What an interesting Constitution our Local Enterprise Partnership has!

The full application for our LEP to be a Community Interest Company (!) was submitted on 6 February 2014, so our councillors and business people were working on this for a full 18 months before letting anyone know what they were doing.

The full document is here:

application-pdf

A few things to note:

There are a lot of blank spaces in the application!

It is a 53 page document and the Constitution commences on page 22.

Community Interest Companies are supposed to “lock” their assets so that, if the company is disbanded, they are firstly offered back to the community that is supposed to be interested. However:

3.1 says they must be transferred at full consideration but if article 3.3 is satisfied this will not apply. Article 3.3 says that assets can be disposed of at less than full consideration!

The “Object” of the company is that the Company is to “carry on activities which benefit the community and in particular (without limitation) which contribute to the economic growth and increased prosperity of Devon, Somerset, Plymouth and Torbay with a view in particular (without limitation) to creating better and more sustainable jobs.”

Article 9 basically says that Directors can delegate anything to anyone and can change the terms of delegation at any time.

Article 18 says that if Directors have a conflict of interest they should absent themselves from those parts of the meeting in which they occur. HOWEVER:

Other directors decide whether that particular director has a conflict of interest and

Article 19 says that even if a director seems to have a conflict of interest directors can allow that the Director CAN take part and vote in the matter on which they have a conflict of interest – it is up to the Directors to decide about that too!

Article 32: ANYONE CAN APPLY TO BECOME A “STAKEHOLDER” BUT DIRECTORS CAN REMOVE ANY SUCH ENTITY IF IT IS “IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE COMPANY”.

Article 52: Minutes must be taken of all proceedings, etc and they must be kept for at least 10 years.

Our Local Enterprise Partnership members declarations of interest

And very interesting they are too!

http://www.heartofswlep.co.uk/board-members%E2%80%99-conflicts-interest

“Iain Duncan Smith: the latest MP to pretend council cuts are not his fault”

“If you’re unaware of the extraordinary budgetary challenges faced by local authorities, it must mean that you live on another planet – or you’re Iain Duncan Smith. Despite being firmly ensconced at the heart of an austerity-obsessed government, the secretary of state for work and pensions appears blissfully unaware of the way cuts are implemented by councils in and around his Chingford and Woodford Green constituency. Much like his boss David Cameron, when he expressed horror in a letter to his local council about the level of cuts it was making.

Last week, Duncan Smith came in for fierce criticism after he accused Enfield council of failing to adequately manage funding cuts when it faced a backlash to plans to cut youth services. In what Doug Taylor, the leader of Enfield council, describes as an incredibly ill-informed and inappropriate intervention, the minister told the Enfield Independent:

If you look at the successful local authorities, they are the people who have worked out what the vitally important things are that they do, and have managed to get through this process without savaging the things that really matter. My only advice to local council[s] is that if you get the balance right, you should be able to manage this in a way that is not headline news – doing it with better efficiency. It is like any company, you always face the issue of whether what you spend outweighs what you earn. Headline cuts are not the way to go.”

That such a senior and high profile member of the cabinet – with no official brief for local government – has ostensibly suggested that councils could avoid gruelling financial situations if only they were better at managing budgets, has understandably angered local politicians.

In the case of Enfield, which has had to make savings of £118m since 2010 – 49% in real terms according to a council spokeswoman – Duncan Smith’s proclamations are an affront.

Taylor insists that Enfield, like councils all over the country, has gone to great lengths to increase efficiency before even contemplating cuts to frontline services. He says the annual funding the council receives from central government has been cut by an average of £700 for every household in the borough in the past five years, and that efficiencies are no longer enough. “The £56m we need to find [as a result of the last spending review] is more than we currently spend annually on cleaning the streets, collecting the bins and lighting our streets,” he says.

Local MP Joan Ryan is particularly scathing of the secretary of state’s statement. “Iain Duncan Smith knows nothing about Enfield – that much is clear,” she says. “IDS should get his facts right, given his local authority – Waltham Forest – has also made substantial cuts. I recommend less sermonising and a better understanding of his own policies.”

Enfield’s population is rising, like many other parts of London, pushing up demand for local services and making the financial juggling act of delivering more with fewer resources even harder. Duncan Smith’s ill-informed pontifications, Taylor says, are an exercise in power without responsibility; it will be interesting to see if the MP takes Taylor up on an open invitation to visit the council and see for himself what is actually going on.

It’s bad enough that Duncan Smith is using his position to hammer councils on efficiency when he hasn’t discussed the facts with them, but let’s also not forget the impact of welfare reform. Benefit policy upheavals, for which he was architect-in-chief, have contributed immensely to the increased demand for support from local authorities just when they’re least able to provide it.

Oh, and don’t forget either that when Cameron needed to avert a backbench rebellion and magically found a £300m pot of cash to chuck at Tory councils, there were no assertions that they should improve their budget management skills instead.

Ever since local government cuts began rolling out the government has shrewdly made it look like it’s somehow nothing to do with Westminster. Duncan Smith’s latest jibe is yet another illustration of how conveniently misleading this strategy continues to be.”

“Developers accused of restricting supply of new homes to boost profits”

“Britain’s developers have been accused of increasing their profits from the UK’s housing crisis by restricting the supply of new houses to keep prices artificially high.

Latest figures reveal that nearly half a million homes in England now have planning permission granted but have yet to be built. The length of time it takes for developers to complete a house has jumped from 24 months to 32.
It reignites a long-running row between policymakers and the housebuilding sector over who is to blame for the current housing shortage.

While rates of planning permission for new homes have increased by 60% since 2010, there has been a 48% increase in the number of new homes being built.

Labour MP Clive Betts, chair of the local government select committee, said the failure of the big housebuilders to speed up development was simply designed to maximise their profits.

“I think it is clear that the big developers are building at a rate to maximise their profits rather than addressing the country’s housing need,” he said.

Betts said that some developments that have had planning permission were not due to be completed for another 10 years.

He added: “These are private companies who are very simply trying to make money for their shareholders. They are restricting supply and the government urgently needs to come forward with measures to address this.”

Ministers are increasingly concerned by the failure of developers to speed up housebuilding. It has been reported that some senior Conservatives privately believe that some developers are deliberately restricting the supply of new houses to boost profits.

Brandon Lewis, the housing minister, last week gave vent to his own frustrations with developers.

“When you have got housebuilders delivering, on average, 48 homes a year on some [large] sites that’s not good enough,” he told the local government committee.

“We know they can go further. Housebuilders will talk about saturating the market. But we are aware that in too many places we are still taking 20 weeks to build a house when we can do it in three or four.”

Taylor Wimpey recently announced a record operating profit margin of more than 20% as it sold more homes at higher prices. Pre-tax profits at Barratt Homes, Britain’s biggest housebuilder, have also jumped 40% in the last six months to nearly £300m.

Housebuilders reject claims of hoarding land as property prices soar
Ministers are understood to be contemplating new measures to force up the rate of development amid fears that they will fall short of their manifesto commitment to build 1m new homes by 2020.

This could include forcing developers that buy publicly owned land to commit to rapid construction as part of the planning process.

The housing industry analyst Glenigan compiled the latest data for the Local Government Association, which was released in January.

It showed that 475,647 homes in England which have been given planning permission were yet to be built in 2014/2015.

In 2012/13, the total of unimplemented planning permissions was 381,390 and in 2013/14 it was 443,265.

A spokesman for the Home Builders Federation, which represents the industry, said the most recent government figures show there were 170,690 net additions to the housing stock during 2014/15, an increase of almost 25% on the previous year.

“The industry has delivered unprecedented increases in supply over the past two years driven predominantly by the large private sector housebuilders,” he said.

“This has been on the back of the pro development policies introduced in recent years and a general increase in demand.”

He blamed the planning systems of local and central government for the shortfall in housing.

“As a priority, it needs to work with local authorities to speed up the planning system and ensure local plans allocate enough sites of different types and sizes that are attractive to a range of companies,” he said.”

http://gu.com/p/4h7f9

Brexit ministers: yet another hokey-cokey!!!!

Thanks to Councillor Marianne Rixon who first pointed out EDDC doing the in-out with Sidford Fields in the Local Plan. Then we had the will he-won’t he agonising of MP Hugo Swire about Bremain/Brexit decision. Now we have the latest version of the party dance! Though we suspect some Cabinet Ministers may still need to resort to Freedom of Information requests!

“Sir Jeremy Heywood has said government ministers campaigning for Brexit will be given access to documents relating to the EU referendum, in a move that MPs have described as a climbdown.

The cabinet secretary insisted to MPs that his guidance to civil servants was not meant to deny their ministers “factual material” but only “briefing and speech material supporting the out position”.

“The civil service is not going to be supporting ministers who are against the government’s position to make that case,” he told the Commons public administration and constitutional affairs select committee.

But he added: “If there is factual material that is generally available in the department – I would have discuss that with the prime minister – but I am pretty sure he would be comfortable about that being shared.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/01/pro-brexit-ministers-will-have-access-to-papers-says-cabinet-secretary

Tory Devon Police and Crime commissioner candidate caught up in expenses scandal

It appears that Tory Police and Crime Commissioner candidate, Alison Hernandez, was the election agent for new Torbay MP Kevin Foster. Mr Foster is one of a number of Tory MPs being investigated for potentially/allegedly breaching strict candidate expenses rules by using a Tory national “battle bus” in a local area but not charging it as a local election expense.

http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/Torbay-MP-Kevin-Foster/story-28834878-detail/story.html

The Daily Mirror has estimated that the bus should be costed at around £2000 per day.

Reported here:

Devon PCC candidate caught up in election expenses row

and in the Daily Mirror story here:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-mps-broke-election-laws-7467576

The irony: Ministers may have to use Freedom of Information requests to get Brexit information from their own staff!

Euorsceptic ministers may have to use a freedom of information requests or a parliamentary questions to obtain EU-related documents produced by their own staff, a top civil servant has said.

Sir Jeremy Heywood, Britain’s most senior civil servant, has been accused of stifling debate among eurosceptic ministers by issuing new guidance banning ministers from accessing official documents and receiving briefings ahead of the referendum.”

Another thing we all know about in East Devon, where ordinary Conservative councillors are not allowed to see documents prepared by their Cabinet and senior officers.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12178968/Eurosceptic-ministers-may-have-to-use-freedom-of-information-requests-to-obtain-EU-related-documents-produced-by-their-own-staff-latest.html

Perhaps at least some of those pesky FoI requests are coming from EDDC councillors!

Top Tories turn on their own supporters!

“David Cameron is planning to cull hundreds of Tory associations and strip local chairmen of their powers under controversial plans to rein in the Conservative grassroots.

The Daily Telegraph can disclose that up to 90 per cent of the country’s 650 Conservative associations could be axed under the biggest reforms to the party’s structure in 18 years.

Critics believe that it is a bid to reduce the influence of Tory members – which are typically eurosceptic – on the party’s next leadership contest.
It comes just weeks after Mr Cameron faced a furious response from Conservative members after telling MPs to ignore the views of eurosceptic associations in the build-up to the referendum.

Senior Tories are growing increasingly concerned that George Osborne’s chances of being the next party leader could be reduced because of his support for Mr Cameron’s bid to keep Britain in the EU.

Conservative members will determine the eventual outcome of the next leadership election and this newspaper last week disclosed that growing numbers of local groups have now swung behind Boris Johnson after he announced that he was campaigning to leave the EU.

The disclosure came as Mr Cameron was last night branded “totally irresponsible” by members of his own Cabinet for refusing to allow contingency planning for a “Brexit” despite publishing a taxpayer-funded dossier warning of a decade of chaos if Britain leaves the EU.

Sir Jeremy Heywood, Britain’s most senior civil servant, was also attacked by Cabinet members who said he had committed an “unconstitutional act” by instructing officials to ban eurosceptic ministers from accessing documents related to the EU referendum.

The relationship between the Conservative Party hierarchy and the grassroots has been strained since 2013, when a close ally of the Prime Minister described Tory activists as “mad, swivel-eyed loons” who were forcing MPs to take hardline positions on Europe.

That was compounded earlier this month when Mr Cameron told his MPs that they should not decide how to vote in the referendum “because of what your constituency association might say” but to “do what’s in your heart” rather than what “might be advantageous”.

Under the new plans, Tory associations could be merged into between 60 and 70 “multi-constituency associations” based loosely on county areas. These new “super-associations” will employ permanent party staff, downgrading the role of association chairmen – the traditional lifeblood of the party.

The party’s membership lists will be run centrally from Conservative Central Office, further cutting out the traditional role of the chairmen and allowing the leadership to communicate directly with members.

Candidates will still be selected by association members but the absence of a local party structure will make it easier for central office to impose its favoured election candidates.

Senior Tories hope that the changes will make the party far more professional and better-able to mount campaigns to take on Labour and the unions.

However, critics warn that it will have a significant effect on the next Tory leadership race, which most insiders predict will be contested between Mr Johnson and Mr Osborne.

Under the current rules, Tory backbenchers reduce a longlist of leadership candidates to just two after a series of ballots.

In previous elections, local associations and activists have had a significant role in lobbying their constituency MPs over who to choose. Critics fear this influence would be severely diluted if the number of associations is dramatically cut.

After the longlist is reduced to two candidates, all Conservative members get a vote to determine who is elected leader.

Insiders believe that the existence of as few as 60 “super-associations” would make members significantly easier to control.

It could also reduce the influence of rural Tories because they would subsumed into larger associations which could include members from large towns and cities.

The plans will be presented to the party’s ruling board today by Lord Feldman, the party’s chairman. If approved, they could be in place within 12 months.

Party sources insist the changes are voluntary and subject to vote of members before they are rolled out through on a region by region basis.
However, it would be possible for individual associations which reject the changes to be overruled if a majority in a county area supports the changes.
Ed Costelloe, chairman of Grassroots Conservatives, said: “It means that MPs are more beholden to CCHQ and I think that is a diabolical thing.”

John Strafford, chairman of the Campaign for Conservative Democracy and a party member for 50 years, added: “The way they are going, they are signing the death warrant of the Conservative party as a membership organisation.”

A Conservative spokesman said: “The plan is to offer constituency Associations the option to form multi-constituency associations so they can benefit from shared offices and access to professional staff.

“Multi-constituency associations can only be formed by a vote of Party Members in those constituencies – nothing is being ‘axed’.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/12178192/Secret-plan-to-axe-90-per-cent-of-Tory-associations-which-would-smooth-George-Osbornes-coronation-as-leader.html

Former Tory Energy Minister (and Osborne’s father-in-law) calls Hinkley C a dinosaur

SO WHERE IS OUR LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP’S PLAN B AS IT STILL INSISTS ITS MAJOR INVESTMENT IN DEVON AND CORNWALL WILL BE THIS ‘DINOSAUR’?

“More delays on the horizon for Hinkley Point as design gets labelled a dinosaur

A final investment decision on the long-awaited Hinkley C nuclear power plant in Somerset could be delayed another year it has been claimed, as a former Energy Secretary dubbed the design a “dinosaur”.

Lord David Howell, Energy Secretary under Mrs Thatcher, and a Foreign Office Minister in the early years of the Coalition Government, said the liklihood of French state-owned developer EDF giving final approval to the project is “very iffy indeed.”

Last month EDF said: “final steps are well in hand to enable the full construction phase to be launched very soon.”

Lord Howell was speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme today, hours after the Financial Times reported that a final decision on the £18bn project could be delayed by up to a year.

Hinkley C is scheduled as the first in a new generation of eight nuclear reactors needed as part of the energy mix to meet the UK’s energy needs.
The ten-year construction phase alone would generate 25,000 jobs, but the project has been dogged by delays. It was once said that Britons would be cooking their Christmas turkeys with Hinkley C-generated power in 2017.
The FT says the EDF board is split over the decision.

The French firm’s original partner in the project, Centrica, pulled out three years ago citing rising costs, and delays. EDF found a new Chinese investor, and that deal was announced in a blaze of publicity last October during the Chinese President’s State visit to the UK.

The Chinese will take a one third stake, with EDF being responsible for the rest. The total cost of Hinkley C is more than the value of the company, and French unions have expressed concern.

In 2015 Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne announced a £2billion guarantee for Hinkley C, as the government sought to pave the way for construction.

Ironically Lord Howell is Mr Osborne’s father-in-law.

Asked on the ‘Today’ programme whether Hinkley C will go ahead Lord Howell said: “It’s a big ‘if’ and it’s getting more ‘iffy’ and I see this morning they are still wondering about how to raise the finance for it, and the reason is that it is a gigantic, a dinosaur of a model. There is no other model like it working in the world.

“The one they built in Finland is years behind and well over budget. This is probably the wrong design. It’s the last battleship, an old-fashioned system.”

He said it would be better to wait until the 2020s or 2030s for nuclear development in this country, adding: “It will be smaller, cheaper, safer and solving all sorts of technology problems, but this is a great lumping pyramid from the past.

“I have been very doubtful all along whether it will take off. I don’t know the answer now but it’s looking very iffy indeed.”

EDF Chief Executive Officer Vincent de Rivaz has said: “Our project is based on proven technology. Britain is buying the best and the safest.

“The EPR is a Pressurised Water Reactor with the highest safety standards that society rightly demands. We run 58 PWRs in France and there are 277 around the world.

“Thanks to the visionary investment made 40 years ago France now has among the cheapest electricity in Europe. Hinkley Point C will be the fifth and sixth EPRs worldwide.

“It is true that there have been delays at Flamanville. The experience gained there – and at Taishan in China – will be immensely valuable when we come to Hinkley Point C. And for the UK we have a design which is stable: We are sure of what we will build before we begin construction.

It was approved by the UK regulator following a four-year year assessment which included 850,000 hours of engineering studies. The EPR is the only new generation reactor design which has completed this process.

“Hinkley Point C is the first of its kind in the UK. It won’t be the last. It will be followed by the two EPRs we plan to build at Sizewell C.

“Our experience will ensure that this technology – which has been through a teething and somewhat challenging period – will mature to deliver its full potential for the UK and around the world.”

http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/delays-horizon-Hinkley-Point-design-gets-labelled/story-28830203-detail/story.html

Local GPs cannot cope with influx of new residents from new estates

” … Pinhoe and Broadclyst Medical Practice have been experiencing increasing pressure on their list from Cranbrook.

Pinhoe also have two additional big housing schemes at Monkerton and West Clyst, and there is also talk of a new nursing home being built opposite West Clyst.

Practice manager Andy Potter said: “Our practice list has grown significantly in the last few years. Our list at the end of last week was up to 11,150. Compared with this time a couple of years ago it was 1,000 less than that.

“We have taken on additional medical manpower so we have taken on a half time GP and we have additional nursing staff.

“Primarily, I would have to say the main factor in our growth so far has been the establishment of Cranbrook new town.” …

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/GP-surgeries-Exeter-East-Devon-feel-pressure-new/story-28835494-detail/story.html

Disquiet over Devon and Somerset Devolution deal

” I I am getting increasingly concerned about our devolution process in the South West.

Devolution is different in each region, but one thing each has in common is a lack of public consultation. In fact here in Devon most people don’t even know we are in the process and that many of the councils in Devon and Somerset have signed up already. Cornwall has already finished the process.

People don’t know what is happening and that is a concern, as the implications of devolution will impact upon all of us and I find the actual devolution bid extremely worrying.

Robert Vint, a Devon county councillor commented, on devolution recently, saying: “The Government has taken away the funds that local authorities were once spending to meet the needs of local people – for affordable homes, care services, repairing local roads etc.

“It now offers to give back £195.5 million – but only if we endorse a package of mega-projects in which we have had no say. This is coercion, not ‘devolution’. “The decisions about how this council spent its money were once democratically decided; the proposals in this Devolution Prospectus were not. “It is not the economic recovery plan that residents would have created themselves if they had been given the opportunity.”

The privatisation of local authorities in other words, yet we know so little about it. We definitely don’t know about the LEP, who are at the heart of it. LEP stands for Local Enterprise Partnership.

The one for Devon and Somerset is known as the Heart of the South West LEP (H0tSW LEP).

It is basically a business quango made up of business men and women and a few elected councillors, who channel money from the government and from Europe into local business and enterprise, or that was what it was originally set up to do.

They are the ones who are enabling devolution down here. Most people know very little about them.

They have a website detailing their aims and grants, but they hold their meetings in private and it is difficult to see the minutes of those meetings.

They say they will deliver £4billion to the UK economy. A lot of that money is going into the Hinkley C nuclear plant.

I personally do not want money spent on a highly controversial nuclear project, at a time when our local services are being cut to an absolute minimum, but I have no say in the matter and nor does anyone else, that I can see.

There is so little transparency in this process that even councillors who are supposed to be involved in the devolution bid are struggling to find information. We do know that they are about growth and not much else it seems.

This seems to me to be the opposite of localism. In the future who is going to control planning applications? Will it be the local authority still or will it be the LEP? If it is the LEP, I cannot understand how there won’t be a conflict of interest.

The proposal is also about creating a new authority but there is no information that says which, if any, current body it would replace.

The HotSW LEP is made up of elected councillors as well as business people, but the process is opaque and undemocratic. Many of those on the board who are self-appointed have business interests in property and construction. I am sure the HotSW LEP is all above board.

But it seems to me that LEPs could be vulnerable to corruption. I would like some guarantees, I would like some transparency, I would like to have my democratic rights adhered to, but I can’t see it happening.

Mr Vint also points out: “There are proposals (in the devolution bid) to build 179,000 new houses across Devon and Cornwall – but the plan ignores the priorities of all the Councils across the South West that want affordable housing for local people – not unregulated market housing.

“While ‘housing’ is mentioned repeatedly, three key words are totally missing from this document – ‘affordable’, ‘social’ and ‘rented’.

“Those are the kinds of houses we most urgently need, not commercial housing.This proposal is an attack on democracy; its priorities are not the priorities of local people; it puts the needs of big business before the needs of local people and it is helping to bail out businesses, such as Hinkley C, that are nowhere near being financially viable without massive subsidy.”

Where does this figure of 179,000 houses come from? Who is going to build them? Why do we need them? Who are the LEP to decide such matters?

I find it all very disturbing. Devolution was supposed to be about local areas deciding on local matters, not the takeover of council services by corporate interest. I read recently that devolution meant “the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership for the Shires”, a reference to the proposed international agreement that many feel hands too much power to businesses. I fear that analysis is correct.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Comment-Devolution-mean-localism-quangos/story-28835533-detail/story.html

Freedom of Information: will remain free and give more information

However, as always, the devil will be in the detail so Owl is waiting to see this before celebrating. Staff expenses i formation should be fun.

Ministers have chosen not to introduce fees for Freedom of Information (FOI) requests following a review of the law.

An independent commission was asked to examine it amid concerns within government that “sensitive information” was being inadequately protected.
FOI, used by campaigners and journalists to ask questions of public bodies, was “working well”, Cabinet Office Minister Matt Hancock said.
He said there were new plans to require public bodies to reveal staff expenses.

The full findings of the Freedom of Information Commission’s review are due to be published later, but speaking ahead of its release, Mr Hancock said there would be no wholesale changes to the FOI Act.

But, as always, the more free a public body is with information in the first place, the less reliance we shall need to have on the Act.

“After 10 years, we took the decision to review the Freedom of Information Act and we have found it is working well,” he said.

“We will not make any legal changes to FOI. We will spread transparency throughout public services, making sure all public bodies routinely publish details of senior pay and perks.

“After all, taxpayers should know if their money is funding a company car or a big pay-off.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35693236

Much-respected Sidmouth activist Jo Frith dies

Jo Frith (1944-2016)

On Wednesday 24th February, after cycling to Sidford in the afternoon sunshine, Fortfield Terrace resident 71 year old Jo Frith died suddenly. Her family and neighbours are devastated. She will be sorely missed.

Following a post mortem, there will be a quiet family interment at the graveside, followed in a few months’ time by a public celebration of Jo’s life, to which everyone who knew her, will be invited to contribute.

Tributes to her life and work have been flowing in from individuals and organisations who regarded her as their friend and champion.

On her retirement from a career in IT (mainly with IBM), Jo Frith brought to Sidmouth, and to the wider Devon community her keen analytical mind together with wit, good humour and immense kindness.

A one-time Councillor in the London Borough of Richmond, Jo’s knowledge of local government enabled her to play a leading role as a volunteer for the Devon County education service. She was also an invaluable member of the Vision Group for Sidmouth in its liaison work between the community and local government.

Her commitment to environmental sustainability led her to be the secretary of various organisations over the past decade, from East Devon Green Energy to the Independent East Devon Alliance. Ironically it was Jo herself who had convened the EDA Executive meeting which gathered in Sidmouth three days after her shockingly sudden death, where members reflected in silence on her years of dedicated service to the community.

Many Sidmothians may have known Jo only as the cheerful holder of a signpost in the High Street on the second Saturday of each month, pointing the way to the monthly Farmers’ Market, promoted by the Vision Group for Sustainable Sidmouth.

Behind the scenes Jo pointed the way to many other projects to preserve and enhance our town and the future survival of our species.

Her experience in Iceland and elsewhere gave her a unique insight for the Department for the Environment pathfinder project on erosion and coastal management on the Jurassic Coast. She was a fund of knowledge on innovative renewable energy projects that could be profitably applied to our coastline. She worked indefatigably to encourage local government to take action on flood management and to reduce the risks of flooding from rivers, sea and rainfall. Recently she has been serving as an expert community representative advising EDDC on Sidmouth’s Beach Management Project.

Jo’s personal life exemplified her ethical commitment to life on earth. Her early decision not to have children was a gesture against over-population that also freed her for service to the wider community.

In recent years, she made her home in Fortfield Terrace where neighbouring flats were occupied by her 95 year old father John, her sister Gita, and her nephew Duncan. With her extended family she strove to enhance the Fortfield Terrace community both culturally and sharing resources to demonstrate models of energy efficiency.

Above all Jo was a good friend and wise neighbour to many people. Below are some initial personal reactions to Jo’s death. It is an impressive composite word portrait.