Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

Hinkley Point C update

… Is it a good deal?

That depends who you ask. EDF, the UK government or British consumers.
EDF: The ex-CFO has voted with his feet. It’s not hard to see why he has such misgivings. Despite being the experts, EDF’s recent track record on building reactors is poor. Smaller but similar projects in France, Finland and China are years behind schedule and massively over budget.

On its own, EDF could not take this on as it could ruin the company. The government has agreed in principle to underwrite it by giving EDF the freedom to sell off the family silver (like a stake in the French equivalent of National Grid) and it may need to raise more cash by creating efficiencies (code for sacking people).

French unions hold seats on the EDF board. On the other hand, if it pulls it off, it will be the most profitable project it has ever done. …

… What does it mean for UK Government?

Some of the high risks have been removed. The UK government won’t pay a penny if the project isn’t completed. EDF is on the hook for the risk of delivering a fiendishly difficult and delay-strewn process. What is clear is that the UK government has placed great political capital in infrastructure capital.

The message seems to be – please for goodness sake build something. The earth movers are standing by – can it afford to keep them idle much longer?

What does it mean for UK consumers?

This is a tough one. The price EDF has negotiated for the electricity that Hinkley will one day produce looks very high by current standards. £92.50 per megawatt hour of electricity is nearly three times the current price.
Sounds mad – but the reality is that NO ONE knows what the average price of electricity will be in the decades between 2025 and 2060. Add to that when the decommissioning costs are factored in, the future carbon penalties for coal and gas are unknown, and that nuclear counts as a near zero carbon source of energy, and the maths is practically impossible to do.
This sleeping giant is due to wake in May. Whether it crushes EDF underfoot or makes a colossal contribution to its bottom line will take at least a decade to determine. The UK and French governments are in this up to their neck and it’s hard to see them pulling out now.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35877071

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Colyton, Neighbourhood Plans

Colyton Parish Council’s reputation takes yet another serious knock

“CONTROVERSY surrounding the Colyton Parish Neighbourhood Plan continued last week, as seven Colyford volunteers resigned amid claims of “constant, unnecessary interference” by the parish council.

The mass resignation at last week’s Colyton Parish Council meeting came after chairman Howard West, his wife Anne, and one other member resigned following a fall-out with the parish council in February, and claims they had received threats from a councillor.

It leaves only three parish councillors and the Mayor of Colyford, John Mills, sitting on the committee.

Last year, Colyton Parish Council agreed to develop a neighbourhood plan, which will shape how the parish is developed in future years, and asked for volunteers to come forward to work on the project. Separate committees were set up in Colyton and Colyford, consisting of both councillors and volunteers, to deal with the individual issues which faced the two communities, as well as an overarching steering group to bring representatives from the two committees together.

However, the process has got off to a slow start and has been marred by fall-outs between the Colyford volunteers and parish council.

At last week’s heated parish council meeting held in Colyford, [a] letter of resignation was read on behalf of seven Colyford volunteers – Sue Boorman, Mike Elsey, Peter Mason, Diana Nason, Ian Priestley, Liz Thomas and Tim Wheeler. …

[The letter goes into detail and continues]

… This is the community’s plan, not the parish council’s or a few of the individuals who seem to control it. The entire community has the final say in what goes into it. We urge all residents of the parish to ensure that the plan is truly representative of everyone’s collective aspirations for the parish in the coming years. Our concern is that a few could perhaps dictate how the communities are shaped, which would be disastrous for the parish as a whole. …

http://www.colyton-today.co.uk/article.cfm?id=104098&headline=COLYTON

This is not by far the first time that Colyton Parish Council has faced criticism. Here are just a few recent examples:

http://www.colyton-today.co.uk/article.cfm?id=104098&headline=COLYTON

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2016/02/16/colyton-newspaper-editor-adds-his-views-on-unseemlybehaviour/

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/09/22/colyton-where-a-committee-chair-is-elected-before-the-comittee-is-chosen/

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2016/01/13/push-me-pull-you-what-happens-when-a-council-says-one-thing-and-does-another/

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

EDDC, Exmouth, Moirai Exmouth project

Exmouth seafront tenant loses appeal but doesn’t give up

“SUPPORTERS of the regeneration of Exmouth [aka mostly EDDC and developers] seafront were celebrating a partial victory today.

The redevelopment of the town’s Queen’s Drive site has been given a major boost following a court ruling in relation to the Fun Park and Golf sites on the seafront.

The project is still in its early phases in and specific development will be the subject of public consultation preceding any planning applications.

The tenants of the Fun Park and Golf sites submitted an application for leave to appeal the original County Court decision made in January, which had awarded full possession of these two sites to the council.

The tenant has now applied for an oral application for an appeal hearing.

Councillor Andrew Moulding, deputy leader of East Devon District Council and chairman of Exmouth Regeneration Board, said: “This is an important step in the ongoing legal process in relation to the Queen’s Drive site and we are encouraged by the decision issued on 17 March.

” We are disappointed to hear that the tenant has requested an oral application hearing for an appeal as his actions are causing further delay to the delivery of new road and car park, a £4m Watersports centre and further seafront regeneration on the Queen’s Drive site.

” Our developer partners remain committed to this important seafront site for the benefit of the people of Exmouth.”

The council, which owns the Queen’s Drive area, is committed to redevelop the seafront site and during 2015 had already negotiated with some of the tenants to leave the site following the serving of formal notices.

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Lord-Justice-Appeal-refuses-permission-tenants/story-28970984-detail/story.html

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Asset Management Group, Asset sweating, EDDC, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation

Comments

Government guidance on disposal of local authority assets

Disposals

“Where land or property is identified as surplus, there are some important principles which will help ensure that land is disposed of effectively and efficiently. These include;

Every disposal having clear objectives from the outset.

These should establish the key objectives and targets for land disposal – for example, this could be to maximise housing capacity, receipt or employment floorspace, or to reduce costs through divestment.

Disposals rooted in local plans.

Land disposals should help deliver local planning objectives, addressing matters such as the requirement for a five year land supply, or the assessed need for housing and employment land.

Early and meaningful engagement with other public bodies and the market.

Early engagement with other public bodies will ensure that the views of all authorities with an interest can be taken into account, so that land is used as efficiently as possible. Early market engagement should inform the disposal strategy and brief, and ensure the opportunity is attractive to the market.

The appropriate level of investment determined prior to disposal.

To ensure the best possible return, in many cases it may be appropriate to invest in a site before disposal, for example by obtaining planning permission or providing infrastructure. The appropriate type and scale of investment will depend on the individual circumstances of the site, and understanding these early will ensure the best outcome for authorities.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/508307/160316_Land_disposal_guidance.pdf

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Devolution, East Devon economy, Local Enterprise Partnership

Devolution and “more jobs” – smoke and mirrors

“The following statement by the Core Cities Group is fairly typical of the statements of intent by advocates of devolution:

“Grow the whole of the UK economy, contributing to the elimination of the deficit, for example by generating the potential £222 billion and 1.16 million extra jobs across the eight English Core Cities alone by 2030, which independent forecasts demonstrate is possible with more devolution. That’s the equivalent of adding Denmark to our economy.”

“There is neither realism about the growth outcomes of devolution nor much concern about generating particular benefits for local economic stakeholders, such as residents, local workers, and business owners. NEF’s work on local economies has shown that if cities are to ‘meet their full economic potential’13 in terms of benefiting local economic stakeholders, this will involve:

Supporting people to be financially strong individuals in terms of income-to-cost-of- living ratios and being able to have savings.

Developing a strong local business sector with supply chains connecting small enterprise to big business.

Making more efficient use of distribution of resources, with positive local circulation of money, low levels of wasted resources in local supply and production systems, a high level of staff retention in jobs, and falling levels of inequality and poverty.

In the documents, these sorts of economic outcome for local people are only rarely discussed. For example, reducing poverty is mentioned four times in a total of 1,129 arguments and cost of living is not mentioned at all.

This is a gap in the debate. ‘More jobs’ is the overwhelming focus,14 rather than ‘better jobs and wages’.”

Click to access 1888588d95f1712903_e3m6ii50b.pdf

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Developers/ Development, Local Enterprise Partnership, Sustainability, Transparency

“Democracy: the missing link in the devolution debate”

“Key findings

Of the arguments made for devolution, 41.6% focus on achieving economic growth as the main justification for devolving power.

Only 12.9% of arguments make the case for devolution in order to shift power, strengthen democracy, and increase citizen involvement in decision-making.

Just 7.4% of arguments address inequalities in wealth and power between regions.

Environmental sustainability is part of just 0.8% of arguments.

Only 2.9% of arguments address the potential downsides and risks of devolution.

Local governments in particular seldom consider the impact of devolution on democracy, discussing democratic outcomes less than central government or think-tanks.

For full report, see:

http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/entry/democracy-the-missing-link-in-the-devolution-debate

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Chardstock, Developers/ Development, Dunkeswell, EDDC, Local Plan, Rural communities, Scrutiny, Sustainability

Chardstock and Dunkeswell: Scrutiny Committee report throws up worrying matters

How sensible it was of Councillor Gardner to make her own recording of this meeting, as it appears the Council’s own audio equipment broke down for this section of the meeting.

What follows is Councillor Gardner’s report.

Scrutiny of late amendments to the Local Plan: what did we learn?
Written by Cathy Gardner on 22-Mar-2016. Posted in Cathy Gardner EDA web site:

“On Thursday 17 March 2016, EDDCs Scrutiny Committee finally examined what went on in March last year when, at the 11th hour, two changes to the draft Local Plan (LP) were voted through. Using clear criteria, Officers had compiled a list of ‘sustainable’ villages, which excluded Dunkeswell and Chardstock. However, at the final Development Management Committee (DMC) meeting for the LP, Dunkeswell was added to the list and at the extra-ordinary Council meeting to finalise the LP, Chardstock was added in. These actions were taken without any request for Officers to verify the evidence supporting the changes.

The decision to include Dunkeswell was made on the suggestion by the then-ward member that a school was going to be built. This was not the case. Arguments made in support of Chardstock by the Deputy Leader Andrew Moulding, on behalf of the ward member, the Leader of the Council Paul Diviani, were also erroneous.

It seems that Planning Officers did not think it was necessary (or even appropriate) to check the information stated by the then ward member for Dunkeswell, despite there being time to do this before the Council meeting. Even more interesting was the assertion by the Councils’ Legal Advisor that it is not the role of any officer (including the CEO Mark Williams) to “…withhold decision-making powers from Councillors” (1). This may be true but surely Officers must give clear advice to Councillors, especially if a proposed decision might be unsound. In this case the CEO did not provide clear advice (2) to full Council that they were being asked to vote on amendments which were both against Planning Officer advice and based on information that had not been verified. He did not suggest that Members might prefer to ask for the information to be confirmed before voting or that making a decision under these circumstances was inadvisable.

The urge to get the draft LP signed off seems to have overridden any caution that making last minute changes might be unsound. Fortunately, in these cases, the Inspector did not uphold the changes and neither village is now in the ‘sustainable’ list. Unfortunately there have been consequences for Chardstock and development was approved on the understanding that the village was to be classified as ‘sustainable’.

So, apparently, Members can make unfounded and unconfirmed assertions and if other Members accept what they are told, they can vote through changes to a document as vital as the LP, contrary to the result of proper process and Officer advice without any difficulty. In the end the Council is accountable for its decisions and they should be evidence-based, but the only recourse for communities affected by an error is a Judicial Review (JR). If someone can afford to bring a JR and wins, the result will be a cost to the Council – which is our money. There are no sanctions for any Members who may present incorrect information to bring such a result about.

Can this happen again?

Yes, almost certainly. In the short term the Villages Development Plan is being finalised. In the medium term the LP will be up for review. So there will always be opportunities for incorrect information to be used to sway the content of development plans.

So what can we do?

I suppose the only thing we can do is to be alert to events like this and make efforts to call them out as they happen; to request that Officers confirm what is being suggested and to ask for any vote to be deferred until this has happened. We have to insist that all decisions are based on sound evidence.

The lesson for Members has to be to not take anything at face value, no matter who says it. Put the interests of residents first, follow evidence-based advice and do not be swayed by persuasive speakers. And perhaps wonder about the motives behind such actions.

Personal audio recording of Scrutiny Committee meeting, March 17 2016 (Council system broke down during this part of the meeting), C Gardner
2. Audio recording of extra-ordinary Council Meeting, March 26 2015, EDDC website (2:42:44) http://eastdevon.gov.uk/recordings/council/eocouncil260315recording

Source: Scrutiny of late amendments to the Local Plan: what did we learn?
Written by Cathy Gardner on 22-Mar-2016. Posted in Cathy Gardner

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Local Enterprise Partnership

Comments

Housing Minister to be questioned by Lords’ Select Committee this afternoon

” The Economic Affairs Committee holds the final public evidence session of its inquiry into the economics of the UK housing market by taking evidence from Housing Minister, Brandon Lewis, and Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, Damian Hinds.

Inquiry: The Economics of the UK Housing Market
Select Committee on Economic Affairs
Witnesses
Tuesday 22 March in Committee Room 1, Palace of Westminster

At 3.35pm

Mr Brandon Lewis MP, Minister of State for Housing and Planning, Communities and Local Government
Mr Damian Hinds MP, Exchequer Secretary, HM Treasury
Possible Questions
The Committee questions the witnesses on a range of policy issues including:

The Government’s aspiration for a million new homes by the end of the Parliament and how this figure was decided on
Why the Government is confident there will be a sharp increase in private sector house building
Whether the Government’s housing policy focus should move from demand side measures to helping to increase the supply of housing
What the Government can do to support the building of new homes on public land
How the Government can support local authorities ‘huge ambition’ to get involved in housebuilding again
Why the Government has such a clear preference for home ownership over other tenures?
The Chancellor announced in the Budget that Government will take measures to speed up the planning system. The Ministers will be asked for further details on how this will be achieved.”

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/economic-affairs-committee/news-parliament-2015/ministers-evidence-session/

All previous sessions (this is the last one) are available on the site with full transcripts

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

“Political interference” in Cambridgeshire devolution deal

“Councillor Paul Bullen told Lord Porter his attempts to postpone Tuesday’s vote at Shire Hall over whether Cambridgeshire should sign up to devolution involving Norfolk and Suffolk was “not within your remit”.

Lord Porter contacted councillors in Newcastle and Lincolnshire yesterday by email to ask if they could contact members in Cambridgeshire “from your respective groups” to see if they could get the debate put off until after Easter.

Lord Porter said: “I will endeavour to get Greg Clark to meet with all of them as soon as the Easter break is over to try to make sure that any questions they have can be answered before they make their decision”.

But Cllr Bullen is furious that Lord Porter has intervened and earlier today told him: “As far as I’m concerned it is not within your remit as chairman of the LGA to attempt to alter, in any way, shape or form, decisions already made by democratically elected councillors.

“All members are entitled to table motions and your deliberate attempt to sway the way any debate will go is political meddling of the worst kind.

“Clearly, and in my personal opinion, this is a politically motivated e-mail which is neither warranted nor wanted by the majority of members at Cambridgeshire County Council.

“Indeed, I doubt that you have even read the devolution deal on offer for, had you done so, you would have realised what a terrible deal it is for Cambridgeshire.”

He accused the Lincolnshire peer of an “obvious attempt to interfere in the democratic process at Cambridgeshire County Council”.

Cllr Bullen told Lord Porter: “I believe that you have acted ‘ultra vires’ by sending this e-mail in the first place and I will be making a formal complaint regarding your conduct.”

In his email Lord Porter said: “I think we all agree that the devo deals announced are a step in the right direction and that we all agree that the leading groups pulling the deals together need to make every effort to keep all of their council members on board.

“I’m sure we all agree that if members decide for good reason that the deal is not worth pursuing then this is a position we should support.

“In the case of the Cambs deal I’m not sure that anyone is yet in the position to make a decision either way and this brings me to the point of this email.”

Lord Porter added: “I think a decision to reject the offer, so soon after it has been made and in the absence of any real chance for all of the relevant information to have been shared, risks bringing the whole agenda into disrepute.”

Thirty four devolution proposals are being considered across England.

Lord Porter said last week: “To build desperately-needed homes, create jobs, provide the dignified care for our elderly and boost economic growth, all councils need greater freedom from central government to take decisions over vital services in their area.

“These new deals and extensions to existing deals must signal a return to the early momentum in which similar deals were announced last year. This will clearly require different approaches for different areas, including how they are governed.”

Ironically the chief executive of the LGA is Mark Lloyd – until recently chief executive of Cambridgeshire County Council.

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

EDDC, Rural communications

Rural broadband: East Devon misses out on extra £8m by leaving consortium to go it alone

East Devon decided to pull out of CDS and go it alone with its own broadband deal, thereby missing out on this extra funding and meaning thousands of pounds in the pockets of “consultants” who will be employed by EDDC to duplicate the work of CDC.

“The broadband scheme for Devon and Somerset has received an £8 million windfall in last week’s budget.

Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne awarded Connecting Devon and Somerset (CDS), which is rolling out broadband in rural areas, an extra £4m in funding for so-called ultra-fast connections.

The remaining £4m is expected to come from match funding by the private sector.

This additional funding, which comes on top of a £10m pot announced in the Autumn Statement for the whole South West, is intended to deliver broadband speeds of a minimum of 100Mbps to at least 4,000 premises in phase two of the CDS programme, which will eventually see broadband rolled out across the final 10% of the two counties so far uncovered.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Osborne-hands-Devon-Somerset-8m-ultra-fast/story-28964282-detail/story.html

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

East Devon Tories

Comments

Tory Central Office eyes £34m of constituency assets .. but offers access to ministers for new higher membership classes

More interesting information from the “culling” article referred to below, in which it reports that branches with less than 100 party members will be expected to merge with other, bigger branches and that branches are sitting on property and assets worth at least £34m. Membership of the Conservative Party have plummeted from 263,00 in 2005 to around 134,000 today.

“… The internal review found that Conservative associations were sitting on assets of property, buildings and cash worth £34million which were “likely to be much higher” as properties had not been revalued in a long time. …

… “It also calls for the creation of more expensive “gold” and “silver” memberships – offering perks such as invitations to “meet the minister” events.” …

…”The administration of membership would be transferred to the central party and the £50-a-year silver and £100-a-year gold membership deals introduced “to enhance the membership experience”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/12200581/Half-of-Tory-party-associations-could-be-culled-despite-grassroots-rebellion-under-Lord-Feldman-reforms.html

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Seaton/ Colyford / Colyton

Seaton Heights … hmmm

This is what they say:

“The resort will be built in phases, starting with the holiday homes and the leisure complex and should be completed within two to three years depending on how quickly the properties sell. …

David Sullivan, chairman of Lyme Bay Leisure, thanked Seaton and local people for their patience. He said: “’I am sure there have been many cynics who believed this day would never arrive, but we have been absolutely determined to overcome all obstacles sent our way and have been resolute in our determination to make this resort become reality.”

He promised more news in the coming weeks and the full plans will be shared at a public meeting in Seaton Town Hall on a date to be announced.”

Now, all that seems to have been announced is demolition of the old motel on the site which has been deteriorating for years. But there may need to be a bit of a move-on needed as, if construction has not started by May 2018 the planning application will be cancelled and a new application will be needed, as per EDDC’s conditions. Demolition does not constitute constructon start – that is usually signalled by the preparation of footings of actual new buildings.

And there are A LOT of hoops that the developer must jump through before that can happen:

Click to access obj.pdf

Note: Condition 12 states:

12. Prior to the commencement of development (including demolition), the existing access to A3052 shall be permanently closed to vehicles in a manner to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority after consultation with the County Highway Authority and shall be maintained thereafter to prevent its unauthorised usage.
(Reason – In the interest of highway safety in accordance with policy TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the East Devon Local Plan.)

Note, too, that the Section 106 requirements do not kick in with demolition:

Click to access obj.pdf

Owl is STILL a cynic but hopes to be proved wrong.

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Phil Twiss, Police (local)

A note for Councillor Twiss

(who has been so very quiet recently, particularly about his Mastermind subject of rural broadband)

Remember a while ago you got apoplectic about an elector who suggested Conservatives should be culled in East Devon? And you reported him to the police cyber-crime unit (who chose not to investigate), although you described that as “leaving the case on file” at the time … A headline from the day”

“Cabinet member Phil Twiss took offence at a comment posted on Claire Wright’s web page in response to a council U-turn on the location for a new office headquarters.

Mrs Wright, an independent who lives in West Hill, Ottery St Mary, removed the post, which was written by a reader, Chris Wilkins.

Critics of the local authority have accused Mr Twiss of over-reacting, wasting police time and playing politics ahead of the general election …

… A notice pinned to the West Hill Conservative Party notice board said the matter had been referred to the authorities.

“No matter how much we disagree on various issues to knowingly publish a comment in likely breach of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 such as this is below contempt and I trust you will join me in condemning this action,” Coun Twiss wrote.

He added that “in the absence of any sort of explanation” from Coun Wright, he had “passed the details of the blog together with those of a resident of Feniton to Devon And Cornwall Police Cyber crime unit for comment”.

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Police-urged-investigate-cull-Tories-blog-remark/story-25016293-detail/story.html

Well, we do hope you will report today’s (potentially much more serious) Daily Telegraph for the following headline and strapline:

“Why the IDS earthquake (probably) won’t kill Cameron
Iain Duncan Smith’s departure doesn’t represent a direct hit to a sitting prime minister – although whether he has inflicted a flesh wound or something more serious depends on the Conservative Party itself”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12199994/Why-the-IDS-earthquake-probably-wont-kill-Cameron.html

After all, not to do so would imply that the original complaint was purely party political wouldn’t it?

Oh, and the same for all those headlines about knives out, stabbings in the back and the like – very nasty. Not to mention Chancellor Osborne being grilled.

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

East Devon Alliance, Police (local)

Police and Crime Commissioner election: candidates pull out to give Independent a better chance

“A Westcountry naval captain turned millionaire business leader has opted not to stand for election as police and crime commissioner and has instead backed the campaign of a former senior officer.

Charles Howeson, who has been chairman of the Rowe Group and Coutts and Co, head of the NHS for the South West and chairman of First Great Western Advisory Board, had been expected to add his name to the list of candidates for the May poll.

However, he has now announced he will not stand to replace PCC Tony Hogg but will support independent former assistant chief constable Bob Spencer.

In backing the Spencer campaign, Mr Howeson becomes the latest high-profile figure to attack the politicisation of the role, which holds to account the police force in Devon and Cornwall.

Conservative candidate Alison Hernandez, who is chief of staff for Torbay MP Kevin Foster, has openly spoken of her intention to use her political clout if she is elected.

But UKIP candidate and retired police constable Jonathan Smith has pledged to campaign to scrap the role if elected.

He joins fellow candidate and former Devon Lib Dem MP Richard Younger-Ross who has thrown his hat in the ring with a similar pledge to try to abolish the post while in office.

Now it has emerged that another proposed candidate, former police officer Simon Payne, says he has also decided to stand down as a candidate to act as Mr Spencer’s campaign manager.

Mr Howeson said winning the election on a political ticket will leave the new PCC with a “conflict of interest”.

But he has decided to pull out so as not to “water down” support among those who favour a non-political candidate.

“The next PCC will need, and be expected, to challenge whatever national government on behalf of the South West population impartially and this could get very tough indeed,” he added.

“There will be no room for coziness or any lack of resolution. So however good they might be as individuals, if they had been party politically placed, our next PCC would almost certainly have to grossly embarrass their sponsor, simply in order to do their job right for us! And just how likely is that?

“For this reason I believe that only an entirely non-party political candidate can satisfy the local remit, however outstanding or well-motivated any individual political appointee may be.”

Mr Spencer said he was delighted to have the backing of Mr Howeson, who commands support among businesses in the two counties.

“Charles has unparalleled links with, and influence within, the peninsula’s wider business community, as well as nationally,” Mr Spencer added.

“His own strictly non-party political balance, strategic experience and perspective on the challenges that we all face in the next four years will perfectly complement my own and so be invaluable.”

Mr Payne added: “After meeting with Bob and talking about our shared views and values, I felt I wanted to support Bob’s campaign and could best do this by being his campaign manager.”

He added: “The most important thing is not to split the Independent vote. Keeping party politics out of policing is our aim. Bob with his knowledge of both policing, policy and partnership work is the person most likely to succeed.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Business-leader-backs-independent-police-crime/story-28962956-detail/story.html

Mr Spencer will make an appearance at the East Devon Alliance conference at Knowle in April (see above).

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Transparency

Devolution: more concerns

” … The All-Party Political Group on Reform, Decentralisation and Devolution concluded that a significant shift of power from national to local level is essential as part of a coherent and ambitious approach to devolution. This would need to include much greater fiscal autonomy for local areas to overcome decades of centralisation.
Today’s Devolution and the Union paper warns that greater localism can only succeed if members of the public believe their local areas – not Whitehall – are leading it.

As a result, the reports concludes that there should be no limits put on what might be devolved in England, but agreement on what functions remain at a UK level within a “reserved powers” model, similar to the approach adopted with the Scottish Parliament. …”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/03/kerslake-calls-radical-and-far-reaching-devolution

…‘‘The devolution of power to local areas in England must not be seen as an end in itself but a process aimed at tailoring local business environments to make them better places for business growth,’’ saidTerry Scuoler, chief executive of EEF.
‘‘Ultimately, local decision makers and businesses will need a sustained dialogue on how they can make their local areas places in which businesses can prosper.’’
‘‘To date, however, business has felt disengaged from the process of devolution. For it to succeed in England, business must be fully signed up as partners in the negotiation and delivery of devolution deals.’’
‘‘This must include a key role for LEPs and a focus on areas where tangible outcomes can be delivered in the near term, especially in transport infrastructure,’’

SME Insider, October 2015

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Cranbrook, Developers/ Development

Comments

“Healthy” Cranbrook, no allotments – developers heel-dragging

Town Council website:

11 March at 14:05 ·
ALLOTMENTS
In response to a resident’s query, here is a summary of the position in relation to allotments in Cranbrook:
Allotments were originally proposed within the Ingrams land application (14/2137/MRES), however, the allotments have since been removed from the scheme as the location did not work so close to the sports pitches. This prompted the current renegotiation of the legal agreement. A revised agreement will still make provision for allotments in Cranbrook. Until an…y revisions to the legal agreement are finalised we are unable to give a definite timeline as to when the allotments will be laid out and completed. Allotments are supposed to be complete prior to the first occupation of 1700 dwellings.
There is still a requirement for allotments in Cranbrook and provision has been (and will continue to be) made in the legal agreement to ensure allotments come forward, but at this stage with no allotments yet approved or available, there is no mechanism for residents to be able to apply for a plot.
See more

· Reply · 11 March at 16:03

I gave up my allotment in Exmouth when I moved here in 2014 because I was told one would be available to me here. This is still not the case, yet this is supposed to be a town that is promoted as healthy and sustainable. I’m actually really cross about it. My inability to grow food here has caused a significant rise in the cost of feeding my family, and the local shop has very poor healthy options for food. The local growers who sell at the market are expensive and not selling what my family need. I can’t even grow food in my garden because the ground is so poor that the grass won’t even grow and greenhouses add to the rat problem. To say that they will be added at some point is not acceptable. I moved here based on a series of assurances about services and infrastructure that have now all become lies.”

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Education (local)

Education: “Local Democracy bites the dust”

Extracts from an article by Guardian columnist Michael Rosen:

” … In one stroke, George Osborne has eliminated the public’s role in education where we live. Here he is explaining why: “It is simply unacceptable that Britain continues to sit too low down the global league tables for education.” In taking over ministerial responsibility for education, Osborne seems to have forgotten that this job applies only to England. The reference to “global” tables is part of the argument that says doing exclamation marks better than Johnny Foreigner enables British capitalism to compete better with the Chinese. “So I’m going to get on with finishing the job we started five years ago,” he continues, “to drive up standards and set schools free from the shackles of local bureaucracy.” …

… This is how it works: your school is a local authority school. When it becomes an academy, the local authority is compelled to give (for a peppercorn rent) a 125-year lease to whichever “sponsor” comes in to take over the school. Leaseholders have rights over the properties they have leases on, including, perhaps, permission to run a “dating agency” on school premises. Where Sir Greg trod, others are sure to step, too. In the case of “foundation” schools – schools whose ownership is in the hands of a trust – switching to academy status entails a direct transfer of freehold from the trust to the new sponsors. There is room for some serious cash to be made here.

There is room for some other jiggery-pokery too. On several occasions in the past few years, I have been invited into schools by people from the soon-to-be-extinct species, local authority advisers. At some point in our chats, they have taken me to one side and told me that central government, academy chains and individual academies do not have a duty of care for all children.

That is the local authority’s job. That duty covers vulnerable, “challenging”, at-risk, disabled, asylum-seeking and looked-after children. Advisers have told me they have found children who were once in academies somehow no longer being in academies, whether that is a result of the rush to improve test scores, prove “progress” or because of an unwillingness to spend money on supporting such children.

Who has picked up the pieces? The local authority. We can imagine the wall-to-wall academies landscape of the future full of the same urge to offload “difficult” children. In which case, impoverished local authorities will end up having to run impoverished “units” for them, won’t they?

In the academies themselves, other possibilities are taking shape. In 2012, while education secretary, Michael Gove released them from the requirement to hire well-paid, trained teachers. This “advance” has coincided with automated teaching appearing on iPads. Why employ people trained to teach, when a software company can do it for you?

A future beckons where the student will sit in a pod and press a button: the word “cheese” appears. The student types in “vache”, the machine says “no”. The student types in “fromage”, the machine says “yes”. An untrained operative walks past, nods, and walks on. One student is mucking about. The operative finds the student’s name on the discipline app, clicks on “negative comment”. As it’s the third time this week, the student’s name pops up on the deputy head’s screen. The student is sent off for an hour in the detention suite: no need for human contact – made all the easier through academicisation. …

… Now, with many more schools under direct rule, what has arrived are what Osborne in other circumstances might perhaps have called “the shackles of local bureaucracy”. They are the innovative but unelected regional schools commissioners, whose job is to do what local authority advisers used to do, but with hundreds more schools on their books. Not so innovative, then. Perhaps these commissioners have bought Gove’s illuminating maps so that when the light comes on, they jump in their cars and head for the North York Moors, or Dover.

One time-saver: when they get there, they won’t have to meet the parent governor. That job has just been abolished. Another local election bites the dust. We parents don’t need one of our own to keep an eye on what goes on in academies, do we? We might find that the academy head is running a dating agency.”

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Dorset, EDDC

Jurassic Coast National Park: its time has come

An East Devon Watch post recently drew attention to an article in the Midweek Herald which broke the news that “pressure on local authority budgets is forcing a rethink on the management of the World Heritage Site and there could be a move towards greater community involvement.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/east_devon_residents_to_have_say_on_future_of_jurassic_coast_1_4460051

Owl suggested it was time to re-examine the idea of creating an East Devon and Dorset National Park based on the Jurassic Coast World Heritage coastline.

Recall that EDDC refused to consider the idea because it would have to relinquish planning control to a new authority. A difficult thing to do when it has so many developers to please.

The idea is still being pursued and here is the website with all the details:

https://dorsetandeastdevonnationalpark.wordpress.com/

They would no doubt be pleased to receive support.

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Feniton/ Talaton

Feniton’s fly problem: some timely advice from Councillor Susie Bond

https://susiebond.wordpress.com/2016/03/20/fenitons-fly-problem-prevention-is-better-than-cure/