Monthly Archives: June 2018

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Jun 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Education (local)

Comments

1 Comment

Children pay a terrible price for austerity cuts – a shaming report

“More than 40% of parents with primary school children have had to forgo basic hygiene or cleaning products because they cannot afford them, according to a study.

A survey of 2,000 parents by charity In Kind Direct also found some 18% admitted their child wears the same underwear for at least two days in a row.

The charity, which was founded by the Prince of Wales, said teachers are seeing soaring numbers of young children who turn up to school unwashed and in dirty clothes.

Almost half (47%) of 100 primary school teachers polled said children have attended class without brushing their teeth, while nearly two thirds (63%) have seen youngsters in unclean clothes. More than a third (36%) said they have provided toothpaste, while 29% claimed to have given children soap, and 27% said they provided head lice products or bought pupils a toothbrush.

Nicola Finney, head teacher at St Paul’s Church of England Primary School in Stoke on Trent, which receives products from In Kind Direct, said staff are considering installing a washing machine.

She said: “We now make allowances in our very tight school budget to make sure we can buy personal hygiene and washing items, such as toiletries, washing powder and toothpaste, as well as spare uniforms, shoes and deodorant, because we know increasing numbers of families simply can’t afford to buy them.”

Ms Finney said she has spent hundreds of pounds of her own money buying items for students. She added: “We have seen significantly more children coming into school with washing and hygiene issues over the last few years.

“It used to be just a couple of children across the school, but now there are two or three in every classroom dealing with these issues. “I’ve spoken to teachers across the country and they are doing the same as us. “We want all of our pupils to get the best outcomes, not just those that can afford the basic essentials to keep themselves and their clothes clean and presentable.”

The charity survey found more than a quarter (26%) of parents said their children have to wear the same shirt or blouse for at least a week, while almost one in five (19%) admitted they cannot afford to wash their offspring’s clothes as often as they would like.

Some 14% said they have struggled to afford soap and shampoo, while 43% admitted they had to forgo basic hygiene or cleaning products because they cannot afford them.

Robin Boles, In Kind Direct chief executive, said: “The results of our latest study are a shocking reflection of the growing scale of family hygiene poverty across the UK. “Teachers are increasingly being relied upon to step in to provide pupils with everyday essential products because their parents simply can’t afford to make ends meet. “Alongside this, we have seen a sharp rise in the number of people who are increasingly relying on support from the charities across the UK to which we supply products. “It is clear that hygiene poverty is hitting families hard and is having a huge impact on children’s wellbeing at school.

“No child’s education and future life chances should be compromised because of the stigma they face, simply because their families can’t afford the hygiene products to keep themselves clean.”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/children-going-school-dirty-because-1690421

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Jun 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Audit (EDDC), EDDC, Graham Brown, Grant Thornton, KPMG, Transparency

“KPMG singled out in critical report on audit industry”

KPMG were, until recently, the auditors of East Devon District Council. Let’s hope that Grant Thornton (now back in the frame at EDDC) perform better – but who recalls their pitiful performance when they “investigated” the disgraced Councillor Graham Brown affair and found ….. nothing.

“KPMG, the accounting firm that signed off the books in the years leading up to Carillion’s collapse, has been singled out by the industry regulator in a report that says the overall quality of the audit profession is in decline.

The Financial Reporting Council, the watchdog for the UK’s accountants, said the profession had demonstrated a “failure to challenge management and show appropriate scepticism across their audits”.

There have been calls for the “big four” accountants – KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers, EY and Deloitte – to be broken up to spur competition and improve standards.

All four gave Carillion financial advice before the construction and outsourcing company failed. MPs accused the four of “feasting” on Carillion, whose finances proved far less healthy than directors had suggested.

The FRC reported a decline in the quality of the work of all four, with KPMG performing the worst. The watchdog is already investigating KPMG over its role in the collapse of Carillion and it said on Monday there had been an “unacceptable deterioration” in the quality of its work.

The FRC cited figures that showed half of KPMG’s audits of firms in the FTSE350 index had required “more than just limited” improvements, up from 35% in the previous year.

“The overall quality of the audits inspected in the year, and indeed the decline in quality over the past five years, is unacceptable and reflects badly on the action taken by the previous leadership, not just on the performance of frontline teams,” the regulator said.

“Our key concern is the extent of challenge of management and exercise of professional scepticism by audit teams, both being critical attributes of an effective audit, and more generally the inconsistent execution of audits within the firm.”

It added: “[KPMG] agrees that its efforts in recent years have not been sufficient; the FRC will hold KPMG’s new leadership to account for the success of their work to improve audit quality.” …

The FRC said it would now scrutinise KPMG more closely as a result of its findings. It will inspect 25% more KPMG audits than before and monitor the firm’s plans to improve the quality of its work.

In the FRC’s overall assessment of eight accountants, it found that 72% of audits of all firms, including those outside the FTSE350, required no more than limited improvement, down from 78% last year. While only half of KPMG’s FTSE350 audits were deemed satisfactory, rivals scored far higher, although all showed declines and fell short of the FRC’s target of 90%.

Deloitte scored 79%, down from 82% last year, EY fell from 92% to 82% and PwC was down from 90% to 84%. The four firms immediately below the big four – BDO, Mazars, GT and Moore Stephens – were told that the quality of their audits had generally improved.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/18/kpmg-singled-out-in-critical-report-on-audit-industry

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Jun 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Greater Exeter, Planning System

Council challenges planning inspector decision affecting strategic planning

Implications for the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan? You know, the one being delayed until after the next council elections …. for some reason …

“South Gloucestershire Council is to bring a legal challenge over a planning inspector’s decision to grant planning permission for a 350-home development in Thornbury.

The proposed Cleve Park scheme would also include a 70-unit elderly care facility, associated open space, community and commercial facilities, and infrastructure. The planning application was made by Welbeck Strategic Land LLP.

The local authority said it had “carefully considered” the Inspector’s decision and would be issuing legal proceedings challenging it.

South Gloucestershire added that it had written to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities & Local Government James Brokenshire, “requesting that he exercises his powers to recover the planning appeals relating to developments in Charfield and another in Thornbury from the Planning Inspectors, and make the decisions himself”.

These requests relate to two applications, one for outline planning permission for the erection of 121 homes and a retail outlet on land off Wotton Road in Charfield (Barratt Homes, Bristol), and also the appeal relating to land south of Gloucester Road, Thornbury (Bovis Homes Ltd), which seeks outline consent for the demolition of existing agricultural shed buildings and residential development of up to 370 homes, a flexible use building, public open space, accesses onto Gloucester Road and associated infrastructure.

The council said that it considered that these appeals, if granted, would undermine the Joint Spatial Plan (JSP) process and its impact upon the residents and communities of South Gloucestershire.

Cllr Toby Savage, Leader of South Gloucestershire Council, said: “Enough is enough. I am determined to see the council take a robust approach to challenging unsustainable development across the district. Where we have taken difficult decisions to proactively and positively plan for future housing and jobs growth, we should not have decisions from the Planning Inspectorate which undermines this work as it only stores up economic, social and environmental problems for the future.”

Cllr Colin Hunt, Cabinet Member for Planning at the council, said: “In South Gloucestershire we are trying to be plan led with our decisions on planning applications. While we appreciate that we have a shortfall on our five year land supply, nonetheless we want decisions to reflect that we have a solid plan that was prepared in consultation with the public.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=35658%3Acouncil-to-challenge-grant-of-planning-permission-for-350-home-scheme&catid=63&Itemid=31

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Jun 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Andrew Moulding, EDDC, Honiton/ Gittisham, Ian Thomas, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Spin, Transparency

Comments

2 Comments

It’s going to take more than a yew tree branch to ward off evil at EDDC new HQ!

And who at EDDC was responsible for this press release that gives the (totally erroneous) impression that the sale of Knowle is 100% financing the new HQ?

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2018/06/16/sums-on-knowle-relocation-not-adding-up-for-us-the-taxpayers/

“A yew tree branch has been placed on top of East Devon District Council’s new HQ to “ward off evil spirits”.

The topping out ceremony took place at Blackdown House in Honiton, which will be the council’s new home by January 2019.

As part of the ceremony, a yew tree branch was attached to the highest point of the building.

The ceremony was completed by council chairman Andrew Moulding and leader Ian Thomas. A council spokesman said it was “an age-old tradition”.

The authority plans to move from its current HQ in Sidmouth to Blackdown House in December 2018. The move will be financed by selling the property to Pegasus Life Ltd for £7.5m, which will turn it into a 113-apartment assisted-living community. …”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-devon-44465408

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Jun 2018

Posted under

Accountability, AONB, EDBF, EDDC, Fords of Sidmouth, Graham Brown, Greater Exeter, Paul Diviani, Scrutiny, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Sleaze

Comments

2 Comments

Sidford Business Park – a grubby history

Tim Ford, once a much-respected plumbing and electrical contactor in Sidmouth, is renewing his controversial application to build a business park in the AONB at Sidford. (18/1094/MOUT)

Incredulous locals wonder how it was possible for a council to allocate an ‘employment site’ in its local development plan that is on a flood plain, is a rich wildlife habitat, and whose main access would be a narrow street where two lorries can’t pass without mounting the pavement!

For the dominant Tory group on East Devon District Council it was easy!

First, they let landowners and developers decide where to build. In 2007 they asked East Devon Business Forum how much employment land the district would need over the next 25 years. EDBF was a lobby group which included the Carters of Greendale, the Stuarts of Hill Barton and Tim Ford of Sidmouth. Their answer was predictable: lots and lots!

Second, they put Chair of EDBF, Cllr Graham (‘I ain’t doin’ it for peanuts!’) Brown:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/12/17/the-disgraced-ex-eddc-tory-councillor-graham-brown-if-i-cant-get-planning-nobody-will-scandal-refuses-to-die/

in charge of quietly asking landowners where they would like to build. Apparently, the proposal for a Sidford business park was first mooted at one of these confidential meetings in July 2010.

Third, in 2011 they elected Paul Diviani, founder member of EDBF, as leader. Under him the District Council became what many saw as a ‘Development Corporation’, the planning system became less about protecting the environment and more about encouraging building.

Fourth, they didn’t listen to the public or community groups whom they ignored or misrepresented. Sidmouth Chamber of commerce said the business park would be catastrophic for local businesses, Council minutes recorded the Chamber as supporting it!

Fifth, they whipped their large political majority to vote through the Sidford allocation. When hostile public reaction worried them just before the 2015 council elections they voted to ‘remove it’ from the Local Plan. Universal Rejoicing! But in 2016 the Inspector kept it in the Plan. Why? Because East Devon’s chief planning officer had not been instructed to give the Inspector reasons for the council’s change of mind!

Former EDDC Leader Diviani is now EDDC’s representative on the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan. In its confidential meetings he is helping to oversee a gigantic overspill project along the A3052 in the west end of the District where hundreds of acres of land are being earmarked for a massive expansion of business parks and thousands of new houses.

Indeed one such expansion was announced only this weekend near Cranbrook, where the developer is quoted as saying:

“The first, ‘Scenario 1’ is a response to existing market demand with the provision of a single large unit of around one million square feet (92,9000 sq.m.).

‘Scenario 2’ would see the site offer a multi-unit option, providing a range of sizes and configurations informed by ongoing market need.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/huge-distribution-centre-near-cranbrook-is-given-the-nod-by-planners-1-5564832

Which all makes the wretched Sidford application even less necessary!

Would you choose immediate A-road and motorway access to Exeter and the M5 or access down a country road where two medium-size vehicles cannot pass?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Jun 2018

Posted under

Austerity cuts, DCC, EDDC

What do council workers administering cuts think of their jobs?

“Nearly 80% of council workers have no confidence in the future of local services because of spending cuts, new research reveals.

The study, carried out by Unison, one of the UK’s largest trade unions, revealed that staff felt councils had been left unable to meet the demands of local communities due to government cuts.

Staff have been left to “pick up the pieces” due to local services “collapsing”, Unison general secretary Dave Prentis said, adding that the current situation was “chaos”.

The research, released on Monday, shows that 50% of council workers are thinking of leaving their jobs for less stressful work elsewhere.

The survey of 21,000 local government employees working across all services reveals that 67% said residents do not receive the help and support when they need it and 54% are not confident that vulnerable residents are safe and cared for.

Issues raised by the staff who took part in the survey include stories of families living in mouldy, overcrowded properties, fly-tipping being left for weeks and a rise in rodent populations.

Other concerns raised include vulnerable children, young people and adults not getting the help and support they need. …

Unison’s Prentis said: “This disturbing survey should ring alarm bells in Whitehall and also alert ministers to the crisis happening in councils up and down the country.

“Local authorities have had to cut so many vital services that they have now reached a point where vulnerable children and the elderly struggle to get the help that they need, entire communities are suffering, and the public are being put at risk.”

Unison’s survey shows that 83% of staff felt that reductions in government funding for local authorities in England have had a negative impact on their ability to do the job as well as they can.

A total of 53% of workers believe that their council no longer delivers quality services and 48% said that their employer doesn’t make the right decisions for the public.

Meanwhile, nearly two-thirds are concerned about the financial situation of their council.

The biggest challenges facing local authorities, according to council workers, was a lack of front line staff, adult social care, safeguarding children and young people, a lack of housing options and road repairs.

Prentis added: “With cuts to road and bridge maintenance, potholes in roads are left unfilled, and bridges are at risk of crumbling. Crematoriums are not maintained, streetlights stay broken, and parks are in disrepair as councils don’t have the equipment or the staff to adequately maintain them.

“There are now over one million people with an unmet need for social care because councils don’t have the resources to support them. Now is the time to reverse these cuts and invest in local government once more or the very fabric of our society will come unstuck.” …

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/unison-research-council-workers-no-confidence-cuts_uk_5b266acae4b0783ae12a0cfd

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Jun 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Accountable Care Organisation, Health and Social Care (local), Integrated Care Systems, NHS (local), Post-Brexit Adjustments

Comments

1 Comment

Devon Tory GP MP pours cold water on “extra” NHS funding promise

Owl says: surely “extra” money for the NHS means ALL CCG costings have to be revised? And all the arguments about WHY services have to be cut must be revisited.

“Theresa May has come under fire for promising that a Brexit windfall will provide an extra £400m a week for the NHS. May – who will pledge an extra £20bn in annual real terms from 2023-24 in a major speech – has been ridiculed for linking the money to Brexit savings. “At the moment, as a member of the European Union, every year we spend significant amounts of money on our subscription, if you like, to the EU,” she said on BBC One’s Andrew Marr show. “When we leave we won’t be doing that.”

Two senior Tory MPs, who are also doctors, took aim at May: “The Brexit dividend tosh was expected but treats the public as fools. Sad to see Govt slide to populist arguments rather than evidence on such an important issues,” tweeted Sarah Wallaston, who chairs the Commons health and social care committee. Dr Philip Lee, MP for Bracknell, tweeted: “There is no evidence yet that there will be a ‘Brexit dividend’ – so it’s tax rises, more borrowing or both.”

The PM’s decision to frame extra spending specifically as a benefit of leaving the EU has been widely seen as a sop to hardline Brexiters in her cabinet, echoing Boris Johnson’s suggestion during the EU referendum that Brexit would free up £350m a week extra for the NHS.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/18/monday-briefing-nhs-windfall-is-brexit-dividend-tosh-says-tory-mp

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Jun 2018

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, Dorset, EDDC, National Parks, Unitisation

National parks and Devon unitaries – an intriguing solution

Councillor John Hart, Leader of Devon County Council appeared recently on BBC Spotlight, and explained that Devon was unlikely to become a Unitary Authority, because its population, at nearly 800,000, was greater than the Government’s preferred size for a Unitary, which is between 300,000 and 500,000. He may be right: Devon might be too big.

Meanwhile Michael Gove, Minister for the Environment, announces that he is to conduct a national review of National Parks, and says he is keen to create new ones.

Is there an opportunity here to kill two birds with one stone?

The Dartmoor and Exmoor National Parks already exist, and there are proposals for a Dorset and East Devon National Park, and a South Hams National Park. Were these National Parks to be created, and significant powers handed over to them, the rest of Devon’s population would be significantly reduced.

There is also the Tamar Valley AONB and the Blackdown Hills AONB, which could be incorporated into an expanded Dartmoor National Park and Dorset and East Devon National Park respectively.

A redrawing of boundaries to, for example, link the South Hams AONB/National Park with Dartmoor opens the prospect of three large parcels of Devon being created to create new National Parks, which would be at least semi-autonomous administratively from the rest of Devon.

The rump of Devon, still centred upon Exeter, and including, essentially, Teignbridge, Torridge, North Devon, Mid Devon, and much of East Devon, would have a population of around 500,000, and thus meet the Government’s guidelines.

All the existing District Councils would disappear, thus at a stroke removing an entire tier of local government and saving tens of millions of pounds. And the new and expanded National Parks will bring in greatly increased tourism revenue, and provide much-needed protection to our glorious countryside.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Jun 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, EDDC, EDDC HQ, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation

Comments

3 Comments

Sums on Knowle relocation not adding up for us, the taxpayers

“Remaining at Knowle with essential and basic repairs undertaken would have cost the council £ 4.5m over 20 years. In contrast moving to the new HQ in Honiton will provide a cash saving of £ 1.4m over the same period. That’s a difference of £5.9m.’

The above quote is lifted from the EDDC web-site.

So even using their figures, it will take 20 years to recover half the cost of the new building. Only after 40 years will we get our money back.

So if we see a Devon unitary authority in the next 40 years we will lose money.

But, of course, it’s much worse, because the EDDC numbers assume that there will be no ‘essential and basic repairs’ to the new building over those 40 years. Impossible, of course.

Even worse, no-one wanted EDDC to remain in the whole of the Knowle building. Those opposed to the move recommended that EDDC retrench to the modern buildings that were built in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Half the size of the Knowle as it now stands. So, even using EDDC’s figures, half the size would mean half the ‘essential and basic repairs’, so only £2.25 million, and half the ‘cash saving’ of £1.4 million, so a trifling £700,000 over 20 years. Peanuts.

So even using EDDC’s own numbers, the new building cannot produce any savings for 80 years.

Even, even worse, EDDC has borrowed the money to build the new building. The cost of borrowing £11 million, the notional build cost of Blackdown House, is of the order of £400,000 per annum, dwarfing the expected savings.

Even, even, even worse, the costs of the new building do not include the fees charged by various advisers over many years, the cost of the move itself, compensation to staff forced to travel further, new equipment, officer and councillor time, and the cost in terms of disruption. Plus all the costs of disposing of the Knowle.

The true cost of relocation is almost certainly at least £20 million.

Even, even, even, even worse, those EDDC numbers do not take into account the ‘essential and basic’ repairs conducted at their new Exmouth office, which came in at a whopping £1.7 million. Nor the running costs of Exmouth, which will surely be at least £1.4 million over that 20 year period. Almost certainly much more: Exmouth is, of course, an old building from the 1920s, far older than the modern brick buildings at Knowle.

Blackdown House will be a tremendous drain upon the finances of EDDC from the day it opens, and the expected cost savings thereafter will be microscopic compared to the huge borrowing costs.

But the biggest problem of all is that EDDC’s own consultants informed them that the building constructed at a cost of £20 million would only have an open market value on its completion of £3 million. That included the value of the land on which it sits.

So, if Devon goes unitary any time in the next few years, we will have lost £17 million.

The only good news for residents of East Devon is that the whole of Devon will then have to pay the bill and the borrowing costs.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Jun 2018

Posted under

Accountability, East Devon Tories, Hugo Swire, Sleaze, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Swire’s mate and co-director “shames himself”

It seems the national press is reluctant to point out that Lord Barker is in the energy business with our own Hugo Swire:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2018/05/20/swire-and-lord-barker-linked-to-russian-military-and-oligarchs-appear-to-be-in-business-together-a-business-apparently-not-on-his-register-of-interests/

“A Tory peer has “shamed himself” by ­lobbying for a Russian energy giant that had sanctions imposed after the Salisbury attack.

David Cameron’s ex-Energy Minister Greg Barker met with the Irish government last month in a bid to enlist its support for En+.

Lord Barker is chairman of En+, which is majority owned by Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a close ally of Vladimir Putin.

En+ and Mr Deripaska were slapped with sanctions after the murder plot against Sergei and Yulia Skripal in March.

The meeting can be disclosed today by the Mirror.

In response, MPs called on Theresa May to launch an inquiry into Lord Barker’s business dealings.

In April, Donald Trump imposed sanctions against billionaire Mr Deripaska and the companies in which he is a large shareholder.

His firms include aluminium producer, Rusal, and its parent firm En+. Rusal is the parent company of Aughinish Alumina in County Limerick, which employs 450 workers.

Lord Barker’s meeting with Irish Business Minister Heather Humphreys will raise ­questions about Tory links to Russia after the PM blamed the Salisbury attack on Moscow.

Lib Dem MP Tom Brake said: “He has shamed himself and the office he held.”

Jon Trickett MP, Labour’s Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, added: “It stinks.”

The Irish government said it remained “concerned” about the impact of sanctions.

There is no suggestion Lord Barker is in breach of the Lords’ code of conduct.

Neither he nor En+ would comment.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-shamed-himself-lobbying-russian-12718297

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Jun 2018

Posted under

Accountability, NHS (local), Sleaze

Comments

2 Comments

The Tory MP who thinks it’s ok to take pictures of womens’ underwear without their consent – and wants the NHS to start charging

The bill had cross-party support and was expected to pass into law. He appears to have offered no explanation for his action He is the MP for Christchurch in Dorset.

Maybe make sure you wear trousers in Christchurch, ladies!

“Sir Christopher Chope has a reputation for derailing private members’ bills – just as he did on Thursday when he shouted “object!” to one that would have made upskirting a sexual offence.

The Christchurch MP also used the Commons session on Friday to delay another government-backed bill, which would make it an offence to attack police dogs or horses, or prison officer dogs.

In Parliament the rules mean it only requires one MP to shout “object” to block a bill’s progress once time for debate has concluded at 2.30pm on a Friday.

His actions have been widely criticised, with his Conservative colleagues taking to WhatsApp to vent their frustrations with one calling him a “total irrelevance and yesterday’s guy”.

So who is he?

Chope, who was born in Putney, has been an MP for over 25 years. He was educated at the prestigious Marlborough College, before attending Queen’s College at the University of St Andrews. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in 1972.

Chope, a eurosceptic, has held various positions within the Conservative party. He has been MP for Christchurch since 1997 but prior to that he was the MP for Southampton Itchen between 1983 and 1992 before losing his seat to Labour.

His decision to block the upskirting bill is not the first time he has hit the headlines.

In 2009 the father-of-two was caught up in the expenses scandal when it was revealed that he had claimed £136,992 in parliamentary expenses, including £881 to repair a sofa.

That same year, he called for the minimum wage to be abolished, arguing that it would decrease unemployment.

He came under fire again in 2013 for referring to some of the staff in the House of Commons as “servants”.

Later that year he voted against the legislation for same-sex marriage.

Also that year, he was one of four MPs who camped outside an office in Parliament for four nights in order to highjack an obscure parliamentary procedure to table 42 bills, which formed what they called an “Alternative Queen’s Speech”.

Among the proposals were the reintroduction of the death penalty and conscription, privatising the BBC and banning the burka in public places.

They also wanted to scrap wind farm subsidies, end the ringfence for foreign aid spending and rename the late August Bank Holiday “Margaret Thatcher Day”.

In 2014 Chope along with six other Conservative MPs voted against the Equal Pay (Transparency) Bill.

He is known for blocking and filibustering of bills including raising an eleventh-hour objection to the Hillsborough debate taking place, objecting to the second reading of the Alan Turing Bill to grant him a pardon and repeatedly blocking a bill that would ban the use of wild animals in circus performances.

Chope, a private landlord, filibustered a bill which had cross party support intended to make revenge evictions an offence

In 2015, joined fellow Tory MPs Philip Davies and David Nuttall in extended speeches, known as a filibuster, against a private member’s bill that would have placed restrictions on hospital parking charges for carers, causing the bill to run out of time.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/christopher-chope-upskirting-bill_uk_5b23e1e1e4b0a0a5277b1fa6

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Jun 2018

Posted under

Austerity cuts, Education (local)

Comments

3 Comments

“School In Theresa May’s Constituency Asks Parents To Donate Toilet Paper And Stationery”

“A school in Theresa May’s constituency has asked parents for donations of essential items such as toilet roll, stationery and blue tac.

St Edmund Campion Catholic Primary School in Maidenhead, Berkshire, sent parents an email including a link to an Amazon wish list on Monday detailing items they could buy to help its 420 pupils.

Catherine del Campo, whose 10-year-old daughter attends the school, told HuffPost UK she was “extremely concerned” to receive the email. “I felt that if this is happening to our school it must be happening elsewhere,” she said.

The mum has already donated toilet paper and plasters to the school and says other parents have also been “incredibly supportive”. “I haven’t heard a single parent blaming the school, although I’m aware others have questioned the school’s role in this,” she said.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Jun 2018

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Coastal communities, Developers/ Development, Inequality

Comments

1 Comment

Cornish coastal village shows the way on second homes

“Mevagissey is following St Ives’ lead to stop too many properties becoming second homes.

Residents of the Cornish fishing port voted overwhelmingly in favour of adopting the “primary residence policy” in yesterday’s referendum, making it the fifth place in the county to decide that newly-built homes should only be available to people living there permanently.

A third of eligible voters turned out – 90% voted in favour.

When you get up to one in four of the properties being a second home, you can’t deny the right of people to sell to additional homeowners. All we’re trying to do is to discourage the development of more second homes by putting this restriction on new builds.”
Garth Shephard
Mevagissey Parish Councillor”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-devon-44366793

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Jun 2018

Posted under

Misc

Comments

2 Comments

A lesson from pre-application planning advice on how to by-pass local objections, Historic England and the EDDC Development Management Committee

There is a very contentious planning application, an amended version of a second application, on a site in the heart of one of our historic villages.  It is in a conservation area, surrounded by listed buildings where the village has an adopted neighbourhood plan. The Grade 1 listed church overlooks the site.

obj.pdf_DocNo=3035887&PDF=true&content=obj 2

The Parish Council oppose this application because the application does not conform to the aspirations and policies within the Neighbourhood Plan. The main priority of parishioners is the preservation of the overall character of the built heritage. The Neighbourhood Plan requires new buildings should “…..respect the local character” and preferably natural traditional building materials and methods should be used. (The proposed two dwellings are contemporary with flat sedum roofs).

Historic England (watchdog of our historic environment) said, in Feb 2018, of the first application:

“… the site in question, sits to the west and is made up of two linear fields that run parallel to the road behind the dwellings. Due to their size and close association to the built environment, it is believed these may have been paddocks for livestock and were potentially connected to the pub.

In recent years, development has occurred to the east in the form of modern bungalows and housing estates. However, these fields act as an indicator of the former rural landscape that characterised the setting of [the village].

A pre-application enquiry has been undertaken with the council, who consider that some form of development may be acceptable on the site. We would highlight the importance of the site as an extant aspect of the former rural setting of the conservation area as well as the contribution it makes in terms of appreciating the former uses of the land and how the development interacted with its rural setting. Therefore, its development would result in some erosion of that quality, which contributes to the significance of the conservation area.”

In spite of this cautionary advice it appears from pre-application correspondence published on EDDC web site that EDDC planners want to facilitate development by ignoring all this, squaring the Councillors and by-passing the DMC.

Applicant’s agent to planning officer e-mail (March 2018):

“We talked about how the application would proceed from this point on, and [X- planning officer] advised that he felt that the team would be supportive of the application, though [sic] that the town council would object as they did before. This would mean that the application would need to go the Chairman’s briefing for delegated approval.

“The process works that when a parish or town council differ in opinion to that of a planning team (planning recommendation report for approval) then the chairman of the planning committee (who meets once a week) would make the decision if the planning report should be followed, and delegated approval is granted, or if it should go to committee [sic].

“The district councillor (Cllr [Y] plus 2 others) will also have a say, though they did not object last time to the two houses, and I [architectural agent for applicant] will be meeting with the Cllr this time to ensure that he understands the application, and the reason for the second application as the district Cllr is allowed to sit in and vote on the delegated chairman’s briefing.”

Historic England continue their concern (May 2018):

“We maintain reservations in respect of the proposal. The orientation of the buildings within the site, their scale and associated ground works to address this issue of height, results in a significant intervention that does not respond to the character and appearance of the conservation area, through the scale and massing of the proposal and its orientation within the plot……..”

And Historic England’s final comment is:

ou could add at the end the final Historic England recommendation:

Recommendation

Your authority should take these representations into account and seek amendments, safeguards or further information as set out in our advice.

Chances of that happening? Owl isn’t taking any bets!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Jun 2018

Posted under

Accountable Care Organisation, Austerity cuts, Health and Social Care (local), Integrated Care Systems, NHS (local), Ottery St Mary, Privatisation, Scrutiny

Ottery Health Matters! Meeting 29 June 2018, afternoon and evening

Ottery St Mary & District Health & Care Forum, in partnership with:
RD&E, Coleridge GP’s, NEWCCG, Devon County Council, East Devon District Council & Ottery St Mary Town Council

Ottery Health Matters!

Health and Wellbeing Community Information Event

Date: Friday 29th June 2018

Time: Two drop-in sessions
2pm – 5pm
6pm – 8pm

Venue: The Institute, Yonder Street, Ottery St Mary, EX11 1HD.

Come along to this informal drop-in event to find out about the care and support available in Ottery and the surrounding areas. It will be a great opportunity to talk to health and care experts plus volunteers about the local services and activities to help people live well.

We need to hear from you about what’s important to you, what you think the challenges and priorities are to improve health and care for people in our community now and in the future.

Refreshments will be provided. Transport to and from may also be available. For any queries or feedback please contact:

Elli Pang via e-mail: ellipang@btinternet.com or Tel: 01404 812268 or Leigh Edwards via e-mail: leighp3@sourcemode.com or Tel: 01404 814889

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Jun 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Freedom of Information and EIA, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Teignbridge, Transparency

Teignbridge Council CEO given £264,000 to push off – now working for West Sussex on £138,000 plus perks

“A council chief executive was given a golden handshake of more than £250,000 in a deal that bosses tried to keep secret to avoid causing her “unnecessary or unjustified distress”.

Nicola Bulbeck, 60, left Teignbridge district council in Devon last summer after 11 years’ service. The council had repeatedly refused to reveal how much she received but its draft annual accounts disclosed yesterday that the former barrister left with a £264,000 “exit package”.

It was also revealed that she was allowed to stay on until the day after the general election last year so that she could earn a further £30,000 for being the returning officer.

After leaving the local authority she was appointed an executive director at West Sussex county council last January on an annual salary of £138,000.
There has been concern about a “revolving door” of senior local authority staff receiving significant payoffs before moving to similar jobs.
Several Teignbridge district councillors have alleged that Ms Bulbeck kept her company car as part of the leaving package. The council has declined to comment on the claim.

Phil Shears, who replaced Ms Bulbeck, had defended the decision not to release details of her payout when she departed. He claimed that the disclosure would “cause unnecessary or unjustified distress or damage” to his predecessor. Mr Shears was appointed the council’s managing director on a salary of £94,656, considerably less than Ms Bulbeck earned. Ms Bulbeck had been criticised for accepting a 12 per cent pay rise that took her annual pay packet from £126,000 to almost £142,000.

The district council and the Information Commissioner’s Office rejected several attempts by the Mid-Devon Advertiser to unearth Ms Bulbeck’s settlement. The accounts show that she received £173,091 “compensation for loss of employment” as part of her exit package”.

Jeremy Christophers, the council’s Conservative leader, said: “We have followed strict council policy and abided by the legal advice given.”

Gordon Hook, a Liberal Democrat councillor, said: “The leaving packages for some senior officers at local authorities are nothing short of obscene in the eyes of many. My view is that the general public have every right to know how their council tax is spent.”

Ms Bulbeck was not available for comment yesterday.”

Source: The Times (pay wall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Jun 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Conflict of interest, Developers/ Development, East Devon economy, East Devon Growth Point, Greater Exeter, Local Enterprise Partnership, Local Plan, Planning System, Productivity

Devon and Somerset – a new Klondike gold rush?

The LEP housing numbers, anticipating 50,000 new households in Devon, are almost certainly driven in part by the heroic assumptions about the local economy, as Owl has pointed out many times.

As we know, the LEP assumption is 4% growth per annum for the next 18 years. Such a sustained economic boom would invoke a ‘Klondike’ style immigration rush into Devon and Somerset, as the economies of all of the rest of the western world failed to compete with us at that level.

East Devon’s current Local Plan is based upon an anticipated annual UK economic growth rate of 3% from 2007, which has turned out to be just over 1%.

This, of course, is why many of our employment sites are dormant (and one of the many reasons why we do not need a new site in Sidford), and all our town centres are struggling – there simply isn’t demand.

Even if economic growth was to average 3% growth from now until the end of the Plan period, which looks incredibly optimistic, we would still have 33% more employment land than we need, according to East Devon’s own numbers.

The LEP’s projections have been laughed at by everyone – especially, Owl gathers, in Whitehall.

But they feed into a whole raft of housing and economic projections, that will ultimately emerge as policy around the region.

What assumption will be used for the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP) projections, Owl wonders? Now delayed until after the next local council elections in 2019?

Will the GESP team dare to condemn the LEP numbers, or will they adopt them, even when they must know they are nonsense?

What might happen if those without vested interests in the growth of expensive housing in the area were for once denied a say due to conflict of interest?

And where are the signs of the revisions of our Local Plan, based on current realities, that are required every 5 years?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Jun 2018

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Inequality

“Fury as housing associations redevelop and sell affordable homes”

“Housing associations have made at least £82.3m from auctioning homes in five London boroughs since 2013, according to figures seen by the Guardian. Analysis by the Labour MP for Westminster North, Karen Buck, shows that Westminster, Brent, Camden, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Kensington and Chelsea sold 153 properties at auction through Savills estate agents – with more than half in Westminster where sales totalled £36.4m. The true figures are likely to be much higher as the data only covers sales made by one agency. The auctions are part of a wider trend of some housing associations selling off social housing in expensive central London to fund new developments, which tenants say are unaffordable or far removed from their families, schools and work.

Buck says: “I’m dealing with a family who are statutorily overcrowded and in the highest medical priority and I haven’t been able to get them moved in over eight years. That’s because housing associations [in general] say they don’t have the stock in the area and yet they’re still selling off homes.”

Nationally, sales of housing association social homes to the private sector have more than tripled since 2001, with 3,891 social homes sold in 2016. Overall, more than 150,000 homes for social rent have been lost since 2012. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/13/fury-affordable-homes-redeveloped-sold-housing-associations

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Jun 2018

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, DCC, Developers/ Development, Economy, Local Enterprise Partnership

By 2036 one-third of people in Devon will be over 65 – but don’t worry, they will have PLENTY of houses available!

Owl is puzzled. Our Local Enterprise Partnership says we need 50,000 new homes in the next 5 years (published in 2017 – so say until 2023):

Click to access SEP-Final-draft-31-03-14-website-1.pdf

(page 8)

Yet the Office for National Statistics says that the population of Devon will increase by just over 52,000 by 2026 (see below). Averaging a very low estimate of low 2 people per home that would mean we would need 26,000 new homes IN TOTAL in Devon in the next 8 years, not 50,000.

In fact, the same Office of National Statistics says average occupancy is 2.4 persons per household – so a more accurate figure would be 21,666 extra homes needed in Devon by 2026 – again NOT 50,000!

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2017

Someone has their sums badly wrong. 50,000 by 2023 or 21,666 by 2026.

Is it the Office of National Statistics or our LEP with its preponderance of developers and landowners?

“The population of Devon will increase by 52,100 by 2026, according to the Office for National Statistics.

In 2016 the population was 778,800. By 2026 it is expected to reach 830,900, a rise of 6.7%.

Every two years the ONS estimates how the population of England will change over the next 25 years.

Statisticians study birth and death rates, and look at how the county’s population is ageing.

In Devon the percentage of the population made up by pensioners is expected to rise from 24.8% in 2016 to 27.6% 10 years later. And by 2036 the ONS thinks over 65s will make up almost a third of the area’s residents. …”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/population-devon-grow-52100-1667958