“Devon Tory MP ‘undecided’ on EU vote – because he is overseas”

A Devon MP is yet to make up his mind on whether Britain should leave the European Union – because he is overseas.

Conservative MP Hugo Swire, who represents East Devon, is yet to indicate where he stands on the vote – due to him being away from the UK.

A spokesman for Mr Swire, who is Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said: “Mr Swire is in support of the idea of a referendum. He has been in New Zealand and is now in Canada on ministerial business. So I can’t give a yes or no. Hopefully we will be able to say by the end of this week or early next week. … ”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Devon-Tory-MP-8216-undecided-8217-EU-vote-8211/story-28784122-detail/story.html

So they don’t have email or phones in New Zealand and Canada then?

Or is he waiting to see which side of the fence others take before choosing whether to sit on it, do as Dave says, or do as his constituency party wishes?

Big dilemma for such a busy, busy traveller.

Neil Parish (Con Tiverton and Honiton) and Ben Bradshaw (Lab Exeter) have both declared themselves for IN.

Beware developers (in this case Persimmon) bearing “gifts”

Would our council have stood its ground the way Plymouth did?

“A LEADING house builder has lost its appeal against councils chiefs who insisted the firm carry out the work it promised on the Plympton homes five years ago.

A planning inspector told Persimmon Homes it had to carry out the work it was initially agreed to – the installation of solar panels on 12 executive homes it had built in Cundy Close, Woodford.

In March last year the firm narrowly avoided being taken to court by Plymouth City Council after residents and the council complained that only three of the houses received the solar panels.

Residents also pointed out the company never installed footpath lighting as agreed with the planning chiefs.

As the council prepared to take Persimmon Homes to court for breach of conditions the hearing was vacated as on the day of trial the building firm submitted an application to vary the condition.

Persimmon Homes applied to amend the energy strategy for the site, claiming the panels were not needed as the homes were energy efficient.

One angry resident wrote to the council’s planning chiefs saying ““Persimmon should have fulfilled their obligation under the original planning permission when these houses were built.”

At the time the council’s joint planning chairs Cllr Bill Stevens and Cllr Patrick Nicholson refused the application as it “does not with the council’s policy on Renewable Energy or deliver the proposals outlined in the applicant’s own energy strategy, approved as part of the planning permission.

“The development should incorporate enough renewable energy equipment to offset at least 15 percent of predicted carbon emissions for the period up to 2016.”

Rather than carry out the work Persimmon Homes chose to appeal the decision.

After months of deliberation, the planning inspector agreed with the residents and Plymouth City Council, telling Persimmon Homes its new energy saving assessment did not mean it could avoid finishing the work it initially proposed to do.

The inspectors report notes how the photovoltaic PV cells “so far installed achieve 6 percent reductions in predicted carbon emissions through on-site renewable energy production”, which was not disputed by Persimmon Homes.

However, the inspector also noted how the council had “two relevant objectives; to reduce energy consumption and thereby carbon emissions, through the use of insulation and good design, and to require the production of on-site renewable energy”

As such, the firm’s proposed measures “would not comply” with the council’s policies.

The inspector said the firm’s proposal fell “considerably short of the 15 percent target for offsetting predicted carbon emissions through on-site energy production by renewable sources” and it would “unacceptably conflict” with the council’s policy.

The inspector also noted how the firm admitted how retrofitting the PV cells “would be technically feasible” and dismissed their appeal.

Cllr Bill Stevens said the planning inspector “quite rightly” backed the council’s planning decision which showed “the benefit of locally appointed people taking these decisions – we know our area better.”

He said the ball was now in Persimmon Homes’ court and he would be meeting with the council’s enforcement officers be updated on the firm’s response.

He said: “It’s the same for every application. The planning process is there to make sure that you can allow appropriate development and we take a robust stance with every applicant, whether they are a multi-million company or a small local builder.

“Everybody has to comply with the rules and to my mind there’s no exception to that.”

Cllr Patrick Nicholson also urged residents of Cundy Close to consult their solicitors, suggesting Persimmon Homes procrastination over the installing of the solar panels may have caused residents to lose out on cheaper energy bills since 2012.

A spokesman for Persimmon refused to rule out yet further action. Daniel Heathcote, director in charge at Persimmon Homes Cornwall said: “We are reviewing the inspector’s findings before making a decision on what action to take.”

In September 2011 the council’s planning committee granted Persimmon Homes permission to build a 1,684 home development at the former Plymstock Quarry site – now named Saltram Meadows – after a £26m package was agreed. The agreement saw the company promise contributions to the local infrastructure, including £1.5m towards sports provision, of which £420,000 will go towards a swimming pool in Plymstock.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Persimmon-Homes-told-finish-work-Plympton/story-28784041-detail/story.html

Public speaking at EDDC planning meetings – or public gagging?

A “success” for whom? Certainly not us. And transparency – of course not. But thank you for trying, Susie.

This is why we need independent councillors.

And how do we know that it REALLY is “first come, first served”?

From the blog of Independent Councillor Susie Bond:

“The year-long trial for public speaking at planning meetings (DMC) has come to an end and my pleas for the Council to return to the old system of allowing anyone to speak on a planning application have fallen on deaf ears.

Under the old system, all an interested resident had to do was to add their name to a list at the entrance of the council chamber on the day of the meeting.

It was as simple as that.

Now, in order to be able to speak, you have to jump through several cumbersome hoops. Instructions on EDDC’s website and DMC agendas read:

“To speak on an application at Development Management Committee you must have submitted written comments during the consultation stage of the application. Those who have commented on an application being considered by the Committee will receive a letter or email (approximately 9 working days before the meeting) detailing the date and time of the meeting and instructions on how to register to speak. The letter/email will have a reference number, which you will need to provide in order to register.

Those who are eligible to speak for up to 3 minutes on an application can register from 10am, 6 working days before the meeting up until 12 noon, 3 working days before the meeting, by leaving a message on 01395 517525 or e-mailing planningpublicspeaking@eastdevon.gov.uk.”

The trial was instigated because the length of meetings was becoming ridiculously long and (it was suggested) it was members of the public who spent too long putting their points across and, heaven forfend, repeating themselves, which made them so.

My view is that DMC meetings were becoming overlong because of the very many applications being submitted by landowners and developers keen to secure planning consent in inappropriate locations while EDDC had no Local Plan in place. Without a Local Plan and the required 5-year land supply, planning applications were determined on the sustainability of the site … and lengthy meetings were made even lengthier by DMC members trying to find reasons for refusal which would stand up at appeal.

But the hoops are even more complex. The instructions continue:

“The number of people who can speak on each application is limited to:

• Major applications – parish/town council representative, 5 supporters, 5 objectors and the applicant or agent

• Minor/Other applications – parish/town council representative, 2 supporters, 2 objectors and the applicant or agent

Whether an application is classified under the legislation as a major, minor or other will be noted on the agenda for the meeting.

An officer will only contact those whose request to speak has been successful. Speakers will be registered on a first come, first served basis. The contact details of registered speakers, unless advised otherwise, will be posted on the website to allow others, who may have wished to speak, to contact them.

The day before the meeting a revised running order for the applications being considered by the Committee will posted on the website. Applications with registered speakers will be taken first.”

A report on the public-speaking arrangements came before the Standards Committee in January and then to DMC on 16 February and it was resolved to continue with the trial for a further year with a view to making it permanent thereafter. Members of DMC were asked to acknowledge the success of the trial.

‘Success’

The ‘success’ of the trial is debatable.

It has certainly made planning meetings more efficient and less time-consuming, but the length of time they take is now the same as it was before the introduction of the Draconian planning laws (the NPPF), so the stringent rules on public speaking at DMC are no longer necessary.

Members of the public are outraged at their speaking rights being curtailed and are making their voices heard to their district councillors.

It’s through listening to the views of the communities who are affected by any planning application that pertinent planning questions have been raised at DMC and which planning officers have been required to clarify.

We have created a system which is unnecessarily complicated for the general public to navigate and places an extra burden on Democratic Services officers who run the meetings.

Some might consider that this policy of making it difficult for the people of East Devon to exercise their democratic right is a bad thing and indeed that it reflects poorly on EDDC.

https://susiebond.wordpress.com/2016/02/22/public-speaking-at-planning-meetings/

Devolution – the “Northern Powerhouse”: “pie-in-the sky” with our money

Isn’t it interesting that all devolution projects include at least one mega-billion pound project that comes off the government’s books and on to those of devolved areas – presumably allowing government to manipulate the national debt to show that the deficit is coming down … when costs have simply moved. And all of them include the word “regeneration” to make them look inviting. Not that the word is an inviting one in East Devon!

“There is no guarantee that investing billions in infrastructure will help the North of England, the man leading the “Northern Powerhouse” project says.

But former CBI chief John Cridland told the BBC that people should take a “leap of faith” on new roads and railways. He said he believed reducing journey times between northern cities would improve the economy.
But critics say the money might be better spent on training and skills – or on transport within cities.

Mr Cridland’s quango Transport for the North is due to publish its first report soon.

The chancellor’s advisory National Infrastructure Commission also will make recommendations on Northern transport.

‘Pie in the sky’

The bodies have been considering transport options such as a motorway running under the Peak District from Sheffield to Manchester, or an HS3 rail link between Leeds and Manchester.

But Anne Robinson, from Friends of the Peak District, told BBC News: “These are just pie-in-the-sky schemes. We haven’t been given the slightest shred of evidence that they will do any good.”

She warned that the motorway scheme – running more than 30 miles underground – would cost a fortune, as well as creating congestion in roads at either end of the tunnel and potentially disrupting the ecology of the Peaks National Park.

Mr Cridland said ambitious infrastructure should be on the agenda: “I’m not claiming there is perfect science here. “But I am convinced that after decades of under-investment, it’s now time to close that investment gap – and it will lead to better travelling experiences and economic growth.
“Transport economics can’t always prove this: sometimes, like the Victorian engineers, you have to take a leap of faith.”

Ms Robinson said it was foolish to take a leap of faith with billions of public money.

It is likely, though, that both quangos reporting on transport in the north will concentrate their efforts on solutions which bring quick improvement for travellers – like electrifying the Leeds-Manchester route and putting on extra carriages.

Regeneration

Another likely favourite option will be to introduce hard-shoulder running by making all of the M62 a “smart” motorway.

The two bodies may also be anxious to keep hope alive for heroic inter-city infrastructure in the north so people have faith in the regeneration of the region.

There is already a degree of cynicism about ambitious words from Westminster. One Manchester business leader disparaged the term “Northern Powerhouse”.

“It’s a bit embarrassing isn’t it? Frankly it looks like a brand in search of a product,” he told me.

Mr Cridland maintains that already the Powerhouse slogan itself has created a sense of excitement and purpose.

The team making key decisions on train operation in the north has been shifted from the south to Leeds, he says – and this is making planners more responsive to local needs.

The big cities of the north are talking to each other, making plans, dreaming they can really breathe new life into the region, Mr Cridland says.

Now, he confesses, some infrastructure has to follow.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35625738

Hinkley Point: all our eggs in a very fragile basket

If devolution leaves East Devon in the hands of our Local Enterprise Partnership, we know that its vanity project will be the Hinkley Point C nuclear reactor, an “investment” that we will be forced to fund to the tune of millions (or billions) of pounds with other Devon and Somerset councils and other LEPs nearby. This has already been decided behind closed doors:

http://www.heartofswlep.co.uk/news/south-west-nuclear-cluster-%E2%80%93-delivering-benefits-hinkley-point-c-local-business-community-and

EDF is attempting to partner with Chinese investors on this project but we have known for some time that they are not only having difficulty raising their own finance but that there are major problems in the Chinese economy and also serious worries that the type of reactor they want to build is entirely wrong.

From “The Ecologist if 20 February 2016.

“EDF were supposed to give a final decision on the project this week but the decision was postponed, though EDF stated their intention to begin the project in 2019.

Definitive construction of what will be built on the site, what we call the first concrete, is on the horizon for 2019.” [says EDF]

The idea that there will be a three year delay before any concrete is poured after a positive decision to proceed has caught observers, and contractors lined up to work on the project, by surprise. Earth moving and site preparation has already been under way for several years, plans are at an advanced stage, and heavy engineering works would normally be expected to begin within months.

The date, 2019, is a year after the reactors were originally due to be completed. The timetable has gradually slipped backwards. Last year the date for power to start being generated was put back to 2025, but this new date for pouring concrete makes 2030 more likely – if the reactors are built at all.

One insider with close contacts within EDF told The Ecologist: “The fact is that EDF is already in a precarious financial situation, with its share price half what it was a year ago, a falling credit rating, and massive liabilities for reactor upgrades and decommissioning.

“It has so far sunk £2 billion into Hinkley C and it simply cannot afford to write that sum off even if has already decided that this project is a total loss. So they have to pretend that it’s a goer and that the £2 billion is a live investment that will, one day, produce a return to its shareholders.”

In other words, a final investment decision to go head may, in fact, be no such thing. The company could just be planning to keep a few earth movers trundling about on the site, for years, on end, to give the appearance of activity while it seeks a graceful way out of the gigantic hole it has dug for itself.

The most likely long term plan, our source continued, is to try to sell the entire site on to its Chinese partner CGN after a few years. However CGN would then want to use a new reactor design, probably its own ‘Hualong’ model – which would then create additional long delays as no example has yet been built and it would have to undergo rigorous safety examination.

Record of delays, cost hikes and safety concerns

The new proposed start date of 2019 is significant for reasons the company dare not spell out. This is because there is no evidence yet that these so-called EPR (European Pressurised Reactor, no renamed ‘Evolutionary Power Reactor’) will operate effectively.

Four EPRs are under construction, but are years behind schedule, and costs have tripled. In Europe their earliest proposed start date is 2018 – so it looks as though EDF is being careful not to begin building another one until it can prove the design actually works.

The EPR, a so called ‘third generation’ design, is the largest nuclear plant in the world. They have a chequered history, even before any has actually produced a single watt of electricity. Construction of the first prototype began in 2005 at Olkiluoto in Finland: expected to be finished in 2009, it is still under construction.

The same is true of the second, at Flamanville in France, where construction began in 2007. It has also hit delays and cost over-runs of staggering proportions, and technical problems – in the form of a metallurgically flawed pressure reactor and lid – that could sink the project completely.

The vessel and lid contains too much carbon and is undergoing stress testing to see if it is safe. While the outcome of these tests remains unknown, a question mark hangs over the station’s future. It too is due to start in 2018 but few believe it will do so.

The other two EPRs are being built at Taishan in China. Both should have been in operation by this year, but both also have undergone unspecified delays.

These difficulties, plus the vast amount of remedial safety work required by the French safety regulators from EDF on its fleet of 58 ageing reactors in France itself, have put the company under severe financial strain. It needs to find €100 billion for repairs, and to improve safety following the Fukushima disaster in Japan, to keep the plants operating until 2030.

As a result of fears that the company might overstretch itself and jeopardise jobs in France the six trade union representatives on EDF’s board have expressed opposition to the company going ahead with building reactors on British soil.

UK energy policy in tatters

This further postponement of a start date for the new reactors leaves the UK government with a gaping hole in its energy policy, despite it offering to pay double the existing price of electricity for the output from Hinkley Point, a subsidy that will continue for 35 years.

The Conservative government has been relying on nuclear energy to replace fossil fuels from 2025, when it plans to phase out all its coal stations. Some renewable energy subsidies have been scrapped to make way for new nuclear stations. As a result the UK is due to miss its EU renewable energy targets.

In all, the Conservative government wants ten new nuclear stations in the UK – four EPRs and the rest from Japan and the US. None of these now seems likely to be built before 2030, if at all.

Perhaps to divert attention from the postponement of the new reactors, EDF announced that it was going to extend the life of four of the nuclear power stations it already operates in Britain. It bought eight ageing stations of British design in 2009 for £12.5 billion.

Some were already due to close in 2018 but have had their lives extended. Now another four will be kept open to bridge the gap left by the failure to build the new stations at Hinkley Point. These are the Heysham 1 plant in northwest England and another at Hartlepool in the northeast, both of which had been due to be switched off in 2019 because of their advanced age. They will be allowed to keep producing electricity for another five years.

Two other reactors, Heysham 2 and Torness in Scotland, have been granted extensions of seven years to 2030. There is no reason – as long as the stations are deemed safe – why further life extensions should not be applied for, and granted.

Continuing to apply for life extensions for old nuclear stations also saves the company from technical bankruptcy. Once a station is closed its decommissioning costs become company liabilities. With the company’s debts already high, it would not take many closures for EDF’s liabilities to exceed its assets.”

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2987225/nuclear_zombie_hinkley_c_build_wont_start_until_2019_if_at_all.html

What happens when “economic growth” spirals out of control

Lots of (poorly paid, temporary and zero- hours contracts) employment, massive “growth” and disastrous consequences. Coming soon to a town near you – perhaps Cranbrook when the supermarket depot opens on its doorstep and more companies relocate to its “enterprise zone”?

Police say they have safety concerns about overcrowded houses in the town where one of Europe’s largest sports retailers is based.

Sports Direct employs at least 3,500 agency workers at its site in Shirebrook, Derbyshire.

While filming in the town, the BBC was shown houses “carved into flats”, including one with rooms partitioned down the middle of its windows.
Bolsover Council admitted it was caught off guard by the influx of workers.
Figures obtained by the BBC also show 46 housing complaints relating to overcrowding, repairs and conditions were made from April 2015 to 21 December last year – up from 16 in 2005 to 2006.

The Sports Direct agency workers, largely employed in the company’s warehouse, come mainly from Eastern European countries like Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania and Albania.

There are 500 permanent staff at the site.

The council estimates 1,500 people have moved to Shirebrook – which has a population of more than 13,000 – in the last four years, with many renting rooms in houses near the company’s headquarters.

Police community support officer (PCSO) Steve Cathcart said: “There’s been an influx of Eastern Europeans and the landlords that own the houses are carving these houses up into flats.

“Our concern is the fire risk, the safety to these people that are moving in.”

Police said more than 30 properties in the area were a particular worry.

The police said one of the occupants in the house where two rooms had been visibly partitioned up to the windows works at Sports Direct, but added the resident had “no fire doors”.

Bolsover councillor Karl Reid, who is responsible for community cohesion, admitted the authority had not adequately prepared itself for the sudden increase in Shirebrook’s population.

“[On the window dividers] that is not acceptable and that will be investigated,” he said.

“It was a gradual thing, then suddenly there was a massive spurt. I think that’s where we may have got it wrong or we weren’t on the ball for it, and I have to accept that.”

The authority said it had introduced public spaces protection orders to stop people drinking and urinating on the town’s streets.

It said it was also closing off a footpath near Sports Direct because of anti-social behaviour, including human defecation.

Since November, it said 20 fines have been handed out – 19 for drinking and one for urinating – to people in breach of these orders.

Mr Reid added Sports Direct’s senior staff was working with them for the first time in more than a decade.

The company – which has declined to comment – are part of a multi-agency group called Shirebrook Forward.

“They’ve changed their tack,” Mr Reid said.

“They’ve now – over the last six months – come to us and engaged with us on a senior management level.”

Sports Direct said in December they will be reviewing all agency workers’ terms and conditions after the firm was criticised for its employment practices.

That review will be overseen by majority shareholder Mike Ashley – who also owns Newcastle United Football Club.

Sports Direct has previously come under fire over staff searches and poor working conditions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-35604776

Kerp those pictures of “the other East Devon” rolling in

Entries already in for our alternative “destruction of East Devon” photo competition – and what a tale they tell.

Keep them coming:

send to

eastdevonwatch@gmail.com

They can be anonymous, just let us know where and when taken

Entries close on 30 April 2016.

Shock, horror: planning problems hit the Home Counties!

It’s a pity that Christopher Booker can’t tell his NPPF from his SPPS and that it is only when planning problems hit the Home Counties that people suddenly take notice and get press coverage.

It’s a pity that David Cameron could not, 10 days ago, have taken time from traipsing round Europe to visit the pretty Thames-side Oxfordshire village of Sutton Courtenay, not many miles from his constituency. He would have seen the main street flooded with sewage – just one consequence of his wish to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built across southern England, many of them in villages like Sutton Courtenay with its 1,000 homes (and where George Orwell, rather appropriately it seems, is buried in the churchyard).

Under Mr Cameron’s policy, which gives a cash incentive to councils to build as many new homes as possible under their own “Local Plans”, the Vale of the White Horse district council wants to see an additional 20,000 going up in the next few years. Those proposed for Sutton Courtenay, some already built, could be as many as 1,835, thus trebling the village’s population almost overnight to more than 7,000 (one of six current schemes may alone add 800 houses).

One of many glaring problems all this poses to residents is that, while the council seems only too eager to hand out planning permission to big developers, the local planners seem far less concerned about the colossal strain this will place on the village’s “infrastructure”, of which the recent tide of filth overflowing from its creaking Victorian sewerage system was only an early warning sign.

The village has just three shops, a small primary school and its surrounding roads are already under strain from a growing weight of traffic, not least a narrow bridge over the Thames which at busy times can already create long tailbacks. But when the villagers ask what plans there are to provide new infrastructure to support this avalanche of development, one document they are directed to is the government’s Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS), which in 2012 boasted it would slash thousands of pages of planning rules to little more than 50.

The SPPS opens ominously with a claim that “national and international bodies have set out broad principles of sustainable development”, beginning with UN “Resolution 42/187”. The word “sustainable” is repeated 107 times. There are 18 mentions of “climate change”. But although there are 46 references to “infrastructure” there seems remarkably little to suggest that, to ensure genuinely “sustainable” development, it might be an idea for the planners to pay rather more attention to the need for new roads, shops and even an adequate sewerage system.

When Orwell wrote of how, in his world of the future, “Peace” meant war and “Truth” meant lies, he did not foresee how “Sustainable” would likewise come to mean its very opposite. In Sutton Courtenay churchyard he must be smiling wryly in his grave.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/12166686/What-would-George-Orwell-say-to-what-the-planners-are-doing-to-his-village.html

Colyton public footpaths: research

Bumped up from a comment so people have the chance to see how a current commentator views it:

“A quick search suggests that you can find a background summary at http://www.devon.gov.uk/cma_report.htm?cmadoc=report_hcw1371.html and further documents relating to the appeal at http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/countryside/rightsofway/onlinerow/onlinerowd

The bad news is that this process seems to be well advanced – the good news is that it doesn’t appear to be completed yet.

It appears that DCC made an order on 20 November 2013 to delete these footpaths, but that this requires review by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and a Public Local Inquiry.

The Notice of review by SecState and Public Local Inquiry was dated 1 September 2014 (more than 17 months ago), with an implication that representations and objections preceded that date, and a deadline of 8 December 2014 for representers and objectors to submit their legal case. The good news is that the Public Local Inquiry has been postponed at least twice first from 11 February 2015 and then from August 2015, with no revised date appearing – and no indication why there is a delay or whether the process has stalled permanently.

I would imagine that the proposals can still be viewed at Colyton Parish Council offices on Tuesdays and Thursdays 10:30am-noon, and at Devon County Hall weekdays 9am-4pm.”

How can you have a Part A on an agenda when everything is secret!

This is what the EDDC website says about the Asset Management Forum:

The Forum is currently held in private, excluding the press and public. Agendas, reports and minutes are published below but some information has been redacted due to its confidential nature.”

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/committees-and-meetings/other-panels-and-forums/asset-management-forum/

lips

The Asset Management Forum therefore appears to meet in secret. This is its latest agenda:

Click to access 110216amfcombinedagenda.pdf

How can you have a Part A (public) section when everything is held in secret and is therefore automatically Part B?

All Part B agenda items must be announced well in advance and the reasons for the secrecy must be given.

This does not happen with the Asset Management Forum.

Why?

Or, has it suddenly been made open to the public – but no-one thought to tell us?

Curious.

Freedom of Information: information refused or not held by EDDC

Freedom of Information – Requests for information where it was refused or where they say no information is held dealt with by East Devon District Council in the last six months (September 2015 – February 2016)

Bear in mind these are only those published on the What Do They Know website – there will have been others submitted directly and refused and a large number are awaiting reply which may be refused or “awaiting internal classification” [no idea what that means!] or are subject to appeal.

Refusal to say by how much EDDC is subsidising the Leisure East Devon Ocean facility in Exmouth
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_ocean_complex_exmouth_what_f#comment-66779

More detailed information on past electricity consumption at Knowle and saying that EDDC does not “hold” utility bills like domestic consumers so it cannot provide the information requested:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/electricity_consumption_at_the_k#incoming-754358

A request as to how much temporary staffing is costing EDDC is long overdue for reply:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/temporary_staffing_121#incoming-741085

Refusal to publish the contract agreed between EDDC and PegasusLife for sale of Knowle:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/temporary_staffing_121#incoming-741085

Gas consumption at Knowle (see electricity consumption above):
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/gas_consumption_at_the_knowle#incoming-734172

Evidence for more retail outlets on Exmouth seafront – information not held so cannot be divulged:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/evidence_of_need_of_more_retail#outgoing-492759

Reports: were they critically examined or simply accepted as fact? Information not held:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/were_commissioned_reports_critic#incoming-724381

What strikes Owl: how much information EDDC ought to have at its fingertips and doesn’t.

How can they know relocation is the right thing if they don’t have numbers? How can they be sure reports are accurate if they are not critically reviewed and transparent? Why can’t we know how much our council taxes are subsidising Leisure East Devon? Why can’t we know how much temporary staff cost when Jeremy Hunt is so profligate with this information for the NHS?

Sheltered housing scrapped: not viable

“Hundreds of planned new sheltered accommodation units have been delayed or scrapped owing to proposed cuts to housing benefit, the BBC has learned.
Several housing associations have said they are no longer financially viable.

The flats, for the elderly or people with learning disabilities, are more expensive to build and run because they provide additional support.

Ministers say they are reviewing the sheltered housing sector “to ensure it works in the best way possible”.

The National Housing Federation (NHF) has calculated that nearly 2,500 units have so far been scrapped or delayed as sheltered housing providers face losing an average of £68 a week per tenant.

David Orr, chief executive of the NHF, told the BBC: “There is real impact now.

“New homes for people with support needs – vulnerable people – that would be being built have been cancelled.”

BBC News has spoken to four housing associations who confirmed their plans had needed to change:

Southdown Housing in East Sussex scrapped plans for 18 units for people with learning disabilities

Knightstone Housing in Somerset has delayed a complex of 65 homes for the elderly and 13 properties for learning-disabled people

In Manchester, Contour Homes has had to put on hold a scheme to build 36 units for the elderly

In North Yorkshire, Harrogate Neighbours has delayed construction of 55 extra care flats

The changes – announced in Chancellor George Osborne’s Autumn Statement – will bring housing benefit rates for social housing in line with the sums paid to landlords in the private sector.

Mr Osborne said the move, which will affect England, Scotland and Wales, would deliver savings of £225m by 2020-21, and is part of a £12bn package of cuts from the welfare bill.

The cap includes sheltered housing, which is more expensive to provide due to the additional support on offer – anything from canteens to round-the-clock care staff.

The benefit will not actually be cut until April 2018 but it will affect people signing new tenancies from this April.

‘We couldn’t just absorb that’

At one sheltered housing complex in Harrogate, the need for new development is clear – there is only one lift and the corridors are narrow.

“We need to move,” said resident Frank Forkes. “It’s very cramped. If the lift breaks down, it’s chaos because you’ve people upstairs in wheelchairs.”
The housing association has spent eight years developing plans for a new complex a couple of miles away.

But following the government’s announcement in November, the board of Harrogate Neighbours delayed the scheme. Under the new rules, they will lose £100,000 per annum on it.

“As an organisation we have to be absolutely certain that we can afford to deliver all the services. And at the moment, it’s not viable,” chief executive Sue Cawthray said.

The consequences of the benefit cuts are even worse for Contour Homes in Manchester.

“We stand to lose – over the course of the 40-year life cycle of the development – if things stay as they are, £3.35m. As an organisation, we couldn’t just absorb that,” director of customer services Chris Langan said.
Labour described the housing benefit cut as a “catastrophe for those who can least afford it”.

But a spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: “We’ve always been clear that we value the work the supported accommodation sector does to protect the most vulnerable members of society.

“That’s why we are carrying out a thorough review, working with the sector, to ensure that it works in the best way possible – which is what the NHF has asked for.

“We are also providing councils with £870m of Discretionary Housing Payments which can be paid to people in supported accommodation.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35583415?SThisFB

Ombudsman criticises council for lack of transparency in planning decision

“The Local Government Ombudsman has criticised a council after members of its planning committee approved an application against an officer’s recommendation but failed to give reasons for doing so.

The decision by Erewash Borough Council related to an application for a development in the Green Belt. The applicant wanted permission to extend his bungalow by adding a first floor and garage extension.

The complainants to the LGO were neighbours of the site, which was on the edge of a village.

They submitted a number of complaints, including that the initial application was not advertised properly, and that members did not give any reasons for granting planning permission.

In its report, which can be viewed here, the Ombudsman upheld these complaints, but did not uphold some others.

The LGO found that Erewash posted a site notice, which notified adjoining neighbours and the parish council, but did not advertise it in a local newspaper as a departure from the local plan.

A planning officer recommended refusal because the proposed extensions were disproportionate to the size of the original building and would increase the building’s prominence.

The officer’s report to the committee included details of the neighbours’ objections and those of the local parish council along with representations from the applicant and his agent.

Following a site visit, members decided to approve the application against the officer’s recommendation. However, no record was made of the reasons for their decision.

The LGO has recommended Erewash BC:

apologise to the neighbours for failing to publicise the application as a departure from the local plan and for also not giving reasons for the decision to grant planning permission. “The council should recognise that residents will now be uncertain of what the outcome might have been but for the council’s fault”;
review its working practices and procedures regarding how it makes and records the reasons for its decisions; and
provide training to members on giving proper reasons for their decisions.
Dr Jane Martin, Local Government Ombudsman, said: “For people to have confidence in the local planning system, decisions must be made in as transparent a way as possible. This includes making records of the reasons for those decisions.

“This is particularly important when members decide against planning officers’ recommendations. Without written reasons people who are affected by a decision cannot know exactly what has happened or feel reassured that decisions were taken fairly.

“I now urge Erewash council to provide the remedies I have recommended and improve its practices and procedures to ensure people can have faith in its planning decisions.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26049:ombudsman-criticises-council-for-lack-of-transparency-in-planning-decision&catid=63&Itemid=31

Local Enterprise Partnerships: “foxes in charge of the hen house”

Oxfordshire Green Party:

15 Oct 2015 — The Government has put the foxes in charge of the hen house. The Commission appointed to review the Freedom of Information Act is full of those antagonistic to accountability and transparency: For example, Jack Straw who vetoed the release of the cabinet minutes covering the Iraq war and called for wider restrictions covering policy development and ministerial communication.

It’s part of a pattern which includes the lack of transparency around how Local Enterprise Partnerships work.

Please help get more signatures on my petition by sharing it on facebook, emailing your friends and tweeting.

Suggesters tweet: #accountability for LEPs

Local Enterprise Partnerships spend billions of your money but you can’t hold them to account. Please sign the petition on this at change.org and tell all your friends

https://www.change.org/p/greg-clark-mp-the-secretary-of-state-for-communities-and-local-government-make-local-enterprise-partnerships-accountable-to-the-public/u/13789412

Seaton Heights: facilities complete by “June 2016” says website!

Isn’t it about time the people who own Seaton Heights put out another reason? excuse? waffle? about why it is still sitting derelict after all these years and all their promises?

The once rather posh website has gone distinctly plain these days:

http://lymebayleisure.co.uk/seaton-heights/

and yet they are still offering to reserve off-plan properties for £1,000 and give a completion date of June 2016 for facilities. Here is what they say on the website today

“The resort is only a two and half [sic] drive from central London and is serviced by mainline trains from either Paddington or Waterloo stations. Located at the entrance to Seaton and overlooking Seaton Bay and the mouth of the River Axe all of the properties being released in the first phase can be assured of wonderful sea views.

Once complete the Deck Houses will be supported by “The Gatehouse” a luxury four star leisure facility (opening in June 2016) consisting of a gymnasium and swimming pool with glass fronted views over the bay. A luxury spa with five treatment rooms, sauna, steam and herbal suits with a therapeutic thermal pool for the ultimate indulgence. The ground floor has a reception, coffee shop and sea facing restaurant providing a wonderful dining experience 7 days a week.

The first phase of Deck House are a mix of two and three bedroom properties ranging from 93 to 122 square meters all with either integral balconies or roof top terraces to enjoy the wonderful views across the bay. The properties are finished [but not yet started] to a high specification with all bedrooms having en-suite facilities and underfloor heating. The kitchen is finished with top of the range Miele appliances and all homes are air-conditioned have solid wood floors and the benefit of their own designated parking space.

Discerning purchases [sic] can secure a plot of their choice now for an initial reservation fee of just £1,000, for further details of available plots, terms and conditions and time frames please email our dedicated sales team at info@lymebayleisure.co.uk. …”

http://lymebayleisure.co.uk/luxury-properties/

They had better get a move on to finish by June!
(and you try being “easily accessible” from Paddington!)

DCC Deputy Leader moans about the effects of austerity – the platform he chose to stand on at recent elections!

Owl is having difficulty understanding why the Deputy Leader (Conservative) of Devon County Council is moaning about cuts in public services, since austerity was the platform he chose to stand on when he asked for public votes at a recent election.

What did he think was going to happen?

Those who didn’t vote for his party (the majority of voters in the country and in Devon (first past the post creates this) knew pretty much how things were going to pan out and are angry but not as surprised as Mr Clatworthy!

Here is his view:

The funding of rural counties over urban areas has been condemned as unfair by the deputy leader of Devon County Council.

John Clatworthy, who is also the cabinet member for finance, said Devon’s budget would have been very different if the county was funded at the national average.

He said the government had recognised the disparity between rural and urban funding and granted Devon an extra £8.4m – the fourth highest in the country.

But overall Devon’s residents were still suffering from historic under-funding.

“I did not come into local government to see fewer resources to support our communities,” he said.

“On the contrary, we need the right level of financial support. Devon does not receive average funding and there is a clear disparity between urban and rural funding.”

Mr Clatworthy said, on average, rural areas received £130 per person less Government funding than urban areas.

Devon’s schools got £287 less per pupil than the national average. If Devon received the average it would mean an extra £25m for the county’s schools, he said.

In Public Health, Devon got £38 per person compared with an national average of £69 whilst the City of London received £200 per person. If Devon received the average it would mean an additional £22.4m.

When it comes to transport infrastructure, for every £100 spent in the South East we receive £7.50 in the South West,” said Mr Clatworthy.

“Because we are receiving less than the average funding, many authorities must be receiving well above the average.

“That cannot be right or equitable and needs to be addressed because the cuts are felt harder on authorities with less than average funding.”

Mr Clatworthy said that the Government’s austerity agenda meant that between 2010 and 2019, almost £250m would have been removed from Devon’s budget.

But, for 2016/17, the county council would still be spending £443.5m on services. After allowing for inflation and other spending pressures, that represented savings of £34.3m on the current year.

In spite of this, there would be an increase of £11.3m in the budget for children and £5m in the budget for adult care.

Mr Clatworthy said the council had decided to accept the Government’s offer of a two per cent increase in council tax to help fund adult social care.

The increase in the living wage would cost Devon over £7 million and the two per cent rise would bring in £6.5m.

“With reduced Government support, we need to have sufficient funds to deliver all our services so, reluctantly, we are having to add 1.99 per cent to the two per cent making a 3.99 per cent increase this year.

“This additional funding will give certainty of income which is essential to protect services.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Devon-s-historic-underfunding-highlighted-council/story-28769419-detail/story.html

Transfer “assets” to town and parish councils, then threaten them if they put up their precepts to pay for them!

BOTH THESE STORIES ARE FROM THIS WEEK’S KNOWLEDGE E-NEWSLETTER PUBLISHED BY EDDC:

That’s what happens when you live in Eton La-La Land!

Council finances are in a “mess” and the vast majority have said they will need to increase charges for services to make ends meet in the face of a government funding cut of 28%, a think-tank has said. As councils finalise their 2016/17 budgets, nearly 90% said they will have to increase charges,
according to a survey by the Local Government Information Unit. The think-tank also found that:

40% would need to cut frontline services that are “evident to the public”. Nine in 10 councils will raise council tax in the coming year, compared with half in 2015. In addition, 82% of councils said they will have to dip into reserves to balance the books, up from 55% in 2015. Jonathan Carr-West, Chief Executive of LGiU, said: “Local government finance is a mess. Our research shows that right now councils are cobbling together their finances by using reserves and increasing charging wherever they can.”

So, district councils are transferring “assets” that cost money to maintain to towns and parishes – toilets, halls, etc – but not assets that make them lots of money, such as car parks. To retain these services, towns and parishes have to increase precepts to pay for them.

BUT

HERE IS THE SECOND STORY:

Parish councils wanting to raise council tax “excessively” may have to first consult the public in line with larger authorities, the Government has warned. Analysis by BBC News show 3,659 parish councils raised the basic Band D tax bill by more than 1.99%, the referendum threshold for larger councils. Sixty small authorities at least doubled residents’ bills last year. Another 130 put their bills up by between 50 and 99% while 1,001 increased the annual bill for a Band D home by £5 or more.

A Department for Communities and Local Government spokesman said: “Town and parish councils should protect their taxpayers from excessive council tax increases; if they fail to do so, government has the option of making them subject to the referendum principles in future.”

Click to access the-knowledge-19-february-2016-issue-39.pdf

Councils buying back homes they were forced to sell

“Freedom of information requests by Inside Housing show that of the £1bn raised since 2012 to replace right to buy, £27.3m of it has been used to buy back homes sold under right to buy.

The government encourages the sale of council houses by offering attractive discounts to tenants, who understandably choose to buy. The council is then faced with dwindling stocks while waiting lists lengthen and homelessness spikes. So it uses its cash to buy back the homes it could not afford to lose in the first place.

If you’re not angry, you should be – it’s a damaging policy that uses Treasury cash to gift people cut-price homes, only to buy them back at full price.”

http://gu.com/p/4gph8

“Developers should get cash incentives to build homes for the elderly” say Lords peers.

With one-bed luxury retirement apartments at Knowle almost certain to cost £300,000 plus with massive service charges, who thought up this gizzard scheme to further incentivise developers such as Pegasus Life!

The development at Millbrook Village in Exeter is advertising one-bed apartments at £325,000 upwards and two-bed properties at £550,000 upwards.

http://www.millbrookvillage.co.uk/available-properties/

No mention of TRULY AFFORDABLE homes to buy or to rent for the poorest of our elderly some of whom may be stuck in council houses paying bedroom tax because there are no suitable properties for them.

Do you think it is a good idea to further assist these developers?

From the article in the Daily Telegraph

“Developers should get cash incentives to build more homes for the elderly, a cross-party committee of peers has said, warning that developers are getting away with building poor quality homes in the rush to meet rising demand for new homes.

They said that while 60 per cent of “household growth in England up to 2033″ will be for those headed by someone aged over 65, just two per cent of current homes in homes in the country were fit for pensioners.

The peers on the select committee on National Policy for the Built Environment said creating more homes for pensioners would free up billions of pounds-worth of large homes for young families.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/greenpolitics/planning/12163901/Reward-developers-which-build-more-homes-for-the-elderly-peers-tell-Government.html

Law Commission Consultation: Misconduct in public office

“To launch our consultation, we have published our first paper on Misconduct in Public Office.

Misconduct in Public Office: Issues Paper 1 – The Current Law is a background document that sets out the current law of misconduct in public office, highlighting problems that arise through areas of uncertainty, as well as gaps and overlaps with alternative offences.

We launched the first phase of our consultation with a symposium of eminent speakers and delegates, which coincided with the publication of Issues Paper 1 on 20 January 2016 (we have published a selection of tweets from the day). Our focus at this stage is on the current law and its problems. The aim of the paper and symposium is to provide us with an opportunity to stimulate informed debate on the problems identified, explore the options for reform and engage with practitioners and experts who deal with the offence. We seek responses to the questions set out in this background paper by 20 March 2016.

The second phase of consultation will begin later this spring with the publication of a paper exploring options for reform. A final report will be published in 2017.

Our project

Our reform objectives are to decide whether the existing offence of misconduct in public office should be abolished, retained, restated or amended and to pursue whatever scheme of reform is decided upon.

The legal concepts involved in the offence of misconduct in public office are highly technical and complex and not easily accessible to non-lawyers.

Furthermore there is often some confusion between what the law is and what it should be. The question of the appropriate boundaries of criminal liability for public officials is clearly a matter of broad public interest.

The offence and its problems

Misconduct in public office is a common law offence: it is not defined in any statute. It carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The offence requires that: a public officer acting as such; wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself; to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder; without reasonable excuse or justification.

Historically the offence held public officers to account for their misconduct, where there were no other adequate ways of doing so. Nowadays such misconduct will usually amount to another, narrower and better defined, criminal offence.

The offence is widely considered to be ill-defined and has been subject to recent criticism by the government, the Court of Appeal, the press and legal academics.

Statistics suggest that more people are being accused of misconduct in public office while fewer of those accusations lead to convictions. One possible reason is that the lack of clear definition of the offence renders it difficult to apply.

We have identified a number of problems with the offence:

“Public office” lacks clear definition yet is a critical element of the offence. This ambiguity generates significant difficulties in interpreting and applying the offence.

The types of duty that may qualify someone to be a public office holder are ill-defined. Whether it is essential to prove a breach of those particular duties is also unclear from the case law.

An “abuse of the public’s trust” is crucial in acting as a threshold element of the offence, but is so vague that it is difficult for investigators, prosecutors and juries to apply.

The fault element that must be proved for the offence differs depending on the circumstances. That is an unusual and unprincipled position.

Although “without reasonable excuse or justification” appears as an element of the offence, it is unclear whether it operates as a free standing defence or as a definitional element of the offence.

Please contact us if you have any enquiries about this project.”

Misconduct in Public Office