Daily Archives: 13 Jul 2019

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Jul 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Axminster, East Devon economy, East Devon Tories, EDDC, Hugo Swire, Neil Parish, Regeneration

Tory Councillor blames Tory Government for abandoning Axminster and pleads with Parish and Swire for help

Axminster Conservative Councillor Ian Hall has challenged the area’s two Conservative MPs to press for more credible support from Westminster after the town suffered another in a series of economic setbacks.

The Conservative district councillor, who was re-elected to represent the town in May, despite his party losing control of East Devon after 45 years, says he feels the Tory administration in Westminster has abandoned the town.

This follows news that the Government has rebuffed Axminster’s application for help from a Future High Streets Fund grant at the second stage.

The former Conservative administration at EDDC applied to Westminster in March for Axminster to receive a share of the £675 million set aside as part of Government’s Our Plan for the High Street.

It became clear that Axminster had lost out when the shortlist of successful bids for up to £150,000 was announced last week, with the nearest places to go forward being Taunton and Yeovil.

Ian Hall said: “Axminster seems to be the forgotten town of East Devon when it comes to any kind of support from Central Government. There’s been a catalogue of decisions going against us, which have left those of us who are working hard to revitalise the town during challenging economic times feeling like nobody in power cares about us.

POSITIVE ACTION

“I’ve now contacted our two local MPs – Neil Parish and Hugo Swire – challenging them to press colleagues in Government to recognise that Axminster will be in dire straits if it doesn’t see some positive action”.

In March, Ian Hall described a Whitehall decision to backtrack on an earlier promise of a £10 million grant for the proposed Axminster Relief Road as a ‘betrayal’ because changing the grant to a loan rendered the entire Axminster Masterplan unviable.

Since then, there’s been more gloom for Axminster, with Goulds announcing an autumn closure of the town’s Trinity House department store and McColls newsagent in Victoria Place expected to cease trading.

An angry Ian Hall said: “Enough is enough. Axminster is fighting for its life at the moment. There are people in this town – and I’m one of them – working incredibly hard to keep ourselves afloat against really tough odds. But all we’re getting from this Government [HIS GOVERNMENT!!!] is one kick in the teeth after another.

FIGHTING

“There’s only so much people here on the ground can do. I’m fighting Axminster’s corner at district and county level. But our local efforts can only make a difference if we get support from central funds. No one at Westminster seems to understand the desperate position we are in – let alone care about it. If you take away people’s hope, why shouldn’t they just give up?

“I’m hoping the two men who local people elected to protect our interests [!] will start rattling some cages in Westminster. We will soon have a new Prime Minister and a fresh administration in Whitehall. I’m challenging our MPs to get Axminster on their radar and to secure some tangible recognition of our town’s fantastic record of self-help.

“Meanwhile, we also have a new administration running East Devon. I also challenge them to do their bit, as a matter of urgency, to help our fantastic town to thrive and prosper”.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Jul 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Budleigh Salterton, Clinton Devon Estates, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Inequality, NHS (local)

Comments

1 Comment

Clinton Devon Estates and Newton Poppleford – a lesson from Budleigh Salterton

The people of Budleigh Salterton would advise the people of Newton Poppleford not to hold out much hope in acquiring a surgery or anything of benefit to the village. (see East Devon Watch 11 July) They have been down a very similar route with Clinton Devon Estates.

The failure of the BS Neighbourhood Plan to include all the hospital garden as open space, leaving only under a half leased to the new hospital hub left Clinton Devon Estates controlling the other half. A planning application was submitted for the construction of 2 open market dwellings and associated access in its plot. Like Newton Poppleford the estate lodged an appeal against the delay in making a decision by EDDC. However, the Inspector turned down this on appeal concluding that the benefit to the town of building two houses in the garden was outweighed by the negative effect upon the recreational space within this part of Budleigh Salterton.

“In the absence of evidence to indicate that the remaining garden would adequately meet the needs of visitors to the health and well-being hub, in relation to this main issue, the proposal would have a negative effect upon availability of recreational space within this part of Budleigh Salterton, contrary to LP Strategy 6. The proposal would not result in an enhancement of the retained garden and so would not comply with LP Policy RC1.”

So what did CDE do? Did this estate whose motto is

DOING TODAY WHAT IS RIGHT FOR TOMORROW

allow the continued access to this land which cottage hospital patients had enjoyed since 1887?

No, the estate chose to ignore the spirit of the Planning Inspectorate’s decision.

They erected a fence. I am sure many of Owl’s readers have seen the “abomination” (BS Journal Feb. 15 2018) and may have seen children confined to playing in just under a half of the garden.

So those patients living in Newton Poppleford and seeking to consult their GP will have to continue to travel to Ottery St Mary. (Remember that Newton Poppleford is within the Ottery St. Mary practise boundary, not the nearer Sidmouth!) If they rely on public transport there is no direct bus route, patients have to travel into Exeter and out again, a distance of around 23 miles with a round trip time of at least 2hrs 30 mins. (and don’t ask about the cost)!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Jul 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Education (local)

“‘Vanity project’: debts pile up for English free schools scheme”

“Part of the government’s flagship free schools programme is facing mounting financial difficulties because of its unpopularity with parents and pupils, with schools forced to pay back millions of pounds to the Department for Education and cut staff after failing to attract and retain students.

University technical colleges (UTCs), a type of free school in England that was launched in 2010, ran up debts of £14m last year after many fell short of their forecasts for pupil numbers. Others had to borrow money from the DfE’s funding arm, throwing into question their long-term viability.

Research by the Price Bailey accountancy firm disclosed to the Guardian reveals that 31 out of 40 UTCs with published accounts owe money to the DfE’s education and skills funding agency (ESFA), including 25 schools owing a total of £8.6m after educating fewer pupils than they received funding for through their general annual grant. …

Price Bailey said it had analysed the accounts of 40 of the 50 UTCs operating last year and found that only nine were operating within their budgets, with 31 recording deficits and one or more outstanding debts to the DfE, including 10 owing nearly £4.7m in general loans to cover running costs and three with working capital loans adding up to nearly £1m.”

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/jul/13/vanity-project-debts-pile-up-for-english-free-schools-scheme?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Jul 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Housing (local)

“Permission granted for ‘ridiculous’ flats smaller than TAXIS that ‘ignore basic needs’ “

“Developers planning on building two flats each smaller than a London taxi have been given permission by the local council.

The two ‘studio’ flats – one 90sq ft and the other 97sq ft – are planned for a disused building in Purley, south London, and were given the green light by Croydon council last year under permitted development rules.

Just two thirds of the size of most parking spaces, the cramped properties are part of plans for the building which also includes a 240sq ft two-bedroom ground floor apartment.

The building’s owner, Andrew Weinstein, has other plans for a 300sq ft three-bedroom space and a 280sq ft two-bedroom apartment on the first floor, but building work is yet to start.

Rules in London state studio flats must be at least 400sq ft, according to Mail Online.

The two flats have been described as the smallest allowed under the rules.

Julia Park, head of housing research for architects Levitt Bernstein, described the properties as “ridiculously small” with very little light.

Developers do not face the usual scrutiny under permitted development rights, with no size restrictions on flats and few ways of councils turning down applications, the Times reported.

Landlords have been accused of ‘disregarding basic human needs’ by ‘exploiting planning loopholes’.

It comes another scheme to convert a warehouse in Barnet, north London, into a 107-flat block with 56 not having an outwards facing window, sparked outrage with locals.

Complaints flooded in against the plans submitted by the Cowell Group, with locals saying the cramped spaces could lead to mental health problems for those living there.

The Barnet Society, made up of residents, said it was “a cynical exploitation of planning loopholes — compounded by disregard for basic human needs”.

The plans, by Adrian Levy and Nicholas Cowell and rival developer Dandi Living, show that even the apartments with an outwards-facing window only have one, with some sharing corridors with a row of offices.

Ali Reza Ravenshad from Dandi Living claimed his company was not going to build the tiny flats and was “playing the planning game”.

Mr Weinstein did not reply to requests for comment from the Times or MailOnline.

The Cowell Group and Dandi Living said they “take great pride in their track record for delivering high end, aesthetic and affordable housing”.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/permission-granted-ridiculous-flats-smaller-18195135

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Jul 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, East Devon Electoral/Returning Officer, EDDC, Mark Williams CEO EDDC, Voting

“An election could happen at any time – electoral law needs to be urgently updated”

Owl says: recalling the mess EDDC’s CEO made of past elections (where he “lost” 6,000 voters), and when he was later forced to explain himself (not all that well) to a parliamentary committee:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2014/10/14/official-transcript-of-eddc-ceo-evidence-to-parliamentary-committee-on-voter-engagement/

this is LONG overdue!

“Last week, the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) committee published its response to the government’s Online Harms White Paper, where it called for urgent legislation to safeguard future elections. Echoing the ERS’s calls, the committee noted that ‘[w]ere an election or referendum to take place later this year, campaigns would be fought using electoral law that is wholly inadequate for the digital age.’

The government’s long-awaited white paper on online harms was published in April 2019 and offered a package of measures to tackle online harms (e.g. cyberbullying and disinformation) and to regulate internet companies who do not adequately protect their users. This would be achieved by establishing a new statutory duty of care towards users, which would make tech companies responsible for users’ safety online and tackle harm caused by content or activity on their services. Compliance with this duty would be overseen by a new independent regulator. Both the duty of care requirement and the establishment of a regulator were proposals included in the DCMS committee’s Final Report on Disinformation and ‘fake news’.

While it welcomed the (limited) measures proposed to tackle disinformation, in its response the DCMS committee said it was ‘disappointed’ with the ‘scant focus’ the white paper paid to the urgent changes that are needed around electoral interference and online political advertising.

In particular, the committee said that the measures included in the white paper to tackle digital campaigning were limited and did not address the committee’s recommendations on creating a category for digital spending on campaigns (currently parties and campaigners do not need to provide a breakdown of online spend) and a searchable public repository where information on political advertising material would be available.

The committee also lamented the fact that white paper did not acknowledge the risks of foreign investments in elections or the role and power of unpaid campaigns and Facebook groups in influencing elections and referendums. Regarding the first point, the committee will be taking further evidence this month on how anti-money laundering regulations may be adapted to digital campaigning, particularly given the use of online payment systems such as PayPal.

Despite the government’s commitment to extending imprints (disclosures stating who paid for and promoted campaign material) to online election material, the committee voiced concern about ‘how long it may take in practice for digital imprints to be enshrined in legislation’ given the government’s lack of urgency in addressing the committee’s other proposals.

The committee is therefore calling for ‘urgent legislation’ to be brought forward at once so as to bring electoral law in line with digital campaigning techniques, particularly with regards to digital imprints, and has asked the government to respond by 24 July with a commitment on this.

Most of the calls reiterated by the DCMS committee in their report on the online harms white paper have also been made by the ERS and our contributors in our report on online campaign regulation, Reining in the Political ‘Wild West’: Campaign Rules for the 21st Century, namely:

  • Extending the imprint requirement to online campaign materials and improving how campaigners report funding and spending.
  • Creating a single online database of political adverts, which would be publicly available and easily searchable.
  • Ensuring that those charged with enforcing the rules have sufficient enforcement powers and resources that act as a meaningful deterrent against wrongdoing.
  • Establishing a statutory code of practice for political parties and campaignersaround online campaigning and the use of personal data.
  • Comprehensively reviewing our electoral law, ensuring that it is updated and future-proofed for the digital age.

Protecting the integrity of our elections and referendums is vital to ensuring public confidence in our democratic processes, and we welcome the DCMS committee’s calls for updating our outdated campaign rules. We hope the government will tackle this unregulated online Wild West with the urgency it deserves.”

An election could happen at any time – electoral law needs to be urgently updated