Monthly Archives: February 2015
Cornwall v Devon tourism
Anyone else noticing that recent “10 best …” or “20 best …” things such as hotels, beaches, restaurants etc which appear in newspapers or on sites such as Tripadvisor often now include Cornwall (sometimes several times) but rarely Devon and even much more rarely East Devon?
Could it have something to do with the fact that Devon’s tourism budget is £45,000 per year and Cornwall’s is £300,000 per year (and Yorkshire’ £3,000,000 per year)?
Travel journalists are lured to tourist attractions, etc by positive publicity and free trips and which lead to word-of-mouth recommendations.
Alas, not in Devon and certainly not East Devon.
But, fear not, just before the district council elections our Tourism Champion is scheduled to speak at a meeting! No, we will not tell you who our so far silent Tourism Champion is – if you ars in the tourism trade in East Devon and don’t know who it is, you should be asking yourself why and also why that person has the designation.
And what a difference just a little of the minimum £750,000 spent on relocation (since we must include the cost of Information Commissioner v EDDC in Exeter Magistrates Court has cost so far as we know) could have made to our ranking in the tourism world.
See also:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/01/13/tourism-on-the-cheap-in-devon/
Mid-Devon Local Plan consultants reports to be published by the end of February
This is what it says in the Mid devon Local Plan consultation document:
” Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments, Reports and Availability” –
” Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) – Anticipated to be published by the end of February 2015″
Presumably based on the same consultants’ reports that EDDC says must be kept secret because of “political sensitivity”.
So, it’s politically sensitive in East Devon and not politically sensitive in Mid Devon.
What a difference a few miles makes.
Why vote for Claire Wright?
Tory Balls
We have written extensively about this year’s Tory Fundraising Ball (where Hugo Swire, Foreign Office Minister, made a tasteless joke about Greece)but pause awhile and recall last year’s event – which cost only £12,000 per head compared to £15,000 this year (we thought the cost of living (it up) was supposed to be going down).
Last year Hugo Swire was also auctioneer and a jar of his wife’s honey went for £15,000 – 9,000 times its actual cost. Wonga numbers.
Here for your delectation is a report of the ball from the Socialist Workers Party:
Tory ministers declined to say who they were dining with at a fancy nosh-up last week. The party refused to release the guest list for the event at the private Hurlingham members’ club in Fulham, west London.
But the gleaming Rolls-Royces and Jaguars streaming through the gates told their own story.
Tory ministers attending including Michael Gove, Nicky Morgan, Matthew Hancock and David Gauke. The dress code was “glamorous” but invitees were instructed to avoid black tie. A pot of honey made by the wife of foreign office minister Hugo Swire, the evening’s auctioneer, went for £15,000—almost 9,000 times the recommended retail price.
We know a little more about last year’s event.
Almost 450 attendees at last summer’s glittering fundraising dinner had a combined wealth of more than £11 billion. They sat at tables costing up to £12,000 each.
It is not known how much was raised from last year’s event. But Electoral Commission figures show that since the ball those present have donated £5 million to the Conservatives. Of this, £1.1 million was registered in the week after the event. Table sales raised at least £250,000. There were some cheap seats available for a mere £400.
The guest list last year saw six billionaires and 15 people with a personal wealth above £100 million. The main sponsor was Shore Capital, an investment bank led by Howard Shore.
Shore has donated £450,000 to the Tories. He booked three “premier tables” and on one hosted David and Samantha Cameron.
The table also included investor Nicolas Berggruen, Slovenian tycoon Darko Horvat and property magnate Sir John Ritblat.
London mayor Boris Johnson shared a table with Andrei Borodin, an exiled Russian banker. Borodin is wanted in Russia on charges of “aggravated swindling” over an alleged £220million bank fraud.
Even Tory councillors unhappy with Overview and Scrutiny function
Highlights from Agenda papers:
Key decisions were felt, despite the legislation permitting Cabinet to take the decision, to be better placed at full Council for final decision to allow full debate on the topic before the final decision was made.
Many comments were made about the changes to council structure following the LGA 2000 and felt that these changes had been to the detriment of the council.
Overview and Scrutiny functions
Many members felt that the overview function of the council was not as strong as under the previous committee setup, when there were separate committees for each function.
Many views were expressed on the need for the next elected council to operate a separate overview committee to work on formulating policy, perhaps encompassing another element – planning policy. A clear focus on overview would also permit the council to put more effort into forward planning, and to give officers a clear steer of the work required of them.
Separating the planning applications from planning policy was another common theme, with a view that the two elements should be separated out to be covered by two committees. The practicalities of a new overview committee covering such a wide area of work (in also covering planning policy) would need careful consideration and officer resource before implementing.
There was general agreement that planning applications were dealt with well and could continue to be so under the structure of a separate committee to that of planning policy.
Scrutiny could still maintain the ability to review decisions before taken, in order to prevent poor decisions being made, and was preferable over a call-in option.
Amendments to Task and Finish Forums
Recommendations were made to Overview and Scrutiny on 22 January on amendments to where the scope is agreed for a TaFF, and the number of councillors who should be on a TaFF.
Discussion reached an agreement on “normally seven” for the number on a Forum, with key aspects being to secure councillors with appropriate skills and/or enthusiasm for the task.
Agreeing a drafted scope at committee level was also felt helpful in order to set the task clear parameters for immediate start by the Forum, as well as help achieve a greater ownership by the committee on what they wanted the Forum to achieve.
Other issues
“To note” recommendations were not appreciated by members and took up valuable meeting time. Reports for information could be circulated separately. Efforts were made at draft agenda stage to seek clear recommendations; and members were reminded that a recommendation was just that – they had the option to change the wording based on the consensus reached. An alternative suggestion was “for the committee to debate and comment on”.
Possible recommendations from this meeting:
Glossary of terms to be adopted for use as part of the member development programme.
Clear distinction of decision powers between Portfolio Holders/Cabinet and the full Councilcommunicated to councillors, including through the member development programme.
Debate amending the constitution to permit the following:
o ReplacetheOverviewandScrutinyCommitteewithtwoseparatecommitteesofasmaller membership, overall involving more councillors
o SplitthecurrentresponsibilitiesoftheDevelopmentManagementCommittee,amendingto retain (as Development Control ) determination of planning applications, remain at 16 councillors, and retain a Planning Inspections Committee; the remaining responsibilities of developing planning policy to be undertaken either as a dedicated Development Policy Committee OR taken into the responsibilities of the Overview Committee.
The separate Overview committee to be chaired by a member of the majority party, with an invitation to the opposition to nominate the chairman of the Scrutiny committee. The Leader retains the right to fill the role of Scrutiny Chairman from the majority party if no suitable nomination is
made. The Housing Review Board to remain as chaired by a member of the majority party.
Scoping for Task and Finish Forums be undertaken by the committee prior to the start of the Forum;
A Task and Finish Forum to normally consist of seven councillors
Strategic Management Team work to change the culture of “to note” recommendations and
encourage officers to make clear what decision is being recommended. Still to debate:
Frequency of meetings for new committee structure suggested. Currently OS meets 10 times a year; DMC 13 times a year
Chairman’s casting vote
Chairman of Development Management Committee voting rights when = ward member of application
Noting member absence when vote taken
Electronic voting
Quorum arrangements
Planning delegation scheme – raising awareness
Click to access 260215-os-agenda-combined-public-version.pdf
Place your bets?
With Claire Wright continually drawing the (largely positive) crowds to her meetings, there is still time to place your bet at Ladbrokes (with the usual caveat of being over 18 and betting responsibly).
At the moment, she is neck and neck with UKIP at 10/1. With UKIP drawing much smaller audiences and with their candidate only recently having moved into the district, maybe it’s time to show your faith in the local lady and improve her odds!
Not to mention making a bit of money for yourself in time for summer!
Online go to: Ladbrokes/Politics/General Election/Constituencies/Devon East
(NOT East Devon)
“Fiscal fears rocket” for local authorities
“Concern among council bosses over whether local authorities will be able to deliver their legal duties has rocketed in the last year, an exclusive survey published today has found.
Amid warnings that the current local government finance system is ‘bust’, more than half of council chief executives, finance bosses and leaders said there was a danger that financial constraints could put their authority in a position where it did not have enough funding to fulfil its statutory duties.”
http://www.themj.co.uk/EXCLUSIVE-Fiscal-fears-rocket/199710
Claire Wright ridicules Hugo Swire on DCC spending cuts
Claire Wright, prospective Independent Parliamentary Candidat, issued the following press release;
CLAIRE WRIGHT RIDICULES HUGO SWIRE ON CLAIMS THAT COUNTY SPENDING WILL RISE
Claire Wright, the Independent candidate for the East Devon constituency and a Devon County Councillor, has ridiculed the current MP, Hugo Swire, for his claim that the county’s spending power would rise. He claimed that it would increase by 0.6 per cent which was “a good deal for East Devon”.
In fact, Devon County Council’s Deputy Leader, Councillor John Clatworthy, confirmed at yesterday’s county council budget meeting (19th February) that its budget has been CUT by central government by over 13 per cent.
Claire Wright said: “Earlier, I challenged Mr Swire to speak up for and vote for the people of his constituency in the House of Commons debate on council grants. When he did neither, I accused him of being cowardly and callously indifferent to the needs of local people. He responded with this outrageous claim that spending would rise and accused me of “a wild and imaginary headline-grabbing spending spree”. He accused me of failing to look at the “hard facts”.
“Mr Swire, here are the facts. You cited “spending power” which includes money that Devon County Council doesn’t even receive. At the council meeting, the Conservative Deputy Leader, John Clatworthy, confirmed that cuts of £46 million will be made in the year 2015/2016 as the county is confronted by a reduction in grant of over 13 per cent.
“John Hart, the Conservative Leader of the Council, said that cuts totalling £210 million would have to be made by 2017. Councillor Clatworthy blasted his own party’s government ministers. He said “Cameron, like Pickles, is out of touch”.
Speaking to the county council , Claire Wright noted that just a few hours before the Parliamentary debate on county grants, the Conservatives held a fund-raising function in London, where the price of a table was up to £15,000. Over £2 million was raised. “Are we really all in it together, Mr Cameron?”
“Last week, the debate raged about big business avoiding tax payments of millions of pounds. That money could have been used to fund our public services, our libraries, children’s services, bus services and road repairs. What is the government doing about big business tax avoidance? Very little. Instead, ministers prefer to blame local authorities for the public services cuts meted out by them.
“John Hart said recently that reductions will continue until well into 2018. What will local government and local services look like by then? Will the citizens of this country be abandoned by the state because of the ideological drive to shrink the state and, instead, let our precious public services be run by the markets?
“The press release issued by Mr Swire, in which he gives grossly misleading figures, represents everything that is wrong with the central government’s priorities. They haven’t got the guts to stand up and to tell the truth to the people whom they have so let down.”
Here is the webcast link for the Devon County Council budget meeting on 19th February:
Very weird goings-on in Clyst St Mary according to Google.
A search on Google today for Clyst St Mary references in the last 24 hours produced this note from Google:
“In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.”
Checking with ChillingEffects.org produced reference to an alleged copyright infringement of a Marilyn Manson songs “Cupid Carries A Gun” and “The Pale Emperor”. This has occured only within the last 24 hours.
Anyone care to hazard a guess? The mind boggles … Conspiracy theories?
Claire Wright in action on DCC budget!
Local environmental and planning consultant Charlie Hopkins lambasts East Devon District Council over secrecy on consultants report on housing numbers
Charlie Hopkins, a local planning and environmental consultant,
http://www.charliehopkins.co.uk/
who represented Feniton at their super-inquiry and a founder member of the
Environmental Law Foundation:
(motto: Everyone has a Right to Participate in Decisions About their Environment: We Help the Voices of Ordinary People to be Heard and Respected),
has sent the following letter to East Devon District Council which is refusing to release the consultants’ reports on the number of houses required for the Local Plan because they may be “politically sensitive” during the run up to local elections. This, of course, delays the Local Plan by several more months and does not allow the information into the public domain.
As we have covered before, there is a period before elections when local authorities go into what is called purdah. There is an explanation of this HERE. The legislation says:
“During the period between the notice of an election and the election itself, local authorities should not publish any publicity on controversial issues or report views or proposals in such a way that identifies them with any individual members or groups of members. Publicity relating to individuals involved directly in the election should not be published by local authorities during this period unless expressly authorised by or under statute. It is permissible for local authorities to publish factual information which identifies the names, wards and parties of candidates at elections.35. In general, local authorities should not issue any publicity which seeks to influence voters. However this general principle is subject to any statutory provision which authorises expenditure being incurred on the publication of material designed to influence the public as to whether to support or oppose a question put at a referendum. It is acceptable to publish material relating to the subject matter of a referendum, for example to correct any factual inaccuracies which have appeared in publicity produced by third parties, so long as this is even-handed and objective and does not support or oppose any of the options which are the subject of the vote.”
So, basically, EDDC Tories are saying that their reports would identify with individual members or groups of members. This is crazy: they are independent reports commissioned by East Devon District Council, not by individual members or groups of members. The bills for the two reports will be paid by East Devon District Council NOT East Devon and Honiton and Tiverton Conservative Associations.
The reports are factual information only and, if it were seeking to influence voters, would be a serious impugning of the consultants’ reports and the reputation of the consultants themselves.
Here is the letter from Mr Hopkins:
The announcement of further delays to the Local Plan by EDDC’s leader, Paul Diviani, is quite incredible. We are told to believe that these delays are “inevitable”, because were the public to have sight of a housing needs report before the elections in May the process “could be seen” as being politically motivated.
Could be seen by whom Mr Diviani?
The report itself certainly won’t be seen by anyone except those select few in EDDC, who then take it upon themselves to decide what the public should know and what they shouldn’t. When EDDC presented the new Local Plan at the public inquiry a year ago, last February, they considered that it was in a form acceptable to the Inspector, who made it clear from Day 1 that it was anything but. A clearer case of incompetence would be hard to imagine. We were then assured that revised housing figures could be produced within a matter of weeks. A year later, still we wait, now to be told, with much hand wringing, that we must wait even longer because of the remote possibility that some unspecified, unidentified persons may see the process as “politically motivated”.
The only reason for withholding the housing needs report is that it is likely that housing needs will be shown to be higher than the figures presented by EDDC a year ago. The consequence of this is that villages and communities in East Devon will be allocated higher housing figures than previously. This is highly unlikely to go down to well with the vast majority of communities in East Devon, some of which have already seen proposals by developers to hugely increase housing on greenfield sites (think of Feniton, Gittisham, and more recently Clyst St Mary).
If there is political motivation behind delaying the release of these reports that can only come from the Tory majority on EDDC.
Finally, who benefits from this further delay?
An unholy trinity of landowners and developers, who stand to profit massively in the interim period before a new Local Plan is in place, and last, but not least, their chums on EDDC.
Charlie Hopkins
Local Plan delay “quite incredible”,says planning expert
See today’s post on http://www.saveoursidmouth.com
Donations to political parties: can they buy YOUR vote?
September – December 2014
Conservative: £8,345,687
Labour: £10,888,480
Lib Dem:£3,048,434
UKIP: £1,505,055
or will you vote for the Independent parliamentary candidate (Claire Wright) and local prospective Independent councillors whose campaigns run on a shoestring with no mega-corporate donors or union contributions.
Hugo Swire says East Devon has many “retired pensioners” – some in Budleigh-Salterton (sic)!
According to Hugo Swire’s website, East Devon is “home to a large number of retired pensioners”.
http://www.hugoswire.org.uk/constituency
Is a ‘retired pensioner’ someone who is older than a pensioner and gets an extra allowance from the government?
Shame about mis-spelling “Budleigh-Salterton” (sic) too when it’s in his constituency…..
Does Exeter have its own vanity project?
And interesting to see a prospective Conservative Candidate for Exeter City Council (and former Exeter City Centre Manager) lash the Labour majority with these words:
“As a direct result of investing those millions of pounds in the swimming pool we are going to have to make further cuts in other services.
“It’s completely wrong. It’s the wrong moment to do it and I think when people realise this is being funded from the public purse and we’re all going to have to pay more as a result and have less services available to us, it’s something they will be really angry about.”
So far only EDDC Conservative Peter Halse has had the courage to tell his colleagues what he thinks about THEIR vanity project:
Are newspapers shackled by commercial interests?
In the age of the internet, many people get their news for free. This puts enormous pressure on newspapers, which must charge for their paper editions, when circulation drops and they must then rely on advertising revenue to keep afloat. Upset an advertiser and risk your income is not a healthy situation to have to deal with.
All the more respect then to those newspapers which still campaign on important issues and still provide good journalism rather than recycled spin fodder.
Something doesn’t add up: Mid Devon’s draft Local Plan out for consultation when its supposed to be tied to our secret consultants’ reports
How come our draft Local Plan has been held up because supposedly we had to wait for consultants’ reports on housing needs in Exeter, Teignbridge, Mid-Devon and Dartmoor National Park before deciding our own and yet Mid- Devon is putting its new draft Local Plan out to public consultation this month?
Has Mid-Devon ignored the consultants’ reports or has it already used the numbers in it to inform their draft MUCH earlier than ours and seemingly with no worries about it being “politically sensitive” or “secret” before district elections?
And how come theirs is covering them until 2033 and ours is only until 2026?
Very few UK and other European “think tanks” score highly for transparency
“Think tanks” highly influence government policies and many are politically- funded by influential donors. The UK scores particularly badly.
Click to access Transparify+2015+Think+Tanks+-+Report.pdf
In East Devon the Leader’s “think tanks” are secret and produce no minutes, agendas or notes.
East Devon Watch 