“Greater Exeter” protects the countryside – honestly, that’s what they say!

And it must be true, because Andrew Moulding says so! Now, about Exmouth Splat … And look who the money is coming from: developers!

Teignbridge, East Devon District Councils and Exeter City Council have form a cross-boundary partnership to safeguard three internationally important conservation sites.

The three councils have established the South East Devon Habitat Regulations Executive committee to off-set the effects of new developments and population growth on the protected sites.

They will work together to protect places such as the Exe Estuary, Dawlish Warren and the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths for future generations to enjoy.
The committee said protecting the sites was important for a number of reasons, including providing safe areas for all users to enjoy and caring for the bird populations they support.

Human activity on or close to the sites can cause disturbance or even death of protected bird species, it warned.

This new Committee is working with partners including Natural England, Clinton Devon Estates, National Trust, RSPB, Exe Estuary Management Partnership and Devon Wildlife Trust.

Funding will come from developer contributions on new residential housing across the three areas and within a 10km “zone of influence” from the protected sites.

Measures and initiatives planned include a patrol boat on the Exe Estuary, a dog project officer, a review of codes of conduct, new and updated visitor publicity and signage.

Two new wardens will educate and engage with the public and ensure byelaws are observed.

East Devon’s deputy leader Andrew Moulding said: “This joint working between our three Councils is a really important step in protecting our beautiful coast and countryside.

“By working together through collective financial decision-making, we can share resources to protect important areas of conservation and improve enjoyment for residents and visitors alike.” …

http://www.rsnonline.org.uk/environment/councils-join-forces-to-protect-countryside

MPs launch rural tourism inquiry – Parish in charge

Well,he can start at his own front door, where his local district council ignores tourism in general and where his lical LEP has no time for it either. And where, once they learn there is no broadband, many tourists decide to stay elsewhere.

“AN influential committee of MPs has launched an inquiry into the role of tourism in supporting rural growth in England.

Rural tourism provides around £17 billion a year to the English economy.
But rural communities face some particular challenges to tourism growth such as transport connections, restrictions to broadband access and seasonal employment.

Now the the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) select committee has launched an inquiry into how rural tourism can be supported.
Committee chairman Neil Parish said: “Tourism in rural areas creates job opportunities and supports the economic viability of communities.”

MPs would examine how effectively public programmes and government policies support rural areas to stay competitive in a global industry, he added.
England has seen a rise in tourism spend in the past year from domestic and international visitors – but over half of the money spent by overseas tourists is in London.

Figures by Visit England show that in 2014 just 18% of domestic overnight trips were taken to rural areas – down from 22% in 2012.

The inquiry will examine how more people from at home and abroad can be encouraged to visit more of England’s rural places, for longer and at all times of the year.

It will look at ways to encourage farmers and rural residents to diversify into tourism and grow their businesses in the countryside.” …

http://www.rsnonline.org.uk/politics/mps-launch-rural-tourism-inquiry

Watch out sports and activities clubs – don’t go the way of beach hut tenants!

EDDC recently put out a puff job press release that said their strategy for beach hut rents (double them) had been so successful that all huts are now rented and waiting lists had plummeted. What they DIDN’T say was that 25% of beach hut tenants had to give up their tenancies because they could not afford the new rents. Beach huts – once a local amenity – are now luxury items available only to those with high disposable incomes (and from anywhere in the world).

Here we have something else in the same guise: a plan to treat all sports and activities clubs who rent their premises from EDDC on “a level playing field” with regard to new rents to be paid.

This roughly translates as “If you are a posh club with a lot of rich members (for example a sailing club) we will hike your rent but you will be fine as you will barely notice it but if you are a poor club with poor members (such as a kids club in a less well-off area) get out of our premises so we can flog them off to the highest bidders – whether for more expensive activities or even to developers”.

This is how you put this in EDDC-speak – will you get a “rent support grant”, who decides and exactly how long will you get it for – if at all?

The press release:

Clubs will all be charged on a level playing field from now on
Sports and activity clubs who rent district council facilities will all be treated on a level playing field from now on and will have the opportunity to apply for a grant to help them in the future.

East Devon District Council has run workshops to help its sports and activity club tenants learn more about how to apply for these grants. During these two sessions attended by eight separate sports and activity club tenants, a number of similar queries came up which officers were able to help with.

Currently, East Devon District Council leases premises to some 37 sports and activity organisations. However, these arrangements, including the rent charges, can vary significantly from club to club due to historical arrangements. Some clubs have benefited from reduced rents while there are others that have not received this financial support. The council’s Cabinet, as recommended by the Asset Management Forum, decided in June 2015 that any financial support for clubs must be more transparent, accountable and reflect a clearly determined subsidy level. Any subsidy involves public money and the Forum wanted to make sure that the best use possible was being made of this financial support. A further information report on the issue went before Cabinet in May this year.

The council’s new approach is to introduce a rent support grant arrangement which will make the allocation of funding support more consistent and fair. From their next rent review or lease renewal date, all clubs will be liable to pay market rent for their facility by the council. At this time, a rent valuation will be determined, taking into account such factors as the size of the facility, the terms of the lease and the variety of uses of the site. In addition, it will be an opportunity to review the current arrangements such as the length of lease.

At the same time, clubs can apply to the district council for a rent support grant and their application will be assessed objectively against a range of criteria. These assessments will include looking at the benefits the club brings or could bring to the local community, whether they have a good and realistic financial plan and how much the club needs a grant.

Clubs that attended the workshops were able to discuss their concerns with the Council. There are ones that are trying hard to recruit new members and improve their club and facilities by building up money to pay for these improvements but worried that they might not be eligible for a grant. Officers were able to reassure these clubs that the decision-making panel of councillors would be looking to give grants to help clubs that were putting a real effort into helping themselves. This includes activities such as applying for grants, involving their clubs in the community and becoming more sustainable by recruiting new members and improving facilities.

Ten sports and activity clubs, whose leases are up for renewal this year, are eligible to apply for the Rent Support Grant and now have until 29 September 2016 to submit an application.

Councillor Ian Thomas, East Devon District Council’s Cabinet Member for Finance and the grant applications panel chairman, said: “The workshops were well received and gave us the opportunity to clarify some issues that were worrying these organisations. It’s important to reiterate that the new grants scheme is all about having a fair accountable system to help those who merit financial support. It’s about making sure that our limited funds reach the right groups and organisations.”

All sports and activity clubs that lease or hire facilities from East Devon District Council have already received detailed information on the changes and the grants scheme.”

When it pays ( handsomely) to be sacked

George Osborne looks set to make hundreds of thousands of pounds a year on the after-dinner speaking circuit after he joined one of Washington DC’s most exclusive agencies.

The former chancellor has been given the green light by the civil service to join Washington Speakers Bureau after being sacked from the government by Theresa May.

While fees for the speakers are not made public, US reports have suggested “big names” can get $50,000 a speech while “top attractions” can get up to $300,000.

He joins a stellar class of politicians at the firm including former prime ministers Gordon Brown and Tony Blair and former US president George W Bush. …
…The Tory MP for Tatton’s new role was formally approved on Tuesday by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which signs off jobs for former ministers to ensure there is no conflict of interest. …

He has promised to “personally approve any engagement to ensure that there is no conflict of interest” and must wait until three months after his sacking to take up the post.

Mr Osborne was also told by the committee that he “should not become personally involved in lobbying the UK Government on behalf of the Washington Speakers Bureau or its clients” for at least two years. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/16/george-osborne-expected-to-make-hundreds-of-thousands-after-join/

So, George, are you quite sure you know what lobbying means?

Standards watchdog worried about ineffectiveness of sanctions

Not the only one watchdog, not the only one.

“There is some evidence to suggest that the role of independent person in local government standards is generally well received and that vexatious complaints are falling, the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) has said.

However, in its 2015/16 annual report

Click to access CSPL_Annual_Report_2015-2015.pdf

published this month, the CSPL said the effectiveness of the sanctions regime was “still a concern”.

The CSPL agreed at the time of the Localism Act to maintain a watching brief on: the need for a mandatory code of conduct; strong local leadership; effective independent persons; and concern at the lack of sanctions.

The committee said it had received correspondence both from members of the public, councils and councillors on the issue of standards. “This correspondence includes, for example, calls for a national code of conduct, strengthened guidelines or sanctions or a power of recall.”

It added that it continued “to invite councils to consider whether their own local standards frameworks are sufficient to address standards breaches and build public trust”.

The CSPL said it would also continue to liaise with the relevant stakeholders on the way in which ethical standards could effectively be embedded in all parts of local government.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28043%3Aindependent-person-role-well-received-and-vexatious-complaints-falling-cspl&catid=59&Itemid=27

Natural England: cuts mean too many compromises and conflicts

“England’s nature watchdog is planning to use its legal powers less and risks becoming a weak regulator forced to raise funding from the private companies it is meant to keep in check, leaked documents and sources reveal.

Natural England is duty-bound to defend rare species and protected areas including national parks and England’s 4,000 sites of special scientific interest from potentially environmentally damaging developments.

But the regulator faces a budget cut of 27% and a reduction in headcount of 20% by 2020 due to cuts to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). This means it will have a “significantly reduced national capacity”, it admits,.

A internal document from June, seen by Greenpeace and shared with the Guardian, says the agency will “make more proportionate use of our regulatory powers” and “retain our regulatory powers but will use them more proportionately and more efficiently, while increasingly operating through advice and partnership.”

Internal sources say this amounts to using its powers less and to agreements that “compromise wildlife”. …

… Stephen Trotter, the director of the Wildlife Trusts, a network of 47 local groups, said: “We have for some time seen evidence across the trusts of less engagement with planning issues by Natural England than would have been the case previously. We find that particularly around non-designated but local wildlife sites, it has a reluctance to get involved in defending those sites.”

Other changes to the way the agency operates include providing “advice to government that is politically aware”. The regulator is meant to provide science-based and independent advice. A source at Natural England said the idea was “ridiculous” as its advice was meant to be “based on the science, not on anything else”.

The watchdog’s ecologists will also get out less to see the wildlife and habitats they are meant to protect and understand.

“Fewer ad hoc site visits will be necessary because more information, data and evidence about sites and the local area will be captured remotely and by others,” says the document. Conservationists warned earlier this year that Natural England risked losing its “eyes and ears” after it cut funding for local environmental record centres.

In order to raise more money as its budget is cut £30m by the end of 2020 on 2015-16 levels, the agency also plans to raise more money by charging the private sector, such as water companies, housebuilders and windfarm developers, for its services. It raised £1.43m in 2015-16 by charging £110 an hour for such services, and hopes to increase this to £12m a year by 2020.

“It’s blurring the vision of what we do,” a source at Natural England said. “It’s commercialising something that’s very hard to commercialise. People find it quite a conflict in what they do. Previously we would prioritise what is important in terms of biodiversity rather than profit, so it’s quite a different mindset.”

The agency tried to allay such fears in another document shared with staff. “There were some concerns that a move towards charging might be perceived as a shift towards ‘supporting development’, with us working for, rather than with, our customers. Thankfully, that criticism has rarely been directed at us,” it said. …”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/16/budget-cuts-threaten-to-weaken-powers-of-englands-nature-watchdog

“Germany bans fracking forever”

Germany Bans Fracking Forever

Companies House plan will hide Ministers’ links to firms, says Labour

“Historical links between ministers and former businesses will be hidden from the public if the government goes ahead with changes to Companies House, Labour has said.

Proposals to reduce the amount of time records of dissolved companies are retained could mean that the former directorships of 24 current Conservative ministers would no longer be accessible, research from the party suggests.

Their previous links to 48 now dissolved companies and organisations would be deleted either immediately or over the course of the parliament.

Ministers who could be affected include the chancellor, Philip Hammond, who is a former director of six dissolved companies; the home secretary, Amber Rudd; the defence secretary, Michael Fallon; and the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt. …”

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/15/companies-house-plan-hide-tory-ministers-business-links-tom-watson-labour

Sidmouth Beach Management Plan – crucial meeting this Wednesday (17 August)

“As Sidmouth’s long-drawn-out Beach Management Plan (BMP) reaches a critical stage, all eyes will be on the Steering Group Meeting this week, with EDDC Deputy Leader, Andrew Moulding, in the Chair.

Vision Group for Sidmouth (VgS), one of the founder groups of Save Our Sidmouth, will be represented by Robert Crick, who has followed every stage of the long and fraught evolution of the BMP, and has a sound knowledge of researched solutions. He was a close colleague of Jo Frith, who died earlier this year. Jo had been the VgS representative on the BMP Steering Group for many years, strongly arguing a ‘best solution’ case, with solid suggestions for funding.

For the issues and controversies, see:
https://www.visionforsidmouth.org/news/2016/august/beach-management-plan-minutes-from-ff-vgs-meeting-of-8th-august.aspx
https://www.visionforsidmouth.org/news/2016/august/beach-management-plan-local-stakeholders-welcome-project-consultants-report.aspx
and http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/d_day_looms_on_option_to_protect_85m_of_sidmouth_property_1_4653525

Bovis too poor to buld affordable homes in Seaton …. yet

“Bovis Homes posts 18% increase in revenue to £412m as UK market remains solid despite Brexit vote

Housebuilder says it is still too early to judge the impact of the vote to leave the European Union….”

http://ukdaily.ddns.net/news/bovis-homes-posts-18-increase-in-revenue-to-412m-as-uk-market-remains-solid-despite-brexit-vote

And Owl still can’t understand how Tesco paid for raising the site years ago yet Bovis says it is bearing the cost …

Did Bovis buy the site INCLUDING the cost of raising it several years earlier and, if so, why?

And why is every develipment site costed separately, not taking into a ccount the developers profits as a whole?

It seems just about any and every site can be shown to make a loss so that affordables are unaffordable, yet all these unaffordable site seems to make bigger and bigger profits for developers when added together! Strange that!

Land value tax for developers, dukes and farmers?

” … In the 19th century landowners paid tax on their land. Today, so corrupt is our system of taxation, they actually receive subsidies for it. The rest of us, meanwhile, must pay council tax.

The largest landowners exploit a tax loophole. Land is passed from one generation to the next via the tax avoidance vehicle that is the trust. The rest of us must pay inheritance tax. …

… About the only way the person who starts out with nothing can improve his or her lot is through labour. And yet we tax labour constantly and heavily. The worker pays the vast majority of taxes: 40% of government revenue comes from income tax and national insurance, with another 20% from VAT.

The wealth of the super-rich does not derive from their labour, however. It derives from the appreciation in the value of their land, their houses, their stocks, their shares, their bonds, their fine art – what economists call their assets. These go untaxed, unless you sell. So most don’t. …

Instead of taxing our labour – what we produce – why don’t we tax what we use? Instead of taxing the wealth that is earned, why don’t we tax the wealth that is unearned? I’m talking about land. Nobody made the land. Nature gave it to us. By building on it, or farming it, or mining it, you have improved it, but the land itself was always there. So let us look solely at the unimproved value of the land. This is easy to assess.

If you want the right to occupy a piece of land, and you want the government to protect your title to that land, then a rent should be paid to the community that reflects the value of that land, because it is the needs of the community which have given that land value. What I’m describing might sound extremely left wing, but the granddaddy of rightwing economists, Milton Friedman, described it as the, “least bad tax”: that is LVT – land value tax.

Who would pay the most if we hand land value tax in the UK? The Queen (she owns most of it), the Duke of Buccleuch, the Duke of Atholl, Captain Alwyne Farquharson, pension funds, the Forestry Commission, the Ministry of Defence and, of course, the new Duke of Westminster – or rather the Grosvenor Trust, which owns the land. …

… There’s big money to be made in land banking but there is nothing creative about it. You are not bringing anything new to the world or improving it. It is simply exploiting the restrictive planning laws in this country that prevent progress. It is crony capitalism at its worst.

If you don’t want to pay land value tax, you don’t have to. This is a tax that is voluntary. You simply sell the land to someone who is prepared to.

The amounts of tax payable are clear. It’s an easy tax to administer. It doesn’t require 10 million words of tax code. And there need be no loopholes. The land is here – it is not in the Cayman Islands – and you are the owner.

The Green party actually has LVT in its manifesto, but it has it in addition to other taxes. LVT should replace other taxes. …”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/15/queen-duke-westminster-land-value-tax-distribute-wealth-super-rich

Straitgate Quarry: “environmental sabotage”

“Campaigners have hit out at final proposals for a potential quarry site on Ottery’s outskirts, which have been branded ‘environmental sabotage’.

The inclusion of Straitgate Farm as an earmarked area in the new Devon Minerals Plan (DMP) has received widespread opposition from residents, who are taking the chance to voice their objections as part of a public consultation.

Proposed modifications to the site exclude the stipulation of a one-metre ‘buffer zone’ originally included to safeguard water supplies – something campaigners fear will only increase the potential environmental damage.” …

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/proposals_for_possible_quarry_site_in_ottery_st_mary_branded_environmental_sabotage_1_4653464

What happens when your town falls out of favour with its Local Enterprise Partnership?

Hugo … Neil … where are you …? What is our LEP going to fund in our towns and villages in East Devon?

From Hansard: 21 July 2016

Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the distribution of funds by local enterprise partnerships? The LEP in our area had Southend as No. 4 on its list and we have dropped off the radar dramatically. Something needs to be looked at there.

The Leader of the House of Commons, Mr David Lidington

My understanding is that that was an internal decision by the local enterprise partnership for south Essex, and I encourage my hon. Friend to make representations—I am sure he will do—on behalf of his constituents to the LEP. If that is not successful, I am sure that the relevant Minister in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will be keen to hear from him.

https://www.davidamess.co.uk/news/sir-david-calls-debate-local-enterprise-partnerships

“Crown Estate wades in on Hinkley C battle”

“The crown estate has waded into the battle over Hinkley Point, pointing out that offshore windfarms are already being built at cheaper prices than the proposed atomic reactors for Somerset.

While not arguing the £18.5bn nuclear project should be scrapped, the organisation – still legally owned by the Queen – said that the government’s current Hinkley review makes it a good time to consider the advantages of other low carbon technologies.

The crown estate said that windfarms at sea will be on course to meet 10% of the country’s electricity by 2020 while Hinkley Point C is not expected to be constructed till the mid 2020s, to produce 7%.

“The [wind] sector has undergone a sea change over the last few years, driven by rapid advances in technology, cost and the industry’s ability to deliver on time and to budget,” said Huub den Rooijen, the director of energy, minerals and infrastructure at the crown estate.

“In the Netherlands, there has been an even bigger step change. In the busy time around the EU referendum, many people will have missed the publication of their most recent offshore wind tender.

“Although there are differences in terms of regulation, most would agree that the Dutch are now going to be paying the equivalent of about £80/MWh for their 700 megawatt windfarm. That is significantly lower than Hinkley Point at £92.50/MWh.” …

… National Grid estimates that nearly half of all power could be generated from our seabed by 2030 through offshore wind, combined with tidal power lagoons and strong electrical connections to our neighbouring countries.

“We have an inexhaustible supply of reliable and clean power right on our doorstep, and competitively priced offshore wind now offers a mature part of the solution for the UK’s energy mix.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/14/crown-estate-hinkley-point-nuclear-debate?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

And still we flog the dead radioactive nuclear horse of Hinkley C – in which so many members of our Local Development Partnership have a vested interest, and the UK continues to have a 20th century nuclear and renewables policy in a 21st century world.

“For all Japan’s talk of 43 ‘operable’ nuclear reactors, only two are actually running, writes Jim Green, as renewables and a 12% fall in demand eat into the power market. And while Japan’s ‘nuclear village’ defends safety standards, the IAEA, tasked with promoting nuclear power worldwide, has expressed deep concerns over the country’s weak and ‘fragmented’ safety regulation. …

… “The ability of existing Japanese nuclear plants, if restarted, to operate competitively against modern renewables (as many in the U.S. and Europe can no longer do) is unclear because nuclear operating costs are not transparent. However, the utilities’ almost complete suppression of Japanese wind power suggests they are concerned on this score.

“And as renewables continue to become cheaper and more ubiquitous, customers will be increasingly tempted by Japan’s extremely high electricity prices to make and store their own electricity and to drop off the grid altogether, as is already happening, for example, in Hawaii and Australia.”

The Japan Association of Corporate Executives, with a membership of about 1,400 executives from around 950 companies, recently issued a statement urging Tokyo to remove hurdles holding back the expansion of renewable power – which supplied 14.3 percent of power in Japan in the year to March 2016.

The statement also notes that the outlook for nuclear is “uncertain” and that the 20‒22% target could not be met without an improbably high number of restarts of idled reactors along with numerous reactor lifespan extensions beyond 40 years.

Andrew DeWit, a professor at Rikkyo University in Tokyo, said the push signalled “a profound change in thinking among blue-chip business executives.” DeWit added:

“Many business leaders have clearly thrown in the towel on nuclear and are instead openly lobbying for Japan to vault to global leadership in renewables, efficiency and smart infrastructure.”

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987971/japans_big_nuclear_restart_overtaken_by_conservation_and_renewables.html

Hug a planner? Maybe not in East Devon …

This report might have more credence if it did not mention Cranbrook as an example of good planning when we all know its developer-led design is already falling out of favour with residents!!!!

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/09/14/what-mainstream-media-isnt-telling-you-about-that-dcc-cranbrook-report/

“A new report points out the benefits of listening to planners’ ideas instead of denigrating them.

If you know any planners, go out and hug them. At one time or another, most people will have reason to be grateful to their profession – for mitigating the expansion of a neighbour’s house, for example, or stopping an open-all-hours club opening in their street. We take it for granted that noxious industries can’t pop up in residential areas and that historic buildings and green spaces have some protection. This is due to planning, an area of government that is nonetheless showered with exceptional levels of derision.

Planners are faceless bureaucrats. Grey. So grey that they feel the need to brighten up their world and ours with colourful swaths of red tape. Or, worse, power-crazed social engineers who tell us how to live. They put brakes on prosperity, growth and freedom of choice. “There are countless jobs tied up in the filing cabinets of the planning regime,” said Michael Heseltine in 1979 and he thought the line so good and true that he said it again in 2012.

Actions follow these words. The planning system is endlessly being reformed, to speed it up, improve “delivery”, to save the £3bn a year that its delays are alleged to cost the economy. At the same time, planning departments are hit particularly hard by cuts in local government spending. Once councils have paid for their statutory and essential obligations, they find it easiest to squeeze apparently optional activities such as planning.

So it’s not surprising that the overwhelming majority of planners, according to a report to be published this week, believe that they cannot provide the benefits of planning due to the constraints and changes in their jobs. The report argues that reforms of the planning system often don’t work. It challenges the fantasy that, if only the bolts on the planning machine could be loosened enough, private enterprise would achieve the abundant flow of new housing that the country desires. It argues that there are economic costs to inadequate planning, such as uncertainty and the cost of poor decisions.

More than this, the report says that current demands for housing mean that planning should be strengthened, so that it can go beyond its usual role of reacting to developers’ and private citizens’ proposals. It can help remove obstacles to development such as contamination and poor infrastructure. It can assemble pieces of land to make a viable site. It can help remove risks and address the long-term quality of a place in ways that private companies often cannot.

The report cites examples of cohesive and successful developments, such as the seven-hectare Brindleyplace in Birmingham, where 12,000 jobs are now based, or the new community of Cranbrook in Devon, which may provide 7,500 homes. In these places, it says, planning played a crucial role in making private development possible.

The report is commissioned by the Royal Town Planning Institute, the professional body of planners, which will prompt the nation’s Heseltines to snort that they would say that, wouldn’t they? Certainly, it describes a world where planners are more influential and respected and better funded than they are now. Its plonky title, Delivering the Value of Planning, smells of those filing cabinets. Then again the Mandy Rice-Davies riposte could equally be applied to those housebuilders who argue for ever less planning. And rather than denigrate planners, it’s worth looking at the strengths of their arguments.

When making things that are expensive, immobile and long lived, such as construction projects, it’s common sense to consider the sum of actions in advance. When building a kitchen, you don’t just plonk down a cooker, sink and fridge and hope that they will end up in the right relationship to each other. You plan them. This gets more true as projects get larger and as space for building gets more scarce and precious, as is happening in Britain now.

Inadequate planning leads to places such as Ebbsfleet in north Kent, where huge investment has gone into its 19-minute rail connection to London, but it takes half an hour to walk from the station to the nearest house, and where some of the lakes formed by former quarry workings, potentially an asset, will be filled in. Good planning gives you places where people actually want to live, where value increases such that it can pay for more public benefits, where land is used well and homes are built at a reasonable speed. The choice is not that difficult.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/14/planning-policy-give-planners-more-powers?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Local NHS “Success Regime” not succesful

“Criticisms have been made over how long it is taking to reach the public consultation stage of the Success Regime.

The national intervention programme is aimed at reducing Devon’s worrying massive health service debt.It has narrowed down its focus for cuts, but details of those are yet to be made public.

Assurances have been made there will be a public consultation as the programme is set to deliver significant changes and cuts to health services. However, despite hopes of a summer consultation, no date has yet been confirmed for when the information will be made public and when the consultation will begin. …”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/long-wait-continues-to-find-out-what-will-happen/story-29616016-detail/story.html

Extended National Park boosts tourism, but NEVER for East Devon

Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cumbria and Dorset value their natural environments:

http://rsnonline.org.uk/environment/rural-boost-as-national-parks-extended

East Devon guards its developers and their concrete jungles jealously:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2016/08/08/control-of-assets-more-important-than-creating-a-national-park-says-eddc/

Radical Icelandic Pirate Party in pre-election lead: reinventing democracy

“One of Europe’s most radical political parties is expected to gain its first taste of power after Iceland’s ruling coalition and opposition agreed to hold early elections caused by the Panama Papers scandal in October.

Iceland PM steps aside after protests over Panama Papers revelations
The Pirate party, whose platform includes direct democracy, greater government transparency, a new national constitution and asylum for US whistleblower Edward Snowden, will field candidates in every constituency and has been at or near the top of every opinion poll for over a year.

As befits a movement dedicated to reinventing democracy through new technology, it also aims to boost the youth vote by persuading the company developing Pokémon Go in Iceland to turn polling stations into Pokéstops.

“It’s gradually dawning on us, what’s happening,” Birgitta Jónsdóttir, leader of the Pirates’ parliamentary group, told the Guardian. “It’s strange and very exciting. But we are well prepared now. This is about change driven not by fear but by courage and hope. We are popular, not populist.”

The election, likely to be held on 29 October, follows the resignation of Iceland’s former prime minister, Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson, who became the first major victim of the Panama Papers in April after the leaked legal documents revealed he had millions of pounds of family money offshore.

In the face of some of the largest protests the small North Atlantic island had ever seen, the ruling Progressive and Independence parties replaced Gunnlaugsson with the agriculture and fisheries minister, Sigurður Ingi Jóhannsson, and promised elections before the end of the year.

Founded four years ago by a group of activists and hackers as part of an international anti-copyright movement, Iceland’s Pirates captured five per cent of the vote in 2013 elections, winning three seats in the country’s 63-member parliament, the Althingi.

“Then, they were clearly a protest vote against the establishment,” said Eva Heida Önnudóttir, a political scientist at the University of Iceland who compares the party’s appeal to Icelandic voters to that of Spain’s Podemos, or Syriza in Greece.

“Three years later, they’ve distinguished themselves more clearly; it’s not just about protest. Even if they don’t have clear policies in many areas, people are genuinely drawn to their principles of transforming democracy and improving transparency.”

Propelled by public outrage at what is widely perceived as endemic cronyism in Icelandic politics and the seeming impunity of the country’s wealthy few, support for the party – which hangs a skull-and-crossbones flag in its parliamentary office – has rocketed.

A poll of polls for the online news outlet Kjarninn in late June had the Pirates comfortably the country’s largest party on 28.3%, four points clear of their closest rival, Gunnlaugsson’s conservative Independence party.

That lead has since narrowed slightly but most analysts are confident the Pirates will return between 18 and 20 MPs to the Althingi in October, putting them in a strong position to form Iceland’s next government.

Jónsdóttir said the party was willing to form a government with any coalition partner who subscribes to its agenda of “fundamental system change” – something the Independence party has already ruled out.

“I look at us and I think, we are equipped to do this,” she said. “Actually, the fact we haven’t done it before and that we won’t have any old-school people telling us how, means we’ll do it more carefully. We will be doing things very differently.”

Built on the belief that new technologies can help promote civic engagement and government transparency and accountability, the party believes in an “unlimited right” for citizens to be involved in the political decisions that affect them, with ordinary voters able to propose new legislation and decide on it in national referendums.

It also wants no limit on individuals’ rights to express their views and share information, unless doing so violates others’ rights, and proposes to decriminalise drugs, raise taxes on the rich, and pursue internet freedoms and copyright reform.

Önnudóttir said she could “very easily see” the party winning 20-25% of the vote. “After that, their success will depend on what they can really deliver, how much they make of their first term,” she said. “With numbers like those, you risk becoming a part of the establishment.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/12/polls-suggests-icelands-pirate-party-form-next-government