Sidmouth Town Council – change of venue for Sidfotd Business Park discussion on Wednesday 8 September 2016

“Sidmouth Town Council is set to consider Fords of Sidmouth’s revised application, which it submitted to offer ‘additional reassurance’.

More than 100 people attended the last meeting on the plans, when concerns included the impact on the roads, flooding and a lack of demand locally for employment land.

Wednesday’s meeting will be held in St Peter’s Church Hall from 6.30pm.

Fords’ revised documents have triggered a second consultation, so it means residents can have their say on the proposals until Friday, September 16, by visiting the district council website.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/second_meeting_to_discuss_sidford_business_park_plans_1_4680606

“Law Commission consults on reform to law on misconduct in public office”

Consultation is from

5 September 2016 to 28 November 2016

Owl guesses that many comments will emanate from East Devon!

“… The Law Commission has issued a consultation paper

Click to access cp229_misconduct_in_public_office.pdf

on a new statutory offence aimed at tackling the problems with the existing law.

It has put forward two forms that the offence would take and invites consultees to say whether either or both should be taken forward into legislation.

Option 1 is described as a ‘breach of duty model’ and would involve the creation of a new offence of breach of duty by a public office holder with a particular duty concerned with the prevention of harm. …

… Option 2 is meanwhile described as a ‘corruption based model’. The consultation proposes the creation of a new offence that borrows some elements from the existing offence of police corruption under section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, but applies to all public office holders and improves, the Law Commission said, upon the section 26 offence in a number of ways.

The offence under Option 2 would be committed when:

a public office holder (as defined in statute);

abuses his or her position or a power or authority held by virtue of that position;
by exercising that position, power or authority with the purpose of achieving an advantage for the office holder or another or causing detriment to another; and
the exercise of that position, power or authority for that purpose is seriously improper.

A third option discussed in the consultation paper is that the current law should be abolished without replacement. However, the Law Commission’s provisional proposal is that this step should not be taken.

Law Commissioner Professor David Ormerod QC said: “It is vital that the public have confidence in their public officials and in the legal framework that sets the boundaries of their conduct. The offence of misconduct in public office is increasingly being used to bring public officials to account but recent high-profile investigations and prosecutions have brought the problems with this offence into sharp focus.

“The existing law relating to misconduct in public office is unclear in a number of fundamental respects. There is urgent need for reform to bring clarity and certainty and ensure that public officials are appropriately held to account for misconduct committed in connection with their official duties.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28243%3Alaw-commission-consults-on-reform-to-law-on-misconduct-in-public-office&catid=59&Itemid=27

Government to offer developers £3 billion to build more houses

And now watch for our large housebuilders spinning off smaller companies.

At a time when housebuilders are announcing bigger and bigger profits and fewer and fewer housing starts, this is said to be the government’s solution:

The British government is set to announce a 3 billion pound house building fund to provide developers with cheap loans to boost the sector following the vote to leave the European Union, the Sunday Telegraph newspaper reported.

Finance minister Philip Hammond, who has talked of the need for a “fiscal reset”, is due to set out the government’s fiscal response to the June 23 vote in an autumn budget statement, although no date has yet been set for it.

The fund is expected to combine several existing schemes, including a 525 million pound builders fund and a 1 billion pound large sites infrastructure programme, but will also include new money to encourage developers to build new homes, the newspaper said, citing government sources.

It said the fund would be targeted at small and medium-sized developers, offering cheap loans or financial guarantees. It also reported the fund would be designed to reduce red tape which has hampered previous schemes.”

http://feeds.reuters.com/~r/reuters/UKDomesticNews/~3/Lwi_-foBXX8/uk-britain-eu-housing-idUKKCN11A0KI

Bet that doesn’t include affordable or sicial housing for Labour supporters.

Private is private but public is scrutiny – but by whom?

Owl thinks private lives should be private – but if you have a public life that puts you in direct conflict with that private life (such as heading an inquiry into drugs and prostitution) then you should be prepared to be held to account. But who does that accounting?

The Daily Telegraph explains the difficulty:

The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament is clear: “Members should act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them. They should always behave with probity and integrity …”

During a parliamentary career that has lasted almost 30 years so far, Keith Vaz has faced many questions about how well he lived up to that standard. …

… His chairmanship of the Commons Home Affairs committee does not just give him a prominent public position and an additional salary, it also gives him regular direct contact with senior ministers and officials, and privileged access to some of the most sensitive official information about matters of crime and national security.

In short, Parliament has chosen to ignore all of the questions about Mr Vaz’s conduct over many years and reward him with a position of great power and responsibility.

Time and time again, serious concerns have been raised about the “integrity and probity” of Mr Vaz. Every time, the parliamentary authorities have failed to investigate those concerns with the tenacity or objectivity requited to give the public full confidence in their findings and in Parliament as a whole.

This newspaper has argued over many years that MPs sadly cannot be trusted to police their own conduct, calling instead for independent oversight, perhaps from a body similar to the US Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent watchdog solely composed of non-politicians.

Mr Vaz is living proof of why politicians cannot be trusted to regulate themselves.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/09/04/keith-vaz-is-living-proof-that-mps-cannot-be-trusted-to-regulate/

“Hinkley Point deal out of date and too expensive, says energy chief “

The head of energy giant ScottishPower has waded into the row over Hinkley Point, insisting that the controversial subsidy deal for EDF’s proposed nuclear plant should be renegotiated because it is too expensive.

Keith Anderson, the firm’s chief corporate officer, said the deal, provisionally agreed by the Government in 2013 following lengthy negotiations, no longer made sense in the light of lower gas and offshore wind costs.

“It looks like a contract that was written five years ago on a business case that was probably pulled together 10 years ago. It looks out of line with what’s going on in the market now,” he said. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/03/hinkley-point-deal-out-of-date-and-too-expensive-says-energy-chi/

The article raises very serious concerns about the business sense of our Local Enterprise Partnership, which seems blind to the economic realities of the Hinkley C project.

We know, of course, that many members of our LEP have enormous direct and indirect investment in the project and presumably need it to continue to allow their own interests to thrive.

But is it in OUR interest to allow them to trouser likely profits from such an unbalanced deal?

They will say that they are doing this for our benefit, of course – more jobs, more houses, etc. But with Brexit we now look towards having fewer people coming to this country from the EU (though exceptions would doubtless be made for French and Chinese workers) and much higher import costs if we do not have free trade in the EU. Plus the business case for renewables is strengthening all the time, especially as battery storage research and implementation has made enormous progress.

Our LEP members know all this but only last week its CEO was telling us how hard he and his members are battling to keep the project going:

http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=4e59660292bd6b4a5c7d7b8a7&id=a36a037523&e=fa5cdb1f1

We have to ask: who are they battling for – and why?

The great scandal of LEPs now lies before us: small (very small) groups of business people who look to their own interests before those of the residents where they live. Often in secret and with minimal or no scrutiny. And who pursue their own interests even when they put them at odds with the majority of people in the areas they purportedly represent.

Our East Devon Business Forum seems to have been a practice run for our Local Enterprise partnership, and we all know how that ended – also coincidentally in the Daily Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9921333/If-I-turn-a-green-field-into-an-estate-then-Im-not-doing-it-for-peanuts.html

Resident raises concerns about possible business park ‘deal’


“This letter, copied with the author’s permission, was published in today’s Sidmouth Herald:

Dear Sir,

I was delighted to read, on page 4 of last week’s Herald, that residents have got a second opportunity to voice their concerns on the proposed business park between Sidbury and Sidford.

Then on page 10, I read that the County Council have withdrawn it’s proposal for a path between Sidbury and Sidford, because Ford’s have offered to pay for it, should they get permission for the business park.

The proposed path is now part of a section 106 agreement between the District Council (as the planning authority) and Fords. Such an agreement is described as a ‘ a DEAL to mitigate the impact of development’. I wonder if the use of the word ‘deal’ indicates what is really happening here- that the offer to fund the path is being used as a “bargaining chip”, to quote Stuart Hughes. As the business park has yet to receive the go ahead and another period of public consultation is in progress, I wonder how the council can justify their decision?

I have written to them to ask for an explanation and I suggest others do likewise. Meantime, may I urge readers with concerns about the proposed business park, to write or email the District Council. The reference number to quote in correspondence is: 16/0669/MOUT. The deadline for comments is 16 September and not 2 September, as is given in the EDDC website.”

Yours sincerely
Alison Kerruish,
Sidford

Resident raises concerns about possible business park ‘deal’

So now we know why there are no affordable homes! Only Labour supporters live in them so Tories won’t build them!

“David Cameron and George Osborne refused to build more council houses because it would “create Lab­­­­our voters”, Nick Clegg has revealed.

In a tell-all interview on Coalition life, the former Deputy PM also accused cynical Osborne of shamelessly slashing benefits simply to boost Tory popularity.

Speaking ahead of the publication of his memoirs, Mr Clegg said: “Welfare for Osborne was just a bottomless pit of savings and it didn’t really matter what the human consequences were.

“Focus groups had shown the voters they wanted to appeal to were very anti-welfare and therefore there was almost no limit to those anti-welfare prejudices.”

Mr Clegg said this vote-chasing approach was also behind the Coalition’s dismal failure to build more much-needed social housing.” …

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-george-osborne-wouldnt-8759040

Well, it makes a sort-of sense in the mad, mad world of Tory politics.

Wonder what Swire has to say about it?

“‘Rabbit hutch’ homes should be consigned to the past, say architects”

“Barratt and Persimmon singled out as worst offenders in survey of new homes on 100 developments”

More than half of family homes under construction by private housebuilders in the UK are too small, architects have said.

The typical new three-bedroom home is missing space equivalent to a bathroom while many are missing as much as a double bedroom when judged against minimum reasonable space standards launched by the government in October.

Homes outside London are the worst affected by what the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) attacked as “rabbit hutch” homes after it measured a sample of new homes on 100 developments.

RIBA singled out two of the leading housebuilders as the worst offenders. From a sample of new three-bedroom homes surveyed, it found Barratt homes were on average 6.7sq metres smaller than minimum space standards and Persimmon homes were on average 10.8sq m too small – about the size of a double bedroom.

“Tiny rabbit-hutch new-builds should be a thing of the past,” said RIBA president Jane Duncan. “But, sadly, our research shows that, for many people, a new home means living somewhere that’s been built well below the minimum space standard needed for a comfortable home. The government must take action to ensure a fairer minimum space standard is applied to all new homes across the country …”

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/02/rabbit-hutch-homes-should-be-thing-of-the-past-say-architects?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Promises, promises …

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn will today promise to pump billions into towns in the south east of England if he wins power.

Mr Corbyn, who is fighting a leadership challenge from Owen Smith, is to pledge a £30 billion investment bank for the area, more emphasis on renewable energy for seaside towns and better broadband.

The embattled leader will announce the plans at a re-election campaign rally in Ramsgate in Kent today.

Mr Corbyn is expected to say he wants to bring back pride and prosperity in “so-called left-behind Britain”.

He will say: “For Ramsgate, like other coastal towns, that commitment to invest means opening up the opportunities that are there.” …

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-pledges-30-billion-for-leftbehind-towns-in-southeast-england-a3335801.html

“Make health material consideration in planning and licensing law: MPs”

“The Government must make good on its commitment to health in all policies by enshrining health as a material consideration in planning and licensing law, MPs have said.

In a report on Public health post-2013, the Health Committee said it had heard evidence that this would help local government to directly improve the health of their local communities and reduce health inequalities.
“Local authorities need the levers to be able to take effective action to protect local communities and this is especially important given the cuts to their budgets,” the MPs added.

The report noted how local authorities had been dealt an in-year cut of £200m last year and now faced further real terms cuts to public health budgets.

But the MPs warned that cuts to public health and the front line services they delivered were a false economy “as they not only add to the future costs of health and social care but risk widening health inequalities”.
The committee highlighted Theresa May’s comments in her first speech as Prime Minister, where she put a reduction of health inequalities at the top of her list for action.

The committee called on the Government to recognise that tackling health inequalities and improving public health would not primarily happen in hospitals, even though hospitals received the lion’s share of health funding. “Rather, it requires a whole life course approach, tackling the wider determinants of health in local communities, effective action on prevention and early intervention, and through joined-up policy making at a national level.”

The MPs also claimed there was a “growing mismatch” between spending on public health and the significance attached to prevention in the NHS 5 Year Forward View.

The report called for a Cabinet Office minister to be given specific responsibility for embedding health across all areas of Government policy at national level.

It concluded that while there was evidence of progress locally, there was less evidence of such an approach becoming embedded across Government departments.

Health Committee Chair, Dr Sarah Wollaston MP, said: “The disappointing watering down of the childhood obesity strategy, published in August, demonstrates the gap in joined-up evidence-based policy to improve health and wellbeing. Government must match the rhetoric on reducing health inequality with a resolve to take on big industry interests and will need to be prepared to go further if it is serious about achieving its stated aims.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28225%3Amake-health-material-consideration-in-planning-and-licensing-law-mps&catid=174&Itemid=99

Heart of the South West LEP member doing well in the arms trade

?Good to see LEP board member Nick Ames doing well with his company’s new range of military arms vehicles:

Dunkeswell-based Supacat is unveiling the Logistic Support and Recovery variants at the DVD2016 show, a two-day event at Millbrook Proving Ground, on Wednesday and Thursday, September 7 and 8, which brings together army staff and industry representatives from the land equipment sector.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/supacat-to-unveil-new-military-vehicles-at-dvd2016-show/story-29679072-detail/story.html

Supacat has also moved into the nuclear sector and is, unsurprisingly backing Hinkley C along with other nuclear-invested board members:

https://www.nsan.co.uk/news/supacat-ltd-expand-nuclear

How long before we see a Nuclear Supercat?

image

Source: http://tetrahedral.blogspot.com/2009/11/newsflash.html

Franksy returns to Exmouth!

image

image

Pictures with the following statement:

“Franksy represents a group of Exmouth residents who are concerned about further unsustainable overdevelopment of the seafront and loss of public facilities subsidised by taxpayers money.

Franksy will be back to gently express the value of green open spaces and free access to what is left of the uninterrupted seafront along with a concern for longstanding and much loved local businesses who have already lost jobs and been closed down. Franksy welcomes appropriate conservation and development and has the heart of the people. Franksy will be back .

Franksy came back on the front of the once popular closed down railway cafe next to Jungle Fun on Exmouth sea front.

Franksy asks “Is this the road to nowhere ?” as local residents have voiced concern over the proposed change of route of the road to make way for the planned water sports centre.

This would be a massive seafront development the size of a supermarket on the seafront side of the road. It could be a centre for kite surfing but does not seem to offer any water play for residents- no Lido pool, play fountains or paddling pools- and is sited directly opposite the red flag dangerous water area.

Popular local businesses have been closed down to make way for this dream which may never happen. More are to go in the Fun Park area. The email above is just an associate of the Franksy group and not Franksy’s own email but a contact address for this anonymous group.”

“Bonanza of Brexit Lobbying” including £3,000 to be in Theresa May’s company

“The Conservatives are selling access to Theresa May and other ministers for more than £3,000 a head to corporate executives and lobbyists at their party conference this autumn.

The executives will pay for the chance to attend a lunch session with the prime minister and a dinner with the chancellor, as well as more intimate “round table” sessions with ministers relevant to their industry.

The practice of charging corporate executives for access to ministers emerged under David Cameron, with the “business day” originally priced at around £1,000 a head for a session with the former prime minister and chancellor.

A new corporate brochure for the Tory party conference shows the price for attending the business day and dinner has now surged to £3,150 per person for the chance to be in the presence of May and her new government ministers.

The prime minister is listed as giving a question and answer session over lunch, with pictures of past events showing ministers mingling on tables with businesspeople.

In separate sessions, three Treasury ministers will host a talk billed as “Treasury insights” and business ministers will host a “partnering with business” session.

The website advertising the event features a picture of May, along with the claim that business day “offers representatives from the business community the opportunity to engage in discussion with senior Conservative politicians”.

May’s decision to participate in the event hints that she is not intending to break from Cameron’s previous approach to lobbying, despite her claims to want to run a country for the many not the few and tackle “vested interests” in the corporate world.

Tamasin Cave of the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Spinwatch, said it was “very concerning and worrying” that May was planning to “continue with politics as normal under David Cameron”.

She said there is a “bonanza of Brexit lobbying” coming down the tracks for May to deal with at a time when the public has little faith that politicians will stand up to powerful corporate interests.

“People do not trust establishment politicians on this issue of lobbying. She has a big problem on her hands, which she does not seem to understand,” Cave said.

Asked about the event selling access to May and other ministers, a Conservative spokesman said: “This is an important opportunity to engage directly with businesses and to highlight how, as part of our plan to create an economy that works for everyone, we will continue to back business and enterprise.”

Labour also has a “business forum” founded at around the same time, charging around £899 for a ticket and giving access to unspecified “politicians and leading businesspeople”.

The Lib Dem corporate event has gone down in price since the party declined in influence and left government, with a ticket costing just £240 to attend compared with £800 for their business day and £350 for their business dinner in 2014.

May will face calls to clamp down on lobbying next week, when Lord Brooke, a Labour peer, tables a private member’s bill arguing for the replacement of the current ineffective lobbying register with a genuine register that records who people are lobbying, their client, the type of influence they are seeking and how much they are spending.

Unlock Democracy, a campaign group, said the bill would bring the UK into line with other institutions such as the US, EU and Scotland.

“It’s time for Theresa May to put clear blue water between her and Cameron. She can set the tone for her premiership by backing real lobbying transparency,” it said.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/01/lunch-with-theresa-may-thatll-will-be-3150

“Progressive Alliance only alternative to Tories”

“… It is going to be very hard to get a progressive pact to happen. Jeremy Corbyn, who one might have expected to have been sympathetic to the idea, has seemingly ruled it out – even for the specific case of Caroline Lucas, the Green Mp for Brighton, who is much closer to Corbyn politically than the great majority of Labour MPs.

But to be fair to Corbyn, he is in the middle of a bruising leadership election. It would be challenging for the Leader of the Opposition, in the middle of such an election campaign, to come out in favour of acting with other parties. It would have required great vision and bravery.

Corbyn is highly likely to win the leadership election. Once he has done so, and with Labour almost certainly continuing to struggle internally and in the opinion polls, then my bet is that he will think again, and start to face reality: without a progressive alliance, Labour will be destroyed by the Conservatives. But with such an alliance, a better future is possible.” …

http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2988069/progressive_alliance_is_now_the_only_alternative_to_the_tories.html

Feniton village boundary: putting the record straight

From the blog of Feniton district councillor Susie Bond:

“Development in Feniton always excites comment, but I was especially disappointed to read an ill-informed, anonymous letter in the September issue of Feniton’s parish magazine.

It’s all too easy to set rumours running and temperatures rising, by which time of course the damage is done. However, this letter was so unhelpful, I thought it needed addressing paragraph by paragraph:

“I was surprised to receive details of the so called proposed changes in Feniton’s Built Up Boundary through an e-mail from a local estate agent.”

Why would an estate agent have any interest in Feniton’s Built Up Area Boundary (to give it its proper name)? Unless of course the correspondent meant a ‘planning agent’, i.e. developer, who of course would have a vested interest in moving the site in question to within the boundary.

“There is a large piece of land to the east of Ottery Road leading up to the station which has been the home to some dilapidated greenhouses for as long as I can remember having lived in the village for nearly fifteen years and as far as I know throughout this time, this land has been included in Feniton’s Built up Boundary.”

This paragraph is probably the only paragraph that is factually correct.

“Why suddenly do I hear of a proposal to take it outside the Built-up Boundary and who exactly proposed this. There is no point in pretending that further development will not occur in Feniton at some point to come, but I do object to this eleventh hour clandestine approach to remove a site that has always been earmarked for such further development without understanding who and what reasons are behind such a proposal.”

I posted a blog about this on 9 August (https://susiebond.wordpress.com/2016/08/09/planning-policy-strengthened-in-east-devon/), and of course EDDC’s proposed changes have been discussed extensively, including at the monthly public meeting of Feniton Parish Council on 11 July (minuted in the August issue of the parish magazine). There is nothing ‘clandestine’ about any of this, and the author seems not to understand what a Built Up Area Boundary (BUAB) actually is. It does not, for example, designate areas for development.

The proposed BUAB also draws a line tightly around the current Wainhomes estate, i.e. making it harder for Wainhomes to build the hundred or so more houses it wants to there.

“Essentially such a proposal, if successful will once again leave the rest of the village wondering nervously where further inevitable development will take place.”

Had the correspondent undertaken some elementary research, including on the Villages Development Plan Document (DPD) to which he refers, a lot of this scare mongering could have been avoided.

For example, the Villages DPD is an ancillary document underpinning the Local Plan. Planning policy in East Devon, outlined in the newly adopted Local Plan, is for development to be prioritised around Cranbrook, where there is easy access to employment within the thriving city of Exeter. Indeed, the draft East Devon Villages DPD makes clear just how unsuited Feniton is to mass development.

The decision to site the black line (proposed boundary) for Feniton as it is shown in the parish magazine and in my 9 August blog was taken by EDDC following extensive discussions by a team of planning policy officers and no-one else. Not landowners, not developers, not District Councillors, not Parish Councillors, not the residents of villages who may/may not own land they wish to propose for development. The planners undertook a full site assessment (the results of this exercise can be found through a link on my blog of 9 August).

The Built-Up Area Boundary is for consultation at this stage, but the black lines drawn on the map will only move if there is strong evidence that they should do so. I feel sure that the anonymous correspondent will put in a submission to EDDC voicing his views … although he should be aware that if he does this, he will lose his anonymity.

East Devon is not looking to increase development in Feniton for the time being. This position will undoubtedly change in the future, but the decision as to where development should take place will have to take into account Feniton’s emerging Neighbourhood Plan.

I would urge the anonymous correspondent to come along to Feniton Parish Council meetings where there are frank and open discussions. Using the parish magazine to needlessly raise inaccurate and misleading stories only fuels the fires of rumour and gossip.”

https://susiebond.wordpress.com/2016/09/01/confusion-in-feniton-over-villages-plan-consultation/

Moirai – not quite an Oasis in Swindon

We know from various FOIs that EDDC’s Alison Hayward (who has the terribly impressive title of “Strategic Lead – Organisational Development and Transformation) has had a number of meetings with Moirai, EDDC’s (previously??) erstwhile preferred partner for the Splash/Queens Drive development in Exmouth, and that she appears to have been only EDDC officer present at some such meetings.

We also know that six, as yet unidentified, Exmouth Town Councillors had a visit to the Swindon Oasis Leisure centre. This centre appears to have been portrayed as a model of what can be achieved in partnership with Moirai.

In an effort to keep councillors fully informed on all aspects of Moirai, may we draw attention to the latest Private Eye and its Rotten Boroughs column.

It reports:

HEALTH WARNING
Swimmers hoping to cool off in Swindon’s Oasis pool have been stricken with a nasty bug called cryptosporidiosis – aka “crypto” – which triggers diarrhoea, fever and nausea. Of some 30 recent cases in the town at least 10 have been positively linked to the Oasis, which is outsourced to Greenwich Leisure Ltd.

Yet the council and Greenwich Leisure kept the pool open for three weeks after being warned there was a problem with the water.

A mother alerted environmental health after her son became ill on 19th July, but the pool was not closed until 12th August.

Public Health England has confirmed that some of the reported cases of infection from the pool date back to May.

This is not unfamiliar ground for Greenwich Leisure. It runs Chesham Leisure Centre in Buckinghamshire on behalf of Chiltern District Council. Eleven children and four adults were hospitalised after swimming there in 2014. An investigation found they had been affected by the chemical content of the water, which Greenwich had failed to test. In the same year 800 residents of Reading signed a petition protesting at the “filthy” Greenwich-run Rivermead leisure centre in the town.

What the Private Eye story doesn’t say is that Moirai run the Oasis at Swindon and that they are still engaged in the possible development of another part of Swindon known as the North Star development.

They used to outsource the day to day management to a company created by two of their directors and called Oasis Operations Ltd.

The two Moirai directors ceased to be directors of Oasis Operations Ltd in February 2013. A Mr Wojeichowski became the sole director and later changed the name to MW Contract Services Ltd. That company went bust in January 2014. Greenwich Leisure subsequently took over the day to day running of Oasis.