An allegedly corrupt academy school doesn’t fail – it is “re-brokered”

“An academy chain responsible for five secondary schools that was praised by David Cameron and Michael Gove is to be stripped of all its schools, according to sources close to the Department for Education (DfE).

The Perry Beeches academy trust is to have its five academies and free schools in Birmingham handed over to a new academy trust following a critical financial investigation.

A report by the Education Funding Agency (EFA), published before Easter, showed financial shortcomings at Perry Beeches, including third-party payments made to the chief executive, Liam Nolan, on top of his £120,000 salary as executive headteacher. The EFA’s call for urgent action triggered an official notice from the DfE, which detailed “serious concerns about financial management, control and governance” at the trust.

The five Perry Beeches schools are expected be “rebrokered” by the DfE and pass to a new chain, the West Midlands academies trust, which is headed by David Kershaw, a Labour cabinet member of Coventry council.

A Whitehall source said: “This shows the academy system is working, with the EFA identifying issues and regional schools commissioners intervening and rebrokering effectively, as part of a robust system of oversight.”

Perry Beeches declined to respond to requests for comment through its PR agency. However, the agency forwarded a comment from Nolan, who said: “I do not know who is brokering this deal. This would be done by the directors of the academy trust. I am an employee and won’t be involved in that brokering.”

For Nolan, the financial unravelling of the trust may overshadow his record as a successful headteacher. From 2007, he transformed the first Perry Beeches academy in inner-city Birmingham and won outstanding judgments from Ofsted.

Nolan’s recipe of hard work and improved results was as popular with ministers as with parents. “Parents want a structured, organised, disciplined education for their children. It is happening in the very best independent and the very best grammar schools. Why shouldn’t it be open to children from normal comprehensive schools?” Nolan said in a DfE publicity video.

Nolan embraced the free school reforms introduced by the Conservatives, although he is personally a vocal Labour supporter. Gove returned the compliment, telling the 2012 Conservative party conference: “The two best schools in Birmingham are Perry Beeches I and Perry Beeches II.”

The demise of Perry Beeches is badly timed for the government as it tries to win public support for a huge expansion of academy trust-run school networks. An education white paper launched after the budget proposed taking all 17,000 schools from local authority control and turning them into academies.

The investigation by the EFA, the DfE arm responsible for financial oversight of academies, took six months after it first received evidence from a whistleblower in September last year.

Lucy Powell, the shadow education secretary, said the catalogue of events “should ring alarm bells” over the government’s regulation of multi-academy trusts. “This decision raises serious questions about accountability and financial management of academy chains and ministers’ ability to police the system they have created,” Powell said.

“Parents and local communities will be deeply worried that this government has failed to put in place the appropriate checks over academy chain funding decisions, prioritising converting schools into academies over school standards and the protection of public money.”

The DfE would not publicly discuss the move, though a spokesperson said: “We are currently working with Perry Beeches academy trust to ensure it addresses concerns raised and this remains our priority.”

The prime minister opened one of Perry Beeches’ new free schools in 2013, when he praised the “brilliant team” at the trust. In 2012 Nolan addressed the Conservative party conference and appeared on stage with Gove, then the education secretary, who described Nolan as “wonderful”.

Last year, Gove’s successor Nicky Morgan told school leaders that Perry Beeches was evidence that by “working together through multi-academy trusts, schools can achieve truly extraordinary outcomes”.

The EFA investigation of Perry Beeches uncovered irregularities including nearly £1.3m in payments without contracts to a third-party supplier, Nexus. That company also subcontracted to a company named Liam Nolan Ltd, paying Nolan a second salary for his role as chief executive and accounting officer of the trust.

Evidence confirms that the accounting officer of Perry Beeches multi-academy trust is being paid for his services as the chief executive officer (CEO) through Nexus and then Liam Nolan Ltd, in addition to his salary as executive headteacher,” the EFA report said.

The report concluded that “the academy paid Nexus £72,000 including VAT in 2013-14 and £88,800 plus VAT in 2014-15 for the CEO role”, in contravention of academies’ financial rules and Treasury guidelines.

A separate report by the EFA found that eligibility for more than £2.5m worth of free school meal (FSM) funding could not be checked because the relevant records to 2015 were deleted by the trust. “The trust has breached the academies financial handbook by failing to retain any form of FSM eligibility evidence for a period of six years,” the EFA concluded.

After the EFA reports were published last week, Nolan told the TES that he was stepping down as the trust’s chief executive and would take a pay cut as executive head.

http://gu.com/p/4hqe9

Nuclear energy: small is good, Hinkley C … so yesterday!

“Nuclear reactors may be about to shrink before our eyes.

After decades of building giant reactors in domes big enough to swallow a cathedral, nuclear engineers are thinking small.

They believe part of the solution to the energy crisis will come from factory-built mini-reactors, just 23m (75ft) long, delivered to the site on the back of a lorry.

Fans of small modular reactors (SMRs) say they will avoid the problems of delay and cost over-run that has beset traditional reactors.
Most importantly, they say, “mini-nukes” as small as a tenth the size of a conventional reactor would be much easier to finance.

Financial concerns

Finance has become the biggest obstacle to new nuclear plants.
The UK is locked in nuclear paralysis because EDF hasn’t yet confirmed the funding for the planned Hinkley C nuclear power plant – despite the backing of two of the world’s richest governments, France and China.

Footloose investors scanning the world for money-making opportunities tend to turn away when they see a nuclear reactor taking years to build, fraught with technical and political risk.

Solar and wind energy offer much more predictable returns in a fraction of the pay-back time.

But SMR fans say mini-nukes as small as 50 megawatts (MW) could change that. They suggest it’s as simple as placing your order and waiting for a reactor to turn up. Then plug and play – and wait to get your money back.

If you want large-scale power, just line up a dozen SMRs side by side. It’s a bit more complicated than that, of course, but potential offered by this technology is exciting governments worldwide.

In his most recent Budget, the Chancellor George Osborne announced a competition for the design of small modular reactors for use in the UK.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35863846

Cabinet Agenda – 5.30 p.m. Knowle, 6 April 2016 – a meaty mix of relocation and devolution WITH NO MEANINGFUL COSTINGS WHATSOEVER

144 pages

Minutes take up the first 31 pages

Relocation – pages 32-49
This update is to advise on progress of the relocation plans and seek Cabinet agreement to further key actions”.
Appendix 1 – Floor plans Honiton HQ and Exmouth Town Hall refurbishment
Appendix 2 – Pegasus Life plan for Knowle Site buildings footprint
Appendix 3 – Service Delivery and Office Relocation Survey results summary

RECOMENDATIONS
;
Knowle Site:
1. Note that Pegasus Life Ltd following public consultation exercises will be submitting its application for development of the Knowle site . The projected likely date of consideration of the application is July 2016
2.Note that Sidmouth Town Council has responded positively to the Deputy Chief Executive ‘s formal proposal to transfer the remaining Knowle Park to Town Council ownership together with a commuted sum and negotiations continue Honiton Heathpark
3. Note that preparations are underway by the design team to submit a planning application for new build Council offices at
Heathpark with a view to Planning Committee consideration in September 2016
4. Note that the new HQ design is moving from concept to detailed design of space allocations for desks, meeting spaces, storage, reception area, Chamber, member area, services and external works
5. Note that construction is planned to commence in November 2016 for a period of up to 12 months, followed by Client Fit Out
Works with occupation of the new HQ targeted for February 2018
6. Note that the Deputy Chief Executive has again met with businesses and staff at the East Devon Business Centre to discuss and advise on project progress Exmouth Town Hall
7. Note that the Deputy Chief Executive and design team have met with tenants of Exmouth Town Hall to discuss their needs,
concerns and expectations regarding the refurbishment of the building and its impact on their operations including any disruption or temporary displacement
8. Note that the Council has issued Section 25 notices to end the tenancies of Town Hall tenants to be followed by negotiation of
new tenancies
9. Note that refurbishment is planned to commence in Autumn 2016 and last between 8 – 10 months, followed by Client Fit Out
Works.

Other
10. That Cabinet approve the use of £47,040 of transformation funds for the additional scope required within the Electronic
Document Management System.
11. Note that the Council has appointed Interserve to provide the Pre Construction Advisory role through a two stage
competitive tender process based upon the CFSW Framework. As part of the second stage tender process, Interserve will be
asked to provide their firm fixed price tender for the Project Works later this Year. If in the event the received tender is not
acceptable a further tendering process will be carried out.
12. Note that there continues to be ongoing detailed engagement with staff and tenants regarding space allocation, twin site
facilities, team locations, internal design, fit out and operational requirements
13. Note that Members have received a presentation on new offices design and layout. Further presentations and discussion will be arranged as the project moves forward
14. Agree SMT’s decision to locate Housing Services in the main as well as availability of other front facing provision (Benefits,
Environmental Health, Planning) on the basis of the findings of the Service Delivery and Office Relocation Survey with
residents (attached at Appendix 3)
15. Note the successful recruitment of a Relocation Facilities Manager post to prepare and oversee the physical relocation of staff and resources”
FOLLOWED BY LOTS AND LOTS OF BUMPH ABOUT WHAT AN EXCELLENT IDEA RELOCATION IS – BUT WITH ALMOST NO NUMBERS …


Devolution – pages 50 – 92

Click to access 060416-combined-cabinet-agendasm.pdf

“To update members on progress of the Devolution Prospectus”
Appendix 1 – Governance Workshop Notes
Appendix 2 – Governance Workshop slides
Appendix 3 – Briefing key messages
Appendix 4 – HoSW Prospectus for Productivity presentation
Appendix 5 – HoSW Productivity Plan Workshop Meeting notes
FOLLOWED BY LOTS AND LOTS OF SLIDES ALL SHOWING WHAT A WONDERFUL THING DEVOLUTION IS – BUT WITH ALMOST NO NUMBERS …
AND ENDING WITH THIS WONDERFUL EXAMPLE OF ALMOST TOTALLY MEANINGLESS LEP JARGON:

“Conclusions and next steps
The key step was felt to be the development of a vision and criteria to drive the development of the productivity plan and the
work streams within the devolution prospectus. Building on the 6 golden opportunities exploring
a) what will move us forward rapidly
b) what will stop us moving backwards

Need this vision to be developed and agreed by our Leaders before we do too much more work within the theme areas.
Recognise that we need to keep the pace.

Twin track process:
The Productivity Plan being the longer term vision of transformation irrespective of what devolution deal we obtain. It will be an overarching plan that will drive ambition for the area.

Devolution – will work rapidly with government to agree a Heads of Terms similar to the East Anglia devolution
model and push for an early deal.

We could commission our universities to undertake some research to explore the options for transformational change in our area to inform the development.

Action:
The PMO will be asked to develop a Next Steps document for comment on the development of the vision, criteria, and the framework and resources required to deliver a shared plan.”

Devolution: the next 5 years – councillors should be ashamed of themselves for signing us up with no consultation

House of Commons
Communities and Local Government Committee
Devolution: the next five years and beyond. First Report of Session 2015–16 25 Jan 2016

Extracts

Devolution Objectives (Conclusion para 21)

As set out above, our witnesses gave us many important and ambitious reasons for pursuing devolution, particularly so for health devolution. However, with the exception of increasing economic growth, we are not certain whether these are intended to be the measurable objectives of devolution and are not convinced that the Government itself is any clearer. We are also not satisfied that the Government has considered and identified how to measure the success of a devolution deal once in place.”

The Approach to Devolution (from para 24 and 25)

….the current approach to devolution in England is overtly one of deal-making, which can be characterised as negotiations behind closed doors between central government and representatives of local authorities….
……Indeed, one of the consequences of deal-making is that devolution does not happen in a uniform manner; deals have so far been agreed with seven city regions and with Cornwall. Professor Pike described it as “very ad hoc” and “piecemeal”…..”

On Public Engagement (from para 51 and 52)

“We have been struck by the lack of discussion and consultation with the public in areas which have proposed, negotiated and agreed devolution deals.

At the question and answer session we held with residents during our visit to Greater Manchester, the vast majority of contributions, often made in angry tones, arose from the perceived lack of efforts by the combined authority to engage the public about the deal relating to their local area.

While many valid points were made, we note that attendees, having elected to attend the session, were not necessarily representative of all Greater Manchester residents who are likely to be less aware of devolution.

We were told that there had been a “complete, utter and total lack of democratic engagement”, “insufficient information” and that most people did not understand what Devo Manc was all about.

When we raised this with our Greater Manchester witnesses, Cllr Kieran Quinn, the Leader of Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council, said he fully accepted there could have been more transparency. Cllr Sue Jeffrey, the Leader of Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, told us that Tees Valley had not consulted the public before signing up to a deal and Cllr Alan Rhodes, Leader of Nottinghamshire County Council, said they were talking about the deal in the media and would hold a public consultation once it was agreed.
…..Cllr Quinn reasoned that, as the deal was bringing new powers to local people, not taking them away, limited public engagement could be excused
……….

Conclusion (para 56)

“We think it is too late to engage the public only once a deal has been agreed. While it is reasonable that the actual negotiations are not open to the public, steps should be taken to inject more openness into the process by publishing on the relevant authorities’ websites:

• Devolution proposals and the Government’s counter-offers, within a reasonable time of them being made;
• An outline of what is being negotiated; and
• Drafts of the deal, and the text of the final deal.

The Government should also publish the criteria it uses to assess and agree proposals so local areas can refer to these when drawing up their devolution bid. A similar level of transparency should continue to be maintained once the deal has been agreed.”

Scrutiny (Conclusion para 77)

As the DCLG says, the overview and scrutiny requirements in the Bill are an initial framework to be used as a basis for more robust provisions, which we believe have a role in fostering public confidence in the new arrangements, as well as balancing vested interests. These should be developed to suit the characteristics of the local areas as a result of deliberate efforts to hold active discussions at local level, with residents involved in designing new and more open methods of scrutiny.

Local areas need to give active consideration to how the mayor will work with the council leaders and how s/he will be held to account. Although the elected mayor is intended to be a ‘first among equals’, s/he may soon establish, or already have, a profile and position which makes this balance difficult to achieve.”

Rules – what rules?

From a story in today’s Daily Telegraph about David Cameron having hissy fits about Brexit Cabinet ministers:

Earlier this year the Prime Minister lifted “collective responsibility” rules for members of the Government, meaning that they are able to campaign on both sides of the EU argument.

https://t.co/1vq1Zbipxx

Isn’t it interesting that, when it is expedient, rules cannot only be bent but ignored.

How often have we heard, at EDDC, that something cannot be done (particularly public speaking) because it is “against the rules” or “against standing orders”. Yet one of the biggest rules (Cabinet collective responsibility) can simply be “suspended” at any time.

Devolution confusion

Unfortunately, the Committee did not tackle the situation where a Local Enterprise Partnership has greater powers than the Mayor. Though, of course, it is likely that one of the politicians currently on the LEP will become the devolved Mayor and will serve himself or herself AND the LEP as well as their own councils and us the common people!

But what a spanner could be thrown in the works if an Independent stood and won!

“Potential for confusion

78. From what we have seen and heard, we are very concerned that the public will not understand who will be responsible for what in their local area.

The Devolution Bill makes a distinction between the powers of the mayor and those of the combined authority which translates into the mayor and the combined authority being responsible for different services.

For example, in Greater Manchester, the interim mayor is responsible for transport, but not health, which is within Greater Manchester Combined Authority’s remit.

Some witnesses argued that this is not a problem in London where the Mayor of London’s responsibilities differ from those of the London Boroughs. But Alexandra Jones, the Chief Executive of the Centre for Cities, said this will need to be tackled as part of the “public education programme” around devolution and Professor Copus said that “the mayor, counties and the districts have to be prepared to point people in the right direction”.

When we put our concerns to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, he said that it would be “for that mayor to make very clear the platform on which they stand and the things they are doing in office”.

Click to access 369.pdf

More alarm bells on devolution – from Parliament

The Government has announced a ‘devolution revolution’, transferring powers and opportunities to local government through a series of ‘devolution deals’.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill gives statutory authority to deals and enables some of the specific reforms the Government wishes to make, such as introducing directly-elected mayors for combined authorities. This inquiry set out to examine the contents of the Bill and, in particular, whether Greater Manchester’s deal is a model for other areas, but its scope quickly widened to a review of the way in which devolution in England is proceeding.

We strongly support the principle of devolution. We welcome the fact that, at the start of this new Parliament, it occupies such a prominent position on the Government’s agenda. We acknowledge the personal contribution of Greg Clark, whose support and involvement since 2010 has been key in driving devolution. We expect to see this commitment continue, and for it to be shared by an increasing number of Departments, over the next four and a half years.

We are acutely aware that all deals are at an early stage and need time to bed in, and that many devolution bids are still to be negotiated. We therefore expect to review progress by the end of this Parliament and at regular intervals thereafter. Although it was not the focus of this inquiry, in line with our predecessors, we will continue to press for fiscal devolution: our next inquiry will look at the plans to allow local authorities to retain 100 per cent of business rates, and we will review the progress made on fiscal devolution.

We have identified various aspects of the current approach that we recommend are refined and improved now. Otherwise, the policy risks being rushed and appearing driven by a purely political timetable. We see a role for scrutiny by select committees of the secondary legislation enacting deals and the Government’s annual report on devolution, required by the Bill.

We have found a significant lack of public consultation and engagement at all stages in the devolution process. People are keen to be involved; our public session in Greater Manchester highlighted residents’ strong appetite to be included and consulted. The public should be engaged in the preparation of devolution proposals, insofar as possible during the negotiations and once the results of a deal have begun to make an impact, and communicated to throughout the process. This is particularly the case for health devolution where the systems in place are complex, changes are consequently more difficult to understand and the public’s response is likely to be more emotional.

We also believe that the Government’s approach to devolution in practice has lacked rigour as to process: there are no clear, measurable objectives for devolution, the timetable is rushed and efforts are not being made to inject openness or transparency into the deal negotiations. We suggest various ways in which proper process can be ensured; for example, with an agreed timetable for the negotiation and agreement of a deal.

Once deals are up and running, there will be a complex division of responsibility – between local authorities, the combined authority and, in some places, the directly-elected mayor— which will not necessarily be apparent to the public. Responsibility needs to be determined in a way that makes sense to the public, and consideration of these issues should be a significant part of the deal-making process with the division of responsibilities clearly spelled out. We received no clear explanation as to how accountability under health devolution will work and have recommended that the Government revisits this issue. There is a need for a clear articulation of how health devolution will work.

We strongly believe that areas should be able to acquire further devolved powers over time. Where an area has asked for particular devolved powers but was refused, those powers should be available to it if they are given to other similar areas at a later date.

Our ambition is that, by the end of this Parliament, the Government and local authorities will reach the position of ‘devoylution by right’, with the Government having announced a package of powers that will be on o er to local government. is would be a starting point for even more ambitious and wide-ranging future deals and possibly a more comprehensive package of devolved measures agreed between Government and local government as a whole.”

Summary taken from:
Devolution: the next five years and beyond
First Report of Session 2015–16
Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 25 January 2016

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmcomloc/369/369.pdf

The power of social media

“When George Osborne delivered his Budget on 16 March, he announced that
he would cut £4.4 billion from Personal Independence Payments (PIP).
However, within less than 48 hours (and before the resignation of Iain
Duncan Smith) he withdrew the proposal, which he has since described as
a “mistake”.

Such a swift u-turn on such a major Budget measure is without precedent
in living memory. This humiliation for Osborne follows last years slow
motion retreat on tax credits. It happened because enough Tory MPs let
Osborne know that they would vote against the PIP cuts to make him
realise that if he pressed on, he would lose the parliamentary vote and
face an even greater humiliation. And in significant part, the actions
of those Tory MPs were due to Twitter.

PIP is a benefit that helps people with some of the extra costs caused
by long-term ill-health or a physical or mental disability. It is
designed to help with such things as preparing food, washing, getting
dressed, communicating with other people and with mobility. If the
proposal had become law more than half a million people would have faced
cuts of up to £150 per week.

Osborne had reasons to feel confident that the cuts to PIP would be
voted through without much fuss, except among those who “do not vote
Tory anyway” – to borrow a phrase used by IDS.

The PIP cuts, explicitly said to be in order to fund tax-cuts, had been
trailed in the press at the weekend before the Budget, without much
reaction to concern Osborne.

Above all, only a couple of weeks previously, Tory MPs had loyally
supported the government to override defeats in the Lords to force
through a reduction of £30 per week for sick and disabled people
receiving Employment and Support Allowance (ESA).

The ESA cuts apply to sick and disabled people who are not considered
fit for work but are considered fit for activities such as training to
prepare them for work. The reason why they had been receiving £30 more
per week than other claimants was that, due to their illness or
disability, it was recognised they would incur additional costs to help
them in their task of preparing for work.

The ESA cut had gone through in the teeth of powerfully expressed
outrage by sick and disabled people, disability charities, members of
the Lords, Jeremy Corbyn, Owen Smith (Labour’s shadow DWP) and others.
It barely registered, however, in the billionaire-owned press or the
flagship BBC news programmes, Today and the news bulletins.

Only three Tory MPs defied the party whip and voted against the cut to
ESA.

So, Osborne would have felt confident about passing the cuts to PIP.

The evening after the Budget and the next day, the press and the BBC
showed as little interest in PIP as they had to ESA. Given the number of
people affected and the sums involved, the Today programme might have
given airtime to a disabled person who would be personally affected by
the PIP cuts. There was nothing like that. For the mainstream media, the
Budget story was the Sugar Tax.

But the agenda was different – and far more democratic – on Twitter
(and other social media).

For those who do not know, on Twitter, anybody can set up a Twitter
account and then they can send out their own messages (called tweets)
and they can receive the tweets of anyone else they decide to follow.

Almost all MPs have a Twitter account.

On the evening after the Budget, a succession of well-designed tweets
started to appear on Twitter. Each one featured a picture of one of the
Tory MPs who had forced through the £30 cut to ESA , together with their
constituency and any other relevant information, such as their expenses
claims and whether they were associated with disability charities. In
some of the pictures the MP was seen posing with disabled constituents.
The text varied but typically it said “XX MP claims to care about the
sick and disabled but not enough to stop them voting to force through a
£30 per week cut for sick and disabled people on ESA”.

Most of these Tweets were retweeted hundreds if not thousands of times.
Each time that happened the MP named would receive a copy. The tweets
would soon be picked up by people in their constituency.

There were complaints. One Tory MP allegedly threatened legal action.
Some people objected to the “trolling” of MPs. The tweets, of course,
were simply repeating facts already in the public domain. All these
nonsense objections were retweeted in their turn.

Osborne had first described the tax-credit and the PIP cuts as
“necessary”, but he later conceded, when forced to drop them, that they
were not necessary at all but political choices.

Twitter highlighted how MPs had passed one shameful, unnecessary
measure, attacking the sick and disabled, and were on the brink of
passing another.

Twitter did what the press and the BBC had conspicuously failed to do.
It performed a democratic service.

Tory MPs felt the democratic heat. Osborne did the counting of votes and
withdrew the PIP cut.

The Twitter campaign will continue to try and have the ESA cut withdrawn
too.”

http://tomdlondon.blogspot.com/2016/03/how-twitter-helped-force-osborne

And what do you know – EDF shoulders part of Chinese investment risk

“French utility EDF (EDF.PA) has agreed to shoulder part of Chinese partner CGN’s financial risks should there be delays or cost overruns in the Hinkley Point nuclear project in Britain, weekly Le Journal du Dimanche reported.

The newspaper cites a note by former chief financial officer Thomas Piquemal to the EDF board’s audit committee regarding the 18 billion pound project.

The notes says in the case of five-billion-euro cost overrun, EDF would have to finance 80 percent of it, despite having a 66.5 percent stake in the project.

In case of a six-month delay, state-controlled EDF would have to refund several hundred million euros of CGN’s initial investment.

If the Austrian government is successful in its complaint to the European Commission over what it regards as illegal state aid for the project, EDF would have to pay CGN 1.6 billion euros.

The newspaper also reported that CGN has a bigger say in the governance of the Hinkley Point project, including veto rights on any dividend payments, accounting, budget and board member pay. EDF was not available for immediate comment.”

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-edf-britain-nuclear-idUKKCN0WT09V

All roads lead to Hinkley C?

One of the great mysteries of the HotSW LEP’s devolution plans is the fact that massive development is planned for Exeter/East Devon, but they don’t want to see the A303 dualled between Honiton and Broadway/Ilminster.

We are proposing a huge increase in employment and population, but the LEP is campaigning to keep the road single carriageway. It really is most odd that Devon County Council and the LEP don’t want to see the road dualled, despite ambitions for enormous growth.

Buy-to-let landlords find loophole to avoid tax changes

Another story in the Sunday Telegraph Business section is that buy-to-let landlords (who control properties all over East Devon, particularly Cranbrook) have realised that to avoid extra taxes announced last year all they have to do is incorporate companies and take advantage of the reduced corporation tax and other opportunities.

Although there are costs to this route, and they mostly benefit higher tax band ps, there are worthwhile tax advantages for anyone who owns 10 or more properties.

In any case, with all such landlords, any increased costs will be passed on to increased rents.

City regulators jittery about Chinese investors – watch out LEP!

L and H

The Sunday Telegraph Business has a front page story thaT deals with Chinese investors have been blocked by regulators world-wide “amid growing doubts over their ability to see through a deal”.  Deals for Chinese investors to buy merchant bank Kleinwort Benson and London City Airport have been abandoned recently.

Although most newspaper articles talk about the French (EDF) investment in the Hinkley C nuclear power station, 25% of the investment is to come from the Chinese. No deal has yet been signed, as it is contingent on the EDF deal being underwritten by the French government.

Add to that the fears that Brexit might cause knock-on problems for Hinkley C and, in the words of Laurel and Hardy:

“That’s another fine mess you’ve got me into, Stanley”!

Regional newspapers pick up story on criticism of LEPs – our LEP fights back

Unfortunately, no mention of our LEP members conflicts of interest and their decision to spend much of our money on Hinkley C nuclear power plan (several board members are involved in nuclear power-related work, one (Midas) is a major player in a contract for Plymouth Docks regeneration).

“A lack of transparency and insufficient resourcing are just some of the criticisms levelled at the Government’s flagship scheme to deliver £400 million of investment in Devon and Cornwall. But at least the media is waking up.

The findings from the new report on Local Enterprise Partnerships also highlight “confusion” about their role in local devolution deals, and difficulties assessing value for money.

The critical report from spending watchdog the National Audit Office, suggests that five years on from their creation, there is still some way to go to ensure LEPs are delivering the economic growth they promised.

But organisation’s operating in South West have welcomed the report – arguing they have made strong progress in the creation of new jobs, homes and investment opportunities in the region.

“The role of LEPs has expanded rapidly.”

The Coalition Government launched the Local Enterprise Partnership programme in 2010 to replace the UK’s nine Regional Development Agencies. Since then, 39 LEPs have been established, including fone or Cornwall and Isles of Scilly (CIOS) and for Devon and South West Somerset (the Heart of the South West, or HotSW).

The aim of these bodies is to boost economic development at a local level, using funding from Local Growth deals to support business and infrastructure improvements. But over time, the NAO notes, they have taken on a “significant” number of responsibilities, including positions on local transport boards and leading roles in devolution deals.

HotSW board member, Tim Jones suggests LEPs have faced a “whirlwind” of changes in recent years. He says this has contributed to a sense of “doing business on the hoof”, as the Government devolves more and more powers.

“The NAO report marks a good time to pause, reflect and make sure we are doing it right,” he said. “Now that the questions are being asked, it’s an opportunity to make sure LEPs are fit for purpose.”

“LEPs do not possess the resources necessary.”

The Government has pledged to make a total of £12 billion available to LEPs between 2014/15 and 2019/20. So far, Cornwall has received £60 million from this fund, with a further £150 million put forward by private investors, HoTSW has been awarded £195.5 million.

LEPs also have an influential say in the allocation of European funding, in the area. This amounts to roughly £470 million for the CIOS area and £92 million for HoTSW.

However, according to the NAO report, only 5% of LEPs surveyed felt they had sufficient resources to deliver the services and projects expected of them. And as they rely heavily on partnerships with local authorities to achieve their aims, the study warns many will struggle as cuts to council budgets take their toll.

Mr Jones said challenges around resources affect all LEPs. But he is not in favour of increasing staff numbers and returning to “the bad old days of big bureaucracy”.

“As an example, the demands around devolution have been huge, around half of the LEP team has been diverted to writing the devolution agenda,” he said. “But the expectations of government need to be managed against the resources that are available, rather than the other way round.”

CIOS chief executive Sandra Rothwell stressed her LEP is keen to make sure as much funding as possible goes to economic growth “not organisation”. “We are a partnership and we work with councils, chambers of commerce and businesses in developing and implementing strategies,” she explained. “Could we use more [resources]? Yes of course. But it should be proportionate to the scale of the programmes we deliver.”

“LEPs… are not as transparent to the public as we would expect.”

Management of LEPs currently consist of a mixture of private sector representatives and local councillors. The NAO report found that the proportion of private sector membership ranged from 45% to 80% across the 39 bodies.

It says the Department for Communities and Local Government has taken steps to improve LEP governance and transparency. But it suggests the department should do more “to ensure that the required standards of governance and transparency are being met”.

At the Cornwall LEP, four of the 16 board members are elected councillors, with remaining members coming from local businesses and other professions. Ms Rothwell believes that this is a fair representation of public, private and voluntary sectors.

She also stresses that the LEP reports back to local authorities on its decisions, and makes information about board members and their registered interests available online.

“Most of our resources are focussed on running an accountable process, because at the end of the day this is public money,” she added. “We were one of just seven LEPs in England interviewed in depth for this report and we received excellent feedback on our own systems and processes.”

At HotSW, six of the 20 board members are councillors – a ratio Mr Jones describes as a “healthy balance”. He also states that prospective board members face a “very rigorous” selection process.

“I think [the mix] has created an understanding about the needs of the business community, and improved their understanding of the needs of the local authority,” he said. HotSW also published information on board members and meetings on its website.

“It is not clear how LEPs fit into devolution.”

The NAO notes that ministers see LEPs as “central” to their plans for English devolution. But it claims LEPs are often “uncertain of their role within a more devolved landscape”, particularly in areas where their boundaries do not match those of the combined authority.

Ms Rothwell said CIOS, which leads on the employment and skills and business supports aspects of Cornwall’s devolution deal, is “very clear” on its involvement. “This one of the strengths that Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly has in terms of focus and geography,” she said. “So we are in a slightly different place than other LEPs].”

The Heart of the South West devolution submission is still in the bid stage. As the name suggests, it corresponds with the area covered by the LEP, but Mr Jones said their role is as “an observer and a consultee” in the process. “There is some degree of confusion around the fact that it is not a complete deal… but it is being led quite rightly by the local authorities,” he said.

“LEPs are at the heart of driving local growth”

Both the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly LEP and the HotSW LEP maintain that they are well on their way to hitting their targets for growth, but it is “too early” to accurately measure their success. They also stress that the NAO report is a “general” comment on the LEP model, and not an assessment of individual bodies.

The DCLG argues the study “misses the point”. A spokesman said: “LEPs are pivotal to driving local economic growth and have an important leadership role in devolution. That is why we have announced this week a further £1.8 billion through a new round of Growth Deals, maintaining our commitment to a £12 billion Local Growth Fund over the course of the Parliament.”

LEP targets for 2020/21

Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly LEP aims to:
Create 20,000 new jobs
See superfast broadband rolled out to 100% of homes and businesses
Build 13,000 homes
Support the creation of at least 336 new businesses
Upgrade the Night Riviera sleeper service

Heart of the South West LEP aims to:
Create 22,000 new jobs
Build 10,000 new homes a year
Reduce rail journeys between Plymouth and London to 2 hours 45 mins
See 95% superfast broadband roll out
Achieve partial dualling of A303/A30 corridor

Further analysis

Torbay MP and Public Accounts Committee member Kevin Foster: “The NAO report highlights the role our local LEPs play in economic development policy, but with this responsibility must come better accountability. It is right that LEPs can decide what reflects local priorities, rather than have them set by government or quangos across artificial regions that do not reflect our actual economic areas. Yet with the amount of money spent via them there needs to be clear measures to ensure the taxpayer gets value for money.”

Devon councillor and HotSW board member Andrew Leadbetter: “The Heart of the South West LEP has successfully enabled the private and public sectors to work together more efficiently to improve the lives of residents by creating jobs, attracting investment and in increasing the diversity of the regional economy. Together we will continue to improve productivity and growth in the region and I look forward to continuing to work with government and our regional partners Plymouth, Somerset and Torbay in the future.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/know-LEPs-New-report-raises-transparency-fears/story-28993422-detail/story.html

Exeter (and by extension its environs) in top ten least affordable cities

“Truro tops the South West list as the seventh least affordable – though many non-city areas could lay claim to worse affordability – with a ratio of 9.11.

It is followed in tenth place by Exeter where average house prices now stand at 8.36 times average earnings.

Devon and Cornwall’s only other city, Plymouth, was not featured in the top fifteen least or most affordable cities.

Affordability in UK cities is, on average, now at its worst level since the average house price to earnings ratio rose to 7.2 at the height of the last housing market boom in 2008.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Truro-Exeter-affordable-cities-buy-home/story-28998321-detail/story.html

Five-week consultation announced on local plan reforms sneaked out with the budget

The government has announced it will consult on the recommendations in the report of the Local Plans Expert Group until 27 April.

The report was published at the same time as the Budget last week. The Group reported an almost unanimous consensus about the problems facing local plan preparation.

These centre on agreeing housing need; difficulties with the duty to cooperate (including the distribution of unmet housing needs); a lack of political will and commitment; a lack of clarity on key issues, particularly SHMAs, strategic planning, green belt and environmental constraints; too many changes of policy, advice and factual changes in forecasts; and a lack of guidance, support and resources.

Developers and professional planners have given a broad welcome to the group’s proposals for shorter and faster plans which are more effective on growth and ensure proper community engagement.

President of the Royal Town Planning Institute Phil Williams said: “We want to see shorter, more proportionate and responsive, local plans and a greater focus on planning collaboratively across boundaries.

“Overall, the conclusions of the report will provide planners with greater certainty, for example, by allowing for judgments to be made on simpler evidence bases, and being subject to more flexible tests of soundness by the Inspectorate.

“We are also very pleased that the group has acknowledged the role that central government can play by taking steps to incentivise the development of growth points to ensure that housing needs are met”.

Ministers have made it clear that they want to see the planning system move towards a more zonal and ‘red lining’ approach where local authorities use their local plans to signal their development strategy from the outset and make maximum use of permissions in principle to give early certainty and reduce the number of stage developers must go through to get planning permission.”

Five-week consultation announced on local plan reforms

THE REPORT CAN BE FOUND HERE:

Click to access Local-plans-report-to-governement.pdf

Test of new Local Plan: Clinton Devon Estates planning application for unallocated building on green field outside built-up boundary on AONB in Beer

And the original application mentions protected species on the la nd!

Owl commented on the original planning application from Clinton Devon Estates (CDE) for “up to 30” houses at Short Furlong in Beer, querying (amongst other things) why it needed 70 parking spaces. It was described in the planning documents as:

“Planning Application 14/2621/MOUT – Clinton Devon Estates – land at Short Furlong, Beer for development of “up to” 30 houses with “up to” 40% affordable homes. The current application seeks to get planning permission for access only.”

It can be accessed online at:
eastdevon.gov.uk/planning and searching on the planning application number.

CDE asked for an extension before a Development Management Committee meeting in December 2015 and in February 2016 asked for a further extension until April 2016. This has since been extended – again – to the end of May 2016. New documents have been added, particularly a report on drainage of the site:

The latest email is:

“Iestyn
Thanks for confirmation, I shall instruct the DV [District Valuer?] accordingly. Given the earliest committee date is 10th May and that were members to approve the application that there would inevitably be a further period of time involved in the negotiation of a s.106 agreement would it be sensible at this stage to agree a further Extension of Time for the determination of the application until say 31st May 2016 in the first instance?
Regards
Charlie McCullough
Senior Planning Officer”

As above, this suggestion by the Senior Planning Officer was taken up by Iestyn … it’s good to see our developers being helped by our planners. Letters between CDE and EDDC are very cheerful and informal – Charlie this and Amy that, Iestyn the other ….

It seems that attenuation tanks may be needed as there are properties downhill of the site that have to be accommodated with the run off situation (shades of Feniton here?) and this has required detailed information about run off and general drainage though, of course, the report is optimistic about solutions.

Also, it appears that, following advice from EDDC, it has been revised down to 18 homes so that it comes beneath the threshold for strategy 35 of the new Local Plan so that, by building only 18 houses (at this current time) they can be constructed outside the built-up area boundary, if there is need. Mention is made of “affordable houses” but, in the correspondence there is also mention of sorting out exactly what “affordable” will mean in terms of these houses at some later stage (24 February from Nigel Barratt, though for some reason the email starts off about Frogmore Road, Budleigh, rather than Beer, though it has the Beer planning application reference number).

As stated above, and confirmed by EDDC’s Landscape Architect’s consultee report, this is currently a green field site totally within the AONB and not allocated for housing (Consultee, March 2016 document 2215165 online).

She notes that some roads are not shown in plans, and asks why this is. She has concerns that visual relationships of the site are not adequately clear and that the visual “influence” of the site from other significant vantage points in Beer has been underestimated. She is worried about sustainable urban drainage and notes that many of the AONBs requirements are unfulfilled. She believes that EDDC’s own Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and D4 (Landscape requirements) have not been met nor D5 (Trees on site).

It is obvious from the drawings that there could be extensions to this site in coming years, should ways be found in future for such an extension.

Roll on the Development Management Committee meeting.

There appears to be little interest in the application from Beer residents on the EDDC planning application site, with, so far, not one letter of support or objection on file.

has been reactivated

Lewisham GP warns against devolution and health care

NHS reform: Devolution is not the only path to integrated healthcare

Plans to devolve control of health services to local areas are moving ahead quickly in parts of England. But handing powers to local authorities [or in our case the Local Enterprise Partnership] is not the only way to achieve health and social care integration, argues Socialist Health Association vice president Dr Brian Fisher – and devolution carries significant risks for the NHS.

In my area of Lewisham, the CCG and local authority have agreed to be a devo pilot. It will result in better services, possibly new powers, more integration. What’s not to like?

Devolution has real risks and I’d like to explore them here. And I am not convinced it’s needed at all.

Integration, on the other hand, is definitely needed. We know that patients fall through boundary cracks, and communication and culture is often a problem between sectors and organisations. Integration means many things. Including spanning the NHS and social care; primary and secondary care; community care and primary care; third sector and the NHS. Patients would benefit from better integration and communication across all those fences.

NHS integration

But integration and devolution are not the same thing. We have moved a great deal on integration without the need for devolution, and we could do a lot more. It seems a convenient elision to automatically link integration and devolution.

Devolution is the transfer or delegation of power to a lower level, especially by central government to local or regional administration. There are two kinds of devolution: the Sporadic kind, such as Devo-Manc and the Lewisham form – and the Systematic variety coming down the road in the shape of a parliamentary bill. This has big implications.

As I understand it, Devo-Manc has not attracted any new powers to either the NHS nor the LA. So, it may stimulate new conversations, but it doesn’t actually change anything fundamental.

It also brings no new money. Quite the opposite – the costs in money, time and resources of another local redisorganisation may be quite high.

There is little democracy or accountability in the NHS in any case, but devolution does not seem to help. The Devo-Manc changes have gone through with no consultation whatsoever, with even a local MP being unaware of them. Similarly in Lewisham. In addition, much decision-making then appears to take place on a much larger scale, with committees-in-common merging CCGs and localities – it takes planning even further from the citizen.

NHS privatisation

People on the ground in Manchester say they see no privatisation now or in the future. Indeed, they say that the Manchester arrangements militate against privatisation. Nonetheless, in principle, devolution is likely to lead to more shifts in contracts, new organisations – and all that, with the mechanisms in place through the HASCA, will lead to more tenders and more privatisation.

I understand that in Manchester, they are using devolution to carry through cuts to as much as a third of their hospital beds and estate. This, led by the leader of the council. In the current climate this kind of group think is very dangerous.

Meanwhile, the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act will enable local authorities to run NHS organisations.

The Act enables a transfer of local functions of the NHS to a local authority or ‘combined authority’, with a local authority’s permission. The ‘core duties’ of the health secretary – including roles set out in NHS England’s mandate, cannot be transferred. The local authority could take on a current NHS role, or carry it out alongside or jointly with the NHS. The NHS may or may not continue to provide that service itself. There is provision to abolish the public authority where it will no longer have any functions. It allows for a joint committee of the devolved bodies, including at least one CCG, to establish a pooled fund to manage NHS cash.

In principle, it makes sense for NHS services to be run by a local authority: they are structurally democratic; they understand commissioning; much of our health is determined by areas under the control of local authorities; there could be a rapid integrative process; everyone knows their local authority, but is often ignorant of their CCG.

Deregulation of NHS services

But, do you really want your local NHS run by a politician – and particularly a Tory – in the current climate of austerity? Do you want an organisation, your local authority, which has privatised virtually every public service to do the same to the NHS? Do you want an organisation whose life blood is means-testing, trying to do the same to your health services?

The Devolution Act could lead to the deregulation of NHS services, too. The Act mentions ‘standards and duties to be placed on that authority having regard to the national service standards and the national information and accountability obligations’. The phrase ‘having regard to’ is weak in legal terms. It becomes possible for the nationalised standards of care and practice to be slowly abandoned. Surely highly dangerous. And we have seen this in so many other areas of work, for instance banking and food.

The kind of integration we should seek includes the following:

Integrated national standards with nationally recommended treatments.

Integrated methods of allocating resources to areas of greatest need.

Integrated funding through national taxation.

National accountability, democratic control over commissioning, effective PPI, shared power with communities.

An integrated national system of pay, terms and conditions for NHS and social care staff.

Meanwhile, making social care free at the point of need is an essential prerequisite for integration. It would transform the whole scope, scale and landscape of care. The King’s Fund think tank has calculated that it is possible – and we need this to be the direction of travel. It may take some time, but it is absolutely necessary.

So, in short – integration definitely yes. Let’s do more. Devolution, however, seems to have far more risks than benefits, so, in the current climate – beware.

Dr Brian Fisher, GP News, 15 March 2016

Government Report on NPPF to be published on April Fool’s Day …

The Communities and Local Government Committee will publish its Third Report of session 2015-16, Department for Communities and Local Government consultation on national planning policy, at 00.01 on Friday 1 April 2016.”

What an appropriate date! Watch this space!

“NHS being pressured by government to “fiddle the figures” to make finances seem better”

NHS trusts are being placed under pressure from Government to change the way they report on their finances, in what critics described as a desperate attempt to reduce a looming health service deficit.

The health service is currently forecasting a deficit of £3bn by the end of this month – the highest in the history of the NHS – amid widespread failures by NHS trusts to cut their spending.

But documents seen by The Daily Telegraph disclose that the Department of Health has embarked on a national programme to change current accountancy practices, and to encourage trusts to be more optimistic about their financial problems.

The review being carried out by four major accountancy firms aims to explore “areas of opportunity” about ways which NHS finances could be reported differently. …”

… “This definitely falls into the area of fiddles – being clever about when you book income and when you book expenditure” – Sally Gainsbury, Nuffield Trust” …

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/12203691/NHS-being-pressured-by-government-to-fiddle-the-figures-to-make-finances-seem-better-documents-reveal.html

UK winter floods cost councils £250 million -what is our LEP’s role in building flood resilience ?

“The final tally could be even higher, as councils are still counting the cost of the winter devastation. The total cost to households and businesses hit by the winter floods could be as much as £5bn, KPMG said in December.

The worst-hit council was Cumbria, which saw around £175m in damage to local authority-owned infrastructure, with costs for flood-hit bridges, landslips, carriageway damage, survey work and the need to build a temporary road on the A591.

Calderdale has a bill of £33m, Northumberland £24m and Lancashire has suffered £5m damage due to the floods.

The LGA said government funding had been important in helping local authorities and communities recover from the floods, but warned councils will need more help as the full cost of damage emerges.

The organisation also called for new flood defence funding to be devolved to local areas so authorities can work with communities and businesses to ensure money is spent where it is most needed.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/25/uks-winter-floods-land-councils-with-nearly-250m-bill-survey-shows

This is what our LEP said in February 2014:

Given its strategic role on both economic and funding matters, the Heart of the South West LEP has been asked to lead the Economic Impact and Funding workstream. The workstream will provide an underlying case for funding of immediate mitigation measures and wider assistance, as well as set out evidence for investment in longer term solutions for the levels and moors area.”

http://www.heartofswlep.co.uk/news/flooding

In June 2014 a £50,000 grant was given to establish “work hubs” in areas that had experienced flooding in the Mendips:

http://www.heartofswlep.co.uk/news/flooding

The only other mention of flooding is in the LEPs response to the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement last year on the same webpage”

We are pleased that the Exeter Flood Defence Scheme, which will help protect around 3200 businesses and residents across the city is taking shape. It’s vital that we take proactive flood alleviation measures to reduce the potentially disastrous consequences that flooding can have for the economy throughout the HotSW area.”

So, don’t hold your breath on the LEP being proactive with funding for flood resilience infrastructure – it has too much invested in the Hinkley C nuclear power plant and far too many “hubs” of all kinds to fund for business (wo)men for “growth” opportunities.