What is EDDC’s highest risk in its Risk Register?

In the full risk register there is one risk currently scored as high:

The Council’s income now relies on income from new homes bonus monies which is directly related to new house building in the district.

There is a risk of lower growth than estimated or the Government changing the mechanism for payment.
Impact: Major
Likelihood: Likely

The reason for the escalation of this risk is that the government is currently considering a new scheme following a period of consultation. There is now uncertainty as to the implications of any changes to the scheme.


Latest information on EDDC and devolution – done deal

Pages 104-116 here:



A summary:

Our Prospectus for Prosperity was submitted to Government at the end of February 2016. Since then the Partnership has pressed the Secretary of State to enter into discussion with its negotiation team to secure a deal for the Heart of the South West.

Following an invitation from the Secretary of State, on the 25th May 2016, leaders from the upper tier authorities met with the Greg Clarke, Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government to seek his view on our next steps forward.

The Secretary of State made the following comments:

Geography – the Devon and Somerset area is agreed as the appropriate scale. The proposal must clearly demonstrate why this is the right geography for the Devolution agreement and all councils and MPs must support the proposal.

Combined Authority – the Partnership will move forward into the negotiation process based on a Combined Authority model. The Mayoral issue may be considered at a later stage, within the timeline agreed by our Partnership. A Mayor will not be imposed or be a pre-condition of any initial deal.

Extent of the deal – areas that have agreed to have a Mayor will get more powers than a non-Mayoral Combined Authority deal. However, the negotiation process will be an opportunity to push the limits of this initial deal, and the process should be viewed as being incremental.

Timeline – we will still work towards an Autumn Statement timeline for the announcement of an initial deal.

Growth Deal 3 – the LEP would not be penalised in Growth Deal 3 negotiations because the area does not have a Devolution deal with a Mayor. The decision for allocation will be based purely on the quality of the Growth Deal bid.

The Secretary of State went on to advise that if the Partnership, backed by each Council and MPs, would sign up to the principle of creating a Combined Authority by the end of July 2016 he would arrange for the Treasury to open up negotiations towards a deal.

This report seeks approval to sign up ‘in principle’ to the pursuit of a Devolution Deal and the creation of a Combined Authority for the Heart of the South West sub-region to administer the powers devolved through the Deal.

An ‘in principle’ agreement from all of the authorities, partners and MPs involved in the Heart of the South West devolution process will open up negotiations with Treasury to work towards a deal.

Any final devolution deal with government will be subject to further approval/ratification by all partners individually. A Heads of Terms document will be used as a negotiating tool to seek additional powers and funding to accelerate the delivery of 163,000 new jobs, 179,000 new homes and an economy of over £53bn GVA by 2030.

It should be noted that there is no intention for the Combined Authority to take existing powers or funding from local authorities, or existing city deal governance structures, without the explicit agreement of those constituent local authorities. More detailed work will be undertaken to identify the decision-making powers and the constitution of the Combined Authority, and all partners will be fully involved and consulted on these arrangements as they develop.”

“‘Astonishing’ refusal of plans for 94 affordable homes in Ipswich”

“The Government has “astonishingly” turned down plans for 94 affordable homes in Ipswich.

Ipswich Borough Council (IBC) approved the Ravenswood scheme in Nacton Road in November 2014, but the Government called it in to review in January 2015.

A planning inspector backed the scheme after a public inquiry in September, but yesterday Greg Clark, secretary of state for communities and local government, told the council the proposals were refused for not providing a mix of affordable and market housing.

David Ellesmere, IBC leader, said: “After sitting on the report for more than six months, the Secretary of State has now blocked the application.

“This is astonishing. I cannot think of an application turned down because the housing wasn’t expensive enough.

“The length of time it has taken to take this decision is likely to cost the council millions of pounds in lost rent, grants and increased construction costs, while families have been left languishing on the waiting list.”


Newton Poppleford affordable housing: “and then there were none”

EDDC have received an amendment to planning application 16/0218/OUT at Waterleat, High St. Newton Poppleford.

“Reduction in number of units from 12 to 9 (all open market following a change in Government advice); provision of a financial contribution towards affordable housing, open space and habitat mitigation (subject to viability); and submission of a new indicative layout plan showing the reduced number of dwellings and two parking spaces per dwelling.”

So GOVERNMENT ADVICE now means no affordable homes in this site in the centre of the village with its level access to transport and the village’s facilities which, of course, particularly lends itself to homes dedicated to the elderly.

A 2012 application was refused, one reason being the inadequate number of affordable homes. Consultee’s comments from EDDC’s Housing Strategy Officer, the Parish Council and the emerging Neighbourhood Plan Strategy Group all expressed deep unhappiness at the derisory 2 affordable housing units previously submitted in this current application. Now there are to be none!

Given the location of the site this is an opportunity sorely missed.

Political spending US-style

Remember £15,000 for a jar of Hugo Swire’s honey in 2014:

and Hugo’s remarks about people on benefits at the auction he chaired in 2015:

Owl, having read below about how Donald Trump manages his election expenses, wonders how much of the battle bus expenses ended up back in donors pockets.

“Donald Trump loves to brag about his wealth. But as he heads into the general election in November, his campaign’s bank account is almost empty (for a presidential candidate) — he has just $1.3 million on hand, nearly 40 times less than presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

And a lot of the money the Trump campaign has spent is going directly back to Donald Trump. In May, according to Federal Election Commission filings, Trump spent about $1 million of his campaign’s funds on products and services from business he owns, including:

$423,372 to rent out Mar-a-Lago, his Palm Beach club
$349,540 to Tag Air, his fleet of private jets
$29,715 to rent out the Trump International Golf Club
$35,845 to rent out the Trump National Golf Club
$72,800 in rent on Trump Tower

Earlier this year, the Trump campaign spent thousands to stay at Trump hotels, eat at Trump restaurants, and serve Trump bottled water at their events. The Associated Press calculated that, in all, $6 million of Trump campaign money has gone back to the Trump Organization.

Campaigns are required to pay the fair market value for the goods and services they purchase, even if they’re paying a company owned by the candidate. (Otherwise, Trump’s companies could give him a big advantage by allowing him to use facilities for free, while Clinton, who is not a real estate magnate, has to pay for venues where she holds her events.) Trump, naturally, wants to host events at properties he owns.

Since Trump’s campaign funds still mostly come from a loan from the candidate himself, a lot of this spending is just passing Trump’s money around. But as the campaign goes on and Trump seeks out more donations, some of the money from his supporters will end up flowing right back to him.”


No lie-in for Cranbrook residents on Saturdays


A resident recently expressed concern about working hours and start times, suggesting we should not start work on Saturdays before 9:30 am, so we thought it would be helpful to clarify the situation. It is that, in Phase 1, we are permitted to start at 7:00 am but have taken the decision not to allow starts before 7:30 am.”

[If residents have any queries relating to this post, please contact Richard via Richard.Gilmour@taylorwimpey.com]