Party politics: where black is white and white is black …

What an interesting political world we live in!

Tory MPs are told by David Cameron to take no notice of their constituency parties about Europe:

“Forty-four local party chiefs write to the Telegraph warning the Prime Minister he has no ‘divine right’ after EU referendum ‘snub'”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12144564/EU-referendum-show-us-respect-local-Tory-party-chiefs-tell-David-Cameron.html

while Jeremy Corbyn does the exact opposite over Syria:

“When I was elected I said I wanted Labour to become a more inclusive and democratic party,” he adds. “So I am writing to consult you on what you think Britain should do. Should Parliament vote to authorise the bombing of Syria?”

http://labourlist.org/2015/11/corbyn-turns-to-labour-party-members-in-syria-dispute/

So, Tory constituency members are marginalised in favour of MPs personal views whereas Labour MPs are marginalised in favour of members’ views.

Don’t let anyone now tell you that a vote for a party MP is a vote for the party!

Lobbying: OK if you are a mega/non-taxpaying multinational or Tory donor but not if you are a charity

Charities have said new rules on how they spend government grants amount to making them take a vow of silence.

From May, charities and organisations will no longer be allowed to spend taxpayers’ money on lobbying ministers.

The Cabinet Office said the new clause in grants would mean funds go to good causes, not political campaigns.

Sir Stuart Etherington, chief executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, said it was an “insane policy” that would not work in reality.

“Take a service charity funded to run a helpline. They may well be dealing with ex-servicemen, there will be policy issues that emerge from that. They’re not allowed to tell the government?” he told the BBC.

“The other reason is, if you’ve got mixed funding, how are you going to know which is the government’s and somebody else’s?”

The “draconian” move was “tantamount to making charities take a vow of silence”, he added.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35509117

SO, AS LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIPS GET GRANTS FROM GOVERNMENT WILL THEY ALSO BE BANNED FROM LOBBYING – WHAT DO YOU THINK, OF COURSE NOT!

Clyst St Mary: Neighbourhood Plan meetings

Neighbourhood Plan
The Neighbour Plan which will protect the village itself is now in its final pre-submission Consultation phase (16 Jan – 1 March 2016). A copy of the draft Plan can be found on the Bishops Clyst Planning website at: http://www.planning.bishopsclyst.co.uk or you can go along to one of the open sessions as listed below:

– Clyst St Mary Village Hall Saturday 6th February 1pm-6pm
– Sowton Village Hall Saturday 13th February 1pm-6pm
– Cat and Fiddle Inn Wednesday 10th February 10am – 1pm

Flooding and sandstorm – Exmouth seafront road video

And take a look at the video of a drive on Exmouth seafront road this morning on the Facebook Exmouth Splash (in every sense of the word!) public discussion site.

And if anyone says the development doesn’t need an environmental impact assessment – show this to them!

Flooding: an observation from Cranbrook

From a correspondent:

I attempted to go to Countrywide today (which used to be described as ‘Countrywide at Broadclyst’, but I guess it is now very much at Cranbrook).

The lane that used to lead there was closed a few months ago when the Cranbrook Educational Campus opened. Today I took the rerouted road and came across a torrent of water flowing across the road, several centimetres in depth.

This never to my knowledge happened on the old lane, and I don’t doubt that the run off from a newly built school will have contributed to this.

I imagine Countrywide are not too happy about the loss of custom, I am sure I am not the only one to have to turn back.

Exemplar of bad planning really! I also noticed the so-called ‘Country Park’ was completely flooded. I do feel sorry for those who live there, they are not responsible for bad planning decisions, but have to live with the consequences now.

Beer to take over beach management, tourist area. open spaces and car park announces Councillor Pook

“Councillor Geoff Pook (pictured) unveiled proposals to take over the management of the beach, Charlie’s Yard, Jubilee Gardens, the cliff-top car park and a number of open spaces around the village at a parish council meeting on Tuesday.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/if_we_own_it_we_can_shape_our_future_1_4406343

No doubt the news that Exmouth, Budleigh Salterton, Branscombe and Seaton will be taking over beach management, tourist spots, car parks and open spaces will soon follow, as Beer seems to have no unique or special qualifications to take over such lucrative assets.

“Independent” Councillor Pook is Chairman of EDDC’s Asset Management Forum – a currently secretive EDDC group which has only recently been forced to publish its agendas and minutes but does not allow public scrutiny by open meeting.

It was responsible for the initial idea to sell short-term leases on beach huts (which got thrown out after massive public outcry) and for the recommendation on new huge price increases that followed.

In his capacity as a member of Beer Parish Council, Councillor Pook stated that Beer was uniquely placed to take over management of EDDC-owned sites.

Watch this space.

Electoral Registration: a report on reform

A long but accessible and easily readable report by the Law Commission which our own Electoral Registration Officer will no doubt be reading closely in order to avoid the problems our district has encountered in the recent past.

Click to access electoral_law_interim_report.pdf

What you say you said can be very different from what you did say!

“Sid Valley representatives raised concerns that further evidence to support the removal of the site had not been submitted by EDDC to the inspector.

Councillor Marianne Rixson, a ward member for Sidmouth/Sidford, said: “I would like to describe the whole shambolic process of the inclusion of the Sidford employment land as the hokey-cokey. First it was in, then it was out, then it was in because it was never really out at all.”

Mark Williams, chief executive of EDDC, said: “The inspector had already heard all the arguments for and against the inclusion or deletion of Sidford. My advice was it wasn’t actually legally permissible to take the site out at that time.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/anger_over_hokey_cokey_employment_land_saga_1_4406347

What he actually said at that meeting according to the audio report was:

“The inspector has already heard everything we have said and is yet to tell us what his view is on that part of the application. He may recommend that this site is not suitable and should be removed. It’s his decision now, not yours.

“It’s your funeral if you want to take it out.”

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/04/11/sidford-business-park/

No mention of illegality, no obvious advice that it was already too late – indeed “if you want to take it out” sounds like there is a choice, so the DMC decided to attempt to get it removed.

Advice? Hmmm.

Tax rebels! Today Councillor Claire Wright – yesterday Councillor Stuart Hughes!

Oh, how times change! Doubt as current Chair he will be toppling the party whip any time soon or dumping scrap metal in the council chamber in protest at taxes!

” … … Hughes and others formed the Raving Loony Green Giant Party. The party was much more organised and the inclusion of “Green” in the title also pointed to a party with at least some priorities. The Green Giants focused much more on local priorities and “serious” politics and were more democratic than the party they had left behind.

Hughes was a fierce local campaigner and in 1991 he did the unthinkable by taking on the local Tories who had a total monopoly in local government in Devon. He took a safe Tory seat on East Devon District Council and a seat on Sidmouth Town Council. Hughes refused to pay the Poll Tax and was hounded by local Tories for it.

Although technically he sat on the District Council and not the County Council (who actually collected the tax) they consistently goaded the unrepentant councillor. When legal action was threatened, Hughes responded by marching in to the council chambers and dumping scrap metal to the value of the unpaid tax. The voters clearly approved as Hughes was elected to the County Council himself toppling the Tory Whip in the process.

Loonies, Splitters & Monster Ravers

Thank goodness we have the calm and measured opposition of East Devon Alliance these days!

Could Councillor Stuart Hughes have done more for Sidford Fields?

A correspondent writes (views expressed are their own):

STUART HUGHES AND THE SIDFORD BUSINESS PARK

Councillor Stuart Hughes rightly describes the inclusion of a 12-acre business park in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty at Sidford in East Devon’s Local Plan as “a kick in the teeth” to the people of the Sid Valley. But he seems indignant at suggestions that he could have done more to prevent this disaster. (See his comment on this site, 1st February).

It’s true that Councillor Hughes has consistently criticised the business park proposal but some major questions remain about his record in this whole sorry scandal.

1. Why does he insist that the Sidford site was deleted from the Local Plan when it wasn’t?

In March 2015 he helped to persuade Conservative colleagues on EDDC to vote to remove the business park from the Local Plan, after they had strongly supported its inclusion in 2014. But then, incredibly, he didn’t seem to realise that this change of mind needed to be justified to the Inspector. Indeed, Mr Thickett, himself, in his 2016 Report expressed surprise that “no new evidence was submitted (to him) by the council to explain its volte face”.

Without such evidence there was no chance of its being removed, making the vote appear a mere pre-election ploy to save local Tory District councillors, whose seats were threatened by Independents. If the vote WAS genuine, it suggests a massive case of naivety and incompetence by councillors who thought they could obtain the Inspector’s approval for their change of mind without giving any reasons!

2. Should he have revealed what he knew about the background to the Sidford Business Park proposal?

This appears to have originated in a confidential understanding between council officers, a Sidford landowner, and a prominent local businessman. In 2012 a national supermarket, was in negotiations with the businessman to purchase this site which would enable a move to the greenfield site at Sidford.

The businessman in question was a member of the East Devon Business Forum, (EDBF) a lobby group of landowners and developers which had rubbished the findings of independent consultants, and proposed inflated employment land targets. These were later accepted by the Council leadership and used to justify the Sidford proposal – indeed EDBF later boasted about its influence in this decision.

As chair of the Scrutiny Committee Councillor Hughes supported the setting up in 2012 of a sub-committee, under Councillor Graham Troman, to investigate the influence of the EDBF, but he remained publicly silent when this investigation was blocked and then later suspended by the Chief Executive who ordered an officer not to attend, with minutes on these meetings being scant on detail and open to interpretation.

3. Could he have done more do to clarify the role of the Council Leader?

In the summer of 2012 Councillor Hughes attended a site meeting at Alexandria Road with Council Leader Paul Diviani and an others. A County official apparently advised that it was quite practical to create a new access to the site from the B3176 and it is said there was up to £40000 available for a feasibility study.

But the day after this meeting the funding was apparently “pulled” because, Councillor Hughes was told, EDDC were in negotiation with a major supermarket chain.

In October 2012 the Leader told the Sidmouth Herald that constructing a new access to Alexandria Road was “too problematic.” Councillor Hughes was apparently “flabbergasted” by this statement and challenged Cllr Diviani at a Scrutiny meeting, but never followed up what seemed to be the Leader’s ambiguity towards the improvement and modernisation of the Sidmouth site.

4. Why didn’t he argue against the proposal at the Public Examination of the Local Plan in February 2014?

Neither Councillor Hughes nor any other Sidmouth District councillors spoke at the Public Examination before the Inspector. It was left to the Town Council, members of the public, and a Honiton councillor to put the case against building an unnecessary business park on a flood plain in an AONB. Councillor Hughes, as County councillor responsible for Highways, might have effectively challenged the “experts” who testified that narrow local roads were capable of absorbing the heavy traffic that would be created. Indeed he has since said that this may form one of the objections to any future planning application.

5. Why has he now thrown in his lot with the leadership he called “spineless and arrogant” for the Sidford business park project?

After the elections of May 2014 Stuart was summarily sacked from his committee positions by the Council leadership which claimed he was “too busy”, though other councillors who had dual roles and busy lives were not similarly sacked. This excuse was widely derided, and Councillor Hughes clearly felt he had been punished for not completely toeing the party line. He furiously publicly condemned the Council leadership as “spineless and arrogant”.

Astonishingly, in 2015 he agreed to serve as Chair of the Council, working in close collaboration with the very people he had so recently railed against.

This may be the way our local politics works, and but to many of his electors it might well smack of opportunism and lack of principle.

Not that this would be a first: his transition from Monster Raving Loony Party in the 1990s to EDDC Conservative Party Chair has been one that many fail to comprehend:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hughes_(politician)

Straitgate Quarry: DCC votes to allow it progress despite major drawbacks

” … Disappointment was expressed this week after Devon County Council’s (DCC) development management committee (DMC) voted to keep the site in its minerals plan – which earmarks land suitable for future aggregate supplies.

Speaking at the DMC meeting on Wednesday, Councillor Claire Wright argued the inclusion of Straitgate in the plan makes it undeliverable. She implored members to consider deferring the matter.

Cllr Wright said that opposition from one land owner who controls access makes the site undeliverable, as does the lack of a viable processing place. AI’s proposals rely on it processing material at Blackhill Quarry in Woodbury – land that has not been approved for inclusion in the plan. Cllr Wright also argued AI’s estimated 1.2million tonnes of material could only be achieved by quarrying down to the water table – which would have a detrimental impact on the important environmental area, affect water supplies and also pose a flood risk. She added: “I also want to point out the level of opposition in Ottery. Over the last four years, there have been hundreds of objections.”

DCC officer Andy Hill said: “It is correct that the planning application has thrown up certain constraints. We feel there is an expectation that the site is deliverable in some form.”

On the amount of material, he said: “A definitive figure is not available but, if it’s less than expected, it is not fatal to the plan.”

Cllr Robert Vint suggested it is premature to go ahead with the plan in light of the points raised.

However, members agreed that a planning inspector will consider all of the points raised during the examination process and voted for the plan to be submitted to the next stage.

Monica Mortimer, of the Straitgate Action campaign group, said: “We will keep fighting. We are grateful to Claire for sticking up for the people of Ottery. The officers are only hearing one side of the story and they refuse to consider other points.”

Applications for the quarry at Straitgate Farm and a processing site at Blackhill are both yet to be decided by DCC.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/vow_to_keep_fighting_100_acre_quarry_proposals_on_ottery_s_outskirts_1_4406014

Devolution: Trust Diviani says Moulding

“Deputy leader Cllr Andrew Moulding added: “I think we have to trust our leader, supported by the chief executive, to work in our interest to get the best possible negotiated deal we can for devolution and localism in our area.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/devolution_deal_moves_closer_despite_concern_1_4406297

Well, that’s us sorted then …

And which councillor has most power and influence to gain from the devolution deal? Councillor Diviani, who is currently slated to be responsible for housing expenditure in the whole of Devon and Somerset – along with his old pal Exeter CEO Karim Hassan (ex-EDDC).

Happy days.

Greenwich insists that all developers publish their (non) affordable housing data

All planning applications in Greenwich must now include full details and cost calculations of calculations relating to affordable housing (or lack of it) in their initial planning applications.

http://www.publicsectorexecutive.com/Public-Sector-News/council-bans-developers-from-keeping-their-affordable-housing-viability-studies-confidential?utm_source=Public%20Sector%20Executive&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=6740360_PSE%20Bulletin%20Feb%2016%20wk%201&dm_i=IJU,40GW8,KSFJZ3,EI3XE,1

Devolution and public consultation: talk is cheap

” … MPs, who held a public evidence session in Greater Manchester as part of their inquiry, also said many people had complained about a lack of consultation.

“The vast majority of contributions, often made in angry tones, arose from the perceived lack of efforts by the combined authority to engage the public about the deal relating to their local area,” the committee said.

“For devolution to take root and fulfil its aims, it needs to involve and engage the people it is designed to benefit. There has been a consistent very significant lack of public consultation, engagement and communication at all stages of the deal-making process.”

Council leaders from other parts of the country told the committee the public had not been consulted before their deals were agreed.

‘Rapid pace’

It is particularly important to engage the public where health powers are being devolved, the MPs said, because “the public’s response is likely to be more emotional”.

The committee said the government had driven the first wave of devolution deals through “at rapid pace”, which meant “no opportunity for engagement with residents”, but said council leaders should still have communicated the deal to residents and told them how they would be affected.

The Department for Communities and Local Government said it welcomed the committee’s support for its “devolution revolution” and said there was “no one-size-fits-all approach” for different areas.

Local Government Association chairman Lord Porter said: “While it is right that devolution deals are not imposed, but negotiated and secured by local places, we recognise the need for greater public engagement throughout the deal-making process and are working with councils to support them in this.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35479059

A Devon MP is too busy opening law offices in Dubai and Mumbai to remember to declare £400,000 of income

A former member of the House of Commons Standards Board, he will only have to apologise. And how the heck does he have time to be an MP. Let’s hope the people of Torridge learn in time for the next election.


“A Conservative MP who failed to declare more than £400,000 of outside earnings will only have to apologise to the Commons after Parliament’s Standards Committee decided not to formally punish him for the breach.

In a judgement that will increase criticism over the body, Geoffrey Cox QC will be asked to make an apology, but no formal action will be taken.
The Standards Committee found that Geoffrey Cox QC had committed a “serious” breach of rules, although it accepted he had not “intended to hide” the payments for hundreds of hours of legal work. …

… Earlier in 2015 it emerged that Cox declared earnings of £820,000 from outside work and second jobs — 12 times the annual MP wage.
According to the latest register of members’ financial interests, Mr Cox received £325,000 on June 15 and 16 this year for 500 hours of work carried out between June 2014 and March 2015.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/conservative-mps-expenses/12140118/Tory-MP-Geoffrey-Cox-will-only-have-to-apologise-after-failing-to-declare-hundreds-of-thousands-of-pounds.html

What happens when you contract-out education to profit-led academies

Inspectors say that almost half of pupils at secondary schools run by the Academies Enterprise Trust (AET) are in schools that are “less than good”. Ofsted warns that poorer pupils do “particularly badly” in AET schools.

In response the trust said it was disappointed that its “significant achievements” had “not been sufficiently recognised”.

The Department for Education is threatening that unless standards are raised there will be “further action”.

AET runs 67 academies across England. Such academy chains are independent but publicly funded to run schools. AET has charitable status and a financial report up to August 2014 said there was annual expenditure of £333m.
‘Mediocre’

Inspectors say that 40% of pupils in primary schools run by AET are in “academies that do not provide a good standard of education”. “It is even worse in secondary, where 47% of pupils attend academies that are less than good,” says Ofsted.
The performance of AET’s secondary schools is described as “mediocre” and there has been a lack of progress since Ofsted highlighted weaknesses in the chain’s schools two years ago.

The report says there is a particular weakness in the progress of disadvantaged pupils.

Inspectors also warned about “unacceptably low” attendance levels.

And there was criticism of “insufficient detail” about how the trust is governed. …

Ofsted cannot give a judgement on an academy chain, but inspectors can carry out multiple inspections of individual schools it runs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35492433

Current cost of new EDDC HQ at Honiton/Exmouth – nearly £10m and all meetings assuming Pegasus gets its planning permission are already scheduled

Relocation cost so far:

£9,726,455

Click to access 6-project-report-20-300915.pdf

page 5

Further on in the report:

The project has
7 “red risks”
32 “orange risks” and
8 “blue risks”

They already have a pretty good idea of when the planning meeting for Pegasus will be and have scheduled it

12 July 2016 (page 12)

and have already fixed an Extraordinary Cabinet Meeting
on 27 July 2016
and a similar Full Council meeting for
3 August 2016
with works in Exmouth to start on 4 August 2016.

Of course, all these meetings take place in the major summer holiday period.

Relocation to Exmouth Town Hall will take place on
20 June 2017
and full relocation to both sites will be achieved by
25 September 2017.

Thereafter the report consists of various cost breakdowns.

It appears that, for some reason, Appendix C is missing

New threat to Hinkley nuclear plant cash


Danny Fortson Published: 31 January 2016
thesundaytimes.co.uk

“BRITAIN could withdraw financial support for the controversial £18bn nuclear power station at Hinkley Point, Somerset, if a similar plant being built by France’s EDF is not running by 2020, The Sunday Times can reveal.

The condition, attached to a Treasury loan guarantee, raises fresh questions about the future of Britain’s first new atomic power plant in a generation.
Last week EDF, which is 84% owned by the French state, postponed a board meeting in Paris to approve Hinkley Point, amid concerns about the heavily indebted company’s ability to fund the project. The plant will be financed by EDF and its Chinese partner CGN, with the backing of a 35-year contract to sell power to households at above-market rates.

The arrangement hinges on a Treasury agreement to guarantee up to £17bn in loans. Mounting problems at Flamanville, where EDF is building a plant of the same reactor design, could void that commitment.

Flamanville is years behind schedule and three times over budget. Last year inspectors uncovered “very serious anomalies” in the €10.5bn (£8bn) plant’s reactor vessel. In the worst case, France’s nuclear regulator, which is carrying out a review of the project, could force EDF to break the steel vessel out of the reactor building, adding years to the timetable. Another project, in Taishan, China, has also been delayed.
m
When the European Union signed off on the Treasury’s guarantee of Hinkley Point, it insisted it be conditional on Flamanville having “completed the trial operation period” and other operational milestones by December 2020.

If Flamanville misses that deadline, EDF would be forced to immediately repay any loans that benefited from government support.

George Osborne last year announced the Treasury would guarantee £2bn in Hinkley debt, “with further amounts potentially available in the longer-term”. The National Audit Office and the EU put the potential liability at £17bn.

The Treasury said: “The initial £2bn guarantee is not contingent on the Flamanville and Taishan reactors, and will be repaid in December 2020 by EDF and CGN.”

EDDC: where unanimous means – not at all unanimous!

“Trust” is key, suggested Deputy Leader, Andrew Moulding (quoting from a conversation between Leader, Paul Diviani, and a government Minister visiting Cranbrook). Cllr Moulding was advising Members who were about to vote at last week’s Extra Ordinary Meeting, on approving delegated powers for the Leader regarding the multimillion pound devolution bid.

Just a few hours later, we understand, EDDC issued a press release that began with an essentially misleading, statement, claiming that “. . councillors have unanimously signed off the devolution prospectus” . The vote in fact was not unanimous, with 7 against and 1 abstention.

The inaccurate press release was corrected, after immediate complaints by Independent councillors.

Independent councillor sounds alarm bells on devolution

Here’s the gist of a warning from Cllr Roger Giles (Ind, Ottery St Mary), to fellow EDDC councillors before they voted on Item 7 HEART OF SOUTH WEST DEVOLUTION, at last Thursday’s Extra Ordinary Meeting at Knowle. (28 Jan) :

‘Governments regularly tell councils that they are keen to devolve powers to local government. The reality is that there is more and more interference from Whitehall in the affairs of councils. In spite of being 200 miles away, Whitehall thinks it knows best how local councils should meet the needs of their residents.

The latest Government claim to “devolution” is no such thing. It is a cynical misuse of words.

The Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership proposal contains no additional money.

And there is a considerable democratic deficit. HoSW meetings are in private – the press and public are not entitled to attend. Neither are the press and public allowed to see agenda papers or minutes of meetings. It is a totally alien concept to councillors who rightly conduct their business in an open and transparent way.

At the moment EDDC provides services to the people of East Devon based on decisions made by 59 elected councillors. If the public does not like what its councillors have been doing it can vote for someone else.

If the HoSW proposal becomes a reality, major spending decisions will be taken by unelected and unaccountable business people. There is also the fear that most of the money available will be spent on major projects in Exeter, rather than in communities such as Ottery St. Mary.’

Without proper debate of these alarm bells clearly signalled by Cllr Giles, the devolution process was approved, though not “unanimously”, as EDDC’s initial press release said.