Grenadier and the Exmouth Creative Group – is there a connection?

Grenadier have launched new website:

http://grenadierestates.co.uk/

Interesting that the Watersports Centre no longer listed as one of their community projects. It has been moved to a Commercial project.

Was it therefore Grenadier and its hangers-on that was involved with the “Exmouth Creative Group” that Councillor Skinner seems to have forgotten he may have spoken to?

It says of “community projects”:

We assess any impacts we believe we make as a business on the environment and community and pro-actively become involved with projects that do not necessarily provide an immediate financial benefit to the company, but instead promote positive social and environmental change.”

http://grenadierestates.co.uk/community/

which would fit the brief of the secretive “Exmouth Creative Group” perfectly:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/01/06/exmouth-creative-group-and-eddc-curioser-and-curioser/

Now, Owl is NOT saying that there is a connection – Owl is not even sure that such a group ever existed, only that, if it did indeed exist, there might be such a connection – indeed it would be surprising if there were not as such a group would surely want to influence all the “movers and shakers” in Exmouth. And the group’s members were said to include ” developers”.

It says of its commercial developments:

Our work includes building new commercial developments from the ground up, converting existing buildings or sites and their use, and investing in new property that has the scope for additional development or income.

Big difference isn’t it.

Owl will be happy to publish a response from Grenadier and/or EDDC and/or Councillor Skinner on this topic:

eastdevonwatch@gmail.com

Who suggested a 26% payrise for our LEP’s CEO and who pays for it?

We know it wasn’t Devon County Council- they are quoted as saying they will object. It doesn’t seem it is Somerset County Council as DCC mentions that it believes they will also object.

So, we have a very strange situation where the CEO’s of the two counties involved seem to have no power over the people who are supposed to work on behalf of the two counties.

If enough other board members (including our own Paul Diviani) agree, presumably the increase will go ahead.

Remember, this money will not come out of their own budgets but from us, the taxpayers – and we have NEVER been asked if we agree to this.

LEP CEO in line for a 26% payrise

“The leader of Devon County Council has criticised a proposed pay rise of more than 26% for the head of a government-backed regional business partnership.

Devon County Council will be voting against the pay rise for the chief executive of the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership, which is tasked with bringing prosperity to the region.

Businesses, local authorities and universities from across Devon and Somerset are represented on the LEP board.

The vote at the partnership’s board meeting next Tuesday, January 17, will be on a whether to increase the pay package of Chris Garcia, the chief executive, from £90,729 to £115,000.

A spokesman for Devon County Council said they anticipated that the Somerset County Council representative at the meeting would take the same stance.

Devon council leader John Hart said his vote was not personal but was on principle.

“As a local authority subject to significant government cuts, I cannot support a pay rise of 25% for any high-level official,” he said.

“It is clear the CEO does a good job and the LEP has brought many millions of pounds into the Devon economy [not verified as no figures available]. But there has to be recognition of the tight financial times in which we live.”

The Heart of the South West LEP is a business-led partnership of four county and unitary authorities, 15 district authorities, four universities and 10 FE colleges across Devon, Plymouth, Somerset and Torbay.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/lep-boss-in-line-for-26-pay-rise/story-30056532-detail/story.html

Important DCC health scrutiny committee meeting next week

“Devon County Council’s health and wellbeing scrutiny committee will debate community hospital bed cuts, the sustainability and transformation plan and NHS Property Services, next Thursday (19 January) from 10am.

The sustainability and transformation plan (STP) will be debated from 10am, with the rest of the meeting’s business taking place from 2pm.

The STP sets out huge cuts for the NHS in Devon, with the worst impact being in North Devon. The leaked version of the document is very much more revealing than the officially published version….

Links to the agenda papers are here – http://democracy.devon.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=2292&x=1

and the STP can be found here – http://democracy.devon.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=1980&x=1

Anyone wishing to address the committee should register asap with Gerry Rufolo – gerry.rufolo@devon.gov.uk

The meeting will be webcast and can be watched live here – https://devoncc.public-i.tv/core/portal/home

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

World’s richest people discuss inequality in front of servants packed 5 to a bedroom!

“Amid sessions on inequality, hastily bussed-in hotel workers will pack five to a room on bunk beds to serve the super-rich and powerful delegates.

Hundreds of chambermaids, doormen and cocktail waiters have been flown to Davos to cater to every whim of world leaders, business executives and the super-rich who will descend next week on the Swiss Alps town for the annual World Economic Forum (WEF) celebration of capitalism.

While WEF guests, including Theresa May, Chinese leader Xi Jinping and South African president Jacob Zuma, will spend their nights in some of the world’s most luxurious hotel suites, the staff brought in to serve them will be sleeping up to five to a room in bunk beds.

The manager of the fanciest hotel in Davos – the Grandhotel Belvédère – said he had flown in 200 extra staff to work in shifts around the clock during the annual jamboree of the rich and powerful. “We normally have about 100 employees, but this week we have 300 to help us out,” Thomas Kleber, general manager of the Belvédère, said.

Kleber said the extra staff have been flown in from partner hotels across the world to help out during the Belvédère’s busiest week of the year, but because the whole of Davos is packed out with forum visitors there isn’t much space to accommodate the additional workers.

“We have a staff house, but at this time of the year it is getting cosy,” he explained. “We do have some different places with four or five people in one room. We have set up high beds with one sleeping on top and one underneath.”

Despite the contrasting sleeping arrangements, a key theme of this year’s conference will be rising inequality, which the WEF has warned is the biggest problem facing the world. The forum said the growing gap between rich and poor, which it said had helped trigger the UK’s Brexit vote and Donald Trump’s presidential victory, had led the west to “a tipping point and might now embark on a period of deglobalisation”.

The WEF has organised six sessions for Davos visitors to discuss inequality, including one entitled “Combating rising insecurity and inequality”, to be introduced by the WEF’s chief economist, Jennifer Blanke. Another session will explore rising inequality through a “visual exploration that reveals the causes and consequences of fragility in cities now and through time”.

The extra Belvédère staff include “specially recruited people just for mixing cocktails”, as well as baristas, cooks, waiters, doormen, chambermaids and receptionists.

The Belvédère is the focus of most Davos action, including top-level diplomatic meetings, the signing of billion-dollar business deals and, of course, the best parties. The WEF organisers have taken control of 85% of the hotel’s rooms to host world leaders, business people and celebrities, who this year include Grammy award-winner Shakira and Jamie Oliver.

Not even Kleber knows the identities of his guests due to security concerns, but he said in previous years that Bill Clinton, David Cameron, Ban Ki-moon and John Kerry stayed at the hotel. “There are always a lot of big famous people, big business bosses and state visitors,” he said.

The Belvédère will host more than 300 functions over five days, with the first executive coffee bar meetings starting at 6am and the last of the late-night parties not turning out until 3am. “We have all kinds of functions from breakfast meetings, politician lunches to nightcaps and cocktail receptions in every corner of the hotel. Every company and every single party has its own individual needs,” he said. “Ice sculptures are always part of it.”

ILO warns of rise in social unrest and migration as inequality widens
Kleber declined to provide any details of what parties the hotel will be hosting this year, or how much the hotel charges for hosting events. Last year, a Silicon Valley tech company was reportedly charged £6,000 for a short meeting with the president of Estonia in a converted luggage room. The hotel has also previously flown in New England lobster, and provided special Mexican food for a company that was meeting a Mexican politician.

“I assume [the staff] get good tips,” Kleber said, but “most of them are not coming for the money – they are coming to be part of a once-in-a-year event … Of course it’s hard work, but it’s a lot of fun,” he added.

Theresa May will be the only G7 leader to attend this year’s summit, which clashes with Donald Trump’s inauguration as the 45th US president.

Downing Street refused to state which events or parties May plans to attend in her two-day Alpine sojourn. Last year, Cameron was photographed partying tie-less with Bono, Leonardo DiCaprio and Kevin Spacey, at a lavish party hosted by Jack Ma, the founder of internet group Alibaba and China’s richest man with a $34.5bn (£28.5bn) fortune. Tony Blair, who also attended the Ma party last year, is also a regular at the glitziest events.

Travelling to Davos and finding anywhere to stay next week is very expensive, but not nearly as costly as getting an all-access pass to the schmoozing. Basic membership of the WEF and an entry ticket costs 68,000 Swiss francs (£55,400), and that will only grant access to general sessions.

To get access to all areas, corporations must pay to become Strategic Partners of the WEF, costing SFr600,000, which allows a CEO to bring up to four colleagues, or flunkies, along with them. They must still pay SFr18,000 each for tickets. All Strategic Partners have been told that at least one of their invitees must be a woman.

Strategic Partners are given access to all private sessions, and a car and driver with a special sticker allowing door-to-door pickup. Just 100 companies are able to become Strategic Partners; among them this year are Barclays, BT, BP, Facebook, Google and HSBC. Companies have privately complained about the cost of the exclusive access, which helped the WEF bring in record revenue of SFr228m last year, according to its annual report.

The most exclusive invite in town is to an uber-glamorous party thrown jointly by Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska and British financier Nat Rothschild at the oligarch’s palatial chalet, a 15-minute chauffeur-driven car ride up the mountain from Davos. In previous years, Swiss police have reportedly been called to Deripaska’s home after complaints about the noise of his Cossack band.

A former assistant to economist Nouriel Roubini has described Deripaska’s parties as “endless streams of the finest champagne, vodka, and Russian caviar amidst dancing Cossacks and beautiful Russian models”. Sandra Navidi, who was Roubini’s director of research, recalled her trip to Deripaska’s party in her book Superhubs: How the Financial Elite and their Networks Rule our World.

Many of this year’s guests, who include outgoing US vice-president Joe Biden, China’s two richest men, and London mayor Sadiq Khan, will travel on private jets to nearby airports before transferring by helicopter to escape the traffic on the approach to the picturesque town. So many jets are expected that the Swiss government has opened up Dübendorf military airfield, an 85-mile helicopter flight away, to accommodate them.

Adam Twidell, chief executive of private jet booking service PrivateFly, said there were 1,700 private jet flights in and out of nearby airports last year, and he expected about 10% more this year.

The increase in private jet flights – which each burn as much fuel in one hour as typical use of a car does in a year – comes as the WEF warns that climate change is the second most important global concern. In its annual global risks report the WEF noted that environmental concerns were more prominent in the paper, drawn from 700 experts, than ever before.

Twidell said a last-minute flight to Davos from London on a small private jet would cost about £7,860. “Clients we have booked so far include business leaders, heads of state and government individuals,” he said. “[But] it’s not just pure politicians and business people who are wanting to be seen at Davos. The parties there have become a place to be. Davos is now on ‘the circuit’ along with the Superbowl, the Champions League final and the Monaco Grand Prix. … ”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/13/army-of-staff-descends-on-davos-to-serve-wef-super-rich

Some lessons in democracy

Some comments about the health service crisis which equally apply to every parish, town, district and county council, and every public servant, including MPs:

“The Whitehall machine works best when civil servants defer to elected politicians and their mandate from the public, while ministers defer in turn to officials’ specific expertise. It seizes up when the servants worry that their masters aren’t acting in the public interest.”

If the government is NOT acting in the public interest, just whose interest are they acting in?

“Nobody serious denies now that the NHS is being squeezed remorselessly by three separate forces: an ageing population, medical advances putting doctors under constant pressure to do more, and a threadbare social care system that stops existing patients leaving hospital and raises the risk of vulnerable people needing to come in.”

Nobody denies this – except of course the two most important people i.e. the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health who seem determined to keep their fingers in their ears and their heads buried in the sand and deny that the problem exists even when people are dying because of the crisis.

“It’s disappointing that Labour has rejected a cross-party coalition to produce lasting answers. But it’s more worrying that Downing Street can’t even admit to the existence of a question.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/12/ministers-silence-brexit-fears-nhs-unravelling-simon-stevens

Penzance shows how to deal with an NHS sham consultation!

“Unlike at Bude the previous day, where a smaller – and significantly more elderly – crowd had divided obediently into small workshops to consider the relative merits of differing aspects of the health and social care system, the Penzance meeting was an altogether more rowdy affair. People had come to the meeting not to hear what they already knew, but to say what they thought about it.”

http://cornwallreports.co.uk/?page_id=4861

“Philip Hammond took stake in company shortly before it received government grant”

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond took a stake in a food technology business shortly before it received a government grant to develop low fat ready meals.

According to records at Companies House, Mr Hammond took a stake of 15 per cent in Hydramach, a food tech company based in Cambridgeshire, in October 2015 when he was still Foreign Secretary. In April 2016, the company received a share of a £560,000 grant from Innovate UK, a tech start up agency of the then Business department.

The Daily Telegraph reported that the grant was to develop low fat and low sugar soups, ready meals and sauces. Mr Hammond was appointed Chancellor by new Prime Minister Theresa May in July. …”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/philip-hammond-took-stake-in-company-shortly-before-it-received-government-grant-a7523381.html

That was a lucky guess wasn’t it! Of all the shares in all the world, he had to choose that one …

“Bovis accused of pressuring buyers to move into unfinished homes”

Bovis Homes has been accused of pressuring customers to move into unfinished houses before Christmas by offering them cash incentives, a week before it issued a profit warning.

Several Bovis customers said they had been offered cheques of £2,000 to £3,000, or other incentives, if they completed on their house purchases before 23 December.

Members of the Bovis Homes Victims Group on Facebook, which also has a YouTube channel, have swelled to 650, with 244 people joining in the last two months.

Marc Holden, one of the group’s administrators, said: “We were getting a lot of people joining the group just before Christmas who were posting about being ‘encouraged’ to complete by 23 December, some were being offered money and other incentives.”

He said a group of at least 30 disgruntled Bovis customers would stage a protest at the company’s annual meeting in Tunbridge Wells on 2 May.

A company spokesman said: “Bovis Homes is fully aware of the customer group and their complaints, and we take these issues very seriously. We recognise that in some of these cases we have not provided our best standard of customer service and have taken too long to rectify customer issues, for which we apologise.”

Bovis, one of Britain’s biggest housebuilders, added that a “limited number of customers were offered an incentive to complete before the year end and all homes were habitable with the requisite CML industry certification, with a timetable for outstanding finishing works to be carried out in the new year.”

The firm insisted that no one was forced to move in before Christmas and that the homes only needed some finishing touches. “Customers were clearly free to decide their preferred course of action. The group often offers a range of incentives at sale and completion in line with industry practice,” the spokesman said.

The housebuilder’s chief executive David Ritchie quit on Monday, less than a week after the group issued its profit warning. It warned last Wednesday that it would complete about 180 fewer homes than expected in 2016, blaming operational issues. This will affect profits – Bovis now expects to make an annual pre-tax profit of £160m to £170m, compared with analysts’ forecasts of about £183m.

One couple was offered a post-completion cheque of £2,000 if they could legally complete on their property by 23 December, according to an email seen by the Guardian.

Comments from other customers suggest the homes lacked more than just finishing touches.

Chad Clifton said he and his wife were “forced” to complete on their four-bedroom house in Brockworth, Gloucestershire on 23 December and found the fridge had not been fitted yet and that the hallway was unfinished, out of a list of 115 defects. They were offered £350 and a free move. “We were told we didn’t have much choice – if the house is ready we have to complete on 23r December.”

None of the defects have been fixed yet but Clifton said the couple “love the house” and that the customer service had improved vastly after his wife sent a scathing letter to Bovis’s head office.

Another Bovis customer said he and his wife had been offered £3,000 if they completed on 23 December, but declined the offer because of numerous problems (such as the wrong kitchen being fitted) at the £320,000 three-bedroom property in Inkberrow, Worcestershire.

The couple are still waiting for the problems to be rectified and to complete on the purchase. He said they had not been offered any compensation despite the stress caused, time taken off work and the cost of extending storage.

Holden and his wife form part of a group of eight families who bought Bovis homes across the country in recent years and have taken the company to task over defects and the length of time it is taking to fix them. In response, the firm launched a review in December and set up a team from across the business to resolve the issues.

Bovis said: “We recognise that our customer service has to improve and the leadership of the organisation is absolutely committed to getting this right.”

Karen Louise Richardson and her family said it had taken until now, two years after they moved into a four-bedroom house in Norwich, to fix more than 200 defects.

The Richardsons moved in on 19 December 2014 but maintain they were not advised that their house was unfinished until an hour after completion. “I’d never buy Bovis again; I’d never buy a new build again unless I did a lot of research,” she said.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/11/bovis-accused-of-pressurising-buyers-to-move-into-unfinished-homes?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

“Planning systems favour developers over communities” survey finds

“Almost three-quarters of local councils believe that the planning system is weighted too heavily in favour of developers at the expense of local democracy, according to a survey.

Commissioned by the National Trust and carried out by the Local Government Information Unit, the survey canvassed 1,200 ward councilors in England on aspects of the planning system.

The results, published today, show that 72% of councillors feel the existing system puts the interests of developers over and above those of councils and communities. Also, half of councillors said planning departments are inadequately funded, and the same amount claimed sites that are not in line with their council’s local plans are being approved for new housing.

The government has pushed for the adoption of local plans throughout England. In a statement to the Commons in 2015, then housing and planning minister Brandon Lewis described local plans as the “cornerstone” of the government’s planning reforms. Produced in consultation with communities, they are designed to offer “certainty on where new homes are to be built”.

The survey findings come as the government puts the final touches to its housing white paper, which is expected to be published later this month. The National Trust and LGIU urged Whitehall to revise the paper to boost confidence in the way the system works.

In a joint statement, the organisations argued that the views of councillors were often ignored in debates around the future of the planning system. “Yet, as local decision-makers, and an important link with local communities, they have an essential role to play in ensuring development is sensitive to the needs of the area,” they said.

Theresa May’s government has responded to pressure over a lack of new housebuilding in the country by announcing a raft of new measures and significant funding to boost construction.

As such, communities secretary Sajid Javid last week invited housing providers to bid for a share of a £7bn fund in what was described as a “dramatic expansion” of the affordable house programme.

The survey also revealed anxieties about loosened planning restrictions, with 58% of councillors believing their council would allocate green belt land for housing in the next five years. There are also concerns about the introduction of permitted development rights for home extensions, office-to-residential use conversions and other changes of use.

Moreover, the National Planning Policy Framework does not appear to be having the positive impact it was intended to have on design quality. Only 18% of councillors say designs have improved, and only 12% believe that loosening planning restrictions has had any positive impact.

Jonathan Carr-West, chief executive of the LGiU, said that five years on from the adoption of the government’s planning reforms, it was worrying that councillors felt it hadn’t delivered the localism that was promised.

He said: “If ministers are serious about local plans being at the heart of the planning system, then they should invest in council planning teams and use the housing white paper to give them the tools to deliver good quality housing in the right places.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/01/planning-systems-favour-developers-over-communities-lgiu-survey-finds

One reason (close to home) why Bovis CEO resigned?

Axminster councillor Douglas Hull recently went on a tirade against badly-built homes in the town, though he took on the monkey NHBC (the business that issues 10 year warranties for new homes, rather than the organ grinders – the developers who build the shoddy homes in the first place.

Now, news reaches us of a national protest group taking housebuilder Bovis (a major player in Axminster, Seaton and all over East Devon) to task:

“Disgruntled Bovis Homes customers are to protest outside the annual meeting of the housebuilder, whose chief executive David Ritchie was ousted this week.

The Bovis Homes Victims Group has swollen to 650 Facebook members with a litany of complaints, as well as a YouTube channel with more than 9000 views.

Spokesman Marc Holden’s £490,000 Bovis home in Milton Keynes was beset with defects, prompting a company review.

Holden said: “We are not going to stop our active campaign. There are a lot of unhappy people.”

The meeting will be in Tunbridge Wells in May. Bovis warned on profits last month after delays to sales, prompting Ritchie to resign.

A Bovis spokesman said: “Bovis Homes is aware of the issues experienced by a small number of customers and recently established a dedicated team of specialists to resolve them, and apologises to the customers impacted.”

http://www.standard.co.uk/business/bovis-customers-plan-protest-at-beleaguered-builder-s-meeting-a3436836.html

To be an LEP or not to be an LEP – that is the question

Just before Christmas, we read that three local authorities ( including Plymouth and Exeter) were pulling out of the Heart of the Southwest Local Enterprise Partnership (comprising the whole of Devon and Somerset). They intended to form their own LEP – the so-called “Golden Triangle LEP”:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2016/12/13/the-extorply-lep-talks-continue/

We assume that, partly, this was because those authorities were not convinced that a “Devset” super-mayor (a requirement for government funding – and quite possibly from Somerset) would not adequately represent their interests.

Since then we have heard absolutely nothing about the situation from either side.

Is the “Golden Triangle LEP” still on the cards?
Have the local authorities which want to break away formally withdrawn?
If not, do they intend to withdraw and when?
If so, what happens to current funds held by the LEP on their behalf?
Are we having a Devset super-mayor or not?
When (if ever) will electors be consulted – and about what?
Will Devon continue to subsidise heavy HOTSW LEP investment in Hinkley C that, despite promises, shows little knock-on benefit to our county?

And when will Somerset County Council (as the chosen lead authority for scrutiny – though chosen by whom we do not know) be subject to scrutiny (or scrutinising itself) about where our money has gone, is going, and will go?

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/01/08/is-devolution-already-with-us-a-briefing-paper-on-the-major-changes-to-regional-funding-since-2010/

EDDC leads the way in showing HMRC how to relocate!

Extra £600m needed to pay for taxman’s new offices

Britain’s tax authorities will spend nearly £600 million more than they promised on an “unrealistic” plan to modernise and streamline their offices, a critical report has concluded.

The National Audit Office (NAO) found that Revenue & Customs was operating out of 170 properties, costing £269 million a year to run. But it warned that the cost of plans to modernise and rationalise into 13 regional centres had been significantly underestimated and said that the reorganisation would disrupt services.

Meg Hillier, chairwoman of the public accounts committee, said the NAO’s findings showed that “early over-optimism” had once again resulted in increased costs to taxpayers. The committee is expected to call HMRC officials to explain how the forecasts were so wrong.

The NAO said that since HMRC first announced its relocation plans in the 2015 spending review, costs had risen and the project would now cost £594 million more over the next decade — a rise of about 22 per cent.

The organisation had also accepted that its current plans, that would involve moving all staff into new offices by 2020, carried “too high a risk of disruption to its business”.

An updated plan is yet to be published and relocating to regional centres will now happen later than the HMRC had planned.

It will take longer before savings from the new estate are realised, the NAO said.

An HMRC spokesman said: “Our most recent calculations now include updated day-to-day running costs, additional investment in two transitional sites which will ease the move for both staff and customers, and provision for more support for our staff with the travel costs of moving to a new office.”

Source” Times Newspapers Limited 2017 (paywall)

“No ‘independent consultation’ to be held on Exmouth seafront plans”

READ PARTICULARLY THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE ARTICLE BELOW!

SPIN! SPIN! SPIN! Councillor Skinner must be dizzy!

Perhaps the “group of like-minded individuals” who are not the Exmouth Creative Group ( including any creative developers) would like to identify itself ….!

There will not be an ‘independent consultation’ on redeveloping Exmouth seafront, the man leading the project has said.

Councillor Philip Skinner made the comments at the most recent full East Devon District Council (EDDC) meeting, when asked by Councillor Megan Armstrong about the result of a town poll held last April.

The poll produced a 94.9 per cent vote for Exmouth Town Council writing to EDDC, which it subsequently did, asking that before any further planning applications were approved for Queen’s Drive, additional independent consultation should take place.

Cllr Armstrong said: “It seems as if you are going to ignore the poll and continue regardless. How are you going to explain to all the residents who voted that their views have been totally ignored?”

Responding, Cllr Skinner said: “What we are going to do is, the phase two [developer] is going to put their application in, there will be a consultation process for that, there will then be another consultation process which will take place through the planning process. Phase three is going to be absolutely a full consultation with the public, that’s what’s going to take place, that is quite clear.

“To answer the question about an independent consultation – no, that’s not going to take place. I’m sorry about that, but that’s the reality.”

Cllr Skinner has also been criticised by campaign group Save Exmouth Seafront, which said he had talked to an unknown Exmouth Creative Group in lieu of other consultation, though EDDC denied Cllr Skinner had spoken to a group of that name.

SES spokesperson Louise MacAllister said: “There are many established community groups in Exmouth with an interest in the seafront who have not been asked for their opinion. This is concerning as the public made themselves very clear through the poll that they want to be consulted, and yet the public are now being ignored in favour of this unknown group.”

An EDDC spokesperson said: “Cllr Skinner has met several groups and individuals about rejuvenating the town, including the seafront.

He recently met a group of like-minded individuals who have some great ideas for the town and they were enthused by what the council is doing. We are unaware of a specifically named group called Exmouth Creative Group.”

EDDC kicks out affordable housing on its own land in Sidmouth – using it for a third office site after relocation

Remember the old days, when EDDC said its move to a single new building in Honiton would save money?

Then it added an old, crumbling building in Exmouth (the Town Hall) neglecting to have a full survey before estimating the cost of refurbishment. Those refurbishment costs are now £1.669m, – £408,000 more than the original estimate.

Now we hear that, instead of providing 20 affordable houses on the Manstone Depot site in Sidmouth as set out in the local plan, EDDC has instead decided to build offices for its Estates Department and keep the Streetscene department there.

No costs appear to be in the public domain for this – which should form part of the relocation budget. And it begs the question: why is the Estates Department and Streetscene relocating to Manstone Depot rather than to the new site in Honiton? Is the Honiton site too small, or does EDDC have an antipathy to affordable housing in Sidmouth? Or is there some other more murky reason?

Or is it just that officers and councillors don’t want Streetscene vehicles and materials spoiling their view in Honiton?

Here is the story from Sidmouth Herald:

“East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) Manstone Depot is allocated for 20 homes in its Local Plan – but now the authority wants to keep its estates department in Sidmouth when it relocates to Exmouth and Honiton.

Its development management committee (DMC) has been recommended to approve the plans for a single-storey office block when it meets on Tuesday (January 10).

Jeremy Woodward, who has campaigned for transparency in the relocation project, said: “I am dismayed about what seems to be EDDC’s disregard for its own Local Plan – and promises of affordable housing which is much-needed in Sidmouth.

“This application is clearly very sensitive.

“Firstly, it is on a site reserved for housing in the Local Plan; and secondly, it is clearly part of the ‘larger picture’ of the district council’s relocation project.”

Mr Woodward submitted a Freedom of Information request in 2014 which revealed that EDDC’s housing service had made two conditional offers to build 25 homes on the Manstone Depot site. One had a mix of market and ‘affordable’ homes; the other was fully ‘affordable’.

The report to DMC members says the offices will be limited to one section of the site and housing could still be delivered on the remaining area. It adds, the departure from the Local Plan is not grounds to refuse the application.

The office building would act as a ‘hub’ for operations that already largely take place from the depot, which is used by the StreetScene team and for storage, adds the report.

An EDDC spokeswoman said: “The consolidation of Knowle Depot activities to our existing site at Manstone is an opportunity that results as part of the relocation project.

“The transfer of depot activities is an existing costed element of the relocation project and, as such, included within the independent and positive cost modelling of relocation.

“Manstone Depot continues to provide a base for a range of important services to Sidmouth and the wider district.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/dismay_at_office_plan_on_sidmouth_site_allocated_for_affordable_homes_1_4838725

New independent group in Cornwall

… a new pressure group [is] being formed in Cornwall this week. Charter for Cornwall has been formed by the people who run the popular anti-developers Facebook group “It’s our Cornwall” and they told CS [Cornish Stuff blog] that the group will seek to be a “conduit for the unfocused energy we see around us – we are an essay in grassroots activism. Let’s make a better Cornwall together”

Charter for Cornwall will pressure those seeking election to the Council in May, when all Cornwall Council seats will be up for grabs, to pledge to support 4 commitments when they do get elected.

A launch statement on charterforcornwall.com says:

“We believe that we cannot give way to despair and apathy. We have to use what democratic rights are left to us to challenge Cornwall Council’s narrow and short-sighted strategy. Elections in May provide one opportunity to make our voices heard and make our future an issue.

We are not alone. Across Cornwall local groups have been campaigning against massive, speculative and unnecessary housing projects. Over 7,000 people have signed the CPRE’s petition Save Cornwall’s Green Fields, calling for a change in the planning system. Over 70 town and parish councils have supported Cornwall for Change, which is demanding a change in direction at Cornwall Council. Posts on the It’s Our Cornwall facebook page about building projects reach an average 2,000 people daily and sometimes as many as 10,000″.

People are dismayed, worried and angry about what they see around them. But anger and sadness too often leads to despair. That despair has to be transformed into hope. We can change things. We can take back control of our future. This is a first step”.

The statement continued,

“We will campaigns to increase community-level influence over the future of our land. We need to change Cornwall Council for the better by electing better councillors. We need a Council that is more open, more responsive and more willing to listen to residents’ concerns. In the short-term we will be supporting those candidates in next May’s local elections who stand for our values. In the longer-term we must work to end the Council’s pursuit of unsustainable growth policies”

The four ‘principles’ of the new group are to

Protect our Cornish heritage (“Councillors have been unable to stop Cornwall becoming an easy ride for property developers”)

Provide genuinely affordable housing (“The Government has cynically redefined ‘affordability’ to include housing at 80% of market prices that are simply unaffordable for most local people”)

Put limits on second homes (“The extension of second home ownership has destroyed community life in many of our coastal towns and villages”)

Plan for Cornish communities, not developers’ profits (“The planning system is rigged. Blatantly unsound data have been used to drive the housing target up to an unnecessary 52,500 minimum”)

The group has spent the last few weeks gathering contributions and support from various political groups, including KMTU who support the initiative. Formed by Pete Burton, Bernard Deacon, Julie Fox The Charter for Cornwall will roll out in three phases in Feb – May with the first phase to agree on the final wording of the pledges Councillors will be asked to commit to.”

21st century Cornwall: Developers Won, Paradise Lost? As Cornwall seeks to introduce planning charge, a new group is formed to pressure councillors

The “Exmouth Vision Group”: “access” deconstructed

In an earlier post Owl deconstructed the “Vision” of the purported “Exmouth Vision Group”:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/01/06/the-exmouth-creative-group-vision-deconstructed/

Now let us turn to the second part of the document headed “Access”.

Actually, what Owl thinks it covers (and this is subjective) is MUCH more than access.

Broadly and in summary it sets a goal of replacing “low culture” with “high culture” and ensuring that those of “high culture” can cycle from their suburban homes to the seafront or from the seafront to pretty woodlands on their “sit up and beg” bikes during the day and enjoy a “scene” in the evenings!

Here are Owl’s thoughts on the deconstructed points

o How do we draw people into the town when there is a lack of parking?
Especially from the ‘suburbs’ of Exmouth who live on the surrounding hill which is too far away to walk to the town/seafront. If travelling by car, most will just go straight to Exeter.

What Owl thinks most surprising about this point is that this group thinks it can solve the problems of a spread-out, city-commuter town all on its own – which no group anywhere seems to have cracked! IF they could crack it IN A SUSTAINABLE AND INEXPENSIVE WAY they will be in great demand – and might have to move from Exmouth!

o Join together the town, seafront, train station and marina etc.
See above! Of course, what you need is a pedestrian/cycling route – but where will the money come from to build and maintain it? Or maybe a “land train” – though that is “low culture” (see below).

• Bring together the fragmented community groups.
Good luck on that one, guys when, if you exist at all (about which Owl has doubts) you don’t identify yourselves, meet in secret, and (possibly) meet in secret with someone or someones from EDDC!

• Exmouth’s culture is either ‘low end’ or just well hidden.
Which makes you wonder why these “creatives” choose to live in the town! This is highly insulting to Exmouthians, who by implication, appear to be dismissed as largely low end “chavs”. Perhaps this group is just miffed it couldn’t afford to live in Budleigh Salterton (though maybe some do!).

• Create something for all of the age groups.
Yeah, pensioner polo or teenage carriage driving should up culture to the “high end”.

• There is little decent employment and opportunities within the town: the young are leaving the town due to lack of opportunities.
The young are leaving because, like lots of young people, they go to university, travel, meet new people and put down new roots elsewhere, often in vibrant cities – leaving Exmouth, perhaps, to “high end cultured” people and the low-end chavs!

• Exmouth is too small to have a close knit community; but too large to have a ‘scene’.
Oh, God, can you imagine a “scene” in Exmouth – with all those trainee Marines, chavs and cultured people! A concert hall, perhaps, or a polo field (or whatever they call them – see above).

Chukkas away!

There is no problem adding culture to the seaside – eg the art gallery at Margate):
https://www.turnercontemporary.org/

but equally you CAN add a funfair as at Southend:
http://adventureisland.co.uk/

They are NOT mutually exclusive. And the key is:

TOTAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION and
LISTENING AND ACTING ON TOTAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

not consulting with one elitist group (WHICH INCLUDES VESTED-INTEREST DEVELOPERS) at the expense of everyone else.

Dirty lobbying

We do it the other way around in East Devon – we gave a senior officer to a lobbying group viz former EDDC Economic Development Officer Nigel Harrison who was offered up as Secretary to the East Devon Business Forum (a group of local developers under the Chairmanship of disgraced ex-Tory councillor Graham Brown) AND EDDC paid all its expenses!

“Whitehall’s lobbying tsar has launched an inquiry into concerns that informal parliamentary groups set up by MPs and peers are being used to bypass lobbying rules.

Alison White, the registrar of consultant lobbyists, has interviewed officials from all-party parliamentary groups (APPGs) after receiving reports that lobbyists are acting as secretaries to gain access to legislators.

The inquiry comes after a growth in the number of APPGs, which are allowed use of the Palace of Westminster’s catering facilities and can invite senior ministers and civil servants for meetings with donors.

There are more than 550 APPGs, which exist to help MPs and peers discuss major issues of the day, according to the parliamentary register. The groups have received more than £5.4m in external funding since the beginning of 2015. …

…Private firms and individuals can sponsor APPGs to help pay for “secretariat services”, trips abroad or reports. Any APPG is allowed to include a secretariat from an outside body, and it is this position that can be easily abused, according to White.

There are more than 200 people or organisations listed as secretariats for APPGs who are not registered on the register of consultant lobbyists, which requires that meetings with ministers or permanent secretaries be disclosed. White believes some APPG secretariats may be breaking this rule. White is planning to issue advice to all organisations that offer specialist services to APPGs later this month.” …

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/06/lobbying-inquiry-registrar-parliamentary-secretaries

Mark Williams refuses to answer questions – because (he says) they were not questions

As if you needed evidence of stonewalling and lack of transparency, here is an extract from minutes of Full Council meeting last week.

Although the Chairman (Stuart Hughes) could see that the speakers were questioning officers and councillors – indeed he asked the CEO to respond to questions, CEO Mark Williams neatly sidestepped the request by calling what people had said as “statements.

MORAL OF THIS STORY: MAKE SURE YOU ASK CONCRETE CLEAR QUESTIONS IF YOU WANT ANSWERS – AS OTHERWISE THE CEO WILL ACT AS IF YOU DON’T WANT ANY ANSWERS!

And would developers who give statements at Development Management Committee meetings be told they would not get answers as they had not asked a specific question in their submission?

“*46 Public speaking
The Chairman welcomed those present and invited members of the public to speak to the Council.

Sally Galsworthy spoke on the Queen’s Drive development making reference to the one remaining developer involved in the project and commenting on the risks should that developer pull out. She spoke of the anger of the residents in Exmouth towards the project expressed at meetings, the town poll and on a recent march, which had been attended by some 400 people.

Laura Freeman made reference to the outcome of the recent town poll seeking additional independent consultation on the redevelopment of Queen’s Drive. She considered that despite the restricted opening times of the poll, there had been a good turnout and that the outcome should be honoured and not ignored. She requested that the whole project be reviewed with a new outline application reflecting what the people of Exmouth wished to see for the area.

Jane Ashton spoke on the costs relating to both the Queen’s Drive development and relocation and also made reference to the collection of Section 106 and CIL contributions. She considered that the failure to foresee the additional costs involved in both projects was the result of the incompetence of those involved and that they should be removed from their positions. In respect of Queen’s Drive she commented that it would cost the Council less if it was to start the whole project from scratch.

Alec Huett advised that he had attended many meetings in the past regarding the regeneration of Exmouth and that Queen’s Drive had never been seen as a priority. He queried why the masterplan had changed so much from what had first been envisaged and commented that the plans would split the town into two leisure and retail zones. He advised that he was against any large development on the sea front when it should be the town centre that was the priority for regeneration works.

Richard Thurlow spoke on the increased costs relating to the refurbishment of Exmouth Town Hall – which would now cost more that refurbishing the Knowle. He advised that there was no detail or adequate rationale to explain the reasons for the increased costs and therefore did not consider that Members could make their decision based on fact.

Tony Green spoke on the Development Management Committee meeting held on 6 December and congratulated the Committee on their decision regarding the Knowle site. He stated that the Committee had to make their decision on material planning considerations only and therefore any comments relating to the relocation project or the adequacy of the existing building for its purpose should have been disregarded to avoid the appearance of bias. He asked for confirmation that this was the case and if so, asked that members of the committee be reminded of this.

The Chairman invited the Chief Executive to respond to QUESTIONS [Owl’s capitals] raised by the speakers. In response to the first five speakers, the Chief Executive advised that no questions had been asked and therefore they would be noted as statements, however he advised that some of the issues raised were covered in the Cabinet minutes.

In response to the last speaker, the Chief Executive advised that information was often submitted by the applicant giving reasons for a proposal – the key issue was that when the Committee came to vote they only did so on relevant material planning considerations and not immaterial planning considerations.”

Click to access 211216-council-mins.pdf

Hinkley C: possible £2 billion hit on British taxpayers played down

“Taxpayers still face a possible £2billion bill for building a nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point despite a minister’s claim they were ‘fully insulated’ from the cost.

The Government is underwriting loans to the builders of the plant, which is a joint project with France and China.

This is despite Business Secretary Greg Clark telling MPs in September that after Prime Minister Theresa May paused the project, taxpayers were now protected.

Despite the remarks, the £2billion guarantee – which would kick in if the companies involved in the project collapse – are still counted as a ‘contingent liability’ on the Government’s accounts.

Shadow minister Barry Gardiner told The Times he had been misled by Mr Clark’s response. …

… After work resumed, Mr Clark told MPs: ‘EDF has confirmed to me that it will not be taking up that £2 billion guarantee, so the taxpayer is fully insulated from the costs of construction.’

EDF confirmed by letter it did not ‘anticipate’ calling on the guarantee.
But in October, in a written statement to both MPs and peers, ministers said: ‘The government is confirming that it has approved the provision of a guarantee for up to £2billion to the project for the construction of its new EPR nuclear plant in Somerset, backed by commitments from the shareholders.’

They added: ‘The guarantee will be available from 2018 to 2020 if necessary conditions are met and is at government’s discretion.

‘Even if made available, and EDF have indicated to the secretary of state for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy that it is not their current intention to take up the guarantee, I judge the likelihood of any call under the guarantee to be very low.’

After the memo came to light yesterday, Mr Gardiner said: ‘The assurance that Greg Clark gave me was categoric: EDF were not taking up the guarantee.
‘Whilst I took him at his word, it appears that the Treasury were aware the secretary of state was suffering from baroque speech.

‘That is why the guarantee is still marked as a liability on their books.'”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4090908/Taxpayers-left-2bn-bill-new-Hinkley-Point-nuclear-plant-despite-promises-ministers-insulated-cost.html