A snap election?

The Conservatives have raked in nearly £9 million than Labour in donations in the past 12 months – amid mounting speculation there could be a snap general election. …

… According to the official data, most of the Tories’ money came from companies and wealthy individuals.

They include a £569,300 cheque from telecommunications firm Lycamobile, £150,610 from Sun Mark Ltd, more than £500,000 from former stockbroker Alexander Fraser, and £333,000 from Tory peer Lord Glendonbrook.

The Conservatives also received £554,000 from the National Conservative Draws Society – a weekly fundraising prize draw for party members.

Trade union Unite were Labour’s largest single donors, giving the party around £3.5 million in the past year. They were followed by the GMB, who donated £2.7 million.

In total, the main unions gave the party £11.4 million in 2015/16.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/news/75456/tories-rake-millions-more-labour-amid-early

A national policy framework for independent candidates?

“Wednesday’s meeting in Totnes, organised by South Devon Watch to discuss strategies for political change, was inspiring and challenging in equal part. The inspiration came from so many committed people, all seeking to bring authentic democracy to a system widely seen as unaccountable, if not corrupt. The challenge is to find a way of beating the current system without repeating its manifest failings.

The meeting focused on independent candidates, both at local and national level. Among the speakers was Claire Wright, the independent Devon county councillor who came a good second in East Devon at the general election last year. Also present was Martyn Greene of the Free Parliament campaign, which is putting up serious money to support independent candidates at the next national election.

There can be little doubt that the tribal, adversarial party system typifies much that is wrong with our current politics. If independent candidates are to challenge the party stitch-up, however, they need to work together and show unity of purpose. The distinction between an organised group of independents, working together, and a new party, may not be easily observable to a electorate conditioned to the party system.

What comes first in politics, people or policies? If parliament were filled with independent members all operating under the Bell principles, it is likely that the quality of discourse and deliberation would be far higher than at present, but would effective policy, leadership and decision-making necessarily emerge?

One approach would be to elect government and parliament separately, the former on the basis of its policies, the latter on an independent, non-party basis. The current framework, however, doesn’t work like that: when people go to the polls they suppose that they are voting for the government they want. Government means a combination of policy solutions and the people with the leadership qualities to put those policies into effect.

In response to this, independent-minded political reformers could work together to draw up a national policy framework in they key areas of the economy, health, education, etc., which independent candidates could use as part of their campaigning message. Instead of supporting a party, they would be advocating for a coherent set of policies, the essence of which they would undertake to support in parliament.

In the trade-off between independence and coherence, it makes no sense for every stand-alone candidate to have to reinvent the national policy wheel. A shared set of policies could give national traction, provide a clear story for the media and ensure that the electorate have a better idea of what they are getting.”

http://www.martinwhitlock.co.uk/2016/05/a-national-policy-framework-for.html

Short inquiry into Local Plans Expert Group recommendations

The Communities and Local Government Committee has launched a short inquiry into the recommendations put forward by the Local Plans Expert Group (LPEG) to improve the local plan-making process:

Accepting written submissions; the deadline is 27 June 2016

The Committee invites written evidence on the following areas:

The Local Plans Expert Group’s recommendations
The next steps for the local plan-making process
The deadline for written submissions is Monday 27 June 2016.

Send a written submission via the Local Plans Expert Group recommendations inquiry page

Chair’s comments

Clive Betts, Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, said:

The Local Plans Expert Group concluded that substantial reform of the local plan-making process was required and made detailed recommendations for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of local plan making.

The Committee will consider these recommendations and look at how DCLG plans to act on them.”

Background to the inquiry
The LPEG report highlighted difficulties assessing and meeting housing needs through local plans as a central issue, the dominance of which was sometimes to the detriment of other local plan elements. Other issues raised by the report included insufficient engagement with local communities.

In April 2016, the Committee reported on DCLG’s consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). In the previous parliament the Committee held an inquiry into the NPPF and an inquiry into the operation of the NPPF.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/communities-and-local-government-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/local-plans-expert-group-recommendations-16-17/

Land Registry privatisation – all interested companies involved in tax avoidance

“Breaking: our people-powered investigation shows all four companies hoping to bid on the Land Registry have links to offshore tax havens. [1] The revelations are splashed all over The Times today – this kind of publicity is the last thing the government will want as they consult on plans to sell off the profitable public service. [2]

The Times is a paper the government takes seriously – our investigation will have sounded alarm bells.

The government’s already under fire from hundreds of thousands of us, and even from their own experts. If we contact our MPs about the tax havens revelation, we can make sure the ministers responsible for the sell-off are being dogged with questions from their fellow MPs too. [3] This could be the thing that tips them to back down.

Can you email your MP now and ask them to read the news story and speak out against the government’s plans to sell-off the Land Registry? It takes a few minutes, and there’s some suggestions of what to say.”

38 Degrees

Sidford Industrial Estate Planning Considerations

“Dear Residents

Planning ref:​16/0669/MOUT

I hope these notes will help you to make comments about the above planning application. The more people who write in, the better. Please send your observations and ask your friends to do likewise to:

​planning@eastdevon.gov.uk or
​Write to Planning Dept, EDDC, Knowle, Sidmouth, EX10 8HL

Please remember the following:

​Closing date: 8th June 2016
​Quote ref:​16/0669/MOUT

Note you can ONLY make comments relating to ‘planning considerations’. These, for example, include matters such as:

​The impact of a proposal on your property;
​The proposed design and materials;
​Issues relating to vehicular access and parking;
​Impact on trees;
​Noise issues,
​Concerns about flooding.

Matters which are not classed as ‘planning considerations’ include:

​Loss of value to your property; Loss of a view; Boundary and neighbour disputes, or ​The impact of a proposal on private drainage systems.

Planning policies which relate to this development can be found at:

east devon.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/local-plan-2013-2031/
(Click on The Local Plan 2013-2031 to access this document)

Strategy 46 p.144
Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs:

‘Development will only be permitted where it:
1. Conserves and enhances the landscape character of the area;
2. Does not undermine landscape quality; and
3. Is appropriate to the economic, social and well being of the area’

Non-compliance with the NPPF
The National Planning Policy Framework puts an emphasis on protecting AONB land, such as at Sidford. Para 116 of the NPPF states that planning permission should be refused for major developments on AONB land except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest.

Comments could include the fact that this is a tourist area, plus unemployment is low and the proposed development would require in-commuting to fill any jobs created.

ENVIRONMENT p.182

EN13 – development on high quality agricultural land
Development proposes warehousing which could be a 24/7 operation – noise, lighting, impact of pollution from artificial light on local amenity

EN14 – control of pollution – to residents or the wider environment
Pollution of the atmosphere – School St and pinch points in Sidbury – stationery traffic (especially as volumes will increase)
Noise and/or vibration
Light intrusion
Pollution of sites of wildlife value, especially European designated sites or species (eg otters and horseshoe bats)

EN21 – river and coastal flooding
‘Flood risk assessment demonstrates that the development will be safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.’
NB any increased flood risk would impact Sidbury, Sidford and Sidmouth – remember there were four flood warnings from The Environment Agency in 2012.

EMPLOYMENT p.199

E9 – town centre vitality and shopping areas – THIS NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED
NB. ‘Ancillary retail’ is part of Fords application
Planning application uses include B1 (office), B2 (general), B8 (distribution / warehousing)
…will be permitted provided:
1. ‘Use would not undermine the shopping character, visual amenity, vitality or viability of town centre
4. Amenity interest of occupiers of adjoining properties is not adversely affected by reason of noise, smell or litter
5. Would not cause traffic problems !!! (NB. Lorries already drive on the pavement in School St because they cannot pass oncoming traffic and there are traffic tailbacks during the tourism season)’

TRAFFIC p.221

TC3 – traffic management schemes
,,,’when considering development proposals in town centre, will seek the introduction of traffic management schemes when one or more of the following objectives can be achieved:
1. Safe and efficient movement of mobility impaired, pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles
6. Alleviation of congestion (see E9, 3. And EN14/pollution above)
7. Reduction of traffic conflict and accident potential
8. Reduction of delays to public transport
9. Reduction of environmental damage by traffic’

Please could you also write or email local papers:

Sidmouth Herald:​​stefan.gordon@archant.co.uk
Pulman’s (View from):​​pemedia@pemedia.co.uk​​
Express & Echo:​​letters@expressandecho.co.uk
Western Morning News:​wmn@westernmorningnews.co.uk

Yours sincerely

Kim Scratchley
Two Bridges Road, Sidford”

DCC Leader has second (and third) thoughts about devolution

A report by Totnes (Green) DCC councillor Robert Vine

Here’s the webcast of the County Council Annual Meeting where the Leader, John Hart, has a serious rethink about whether to keep supporting the Devolution Bid. Watch from 01:04:00 to 01:12:45 or click “13: Cabinet Member Reports” in the right margin.

In the Minutes it says “Councillor Hart commented, as requested by Councillor Greenslade, on progress with the HOSW devolution bid and advised that a response to repeated requests for a meeting with the Minister to discuss the HOSW bid was still awaited. He recognised the increasing concerns expressed over the imposition of a Mayoral system about which as yet there was no clarification and reiterated his view that any final proposal must be beneficial to Devon.”

In the webcast he is a lot more outspoken…

Council – Thu, 12th May 2016 – 2:15 pm – Devon County Council Webcasting
http://www.devoncc.public-i.tv/core/share/open/webcast/0/0/0/222091/222091/webcast/0/0/0

Indeed Councillor Hart is scathing about current devolution deals – he calls them “an absolute shambles”, says he can see nothing good in current deals that ALL require a Mayor to release money (around £30 million) which is guaranteed only for 5 years [though documents are drafted for 30 years].

He said he had three times asked for a meeting with the Minister and only after doing TV interviews about his concerns, was he telephoned by one of the Minister’s Special Advisers ( who was, he said, probably about 25 and with two degrees and nothing else) offered a 15 minute meeting in London. He refused it and said he would not make the journey for less than a 30 minute meeting.

He did a good resume of devolution deal fiascos from Derbyshire to Bristol via East Anglia, all of them falling at hurdles that Owl, and many others, had seen coming as soon as we learned what was going on.

He mentioned business rates – the raising of which was another carrot being dangled at LEPs, but pointed out they could only be raised by a maximum 2p in the pound and only if the business community agreed.

It seems Councillor Hart will proceed no further without much more assurance about what’s in it for Devon.

One glaring omission from his statement was public engagement, which he did not mention at all.

Let’s hope he cannot be bought off by “weasel words”.

Unlike our own council leader who, given responsibility for housing (i.e developers) couldn’t sign us away quick enough.

Indie-town – coming to a town near you

Good feedback from Totnes – more to follow. In the meantime:

“WWW.INDIE-TOWN.UK
Based in the People’s Republic of Frome, we have been developing a website for independent politics – gathering ideas, videos and stories about independent politics at a local level, so all contributions are welcome.
Do check it out!
Good luck to you all.
Rupert Kirkham
Co-ordinator”

and

No Party will Free Parliament’
The No Party
Global Political Movement for Independents
There is No Party worth Voting for!
Taking the party out of politics
http://www.noparty.co
danny@noparty.co