According to media reports late yesterday, documents released under FOI show the Australian Institute of Marine Science raised concerns about the inadequacy of modelling to measure how far dredge spoil dumped in the Great Barrier Reef for the Abbot Point coal port would travel. “It appears the government’s own marine research agency was warning back in June last year that the proponent’s modelling on how far the dredge spoil would travel was inadequate,” Senator Larissa Waters, Australian Greens environment spokesperson, said. “It’s incredibly alarming that all of this dumping in the Reef has been approved without accurate modelling to measure how far it will travel, factoring in the impacts of wind, tides and ocean currents. “We’re talking about the Great Barrier Reef here – you can’t just dump 5 million tonnes of dredge sludge into this World Heritage Area without even knowing where it will end up. “The Abbott Government should revoke the approval of the Abbot Point coal port immediately and require the proponent to provide accurate modelling that shows how far the dredge spoil will really travel,” Senator Waters said.Queensland Greens candidate for Stafford, Anne Boccabella, said: “More than 60 000 Queenslanders rely on the Reef’s health for their job and yet the Abbott and Newman governments have ticked off on dredge spoil dumping without even knowing how far the sludge will travel. “Queenslanders love our Great Barrier Reef and we won’t stand by and let it be treated as a dump ground for the big mining companies, and the people of Stafford can send that message to the government at the upcoming by-election,” Ms Boccabella said.Press Release, July 1, 2014
To continue enjoying Building.co.uk, sign up for free guest accessExisting subscriber? LOGIN Subscribe now for unlimited access Stay at the forefront of thought leadership with news and analysis from award-winning journalists. Enjoy company features, CEO interviews, architectural reviews, technical project know-how and the latest innovations.Limited access to building.co.ukBreaking industry news as it happensBreaking, daily and weekly e-newsletters Get your free guest access SIGN UP TODAY Subscribe to Building today and you will benefit from:Unlimited access to all stories including expert analysis and comment from industry leadersOur league tables, cost models and economics dataOur online archive of over 10,000 articlesBuilding magazine digital editionsBuilding magazine print editionsPrinted/digital supplementsSubscribe now for unlimited access.View our subscription options and join our community
To continue enjoying Building.co.uk, sign up for free guest accessExisting subscriber? LOGIN Stay at the forefront of thought leadership with news and analysis from award-winning journalists. Enjoy company features, CEO interviews, architectural reviews, technical project know-how and the latest innovations.Limited access to building.co.ukBreaking industry news as it happensBreaking, daily and weekly e-newsletters Get your free guest access SIGN UP TODAY Subscribe to Building today and you will benefit from:Unlimited access to all stories including expert analysis and comment from industry leadersOur league tables, cost models and economics dataOur online archive of over 10,000 articlesBuilding magazine digital editionsBuilding magazine print editionsPrinted/digital supplementsSubscribe now for unlimited access.View our subscription options and join our community Subscribe now for unlimited access
SUBSCRIBE for UNLIMITED access to news and premium contentA subscription will provide access to the latest industry news, expert analysis & comment from industry leaders, data and research – including our popular annual league tables. You will receive:Print/digital issues delivered to your door/inboxUnlimited access to building.co.uk including our archivePrint/digital supplementsNewsletters – unlimited access to the stories behind the headlinesSubscribe now SUBSCRIBE to access this story Get access to premium content subscribe today
Manitowoc claims that the capacity and reduced ground preparation made possible by the MLC650’s VPC-MAX attachment are helping the construction company – Signature on the Saint Lawrence Construction (SSLC) – to stay on schedule.The VPC-MAX attachment raises the crawler cranes’ maximum capacity from 650 tonnes to almost 700 tonnes.The cranes are currently tasked with lifting 200-tonne steel girders for the bridge’s east approach. They will then be employed to lift 80-tonne precast concrete sections to construct the cable-stay bridge pylon, before erecting the 400-tonne lower cross beam in a tandem lift.On completion of the cross beam installation, the two MLC650 models will be used to construct temporary support towers and erect 200-tonne pier caps and additional girder.The bridge installation project is on track for completion by December 2018.www.manitowoccranes.comwww.newchamplain.ca
The cargo consisted of 13 wooden cases containing two complete sets of generators, shafts, and accessories. Royal Cargo’s project scope included Customs clearance at the port in Da Nang; the loading and lashing of the cargo on to trucks; inland transportation from the port to the project site; and unloading at the site. Six low-bed trailers and prime movers were used for the 300 km-long journey from the port to the Rào Trăng power plant across two trips. Royal Cargo is a member of the Project Cargo Network (PCN) in Vietnam. www.royalcargo.com www.projectcargonetwork.com
The ICO will review and update all sector definition documents, which will outline the information authorities in different sectors should release, updating current requirements and existing guidelines to comply with the amendments to Publication Schemes and reusable data contained in the 2012 act, as well as contributing to the wider open data initiative across the public sector. A revised Model Publication Scheme will then be introduced on 1 April 2013, which will apply to all sectors, with the definition document providing sector specific guidance to accompany the main scheme. The government has not yet announced when the dataset provisions will come into force. However, public authorities need to identify now what datasets they hold and how they will deal with requests for disclosure and reuse of the same. The past few months have seen a number of developments in Freedom of Information law. In May, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) announced changes that will be made to the information public authorities will need to release proactively as part of their Publication Scheme (under section 19 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoI)). The main driver for the changes is the dataset provisions in section 102 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This amends section 11 of FOI so that, once the provisions come into force: In July justice minister Lord McNally announced further details of the commencement of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which was passed by Labour but never brought into force. A phased approach will be adopted. Among other things, this will reduce, from 30 to 20 years, the point at which historical records are made available at the National Archives and other places of deposit. Consequently, the maximum lifespan of a number of FoI exemptions will be reduced. From 1 January 2014 the maximum duration of the following exemptions will reduce by one year per annum over a 10-year period: sections 30 (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities); 32 (court records); 33 (audit functions); 35 (formulation and development of government policy); 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs), except in relation to Northern Ireland and the work of the Executive Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly; and 42 (legal professional privilege). Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 FoI review There will be a new duty on public authorities, when releasing datasets (raw unprocessed electronic data), to adhere to any request to do so in an electronic form capable of reuse by the requestor. Any dataset containing copyright material (where the authority holds the copyright) must be made available for reuse under the terms of a specified licence. Publication schemes will in future contain a commitment to publish datasets, which have been requested, as well as any updated versions. Ibrahim Hasan is a solicitor and director of Act Now Training (www.actnow.org.uk) Earlier this year the Justice Select Committee, chaired by Sir Alan Beith, undertook post-legislative scrutiny of FoI. It heard evidence from various interested parties on how the act was working and whether any changes needed to be made to it.In July, the committee published its report (twurl.nl/6ck4tc). The 100 pages are broadly summarised in the first sentence: ‘Freedom of Information has been a significant enhancement of our democracy and the act is working well.’ The committee resisted calls for a major shake-up of FoI, though it has commented fairly extensively on how the act should be applied in practice. In May (tinyurl.com/cbtl6sq) I predicted, based on the strong submissions made by various parties to the committee, that some changes were likely to be recommended. Among other things, I suggested that the committee would recommend new exemptions for frivolous requests exemption as well for Cabinet minutes. These have not made it into the final report but other (more modest) changes have been recommended: 1. A Change to the Costs regime Many public authorities who responded to the committee’s call for evidence expressed concern about the sheer cost of dealing with FoI requests (although the basis of calculation of some of the figures seemed highly dubious). There was even a suggestion that different fees be introduced for different types of requestor eg to differentiate between private individuals and the media. This did not find favour with the committee but it does recommend that consideration be given to reducing the amount of time a public authority has to take in searching for and compiling information before it can refuse on cost grounds. At present this limit is 24 hours for central government and 18 hours for others. Paragraph 61 of the report states: ‘We would suggest something in the region of two hours, taking the limit to 16 hours rather than 18, but anticipate the government would want to carry out further work on how this would affect the number of requests rejected.’ However, the committee also rejected the suggestion that reading and consideration time should also be able to be taken into account when deciding whether the 18-hour limit has been reached. 2. New Research Exemption Universities strongly argued at the oral evidence stage that there was insufficient protection for pre-publication research under FoI. The committee took this on board and has recommended that the exemption in section 22 of the act (information held with a view to publication) should be amended to give academic research carried out in England, Wales and Northern Ireland the same protection as in Scotland (under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002). 3. New statutory time limits The committee recommends that statutory limits for undertaking internal reviews and for applying the public interest test be introduced to avoid delays in dealing with requests. At present where a public authority wishes to extend the 20 working-day time-limit to consider the public interest test, or is asked to undertake an internal review of a refusal to disclose, there is no further statutory time limit (although the information commissioner recommends that a further 20 working days is appropriate in most cases). The committee recommends that this 20-day extension is put on a statutory footing. A further extension should only be permitted when a third party external to the organisation responding to the request has to be consulted. It also recommends that a time limit for internal reviews should also be put into statute. The time limit should be 20 days with an additional 20 days for exceptionally complex or voluminous requests. 4. Disclosure logs and names of requestors Surprisingly, the report recommends that where the information released from FoI requests is published in a disclosure log, the name of the requestor should be published alongside it. At present, this would run the risk of unfair disclosure of personal data and so breach the Data Protection Act 1998. It will be interesting to see how, if at all, this is given legislative effect. 5. Section 77 Prosecutions The committee also recommends a change to the provisions of the act dealing with the criminal offence of altering/erasing/concealing information. Currently this provision effectively requires the information commissioner to bring a prosecution within six months of the offence taking place. As often the commissioner would not find out about an offence until well after this time, the chances of bringing a prosecution are very low. The report states: ‘The summary-only nature of the section 77 offence means that no one has been prosecuted for destroying or altering disclosable data, despite the Information Commissioner’s Office seeing evidence that such an offence has occurred. We recommend that section 77 be made an either-way offence which will remove the limitation period from charging. We also recommend that, where such a charge is heard in the Crown court, a higher fine than the current £5,000 be available to the court. We believe these amendments to the act will send a clear message to public bodies and individuals contemplating criminal action.’ 6. Publishing Response Data At paragraph 109, the committee recommends that all public bodies subject to the act should be required to publish data on the timeliness of their response to FoI requests. This should include data on extensions and time taken to conduct internal reviews. The committee says this will not only inform the wider public of the authority’s compliance with its duties under the act but will also allow the information commissioner to monitor those organisations with the lowest rate of compliance. The report will now be considered by the Ministry of Justice, before a final decision on any changes to the act is made by the Cabinet.
Today the legal profession marks the 100th anniversary of the legislation that opened the legal profession to women. Within 48 hours of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 receiving royal assent on 23 December, Helena Normanton entered the Middle Temple and the first women magistrates were appointed within days.Three years later, in December 1922, Carrie Morrison was the first woman to be admitted as a solicitor.Law Society president Simon Davis said today: ‘The profession has made great strides over the past 100 years, with women now making up 50.8% of practising solicitors and 62.1% of new entrants.’However he noted that full equality has not yet been achieved. ‘Women are still not reaching senior positions in sufficient numbers and only make up 30.1% of partners in private practice,’ he said. ‘Our research identified many obstacles to women’s career progression including unconscious bias, a difficult work-life balance and networking opportunities being male focused… for real change to take root, firms across the country must put the right policies in place and work together to build a more diverse workplace for the next generation.’BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour dedicated today’s programme to the centenary. Dana Denis-Smith, founder of the First 100 Years project who began her legal career at magic circle firm Linklaters, told Woman’s Hour: ‘Having women ahead of you makes a difference… where women are there it accelerates change.’Others recalled their own experience of achievement and sexism in their own careers. Cherie Booth QC, who finished top of her year in her bar finals, said Lord Denning told her: ‘You’ve done very well, but the bar isn’t really a place for women… though my niece would disagree.’ His niece, Booth noted, also became a QC.Dr Mari Takayanagi, senior archivist at the parliamentary archives, noted that the 1919 act was the culmination of a 30-year campaign by women who began to read law at several universities, and who unsuccessfully challenged the ban on women in the legal profession in court. Male lawyers who opposed women in the law, she said, did so out of ‘misogyny’ or a ‘fear of competition’.
Farmington Voice Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Panera Bread in Farmington has applied to add a drive-through to the building it has occupied for more than 20 years.Planning Commission members on Monday got their first look at plans. But the project has a few hurdles to overcome, starting with the proposed location: a city alley.Also drive-throughs are allowed in the C-2 zoning district with a Special Land Use permit that requires the applicant to meet five specific conditions. During the same Monday meeting, planning commissioners denied a similar application for a Burger King at Grand River and Lakeway. Economic and Community Development Director Kevin Christiansen said the public right-of-way on the east side of the building at Grand River and Whittaker provides access to Dumpsters used by Panera and the neighboring strip center. He said the city could provide an easement for use of the alley.Commission chair Kenneth Crutcher asked about noise from the drive through; there’s a residential neighborhood just south of the restaurant.A company representative pointed out that the trash enclosure would be reoriented across from the ordering speaker, with a new 6-foot retaining wall behind it. The new wall also lines up with an existing boulder wall.Christiansen said this is the third time that Panera has approached the city about adding a drive through.“The challenge with this site is going to be how to retrofit with the existing building and conditions,” he said.Commissioners set an August 12 public hearing.Learn moreRead supporting materials, look at plans, and view the meeting video at farmgov.com/City-Services/Government/Agendas-and-Minutes/Planning/2019.aspx Reported by
Midview was redy for everything that Avon threw at them led by QB Dustin Crum In his last season with the Middies before going to Kent State University at the completion of his senior year.The first half was a back and forth attack from both Avon quaterbacks, Senior, Matt Kelly and Sophomore, Ryan Maloy and their relentless ground assult fromRB Mason McLemore. Big performances from the defensive line kept things interesting as the night continued.My stats showed McLemore with 22 carries for 204 yards to add to his totals for this year Also scoring touchdowns for Avon was Maloy who will be with the team for the next three seasons.Avon Head Coach Mike Elder went on to say how special these two communities are with their football support. Also commending Middies Coach Shaw on a well executed game never wanting to let up because Midview has weapons too in Hunt and Crum. David Sprouse Luke Hunt set to receive another pass from Dustin Crum.GRAFTON, Ohio –This game recap is brought to you by Rain Barrels and More. It’s been dubbed the Lorain County Superbowl with rivals The Midview Middies (3-0-0) and The Avon Eagles (3-0-0) squared off in Grafton tonight. The last three metings of these two teams left the Eagles holding the bag. Avon, who is riddled with injuries, having five starters sitting for tonights game. “…it’s too early to think about the playoffs, we have a lot of work to do ourselves, Westlake is first… next Friday.” – Coach Mike Elder Coach Elder also said, “Dustin Crum is the best quarterback he has ever coached against.” He also concluded, “…it’s too early to think about the playoffs, we have a lot of work to do ourselves, Westlake is first… next Friday.” He added sometimes you have to be physical in football. We were extremely physical up front and both sides of the ball tonight… Frankly, that was the difference.”Coach Shaw from Midview said they did not play very well and was brief in commenting but adding “The boys have a decision to make… Do we call it a season after week four or do we hit the ground running tomorrow and work at getting better? Let’s work to put ourselves in a position to make a run and get to the playoffs.” Related TopicsAvon EaglesfootballMidview MiddiesWEOL Stay tuned to NEOSI for all the best in Cleveland Sports. Follow us on Twitter @NEOSportsInside and me om Instagram, Twitter and SnapChat @djhouse2011. I look forward to see what week five brings in The Southwest Conference. Co-editor, photographer covering the Cleveland Monsters, Gladiators and Indians. Also, passionate about high school sports, be sure to follow David on Twitter and Instagram @neosi_sprouse for in-game updates and up-to-the-minute developing news.