Category Archives: Accountability

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Transparency

“Local” Enterprise Partnerships

The Guardian view on English local identities: a clash of cash against community

Editorial

A court case about whether Chesterfield can leave Derbyshire to become part of Sheffield [Local Enterprise Partnership] illuminates the inexorable wasting of English local government and identity.

Is Derbyshire in the north of England or the Midlands? The question is as old as the redrawing of the map of England following the Norman conquest. But it is no longer such a parochial or academic question as it may seem. Derbyshire’s dilemmas now illuminate what we mean by local democracy and local government in England more generally. That’s because the promotion of English city regions and the money being directed towards the northern powerhouse by the Treasury in London are making a nonsense of historic local identities as well as of England’s long but increasingly derelict traditions of locally rooted democratic municipalism.

Just before Christmas, the high court backed an objection by Derbyshire county council against efforts by Chesterfield, which is in the north of the county, to attach itself to the emerging city region of Sheffield, which comprises Sheffield, Barnsley, Rotherham and Doncaster, which are all historically part of the various iterations of Yorkshire, its ridings and its more modern subdivisions.

The court did this after Derbyshire complained that if Chesterfield were permitted to redefine itself as part of Sheffield, it would raise the question of whether the county of Derbyshire could be said to exist at all without its second largest town. The county’s case was reinforced by the fact that Chesterfield district has no actual border with Sheffield, from which it is separated by part of the North East Derbyshire district. If Chesterfield were to join Sheffield, it would become an enclave (or, from Sheffield’s viewpoint, an exclave) within its former county. It would be the Nagorno-Karabakh of the east Midlands, leaving the map of Derbyshire resembling nothing so much as a Barbara Hepworth sculpture.

From a financial rather than an identity perspective, Chesterfield’s move makes a certain sort of sense. Faced with continuing financial pressures to cut, sell off or simply abandon swaths of local government services that have existed for generations, English local authorities inevitably clutch at any cash straws they can. The city regions are one of the few straws on offer. They are due to receive £30m in new funding a year and to acquire new freedoms to shape local transport, planning and economic policy.

It is hardly surprising that Chesterfield’s defection was hatched and promoted at the council level, since councillors and council officers are in the frontline of struggling with these austerity-driven realities every day. While the councils did their deal, Chesterfield and Derbyshire opinion was barely considered, the high court ruled, so it must now be properly consulted and taken into account before any decision is taken. An online poll organised by the county council in August, five months after Chesterfield decided to join Sheffield, found 92% of respondents opposed to the move.

That is almost certainly because, for all its proximity to Sheffield, there has never been any serious tradition of Chesterfield regarding itself as part of Greater Sheffield, or of Sheffield seeing Chesterfield as part of South Yorkshire. Chesterfield is today what it has always been, an important town in north-east Derbyshire, famous for the twisted spire of its St Mary’s church, and for having had Tony Benn as its MP in the later period of his parliamentary career. Its possible marriage to the Sheffield city region is overwhelmingly rooted in perceived economic advantage rather than in history or public sentiment. The high court has therefore pitted economic survival against identity and democracy.

The Chesterfield-Sheffield question is of far more than local interest. Local identity matters everywhere. It is tenacious. It runs deeper than the economic or administrative convenience of a bureaucrat’s pen. County identities are medieval in origin but they lurk on in many modern consciousnesses. Ministers mess with them at their peril.

The argument about Derbyshire has only arisen because English local government is in such a desperate state. Austerity in the 2010s is completing the centralisation of local powers begun in the 1980s. Communities like Chesterfield are reduced to scrabbling for a share of the Treasury’s parachute drop of cash to the city regions.

Ministers may talk of a new era of municipal greatness, but it is a hollow sham as long as local authorities lack effective income-raising powers. Unless and until English devolution is reconceived as regions made up from existing counties, cities and boroughs, these arguments will continue, pitting community identity and democracy against economic inequalities and distortions enforced from Whitehall.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/28/the-guardian-view-on-english-local-identities-a-clash-of-cash-against-community

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Consultation, EDDC, Exmouth, Moirai Exmouth project, Philip Skinner, Regeneration, Scrutiny, Spin, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Bay FM interview: Skinner (EDDC) v MacAllister (SES)

Louise MacAllister, Spokesperson, Save Exmouth Seafront gives her view on the contest. Owl will be happy to publish Councillor Skinner’s riposte if received:

  • SES’s core aim is for independent public consultation before any further work goes ahead on the seafront.
  • EDDC’s consultations have been inadequate.
  • Cllr Megan Armstrong’s survey that SES supported showed that a majority do not want to see wholesale development on the seafront.
  • EDDC’s incompetence around the project has led to the seafront becoming derelict.
  • The spiralling costs of the project further demonstrate the incompetence of the Exmouth Regeneration Board.
  • That the Regeneration Board meet in secret only increases frustration and as such Ms MacAllister has been trying to arrange a Q&A session with Cllr Skinner, the chair of the Exmouth Regeneration Board.
  • Cllr Skinner gatecrashed a SES meeting, this is not public engagement.

Cllr Skinner, Chair, Exmouth Regeneration Board:

  • It is a three-phase development, it’s very exciting, we should be excited!
  • Phase three is ‘open for consultation’ we may even have a hotel?!
  • Existing tenants are blamed for delays.
  • It is REALLY, REALLY EXCITING!
  • Skinner thinks they have consulted extensively but – he doesn’t know the numbers.
  • This is a SERIOUS investment (thank god it’s not a joke investment!).
  • Correction – the ‘recent consultation’ with over 1000 participants that Howard Witts mentioned is in fact the seafront survey undertaken by independent Cllr Megan Armstrong, and which the regeneration board have resolutely ignored.
  • [Seems Skinner finds it amusing that the regeneration board meets in secret as he can be heard laughing while Howard is asking him about this].
  • The Premier Inn and Ocean are apparently architecturally superior and successful, ‘raising the bar in architecture’.

Other points:

  • Everything Skinner claims about his gatecrashing of an SES meeting is untrue, he was unwelcome and people made it clear he was unwelcome. Unfortunately the meeting was not chaired well and so he was enabled to carry on despite this. He was certainly not thanked or clapped as he claims in the interview.
  • The post-march SES meeting was not an open public meeting nor was it advertised as such, it was advertised as a meeting for SES supporters.
  • Cllr Skinner does not think it is Ms MacAllister’s responsibility as SES spokesperson to say that he should hold an open public meeting. SHE AGREES! It is HIS responsibility and he alone should be held accountable for his lack of public engagement she says. As someone who represents a group seeking transparency and openness she will continue to press for this even though it is not her responsibility.

Listen to Louise MacAllister

Listen to Cllr Skinner’s Response

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Freedom of Information Act, Transparency

Has EDDC been spying on us? They won’t say

“Local councils, including Exeter and Mid Devon, have been authorised to conduct covert surveillance, a freedom of information request has revealed.

The request, sent to all local authorities in the country by the Liberal Democrats, found two-thirds of those that responded had used powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) to gather evidence.

Designed to fight terrorism and serious crime, Ripa is not supposed to be used for trivial purposes and should only be utilised if criminal activity was suspected. …

… East Devon District Council was one of those that did not respond.”

http://m.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/devon-s-councils-are-using-terrorism-powers-to-spy-on-you/story-30013983-detail/story.html

Remember Diviani telling us his Tory council would be “clean, green and seen”? Seems it remains pale, male, stale – and secretive.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Spin, Transparency

“Toshiba seeks financial help with £8bn UK nuclear project” – a knock-on for EDF/Hinkley C?

Our Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership has put almost all OUR eggs into its nuclear egg basket. Not surprising when several of its board members have direct or indirect nuclear interests.

“Toshiba, the technology company at the centre of plans to build more nuclear reactors in Britain, is looking for outside help to fund its £8bn programme after a collapse in its share price.

The Japanese group is in talks with local financial institutions to support the construction of an atomic plant near the Sellafield facility in Cumbria, after running up losses following an accounting scandal.

The emergence of Toshiba’s problems will add to worries over Britain’s nuclear plans after the French energy group EDF, which plans to build the Hinkley Point C station in Somerset, dropped out of France’s CAC 40 index of leading shares.

There is widening concern in the City about the escalating costs of huge nuclear projects, which are damaging company share valuations and undermining the government’s commitment to new nuclear at a time when it has promised to phase out coal-fired power stations.

“It has become difficult for Toshiba to do this (fund the NuGen programme in the north-west of England) on its own,” one source told Reuters, which reported that Toshiba had hired HSBC bank to help find new funds.

On Monday, the Japanese financial regulator recommended that Toshiba be fined 7.37bn yen (£40m) for overstating profits and the share price of the company is down 40% since the start of the year.

Toshiba is a 60% shareholder in the NuGen project to build 3.4 gigawatts (GW) of electricity generating capacity close to the Sellafield plant, where spent fuel is reprocessed.

Neither Toshiba nor NuGen, a partnership with Engie (formerly GDF Suez) of France, was available for comment. The cost of building three reactors designed by a Toshiba subsidiary, Westinghouse, was estimated two years ago at £8bn but experts believe that figure could have at least doubled. That is in line with the price tag for Hinkley, which EDF puts at £18bn.

The 3.2GW Somerset reactors, to be built by EDF with the help of Chinese state companies, have been given the go-ahead by the UK government but the project is awaiting the final investment decision from France.

This week EDF blamed the 85% holding by the French state and lack of free float shares for its removal from the CAC index. But many analysts in the City of London have released gloomy equity forecasts on EDF, fearing Hinkley might go over budget like the company’s Flamanville reactor project in Normandy.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/10/toshiba-seeks-financial-help-with-8bn-uk-nuclear-project

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Spin

Nuclear watchdog to be investigated by – watchdog!

“Nuclear safety watchdog under review after series of accidents

Whitehall is investigating the nuclear regulator after The Times revealed that several serious accidents had been dismissed as posing no safety risk.
The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has come under fire from experts who argue it is too close to the industry to police it rigorously.

Yesterday an investigation disclosed that the inadvertent discharge of a torpedo at a nuclear submarine docks in Plymouth, a complete power cut at the country’s nuclear weapons base and the contamination of at least 15 workers with radioactive material were among the events it had said were of no concern.

Officials at the Department for Work and Pensions, which is responsible for the ONR, are understood to be looking into whether the regulator is doing enough to keep the country’s reactors, nuclear processing sites and military bases safe.

Although the number of publicly acknowledged accidents has been stable for more than a decade, the rate of incidents judged to be “of no nuclear safety significance” has crept up to more than one a day over the last five years.

Between 2012 and 2015 these included three road accidents involving nuclear material, a dozen leaks and at least 30 fires as well as 70 anomalies on the Atomic Weapons Establishment site at Aldermaston near Reading.

The ONR has said that all of its safety classifications followed international guidelines and insisted that it remained a robust and independent regulator.

Nuclear experts, however, called on the government to launch a review. Stephen Thomas, emeritus professor of energy policy at the University of Greenwich, said the news had reinforced his suspicions that “the first priority for the ONR is not to frighten the horses”.

He said the body had previously ignored warnings about the safety of extending the lifespan of the AGR, an old reactor design that is still in use at seven sites in the UK, as well as the reliability of the newer EPR model, the latest version of which is due to be installed at Hinkley Point C.

“Ironically, since they became an independent body rather than being part of the Health and Safety Executive [in 2014], they seem to have got worse,” Professor Thomas said. “Independence is just a cheap and easy way for government to wash its hands of its rightful responsibility.

“Independent regulators must be accountable to the public and if it is not through a democratically elected government, who is it through?”

Earlier this year the ONR appointed as its chief executive a career civil servant with no background in nuclear engineering. David Toke, reader in energy politics at the University of Aberdeen and a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group, said this suggested that nuclear safety issues were a “low priority” for the organisation.

“Of course there should be more attention to this issue and a discussion about whether the de facto slide towards less nuclear safety in the UK is a good one,” he said.”

© Times Newspapers Limited 2016

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

Sellafield nuclear power workers’ pension fight puts all plants at risk of strikes

Yet another problem for our beleaguered Local Enterprise Partnership?

“Serious industrial unrest” at Europe’s biggest nuclear site could threaten the Conservatives’ chances of winning a forthcoming byelection, unions have warned.

The byelection in the marginal Cumbrian seat of Copeland has been described as “Theresa May’s to lose”.

But the Conservative candidate hoping to overturn Labour’s 2,564 majority will have to explain to thousands of workers at the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing site why the government is trying to downgrade their final-salary pension scheme.

Trade unions representing many of Sellafield’s 10,000 workers have written to the government warning they cannot support either of the options being considered.

The Guardian has seen a letter sent shortly before Christmas to Lady Neville-Rolfe, minister of state at the business department. It comes from the Prospect union, which represents more than 5,000 Sellafield engineers and specialists.

The letter, signed by Prospect’s deputy general secretary, Dai Hudd, on behalf of his union, the GMB, Unite and Aslef, tells the minister “serious industrial unrest” cannot be ruled out by workers employed by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.

The NDA is the public body that owns Sellafield, a huge site in Copeland that processes nuclear waste from the old Windscale nuclear power station, where a fire in 1957 caused the UK’s worst nuclear accident.

It says: “Employees across the NDA estate fought hard to secure the statutory pension protections that currently apply. There will be an understandable adverse reaction with any proposals that trample over those protections.

“They will certainly not respond well to a raid on their pension benefits intended to achieve arbitrary savings agreed between the NDA and the Treasury, and agreement to which the workforce and their representatives played no part.

“If the NDA proceeds with its proposed consultation in its current form there will inevitably be a significant reaction from the members affected. The likelihood of serious industrial unrest cannot be ruled out. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/28/sellafield-tory-conservative-byelection-cumbria-unions-copeland

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Audit (EDDC), Austerity cuts, Councillor Cathy Gardner EDA, Developers/ Development, East Devon Alliance, EDDC, Exmouth, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, PegasusLife, Scrutiny, Spin

East Devon Alliance: EDDC relocation “at any cost”

“East Devon District Council (EDDC) is leaving Sidmouth for new premises in Honiton and a renovated Exmouth Town Hall.

The latter is now vacant, but it will need work including a new boiler, rewiring and the removal of asbestos – renovations now estimated at £1,669,000, up from £1million in March 2015. [Mostly caused by EDDC doing their estimates and announcing projected estimated costs before commissioning a full structural survey which revealed nuerous expensive essential upgrades such as wiring, heating and insulation]

EDDC cabinet members last week agreed to accelerate the refurbishment so some key staff can relocate as early as November 2017.

Councillor Cathy Gardner told the Herald: “This truly is relocation at any price, because council tax payers will pick up the bill.”

The cabinet meeting heard that a new planning application to redevelop EDDC’s current HQ Knowle could be six months away or more after it refused PegasusLife’s bid for a 113-home retirement community earlier this month. The developer is yet to reveal if it will appeal the decision but the £7.5million it offered was intended to help fund the authority’s £9.2million [at the last estimate] relocation project.

Cllr Gardner said the project was initially sold to councillors as ‘cost neutral’ but is now costing taxpayers ‘over £2million and counting’ and cash will have to be borrowed. [This does not take into account building new offices for the EDDC Estates Department at Sidmouth’s Manstone Depot]

She added: “Proceeding with the refurbishment of Exmouth Town Hall weakens the bargaining position of the council with any purchaser of the Knowle – they know that the council is desperate to secure a sale.

“The cabinet approved this extra cost for Exmouth Town Hall without seeing an up-to-date report on the budget for the project overall. They have approved an increase in ignorance of the total costs.”

An EDDC spokeswoman said: “The council remains committed to relocating the rest of its staff into fit-for-purpose offices as soon as possible, despite the recent planning application for Knowle being rejected. The current budget and income projections for the overall project – taking into account both Exmouth and Heathpark – remain balanced. The council has a continued and reasonable expectation that relocation from Knowle will show significant savings compared to remaining in Sidmouth.

“The financial case will be tested again, as it was in March 2015 when the council decided to relocate.”

The decision was ratified at a full council meeting on Wednesday.”

http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk/in-the-press/20161228/sidmouth-herald-claims-eddc-is-relocating-from-sidmouth-at-any-cost/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Hugo Swire, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Spin

“‘Cameron’s Cronies’ backlash: Nominated peers could have to prove they have ‘record of significant achievement’ “

(Un)fortunately, this will not include Hugo Swire – Cameron’s Old Etonian contemporary and holiday companion – who was only given a knighthood. OK for impressing social climbers but offering no further political influence.

“Theresa May’s ethics adviser has suggested aides and party donors nominated for peerages should be forced to prove their suitability in the wake of the ‘Cameron’s Cronies’ scandal.

Lord Bew, chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, told The Telegraph the idea of putting political appointments through rigorous interviews should be considered.

The crossbench peer said his committee was “very interested” in tighter safeguards to ensure that only those suitable to enter the House of Lords are picked.

However he warned that peers selected by the Prime Minister should not face identical criteria to those picked for the crossbench and said parties must be consulted on any change.

The reforms – which would amount to the biggest shake-up in the selection of peers for a generation – have been gaining traction in Parliament in recent weeks. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/27/camerons-cronies-backlash-nominated-peers-could-have-prove-have/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Spin, Transparency

Bend those rules till they break, Mrs May – get YOUR cronies into top jobs

“Theresa May’s government has been accused of changing the rules on public appointments to make it easier in future for ministers to pick their political allies for senior jobs at the BBC and regulators such as Ofsted.

The new code on public appointments will give ministers greater powers over who oversees a raft of agencies, watchdogs and advisory committees, while weakening the involvement of the independent commissioner for public appointments, who scrutinises the system.

Labour said the changes, which will come into force on 1 January, represent a “power grab” by ministers and risk returning to the days of patronage and cronyism in public life.

Ministers have always had the final say over appointments to senior public sector jobs, advised by a panel that shortlists “appointable” people. However, independent assessors, chosen by the commissioner to oversee the most important competitions, will be abolished in favour of independent senior panel members picked by ministers.

Labour warns of return to cronyism amid public appointments review
The members will have to be independent of the departments and not currently politically active, but the commissioner will only have a consultative role.

Ministers will also be able to overrule the panel by choosing candidates not deemed to be appointable and have the right to dispense with an open competition without the permission of the commissioner, although they will have to consult with the watchdog and openly justify the decision. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/27/government-accused-power-grab-new-public-appointment-rules-bbc-ofsted

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

Comments

1 Comment

Hinkley C safety – can it be guaranteed? Who will guard the nuclear guards?

“The watchdog that oversees nuclear safety has been accused of playing down the seriousness of hundreds of serious mistakes at power plants and military bases.

The Office for Nuclear Regulation [ONR] is responsible for the regulation of safety at nuclear sites and grades incidents with an International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) score.

Between 2012 and March 2015, the ONR gave 973 incidents a score of ‘zero’ – meaning there had been ‘no nuclear or radiological safety significance.’
This included an incident where a vehicle carrying nuclear material on the M1 hit a lorry and instances where workers at the main nuclear warhead base at Aldermaston in Berkshire were contaminated.

The ONR only issued an INES score of one – which amounts to ‘minor problems with safety components’ – 90 times during the same period. … “

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4068010/Nuclear-safety-watchdog-downplayed-hundreds-mistakes-including-road-crashes-involving-vehicles-carrying-radioactive-material-fires-power-stations.html

How will our Local Enterprise Partnership resolve this one – with so many of its board having conflicts of interest with their own nuclear interests!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, AONB, Audit (EDDC), Developers/ Development, EDDC, Graham Brown, Land Supply, Local Plan, Philip Skinner

AONB – pah, build, build, build!

“A loophole in planning rules is allowing developers to build housing estates in England’s finest countryside.

Ministers are waving through applications for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) despite promising to protect them.

The High Weald in Sussex, the North Wessex Downs and the Cotswolds are among the protected areas being built on.

Six hundred homes, a hospice and a school were approved last month near Pease Pottage in the High Weald despite objections from Natural England, the government’s advisory body on protecting the natural environment.

Campaigners said that the rules were being swept aside in the rush to meet housing targets. Ministers are threatening councils with a “presumption” in favour of development unless they allocate enough land.”

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/protected-beauty-spots-are-sacrificed-to-build-houses-tw2jjrk5r

Recall that, when EDDC dragged out its Local Plan process for years and years (abandoning the first secret attempts run by Councillors Brown and Skinner and starting again) developers had a free run in East Devon.

Should we find that we do NOT have a 5 year land supply when the Local Plan comes up for review (due every 5 years so we should be starting now) then, presumably, that will happen all over again.

Recently (November 2016) EDDC brought up the idea of external auditors being consultants for the review, but the auditors themselves quickly pointed out that they had no experience in such projects and it should be led by an organisation with proper expertise:

“Problem (page 134 of agenda papers):
“Undertake a Review of the process for writing the Local Plan in future”

The solution
“A meeting has been held with our external auditors to scope out this review but it was quickly determined that they are not the right people to undertake this review due to their lack of knowledge of the plan making process. Other options including using the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) are now being pursued.”

Click to access 241116-scrutiny-agenda-combined.pdf

Things seem to have gone quiet again since then, with no public announcement of a new consulting organisation.

Questions: Shouldn’t external auditors anyway be at “arms length” from council business? Which bright spark thought of offering them the job?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Exmouth, Moirai Exmouth project

The Swindon connection: Torquay United, Gaming International – and Moirai Capital

Owl sees that south Devon football team Torquay United have been taken over by Gaming International, a Swindon-based company thought to be keen to extract value from the development of their ground, Plainmoor. The freehold is owned by the local authority.

Moirai Capital of Exmouth fame/notoriety are also Swindon based. And have some interesting links with Gaming International, including the ill-fated Milton Keynes Bowl:

http://www.mkdevelopmentpartnership.co.uk/news/2015/aug/removal-preferred-bidder-status-moirai/

http://totalmk.co.uk/news/regret-that-development-plans-for-the-national-bowl-have-stalled

It’s been a tough time for Torquay fans recently … and they have their worries about their new owners:

“Torquay supporters are aware of Gaming International’s record at Reading and Swindon with respect to stadium redevelopment. There have been several online discussions amongst our supporters, the most recent being:

​http://torquayfans.c….php?f=3&t=8858

http://ww​w.torquayfansforum.co.uk/thread/11946/tufc-takeover-bid-gaming-international”

and a fan notes:

The man behind this company Clarke Osborne has now set up a new company “Riviera Stadium Limited”.

Gaming International Limited was once known as Bristol Stadium PLC.

Clarke Osborne was a director of Bristol Stadium PLC when Bristol Rovers could no longer afford to pay them the rent in 1986. Rovers were forced to play in exile in Bath for ten years.

Osborne was Chief Executive of Bristol Stadium PLC when Eastville was sold to Ikea for £19m. There were promises that a new greyhound site would be found in Bristol – but it did not happen. I think Reading has suffered a similar fate.

I am sure that the new owners will lend the football club enough money to keep those fans who don’t look beyond the end of their nose happy for a couple of years. My fear is that the day will come when they will want everything they lend back plus a return on investment. They are not fans and they are not a charity.”

http://www.torquayfansforum.co.uk/thread/11946/tufc-takeover-bid-gaming-international

but surely such illustrious connections can only make things, er, better?

According to BBC website:

“There has been talk of the club leaving their Plainmoor home for a new ground on the outskirts of the town, a plan which the Torquay United Supporters’ Trust has questioned.

“With GI, our biggest concern is that they are a property developer, they have very little interest in football apparently and they have very little connection with Torquay as a place,” TUST spokesman Alan Robinson told BBC Sport.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38383226

Might we see Gaming International in Exmouth some time soon? Stranger things, much stranger things, have happened!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Exeter City Council, Greater Exeter

CEO of Greater Exeter (and former Regeneration supremo for East Devon looks forward to 2017

Karime Hassan:

” … “2017 will see us continuing to try to achieve a growth deal for Exeter. In collaboration with partners we are also going to be consulting on a Greater Exeter Strategic Plan. For the first time this will see four local authorities coming together to help shape things for the benefit of all for the next 20 years. … “

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/2017-is-full-of-promise-read-exeter-city-council-chief-executive-s-christmas-message/story-30009328-detail/story.html

Oh dear.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Tim Jones

Totnes resident objects to planning application due to LEP board member involvement

Response to the resubmission of planning application 0412/15/F Brimhay by SDRHA.

Community, Consultation and Land

We strongly object to this application on the following grounds:

” … 2/ This application cannot be considered in an unbiased way for the following reasons.

This application was developed under the authority of Tim Jones, in his position as director in charge of property at Dartington Hall Trust. Tim Jones, or the Heart of the South West L.E.P., has not publicly disclosed any relationship or links to this Brimhay application.

Tim Jones was a founder, chairman and is a current a director or the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership. In this role he oversees creation of plans for “devolution” of powers to Devon County Council and South Hams District Council. In this position, Mr Jones has significant influence over both councils and their officers. In his other roles as major property developer, financer, founder and controller of Devon and Cornwall Business Council, vice chair of PACB, prominent with the chamber of commerce as well active in a number of non-transparent organisations, he exerts yet more influence. These influence are not disclosed, transparent, or accountable in this application.

The HOSW LEP documentation repeatedly states that they wish to “overcome barriers to planning”. However they do not give details on which barriers or how they intend to overcome them. Barriers to planning include local communities wishes, protected species laws, and environmental protection laws, and quotas for lower cost housing, to name but a few.

Therefore, due to the above mentioned, this application cannot be considered by officers in this council in an unbiased way. …”.

Awkward.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, EDDC, Exmouth, Regeneration

Comments

1 Comment

Exmouthians and the recent full council meeting – not happy …

Reports say …

Laura Freeman accused them of letting the people of Exmouth who voted in Town Poll and the March down. She promised they would see more action until they listened.

Sally Galsworthy said that East Devon strap line was “an area of outstanding natural beauty”. Yet they wanted to destroy the natural beauty of the Seafront. She said they ran the risk of building a road to nowhere that was now costing over £3m. She said they couldn’t be sure that Mark Dixon would stay the course. He was a rich man in his prime why would he want to be associated with incompetence, bad PR and spiralling costs? She said as someone who was born and bred in the town and whose parents and grandparents had businesses in the town she understood the temperament well. Exmouth likes to grumble but rarely takes action. She congratulated the council that they had managed to get nearly 5000 people to vote in the Poll and 400 to March. That they might well find if Dixon dropped out, they had built a road to nowhere.

Alex Huett reminded the Council when the Regeneration Board was set up in 2010 their main target was to regenerate the Town and the town was enthusiastic. Queens Drive was never mentioned.

Oh dear … and more than 2 years to go before people can show what they think by their votes …

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Development Management Committee, EDDC, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation

Lost at Knowle … are there bodies buried in the “old” building?

Word reaches Owl that at December 21’s meeting of EDDC, Sidmouth resident Tony Green quizzed Chief Executive Mark Williams about comments made by a member of the crucial planning committee on December 6th which narrowly refused permission for Pegasus Life’s application for 113 apartments on the Knowle site.

Mr Green said impartiality was essential when councillors considered planning applications, especially ones in which the council had a vested interest.

This was clearly the case on December 6th, as the progress of the Council’s relocation project depended on planning permission being granted. But the council’s wishes should not have been a material consideration at this meeting, argued Mr Green, and so should not have been mentioned.

He said he was “surprised” that a veteran member of the DMC (the finger of suspicion points at Tory Cllr Mark Williamson) had commented that the existing Knowle offices were “not fit for purpose” and had gone on to tell a joke about people getting lost for years in the old hotel building.

The comments, and the fact that the councillor went on to vote against refusal, created the impression of bias said Mr Green.

He then asked the CEO:

1. Did he agree that the relocation project was not a material planning consideration on December 6th?
2. Would Mr Williams agree to caution planning committee members not to refer to it at any future meeting to determine an application to develop the Knowle site?

Neither question was answered. The reply was that, in Mr Williams’ experience, councillors said many things in planning meetings, some of which were “germane”! This, of course, implies that some are not – in which case, why make such comments.

Surprise! Surprise!

P.S. Avid followers of the long and winding road of the relocation project may remember that Cllr Williamson was Chair of the planning committee of March 1 2013 which refused the Council’s own application to develop the Knowle with 50 luxury houses.

He was criticised at the time for making disobliging comments about Sidmouth’s “dependence” on Council jobs, and other hints that he was biased in favour of the application. He voted for it.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Andrew Moulding, Bovis, Cranbrook, Developers/ Development, EDDC

Comments

1 Comment

Axminster and Cranbrook – slums of the future says Councillor Hull whilst Councillor Moulding says – nothing

At EDDC’s full Council Meeting on 21 December, venerable Axminster Lib Dem councillor Douglas Hull asked members to support a statement criticising the standards of the big national housebuilders.

He said the “little boxes” they were building in places like Axminster and Cranbrook were so appalling that they were creating “the slums of the future”

He circulated a local newspaper story of a young Axminster couple whose new purchase was so “ticky tacky” as to be virtually uninhabitable.

There was some tut tutting and the Chief Executive stepped in to say he would write to the offending companies, and Douglas was very grateful.

Interesting that Tory Axminster councillor Andrew Moulding had nothing to say about the problem.

But then he is a guiding light in Cloakham Lawns Social and Sports Club which has very cordial relations with Bovis!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing

Social housing lettings cut by 22,000 in past two years

Genuinely social housing requires little or no housing benefit subsidy for those in work. “Affordable housing” usually requires a larger housing benefit subsidy – paid to the landlord.

“More evidence of the challenges facing those seeing social housing. This story tells us: Councils and housing associations are letting nearly 22,000 fewer homes for social rent each year than they were two years ago, the latest Government figures show.

A statistical release put out by the Department for Communities and Local Government shows there were 261,163 social lettings by housing associations and 113,449 by councils in 2015/16 compared to 270,659 and 125,812 respectively in 2013/14.

The cut in genuinely affordable homes comes after a period of sustained cut in funding for building such dwellings, with grant funding for social rents all but abolished. The Government has also beefed up its Right To Buy scheme which has seen a sell-off of council housing to the private sector across the country.

Ministers have been directing house building funding towards building so-called “affordable” homes, which in fact cost tenants as much as 80 per cent of market rent; as well as discounted “starter” and shared ownership homes for people to buy.”

Source: Rural Services Network

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy

Comments

1 Comment

Ukip fined by EU for election expenses scandal – no sign of Tories in UK being settled

So, that’s Labour, Lib Dems and Ukip sorted (and even an independent candidate fined by the Electoral Commission for forgetting to put an imprint (“published by”) on one leaflet).

Tory election voting scandal that was the first to be reported and includes investigation of our Police and Crime Commissioner?

Zilch, nada, nothing. Funny that.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Exmouth, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Mark Williams CEO EDDC, PegasusLife, Richard Cohen

Save our Sidmouth report on council flagrant and reckless overspending on relocation

“Richard Thurlow, who Chaired Save Our Sidmouth from the beginning, and is currently Chair of the Sid Vale Association’s Environment and Planning Committee, gave this speech to Full Council last night. He received no response to the issues he raised. Along with those of other speakers, they were neatly brushed under the carpet by the Mark Williams. Although all wrapped up in time for Christmas, so to say, these issues will inevitably be reopened and on view throughout the New Year.

This is what Richard Thurlow said:

” The first cost estimate for Exmouth Town Hall (ETH) in March 2015 was £0.96m. The report to council said “The proposal to refurbish ETH has been tested and supported by independent analysis”!!

The second cost estimate was £ 1.261m

The latest cost is £1.669m.

Thus in 18 months the cost has risen by about £700k, a rise of 70% over the original estimate, and it is now more than the cost for the refurbishment of the Knowle which was £1.566m.

To the estimate of £1.669m must be added, fitting out, moving costs, staff reimbursement for travel and inconvenience, (for three years), etc, probably nearer £2m.

Your Deputy Chief Executive has persuaded Cabinet to underwrite a spend of £1.669m without adequate rationale; there are NO reasons given in his Report other than a wish to occupy ETH more quickly; no economic breakdown, no total cost, no assessments of the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal which would have enabled you to base your decision on facts.
The project is out of control.

I say this based on my experience over 40 years on projects worldwide in a major Building and Civil Engineering Consultancy. I have seen a few dodgy projects in that time and this is one of them!

If you support the proposal, I have to say that this will come back to haunt you!”

EDDC relocation has hallmarks of a “dodgy project”, Full Council is advised.