“‘Twisted political ideology’ to blame for 130 job losses at Somerset County Council, opposition leader claims” (many parallels to our district)

“Twisted political ideology” is to blame for a potential 130 redundancies at Somerset County Council, an opposition leader has claimed.

Liberal Democrat councillor Jane Lock said the ruling Tories should “hang their heads in shame” over decisions which she says led to the latest round of redundancies at the authority.

In an email sent out on Wednesday (August 29), council chief executive Pat Flaherty thanked staff for their hard work over the summer before announcing that 130 jobs could be on the line as the council looked to balance its books.

“I am keenly aware that for those affected this will be a very difficult time, indeed for the whole authority this will be a tough process,” Mr Flaherty said.

“The relevant managers have been asked to speak to their teams in advance of the information being published, but in some cases it may not be possible, and for that I apologise.”

A consultation has begun and a final decision will be made by the council’s cabinet on Wednesday, September 12, Mr Flaherty said.

Council leader David Fothergill said the authority faced a “huge financial challenge” after losing 40 per cent of its budget over the past eight years.

The news will come as blow but not a shock to authority staff, who have been on the receiving end of redundancies for several years.

Liberal Democrat opposition leader on Somerset County Council, Jane Lock, laid the blame firmly at the feet of the Conservatives.

“It’s clearly devastating for the staff members involved,” she said.

“It’s a twisted political ideology that is backfiring on them badly now. They froze council tax for seven years and they’re now reaping the rewards of that. If they’d put it up 1.99 per cent we’d have had an extra £29M each year.

“The situation that Somerset is in is down solely to those decisions.

“It’s a disgrace, they should hang their heads in shame.”

[This is exactly what EDDC has done]

She also suggested Somerset could soon follow Northamptonshire County Council.

Council leaders there issued a Section 114 notice, which put a blanket ban on all unnecessary spending, before announcing they would be reducing services down to a bare legal minimum.

On Tuesday, a majority of councillors on Northamptonshire County Council voted to put forward a bid to secretary of state for local government for its replacement with two unitary authorities.

In July, Somerset County Council leader David Fothergill categorically stated: “We are not going to write a 114 notice.”

It came at a meeting where cabinet members voted to use £5M of an emergency spending fund to shore up children’s services, which at the time was due to overspend by £20M.

But Mr Forthergill has launched a consultation on replacing the county council with one or more unitary authorities.

https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/twisted-political-ideology-blame-130-1953341

Dominoes teetering on the brink – Somerset County Council proposes 130 redundancies and cuts

Owl says: Bear in mind that Somerset County Council is the lead financial and administrative authority for the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership.

“A council has proposed cutting more than 100 jobs and major services so it can balance its books.

Somerset County Council has begun a consultation on 130 redundancies and is proposing cutbacks to highways, public transport and special needs services.

The authority needed to save £19.5m in 2017/18, but only made cuts of £11.1m.

In an email to staff, the council’s chief executive said the latest cuts were being considered due to severe financial pressures.

Council leader David Fothergill said the authority had been open about its “huge” financial challenge and would formally consult with trade unions about the redundancies.

“The coming weeks will be very difficult for the council and its staff, but we have to achieve financial stability,” he said.

Liberal Democrat councillor Neil Bloomfield said Somerset was going the same way as Northamptonshire County Council, which is facing a funding shortfall of about £70m and has banned all new spending this year.

‘A ruthless process’

He said: “If Somerset were to issue a 114 notice and the government appointed special commissioners, the desire would be to create their vision of a unitary authority and then you lose control of your own, local, decision making.

“The commissioners’ job is to save money and bring you back on budget. It’s a ruthless process.”

In an email sent to staff, chief executive Pat Flaherty said severe financial pressures meant the council was considering a “reduction in services and changes to staffing structures”.

Other ideas for savings include cutting funds to services for children and support for vulnerable pupils.

More details on the proposals will be announced next week.

The authority said it was trying to balance its books after eight years of central government cuts.

A final decision will be made by the cabinet on 12 September, Mr Flaherty said.”

Source: The Times (pay wall)

East Devon has more than £5 million of unspent money from developers – topping Exeter and Plymouth for non-spending

A Freedom of Information request revealed East Devon has received nearly £8.4 million from developers of Section 106 money, of which it has spent only about £4.4 million.

The exact amount not spent is £5,139,000.

Section 106 contributions are paid to local authorities by developers when planning permission is agreed. The contributions are discussed and agreed before developments are given the go ahead. The money is ringfenced for certain projects and has to be spent within a time period – usually five years [after that the money is lost and can never be reclaimed, any interest on the money is presumably retained by EDDC].

It is by far the highest amount of all the local councils which responded.

Exeter has £872,183 unspent; Teignbridge nearly £4 million; Plymouth nearly £2.5 million.

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/councils-millions-pounds-developers-cash-1951395

“Council in legal bid to force disclosure of Brexit impact”

“Plymouth City Council has claimed to be the first to use the Sustainable Communities Act to try to force the government to reveal the impact of Brexit.

It will also encourage other local authorities to take similar steps. Leader Tudor Evans has used the act to ask the government share with the council what it knows about Brexit’s affect on the city, even if the information concerned is considered confidential.

In a letter to communities secretary James Brokenshire, Cllr Evans demanded: “Immediate receipt by Plymouth City Council of all government departmental information and analysis pertaining to the impacts upon Plymouth’s communities and businesses of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, including any information deemed by the government to be confidential.”

The Sustainable Communities Act 2007 allows local authorities to ask central government to remove legislative or other barriers to the improvement of the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area.

Plymouth’s use of it is based on the council’s fears about the impact of Brexit on the city’s economy.

Cllr Evans said: “Brexit is going to have an impact on Plymouth, that is for sure. But for this council to do the job of protecting businesses and residents, we have to know exactly what the government has planned for us because at the moment, we don’t know.

“We’ve seen various dossiers released in the last few weeks. They have been at best woolly and do not address what Brexit means for individual communities.”

He said Plymouth relied on imports and exports, and half of its 20 largest companies were foreign owned and had invested there because of the direct access to the EU market.

“Although we are the first council to use the [sustainable communities] act in this way, I don’t expect us to be the last,” Cllr Evans said. “I will be speaking to colleagues all around the country in the next few days to help put pressure on the government for answers.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=36539%3Acouncil-in-legal-bid-to-force-disclosure-of-brexit-impact&catid=59&Itemid=27

Clyst St Mary and the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan – the EDDC position

This was the addendum to the post below – the East Devon District Council case for the extra 57,000 homes it has been agreed must be built around Exeter. Do note that government funding is NOT guaranteed by any current budgetary measures nor are there any major job creation schemes in the pipeline.

ALSO NOTE: these are paragraphs from the report, not the full report, chosen to reflect the particular issues for Clyst St Mary:

“The purpose of this report to Strategic Planning Committee is not intended to pre-judge any Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP) detailed assessment and evidence gathering but simply to start the debate to establish broad principles and locations for growth.

The continued growth of the district and the future incentives form a vital element in the mitigation of the future financial pressures anticipated in East Devon from 2020/21.

GESP gives an opportunity for councils to negotiate deals with the government to fund additional infrastructure in association with growth.

Much infrastructure funding comes from development, central government grants and the Councils themselves. Other Councils have worked with the Government to agree ‘infrastructure deals’ to provide more and higher quality homes in return for infrastructure investment e.g. Oxfordshire have agreed a deal where the Government provides up to £215 million towards infrastructure and housing in return for a commitment to a specific number of homes being built. We realise that new development, transport and infrastructure need to be thought about together and more detail on those issues will be identified and consulted on in the draft GESP in the summer of 2019.

Up to 2040, extra large-scale infrastructure is likely to cost more than £1 Billion. This will be determined to a large extent by future development sites in the plan but these sites are not yet determined. The infrastructure we may need to provide up to 2040 in the GESP area are:

New primary and secondary schools; Relief to major junctions on the M5; Improvements to the A30/A303; A number of new Park and Ride sites on the main roads into Exeter; Walking and cycling routes in and between towns and Exeter; Improvements to rail and bus routes and buses; Low carbon energy generation and a smart grid; New, accessible green space; Healthcare facilities; Community facilities; Internet connectivity and mobile communications and this is likely to cost around £700m.

Projects are funded in part but there is still a large ‘funding gap’.

Providing more, better and a wider variety of new homes is the main way to improve the present unbalanced housing situation. New NPPF policies require a baseline of a minimum of 844 homes per year to be accommodated in East Devon although this is less than the 950 new homes per year already agreed in the East Devon Local Plan to 2031. However, the baseline of 844 homes does not account for any additional need that the Council may agree to accommodate with neighbouring authorities in GESP which may lead to an increase in the overall number.

Therefore, if Councils deliver more than the minimum total provision of 2,600 housing per year for the combined GESP areas, then the Government will provide more funding for infrastructure. Prompt housing delivery could also be Government funded for affordable housing lost through right to buy sales in our high value housing Districts which continues to be problematic. Additionally, East Devon’s aspiration of one job per home will also need to deliver enough employment space to accommodate a minimum of 844 jobs per year with Councils in the South West agreeing that they will also try to double the size of the local economy by 2036 to increase local prosperity. Evidence suggests that the area has a high number of entrepreneurs and small businesses and encouraging these businesses and providing suitable accommodation for them to expand and grow will be an important factor for accommodating growth.

The NPPF recommends the effective use of previously developed or ‘brownfield’ land for meeting development needs but avoiding low density to make optimal use of sites with allocated sites and those with outline permissions being commenced within five years.

The government intend that viability assessment work is primarily undertaken at the plan making stage. The onus is on local authorities to undertake robust viability assessments which are open and transparent and publically available. The revised NPPF addresses the importance of good design (“Paragraph 124. The creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities”).

However, decision making in relation to flood risk and heritage assets remains unchanged in the revised NPPF with one of the Key Issues in the Report to Committee stating

· Flood zones – Clearly we should not be planning for new homes in areas at high risk of flooding and so areas within flood zones 2 and 3 should be excluded from any search for locations to accommodate growth.
Two of the main principles for growth are to
· Accommodate growth outside of areas within flood zones 2 and 3 and ensure that sustainable drainage systems are incorporated to ensure that surface water is wherever possible dealt with on site.
· Locate growth in locations well served by jobs and services to minimise the need to travel and encourage the use of walking, cycling and public transport to promote sustainable travel.

Suitable locations for accommodating growth recommend the west end of the district as it is less constrained. There may be some scope for further growth at Cranbrook but it is not likely to be close to the scale of growth accommodated in the last two local plans in this area.

9. Options for growth in the North West quadrant of the district
The western most quadrant of the district to the north of Exmouth and west of Ottery St Mary is the least constrained part of the district for accommodating growth. The land is relatively flat with no landscape designations. It is well served by main roads with good vehicle access via the M5, A30, A3052 and A376 and has good existing public transport links with the railway line and existing bus routes. The main constraints in this area of the district are the airport safeguarding and noise zones but these cover a relatively small part of the area and development could readily be accommodated outside of these zones.

9.1 Centre growth around one or more existing villages ​

This scenario would identify a number of key villages with scope for significant expansion based on factors such as access to public transport, road infrastructure and the services and facilities available within the village. This option has the benefits of helping to support existing businesses and services potentially helping to secure the future of existing village shops, schools, pubs, churches etc. It could also encourage new services and facilities to be provided which are then beneficial to existing residents as well as new residents. This is something that the new NPPF encourages, however these issues would require further consideration on a village by village basis as in most cases growth would have to be quite substantial (in the region of 400 – 500 homes) to make it viable to deliver the required services and facilities to make the settlement suitably sustainable for growth and in the process could harm the character of the village and the existing community.

9.3 Establish a further new town – This scenario would involve the creation of a new community similar to Cranbrook within the western part of the district. Cranbrook has been successful in delivering a high number of new homes in a relatively short space of time and has delivered some significant infrastructure alongside such as schools, a community centre and the railway station. There is however still much to be delivered at Cranbrook and the creation of a similar new town in the district could harm delivery at Cranbrook. Cranbrook benefited from substantial government investment to get development started and there is no guarantee that such resources would be made available again. It has also been a private sector led development and there is some uncertainty whether the private sector would commit to a further new town delivered on a similar basis in the district. Cranbrook has also been criticised for delivering one type of housing which has successfully met the needs of young families but it has not to date provided a wide range of choice to meet the broad range of housing needs that exist in the district. The delivery of a town centre and some other key facilities at Cranbrook is still pending with the town needing to reach a critical mass to support these things. This in itself illustrates the scale a new community needs to achieve before such facilities can economically be provided.

9.5 Establish a number of new villages – This scenario would involve the creation of a series of modern Devon villages that could reflect to some degree the form of existing villages within the district. This option would potentially be the most sensitive option in landscape terms. If the villages were designed so that they had different characters and form then there would be the greatest potential to broaden the choice of housing in the district and maximise delivery rates by having several developers delivering different types of housing simultaneously across the area and is favoured in terms of delivery as there would be scope to have several builders delivering simultaneously with each village providing opportunities to develop their own form and character. A significant concern with this option is the ability of new villages to deliver the required service and facilities as well as jobs alongside the housing. Existing villages are struggling to maintain such facilities and providing new within a new village is likely to be even more difficult unless the villages are quite large and facilities are somehow shared with neighbouring settlements and good transport links provided between them.

Exmouth – Options for growth at Exmouth include sites that are locally sensitive and would potentially involve incursions into the Maer Valley or expansion of the town out into the Lympstone ward.

9.7 Each of these options raises issues but the new NPPF acknowledges that “The supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided they are well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities. By working with the support of their communities, and with other authorities if appropriate, strategic policymaking authorities should identify suitable locations for such development where this can help to meet identified needs in a sustainable way.”

9.8 The assessment of each of the options is at an early stage but Members views are sought on these options and any clear preferences that Members may have.

Recommendations:

· A significant proportion of growth to be accommodated within the western part of the district.
· Accommodate growth in the existing towns focusing strategic growth around Axminster, Exmouth, Honiton and Ottery St Mary with the remaining towns taking more modest growth to meet the needs of those settlements.
· Villages to bring forward modest levels of growth to meet their own needs through neighbourhood plans.
· Focus development around main transport corridors where possible.

11. Conclusion

It is early days in terms of understanding how growth could be accommodated in the district and this report is not intended to pre-empt this work which will establish an evidence base to inform detailed consultation and discussion in the future. The principles included in this report are proposed as a baseline position to inform strategy development and work only but hopefully help to aid understanding of the issues and start the debate.

Greater Exeter Strategic Plan – Update and Vision

Since the previous consultation the GESP team has been busy analysing the consultation responses, the sites suggested and exploring issues for preparing the Draft Plan. A consultation will be held between 5 October and 30 November 2018 on a new vision for the plan, separated into three sections covering ‘the plan, ‘the place’ and ‘the priorities’ and includes the key areas of housing, a potential transport strategy and required infrastructure but no details about specific proposals will be published until the summer of 2019 (after the Local Elections in May 2019).”

Save Clyst St Mary Summer 2018 Update

“It’s been a while since I was last in touch with you regarding proposed future, large scale developments in Clyst St Mary and I’m aware that there are a number of residents interested in our Campaign who are new to the village, so I am writing to provide a brief summary. I hope you find this helpful.

Thanks to the support of so many residents from all parts of our village, we have managed thus far to fight plans to substantially increase the number of homes in the village (by over 100%!). We have fought this on the grounds of the proximity to flood plains, significant traffic and safety concerns, issues regarding pollution and the lack of existing infrastructure. We have never been against all future development, but feel that any future growth needs to be sustainable.

As I write, the situation regarding the Friends Provident site is that twenty one months on from the submission of the planning application for 150 dwellings and employment space at Winslade Park, these proposals are still awaiting a decision from East Devon District Council.

As you may have seen in the press this week, there are plans to develop a ‘second Cranbrook’. This could have significant implications for Clyst St Mary because this village has been earmarked for future development but without substantial road infrastructure improvements any sizeable development will be accessed via our roundabout, adding to the already excessive level of traffic congestion that so many of us have to face on a daily basis!

Worryingly, there is also a rumour that East Devon District Council plan on connecting sizeable development (in the region of 12,000 houses) to Clyst St Mary stretching along the A3052. The report goes before the District Council Strategic Planning Committee on Tuesday 4th September.

Our East Devon District Councillor is Mike Howe. You may also be interested in the following article from Devon Live

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/second-cranbrook-new-town-more-1944438

or the 70 page link to the Council’s report below

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/2581497/040918strategicplanningcombinedagenda.pdf

Thanks to one of our Campaign’s members, I am able to attach a much more detailed summary of these plans (see separate post above) focusing on how they relate to our village.

May I take this opportunity to thank you, once again, for your continued support. Please spread the word if you meet new residents who may not be aware of the Council’s intentions for the village. We are always grateful for more hands-on support from residents, so if you would like to get more actively involved, please do let me know.

With best wishes,

Gaeron

https://saveclyststmary.org.uk/