Farnham group challenges council regeneration scheme

Of interest for Exmouth … if it could get a £50,000 donation towards costs!

“A council in Surrey has vowed to defend “as strongly as rpossible” a High Court challenge to its decision to proceed with a much-delayed regeneration scheme.

A preliminary hearing to determine whether campaigners in Farnham have the right to challenge Waverley Borough Council’s decision on the Brightwells Farnham Regeneration Scheme is set to be heard in the High Court on 31 January 2017.

The Farnham Interest Group (FIG) – which represents the Farnham Society, the Farnham Building Preservation Trust and the East Street Action Group – argues that the “massive and unsustainable” scheme fails to provide what the council offered when it first set out its ideas for the development in 2003.

FIG is seeking to overturn a planning decision taken by the council on 24 May 2016 to proceed with the development, having made changes to the scheme. The claimant will argue that the changes were significant and the contract should have been retendered as developers who tendered for the original scheme were put at a disadvantage to the development partner, Crest Nicolson. FIG has already secured a £50,000 donation from an anonymous donor to help with the legal challenge.

Cllr Julia Potts, Leader of Waverley, said: “While it is good news that the court has agreed to allow a preliminary hearing, it is disappointing that council tax payers will have to pay for the council’s costs to defend the scheme which delivers jobs, homes and numerous community and financial benefits to Farnham and the borough as a whole.

“The construction phase was due to start in autumn 2016; this will now have to be delayed, impacting on the delivery timetable. It will be upsetting for the residents who were so keen to see this scheme go ahead as quickly as possible.
“Given the Brightwells Farnham Regeneration Scheme is a key corporate priority, the council will defend the judicial review challenge as strongly as possible and is proceeding with the Compulsory Purchase of the Marlborough Head pub to complete the site assembly.”

Cllr Potts said notices had been served to action the compulsory purchase with the council taking possession of the Marlborough Head site on 2 December 2016. Possession of the pub site would create the main pedestrian access to the new development from East Street in Farnham. The CPO was approved by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in 2013.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28456%3Acouncil-vows-to-defend-high-court-challenge-to-regeneration-scheme&catid=62&Itemid=30

“‘Secrecy’ over public spending exposed by Transparency International report”

“Secrecy and lack of information about UK public spending is so great that in more than a third of cases, the ordinary taxpayer can’t even know who has been awarded a Government or local authority contract, a new report has found.

Spending data was so heavily redacted, the campaign group Transparency International claimed, that in just one month a single London borough – Hackney – recorded £14 million of payments without revealing to the public who got the money.

Nationally, the Counting the Pennies report said that at least 35 per cent – more than a third – of published local and central government tender data did not even show who was awarded the contract.

Descriptions of what public authorities had purchased were, the report said, often so vague as to be “almost meaningless.”

And, it was reported, spending data was displayed in such a bewildering variety of different ways – “with 81,057 different column names used by public authorities to describe the money they have spent” – that the ordinary taxpayer trying to trace how their money was spent would be left baffled.

The result, said Duncan Hames, the director of Transparency International UK, was that people may be getting away with corruption in public office.

He said: “Open data is an essential tool in the fight against corruption. Real transparency significantly reduces hiding places for corrupt individuals and allows the public to hold the Government to account.

“There is a danger that although the Government are ticking the right boxes, the true spirit of transparency is being lost. The result is a missed opportunity to flush out questionable contacts and root out waste.”

The report analysed a total of £2.3 trillion of published transactions made by local and central government between 2011 and 2015. It concluded: “The UK has, in theory, one of the most open governments in the world, [but] the system is not working properly in practice.”

Despite Government guidelines calling for as much transparency as possible over public spending, the researchers found: “A significant amount of the transaction data that is being published appears to be redacted unnecessarily, in effect hiding the details of potentially substantial payments.”

In one London borough, which was unnamed in the report, £512 million of transactions – equivalent to 52 per cent of all transactions the council published – “were redacted so there was little information about the nature of these payments.”

The researchers put another London borough, Hackney, at the top of a ‘league table’ of public bodies ranked in terms of the highest value of transactions that were redacted in a single month.

In May 2015, the researchers claimed, Hackney recorded £14,050,025.66 spent in direct debits where the names of the suppliers paid by the council were redacted – leaving council tax payers unable to tell who had received £14 million of their money.

Difficulties in tracking how taxpayers’ money was spent, the report added, were compounded by the fact that in only 0.75 per cent of cases nationwide, (1 recorded transaction in 133), did the public body provide the unique Companies House identification number of the firm receiving its money.

Comments from Sussex University students asked to find out how councils and central government were spending taxpayers’ money by using the data they had published included: “If you’re a citizen you would simply give up.”

This was despite measures such as the UK Open Government National Action Plan, launched at the international Anti-Corruption Summit overseen by then Prime Minister David Cameron (at a time when he was under fire over his own family’s finances because of the Panama Papers leak.)

“These commitments are welcome,” the report concluded, “However it is now imperative that government works closely with civil society to make sure they are implemented in practice.”

Commenting on the £14 million spend where recipients of public money weren’t identified, a spokeswoman for Hackney Council said: “A large proportion of the figures listed were direct debit payments. We weren’t able to include the details of these payments in data collection at that time, but the value of the payments were included so that we could offer as much information as possible.

“Since April 2016, following improvements to our banking system, we have been able to provide the full details.”

A Cabinet Office spokesman said: “”This Government is determined to deliver on its commitment to continue to be the most transparent government in the world and we continue to build on this.

“We are the first G7 country to have committed to the Open Contracting Data Standard on our central purchasing authority and we are now improving the quality and transparency of government grants.

“We are also improving the Freedom of Information Act, making more data available across the public sector, and will continue to make government more open.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secrecy-over-public-spending-exposed-taxpayers-money-government-corruption-where-is-taxpayers-money-a7327186.html

Conservative whip chooses councillors for Port Royal project

“During Wednesday’s meeting the cabinet agreed two Sidmouth councillors – Cllr John Dyson and
Cllr David Barratt – would represent EDDC on the group.

Councillor Phil Twiss said: “We must not forget Sidmouth is more than just a town, we have Sidford, Sidbury and Sidford rural – they will be excluded if it is just seen as an EDDC town ward councilproject.

“We want to include as many people as we can, in every way we can – we weren’t perfect in Exmouth and we have all learnt lessons from that – we have to be more open and inclusive.

“This has gone on for far too long, it seems like it has been 40 or 50 years … It is a part of the
town that is let down badly. We need to help Sidmouth Town Council go ahead with this.”

Cllr Twiss proposed they had one town council ward member on the group – Cllr John Dyson along with Cllr David Barratt, so they could have a more wider and open representation.

Cllr Dawn Manley said: “I have every faith in Cllr Barratt and Cllr Dyson but I find it extraordinary [that] the Conservative whip has chosen who they want to go forward. It makes no sense to me that the town councillors, who were voted for because of these specific issues are being
sidelined.”

http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk/cathy-gardner/20160925/cabinet-stitch-up-port-royal-representation/

Owl says: Councillor Twiss ALWAYS says he does not whip despite holding the post which would be redundant if he did not!

Now he can prove it by allowing Sidmouth councillors to choose their reps!