concern the process by which satisfactory (ie valid) Local Place Plans are to be prepared by so-called 'community bodies'. (The definition of a community body has already been laid down in law so is not part of the consultation, but it's reasonably elastic.) One possible view that ONLY deficiencies in the FINAL draft, including the process of producing that draft, should enable a planning authority to invalidate a Local Place Plan against the wishes of the community body that has prepared it. But a stricter view is that deficiencies in EARLIER drafts, including the process of producing those drafts, might rightly enable a planning authority to invalidate even the FINAL draft of a Local Place Plan against the wishes of the community body that has prepared it. ~~Do you agree with the stricter view?~~ (A plausible example of a process deficiency might be this:- failing to actively seek the views of disabled or elderly residents at a sufficiently early stage in the preparation process to significantly influence the final draft of the Place Plan.) [ Aside: a few of the ScotGov questions use a very specific legalism: "to have regard to (something)," which imposes a duty to (a) be familiar with, to (b) be aware of divergences from, and to (c) be able to provide a reason (or reasons) for each divergence from it. On the other hand, the bar set for such reasons is not particularly high: appropriately 'clear', 'proper', and 'legitimate' reasons need not be 'good', 'cogent', or 'compelling', for instance. Specifically, the English/Welsh High Court has found that "to have regard to" something obliges a body to "have and give clear reasons" for any departure from it. Furthermore, these clear reasons must "objectively be proper reasons, or legitimate reasons". However, to say that the reasons must be "good", "cogent" or "compelling" would be raising the bar "far higher than is appropriate in this context." (in Regina v Schools Adjudicator [2015] EWHC 1012 (Admin)). Scottish case law has (so far) followed this precedent. ]