Regarding 'out of order' classifications.
If a proposed motion is unsuitable, for example defamatory, not clear, illegal in some way or may have been discussed at a relatively recent AGM, then there could be grounds for considering it out of order. Both motions by Colin Clarke could have provided a benefit for example;
That the CTC seeks a revision of the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning law so that it gives equal rights of appeal for proposers and objectors in the planning process for major developments.
Currently, the planning procedures permit applicants the right to appeal against refusal, however objectors are permitted to object but no right of appeal. A major prison development at Full Sutton in East Yorkshire was granted outline planning permission without undertaking an environmental impact assessment. If built, it will result in deterioration in conditions for both walking and cycling in the surrounding area due to the extra 1000 plus motor vehicle trips per day.
A fuller explanation was provided to CUK via email. Major developments are mostly presented by multi-million pound organisations who employ profession staff. If planning is refused they have 3 options of appeal, written, inquiry or via a planning inspector. In the proposed prison more than 3000 people objected, Sustrans, the police and all the local councils. They have no right of appeal. False and misleading information was published in support of the application.The system is unjust and subject to bias. The ERYC council (Conservative) voted in favour, mainly on party lines, to oppose would be rocking the boat for their party. See https://stamfordbridgebypass.wordpress. ... ll-sutton/
CUK position should be to help cyclists challenge a planning system that is very much one sided and will adversely affect cycling. Members of Parliament should be made fully aware of the problems of allowing one side to have a major advantage over the general public. A right of appeal by objectors is needed to help protect the public from unsuitable major plans.
The second motion;
That the CTC seeks provision under the Freedom of Information
Act 2006 to improve access to data on the maintenance
standards and maintenance schedules for Highways/Local Authorities, by
• Obtaining a licence to publish information released under Freedom of Information.
• Making the information obtained via its website to members.
• Making FOI courses available to members at minimum charge
The standard of roads, particularly minor ones vary and, in some cases,
range from poor to potentially lifethreatening because of potholes.
Some local authorities are using poor procedures e.g. East Riding of
Yorkshire sometimes use the spray-on process and patching, without
compacting, which produces uneven surfaces and poor quality. Many
minor roads are in a poorer condition that they were 50 years ago and
improvements to methods, repairs and resurfacing procedures need to
be made. From 1984 to 1990 approximately 8.5% of Local Authorities road repairs were to minor
roads compared to 3.9% for 2014 to 2019. Lack of background knowledge
of the Freedom of Information Act by local campaigners may hinder their
ability to hold account Highways/Local Authorities as to the condition of roads.
The DfT collects details from all county councils and shows the totals. DfT ref RDC 0320 shows this data but on a national basis. Each local authority has this data and could be requested via FoI requests. CUK or any member would in effect only have to obtain the data from the DfT and publish on the web. This would have helped cyclists to know how their local authority was performing. Fixing potholes does not provide the basic data on how much each authority is spending on minor roads. CUK information does not cover the same period, e.g.
From 1984 to 1990 approximately 8.5% of Local Authorities road repairs were to minor roads compared to 3.9% for 2014 to 2019.
CUK does not covey this major change. The motion mentions the poor results from the spray on process, that can increase the risk to cyclist, by them riding out or moving to avoid the typical poor repair. The motion added extra information that CUK had not provided and could have prompted changes to improve safety, therefore it was worthy of including in the AGM.
Both motions were in order but CUK refused to allow members the opportunity to hear debate and vote on them.