“Knowle relocation project: full Pegasus contract published”

Some VERY VERY interesting information!

It seems that PegasusLife had no plans to pay any Section 106 contributions, or Community Infrastructure Levy.

The PegasusLife contract that would have been signed had the DMC not refused planning permission and the Savill’s report on how the company got it is detailed in full here:

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/knowle-relocation-project-full-pegasus.html

Where further revelations are promised.

Sidmouth – indeed the whole district – should thank Jeremy Woodward, who worked tirelessly to get this information.

The Information Commissioner had to threaten EDDC with the possibility of being in contempt of court when they issued their Decision Notice forcing publication, after an appeal from EDDC that they should not be made to issue it or at least not without without so much redaction it would likely be pointless. EDDC had been planning to appeal the Information Commissioner’s Decision Notice but suddenly withdrew this action – presumably knowing it would not succeed.

EDDC then issued a press release saying that all the hours and hours they must have spent opposing publication “cost nothing” as it was only officer time.

Owl wonders which senior officers work for nothing!

This sorry tale should be examined by EDDC’s Scrutiny Committee forthwith.

“MPs launch inquiry into overview and scrutiny in local government”

“The Communities and Local Government (CLG) Committee has launched a “long-overdue” inquiry into overview and scrutiny in local government.

The committee said it would “consider whether overview and scrutiny arrangements in England are working effectively and whether local communities are able to contribute to and monitor the work of their councils”.

Written evidence is invited on:

Whether scrutiny committees in local authorities in England are effective in holding decision-makers to account
The extent to which scrutiny committees operate with political impartiality and independence from executives
Whether scrutiny officers are independent of and separate from those being scrutinised
How chairs and members are selected
Whether powers to summon witnesses are adequate
The potential for local authority scrutiny to act as a voice for local service users
How topics for scrutiny are selected
The support given to the scrutiny function by political leaders and senior officers, including the resources allocated (for example whether there is a designated officer team)
What use is made of specialist external advisers
The effectiveness and importance of local authority scrutiny of external organisations
The role of scrutiny in devolution deals and the scrutiny models used in combined authorities
Examples where scrutiny has worked well and not so well

The deadline for written submissions is Friday 10 March 2017.

Clive Betts MP, chair of the committee, said: “This inquiry is long overdue. Local authority executives have more powers than ever before but there has not been any review about how effectively the current overview and scrutiny arrangements are working since they were introduced in 2000.

“Local authorities have a considerable degree of discretion when it comes to overview and scrutiny. We will examine these arrangements and consider what changes may be needed to ensure decision-makers in councils and local services are better held to account.”

Overview and scrutiny arrangements were introduced by the Local Government Act in 2000 as a counterweight to increasing decision-making powers of Leaders and Cabinets or directly elected mayors.

The committee said that shortcomings had been exposed, however, following a number of high profile cases, including child sexual exploitation in Rotherham, poor care and high mortality rates at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust and governance failings in Tower Hamlets.

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29763%3Amps-launch-inquiry-into-overview-and-scrutiny-in-local-government&catid=59&Itemid=27

“Brexir risks pushing up Hinkley cost, EDF warns

A correspondent has drawn attention to the latest article by Emily Gosden, Energy Editor, The Times on emerging nuclear projects. The elephant in the room exposed by this article is, contrary to the impression generated by our LEP that Hinkley provides the “Golden Opportuity” for local growth, these projects rely on a ready supply of European and International labour, expertise, goods and services.

In these circumstances, is it wise of our LEP to put all its ( glowing green?) eggs in one basket? No doubt those LEP board members with nuclear interests, training for the nuclear interests and developing housing around the site (at least half the board) will say yes.

But would that be in Devon’s best interests?

“BREXIT RISKS PUSHING UP HINKLEY COST, EDF WARNS
“EDF has raised the spectre of delays or cost overruns to its £18 billion Hinkley Point nuclear plant as a result of Brexit, warning that any restrictions to trade and movement of labour could hamper the delivery of energy projects.

The French state-controlled company said Britain would have to import goods and skilled labour from around the world in order to make the “very substantial investments in new infrastructure” needed to keep the lights on.
“There is a risk that restrictions on trade and movement of labour will increase the costs of essential new infrastructure developments and could delay their delivery,” it said in a submission to MPs on the business, energy and industrial strategy select committee.

Although EDF did not mention Hinkley Point, it said Britain’s import requirements would include “critical goods and services in the nuclear supply chain and specialist nuclear skills”. Hinkley Point is the only new nuclear power station to have been given the go-ahead in the UK.

The plant, which was once expected to start generating in 2017, was eventually signed off by the government last autumn, with a revised start-up date of 2025. Ministers hope that it will be the first in a series of new nuclear projects, with Hitachi’s Horizon venture developing plans for reactors at Wylfa on Anglesey, and the Toshiba-Engie joint venture NuGen working on a project at Moorside in Cumbria.

However, in its submission to the committee, the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) warned that potential changes as a result of Brexit could also jeopardise these projects.

It said investments may not be forthcoming unless there was stable energy policy, clarity on the market and in particular “confidence that there will be continuing access to skills, both specialist nuclear skills from European/International companies and construction labour and the easy supply of goods and services across EU borders”.

NuGen and Horizon are struggling to secure financing and are understood to be in talks with the government about potential direct investment in their projects. Toshiba is under particular pressure after making huge writedowns on its US nuclear business.

The government yesterday highlighted the nuclear industry as a key part of its industrial strategy, appointing NIA chairman Lord Hutton of Furness to “oversee work to improve UK competitiveness and skills in nuclear”.”

Times Newspapers (paywall)

Tinder for planning?

“Imagine if next time you saw a plan for an oversized monster tower block proposed for your street, you could get out your smartphone and swipe left to oppose it? Or see a carefully designed scheme for a new neighbourhood library and swipe right to support it?

Tinder for urban planning might sound far-fetched, but it is already being trialled in the sun-kissed Californian city of Santa Monica. City authorities are trying to gauge public opinion on everything from street furniture and parking, to murals and market stalls for their forthcoming urban plan, using a digital tool modelled on a dating app. …”

https://www.facebook.com/groups/999845120071233/1210137492375327/?comment_id=1210142955708114&ref=notif&notif_t=like&notif_id=1485249849574665

“We’re taking back control – but who is going to wield it?”

“Britain voted to ‘take back control’ from the EU, and Theresa May’s Lancaster House speech made the repatriation of power to Westminster a priority. But it is far from clear what kind of Brexit Britons want, nor how many of these powers will go to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland rather than the UK Parliament. Katie Ghose argues that with direct democracy on the rise, citizens’ assemblies would help people grasp the trade-offs at stake and have a voice in these monumental decisions”.

http://www.democraticaudit.com/2017/01/24/were-taking-back-control-but-whos-going-to-wield-it/

Should public funding of political parties be dependent on their diversity?

The House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee has published a report including a call for state funding of political parties to be linked to their progress in improving their own diversity.

http://www.markpack.org.uk/148026/state-funding-candidate-diversity/