Category Archives: Accountability

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Police (local)

Resigning Devon and Cornwall police officer tells it as it is

“I am Police Constable 6552 Laura BEAL on Response covering MID-DEVON and I am writing this to you to inform you that as of this date; Tuesday 28th February 2017 I am resigning my post as Police Constable.

This will be my 13th year as a Police Constable as this has been my life since I was 19 years old. I am sure that what I am about to say will not be new information to you, but I feel I owe it to myself and my colleagues to tell you my reasons for leaving.

I joined in 2004 having followed in my father’s footsteps and was so proud to call myself a Police Officer, however as my career has progressed the total lack of support both governmental and from the Chief Officer Group has made me lose all faith in the job I loved.

I am expected to go on patrol covering MID-DEVON with one other officer most days and this is meant to be adequate staffing and safe. How this can be acceptable is beyond belief. I have always worked to the best of my ability as I had pride in what I did. This however is not possible any more.

As a result of the way I have been treated within this organisation I have to undergo Cognitive Behavioural Therapy as I now suffer with anxiety, depression and stress. I would rather take the massive pay cut and quit than spend one day longer in a job that is making me ill.

I am and was a good Police Officer and you are losing more and more every day, only to be replaced by new recruits who have little to no people skills however are able to answer exams effectively. I have seen Police Officers who are completely incompetent get promoted because it’s been too difficult for higher management to manage them so promoting them and moving them is the easy option. I have also seen incredible supervisors in their roles be moved because a space needed filling.

I am sure you have bigger and more important things to be doing than listen to what seems to be a standard resignation letter from an upset employee, but I implore you to please hear this;

Your staff are not coping, and are suffering because there is no one looking out for them. Please take it from someone who has been personally affected and has been so low she has wondered what the point of it all is, and only through her friends and family been able to see that there is more to life than Policing. Front line response is where you need to focus your time and money. This is where the buck stops. We are always called upon when things need doing and when things go wrong in every department.

I was one of the lucky ones and have had the personal support at home to get out however there are so many that are unable to do so because they are either alone or financially dependent on the organisation. We are more like a business now in how we function in relation to finance and ‘customer’ relations, yet we are so far behind on employee rights.

I am leaving before this job kills me both physically and mentally. I am not only sad because I see what is potentially an amazing career get ruined by hypocrisy and lack of funding; but also because I know I am not the only one going through this and not everyone that needs the help and support will be as lucky as I am to be able to leave.

I have so many I people I love still in the job and I want so much for their lives to get better and you have the power to make that possible. It is your responsibility to make this right; the front line needs more officers, leadership and managerial support.”

http://www.devonlive.com/devon-cornwall-police-officer-publishes-frank-resignation-letter/story-30173271-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Police (local)

Where’s Alison?

A bit like the “Where’s Wally” books, our Police and Crime Commissioner Alison Hernandez is, yet again, hard to find.

No slouch when it comes to getting a selfie and photo-op with a working firefighter when the Royal Clarence Hotel was burning fiercely she has been somewhat less high-profile since then.

The latest glaring absence was this evening on BBC Spotlight. There was an item on Devon and Cornwall Police having lost a £20 million court case against Morrisons, who reneged on an arrangement to buy their Middlemoor HQ.

And who do they wheel out from the PCC’s office? Ms Hernandez? Not on your life – her CEO Andrew White. Ms Hernandez didn’t have any other appointments on her public calendar.

Still, he has to do something for his £103,602 annual salary (plus perks).

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, East Devon Alliance, Independent Councillors, Sustainability, Transparency, Voting

East Devon Alliance manifesto for Devon County Council election, May 2017

“The East Devon Alliance campaigns for transparency, accountability and democracy in local government. It supports Independent candidates who are responsible to the electors rather than a national party machine.

In the County Council elections, we are supporting Independent East Devon Alliance candidates in the Axminster, Seaton & Colyton, and Sidmouth divisions. Our candidates aim to make Devon County Council more accountable and transparent in all its dealings.

Like all local authorities, Devon County Council is facing an unprecedented long-term loss of funding and control. Once elected, Independent EDA County Councillors will use their positions to campaign for fair funding for local services and ensure local democratic control – rather than allowing central government and corporations to increasingly privatise everything which affects our communities.

Our candidates all support the following platform:

1. We will speak up for our constituents and campaign for local needs, not be bound by a national party line.

2. We will work for Devon County Council to support proper funding of the local NHS and the restoration of a fully public National Health Service, and oppose privatisation of NHS services and closures of community hospitals and beds.

3. We will fight to achieve adequate social care, especially for Devon’s growing population of older people, in the face of continued underfunding of this and other key services including mental health and children’s services.

4. We oppose the reductions in funding for many East Devon schools which will result from the supposedly ‘fairer’ National Funding Framework, and any new proposals to force local schools to become academies.

5. We will work to protect library services in the new mutual framework.

6. We will support local residents fighting for proper road maintenance and highway safety improvements.

7. We believe that rises of 9% in Council Tax over 2 years are unfair to many residents, yet not enough to protect services. Until there is a fairer local tax system, the Government should restore national funding for local services.

8. We also believe that small businesses should be protected from the Government’s changes to business rates.

9. We support genuine devolution of powers from central Government to Devon but we oppose the merger with Somerset in the so-called ‘Heart of the South West’ and the central role which the current opaque devolution proposals give to unelected businessmen in the Local Enterprise Partnership. We oppose the priority to the outdated and ruinously expensive Hinkley C project in these proposals.

10. During the forthcoming negotiations with the EU, we will work to represent the interests of all residents in healthcare, tourism, farming, and rural affairs. We also support initiatives to develop Devon’s tourism economy, welcoming visitors from home and abroad.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Police (local)

Torridge council leader criticises Police and Crime Commissioner

“A council leader from Devon has hit out at the area’s Police and Crime Commissioner over the “dramatic” reduction of PCSOs over the next four years.

More than half (190) of the region’s 340 Police and Community Support Officers (PCSOs) are to be lost in the next four years.

In their place, 100 new uniformed officers, 50 civilian investigators and 30 record takers will “re-connect” communities with the force, Chief Constable Shaun Sawyer announced in February. Torridge District Council leader Jane Whittaker has written to the county’s Police and Crime Commissioner, Alison Hernandez.

In her letter Mrs Whittaker acknowledges the need for new police officers but worries about “how a district like Torridge will survive when these numbers are so reduced. In such a rural district as Torridge the impact of the reduction of our PCSOs will be dramatic,” said Mrs Whittaker.

“They are the regular presence in every sense in terms of visible policing in Torridge.

“As it is, their role is hugely stretched because of the size of the areas they look after, but, that said, they remain the only tangible presence whenever there is a need to deal with the varied number of, what to the Force are, smaller criminal incidents.

“What I wish to learn from you is how a district like Torridge will survive when these numbers are so reduced that there will simply be no lesser crime addressing/problem solving capacity available throughout a large area of the district.

She added: “Torridge is only just about surviving in this respect with the current numbers in place, reduce these and the landscape will be all but barren.”

Mrs Whittaker is awaiting a reply from Ms Hernandez.”

http://www.devonlive.com/torridge-is-just-about-surviving-says-council-leader-worried-by-dramatic-pcso-cuts/story-30171340-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, EDBF, EDDC, Local Enterprise Partnership

Our Local Enterprise Partnership apes the East Devon Business Forum!

Supacat, based at Dunkeswell, whose MD is leader of this group, specialises in armed military vehicles and is branching out into the nuclear industry.

“Business Leadership Group

The HotSW Business Leadership Group

The business group is one of the LEP’s sub-groups and aims to support the Business theme for the HotSW LEP. It provides the strategic lead in the delivery of all business elements of the Heart of South West’s Strategic Economic Plan (SEP), Growth Deal and European Union Structural Investment Fund (ESIF), and deliver the HotSW LEP’s vision to businesses throughout the South West and beyond.

The purpose and role of the group is:

Create a simpler, more accessible business support system; Improving access to finance; Stimulate enterprise and growth; reach new markets, including on-line, supply chain and public sector; globalisation, including exporting and inward investment; innovation through Smart Specialisation; Build capacity for business innovation.

In delivering the above areas of work, the Business Leadership Group informs what is commissioned by determining business priorities for Growth Deals and ESIF Implementation Plans, and making recommendations to the HotSW LEP Management Team and Board.

The group links with the People Leadership Group and Place Leadership Group on business issues such as workforce skills, and the LEP Special Interest Groups as well as private, public and voluntary partners where appropriate cross cutting initiatives arise.

Membership is derived from representatives from the Heart of the South West LEP area. It is open is individuals and organisations from the private, public and voluntary sector, with a private sector chair, currently Nick Ames of Supacat.”

http://heartofswlep.co.uk/about-the-lep/how-we-work/business-leadership-group/

A list of its members:

Click to access BLG-EoI-summary-FINAL-002_0.pdf

Note that Devon’s biggest industries – tourism and agriculture are NOT represented.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Transparency, Voting

PM’s aide linked to election fraud allegations

Michael Crick is on the case again about the evidence showing how one of Prime Minister Theresa May’s top aides was closely linked with activities now being investigated by the police.

At the heart of the matter is the Conservative election campaign in South Thanet during the 2015 general election campaign. The party saw off Nigel Farage and Ukip in that seat, but there are many questions over whether the Conservatives hid campaign spending such as accommodation costs for those working on the campaign so that its official return could show the party kept within the legal limit.

In particular, Michael Crick has highlighted how hotel costs for Nick Timothy were excluded from the expense return because, as I covered previously:

“Rather oddly, the Conservative Party’s explanation as given to Channel 4 is that Nick Timothy was working on the national campaign from the hotel in Ramsgate. Not working on it from his home, or from the Conservative Party’s national HQ where the national campaign was being run. But from a hotel in Ramsgate.”

Now Crick and Channel 4 has unearthed evidence suggesting Nick Timothy was indeed working on the constituency campaign:

A cache of secret documents obtained by Channel 4 News reveal the Prime Minister’s chief of staff Nick Timothy played a central role in a controversial election campaign now under police investigation…

They also appear to directly contradict a previous statement issued by the Party which, when asked about Mr. Timothy’s role in South Thanet, said Mr Timothy “provided assistance for the Conservative Party’s national team”.

The Conservative Party has consistently denied that Mr Timothy worked directly on Craig Mackinlay’s local campaign against Nigel Farage in South Thanet in the 2015 General Election.

But emails seen by this programme appear to show Mr Timothy devising strategy and campaigning messages that were used by Mr Mackinlay’s local campaign.

http://www.markpack.org.uk/148541/nick-timothy-thanet-south-election-expenses/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development

Houses as commodities and not as homes

The UN special rapporteur for housing, Leilani Farha, will highlight the devastating human rights impact of society’s tendency to view houses as financial commodities rather than homes for people, in her report to the UN this week.

Farha, who has been UN special rapporteur for housing and human rights since May 2014, has published a hard-hitting report [pdf], which she presents to the UN in Geneva on 1 March. It details the shift in recent years that has seen massive amounts of global capital invested in housing as a commodity, particularly as security for financial instruments that are traded on global markets and as a means of accumulating wealth. As a result, she says, homes are often left empty – even in areas where housing is scarce.

“Shops are closing, restaurants are closing,” Farha has told the Guardian, in an exclusive interview. “You see immediately a loss of vibrancy.”

‘Housing should be seen as a human right. Not a commodity’ | Patrick Butler
Farha wants governments around the world to act. She is calling for them to redefine their relationship with private investors and international financial institutions, and reform the governance of financial markets, in order to reclaim housing as a social good, “and thus ensure the human right to a place to live in security and dignity”. Here are some of the report’s key findings.

Building homes to lie empty

The report warns about a rise in “dehumanised housing”: housing built as a high-yield commodity rather than for social use. A significant portion of investor-owned homes are simply left empty. In Melbourne, Australia, for example, 82,000 (or one fifth) of investor-owned units are unoccupied. In prime locations for wealthy foreign investors, such as the affluent boroughs of Chelsea and Kensington in the city of London, the number of vacant units increased by 40% between 2013 and 2014.

In such markets, the value of housing is no longer based on its social use. Properties are equally valuable regardless of whether they are vacant or occupied, so there is no pressure to ensure properties are lived in. They are built with the intention of lying empty and accumulating value, while at the same time, homelessness remains a persistent problem.

People’s homes are not commodities: cities need to rethink housing
The average income of local residents or kinds of housing they would like to inhabit is of little concern to financial investors, who cater to the desires of speculative markets. These are likely to replace affordable housing that is needed locally with luxury housing that sits vacant because that is how best to turn a profit quickly.

For instance, Kensington & Chelsea is a hotspot for building luxury housing, and yet the borough also has the fourth highest number of households in temporary accommodation in UK, as well as the highest rate of out-of-borough placements (meaning when people become homeless, they are moved to different boroughs entirely).

Farha’s report says escalating house prices have become key factors in the increase in wealth inequality. Those who own property in prime urban locations have become richer, while lower-income households become poorer. Surveys of ultra-high net-worth individuals show that over 50% have increased the proportion of their investments allocated to housing. The most common reasons are in order to sell at a later date and provide a safe return on investment, thus protecting wealth. The “economics of inequality” may be explained in large part by the inequalities of wealth generated by housing investments.

The impact of private investment has also contributed to spatial segregation and inequality within cities, Farha points out. In South Africa, private investment in cities has sustained many of the discriminatory patterns of the apartheid area, with wealthier, predominantly white households occupying areas close to the centre and poorer black South Africans living on the peripheries. That “spatial mismatch”, relegating poor black households to areas where employment opportunities are scarce, has entrenched poverty and cemented inequality.

Similar patterns of racial displacement from urban centres and segregation can be found in large cities in the US.

This also creates gender segregation: in Australia, analysis has shown that average-income single female workers can afford to live in only one suburb of Melbourne, and cannot afford to live anywhere in Sydney.

Farha’s report calls for action. She wants governments to provide housing for people affected by economic downturns and unemployment, but many have been hampered by austerity measures imposed by creditors. As a result, they have agreed to dramatically reduce or eliminate affordable housing programmes, privatise social housing and sell off real estate assets to private equity funds.

The report argues that many governments are too deferential to unregulated markets and have failed to protect the right to adequate housing. Tax subsidies for homeownership, tax breaks for investors, and bailouts for financial institutions have subsidised and encouraged the excessive financialisation of housing.

Farha concludes that all laws and policies related to foreclosure, indebtedness and housing should be examined to ensure the right to adequate housing is paramount, including the obligation to prevent any eviction resulting in homelessness.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, East Devon Alliance, East Devon Tories, EDDC, Green (local), Labour ( Devon), Scrutiny, Transparency, Voting

Exeter councillor goes Green because of “lack of transparency”

Swap Labour for Conservative and East Devon Alliance for Green in East Devon and you have a similar situation – an entrenched old-boys-and-girls power base that needs removing.

“Exeter has its first ever Green Party city councillor following the defection from Labour of Alphington councillor Chris Musgrave. And Cllr Musgrave says he has made the decision as he has become increasingly disillusioned with a ‘small clique making decisions behind closed doors’ and a refusal by the Labour group to accept proper scrutiny in decision making.

Cllr Musgrave says he has been drawn to the Green Party because of their deep-seated commitment to openness and transparency in local government, something he says is ‘in short supply with the current Labour administration.’

He added: “Openness and transparency is in short supply in the local Labour Party. Major decisions are increasingly made by a small clique behind closed doors with the majority of councillors locked out of the process. Whenever I have challenged the Labour Party and Labour-led council on major decisions – which is exactly what I believe I should be doing as an elected Councillor – I have been told in no uncertain terms to be quiet. …”

http://www.devonlive.com/exeter-city-councillor-defects-from-labour-to-join-the-green-party/story-30168791-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Consultation, Democracy, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local)

Comments

1 Comment

Community Hospital bed cuts: public consultation doesn’t give answers CCG wanted

Public consultation – ok for Brexit, not ok for NHS!

“A public consultation over which community beds health commissioners will axe in Exeter or East Devon has seen the majority of people vote for different oppositions, rather than the four being proposed.

NHS Northern, Eastern and Western (NEW) Devon Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) is planning to close 72 community hospital beds in Devon, and is due to make its decision this Thursday. In the options Tiverton hospital will definitely remain open, and Honiton and Okehampton will close. The fate of beds in Seaton, Exmouth, Sidmouth and Whipton remains uncertain.

The aim of the consultation document called Your Future Care is to provide care and support at home and in the community for the elderly and frail, where the various providers of services work together to promote the health and wellbeing of residents, preventing unnecessary hospital admissions and supporting a faster return home.

The Your Future Care survey results show 624 people voted for other options such as suggesting different three site hospitals such as Okehampton, Tiverton and Exmouth; having four site options such as Tiverton, Sidmouth, Seaton, and Exmouth; and retaining all existing beds which accounted for 168 of responses.

The second most popular choice was option A – 32 beds in Tiverton, 24 beds in Seaton and 16 beds in Exmouth – with 554 votes, followed by option B with 159 votes, and option C – 32 beds in Tiverton, 24 beds in Seaton and 16 beds in Whipton – with 65 votes. The least popular was option D – 32 beds in Tiverton, 24 in Sidmouth and 16 beds in Whipton – with 50 votes.

During the consultation, the CCG’s governing body received five petitions. They included one from Sidmouth Victoria Hospital Comforts Fund which was signed by 5,497 to prevent the closure of Sidmouth Hospital’s inpatient ward; a petition signed by 3,579 people to save Okehampton Hospital beds, and 3,227 people signed a Hands off Honiton Hospital petition.

Also opposing proposals to reduce community beds is Community Hospitals Association (CHA), and Devon County Council has called for a halt in the plans while it calls on the government and NHS England to provide fair funding for health services in Devon.

Hard to reach groups were consulted during focus groups organised by Healthwatch Devon. No one option was most preferred, and people said they wanted services to be as close to home as possible. Many people felt enabling patients to remain at home and avoid a hospital stay is a good thing.

During the consultation a significant number of questions relating to how the New Model of Integrated Care (NMOC) will work in practice was raised, including concerns about a possible decline in patient safety for vulnerable groups such as the frail, elderly, and dementia patients.

While there was noticeable support for the principle of care at home, many correspondents felt the NMOC had not been suitably or clearly explained, so they were unable to support the proposal.

A high number of people raised topics such as fear of isolation, strain on carers and worsening patient outcomes for individuals with more seriousness illness.

The final decision will be made by NEW Devon CCG’s governing body at a publicly held meeting of NEW Devon CCG’s governing body at Exeter Racecourse at 1pm. It has previously stated its preferred choice as being option A.

More changes are also on the way. Devon’s acute hospital stroke, maternity and urgent care services are the latest to come under scrutiny as part of ongoing plans to transform the regions health care. By this summer, NEW Devon CCG and South Devon and Torbay CCG aims to have drawn up proposals for the future delivery of the three services.”

http://www.devonlive.com/devon-residents-vote-for-other-options-than-those-proposed-over-community-beds-cuts/story-30168539-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Democracy, Developers/ Development, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Transparency

Comments

2 Comments

When and how does devolution become a scam?

Georgina Allen:


“Looking at the papers at the moment, there is a stark contrast to be witnessed – on the one hand, local people out in the rain and cold, holding bedraggled posters, begging for hospitals to be saved, for school funds not to be cut, for councils to hold strong against insistent developers – while on the other hand, the self-congratulations of business people and the LEP, the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership, on winning yet another enormous handout from the government – £43.56 million this time. This brings their total budget to over £200 million.

Where has this £43 million come from? If the government can’t find money to help keep local hospitals open, how can they suddenly produce this huge windfall? Council budgets here in the South West have been reduced on average by about 40%, forcing councils to cut back on essential services.

Local councils are having to make some very difficult decisions. They are being kept afloat by income from the New Homes Bonuses, money which they are given for every house built. This however, puts them at odds with their constituents, who see thousands of unaffordable new houses spreading over their fields, damaging agriculture, tourism and local infrastructure. Council taxes have gone up, business rates have gone up, services are being cut, yet suddenly this huge windfall has appeared.

The LEP, who have been given this bonanza to share out, are an interesting organisation to be responsible for this amount of public money. They are a self-elected group of business people and councillors. The majority of business represented are from the construction industry. There are also representatives from the arms industry, cyber technology, the nuclear industry and people with financial interests in house building. Their meetings are held in private, they are unaccountable and are not required to be transparent. They are responsible for the division of an enormous amount of public money and yet their board represents the construction industries who benefit the most from the windfall, leading to many awkward conflicts of interest.

Their choices on where to spend this money reflect their own interests too closely in my opinion. Money, which it can be argued, has been taken from council funds, is being sent to fund an upgrade to the train station in Plymouth, to help a proposed new town on the edge of Newton Abbot, to build a high technology centre in Torbay.

All of this investment is good of course, but if it comes at the expense of our hospitals, schools and roads, then questions need to be asked about who is making the decision on where that money goes. If money is being drained from council funds and the public purse to build massive new developments, developments which benefit the businesses that the people making the decisions are in charge of, then the public need to be a lot more informed than they are.

In light of the recent scandals shaking LEPs in other areas, as reported by the Times and the Mail, it would make a lot of sense to ask for a great deal more transparency. To quote the Times article, “Millions of pounds have been spent, however, on businesses run by board members of the partnerships or on the companies of people close to them.” I’m sure our LEP have done nothing wrong, so a little more openness in the way they function cannot hurt.

The lack of openness is especially worrying when you see how fundamentally the changes that the LEP are behind, are changing the face of Devon and Somerset. Housing for example – the LEP have come up with a figure of 169,000 new houses needed for Devon and Somerset.

How have they come up with this figure?

Nobody seems to know – several councillors in my local area of the South Hams have asked and as they put it, ‘have been fobbed off’. The LEP don’t need to answer questions and you can’t do a freedom of information on them as they are not a public body. It’s mentioned that this figure is possibly based on local housing needs assessments – so where do these housing assessments come from? How does a town like Newton Abbot, which has had a static or declining population for many years, suddenly need to double in size according to a ‘local housing need assessment’? I was told by a chief planning officer that he didn’t understand the way they were calculated. I would argue that they are based on market needs not local needs.

Who will benefit then from having a high housing figure? Well the people who develop the land will and it is unfortunate that so many of them are sitting on the board of the LEP. It doesn’t inspire confidence. Many of the houses that have been built are not selling, but that doesn’t seem to stop the LEP and various councils represented on its board, from producing larger and larger plans – the one for a Greater Exeter has just come out.

If they want local people to support them, they must explain where the money is going and why. They must put the money into supporting agriculture, tourism, the environment and services instead of just endless, huge infrastructural projects. They must consult and discuss properly and answer freedom of information requests, otherwise like the other scandal-ridden LEPs, it will just resemble a scam. A scam whereby local services are cut and public money is diverted into supporting private industry and how does that really help any of us.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Asset sweating, Austerity cuts, DCC, Economy, EDDC

Public services unsustainable and will bounce from crisis to crisis say think-tanks

“The UK faces the prospect of failing public services and breached spending controls unless urgent action is taken, the Institute for Government and CIPFA have warned.

The think-tank has partnered with the accountancy body to deliver an assessment of key public services in light of increasing cuts imposed by central government.

The Performance Tracker review concludes that until recently, Whitehall was able to maintain the performance of public services while cutting spending. However, the report highlighted that the government’s own data indicates the existing approach has “run out of steam.”

The authors urged the chancellor Philip Hammond to demonstrate in next week’s Budget that his spending decisions were based on “realistic assessments”.

They added that, in the near future, the government risks “bouncing from spending crisis to crisis” against the backdrop of contentious and potentially divisive Brexit negotiations.

The report identified the key pressures on adult social care, hospitals and the prison services. It noted that people were waiting longer for critical hospital services such as A&E and cancer treatments, and highlighted delays in transferring people from hospitals into social care have risen by 40% since 2014. Meanwhile, violence in prisons has risen sharply, with assaults on staff increasing by 61% in two years.

Among the recommendations made by the report was for the assumptions behind government’s spending decisions to be subject to independent scrutiny. As such, Whitehall should consider creating an institution similar to the Office for Budget Responsibility for public spending, which could help “embed efficiency within public sector decision making and prevent wishful thinking.”

Rob Whiteman, chief executive of CIPFA, said: “We know that for some parts of the public sector resources are stretched and that those working to deliver services are up against it. What is crucial is that we make the best possible use of the funds available.”

A thorough understanding of how organisations are run and services provided was key, “using this information to think strategically and creatively about improving policy decision making, which will ultimately improve service delivery.”

Julian McCrae, deputy director of the IfG, added the government was entering a cycle of “crisis, cash, repeat.” He emphasised the new report was not a call for money but rather, “a call for better financial planning” and reforms robust enough to endure public scrutiny.

“It is fundamental to increasing the effectiveness of these public services that ministers, officials and the public know how well government is performing, and use this information to guide decisions,” he stated.

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/02/cipfa-and-ifg-issue-pre-budget-warning-over-public-service-sustainability

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Consultation, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Greater Exeter, Land banking, Land Supply, Local Enterprise Partnership, Local Plan, NPPF, Planning System, Spin

Government response to petition – “Give communities back the right to decide where houses are built.”.

OWL SAYS: if you believe this, you will believe anything. Have we been consulted about where our Local Enterprise Partnership is going to build extra houses? No. What say do we have about extra houses for Greater Exeter? Almost none. Do (favoured) developers get just about anything and everything they ask for in East Devon? Yes, they do.

Truly we live in a parallel universe to the government!


“Local communities are not forced to accept large housing developments. Communities are consulted throughout the Local Plan process and on individual planning applications.

Read the response in full

The National Planning Policy Framework strongly encourages all local planning authorities to get up-to-date Local Plans in place as soon as possible, in consultation with the local community. Up-to-date Local Plans ensure that communities get the right development, in the right place, at the right time, reflecting the principles of sustainable development. Through the White Paper we are ensuring that every part of the country produces, maintains and implements an up-to-date plan, yet with the flexibility for local areas to decide how to plan in a way that best meets their needs.

A wide section of the community should be proactively engaged so that Local Plans, as far as possible, reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable development of the area, including those contained in any neighbourhood plans that have been made.

The Framework recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. That is why our proposals are focussed on development in built up areas.
We are also absolutely clear that Green Belt must be protected and that there are other areas that local authorities must pursue first, such as brownfield land and taking steps to increase density on urban sites. The Government is committed to maximising the use of brownfield land and has already embarked on an ambitious programme to bring brownfield land back into use.

We believe that developers should mitigate the impacts of development. This is vital to make it acceptable to the local community and to addresses the cumulative impact of development in an area. Both the Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 agreements can be used by local planning authorities to help fund supporting infrastructure and address the cumulative demand that development places on infrastructure. Through the White Paper, the Government announced that it will examine the options for reforming the existing system of developer contributions to see how this can be simplified, with further announcements at Autumn Budget 2017.

The £2.3billion Housing Infrastructure Fund will deliver up to 100,000 new homes by putting in the right infrastructure, in the right place, at the right time. We expect the fund to be able to deliver a variety of types of infrastructure necessary to unlock housing growth in high demand areas.

There is nothing automatic about grants of planning permission where there is not yet an up-to-date Local Plan. It is still up to local decision-makers to interpret and apply national policy to local circumstances, alongside the views of the local community. Applications should not be approved if the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits; or if specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted.

Communities are also able to make representations on individual planning applications and in response to most appeals by the applicant against a local authority decision. Interested parties can raise all the issues that concern them during the planning process, in the knowledge that the decision maker will take their views into account, along with other material considerations, in reaching a decision.

We therefore do not believe a right of appeal against the grant of planning permission for communities is necessary. It is considered that communities already have plenty of opportunity to have their say on local planning issues, and it would be wrong for them to be able to delay a development at the last minute, through a community right of appeal, when any issues they would raise at that point could have been raised and should have been considered during the earlier planning application process.

Department for Communities and Local Government”

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/177333

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Audit (EDDC), Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, NHS (local), Spin

Why employ consultants?

After the Oscars fiasco, laid firmly at the door of management consultants PriceWaterhouseCooper, the Guardian has this to say:

“These big companies and the legions of highly paid experts are supposed to be delivering measurable results, yet it seems most of what they touch runs worse than before.

So it’s worth asking what it is they are actually selling that is worth so much.

The first, obvious answer is plausible deniability. If a management wants to slash its workforce then it is obviously better that the bad news be delivered by outsiders who can be blamed later.

This evasion of responsibility may well be worth a great deal to the managers concerned, if not to the other stakeholders of the enterprise.

This motive overlaps or shades into another, more interesting one. The one thing that consultancies and even accountants are meant to deliver is objectivity – and from that springs authority, which is what they’re really selling.

Someone who comes along with an air of confident command will always find followers even if they know nothing about their subject, providing the followers are more painfully confident of their own ignorance.

The vocational education of the English ruling classes taught the art of bluffing at the speed of thought – and though this skill is indispensable at the bar, and still more in the House of Commons, unfortunately it’s not the best way to make really important decisions, as the career of David Cameron so catastrophically demonstrates. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/27/the-guardian-view-on-management-consultants-the-trick-is-confidence

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Land banking, Planning System

Developers could be fined for not developing sites with permission says Govt Minister

“Housing minister Gavin Barwell told MPs that the government is considering publishing league table on the performance of developers showing how many homes they are building.

This would enable councils – and activist investors – to hold the major developers to account and end claims of landbanking.

Barwell discussed the idea during evidence to the Commons communities and local government committee on the recent housing White paper and plans to speed up housebuilding.

The minister revealed the idea of fining developers for not turning sites into homes had been ruled out.

But league tables – including their record of turning sites into developments – “should be a determination” that allows councils assess the record of developer in building out permissions.

“There is a balance to be had. If it was too draconian, the effect would be chilling,” he said.

The minister accepted developers needed to have land in reserve to be able to start sites as a development finishes. But he wants to reduce the time taken from purchase to build by the main private developers which is currently five years.

He also questioned if developers were too risk averse with sites. On a site with the potential of 1,000 homes only around 70 would be built in order protect the company’s financial position.

Barwell said: “The main way that we reduce landbanking is to speed up the planning system. But my real concern is once you start.”

Other plans include a major review of how taxes on developments are decided.

His department and the Treasury are looking at a nationally set charge that would be locally collected locally spent by councils.

Barwell revealed a review of the Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 agreements will be included in the autumn Budget.

“It’s something we need to address,” Barwell said. “There is a lot of dissatisfaction with how the current system works. But what we don’t want to lose is the localism element of how money is spent.”

There was good news for local authority planning departments which have been hit by staff cuts caused by austerity cuts.

Barwell said the government was looking at enabling councils to increase planning fees to cover the whole cost of running their teams. Where some councils had major regeneration projects, they would not only be able to raise more money from applicants but his department would look at targeted intervention where some LAs need support.

“I’m clearly on the side of getting more money spent on those planning departments. Local authority planning departments are under-resourced,” he said.

The biggest controversy in the White Paper had been over the future of green belt land. …”

http://www.24housing.co.uk/news/league-tables-for-housing-developers-warns-barwell/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Coastal communities, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Exmouth, Grenadier, Regeneration

Exmouth seafront: reserved matters planning application WILL result in full planning permission

“Residents attending a meeting about East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) reserved matters application for the seafront said members did not debate relevant planning points.

They called for the vote to support the plan be declared invalid. Residents also said Councillor Lynne Elson should apologise to district councillor Megan Armstrong for interrupting her.

An EDDC spokesperson said: “EDDC’s monitoring officer has considered this letter of complaint, but, in a case such as this, neither he nor the council are in a position to interfere with the legitimate decision-making of Exmouth Town Council.”

The spokesperson said concern about the decision would be a legal matter for the courts, and added that even if a councillor had been found in breach of the code of conduct, this would not legally affect the decision.

They added that the monitoring officer had heard a recording of the meeting and ruled there was nothing ‘untoward’ in the exchange between Cllr Elson and Cllr Armstrong.

The spokesperson added that although the application would produce a ‘valid and implementable’ planning permission, only the district council could carry out the development if approved.

However, EDDC has confirmed it only intends to realign the road and carry out the car park works. Therefore, any developers would have to apply for permission for the watersports centre and remainder of the site.

In response, Ron Metcalfe, one of the complainants, said: “We thank EDDC for finally confirming that if the reserved matters application is approved it will result in a valid and implementable planning permission to build.

“The basis of our complaint was an EDDC and town councillor repeatedly claimed this was not the case.

“We remain concerned that the town council decision was made based on misleading and inaccurate information and lack of relevant discussion.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/complaint_against_exmouth_town_council_vote_dismissed_1_4903311

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, Transport (local)

Speeding on the A3052 gets Stuart Hughes suddenly excited and now a councillor in Newton Abbott suddenly finds potholes interesting.

There wouldn’t be a DCC election coming up would there?

http://www.devonlive.com/newton-abbot-s-worst-road-will-finally-have-its-potholes-fixed/story-30165680-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Exmouth

Exmouth: grab your Warren View sports ground before it goes for development

If no suitable tenants are found EDDC could use that as an excuse to sell it. Maybe consider village green status asap too?

http://www.devonlive.com/sports-clubs-wanted-to-take-over-lease-of-exmouth-sports-ground/story-30166070-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Voting

Lincolnshire can’t vote on unitary authority on same day as elections – instead must shell out extra £1 million

“The Leader of Lincolnshire County Council, Cllr Martin Hill, has accepted that its proposal for a poll of residents on the creation of a unitary authority for the area cannot go ahead after some districts refused to be involved.

Earlier this month it was revealed that the districts had received legal advice from Timothy Straker QC of 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square suggesting that any attempt by the county council to combine their elections with such a referendum would be unlawful.

According to the City of Lincoln Council, Straker’s opinion said the plans were “contrary to the Election Rules and fraught with danger of litigation.”
Lincoln argued that this meant, in effect, “the referendum would need to be held completely separately or on a different day, incurring costs to Lincolnshire taxpayers of around £1m”.

Cllr Hill, Leader of the county council, had sought to argue that holding a poll on 4 May, when many residents would already be going out to vote in county council elections, would have kept administrative costs to a minimum and encouraged a high turnout.

“Unfortunately, it won’t now be possible to hold a poll on 4 May, which is deeply disappointing,” he said.

“For various reasons, some of the county’s seven district councils – the bodies responsible for conducting the elections – are not prepared to co-operate. Although I don’t personally agree with their legal and other objections, the county council can’t require them to help with the holding of a poll.”

At a meeting of Lincolnshire County Council last week councillors voted to seek the views of residents on the principle of moving to a unitary system of local government.

After receipt of the legal advice earlier this month, Cllr Ric Metcalfe, Leader of City of Lincoln, said (on 17 February): “If the county council had consulted on this proposal [for a poll on local government reorganisation] with any of the district councils prior to their announcement, we could have raised our concerns then. Sadly, they did not.”

He added: “I and my district colleagues are in favour of a collective debate on the future of local government in Lincolnshire, but to hold a referendum at such an early stage in discussions is ludicrous, especially at such massive cost.”

Describing the proposal for a unitary council for the whole of Lincolnshire as “ridiculous”, Cllr Metcalfe said: “We are one of the largest counties in the UK and contain a diverse range of areas with significantly differing challenges and needs….

“A county unitary would be too remote a tier of government – district councils are best placed to deliver services that meet the needs of all their residents and businesses and we want to protect these services. This will not happen under a county unitary.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30216%3Acounty-plan-for-poll-on-unitary-scuppered-after-districts-refuse-to-co-operate&catid=59&Itemid=27

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Consultation, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Environment (local), Greater Exeter, Infrastructure, Land Supply, Local Plan, Planning System, Sustainability, Transparency, Transport (local)

Greater Exeter Strategic Plan consultation – only one public meeting to discuss implications for East Devon

NOTE THAT, UNLIKE THE EMAIL TO EDDC COUNCILLORS (see earlier post) WE ARE NOT BEING ASKED IF WE WANT TO PUT FORWARD SECRET LAND HOLDINGS – THOUGH NO DOUBT THE TAXMAN WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IF YOU DID!

THE BIGGEST PLANNING ISSUE TO HIT EAST DEVON SINCE THE LOCAL PLAN AND YOU MUST TREK TO HONITON ON 8 MARCH IF YOU WANT TO HAVE YOUR SAY. THAT’S IT – ONE MEETING IN ONE PLACE.

DO YOU RECALL BEING ASKED IF YOU WANTED TO BE PART OF GREATER EXETER? OWL NEITHER!

“Greater Exeter Strategic Plan Consultation: Issues

The local authorities of East Devon, Exeter, Mid Devon and Teignbridge in partnership with Devon County Council are working together to prepare a Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP). This formal statutory document will provide the overall spatial strategy and level of housing and employment land to be provided up to 2040. Please visit http://www.gesp.org.uk for more information.

Engagement with stakeholders and communities will be critical to the success of the Plan. At this first stage, the authorities are consulting on an initial ‘issues document’ which, after setting out some background information, looks to explain the scope and content of the plan as well as describing the key issues facing the Greater Exeter area. This early stage of consultation is designed to stimulate debate and the local planning authorities are seeking your views on the scope and content of the plan as well as the key issues facing your area.

A number of other associated documents are also being consulted on:

Draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report:

· The Draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report is the first stage of work in undertaking the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) for the plan. This process is used to assess the sustainability of the plan content as it develops.

Statement of Community Involvement:

· The joint Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) sets out the approach for consultation in the GESP. The SCI sets out the way in which we will be engaging with communities and other interested parties throughout the process.

The consultation will run from 27 February 2017 until 10 April 2017. To view the consultation material and to make your comments please visit http://www.gesp.org.uk/consultations/issues/.

Alternatively, paper copies of the consultation document are available to view at your local library and Council Office.

A series of exhibitions are being held during the consultation period in the following locations:

Honiton: Mackarness Hall, High Street, EX14 1PG – Wednesday 8 March 2017, 2pm-8pm

Tiverton: Mid Devon District Council Office, Phoenix House, Phoenix Lane, EX16 6PP – Wednesday 15 March 2017, 2-8pm
Exeter: The Guildhall, High Street, EX4 3EB – Thursday 16 March 2017, 2-8pm
Newton Abbot: Old Forde House, Brunel Road, TQ12 4XX – Thursday 23 March 2017, 2- 8pm

A ‘call for sites’ has also been arranged to run alongside the consultation. This is a technical exercise which allows interested parties to submit potential sites for development to the Local Authorities. The sites are then assessed to consider whether they are suitable for possible inclusion in the plan. Further information is http://gesp.org.uk/call-for-sites/.

If you need further information please visit the website, email GESP@devon.gov.uk or contact your Local Council using the phone numbers below:

East Devon: 01395 571533
Exeter: 01392 265615
Mid Devon: 01884 234221
Teignbridge: 01626 215735

As there are four Councils contacting their stakeholders for the consultation and call for sites, you may receive duplicate letters/emails. Please accept my apologies if this is the case.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, EDDC, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

EDDC Councillors – tell us about your secret acres – so we can put them in our next plans says senior officer!

Extract from an unclassified (i.e. not confidential) email sent out to all councillors by Ed Freeman, Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management, East Devon District Council on the lead-in to the “Greater Exeter Strategic Plan” consultation:

“… The consultation paper is attached for you to get an advanced preview and we would welcome your comments by 10th April. Alongside this will be a call for sites to land owners and developers for housing and employment land across the area which can then be considered for allocation to meet the needs of the area for homes and jobs in the future.

So if you are secretly sat on a few acres of land and would like to put it forward for development now is the time to tell us! …”

Yes, you read that right.

Let us know about any secret land holdings you are sitting on.

NOT so we can report you to the Monitoring Officer for not listing them on your declarations of interest – but so that we can do our best to help you to get them developed.

Owl, for once, hootless!