Category Archives: Accountability

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, EDDC

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

Summary:

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Jan 2018

Posted under

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

Comments

1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: The Times (pay wall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 Dec 2017

Posted under

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

Comments

2 Comments

“Freemasons are blocking reform, says Police Federation leader”

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

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

Well …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Midweek Herald, Scrutiny, Transparency

How one local newspaper changed government policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Dec 2017

Posted under

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

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

FROM: Crowdjustice
Press Release
Website for donations:

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

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

We have some very good news!

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

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

This is a real Christmas present.

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

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

So the 999 Call Team have made the ONLY decision possible

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

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

WE HOPE you can help us launch and promote it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks from all the 999 Call for the NHS Team”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Scrutiny, Sleaze

Comments

1 Comment

“Damian Green to receive £17,000 pay-off after being sacked for ‘lying’ about pornography on his computer”

What can you add to that headline? Except – can you imagine what May and her MPs would say if this was a politician from another party?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/damian-green-sacked-pay-off-receive-money-porn-claims-computer-images-a8124386.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, NHS (local)

Comments

1 Comment

American dental charity offers help to poor in UK

“Over the past 30 years Stan Brock has set up hundreds of massive temporary clinics across America, bringing dentists and eye doctors to the country’s poorest people.

Now this former cowboy hopes to bring his army of volunteer medics to a new region he believes is in urgent need: Britain.

Mr Brock contacted The Times after an investigation found that millions of Britons had no local dentist willing to take on new NHS patients. There are 24 local authorities in which every dentist is taking on only private patients, with stories of people resorting to pulling their own teeth out, drugged up on alcohol and over-the-counter painkillers.

His charity, Remote Area Medical (RAM), has put on nearly 900 such events, mostly in the US. The Times visited a clinic in Baltimore where 1,234 patients were seen in two days. A giant convention centre was filled with 100 dental chairs, supplied by RAM. Some 1,842 bad teeth were removed. Another 433 patients had eye examinations and 398 of them were given free prescription glasses.

At another recent event in rural Virginia 2,416 patients were seen in two days. The majority had no insurance cover to pay for dental work and nowhere else to go.

Mr Brock said: “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to equate the healthcare situation in Britain to that here in the United States. Healthcare for millions of Americans is accessible but not affordable. This dilemma reaches deep into the middle class when it comes to dentistry and vision care.”

In 2015-16 in Britain, tooth decay was the most common reason for hospital admission for children aged five to nine.

Mr Brock is confident that he has a corporate donor willing to transport his organisation’s medical equipment to Britain from the US. He believes he can round up scores of American and Canadian dentists and doctors who would be willing to pay their own travel expenses and work without payment.

But he faces regulatory hurdles. If bringing in American volunteers proves too complicated he is ready to try to attract doctors from across the EU.

For Mr Brock the project would be a homecoming. He was born in Preston, Lancashire. In 1953, aged 17, he travelled to what is now Guyana in South America and for 15 years lived as a vaquero, or cowboy, with the Wapishana Indians. One day his horse threw him and his colleagues brought unwelcome news. “They told me I was 26 days away from the nearest doctor.”

Mr Brock, a spry 81, was struck by the inaccessibility of healthcare across much of the planet. In 1985 he founded RAM, a non-profit organisation that now has seven donated aircraft and a fleet of trucks. Aided by some 140,000 volunteers, it has provided millions of eye exams, dental treatments, mammograms, cervical smears and chest x-rays to poor Americans. He still ferries supplies, piloting a donated Douglas C-47. He takes no salary and sleeps on the floor of RAM’s headquarters in Knoxville, Tennessee. “As a loyal British subject it’s time for me to help out my home country,” he said.”

The Times (pay wall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Hinkley C

“We do not have ordinary people’ in North East Somerset says Conservative MP Jacob Rees Mogg”

So THAT’S why they are building Hinkley C there!

“Conservative MP and unlikely heart-throb, Jacob Rees-Mogg says there are no “ordinary people” in his North East Somerset constituency.

Instead the 48-year-old claims the area is filled only with “exceptional, brilliant and talented individuals of the highest and finest calibre”.

Mr Rees-Mogg’s comment was made in the House of Commons during a discussion about whether to publish an easy-to-understand version of a document about retained EU legislation.

The North East Somerset MP said he agreed with the amendment, but was then challenged by neighbouring Liberal Democrat MP for Bath, Wera Hobhouse, who asked him if he ever “tried to put any legislation in front of an ordinary person” and asked them whether it was easy to understand.

Mr Rees-Mogg appeared to take offense to the use of the term “ordinary people” and delivered as terse riposte to Ms Hobhouse, which he also posted a video of on Instagram.

“In North East Somerset, we do not have ordinary people,” he said.

“We have only exceptional, brilliant and talented individuals of the highest and finest calibre.

I have a serious point to make in that: we, as politicians, should never use the term ‘ordinary people’, implying that we are some priestly caste who understand the mysteries of legislation, whereas ordinary people do not. …”

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/we-not-ordinary-people-north-958540

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, EDDC

EDDC spends half a million pounds on temporary staff in last year

A Freedom of Information request has elicited the following information:

“What the total spend on Temporary/Interim staff has been in the last twelve months?

£517,550 – December 2016 – Nov 2017”

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/access-to-information/freedom-of-information/freedom-of-information-published-requests/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, NHS (local), Tax avoidance

Toys ‘R Us alleged tax avoidance could fully fund Devon’s NHS cuts!

Devon has to find £560 million if it wants to avoid savage cuts to its NHS.

Owl has found the money! Now all it has to do is find a way of getting it back from the BRITISH Virgin Islands (note: does that mean they belong to Branson!) to Devon!

“Toys R Us was last night accused of funnelling £584million into an offshore tax haven as it teetered on the brink of collapse – putting 3,200 jobs at risk.

The ailing retailer, which could go into administration today, has been criticised for the write-off of a mystery £584.5million loan to a company in the British Virgin Islands, a territory commonly used by firms for tax avoidance purposes.

Tax experts have called for an investigation into the accounts, accusing Toys R Us of secrecy and tax dodging. …”

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-5199707/Toys-R-584m-gift-tax-haven-UK-arm-bust.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Climate crisis, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

“Hinkley Point: the ‘dreadful deal’ behind the world’s most expensive power plant”

This is a VERY long article, but well worth reading.

Our LEP is throwing all OUR eggs into this disgraceful basket, decorated with white elephants by French and Chinese companies. But, at least those members of the LEP with nuclear, construction industry and recruitment and training of those servicing our nuclear warheads will be happy!

Just a flavour of the article:

“… But the irony of Hinkley Point C is that by the time it eventually starts working, it may have become obsolete. Nuclear power is facing existential problems around the world, as the cost of renewable energies fall and their popularity grows. “The maths doesn’t work,” says Tom Burke, former environmental policy adviser to BP and visiting professor at both Imperial and University Colleges. “Nuclear simply doesn’t make sense any more.”

The story of Hinkley Point C is that of a chain of decisions, taken by dozens of people over almost four decades, which might have made sense in isolation, but today result in an almost unfathomable scramble of policies and ambitions. Promises have been made and broken, policies have been adopted then dropped then adopted again. The one thing that has been consistent is the projected cost, which has rocketed ever upwards. But if so many people have come to believe that Hinkley Point C is fundamentally flawed, the question remains: how did we get to this point, where billions of pounds have been sunk into a project that seems less and less appealing with every year that passes? …”

…”Andrew Stirling believes that there was a crucial, largely unspoken, reason for the government’s rediscovered passion for nuclear: without a civil nuclear industry, a nation cannot sustain military nuclear capabilities. In other words, no new nuclear power plants would spell the end of Trident. “The only countries in the world that are currently looking at large-scale civil power newbuild programmes are countries that have nuclear submarines, or have an expressed aim of acquiring them,” Stirling told me.

Building nuclear submarines is a ferociously complicated business. It requires the kind of institutional memory and technical expertise that can easily disappear without practice. This, in theory, is where the civil nuclear industry comes in. If new nuclear power plants are being built, then the skills and capacity required by the military will be maintained. “It looks to be the case that the government is knowingly engineering an environment in which electricity consumers cross-subsidise this branch of military security,” Stirling told me. …”

“… Given its commitment to building Hinkley Point C, the government had no choice but to make EDF an offer that was too good to resist. It offered to guarantee EDF a fixed price for each unit of energy produced at Hinkley for its first 35 years of operation. In 2012, the guaranteed price – known as the “strike price” – was set at £92.50 per megawatt hour (Mwh), which would then rise with inflation. (One Mwh is roughly equivalent to the electricity used by around 330 homes in one hour.)

This means that if the wholesale price of electricity across the country falls below £92.50, EDF will receive an extra payment from the consumer as a “top-up” to fill the gap. This will be added to electricity bills around the country – even if you aren’t receiving electricity from Hinkley Point C, you will still be making a payment to EDF. The current wholesale price is around £40 per Mwh. If there had been no inflation since 2012, the consumer would be paying an EDF tax of around £52.50 per Mwh produced at Hinkley. However, because it is linked to inflation, the strike price has already risen since 2012. (The price will be reduced by £3 if EDF develops another new reactor in Sizewell in Suffolk, as it is planning to do.) …”

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c-dreadful-deal-behind-worlds-most-expensive-power-plant

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Accountable Care Organisation, Austerity cuts, Economy, Health and Social Care (local), Inequality, NHS (local), Privatisation

The price of Tory policies: tax and VAT rises and privatising NHS says IMF

Interesting that the IMF says that another £20 billion of spending cuts will be needed. That’s roughly how much Hunt wants to cut spending on the NHS.

The long game of 100% privatising the NHS – bringing with it rationing, post code lotteries and American-style health care approaches, appears to be nearing its conclusion.

As regards harmonising VAT at its higher rate – currently 20% – this would mean a 15% VAT increase on heating costs, all food and drink, charitable fundraising, equipment for disabled people, water, materials to insulate homes, boilers, children’s clothes …. the full list is here:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rates-of-vat-on-different-goods-and-services

“Taxes will have to rise if the government is to balance the books by the middle of the next decade and the NHS may have to be privatised, the International Monetary Fund has warned.

Property taxes, the removal of preferential VAT rates for goods such as pasties, and higher national insurance contributions by the self-employed need to be considered if Britain is to have any chance of eliminating its budget deficit by 2025 because spending cuts have gone about as far as they can, the global economic watchdog said in its annual review of the UK.

Weak productivity and the increasing care demands of an ageing population will make deficit reduction harder. Public services such as the NHS may have to be scaled back or privatised, it added.

The warnings are a reminder of the persistent problem of Britain’s public finances almost a decade after the financial crisis caused borrowing to soar. National debt is 87 per cent of GDP and spending on public services exceeds revenue from taxes by more than 2 per cent of GDP.

“Continued deficit reduction is critical to create further room to respond to future shocks,” Christine Lagarde, managing director of the IMF, said. “There is not much space for additional spending cuts and the revenue side of the equation has to be looked at.”

Britain is already forecast to be paying 34.3 per cent of GDP in tax by 2022, more than at any time since the 1950s, but economists estimate that at least £20 billion of extra austerity will be needed to hit the government’s target of balancing the books.

Ms Lagarde said population changes were adding to the problem. “Population ageing is expected to lead to material increases in spending on healthcare, pensions and long-term care, while productivity growth has been slow. And a slowly growing economy means fewer resources will be available to meet increased spending,” she said.

The public spending burden will soon make Britain face some hard choices, the IMF added. “The UK may face difficult decisions about the desired size of its public sector, as well as the mode of delivery and financing of public services. Brexit-related effects may exacerbate the challenge.”

To address the problem, Britain needs to boost productivity. Ms Lagarde welcomed the chancellor’s £31 billion fund for infrastructure investment and focus on technical qualifications because “the UK underinvests in infrastructure and falls short in human capital development”. But she said that more needed to be done “such as easing planning restrictions and reforming property taxes to boost housing supply”.

As well as introducing a land tax, the government should harmonise VAT for goods that get preferential rates and better “align the tax treatment of employees and the self-employed”. Both proposals have proved a poisoned chalice for chancellors. George Osborne tried to harmonise VAT rates for hot food in his “omnishambles budget” and Philip Hammond had to backtrack this year on raising national insurance for the self-employed. The IMF also recommended “reducing the tax code’s bias towards debt” and scrapping the triple lock on state pensions.

John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, said: “The IMF has played the role of the ghosts of Christmas past, present and future to remind the chancellor that seven years of Tory failure is undermining our economy.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), Inequality, Persimmon, Planning System

Obscene Persimmon bonuses – add nearly £41,000 to cost of each house

Guardian Letters:

“What do management bonuses mean to the average customer? Persimmon’s CEO will receive a bonus of £110m. Senior staff bonuses will exceed £500m. Persimmon builds approximately 15,000 houses a year. Arguably, therefore, the CEO’s bonus adds at least £7,333 to the price of a house and the senior staff bonuses add £33,333. It is unlikely that the customer would think it money well spent.”
Martin Jeffree

AND

“Surely the housebuilding company Persimmon can now afford to run its own help-to-buy scheme.”
David Simpson

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Planning System

Comments

1 Comment

“London Mayor refuses permission for major scheme over loss of affordable homes”

Well, what do you know, developers don’t have to get their own way – at least in London!

“The Mayor of London has refused permission for an estate regeneration project in Barnet which he said would result in the net loss of 257 affordable homes.

Sadiq Khan described the scheme as “a classic example of how not to do estate regeneration”.

His decision related to a scheme to redevelop the Grahame Park estate in Colindale. This included plans to demolish 692 homes currently available at social rent and replace them with 435.

The planning application was approved by Barnet Council last month.
The Mayor said he had told the council it must replace the lost affordable homes.

The application was also deemed unacceptable because it failed to provide a minimum of £840,000 to deliver additional bus capacity and suitable alternatives to private car use.

Khan said: “I fully support improving social housing on this estate and across the capital, but this scheme falls far short of what I expect of London boroughs.

“As I have made clear in my new London Plan, estate regeneration projects must replace homes which are based on social rent levels on a like-for-like basis. Londoners so urgently need more high-quality housing, not less, which makes this scheme completely unacceptable in its current form.

“I have asked Barnet Council to work constructively with the applicant on alternative plans with greater density, which do not result in the net loss of affordable homes. Given its recent record in this area, I hope the council recognises the need to replace what would be lost at Grahame Park.”
A Barnet Council spokesperson said: “We are clearly disappointed by this decision. We will now be reviewing this with our development partner to agree the next steps.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=33637%3Alondon-mayor-refuses-permission-for-major-scheme-over-loss-of-affordable-homes&catid=62&Itemid=30

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Cornwall, Planning System

Interesting petition in Cornwall demands resignation of Chief Planning Officer!

Almost 5,000 signatures already!

“Cornwall is being destroyed. Since Mr Mason took office, Cornwall’s natural and built environment has experienced continued and accelerating degradation. Our precious, unique landscape and cultural heritage is disappearing through the continual facilitation of ugly and inappropriate hyper-development. Shockingly, this development has even failed to address local housing needs, as it is clearly not designed to meet that objective, being cynically marketed up-country. Nor has it benefited our persistently weak economy. Apart from the obvious damage to Cornwall’s landscape integrity, increasingly angry and upset residents are afflicted by soaring levels of traffic congestion and air pollution. Flooding risks have increased, and surgeries, schools and Treliske hospital are all failing to cope with the huge population growth created by the facilitation of rapid in-migration.

The Council’s short-sighted, mass-urbanisation culture, which has become utterly out of control under Mr Mason’s tenure, fails to recognise that Cornwall’s rural nature is one of its most important and highly valued assets. Planning blight, seemingly encouraged by the Chief Officer, is often, and increasingly, imposed against the wishes of parishes and residents. Why Mr. Mason and the Council should want to turn Cornwall into a replica of ugly, depressing and blighted parts of the UK cannot by answered by sane and rational argument. Soon, everything that gives Cornwall its charm and distinctiveness will be obliterated for ever. Mr Mason’s idea of planning is one of the reasons the Council is viewed with contempt by so many people.

Cornwall and its people deserve better – much better. Mr Mason has conspicuously failed to demonstrate any intent to try and protect us from the predatory, hyper-development agenda of national developers, as the unsustainable Local Plan target of 52,500 new houses demonstrates. It is time he went and is replaced by someone who has Cornwall’s best interests at heart.”

https://www.change.org/p/cornwall-council-phil-mason-council-s-chief-planning-officer-has-failed-cornwall-and-must-resign

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Austerity cuts, Housing (local), Inequality

“Tenants lose out after landlord pressure halves UK home insulation cap”

“Tenants face missing out on energy bill savings after the government caved in to landlords’ demands by lowering a cap on the costs they face to upgrade Britain’s draughtiest homes.

Landlords must improve the energy efficiency of F- and G-rated homes from next April under new regulations designed to protect vulnerable tenants and cut carbon emissions.

But on Tuesday the government said the costs of the upgrade would be capped at £2,500, half what officials had originally told buy-to-let landlords to expect. The total energy bill savings is put at £337m.

The government’s own assessment warned that the lower cap means only 139,200 households in England and Wales will benefit from better insulation by April 2020. That is 121,000 fewer than if the cap was at £5,000.

Campaigners and industry groups said the change left ministers’ ambitions of tackling fuel poverty in tatters.

“This could leave a gaping hole in the government’s plans to meet its own fuel poverty targets,” said Richard Twinn, policy adviser at the UK Green Building Council.

The Association for Conservation of Energy said the government had “missed a big opportunity” to improve the efficiency of thousands of homes.

Officials said the lower cap was necessary to protect owners by ensuring “that landlords of F and G rated private rented properties are not faced with an excessive cost burden”.

The government also said the changes were necessary because landlords’ access to finance for energy-saving measures had become harder since the policy was first proposed.

One green energy charity accused Theresa May of putting landlords’ interests ahead of tenants. Max Wakefield, a campaigner at 10:10 Climate Action, said: “The prime minister claims to be prioritising controlling domestic energy costs, but in reality policy is being designed to suit landlords. …”

“Hundreds of thousands of renters will now be left wondering when, if ever, they can expect to live in a decent home.”

But the National Landlords Association was not happy either, calling the proposal a “complete farce”. It said there was a risk landlords who still could not afford the upgrades would leave properties empty and unimproved. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/dec/19/tenants-lose-out-landlord-pressure-halves-uk-home-insulation-cap

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Hugo Swire

Comments

2 Comments

Is Owl a “digital criminal” as well as “vile and libellous”?

In the past, Hugo Swire has called citizen bloggers and activists (including Owl, East Devon Alliance and Claire Wright particularly) “a vile swamp”:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/06/09/swire-calls-east-devon-watch-claire-wright-and-east-devon-alliance-supporters-a-vile-swamp/

and called the same people “vile and libellous”:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/06/11/swire-poor-winner/

and he has banned people he doesn’t like from his Twitter feed:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/07/01/swire-blocks-twitter-followers-he-doesnt-like/

Now he has enthusiastically supported a parliamentary investigation of “hate crimes” towards MPs: Though it rather seems, from the examples above, that Swire conflates “hate crime” with criticism of him of any kind.

Does he have citizen journalists in mind in his statement below – or possibly only those he personally disapproves of?

His statement in Parliament:

“May I add my congratulations to Lord Bew on presiding over a typically balanced and well researched piece of work? When some time ago I asked my right hon. Friend’s then ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend Sarah Newton, what the figures for successful hate crime prosecutions were, she said that she did not have the figures to hand at the time. Although I very much welcome the tone of my right hon. Friend’s statement about looking again at the Crown Prosecution Service’s guidance and about more funding for local police forces to investigate digital crimes in particular, will she reassure me that both the CPS and police forces nationally and locally will take this more seriously and that we will see some successful prosecutions to warn off others who would follow in their wake?”

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/

Question: is being called vile, libellous and a swamp dweller by Swire hateful and, if so, could it be classed as a digital crime?

Fortunately, Owl feels that the cut and thrust of political debate means that one must be prepared to take such terms on the chin and will not be contacting the police to complain.

Though, it does remind Owl of that rather difficult time when Claire Wright was reported to police by Councillor Phil Twiss when she said MPs should be culled and he took it to mean something nasty such as shooting at seagulls rather than a term used MANY times by his own party in general (and the then PM David Cameron in particular as Owl pointed out), to mean a simple reduction in numbers! It hit the national headlines at the time!

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2014/12/19/cullgate-spreads-through-the-blogosphere/

We must NEVER perpetuate hate crimes but we MUST retain free speech – its loss is the first aim of despots.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, AONB, EDDC, Local Plan, Villages BUAB, Woodbury

Final Consultation for the East Devon Villages Plan – your input urgently needed, particularly on business park expansion

The revised policies will provide further controls on Hill Barton and Greendale Business Parks.

On a recent Planning Enforcement Appeal, the Planning Inspector`s conclusion was he disagreed with the appellant’s (FWS Carter and Sons owners of Greendale Business Park) contention that the Local Plan is silent on the matter of employment provision/future development at the major existing employment sites of both Greendale and Hill Barton Business Parks. He stated that ‘although there may be no specific policies for the business parks Strategy 7 and Policy E7, it is perfectly clear that the Plan seeks to apply a “restrictive policy approach” to accommodating further development’.

At a Strategic Planning Meeting last week it was agreed to submit the “Villages Plan” to a further 7 week consultation period which has been through the various consultations and Planning Inspectorates hearings.
East Devon District Council have yesterday(Monday 18th December) submitted the Villages Plan for consultation on the Local Plan Inspectors “Main Modifications” that she had included following her hearings held at Sidmouth in November.

The Village Plan is an extension to the already approved East Devon Local Plan which gives further detail on the 15 larger Villages in the district with new BUAB (Built up Area Boundaries) proposals which will provide some extra development for the next 15 years.

Also included are the two Industrial areas at Greendale Business Park and Hill Barton Business Park which will have an “Employment Area” drawn around them as they are both contrary to the East Devon Local Plan as they are considered to be in the open countryside where development should not be allowed.

The Planning Inspector has proposed two new Policies VP04 and VP05 covering the Business Parks. Reading the other Inspector’s report for the Enforcement Appeal who stated that there were no specific policies for the business parks, these new proposed policies will provide the clarity and guidance required to prevent these Business Parks expanding further into the countryside or closer to local communities.

History of the Village Plan

Following the hearings in 2015 with the Planning Inspectorate it was agreed to remove all villages’ growth targets from the Local Plan and create a subsidiary plan for the Villages. It was also agreed to include further clarity for Hill Barton and Greendale Business Park with this new Village Plan.

The original Village Plan was drawn up by planning officers from the District Council, agreed by the EDDC Strategic Planning Committee and at a meeting of the Full Council to go out for a 6-week public consultation from 22 March to 10 May 2017.

Following the consultations, changes were made to the Plan by the EDDC Planning Officers and the Strategic Planning Committee and then agreed by Full Council and submitted it to the Government Planning Inspectorate. This required another Public Consultation of 6 weeks when all interested parties were invited again to submit comments direct to the inspector followed by an Inspectors Hearing for 2 days in Nov 2017.

This procedure follows the agreed guidance of Democratic Principles, giving the Local Electorate plus the relevant Parish Councils, the ability to scrutinise and to submit comments to enable the District Council and finally the Inspector to ensure the Village Plan Document is both legally compliant and has followed fully the democratic principles.

Policy VP04 relating to Greendale Business Park.

Policy VP04 – Greendale Business Park Inset maps are included in this plan that show the extent of authorised uses at the Greendale Business Park for information purposes only. Development of Greendale Business Park as indicated on the inset map will be considered in accordance with the relevant policies of the development plan, in particular Strategy 7 of the East Devon Local Plan (Development in the Countryside)

Policy VP05 relating to Hill Barton Business Park.

Policy VP05 – Hill Barton Business Park Inset maps are included in this plan that show the extent of authorised uses at the Hill Barton Business Park for information purposes only. Development of Hill Barton Business Park as indicated on the inset map will be considered in accordance with the relevant policies of the development plan, in particular Strategy 7 of the East Devon Local Plan (Development in the Countryside)

These new Policies which the Inspector specifically required to be added to the proposed plan are to make it legally complaint and to link in to the already approved East Devon Local Plan.

It is a key principle to the Local Plan that these Business Parks are not to be extended from their present boundaries as they are in the open countryside.

District Councillor Geoff Jung (Raleigh Ward)

“This is another significant step forward by the Local Planning Authority to provide further support to the local plan strategy for Greendale and Hill Barton Business Parks.”

“The Business Parks provide employment for many local people, but the sites are in the open countryside located some distance from where people live. The Government and Local Authority strategy is to provide employment in locations close to where people live.”

“Further development will be provided within these business parks but expansion beyond their present approved boundaries will be against local planning strategies and policies.”

“If the Village Plan is adopted as proposed this will provide the clarity that local people have been asking for, for years”

“As well as being inappropriate development within the countryside, there are significant highway issues relating to these Business Parks with the HGV traffic on the A3052 Sidmouth Road from the M5 to the Halfway Inn being heavily used and the Sandy Gate roundabout and the Clyst St Mary Roundabout at already at full capacity.”

“It is thanks to local residents, various associations and action groups, and concerned Parish Councils, within the wider area who have worked with tenacity and persistence to get to this final hurdle”

An Urgent Request for Residents to Respond

What is required now is for local people to write or email to the Local Authority in support of 17.3 changes and additions, plus the new Policy VP04 for Greendale Business Park and 18.1-18.2 changes and additions, plus the new Policy VP05 for Hill Barton.

To agree with the Inspectors proposals in full recognising the current employment boundary of Greendale and Hill Barton, this would protect the “open countryside”

The schedule of main modification, the updated SA/SEA, an amended version of the Villages Plan that incorporates the proposed changes and further information about the consultation may be viewed on the Council web site at: Villages plan examination – East Devon

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/villages-plan/villages-plan-2017/villages-plan-examination/

If you wish to comment on the proposed schedule of main modifications or the updated SA/SEA, please email

planningpolicy@eastdevon.gov.uk

by no later than

2nd February 2018.

All responses received will be forwarded to the Inspector for her consideration prior to issuing her report, which will be in the Spring of 2018.

If you want further information please contact the planning policy team on 01395 571533.

The Officer to contact is Linda Renshaw (Mrs) Senior Planning Officer East Devon District Council Tel. 01395 571683 Working days Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

  

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Minority Government, Post-Brexit Adjustments, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Voting

DUP funding to stay secret

Owl says: What a surprise! Remind me – isn’t the DUP a fundamentalist “Christian” party? Oooohhhh … wait for the fire and brimstone – not.

“Labour has criticised an attempt by the government to allow the DUP to conceal details of past political donations, including during the EU referendum, despite a 2014 law that extended party transparency rules to Northern Ireland.

The government has announced it will bring into force new transparency rules for Northern Ireland’s political parties to allow the Electoral Commission to publish details of donations over £7,500.

The provision for the new rules, which will bring Northern Ireland in line with the rest of the UK, was first introduced in legislation in 2014, with the wide understanding it would be applied from that year.

However, the Northern Ireland secretary, James Brokenshire, said he intended the act to be applied from 1 July 2017, which would mean donations during the EU referendum in 2016 are not made public.

Campaigners have raised questions over the DUP’s spending on the EU referendum in June 2016 – including a £435,000 donation from a group called the Constitutional Research Council (CRC), chaired by Richard Cook, a former vice-chairman of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party.

The source of the cash was revealed by the DUP after a series of articles published by OpenDemocracy, though details of the CRC’s source of income are still opaque. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/19/labour-criticises-move-past-donations-dup-hidden

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, General Election, Lib Dem (local), Voting

Every major (and some minor) party fined for election and/or referendum expense overspends or illegal payments

Owl says: with maximum fines being so low why should parties bother what they spend?

“Britain’s Electoral Commission said on Tuesday it has fined the Liberal Democrats party 18,000 pounds ($24,069) for breaching campaign finance rules in the 2016 European Union referendum.

The party was fined 17,000 pounds for failing to provide acceptable invoices or receipts and 1,000 pounds because some payments were reported in aggregate rather than as individual payments, the commission said in a statement.

“The reporting requirements for parties and campaigners at referendums and elections are clear, that’s why it is disappointing that the Liberal Democrats didn’t follow them correctly,” said Bob Posner, the Electoral Commission’s director of political finance.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-liberaldemocrats/uk-electoral-body-fines-liberal-democrats-over-brexit-vote-expenses-idUSKBN1ED0XG