Council takes out injunction against Persimmon for highways work not completed before house sales started

“In a statement made after the injunction was served but before agreement was reached, David Hammond, Housing and Planning Manager at Wychavon, said: “The highways issues relate to our concerns that construction traffic could meet other road traffic, cyclists and pedestrians on a road that is currently too narrow, unsuitable and unsafe for construction vehicles.

“By beginning development on site and selling homes, Persimmon is in breach of a planning condition that was imposed by the Secretary of State on 2 July 2014, a condition that clearly states that in the interests of public safety, the necessary highways work should have been completed before any development took place.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29915%3Acouncil-and-developer-reach-deal-after-injunction-served-over-highways-issues&catid=56&Itemid=24

Some building costs up 35% – another (expensive) nail in the relocation project?

And to think, some careful maintenance of Knowle and some judicious spending when the sun was shining and councillors could have been enjoying up-to-date facilities for years!

“Bricks and timber have become the latest products to be hit by sterling’s slide after Britain’s decision to leave the European Union.

An investigation by The Mail on Sunday into the effects of the referendum has identified sweeping price rises of up to 35 per cent on some building materials.

The revelation comes in the week the Government unveils its Housing White Paper aimed at easing the country’s housing shortage with a massive boost to home-building.

The building industry is also under pressure from an acute skills shortage – which trade bodies warn may be made much worse if tradesmen from countries such as Poland find it more difficult to work in the UK.

The Mail on Sunday’s analysis of figures released last week shows prices on a wide variety of materials, including loft insulation, plasterboard and chipboard, rising at their fastest rate for 25 years.

The increases will hit not only those looking to buy new-build homes, but anyone thinking of extending their house or planning a loft conversion. …”

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-4191564/Building-costs-rocket-brick-timber-prices-soaring.html

Cranbrook’s district heating system under fire – no switching allowed and developers get a cut for 80 year contract

“Energy customers who find themselves paying over the odds for their heating can simply switch to a cheaper deal. But there’s a hidden, but rapidly growing, number who estimate they’re paying up to three times more than the expected price… but don’t have the right to switch. In most cases, they are stuck with the same supplier for 25 years or more.

They are among the 220,000 households signed up to District Heating networks which power entire estates by sending hot water and steam via insulated pipes from a central generator, instead of having a boiler in each home. [This is the system used at Cranbrook].

The system, often fuelled by natural gas or biomass, is supposed to point the way to a greener future and has the enthusiastic backing of government.

However, the suppliers are unregulated and customers of only five of them have the right to turn to the energy ombudsman if things go wrong. [The system at Cranbrook is run by E.on where it appears from this article customers do not have the right to go to the Ombudsman].

On the face of it, the schemes are good news. Unlike condensing power plants, that only use around a third of the electricity generated, district networks use 90%. Waste energy can be recycled, households no longer have to maintain their own boilers, and heating bills are supposed to be cheaper.

Last year the government announced it was investing £320m in expanding the system across the UK and predicts that it will supply 8 million households by 2030. In London, where new developments are required to be zero carbon, it is being used in most large estates.

In reality, though, residents complain of enormous, opaque energy bills, frequent outages and misinformation.

A Which? investigation in 2015 found that some schemes are poorly designed and that customers are being misled about costs. It also concluded that many people are unaware of the District Heating scheme when they purchase a flat.

… Any company – including the property developer – can set itself up as a District Heating supplier without a licence, and a full list of those in operation is not yet publicly available.

They are selected by the developer who will receive a commission, or a substantial contribution towards the network infrastructure, in return for a contract to supply the development for at least 25 years. E.on has an 80-year contract to supply Cranbrook, a new town in East Devon.

Once they’ve bought into a development, residents are locked into a monopoly. They are not allowed to fit solar panels or heat source pumps and, whether or not they use their heating, remain liable for often large standing charges which include maintenance and repair of the infrastructure.

Matthew Pennycook, Labour MP for Greenwich and Woolwich, which includes eight District Heating networks, says residents tell him bills have tripled under the scheme, and there’s no transparency in consumption and billing. …

… Last year Pennycook [an MP] surveyed residents at New Capital Quay, a development in his constituency that uses e.on District Heating scheme. The responses, he says, provide “prima facie evidence of systematic problems” including inexplicably high bills and poor customer service.

Last April, the Advertising Standards Authority upheld a complaint by New Capital Quay residents that e.on’s advertised promise that its charges were comparable to those of a traditional gas boiler, was misleading. The sentence has since been removed from its website.

“E.on offers customers a market-leading energy source with long-term protections and guarantees, as well as affordable bills and a lower environmental impact,” the company claims.

There are fears that these issues will make it difficult to sell on flats. …

… Kabir Dhawan bought a one-bed flat in New Capital Quay in 2014. “I was told it was supplied by an energy-efficient scheme and was given a written promise that the costs would be no higher than for a conventional gas supply,” he says. “Instead, we are paying around £900 a year, including standing charges – the fixed cost of providing the home – of £1 a day.”

But 15 months ago the automated reading facility, which provides daily updates, stopped working.

“Some of my neighbours have the same problem, but although the standing charge is supposed to cover repairs to meters, it hasn’t been fixed,” he says.

“Instead, they’ve offered me £15 for the ‘inconvenience’.” Dhawan claims. “Because I can’t monitor my usage, I’m expecting a catch-up bill of around £500.”

Using e.on’s own estimates of consumption for a one-bed flat, he reckons that he is paying twice what he should for heat and hot water. Moreover, he says, the hot water supply is cut off for lengthy periods around once a month, most recently on New Year’s Day and that e.on often tries to duck the £30 payout due under its terms and conditions for outages of 24 hours or more.

A neighbour secured the compensation, due to all the residents after one such breakdown, but only after initiating legal proceedings.

E.on declined to comment on individual customer cases and stated it did not accept the basis of many of the allegations.

Dhawan fears that he will struggle to sell or let his flat because of the high costs and the service is a monopoly.”

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/feb/05/district-heating-fuel-bill-regulation

A council “Communications Officer” (press officer) tells the truth about his soul-destroying job

I can’t face watching I, Daniel Blake because every day I feel complicit in a system that denigrates vulnerable people.

I knew leaving the voluntary sector to go and work for a local authority would require a culture shift, but I did not fully comprehend how difficult it would be to put a positive spin on cuts to local services after years spent promoting social justice campaigns.

I am part of a team which creates and distributes communications to the general public, through newsletters, the council website, on social media and through the local media. Working in communications often means putting aside your personal opinions and values for the good of the organisation paying your salary, and I have a lot of sympathy with local authorities now I’ve seen it from the inside.

I field calls for stretched council services – and soon my job may be cut too.

With brutal funding cuts from central government and the growing pressure on services, many councils are trying to make the best of a bad situation and make budgets stretch, regardless of politics.

But when Ken Loach’s ‘I, Daniel Blake’ was released last year, all my friends went to watch it in the cinema. I could not face going with them, knowing I was complicit in the same system the film portrayed as destroying people’s lives.

I can see the red tape responsible for the denigration of vulnerable people around me every day, and to be responsible for dressing up the effects of needless bureaucracy in a pretty package for our local papers is soul-destroying. Our press releases go through rigorous rounds of sign off, through all sorts of departments, senior council officers and councillors, all of whom want to remove any material that could incur criticism, which results in bland, council-speak copy.

People probably wouldn’t expect a press officer to care about local reporters, especially as they are usually asking us for responses to critical stories about the council, but I have real sympathy with them. Most of them are inexperienced and clearly stretched for time and resources: their copy is riddled with factual errors that could easily have been double checked, resulting in fractious phone calls between our side and theirs.

The vulnerable people I became a councillor to help have no idea I’m here. The reality is most residents don’t have the time or inclination to attend committee meetings or read all the reports and documents produced by the council. They should know how funding cuts are going to affect their local services and communities. It’s all there in black and white if you know where to find it. It’s an easier time for us if contentious issues pass through committees easily, as there are fewer difficult questions from reporters for the week’s papers.

Social media has become another accountability function for councils, which creates a lot more noise for us to deal with. Most councils will have active citizen campaigners ready to jump on any communication the council puts out to rip it to shreds. These days, it’s actually these people, rather than journalists, who spot the things the council would prefer went unquestioned. It can be disheartening, particularly when you’ve worked hard to capture the nuance of a complicated situation, but when you agree with the critics over the council it’s hard to take it too personally.”

https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2017/feb/04/media-press-officer-council-cuts-local-papers-daniel-blake

Single unitary councils would save most money say researchers

This post is from November 2016 but is reprinted here due to its topicality. Given LEP power-grabbing and “Greater Exeter” and “Golden Triangle” options, our district council’s plan to move to Honiton looks questionable to say the least.

Should any of the above options pan out, even the current bases at Sidmouth and Exmouth (plus changing Manstone depot to part-office) seems grandiose!

“Creating 27 unitary councils across the whole of England could save as much as £2.9bn, according to an independent analysis of local government reorganisation options undertaken for the County Councils Network.

The report by consultants EY examined six different single and two-tier governance scenarios for county and district authorities, using existing county boundaries. Based on the analysis of national data, EY found that creation of unitaries along county boundaries could save between £2.37bn and £2.86bn over five years, and average up to £106m per county. The single unitary option has the shortest payback period, generating savings within two years and two months, according to the review.

Among the other options examined was a move to create two unitary authorities per county, which would establish 54 councils.

Under this proposal, savings worth £1.17bn and £1.7bn would be made in a five-year timeframe, only around 59% of the saving of the proposal to create unitaries along current boundaries.

A third approach considered abolishing county and district authorities and creating three unitaries per county. However, the creation of 81 new councils countrywide could result in a net cost to the taxpayer of £33m over five years, although the range could also include a saving of £526m, dependent on how senior management and councillors are structured across the authorities. Whatever transpires, our council serms hell-bent on the most expensive option:

The review also considered reforming the current two-tier system through merging districts to reduce the average number in a county area from 7.4 to 3. Such a scenario could make savings of between £531m and £839m over five years.

A further scenario to create three unitary authorities and a combined authority, which would then deliver major services like adult social care, children’s social care and transport, was likely to cost between £36m and £366m over five years. Such an approach has been considered in areas such as Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire, but EY highlighted the risks of this ‘untried and untested’ model of reorganisation. …”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/11/local-government-reorganisation-switch-unitaries-could-save-ps29bn#disqus_thread

How long is a piece of NHS Property Services string?

New owners of Sidmouth Victoria Hospital under fire for ‘incomprehensible’ answer to rent question.

NHS Property Services (NHSPS) took over 12 East Devon community hospitals on December 1, 2016 – prompting fears from some trustees and representatives over the future of the facilities under a commercially-operated company.

Speaking at a recent Devon County Council (DCC) health and wellbeing scrutiny meeting, Councillor Claire Wright called for NHSPS bosses to be held to account and voiced her frustration at repeated failures to provide the authority with more information.

Cllr Wright asked the company to outline how much each community hospital is being charged in rent, but NHSPS says it is unable to disclose the figures as they remain in commercial confidence while lease negotiations are being concluded.

Cllr Wright said: “I asked for the information in June and I asked again and they said they would get the information and they did not. The answer they have given is incomprehensible.

“A very strong message needs to go back that we have now been waiting seven months for an answer to a very straightforward question and we would appreciate it if they would come to the next meeting because they now own 12 community hospitals across East Devon.”

NHSPS is responsible for managing 3,500 NHS buildings and ploughs any profits back into the health services – selling on property it considers no longer necessary.

Cllr Wright argued it cannot ‘pick and choose’ and, if it is – as claimed – a part of the NHS family, should be held accountable.

Sidmouth fundraisers have vowed to safeguard the future of the town’s hospital, which has undergone a £5million refurbishment paid for entirely by community contributions.

Vice president of the Sidmouth Victoria Hospital Comforts Fund, Frances Newth, said it has received assurance from NHSPS that there should be no noteable changes under the new ownership. She added that trustees have emphasised the amount of community support received in the town and the importance of maintaining it.

Responding to a question from DCC about the amount of rental income compared to figures spent on maintenance, NHSPS revealed its budgeted rental income for 2016/17 is £408 million nationally.

The amount set out for routine, small-scale maintenance in this period is £98 million – which does not include overheads such as salaries of teams carrying out the work – and an additional £60 million is forecasted for larger maintenance projects.

A spokesman for NHSPS said: “The information sent to the council this month was provided further to attending two committee sessions in 2016, where members had the opportunity to question company representatives in person.

“We have provided supporting written information on two other occasions, as requested by the council.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/new_owners_of_sidmouth_victoria_hospital_under_fire_for_incomprehensible_answer_to_rent_question_1_4874530

Tell the truth and be fired …

“A veteran councillor in Theresa May’s constituency has been sacked after questioning plans for thousands of homes in the green belt.

Leo Walters, a former Conservative mayor of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, was removed as chairman of the council’s housing scrutiny panel after expressing concern that the public had not been fully informed about the threat to the green belt.

He said that he had been removed by Simon Dudley, the council’s leader, after “simply handing out facts”.

Mr Walters had sent an email to his fellow panel members informing them of a Freedom of Information response from the council revealing that 86 per cent of the land that it was proposing for development was in the green belt. …”

Source: The Times (paywall)

Is Trump using the Local Enterprise Partnership model?

This is spookily like the way our Local Enterprise Partnerships (and before that, the East Devon Business Forum) were created – with business people in the driving seat and councils as passengers without seatbelts!

“President Donald Trump met with a roomful of top CEOs at the White House – and says he tried to install other titans of industry on his executive council only to have them nixed as ‘corporate raiders.’

Trump met with a group that included Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan, BlackRock CEO Laurence Fink, retired GE CEO Jack Welch – whom he called ‘legendary’ – and other business bigs.

As if that weren’t enough financial firepower, Trump said that he tried to get other financial bigs onto the panel, which meets about once a month to advise him the economy, taxes, and regulations.

‘So many people have called – friends of mine in big business,’ Trump said, ‘and that wanted to be on the committee.’

Billionaire Stephen Schwartzman of Blackstone private equity firm, who serves on the council, acted as gatekeeper. “I said, ‘Steve, can we get so and so?’ Trump said, with the CEOs gathered around him.

‘Nope,’ Schwartzman replied. ‘What do you mean no, it’s big business, massive business,’ Trump pleaded, in his telling.

‘How about this one?’ Trump would ask.

‘He’s a corporate raider, these people don’t want to be sitting with corporate raiders,’ was Schwartzman’s reply.

‘He’s been very very selective,’ Trump said, adding: ‘We’ll be putting a couple more on this.’

Introducing the group, Trump hailed BlackRock investment company CEO Larry Fink for having boosted his personal bottom line through investments.

Trump displayed no reservations about asking some of the world’s most influential bankers about their preferences for peeling back bank regulations enacted after the financial crisis.

‘We have some of the bankers here. There’s nobody to tell me better about Dodd-Frank than Jamie, so you’re going to tell me about it, but we expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank.

The White House billed the event as a strategy and policy forum.
The group’s official title is the President’s Strategic and Policy Forum. It has 16 members.

Absent from the event was Uber chief executive Travis Kalanick, who announced just hours before that he had quit, following pressure from consumers over Trump’s new immigration order.

Trump didn’t mention Kalanick during his public comments.

The Uber boss quit the council, even as the company is facing blowback for its decision to drop its congestion pricing during a taxi boycott meant to oppose the immigration order.

He made his decision known in an email to employees, where he argued against Trump’s new immigration ban.

‘Earlier today I spoke briefly with the president about the immigration executive order and its issues for our community,’ Kalanick wrote. ‘I also let him know that I would not be able to participate on his economic council. Joining the group was not meant to be an endorsement of the president or his agenda but unfortunately it has been misinterpreted to be exactly that,’ he added.

Trump hailed another attendee, his Commerce Secretary nominee, billionaire Wilbur Ross.

‘When I campaigned for office I promised the American people that I’d ask for our country’s best and brightest, and we have that. Wilbur is representing us,’ Trump said.

Trump said of close confidante and business magnate Carl Icahn, ‘Carl Icahn called up and he goes, ‘I heard you got Wilbur. Everybody calls him Wilbur. I’ve never heard him called – we just know him as Wilbur, right?”

Trump met the business honchos as he prepared to sign executive actions asking the Treasury and the Labor Departments to examine reforms to roll back regulations intended to make markets safer and protect consumers.
The actions would examine the ‘Volcker Rule,’ meant to curb speculation, AFP reported.

‘(We) believe that Dodd-Frank in many respects was a piece of massive government overreach,’ a senior administration official told the outlet. ‘It imposed hundreds of new regulations on financial institutions, it established an enormous amount of work and effort for financial firms.'”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4188962/Trump-meets-CEOs-says-ll-slash-bank-regs.html

Trump takes a leaf out of EDDC’s book!

“Public-interest advocacy groups say the White House appears to be deliberately structuring Trump’s growing roster of business-focused advisory groups in order to avoid becoming subject to a federal transparency law that requires such meetings be formally announced in advance and open to the public.

“Whether it’s hastily drafted executive orders put together in the dead of night and riddled with errors and not consulting the pertinent government agencies or putting together other proposals that are shocking to many Americans, nothing that has been done so far has been inclusive, so it’s not a surprise his small working groups of CEOs would be just the same,” said Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen.

A 1972 law aimed at limiting back-room influence by special interests, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, regulates the operation of federal government advisory council. Normally, the meetings of such groups are announced at least ten days in advance in the Federal Register and the sessions are open to the public. Advisory committees are also required to have an official charter, records available to the public and a federal official present during all deliberations. Presidential advisory panels are also typically set up through executive orders.

So far, there have been no official notices of any meetings and no executive orders laying out the duties of the “Strategic and Policy Forum” or any other groups Trump is convening.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-transparency-law-advisory-boards-234583

Dorset Local Government reorganisation goes ahead despite 3 councils dropping out

Interesting that the Secretary of State for Local Government can force the three recalcitrant councils to join the others …

Six councils are to press ahead with asking communities secretary Sajid Javid to reorganise local government in Dorset, despite the remaining three opposing the idea.

A plan to create two unitary councils in the area at present covered by Dorset County Council and unitaries Bournemouth and Poole borough councils has now been voted on by all involved.

Christchurch, East Dorset and Purbeck have opposed the idea, though it was supported by the two unitaries, the county council and districts North Dorset, West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland.

The six are now expected to ask Mr Javid to reorganise the area into two unitaries. One would cover Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole and the other East Dorset, North Dorset, Purbeck, West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland.
Matt Prosser, chair of the Dorset Chief Executives Group, said: “We now have a mandate from our councils [for reorganisation] and we have the backing of the public and other stakeholders. That is clear from the consultation results.

“Now, we have a duty to respond to that mandate and secure a sustainable and even brighter future for Dorset.”

The dissident trio face the problem that Mr Javid has powers to enforce the reorganisation even against their objections.

Christchurch leader Ray Nottage said: “Changes to the structure of local government in Dorset present an historic opportunity to transform our services at a time when budgets are being cut and our priority must be protecting frontline services.

“The secretary of state submission made by those councils that have agreed the recommendation might see the final decision regarding local government reorganisation taken out of our hands.”

Spencer Flower, leader of East Dorset, said: “If other councils in Dorset choose to make a submission to the secretary of state, the final decision regarding local government reorganisation will not be ours to make.”
Purbeck rejected reorganisation only on the chair’s casting vote, with councillors tied 11-11 on the proposal.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29888%3Agroup-of-dorset-councils-press-ahead-with-unitary-plan-despite-rejection-by-other-county-authorities&catid=59&Itemid=27

This would NEVER happen in East Devon!

“Tory councillor accused of being a ‘rogue estate agent’ for drugs syndicate

A Tory councillor was a “rogue estate agent” for a sophisticated drugs syndicate which grew more than a million pounds worth of Cannabis, a court heard.

Donal Hassett, 55, used false names, references and cover stories to rent houses which were turned into drug factories, it was said.

Police found 1,285 plants with a street value of almost £1.1m growing at seven properties, four of which were linked to the politician.

Hassett, who represents Newbridge for Bath and North East Somerset Council, denies two charges of conspiring with others to produce cannabis.

He admits fraudulently renting the houses in Somerset, Wiltshire and Bristol, but claims he had no idea they were being used to grow drugs, jurors were told.

The first charge relates to a drug-growing operation involving a 38-year-old Vietnamese man, while the second involves four other Vietnamese people.

Bristol Crown Court heard that £56,000 was put into his bank account while the second conspiracy was going on, between January 2015 and March 2016.

A further £81,000 was placed in the account of Tan Tran, 27, who is standing trial alongside Hassett.

Prosecuting, Simon Burns said Hasset, of Bath, Somerset, was the “property fixer, the rogue estate agent”, while Tran was the “courier, assistant”.

He said: “They were part of an organised sophisticated drugs syndicate operating to produce very large quantities of cannabis.

“It was as plain as a pikestaff that they had knowledge of what they were involved with.”

http://www.somersetlive.co.uk/b-nes-councillor-donal-hassett-accused-of-being-a-rogue-estate-agent-for-drugs-syndicate/story-30104558-detail/story.html

Mr Hassett had served on the Licensing Committee at Bath Council and was expelled from his local Conservative Party pending the outcome of these proceedings.

Relocation and local government reorganisation – a chance to save money!

What is currently more important in local government? Saving money, saving money by merger or being profligate? These seem to be the stark choices facing our district, with its reliance on the Local Enterprise Partnership for strategy, direction and funding.

Closer examination of the agenda for the next Cabinet meeting reveals that there are two references to local government reorganisation: at the bottom of page 111 and on page 115:

“Identify opportunities for rationalising/improving existing public sector governance arrangements and make recommendations to the constituent authorities/partners”

This appears to be a clear reference, as it not only refers to reform, but also says that the recommendations will go to ‘constituent authorities’. In other words we are not talking just about the LEP. The new Joint Committee clearly has mergers in mind. Add “Greater Exeter” into the mix and we come out with even more likelihood of massive changes. THEN add a mooted “Golden Triangle LEP” and we have a truly chaotic situation.

Owl wonders if these are circumstances in which to pursue a new HQ for EDDC at Honiton. Any proposal involving EDDC and avoiding building at Honiton can immediately claim to have made a minimum saving of £10 million plus interest payments, plus many associated costs – savings now being the mantra nowadays.

The relocation from Knowle could, in the above circumstances prove to be most expensive suicide note in the history of our district. And those EDDC members who waved through the move to Honiton, without the slightest idea of the cost, could in these circumstances be likened to turkeys voting for Christmas.

We have seen with the reorganisation in Dorset, that the reform and merger of local government authorities is very much in the air, and Dorset has been suggesting that the creation of two unitaries will lead to annual savings of many millions of pounds.

So it’s not surprising that things have gone very quiet with EDDC relocation. Firstly, there is local government reorganisation all around us and within our nearby city and the county. Secondly, the Pegasus deal for Knowle has seemingly gone very much on the back burner.

We have recently seen the formal separation – ‘decoupling’ – of the Exmouth Town Hall work from the Honiton proposal which seems to have had more to do with mothballing Honiton than it had to do with allowing Exmouth to proceed more quickly.

Work to refurbish Knowle is almost certainly millions of pounds cheaper than relocating. Plus, a new building in Honiton would immediately depreciate enormously on day one of occupation – 50% plus has been suggested.

Of course, PegasusLife could always put in a planning application for the Honiton site!

Our Local Enterprise Partnership and the NHS (or not the NHS)

Comment turned into post:

“In the light of the concern over the future of the NHS it may be worth reminding ourselves just what Heart of the South West LEP proposed, on our behalf, in their 2015 Devolution Statement of Intent:

We [HOTSW] will:

• Increase productivity by reducing ill-health and reliance on the state

• Reduce overall need for formal health and social care services

• Reduce the cost of health and social care

• Help more people with long-term illnesses or mental ill-health start or return to work

What we need:

• Freedom to pool budgets and direct resources to local need

• Freedom to develop a commissioning framework that supports local decision-making

• Freedom to establish effective, integrated governance and delivery structures

• Freedom to develop local metrics and incentives

(The associated productivity prospectus says something which sounds even more sinister: “A healthier population means lower public sector costs and increased economic activity. To fill 163,000 more jobs [by 2030] we must engage the non-working population in the labour market which will require a significant health and care contribution.”)

Here is what the Public Accounts Committee concluded about LEPs and devolution in its report of 27 June 2016. (Kevin Foster MP, Conservative Torbay, is a Committee member)

“9. It is alarming that LEPs are not meeting basic standards of governance and transparency, such as disclosing conflicts of interest to the public.

LEPs are led by the private sector, and stakeholders have raised concerns that they are dominated by vested interests that do not properly represent their business communities. There is a disconnect between decisions being made by local business leaders and accountability working via local authorities.

It is therefore crucial that LEPs demonstrate a high standard of governance and transparency over decision making, at least equal to the minimum standards set out by government in the assurance framework.

It is of great concern that many LEPs appear not be meeting these minimum standards. The scale of LEP activity and the sums involved necessitate that LEPs and central government be pro-active in assuring the public that decisions are made with complete probity.

The fact that 42% of LEPs do not publish a register of interests is clearly a risk to ensuring that decisions are made free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest. The varying presentation and detail of financial information across LEPs also makes it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions or make comparisons across LEPs on how they spend public money.”

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmpubacc/296/29605.htm

The National Audit Office in a 2016 report also made the obvious, but crucial, point that LEPs do not yet have an established track record of delivery.

Our future is in their hands!”

EDDC Cabinet to discuss devolution and LEP on 8 February … councils only “influence” LEP

From Cabinet agenda – Owl summary: it has taken 5+ years for the participating councils to realise that the business people on the LEP are running rings round them and still the only thing councils can do is “influence” those same business people:

“Risk implications will continue to be addressed at all stages of these proposals.

The Secretary of State is yet to formally clarify his position on the HotSW devolution proposal although the overall policy direction seems to be becoming clearer.

In the circumstances the Leader feel that the partnership needs to move forward with the priority development of the HotSW Productivity Plan and that this can best be achieved through the establishment of a formal Joint Committee in place of the current informal governance arrangements. This will put a formal governance structure around the Productivity Plan preparation, approval and delivery so minimising risk to the County Council and the other partner authorities. It will give partners the ability to negotiate with Government at pace, particularly on the emerging Industrial Strategy but without the statutory commitment required to establish a Combined Authority.

Without a Productivity Plan and Joint Committee in place the Council and its partners will be at a disadvantage in negotiating and lobbying Government on a range or policy initiatives including the growth agenda and are likely to miss out on potential funding streams.

…..

The HotSW Joint Committee will provide a formal strategic partnership to complement and maximise the ability of local sub- regional arrangements to deliver their aspirations. It will allow the partners to collaborate to agree and deliver the Productivity Plan as well as engage effectively with the Government, other deal areas and other LEPs on a range of policy agendas. It will allow the partnership to test and improve its ability to work together as a potential precursor to the establishment of a Combined Authority at some point in the future. It will also provide a mechanism to work alongside and influence the LEP on strategic investment decisions affecting the HotSW area and to secure improvements to LEP governance and accountability.”

Click to access combinedcabagenda080217final.pdf

(topic begins on page 107)

“Is our democracy OK?”

by Peter Cleasby

“The behaviour of Trump and May over the past few days should make us ask some hard questions about our governance.

I don’t normally go to public demonstrations. Yesterday evening I made an exception, and joined in one of the many rallies around the country provoked by President Trump’s travel ban. Even more out of character, I stood up on a bench, took the proffered microphone and spoke to the crowd.

The speakers before me had concentrated, rightly, on the impact of Trump’s travel ban and the damage and hurt it was already doing to individuals and families. They spoke movingly, based on personal experience and knowledge. I spoke to highlight the other spectre in the room – the UK Prime Minister, who failed to condemn the ban when first asked about it, and has since made only mild disapproval known through other ministers and her spokespersons. This is further evidence that Mrs May is not keen on human rights – during the EU referendum campaign, her most memorable intervention was to favour withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights (which is nothing to do with the EU).

Mrs May has steered our country into a position where our government is in effect begging the United States for an early post-EU trade agreement, as if that were the only priority in international relations. Trump had barely paused for breath after being sworn in as President, before she was on a plane to see him. And Trump knows we are the supplicant: the pointed refusal at the press conference to confirm his “100% backing” for NATO that May claims to have extracted from him; the hand-holding; and the executive order for the travel ban as soon as she was on the plane home (he clearly couldn’t have tipped her off, otherwise she would not have been so equivocal when asked about it in Turkey – wouldn’t she?)

What we’re seeing is the two leaders of the “special relationship”– both novices in their own way – practising bad government. Trump is rushing out executive orders on hugely controversial topics, firing anyone he can who disagrees with him (the acting US Attorney General has just been removed), and allowing his press secretary to use inflammatory language: the Attorney-General was guilty of “betrayal”, the senior US diplomats who are protesting against Trump’s policies should “either get with the programme or they can go.” No respect, no acknowledgement that others may have a point.

Back on our side of the pond, the Prime Minister is unmoved by a petition of over 1.5 million signatures protesting against a state visit by Trump – note that the objection is to a state visit involving the Queen, not to a working political visit. Statements from May and her office completely fail to recognise the strength of feeling on the issue: she’s issued the invitation and that’s that, is the line. Even though it’s unprecedented (I think) for a state visit invitation to be issued no more than a week after the invitee has taken office – but then there’s that trade deal to be thought about, isn’t there? A deal, by the way, that will almost certainly favour the US more than the UK, and will resurrect the objectionable elements of the now-defunct TTIP [1].

Our Prime Minister also has scant regard for Parliament. It took a decision of the Supreme Court to reassert the need for Parliament’s authority to approve the decision to give our Article 50 notification to the EU.

It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that the behaviour of May and Trump highlights the fragility of the arrangements for representative democracy, here and in the US. Government is, at the end of the day, a series of negotiated settlements between competing interests, and the purpose of elections is to redefine from time to time what the “public interest” is in those negotiations. Ministers need to be sensitive to the views of others, open to change where that seems to be in the public interest, and ready to acknowledge and respect other views even where they do not agree with them.

It would be ironic if the two countries who perhaps more than any others stood firm in the defence of freedom, tolerance and democracy during the 20th century were now to be debased by leaders who prefer diktat to persuasion. But that is what seems to be happening. In the UK, Parliament needs to remember that it is the source of all legitimate authority – and start acting on it. And a critical appraisal of our governance should be high on its list of priorities.

NOTES:

[1] The TTIP – Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership – was being negotiated behind closed doors between the EU and the US until talks broke down last year. In the name of “free trade” the TTIP would have led to some weakening of EU rules on the environment, food standards and employee rights; and would have ensured that once a public service had been privatised it could never be returned to the public sector. It was drafted as, in effect, a charter for big business to do pretty much what it liked.”

Is our democracy OK?

“Queen’s Drive. Is it a full planning application or not?”

Press Release 31.1.17

A most heated debate took place at Exmouth Town Council’s Planning Committee meeting last night.

Cllr Megan Armstrong, an EDA Independent District Councillor for Exmouth explained at some length that the “Reserved Matters Application” they were about to debate was in effect a “Full Planning Application” for phases 2 and 3 for the Queen’s Drive development.

The Chairman however interjected half way through her 3 minute allocated time and stated she wished to make a point clear. She then explained that East Devon District Council (the Applicant) has not allocated funding for the project, and therefore was not in a position to proceed.

NOTE (The consideration that an applicant has funds to deliver a project is not a consideration for a planning committee to debate).

Cllr Megan Armstrong was then allowed to proceed and stated she hoped the committee would consider the planning application without reference to the press releases and documents sent to each councillor by the applicant.
“Forget the promise of further consultations and further promises of more planning applications, don’t be confused by the press releases and further information sent to you, they are inadmissible.”

“You have to consider this application on its own merits from the documents and plans presented and anything else you have been told is irrelevant and should not be a consideration.”

NOTE (Planning regulations state that an applicant can apply in one of two ways. To submit a “Full Planning Application”, or if the application is substantial or problematic the applicant can submit an “Outline Planning Application” reserving all the detailed drawings and details to be submitted if the outline application is approved within a 3 year time period. This is known as a “Reserved Matters Application”).

Following the representations from a number of local residents and Cllr Armstrong the Chairman opened the debate to the planning committee.
Cllr Bill Nash (Conservative) started the proceedings explaining to the committee that Cllr Armstrong was incorrect and referring to the press release and documents sent by the applicant, explained that the application was merely an extension to the outline, and that there will be further planning applications and consultations for Phases 2 and 3.

At no time during the whole debate were the plans explained or shown on the large screen. The only document shown throughout the debate on the overhead projector was a flowchart of the possible suggested consultations and planning applications that may be brought forward at a later date.

In fact one councillor stated he looked forward to the plans for the “Watersports Centre” in phase 2 and another councillor was most interested in seeing the proposals for the hotel plans in phase 3.

This simply demonstrated that some of the planning committee members had not seen the full list of documents that they were now discussing.

The local authority planning portal has all the detailed plans for the application, and it is standard practice for major planning applications for the local authority to provide paper copies as well as providing the information online to assist councillors to understand the proposal that they were required to debate and on which they should agree a proposal.
Within the documents provided were very detailed drawings of both the proposed hotel and full details of the watersports centre, showing every aspect including the positions of the tables and chairs and the cycle store layout!

The public who are not allowed to comment or interject during the debate were at times most vocal to the discussion and content of the debate, demonstrating their displeasure as much as they were able.

The whole debate centred on the issue that it was a “mere exercise” in extending an outline application (this is not permitted in National Planning Policy). The other issues debated were the further consultations and further planning applications.

NOTE. (A planning application should be considered in its entirety with only the planning documents presented by the applicant and separate from any other planning application).

Without a single explanation of the design and layout and without a single illustration of the proposal the chair asked for a vote and the decision was carried 6 votes to 3.

The decision demonstrates the change in opinion as the previous outline application was not supported by the Town Council and in fact Cllr Bill Nash wrote a very strong letter of objection regarding the outline proposal in 2013 on behalf of his constituents living on Trefusis Terrace overlooking the proposed development.

Cllr Megan Armstrong when asked about the decision said:

“I was not surprised by the inconsistencies and change in opinion. It is unfortunate that such an important decision seems to have been turned into a party political game which is so sad. Party politics should not be an issue for such a momentous decision for the people of Exmouth.”

“However the town council planning committee is simply a consultee and the final decision will be made at East Devon’s Development Management Committee meeting at Sidmouth in a few months’ time.”

“Let us all hope that the facts will be explained without any spin and the decision is agreed democratically by the members on the district council committee.”

Adult and Social Care Crisis

Older and vulnerable people could stop receiving vital help to get out of bed, washed and dressed, because the underfunding of social care has become so severe, councils have warned.

Leaders of 370 local authorities in England and Wales fear that some councils are finding it so hard to provide the right level of support they could face a high court legal challenge for breaking the law.

The Local Government Association said care visits could become shorter, carers could face greater strain and more people could be trapped in hospitals, making NHS services even busier as a result. The LGA estimates that there will be a £2.6bn gap by 2020 between the amount of money social care services need and their budgets.

Cllr Izzi Seccombe, the chair of the LGA community wellbeing board, said: “The intentions and the spirit of the [2014] Care Act that aims to help people to live well and independently are in grave danger of falling apart and failing, unless new finding is announced by government for adult social care.”

The act, which came into effect in 2015, was intended to ensure that councils provided help with basic everyday tasks to anyone who was struggling to undertake at least one of them on their own, because of a physical or mental impairment. But the purpose of the legislation is at risk because councils cannot afford to meet demand, the LGA told the Treasury in its submission ahead of the budget in March.

Only 8% of council directors of adult social care said they were confident that they could fulfil their full duties under the act in 2017-18.

Barbara Keeley, the shadow social care minister, said: “It is deeply worrying that councils are now having to spell out the risks that this lack of funding is causing. We should not tolerate the fact that growing levels of basic needs are going unmet, care visits are shorter and there is increased strain on unpaid family carers.”

A government spokesman said: “Local authorities have a duty to implement new rights introduced in the [2014] Care Act and while many are already providing high-quality social care services, we will continue to challenge and support those not currently doing so.

“We have provided councils up to £7.6bn of dedicated funding for social care over the course of this parliament, significant investment to ensure that vulnerable people get affordable and dignified care as our population ages.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/30/councils-social-care-provision-cut-warning-local-government-association

“Councils staring into the abyss”

“… A spokesman said Devon County Council’s budget, which will be debated next month, calls for an extra £18.8million for adult health and social care – almost 10% up – to cope with the increasing demand and recognise that Devon has significantly more over- 65s and over-85s who need care and support.

The increase would take the total social care and health budget to £216.5 million.

In all, the target revenue budget for 2017/18 would be £459.5 million.

‘We must step up to the plate’

Council leader John Hart said: “Health and social care is under immense pressure both in Devon and nationally.

“We must step up to the plate. Devon has one of the highest proportions of people over 65 and people over 85 and they need and deserve our help and support.

“So despite the continuing austerity agenda from the Government, we have found extra money for these vital services.

“We have always said our priority is to protect the most vulnerable in our society and I believe this target budget will help to do that.

“That’s why we are also increasing the budget for children’s services again following on from big increases there previously.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/councils-stare-into-a-budget-abyss-how-will-your-services-suffer/story-30092127-detail/story.html#u2tKeieLqt5tsT6O.99

Knowle relocation costs: it’s up to us to check as councillors don’t get the information

And this is how we do it (whilst we have a Freedom of information Act):

Dear East Devon District Council,

I would like to make a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I am also making this Request under the Environmental Impact Regulations 2004 which require disclosure on the part of Local Authorities.

Please let me have the costs to date of the Knowle relocation project, to include all preliminary pre “moving decision” costs, and subsequent costs of all work associated with the intended reallocation, including those at The Knowle, Manstone, the intended Honiton site and Exmouth Town Hall

I should also like to know the current projected costs of the Exmouth Town Hall move, (including all associated costs such as moving, staff compensation and travel costs and fitting out costs), and for Honiton and costs associated with the “mothballing” of various parts of the Knowle contingent upon the intended relocation of 90 staff to Exmouth.”

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/costs_to_date_of_knowle_bhonito?nocache=outgoing-618160#outgoing-618160

And if they say they can’t tell us how much it has cost so far …..

Exmouth Visitor Survey

Last year nearly 5000 people in Exmouth voted in favour of further “INDEPENDENT consultation before any further action (including submission of planning applications) was taken on The Queen’s Drive.

While this has been roundly ignored by EDDC. they did at least seek the opinion of visitors. When independent Cllr Megan Armstrong carried out the Seafront Survey with support from SES we found visitors hold similar values around the seafront as residents, and that it was Exmouth’s unique charm that kept them coming back. Alarmingly many said they would no longer visit Exmouth if The Queen’s Drive development went ahead. I would have thought EDDC would be concerned about this yet it is just another piece of evidence that has been ignored.

Here is the EDDC website announcing the visitor survey, note the last paragraph states the results will be reported to ‘the team’ (Coastal Communities) at the end of the year (2016) …”

https://saveexmouthseafront.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/exmouth-visitors-survey-an-update-of-sorts/