Information Commissioner wants Freedom of Information Act extended to outsourced companies

“The Information Commissioner has called for the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) to be updated to include organisations providing a public function.

In a report to Parliament, ‘Outsourcing Oversight? The case for reforming access to information law’, Elizabeth Denham said: “In the modern age, public services are delivered in many ways by many organisations. Yet not all of these organisations are subject to access to information laws.

“Maintaining accountable and transparent services is a challenge because the current regime does not always extend beyond public authorities and, when it does, it is complicated. The laws are no longer fit for purpose.”

She added: “Urgent action is required because progress has been too slow. It is now time to act. This report sets out solutions that can extend the law to make it fit for the modern age.”

Denham said the main aim her report was to make an evidence-based case to extend the reach of FOIA and the EIR “to enable greater transparency and accountability in modern public services, which in turn improves services”.
The Commissioner said in the report that she would welcome a Parliamentary Inquiry via a select committee into the issues raised. The ICO has submitted the report to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and PACAC for their consideration. …”

http://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php

More on Swire’s business pal Lord Barker

“… The lifting of sanctions [by Donald Trump yesterday, on Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska – see post below] comes after a lobbying campaign led by Lord Gregory Barker, a former UK energy minister and now chairman of En+.

Lord Barker reportedly used lobbyists with ties to the Trump administration, law firms and public relations experts to make the argument Mr Deripaska was committed to giving up control of his companies.

Mr Deripaska is one of Russia’s wealthiest men. He amassed his fortune under Mr Putin and has bought assets abroad in ways widely perceived to benefit the Kremlin’s interests.

US diplomatic cables from 2006 described him as “among the two or three oligarchs Putin turns to on a regular basis” and “a more-or-less permanent fixture on Putin’s trips abroad”.

The 50-year-old achieved a deal of fame in the UK in 2008 when the then-business secretary, Lord Mandelson, and shadow chancellor George Osborne found themselves aboard his yacht off the coast of Corfu last summer.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-russia-sanctions-putin-oleg-deripaska-treasury-department-rusal-en-a8749781.html

Swire, eagle and sham … an unfortunate choice of company name …

Swire has a dormant company (Eaglesham Investments) owned 50/50 with his friend Lord Barker, a former energy minister. It was originally described as being a vehicle for “emerging markets” but is now described as being for “renewable energy”.

Given recent developments involving Lord Barker, he and Swire pmight want to consider a change of name for the company – having an association with the eagle (symbol of the Russian Federation) and “sham” (dictionary: “something that is not what it purports to be; a spurious imitation; fraud or hoax” (online distionary.com) might not be such good PR!

Lord Barker is Chair of a UK-based Russian company set up by Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska.

Owl reported the links between Deripaska and Barker recently:

“… Among the UK-based companies that have aroused the interest of congressional investigators is EN+, the energy company owned by Oleg Deripaska and chaired by Tory peer Lord Barker of Battle.

Mr Deripaska, a close ally of Mr Putin, is already under investigation from congressional committees over allegations, which the oligarch denies, that he was involved in efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential elections.

Recent documents released by the FBI revealed Mr Deripaska loaned $10 million to Paul Manafort, Donald Trump’s campaign manager, who has been charged with fraud and money-laundering. Mr Deripaska is one of several Russian oligarchs who were hit with U.S. sanctions in April.

Now US investigators say they are interested in apparent links between British-based companies owned by Russian oligarchs and Russian intelligence agencies.

Their interest in EN+ comes after FBI officers identified Evgeny Fokin, who is the company’s Director of International Cooperation, as formerly being the SVR’s declared liaison officer with U.S. intelligence agencies in Washington DC in the mid-1990s.

Apart from being employed by EN+, Mr Fokin, who is said to be a close ally of Mr Deripaska, has previously been employed by Basic Element, another company owned by Mr Deripaska.

“There is particular concern in Congress about the links between Russian businesses owned by oligarchs and the Russian intelligence agencies,” a U.S. official told the Daily Telegraph.

“There is concern about the large numbers of former Russian intelligence officers who now hold senior positions in major Russian businesses.

“There are growing suspicions in Congress that the distinction between the Russian state and businesses owned by Putin’s supporters may be on paper only.”

Lord Barker, a former energy minister under David Cameron, provoked criticism from MPs earlier this year after he helped EN+ raise £1 billion on the London Stock Exchange, money that was then used to pay off Russian banks subject to U.S. sanctions.”

Swire’s business pal in more difficulty in United States

Mr Deripaska hit the headlines again this weekend when Donald Trump made good on his promise to make Mr Deripaska’s business life in the USA much easier as reported here:

“President Donald Trump officially lifted sanctions against Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska on Sunday afternoon. At least one reporter is wondering if it’s because Trump is hoping the news will slip through the cracks of the news cycle.

As Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) was taking the stage in Oakland, California to formally announce her presidential campaign, the news was released Trump made Deripaska’s life easier.

“Ukraine-/Russia-related Designations Removals,” reads the headline on the Treasury Department’s sanctions site.

“The timing of this (Sunday evening) is not a coincidence,” said behavioral scientist and ArcDigi associate editor Caroline Orr. “This is a huge gift to Putin and his cronies, and the Trump administration is hoping this will slip through the cracks. Don’t let that happen.”…

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/trump-quietly-lifts-sanctions-russian-oligarch-sunday-think-no-one-notice/

Will Tesco cuts revitalise high streets? Almost certainly not

“TESCO is set to axe 15,000 jobs as part of £1.5bn cost-saving measure that will see fish, meat and deli counters across the country close down.

Bakeries will also be overhauled, with the supermarket giant now ordering staff to use pre-frozen dough instead of making it on site. …”

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/8288025/tesco-axe-15000-jobs-meat-fish-deli-counters/

After putting so many butchers, fishmongers, bakeries and delis out of business, will this revitalise high streets?

Owl thinks not. The killer combination of high business rates, increased town centre parking charges and poorer public transport makes it uneconomic for small businesses to return to high streets.

Big business wins over public services with corporation tax black hole

“The government’s planned cuts to corporation tax look set to cost the public purse billions more in lost revenue than previously thought, according to new analysis.

The tax rate on company profits is slated to be cut from its current level of 19% to just 17% by the end of the decade. But even before the planned cuts, the UK already had one of the lowest corporation tax rates in the developed world.

An analysis based on HMRC data suggests that the loss of revenue from the planned cuts, initiated by former chancellor George Osborne but supported by incumbent Philip Hammond, could add up to more than £6bn.

HMRC recently raised its estimate for the amount a 1 percentage point increase in corporation tax could bring in for the Treasury from £2.8bn to £3.1bn per year – meaning the plan to cut taxes by 2p in the £1 could cost about £6.2bn.

Hammond confirmed in the autumn that he would go ahead with Osborne’s promises, despite the need to find £20bn a year more for the NHS by 2023-24.

There has been mounting opposition to the planned tax cuts, particularly as Britain’s public finances could come under huge strain from a disorderly Brexit.

Rupert Harrison, a former adviser to Osborne who now works at City investment firm BlackRock, said last week on Twitter that it was “hard to see why further cuts to corporation tax are good value,” while Labour seized on his comments.

Peter Dowd, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said: “Even Osborne’s former adviser knows that further cuts to corporation tax are a bad use of public funds. Philip Hammond should cancel his plans for more corporate giveaways and invest in our public services.” …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/28/uk-corporation-tax-cut-to-cost-billions-more-than-thought

Government finally admits there is a teacher crisis

“Cash incentives and a better work-life balance are part of a new attempt to solve England’s teacher shortage.

Plans published on Monday by ministers will offer some young secondary teachers £5,000 in their third and fifth years in the classroom – on top of initial £20,000 training bursaries.

Young teachers could also have some protected time for extra training.
Head teachers’ unions said more help for young recruits was essential to tackle the crisis in teacher numbers.

Currently, teachers in subjects with shortages, such as physics, chemistry, and languages, can receive a bursary of up to £26,000, but there are no further payments.

The so-called “early career payment” scheme, which rewards teachers for staying in the classroom, has already been trialled for maths teachers.
Labour has criticised the plan, saying the plan will not reverse “six consecutive years” of missed teacher recruitment targets.

What’s the problem?

By 2025 the number of secondary school pupils in England will have gone up by 15%.

For several years England has had an unfolding teacher crisis, with too few starting to train and too many leaving.

In 2018/19 the number starting training as secondary school teachers was 17% below target.

Subjects such as physics, chemistry and computing face the largest shortfalls.

This has led to a growing proportion of lessons in some secondary schools being taught by teachers who are not specialists.

And there has been growing concern that young teachers are leaving because they feel overworked, burnt out and disillusioned.

Of those that started in 2012, a third were not teaching five years later. …”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-47023665

Councils relied too much on informal cabinet briefings: contract legality now being probed

“A CATALOGUE of errors detailing how two district councils were run have been exposed in a ‘gobsmacking’ report.

Initial findings from an investigation into contracts signed by Vale of White Horse and South Oxfordshire district councils between 2010 to 2016 show councillors’ knowledge was stymied by a ‘lack of information’.

The two councils are conducting reviews into several contracts after fears were raised last year that contracts could have been handed out improperly.

All of them have a value of or more than £10,000. Between the two councils, there are 162 of those in total.

A report also highlights there was an ‘over reliance’ on briefing cabinet members informally, rather than decisions being made at public cabinet or council meetings.

‘A lack of detail’ was also found to be a problem in papers for those cabinet briefings and at cabinet meetings.

The review also found there was ‘poor procedural compliance by officers and members, most notably in documenting decision making’.

Debby Hallett, Lib Dem councillor on Vale council and former group leader, said the ‘gobsmacking’ papers seemed to indicate a ‘culture of sloppiness and shortcuts’ over key contracts.

But she added: “The thing that surprised me is [the councils] have promised to have this done by March, which is putting this in the public domain before the local elections [in May].”

That, she said, showed the councils’ willingness to conduct the reviews in a spirit of ‘transparency and integrity’.

Adrianna Partridge, the councils’ head of corporate service, notes in the report: “This review has identified a significant risk that the councils have incurred expenditure that has not been adequately approved in accordance with the councils’ constitutions, which could have both financial and reputational risk.”

In the report which will go to the councils’ joint audit and governance committee on Monday, she states: “Action has already been taken to address and strengthen the decision making process on individual projects, and it is acknowledge that a greater transparency is needed, including an increase in the number of formal papers taken to cabinet and full council which the senior management team is enforcing.”

The councils have set aside a budget of £30,000 for legal advice if they need to take any action over contracts in the future.

Confidential papers will be discussed next week.

They are understood to refer to specific details of the councils’ eight to 10 contracts which are being reviewed.

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/17377868.gobsmacking-errors-in-how-oxfordshire-councils-awarded-contracts/

Do you want to put a rocket under slow East Devon developers?

If so, EDDC is searching for a “Development Delivery Project Manager”
Salary: £31,401 – £39,961

The brief explains:

“This challenging and exciting role involves managing a series of projects where the Council will be working with land owners, developers and other stakeholders to enable large scale development proposals to come forward where they are currently unable to do so.

The Council has an excellent track record of delivering housing in the district but has a number of key sites where for various reasons the sites are not coming forward as planned. You would project manage the Council’s intervention in these sites working with colleagues across the Council co-ordinating resources to address the various issues and unlock the sites.

You will provide valuable expertise in carrying out development briefs, masterplans and development appraisals as well as providing support on development viability issues and work with our partners on each site to ensure their timely delivery.”

https://jobs.eastdevon.gov.uk/

Flybe – trouble at the top

“A battle over the cut-price sale of Flybe will gather pace next week after the airline’s biggest shareholder demanded the sacking of its chairman.

Sky News has learnt that Hosking Partners wrote to Flybe on Friday to requisition an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) aimed at ousting Simon Laffin, the City grandee who has chaired Flybe for five years.

The fund management firm run by Jeremy Hosking, a prominent investor, wants to install Eric Kohn, an experienced aviation executive, in Mr Laffin’s place.

A statement confirming the EGM request is expected to be made by Flybe to the London Stock Exchange as soon as Monday morning….”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/26/small-supermarket-wales-owned-surrey-casino-property

“‘Casino councils’ are spending huge sums on property across the country in a high-stakes bid to balance their books”

“…Councils across England are under huge pressure to adopt a more expansive investment strategy, as their funding from central government is slashed. Many have responded by loading up with debt to play the property market, exposing some to a ticking timebomb of high borrowings and the nascent threat of a property-market collapse.

The omens are not good for retail landlords. Last week the real estate adviser Altus Group forecast that 23,000 shops would close in the UK this year – with a loss of 175,000 jobs – while the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (Rics) told valuers to be “aware of the potential for significant changes in value” in retail properties. Last month fund manager Fidelity International warned that UK retail properties could lose up to 70% in value as a result of rent cuts. The correction would be driven in part by a 10-40% reduction in rents to make them affordable for bricks-and-mortar retailers, Fidelity said.

The Local Government Chronicle (LGC) said the amount spent by councils in England on investment properties ballooned from £76.4m in 2014-15 to £1.8bn in 2017-18. These include offices, hotels, supermarkets and gyms, sometimes miles outside a council’s own area: these out-of-area investments are worth £619m alone.

Lord Oakeshott, chairman of Olim Property, which manages commercial property portfolios for institutional clients, said: “The whole thing is a mess. Councils are being loaned vast amounts of money by government, which is being invested in property. It’s a hell of a gamble that these councils are taking and this is not what councils should be doing.”

If the economy does take a turn for the worse, councils may find their current roster of reliable tenants forced to take evasive action. Store and office closures are a common cure when companies begin to feel the squeeze. A deepening economic crisis and a soaring debt pile makes for a toxic financial cocktail that some “casino councils” may be forced to swallow. Authorities will be forced to find new tenants who might not be able to pay the same levels of rent – if they can find new tenants, that is.

… But with Brexit looming the property sector is particularly vulnerable. The Bank of England has warned that “disorderly” Brexit – where Britain crashes out of the EU without a deal – could make the price of offices, warehouses, shopping centres and hotels drop by as much as 48%– more than the 42% peak-to-trough decline following the 2008 crisis. Even with only a “disruptive” Brexit – where the UK retains access to some trade agreements between the EU and other countries – the Bank suggested property prices could still fall 27%. … “

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/26/small-supermarket-wales-owned-surrey-casino-property?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

“California sues wealthy coastal city over low-income housing”

“Gov. Gavin Newsom used a new law for the first time Friday to try to force a wealthy Southern California coastal city to end its years of opposition to meeting low-income housing goals.

Newsom’s administration sued the Orange County city of Huntington Beach under the law that took effect Jan. 1 after passing in a 2017 package of measures intended to alleviate the state’s severe housing shortage and homelessness problem.

California has more homeless people than any other state and the nation’s highest poverty rate when soaring housing and rental costs are taken into account. Newsom, who took office this month, has proposed building 3.5 million housing units in the state with nearly 40 million residents.

The lawsuit says leaders in Huntington Beach, home to about 200,000 people, have repeatedly refused to amend the city’s housing plan to add state-required low-income housing and are fighting a separate lawsuit by housing advocates. The city says it’s complying with state housing and zoning laws. …

Newsom said high housing costs and rents “are eroding quality of life for families across this state.” He said the problem is “an existential threat to our state’s future and demands an urgent and comprehensive response.”

He has promised several moves to increase affordable housing, including giving cities more money for housing shelters but taking away transportation money if they fail to meet their goals. The Democratic governor’s budget proposal seeks $1.75 billion to combat homelessness by encouraging new affordable housing.”

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/california-sues-wealthy-coastal-city-over-low-income-housing/

Are DCC councillors refusing to let Claire Wright’s star shine before local elections?

Owl says:

Local council elections: 2 May 2019

Greater Exeter Strategic plan:
not going out for consultation until June 2019

Claire Wright’s long-promised inquiry into how Devon carers are coping:
Delayed by at least a year to June 2019 at the earliest

Anyone smell rats (on a sinking ship)?

“My efforts to get a spotlight review into how Devon carers are faring seems to have hit another delay.

I first proposed a review at the April Health and Adult Care Scrutiny Committee meeting of last year, but the vote was delayed until councillors had visited the contractors who look after the service, Westbank League of Friends.

My interest in the subject was sparked after reading a report which indicated that many carers were feeling exhausted, ill and short of money. Here is the background –

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/scrutiny_review_to_take_place_into_how_devon_carers_are_coping

After a useful meeting at Westbank, I duly proposed a spotlight review once again at the September meeting. It was agreed this time.

I have now enquired twice when this review is going to have its first meeting but have had unsatisfactory answers.

At yesterday’s committee meeting I asked again when the first meeting was going to take place.

I was told that it wouldn’t take place until at least June as more information was needed.

I pointed out that this was almost a year after I had proposed the review (actually it is longer as I originally proposed it last April but it was not agreed then).

But the chair said the information was required before a spotlight review was held.

This is deeply disappointing and feels as though the issue is being kicked into the long grass.

I know many carers out there are struggling and to defer this issue is unfair and wrong in my view.

I will definitely be pursuing this.”

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/review_into_how_devon_carers_are_faring_delayed_until_after_june

“We Need A Complete Rethink Of How We Fund Our Public Services”

Jonathan Carr-West
Chief executive of the Local Government Information Unit (LGiU):

“A few weeks ago, a radio producer called the LGiU office desperately seeking a guest for a head-to head debate on local government funding: “I’ve booked someone to argue that local councils need more money, but I can’t find anyone who disagrees”. That didn’t come as much of a surprise.

I regularly speak with council leaders who nearly all tell me a decade of deep cuts have left them at breaking point. Regardless of party allegiance, senior decision-makers unanimously agree that councils are in an unsustainable position, and some are nearly bust.

Local government in England and Wales is funded through grants from central government (about 54%) made up mainly of redistributed business rates, and locally raised funding (about 46%) which includes council tax and other sources such as car parks, parking permits and the hire of sports facilities.

Local authorities have already seen their central funding reduced, on average, by 40%. In Haringey, for example, the council’s spend per head of population has dropped by nearly a quarter. HuffPost’s What It’s Like To Lose series shows how people have already suffered the impact of the cuts.

However, from next year the Government has committed to phasing out central grants for local government, representing a further cut of more than £1billion at a time when the number of elderly people needing care is growing. Last year, the Prime Minister said it was the end of austerity. Not for local councils, it seems

To offset that savage cut, some councils are borrowing billions of pounds to buy property, supermarkets and gyms. At the same time, residents are paying more and more money to their local authority through higher council tax, and through increased charging on everything from swimming pools to cremations. But they will be receiving less, because it is the money from central government that pays for, amongst other things, adult social care and vulnerable children’s services, which is shrivelling up.

The most worrying aspect of all, though, is that local councils are still totally in the dark about how they will be funded from 2020. With only a year to go before the central grant disappears, the plan to allow councils to retain their local business rate income, which was supposed to make up the shortfall, has is yet to be agreed, never mind rolled out,.

Meanwhile, the government’s ‘Fair Funding Review’, which will change the calculation of each council’s funding needs, is yet to be finalised. The review’s first iteration has been criticised for removing deprivation as a funding criteria and shifting spending away from urban areas.

The LGA has consistently said that resources announced in the Autumn Budget and local government financial settlement are nowhere near enough to meet a gap in overall funding of more than £3billion. Clarity on the future shape of the system is desperately needed but the issue has failed to move up the Whitehall priority list due to Brexit.

Local government is the most important bit of government. Councils deliver the things that really matter most to us: schools for our children, clean, safe neighbourhoods, new homes, care for the elderly. All these services are delivered from the town hall, not Whitehall.

But there’s a paucity of ideas when it comes to fixing council finances: the government wants local authorities to raise more and to be more entrepreneurial, yet it balks from them taking any commercial risk.

Other proposed solutions leave councils with less autonomy when they need more – for instance, some have suggested that social care be delivered nationally or that councils should funded solely through central government grants.

Broadly, councils want to avoid being subject to the whims of central government policy-making to allow them to plan their own finances. Councils are calling for more control over areas of DwP and health that affect their ability to help their residents.

That means a complete rethink of how we fund public services. Instead of letting councils’ spend wither away, we need to localise our spending on all public services creating single place-based budgets that democratically elected leaders can spend in the ways that make most sense locally and that drive down demand.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/local-services_uk_5c4b3431e4b0e1872d433381

“Councils made to give £225k BACK to developers – often because they didn’t spend it quickly enough”

Could it, has it happened here? Only a Freedom of Information request will tell …

“More than £225,000 of Section 106 money has been handed back by councils – mainly because they did not spend it in time.

The money, paid to councils by developers, is meant to go on road improvements, public transport and community facilities at new housing estates.

S106 contributions are often included as a way to overcome objections and as a condition of planning approval.

But on a number of occasions in the last five years the money was returned because Suffolk councils had not spent it within a five-year limit, Freedom of Information requests from this newspaper show.

While the sums are a fraction of total S106 contributions made, councillors said they showed deep failings within local government.

Andrew Stringer, leader of the Liberal Democrat, Green and Independent group at Suffolk County Council (SCC), said it was “perverse” that developer contributions were going unspent during a time of austerity.

Much of the returned funding was down to SCC’s failure to carry out highways projects. …”

https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/section-106-ipswich-saxmundham-haverhill-housing-developers-1-5866556

Greater Exeter Strategic Plan – where are we? In trouble!

All change on the Planning Front for East Devon.

Ever since David Cameron’s coalition government’s efforts to provide local communities with a say in local planning decisions with the “Localism Act” in 2011 (giving communities the power to draft “Neighbourhood Plans,” designed to provide a degree of self-determination to how local communities could be developed in the future) the powerful developers and landowners lobby has been active to reclaim their powerful grip on developing our communities.

First was the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in 2012 which threw out the old planning regulations and provided a “developer-driven” new planning policy, with just a “nod” to the Localism Act, Neighboured Plans and District wide plans.

The new NPPF introduced a policy that if the District or Neighbourhood Plan was not “up to date” then there would be a presumption of allowing any proposed development from a developer. Therefore, Councils and local communities quickly set about drawing up their Neighbourhood Plans and District Plans to plug the gap created by the new 2012 NPPF policies.

East Devon District Council who had been dragging their feet for years to complete their Local Plan, finally managed to obtain the approval of the Planning Inspectorate in January 2016 to cover the period up to 2031. Lympstone had got its Neighbourhood Plan approved in 2015 and since then over 30 Neighbourhood Plans are either approved or in the process of being drafted by community groups within East Devon.

It was therefore thought that East Devon and its communities had substantial protection from greedy landowners and developers up to 2031 and with the extra protection of the East Devon Villages Plan, approved in July 2018 (which gave further defined policies for larger Villages and some large Business Parks) residents and developers appeared to understand where development would or would not be allowed.

However, in late 2016 Exeter City Council, whose Chief Executive Karime Hassan (previously East Devon’s District Council officer who created and developed the concept of the new town of Cranbrook) proposed a joint “Strategic Plan”, along with neighbouring councils East Devon, Teignbridge, and Mid Devon.

The four councils then started a joint over-riding masterplan for Exeter and the surrounding area known as the GESP (the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan).

It was clear that Exeter was almost completely built-out and the infrastructure in roads and transport required for further city centre and commercial growth was urgently required if the continued success known as the “Exeter Growth Point” was to continue. Without a joint plan for infrastructure, the commute into the City would become intolerable and hinder the targeted housebuilding requirements set by the Government for each of the 4 separate councils.

In October 2018 the Government draw up yet another updated version of the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) very much on the lines of the 2012 Policies, but with various tweaks to assist in the over-riding government strategy of encouraging developers to build many more dwellings.

The new 2018 NPPF provided clearer guidance that if an individual Council was unable to provide enough development land for extra dwellings required by the government’s growth targets, neighbouring councils may be allowed to build out extra housing for their partner and other neighbouring authorities.

According to East Devon District Councils Strategic Planning Committees agenda item 12 for discussion on the 29th January 2019:

“Timetable for production of a new East Devon Local Plan”

Within the introduction to the agenda item it states:

…given changing circumstances and other factors, that a “light touch” review of the currently adopted local plan is unlikely to be a practical option for a new local plan.”

What the changing circumstances and other factors are, is not explained but it is clear from the report it is clearly in relation to GESP.

Because the GESP Strategic Plan policies will over-ride the East Devon Local Plan policies, the report seems to suggests that the “changing circumstances and other factors” relate to the new GESP policies which override the Local Plan, Village Plan and probably most Neighbourhood Plans – affecting a large area of East Devon! So much so that, rather than the GESP plan dovetailing into the 3-year-old approved East Devon Local Plan and 1-year-old Villages Plan with all the years of public consulting, Council debate and literally years of work by the planning team, it will be jettisoned for a brand-new Local Plan to dovetail into the strategies of the GESP plan!

Although the GESP plan has been in preparation for 2 years, no formal discussion or meeting has been held at any Council Chamber at any of the four Councils involved. Meetings have taken place to consider the 700 plus sites throughout the Greater Exeter area submitted for assessment by what is known as the “Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) panel” The Panel is made up of “key stakeholders”, with a recognised interest in the development of land for housing and employment, and housing and economic development sector, including housebuilders, social landlords, local property agents and other related professionals together with local community representatives and other agencies. The membership of these meeting has been confidential and there has there been no publication of their deliberations or recommendations.

To be clear: meetings between two lead councillors from each Authority, plus officers have kept the draft policies and site options totally under lock and key – with none of the meetings been reported or minuted.

However, all is to be revealed AFTER the local council elections in May 2019 – consultation has always been scheduled to begin no earlier than June 2019.

This suggests that the draft policies and site options affecting East Devon will be so radical and so totally at variance to the East Devon Local Plan and Villages Plan that they will all require total re-writing, with a brand-new Local Plan (subsidiary to GESP) and all the costs and uncertainties this will bring.

Why have these Councils been so secretive on the GESP proposed development site considerations for proposed strategies for commercial and housing development for this part of Devon? Could it be that Tory controlled East Devon, Teignbridge, and Mid Devon Councils have elections on May 2nd this year (Labour Exeter elects only one-third of its council this year) and a brand new super-growth plan – superseding their Local Plans – will not be considered much of vote-grabber?

Don’t say you weren’t warned!

Community group sues council over secret contract

“A community group is taking Gloucestershire County Council to court over the award of a £600m incinerator contract. Community R4C, a non-profit mutual society which has had support from celebrities including Jeremy Irons, Jonathon Porritt, Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall and Kevin McCloud, claims the contract was unlawfully awarded, resulting in a massive rise in costs to taxpayers and a breach of procurement law. They filed a lawsuit with the High Court on Friday.

Campaigners have been opposing the waste incinerator at Javelin Park for years, saying the project wasted taxpayers money, was bad for health and the environment and that there were cheaper and better alternatives. Requests to see the contract, the largest the county has ever entered into, were consistently refused until a tribunal forced its disclosure in 2017, by which time a revised contract had been signed. This was only released on 20th December 2018.

“It was a very difficult decision to take this course of action when so much taxpayer money has already been spent on legal battles”, says Patricia Watson, a waste consultant and volunteer director of the group. “The underhand behaviour of the council and contractor has led to a far higher price than anywhere else in the country for the lowest possible environmental benefit.”

Board member Sue Oppenheimer says: “The contract has increased by a staggering £150m making it 30% more expensive. By law, it should have been retendered. Instead Gloucestershire County Council has spent around half a million pounds keeping this information secret. With the support of the community, we had been working on a much cheaper waste processing plant and would have bid for the contract. Our plant would have increased recycling, reduced pollution and would have been a better deal for the environment and the taxpayer.”

Tom Jarman, another board member says: “There is a strict 30 days limit to bringing this sort of claim and it seems to us that the council timed the disclosure of the relevant information strategically, just before Christmas, so to make it almost impossible for anyone to bring legal action in time. Keeping a 30% increase in cost secret from the public and its own audit committee is not the way we expect a public authority to conduct itself.”

https://www.unitynews.co/people-of-gloucestershire-have-to-sue-their-own-council/

Hat-Gate: disgraced Seaton ex-Mayor Peter Burrows scandal update

“Calls have been made for the former mayor of Seaton to immediately resign as a town and district councillor after he called for residents to avoid a local business on what purported to be a Tourist Information Centre Twitter account.

At Monday night’s full council meeting, Seaton town council unanimously voted for a motion calling for the immediate resignation of Cllr Peter Burrows as a Seaton town councillor and as an East Devon District Councillor, where he represents the Seaton ward.

Cllr Burrows had stepped down as Mayor at a town council meeting on January 7 as he brought the office into disrepute when he called for residents to avoid a local business on what purported to be a Tourist Information Centre Twitter account, but continued in his role as a councillor.

The Tweet, posted by Cllr Burrows, had said: ‘Here in Seaton, Devon, we have a local business who badmouths the Mayor. Please Avoid’.

It had followed a public argument about fox hunting on the Facebook page ‘Seaton Views’, to which Cllr Burrows took exception to being called a ‘very naughty word’.

The business that Cllr Burrows had then called on residents to avoid on Twitter, The Hat, was not involved in any way in the argument, other than the individual involved in the argument occasionally frequenting the pub.

Gary Millar, proprietor of The Hat, had not been involved in the altercation and was therefore an entirely innocent party.

Cllr Burrows did not attend the meeting and has not responded to requests from the Local Democracy Reporting Service for comment.

Speaking at Monday’s meeting, Mr Millar said that it was inexplicable of Mr Burrows to make a direct attack on him using his title of mayor, and it was a grossly stupid response from any public official and it still not clear why he chose to attach The Hat.

He added: “I have yet to receive a proper apology from Mr. Burrows. His statement of resignation last week did not make it clear that I was not the person who insulted him, then he justified his actions, and finally boorishly he ended with him giving himself a pat on the back for a job well done. Unfortunately, any apology at this time now sounds hollow.”

Mr Millar added: “On the afternoon of New Year’s Day, Mr. Burrows had a very public argument about fox hunting with a private individual on the Facebook page ‘Seaton Views’. This escalated to a robust exchange of views between the two protagonists and Mr Burrows, who is surely used to the rough and tumble of political debate, took exception to being called a very naughty word.

“His inexplicable reaction was to use his title of Seaton Mayor to make a direct attack on me, accusing me of being disparaging to the mayor, and to tell thousands of subscribers to a Twitter page called @SeatonTIC, to avoid my business. On the face of it this was the official Seaton Tourist Information Centre page. This is a grossly stupid response from any public official in any circumstances. You could not make it up.

“It is not at all clear why Mr Burrows chose The Hat as opposed to the many other local businesses that his detractor frequents. Surely, as a public official involved in my various applications, he would have known who I was?”

Mr Millar said that he does not use social media for anything other than professional reasons, and said that although both @SeatonTIC and Seaton Views are ostensibly neutral and exist for the benefit of the people of and visitors to Seaton, it is disturbing that they are administered by a public official without a clear declaration of interest.

He added: “For example, Mr Burrows selectively deleted his unsavoury exchange on Seaton Views and blocked his detractor from the site. Yet he also closed the @SeatonTIC page entirely, not at the request from the Council as reported, but unilaterally overnight on January 1 after legal action was threatened against the then unknown poster.

“This had two effects. First, we are unable to see how many people viewed his tweet to assess the damage caused. Secondly, imagine the impression given to thousands of potential holidaymakers following what they would reasonably have considered the formal Seaton Tourist Information Twitter page. A strange tweet from the town Mayor attacking a local small business, followed by an unexplained blackout. This cannot be good for either my business or the image of the town as a whole.

“I would argue that these actions were not a selfless act by Mr. Burrows, or in the interests of myself or Seaton, but a means of covering tracks.”

Mr Millar said that he views both the local and district councils legally culpable for his actions, regardless of these being rogue or not, and expects them both the local and district council to do their legal duty and mitigate any damage against him.

He added: “This includes a full and open investigation of Mr Burrows’ conduct in office, including on social media, and disciplinary or legal action wherever possible. This motion of no confidence, and the complaint to the East Devon Monitoring Officer is a positive response by the Seaton Town Council.”

Mr Millar, who opened The Hat last year, added: “Despite undoubted damage to my business, the support of my regulars, and other public support helps me believe that moving to Seaton to open up a new and innovative business was the right decision. My sincere thanks to you all and I hope to continue to serve you real ales, ciders and other fine beverages in a friendly environment for many years to come.”

A motion debated at the meeting, which was unanimously agreed, said: “This Council condemns the actions of Cllr Burrows, as behaviour not befitting someone holding public office, and calls for his immediate resignation as a Seaton Town Councillor and EDDC District Councillor.

“In a personal capacity he posted defamatory statements about a local business on social media, but used an account purported to be an official account and referring to himself in the capacity of Mayor. Cllr Burrows has admitted his actions were unacceptable and that the target of his comments was an entirely innocent party. He has shown he lacks the integrity to remain a Councillor and to represent the people of Seaton and East Devon.”

At the previous meeting, Cllr Burrows had unreservedly apologised for his remarks that he made after what he said were ‘disgusting personal comments’ that had been made against him and said that he deeply regretted writing the Tweet.

A town council spokesman had previously said: “Seaton town council wishes to make it clear that despite using the term “Mayor” and using what purported to be a Tourist Information Centre account, Cllr Burrows was not authorised to use his title for personal matters, nor was he authorised to represent the TIC.

“He was acting in a purely private capacity and the Council dissociates itself from his actions.”

The council has reported Cllr Burrows to the Monitoring Officer at East Devon District Council for breaching the code of conduct.

An East Devon District Council spokesman said they were unable to comment.”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/former-mayor-should-resign-immediately-2470917

How to regulate the home rental markets? An idea from (wait for it) Brussels!

“Types of properties and contracts in Brussels

Belgian rental contracts have some quirks, particularly the standard of a nine-year contract (often known as a 3-6-9 contract as the landlord can only increase the base rent every three years). Read more about regulation and contacts in our guide to renting in Belgium.

Short or long term?

In Belgium, a short-term contract is three years or less, however, the standard contract of nine years can actually be more flexible. Short-term contracts impose a penalty for giving notice before the end of the contract; in many cases, you will be charged for the full duration of the contract if you leave early.

Longer contracts – from nine years to the long-term contract of up to 25 years or ‘for life’ – impose penalties (up to three months’ rent) for giving notice in the first three years; after four years, no penalty applies for breaking a contract. Even where penalties apply, the tenant can give three months’ notice at any time.

On the other side, landlords will also have to pay a penalty of several months’ rent to the tenant if they give the tenant notice to leave.”

https://www.expatica.com/be/housing/renting/renting-in-brussels-445862/

Party discipline? Not in our party’s backyard!

A little bird tells Owl that an East Devon resident is having trouble making a complaint about a local councillor who represents a mainstream political party in East Devon.

The councillor’s party seems to want to wash its hands of any involvement by saying that, as it has no whip (smirk) at a local level, so its hands are tied, and suggests waiting out a Monitoring Officer complaint before even thinking about action within its own party at a higher regional or national level.

But, as we all know, Monitoring Officers can take months and months to investigate complaints.

How convenient then that waiting several months for a Monitoring Officer report would allow any councillor who is the subject of a serious complaint to stand for their party in the next district election in May 2019 – with voters unaware that a such complaint is being investigated …

“Academy schools ‘not accountable enough’ “

“Academy schools are not “sufficiently transparent or accountable to parents and local communities”, MPs have said.

Half of all children in English state-funded schools are educated by academy trusts, the Public Accounts Committee noted, in a report out today.

Academies have greater freedoms than local authority-maintained schools and can set staff pay and conditions, determine their own curriculum and are directly responsible for financial as well as educational performance.

But the PAC report said that parents and local people “have to fight to obtain even basic information” about trusts, and they do not explain decisions on how they are spending public money.

PAC chair Meg Hillier said: “When things go wrong in schools, pupils can be badly affected. We have seen the troubling consequences of poor governance and oversight of academy trusts government must raise its game to ensure the failures of the past are not repeated.

“Parents and the wider community are entitled to proper access to transparent information about their local academy schools. They must have confidence that when issues arise, robust measures are in place to deal with them.”

Academies have been criticised in recent years for paying excessive salaries to members of staff.

The Education and Skills Funding Agency had tried to tackle this issue, on the PAC’s advice, the committee noted.

The ESFA wrote to 29 single academies in November 2017 asking for justification of salaries over £150,000.

But, the committee said, the ESFA action alone would not prevent academy staff being paid excessive salaries.

The PAC also noted that Ofsted and ESFA are not able to assess the impact of funding pressures on the quality of education and the outcomes schools achieve.

It recommended the ESFA should require academy trusts, in the academies financial handbook 2019, to make financial information more readily available. The guidance should also require academies to be more transparent about governance and decision-making at all levels. …”

https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2019/01/academy-schools-not-accountable-enough