Old Owl (OO) has been fully retired for six months now and has nothing but praise for New Owl (NO) and no intention of stirring from the bliss of being able to self-isolate from the day-to-day crises that seem to envelop East Devon and, in particular, East Devon District Council.  But OO cannot resist the temptation to say “I warned you” and “I told you so” in equal measure.

Some may recall OO’s warning in May last year that all was not what it seemed with Mr Ingham’s “the Independent Group” (TIG).  In summary, OO maintained that it was neither Independent, nor a Group.  Indeed, OO chose the name “Tigger Tories” to describe a hastily-cobbled together partnership of so-called Independents with their supposed enemies, the much-depleted Tories.  

Rather than form a coalition with the East Devon Alliance and/or Lib Dems, Ingham chose to bring Tories into his fold and offered them plum jobs – such as making Tory and ex-Monster Raving Loony Stewart Hughes Chairman of the Council (that went well, didn’t it!).

Added to this toxic mix were several so-called Independent councillors who, up until just before the election, had espoused completely mainline Tory doctrine and, indeed, were seen almost exclusively in Tory company.  These councillors were (and still are) Independents in name only.

OO said it was a recipe for disaster – and indeed it was!

Now we hear from former East Devon Alliance councillor then Independent Group cabinet member   Geoff Jung (keep up) that what prompted him to defect from Tigger Tories was Ingham’s plans to bring in even more Tories to shore up his crumbling regime.  Jung (who has been an impeccable Cabinet member for the Environment) changed his allegiance (as any honourable Independent Group member should) but, although he says Ingham asked him to stay on in that role, which he agreed to do, only hours later, when the whole Cabinet “resigned” he was told that, in fact, he had just been fired!

So, after Hughes’s disgraceful intervention to save his job and save the Tigger Tories by refusing to call the EDDC Annual Meeting, or indeed any other meeting, prompting Ingham’s downfall – where does that leave us?

A Tory minority

An Independent Group minority

A coalition of at least 4 or 5 different but also vaguely similar groups that make up a +1 majority

Not a recipe for success, as just one or two fence-sitters or sabotagers could bring the whole council down again.

What is the solution?

Well, OO has a radical suggestion!  Those REAL independents still cleaving to Ingham should join whatever the new +1 Alliance calls itself (“The Alliance of Independent East Devon Progesssive Liberal Greens with Stragglers” perhaps!) and form a REAL majority of councillors working together for the benefit of East Devon.

Can it be done?

Owl isn’t sure but surely the thing is to TRY – anything is better than the current mess.

Oh, and where is CEO Mr Williams in all this?  Rather like Boris Johnson, he is conspicuous by his absence (has anyone looked in his office fridge?).  Come on, show yourself, sir – even if it is to show you have every intention of sabotaging the emerging change because it threatens your iron grip – have the courage of your “never change, never explain, never appear at Scrutiny” convictions so we all know where we, and you, stand!

Old Owl is exhausted now and must go for its nap and await the outcome of the meeting to decide whether to have a meeting …. Some things never change!

From a correspondent: 

Clyst St Mary residents are very disappointed that Burrington Estates’ major development proposals for Winslade Park (which were exhibited at a recent Public Consultation in the Clyst St Mary Village Hall) were very different to those that are now submitted to East Devon District Council Planning in Application Number 20/1001/MOUT.

This appears to make a mockery of the whole process of Developers’ informing local communities of proposals and seems a mere ‘box-ticking’ exercise to satisfy bureaucratic administrative requirements. It shows contempt for localism and the democratic rights and powers for communities and the people who live in East Devon and has now resulted in a lack of trust between the residents and Burrington Estates that proudly advertise their Company as a quality, award-winning developer.

The Public Consultation included many innovative ideas for the regeneration of Winslade Park that were, indeed, imaginative and exciting and appealed to the community. However, the bad news is that, once again, Developers’ greed has reared its ugly head and they have now attempted to squeeze two pints into a pint pot – thus ruining what could have been one of the most incredible developments in Devon and beyond.

Instead of refurbishing some of the commercial floorspace to provide housing on this vast brownfield area, Burringtons have opted to divert 78 residential houses on to a valued, community sports field (that was not included in the original Public Consultation exhibition) and an adjacent agricultural field. Furthermore, since the Public Consultation, they have replaced the design of a cluster of 14 traditional houses sited opposite the Grade II Listed Manor House to now be replaced by a hideous, three-storey rectangular box design to accommodate a further 59 apartments, that is contrary to the Design Statement in the Neighbourhood Plan. These will overlook existing residents’ properties from two of the storeys, especially during six months of the year when the deciduous trees behind them will provide very little screening!

The 150 allocation for homes on the brownfield areas in the Local Plan does not give carte blanche to divert major residential development to green field areas. These green field areas are specifically protected against development in both the 2016 East Devon Local Development Plan to 2031 (incorporating the 2018 Villages Plan) and in the 2017 Made Bishops Clyst Neighbourhood Plan. Moreover, these green field areas are outside of the 2018 Clyst St Mary Built-Up Area Boundaries for development.

Having obviously had an awareness of the challenges before purchasing this large commercial site (including high risk flood areas) – their submission now maintains that they must build on green fields to achieve viability for the whole masterplan, whilst developing more business units and car parking on high risk flood zones because they believe these uses pose a less vulnerable flood risk than housing!

By substantially increasing the past employment floorspace to provide around 3,000 jobs (compared to a peak of around 1,500 jobs in the past) plus the traffic from 137 new homes will result in complete traffic gridlock at peak times for this village and the wider community.

They appear not to see the error of their ways but, hopefully, East Devon District Council Planners can salvage the best of such an incredible development opportunity and advise them to submit more high-grade designs and quality rather than quantity!

Why service station and McDonald’s drive-thru near Ottery was refused – (a rare event,  savour the moment, Owl)

“I work for the NHS as a doctor. I don’t work “on the frontline” because there isn’t one; I’m not in the army and we aren’t engaged in military combat. But I do work as a consultant on a ward where we have had Covid-19, and colleagues of mine have been very unwell. The requirement to be constantly vigilant and to manage the infection risk makes work more difficult, more stressful, and at times more tragic.”

The decision by DCC to go ahead with the investment to buy the Flybe Training Academy and turn it into a high-tech skills site was made at last Wednesday’s cabinet meeting in a private session following the exclusion of the press and public.

(Owl thought all strategic decisions of this sort were planned, made and funded by Heart of the South West (HotSW) our Local Enterprise Partnership and proto-devolution body. Owl has heard very little about HotSW recently. Surely this should be part of HotSW productivity strategy. )

Local authorities are likely to be banned from investing in commercial property for the purpose of boosting revenues.

On Monday, Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee wrote a 19 page letter to the Prime Minister outlining the committee’s investigation into the early handling of the pandemic. In the damning letter the MPs say that the failure to explain why the government dropped community testing is unacceptable. Owl has now found the link to the letter.

Starting on page 9 it says:

“The decision to pursue an approach of initially concentrating testing in a limited number of laboratories and to expand them gradually, rather than an approach of surging capacity through a large number of available public sector, research institute, university and private sector labs is one of the most consequential made during this crisis. From it followed the decision on 12 March to cease testing in the community and retreat to testing principally within hospitals.

“Amongst other consequences, it meant that residents in care homes—even those displaying COVID-19 symptoms—and care home workers could not be tested at a time when the spread of the virus was at its most rampant.

“The failure of PHE [Public Health England] to publish the evidence on which its testing policy was based is unacceptable for a decision that may have had such significant consequences. The absence of disclosure may indicate that—notwithstanding the oral evidence given to the Committee—no rigorous assessment was in fact made by PHE of other countries’ approach to testing. That would be of profound concern since the necessity to consider the approaches taken by others with experience of pandemics is obvious.

There is plenty more to read in the remaining 19 pages.

What the letter has done is to kick off a blame game between Ministers, “the” Science and PHE. To some extent both the Government Chief Scientist, Sir Patrick Vallance, and the Chief Medical Office, Prof. Chris Whitty have left themselves open to become scapegoats by failing to draw a distinction between advisor and political decision maker, flanking the Prime Minister at the first “follow the science” broadcast.

The attempts by Ministers to distance themselves from their decisions by drawing a distinction between “operational” decisions (eg made by PHE) and “policy” decisions they make, can be traced back to Margaret Thatcher’s privatisation campaign when many government functions were privatised or turned into quasi-autonomous agencies or quangos. Ultimately, it can’t succeed because of the bottom line: it’s Ministers who allocate the resources and set up the organisational structures.

The President of the Royal Society has also weighed in on the science:”….. there is often no such thing as following “the” science. Reasonable scientists can disagree on important points, but the government still has to make decisions.”

Yesterday’s Times editorial points to structural problems as well. These are obviously a government responsibility but the Times, however, does allocate blame.

The Times view on the response to coronavirus of Public Health England: Official Failure

Boris Johnson told backbench Tory MPs last week that he was planning to review a “number of institutions” once the pandemic was over. Top of the list should be Public Health England (PHE), the quango responsible for preparing for and responding to health emergencies. There was nothing preordained about Britain’s grim Covid death toll, now the highest in Europe. Clearly mistakes were made. A damning new report by the Commons science and technology committee identifies the source of some of them. It highlights serious failures at PHE, which it blames for crucial delays in introducing testing.

One of the quango’s biggest mistakes, according to the committee, was to limit testing to its own laboratories and expand gradually, rather than making immediate use of available lab space in universities and the private sector. This despite early evidence from countries such as South Korea that mass testing would be crucial in stemming the pandemic. The report calls that decision “one of the most consequential made during this crisis”. This meant that those in care homes could not be tested at a time when the spread of the virus was at its most rampant. PHE has since compounded these errors by omitting to publish the evidence on which its testing policy was based, despite requests to do so over several weeks by the science and technology committee.

That will raise suspicions of a third error of judgment, that PHE’s decision was not made using the best evidence available at the time. Nor does it suggest that the agency is willing to learn from or even examine its mistakes. On March 25 its director, Sharon Peacock, appeared in front of the committee and promised that finger-prick tests would be available on the high street within days. Weeks later, the country is still waiting.

Of course the agency is not solely to blame for the testing fiasco. As the report points out, the government has not been transparent about the scientific advice that underpinned its own decision-making. Of the 120 papers used to inform meetings of the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), 92 have remained secret. Meanwhile, the agency in its response to the report insisted that it was “not responsible” for the testing strategy, which it said fell under the Department of Health and Social Care. It denied that it had tried to “constrain” testing in private laboratories.

This suggests that the real problem may be baked into the structure of the institution. The quango was created in 2013 in an attempt to devolve responsibility for operational decision-making on a wide range of health issues from ministers to officials. It is supposed to function as an intermediary between central government, local government and medics. Yet the exact scope of its power and duties seems ill-defined, leading to confusion as to where real responsibility lies and doubts regarding its organisational capabilities. The result appears to have been the opposite of what was intended. Ministers continue to be held responsible for decisions over which they may now have even less control.

When the crisis is over the government will have to consider how this structure might be reformed. In the meantime it faces an urgent question. PHE is in charge of running the contact tracing scheme, on which plans to lift the lockdown rely. The question is whether it is up to the job.

Owl hopes this reflects an increase in testing, rather than any underlying increase. However, the Covid-19 symptom tracker app is showing that the national estimated symptom rate, which had been falling, has now levelled off.

Owl, ever vigilant, is watching the estimated symptom rates for: East Devon; Torbay: South Hams and North Devon. There have been small upticks in some of these districts, which may not be statistically significant, since locked down was eased.

The dying regime rolls over on their policy of “pepper potting” affordable clusters across a development to Eagle One – Owl.

Daniel Clark  eastdevonnews.co.uk 

As a result of Monday’s Headlines:

“East Devon District Council leader Cllr Ben Ingham and Independent Group Cabinet resign”

One of the Cabinet members who had “resigned”, Geoff Jung, (previously the Environment Portfolio holder for the Environment) received a number of messages.

He wants, through Owl, to put the record straight.

One message he received read:

“I must write to express my dismay at the goings on at East Devon District Council.

I voted for you in the last election in the hope that you would represent the members of my community, however it seems that playing politics at the time of a national crisis is more important to you and your fellow councillors.

How could you even think of taking the actions you have, you are thinking of yourself, furthering your own aims and totally ignoring those you represent.

I really feel you should consider resigning from your position and give us the opportunity to vote for someone who would be more interested in representing the members of our community rather than themselves.”

The reply that Cllr Geoff Jung has sent reads:

“I am also totally dismayed at the goings-on at East Devon. Unfortunately, not all the information you have read in the Press is correct, nor is it of my making.

I stood as an Independent Councillor with Ben Ingham obtaining a resounding vote against the Conservative candidates. However, a few weeks ago the Leader of the Council, Ben Ingham when realising that his position as Leader was in jeopardy suggested that he would approach the Conservatives to invite them to nominate 3 candidates to be on the ruling “Cabinet” of 10 councillors. This unfortunately was a red line for me. I could not support this proposal, but at the same time I considered that leaving my work as Environment Portfolio holder and a Cabinet member at this time of an Emergency would not be appropriate either. Therefore it was agreed that I could resign as a member of his ‘Independent Group’  and continue in my Cabinet role, “for the time being”

In fact there was an article in the Press only last weekend that quoted Cllr Ingham saying he praised the hard work I had carried out for the Council over the last year, and it would be inappropriate to sack me at this time of an emergency.

On the day following the press article on Monday I received a disturbing Press Release from EDDC and Cllr Ben Ingham stating that he and his Cabinet had resigned on block. At no time did I resign, but I have now been told by the Returning Officer that Cllr Ingham terminated my position and that of 2 other Councillors  (which is his gift) and then resigned himself along with the remaining Cabinet on block!

There had been some previous resignations from the Independent Group over the last few months and a proposed vote of no confidence of the leader of the Independents by the Conservative Group in February and therefore a change of administration was expected. The recent move that I have made to the Democratic Group is exactly that. It allows me to retain my independent views, without a party whip. This is a coalition of 21 Independents, 2 Green, and 8 Liberal Councillors who are working to form an administration. We would have preferred a simple handing over at a council meeting, but Cllr Ingham’s decision on Monday, which shocked and appalled me, due to its timing, has left the Council without any administration at all.

We have now set a date for the Council to meet on the 28th May to consider a new Cabinet which is the earliest that the constitution allows.

I hope to continue as an Independent Councillor and provide the help and support to our residents as the exit from this emergency is going to be long and challenging! Whilst I appreciate how shocking this is for all those who voted for us, I can only assure you that I have constantly worked for the good of the community and this was not a “political promotion” on my behalf. I hope this explanation goes some way to alleviating your concerns.”

Owl has found a series of extraordinary EDDC meetings scheduled for Thursday 28 May 

Agenda for an Extraordinary Virtual meeting of the Council

Thursday, 28th May, 2020, 5.00 pm

Motion: to determine whether to hold a meeting to elect positions

‘Should the Council hold an Extraordinary General Meeting on 8th June 2020 at

6pm to elect the positions of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Council.’

Agenda for an Extraordinary Virtual meeting of the Council

Thursday, 28th May, 2020, 5.30pm

Motion: to elect a Leader and receive the Leader’s appointments

‘Following the resignation of Cllr Ben Ingham as the Leader that the Council elect

a new Leader for the remainder of the civic year and that Council receive the

Leader’s appointments of the Deputy Leader and the Cabinet and their Portfolios’.

Owl notices that an extraordinary meeting the previous day has been cancelled. The motion for that meeting read:

Motion – to determine whether to hold a meeting to elect positions
‘Should the Council hold an Extraordinary General Meeting on 4th June 2020 at
6pm to elect the positions of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Leader of the Council
and to receive the Leader’s appointments of the Deputy Leader and the Cabinet

This scramble to remain within the constitution is entirely the result of the indefensible action taken to cancel the Annual Meeting. Constitutionally this meeting must be held in May.

A remaining question: there are other appointments made at the annual meeting, particularly for committees – Owl doesn’t see this on either agenda.

The EDDC Annual Meeting (for those who don’t know) is constitutionally and democratically the most important meeting of the municipal year. In summary, the reason for its importance is that it is the point in the year when the Council Chairman and Leader, and their deputies are voted into office. The required Overview, Scrutiny and Standards Committees are appointed. The Council makes the selection and appointment of Councillors on Committees and Outside Bodies (like the GESP – Greater Exeter Strategic Plan). It decides which other committees to form; their size and Terms of Reference; and the allocation of seats to political groups in accordance with the political balance rules (although this doesn’t apply to the Cabinet). The Leader appoints the Cabinet.

As a comment has reminded us, constitutionally, the Annual Meeting is held in May. So Owl has been pondering how and why the decision to cancel this year’s meeting could have been taken. Especially, in circumstances when the political tectonic plates had shifted to place the governing coalition in a minority. Owl might understand a postponement to allow the Democratic Alliance and Progressive Independents to fully finalise their memorandum of understanding, but not a cancellation whose only aim could have been to frustrate any change.

The social media comments from the Democratic Alliance on 17 May made it clear that the decision was made by Cllr Stuart Hughes, the Conservative Party chairman of EDDC. Owl thinks it inconceivable that he didn’t have the support of others as well. Luckily, wiser heads have prevailed and Cllr. Ben Ingham, the Leader, and his Cabinet have resigned, clearing the way for a transition.

Owl can’t understand why, in the absence of anyone else, Officers didn’t intervene. Having spent hours researching the roles of Senior Officers and the rules and regulations governing Local Councils, Owl thinks the following paragraphs provide an explanation.

Civil Servants, the Police, the Military and the Judiciary are all “Servants of the Crown” and can speak “truth to power”. Local Government Officers are employed by the Local Authority they serve. The relationship between Councillors and Officers is, therefore, a very close one and in EDDC, until now, the Conservatives have always been in power.

Governments over the years have also taken an increasingly “hands off – light regulation” approach to Local Authorities. There is, for example, no template listing the responsibilities of Chief Executives and Owl understands that attempts to find the job description for the EDDC Chief Executive through FFIs, in the past, have proved unsuccessful.

The interpretation of the planning policy framework is a good example of the freedom Local Authorities have to make their own decisions. Members decide, for example, what weight to attach to protective policies versus economic benefits of development or vice versa when determining applications within Areas of Outstanding Beauty. The policy is guidance open to a wide range of subjective interpretation.

What matters is that Councillors behave “properly”. The core rules governing Councillors’ behaviour is set out in section 28 (1) of the Localism Act 2011 which states: ‘A relevant authority must secure that a code adopted by it under section 27 (2) (a “code of conduct”) is, when viewed as a whole, consistent with the following principles [The seven Nolan principles – see Committee on Standards in Public Life].

It is the role of the Monitoring Officer to ensure the lawfulness and fairness of council decision-making and to provide guidance to Councillors. One has to ask the question where was he in May?
EDDC extends the Nolan principles in paragraph 1.2 of the section of its constitution dealing with Members Code of Conduct as follows:

“You should have regard to the Principles of Public Life namely, Selflessness, Honesty/Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Personal judgment, Respect for others, Duty to uphold the law, Stewardship and Leadership.”

There then follows a number of exhortations to Members and Owl highlights three of them:

Do nothing as a Member which you could not justify to the public.

The reputation of the Council depends on your conduct and what the public believes about your conduct.

It is not enough to avoid actual impropriety, you should at all times avoid any occasion for suspicion or appearance of improper conduct.

The statement by the Democratic Alliance makes it clear that such a decision was made on political grounds. Not only was this undemocratic (it denied the new majority partnership the opportunity to make a smooth transition at the appropriate time) but was made by councillors, Owl suggests, in breach of the Standards.

The decision was clearly not made solely in the public interest but was made in “Self-Interest”. Those who made the decision lacked “Integrity”, “Judgement” and “Openness”, and spectacularly failed to show “Leadership” in that it inevitably brings the Council into disrepute.

In short the decision was indefensible.

Honiton’s MP comes out of hibernation.

Owl thinks readers might be interested in what he says about his recent attempt to amend the Agriculture Bill and his opposition to undercutting standards and the consequences for agriculture.

Last DMC under the dying regime narrowly approves expansion of business park opposite Darts Farm despite it not being part of the Local or Neighbourhood plans.

A corespondent writes:

Just a bit underhand of ex-Leader Ingham playing the Covid 19 card when attempting to explain his resignation (” … Whilst the unique circumstances of an active Covid-19 pandemic are hardly an ideal time for a leadership change “) and that of his entire cabinet.  If he had not wanted a schism at this time surely he might have tried harder to keep his councillors happy?

Owl’s recollection is that this observation came out very clearly from Tim Spector’s innovative work in re-purposing his research to create a symptom tracking phone app, weeks ago (formal peer reviewed paper already published 11 May).

The relatively slow (to Owl) take up of this, demonstrates the difficulty the Government will have in selecting and applying key findings from a fast expanding body of relevant research.

The Government really will have to “Stay Alert”!

Ben Ingham does the decent thing – Owl

This is a recent comment that Owl is upgrading into a post in its own right. It raises fundamental questions about the constitutionality and legality of cancelling the Annual Meeting.

We are in dangerous waters.

Is it allowed by the EDDC Constitution to cancel the Annual Council Meeting?

The rules for the Annual Meeting are enshrined in Part 4 of the Constitution https://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/3453999/part-4-rules-for-procedure.pdf and they state that it MUST take place in May. They also state that it is the responsibility of the CEO and not the Chairman of the Council to call meetings. Given that Council meetings need to be announced at least 5 days in advance (and assuming that the CEO will only do this on working days), that leaves only 5 working days left to call the Annual Meeting.

Or are we simply going to see the same disregard for Constitution and Democracy from the current leadership that we see from the Conservative Government?