Monitoring Officers: toothless not-even tigers

What can you say when the sanction for this behaviour is: you cannot talk to female officers and having your phone taken away?

An independent councillor at a North West local authority has been banned from speaking to female officers and had a mobile phone provided by the council removed, after a panel decided he had used it to call premium rate sex chat lines and to send “inappropriate” text messages.

When conducting a review of its mobile phone contract, Wigan Council discovered that Cllr Robert Bleakley had run up a bill of £2,418.95.
Bleakley failed to attend a hearing on the matter last week. However, the cross-party panel, led by the chair of Wigan’s standards committee, decided there was enough information to proceed in his absence.

The panel found that Cllr Bleakley had broken Wigan’s ICT policy and breached paragraph 5 and 6 (b) (i) of the members’ Code of Conduct when he used his mobile phone inappropriately.

Sanctions imposed by the panel included the removal of his IT equipment, including his mobile phone, and removal of his internet access.
“He must also undergo equal opportunities training, and female officers will be instructed not to speak to him,” the council said.

It is the third time that the councillor has been subject to a standards hearing in 2014.

In February he was found guilty of “deliberately altering an email in an attempt to jeopardise a senior employee’s job”, Wigan said.
The next month he was found guilty of viewing pornographic material on his laptop, which had been issued by the council.

Cllr Bleakley had previously been disqualified and suspended twice by the Standards Board for England. He was also removed from the Liberal Democrat Party.

Wigan’s chief executive, Donna Hall, said: “I am appalled and sickened with the language used in these messages. It is quite clear, judging by the content of Cllr Bleakley’s text messages, that he has a problem with women.
“I will not tolerate this prejudice, nor will I allow him to come into contact with female officers until he has undertaken equal opportunities training.”

Source: http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19894:councillor-banned-from-speaking-to-female-officers-has-phone-taken-away&catid=59&Itemid=27

5 year land supply (2)

The longer CPRE report here:

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19870:cpre-concern-at-council-decisions-on-greenfield-land-being-overturned-on-appeal&catid=63&Itemid=31

Campaign for the Protection of Rural England and the 5-year land supply fiasco

…..“We believe our first target should be to mobilise public opinion to persuade the government to allow sites with planning permission to be included unconditionally in the estimate of the five year housing land supply.

Currently, if at any stage it can be shown that a residential site with planning permission has not been, or could not be, developed within the five year time limit, the site will immediately be removed from the estimate of the five year housing land supply. Local authorities are finding that, as they continue to grant planning permissions which then are stalled, their supply of housing land gets ever smaller. This contributes to their eventually falling victim to the five year housing land supply rule, thereby losing the ability to prevent housing development on sites which under the Local Plan were never intended for housing development.

The real problem is the five year housing land supply rule, but, as a first step, let us get a fairer way of estimating the housing land supply itself, viz. have sites with planning permission qualify for unconditional inclusion in the estimate of the housing land supply. That is politically achievable in the short term – it would require merely a change to Note 11 which qualifies par. 47 of the NPPF in which the rule is specified. So please, everyone start campaigning for that!

http://www.cprelancashire.org.uk/campaigns/housing-and-planning/housing/the-issues/item/2144-five-year-housing-land-supply

Rural England? Pull the other one

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2747279/New-home-surge-catastrophic-Face-rural-England-change-forever-27-000-houses-ahead-built-greenfield-sites-despite-ferocious-local-opposition.html

27 Freedom of Information requests to EDDC on website since 1 August 2014

And that doesn’t include those sent in direct to EDDC, many not answered, some under review after initial refusal.

Remember the Diviani promise? “Clean, green, seen”. Well. …..

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/

Retired NHS worker to stand as Independent MP in Cornwall

Probably not the last Independent to declare:

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/West-hospital-director-stand-Parliament-behalf/story-22882597-detail/story.html

On message or not?

The Western Morning News has recently carried the story that Westcountry cities of Exeter and Taunton were among 40 identified for massive expansion by David Rudlin, an urban designer who scooped the Wolfson prize, the second-biggest economics prize after the Nobel.

His award-winning proposals, which earned him £250,000, included circular developments, with parks and allotments, of up to 150,000 people per town.

Mr Rudlin argued models pioneered in Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Germany should be adopted by Britain which could “take a confident bite out of the greenbelt”.

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Garden-City-plan-double-size-Exeter-Taunton/story-22883683-detail/story.html

But here is Housing Minister Brandon Lewis’ response to Wolfson Prize:

“We are committed to protecting the green belt from development as an important protection against urban sprawl – today’s proposal from Lord Wolfson’s competition is not government policy and will not be taken up.

Instead, we stand ready to work with communities across the country who have ideas for a new generation of garden cities and we have offered support to areas with locally-supported plans that come forward. But we do not intend to follow the failed example of top-down eco-towns from the last administration. Picking housing numbers out of thin air and imposing them on local communities builds nothing but resentment. This government has abolished regional quangos’ role in planning – instead, we have empowered elected local councils to determine where new homes should and shouldn’t go.”

Picking housing numbers out of thin air and imposing them on local communities builds nothing but resentment. Hmmm!

Are our local Conservatives “on message” with their Conservative Minister?

“Right to Contest” a flop

on 27 August we ran a story on Government plans for a “Right to Contest” to force sale of Government land – a press release that seems in (quite recent) retrospect to be rather in the style of La La Land:

http://wp.me/p447y3-TP

Here is an update:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/05/osborne-right-to-contest-land-sale-flop_n_5771112.html?ncid=flipboard

“In response to a Freedom of Information request from HuffPost UK, the Cabinet Office admitted that only nine applications had been made asking for certain bits of land or property to be sold off since the launch of the “Right to Contest” programme this January, with seven of those applications already rejected by officials.

The Cabinet Office said that three of the applications demanding the sale of particular bits of Whitehall-owned land had been rejected as the sites were judged to be “vital to operations”, while the other four were “out of scope” of what applicants can request. The final two applications are “still ongoing” and awaiting final judgement.”

Sidmouth Herald “Streetlife” readers comments on Knowle secrecy

Extracts from the “Streetlife” section of this week’s Sidmouth Herald and is reported verbatim:

“What the heck?

In the Herald it states,on page 6, that EDDC are trying to keep a report secret because the man they brought in as an expert from a (presumably) independent firm is so deeply “embedded” that he can be considered as the same as an employee. And has the powers similar to a council officer.

Apparently the report, although appearing in the format and branding of the company who actually employs him is his personal work and therefore belongs to the council !! If this is accepted then it will set a dangerous legal precedent about work produced during employment which currently belongs (copyright) to the employer not employee.

Also, doesn’t this negate his position as an expert if he is, in fact, controlled by EDDC?”

To which one response from “Barnacle Bill” is:

“E(m)bedded or ‘in bed?’

They are so deep in the sh*t that they are going to stink to high heaven when the truth is out.”

Not your usual polite Sidmouth comments and a measure of their anger and frustration perhaps?

Gittisham – the less bad news, though it’s bad enough

Local MP Neil Parish, bewildered by the Gittisham planning application in its earlier stages, had already arranged for it to be called in for decision by Secretary of State Eric Pickles even before the EDDC latest decision.

This will be a real test of so-called “sustainability in the National Planning Policy Framework: a reserve site if there had ever been a local plan, access by one narrow country road constrained by a bridge, reliance on cars to get to shops and other facilities, real worries that doctors and education establishments cannot cope, on the direct boundary of an AONB. The pill sugared by the “promise” of social housing which, as we know, disappears from successful planning applications like morning mist in high summer in East Devon.

And all totally avoidable if we had in place the Local Plan (and Community Infrastructure Levy) that EDDC has been “working on” since 2007.

Another planning application that is left to the local community (and its concerned MP) to fight thanks to EDDC’s officers and councillors.

Now you see it, now you don’t …

EDA member Paul comments on the nonsensical and contradictory EDDC double-think…. this is his personal reflection.

“Is it just me or do others find the contradictory messages sent out by EDDC completely nonsensical (or perhaps from cloud-cuckoo-land)?

In this week’s Pullman’s View From Honiton

http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/launch.aspx?pbid=03a901df-0b77-4e35-90e6-93ca8d117094

we have:

* Two similar articles about the lack of a Local Plan (pages 3 “Council criticised for delays to plan” and page 4 “Council leaders must ‘get a grip’ on local plan”);

* An article about the 300 homes between Honiton and Gittisham (page 6 “Decision on new homes expected”)

From the first of the two articles about the Local Plan, “an EDDC spokesperson said that the council still had the power to prevent development of unsuitable sites. … ‘The lack of a five-year housing land supply in effect means that we cannot refuse housing developments simply because they are outside the built-up area boundaries that define the extent of our settlements. The majority of our settlements are adjacent to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Green Wedges and other designations that restrict development anyway and these designations still apply anyway with equal strength regardless of whether we have a five-year land supply or not.”

Yet the 300 homes proposed in Honiton are EXACTLY THAT – adjacent to an AONB – and the development was initially approved despite this (and despite access issues and a illogical report from the county council’s Highways officer) and has been called back for review because of the strength and pressure of local opposition.

So the statement from the EDDC spokesperson (should we think this was written or approved by council leader Paul Diviani or Chief Executive Mark Williams?) is not backed up by the facts – and this is not the first time as their annual report is a masterpiece of spin and economies with the truth.

It seems to me that when these sorts of obviously contradictory statement get published in the same newspaper, it just makes EDDC look stupid / incompetent / poorly led / two-faced / full of **** / lying / away with the fairies / one sandwich short of a picnic (but judge for yourself and select the adjectives you like or add your own).”

Gittisham gone to the EDDC dogs

4-3 in favour, Helen Parr (Chair, Colyton) seconding because no-one else had the guts to do it.

For: Councillors Parr, Williamson, Gammell and Sullivan and against: Councillors Pook, Key and Atkins (note to self: where were other members of the DMC – “otherwise engaged”?)

Scorched earth yet again …..

For full information see

https://susiebond.wordpress.com/2014/09/05/great-sadness-as-300-houses-are-approved-at-planning-inspections-committee/

Making y(our) council more transparent and accountable to the public

We have published this before but it is worth reading and digesting it again:

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/making-local-councils-more-transparent-and-accountable-to-local-people

Weasel words?

What is a co-optee and how different is it to a consultant?

If you want to know how much money our elected members cost us and how much their expenses add on to that figure, the information is here:

Click to access 150714correctone.pdf

Travel expenses vary wildly, some Independent and minority party councillors paying their own travel expenses out of their own pockets …. (and why is the filename listed as “150714correctone”)!

What is more interesting is the list of “co-optees appointed by the council” at the end of the list – 12 people given various quite small amounts of fees and expenses.

What on earth is the status of a “co-optee of the council” and how does it differ from the status of a consultant? Are they people expert in some particular discipline brought in for their expertise? Where is the paper trail that shows what their particular expertise was needed for? If there is not sufficient information surely this would be a device open to abuse in any council? Are they co-opted officers?

If so, why was”embedded officer and/or consultant” Steve Pratten, engaged at a cost of more than £10,000 per month not simply co-opted for his expertise as these 12 people seem to have been?

What is the point of a full council meeting?

An EDA member has sent his reflections on full Council:

Now that a month or more has passed since the last full Council meeting, my first and only experience of one to date, I have been reflecting on the impression I gained from sitting through the whole thing from start to finish. My thinking here was prompted by discovering that the next full council is not until October, 3 months after the previous one – and I couldn’t understand how EDDC could function without more frequent full council meetings, and that got me started thinking about the one I attended.

So, leaving aside my own question to the council at the start, and the detail of the anti-democracy motions that pulled me there, my overall impression was … well … nothing. What was the point? The point of the council meeting? Aside from the legal need to hold it, what was the purpose of pulling together the 50 odd councillors, several council officers, a few handfuls of members of the public, and a journalist or two?

After all, there was absolutely no real debate about local issues, difficult decisions about priorities or funding or were not even mentioned. My only real memories of the meeting were the pathetic non-answers to serious questions raised by EDA members, and the belly-button gazing, inwardly-looking discussion about democracy and stopping local people from engaging. Tourism? Nope. Local economy? Nah! The Local Plan? Not a sausage. Future phases of Cranbrook or forming a Cranbrook Town Council? Nada. The office relocation? Only a statement of ignorance by Cllr Diviani. Sainsbury’s pulling out of their distribution centre plans? Finger not on the pulse – not firing on all cylinders perhaps?

So, aside from the need to rubber stamp what is decided by Cabinet without any voting input from non-Cabinet members, what was the point?

Those missing 6,000 voters …. again; canvasser pay details

EDDC is advertising for Electoral Registration Canvassers to work between 22 September 2014 and 28 November 2014 advertising the pay as £1.89 per signed-up voter plus a bonus of 25p for each voter if you get 95% of your list completed plus 45p per mile expenses. Hours will necessarily be anti-social if you are checking on people who work. The advertisement doesn’t say how many homes each canvasser will have to visit or how areas are divided up.

Applications online at eastdevon.gov.uk. Interview date: 15 September 2014

A challenge for our readers!

Two comments on the 330% increase in car parking fees in Eastern Sidmouth have queried: whose idea was this to begin with, which councillors had input into it and where is the paper trail? Add to that: why only Sidmouth and not similar car parks elsewhere in the district?

We know from correspondents that Councillors Hughes and Newth say they have no knowledge of the matter.

So – was it an officer (who parks for free at Knowle)? A councillor who doesn’t live in Sidmouth? A councillor who does live in Sidmouth? Or, as seems most likely, the secret (no published agendas, no public minutes) Asset Management Group***? Or maybe an “embedded”officer? The CEO?

Over to you …

***
It is impossible to work out who is on the Asset Management Group on the EDDC website. However, trawling through the list of councillors, it appears to be:

Bob Buxton – Honiton
David Cox – Ottery
Paul Diviani – Yarcombe
Graham Godbeer – Coly Valley
Andrew Moulding – Axminster (? Chairman)
Ian Thomas Trinity (Axmouth)

Maybe those pursuing EDDC’s lack of transparency might want to ask for OUR Asset Management Forum’s minutes, have the request refused and ask the Information Commissioner to take a look and decide …..

Government minister for “civil society” tells campaign groups to stick to their knitting and keep out of politics”

So now we know …..

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-minister-tells-charities-to-stick-to-their-knitting-and-stay-out-of-politics-9710230.html

People asked to solve their own crimes and PCSOs being used as detectives

“The inspector who led the review, Roger Baker, said: “It’s more a mindset, that we no longer deal with these things. And effectively what’s happened is a number of crimes are on the verge of being decriminalised.”

He added: “So it’s not the fault of the individual staff; it’s a mindset thing that’s crept in to policing to say ‘we’ve almost given up’.”

So, it’s not CSI then, more DIY:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29053978