Freedom of Information requests to East Devon District Council on the whatdotheyknow website:
“EDDC policy and guidance on conducting public consultations
Response by East Devon District Council to tim todd on 23 March 2016.
Information not held.
Request for information that supports ‘success’ claims made by Cllr Moulding (Premier Inn)
Response by East Devon District Council to tim todd on 29 April 2016.
Information not held.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/east_devon_district_council
Hugo Swire has put nothing on his MP web page since a very lukewarm response to East Devon bed closures on 22 September, after which he was made Chairman of the Conservative Middle East Council.
He has done 19 tweets since then: 10 on national or international issues and 9 on local issues – including 5 retweets from other sources.
His three latest (written) questions to Parliament were all about penalties for using mobile phones whilst driving:
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?pid=11265&pop=1#n4
According to his official MP page his wife, who is his paid assistant at £35,000-£39,999 pa, does his website and press releases, though we don’t know if she also does any of his tweets:
http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/exclusive_hugo_swire_mp_in_the_herald_s_hot_seat_1_452145
Perhaps his wife is on holiday.
“The net operating costs of the House of Lords in 2013-4 were £93.1m, approximately equivalent to £118,000 per Peer. So whilst on the basis of allowances and expenses, an additional 100 Peers would cost almost £2.6m, this is likely an underestimate of their true costs. 24 Aug 2015″
A VERY easy thing for Mrs May to fix. Will she fix it?
“The growing size of the House of Lords has become increasingly controversial. Under David Cameron’s premiership, membership rose from just over 700 members to well beyond 800 in just six years, and he appointed to the chamber at a faster rate than any other prime minister since life peerages began (see page 13 here for figures to 2015). Both the Lords’ size and rate of appointments have frequently attracted fierce press criticism. Public figures expressing concern in recent months have included the Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Lord Bew, and the outgoing Lord Speaker, Baroness D’Souza.
Just in case Prime Minister Theresa May was in doubt about the strength of feeling on this issue, the incoming Lord Speaker Lord (Norman) Fowler began his term by strongly speaking out for change. Fowler was formerly a cabinet minister under Margaret Thatcher, and party chairman under John Major, so has significant gravitas in Conservative circles. In a BBC interview on 16 September he suggested ‘that by the next election, [the Lords] should be at a number that is just less than the House of Commons’, emphasising how the current situation is damaging to parliament’s reputation. A particularly sensitive contextual issue is that the Commons is itself due to shrink in 2020, from 650 MPs to 600, under the government’s proposed boundary changes. In an interview for the House Magazine (reproduced on Politics Home) Fowler commented that ‘I don’t think that we can justify a situation where you have over 800 peers at the same time as you’re bringing down the Commons to 600 MPs’. Conservative chair of the House of Commons Procedure Committee Charles Walker has gone further, suggesting that getting the Lords below 600 should be made a condition for voting the boundary changes through. A cross-party group of peers is pressing for the Lords to vote on the principle of being no larger than the Commons in the near future (notably the UK is the only bicameral country in the world where the second chamber is larger than the first). Conservative chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Bernard Jenkin, has meanwhile asked his committee to launch an inquiry into Lords numbers and appointments.
So this appears to be a reform whose time has come. But the key question is how best to reduce from 800+ members to 600. To succeed, any such reduction must be both sustainable and seen to be fair. Here I argue that this requires four interconnected things: a large number of departures before 2020, a long-term cap on the size of the House, limitations on future appointments, and an agreed principle of balance between the parties (and other groups). Without all four, any attempted reform is doomed to fail.”
Aw, come on, since when did some MPs (and others in positions of influence nearer home) keep to the rules when extra money was on offer? They will say there is no conflict and blithely carry on – unless they get caught in a sting, of course.
“MPs will be forced to drop lucrative outside jobs if they “conflict” with their jobs serving their constituents, according to a proposed new code of conduct.
The MPs’ second jobs will be scrutinised by the Parliamentary standards watchdog for the first time in a major crackdown on politicians’ lucrative work away from the House of Commons.
A new code of conduct will require MPs to ensure that any outside work “does not conflict” with their day jobs representing constituents in Parliament.
The change in the rules – which are still to be approved by MPs – will radically cut back the amount of time MPs will be allowed to spend away from their constituents.
It could also make it easier for the Standards Commissioner Kathryn Hudson to stop MPs using their positions to win paid consultancy work outside the House of Commons.
An undercover investigation last year by the Telegraph found Jack Straw and Sir Malcolm Rifkind had offered to use their positions as MPs to win contracts. However they were cleared of wrongdoing by Mrs Hudson.
The new code of conduct for MPs proposes an additional rule, which have been introduced following “recent changes to other rules or issues that have become apparent during investigations”.
It says: “A member who undertakes outside employment must ensure that it does not conflict with his or her responsibilities under the Code of Conduct.”
The new draft code – the first for four years – has been signed off by members of the House of Commons standards committee ahead if a six week consultation.
It comes after a study last year from Transparency International found that scores of MPs are being paid millions of pounds a year for outside jobs.
The research found that 73 MPs were paid £3.4million in the past 12 months for “external advisory roles”, including in some cases board positions.
Tommy Sheppard, a member of the committee, said: “Most members of the public will take umbrage when MPs suggest doing this job is not a full time, or your principle, job.
“You should not be doing this on a part time basis; it is a full time wage and if you are doing the job properly it is well more than a 40 hour week.
“There needs to be some clarity in the system that when you are elected as an MP it is expected that it is a full time job and you do it on a full time basis.”
Mr Sheppard said the new presumption would be that MPs “usually” should not take second jobs but there could be exceptions such as for medical professionals or doctors.
He said: “There needs to be some a limit on any outside employment, either by remuneration or by hours undertaken. So that the second job is clearly seen as secondary.
“There are people in this place who in terms of remuneration it would be hard to describe this any anything other than a part time job.”
Mr Sheppard said that the change to the code – which is open to comment from members of the public until November 30 – could be expanded to include MPs who are accused of using their positions to try to consultancy work.
Last year a Telegraph investigation showed how Sir Malcolm and Mr Straw had offered to use their positions as politicians on behalf of a fictitious Chinese company in return for at least £5,000 a day while they were MPs.
Mrs Hudson cleared Sir Malcolm and Mr Straw of wrongdoing”
A pro-leave Tory MP has applied for an urgent debate on Brexit in an attempt to prevent the government from negotiating the terms for leaving the EU without consulting parliament.
Stephen Phillips, who voted to leave in the referendum, said the government appeared intent on negotiating “without any regard to the House of Commons” in a way that was “fundamentally undemocratic, unconstitutional and cuts across the rights and privileges of the legislature”.
Phillips said: “I and many others did not exercise our vote in the referendum so as to restore the sovereignty of this parliament only to see what we regarded as the tyranny of the European Union replaced by that of a government that apparently wishes to ignore the views of the house on the most important issue facing the nation.”
Phillips said he voted to leave for reasons of restoring sovereignty but was not a supporter of the official leave campaign.
The barrister, a member of the public accounts committee, said it was apparent after the Conservative party conference that the government had no intention of consulting parliament about its negotiating aims, and this was “simply not an acceptable way for the executive to proceed”.
He said Theresa May’s government had “no authority or mandate to adopt a negotiating position without reference to the wishes of the house and those of the British people expressed through their elected representatives”.
He has written to the Speaker, John Bercow, to request the urgent debate for this week, which will be ruled on later on Monday.
Asked about Phillips’s comments, the prime minister’s spokesman said it was absolutely necessary for MPs to scrutinise the process of leaving the EU but that MPs should not be given a vote on the package negotiated.
He said: “Parliament is of course going to debate and scrutinise that process as it goes on. That is absolutely necessary and the right thing to do. But having a second vote, or a vote to second-guess the will of the British people, is not an acceptable way forward.”
There appears to be growing disquiet among MPs – both from the leave and remain camps – about the government’s decision to press ahead with triggering article 50, which starts the two-year “divorce process”, without consulting parliament about the kind of relationship the UK should have with the EU in the future.
Phillips’s application for the debate was in addition to former Labour leader Ed Miliband’s unsuccessful request for an urgent question on the issue in the Commons. Instead of the question, David Davis, the Brexit secretary, is due to give a statement on plans to repeal the European Communities Act 1972.
[Ed] ….Miliband told the Observer: “Having claimed that the referendum was about returning sovereignty to Britain, it would be a complete outrage if May were to determine the terms of Brexit without a mandate from parliament.
“There is no mandate for a ‘hard Brexit’, and I don’t believe there is a majority in parliament for [it] either. Given the importance of these decisions for the UK economy … it has to be a matter for MPs.”
Nick Clegg, the former Liberal Democrat leader, said: “My great worry is that while there will be a vote on repealing the 1972 European Communities Act, which is about the decision to leave the EU, it will be left to the executive alone to decide the terms of Brexit. That would not be remotely acceptable.”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/10/tory-mp-anna-soubry-concerned-rush-hard-brexit
Two articles below from the Rural Services network are essentially telling the same story: it’s too expensive to fund rural communities (particularly health and social care for older people) so let’s increase densities in towns and persuade people to live there instead.
What seems to be the message is “build it and they will come” – but who will come and why?
If you have no primary school, no doctor, no bus service in your rural village are you expected to up sticks and move to a town or city where housing density increases and these services are supposedly more easily accessed and where transport is supposedly better?
Very little of the new housing in towns and cities is affordable or built for low-income families or pensioners. Infrastructure is not being built to service the new houses (roads in Cranbrook are still unadopted) and doctors are stretched to their limit with current patients.
Community hospitals are likely to be closed in half of our towns, so, in a deepest rural area you will actually probably be closer to a community hospital than if you live in a town – if you have a car. Maternity services will be non-existent for rural parents.
What would persuade rural dwellers to move to towns where facilities are just as bad as in their villages? People who CHOSE a village carefully in the first place?
And how would those villages survive if they COULD and did move? Only the rich will soon be able to afford rural living (where no access to a “transport hub” or a school or a doctor will not worry them) and ordinary rural families and older people on average incomes will be forced into inadequate town and city properties whether they like it or not.
And why, if this IS the way of the world, is there still so much pressure to build more and more houses in these small villages?
Is this really the answer to our problems?
Cranbrook or Uplyme? Honiton or West Hill?
Soon you may have no choice.
Talking Heads, “Road to Nowhere”:
“Road To Nowhere”
Well we know where we’re goin’
But we don’t know where we’ve been
And we know what we’re knowin’
But we can’t say what we’ve seen
And we’re not little children
And we know what we want
And the future is certain
Give us time to work it out
We’re on a road to nowhere
Come on inside
Takin’ that ride to nowhere
We’ll take that ride
I’m feelin’ okay this mornin’
And you know,
We’re on the road to paradise
Here we go, here we go
[CHORUS]
Maybe you wonder where you are
I don’t care
Here is where time is on our side
Take you there…take you there
We’re on a road to nowhere
We’re on a road to nowhere
We’re on a road to nowhere
There’s a city in my mind
Come along and take that ride
and it’s all right, baby, it’s all right
And it’s very far away
But it’s growing day by day
And it’s all right, baby, it’s all right
They can tell you what to do
But they’ll make a fool of you
And it’s all right, baby, it’s all right
We’re on a road to nowhere.”
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/talkingheads/roadtonowhere.html
Our own rich MPs (of all parties) hide their personal wealth by putting it in “blind trusts” for the duration of their parliamentary careers, supposedly not offering their “advice” on how the money is invested …. yeah, right!
“… Donald Trump is offering himself as president of a country whose federal income taxes he gives every appearance of dodging. He says he is fit to be commander in chief, after avoiding giving a cent more than he could towards the wages of the troops who must fight for him. He laments an America where “our roads and bridges are falling apart, our airports are in third world condition and 43 million Americans are on food stamps”, while striving tirelessly to avoid paying for one pothole to be mended or mouth to be filled.
Men’s lies reveal more about them than their truths. For years, Trump promoted the bald, racist lie that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and, as an unAmerican, was disqualified from holding the presidency. We should have guessed then. We should have known that Trump’s subconscious was trying to hide the fact that he was barely an American citizen at all.
He would not contribute to his country or play his part in its collective endeavours. Like a guest in a hotel who runs off leaving the bill, Trump wanted to enjoy the room service without paying for the room. You should never lose your capacity to be shocked, especially in 2016 when the shocking has become commonplace. The New York Times published a joint piece last week by former White House ethics advisers – one to George W Bush and one to Barack Obama, so no one could accuse the paper of bias. They were stunned.
No president would have nominated Trump for public office, they said. If one had, “explaining to the senate and to the American people how a billionaire could have a $916m ‘loss carry-forward’ that potentially allowed him to not pay taxes for perhaps as long as 18 years would have been far too difficult for the White House when many hard-working Americans turn a third or more of their earnings over to the government”.
Trump’s bragging about the humiliations he inflicts on women is shocking. Trump’s oxymoronic excuses about his “fiduciary duty” to his businesses to pay as little personal tax as he could are shocking. (No businessman has a corporate “fiduciary duty” to enrich himself rather than his company.) Never let familiarity dilute your contempt.
And yey, looked at from another angle, Trump is not so shocking. You may be reading this piece online after clicking on a Facebook link. If you are in Britain, the profits from the adverts Facebook hits you with will be logged in Ireland, which required Facebook to pay a mere €3.4m in corporate taxes last year on revenues of €4.83bn . If you are reading on an Apple device, Apple has booked $214.9bn offshore to avoid $65.4bn in US taxes. They are hardly alone. One recent American study found that 367 of the Fortune 500 operate one or more subsidiaries in tax havens.
Trump may seem a grotesque and alien figure, but his values are all around you. The Pepsi in your hand, the iPhone in your pocket, the Google search engine you load and the Nike trainers you put on your feet come from a tax-exempt economy, which expects you to pick up the bills.
The short answer to Conservatives who say “their behaviour is legal” is that it is a scandal that it is legal. The long answer is to invite them to look at the state of societies where Trumpian economics have taken hold. If they live in Britain or America, they should not have to look far.
The story liberal capitalism tells itself is heroic. Bloated incumbent businesses are overthrown by daring entrepreneurs. They outwit the complacent and blundering old firms and throw them from their pinnacles. They let creative destruction rip through the economy and bring new products and jobs with it.
If that justification for free-market capitalism was ever true, it is not true now. The free market in tax, it turns out, allows firms to move offshore and leave stagnant economies behind. Giant companies are no longer threatened by buccaneering entrepreneurs and innovative small businesses. Indeed, they don’t appear to be threatened by anyone.
The share of nominal GDP generated by the Fortune 100 biggest American companies rose from 33% of GDP in 1994 to 46% in 2013, the Economist reported. Despite all the fuss about tech entrepreneurship, the number of startups is lower than at any time since the late 1970s. More US companies now die than are born.
For how can small firms, which have to pay tax, challenge established giants that move their money offshore? They don’t have lobbyists. They can’t use a small part of their untaxed profits to make the campaign donations Google and the other monopolistic firms give to keep the politicians onside.
John Lewis has asked our government repeatedly how it can be fair to charge the partnership tax while allowing its rival Amazon to run its business through Luxembourg. A more pertinent question is why any government desperate for revenue would want a system that gave tax dodgers a competitive advantage.
What applies to businesses applies to individuals. The tax take depends as much on national culture as the threat of punishment, on what economists call “tax morale”.
No one likes paying taxes, but in northern European and North American countries most thought that they should pay them. Maybe I have lived a sheltered life, but I have no more heard friends discuss how they cheat the taxman than I have heard them discuss how they masturbate. If they cheat, they keep their dirty secrets to themselves. Let tax morale collapse, let belief in the integrity of the system waver, however, and states become like Greece, where everyone who can evade tax does.
The surest way to destroy morale is to make the people who pay taxes believe that the government is taking them for fools by penalising them while sparing the wealthy.
Theresa May promised at the Conservative party conference that “however rich or powerful – you have a duty to pay your tax”.
I would have been more inclined to believe her if she had promised, at this moment of asserting sovereignty, to close the British sovereign tax havens of the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Bermuda and the British Virgin and Cayman Islands.
But let us give the new PM time to prove herself. If she falters, she should consider this. Revenue & Customs can only check 4% of self-assessment tax returns. If the remaining 96% decide that if Trump and his kind can cheat, they can cheat too, she would not be able to stop them.• Comments will be opened later
MP Hugo Swire has employed his wife Alexandra (Sasha) at a salary of between £30,000-£39,995 a year for many years.
Has anyone ever seen Mrs Swire or spoken to her in a parliamentary rather than political or personal capacity? If so, it would be great to know.
“MPs who hire their wives and children as staff will be made to prove they are the best candidate available, the new head of the expenses watchdog has indicated.
In her first interview in the job, Ruth Evans, chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority [IPSA], said the public now expects “equal opportunity employment” in MPs’ offices.
Around 150 MPs – close to one in four – have a family member working in their office, while a number of prominent politicians have faced complaints about their arrangements.
Currently MPs face few limits to hiring partners or children. They are limited to hiring just one at a time and must publicly declare the situation.
“We would want to see the best possible person for the job being recruited in order to provide public value for money.
But Ms Evans hinted that when a consultation ends later this month she will decided to tighten the rules so MPs in the future must prove other better candidates were not available.
“It is a controversial area. On the one hand, public expectations have shifted and there is an expectation for equal opportunity employment. On the other hand, you do have MPs who have specific requirements,” Ms Evans said.
“It all comes down to what the job is and could we define more clearly what the responsibilities and roles are.
“Because it may be that if you can more clearly define specific roles, the answer becomes apparent as to who can take on that role.
“We would want to see the best possible person for the job being recruited in order to provide public value for money. That’s the key.”
Earlier this summer, Ms Evans became only the second ever chair of the IPSA, a watchdog created after The Telegraph’s investigation into MPs’ expenses.
During her 35-year career she has helped regulate the police, lawyers, doctors and broadcasters as well as chair two independent inquiries into healthcare, before beating around 30 rivals to get her new role.
“This isn’t about regulation, this is about encouraging them to account for the work that they’re doing in order that their constituents can be reassured.
Ms Evans is urging MPs to publish a yearly explanation about how their expenses are spent so voters better understand what is being funded.
“The more that MPs can tell their constituents how they use the public’s money and what they do in their jobs, so much the better,” she said.
“It makes sense for MPs to provide as much information as they can. We don’t want to burden them with excessive regulation.
“This isn’t about regulation, this is about encouraging them to account for the work that they’re doing in order that their constituents can be reassured.”
The first ever “annual account of expenditure” by MPs will be published in November and is designed as a way of them to get on the front foot.
For example MPs could explain how many constituents’ cases were dealt with from the salaries paid to staff or explain that unusually high office costs came only because of a change of address.
“MPs should be paid a fair wage for a job and in return MPs, in Ipsa’s view, should be accountable for the work that they do,” she said.
Ms Evans also defended allowing MPs to claim for first class travel, saying: “There’s no issue here because they only take first class travel if they can get it at the same rate as second class travel by booking ahead.
“We do not pay for first class travel that costs more than standard.”
According to this week’s EDDC Knowledge newsletter, all councillors have been invited to a meeting on Thursday 20 October at 5 pm to hear a presentation on a “Devolution – ‘myth busting’ briefing”.
This presentation has already been given to DCC councillors and here is one Councillor’s report (Robert Vint):
“On Monday Devon County Councillors were presented with a “Myth Busting” training session on Devolution. On Thursday there was a repeat session for South Hams District Councillors.
The “Myths” they were attempting to “bust” were that the Devolution process was led by the LEP, was undemocratic, would result in local government reorganisation / centralisation etc.
The explanations – or non-explanations – only strengthened my concerns. It was confirmed that there would be no public consultation on the economic development plan but only on the Combined Authority proposal and that the LEP had played a central role.
I asked why the plan did not start by identifying local needs such as rural unemployment and affordable housing then consult communities and small businesses on how to tackle these problems. They said not to worry as this was an outline economic plan – but later they confirmed that there would be no consultation on the economic plan or any opportunity to change it.
We have a Devolution Prospectus written by the few big businesses in the LEP to serve their own needs rather than those of the wider community of Devon and Somerset. This has then been rubberstamped by local authorities who did not have the staff, time or vision to rewrite it to meet our real needs and who failed to consult residents and small and family businesses. As a result we will be subjected, without any opportunity to comment, to a local economic development strategy that will serve the wealthy rather than the majority and that will fail to provide jobs where they’re needed or houses to the people who need them most.
In contrast the RSA – Royal Society of Arts – outlines how we should be delivering genuine, fair and inclusive devolution.
The UK’s economic status-quo has resulted in huge sections of our population being ‘left behind’. So the RSA are proposing a radical programme of devolution, inclusive industrial strategies and investment in human capital to create a more inclusive, equal society.”
“Whilst I give my complete backing to Cllrs Dyson and Barratt for their upcoming work on the Port
Royal Scoping Study reference group (Herald, September 16), I would like to question the attitude of the regime that allows the controlling group at EDDC to pick one from three Town ward members.
Surely, if this process is to be truly open and accountable, this selection should have been the responsibility of the ward members themselves? After all, we were elected by residents to work on their behalf to uphold their wishes. It remains to be seen whether any of the important lessons from other EDDC projects (such as the relocation from Knowle and the beach management plan, let alone Seaton and Exmouth regeneration) have really been learnt.
Sidmouth Town Council may nominally be leading this project for now, but, in the long run, most of the land concerned is owned by EDDC and the final say on who buys it and for what use will be theirs. This includes the car parks and the swimming pool as well as the buildings on the seafront.”
Cllr Cathy Gardner
EDDC Sidmouth Town Ward
East Devon Alliance member
” … A number of seafront businesses, including DJ’s Cafe, have been forced to close this year, but it’s now being argued these attractions could have stayed open.
District council officers evicted the Wright family from Jungle Fun, Arnold Palmer Putting Green and Crazy Golf to make way for the proposed seafront regeneration.
The site has been earmarked for demolition to make way for a £4million watersports centre as part of the development.
The Wright family was given a stay of execution on the fun park, which will remain open until the end of August next year.
Large metal grey fences have now gone up around Jungle Fun, Arnold Palmer Putting Green and Crazy Golf.
East Devon District Council (EDDC) has confirmed it would be open to having attractions back on the site next summer, provided all demolition work has been completed.
Phillip Skinner, chairman of the Exmouth Regeneration Board, said: “The site must remain boarded up for safety reasons, at least until surveys have concluded, and clearance and demolition have been completed.
“We will look to open up the site again for the summer, if we are able, and will consider leisure, entertainment, food and drink-type attractions if this is feasible.”
In response to the news, Louise McAllister, of the Save Exmouth Seafront, said: “It is shocking that EDDC is stating that it ‘may open up the site again for summer (2017)’.
“While we would love to see the site back in use, if it was to be reopened, surely the existing successful businesses should never have been forced to close in the first place.
“The actions of EDDC surrounding this closure are so far removed from the best interests of the town that they are beginning to seem like either acts of deliberate cruelty towards the seafront tenants, or an example of the most dreadful project management imaginable.”
Owl’s summary of Moulding’s attempt to explain EDDC’s current “thinking”:
“We have been planning Exmouth Sea Front for 6 years and we know exactly what we are doing, even though our preferred bidder Moirai has only got initial ideas and we haven’t yet decided what Phase 3 will consist of or how much it will all cost. And it’s going to be completely built up yet very open – and sand drifts are exactly what everyone wants.”
The interview transcript:
“Simon Bates: In Exmouth a group of badgers are thought to be living near a former crazy golf course on the sea front, and they’re involved in a completely different type of dispute. At stake is the proposed multi-million pound development of the area, seen as crucial for Exmouth by East Devon District Council, but viewed by some locals as a terrible mistake for the town.
In the maelstrom, in the middle of it, trying to keep the peace is Adrian Campbell. Good morning Adrian. … What’s going on?
Adrian Campbell: Well, badgers and crazy golf – it does sound a bit peculiar I agree. On Queen’s Drive on the sea front in Exmouth the district council has plans for a quite a big development there. It’s close to the former crazy golf area. There’s also an amusement arcade nearby, and an old railway carriage cafe used to be there.
Now some of these have already gone, they’ve been fenced off, big changes are planned for an idea originally called Exmouth Splash. There’s been consultation about that before. They want to develop this area. Its close to another development that has already taken place known as Ocean, which is a big bowling area that has been built on the sea front just down from the Premier Inn.
However, on this site are badgers, and local people say that they believe that they were under the crazy golf course. That seems to have been confirmed – not so many of them, as there is a bigger sett further off the site.
We spoke to Louise McAllister from Save Exmouth Seafront…
Louise MacAllister: It was alerted to me by a local resident that there were badgers living in this site up until very recently. So I was a little bit concerned that they had already gone ahead with the demolition, because you have to apply for a license to interfere with a sett, and I am just a little bit worried that East Devon District Council have not had the time to do that.
Simon Bates: Can we talk about East Devon District Council because this sounds like a labyrinthine one, let alone about the sett. What did they tell you?
Adrian Campbell: Well they have confirmed that they have, first of all, found out using an expert, Dr. Julian Brown, that there are two small setts, part of a more significant complex badger sett off the site. However, this is important, they say that they have been working with Natural England and they’ve been given a license to relocated them to a larger sett. And they say, basically, that the work that has been done so far won’t have caused any problem and is perfectly OK. So that is what they are saying, but you have this larger issue, much larger issue, about what’s going to happen in the area and lots of controversy about that.
Simon Bates: Yes. That is a story I hadn’t thought of. Because where do you put badgers, because they don’t automatically go into other badger setts because that is a confrontation situation.
Adrian Campbell: Well they wouldn’t go far apparently. They would go just to the bigger sett nearby, but off the site. That’s what they said.
Simon Bates: But would that be OK with those badgers that already occupy the bigger sett.
Adrian Campbell: I don’t know. I’m not a badger expert.
Simon Bates: No, neither am I. But you know what dogs are like, and basically that’s what we are talking about.
Adrian Campbell: I was just going to say, presumably under the advice of Natural England, it should be OK. But then you’ve got this larger issue about this whole area and the big changes that are being proposed. And, some people have asked about modernising this area.
Effectively, there is a boating lake there with swans on it. It’s a very traditional seaside kind of scene at the moment, or it has been, and what is talked about here is a really big change. Now some people are quite keen on that – other people are slightly concerned about it. We spoke to one gentleman, Robin Rule, and is what he was saying.
Robin Rule: Our main priorities now are to try to preserve the boating lake and the fun park. Because the boating lake and the fun park is in fact the face, the face, of Exmouth Seafront. Millions of people love it, whether you live here, whether you are visiting it from holiday or around. That’s what we want to try to hold onto.
Simon Bates: Its the traditional against the future, isn’t it. The swans on the boating lake – I suppose you can call iconic. And then there are the other attractions that have been there for donkeys years vs. the new face of the seafront, the bowling centre you talked about, the Exmouth Ocean. Which vision do you think will win out?
Adrian Campbell: Well when you look at the plans, and I am looking at a plan that goes back to 2013, a big graphic showing what is proposed. Now the council has told me that it has changed quite a lot, but it’s a really large site. Some have told me locally it would be similar in size to the town centre of Exmouth, but right on the seafront. Now some people are a bit concerned about that, and you will hear from the council in a minute. We spoke to an independent councillor, Megan Armstrong, she’s quite worked up about it.
Cllr Megan Armstrong: What concerns people is that as soon as one building goes up it’s setting the scene for a whole more other buildings going up. And people just don’t want that. They like the openness, they like the facilities that are here because children love them, families love them, and they’re reasonably priced because a lot of people who come here don’t have a lot of money, and they’re families with children, at that’s why we get a lot of people coming here.
Simon Bates: Well, there’s the independent councillor Megan Armstrong. We’ve got, as you’ve hinted there Adrian, Cllr Andrew Moulding.
Good morning Cllr Moulding. Deputy Leader of East Devon District Council.
Adrian Campbell: Cllr, Good Morning. You’ve heard the reaction of some of the people there that we have spoken to. First of all, with the badgers, has the council got it right?
Cllr Andrew Moulding: Well, I heard your report, Adrian, on the situation with the badgers which is exactly as you stated. The council has a license from Natural England and during this sensitive process that is what we have to have. We have, and again you are quite right, we have a badger expert. He’s a leading consultant on badgers in the country, and that is Dr. Julian Brown. He’s identified that these two small setts are part of a more significant complex badger sett which is off the site, and in consultation with Dr Brown, the badgers who are living in these two small badger setts can quite amicably be relocated to the larger sett. And that’s what under the advice of Dr Brown and with the license from Natural England, that is what the council are carrying out.
Adrian Campbell: But what about the scale of this? Because people are saying in the area, people that we spoke to yesterday, and admittedly though a self-selecting group who turned up, but they are talking about the scale of this. I mean, how many millions is this going to cost, and how big is phase one, two and three?
Cllr Andrew Moulding: We don’t know the overall cost of this yet. What we do know is that we have put the project into three phases. The first phase is to relocate the road and the car park, so that the car park is further to the rear of the site and not inhibiting the views across the estuary. Similarly with the road. That will allow access to visitors and residents to the sea front. That will be stage one.
Stage two will be a very exciting water sports centre, built on the …
Adrian Campbell: It’s big isn’t it? It’s going to be very big?
Cllr Andrew Moulding: Oh yes, it’s pretty big, yes. It will, but it will encompass a water sports centre for people who are doing kite-surfing and so on, but also there will be an open-air performance space there, a number of small units that trade in water sports. So the attraction of water sports to Exmouth has always been well known. We already have national competitions at Exmouth and we obviously feel that this is something that will be well appreciated by visitors and locals alike.
Adrian Campbell: But just briefly, do you understand the concerns of local people who are saying that the scale of this dwarfs what has been there in the past traditionally. You’ve got the bowling centre down the road – they say that the council’s taken that on because it wasn’t making enough money, I don’t know whether that’s right or not. But they question whether or not there is the demand for all of this. And they also say this is a special area.
Cllr Andrew Moulding: Yes. There would almost be an anchor at each end. So you’ve got Ocean at one end, you’ll have the water sports centre at the other end, inbetween phase three is the development of what was the old fun park – or still is because we are allowing the tenant of the fun park to trade for another season while the details of that part of the site are being developed – so he will carry on and trade there until such time as we need the site to be vacated so that the phase three work can go ahead. That’s still to be determined …
Simon Bates: Actually, can I just jump in there Councillor Moulding because Adrian can’t ask you this, he’s is far too nice a man. It all sounds a bit woolly.
Cllr Andrew Moulding: No not woolly at all. I mean its a plan that’s been in the offing for about the last six years. Now at last it is coming to fruition. And obviously there are stages one needs to go through to arrange the necessary planning details, and so on. That is going through process at the moment. The first phase, as I say, is to relocate the road, move the car park, and then to get the water sports centre built, and then we can look in more detail at phase three which is the remainder of the site. We very much hope that the majority of the area will be open and free to people to use.
Simon Bates: It’s a very exposed site as well, isn’t it Councillor? You’ve got high seas and sand blowing in during the winter.
Cllr Andrew Moulding: That’s the beauty of the site. I mean, that’s what everybody likes about it. That it is …
Simon Bates: Yes, but your going to build up the whole place aren’t you?
Cllr Andrew Moulding: The water sports centre will have open spaces within it. But its a development which has been well planned, we are working with the …
Adrian Campbell: But you haven’t got drawings or architect’s plans yet, have you? And you haven;t got a developer as I understand, so people are saying that the area’s closed off, and they can’t get to it and use it.
Cllr Andrew Moulding: Well, we have the water sports centre, [sniggering heard in background] and we have a preferred developer in place, Moirai, who have come up with some initial proposals. We are looking closely at those to see if it is exactly what is required, we shall look carefully at that as phase three while the tenant is still on site so that the people of Exmouth can enjoy facilities on the site until we are ready to go forward with the next stage.
Simon Bates: Councillor, thank you very much indeed. Adrian, I think that’s all we are going to get, don’t you?
Adrian Campbell: I know. Thank you, Simon.
[Sounds of laughter from Simon Bates]
Simon Bates: Stay across it. Beaver or should I say badger away. Adrian Campbell, thank you very much indeed.”
“… Responding to the decision, Judith Blake, the LGA’s environment spokesperson, said it should be for local communities to decide, through their locally democratic planning systems, whether to host fracking operations in their areas.
“Ensuring communities feel safe is important. Any company that applies for a fracking licence must assure residents through their council that environment and safety concerns can and will be adequately addressed before planning permission is considered,” she said.
“People living near fracking sites, who are most affected by them, have a right to be heard. Local planning procedure exists for a reason – to ensure a thorough and detailed consultation with those communities.”
Lancashire County Council highlighted this was one of the biggest planning applications ever put before any council, with tens of thousands of responses and substantial amounts of technical detail.
Council cabinet member for environment, planning and cultural services Marcus Johnstone said authority’s development control committee carefully considered many hours of evidence both for and against the proposal.
“A local council, made up of councillors democratically elected by local people, and charged with serving their interests, is exactly the right body to make decisions on local matters. It is clear that the government supports the development of a shale gas industry, but I would ask them to do more to address the concerns of local communities and the councillors who represent them by supporting the best environmental controls,” he stated.”
http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/10/lga-slams-fracking-approval-javid
“A widow is suing an ambulance trust after it dispatched a private ambulance whose crew failed to identify that her husband was having a heart attack.
The East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust uncovered a series of failures and has apologised to Kim Page for the death of her husband Gary.
It described the leader of the crew as “complacent” for not heeding the concerns of a more junior colleague.
A coroner last month found “serious failings” in Mr Page’s
care.
The episode has shone a spotlight on the greater use of private ambulances in attending emergency calls.
Mrs Page is taking civil action against East of England Ambulance Service and Private Ambulance Service Ltd for damages.
East of England Ambulance trust dispatched a team at the second highest level. Because they were busy, they sent a private ambulance team – a regular occurrence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The team from Private Ambulance Service Limited didn’t have a paramedic on board. The most senior member of the crew was an emergency technician called Lauren de la Haye. She received her qualification certificate a few days before, although she had practised as an emergency medic under supervision for several years.
Mrs Page remembers Ms de la Haye saying: “It is definitely not your heart, you are definitely not having a heart attack. “I wish all my patients were like you sitting here talking to me.”
…”Then she said, ‘We can take you to the hospital but you will have a 10-hour wait.’ “She said that three times, as if it were unnecessary for him to go.” Still in pain, and without his reading glasses, Mr Page signed a document that Ms de la Haye presented saying that he agreed not to go to hospital.
The crew left. Mrs Page says the medics did not advise them what to do if the symptoms continued.
… He died 10 hours after his symptoms started, and was just minutes away from a specialist heart unit at Basildon University Hospital.
An inquest heard the root cause of Gary Page’s death was Lauren de la Haye’s failure to identify an evolving heart attack, and her not contacting the clinical advice line for further support, even when prompted to do so by a more junior colleague. …”
Owl has two questions:
if it IS on the back burner, should we be hanging on Somerset’s coat tails, hoping for Hinkley C breadcrumbs and an elected Mayor who will be Hinkley-centric?
and
should we be employing LEP staff and shovelling out expenses to our LEP while things are re-evaluated – or should we cut our losses, scrap it and look to sustaining our own Devon economy in what will possibly be rocky post- Brexit times?
The region’s devolution bid appears to have been shoved onto the back burner this week, following a Government U-turn on the need for elected mayors.
Earlier this year council leaders were optimistic of securing a deal by the autumn, after agreeing on proposals to establish a combined-authority.
But the Treasury now looks to have ruled this possibility out, after revealing its “priority” will be areas with directly elected mayors.
Speaking to the Herald, Treasury minister David Gauke claimed this model provides local authorities with “maximal” opportunities for devolved powers.
“To get the most powers you need the best accountability and that’s delivered by directly-elected mayors,” he said.
“We think [it’s] the best model… so we continue to encourage local authorities to go down that route.
“Those areas that don’t want to go down that route, we will of course still look at the devolution options there.
“I think the priority is delivering the directly elected mayor model.”
This renewed focus on mayors appears to contradict messages from the Department for Communities and Local Government, which has previously indicated support for a combined authority model.
Earlier this year, councils in Devon and Somerset voted in favour of creating a combined authority for the region, on the understanding this would improve the area’s chances of a devolution deal.
Critics of the mayoral model express concern about the ability of a single leader to effectively represent areas as economically and geographically diverse as Plymouth and the Mendips.
Responding to Mr Gauke’s comments, leader of Somerset County Council, John Osman, said his understanding “is that the Prime Minister does not think a mayor is essential for devolution”.
“Some initial public engagement this summer suggests that is a view shared by Somerset residents,” he added.
“We have a compelling case for devolved powers and budgets which has the potential to drive productivity, address challenges and capitalise on our many opportunities.
“We aim to continue these with the new relevant minister, Sajid Javid, in the near future to maintain the momentum and take our plans forward.”
Conservative MP for Wells, James Heappey, acknowledged that the recent change in Government leadership has resulted in changes to devolution policy.
He suggested this could provide the region with an opportunity to “take [its] foot off the accelerator” and review its proposals.
“If there is value in doing it, if it’s going to allow public services to be more efficient…. Then clearly we should go ahead [with a combined authority bid],” he said.
“[But] it makes no sense to change things just for the sake of changing things.”
Kevin Foster, the MP for Torbay – which recently voted to scrap its mayoral system – said many residents “won’t be itching” to have another elected mayor.
But he suggested the option is worth considering if it means “getting transport powers and an ability to deliver for local people”.
Mr Gauke did stress that the Government is still keen to extend devolution beyond the high profile city regions.
He said “a lot of focus has been on cities” but it would be good to “show how devolution can work in all parts of the country”.
Amended Planning Application 15/2188/MOUT
hosted by
Seaton & Colyford Green Wedge Community Action Group
Wednesday 12th October 7.00pm
Seaton Town Council Office Meeting Room
Marshlands Centre, Harbour Road, Seaton EX12 2LT
The above Meeting will be Chaired by Howard West, Leader of the Group, and Martin Shaw, a Seaton Town Councillor and Chair of their Planning Committee will also speak and explain the details of the Application. They will both be taking questions.
If you have looked at the paperwork in more detail, you will notice there is only one football pitch, with a Training & Recreation Area, plus parking and a Club House. Seaton FC were asking for two pitches. The Application mentions that there will be no floodlighting to the Recreation Area and Training Ground, but does not mention about the football pitch! Therefore we must assume that there will be floodlighting, as there is on the existing football pitch in Seaton.
This is a Public Meeting and you are all invited to come along and participate in the discussion. The Marshlands Centre is situated at the Harbour Road roundabout and there is limited parking on site. There is plenty of parking in the vicinity including Tescos (max 2 hours)”
Owl’s view: Unfortunately, it still walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and is still one hundred percent an LEP duck! Oh, and who is on it’s board – LEP Board member Tim Jones – quack, quack!
“A new business group has been formed to advise Government decision makers – but stressed it is not in competition with other South West business organisations.
B4SW will provide information and reports to the South West Local Enterprise Partnership (HotSW LEP) and ensure businesses across the region have a strong voice in discussions over Government investment.
“We have no intention of competing with other business groups,” Mr Marrow said. “They are doing good stuff.”
He explained that B4SW may be new, but is actually a “restructuring” of the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership’s (HotSW LEP) business forum.
That body was set up by the LEP, but was nevertheless independent of it, in order to provide business engagement.
But the forum was often mistaken as being part of the LEP, Chris Marrow, B4SW chairman, explained.
So, he said, B4SW has been formed as a community interest company (CIC), a type of social enterprise, to provide “a better structure to that of the forum, which had been “an informal group”.
Mr Marrow said the new organisation would report to the LEP, the organisation created by the coalition Government in 2011 to determine investment priorities, but is not constrained by the HotSW area of Devon and parts of Somerset.
“We meet around the region and will cover Cornwall,” Mr Marrow said, at an early meeting held in Plymouth.
“It’s a forum in which business people can come together and explore ideas and put their expertise back into the community for the advantage of the region.”
Mr Marrow said B4SW is composed of business people with vast experience in sectors such as maritime, supply chain, education, rural development and overseas trade.
“We have business people with particular expertise, a lot of experience in international affairs, with overseas contacts, and work with people in Africa and China,” he said.
He said the executive board has links to various other organisations such as universities and colleges, Chambers of Commerce, and the Federation of Small Businesses.
“The objective is to help businesses develop in the South West,” he said. “That includes improving exports, productivity, and job creation.”
He said B4SW would provide “blue sky thinking” and supply reports to the LEP.
He gave examples of studies into biofuels, ballast water management and kelp (seaweed) farming.
B4SW has also arranged a visit from transport training experts in South Africa and had discussions with Plymouth University and Flybe about maritime and aviation training.
Tim Jones, a B4SW board member, said the aim is also to bring together all business organisations across the HotSW and Cornwall and Isles of Scilly LEPs.
He said it was vital businesses shared a unified voice in order to push for Government investment, especially as political devolution is on the agenda.
“A combined business voice is essential, and becoming more so as we move down the devolution agenda and anther round of Government austerity,” he said. “So the cooperation of the business community is crucial.
“With devolution, although there is talk about business engagement, there’s a fear the voice of business will diminish.
“Combine that with the problems Whitehall has about infrastructure investment in the South West, it’s vital we have a single voice coming from the business community.”
Repercussions for EDDC? You can bet Exeter City Council will appeal!
“Exeter Green Party has clashed with Exeter City Council over secret information about the financial viability of St Sidwell’s Point.
The Greens made a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) to access parts of the business case for the planned council owned leisure complex.
They say the council has “persistently refused” to give them the information.
Green Party member Peter Cleasby complained to the Information Commissioner, the independent authority set up by Parliament to uphold public access to documents.
Mr Cleasby said the public had a legitimate right to see information shared privately to councillors about the financial viability of the leisure complex project.
The commissioner agreed, and has ordered the council to publish its estimates of income from the leisure centre.
The council are seeking advice regarding an appeal against this decision.
Mr Cleasby said: “The public were not consulted about whether we wanted the leisure centre or not. We were simply told that £26 million of the Council’s money would be spent on building it.
“We were not offered the chance to suggest other uses for £26 million, and we were not allowed to see the assumptions made by the Council about whether the leisure centre could be run without being a drain on public finances.
“So as an individual I asked for this information to be made available for scrutiny by others who could form an independent view on whether the numbers added up. The Council refused, three times changing their reasons for not releasing it.”
A council spokesperson hit back, saying: “The public were consulted multiple times in accordance with the open and transparent planning process for what will be one of the greenest schemes of its kind anywhere in the country.
“As Mr Cleasby has pointed out, we are entitled to appeal the Information Commissioner’s decision and we are taking appropriate advice.”
Diana Moore, former parliamentary candidate for the Green Party in Exeter, said: “Exeter Green Party are not opposed to a new leisure complex in principle, but openness and real public engagement are essential in major projects of this sort.”
Simon Stevens:
Creating a 21st Century NHS
Part of the Exeter Lecture Series
Wednesday 2 November 2016, 19.00 – 20.00
Alumni Auditorium, The Forum (Streatham Campus)
Video linked to G10 Lecture Theatre, Truro (Knowledge Spa)
Tea and coffee available on Streatham Campus from 18.30
Register now at Eventbrite (free)
In this talk Simon Stevens, Chief Executive of NHS England, will talk about creating a 21st Century NHS.
Simon is the Chief Executive of NHS England, which leads the NHS’s work nationally to improve health and ensure high quality care for all. He is accountable to Parliament for over £100 billion of annual Health Service funding.
During this lecture you will be able to hear about plans for the NHS and have the opportunity to participate in a short question and answer session with Simon.
The lecture will be hosted by the Provost, Professor Janice Kay, and is open to staff, students and the general public. To register for this event and to read more about Simon please visit the event web page.
Please note: this event will not be recorded, therefore booking is essential if you would like to attend.
Launched in our Diamond Jubilee year, the ‘Exeter Lectures’ will bring high profile speakers from the worlds of academia, business, the arts and civil society to the University to share their thoughts and ideas, provoke discussion, and challenge us to rethink how we understand society.
Contact us: diamondjubilee@exeter.ac.uk
East Devon Watch 