Knowle yesterday, Parliament today!

“Plans for a £4bn restoration of the Palace of Westminster that would mean MPs and peers leaving the building for six years have been thrown into doubt by a powerful Commons committee, which says there is insufficient evidence for it to back the project.

In an extraordinary move, the all-party Treasury select committee is to appoint its own team of specialist advisers to gather what it says is the necessary level of detail about the work and costs, claiming previous exhaustive investigations by parliament and private consultants failed to produce sufficient evidence. The committee’s chairman, Andrew Tyrie, took Commons authorities by surprise by announcing that a Commons debate, which he says was due to be held this week on the restoration, had been postponed because MPs did not have the facts they needed. Commons sources said Tyrie was mistaken and no date for the debate had been fixed.

The committee’s surprise intervention is evidence of a growing split between those responsible for managing parliament along with MPs who back the restoration project, and others who are worried about the disruption and the likelihood that costs will soar. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/29/palace-westminster-restoration-plan-andrew-tyrie-treasury-select-committee-specialist-consultants

Just poor grammar in the Sidmouth Herald? …

In its piece on EDDC being forced to publish the PegasusLife contract for The Knowle, it concludes:

“… Mr Woodward had previously challenged EDDC in 2015 when it refused to comply with Freedom of Information requests, also on its relocation. The eight-month legal battle saw EDDC blasted as ‘discourteous and unhelpful’ and cost taxpayers £11,000 in lawyers’ fees.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/revealed_how_eddc_reached_7_5m_deal_for_sidmouth_hq_1_4866174

What is not made crystal clear is that it was the JUDGE in the case – the judge in the case, Judge Brian Kennedy QC – who made this remark, not Mr Woodward.

In fact the full sentence read:

“Correspondence on behalf of the council, rather than ensuring the tribunal was assisted in its function, was at times discourteous and unhelpful including the statement that we had the most legible copies possible.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/judge-tells-east-devon-councillors-classified/story-26559459-detail/story.html

Sloppy, Sidmouth Herald, very, very sloppy.

NHS crisis? Not in Swire’s backyard!

Our MP’s questions in the House this week:

Written Answers – Foreign and Commonwealth Office: North Korea: Politics and Government (26 Jan 2017)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2017-01-18.60636.h&s=speaker%3A11265#g6

Hugo Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what plans he has to discuss the political and human rights situation in North Korea with the incoming US administration.

Written Answers – Foreign and Commonwealth Office: North Korea: Politics and Government (26 Jan 2017)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2017-01-18.60631.h&s=speaker%3A11265#g60631.q0

Hugo Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what discussions he has had with his counterparts in (a) Japan,
(b) South Korea and (c) China on the political and human rights situation in North Korea.”

(First and second) jobs for the boys – easy when watchdog has no teeth

“A Whitehall watchdog was accused of an extraordinary cover-up last night over the lucrative investment job given to George Osborne’s former top aide.

Rupert Harrison, nicknamed ‘the real Chancellor’ when he was Mr Osborne’s chief-of-staff, got a six-figure salary to work for asset management firm BlackRock two years ago.

But now it has emerged that the official appointments committee, Acoba, was reprimanded for approving the job without disclosing meetings he held with the firm while he worked for the ex-chancellor.

An investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office into the apparent cover-up denounced Acoba for a ‘shortfall in public interest transparency’. And last night Labour MP John Mann said: ‘The advisory committee is not fit for purpose and its chair must now resign.

‘There is far too much cosying up to banks. It is as if BlackRock had taken shares in the Treasury.’

The row comes as Mr Osborne himself faces controversy over his new job with BlackRock, which will pay him more than £200,000 a year to work as an adviser while he is still an MP.

His appointment was also waved through by Acoba and there are growing calls for reform of the committee and the rules surrounding MPs and second jobs.

Acoba is supposed to vet ministers and senior civil servants when they take jobs in the private sector. In the past eight years it has looked at more than 370 appointments without blocking a single one. …”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4162438/Heads-roll-Osborne-storm.html

One tax for the rich and one for the poor … and guess who wins out

“Britain’s wealthiest people appear to get preferential treatment from HM Revenue & Customs and are not being properly pursued for outstanding tax bills, parliament’s spending watchdog has concluded.

HMRC’s failure to clamp down on rich tax dodgers is undermining confidence in the whole system, the public accounts committee said.

The highly critical report released on Friday examined HMRC’s specialist unit, which collects tax from high net-worth individuals with more than £20m. It found that “the amount of tax paid by this very wealthy group of individuals has actually fallen by £1bn since the unit was set up” in 2009 – even as tax receipts rose to £23bn.

Meg Hillier, the Labour MP who chairs the committee, said HMRC’s claims about the success of its strategy to deal with the very wealthy did not add up.

“Cosy terms such as ‘customer relationship manager’ and HMRC’s reluctance to be open add to the picture of arrangements that, while beyond the reach of ordinary taxpayers, are also ill-suited to the increasingly sophisticated methods the super rich can use to reduce the tax they pay,” she said.

“If the public are to have faith in the tax system then it must be seen to have fairness at its heart. It also needs to work properly. In our view, HMRC is failing on both counts.”

Tax officials calculated that there were about 6,500 high net-worth people in 2015-16, about one in every 5,000 taxpayers. In 2009, a specialist unit was set up to bring in more money from them.

MPs questioned the role of the specialist unit and some of its practices.

“We were not convinced by [HMRC’s] assertion that there is a clear line between giving its view on potential transactions and giving tax advice and we do not think there is enough clarity about what customer relationship managers can and cannot do,” the report says.

The committee pointed out that advice from officials to wealthy taxpayers was not recorded. “While calls from most taxpayers to HMRC call centres are recorded routinely, meetings and phone calls with high net-worth individuals are not recorded,” the report says.

The committee also highlighted concerns about “potential abuse” of image rights by top footballers and entertainers to minimise their tax liabilities. It confirmed that HMRC had “open inquiries” relating to the use of image rights by 43 footballers, 12 clubs and eight agents.

Committee members said they were appalled to learn that not all clubs were providing HMRC with the data it required under the terms of a voluntary agreement with the Premier League.

However, they praised HMRC’s managers for trying take action against the clubs. “We were encouraged by the evidence HMRC’s senior management gave to the committee on image rights and we look forward to news of meaningful action in this area.”

HMRC said the pursuit of high net-worth individuals had resulted in the collection of an additional £2.5bn in revenues. But it was unable to explain why the income tax they paid fell by 20% – from £4.5bn in 2009-10 to £3.5bn in 2014-15 – when the overall income tax take rose to £23bn.

The committee said about a third of the individuals concerned were likely to be under inquiry by HMRC for unpaid tax – with cases with a potential value of £1.9bn currently under investigation.

However, the report found HMRC had a “dismal record” when it came to prosecuting the very wealthy for tax fraud in the criminal courts.

In the five years to 31 March 2016, it completed just 72 fraud investigations into high net-worth individuals, with all but two having been dealt with using its civil powers. Only one case resulted in a successful criminal prosecution.

Of the 850 penalties issued to the very wealthy since 2012, the average charge was £10,500 – a figure the committee said was likely to be too small to act as a deterrent.

The problem was likely to become more acute because wealthy people were moving from off-the-peg tax avoidance schemes – the “high street equivalent of Primark or Next” – to bespoke “made-to-measure Savile Row” arrangements, the report says.

An HMRC spokesperson denied there was preferential treatment for the rich: “There is absolutely no special treatment for the wealthy and, in fact, we give them additional scrutiny, with one-to-one marking by HMRC’s specialist tax collectors to ensure that they pay everything they owe, just like the rest of us do. We have secured an additional £2.5bn from the very wealthiest since 2010.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/27/uks-super-rich-appear-to-get-special-deal-from-hmrc-says-watchdog?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Save Exmouth Seafront response to Councillor Skinner and EDDC

“Representatives from SES were invited to attend the presentation from Cllr Skinner and EDDC Officers Richard Cohen and Alison Hayward at Ocean on 18th January, and SES would like to thank EDDC for this invitation.

While the event provided some information for those businesses and associations perhaps not so aware of the plans, the SES representatives found they left with many questions still remaining.

For example there was no answer given on whether the watersport’s centre will be run as a members only club and who is to manage this facility.

Unfortunately Cllr Skinner also fended off some of the questions with evasive answers, such as when asked how ‘phase three’ of the development is even to be funded.

SES would welcome the opportunity for an open public event so that all members of the public can hear what is planned for the seafront now and in the future, and ask questions, yet EDDC seem reluctant to do this.”

Save Our Sidmouth press release on PegasusLife contract

PRESS STATEMENT

EA/2016/0279-0280 East Devon District Council v Information Commissioner

It is well over a year since Freedom of Information requests were made to have key EDDC documents published – the contract with developer Pegasus to buy the Knowle site and the agent’s report on the bidding process and sale.

EDDC refused to publish these, even after being told to by the Information Commissioner. But, now that the case has gone to Tribunal, it has decided to release the documents.

But why now?

What is very clear is that the release of the contract and agent’s report is happening only now that Pegasus’ planning application for Knowle has been considered.

As the EDDC press release makes clear: “With the PegasusLife planning application having been refused, it is considered that this sensitivity has now been reduced and that publication of the information is acceptable.”

And this is very much the point.

Not only was the leadership at EDDC keeping this ‘sensitive’ information from the public – it did not want its own Councillors to know what was in the contract and the bidding process. What is particularly alarming is that the leadership at EDDC hid these details from the planning committee (the DMC) before it made its decision over Knowle.

Looking at the details, the documents reveal the following:

> The agent warned that the development might be perceived by the planning committee as ‘over development’. As they said: “If this is the case, then the application may lead to refusal, delay or in the worst case prevent the relocation of the Council’s offices.”

> The agent also said that “Pegasus is not making any allowance for affordable housing or 106 contributions, as they are classing it as C2”. In other words, the plans were always about classifying the development as C2 (a care home) and not C3, which would mean paying for affordable housing.

> Finally, Pegasus were not prepared to offer significant ‘overage’ – meaning that EDDC would not be able to ‘claw back’ any excess profits Pegasus might make.

But what is particularly disturbing is what these documents reveal about how EDDC operates:

> From the outset, Planning Officers challenged the C2 designation and the scale of development and clearly wanted to give the site C3 status – but later they changed their mind and recommended approval of the Pegasus plans.

> In which case, the DMC have been totally vindicated in their decision to reject the planning application. But we only know this now that the contract and bidding process have been revealed.

> Had the Full Council been aware of the terms of the deal with Pegasus – for example, no significant overage – then then their approval of Pegasus as the ‘preferred developer’ might not have been forthcoming.

> The Information Commissioner insisted that EDDC reveal the contract and negotiations to the public. But what is particularly reprehensible is that the leadership at EDDC refused to reveal these crucial details to their own Councillors.

We now have to ask how the Council will respond – in particular, whether they will want some answers as to how the whole process was mismanaged.

And we have to ask why once again the leadership at EDDC continue to be so secretive in their dealings over the Knowle relocation project – and whether they are going to act on their promise to be truly open and transparent – with both the public and their own Councillors.”

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/knowle-relocation-project-full-pegasus_26.html

South Devon community hospitals bite the dust

“While Exeter and East Devon anxiously awaits the outcome of public consultation to close community hospital beds, residents of South Devon and Torbay are today coming to terms with the loss of five hospitals.

South Devon and Torbay Clinical Commissioning Group’s governing body today voted to switch resources from hospital bed-based care to community-based care which they say will improve health services and meet increasing demand.

Members agreed that by strengthening community-based services, more people will be looked after at home, so fewer people will need to be admitted and kept in hospital unnecessarily.

As a result, hospitals in Ashburton and Buckfastleigh, Bovey Tracey, Dartmouth and Paignton will close.

Members also agreed three additions to proposals first published last April:

Ashburton and Buckfastleigh Hospital will be evaluated as a base for the area’s local health and wellbeing centre, which would include GPs.

A proposal to establish an urgent care centre on the Torbay Hospital site to provide an MIU service to the Bay should be pursued.

Specialist outpatient clinics will continue in Paignton, where the volume of patients makes this a more appropriate option to travelling to Brixham, Totnes or Torbay.

Dr Nick Roberts, CCG chief clinical officer, said: “Evidence locally and nationally shows that supporting people in or near their own homes provides more effective outcomes for many patients, and this has to be one of our key priorities.

“Some £5.1m is being invested in health and wellbeing teams, which will bring together nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and social care support to look after people closer to home.

“We believe that these changes will meet the demands of our modern society – but I want to stress that high-quality hospital care will still be available when needed for patients. That’s essential.”

The aim is for the changes to be implemented as soon as parameters are met to ensure that new services operate safely. The parameters include for example:

the remaining community hospital inpatient services meet the requirement for safe staffing standards for sub-acute bed-based care

Newton Abbot and Totnes MIUs to be open 8am-8pm 7 days a week, and that these MIUs to have radiology at least four hours a day, seven days a week
intermediate care (for patients who need care but don’t need a hospital) operating at least six days a week.

Thursday’s meeting came after a 12-week public consultation. Feedback from the consultation was independently collated by Healthwatch, and the resulting report provided an overview of common themes, comments and criticisms, as well as listing a range of suggestions made by the public.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/community-hospitals-will-close-in-devon/story-30089335-detail/story.html

“Positive and passionate discussions for future regeneration of Queen’s Drive” says EDDC

Somehow, Owl thinks ” the community” might see things somewhat differently to EDDC – and Councillor Skinner’s remark that it “just wants EDDC to get on with it” when the fact that EDDC just getting on with it has been the problem, not the solution.

Not to mention that EDDC “just got on with” appointing Moirai Capital as their preferred bidder – and just see where that led!

This press release seems designed to pre-empt a judicial review on lack of consultation. BUT a press release does not constitute evidence … pudding … proof …

EDDC press release:

“Regular meetings between council and community to discuss improvement plans for Exmouth’s Queen’s Drive will be an ongoing feature of the project

East Devon District Council, local businesses and community organisations of Exmouth came together at The Ocean last week for a lively discussion about Exmouth’s regeneration and, in particular, the vision for its seafront development.

This meeting marked an important opportunity for dialogue and discussion, which will be an ongoing feature of the next phases for the improvement plans for Queen’s Drive.

There were presentations by the council detailing how Exmouth is growing and moving forward, the challenges it faces and the vision for this much-loved seaside town as it evolves into a 21st century destination with attractions for everyone to enjoy.

Council officers set out in as much detail as is currently known the journey and timelines for Queens Drive, emphasising the need to move forward with the reserved matters planning application process and, most importantly, setting out clearly opportunities for public consultation, which will continue to underpin each phase.

Officers also underlined the need to take a measured approach in terms of timescales to ensure that Grenadier, the provider of the watersports centre, secures the necessary planning permissions before the council commits financially to the necessary works to the road and car park.

Councillor Philip Skinner, chairman of the Exmouth Regeneration Board, said: “These discussions demonstrated a shared and very deep affection for the town. Most people there were overwhelmingly optimistic, passionate and positive and the message coming through loud and clear was get on with it!

The reserved matters planning application to extend planning permission will go before the council’s development management committee in the next few months.”

Those LEP Board jobs …

“Board Members must declare any involvement with any of the delivery partners or roles or interests with beneficiaries and operate in accordance with the Nolan Principals of public life and the company’s Articles of Association.

This will involve taking no part in any decision votes where an interest exists. The adoption of the Nolan Principals ensures full openness and integrity in the way the Board sets its priorities.

These roles are un-remunerated. Expenses are only paid for exceptional expenditure for LEP commitments outside our area.

Click to access HotSW-LEP-CIC-Director-Final.pdf

The only problem is – we don’t get to know who voted on what, who declared an interest and why and who abstained – as the public record of meetings ( notes rather than minutes) do not record them.

Not to mention that agendas are not explicit – try to find the agenda item or minutes of the 26% salary increase for the LEP CEO – good luck and good hunting!

Your LEP needs you … but only if your face fits

“The Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership is seeking up to seven new private sector non-executive directors.

The positions will become vacant this year when a number of existing directors come to the end of their six-year terms.

Since its establishment in 2011, the LEP has developed a £500million investment pipeline to support its mission to deliver better jobs and prosperity across Devon, Plymouth, Somerset and Torbay. [Take this with a pinch of salt … it is LEP member companies rather than the LEP board]

The business led partnership includes representatives of the private sector, local authorities, universities and colleges.

It is now looking for candidates with a strong business background at a senior level, with the skills and vision to help shape the economic prosperity of the area.

LEP chairman Steve Hindley, of Midas Group, said: “This is a fantastic opportunity for local business leaders to actively contribute to the next phase of our development and benefit our economy and communities.

“If you are a business or social economy leader with passion and expertise, please contact HotSW LEP with a view to joining us on our journey towards delivering prosperity for Devon, Plymouth, Somerset and Torbay.”

The non-executive directors will be required to attend board meetings once every two months and periodic meetings or events across Devon and Somerset.

The deadline for applications is Tuesday, February 14. Details at heartofswlep.co.uk/news.

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/heart-of-south-west-local-enterprise-partnership-seeks-new-non-exec-directors/story-30088745-detail/story.html

Here are a few of the attributes you need, gleaned from the”Candidate Pack”:

Experience

You will possess credible business links and relationships in our area, ideally including working at a senior level alongside or with business representative organisations, business growth or skills partnerships and / or relevant business support service businesses or voluntary or social enterprise groupings.

You will have senior / owner level business experience within one of the HotSW area’s largest business sectors (such as Business Services, Tourism or Agriculture) or in a growth sector identified in our Smart Specialisation strategy (such as Marine, Aerospace, New nuclear, Agri-tech, Environmental Technologies, Big-data, High Tech / Manufacturing industries). Housing, transport, innovation, people, environmental, health or rural agendas as well as commercial and infrastructure development also form key focuses for our work and would be an equally valuable background.

Throughout the Selection Process, you will be required to provide relevant examples of where you can contribute to the needs of the LEP and its sub-committees (as outlined above) by bringing your expertise to the NED role and so demonstrate the specific value you can bring to the LEP.

You will have a proven track record of organisational leadership and experience of being a Board Member or in a leadership role of a private sector business or social enterprise that is significant in its field or of having actively contributed to a business representation organisation or voluntary or social enterprise groupings.

You will have a demonstrable association or interest with the HotSW economy and act with a collaborative approach able to develop and maintain effective business relationships to deliver strategic vision.

You will possess a strong political acumen with a clear understanding of both local and national politics to help promote the HotSW LEP.

In addition to the above we will be looking for 2 specific directors with experience of:

Chairing audit committees and managing risk, large projects, transformational change or programme finances

Marketing and promotion – and the utilisation of new / social media.”

Click to access HotSW-LEP-CIC-Director-Final.pdf

200 PCSO’s out, 100 police officers, 50 investigators and 30 online staff in, says Hernandez

“Devon and Cornwall Police plans to spend £24m on 100 new constables, 50 investigators and 30 online staff, but PCSOs will be cut by about 200 over the next four years.

Chief Constable Shaun Sawyer said: “The front-line has become very stretched over the past years of austerity.

“At the same time demand has increased and the need for specialist capabilities, such as firearms officers and public order trained staff, has grown to meet the national and international threats.

“The redesign and reprioritisation of our workforce will require us to move some staff from existing roles, such as PCSOs, to other police staff roles, new staff investigation roles or to join up as police officers depending on their career aspirations and suitability.”

Source” BBC Devon website.

PCC Hernandez has authorised the release of £10m from police reserves (currently £70m) and expects the rest to come from council tax contributions.

Another assault on democracy – academy schools

“As more and more schools are removed from local authority control and become academies, the role of governors has diminished – and with it a school’s accountability to local people, argues Andy Allen.

Contrary to the aim of the ‘school revolution’, multi-academy trusts are not autonomous at all, but answerable to a few unelected trustees. He calls for a new model in which local membership groups would elect forums to advise governing boards.”

The ‘academy revolution’ is ousting governors. We need to hold these schools accountable

In these days of schools having their funds cut, this is critical – with no-one in government to fight our corner – quite the opposite, in fact.

“Devon County conservatives [including Paul Diviani] vote down chance of deferring hospital bed closures”

“Six conservative councillors voted down my proposal to defer a rushed decision to close the remaining half of community hospital beds in Eastern Devon.

The proposal was made at last Thursday’s (19 January) Devon County Council health and wellbeing scrutiny committee following a presentation from four members of NEW Devon clinical commissioning group (CCG), which revealed that many more than 3,000 responses were received to their consultation to close 72 beds.

The six conservatives include Cllr Paul Diviani, who is the councillor for Honiton, where the hospital beds are set to be lost as part of the decision.

Yet most of those same councillors voted IN FAVOUR of a motion calling for a pause to the controversial beds cuts and service centralisation document, the sustainability and transformation plan (STP) at the full council meeting in December.

And half of the scrutiny councillors also voted in favour of a raft of actions against the STP in the morning scrutiny session!

NEW Devon CCG is set to make its decision on closing 72 beds in Eastern Devon, on 2 March at its governing body meeting, yet it has received what is says are well over 3,000 technical and heartfelt responses.

Managers are ploughing their way through them, yet this many detailed responses will require a significant amount of work to read, digest and potentially respond to the issues and questions set out in them.

I said that there may need to be further discussions with communities about the issues raised. And according to a consultation response by Hospiscare that I have seen, there is a massive problem with regular breakdowns in social care packages for people who want to die at home.

Last year alone, Hospiscare reported 58 incidents to the CCG where the breakdown of social care packages for people at end of life had caused distress. This is completely appalling, and surely must be the tip of the iceberg.

Hospiscare specifically ask the CCG in their response for an assurance that in-patient care will still be available for dying patients who cannot be managed at home because of complexity or carer breakdown or because they choose not to die at home.

Will they get that assurance? I doubt it.

I also raised the issue of six incorrect postcodes that were published initially with the consultation. This meant that some hospitals were judged as being not as far away from other hospitals than they actually were. The postcodes issue was later rectified but that did not alter the fact that the bed closure recommendations had been based on the incorrect information.

I asked about a detailed impact analysis of the bed closures at Ottery, Axminster and Crediton Hospitals and the reply was that although one hadn’t been undertaken, there is a running analysis in terms of an in-house reporting system. I asked for a copy of this….

I made a proposal to defer the decision to shut the beds in Eastern Devon until the summer (after the elections as decisions cannot be made during purdah). The result was four votes to six against.

I am not quite sure why the six conservatives voted against my inoffensive proposal but given the seriousness of the plans and widespread and significant level of concern in communities… and the councillors’ voting record … I am really angry that they seem to be playing games with such a serious issue.

Councillors are elected to support local communities and act on issues of concern. If we aren’t doing that, what are we there for?”

Here’s the webcast. It is item 7 – Your Future Care:
https://devoncc.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/261371

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/devon_county_conservatives_vote_down_deferral_of_rushed_hospital_bed_closur

Scotland plans to stop council CEOs from getting extra money as Electoral Officers

At present, council CEOs all receive extra payments for this task and are not subject to Freedom of Information laws about how they spend their money on it.

“Senior council executives in Scotland should lose their system of multi-thousand pound payments for acting as returning officers at elections and referendums, according to MSPs.

A report from the Scottish Parliament’s local government committee found that the payments regime for overseeing the conduct and counting of elections, a role usually taken on by council chief executives, was insufficiently transparent, inconsistent, and little understood by the general public.

Bob Doris, the committee convener, said: “We believe that all costs associated with elections should be processed around the principles of openness and transparency if the public are to have confidence in how our elections are run.

“There is a lack of transparency around the value of these payments and how they are allocated,” Doris said.

“We heard that payments can range from £2,500 in Orkney and Shetland to over £16,000 in Edinburgh and may reportedly be worth as much £1m in total.” …”
http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/01/scrap-special-payments-scots-returning-officers-say-msps

“Knowle relocation project: full Pegasus contract published”

Some VERY VERY interesting information!

It seems that PegasusLife had no plans to pay any Section 106 contributions, or Community Infrastructure Levy.

The PegasusLife contract that would have been signed had the DMC not refused planning permission and the Savill’s report on how the company got it is detailed in full here:

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/knowle-relocation-project-full-pegasus.html

Where further revelations are promised.

Sidmouth – indeed the whole district – should thank Jeremy Woodward, who worked tirelessly to get this information.

The Information Commissioner had to threaten EDDC with the possibility of being in contempt of court when they issued their Decision Notice forcing publication, after an appeal from EDDC that they should not be made to issue it or at least not without without so much redaction it would likely be pointless. EDDC had been planning to appeal the Information Commissioner’s Decision Notice but suddenly withdrew this action – presumably knowing it would not succeed.

EDDC then issued a press release saying that all the hours and hours they must have spent opposing publication “cost nothing” as it was only officer time.

Owl wonders which senior officers work for nothing!

This sorry tale should be examined by EDDC’s Scrutiny Committee forthwith.

“MPs launch inquiry into overview and scrutiny in local government”

“The Communities and Local Government (CLG) Committee has launched a “long-overdue” inquiry into overview and scrutiny in local government.

The committee said it would “consider whether overview and scrutiny arrangements in England are working effectively and whether local communities are able to contribute to and monitor the work of their councils”.

Written evidence is invited on:

Whether scrutiny committees in local authorities in England are effective in holding decision-makers to account
The extent to which scrutiny committees operate with political impartiality and independence from executives
Whether scrutiny officers are independent of and separate from those being scrutinised
How chairs and members are selected
Whether powers to summon witnesses are adequate
The potential for local authority scrutiny to act as a voice for local service users
How topics for scrutiny are selected
The support given to the scrutiny function by political leaders and senior officers, including the resources allocated (for example whether there is a designated officer team)
What use is made of specialist external advisers
The effectiveness and importance of local authority scrutiny of external organisations
The role of scrutiny in devolution deals and the scrutiny models used in combined authorities
Examples where scrutiny has worked well and not so well

The deadline for written submissions is Friday 10 March 2017.

Clive Betts MP, chair of the committee, said: “This inquiry is long overdue. Local authority executives have more powers than ever before but there has not been any review about how effectively the current overview and scrutiny arrangements are working since they were introduced in 2000.

“Local authorities have a considerable degree of discretion when it comes to overview and scrutiny. We will examine these arrangements and consider what changes may be needed to ensure decision-makers in councils and local services are better held to account.”

Overview and scrutiny arrangements were introduced by the Local Government Act in 2000 as a counterweight to increasing decision-making powers of Leaders and Cabinets or directly elected mayors.

The committee said that shortcomings had been exposed, however, following a number of high profile cases, including child sexual exploitation in Rotherham, poor care and high mortality rates at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust and governance failings in Tower Hamlets.

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29763%3Amps-launch-inquiry-into-overview-and-scrutiny-in-local-government&catid=59&Itemid=27

“Brexir risks pushing up Hinkley cost, EDF warns

A correspondent has drawn attention to the latest article by Emily Gosden, Energy Editor, The Times on emerging nuclear projects. The elephant in the room exposed by this article is, contrary to the impression generated by our LEP that Hinkley provides the “Golden Opportuity” for local growth, these projects rely on a ready supply of European and International labour, expertise, goods and services.

In these circumstances, is it wise of our LEP to put all its ( glowing green?) eggs in one basket? No doubt those LEP board members with nuclear interests, training for the nuclear interests and developing housing around the site (at least half the board) will say yes.

But would that be in Devon’s best interests?

“BREXIT RISKS PUSHING UP HINKLEY COST, EDF WARNS
“EDF has raised the spectre of delays or cost overruns to its £18 billion Hinkley Point nuclear plant as a result of Brexit, warning that any restrictions to trade and movement of labour could hamper the delivery of energy projects.

The French state-controlled company said Britain would have to import goods and skilled labour from around the world in order to make the “very substantial investments in new infrastructure” needed to keep the lights on.
“There is a risk that restrictions on trade and movement of labour will increase the costs of essential new infrastructure developments and could delay their delivery,” it said in a submission to MPs on the business, energy and industrial strategy select committee.

Although EDF did not mention Hinkley Point, it said Britain’s import requirements would include “critical goods and services in the nuclear supply chain and specialist nuclear skills”. Hinkley Point is the only new nuclear power station to have been given the go-ahead in the UK.

The plant, which was once expected to start generating in 2017, was eventually signed off by the government last autumn, with a revised start-up date of 2025. Ministers hope that it will be the first in a series of new nuclear projects, with Hitachi’s Horizon venture developing plans for reactors at Wylfa on Anglesey, and the Toshiba-Engie joint venture NuGen working on a project at Moorside in Cumbria.

However, in its submission to the committee, the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) warned that potential changes as a result of Brexit could also jeopardise these projects.

It said investments may not be forthcoming unless there was stable energy policy, clarity on the market and in particular “confidence that there will be continuing access to skills, both specialist nuclear skills from European/International companies and construction labour and the easy supply of goods and services across EU borders”.

NuGen and Horizon are struggling to secure financing and are understood to be in talks with the government about potential direct investment in their projects. Toshiba is under particular pressure after making huge writedowns on its US nuclear business.

The government yesterday highlighted the nuclear industry as a key part of its industrial strategy, appointing NIA chairman Lord Hutton of Furness to “oversee work to improve UK competitiveness and skills in nuclear”.”

Times Newspapers (paywall)

Tinder for planning?

“Imagine if next time you saw a plan for an oversized monster tower block proposed for your street, you could get out your smartphone and swipe left to oppose it? Or see a carefully designed scheme for a new neighbourhood library and swipe right to support it?

Tinder for urban planning might sound far-fetched, but it is already being trialled in the sun-kissed Californian city of Santa Monica. City authorities are trying to gauge public opinion on everything from street furniture and parking, to murals and market stalls for their forthcoming urban plan, using a digital tool modelled on a dating app. …”

https://www.facebook.com/groups/999845120071233/1210137492375327/?comment_id=1210142955708114&ref=notif&notif_t=like&notif_id=1485249849574665

“We’re taking back control – but who is going to wield it?”

“Britain voted to ‘take back control’ from the EU, and Theresa May’s Lancaster House speech made the repatriation of power to Westminster a priority. But it is far from clear what kind of Brexit Britons want, nor how many of these powers will go to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland rather than the UK Parliament. Katie Ghose argues that with direct democracy on the rise, citizens’ assemblies would help people grasp the trade-offs at stake and have a voice in these monumental decisions”.

http://www.democraticaudit.com/2017/01/24/were-taking-back-control-but-whos-going-to-wield-it/