Author Archives: East Devon Watch

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Inequality

“’Fat Cat Thursday’: top bosses earn workers’ annual salary by lunchtime”

“Independent study of pay gap finds FTSE 100 bosses earning more in three days than typical worker will receive in entire year

Bosses of top British companies will have made more money by lunchtime on Thursday than the average UK worker will earn in the entire year, according to an independent analysis of the vast gap in pay between chief executives and everyone else.

The chief executives of FTSE 100 companies are paid a median average of £3.45m a year, which works out at 120 times the £28,758 collected by full-time UK workers on average.

On an hourly basis the bosses will have earned more in less than three working days than the average employee will pick up this year, leading campaigners to dub the day “Fat Cat Thursday”. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/04/fat-cat-thursday-top-bosses-earn-workers-annual-salary-by-lunchtime

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Local Plan, Villages BUAB

Greendale, Hill Barton: councillors meet hurridly to try to ensure they can expand and discuss possible loopholes to enable it

EDDC Tory councillors recently very, very hurriedly organised a meeting of their Strategic Planning Committee when they suddenly realised that the Villages Built Up Area Boundary Plan might severely restrict extension of the massive Greendale Business Park and the smaller but ever-growing Hill Barton Business Park.

The ensuing discussion as to how expansion of Greendale and Hill Barton might be inserted into the plan at this very, very late stage, and the loopholes that might be exploited to enable this was very interesting.

Owl says: This is SO SO reminiscent of the attempts to move the goalposts for the proposed business park in Sidford (so ably fought against by Independent EDA councillor Marianne Rixson)
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2016/06/10/how-did-business-park-on-a-sidford-floodplain-come-to-be-in-the-local-plan/

and the time when councillors attempted to add no less than FIVE business parks to the eastern side of East Devon in the Local Plan in March 2015 when CEO Mark Williams said it was not possible to take the Sidbury site out of the Draft Local Plan when it went to the Inspector but it WOULD be possible to ADD five sites! These were: Woodbury Park (Greendale), Addlepool in Clyst St George, Lodge Trading Estate at Broadclyst, Hungry Fox also at Broadclyst and McBains, presumably the site at Exeter Airport.
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/03/30/employment-sites-5-new-sites-sneak-into-the-local-plan/

We are in the consultation period for the EDDC villages plan (consultation closes on 2 February 2018 (see final paragraphs of this post on how to submit a comment)

THE MEETING OF 12 DECEMBER 2017

The East Devon Strategic Planning Committee proposed to change the wording of Policy VP04 and VP05 for Greendale and Hill Barton Business Parks.

The meeting was somewhat controversial as it was held at short notice (8 days) to consider the EDDC Village Plan Consultation. It was agreed that this meeting was to be held urgently but due to the short notice and councillors previous engagements not all councillors where able to attend, with only 7 members of the committee able to attend.

Notes taken from the meeting of the Strategic Planning Committee held at Knowle, Sidmouth on 14 December 2017

For minutes see:

Click to access 141217-strategic-planning-committee-minutes.pdf

Attendance list Committee Members:

Cllr Phil Twiss – Chairman, Cllr Graham Godbeer – Vice Chairman, Cllr Mike Allen, Cllr Colin Brown, Cllr Jill Elson, Cllr Ian Hall, Cllr Mike Howe,
Cllr Philip Skinner

Note that the members present were all Conservative Councillors.

Also present (present for all or part of the meeting):
Councillors: Brian Bailey, David Barratt, Paul Carter(related to the Carters of Greendale) Paul Diviani, Peter Faithfull, Steve Hall

Councillors who could not attend:
Cllr Susie Bond (Independent)
Cllr Geoff Jung (Independent)
Cllr Rob Longhurst (Independent)
Cllr Geoff Pook (Independent)
Cllr Brenda Taylor (Liberal)
Cllr Mark Williamson (Conservative)

Apologies sent: Councillors Susie Bond, Geoff Jung, Rob Longhurst, Geoff Pook, Brenda Taylor and Mark Williamson

Officers present for all or part of the meeting:

Matt Dickins, Planning Policy Manager
Ed Freeman, Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Manager EDDC
Rob Murray, Economic Development Manager EDDC
Shirley Shaw, Planning Barrister EDDC
Hannah Whitfield, Democratic Services Officer EDDC
Mark Williams, Chief Executive EDDC

Notes from the meeting relating to the Business Parks.

Cllr Phillip Skinner, declared an interest as a “personal reason” as he knows the owners of Greendale Business Park and Hill Barton Business Park. A “personal interest” rather than a “pecuniary interest” does not automatically exclude a councillor from contributing to a meeting.

The East Devon Villages Plan, which was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate earlier in the year (June 2017) for examination, had been subject to Planning Inspectors hearing sessions in November 2017 for two days at the Council Offices.

Following on from the hearings, a schedule of “main modifications” has been produced by the Inspector for a further public consultation period.

The Inspector will consider representations received during the consultation before finalising her report on the Plan – she had set out a timetable for the consultation on the main modifications to run from 18 December 2017 to 2 February 2018. (7 weeks)

Mr Ed Freeman (Planning Strategy and Development Manager) summarised the modifications and advising of the next steps to the Plan adoption. The modifications did not seek to alter the broad approach taken by the Plan as they have strengthened and clarified the approach, ensuring stronger policy links between the Villages Plan and the adopted Local Plan. The modifications included:

• A policy for Built-up Area Boundaries for villages;
• A policy for Greendale and Hill Barton Business Parks;
• Amendment to Beer and Colyton village/town centre vitality policies;

Councillors questioned the inclusion of inset maps and policies for both Greendale and Hill Barton Business Parks and were discussed at length:

Some Councillors questioned the inclusion of “BUABs” for the two strategic employment sites which they believed were not in accordance with the Local Plan and the wording used within the polices would prevent the two sites from any expansion. The Maps the Councillors were referring to are the areas already approved for Employment/Industrial use and not a Built-up Area Boundary.

Mr Freeman advised that the boundaries shown for both sites in the Villages Plan were for information purposes only and were not policy designations. Both sites were in the open countryside and the Inspector was suggesting that the relevant polices within the Local Plan would be used to determine planning applications for both sites.

A couple of the Committee Members took issue with the reference in the proposed policy of ‘in particular Strategy 7 of the East Devon Local Plan (Development in the Countryside)’ in the new proposed polices relating to the Business Parks of VP04 and VP05, as it was felt to be unnecessary.

Mr Freeman advised that the legislation would not permit the Council at this late stage of the examination process to challenge or amend the modifications put forward by the Inspector; however, a submission could be sent from the Committee in response to the consultation advising of Members preferred wording to the policy.

Councillors suggested that the sites should be treated as “Brownfield employment sites” and not Greenfield sites and that there should be flexibility to allow for appropriate development within and expansion of the sites.

Mr Freeman advised that both sites were clearly Brownfield but this did not change the fact that they were in the open countryside and that developments would be considered as development in the open countryside under the policies of the Local Plan.

Some Councillors believed they had not been given all the appropriate information regarding the economic importance of the sites as detailed in Rob Murray’s (Economic Development Manager) comments when they had made their decision for the sites to be included in the Villages Plan.

Some Councillors attending were under the misapprehension that Hill Barton and Greendale Business Parks are required for delivering the current District and Village Plan Employment Strategies. However, Mr Freeman explained that other strategic Employment sites are being delivered for employment within the district.

Mr Freeman explained that there were many key strategic employment sites within the district and that the employment allocations within the Local Plan would more than deliver the required employment figures for the district. It was recognised that some of the sites were constrained, but work was being undertaken to unlock and deliver those sites. The Villages Plan reinforced what was already in the adopted Local Plan.

He acknowledged that the two sites were important to the district’s economy, however they were both constrained by the road infrastructure and their impacts on neighbouring properties/settlements and the wider landscape. Any expansion needed to be appropriate and delivered in accordance with the Local Plan policies. Previous applications had been approved as departures from the Local Plan where they were considered appropriate and the benefits of the development outweighed the previous Local Plan polices.

Rob Murray (Economic Development Manager) advised that he believed that Greendale and Hill Barton were strategic employment sites for the district and constraining them would exacerbate the current under supply of employment delivery and therefore his recommendation, through the internal officer consultation process, had been that the two sites should be removed from the Villages Plan.

The Meeting decided by 5 votes to 2

1. That the main modifications to the East Devon Villages Plan, as set out in the committee report, and updated sustainability appraisal, be consulted upon from 18 December 2017 to 2 February 2018 (consultation responses received would be submitted straight to the Inspector for consideration in her final report)

2. That the Inspector be sent a submission from the Strategic Planning Committee during the consultation period on the main modifications to the Villages Plan asking her to consider excluding the words ‘in particular Strategy 7 of the East Devon Local Plan (Development in the Countryside)’ from the new polices VP04 and VP05, as the Committee did not consider this to be necessary as all relevant policies within the Local Plan would apply to the two employment sites concerned.

Councillor Philip Skinner proposed and seconded by Councillor Mike Allan. (Mike Allan who is lead councillor for employment and business at EDDC is also the District Councillor, who will be attending the re-established Greendale Liaison Group meetings,)

So why is now necessary to suggest to the Planning Inspector to remove the reference to Strategy 7 of the East Devon Local Plan?

It is hoped that that the Local Parish Councils, Residents Associations, and many local people who are affected by these Business Parks will submit responses to the Inspector during this final consultation period (final day 2 Feb 2018) requesting that:

All the text regarding these Business Parks is included especially the sentence the 5 councillors supported at the Strategic Planning Committee meeting on the 14th Dec requests removing.

“in particular Strategy 7 of the East Devon Local Plan (Development in the Countryside)”

This sentence must remain in Policies VP04 and VP05 of the Villages Plan to ensure a substantial link to the East Devon Local Plan.

Details of how to respond to the Village Plan

The schedule of main modification, the updated SA/SEA, an amended version of the Villages Plan that incorporates the proposed changes and further information about the consultation may be viewed on the Council web site at: Villages plan examination – East Devon
If you wish to comment on the proposed schedule of main modifications or the updated SA/SEA, please email planningpolicy@eastdevon.gov.uk by no later than 2nd February 2018. All responses received will be forwarded to the Inspector for her consideration prior to issuing her report, which will be in the Spring of 2018.
If you want further information please contact the planning policy team on 01395 571533.
The Officer to contact is Linda Renshaw (Mrs) Senior Planning Officer East Devon District Council Tel. 01395 571683 Working days Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Corruption, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

“MPs To Block Ex-IPSA Chief Sir Ian Kennedy From New Watchdog Post As ‘Revenge’ For Expenses Crackdown”

“MPs are blocking a new taxpayer-funded job for former IPSA chief Sir Ian Kennedy as “revenge” for his crackdown in the wake of Parliament’s expenses scandal, HuffPost UK can reveal.

Tory and Labour backbenchers are set to deploy little-used Commons procedures to stymie plans to appoint Kennedy to the board of the Electoral Commission.

Kennedy, who led the drive to reform the system after the 2009 MPs’ expenses affair, has been recommended as a new Commissioner for the elections watchdog, a four-year post which carries a salary of £359-a-day.

But MPs plan to shout ‘object’ when a formal procedural motion on the appointment is tabled in the Commons next Monday, its first day back after the Christmas recess.

The rebels, who only need one objection to delay the motion, plan to continue their protest indefinitely, forcing the Commission to either withdraw the appointment or leave the post vacant. …”

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/mps-to-block-election-commission-appointment-of-ex-ipsa-sir-ian-kennedy-as-revenge-for-mps-expenses-crackdown_uk_5a4ce876e4b0b0e5a7aa1d9

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Austerity cuts, Inequality

“Windsor council calls for removal of homeless people before royal wedding”

“The leader of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – home to Windsor Castle, Eton College and Ascot racecourse – has demanded police use legal powers to clear the area of homeless people before the royal wedding in May.

Simon Dudley, the council’s Conservative leader, wrote to Thames Valley police this week seeking action against “aggressive begging and intimidation” and “bags and detritus” accumulating on the streets.

The letter, seen by the Guardian, follows a series of tweets sent by Dudley while on a skiing holiday in Wyoming over Christmas, in which he referred to “an epidemic of rough sleeping and vagrancy in Windsor” and said “residents have had enough of this exploitation of residents and 6 million tourists pa [per annum]”.

He tweeted that he would write to Thames Valley police “asking them to focus on dealing with this before the #RoyalWedding”. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/03/windsor-council-calls-removal-homeless-people-before-royal-wedding

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Health and Social Care (local), Inequality, NHS (local)

Comments

3 Comments

NHS crisis isn’t a crisis because the government has a plan!!!

Health spokesperson David Willets says it isn’t a crisis – just a bit uncomfortable for patients who have had operations cancelled!

“A crisis is when you haven’t got in place mitigations and you haven’t got a plan to deal with it. We’ve gone into this winter in a way that we’ve never prepared before, so we went into the winter before Christmas having cancelled fewer elective operations than we had previously, discharges from hospital were at a lower level than they had been previously, so we were better prepared.

We’ve also set up a national, regional and local structure – if you like, a winter pressures protocol – which we are invoking now and we are monitoring a whole series of things, activity in the service and the pressures.

We are monitoring the weather alerts in anticipation of weather changes because we know that’s important, and we also monitor the seasonal illnesses like flu.

Asked if what was happening would feel like a crisis to patients, he replied:

I fully accept that for the individual that will be really very uncomfortable, but what we know is if we don’t have a plan in place and we don’t do this in a structured way, what will happen, as we’ve had in previous winters, is lots of last-minute cancellations which is really distracting for patients, it’s inconvenient, it upsets the plans they’ve put together with their family, particularly for elderly patients where their care needs are often quite significant.

He said it was possible that further delays to non-urgent operations could be announced. Asked if there could be further postponements, he said:
That’s certainly a possibility … Intention always is not to cancel patients or postpone patients more than once – that’s one of the principles we try to follow – but clearly it is unpredictable, we don’t know what the weather we do, we don’t know the pressures in the system, we’re taking precautionary action here. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jan/03/nhs-crisis-brexit-theresa-may-needs-to-get-a-better-grip-on-nhs-crisis-says-senior-tory-politics-live

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Jan 2018

Posted under

Coastal communities, EDDC, Exmouth, Regeneration

Exmouth temporary attractions planning application – consultation period should be extended

Reminder to people to comment on EDDC temporary attractions planning application to replace the Fun Park.

Closing date 12 January 2018

17/2944/FUL

However the comment page for this planning application was inaccessible over Christmas this should mean that the consultation period should be extended.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Coastal communities, EDDC, Exmouth, Regeneration

District council criticised by Exmouth Town Council for too little detail in planning application!

Another story from the Christmas break:

Our district council is the local planning authority and has professional planning staff – yet it can’t put in a decent explanation of what it will put on Exmouth seafront next year to replace the businnesses it evicted this year.

Can you imagine if you put in an outline planning application for a house with a line around the property and just words like “bedrooms might go here” or “the kitchen might be here” but “then again I might change my mind – and maybe have a conservatory over there , I’m not sure – but give me planning permission and I’ll sort it out”!

AND it’s a regeneration site!

From Exmouth Journal:

“Concerns have been raised over a lack of information on the attractions, which also includes pop-up food outlets and a children’s play area, set to be in place for 12 months from March next year.

An outline planning application is for the Queen’s Drive site – formerly home to Exmouth Fun Park which was evicted in September this year.

EDDC says the attractions will stop the site from becoming ‘unused and derelict’ prior to its redevelopment as part of phase three of the Queen’s Drive regeneration scheme.

At a planning committee meeting this week, Exmouth Town Council opposed the application raising concerns over the lack of information given on the nature of the attractions.

At the meeting, councillor Bill Nash branded the plans ‘a blank piece of paper’.

He said: “There is insufficient information for a decision to be made and I would ask the applicant to withdraw this application and resubmit it.

“The documentation says that at this stage because the end users are not being specified, the size, extent and nature of the structures cannot be identified – how can we give approval on something if we don’t know what it is?”

Nick Hookway, chairman of the Save Exmouth Seafront campaign group, said: “The idea of slicing up the site with three categories of attractions is to be deplored as being quite unnecessary. The application is lacking any form of detail as to the type of facilities that will be available next summer and in no way makes up for the closure of the popular, successful and much valued ‘fun park’.”

An EDDC spokesperson said: “This planning application is for uses that are specifically temporary and it responds directly to town council and wider public concern that the Queen’s Drive area might be unused for a while as development of sites happens.

“It is unfortunate that the town council felt unable to respond positively and promptly to the district’s desire to pave the way for a mix of new, temporary attractions.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/insufficient-detail-in-exmouth-seafront-plan-say-town-council-1-5329825

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Democracy, Local Enterprise Partnership

MPs views on Local Enterprise Partnerships

A story from the Christmas break:

“… LEPs are business-led partnerships between the private sector and local authorities established with the purpose of steering growth strategically in local communities. There are now 38 across the UK, funded through Growth Deals agreed with the UK government, and ranging in size according to local needs.

Of the MPs surveyed:

62% thought they are effective.
11% thought they have no impact.
14% had never heard of, or knew too little to say whether they are effective.
13% thought they are ineffective.

The quality of LEPs has come in for criticism in the past. Some are seen to work well, where others lack drive and local engagement. A National Audit Office report in March 2016 found “LEPs themselves have serious reservations about their capacity to deliver and the increasing complexity of the local landscape, and there is a risk that projects being pursued will not necessarily optimise value for money”.

However, government continues to use them as a channel for local development and has provided additional funding direct to them. So for businesses they are part of the local support mechanism.”

https://t.co/uDpOHRBuHF

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Jan 2018

Posted under

Newton Poppleford

A whole different side to Newton Poppleford!

Most recommended comment by “KingLudd” on a Guardian review of the “McMafia” TV series which started last night:

“I opened a tea shop in Devon and this year we grossed £1.5 million from meth and legal highs. I have a gold-plated AK47 (supposedly once owned by Saddam Hussein) that I keep under the bed and I light my Montecristos with £50 notes. It’s not as genteel in Newton Poppleford as you might think.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Jan 2018

Posted under

Austerity cuts, Transport (local)

Austerity – for some

lAn annual London-Peterborough season ticket now costs £7,864. In Germany you can buy an annual BahnCard 100, providing travel on *every train in the country*, for less than half that (€4,270, or £3,797).l

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Cavanna Homes, Cranbrook, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Estate rentcharges, Wainhomes

Cranbrook estate rent charges 2

(See post below also)

From a correspondent:

Wain Homes (55 properties) and Cavanna Homes (19 properties) have their own Estate Rent Charge which will remain in place but they will pay the higher CTC precept

The Town Council had indicated a willingness in principle to take on the public open space on both sites. Wain Homes remain subject to enforcement because of failure to complete the public open space and we met with them in the summer of 2017 to discuss this.

If they complete the work CTC could adopt the public open space. Hopefully local residents on the site will press Wain Homes to do this.

Cavanna have passed their public open space to a management company but undertook to have talks to have the public open space transferred back so that CTC could adopt it. In both cases the ball is in the developers’ court.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Cranbrook, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Estate rentcharges

Comments

1 Comment

Cranbrook residents very unhappy about estate rent charge bills

Basically a total mess with large annual bills hitting residents just before Christmas. Many residents dispute work and charges.

And this is interesting:

“Double charging because residents pay the full East Devon District Council council tax

EDDC has consistently taken the line that it will not take on responsibility for anything other than its statutory responsibilities and this is not unique to Cranbrook but affecting all other new major developments.
On the face of it this is unfair – Cranbrook residents contribute to all public open space owned by EDDC but the reverse is not the case.

This is why the Town Council is seeking to take on these responsibilities to provide best value for residents of the Town.

It is for EDDC to respond to this point.”

https://www.cranbrooktowncouncil.gov.uk/town-councils-response-statement-re-estate-rent-charge-letters

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Jan 2018

Posted under

Austerity cuts

Austerity: Liverpool fire had only 2 first response fire engines – cut from 8 two years ago

Liverpool mayor:

“Car Park fire was reported to me at 4.45pm and I was told it was containable,it would have been if we had enough appliances responding,Chief Fire officer confirmed my view that 2 years ago we would have had 8 fire engines from 4 stations responding instead of 2 #cutscost”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Education (local)

“Tories appoint man who complained about ‘ghastly inclusivity’ of school wheelchair ramps to higher education watchdog”

“The Tories today appointed writer Toby Young, who complained about the ‘ghastly inclusivity’ of wheelchair ramps in schools, to the board of their new higher education watchdog.

The Office for Students (OfS) legally come into force today with a remit to hold regulate university vice chancellors’ pay and enforce ‘free speech’ on campus.

… In a column for the Spectator in 2012, Young wrote: “Inclusive. It’s one of those ghastly, politically correct words that has survived the demise of New Labour. Schools have got to be “inclusive” these days.

“That means wheelchair ramps, the complete works of Alice Walker in the school library (though no Mark Twain) and a Special Educational Needs Department that can cope with everything from Dyslexia to Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy.

He went on to call on then-Education Secretary Michael Gove to bring back O-levels and repeal the Equality Act, because “any exam that isn’t “accessible” to a functionally illiterate troglodyte with a mental age of six will be judged to be “elitist” and therefore forbidden by [Harriet] Harman’s Law.”

University and College Union general secretary Sally Hunt said: “If this organisation was to have any credibility it needed a robust board looking out for students’ interests.

“Instead we have this announcement sneaked out at New Year with Tory cheerleader Toby Young dressed up as the voice of teachers and no proper representation from staff or students.” …”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tories-appoint-man-who-complained-11779695

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

Another nuclear plant in financial meltdown

“The company behind one of Britain’s biggest nuclear power projects has plunged to a £266 million loss citing ‘uncertainties’ over its future and the viability of crucial technology.

Japanese firm Toshiba said the huge loss incurred by one of its UK subsidiaries was due to writing off hundreds of millions of pounds of investment in the proposed Moorside plant, in west Cumbria.

It is the latest sign of financial strain at the Tokyo-based firm amid wider concerns over the spiralling costs and catastrophic delays that have beset the UK’s nuclear industry. …

It was envisaged that new nuclear plants at Moorside, Hinkley Point and Wylfa in Anglesey would between them generate a fifth of the UK’s electricity.

This may still happen. But right now, nuclear firms are struggling with the expense, stringent regulatory hurdles and costly project delays – just as the cost of other forms of electricity fall.

Toshiba won the contract to build the nuclear power plant at Moorside, on land next to the Sellafield nuclear fuel reprocessing site.

But it was forced in March to place its US nuclear division Westinghouse into bankruptcy protection. Last month, it said it would sell Westinghouse for £4 billion. Troubled Toshiba is now in talks to sell its interests in the Moorside project to Kepco, majority-owned by the South Korean government. …”

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-5223475/ANOTHER-nuclear-power-plant-enerting-financial-meltdown.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, EDDC

EDDC Leader’s New Year message … excellent rhubarb crop this year

Summary:

We are wonderful, we are doing so much with so little … rhubarb … rhubarb… rhubarb … waffle … systems thinking … waffle … increasingly reliant on income generated from business rates …commercial mind-set in our decision-making … particularly management of assets …

No mention of the £10m (plus?) to be spent on its new HQ, of course.

Read it if you must, but Owl is still incandescent with rage about Diviani promising to be “lean, clean, green and seen” when they got voted in – instead of which we got profligate, mucky, muddy and opaque!

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/east-devon-district-council-pledges-to-maintain-services-1-5338415

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Conflict of interest, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

“Conflict of interest” at Hinkley C (oddly, not at our LEP!)

What’s the fuss – they should be looking MUCH closer to home at the members (and influential past members) of our Local Enterprise Partnership for much more conflict and much more interest!

“Consultancy firms working for the government on the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station were advising the project’s Chinese investor and its French builder at the same time, an investigation by The Times has revealed.

KPMG, the professional services group, was paid £4.4 million between 2012 and 2017 as a financial adviser to the energy and business departments, despite telling officials that it was also acting for China General Nuclear Power Corp on the project.

The apparent conflict of interest has been revealed after the Information Commissioner’s Office intervened to press for disclosure from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Previously, officials had redacted the information, claiming that it was commercially sensitive.

In a second potential conflict, Lazard, the financial advisory firm, was paid £2.6 million between 2012 and 2015 to advise the business department on Hinkley Point. Details of its previously redacted tender documents reveal that it was an adviser to EDF, the French developer that is investing in Hinkley Point alongside the Chinese. A source said that Lazard’s advice to EDF was not related to the Somerset project.

MPs expressed concern about the perceived conflicts. The government has struck a 35-year deal under which the energy companies could receive £50 billion above market prices.

Meg Hillier, chairwoman of the Commons public accounts committee, said that Hinkley Point was crucial public infrastructure and therefore it was “vital that auditors get full sight” of the potential conflicts. It “looks cosy”, she said, adding that it was “not really appropriate” for firms to be advising both sides.

The details have been released more than a year and half after The Times complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office, which informally advised the business department to reconsider its position. The department previously had handed over heavily redacted documents in response to a Freedom of Information request.

The Information Commissioner’s Office said that there was a “significant and important public interest”, something that had been strengthened by a report from the National Audit Office in June, which found that the government’s deal had “locked consumers into a risky and expensive project with uncertain strategic and economic benefits”. The project has been riddled with delays and controversy over its spiralling costs.

The National Audit Office also criticised the business department for insufficiently managing the potential conflict of Leigh Fisher, another government adviser. The Times reported in November 2016 that Leigh Fisher, the management consultant, had been awarded contracts worth a combined £1.2 million despite telling officials that the British division of Jacobs Engineering Group, an American firm that owns Leigh Fisher, was working for EDF on Hinkley Point.

In tendering for a 2015 contract, KPMG told officials that “as DECC [the Department of Energy & Climate Change] is fully aware, a KPMG team is currently acting for [China General Nuclear Power Corp] in relation to their potential investment into [Hinkley Point C]. This work is being carried out by a team, separate to the KPMG team acting for DECC, operating under strict internal conditions.” The auditing firm added that it had “mature policies and procedures . . . to identify and manage potential conflicts of interest”, including “properly segregated resources . . . to handle the projects”.

In Lazard’s 82-page tender document in 2013, which initially was almost entirely redacted, it told officials “that it has no conflict of interest in respect of the work contemplated by the ITT [intention to tender] regarding the development at Hinkley Point C. The Lazard group does have a relationship with Electricité de France [EDF] led out of its Paris office and is assisting it with a current advisory mandate that has no bearing on, and creates no conflict with, the advisory work contemplated by the ITT but this will not prejudice in any manner the qualifications of a Lazard team led out of its London office to provide the high-quality, independent advice contemplated by the ITT.”

Paul Flynn, a Labour MP who has campaigned against Hinkley Point C, said that the project was the “worst civil investment decision made by any government” and that the potential conflicts were “further proof that the contract was agreed for political imperatives . . . To avoid future calamities, a full national inquiry must be held.”

Leigh Fisher said that it “managed the work and resources in accordance with agreed protocols throughout”.

The National Audit Office was not aware of the KPMG and Lazard situations. On Leigh Fisher, it said: “Placing the onus on Leigh Fisher to manage the potential conflict is not in line with good practice”; “by the time Leigh Fisher did confirm it was complying with arrangements stipulated by the department, it had already completed the majority of its work”; “the department did not receive any monthly updates on the arrangements in place, as it had requested”; and that “even when the department did stipulate ethical wall arrangements, they were below the standard we would expect”.

The business department said: “In line with our requirements, both Lazard and KPMG outlined their policy on dealing with any potential conflicts of interest in their tender documents, together with the actions they would take to mitigate these. As a result, we are satisfied that the perceived conflicts had no impact on the work carried out under the contract(s).”

Source: The Times (pay wall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Conflict of interest, Developers/ Development, Planning System, Police (local), Scrutiny, Transparency

Comments

2 Comments

“Freemasons are blocking reform, says Police Federation leader”

Remember how Owl was taken to task for saying planners took more notice of Freemasons than town councillors …

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/12/15/buckfastleigh-dissolves-its-planning-committee-as-district-and-county-councils-take-no-notice-of-its-recommendations/

Well …

“Reform in policing is being blocked by members of the Freemasons, and their influence in the service is thwarting the progress of women and people from black and minority ethnic communities, the leader of rank-and-file officers has said.

Steve White, who steps down on Monday after three years as chair of the Police Federation, told the Guardian he was concerned about the continued influence of Freemasons.

White took charge with the government threatening to take over the federation if it did not reform after a string of scandals and controversies.

The Freemasons is one of the world’s oldest secular societies, made up of people, predominantly men, concerned with moral and spiritual values. Their critics say they are secretive and serve the interests of their members over the interests of the public. The Masons deny this, saying they uphold values in keeping with public service and high morals.

White told the Guardian: “What people do in their private lives is a matter for them. When it becomes an issue is when it affects their work. There have been occasions when colleagues of mine have suspected that Freemasons have been an obstacle to reform.

“We need to make sure that people are making decisions for the right reasons and there is a need for future continuing cultural reform in the Fed, which should be reflective of the makeup of policing.”

One previous Metropolitan police commissioner, the late Sir Kenneth Newman, opposed the presence of Masons in the police.

White would not name names, but did not deny that some key figures in local Police Federation branches were Masons.

White said: “It’s about trust and confidence. There are people who feel that being a Freemason and a police officer is not necessarily a good idea. I find it odd that there are pockets of the organisation where a significant number of representatives are Freemasons.”

The Masons deny any clash or reason police officers should not be members of their organisation.

Mike Baker, spokesman for the United Grand Lodge, said: “Why would there be a clash? It’s the same as saying there would be a clash between anyone in a membership organisation and in a public service.

“We are parallel organisations, we fit into these organisations and have high moral principles and values.”

Baker said Freemasonry was open to all, the only requirement being “faith in a supreme being”. He said there were a number of police officers who were Masons and police lodges, such as the Manor of St James, set up for Scotland Yard officers, and Sine Favore, set up in 2010 by Police Federation members. One of those was the Met officer John Tully, who went on to be chair of the federation and, after retirement from policing, is an administrator at the United Grand Lodge of England.

Masons in the police have been accused of covering up for fellow members and favouring them for promotion over more talented, non-Mason officers.

White said: “Some female representatives were concerned about Freemason influence in the Fed. The culture is something that can either discourage or encourage people from the ethnic minorities or women from being part of an organisation.”

The federation has passed new rules on how it runs itself, aimed at ending the fact that its key senior officials are all white, and predominantly male.

White said he hoped the new rules would lead to an end to old white men dominating the federation: “The new regulations will mean Freemasons leading to an old boys’ network will be much less likely in the future. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/31/freemasons-blocking-reform-police-federation-leader

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Midweek Herald, Scrutiny, Transparency

How one local newspaper changed government policy

“The well-documented squeeze on local journalism, including cuts to staff numbers, pressure from social media and low pay is bound to affect the nature and quality of local news.

The Grenfell Tower tragedy is one shocking example of this. In November 2016 two residents blogged about the possibility of “a serious fire in a tower block”. Why wasn’t this warning picked up locally? The Kensington and Chelsea Chronicle, which had covered residents’ concerns, closed in 2014 and content migrated online to Get West London. Although the Kensington and Chelsea News reopened as part of another group, its sole reporter couldn’t afford to live in the borough and remotely covered the patch from his home in Dorset.

In the case of the vice-chancellor pay story [broken by local newspaper The Bath Chronicle], while to some it looked like a David v Goliath tale of a local rag taking on a giant local employer, the biggest challenge was possibly my newspaper’s business model. To attract advertising, reporters must strive for web hits – it’s a daily pressure in our newsrooms. Like all in Trinity Mirror, the Bath Chronicle is “audience-driven”, meaning that if a story is not getting enough clicks there’s no justification for continuing to cover it.

Even though it was clear there was an audience for scrutiny of the university’s upper echelons, the risk of reader fatigue was always there. I had to ensure that every story took a new and engaging angle and use a different picture wherever possible. I also used social media and tweeted each article directly to 40-odd interested people for them to share or comment.

Last year the BBC announced it had set aside £8m to fund 150 “local democracy reporters”, who will work for qualifying regional publishers and will cover council meetings and public services. It’s a clear attempt to strengthen local reporting, and hold politicians and services to account. The investment should mean that more important stories are covered and may ease pressure on local newspapers as they struggle to pursue leads that need long-term attention. If we don’t hold powerful institutions across the country to account, who will?”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/29/bath-vice-chancellor-pay-local-newspapers-vital-work

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Accountable Care Organisation, Austerity cuts, Democracy, Inequality, NHS (local), Privatisation

Judicial review of changes to NHS given go-ahead – with capped costs – but final £12,000 needed urgently

FROM: Crowdjustice
Press Release
Website for donations:

http://999callfornhs.org.uk/999-judicial-review/4593838706

“Update on Our NHS – comprehensive healthcare for all – STAGE 2

We have some very good news!

On Thursday 21st December our lawyers, Leigh Day, contacted us to tell us that a judge had considered our papers and those of NHS England and we now have permission for our JUDICIAL REVIEW to go ahead, at some time after 16th February 2018!

This is fantastic news as it means our papers and those of NHSE have been examined and the judge has recognised our legal arguments as a case that is important for public interest.

This is a real Christmas present.

And… despite NHS England stating that we should not be considered for a Capped Costs Order (the amount we have to pay the courts if we lose) the Judge has also agreed to a Capped Costs Order of £25,000.

Although this is more than than the £15,000 we had hoped for, the fact remains that the judge has agreed to it, which shows that he considers it is in the public interest for our case to be heard. It is a very positive gift for all of us. Capped Costs are not granted freely.

So the 999 Call Team have made the ONLY decision possible

We all voted unanimously that this was an opportunity we could NOT afford to turn down. We have notified Leigh Day we are going ahead and will campaign hard to raise the extra £12,000 to meet the £25,000 CCO and extra court procedure costs.

What this means is that we are going to have to open a new Round 3 of CrowdJustice fundraising to raise the extra money. We will be launching towards New Year’s Day as people begin to think of new opportunities, new adventures and new HOPE. Because that is what our Judicial Review offers all of us.

WE HOPE you can help us launch and promote it.

Today, just as we enter Christmas, you could forward and share this email with 3 or more of your friends – adding any personal message to help explain that Round 3 of our Healthcare For All Judicial Review fundraising is about to launch.

You could send them to visit our website page: 999 Judicial Review

You could highlight the fact that this case is not about one group or one region – it affects all of us, everyone up and down the country. Our JR is a real opportunity to bring into the open NHS England’s contentious contract for a new form of local NHS and social care organisation that is based on a business model used by the USA’s Medicare/Medicaid system. A system which only provides a limited range of healthcare for people who are too poor to pay for private health insurance.

Exposing this new NHS England contract to a review of its lawfulness is a vital step in protecting the NHS as a source of comprehensive healthcare for all who need it.

Thank you for all your support so far and we wish you and your loved ones a happy festive week ahead.

Please be on standby for the launch of Round 3. We need all of us now.”

Thanks from all the 999 Call for the NHS Team”