They seem to have taken a leaf out of East Devon’s (very secret) book:
Monthly Archives: October 2015
Most deprived areas in Devon: time to address their needs first?
A list of areas of deprivation has been produced for the 326 council areas in England. In this ranking, 1 = most deprived, 326 = least deprived. Devon scores are:
Torbay 46
Torridge 67
Plymouth 82
North Devon 127
West Devon 141
Mid Devon 156
Exeter 165
Teignbridge 177
South Hams 209
Isles of Scilly 242
East Devon 246
As can be seen, East Devon is classed as even more affluent and in less need than the South Hams area.
If Devon becomes a devolved authority, should those deemed most in need receive resources (including housing) first? If so, Torbay, Torridge and Plymouth would be where most resources would be targeted, and East Devon the least.
It seems we are pretty well off – do we need to expand more at the expense of areas more deprived than ours?
Promises, promises, promises … warnings, warnings, warnings …
Owl was much engaged with the Guardian article in 2010 on Seaton’s regeneration referred to below. And many, many thanks to Councillor Twiss for ensuring that we revisited this important topic and took stock of the last five years.
For example, a day before the General Election in that year, a Tory spokesperson said:
“The Conservatives have voiced unease about Tesco Towns. Bob Neill, shadow minister for local government and planning, says: “I am concerned that the rise of so-called supermarket towns will lead to developments where small retailers have no place or face uncompetitive rents. Planning rules must be amended to allow councils to take into account the benefits of greater competition and the need to protect small business.”
The party has pledged to introduce greater local participation in planning through its “open source” proposals if it wins tomorrow’s general election.”
and
“A spokesman for the company says Tesco has been providing much-needed mixed use development since 1997 in deprived areas. “These are urban areas which have not received investment for a number of years. We are willing to invest, and that kind of investment has to be applauded and welcomed. We’re looking at providing more than 2,000 jobs in these areas that can benefit the community for years to come. He adds: “Councils are very welcoming because we are bringing in jobs and investment.”
Anyone seen many of those 2,000 jobs anywhere! Excluding zero hours, of course.
A correspondent writes on “regeneration” East Devon style
This is a comment to the previous post which we have published as a post, from Sandra Semple, Mayor of Seaton during the major part of its regeneration process:
“Can we knock several of Councillor Twiss’s naive misconceptions about Seaton “regeneration” on the head. I know, I was there as Mayor at the time.
First, we got nothing but a massive Tesco and a housing estate with no affordable housing. No hotel, no leisure facilities, no community facilities. The town’s yourh club, day nursery, swimming pool and gym were demolished along with a thriving 500 bed holiday camp. The nursery was re-located (with a Devon County Council grant) on land meant to be for a re-located youth centre – which could not be built anyway as it was during the recession, the land was not adequate after the nursery was completed, grants were hard to come by and we were given only a paltry £80,000 towards a new facility (Colyton’s Reece Strawbridge Centre built at that time cost £500,000).
Ah, people will say, you got a wonderful new Visitor Centre (due to open next year, 6 years after the Tesco). Wrong: EDDC was paid £2 million by Tesco for a right of way across land OUTSIDE the regeneration area (where the youth club stood) as otherwise they would have been classed as an out-of-town store. This would have given the edge to Sainsburys which was what the town wanted, smaller, closer and would have included a completed Visitor Centre on the first floor (fully accessible to disabled people and overlooking the Wetlands) on the day the store opened.
The current Visitor Centre could not have been built without a hefty injection of lottery funding and an agreement that it would be run by Devon Wildlife Trust. The centre had been meant to include a terminus for the Minehead-Seaton national cycle route (lockers, showers etc) but these were cut out due to the extra cost involved. As to whether it will (continually, not just in its first year) attract 50,000 visitors remains to be seen, especially now Lyme Regis is extending its town museum and there is talk of a Jurrasic Eden-Centre type project on Portland.
We lost half our main car park to the Visitor Centre (an overflow carpark has been built on former public open space) and without the 500 beds at the holiday camp (85% occupied 50 weeks a year) we lost the main accommodation base for the annual Grizzly Run. Our biggest hotel is 10 beds and tourists visiting the Wetlands are unlikely to find accommodation in Seaton easily. But never mind, they can go to Premier Inns in Honiton and Exmouth.
Each and every desire of the local population – most of which could have been achieved – was ignored or ignominiously dismissed. If it did not come from Tesco or a small coterie of officers and councillors – forget it. Though mostly from Tesco. Even our “Regeneration Board” was a fantasy (a Twiss word) as it was just a talking shop which rubber stamped decisions already made. I was asked to leave it because I criticised Tesco (privately) and I did leave because it was achieving precisely nothing.
Regeneration? In your dreams. As I said in a national newspaper article at the time: “My town was sold to Tesco”:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/may/05/urban-development-tesco-towns
and I see no reason to change my mind almost exactly five years since Tesco opened.”
Councillor Twiss gets his knickers in a twiss yet again – and it’s personal – yet again
The most extraordinary rant has appeared in the Sidmouth Herald under the authorship of (“I am not and never have been the Whip for the East Devon Conservative Party”) Councillor Phil Twiss, which is reproduced in its entirety below (with comments added). It puts us in mind of the early days of the sterling work of Councillor Claire Wright, when she was also attacked for attempting to change the much-derided status quo.
I have quoted the full press release provided by a local newspaper, not the shorter version in the Sidmouth Herald
WE WANT SIDMOUTH TO MOVE FORWARD, NOT BE HELD BACK’ (HELD BACK FROM WHAT?)
The Conservative Group on East Devon District Council (EDDC) have hit back at comments made by an East Devon Alliance councillor for her naïve and misleading rant in last week’s Sidmouth Herald. (So, here follows a naive and misleading rant from Councillor Twiss)
In the report, EDA Councillor Cathy Gardner, who represents Sidmouth Town Ward, claimed that a proposal to build social housing on the site of a car park in Mill Street was part of a wider plan for Eastern Town and spoke of the town being at risk of ‘fighting a battle but losing a war’.
Cllr Gardner is guilty of muddled thinking and of embarking on a naïve and misleading rant aimed at making political capital out of the vital issue of providing homes for Sidmouth’s young families. (You be the judge of who is out to make political capital here)
A consultation proposed by the EDA councillor would muddy the waters if and when the district council came to conduct its own public survey – which would take place as part of the normal democratic process. (So, what we always knew – early consultations muddy the waters and council surveys late in the day are the way forward)
ROUTINE
No firm plans had yet been drawn up for Mill Street and if and when such proposals were formed, a public consultation would follow as a matter of routine. (How much more firm could you be when you hike car park prices 300%, reduce ability to rent spaces and then put out a hasty press release saying you intend to turn it into social housing?)
It’s all very well for ward representatives to genuinely stand up for what they see as the rights of their constituents. It’s quite another to say things that will mislead people into forming the wrong conclusions, especially when this is based on a poor understanding of how the planning process works. (Still not sure what the “wrong conclusions” are here)
There is a lot of incorrect information in Councillor Gardner’s reported remarks and this displays either a naïve ignorance of the facts or a desire to stir up a political storm in a teacup – or both. (Not that he does not specifically say at any point what this incorrect information might be)
Councillor Gardner appears to be linking a possible plan for affordable homes in Mill Street with a wider redevelopment scheme for Eastern Town and even the project to create a Beach Management Plan for Sidmouth. Her suggestion that the Beach Management Plan lacked progress is mischievous and untrue. (But surely the proper thing to do in this situation IS to link plans for Mill Street to wider Port Royal and beach management? This is the joined-up thinking that Councillor Twiss and his colleagues say needs to be done)
Derogatory comments about EDDC’s ongoing and successful regeneration projects in Seaton and Exmouth take conspiracy theories to a whole new level of fantasy. (Oh wow – ask the residents of Exmouth and Seaton what they think of their so-called regeneration plans, Councillor Twiss. A big Tesco and non-affordable housing for Seaton. Exmouth – where a protest group is going from strength to strength as initial plans turn into luxury flats)
Building homes on the Mill Street site, if this did go ahead, would be part of the district council’s ongoing commitment to providing jobs and affordable housing for Sidmouth’s upcoming generation of school-leavers and young families and was entirely in line with the Government’s wish to see an end to a nationwide housing drought. (Er, no it isn’t – the Government just announced that it is dropping affordable housing from the requirements for developers – and as affordable rent is still considered 80% of the cost of non-affordable housing still well out of reach of Sidmouth’s young people).
MOVE FORWARD (er, not sure about that)
The Conservatives on EDDC want to see the district and its communities move forward, not stay stuck in the present or the past. They are following very carefully developed regeneration strategies in Seaton and Exmouth and these are based on years of careful study and prior consultation with the community. (See above – when consulted, both towns rejected EDDC’s plans – which went ahead anyway)
Ask fair-minded councillors in Seaton and Exmouth whether regeneration projects in their towns have been beneficial and you might get a different view from the jaundiced judgement of Ms Gardner. (Ah, fair-minded councillors – these seem to be anyone who agrees with Councillor Twiss!)
Sidmouth must not be left behind. We want to see a number of improvements to help the town move forward and we will resist any attempt by people like Ms Gardner to hold Sidmouth back. (Did you notice here that none of the so-called improvements are named? That’s because there aren’t any apparently!)
Any assumption by recently elected councillors that nothing happened before they arrived on the scene is both naïve and arrogant. A lot of good things are happening. These new councillors should make the effort to find out how hard members and officers have worked in the past and resist the temptation to be new brooms sweeping away good ideas just for the sake of scoring cheap political points. (Oh, Councillor Twiss – it is precisely because such a lot DID happen before they were elected that they got elected in the first place. Just why should new councillors be tied to the past and why should they not be new brooms – and just who is trying to score cheap political points here?)
Well done, Councillor Gardner – you must be doing something right if you have brought out the attack dogs so early in your councillorship! Keep up the good work for the citizens of Sidmouth! They needed someone like you and the district needs someone like you to hold power to account.
Seaton/Colyton green wedge planning application – further information
The Planning Application for the Green Wedge is now on the EDDC Planning website.
Ref: 15/2188/MOUT
and now includes the name of the developer -Seaton Park (Devon) Ltd.
It is now on the Agenda for the Colyton Parish Council Meeting on Monday 12th October at 7.00pm in Colyford Memorial Hall.
It has not yet been scheduled for hearing at Seaton Town Council.
Comments have to be in by 27th October latest.
Buck stops with councils when contracting-out goes wrong
EDDC confirms that meetings about Exmouth seafront are taking place in secret with no minutes
“You have asked for details of meetings held with Grenadier, Exmouth Bowling Club and NCIS as well as a copy of a presentation to Exmouth Town Council, in relation to the development at Queens Drive, Exmouth.
I am advised that no minutes of the meetings referred to above are held.”
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/meetings_re_the_splash#incoming-716477
Seaton/Colyford green wedge attacked yet again by same developers who lost on appeal
Planning Application for Industrial Units, and 150 houses (75 affordable), on the Green Wedge between Seaton and Colyford, in the same area as this developer’s two previous Planning Applications which were refused, and the Appeal which was also turned down.
The Planning Application number is 15/2188/MOUT and can be seen on the EDDC Planning website (no drawings etc. shown as yet).
There is a Parish Council Meeting next Monday in the Colyford Memorial Hall on Monday 12 October at 7.00pm, when it has been requested that this be added to the Agenda for discussion at the Meeting.
Junior doctor’s protest in song
Developers will not have to pay for infrastructure, schools
“Under the “starter homes” programme, originally announced a year ago, 200,000 first-time buyers will be able to purchase new houses or flats at a 20% discount.
The quid pro quo of this arrangement is that developers will be relieved of their obligations to provide affordable homes for rent, or having to pay for general local infrastructure such as roads, or indeed schools.”
Devon County Council “to gamble on property investment”
Devon County Council’s senior councillors are being urged to gamble up to £30million on the rising property market to help make up for Government cuts.
They are also advised to put Barclays Bank back on its approved list of “counterparties for lending” , despite its recent downgrading in the light of new banking rules.
The ruling executive will next week consider a report recommending they sanction an investment in the Churches, Charities and Local Authorities) Property Fund (CCLA) instead of bank deposits.
The CCLA fund currently has investments of over £300 million, with over 100 local authority investors including Plymouth City Council and four Devon town councils.
A report to the cabinet meeting points out the “risk” that property value could go down and that with charges a 3% rise in the market would be required for the authority to break even.
“This means that any investment would need to be medium to long term, a minimum of 2-3 years” the report said.
“Capital growth would need to be around 3% per year to ensure that the capital redeemed at the end of the investment was at least equal to the initial amount
invested,” it added.
Finance officers at the council calculate that a £30 million investment “would have the potential to yield up to £1 million additional investment income in 2016/17 and 2017/18 to help offset the budget pressures facing the council”.
But it also represents “an increased risk of loss of capital in comparison to the use of term deposits with banks and building societies”.
Meaning of “affordable home” to change to benefit developers – rented homes excluded
Hard to see how this will help in East Devon – except that it will further benefit developers:
“In one of his central policies due to be unveiled in his closing speech, Cameron will say: “For years politicians have been talking about building what they call affordable homes but the phrase was deceptive. It basically means ones that were only available for rent. What people want are homes they can actually own.
“When a generation of hardworking men and women in their 20s and 30s are waking up each morning in their childhood bedrooms, that should be a wake-up call for all of us. We need a national crusade to get houses built. That means banks lending, government releasing land and, yes, planning being reformed.”
In the key reform, ministers will change the definition of affordable housing to include not just properties for rent, but starter homes, as part of the government’s programme to build low-cost homes for first-time buyers so long as they are under 40 years old. It will mean developers will have fulfilled their obligations to a council if they build homes for purchase.
Under the scheme, houses must must be 20% below the market rent and capped at £450,000 inside London and £250,000 outside. …
… The scheme is likely to be popular with developers, who prefer building homes for purchase as they immediately receive income on the property’s sale, unlike a rented property that involves a much slower rental income stream spread over as long as 20 years..
http://gu.com/p/4d3n
“Exmouth Splat”: recent EDW post has had renewed interest
It’s not often an old post gets resuscitated by readers of this blog, but this one – on the chequered past of Moirai Capital – the company chosen for the Exmouth seafront development, posted in July, has suddenly sprung to life again – hmmm:
Are under-25s too lazy to deserve the National Minimum Wage?
TORY SAYS PEOPLE UNDER 25 ARE TOO LAZY FOR MINIMUM WAGE:
Workers under the age of 25 are not “productive” enough to warrant being paid the new National Living Wage, according to Government Minister Matthew Hancock.
In this summer’s budget, Chancellor George Osborne announced a new minimum wage for over 25s would come into force from next April, starting at £7.20 an hour and increasing to £9 by 2020. But those under 25 will be on the old minimum wage rates, meaning they are entitled to £6.70 an hour, down to £5.30 for 18 to 20 year olds and £3.87 for under 18s.
Trade union Unison said the remarks showed the Government was “out of touch”. A Survation poll for the Huffington Post published last week showed the majority of Britons – 66 per cent – believe the new higher rate should be given to under 25s.
Speaking at a fringe event at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester this afternoon, Mr Hancock defended the different rates. He said: “This was an active policy choice. Youth unemployment, whilst falling quite sharply, is still a long way above the unemployment rate for the over 25s.
“Anybody who has employed people knows that younger people, especially in their first jobs, are not as productive, on average. “Now there are some who are very productive under the age of 25 but you have to set policy for the average. It was an active choice not to cover the under 25s.”
A UNION OFFICIAL DISAGREES:
Reacting to the remarks this afternoon, Unison General Secretary Dave Prentis said: “Remarks like this show just how out of touch the government is. Young people are every bit as productive as older workers, and can have just the same responsibilities as their more mature workmates.
“A young home care worker, for example, has to do exactly the same stressful job as the older colleagues on their team, and probably isn’t even getting the minimum wage as many aren’t paid for their travel between appointments.
“Younger workers under 25 with families face a double whammy. First they are denied a pay rise and then they get hit hard by the planned cuts to tax credits. “Thanks to the meanness of this government, under 25s with one child doing a 35 hour week on the national minimum wage won’t get the £910 a year pay increase next April, but they will still lose £1,754.20 from the tax credit changes. “Ministers should think again on tax credits, and on their decision to deny young workers the pay rise others are getting.”
Source: today’s Huffington Post UK
Tory MP demands greater transparency over health cuts
” … the former GP [Sarah Woollaston, Conservative Totnes] had some stern words for Mr Hunt regarding his department’s attitude to transparency. The health secretary has consistently pushed for “transparency and openness” about NHS performance. However, earlier this week it emerged two reports on the state of services due to be published last month have not yet been released, and Dr Wollaston said she is still awaiting details of a review on the affects of sugar. “We’ve heard the word transparency mentioned several times by the secretary of state but I’m afraid transparency has to apply to him as well,” she said.”
Why one party councils are dangerous
“In modern democracies one of the main pillars of good government and control of cor- ruption is elections and electoral accountability. The change of political leadership or the risk of such change is expected to discipline holders of political power to use it for the public good rather than for their own private benefit. In addition, a strong opposition in parliaments and local councils can also increase scrutiny of the governing party through institutional checks and balances such as setting up investigative committees or using legal challenge. …
… For the purposes of this report, corruption is understood in a broad sense going beyond outright bribery. In public procurement, the aim of political or high-level corruption is
to steer the contract to the favoured bidder without detection recurrently in an institu- tionalised fashion (Fazekas & Tóth, 2014; World Bank, 2009). This is done in a number of ways, including avoiding competition (e.g., unjustified sole sourcing or direct contract awards), favouring a certain bidder by tailoring specifications, or sharing inside informa- tion. Such corruption may involve bribery and transfers of large cash amounts, but it is more typically done through broker firms, subcontracts, offshore companies, and bogus consultancy contracts to name a few typical instruments.
http://electoral-reform.org.uk/sites/default/files/THE%20COST%20OF%20ONE-PARTY%20COUNCILS.pdf
Recent case law on the validity of Neighbourhood Plans
Muttering in the Local Authority ranks
… “Facing more cuts of as much as another 40%, the LGA’s submission to Osborne is a warning. Does he realise his own micro-managing policies, far from devolving, have imposed £10bn in new costs? A pre-election sweetener forcing councils to cut rents by 1% costs them £2.6bn. They are losing £3bn by the exemption Osborne has granted developers from a section 106 levy to pay councils for affordable housing. Universal credit loses councils more, and so does raising the minimum wage.
Osborne’s devolution may gift new powers, but as Nick Forbes, the Newcastle council leader, says: “Don’t pass the buck without passing the bucks.” Where’s the money? Osborne’s northern powerhouse project is a brilliant land-grab on Labour heartlands. He flattered seven northern leaders by sweeping them up on his grand China tour – though they had little face time to lobby him on council funding.”
…”The delusion here is that the Tories are invading the political centre ground, or the “common ground”, vacated by Labour. But remember how far to the right is Osborne’s turf. By 2020 the state will have shrunk to just 35% of GDP, smaller even than the United States, and far below the German 45% of GDP. His common ground will be a desolate desert, and what’s left of its public realm a miserable place. Few voters have been told this is his destination. Nor is it clear what his vision is for the country once he gets there.
That single-minded purpose is why there is no U-turn on tax credits: his £12bn benefit cuts are an act of faith. David Cameron and Osborne can only lie about the effects, defying the Institute for Fiscal Studies – the great arbiter – as “not right”. Preposterous claims by ministers that cutting tax credits means “cultural change” for people already in work show how far this is from being the “workers’ party”. Dangerously, they come to believe their own fictions, as Osborne repeats yet again that we have 1% of the world’s population and 4% of the world’s wealth, but spend 7% of the world’s welfare. Even the slowest brain works out that global welfare includes the likes of Somalia and Ethiopia.
Triumph sweeps caution away: they think they see Lib Dems vanquished, Labour departing the fray, boundary changes securing everlasting victory. They talk of standing in the foothills of a decade or more of power unrestrained: all they have to fear is themselves and their hubris. The NHS teeters on financial collapse, while the social care crisis risks scandals of neglect. David Davis and the Sun warn tax creditswill be their poll tax – while the referendum storm is gathering in their ranks. Europhobic invincibility makes them reckless: they may need no official opposition when they set so many land mines for themselves. …”
Hugo Swire accused of abandoning British political prisoner in Burma
“Burma Campaign UK today accused Foreign Office Minister Hugo Swire MP of failing in one of his most fundamental duties, the support and protection of British citizens overseas.
Hugo Swire, the Foreign Office Minister with responsibility for Myanmar, has abandoned Philip Blackwood, a British political prisoner serving hard labour in the country’s notorious Insein Jail, the group said in a statement on 5 October.
.. when Foreign Office Minister Hugo Swire visited Myanmar a few weeks ago, and met with government officials, he didn’t even call for the release of Philip Blackwood or the other two political prisoners in this case.
The Foreign Office is trying to treat this as a lower level consular case, rather than a political case where Ministers must intervene. They are also trying to hide behind Philip’s dual nationality, saying consular arrangements have to be made with New Zealand. This is a red herring, as this should not be treated as simply a consular case. There is no justice or rule of law in Myanmar.
“We have seen how the British government has abandoned Burmese political prisoners as it prioritises securing trade deals with Burma’s military backed government, but now it is even abandoning its own citizens,” said Mark Farmaner, Director of Burma Campaign UK.
“Hugo Swire seems prepared to let an innocent British citizen and his colleagues rot in a Burmese jail rather than risk upsetting his new friends in the Burmese regime. It is time for a fundamental review of British policy on Burma, and a return to prioritising human rights.”
East Devon Watch 