Axminster needs regenerating: who took their eye off the ball?

News is that Axminster is going to get a regeneration board a la Exmouth and Seaton.

Time was that Seaton was the poor town of East Devon. Now, with the promise of a Premier Inn and the opening of the Jurassic Centre it finally appears that it might just be on the way up.

Axminster has been ruled by two of EDDC’s leading Tory Cabinet members for years (Moulding*** and Godbeer) and by the Lib Dems Douglas Hull – a councillor for more than 50 years. They seem to rotate the Mayorality on a regular basis. Moulding is current deputy leader of EDDC, Godbeer was the previous chairman of EDDC before current Chairman, Stuart Hughes.

Question: Who took their eye off the ball and allowed Axminster to get into such a state it needs regenerating?

Or is it just an excuse to redefine areas so that planning permissions can be fast-tracked and/or a “partner” like Moirai (Exmouth) or Tesco (Seaton) can take over?

***
All the more worrying why Axminster lost the plot given Councillor Moulding’s extensive DCC and EDDC experience:

DCC
Chair of “Place” Committee (Which exists to “review the implementation of existing policies and to consider the scope for new policies with regard to all aspects of the discharge of the Council’s functions concerning the environment, economic activity and enterprise, integrated planning and transport and community services, including community safety and emergency planning, libraries, arts and cultural heritage of the County.”

EDDC

Deputy Leader of the Council

Portfolio – Strategic development and partnerships

Committee membership
Cabinet (vice chairman)
Interviewing chief officers committee (vice chairman)
Employment appeals committee (chairman)
Panels and forum membership
Asset management forum
Budget working party
Capital strategy and allocation group
New homes bonus panel
New office executive group

Joint bodies membership:
East Devon stakeholder panel
East Devon local strategic partnership
Exmouth regeneration programme board
New growth point delivery team steering board (substitute)
Sidmouth main and east beaches working party

Representative on outside bodies
Exeter science park board of directors (stakeholder representative)
LGA general assembly (substitute)
LGA annual rural assembly (voting right in absence of Leader)
LGA people and places board (substitute)

Academies: (another) Tory rebellion

“The leader of the backbench Conservatives at Westminster has raised serious concerns about plans, announced in last month’s budget, to force all state schools to become academies by 2022. This is a blow to the government’s hopes of forcing the proposals on to the statute book.

In a sign of the depth of Tory unrest, Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 committee, said the plans announced by George Osborne could lead to the creation of “new and distant bureaucracies” rather than delivering greater freedom and autonomy for schools. He also said they could have the unwelcome effect of removing parents from governing bodies and reducing accountability.

Brady, who spoke out as new data suggested the reorganisation could cost more than £1.3bn, is writing to education secretary Nicky Morgan in the hope that the proposals spelled out in the recent education white paper can be changed. He also wants reassurances from Morgan that the plans will not be rushed through parliament – suggesting that without a rethink they could trigger a backbench Tory rebellion. …”

http://gu.com/p/4t3ej

Academies: land grab “like the dissolution of the monasteries”

Councils decry government’s academy schools ‘land grab’
Sally Weale Education correspondent, and Rebecca Ratcliffe, the Guardian:

“Councils opposed to government plans to force all schools to become academies have raised concerns about what has been described by some as a land grab reminiscent of “the dissolution of the monasteries”.

Under current arrangements, when schools become academies they lease the land from local authorities. The new plans, however, will see all school land transferred directly to the education secretary, Nicky Morgan, who will then grant leases to academy trusts.

The government says the controversial change has been made in order to speed up the process of academy conversion by avoiding time-consuming negotiations over land, but critics are concerned it represents a major handover of local authority land worth billions of pounds.

Councillor Angela Mason, the cabinet member for children on Camden council in north London, said: “The government will own all the educational land. I don’t see how they will be able to deal with it all. It’s quite an extraordinary power to take. It reminded me of the dissolution of the monasteries.

“We are very concerned. Land in Camden is extremely valuable. There’s no mechanism by which we can be sure it will not be sold off for whatever reason. Those decisions will be made by the government and unelected trusts.
“I feel quite strongly it’s our land. It’s the people’s land. It’s quite wrong that this enormously valuable asset goes to government and then on to unelected, unaccountable organisations.”

The plans are outlined in the government’s recent white paper, Educational Excellence Everywhere, which says all schools are to be taken out of local authority control and will have to become academies in the next six years in order to raise standards.

On the land exchange, the document says: “The majority of academies currently lease their land from local authorities, typically over a 125-year lease. “To speed up the process of academy conversion and ensure that land issues do not get in the way of improving schools, when a local authority’s community schools convert to academy status, land held by the authority for those schools will transfer to the secretary of state, who will then grant a lease to the academy trust.

“We will also take steps to ensure that the wider education estate is safeguarded for future provision, and that the existing school estate can be used more easily for new schools and expansions where applicable.”

Roy Perry, a Conservative councillor and chair of the Local Government Association’s Children and Young people board said he believed the government was acting with good intentions, but added: “These are assets that have been looked after, protected and at times enhanced with investment by the council tax payers in a particular area. One can question whether it is fair to take those assets away from the people who have invested in them and looked after them for many years.”

There were also concerns about the cost of transferring school land, he said. “I’ve been advised in our council that the legal costs alone of arranging the transfer is something like £15k a go. We’ve got 200 such schools, so that’s quite a lot of money. Whether this is a process to try to do all in one swoop [we don’t know], but transferring land is obviously a complicated process so it certainly won’t be easy and whatever route they chose it could be very expensive … We seriously question whether they [the government] have actually got the resources.”

The Local Government Association, which represents councils across the country, has said it is opposed to the decision to strip local authorities of the ownership of school land.

Judith Blake, the leader of Leeds city council, said: “I don’t think the public is aware of this. There are many implications following on from this, not least the value of the land which in the city of Leeds could be over the billion mark.

“We are talking significant land holdings. It’s quite eye-watering. It’s taking local assets away from local people, moving them out of democratic control into a central pot. It has all sorts of possible ramifications.
“How would we ensure that local communities would have access to the playing fields which we have joint agreements on? These are all unknowns. We really need to get underneath and ask questions.

“We are talking with other councils across the country. These are the issues we will be looking at, trying to understand the implications of the proposal.”

A spokesperson for the Department for Education responded to concerns by saying: “We have clear safeguards in place that mean academies cannot sell or change the use of publicly funded school land without consent from the secretary of state and these proposals will not change that – it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

“The proposals on school land in the white paper are simply about removing obstacles to schools becoming academies, and there are too many cases where negotiations over the use of land delay this process.”

The shadow education secretary, Lucy Powell, said: “This land grab by central government will have local people up in arms. Not content with forcing all primary and secondary schools to become academies, the Tories’ are intent on taking school land from local communities across England in the process.

“Labour will oppose this costly top-down forced reorganisation of all schools which is unwanted and unnecessary.”

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/apr/01/councils-decry-governments-academy-schools-land-grab

Jeremy Corbyn criticised for listening to real people!

The Labour leader reportedly infuriated photographers and the press by ignoring them, and instead talked to shoppers and young mothers in Bristol’s Easton district.

Local media reported that Labour officials “were left tearing their hair out” after Corbyn stopped and held up the media scrum to listen to people who stopped him in the street.”

“Instead of the usual stage-managed performance, meeting and greeting people specially handpicked for the occasion, Jeremy Corbyn took to the streets of Easton to talk, listen and have his photo taken with shoppers, traders and passersby,” Onions reported.

Tristan Cork, writing in the Western Daily Press, reported that Corbyn ignored spin doctors by stopping to listen to people who approached him in the street.

“That sparked chaotic scenes as the press and media jostled for photos and interviews, but Corbyn was having none of it. If a chat with a person took five or six minutes, then he would hold up the entire press pack,” according to Cork’s account.

http://gu.com/p/4t3cj

Public consultation, LISTENING to people – how dare he!

Yet another report on the NPPF …

House of Commons
Communities and Local Government Committee

Department for Communities and Local Government’s consultation on national planning policy

Third Report of Session 2015–16

Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 22 March 2016

Blah blah blah blah …

“To ensure that proper consideration is given to the impact of changes resulting from this consultation, and from other developments in the housing and planning sector, the Department should carry out a comprehensive review of the operation of the National Planning Policy Framework before the end of this Parliament. The review must include sufficient opportunity for appropriate consultation with stakeholders, and should follow a two-stage approach to consulting, first on general principles, and subsequently on precise wording. (Paragraph 11)

We hope that the Department will learn lessons from the need to extend the consultation period as a result of the holiday period and the other significant developments in the housing and planning sector. (Paragraph 13)”

blah blah blah …

Click to access 703.pdf

Exmouth: independent Paul Rapley stands for beachfront ward

Independent candidate for Exmouth Littleham ward
Town Council Election
Thursday 14th April 2016

Mr Rapley’s manifesto from the East Devon Alliance website

Why should you vote?

Currently, all councillors representing the Littleham ward are Conservative and openly support what is happening with the seafront and Plumb Park developments. Do you agree with every Conservative Party Policy? At present you have no other representation in your ward…

Exmouth Town Council and East Devon District Council do not appear to have grasped the concept of openness, transparency and accountability, where many Exmouth residents are unaware of the facts surrounding proposed development until it is too late.

The realignment of Queens Drive for example of this, the detrimental impact being the loss of existing iconic Exmouth attractions and all the associated employment, the loss of seafront car parking spaces and, most importantly, the estimated timescales of the phased development … East Devon District Council’s own estimate is 3 to 4 years!

As the ward responsible for our beachfront, is this what you want?

Why vote for me?

I am fortunate to have appreciated Exmouth both as a tourist and as a resident, having spent many family holidays here and subsequently living in Exmouth for over 8 years with my partner Jennifer, who has lived here all her life.

I am very concerned about the way our town is being developed without proper consultation; from close to home issues such as the impact of the seafront and Plumb Park developments, to wider issues such as the lack of investment in our town centre for job creation and the difficulties in securing a decent transport interchange for our town.

As an Independent councillor I would be free to represent your concerns and wishes, both within the Littleham ward and in Exmouth as a whole, and without fear of a hard-line party whip telling me how to vote.

In other words, you would have a choice and an Independent voice on the town council. A voice that would represent your views without fear of influence from a political party. A voice that would represent your issues. A voice that is as concerned as you are about improving Littleham ward, and Exmouth, for everyone.

If elected I would:

consult with you, as well as with relevant local charities and campaign groups, when required;

hold open councillor surgeries throughout the year;

listen to what the residents within Littleham ward feel strongly about, and present those views to the town council;

support positive changes in our town which are endorsed by the local community;

oppose inappropriate future development plans;

push to improve standards of conduct, accountability, openness and transparency within our town council.

Devolution: how can you devolve health care when it’s already been devolved?

So, healthcare for Devon, Somerset, Torbay and PLYMOUTH is to be devolved to the new LEP.

Torbay already has its own integrated care scheme:

Pioneering the next steps in integrated care in Torbay and South Devon

Now, Plymouth gets its own (different) system financed by business rates.

How do you devolve two devolved systems to a new over-arching system – where only one person on the 20-member LEP has a health background?

Re-inventing the round wheel to make it square in the name of efficiency, or perhaps growth – who knows?

Plymouth has been chosen to pilot the Government’s new devolved health funding model, as the city’s public health chief takes a leading role in the national roll-out.

Following a meeting between MPs and Public Health England (PHE), the city has been chosen as one of the first in the country to fund health services using only income from business rates.

Plymouth’s director of public health, professor Kelechi Nnoaham, will also sit on PHE’s national planning team for the initiative to help monitor the impact of the new system.

The announcement marks the latest stage in the Government’s efforts to devolve revenue-raising powers. Councils have already expressed concerns about the impact of cuts to central grants and plans to fund services solely through locally-generated taxes.

Plymouth is already among the lowest-funded authorities in terms of public health grants, with an average spend per person of £47. But the council suggests prof. Nnoaham’s place on the national panel for the scheme will ensure the city’s interests are represented.

The council has been campaigning for fairer funding for public health in Plymouth for some time and has been lobbying at the highest level,” a spokesman said.

The unfair funding of public health was also highlighted by the Plymouth Fairness Commission.

“Our director of public health will be able to represent the interests of cities such as Plymouth. He has a strong professional reputation and will be able to ensure Plymouth influences national policy.”

The meeting with PHE chief executive Duncan Selbie was arranged by Plymouth Moore View MP Johnny Mercer. Mr Mercer has been campaigning on the issue of public health funding since his election in May, describing the local variation in grants – which sees some councils receive up to £185 per person – as “outrageous”.

He said he was “delighted” that Plymouth would have an opportunity to shape the new system at a national level.

“Public health funding was one of the first things I picked up on after being elected last year,” he said. “I wrote my first letter to Jane Ellison MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary for Public Health, in June and have attempted to keep up the pressure in correspondence and on the floor of the House ever since.

“I think we still have a lot of work to do, but I am delighted we have the opportunity to influence thinking around business rates retention in respect of public health funding. And frankly, I could not think of a more intelligent and impassioned advocate than Kelechi.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/new-public-health-pilot-address-Plymouth-s/story-29033918-detail/story.html

Expert Group recommends all Local Plans are signed off before devolution begins

Devolved Powers

Report to the Communities Secretary and to the Minister of Housing and Planning – Local Plans Expert Group

This is a 56 page report with a lot of detail on the problems of drawing up a Local Plan.

One paragraph makes an interesting point: how can a devolved area set extra housing targets if one or more of the subsidiary councils have not completed their Local Plans?

In many cases Inspectors add thousands of houses to suggested totals – which completely skews LEP extra numbers.

S21. From the outset of our appointment, LPEG has been interested in the potential for voluntary joint planning provided by the current round of bids for devolved powers, which cover a large majority of the country.

Devolution provides the best opportunity for bottom-up joint planning but bids tend to focus on economic growth rather than housing and we have strongly recommended to Government that it attatches precise conditions to any successful devolution bid, requiring a commitment to plan positively to meet objectively assessed housing needs and a commitment to produce a plan for the combined area.

We further recommend that individual authorities within a combined authority area should receive sign off from the combined authority that their emerging plan addresses the Duty to Cooperate before their plan can progress.”

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

East Devon Alliance on “devolution”

“When the Conservatives won last year’s election most voters had no clue that George Osborne was about to unleash an anti-local democracy, unelected regional quango genii from the bottle.

Having been trusted with more than 30,000 votes, the East Devon Alliance has done all we can to flush this out into the open. Most recently we discovered that the National Audit Office (NAO), the respected Government Watchdog, were conducting a study, this spring, into accountability and value for money in the ever more powerful “Local Enterprise Partnerships’.

As the NAO web site invited comment, we thought it would be helpful if we put forward a view on how Devolution was perceived to be proceeding from a local perspective rather than from Whitehall or the Establishment.

We feel that at present, flying a false flag of devolving more power to the regions, the LEPs are proceeding in a way that is unaccountable, lacks transparency and is likely to have a negative impact on democracy.

Realising our input might arrive in the final stages of compiling the report we also copied it to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Meg Hillier MP. NAO reports are reviewed by the PAC.

In the event the NAO have come to similar conclusions to us.

If Mr Osborne is hell-bent on his ill-conceived scheme and Parliament is unwilling to trim his sails it is now up to local councillors to do the thinking for him.”

“Devon and Cornwall’s green spaces at risk from ‘opportunistic’ developers” say MPs

EDDC Asset Management Forum is holding its next meeting with no background papers available(see post earlier today. One agenda item is ” Green Spaces Policy”. Perhaps they might read this in advance of the meeting:

“Government planning policy is leaving Devon and Cornwall’s green spaces open to opportunistic developers, a new report by MPs has warned.

According to the study, there is nothing to prevent developers from sitting on brownfield land until councils are required to free up “more profitable” greenfield.

There is also little to guarantee more houses will be built on the spaces made available, it adds, with many councils still lacking local plans.

The damning report from the Communities and Local Government select committee calls for a full review of the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework. Members say there has not been a sufficient robust evaluation of the policy since its introduction in 2012, and ministers must prove it can “work effectively” to support sustainable development.

The framework was designed to speed up the planning system and deliver more new and affordable homes. This included an emphasis on plans “conserving and enhancing the natural environment.

However, the CLG committee has raised concerns about the lack of measures to prevent developers delaying work on challenging brownfield sites. And the MPs say they are “not persuaded” that the Government’s new Housing and Planning Bill – currently progressing through Parliament – will address this.

“We have particular concerns about the risk that developers will delay developing brownfield sites because local authorities will be required to release more profitable greenfield sites if insufficient housing is delivered to meet local needs,” the group writes.

“The lower viability and higher costs of developing brownfield sites may be a deterrent for some developers.

“The Government should set out how its proposals will overcome the potential cost barriers to the development of brownfield sites, and the steps it will take to encourage the development of such sites in order to meet local housing needs.”

The report also stresses that 34% of local authorities have not adopted a Local Plan setting out their strategic priorities for development, despite the 2017 deadline for submission. According to Government registers, Cornwall, North Devon, Torridge and West Devon councils are all yet to finalise their plans.

Chairman Clive Betts said local authorities should be doing more to identify suitable brownfield sites and protect communities “against the threat of undesirable development”. And he said ministers need to act to put pressure on “dawdling” councils.

Peter Heaton-Jones said many of the issues highlighted in the report are mirrored by in his constituency. He said that the absence of a local plan has created a “vacuum” in the area for “opportunistic” developers.

“I’ve been working with North Devon Council to help finalise our plan as soon as possible,” he said. “As the CLG committee report shows, more than a third of all councils are in the same boat, so we do need to look at this.

“I also share the report’s concern about possible development of greenfield sites. We must always seek to build on brownfield sites first.

“And it would help if developers actually built the homes they’ve been given permission for already, rather than sitting on the land hoping to increase its value.”

North Devon Lib Dem councillor Brian Greenslade said he hopes ministers “will listen and act” on the recommendations of the report. “In my part of the Westcountry we have seen examples of ‘land banking’, and of developers merely obtaining planning permission without any intention of developing sites themselves,” he said.

“If the Housing Bill is passed… the planning proposals will simply give developers a open goal to get their development plans accepted, adding to the problem the select committee report has identified.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Devon-Cornwall-s-green-spaces-lack-protection/story-29033019-detail/story.html

Cavanna Homes appeal against refusal of 40 dwellings in Newton Poppleford dismissed

15/0642/MRES Appeal 15/00052/REF Ref:
Cavanna Homes (Devon) Ltd And Pencleave 2 – Mr Ed Brown

Land South Of King Alfred Way Newton Poppleford Construction of 40 dwellings (including 16 affordable), doctors’ surgery and associated works (approval of details reserved by outline planning permission 13/0316/MOUT).

Appeal Dismissed Date: 02.03.2016 Written representations

Officer recommendation to approve, Committee Refusal. Affordable Housing pepper-potting reason upheld. (EDLP Strategy 34).

So, officers recommended, committee refused, committee decision upheld. How come officers did not know that East Devon Local Plan Strategy 34 was a reason to refuse!

STRATEGY 34:

Strategy 34 – District Wide Affordable Housing Provision Targets:
Affordable housing will be required on residential developments in East Devon as follows .
Within the areas defined below a target of 25% of the dwellings shall be affordable :
a) Axminster;
b) Exmouth;
c) Honiton;
d) Ottery St Mary;
e) Seaton; and
f) Major strategic ‘West end’ development sites.
Under this policy:
1 2
the towns listed above are defined by the area within the Built-up Area Boundary the major strategic West End development sites to which policy will apply are
a) Cranbrook,
b) adjacent to Pinhoe and
c) North of Blackhorse
as shown on the West End inset map (to the Proposals Plan)

Areas to which higher (50%) affordable housing targets apply: Outside of the areas listed above (i.e. all other parts of East Devon including all settlements not listed, coastal and rural areas and Budleigh Salterton and Sidmouth) 50% of the dwellings shall be affordable subject to viability considerations. The 50% figure applies to all areas that do not come under the 25% classification and which are permitted under Strategy 35 ‘Exceptions’ policy.

Where a proposal does not meet the above targets it will be necessary to submit evidence to demonstrate why provision is not viable or otherwise appropriate. An overage clause will be sought in respect of future profits and affordable housing provision, where levels of affordable housing fall below policy targets.

Looking across the lifespan of the plan an affordable housing policy provision target of 70% social or affordable rent accommodation and 30% intermediate or other affordable housing is sought. However in periods of depressed markets an alternative negotiated mix to reflect viability considerations and help deliver schemes will be acceptable. The District Council will consider issues of development viability and housing mix including additional costs associated with the development of brownfield sites, mitigation of contamination and the provision of significant community benefits provided the assessment process is completely transparent and there is full financial disclosure by stakeholders.

The thresholds at which this policy shall apply will be the minimum set out in Government policy or guidance (including any lower thresholds which Local Planning Authorities have the discretion to establish) subject to an up to date Council viability assessment showing that these thresholds can be justified. Where there is no applicable Government Policy or Guidance there will be no minimum size threshold at which affordable housing will be sought, subject to there being up to date strategic evidence that the general delivery of housing would not be significantly undermined.

Affordable housing shall be provided on site unless it is exempted through Government Policy or Guidance, is not mathematically possible or where off site provision of equivalent value is justified by circumstances such as no registered provider being willing to manage the new affordable units or other planning reasons. In such cases a payment towards an off site contribution will be required in lieu of on site provision. On any development site affordable housing should be ‘pepper-potted’ or dispersed throughout the scheme.

Asset Management Forum – no papers available for any agenda item

7 April 2016, Knowle, 9.30 am
Asset Management Forum

Agenda published with four items to be discussed – the only document provided – minutes of last meeting.

Part A Matters for Decision:

7 Rent support grant scheme – launch details – draft Cabinet report to follow
8 Data – Verbal update by Donna Best, Principal Estates Surveyor
9 Asset Devolution – draft Cabinet report to follow
10 Green Space Strategy – Update on progress.

Click to access 070416amfcombinedagenda.pdf

SO NOT ONE SINGLE DOCUMENT AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE IN ADVANCE OF THIS MEETING.

WHY?

What’s that smell? Oh, fish!

What if this isn’t a joke!

OK – who was it? Excellent April fool notice strapped to a lamp-post in Coburg Road just behind the Museum in Sidmouth. Notice apparently issued to EDDC applying to take over the land presently occupied as Tennis courts and a Bowling Club between Blackmore Gardens and the Rugby Club to build 100+ sheltered homes/accommodation. The applicant is cited as a Mr Paul Diviani.

Whoever it was – well done! Will it provoke any reactions?

Or maybe it isn’t an April Fool joke ….!

Tata today, EDF tomorrow?

“At Talbot the government appears to have assumed, even at the eleventh hour, that Tata would not dare to walk away from its UK steel business. It was a bad bet, thus the undignified scramble to get the business secretary back from Australia to explain what government intervention in the steel industry might mean, and cost.

But let’s not ignore the other industrial drama involving vast sums, thousands of jobs and a key plank of government strategy. Yes, it’s Hinkley Point, where the UK’s energy policy for the 2020s rests on the premise that French state-backed outfit EDF really will build a £18bn nuclear station in Somerset that will open in 2025 to supply 7% of our electricity.

This bet is looking weaker with every passing week. In the latest instalment, a group of EDF engineers have written a paper arguing that 2027 is the earliest “realistic” opening date. Meanwhile, EDF’s board has not been able to bring its rebellious unions to heel. As we report, Christian Taxil, an employee board member representing the CFE-CGC union, has called for the project to be postponed.

EDF can – and did – dismiss these tales as fluff. The engineers’ paper was not taken to the board, the company argues, and unions’ opposition to Hinkley is long-standing.

The UK government, on the other hand, cannot afford to be so blasé. EDF’s ability to give a final thumbs-up on Hinkley rests on the French government’s willingness to refinance the company. French ministers may not be so relaxed about the latest outbreak of dissent in EDF’s ranks. Come May, the latest “deadline” for a final investment decision, nobody can be truly confident about what will happen.

If the result is abandonment, the UK government cannot plead it wasn’t warned. Hinkley’s chief obstacle has always been simple and formidable – the fact that its European pressurised reactor design is unproven and similar projects in Normandy and Finland are years behind schedule. It would not be surprising if the project expires from exhaustion.

The key requirement for the UK is to have a plan B. The good news is that it should not be difficult to design an alternative energy strategy to meet the capacity crunch in the 2020s; it could be more gas-fired stations, or smaller and proven nuclear reactors. The bad news is that there little to suggest ministers are on the job.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/nils-pratley-on-finance/2016/mar/30/port-talbot-is-a-big-problem-but-so-is-hinkley-point