Pigs, snouts, troughs, gravy trains …

He says it is OK because none of them are health-related.

One is with the Roche drug company,

One is with The US private equity firm Blackstone “which was criticised in 2011 after the collapse of Southern Cross care home group under a mountain of debt. The lives of 31,000 elderly residents were thrown into turmoil through the actions of Blackstone, which had bought Southern Cross in 2004 and sold out three years later at a huge profit having sold most of its property assets”.

and

one is with a company that receives funding from “fitness companies” and Coca Cola.

These are in addition to his two other jobs
with management consultants Bain & Company and a consultancy set up by his wife called Low Associates.

“Low Associates helps people prepare before they give evidence to committees of MPs, and Sally Low has given speeches on improving lobbying skills, in which she said that lobbyists should “establish positive relationships with decision-makers before you need their help”. Lobbyist clients of Low Associates personnel have previously worked for a variety of companies including those with an interest in health, such as SmithKline Beecham, Unilever and Procter & Gamble.”

“Until December 2009, Lansley received £134 an hour from a firm of advertisers that represents clients such as Walkers Crisps, McDonald’s, Unilever, Mars and Pizza Hut; Private Eye suggests a link between these activities and Lansley’s desire to see a more lightly regulated food industry.[38] The same publication suggested a similar link to a Department of Health report on red meat in which the only products listed in the report found to contain suitable amounts of red meat to merit a “Good” rating were a McDonald’s Big Mac, and a Peperami (manufactured by Unilever)”

“The three jobs were taken by the former health secretary despite David Cameron’s promise in 2010 to end the ‘revolving door’ between government and the private sector.”

Last night Lord Lansley told the Daily Mail that he expected the majority of the work he does for the companies to be unrelated to health.”

SO WHAT EXACTLY ARE THEY ALL PAYING HIM FOR?

He was recently made a Lord by David Cameron

Sources:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Lansley

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3320858/Should-not-work-Ex-Health-Secretary-Andrew-Lansley-defends-private-sector-jobs-including-advising-drugs-firm.html

Skypark – reality or illusion?

Is it just Owl, or is the picture accompanying this puff job on Skypark how it currently looks or how developers hope it will look? An awful lot of stuff must have happened in the last six months if it looks like this now. Can anyone enlighten Owl – perhaps by taking a turn along the new road?

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/access-roads-completed-Exeter-s-210m-Skypark/story-28184015-detail/story.html

East Devon coastal sprawl could cost you a 27% drop in your house price if World Heritage status risked

” … the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site is formed from a massive slice of East Devon and Dorset.

This includes towns already well known to attract premium price tags such as Beer, Lyme Regis, Seaton and Sidmouth and Budleigh Salterton, which earlier this year was named among the most expensive places to buy in the Westcountry with average prices of £342,442.

According to Zoopla, while the average residential property is valued at £284,000, those near a site that holds Unesco status are valued at £362,000 – a difference of 27%.”

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/World-heritage-status-means-West-homes-attract-78/story-28184478-detail/story.html

Q. When is a Plan not a Plan? A. When it’s an EDDC fudge?

At the July Public Examination Inspector Thickett instructed EDDC to reach agreement with Natural England over outstanding issues regarding compliance with the European Habitat Directive. These are legally binding on EDDC and, therefore, potential show stoppers. (It is claimed the phrasing he used was “lock yourselves in a darkened room until you reach agreement” – but who would voluntarily do that with an EDDC planner?).

Not surprising then to find the amendments proposed to the Draft Plan by EDDC in August didn’t mention that agreement had been reached, only that there had been a “dialogue”. EDDC’s proposed solution is to duck the issue by removing any dependency between the Exmouth Master Plan and the Local Plan i.e. Exmouth regeneration is irrelevant to achieving the staggering economic growth assumed in the Local Plan.

So the Watch watchers were interested to read the following article by Becca Glidden in last Week’s Journal under the title “Setback for major regeneration sites”. Amongst all the nuanced phrasing we are left wondering when is a plan not a plan? Maybe our readers can enlighten us?

Here is the text of the article:

Major sites earmarked for regeneration have been struck out of a major new planning document – after objections from Natural England.

The sites include the seafront Splash Zone/ Queen’s Drive, the Imperial Road car park, the rugby ground, bus station, estuary car park, London Inn car park and town centre post office.

They have been removed from the proposed East Devon Local Plan, which is currently undergoing public consultation.
The regeneration works have been deleted from the proposed planning document because Natural England said the proposals were not `legally sound’.

Natural England, a group championing the preservation of the natural environment for future generations, said East Devon District Council (EDDC) had failed to carry out a full conservation assessment of the Exmouth sites earmarked for regeneration. [Comment from Owl: Natural England is the Government’s statutory advisory body on this – i.e. top dog].

In a letter to EDDC, Natural England said: “Because we advise that we are unable to agree that the Habitat Regulations Assessment is complete, we consider that the Local Plan is not legally sound, since the statutory requirements of the assessment process have not been followed.

This remains the case.”

The regeneration sites are contained in a document called the Exmouth Masterplan, a planning paper which forms part of the proposed East Devon Local Plan.

An EDDC spokesperson told the Journal: “The Exmouth Masterplan is one of a suite of planning documents that support the [proposed] Local Plan, however, the Exmouth Masterplan needs updating.

“The issue which Natural England has concerns about, is whether all of the Exmouth Masterplan can be acceptably delivered, bearing in mind the possibility of adverse impacts on the Exe Estuary wildlife site.

“Because of the concerns expressed by Natural England, the council has withdrawn the direct links/references between the Exmouth Masterplan and the Local Plan to enable the Local Plan to move forward.

“The sites in Exmouth can still come forward, but to show that they are acceptable, each site and the scheme on that site will need to be subject to its own detailed assessment under the habitat regulations – Natural England will take a keen interest in these assessments.”

The district council said the seafront Splash/ Queen’s Drive, the Imperial Road car park, the rugby ground, bus station, estuary car park, London Inn car park and town centre post office would be included in a refreshed Masterplan, a council document which sets out the future for Exmouth.

The council said its regeneration plans for Exmouth were ongoing and would be completed.

The spokesperson said plans would be submitted for the Splash/Queens Drive development before the end of the year.
“Projects in the Masterplan remain in place for delivery. The delivery of Masterplan projects will be aligned with the new Local Plan policies, as well as wider rules and regulations. In the mean-time, the existing Masterplan remains in force.

“The Queen’s Drive proposals are proceeding and a planning application for the enabling works – road and car park – has recently been submitted.

“An application for the second phase will be forthcoming before the end of the year.”

Our summary: Now you see it, now you don’t!

That could be EDDC’s new motto, perhaps!

Freedom of Information: government copies EDDC

Government says ” publicity is a pollutant”

A new report from the Information Tribunal on a case about the Government refusing to say how often a particular committee meets says:

“Last week the Information Rights Tribunal rejected the government appeal, in a strongly worded judgment which described the Cabinet Office’s approach as “irresponsible”, its key witness as “evasive and disingenuous”, and her evidence as “of no value whatsoever”.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34813936

Several months ago, this is what an Information Tribunal said about East Devon District Council’s obstruction of information about meetings concerning the future of The Knowle:

“… Correspondence on behalf of the Council, rather than ensuring the Tribunal was assisted in its function, was at times discourteous and unhelpful including the statement that we had the most legible copies possible. A statement, which was clearly inaccurate as subsequently, we have been
provided with perfectly legible documents. …”

Spooky!