Consultation – you’re having a laugh, surely?

Just one paragraph from the consultation document below in a section on “planning in principle”:

“2.35 Before an application for technical details consent is determined, we do not propose to require by secondary legislation that local planning authorities consult with the community and others before making a decision.

We would welcome views about giving local planning authorities the option to carry out further consultation with such interested persons as they consider appropriate. This would be based on their judgement and would be informed by the engagement that took place when permission in principle was granted.

While we think that it is important for appropriate further engagement to take place at the technical details consent stage, we consider that centrally mandating what should be done risks unnecessarily repeating engagement and takes away an important local flexibility. We do propose that it should be mandatory for applicants to notify landowners and agricultural tenants of the application (as is currently the case with a planning application).”

Click to access Planning_consultation.pdf

Yet another battle to fight: more, many more, sneaky changes to planning

The devil is in the detail here – so many “minor” changes, never seen before – all gearing up to give our LEP total control of the planning system:

“This consultation seeks views on the proposed approach to implementing the planning provisions in the Housing and Planning Bill, and some other planning measures. It covers the following areas:

Changes to planning application fees
 Permission in principle
 Brownfield register
 Small sites register
 Neighbourhood planning
 Local plans
 Expanding the planning performance regime
 Testing competition in the processing of planning applications
 Information about financial benefits
 Section 106 dispute resolution
 Permitted development rights for state-funded schools
 Changes to statutory consultation on planning applications”

Click to access Planning_consultation.pdf

WE HAVE UNTIL 15 APRIL 2016 TO RESPOND

Dear Owl …

I went to a boys’ school – a rather famous boys’ school – where I made many, many friends, a lot of whom I now work with and see every day.

One of them is now CEO of the massive – and I mean massive – company in which I am a somewhat lowly sub-deputy-sales manager. But the CEO and I get on (he has even once tapped my posterior in public!).

Another one of my friends from school is the manager of a large sub-division of the firm and is always getting his picture in the newspapers (sometimes not for the right reasons) and seems very popular with staff and a lot of the customers.

Recently, we have had a bit of trouble in the company. The CEO says it is just a little blip, the sub-division manager disagrees and he says that money has gone missing and the CEO’s workers (mostly people on zero-hours contracts and often immigrants) are to blame. The CEO says no money is missing and he is cutting down the number of workers who MIGHT be tempted to steal from the company anyway, so no need to worry.

Now the divisional manager has launched a bid to oust the CEO and replace him and I have to take a side.

As if that wasn’t hard enough, one of my jobs is to control a very small section of the workforce, which has been really troublesome. For years they were (I thought) loyal to me and were always happy to do what I told them. I didn’t see them often as I am always away on sales trips, but I would turn up at their social events and smile a lot and all seemed well.

I was shocked when recently I had to re-apply for my job. This happens every few years (we would like to do away with this old custom but haven’t yet managed it) but the CEO always makes sure he butters up my workers and so it has never been a problem getting reinstated.

Imagine my shock and horror last time when last time one of my workers stood against me and seemed, for reasons I will never understand, very popular. Other workers tried it in the past and failed miserably but this one did surprisingly well.

It was a nasty shock, and I ended up having to drag my dog around the workplace and talk to the workers. I even had to cancel some of my sales trips (though, to be fair, no-one tells me much about what we are selling). I kept my job but it looked very sticky for a while I can tell you!

Now, I am in a real dilemma. The CEO wants me to back him in re-negotiating a big contract in Europe. The manager of the sub-division says it is tosh and the European client is bankrupt and we shouldn’t trade with them at all. Our workers can’t seem to make up their minds and in my little division I can’t work out what they think at all.

As if this wasn’t enough, my job will be up for re-application again soon and I have no idea who will be in charge then. If it is the CEO I will be fine. If it is the Divisional Manager and I don’t choose his side mow, I could lose my sales job and be demoted. If I can’t satisfy my workers and I am challenged again by that awful person from last time, I could even lose my job with the company completely! And not only would I lose my job, my wife would lose hers too, as she is my secretary.

So, what should I do, back one chum or the other? I really need some advice from a wise old owl here.

But could you delay publishing it for a few days – I am on a sales trip at the moment and my old Nokia phone isn’t getting a signal.

Yours sincerely,

Rupert

Brexit: Bank of England makes contingency plans

“The Bank of England is preparing a contingency plan for the aftermath of Britain’s referendum on European Union membership.

However Mark Carney, the Governor, said the central bank will not predict the likely outcome or economic consequences of a vote to leave.

Mr Carney also acknowledged that uncertainty about the outcome was fueling instability for the pound in evidence to MPs on the Treasury select committee.

Mr Carney said: “We’re treating this vote exactly how we treat any other political event, which is not to make a judgment on the outcome and assume the status quo continues. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12170936/EU-referendum-Bank-of-England-is-making-contingency-plans-says-Governor-Mark-Carney.html

So, where is our Local Enterprise Partnership’s Plan B, bearing in mind it sees one of its funding streams as being the European Union? AND, if there is a Brexit, will the cost of Hinkley C increase, it being majority-funded in France?

Our chances of finding out from the LEP – zero.

Quote of the day

“The people of England regards itself as free; but it is grossly mistaken; it is free only during the election of members of parliament. As soon as they are elected, slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing.”

Jean-Jaques Rousseau, “The Social Contract”, 1762

District councils and LEPs didn’t exist in 1762!

Another green wedge under threat

Topsham is not in the East Devon District but IS in the East Devon parliamentary constituency of Hugo Swire. Let’s see if he speaks up for Topsham as Honiton and Tiverton MP Neil Parish did for Feniton. But don’t hold your breath – he’s travelling the world and probably won’t even know what’s happening here. And if he does, he will almost certainly not help, citing “being a minister” as his usual excuse.

Sorry, but if you voted for him, this is what you get – an absentee MP who doesn’t even have a second home in the constituency, preferring to have it in Mid-Devon.

“Hundreds of people have attended a public inquiry to object to plans to build on an area of green space known as the “Topsham Gap”.

The land separates the town of Topsham from the city of Exeter.

The public inquiry follows Exeter City Council’s rejection of Waddeton Park’s plans to build a 60-bed care home plus more than 100 homes for over 55s.

The developer says it would provide “much-needed” housing for the area’s ageing population.

A campaign group, Save the Topsham Gap, objects to the development, claiming Topsham has its own identity and the “gap” is the last bit of land physically separating the two areas.

‘Antagonise the inspector’

An earlier inquiry in November was adjourned because the venue at Newcourt Community Centre was deemed too small for the numbers wanting to attend.
A number of local people who wanted to attend the start of the four-day inquiry at the Westpoint Centre, were angry at being “locked out” after arriving late, but an official said she was not willing to “antagonise the inspector” by allowing latecomers into the proceedings.

“This is like a court of law and the inspector is the judge – and the inspector decides how it will be run,” she told BBC News.

She said the people would be able to attend the afternoon session of the inquiry, but one objector said he was “appalled” at being locked out.
“It’s a public inquiry and we should be allowed in,” he said.

The inspector’s decision will be announced at a later date.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-35639773

Everything you wanted to know about devolution but couldn’t get our Local Enterprise Partnership to tell you’

A meeting about Devolution – Thursday 25th February at 6.30 in the Guildhall, Totnes.

A paper written in 2012 that predicted with uncanny and very scary accuracy what would happen when LEPs decided to rule the world:

http://transitionculture.org/2012/05/28/why-we-need-to-put-the-local-back-into-local-enterprise-partnerships/

And a petition to sign if you feel that all this is happening democratically and non-transparently::

go to

change.org

and search for the petition:

Stop the ‘unlawful’ devolution process in Devon and Somerset

Sidford Fields owner wastes no time putting in planning application

And DCC allows the owner to dictate where cycle and footpaths should go. Nicely done.

“A planning application for a 12-acre business park between Sidford and Sidbury is expected in the spring, according to the district council.

The Herald reported last week that a long-awaited cycle link between the villages had been put on hold to allow ‘further dialogue’ between Devon County Council and the park’s applicant.

County Hall’s decision came after a government inspector controversially ruled that the employment land allocation must be included in East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) Local Plan.

An EDDC spokeswoman told the Herald this week: “We anticipate receiving an application [for the business park] in spring 2016.

“However, even if an application were to be successful, we don’t know when work would commence on site.”

Designs for Devon County Council’s 900-metre cycle route and footpath showed it running from Sidford to Sidbury alongside the A375 – starting in an area allocated for development.

It agreed to withdraw its planning application to allow further dialogue with the business park applicant about what alignment changes might be needed.

The delay will not affect a scheme linking Byes Lane and Laundry Lane as this does not require planning permission. Funding is in place for work to start in the next financial year.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/sidford_business_park_plans_anticipate_in_spring_1_4425821

Exmouth seafront demo: Wednesday 24th February at 5.45pm,

Campaign group Save Exmouth Seafront will hold a demo outside The Knowle over development plans.

Louise MacAllister, spokesperson for the group highly critical of the £18m Queen’s Drive project, said many of their questions about “remain unanswered” by East Devon District Council.

It’s despite EDDC recently publishing information in the form of a Q&A on their website.

Louise will lead the demo outside the council offices in Sidmouth on Wednesday 24th February at 5.45pm, as district councillors arrive ahead of a full council meeting.

The group will then field some of the “unanswered” questions at the district authority during the public speaking section of the meeting.

“Previous questions asked by the campaign group have remained unanswered …”
http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Save-Exmouth-Seafront-hold-demo-ahead-council/story-28784552-detail/story.html

Budleigh Hospital to remain closed while two parts of the NHS wrangle about who owns it and who can charge the other for it!

“The wait to reopen Budleigh Salterton Hospital as a multi-purpose health facility is set to continue for the unforeseeable future.

A dispute over ownership of the site means it is already five months behind schedule for when it was due to open its doors to the community again.

Nearly a year ago, NHS Northern, Eastern and Western (NEW) Devon Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) approved an £800,000 transformation of the facility owned by the Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust.

The hospital closed last summer and was due to reopen in September. NEW Devon CCG is in discussions to hand over responsibility for East Devon’s community hospitals to the Royal Devon & Exeter hospital.

It would mean the ownership of Budleigh Hospital would be automatically transferred to NHS Property Services, which would need to generate a commercial rent from the hospital building.

As a result, the scheme for a wellbeing hub in Budleigh will have to be put on hold until issues surrounding the ownership of the site can be resolved. …”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Budleigh-Salterton-Hospital-remains-closed/story-28784586-detail/story.html

Planning decision quashed: council made decision while application was with Secretary of State for decision on EIA

“Whilst the local authority was not precluded from granting planning permission in such circumstances it ran the risk that if that direction was positive it would then have granted a planning consent which was infected with illegality, as was the case here. The judge also remarked that he would also have been minded to conclude that no reasonable planning authority, knowing when they formed a resolution to grant planning permission that there was an outstanding request of the Secretary of State to make a determination on a screening direction, would proceed to grant planning permission without knowing the outcome of that screening direction process. Accordingly, the permission was quashed.

While the facts are a little unusual it is now clear that where both a third party and the Secretary of State become involved prior to a planning determination, it is advisable always to allow EIA procedures to run their full course, however desirous it may be to secure an early planning permission. Given that the Secretary of State is under no timing restrictions, unlike a local authority, that could be many months. So, the Roskilly case now sits as another and telling reminder amongst EIA jurisprudence that screening considerations should never be treated lightly, and, that unreasonableness can still be a successful ground to challenge that process.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25999:eia-trumping&catid=63&Itemid=31

David versus Goliath in the planning process

The local people kicking up a storm against billion-pound developments.

A selection of comments from the article”

““One reason we are seeing more campaigns such as mine is that you don’t have the public interest being served by councils or government; instead, they act as an arbitrator between communities and business. The people whose job it is to work in the public interest don’t see that as their job anymore”

Turner says many developers are successfully lobbying government to tie the hands of campaigners like him – hence the measures in the housing bill.”

and

“To understand what was going on with the scheme I had to visit the council offices,” explains McHattie. “I couldn’t see the plans online. When I turned up I was put in a room and shown the plans, which were dragged up from a box in the archives. I was told I could not take photographs but I have no architecture expertise so I didn’t understand what I was looking at. How could people of the city understand what was going on if they all had to visit this room to get information?”

and

“It’s in a developer’s interest to make the documents as difficult to comprehend as possible,” says Donoghue, who adds that it is “ridiculous” that the Goodsyard documents have more pages than the complete works of Shakespeare or the bible.”

and

“Groups like ours do not oppose development per se,” says Hammerson, a local researcher and author. “We oppose bad development, and unfortunately we get too much of that.”

He says more developers now use the planning system as a “second throw of the dice” to overrule refusals made under local policies.”

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

“Devon Tory MP ‘undecided’ on EU vote – because he is overseas”

“A Devon MP is yet to make up his mind on whether Britain should leave the European Union – because he is overseas.

Conservative MP Hugo Swire, who represents East Devon, is yet to indicate where he stands on the vote – due to him being away from the UK.

A spokesman for Mr Swire, who is Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said: “Mr Swire is in support of the idea of a referendum. He has been in New Zealand and is now in Canada on ministerial business. So I can’t give a yes or no. Hopefully we will be able to say by the end of this week or early next week. … ”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Devon-Tory-MP-8216-undecided-8217-EU-vote-8211/story-28784122-detail/story.html

So they don’t have email or phones in New Zealand and Canada then?

Or is he waiting to see which side of the fence others take before choosing whether to sit on it, do as Dave says, or do as his constituency party wishes?

Big dilemma for such a busy, busy traveller.

Neil Parish (Con Tiverton and Honiton) and Ben Bradshaw (Lab Exeter) have both declared themselves for IN.

Beware developers (in this case Persimmon) bearing “gifts”

Would our council have stood its ground the way Plymouth did?

“A LEADING house builder has lost its appeal against councils chiefs who insisted the firm carry out the work it promised on the Plympton homes five years ago.

A planning inspector told Persimmon Homes it had to carry out the work it was initially agreed to – the installation of solar panels on 12 executive homes it had built in Cundy Close, Woodford.

In March last year the firm narrowly avoided being taken to court by Plymouth City Council after residents and the council complained that only three of the houses received the solar panels.

Residents also pointed out the company never installed footpath lighting as agreed with the planning chiefs.

As the council prepared to take Persimmon Homes to court for breach of conditions the hearing was vacated as on the day of trial the building firm submitted an application to vary the condition.

Persimmon Homes applied to amend the energy strategy for the site, claiming the panels were not needed as the homes were energy efficient.

One angry resident wrote to the council’s planning chiefs saying ““Persimmon should have fulfilled their obligation under the original planning permission when these houses were built.”

At the time the council’s joint planning chairs Cllr Bill Stevens and Cllr Patrick Nicholson refused the application as it “does not with the council’s policy on Renewable Energy or deliver the proposals outlined in the applicant’s own energy strategy, approved as part of the planning permission.

“The development should incorporate enough renewable energy equipment to offset at least 15 percent of predicted carbon emissions for the period up to 2016.”

Rather than carry out the work Persimmon Homes chose to appeal the decision.

After months of deliberation, the planning inspector agreed with the residents and Plymouth City Council, telling Persimmon Homes its new energy saving assessment did not mean it could avoid finishing the work it initially proposed to do.

The inspectors report notes how the photovoltaic PV cells “so far installed achieve 6 percent reductions in predicted carbon emissions through on-site renewable energy production”, which was not disputed by Persimmon Homes.

However, the inspector also noted how the council had “two relevant objectives; to reduce energy consumption and thereby carbon emissions, through the use of insulation and good design, and to require the production of on-site renewable energy”

As such, the firm’s proposed measures “would not comply” with the council’s policies.

The inspector said the firm’s proposal fell “considerably short of the 15 percent target for offsetting predicted carbon emissions through on-site energy production by renewable sources” and it would “unacceptably conflict” with the council’s policy.

The inspector also noted how the firm admitted how retrofitting the PV cells “would be technically feasible” and dismissed their appeal.

Cllr Bill Stevens said the planning inspector “quite rightly” backed the council’s planning decision which showed “the benefit of locally appointed people taking these decisions – we know our area better.”

He said the ball was now in Persimmon Homes’ court and he would be meeting with the council’s enforcement officers be updated on the firm’s response.

He said: “It’s the same for every application. The planning process is there to make sure that you can allow appropriate development and we take a robust stance with every applicant, whether they are a multi-million company or a small local builder.

“Everybody has to comply with the rules and to my mind there’s no exception to that.”

Cllr Patrick Nicholson also urged residents of Cundy Close to consult their solicitors, suggesting Persimmon Homes procrastination over the installing of the solar panels may have caused residents to lose out on cheaper energy bills since 2012.

A spokesman for Persimmon refused to rule out yet further action. Daniel Heathcote, director in charge at Persimmon Homes Cornwall said: “We are reviewing the inspector’s findings before making a decision on what action to take.”

In September 2011 the council’s planning committee granted Persimmon Homes permission to build a 1,684 home development at the former Plymstock Quarry site – now named Saltram Meadows – after a £26m package was agreed. The agreement saw the company promise contributions to the local infrastructure, including £1.5m towards sports provision, of which £420,000 will go towards a swimming pool in Plymstock.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Persimmon-Homes-told-finish-work-Plympton/story-28784041-detail/story.html

Public speaking at EDDC planning meetings – or public gagging?

A “success” for whom? Certainly not us. And transparency – of course not. But thank you for trying, Susie.

This is why we need independent councillors.

And how do we know that it REALLY is “first come, first served”?

From the blog of Independent Councillor Susie Bond:

“The year-long trial for public speaking at planning meetings (DMC) has come to an end and my pleas for the Council to return to the old system of allowing anyone to speak on a planning application have fallen on deaf ears.

Under the old system, all an interested resident had to do was to add their name to a list at the entrance of the council chamber on the day of the meeting.

It was as simple as that.

Now, in order to be able to speak, you have to jump through several cumbersome hoops. Instructions on EDDC’s website and DMC agendas read:

“To speak on an application at Development Management Committee you must have submitted written comments during the consultation stage of the application. Those who have commented on an application being considered by the Committee will receive a letter or email (approximately 9 working days before the meeting) detailing the date and time of the meeting and instructions on how to register to speak. The letter/email will have a reference number, which you will need to provide in order to register.

Those who are eligible to speak for up to 3 minutes on an application can register from 10am, 6 working days before the meeting up until 12 noon, 3 working days before the meeting, by leaving a message on 01395 517525 or e-mailing planningpublicspeaking@eastdevon.gov.uk.”

The trial was instigated because the length of meetings was becoming ridiculously long and (it was suggested) it was members of the public who spent too long putting their points across and, heaven forfend, repeating themselves, which made them so.

My view is that DMC meetings were becoming overlong because of the very many applications being submitted by landowners and developers keen to secure planning consent in inappropriate locations while EDDC had no Local Plan in place. Without a Local Plan and the required 5-year land supply, planning applications were determined on the sustainability of the site … and lengthy meetings were made even lengthier by DMC members trying to find reasons for refusal which would stand up at appeal.

But the hoops are even more complex. The instructions continue:

“The number of people who can speak on each application is limited to:

• Major applications – parish/town council representative, 5 supporters, 5 objectors and the applicant or agent

• Minor/Other applications – parish/town council representative, 2 supporters, 2 objectors and the applicant or agent

Whether an application is classified under the legislation as a major, minor or other will be noted on the agenda for the meeting.

An officer will only contact those whose request to speak has been successful. Speakers will be registered on a first come, first served basis. The contact details of registered speakers, unless advised otherwise, will be posted on the website to allow others, who may have wished to speak, to contact them.

The day before the meeting a revised running order for the applications being considered by the Committee will posted on the website. Applications with registered speakers will be taken first.”

A report on the public-speaking arrangements came before the Standards Committee in January and then to DMC on 16 February and it was resolved to continue with the trial for a further year with a view to making it permanent thereafter. Members of DMC were asked to acknowledge the success of the trial.

‘Success’

The ‘success’ of the trial is debatable.

It has certainly made planning meetings more efficient and less time-consuming, but the length of time they take is now the same as it was before the introduction of the Draconian planning laws (the NPPF), so the stringent rules on public speaking at DMC are no longer necessary.

Members of the public are outraged at their speaking rights being curtailed and are making their voices heard to their district councillors.

It’s through listening to the views of the communities who are affected by any planning application that pertinent planning questions have been raised at DMC and which planning officers have been required to clarify.

We have created a system which is unnecessarily complicated for the general public to navigate and places an extra burden on Democratic Services officers who run the meetings.

Some might consider that this policy of making it difficult for the people of East Devon to exercise their democratic right is a bad thing and indeed that it reflects poorly on EDDC.

https://susiebond.wordpress.com/2016/02/22/public-speaking-at-planning-meetings/

Devolution – the “Northern Powerhouse”: “pie-in-the sky” with our money

Isn’t it interesting that all devolution projects include at least one mega-billion pound project that comes off the government’s books and on to those of devolved areas – presumably allowing government to manipulate the national debt to show that the deficit is coming down … when costs have simply moved. And all of them include the word “regeneration” to make them look inviting. Not that the word is an inviting one in East Devon!

“There is no guarantee that investing billions in infrastructure will help the North of England, the man leading the “Northern Powerhouse” project says.

But former CBI chief John Cridland told the BBC that people should take a “leap of faith” on new roads and railways. He said he believed reducing journey times between northern cities would improve the economy.
But critics say the money might be better spent on training and skills – or on transport within cities.

Mr Cridland’s quango Transport for the North is due to publish its first report soon.

The chancellor’s advisory National Infrastructure Commission also will make recommendations on Northern transport.

‘Pie in the sky’

The bodies have been considering transport options such as a motorway running under the Peak District from Sheffield to Manchester, or an HS3 rail link between Leeds and Manchester.

But Anne Robinson, from Friends of the Peak District, told BBC News: “These are just pie-in-the-sky schemes. We haven’t been given the slightest shred of evidence that they will do any good.”

She warned that the motorway scheme – running more than 30 miles underground – would cost a fortune, as well as creating congestion in roads at either end of the tunnel and potentially disrupting the ecology of the Peaks National Park.

Mr Cridland said ambitious infrastructure should be on the agenda: “I’m not claiming there is perfect science here. “But I am convinced that after decades of under-investment, it’s now time to close that investment gap – and it will lead to better travelling experiences and economic growth.
“Transport economics can’t always prove this: sometimes, like the Victorian engineers, you have to take a leap of faith.”

Ms Robinson said it was foolish to take a leap of faith with billions of public money.

It is likely, though, that both quangos reporting on transport in the north will concentrate their efforts on solutions which bring quick improvement for travellers – like electrifying the Leeds-Manchester route and putting on extra carriages.

Regeneration

Another likely favourite option will be to introduce hard-shoulder running by making all of the M62 a “smart” motorway.

The two bodies may also be anxious to keep hope alive for heroic inter-city infrastructure in the north so people have faith in the regeneration of the region.

There is already a degree of cynicism about ambitious words from Westminster. One Manchester business leader disparaged the term “Northern Powerhouse”.

“It’s a bit embarrassing isn’t it? Frankly it looks like a brand in search of a product,” he told me.

Mr Cridland maintains that already the Powerhouse slogan itself has created a sense of excitement and purpose.

The team making key decisions on train operation in the north has been shifted from the south to Leeds, he says – and this is making planners more responsive to local needs.

The big cities of the north are talking to each other, making plans, dreaming they can really breathe new life into the region, Mr Cridland says.

Now, he confesses, some infrastructure has to follow.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35625738

Hinkley Point: all our eggs in a very fragile basket

If devolution leaves East Devon in the hands of our Local Enterprise Partnership, we know that its vanity project will be the Hinkley Point C nuclear reactor, an “investment” that we will be forced to fund to the tune of millions (or billions) of pounds with other Devon and Somerset councils and other LEPs nearby. This has already been decided behind closed doors:

http://www.heartofswlep.co.uk/news/south-west-nuclear-cluster-%E2%80%93-delivering-benefits-hinkley-point-c-local-business-community-and

EDF is attempting to partner with Chinese investors on this project but we have known for some time that they are not only having difficulty raising their own finance but that there are major problems in the Chinese economy and also serious worries that the type of reactor they want to build is entirely wrong.

From “The Ecologist if 20 February 2016.

““EDF were supposed to give a final decision on the project this week but the decision was postponed, though EDF stated their intention to begin the project in 2019.

Definitive construction of what will be built on the site, what we call the first concrete, is on the horizon for 2019.” [says EDF]

The idea that there will be a three year delay before any concrete is poured after a positive decision to proceed has caught observers, and contractors lined up to work on the project, by surprise. Earth moving and site preparation has already been under way for several years, plans are at an advanced stage, and heavy engineering works would normally be expected to begin within months.

The date, 2019, is a year after the reactors were originally due to be completed. The timetable has gradually slipped backwards. Last year the date for power to start being generated was put back to 2025, but this new date for pouring concrete makes 2030 more likely – if the reactors are built at all.

One insider with close contacts within EDF told The Ecologist: “The fact is that EDF is already in a precarious financial situation, with its share price half what it was a year ago, a falling credit rating, and massive liabilities for reactor upgrades and decommissioning.

“It has so far sunk £2 billion into Hinkley C and it simply cannot afford to write that sum off even if has already decided that this project is a total loss. So they have to pretend that it’s a goer and that the £2 billion is a live investment that will, one day, produce a return to its shareholders.”

In other words, a final investment decision to go head may, in fact, be no such thing. The company could just be planning to keep a few earth movers trundling about on the site, for years, on end, to give the appearance of activity while it seeks a graceful way out of the gigantic hole it has dug for itself.

The most likely long term plan, our source continued, is to try to sell the entire site on to its Chinese partner CGN after a few years. However CGN would then want to use a new reactor design, probably its own ‘Hualong’ model – which would then create additional long delays as no example has yet been built and it would have to undergo rigorous safety examination.

Record of delays, cost hikes and safety concerns

The new proposed start date of 2019 is significant for reasons the company dare not spell out. This is because there is no evidence yet that these so-called EPR (European Pressurised Reactor, no renamed ‘Evolutionary Power Reactor’) will operate effectively.

Four EPRs are under construction, but are years behind schedule, and costs have tripled. In Europe their earliest proposed start date is 2018 – so it looks as though EDF is being careful not to begin building another one until it can prove the design actually works.

The EPR, a so called ‘third generation’ design, is the largest nuclear plant in the world. They have a chequered history, even before any has actually produced a single watt of electricity. Construction of the first prototype began in 2005 at Olkiluoto in Finland: expected to be finished in 2009, it is still under construction.

The same is true of the second, at Flamanville in France, where construction began in 2007. It has also hit delays and cost over-runs of staggering proportions, and technical problems – in the form of a metallurgically flawed pressure reactor and lid – that could sink the project completely.

The vessel and lid contains too much carbon and is undergoing stress testing to see if it is safe. While the outcome of these tests remains unknown, a question mark hangs over the station’s future. It too is due to start in 2018 but few believe it will do so.

The other two EPRs are being built at Taishan in China. Both should have been in operation by this year, but both also have undergone unspecified delays.

These difficulties, plus the vast amount of remedial safety work required by the French safety regulators from EDF on its fleet of 58 ageing reactors in France itself, have put the company under severe financial strain. It needs to find €100 billion for repairs, and to improve safety following the Fukushima disaster in Japan, to keep the plants operating until 2030.

As a result of fears that the company might overstretch itself and jeopardise jobs in France the six trade union representatives on EDF’s board have expressed opposition to the company going ahead with building reactors on British soil.

UK energy policy in tatters

This further postponement of a start date for the new reactors leaves the UK government with a gaping hole in its energy policy, despite it offering to pay double the existing price of electricity for the output from Hinkley Point, a subsidy that will continue for 35 years.

The Conservative government has been relying on nuclear energy to replace fossil fuels from 2025, when it plans to phase out all its coal stations. Some renewable energy subsidies have been scrapped to make way for new nuclear stations. As a result the UK is due to miss its EU renewable energy targets.

In all, the Conservative government wants ten new nuclear stations in the UK – four EPRs and the rest from Japan and the US. None of these now seems likely to be built before 2030, if at all.

Perhaps to divert attention from the postponement of the new reactors, EDF announced that it was going to extend the life of four of the nuclear power stations it already operates in Britain. It bought eight ageing stations of British design in 2009 for £12.5 billion.

Some were already due to close in 2018 but have had their lives extended. Now another four will be kept open to bridge the gap left by the failure to build the new stations at Hinkley Point. These are the Heysham 1 plant in northwest England and another at Hartlepool in the northeast, both of which had been due to be switched off in 2019 because of their advanced age. They will be allowed to keep producing electricity for another five years.

Two other reactors, Heysham 2 and Torness in Scotland, have been granted extensions of seven years to 2030. There is no reason – as long as the stations are deemed safe – why further life extensions should not be applied for, and granted.

Continuing to apply for life extensions for old nuclear stations also saves the company from technical bankruptcy. Once a station is closed its decommissioning costs become company liabilities. With the company’s debts already high, it would not take many closures for EDF’s liabilities to exceed its assets.”

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2987225/nuclear_zombie_hinkley_c_build_wont_start_until_2019_if_at_all.html

What happens when “economic growth” spirals out of control

Lots of (poorly paid, temporary and zero- hours contracts) employment, massive “growth” and disastrous consequences. Coming soon to a town near you – perhaps Cranbrook when the supermarket depot opens on its doorstep and more companies relocate to its “enterprise zone”?

“Police say they have safety concerns about overcrowded houses in the town where one of Europe’s largest sports retailers is based.

Sports Direct employs at least 3,500 agency workers at its site in Shirebrook, Derbyshire.

While filming in the town, the BBC was shown houses “carved into flats”, including one with rooms partitioned down the middle of its windows.
Bolsover Council admitted it was caught off guard by the influx of workers.
Figures obtained by the BBC also show 46 housing complaints relating to overcrowding, repairs and conditions were made from April 2015 to 21 December last year – up from 16 in 2005 to 2006.

The Sports Direct agency workers, largely employed in the company’s warehouse, come mainly from Eastern European countries like Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania and Albania.

There are 500 permanent staff at the site.

The council estimates 1,500 people have moved to Shirebrook – which has a population of more than 13,000 – in the last four years, with many renting rooms in houses near the company’s headquarters.

Police community support officer (PCSO) Steve Cathcart said: “There’s been an influx of Eastern Europeans and the landlords that own the houses are carving these houses up into flats.

“Our concern is the fire risk, the safety to these people that are moving in.”

Police said more than 30 properties in the area were a particular worry.

The police said one of the occupants in the house where two rooms had been visibly partitioned up to the windows works at Sports Direct, but added the resident had “no fire doors”.

Bolsover councillor Karl Reid, who is responsible for community cohesion, admitted the authority had not adequately prepared itself for the sudden increase in Shirebrook’s population.

“[On the window dividers] that is not acceptable and that will be investigated,” he said.

“It was a gradual thing, then suddenly there was a massive spurt. I think that’s where we may have got it wrong or we weren’t on the ball for it, and I have to accept that.”

The authority said it had introduced public spaces protection orders to stop people drinking and urinating on the town’s streets.

It said it was also closing off a footpath near Sports Direct because of anti-social behaviour, including human defecation.

Since November, it said 20 fines have been handed out – 19 for drinking and one for urinating – to people in breach of these orders.

Mr Reid added Sports Direct’s senior staff was working with them for the first time in more than a decade.

The company – which has declined to comment – are part of a multi-agency group called Shirebrook Forward.

“They’ve changed their tack,” Mr Reid said.

“They’ve now – over the last six months – come to us and engaged with us on a senior management level.”

Sports Direct said in December they will be reviewing all agency workers’ terms and conditions after the firm was criticised for its employment practices.

That review will be overseen by majority shareholder Mike Ashley – who also owns Newcastle United Football Club.

Sports Direct has previously come under fire over staff searches and poor working conditions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-35604776

Kerp those pictures of “the other East Devon” rolling in

Entries already in for our alternative “destruction of East Devon” photo competition – and what a tale they tell.

Keep them coming:

send to

eastdevonwatch@gmail.com

They can be anonymous, just let us know where and when taken

Entries close on 30 April 2016.