What an interesting Constitution our Local Enterprise Partnership has!

The full application for our LEP to be a Community Interest Company (!) was submitted on 6 February 2014, so our councillors and business people were working on this for a full 18 months before letting anyone know what they were doing.

The full document is here:

application-pdf

A few things to note:

There are a lot of blank spaces in the application!

It is a 53 page document and the Constitution commences on page 22.

Community Interest Companies are supposed to “lock” their assets so that, if the company is disbanded, they are firstly offered back to the community that is supposed to be interested. However:

3.1 says they must be transferred at full consideration but if article 3.3 is satisfied this will not apply. Article 3.3 says that assets can be disposed of at less than full consideration!

The “Object” of the company is that the Company is to “carry on activities which benefit the community and in particular (without limitation) which contribute to the economic growth and increased prosperity of Devon, Somerset, Plymouth and Torbay with a view in particular (without limitation) to creating better and more sustainable jobs.”

Article 9 basically says that Directors can delegate anything to anyone and can change the terms of delegation at any time.

Article 18 says that if Directors have a conflict of interest they should absent themselves from those parts of the meeting in which they occur. HOWEVER:

Other directors decide whether that particular director has a conflict of interest and

Article 19 says that even if a director seems to have a conflict of interest directors can allow that the Director CAN take part and vote in the matter on which they have a conflict of interest – it is up to the Directors to decide about that too!

Article 32: ANYONE CAN APPLY TO BECOME A “STAKEHOLDER” BUT DIRECTORS CAN REMOVE ANY SUCH ENTITY IF IT IS “IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE COMPANY”.

Article 52: Minutes must be taken of all proceedings, etc and they must be kept for at least 10 years.

Our Local Enterprise Partnership members declarations of interest

And very interesting they are too!

http://www.heartofswlep.co.uk/board-members%E2%80%99-conflicts-interest

“Iain Duncan Smith: the latest MP to pretend council cuts are not his fault”

“If you’re unaware of the extraordinary budgetary challenges faced by local authorities, it must mean that you live on another planet – or you’re Iain Duncan Smith. Despite being firmly ensconced at the heart of an austerity-obsessed government, the secretary of state for work and pensions appears blissfully unaware of the way cuts are implemented by councils in and around his Chingford and Woodford Green constituency. Much like his boss David Cameron, when he expressed horror in a letter to his local council about the level of cuts it was making.

Last week, Duncan Smith came in for fierce criticism after he accused Enfield council of failing to adequately manage funding cuts when it faced a backlash to plans to cut youth services. In what Doug Taylor, the leader of Enfield council, describes as an incredibly ill-informed and inappropriate intervention, the minister told the Enfield Independent:

“If you look at the successful local authorities, they are the people who have worked out what the vitally important things are that they do, and have managed to get through this process without savaging the things that really matter. My only advice to local council[s] is that if you get the balance right, you should be able to manage this in a way that is not headline news – doing it with better efficiency. It is like any company, you always face the issue of whether what you spend outweighs what you earn. Headline cuts are not the way to go.”

That such a senior and high profile member of the cabinet – with no official brief for local government – has ostensibly suggested that councils could avoid gruelling financial situations if only they were better at managing budgets, has understandably angered local politicians.

In the case of Enfield, which has had to make savings of £118m since 2010 – 49% in real terms according to a council spokeswoman – Duncan Smith’s proclamations are an affront.

Taylor insists that Enfield, like councils all over the country, has gone to great lengths to increase efficiency before even contemplating cuts to frontline services. He says the annual funding the council receives from central government has been cut by an average of £700 for every household in the borough in the past five years, and that efficiencies are no longer enough. “The £56m we need to find [as a result of the last spending review] is more than we currently spend annually on cleaning the streets, collecting the bins and lighting our streets,” he says.

Local MP Joan Ryan is particularly scathing of the secretary of state’s statement. “Iain Duncan Smith knows nothing about Enfield – that much is clear,” she says. “IDS should get his facts right, given his local authority – Waltham Forest – has also made substantial cuts. I recommend less sermonising and a better understanding of his own policies.”

Enfield’s population is rising, like many other parts of London, pushing up demand for local services and making the financial juggling act of delivering more with fewer resources even harder. Duncan Smith’s ill-informed pontifications, Taylor says, are an exercise in power without responsibility; it will be interesting to see if the MP takes Taylor up on an open invitation to visit the council and see for himself what is actually going on.

It’s bad enough that Duncan Smith is using his position to hammer councils on efficiency when he hasn’t discussed the facts with them, but let’s also not forget the impact of welfare reform. Benefit policy upheavals, for which he was architect-in-chief, have contributed immensely to the increased demand for support from local authorities just when they’re least able to provide it.

Oh, and don’t forget either that when Cameron needed to avert a backbench rebellion and magically found a £300m pot of cash to chuck at Tory councils, there were no assertions that they should improve their budget management skills instead.

Ever since local government cuts began rolling out the government has shrewdly made it look like it’s somehow nothing to do with Westminster. Duncan Smith’s latest jibe is yet another illustration of how conveniently misleading this strategy continues to be.”

“Developers accused of restricting supply of new homes to boost profits”

“Britain’s developers have been accused of increasing their profits from the UK’s housing crisis by restricting the supply of new houses to keep prices artificially high.

Latest figures reveal that nearly half a million homes in England now have planning permission granted but have yet to be built. The length of time it takes for developers to complete a house has jumped from 24 months to 32.
It reignites a long-running row between policymakers and the housebuilding sector over who is to blame for the current housing shortage.

While rates of planning permission for new homes have increased by 60% since 2010, there has been a 48% increase in the number of new homes being built.

Labour MP Clive Betts, chair of the local government select committee, said the failure of the big housebuilders to speed up development was simply designed to maximise their profits.

“I think it is clear that the big developers are building at a rate to maximise their profits rather than addressing the country’s housing need,” he said.

Betts said that some developments that have had planning permission were not due to be completed for another 10 years.

He added: “These are private companies who are very simply trying to make money for their shareholders. They are restricting supply and the government urgently needs to come forward with measures to address this.”

Ministers are increasingly concerned by the failure of developers to speed up housebuilding. It has been reported that some senior Conservatives privately believe that some developers are deliberately restricting the supply of new houses to boost profits.

Brandon Lewis, the housing minister, last week gave vent to his own frustrations with developers.

“When you have got housebuilders delivering, on average, 48 homes a year on some [large] sites that’s not good enough,” he told the local government committee.

“We know they can go further. Housebuilders will talk about saturating the market. But we are aware that in too many places we are still taking 20 weeks to build a house when we can do it in three or four.”

Taylor Wimpey recently announced a record operating profit margin of more than 20% as it sold more homes at higher prices. Pre-tax profits at Barratt Homes, Britain’s biggest housebuilder, have also jumped 40% in the last six months to nearly £300m.

Housebuilders reject claims of hoarding land as property prices soar
Ministers are understood to be contemplating new measures to force up the rate of development amid fears that they will fall short of their manifesto commitment to build 1m new homes by 2020.

This could include forcing developers that buy publicly owned land to commit to rapid construction as part of the planning process.

The housing industry analyst Glenigan compiled the latest data for the Local Government Association, which was released in January.

It showed that 475,647 homes in England which have been given planning permission were yet to be built in 2014/2015.

In 2012/13, the total of unimplemented planning permissions was 381,390 and in 2013/14 it was 443,265.

A spokesman for the Home Builders Federation, which represents the industry, said the most recent government figures show there were 170,690 net additions to the housing stock during 2014/15, an increase of almost 25% on the previous year.

“The industry has delivered unprecedented increases in supply over the past two years driven predominantly by the large private sector housebuilders,” he said.

“This has been on the back of the pro development policies introduced in recent years and a general increase in demand.”

He blamed the planning systems of local and central government for the shortfall in housing.

“As a priority, it needs to work with local authorities to speed up the planning system and ensure local plans allocate enough sites of different types and sizes that are attractive to a range of companies,” he said.”

http://gu.com/p/4h7f9

Brexit ministers: yet another hokey-cokey!!!!

Thanks to Councillor Marianne Rixon who first pointed out EDDC doing the in-out with Sidford Fields in the Local Plan. Then we had the will he-won’t he agonising of MP Hugo Swire about Bremain/Brexit decision. Now we have the latest version of the party dance! Though we suspect some Cabinet Ministers may still need to resort to Freedom of Information requests!

“Sir Jeremy Heywood has said government ministers campaigning for Brexit will be given access to documents relating to the EU referendum, in a move that MPs have described as a climbdown.

The cabinet secretary insisted to MPs that his guidance to civil servants was not meant to deny their ministers “factual material” but only “briefing and speech material supporting the out position”.

“The civil service is not going to be supporting ministers who are against the government’s position to make that case,” he told the Commons public administration and constitutional affairs select committee.

But he added: “If there is factual material that is generally available in the department – I would have discuss that with the prime minister – but I am pretty sure he would be comfortable about that being shared.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/01/pro-brexit-ministers-will-have-access-to-papers-says-cabinet-secretary

Tory Devon Police and Crime commissioner candidate caught up in expenses scandal

It appears that Tory Police and Crime Commissioner candidate, Alison Hernandez, was the election agent for new Torbay MP Kevin Foster. Mr Foster is one of a number of Tory MPs being investigated for potentially/allegedly breaching strict candidate expenses rules by using a Tory national “battle bus” in a local area but not charging it as a local election expense.

http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/Torbay-MP-Kevin-Foster/story-28834878-detail/story.html

The Daily Mirror has estimated that the bus should be costed at around £2000 per day.

Reported here:

Devon PCC candidate caught up in election expenses row

and in the Daily Mirror story here:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-mps-broke-election-laws-7467576

The irony: Ministers may have to use Freedom of Information requests to get Brexit information from their own staff!

“Euorsceptic ministers may have to use a freedom of information requests or a parliamentary questions to obtain EU-related documents produced by their own staff, a top civil servant has said.

Sir Jeremy Heywood, Britain’s most senior civil servant, has been accused of stifling debate among eurosceptic ministers by issuing new guidance banning ministers from accessing official documents and receiving briefings ahead of the referendum.”

Another thing we all know about in East Devon, where ordinary Conservative councillors are not allowed to see documents prepared by their Cabinet and senior officers.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12178968/Eurosceptic-ministers-may-have-to-use-freedom-of-information-requests-to-obtain-EU-related-documents-produced-by-their-own-staff-latest.html

Perhaps at least some of those pesky FoI requests are coming from EDDC councillors!

Top Tories turn on their own supporters!

“David Cameron is planning to cull hundreds of Tory associations and strip local chairmen of their powers under controversial plans to rein in the Conservative grassroots.

The Daily Telegraph can disclose that up to 90 per cent of the country’s 650 Conservative associations could be axed under the biggest reforms to the party’s structure in 18 years.

Critics believe that it is a bid to reduce the influence of Tory members – which are typically eurosceptic – on the party’s next leadership contest.
It comes just weeks after Mr Cameron faced a furious response from Conservative members after telling MPs to ignore the views of eurosceptic associations in the build-up to the referendum.

Senior Tories are growing increasingly concerned that George Osborne’s chances of being the next party leader could be reduced because of his support for Mr Cameron’s bid to keep Britain in the EU.

Conservative members will determine the eventual outcome of the next leadership election and this newspaper last week disclosed that growing numbers of local groups have now swung behind Boris Johnson after he announced that he was campaigning to leave the EU.

The disclosure came as Mr Cameron was last night branded “totally irresponsible” by members of his own Cabinet for refusing to allow contingency planning for a “Brexit” despite publishing a taxpayer-funded dossier warning of a decade of chaos if Britain leaves the EU.

Sir Jeremy Heywood, Britain’s most senior civil servant, was also attacked by Cabinet members who said he had committed an “unconstitutional act” by instructing officials to ban eurosceptic ministers from accessing documents related to the EU referendum.

The relationship between the Conservative Party hierarchy and the grassroots has been strained since 2013, when a close ally of the Prime Minister described Tory activists as “mad, swivel-eyed loons” who were forcing MPs to take hardline positions on Europe.

That was compounded earlier this month when Mr Cameron told his MPs that they should not decide how to vote in the referendum “because of what your constituency association might say” but to “do what’s in your heart” rather than what “might be advantageous”.

Under the new plans, Tory associations could be merged into between 60 and 70 “multi-constituency associations” based loosely on county areas. These new “super-associations” will employ permanent party staff, downgrading the role of association chairmen – the traditional lifeblood of the party.

The party’s membership lists will be run centrally from Conservative Central Office, further cutting out the traditional role of the chairmen and allowing the leadership to communicate directly with members.

Candidates will still be selected by association members but the absence of a local party structure will make it easier for central office to impose its favoured election candidates.

Senior Tories hope that the changes will make the party far more professional and better-able to mount campaigns to take on Labour and the unions.

However, critics warn that it will have a significant effect on the next Tory leadership race, which most insiders predict will be contested between Mr Johnson and Mr Osborne.

Under the current rules, Tory backbenchers reduce a longlist of leadership candidates to just two after a series of ballots.

In previous elections, local associations and activists have had a significant role in lobbying their constituency MPs over who to choose. Critics fear this influence would be severely diluted if the number of associations is dramatically cut.

After the longlist is reduced to two candidates, all Conservative members get a vote to determine who is elected leader.

Insiders believe that the existence of as few as 60 “super-associations” would make members significantly easier to control.

It could also reduce the influence of rural Tories because they would subsumed into larger associations which could include members from large towns and cities.

The plans will be presented to the party’s ruling board today by Lord Feldman, the party’s chairman. If approved, they could be in place within 12 months.

Party sources insist the changes are voluntary and subject to vote of members before they are rolled out through on a region by region basis.
However, it would be possible for individual associations which reject the changes to be overruled if a majority in a county area supports the changes.
Ed Costelloe, chairman of Grassroots Conservatives, said: “It means that MPs are more beholden to CCHQ and I think that is a diabolical thing.”

John Strafford, chairman of the Campaign for Conservative Democracy and a party member for 50 years, added: “The way they are going, they are signing the death warrant of the Conservative party as a membership organisation.”

A Conservative spokesman said: “The plan is to offer constituency Associations the option to form multi-constituency associations so they can benefit from shared offices and access to professional staff.

“Multi-constituency associations can only be formed by a vote of Party Members in those constituencies – nothing is being ‘axed’.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/12178192/Secret-plan-to-axe-90-per-cent-of-Tory-associations-which-would-smooth-George-Osbornes-coronation-as-leader.html

Former Tory Energy Minister (and Osborne’s father-in-law) calls Hinkley C a dinosaur

SO WHERE IS OUR LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP’S PLAN B AS IT STILL INSISTS ITS MAJOR INVESTMENT IN DEVON AND CORNWALL WILL BE THIS ‘DINOSAUR’?

“More delays on the horizon for Hinkley Point as design gets labelled a dinosaur

A final investment decision on the long-awaited Hinkley C nuclear power plant in Somerset could be delayed another year it has been claimed, as a former Energy Secretary dubbed the design a “dinosaur”.

Lord David Howell, Energy Secretary under Mrs Thatcher, and a Foreign Office Minister in the early years of the Coalition Government, said the liklihood of French state-owned developer EDF giving final approval to the project is “very iffy indeed.”

Last month EDF said: “final steps are well in hand to enable the full construction phase to be launched very soon.”

Lord Howell was speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme today, hours after the Financial Times reported that a final decision on the £18bn project could be delayed by up to a year.

Hinkley C is scheduled as the first in a new generation of eight nuclear reactors needed as part of the energy mix to meet the UK’s energy needs.
The ten-year construction phase alone would generate 25,000 jobs, but the project has been dogged by delays. It was once said that Britons would be cooking their Christmas turkeys with Hinkley C-generated power in 2017.
The FT says the EDF board is split over the decision.

The French firm’s original partner in the project, Centrica, pulled out three years ago citing rising costs, and delays. EDF found a new Chinese investor, and that deal was announced in a blaze of publicity last October during the Chinese President’s State visit to the UK.

The Chinese will take a one third stake, with EDF being responsible for the rest. The total cost of Hinkley C is more than the value of the company, and French unions have expressed concern.

In 2015 Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne announced a £2billion guarantee for Hinkley C, as the government sought to pave the way for construction.

Ironically Lord Howell is Mr Osborne’s father-in-law.

Asked on the ‘Today’ programme whether Hinkley C will go ahead Lord Howell said: “It’s a big ‘if’ and it’s getting more ‘iffy’ and I see this morning they are still wondering about how to raise the finance for it, and the reason is that it is a gigantic, a dinosaur of a model. There is no other model like it working in the world.

“The one they built in Finland is years behind and well over budget. This is probably the wrong design. It’s the last battleship, an old-fashioned system.”

He said it would be better to wait until the 2020s or 2030s for nuclear development in this country, adding: “It will be smaller, cheaper, safer and solving all sorts of technology problems, but this is a great lumping pyramid from the past.

“I have been very doubtful all along whether it will take off. I don’t know the answer now but it’s looking very iffy indeed.”

EDF Chief Executive Officer Vincent de Rivaz has said: “Our project is based on proven technology. Britain is buying the best and the safest.

“The EPR is a Pressurised Water Reactor with the highest safety standards that society rightly demands. We run 58 PWRs in France and there are 277 around the world.

“Thanks to the visionary investment made 40 years ago France now has among the cheapest electricity in Europe. Hinkley Point C will be the fifth and sixth EPRs worldwide.

“It is true that there have been delays at Flamanville. The experience gained there – and at Taishan in China – will be immensely valuable when we come to Hinkley Point C. And for the UK we have a design which is stable: We are sure of what we will build before we begin construction.

It was approved by the UK regulator following a four-year year assessment which included 850,000 hours of engineering studies. The EPR is the only new generation reactor design which has completed this process.

“Hinkley Point C is the first of its kind in the UK. It won’t be the last. It will be followed by the two EPRs we plan to build at Sizewell C.

“Our experience will ensure that this technology – which has been through a teething and somewhat challenging period – will mature to deliver its full potential for the UK and around the world.”

http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/delays-horizon-Hinkley-Point-design-gets-labelled/story-28830203-detail/story.html

Local GPs cannot cope with influx of new residents from new estates

” … Pinhoe and Broadclyst Medical Practice have been experiencing increasing pressure on their list from Cranbrook.

Pinhoe also have two additional big housing schemes at Monkerton and West Clyst, and there is also talk of a new nursing home being built opposite West Clyst.

Practice manager Andy Potter said: “Our practice list has grown significantly in the last few years. Our list at the end of last week was up to 11,150. Compared with this time a couple of years ago it was 1,000 less than that.

“We have taken on additional medical manpower so we have taken on a half time GP and we have additional nursing staff.

“Primarily, I would have to say the main factor in our growth so far has been the establishment of Cranbrook new town.” …

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/GP-surgeries-Exeter-East-Devon-feel-pressure-new/story-28835494-detail/story.html

Disquiet over Devon and Somerset Devolution deal

” I I am getting increasingly concerned about our devolution process in the South West.

Devolution is different in each region, but one thing each has in common is a lack of public consultation. In fact here in Devon most people don’t even know we are in the process and that many of the councils in Devon and Somerset have signed up already. Cornwall has already finished the process.

People don’t know what is happening and that is a concern, as the implications of devolution will impact upon all of us and I find the actual devolution bid extremely worrying.

Robert Vint, a Devon county councillor commented, on devolution recently, saying: “The Government has taken away the funds that local authorities were once spending to meet the needs of local people – for affordable homes, care services, repairing local roads etc.

“It now offers to give back £195.5 million – but only if we endorse a package of mega-projects in which we have had no say. This is coercion, not ‘devolution’. “The decisions about how this council spent its money were once democratically decided; the proposals in this Devolution Prospectus were not. “It is not the economic recovery plan that residents would have created themselves if they had been given the opportunity.”

The privatisation of local authorities in other words, yet we know so little about it. We definitely don’t know about the LEP, who are at the heart of it. LEP stands for Local Enterprise Partnership.

The one for Devon and Somerset is known as the Heart of the South West LEP (H0tSW LEP).

It is basically a business quango made up of business men and women and a few elected councillors, who channel money from the government and from Europe into local business and enterprise, or that was what it was originally set up to do.

They are the ones who are enabling devolution down here. Most people know very little about them.

They have a website detailing their aims and grants, but they hold their meetings in private and it is difficult to see the minutes of those meetings.

They say they will deliver £4billion to the UK economy. A lot of that money is going into the Hinkley C nuclear plant.

I personally do not want money spent on a highly controversial nuclear project, at a time when our local services are being cut to an absolute minimum, but I have no say in the matter and nor does anyone else, that I can see.

There is so little transparency in this process that even councillors who are supposed to be involved in the devolution bid are struggling to find information. We do know that they are about growth and not much else it seems.

This seems to me to be the opposite of localism. In the future who is going to control planning applications? Will it be the local authority still or will it be the LEP? If it is the LEP, I cannot understand how there won’t be a conflict of interest.

The proposal is also about creating a new authority but there is no information that says which, if any, current body it would replace.

The HotSW LEP is made up of elected councillors as well as business people, but the process is opaque and undemocratic. Many of those on the board who are self-appointed have business interests in property and construction. I am sure the HotSW LEP is all above board.

But it seems to me that LEPs could be vulnerable to corruption. I would like some guarantees, I would like some transparency, I would like to have my democratic rights adhered to, but I can’t see it happening.

Mr Vint also points out: “There are proposals (in the devolution bid) to build 179,000 new houses across Devon and Cornwall – but the plan ignores the priorities of all the Councils across the South West that want affordable housing for local people – not unregulated market housing.

“While ‘housing’ is mentioned repeatedly, three key words are totally missing from this document – ‘affordable’, ‘social’ and ‘rented’.

“Those are the kinds of houses we most urgently need, not commercial housing.This proposal is an attack on democracy; its priorities are not the priorities of local people; it puts the needs of big business before the needs of local people and it is helping to bail out businesses, such as Hinkley C, that are nowhere near being financially viable without massive subsidy.”

Where does this figure of 179,000 houses come from? Who is going to build them? Why do we need them? Who are the LEP to decide such matters?

I find it all very disturbing. Devolution was supposed to be about local areas deciding on local matters, not the takeover of council services by corporate interest. I read recently that devolution meant “the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership for the Shires”, a reference to the proposed international agreement that many feel hands too much power to businesses. I fear that analysis is correct.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Comment-Devolution-mean-localism-quangos/story-28835533-detail/story.html

Freedom of Information: will remain free and give more information

However, as always, the devil will be in the detail so Owl is waiting to see this before celebrating. Staff expenses i formation should be fun.

Ministers have chosen not to introduce fees for Freedom of Information (FOI) requests following a review of the law.

An independent commission was asked to examine it amid concerns within government that “sensitive information” was being inadequately protected.
FOI, used by campaigners and journalists to ask questions of public bodies, was “working well”, Cabinet Office Minister Matt Hancock said.
He said there were new plans to require public bodies to reveal staff expenses.

The full findings of the Freedom of Information Commission’s review are due to be published later, but speaking ahead of its release, Mr Hancock said there would be no wholesale changes to the FOI Act.

But, as always, the more free a public body is with information in the first place, the less reliance we shall need to have on the Act.

“After 10 years, we took the decision to review the Freedom of Information Act and we have found it is working well,” he said.

“We will not make any legal changes to FOI. We will spread transparency throughout public services, making sure all public bodies routinely publish details of senior pay and perks.

“After all, taxpayers should know if their money is funding a company car or a big pay-off.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35693236

Much-respected Sidmouth activist Jo Frith dies

Jo Frith (1944-2016)

On Wednesday 24th February, after cycling to Sidford in the afternoon sunshine, Fortfield Terrace resident 71 year old Jo Frith died suddenly. Her family and neighbours are devastated. She will be sorely missed.

Following a post mortem, there will be a quiet family interment at the graveside, followed in a few months’ time by a public celebration of Jo’s life, to which everyone who knew her, will be invited to contribute.

Tributes to her life and work have been flowing in from individuals and organisations who regarded her as their friend and champion.

On her retirement from a career in IT (mainly with IBM), Jo Frith brought to Sidmouth, and to the wider Devon community her keen analytical mind together with wit, good humour and immense kindness.

A one-time Councillor in the London Borough of Richmond, Jo’s knowledge of local government enabled her to play a leading role as a volunteer for the Devon County education service. She was also an invaluable member of the Vision Group for Sidmouth in its liaison work between the community and local government.

Her commitment to environmental sustainability led her to be the secretary of various organisations over the past decade, from East Devon Green Energy to the Independent East Devon Alliance. Ironically it was Jo herself who had convened the EDA Executive meeting which gathered in Sidmouth three days after her shockingly sudden death, where members reflected in silence on her years of dedicated service to the community.

Many Sidmothians may have known Jo only as the cheerful holder of a signpost in the High Street on the second Saturday of each month, pointing the way to the monthly Farmers’ Market, promoted by the Vision Group for Sustainable Sidmouth.

Behind the scenes Jo pointed the way to many other projects to preserve and enhance our town and the future survival of our species.

Her experience in Iceland and elsewhere gave her a unique insight for the Department for the Environment pathfinder project on erosion and coastal management on the Jurassic Coast. She was a fund of knowledge on innovative renewable energy projects that could be profitably applied to our coastline. She worked indefatigably to encourage local government to take action on flood management and to reduce the risks of flooding from rivers, sea and rainfall. Recently she has been serving as an expert community representative advising EDDC on Sidmouth’s Beach Management Project.

Jo’s personal life exemplified her ethical commitment to life on earth. Her early decision not to have children was a gesture against over-population that also freed her for service to the wider community.

In recent years, she made her home in Fortfield Terrace where neighbouring flats were occupied by her 95 year old father John, her sister Gita, and her nephew Duncan. With her extended family she strove to enhance the Fortfield Terrace community both culturally and sharing resources to demonstrate models of energy efficiency.

Above all Jo was a good friend and wise neighbour to many people. Below are some initial personal reactions to Jo’s death. It is an impressive composite word portrait.

Brexit Ministers get a taste of civil service “impartiality”

“… Is the civil service orchestrating an EU referendum cover-up?

Whitehall sources have confirmed that Heywood [Head of Civil Service] told senior civil servants that there would be times when they would have to bypass the six senior ministers who want to leave the EU.

And in a statement issued by the Vote Leave campaign group, Patel said: “It is important that the civil service maintains impartiality during the EU referendum. Jeremy Heywood’s unconstitutional act threatens the reputation of the civil service.

“Secretaries of state are responsible for their departments. For an unelected official to prevent them being aware of the information they need for their duties is wrong. …

… Bernard Jenkin, the chairman of the Commons public administration select committee, who is tabling an urgent question in the Commons, said Heywood appeared to be acting in an “unorthodox and unprecedented” manner. The row first broke out last week when Heywood issued guidelines banning civil servants from showing official papers related to the EU referendum to Brexit.

In a move aimed specifically at Iain Duncan Smith, Heywood issued guidelines last week to ban civil servants from preparing new research for anti-EU cabinet ministers that could be used in the EU referendum campaign. No 10 had feared that Duncan Smith, who has strong doubts about the welfare elements of the prime minister’s EU reform plan, would seek to ask his officials to assess the credibility of the plan.

At least one permanent secretary is understood to have raised concerns with their Brexit secretary of state that Heywood may be acting in a constitutionally inappropriate manner because secretaries of state, technically at least, are solely responsible for their departments under a seal granted by the Queen.

Officials in Heywood’s office are also contacting the private offices of ministers who have yet to declare which side they are supporting in the referendum, asking them to make their intentions clear. This is designed to work out whether they are entitled to see all papers in their department related to the referendum. Duncan Smith urged David Cameron to reverse the Heywood guidelines.

Jenkin said that any attempt by Heywood to bypass a secretary of state would be unconstitutional and could be unlawful by infringing the Carltona principle, which says that officials in a department work “under the authority of ministers”. Jenkin, whose committee will question Heywood on Tuesday, said of the cabinet secretary’s guidelines: “This is unorthodox and unprecedented. In law the minister is indivisible from his or her department.”

Well, we can tell them all about how restricting information works in East Devon! If you don’t belong to the Cabinet (even if you are a councillor from the same political party) you will never get to know how some decisions start out, get developed or even end up. Your colleagues won’t tell you and senior officers won’t tell you either.

Welcome to our world Ms Patel!

Hugo’s finally made up his mind – he’s in

Dave not Boris: Hugo wants to stay in the EU.

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/east_devon_mp_hugo_swire_reveals_position_on_eu_1_4437082

First time buyers lottery: 141,000 to win up to £200,000 – nothing at all to 2 million

“The government’s starter homes initiative could deliver a taxpayer-backed windfall of £141,000 each to 200,000 lucky first-time buyers, but 2 million more aspiring homeowners will be stuck renting, campaigners say.

The scheme, which allows developers to replace shared ownership and affordable rented homes with properties sold at a 20% discount, has been widely criticised since it was first announced in December 2014. One of the key concerns for housing campaigners is that the homes can be sold on at the open-market rate after five years.

Lobby group Generation Rent said that this meant a “£27bn raffle” in which the original buyers stood to gain, while those who missed out would find it ever harder to get on the housing ladder. It said the scheme’s potential rewards “far exceed the already generous returns of home ownership”.

The figures are based on average newbuild house prices and numbers of new homes being built around the country. The average cost of a newbuild property in England stands at £297,000, according to the Office for National Statistics. So as a starter home it would be bought at £238,000, Generation Rent said. If house prices rise at 5% a year, after five years the same property could be sold for £379,000. Outside London, the maximum cost of a qualifying home is £250,000 but in the capital that rises to £450,000. Generation Rent said buyers could stand to make a profit of £228,139 on a home bought for £383,200.

The group is calling for the homes to be subject to rules saying that they can only be sold on at a 20% discount. Betsy Dillner, the director of Generation Rent, said this would help multiple first-time buyers “instead of a jammy handful of winners in a multibillion pound raffle”.

She added: “The government said its starter homes would be exclusively for first-time buyers, but by letting them vanish into the open market after five years, they’re betraying the millions who are stuck renting.”

The housing charity Shelter last year described the properties as “non-starter homes”, saying that by 2020 in more than half of the country they would be unaffordable for families earning average wages.

Shelter’s chief executive, Campbell Robb, said: “While the government is offering these discounted homes to a select few, for those who aren’t so lucky, all they’re offering is more time spent in expensive and unstable private renting, or living with mum and dad well into their 30s.

“This crisis can be turned around, but only if the government moves beyond schemes that only help the well off, and starts investing in homes that ordinary families can actually afford as well.”

As the House of Lords prepare to debate the policy as part of the housing bill this week, experts said there were many unanswered questions surrounding the policy. Neal Hudson, an associate director at property firm Savills, said that despite the scheme being a key plank of government housing policy “there is still a massive amount of detail outstanding on how it will work”.

He added: “There is likely to be a lot of uncertainty about how much people should be paying for land because they are not sure how they will be able to use it.”

Hudson said uncertainty remained over how the prices of starter homes would be determined if there were no comparable properties nearby, and how mortgage lenders would treat a property that could not be sold at market rate for five years.

Other analysts have questioned how the policy will run alongside the government’s help-to-buy loan scheme, where buyers are offered a 20% interest-free loan but must repay it when they sell.

In January the head of housebuilder Taylor Wimpey said that confusion over how the scheme would work was causing problems for developers. Pete Redfern said: “It’s quite hard if you’re looking at a future site to know how that policy balance will end up, because local authorities feel more threatened by starter homes than by anything else.”

Research carried out by Savills for the Local Government Association (LGA) found that the discounted starter home prices were out of reach for all people in need of affordable housing in 220 council areas and for more than 90% in a further 80 council areas.”

http://gu.com/p/4h4pe

Devolution 2: the missing link and the heart of our problem with it

“The missing link is the cultivation of citizen participation and the development of structures and mechanisms for doing so, without which levels of accountability and alienation could be no better than before, for two reasons.

First, citizens have to wait until the next mayoral election to make their voices heard just as they do with local and general elections.

Secondly, people do not automatically feel more connected to local leaders because proximity is only one part of accessibility, which also involves visibility and approachability.” …

… While it is possible to argue that democratic structures could be developed after powers have been devolved, it makes more sense to set out ambitions for participation and accountability early on. These ambitions will affect which powers are needed and the governance arrangements of devolution agreements. For example, if the ambition is to use ‘pop-up parishes’ to design town- centre regeneration, then it may be necessary to devolve more power over planning and land use, and to ensure that proposalscan be tabled by citizen groups and not just by members of the combined authority leadership. …

… There is neither realism about the growth outcomes of devolution nor much concern about generating particular bene ts for local economic stakeholders, such as residents, local workers, and business owners. NEF’s work on local economies has shown that if cities are to ‘meet their full economic potential’13 in terms of benefiting local economic stakeholders, this will involve:

• Supporting people to be nancially strong individuals in terms of income-to-cost-of- living ratios and being able to have savings.

• Developing a strong local business sector with supply chains connecting small enterprise to big business.

• Making more ef client use of distribution of resources, with positive local circulation of money, low levels of wasted resources in local supply and production systems, a high level of staff retention in jobs, and falling levels of inequality and poverty.

In the documents, these sorts of economic outcome for local people are only rarely discussed. For example, reducing poverty is mentioned four times in a total of 1,129 arguments and cost of living is not mentioned at all. This is a gap in the debate. ‘More jobs’ is the overwhelming focus rather than ‘better jobs and wages’.

In current devolution agreements power remains firmly in the hands of Westminster who can revoke devolved functions and budgets in future if it is dissatis ed with progress, without clear criteria de ning success. Westminster will retain a stick with which to beat localities if they are not achieving outcomes desired by central government, perhaps especially economic growth and cost savings. This could prove restrictive rather than liberating. A Voluntary and Community Sector worker from Liverpool, for example, raised the concern that a devolution agreement for the Liverpool area would ‘cast a potentially narrow economic glow over our world’ and that the local government would be unable to prioritise non- economic outcomes which also matter to local people.

… The devolution debate could go one of two ways. It could roll on in the backrooms of Westminster leading to opacity, confusion, and potentially falling public support for the policy.

Or it could be brought into the open, where there will be space for criticism and consideration of the downsides of devolution, as well as discussion of its potential to transform and strengthen our towns, cities and democracy. “

Click to access 1888588d95f1712903_e3m6ii50b.pdf

At last some straight talking on devolution

” … Should growth be the main goal?

Our research found that arguments for economic growth are weak at explaining how these outcomes would be achieved; they tend to focus on the benefits devolution would bring the national purse rather than the local economy. Devolution could improve the lives of local people, yet the current debate pays little attention to how this could be achieved.

How devolution would affect income-to-cost-of-living ratios, which affect everyone’s day to day economic reality, is seldom mentioned. The number of jobs that would be created is discussed far more often than the quality of jobs that would be created. Reducing poverty through economic growth is mentioned only four times in a total of 1,129 arguments.

Devolving fiscal and policy making powers to the local level over skills, housing, business rates and enterprise, could improve how the local economy works for its residents and local stakeholders. It could, for example, enable local government to better shape local business stock and promote resilience to external shocks through reasonable diversity in sectors, business size and ownership models. While economic growth may be one measure of success, it should not be pursued at the expense of other key economic and social goals that devolution could benefit.
Building a more democratic country

Creating a more democratic country seems an obvious aim for devolution but it is neglected by advocates of devolution, particularly in local government as Figure 2 shows. Discussions currently neglect the greater role citizens could play in political decision-making if decisions are made closer to home, but also the ways in which devolution could increase the accountability of elected leaders to the public. Simply creating elected mayors is not enough to revive an ailing democracy. This is why local governments should also be considering the mechanisms and structures for citizen participation which could make devolution worthwhile.

How can we change the debate?

We need to bring the debate into the open for public discussion, locally and nationally, so that everyday economic concerns like the quality of jobs created, and reducing inequality, feature strongly in discussions around what goals devolution should deliver.

So far, the debate has been conducted in the backrooms of Westminster rather than in public forums. Several parties in government have proposed a Constitutional Convention – a citizen forum where the governance of the country is discussed – but are yet to act on the proposal.

In the meantime, a group of academics and civil society groups have piloted this model in Sheffield and Southampton, showing how it would work. Drawing on examples from countries including Iceland, Canada, the Netherlands and Scotland, they show that the direct participation of local people in decision-making improves not only the democratic quality of decisions, but their effectiveness. It’s a match made in heaven for the devolution revolution.”

‘The briefing Democracy: the missing link in the devolution debate’ is available for download here:

http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/entry/democracy-the-missing-link-in-the-devolution-debate

Key findings:

Of the arguments made for devolution, 41.6% focus on achieving economic growth as the main justification for devolving power.

Only 12.9% of arguments make the case for devolution in order to shift power, strengthen democracy, and increase citizen involvement in decision-making.

Just 7.4% of arguments address inequalities in wealth and power between regions.

Environmental sustainability is part of just 0.8% of arguments.

Only 2.9% of arguments address the potential downsides and risks of devolution.

Local governments in particular seldom consider the impact of devolution on democracy, discussing democratic outcomes less than central government or think-tanks.

http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/whats-missing-from-the-devolution-debate

Hugo Swire still doing the hokey-cokey!

According to tonight’s BBC Spotlight news, only 2 South West MPs have not yet declared whether they are for or against staying in the EE: Jonny Mercer (Con Plymouth Moor View) and our own Hugo Swire.

Please Dave or please Boris. … oh, the agony. He will soon be down to flipping a coin.

Wonder whether his constituency party realised he was torn between the two and had no firm views on the EU when he was parachuted into East Devon? Did they even ask him his views on the EU? Probably not.

Still, if he throws himself behind Boris and Dave fires him, we might see more of him in East Devon.

“Planning policy discourages larger homes says housebuilder”

Forgive Owl being cynical but larger homes sell for more money and make more profit for the builder! And why does “empty nesting” need larger homes?

“One of the UK’s biggest housebuilders has hit out at government planning policy as new figures emerged showing a steady decline in the number of larger family homes being built.

The number of homes constructed with four bedrooms or more halved between 2001 and 2011, from around 50,000 to 25,000, research carried out by law firm Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners and Cala Homes found.

Since 1991, only 28pc of new homes built have had four bedrooms or more, which Cala blamed on rules that require developers to build a minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare, favouring smaller homes.

The housebuilder warned that with the rise of the UK’s middle classes and a growing trend among the nation’s ageing population for “empty nesting”, more home owners are now demanding larger houses. It claimed more than 700,000 households in England are overcrowded.

Price inflation for large detached family homes has significantly outpaced that of other housing types over the last 20 years, further putting the squeeze on families looking to move up the housing ladder.

Recent government policy has focused on boosting housing supply for first time buyers through new initiatives such as the Help to Buy scheme, which provides mortgage guarantees and equity, and Starter Homes.

Cala wants the Government to review housing policy to give large home development at least equal weighting to that of smaller homes – saying it is currently too biased towards first time buyers. It also criticised the Government’s strategy to encourage older or single people to downsize, saying the policy will never contribute sufficient numbers of homes to affect housing supply.

Alan Brown, chief executive of Cala, said the policies failed to meet “the real demands of growing families across the country”.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/02/27/planning-policy-discourages-larger-homes-says-housebuilder/