Electoral registration – changes “negative for democracy”

“Reforms to the electoral registration process under this and the previous coalition government have led to changes which experts and campaigners alike have described as negative for democracy.

We stand at a critical crossroads in our democracy. The number of people that are on the electoral register is in long-term decline. It was estimated that up to 7.5 million people were not registered in 2014. During the transition to individual electoral registration (IER) another 1.4 million names were removed. Dramatically, the number of attainers, our next generation of voters, fell by 40%.

In a draft report, co-authored with Bite The Ballot, and presented to the All-Party Parliamentary Party on Democratic Participation for discussion today, new information is unveiled about the nature of the problem. Findings from a new UEA survey of electoral administrators, as detailed in the report, shows that two-thirds of electoral administrators agreed that citizens had complained to them about the registration process being bureaucratic. Roughly half of electoral officials thought that the completeness of the register had declined.”

http://www.democraticaudit.com

St Modwyn (Skypark developer) and its car park inaccessible to – cars!

St Modwen is the developer of Skypark – the developer which says it could take years and years to fully let. It seems time for a bit of a shake-up in its regeneration project planning department …

“A rooftop car park in Farnborough has become the centre of a UK-wide controversy after it was discovered to have no vehicular access.

The 80-space car park, which is atop a gym and shopping complex in the Hampshire town, is no new development however. It has been empty since the building was completed five years ago, despite promises back then to residents of an adjacent apartment block for whom the parking was destined that it would be useable within weeks.

While the block’s developer, St Modwen, denies that the car park is a secret, it has remained relatively under the radar until recently, when plans to redo two town centre car parks highlighted the problem of parking in the area.

Local councillor Gareth Lyon told The Independent: “We have a massive problem with car parking in Farnborough. To have had this huge car park lying empty defies belief. It is ridiculous.”

The official reason for the lack of access ramp is the plan for a bridge to link it to another building on which construction has not yet begun.

St Modwen, which describes itself as the UK’s leading regeneration specialist, is spearheading an £80m revival of Farnborough’s town centre, under which the complex falls. A spokesperson for the company refused to comment on when the development would be completed and vehicle access to the car park built.”

Source: AOL news

75 bed Premier Inn for Seaton

Planning application 16/0424/MFUL has been validated but documents are not yet online. So far, reaction in Seaton seems unanimously positive, the town having sorely lacked this level of tourist investment. The hotel will be sited on the regeneration area on Harbour Road close to Tesco, Seaton Tramway and the Jurassic Coast interpretation centre due to open by Easter.

The remaining development large tourism development site in Seaton is at Seaton Heights on the A3052, which has had planning permission for many years but has had numerous setbacks.

Parish and Swire vote to cut disability benefits

“The House of Lords has been unable to stop a planned £30-a-week cut to disability benefits forced through by Government MPs.

Charities have warned that the cut to the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) WRAG would make it more difficult for disabled people to find work and that many struggled to afford food on the benefit at its current level.

The Government however says the cut, which applies to new claimaints, will incentivise disabled people to find work.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/esa-wrag-disability-benefit-cut-disabled-mps-vote-tories-iain-duncan-smith-a6918556.html

Will EU referendum purdah rules affect some or all council decisions from 27 May 2016?

It means even more major government decisions and activity will be postponed until June, adding to the delays in the government’s childhood obesity strategy, Trident, BBC reforms and airport expansion.

The combination of the elections to the Scottish parliament, Welsh Assembly, London mayoral elections and local council votes across England and the national referendum on Britain’s EU membership means Government will be forced to abandon much of its other work due to neutrality rules during election periods.

Purdah – which bars the use of public money to promote one side in the final weeks before a poll – will block ministers or civil servants making any major decisions until after the elections are over.”

In the case of the EU referendum, this commences on 27 May 2016.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3481915/The-great-referendum-shutdown-Ministers-civil-servants-set-twiddling-thumbs-work-THREE-WEEKS-Easter-June-s-EU-poll.html

Pensioner holds up Southend seafront development for 10 years …

“Florence Hall has rejected several offers to leave her Southend-on-Sea home despite being the only remaining resident in her block. The 75-year-old bought her house in 1964 with her late husband.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3481848/Southend-Sea-pensioner-stalls-60million-seaside-development-ten-year-battle-avoid-selling-beloved-terraced-home-s-lived-66-years.html

The government is channelling £12 billion to Local Enterprise Partnerships (see below). This money is to be used on projects of their choosing. The people choosing are predominantly business men and (some) women and a handful of top councillors. Decisions are made by a simple majority.

This is mostly money that, in the past, would have gone to local authorities which would have been accountable to us for it and their choices would be subject to the ballot box. Our LEP is spending an awful lot of it on the projects allied to the Hinkley Point C power station – when even its owners have very cold feet about investing.

Our LEP meets in secret and produces only sketchy notes of its deliberations. We have no idea if it has any sub-committees or who is on them. We do not know how to access its accounts or what form they take. We do not even know how many people they employ or what their jobs are. Heck, even their postal address is a post office box number

Heart of the South West LEP, PO Box 805, Exeter, EX1 9UU

and their contact numbers are mobile phones:

http://www.heartofswlep.co.uk/contact-us

where it also says this:

“By telephone: 01935 385977 – The LEP does not have a Head Office and this number is kindly answered by one of our partners, who will take a message and forward onto the appropriate person in the LEP to answer. This service is kindly provided by Yeovil Innovation Centre, supported by South Somerset District Council.”

Anyone else as worried as Owl?

National Audit Office consultation: Local Enterprise Partnerships accountability and value for money

“The government has been working to rebalance the economy away from its dependence on financial services since 2010 by empowering local communities to tailor their approach to economic development to local circumstances. Key to this are local enterprise partnerships (LEPS) – partnerships between local authorities and business established in 2010 following the abolition of the Regional Development Agencies. Starting in 2015, funding to LEPs has increased significantly, and will exceed £12 billion between 2015-16 and 2021-22. Our study will consider whether the government’s oversight of LEPs is likely to deliver value for money and how transparent and accountable LEPs are for this funding.

Email using our contact form selecting Local services as the topic, marking it for their attention in the subject field.

https://www.nao.org.uk/work-in-progress/local-enterprise-partnerships-accountability-and-value-for-money/

Hinkley C: not all bad news (for some)

Interesting commment on a Guardian article today on Hinkley Point:

“It was one of the Coalitions first major announcements in 2010 which they rushed into.

However Dame Elizabeth Periam Gass, Lady Gass DCVO JP, Lord-Lieutenant of Somerset from 1998 to 2015 sold a bit of her estate near Hinckley Point for £50 million for it’s construction. [in 2011]

Not that she did anything illegal you understand but it does show how much money spins off from a project as big as this. I wouldn’t mind betting many others of the already rich have had a similar fortunate happening.”

Confirmed by this 2011 article in Western Daily Press of 2011:

http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Nuclear-land-deal-leaves-Lady-Gass-pound-50m/story-13875250-detail/story.html

Judge overturns Planning Inspector’s decision challenged by council – on grounds of landcape quality and sustainability

“A district council has won a High Court appeal after an inspector granted a developer planning permission for 85 dwellings and associated works, in a key ruling on the operation of the National Planning Policy Framework.

In August last year Gladman Developments won permission on appeal for the scheme on land north of Ross Road in Newent.

Forest of Dean District Council, which had in February 2015 refused permission, appealed under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

In its challenge to the inspector’s decision the local authority advanced four grounds of appeal. They were that the inspector:

Failed to consider and give reasons as to whether the site was a ‘valued landscape’;


Incorrectly applied the NPPF at paragraph 134 and the test on harm to heritage assets;

Failed to consider the interaction between paragraph 134 and paragraph 14 [the presumption in favour of sustainable development] of the NPPF and therefore applying the wrong test;


Gave inadequate reasoning.


The Communities Secretary accepted that Ground 3 had been made out and joined Forest of Dean in asking the judge, Mr Justice Coulson, to quash the decision.

Gladman Developments did not accept Ground 3.

In Forest of Dean District Council v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor [2016] EWHC 421 (Admin), Mr Justice Coulson ruled that Forest of Dean’s application on Ground 3 had been successful.
The judge also concluded that it could not be said that, if the inspector had applied the right test, he would necessarily have reached the same answer.

Mr Justice Coulson therefore allowed the application to quash.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26204:judge-quashes-planning-permission-for-85-home-scheme-after-appeal-by-council&catid=63&Itemid=31

Community hospitals: NHS fighting itself – and hospitals must make profits

What a despicable state of affairs we have in East Devon, where our community hospitals are treated only as cash cows:

Sidmouth:
http://www.eastdevon24.co.uk/news/ownership_change_does_not_bode_well_for_future_of_sidmouth_victoria_hospital_1_4446907

Ottery:
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/fears_over_ottery_hospital_ownership_change_1_4446362

Budleigh:
http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/800k_wellbeing_hub_in_budleigh_has_ground_to_a_halt_1_4425934

The situation in Budleigh is complicated by the fact that if the in-fighting is not resolved the site will revert to Clinton Devon Estates, and we all know what that means.

Beware devolved powerhouses!

“It is the government department tasked with delivering the chancellor’s “northern powerhouse” agenda and devolving power to cities and regions. But 97.6% of senior civil servants at the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) are based in London, the government has admitted.

Just 2.4% of the DCLG’s most powerful public servants work outside the capital, according to Brandon Lewis, a DCLG minister and Tory MP for Great Yarmouth.

More and more senior civil servants across all government departments are based in London, another minister admitted. On 1 April 2010, 65.1% worked from London, compared with 67% five years later, said Matthew Hancock, minister for the Cabinet Office.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/07/97-of-top-officials-at-northern-powerhouse-department-work-in-london

Parliamentary Committee Report on Devolution So Far:

House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee
“Devolution: the next five years and beyond”
First Report of Session 2015–16

SUMMARY:

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

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

More transparency and public consultation required of LEPs

Reposted from the South Devon Watch Facebook page. Will our LEP take any notice – not on your life – the culture of secrecy is firmly embedded.

From the Centre for Public Scrutiny Website last Tuesday:

“More transparency and public consultation needed in devolution deals says new report from CLG Committee

The (Parliamentary) Communities and Local Government Committee has today released a report highly supportive of the principle of greater devolution but is critical that the devolution negotiations to date have lacked transparency. In addition it calls for greater public engagement, before, during and following devolution agreements.

CfPS, which has been campaigning for greater openness in devolution deals submitted both written and oral evidence to the committee.

On the release of the report Jacqui McKinlay, Chief Executive said:
“We are delighted with the committee’s report – it highlights the same concerns CfPS has been raising for a number of months. We are strong supporters of devolution and believe that the process of devolution can ultimately be a positive one. It does, however, need to be open, clear and transparent. Too often, the way that bids and proposals have been designed and submitted has had the appearance of being conducted in proverbial smoke filled rooms – opaque and with no input or engagement with local communities, and very often excluding councillors outside of a handful of leaders.

This is a tone that has been set by the way that Government has sought to carry out negotiations, but sets a poor precedent for the way that devolved arrangements will work in practice.

Devolution is an ongoing process and we call on the parties involved in these negotiations be upfront and transparent about the deals that are being made, to communicate the implications of the changes and directly engage with those that will be affected.

They should do this not just because it is the right thing to do but because it will improve the implementation of devolution and lead to better outcomes for all involved.

Our suggestion to Government that combined authorities should agree a “governance framework” covering policy development and performance management, and confirming how non-executive councillors and the public will be involved in both, is we think a critical means of achieving these outcomes.”

Posted by Nicolay Sorensen, Tuesday 2nd February, 2016 CfPS

Would you bet on a one-legged horse in the Grand National?

The biggest investment our LEP is going to make is in the new Hinkley Point nuclear power station in Somerset:

“EDF has confirmed that its finance director has quit ahead of an expected final investment decision on the £18bn Hinkley Point nuclear power plant.

Thomas Piquemal stepped down because he feared the project could jeopardise EDF’s financial position, according to reports.

EDF shares opened 8.2% lower on Monday.

Last month, Chris Bakken, the director of the project that could produce 7% of UK electricity by 2025, said he was leaving to pursue other opportunities.

EDF has provisionally appointed Xavier Girre, who joined the company last year as finance director of its French business, as the group finance chief.
The company’s board is expected to finalise in April how it will fund the project after postponing the decision a number of times.

The project has been plagued by delays, but publicly the firm has insisted a decision to move forward is imminent.

In October last year, EDF agreed a deal under which China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGN) would pay a third of the cost of the £18bn project in exchange for a 33.5% stake.

But according to reports, EDF is struggling to find the cash for its remaining 66.5% stake and is seeking help from the French government, which owns 84.5% of EDF …

… The company is also facing opposition from French union officials, who have suggested that investment in Hinkley Point C should be delayed until 2019.

The CFE-CGC Energy union said there were problems with a similar reactor design in France that needed to be solved.

The new Hinkley plant was originally due to open in 2017, and it has come under fire for both its cost and delays to the timetable for building.

The government has also been criticised for guaranteeing a price of £92.50 per megawatt hour of electricity – more than twice the current cost – for the electricity Hinkley produces.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35741772

And all this against the background of an EU referendum.

Devolution: privatisation of public services by stealth from 2010

It is totally clear from the links on these pages:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-local-enterprise-partnerships-leps-and-enterprise-zones/2010-to-2015-government-policy-local-enterprise-partnerships-leps-and-enterprise-zones

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-plan-for-local-growth

that the government had ” devolution” planned down to almost the last detail as early as 2010 and had absolutely no intention of involving the public in the hijacking of local authorities by Local Enterprise Partnerships.

In 2014 the agenda for our LEP was pretty much cut and dried:

Click to access 16_Heart_of_the_South_West_Growth_Deal.pdf

How many behind closed- doors meetings have taken place since 2010? And not a word to electors or “second division” councillors.

If only we could do this with council officers and councillors …

“New rules to hold bosses responsible for wrongdoing at banks is deterring some bankers from taking on senior management roles and even prompting big-hitters to play down their own importance, say legal and compliance experts.

Public anger that so few senior bankers were punished after taxpayers bailed out the industry in the financial crisis, or for scandals such as Libor and currency-market rigging, has led to the rules which make it easier to hold them to account.

The Senior Managers Regime (SMR) from Monday replaces a system that UK lawmakers criticised for giving illusory control over individuals with little prospect of enforcement action.

A step change in banking rules, it will allow regulators to pin blame on named people rather than just firms, which lawyers said has triggered anxiety among top bankers. …”

http://feeds.reuters.com

External auditors: watchdogs or bloodhounds?

Interesting article in Sunday Times Business section with the boss of former external auditors Grant Thornton (Sacha Romanovich, who lives in Exmouth and London). EDDC were forced by new government rules to change to KPMG recently.

The reporter quizzes her about several recent alleged failings at Grant Thornton (including a very high-profile law suit taken out against the company involving alleged pressure used by the company with the Serious Fraud Office to do with a property tycoon) and reveals that the Financial Reporting Council fined the firm £1m over flaws in its auditing of a Manchester building society.

She points out that the company has more than 40,000 clients so this should be put into context.

She ends her interview by saying: ” … audit is a watchdog, not a bloodhound. If people have deliberately gone about their affairs to hide things, it won’t always be found by a statutory audit … “

which then begs the question – so how will it be found?

Grant Thornton were criticised in East Devon for producing a very superficial consultants report into whether disgraced ex-councillor Graham Brown (who chaired the first iteration of the Local Plan committee and was Chairman of the East Devon Business Forum) brought too much influence to bear on the council after he was secretly filmed telling Daily Telegraph reporters how he could influence planning but “didn’t come cheap”.

Here is an extract from the Daily Telegraph front page expose almost exactly three years ago:

Another councillor in Devon appeared to use his position in a similar way. Graham Brown has been a Conservative councillor for Feniton and Buckerell ward on East Devon district council for more than 10 years.

He is also chairman of East Devon Business Forum, a member of the council’s overview and scrutiny committee and the business and tourism champion.

“I’m the best,” said Mr Brown at a meeting with undercover reporters in Devon last month. “If I can’t get planning, nobody will … I’m low-profile, have access to all the right people for the right clients. Don’t come cheap.” He said he was no longer involved in planning decisions and would need to be careful when talking to other councillors about projects he was involved in, but he was clear about what benefits he would bring.
“I know — without trying to be clever — I know more than most of the councillors, and I know more than most of the officers.”

When a reporter asked what his “strategy” was when it came to winning approval for a planning application, Mr Brown explained: “Where I’m good, I know all the different people to go to … Like if you came to me with a set of problems, I’d say, ‘Right the first thing we do, we need to go and talk to, say, the economic development manager’.

“So I’d pick up the phone to [name removed for legal reasons] and I’d say, ‘I’ve got a project, I want to talk to you about it.’ And it’s about almost kick-starting a dead motorbike”. Mr Brown told the undercover reporters that Devon had traditionally been one of the hardest areas in which to obtain planning permission for new developments, but that it might change because the council had not met its targets for land supply, meaning it was “quite vulnerable to any planning application that can be seen as sustainable”.
Mr Brown explained why this might be useful for the overseas developer the reporters were purporting to represent.

“What it means is — or what it could mean, and I can’t tell you definitely yet because it could get a deal worse or a deal better depending on — I’ve talked to three Government ministers about it because I’m reasonably — I sound terribly pretentious but I’m not — but you know, I’ve spoken to three individual Government ministers I know because I’ve been sort of in the Tory party for a long time and — how can I say it without sounding – I bet you go away and say, ‘that fat arrogant bastard’.”

“It sounds like you’re very well-connected?” the reporter suggested.
“Let’s take that for granted then,” Mr Brown said.

“Which means that whereas East Devon was traditionally one of the three hardest areas in the country to get planning permission, that will change … They will retain within the rules the ability to refuse things which fall down like if the design is poor, certain green belt areas, there will be certain areas so I don’t see it as the floodgates opening, but I do see a stampede coming.” His costs would vary according to the project, but he said he was normally paid £80 an hour or between £1,000 and £20,000 for a project.

His fees would vary “depending on the viability of the scheme, if we get it, like if I turned a green field into a housing estate and I’m earning a developer two or three million, then I ain’t doing it for ­peanuts … especially if I’m the difference between winning it and losing it.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9920971/If-I-cant-get-planning-nobody-will-says-Devon-councillor-and-planning-consultant.html

An alternative view on English devolution scenarios – kowtowing to Osborne?

Like the song: there are more questions than answers … but one thread joins the various models: some people are going to make a lot of money out of them and we end up with a totally different model of providing public services than hitherto that the public has had no say on.

Their only input will be to vote for the mega-Mayors of the new devolved areas.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/laird-ryan/devolution-or-just-doing-osbornes-bidding

An interesting LEP housing conundrum

Population of Devon and Somerset combined: approx 2 million
Population of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire combined: approx 2 million

Number of extra homes Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire LEP says they need:
77,000

Number of extra homes Devon and Somerset says they need:
179,000

Explain.