“Inspirational” first conference, a turning point for EDA Independents”

‘The East Devon Alliance of Independents (IEDA) has held its first-ever conference, combining with delegates from across the southwest. The event marks a turning point in the history of this new and important political grouping of Independents. ‘We thought we were all alone in our struggle,” said Kevin Bennetts from Cornish campaign group Yourkidsfuture*. But he and the 80 or so other attendees, from Somerset, Cornwall, Devon, including no less than 15 different locations in East Devon, showed that a strong sense of political cohesion is now gelling into a serious fighting force.

“Who cares what you think?” was the theme of the conference on Saturday 23 April, held symbolically in EDDC’s soon-to-be-demolished Council Chamber at Knowle, Sidmouth, and barely one year after 15 Independents won seats in the May 2015 District elections. “NOT a Party-dominated District Council”, was the answer which emerged, in pithy and polished presentations from Independent EDA councillors.

Councillors Megan Armstrong, Marianne Rixson, Geoff Jung, and Val Ranger exposed a catalogue of poor consultation, inappropriate development and sub-standard planning procedures, they have challenged respectively in Exmouth, Seaton, Feniton, Sidford, Woodbury Salterton and Newton Poppleford. One case study revealed a fabricated press story which threatened local vital facilities.

Graham Long, of ‘Broadband for Rural Devon & Somerset’ (www.b4rds.org/), added another powerful presentation on the serious mishandling by EDDC of the rural broadband rollout, despite his repeated warnings.

The afternoon session opened with guest speaker Bob Spencer – on his bid as a self-funded Independent to become the region’s new Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) with no party political ties, and on his belief that “The primary job of a PCC is to listen to the people”.

The conference finished with a penetrating look at the biggest issue on the South West horizon: the government’s plans to transfer big-budget decision-making, including NHS, to a partnership of local authorities and unelected businesses.. the so-called Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs).
Cllr Mike Eathorn-Gibbons Cornwall described how this has been conducted in his area in a reasonably democratic and transparent way.
In contrast, three East Devon speakers built a powerful critique of the proposed Heart of the South West LEP project for their own region.
David Daniel gave a concise overview of EDA’s report on Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), just sent, on the advice of the National Audit Office, to the Public Accounts Committee; Cllr Matt Booth explained the wider South West context; and mindful of Shakespeare’s birthday, IEDA Leader, Cllr Ben Ingham, summed up with, ‘Devolution… to be or not to be? ‘ .

Following this first success, dubbed “inspirational” by those attending, more IEDA conferences are in the pipeline,in various venues across the District. Publicity coming soon.’

*Footnote. Link to Cornish campaign here http://yourkidsfuturecorn.wix.com/yourkidsfuture

A healthy local press?

Remember those business tax cuts that George Osborne offered to the (few) owners of regional press titles (see post a few days ago)?

Not one regional newspaper has covered the Channel 4 news story that Conservative PCC candidate, Alison Hernandez, is embroiled in a police investigation about election expenses and, if elected, could be in a position to sack the person who would be in charge of it.

One of them has, however, covered a story about the UKIP candidate who, if elected, says he would campaign to get rid of the job – whilst collecting a big salary for “doing” it.

It remains to be seen today if the regional TV stations do the same thing.

Hhhmmm.

“Will it be independents’ day at England’s biggest parish council?”

The latest “Anywhere but Westminster” report on Sutton Coldfield.

” … If there is a common theme shared by the 14 independents, it is that their town is in need of revival, and that neither Labour nor Conservatives have served it well. There is also a pragmatic acceptance that, given current funding pressures, the local improvements they want will not be funded by Birmingham city council.

… Rushton describes how, starting in 2011, his group sat under a gazebo in the main shopping area every Saturday, gathering 10,000 signatures on the petition that led to last year’s referendum. This asked residents whether they wanted a new town council, with the power to raise a local tax known as “the parish precept”, or not. All sides in that campaign knew there was strong support for the idea of independence from Birmingham. Some “old Suttonians”, as they are known, regret the 1974 decision to make them part of Britain’s second city. But Rob Pocock, Sutton’s sole Labour city councillor, says the 70% yes vote last July (on a 40% turnout) “stunned everybody”. …

… Sutton Coldfield has become a dogfight. Conservative association chairman Ewan Mackey accused Rushton of trying to send Sutton “down the route of North Korea” when he suggested major political parties should limit their number of candidates to leave room for independents. While Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Greens and Ukip accepted the proposal, the Conservatives aim to win all 24 seats and clothe one of their own in the town’s historic mayoral chains and robes that Birmingham has given back.

… When I suggest that there are centralisers and devolvers in both main parties, meaning these arguments don’t divide neatly into left and right, [Andrew] Mitchell [MP] will have none of it. “It’s the true tradition of Tory localism,” he says. “We want power driven down to the lowest level and will try to make sure the new council has as much power as it can cope with.” Mackey, a Conservative city councillor who is also standing for the town council, voted yes in the referendum but suggests some people did so in the mistaken belief that the Sutton town council would replace Birmingham as the local authority.
… Justin Griggs, head of policy at the National Association of Local Councils, predicts a “mixed bag” of results. What is certain is that there will be some different faces representing residents. Like the independents, all but two of the Conservative town council candidates are new to local politics. Though the Tory party has held Sutton Coldfield’s seat in parliament since 1945, and holds 11 out of 12 city council seats, it recognises that last year’s yes vote was a vote for change.

… Whether Birmingham’s other nine districts decide to follow Sutton Coldfield down the devolution route is unclear. Europe’s largest local authority, with a budget of close to £4bn until recent cuts, has long been seen as unwieldy, but previous attempts at reorganisation have either been rejected or tried and then unwound. Andrew Mitchell thinks that in the end, “Birmingham will be broken up”.”

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

“Planning and the Local Enterprise Partnership”


“There are a number of constitutional issues arising from the involvement of the LEP in development projects,. It appears that some of our constitutional rights could be eroded by the process. The LEP leadership and directors are leading council figures. Others are business leaders who by definition have large commercial interests to serve.

Planning decisions may be significantly influenced by unelected representatives in a non transparent manner. [Some of these unelected representatives are local council leaders]. Elected representatives will then feel pressurized to assist these through highway and other council departments.

Currently the involvement or assistance [or subsidy] of the LEP is not required to be stated on planning application. This appears to oppose our planning safeguards enshrined in planning laws. [In effect, the LEP is a co-developer].

Therefore we would ask that the following constitutional safeguards are put in place immediately and well before any “devolution” moves forward. A statement should also be issued by district councils clearly showing which planning applications were [are] supported by the LEP’s since their inception in 2011.

Clear information must be included in any planning application assisted by the LEP which shows what assistance and funding has been given by LEP and their partners on all planning application. This is simple openness and transparency that we all expect.”

Source: South Devon Watch [Facebook]

As an example, local LEPs smoothed the way for a re-opened Cornish tungsten mine but they did not have to declare this at the planning stage.

Is two-party politics on its way out?


“The old order, while creaking at the seams, is still powerful. Winning a seat in Parliament or any public office without the backing of one of the big political parties is hard. It is a long time since the House of Commons had more than the odd independent sitting on the green benches. Most independent MPs have fallen out with existing parties, like Sylvia Hermon, who was in the Ulster Unionists, or Dick Taverne, who resigned from the Labour Party in protest at its leftward drift and won Lincoln at a by-election in 1973, only to lose the seat the following year.

True independents are very unusual: Martin Bell, the former BBC journalist who defeated Neil Hamilton at Tatton on an anti-corruption platform in 1997, was the first since the Second World War. He stood down in 2001 but when he tried to get back in a different seat, even his reputation as a white-suited champion of probity failed to dislodge the Conservative incumbent Eric Pickles in Ongar. Dr Richard Taylor, who was returned twice as Independent MP for Wyre Forest on the issue of plans to close the local hospital, eventually lost out to the Tories in 2010.

Even if the two mainstream political parties are in decline – with membership far down from historic highs and just two-thirds of voters backing them in 2015 compared with more than 90 per cent half a century ago – they retain a firm grip on the levers of power. This is true even at the local level, where opportunities for independent candidates are supposedly more promising. In Thursday’s contests in England, Conservatives will be defending control of 52 per cent of councils and Labour 29 per cent. Independents and smaller parties run less than 2 per cent of the total.

One area of public life that should be free of party political involvement is the election of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). When these posts were first mooted by the Tories in opposition the idea was that they should be filled by non-partisan candidates; but it didn’t quite turn out that way. At the first set of elections in England and Wales four years ago,

16 Conservative PCCs were elected and 13 from Labour. There were, however, 12 Independents, including eight former police officers, a senior barrister and an ex-pilot. How many of these will be returned this time is anyone’s guess. The Conservatives and Labour are putting up candidates in every area and three independents are not seeking re-election, so there could well be fewer than before.

The concept of city mayors was another idea that many hoped would be free of party political machinations; and for a while this was the case. When Hartlepool decided to have an executive mayor in response to the Blair government’s effort to push the idea, Stuart Drummond, the mascot to the local football team, won the contest as an independent. He held the post from 2002 until 2013, when the office was abolished after local people decided in a referendum that they didn’t want a mayor after all.

Ray Mallon was independent mayor of Middlesbrough for three terms until he stood down last year and Labour took the post. George Ferguson, the independent mayor of Bristol – the only one of 10 cities that opted to switch to the system in 2012 – is fighting a fierce battle against Labour who hope to win.

In short, independents have a hard time of it. If they get in they are inevitably at a disadvantage without the organisation and funds of the big party machines. Even the most famous independent winner, Ken Livingstone – who defeated Labour’s Frank Dobson after the party refused to nominate him as its candidate for London mayor – won a second term under party colours.

There is only one independent standing in tomorrow’s London contest – the Polish aristocrat Prince Zylinski, and he is unlikely to spring a Leicester City-style surprise. This is a shame: London should have a powerful, independent voice. Indeed, Boris Johnson, albeit a Conservative, sometimes gave the impression that he was in City Hall despite party backing rather than because of it. But as he pointed out on these pages on Monday, much of his time was spent ensuring that London got a good deal from central government, so it helped being in the same party. When all power is in the hands of the central state, the chances of independents getting anything done are slim.

But is change in the air? Next week, a new organisation called Campaign for a Free Parliament is to be launched, backed by £6 million put up by a group of businessmen. Its ambition is to break the party system by sponsoring independent candidates, chosen through primary competitions, who would each receive £10,000 to fund their campaigns. Their accountability would be directly to voters rather than party HQ.

Meanwhile, David Cameron’s former adviser Steve Hilton is also trying to shake up the established order by offering a digital platform that bypasses the main parties and the media. Crowdpac has been operating in America for about 18 months and describes itself as “the new politics”. Its aim is to “make it easier for citizens to learn about politicians, run for office, and to find and support political candidates that match their priorities and beliefs. We want to help end the stranglehold of big money donors and special interests on the political system.”

Is any of this really feasible? After all, political parties exist for a purpose: they offer a home for people with a similar ideological outlook – though, as is apparent in both major parties at the moment, not an identical one. Voters know when they put a cross next to a party candidate’s name roughly what they are getting. Moreover, if the Commons were full of independents, how would a government be formed and on what basis could it claim a mandate?

Yet there is deep popular disenchantment with mainstream politics so maybe we are entering the age of the outsider – look at Donald Trump in America. My hunch is that breaking down the old political order in this country is about as likely as Leicester City winning the Premier League next year. So you never know.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/03/will-the-grip-of-the-two-party-system-ever-be-broken/

Conservative PCC candidate was election agent for one of the MPs under investigation by the police for alleged election fraud

Perhaps current Police and Crime Commissioner Tony Hogg was spurred into resigning from the Conservative Party because the new Conservative candidate for the job, Alison Hernandez, was the election agent for the Torbay MP Kevin Foster, one of the MPs under investigation by police and the Electoral Commission for alleged election fraud following visits by The Conservative battle bus to the south-west which were not declared locally.

Source: Channel 4 News tonight:

and
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/busted-24-tories-how-broke-7467603

If elected, she could be in the very strange position of being able to fire the top officer investigating her and the MP she was working for!

… Election agents are responsible for sanctioning all expenditure on the candidate’s campaign, for maintaining the accuracy of and submitting to the returning officer the candidate’s expenses and other documents, as well as deciding whether to contest the result of a count. …”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_agent

PCC elections designed to disadvantage jindependent candidates suspects Devon Police and Crime Commissioner

… “[Tony] Hogg, PCC for Devon and Cornwall, recently quit the Tory party, saying the public was “sleepwalking” towards the 5 May poll without any publicity, and that he suspected the “low-key” approach was designed to disadvantage independent candidates.

More than £3m was spent on publicity for the November 2012 elections, but only £2,700 has been allocated to promote this Thursday’s police elections. Hogg said in his resignation statement: “Hundreds of millions of pounds of public money are at stake; partners are hanging on news of their commissioning funding source; the criminal justice system awaits an end-to-end review in the hands of future PCCs, yet silence from the government.”

He added that the suggestion from the home secretary, Theresa May, that “the only safe PCC was a Conservative one” was “absurd, not least as she had just praised the Labour PCC for Northumbria, Vera Baird, for her work to reduce violence against women and girls and is supposed to provide leadership and support and leadership to all PCCs”. …

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

Frome and “flatpack democracy: first “Anywhere but Westminster” video

“While Scotland has blazed a new trail, much of England seems to have stuck to politics as usual. In fact, under the media radar, a growing number of self-styled independents are trying to kick out the big parties and take over the parts of government closest to local communities. John Harris goes to Frome, the Somerset town where this ‘flatpack democracy’ movement started; and to Winchester, where a new grassroots grouping wants to overthrow the Tory-run city council.”

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

Be very afraid, East Devon District Council Conservatives – be very afraid. Old party politics is out, independent collegiate democracy is in.

Feniton councillor supports Robert Spencer (Independent) for Police and Crime Commissioner

Only once, since I became eligible to vote did I fail to do so.
From Susie Bond’s website

“It was a deliberate (and rather feeble) act of defiance against the prospect of having an elected Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC). I was appalled at the politicisation of the police force and furious at the extraordinary waste of money at a time of increased austerity.

And I wasn’t alone.

The turnout for the 2012 PCC elections was just 15%, amply demonstrating that the public is just not engaged with the process, is disinterested, or like me, appalled at the prospect of an elected representative of a political party being in charge of policing in Devon and Cornwall.

However, I have already cast my postal vote in the PCC elections in favour of Independent candidate, Bob Spencer.

I am still angry, as I was in 2012, about the ludicrous waste of money, but I decided that if we were to be stuck with the system of elected PCCs, then it had better be an Independent candidate!

And who better?

Take 5 minutes to read about Bob on his website (http://bob-spencer-4-pcc.co.uk/about-me/). He brings with him a wealth of knowledge and 30 years of experience of policing and will have no need to employ expensive consultants to steer him through the complexities of managing the D&C force.

I wish Bob well in the final days of electioneering. As he says on his website:

“A strong leader who will not shy from unpopular decisions, I will advocate vociferously for the community to have the policing they want and need. Critically I have the skills and experience needed to challenge the Police to ensure they deliver for the communities of Devon, Cornwall, Torbay and Isles of Scilly. As an Independent I am free to act and free to speak on your behalf without political pressures.”

Bob Spencer banner

If rural schools close because of academisation, villages will become museums

Or will those near to towns be absorbed by development into suburbs?

… “The academies white paper doesn’t specifically target small schools, but the requirement that all schools should join multi-academy trusts, recently described by senior Conservative back bencher Graham Brady as “new and distant bureaucracies”, has led to fears that this model of rural education will become unviable and unattractive to the sort of trusts favoured by the government.” …

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

The official full list of Lords amendments to the government’s housing bill

” … Amendments

Some of the housing measures in the Bill were substantially amended on Report with further amendments at Third Reading. Several non-Government amendments and new clauses were added, including:

a requirement that the 20% discount on Starter Homes be repaid over a period of 20 years (reduced by 1% for each year of occupation);

a provision to give local authorities the power to determine the proportion of Starter Homes to be built on any particular development;

provisions to require determinations (in respect of higher value vacant council housing) affecting more than one local authority to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, and also to make the definition of higher value housing subject to parliamentary approval;

provision to enable local authorities, where they can demonstrate a need, to retain receipts from council house sales to fund the provision of a property of similar type to the one sold;

provision to give local authorities discretion over the levels of rent they would want to charge tenants with high incomes;

provision to limit rent increases for higher income tenants to no more than 10p for each pound of income above the minimum income threshold (the Government is seeking to apply a taper rate of 20p in the pound);

and

provision to set the minimum income thresholds for ‘pay to stay’ at £50,000 in London and £40,000 outside of London (the Government is seeking to set the minimum thresholds at £31,000 and £40,000 respectively).
Government amendments included:

a provision putting on the face of the Bill a requirement to ensure that where the Government make an agreement with a local authority outside London about building new homes, at least one new affordable home is provided for each dwelling that is assumed to be sold;

provision to allow regulations to exempt households in receipt of Housing Benefit and Universal Credit from the ‘pay to stay’ policy;

and

provision to enable local authorities to grant longer-term tenancies of up to 10 years in certain circumstances with potential for longer tenancies for families with children.

In relation to the part of the Bill on planning in England, a number of non-Government amendments and new clauses were added. These related to:

a new clause providing for a neighbourhood right of appeal;

an amendment to restrict permission in principle to housing-led developments only;

provision to allow local authorities to require section 106 affordable housing contributions from certain small-scale developments;

and

a new clause to incentivise the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) by ending the automatic right to connect to conventional drainage.

At both Report stage and Third Reading a number of Government and Government-supported amendments were made on the planning provisions, which included:

provision to enable the Secretary of State to prepare a local plan for a local planning authority and to direct that it is brought into effect;

explicitly excluding fracking development from being capable of being granted permission in principle;

putting on the face of the Bill the qualifying documents capable of granting permission in principle and setting a duration for it;

enabling local planning authorities to revoke or to modify permission in principle granted;

a new clause to allow the Secretary of State to grant planning freedoms to local authorities to facilitate new housing;

making clearer on the face of the Bill the Government’s intentions in its pilot schemes for competition in the processing of planning applications.

A new non-Government clause was also added on Report introducing a “carbon compliance standard for new homes”. This would require the Government to put in place regulations for a carbon compliance standard for new homes built from 1 April 2018.”

Commons Briefing papers CBP-7562
Authors: Wendy Wilson; Louise Smith

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7562#fullreport

Seaton Heights: EDDC sees no reason for delay

“GS had been contacting Seaton Heights by email but had not made any progress on contacting the owners at present. It was understood
that there were no barriers to development starting at Seaton Heights, except for stringent S106 requirements. With the economy and property market improving it may be that development could proceed. …”

Click to access 110516-combined-cabinet-agenda.pdf

What EDDC wants to keep secret in the next few months

EDDC has to publish details of “key decisions” it intends to discuss only in the secret part of agendas. This list is in the current agenda for the next Cabinet meeting on 11 May 2016. Here they are:

Sports and Social Club rents
The boundary review for West Hill
Community Infrastructure Levy governance issues
Business Support – options for the future
Thelma Hulbert Gallery – options

Does anyone see any good reason why ANY of these should be secret?

And doesn’t “Business Support – options for the future” scare you – especially as EDDC will be contributing heavily to this via the Local Enterprise Partnership?

Click to access 110516-combined-cabinet-agenda.pdf

French government to sell assets to finance Hinkley C?

“The French government owns 86% of EDF, the company behind the nuclear power project, and has agreed to pay €3bn of a capital injection plan that was announced last month.

In October EDF struck a deal with China General Nuclear Power Corporation, which agreed to pay a third of the total cost of the project in return for a 33.5% stake.

Hinkley Point was supposed to start producing power by 2023, but French giant EDF, which is leading on the project, is reportedly struggling to raise the cash for its 66.5% stake.

According to the Financial Times, there are plans in place to sell airports in Nice and Lyon to help finance the deal.

Shares in Renault and Safran, the aerospace and defence group, could also be sold.

A spokesman for the French government did not comment yesterday.”

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/energy/nuclear-power/news/74501/french-government-considering-selling-shares-pay-hinkley

“EDF should invest in renewables, not Hinkley Point – French junior minister”

“EDF (EDF.PA) needs to change its strategy and invest in renewable energy rather than putting money into something as complicated as the Hinkley Point nuclear project, French Minister of State for State Reform Jean-Vincent Place said.

The comments on Thursday by the former head of the left-wing Greens contradict those of French Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron, who has argued that EDF must go ahead with the 18 billion pound project to build two nuclear plants in Britain.

“EDF needs to change its strategic vision,” Jean-Vincent Place said in an interview on Europe 1 radio.

“EDF should put its money into renewable energy, rather than into a project which has so many difficulties,” the junior minister added.

The government was to discuss EDF’s finances on Wednesday ahead of an EDF board meeting on Friday.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-edf-hinkleypoint-idUKKCN0XI0NG

“Greens call for greater transparency as ‘secret’ plans for ‘super cross-county authority’ emerge”

“The Green Party last night condemned Exeter Labour’s for backing plans which place the ill-fated Hinkley C nuclear power station at the heart of an economic growth plan for the city.

Speaking on the panel at the city’s cultural hustings Diana Moore said: “It is very disappointing that Exeter Labour have backed Tory Councils and the Local Economic Partnership in a plan to build the most expensive building on earth at £18bn in an unviable project which won’t guarantee local jobs.”

The plans are part of the government’s new devolution agenda which would see councils in the region grant more power over spending decisions to unelected representatives from the Local Economic Partnership (LEP) and a controversial new ‘Combined Authority’. The proposed Authority would have wide-ranging powers over Health and Social Care, infrastructure and house building across Devon and Somerset.

Diana, who is lead Green candidate in St David’s ward, says: “This plan for a new combined authority covering Devon, Plymouth, Torbay and Somerset has quietly received the backing of both Labour and the Conservatives in Exeter. It is another example of how important decisions are being made without the involvement of local people.

“It is extraordinary that the city council have entered into an agreement to put in place a large new combined authority and give the unaccountable LEP more influence over planning and spending decisions, without finding out if the people of Exeter wanted to enter into such an arrangement.

“An absence of openness and transparency is sadly all too common within the Labour-led council and the Tories’ top-down model of devolution is so very different to the kind of genuine devolvement of powers that local communities and Greens want to see.”

Diana is calling on the newly elected council on May 5th to call in the plans and engage in genuine consultation.

She concluded: “Green Councillors will challenge plans that are cobbled together behind closed doors and we will work hard to ensure people in Exeter are properly involved in major decisions that affect them.”

Greens call for greater transparency as ‘secret’ plans for ‘super cross-county authority’ emerge

Make all new homes flood-proof says Local Government Association

“Housing developers should be forced to install flood prevention measures when building new homes in at-risk areas, the Local Government Association has said.

The group, which represents councils in England and Wales, believes protection including raised electrical sockets, sealed floors and wiring above floor level should become a mandatory part of building regulations.

Deputy chairman of the LGA, Councillor Peter Fleming, told Sky News that the Government and the construction industry must “step up to the plate” to stop homes being devastated in future storms.

“These are simple, low-cost changes that can easily be made that would actually make a massive difference to people that have been affected by flooding,” he added.

An estimated one in six homes in the UK are at risk of flooding, and last winter’s floods are believed to have caused damage worth £5bn. …”

http://news.sky.com/story/1687760/make-builders-flood-proof-new-homes-govt-told

Does EDDC know how much S106 money it has and how much is owed?

S106 money is that due to a town or parish where a developer has had to enter into an agreement to provide facilities or infrastructure to mitigate damage caused by a development.

This is the Freedom of Information request to East Devon District Council that reveals how little EDDC knows about how much money is still uncollected from S106 agreements. It should be noted that EDDC employed a S106 Officer and a Community Engagement officer for many years. Indeed, this is the convoluted procedure a town or parish has to go through to access its share of S106 contributions which mentions them by title:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s106_agreement_monitoring_and_co#incoming-797580

and it states that the S106 officer knows how much money is available to each town and parish.

The request:

Dear Mr Metcalfe,

Thank you for your request for information. Please see our response to
your request below with supporting documentation attached.

This request concerns agreements made under Section 106 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 (known as s106 agreements) particularly during
financial years 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 (to date) and compliance with
these s106 agreements.

1. How many s106 agreements were made by EDDC in each of the years stated above?

2011/12 – 170 registered agreements
2012/13 – 196
2013/14 – 297
2014/15 – 307

Please note that these are registered agreements and some are likely to
have been withdrawn, refused, or be resubmissions or supplemental agreements. Please see the attached spreadsheet for a breakdown of s106
agreements, where it’s been colour coded into financial years for ease of
reference.

2. What financial contributions were due to EDDC arising from s106
agreements in each of the years stated above?

We do not hold this information in a format which enables us to easily identify the financial contributions that were due to EDDC arising from s106 agreements in each financial year.

To find this detail we would need to check through each agreement during the stated time period. The attached list of each of the applications where a s106 agreement was registered can be searched online
here:
[1]http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/view-pl…

Simply enter the relevant application number into the search box and all
associated documents can then be accessed.

We estimate that to search through each of these agreements to locate the
ones specifically relevant to your request will take around 30 hours of
officer time. We know that it has taken an experienced officer some 6
hours to search through 200 of these documents and this is what we have
based our estimate on. This information is therefore exempt from
disclosure under s12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I am sorry that we cannot provide this information but hope that you will
find the application reference numbers helpful in conducting any searches
of your own. If you have any difficulties using the online search
facility, please let us know.

3. What financial contributions were received by EDDC for s106
agreements in each of the years stated above?

2014/15 – £2,464,737.56
2015/16 – £1,825,993.28.

4. In respect to monitoring of s106 agreements, how many agreements
have not been complied with in each of the years stated above? In cases
where there has been a breach of the obligation, how many direct actions
has EDDC taken to recover the payments due and expenses? –

This information is not held.

5. How much revenue for s106 agreements in total is now owing to EDDC
(regardless of what year the agreement was made) because payment has not
been made?

This information is not held.

If you are not satisfied with the way we have responded to your request,
please fill in our online complaint form[2]www.eastdevon.gov.uk/making_a_complaint or write to the Monitoring
Officer, EDDC, Knowle, Sidmouth, EX10 8HL.

Yours sincerely,

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s106_agreement_monitoring_and_co#incoming-797580

Devolution: what’s in it for Devon?

The main driver of this devolution deal is Somerset. Hinkley C is the main focus of the deal and education, skills and supply chain projects dominate the LEP – hardly surprising given the nuclear, construction and educational bias of its board. The lead councillor and the lead officer are from Somerset County Council. The LEP’s telephone number is answered at a business unit in Yeovil.

So, rather than asking the (belated) question: what is in it for Devon with a (possible Somerset) Mayor, perhaps the question should be: what is in it for Devin?