Greendale owner 30th most influential Devonian

Our old friend Karime Hassan (CEO Exeter City Council) is in 19th place, Steve Hindley (Chair,Local Enterprise Partnership) is 18th, Alison Hernandez (Police and Crime Commissioner) in 12th place, John Varley (CEO, Clinton Devon Estates) in 9th place, with Devon County Council’s CEO Phil Norey in 2nd place and DCC Leader John Hart in first place.

“30. Rowan Carter, Director Greendale Group

The company behind the Greendale Farm Shop and Waterdance fishing fleet, incorporates a diverse range of businesses. From its beginning as a farming enterprise set up by the Carter family more than 150 years ago, the group includes the farm shop, Waterdance Fishing, Greendale Living, Greendale Business Park, Greendale Haulage, Exmouth Marina and Greendale Leisure. Last year, the Carter family unveiled major expansion plans for the Greendale Farm Shop to create 30 jobs and provide ‘significant benefits’ to East Devon.

The family has also made a £5million commission of two new fishing boats, including the largest beam trawler to be launched under the British flag in over 20 years. The company also wants to build more agricultural buildings and intends to acquire more farmland in order to expand its farming business.”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/business/50-most-powerful-people-devon-2450702

Will Swire have anything to auction at this year’s Tory fundraising ball?

The annual Tory Black and White Ball is in trouble:

“Tory insiders have revealed that the annual Black and White fundraiser (it used to be called a ‘ball’, it’s now a mere ‘party’) is struggling to attract interest from donors and activists.

Less than a fortnight to go, mimimum-priced £500 tickets are not shifting, PoliticsHome reports.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/news/101400/excl-£15000-table-tory-fundraiser-turmoil

”Most donors now see the Prime Minister as toxic so prefer the private events, not the event that ends up on the front page of Mail Online,” one donor says.

Intriguingly, leadership contenders are now inviting donors for private dinners instead. An activist adds: “The obscene ticket prices go directly into CCHQ’s coffers and then local associations have to beg for that money back during elections.”

Source: The Waugh Zone, Huffington Post

So, will its usual auctioneer of very expensive goodies, Hugo Swire, have anything to flog?

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/02/11/hugo-swire-is-auctioneer-at-15000-per-head-tory-ball/

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2018/02/08/tories-auction-off-access-to-pm-and-ministers-at-their-annual-ball/

And why, oh why wasn’t he employed to flog off the contents of The Knowle!

Information Commissioner wants Freedom of Information Act extended to outsourced companies

“The Information Commissioner has called for the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) to be updated to include organisations providing a public function.

In a report to Parliament, ‘Outsourcing Oversight? The case for reforming access to information law’, Elizabeth Denham said: “In the modern age, public services are delivered in many ways by many organisations. Yet not all of these organisations are subject to access to information laws.

“Maintaining accountable and transparent services is a challenge because the current regime does not always extend beyond public authorities and, when it does, it is complicated. The laws are no longer fit for purpose.”

She added: “Urgent action is required because progress has been too slow. It is now time to act. This report sets out solutions that can extend the law to make it fit for the modern age.”

Denham said the main aim her report was to make an evidence-based case to extend the reach of FOIA and the EIR “to enable greater transparency and accountability in modern public services, which in turn improves services”.
The Commissioner said in the report that she would welcome a Parliamentary Inquiry via a select committee into the issues raised. The ICO has submitted the report to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and PACAC for their consideration. …”

http://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php

More on Swire’s business pal Lord Barker

“… The lifting of sanctions [by Donald Trump yesterday, on Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska – see post below] comes after a lobbying campaign led by Lord Gregory Barker, a former UK energy minister and now chairman of En+.

Lord Barker reportedly used lobbyists with ties to the Trump administration, law firms and public relations experts to make the argument Mr Deripaska was committed to giving up control of his companies.

Mr Deripaska is one of Russia’s wealthiest men. He amassed his fortune under Mr Putin and has bought assets abroad in ways widely perceived to benefit the Kremlin’s interests.

US diplomatic cables from 2006 described him as “among the two or three oligarchs Putin turns to on a regular basis” and “a more-or-less permanent fixture on Putin’s trips abroad”.

The 50-year-old achieved a deal of fame in the UK in 2008 when the then-business secretary, Lord Mandelson, and shadow chancellor George Osborne found themselves aboard his yacht off the coast of Corfu last summer.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-russia-sanctions-putin-oleg-deripaska-treasury-department-rusal-en-a8749781.html

Swire, eagle and sham … an unfortunate choice of company name …

Swire has a dormant company (Eaglesham Investments) owned 50/50 with his friend Lord Barker, a former energy minister. It was originally described as being a vehicle for “emerging markets” but is now described as being for “renewable energy”.

Given recent developments involving Lord Barker, he and Swire pmight want to consider a change of name for the company – having an association with the eagle (symbol of the Russian Federation) and “sham” (dictionary: “something that is not what it purports to be; a spurious imitation; fraud or hoax” (online distionary.com) might not be such good PR!

Lord Barker is Chair of a UK-based Russian company set up by Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska.

Owl reported the links between Deripaska and Barker recently:

“… Among the UK-based companies that have aroused the interest of congressional investigators is EN+, the energy company owned by Oleg Deripaska and chaired by Tory peer Lord Barker of Battle.

Mr Deripaska, a close ally of Mr Putin, is already under investigation from congressional committees over allegations, which the oligarch denies, that he was involved in efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential elections.

Recent documents released by the FBI revealed Mr Deripaska loaned $10 million to Paul Manafort, Donald Trump’s campaign manager, who has been charged with fraud and money-laundering. Mr Deripaska is one of several Russian oligarchs who were hit with U.S. sanctions in April.

Now US investigators say they are interested in apparent links between British-based companies owned by Russian oligarchs and Russian intelligence agencies.

Their interest in EN+ comes after FBI officers identified Evgeny Fokin, who is the company’s Director of International Cooperation, as formerly being the SVR’s declared liaison officer with U.S. intelligence agencies in Washington DC in the mid-1990s.

Apart from being employed by EN+, Mr Fokin, who is said to be a close ally of Mr Deripaska, has previously been employed by Basic Element, another company owned by Mr Deripaska.

“There is particular concern in Congress about the links between Russian businesses owned by oligarchs and the Russian intelligence agencies,” a U.S. official told the Daily Telegraph.

“There is concern about the large numbers of former Russian intelligence officers who now hold senior positions in major Russian businesses.

“There are growing suspicions in Congress that the distinction between the Russian state and businesses owned by Putin’s supporters may be on paper only.”

Lord Barker, a former energy minister under David Cameron, provoked criticism from MPs earlier this year after he helped EN+ raise £1 billion on the London Stock Exchange, money that was then used to pay off Russian banks subject to U.S. sanctions.”

Swire’s business pal in more difficulty in United States

Mr Deripaska hit the headlines again this weekend when Donald Trump made good on his promise to make Mr Deripaska’s business life in the USA much easier as reported here:

“President Donald Trump officially lifted sanctions against Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska on Sunday afternoon. At least one reporter is wondering if it’s because Trump is hoping the news will slip through the cracks of the news cycle.

As Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) was taking the stage in Oakland, California to formally announce her presidential campaign, the news was released Trump made Deripaska’s life easier.

“Ukraine-/Russia-related Designations Removals,” reads the headline on the Treasury Department’s sanctions site.

“The timing of this (Sunday evening) is not a coincidence,” said behavioral scientist and ArcDigi associate editor Caroline Orr. “This is a huge gift to Putin and his cronies, and the Trump administration is hoping this will slip through the cracks. Don’t let that happen.”…

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/trump-quietly-lifts-sanctions-russian-oligarch-sunday-think-no-one-notice/

Big business wins over public services with corporation tax black hole

“The government’s planned cuts to corporation tax look set to cost the public purse billions more in lost revenue than previously thought, according to new analysis.

The tax rate on company profits is slated to be cut from its current level of 19% to just 17% by the end of the decade. But even before the planned cuts, the UK already had one of the lowest corporation tax rates in the developed world.

An analysis based on HMRC data suggests that the loss of revenue from the planned cuts, initiated by former chancellor George Osborne but supported by incumbent Philip Hammond, could add up to more than £6bn.

HMRC recently raised its estimate for the amount a 1 percentage point increase in corporation tax could bring in for the Treasury from £2.8bn to £3.1bn per year – meaning the plan to cut taxes by 2p in the £1 could cost about £6.2bn.

Hammond confirmed in the autumn that he would go ahead with Osborne’s promises, despite the need to find £20bn a year more for the NHS by 2023-24.

There has been mounting opposition to the planned tax cuts, particularly as Britain’s public finances could come under huge strain from a disorderly Brexit.

Rupert Harrison, a former adviser to Osborne who now works at City investment firm BlackRock, said last week on Twitter that it was “hard to see why further cuts to corporation tax are good value,” while Labour seized on his comments.

Peter Dowd, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said: “Even Osborne’s former adviser knows that further cuts to corporation tax are a bad use of public funds. Philip Hammond should cancel his plans for more corporate giveaways and invest in our public services.” …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/28/uk-corporation-tax-cut-to-cost-billions-more-than-thought

Government finally admits there is a teacher crisis

“Cash incentives and a better work-life balance are part of a new attempt to solve England’s teacher shortage.

Plans published on Monday by ministers will offer some young secondary teachers £5,000 in their third and fifth years in the classroom – on top of initial £20,000 training bursaries.

Young teachers could also have some protected time for extra training.
Head teachers’ unions said more help for young recruits was essential to tackle the crisis in teacher numbers.

Currently, teachers in subjects with shortages, such as physics, chemistry, and languages, can receive a bursary of up to £26,000, but there are no further payments.

The so-called “early career payment” scheme, which rewards teachers for staying in the classroom, has already been trialled for maths teachers.
Labour has criticised the plan, saying the plan will not reverse “six consecutive years” of missed teacher recruitment targets.

What’s the problem?

By 2025 the number of secondary school pupils in England will have gone up by 15%.

For several years England has had an unfolding teacher crisis, with too few starting to train and too many leaving.

In 2018/19 the number starting training as secondary school teachers was 17% below target.

Subjects such as physics, chemistry and computing face the largest shortfalls.

This has led to a growing proportion of lessons in some secondary schools being taught by teachers who are not specialists.

And there has been growing concern that young teachers are leaving because they feel overworked, burnt out and disillusioned.

Of those that started in 2012, a third were not teaching five years later. …”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-47023665

Councils relied too much on informal cabinet briefings: contract legality now being probed

“A CATALOGUE of errors detailing how two district councils were run have been exposed in a ‘gobsmacking’ report.

Initial findings from an investigation into contracts signed by Vale of White Horse and South Oxfordshire district councils between 2010 to 2016 show councillors’ knowledge was stymied by a ‘lack of information’.

The two councils are conducting reviews into several contracts after fears were raised last year that contracts could have been handed out improperly.

All of them have a value of or more than £10,000. Between the two councils, there are 162 of those in total.

A report also highlights there was an ‘over reliance’ on briefing cabinet members informally, rather than decisions being made at public cabinet or council meetings.

‘A lack of detail’ was also found to be a problem in papers for those cabinet briefings and at cabinet meetings.

The review also found there was ‘poor procedural compliance by officers and members, most notably in documenting decision making’.

Debby Hallett, Lib Dem councillor on Vale council and former group leader, said the ‘gobsmacking’ papers seemed to indicate a ‘culture of sloppiness and shortcuts’ over key contracts.

But she added: “The thing that surprised me is [the councils] have promised to have this done by March, which is putting this in the public domain before the local elections [in May].”

That, she said, showed the councils’ willingness to conduct the reviews in a spirit of ‘transparency and integrity’.

Adrianna Partridge, the councils’ head of corporate service, notes in the report: “This review has identified a significant risk that the councils have incurred expenditure that has not been adequately approved in accordance with the councils’ constitutions, which could have both financial and reputational risk.”

In the report which will go to the councils’ joint audit and governance committee on Monday, she states: “Action has already been taken to address and strengthen the decision making process on individual projects, and it is acknowledge that a greater transparency is needed, including an increase in the number of formal papers taken to cabinet and full council which the senior management team is enforcing.”

The councils have set aside a budget of £30,000 for legal advice if they need to take any action over contracts in the future.

Confidential papers will be discussed next week.

They are understood to refer to specific details of the councils’ eight to 10 contracts which are being reviewed.

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/17377868.gobsmacking-errors-in-how-oxfordshire-councils-awarded-contracts/

Do you want to put a rocket under slow East Devon developers?

If so, EDDC is searching for a “Development Delivery Project Manager”
Salary: £31,401 – £39,961

The brief explains:

“This challenging and exciting role involves managing a series of projects where the Council will be working with land owners, developers and other stakeholders to enable large scale development proposals to come forward where they are currently unable to do so.

The Council has an excellent track record of delivering housing in the district but has a number of key sites where for various reasons the sites are not coming forward as planned. You would project manage the Council’s intervention in these sites working with colleagues across the Council co-ordinating resources to address the various issues and unlock the sites.

You will provide valuable expertise in carrying out development briefs, masterplans and development appraisals as well as providing support on development viability issues and work with our partners on each site to ensure their timely delivery.”

https://jobs.eastdevon.gov.uk/

“‘Casino councils’ are spending huge sums on property across the country in a high-stakes bid to balance their books”

“…Councils across England are under huge pressure to adopt a more expansive investment strategy, as their funding from central government is slashed. Many have responded by loading up with debt to play the property market, exposing some to a ticking timebomb of high borrowings and the nascent threat of a property-market collapse.

The omens are not good for retail landlords. Last week the real estate adviser Altus Group forecast that 23,000 shops would close in the UK this year – with a loss of 175,000 jobs – while the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (Rics) told valuers to be “aware of the potential for significant changes in value” in retail properties. Last month fund manager Fidelity International warned that UK retail properties could lose up to 70% in value as a result of rent cuts. The correction would be driven in part by a 10-40% reduction in rents to make them affordable for bricks-and-mortar retailers, Fidelity said.

The Local Government Chronicle (LGC) said the amount spent by councils in England on investment properties ballooned from £76.4m in 2014-15 to £1.8bn in 2017-18. These include offices, hotels, supermarkets and gyms, sometimes miles outside a council’s own area: these out-of-area investments are worth £619m alone.

Lord Oakeshott, chairman of Olim Property, which manages commercial property portfolios for institutional clients, said: “The whole thing is a mess. Councils are being loaned vast amounts of money by government, which is being invested in property. It’s a hell of a gamble that these councils are taking and this is not what councils should be doing.”

If the economy does take a turn for the worse, councils may find their current roster of reliable tenants forced to take evasive action. Store and office closures are a common cure when companies begin to feel the squeeze. A deepening economic crisis and a soaring debt pile makes for a toxic financial cocktail that some “casino councils” may be forced to swallow. Authorities will be forced to find new tenants who might not be able to pay the same levels of rent – if they can find new tenants, that is.

… But with Brexit looming the property sector is particularly vulnerable. The Bank of England has warned that “disorderly” Brexit – where Britain crashes out of the EU without a deal – could make the price of offices, warehouses, shopping centres and hotels drop by as much as 48%– more than the 42% peak-to-trough decline following the 2008 crisis. Even with only a “disruptive” Brexit – where the UK retains access to some trade agreements between the EU and other countries – the Bank suggested property prices could still fall 27%. … “

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/26/small-supermarket-wales-owned-surrey-casino-property?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

“California sues wealthy coastal city over low-income housing”

“Gov. Gavin Newsom used a new law for the first time Friday to try to force a wealthy Southern California coastal city to end its years of opposition to meeting low-income housing goals.

Newsom’s administration sued the Orange County city of Huntington Beach under the law that took effect Jan. 1 after passing in a 2017 package of measures intended to alleviate the state’s severe housing shortage and homelessness problem.

California has more homeless people than any other state and the nation’s highest poverty rate when soaring housing and rental costs are taken into account. Newsom, who took office this month, has proposed building 3.5 million housing units in the state with nearly 40 million residents.

The lawsuit says leaders in Huntington Beach, home to about 200,000 people, have repeatedly refused to amend the city’s housing plan to add state-required low-income housing and are fighting a separate lawsuit by housing advocates. The city says it’s complying with state housing and zoning laws. …

Newsom said high housing costs and rents “are eroding quality of life for families across this state.” He said the problem is “an existential threat to our state’s future and demands an urgent and comprehensive response.”

He has promised several moves to increase affordable housing, including giving cities more money for housing shelters but taking away transportation money if they fail to meet their goals. The Democratic governor’s budget proposal seeks $1.75 billion to combat homelessness by encouraging new affordable housing.”

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/california-sues-wealthy-coastal-city-over-low-income-housing/

Are DCC councillors refusing to let Claire Wright’s star shine before local elections?

Owl says:

Local council elections: 2 May 2019

Greater Exeter Strategic plan:
not going out for consultation until June 2019

Claire Wright’s long-promised inquiry into how Devon carers are coping:
Delayed by at least a year to June 2019 at the earliest

Anyone smell rats (on a sinking ship)?

“My efforts to get a spotlight review into how Devon carers are faring seems to have hit another delay.

I first proposed a review at the April Health and Adult Care Scrutiny Committee meeting of last year, but the vote was delayed until councillors had visited the contractors who look after the service, Westbank League of Friends.

My interest in the subject was sparked after reading a report which indicated that many carers were feeling exhausted, ill and short of money. Here is the background –

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

After a useful meeting at Westbank, I duly proposed a spotlight review once again at the September meeting. It was agreed this time.

I have now enquired twice when this review is going to have its first meeting but have had unsatisfactory answers.

At yesterday’s committee meeting I asked again when the first meeting was going to take place.

I was told that it wouldn’t take place until at least June as more information was needed.

I pointed out that this was almost a year after I had proposed the review (actually it is longer as I originally proposed it last April but it was not agreed then).

But the chair said the information was required before a spotlight review was held.

This is deeply disappointing and feels as though the issue is being kicked into the long grass.

I know many carers out there are struggling and to defer this issue is unfair and wrong in my view.

I will definitely be pursuing this.”

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

“We Need A Complete Rethink Of How We Fund Our Public Services”

Jonathan Carr-West
Chief executive of the Local Government Information Unit (LGiU):

“A few weeks ago, a radio producer called the LGiU office desperately seeking a guest for a head-to head debate on local government funding: “I’ve booked someone to argue that local councils need more money, but I can’t find anyone who disagrees”. That didn’t come as much of a surprise.

I regularly speak with council leaders who nearly all tell me a decade of deep cuts have left them at breaking point. Regardless of party allegiance, senior decision-makers unanimously agree that councils are in an unsustainable position, and some are nearly bust.

Local government in England and Wales is funded through grants from central government (about 54%) made up mainly of redistributed business rates, and locally raised funding (about 46%) which includes council tax and other sources such as car parks, parking permits and the hire of sports facilities.

Local authorities have already seen their central funding reduced, on average, by 40%. In Haringey, for example, the council’s spend per head of population has dropped by nearly a quarter. HuffPost’s What It’s Like To Lose series shows how people have already suffered the impact of the cuts.

However, from next year the Government has committed to phasing out central grants for local government, representing a further cut of more than £1billion at a time when the number of elderly people needing care is growing. Last year, the Prime Minister said it was the end of austerity. Not for local councils, it seems

To offset that savage cut, some councils are borrowing billions of pounds to buy property, supermarkets and gyms. At the same time, residents are paying more and more money to their local authority through higher council tax, and through increased charging on everything from swimming pools to cremations. But they will be receiving less, because it is the money from central government that pays for, amongst other things, adult social care and vulnerable children’s services, which is shrivelling up.

The most worrying aspect of all, though, is that local councils are still totally in the dark about how they will be funded from 2020. With only a year to go before the central grant disappears, the plan to allow councils to retain their local business rate income, which was supposed to make up the shortfall, has is yet to be agreed, never mind rolled out,.

Meanwhile, the government’s ‘Fair Funding Review’, which will change the calculation of each council’s funding needs, is yet to be finalised. The review’s first iteration has been criticised for removing deprivation as a funding criteria and shifting spending away from urban areas.

The LGA has consistently said that resources announced in the Autumn Budget and local government financial settlement are nowhere near enough to meet a gap in overall funding of more than £3billion. Clarity on the future shape of the system is desperately needed but the issue has failed to move up the Whitehall priority list due to Brexit.

Local government is the most important bit of government. Councils deliver the things that really matter most to us: schools for our children, clean, safe neighbourhoods, new homes, care for the elderly. All these services are delivered from the town hall, not Whitehall.

But there’s a paucity of ideas when it comes to fixing council finances: the government wants local authorities to raise more and to be more entrepreneurial, yet it balks from them taking any commercial risk.

Other proposed solutions leave councils with less autonomy when they need more – for instance, some have suggested that social care be delivered nationally or that councils should funded solely through central government grants.

Broadly, councils want to avoid being subject to the whims of central government policy-making to allow them to plan their own finances. Councils are calling for more control over areas of DwP and health that affect their ability to help their residents.

That means a complete rethink of how we fund public services. Instead of letting councils’ spend wither away, we need to localise our spending on all public services creating single place-based budgets that democratically elected leaders can spend in the ways that make most sense locally and that drive down demand.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/local-services_uk_5c4b3431e4b0e1872d433381

Greater Exeter Strategic Plan – where are we? In trouble!

All change on the Planning Front for East Devon.

Ever since David Cameron’s coalition government’s efforts to provide local communities with a say in local planning decisions with the “Localism Act” in 2011 (giving communities the power to draft “Neighbourhood Plans,” designed to provide a degree of self-determination to how local communities could be developed in the future) the powerful developers and landowners lobby has been active to reclaim their powerful grip on developing our communities.

First was the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in 2012 which threw out the old planning regulations and provided a “developer-driven” new planning policy, with just a “nod” to the Localism Act, Neighboured Plans and District wide plans.

The new NPPF introduced a policy that if the District or Neighbourhood Plan was not “up to date” then there would be a presumption of allowing any proposed development from a developer. Therefore, Councils and local communities quickly set about drawing up their Neighbourhood Plans and District Plans to plug the gap created by the new 2012 NPPF policies.

East Devon District Council who had been dragging their feet for years to complete their Local Plan, finally managed to obtain the approval of the Planning Inspectorate in January 2016 to cover the period up to 2031. Lympstone had got its Neighbourhood Plan approved in 2015 and since then over 30 Neighbourhood Plans are either approved or in the process of being drafted by community groups within East Devon.

It was therefore thought that East Devon and its communities had substantial protection from greedy landowners and developers up to 2031 and with the extra protection of the East Devon Villages Plan, approved in July 2018 (which gave further defined policies for larger Villages and some large Business Parks) residents and developers appeared to understand where development would or would not be allowed.

However, in late 2016 Exeter City Council, whose Chief Executive Karime Hassan (previously East Devon’s District Council officer who created and developed the concept of the new town of Cranbrook) proposed a joint “Strategic Plan”, along with neighbouring councils East Devon, Teignbridge, and Mid Devon.

The four councils then started a joint over-riding masterplan for Exeter and the surrounding area known as the GESP (the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan).

It was clear that Exeter was almost completely built-out and the infrastructure in roads and transport required for further city centre and commercial growth was urgently required if the continued success known as the “Exeter Growth Point” was to continue. Without a joint plan for infrastructure, the commute into the City would become intolerable and hinder the targeted housebuilding requirements set by the Government for each of the 4 separate councils.

In October 2018 the Government draw up yet another updated version of the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) very much on the lines of the 2012 Policies, but with various tweaks to assist in the over-riding government strategy of encouraging developers to build many more dwellings.

The new 2018 NPPF provided clearer guidance that if an individual Council was unable to provide enough development land for extra dwellings required by the government’s growth targets, neighbouring councils may be allowed to build out extra housing for their partner and other neighbouring authorities.

According to East Devon District Councils Strategic Planning Committees agenda item 12 for discussion on the 29th January 2019:

“Timetable for production of a new East Devon Local Plan”

Within the introduction to the agenda item it states:

…given changing circumstances and other factors, that a “light touch” review of the currently adopted local plan is unlikely to be a practical option for a new local plan.”

What the changing circumstances and other factors are, is not explained but it is clear from the report it is clearly in relation to GESP.

Because the GESP Strategic Plan policies will over-ride the East Devon Local Plan policies, the report seems to suggests that the “changing circumstances and other factors” relate to the new GESP policies which override the Local Plan, Village Plan and probably most Neighbourhood Plans – affecting a large area of East Devon! So much so that, rather than the GESP plan dovetailing into the 3-year-old approved East Devon Local Plan and 1-year-old Villages Plan with all the years of public consulting, Council debate and literally years of work by the planning team, it will be jettisoned for a brand-new Local Plan to dovetail into the strategies of the GESP plan!

Although the GESP plan has been in preparation for 2 years, no formal discussion or meeting has been held at any Council Chamber at any of the four Councils involved. Meetings have taken place to consider the 700 plus sites throughout the Greater Exeter area submitted for assessment by what is known as the “Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) panel” The Panel is made up of “key stakeholders”, with a recognised interest in the development of land for housing and employment, and housing and economic development sector, including housebuilders, social landlords, local property agents and other related professionals together with local community representatives and other agencies. The membership of these meeting has been confidential and there has there been no publication of their deliberations or recommendations.

To be clear: meetings between two lead councillors from each Authority, plus officers have kept the draft policies and site options totally under lock and key – with none of the meetings been reported or minuted.

However, all is to be revealed AFTER the local council elections in May 2019 – consultation has always been scheduled to begin no earlier than June 2019.

This suggests that the draft policies and site options affecting East Devon will be so radical and so totally at variance to the East Devon Local Plan and Villages Plan that they will all require total re-writing, with a brand-new Local Plan (subsidiary to GESP) and all the costs and uncertainties this will bring.

Why have these Councils been so secretive on the GESP proposed development site considerations for proposed strategies for commercial and housing development for this part of Devon? Could it be that Tory controlled East Devon, Teignbridge, and Mid Devon Councils have elections on May 2nd this year (Labour Exeter elects only one-third of its council this year) and a brand new super-growth plan – superseding their Local Plans – will not be considered much of vote-grabber?

Don’t say you weren’t warned!

Community group sues council over secret contract

“A community group is taking Gloucestershire County Council to court over the award of a £600m incinerator contract. Community R4C, a non-profit mutual society which has had support from celebrities including Jeremy Irons, Jonathon Porritt, Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall and Kevin McCloud, claims the contract was unlawfully awarded, resulting in a massive rise in costs to taxpayers and a breach of procurement law. They filed a lawsuit with the High Court on Friday.

Campaigners have been opposing the waste incinerator at Javelin Park for years, saying the project wasted taxpayers money, was bad for health and the environment and that there were cheaper and better alternatives. Requests to see the contract, the largest the county has ever entered into, were consistently refused until a tribunal forced its disclosure in 2017, by which time a revised contract had been signed. This was only released on 20th December 2018.

“It was a very difficult decision to take this course of action when so much taxpayer money has already been spent on legal battles”, says Patricia Watson, a waste consultant and volunteer director of the group. “The underhand behaviour of the council and contractor has led to a far higher price than anywhere else in the country for the lowest possible environmental benefit.”

Board member Sue Oppenheimer says: “The contract has increased by a staggering £150m making it 30% more expensive. By law, it should have been retendered. Instead Gloucestershire County Council has spent around half a million pounds keeping this information secret. With the support of the community, we had been working on a much cheaper waste processing plant and would have bid for the contract. Our plant would have increased recycling, reduced pollution and would have been a better deal for the environment and the taxpayer.”

Tom Jarman, another board member says: “There is a strict 30 days limit to bringing this sort of claim and it seems to us that the council timed the disclosure of the relevant information strategically, just before Christmas, so to make it almost impossible for anyone to bring legal action in time. Keeping a 30% increase in cost secret from the public and its own audit committee is not the way we expect a public authority to conduct itself.”

https://www.unitynews.co/people-of-gloucestershire-have-to-sue-their-own-council/

Hat-Gate: disgraced Seaton ex-Mayor Peter Burrows scandal update

“Calls have been made for the former mayor of Seaton to immediately resign as a town and district councillor after he called for residents to avoid a local business on what purported to be a Tourist Information Centre Twitter account.

At Monday night’s full council meeting, Seaton town council unanimously voted for a motion calling for the immediate resignation of Cllr Peter Burrows as a Seaton town councillor and as an East Devon District Councillor, where he represents the Seaton ward.

Cllr Burrows had stepped down as Mayor at a town council meeting on January 7 as he brought the office into disrepute when he called for residents to avoid a local business on what purported to be a Tourist Information Centre Twitter account, but continued in his role as a councillor.

The Tweet, posted by Cllr Burrows, had said: ‘Here in Seaton, Devon, we have a local business who badmouths the Mayor. Please Avoid’.

It had followed a public argument about fox hunting on the Facebook page ‘Seaton Views’, to which Cllr Burrows took exception to being called a ‘very naughty word’.

The business that Cllr Burrows had then called on residents to avoid on Twitter, The Hat, was not involved in any way in the argument, other than the individual involved in the argument occasionally frequenting the pub.

Gary Millar, proprietor of The Hat, had not been involved in the altercation and was therefore an entirely innocent party.

Cllr Burrows did not attend the meeting and has not responded to requests from the Local Democracy Reporting Service for comment.

Speaking at Monday’s meeting, Mr Millar said that it was inexplicable of Mr Burrows to make a direct attack on him using his title of mayor, and it was a grossly stupid response from any public official and it still not clear why he chose to attach The Hat.

He added: “I have yet to receive a proper apology from Mr. Burrows. His statement of resignation last week did not make it clear that I was not the person who insulted him, then he justified his actions, and finally boorishly he ended with him giving himself a pat on the back for a job well done. Unfortunately, any apology at this time now sounds hollow.”

Mr Millar added: “On the afternoon of New Year’s Day, Mr. Burrows had a very public argument about fox hunting with a private individual on the Facebook page ‘Seaton Views’. This escalated to a robust exchange of views between the two protagonists and Mr Burrows, who is surely used to the rough and tumble of political debate, took exception to being called a very naughty word.

“His inexplicable reaction was to use his title of Seaton Mayor to make a direct attack on me, accusing me of being disparaging to the mayor, and to tell thousands of subscribers to a Twitter page called @SeatonTIC, to avoid my business. On the face of it this was the official Seaton Tourist Information Centre page. This is a grossly stupid response from any public official in any circumstances. You could not make it up.

“It is not at all clear why Mr Burrows chose The Hat as opposed to the many other local businesses that his detractor frequents. Surely, as a public official involved in my various applications, he would have known who I was?”

Mr Millar said that he does not use social media for anything other than professional reasons, and said that although both @SeatonTIC and Seaton Views are ostensibly neutral and exist for the benefit of the people of and visitors to Seaton, it is disturbing that they are administered by a public official without a clear declaration of interest.

He added: “For example, Mr Burrows selectively deleted his unsavoury exchange on Seaton Views and blocked his detractor from the site. Yet he also closed the @SeatonTIC page entirely, not at the request from the Council as reported, but unilaterally overnight on January 1 after legal action was threatened against the then unknown poster.

“This had two effects. First, we are unable to see how many people viewed his tweet to assess the damage caused. Secondly, imagine the impression given to thousands of potential holidaymakers following what they would reasonably have considered the formal Seaton Tourist Information Twitter page. A strange tweet from the town Mayor attacking a local small business, followed by an unexplained blackout. This cannot be good for either my business or the image of the town as a whole.

“I would argue that these actions were not a selfless act by Mr. Burrows, or in the interests of myself or Seaton, but a means of covering tracks.”

Mr Millar said that he views both the local and district councils legally culpable for his actions, regardless of these being rogue or not, and expects them both the local and district council to do their legal duty and mitigate any damage against him.

He added: “This includes a full and open investigation of Mr Burrows’ conduct in office, including on social media, and disciplinary or legal action wherever possible. This motion of no confidence, and the complaint to the East Devon Monitoring Officer is a positive response by the Seaton Town Council.”

Mr Millar, who opened The Hat last year, added: “Despite undoubted damage to my business, the support of my regulars, and other public support helps me believe that moving to Seaton to open up a new and innovative business was the right decision. My sincere thanks to you all and I hope to continue to serve you real ales, ciders and other fine beverages in a friendly environment for many years to come.”

A motion debated at the meeting, which was unanimously agreed, said: “This Council condemns the actions of Cllr Burrows, as behaviour not befitting someone holding public office, and calls for his immediate resignation as a Seaton Town Councillor and EDDC District Councillor.

“In a personal capacity he posted defamatory statements about a local business on social media, but used an account purported to be an official account and referring to himself in the capacity of Mayor. Cllr Burrows has admitted his actions were unacceptable and that the target of his comments was an entirely innocent party. He has shown he lacks the integrity to remain a Councillor and to represent the people of Seaton and East Devon.”

At the previous meeting, Cllr Burrows had unreservedly apologised for his remarks that he made after what he said were ‘disgusting personal comments’ that had been made against him and said that he deeply regretted writing the Tweet.

A town council spokesman had previously said: “Seaton town council wishes to make it clear that despite using the term “Mayor” and using what purported to be a Tourist Information Centre account, Cllr Burrows was not authorised to use his title for personal matters, nor was he authorised to represent the TIC.

“He was acting in a purely private capacity and the Council dissociates itself from his actions.”

The council has reported Cllr Burrows to the Monitoring Officer at East Devon District Council for breaching the code of conduct.

An East Devon District Council spokesman said they were unable to comment.”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/former-mayor-should-resign-immediately-2470917

Party discipline? Not in our party’s backyard!

A little bird tells Owl that an East Devon resident is having trouble making a complaint about a local councillor who represents a mainstream political party in East Devon.

The councillor’s party seems to want to wash its hands of any involvement by saying that, as it has no whip (smirk) at a local level, so its hands are tied, and suggests waiting out a Monitoring Officer complaint before even thinking about action within its own party at a higher regional or national level.

But, as we all know, Monitoring Officers can take months and months to investigate complaints.

How convenient then that waiting several months for a Monitoring Officer report would allow any councillor who is the subject of a serious complaint to stand for their party in the next district election in May 2019 – with voters unaware that a such complaint is being investigated …

“Academy schools ‘not accountable enough’ “

“Academy schools are not “sufficiently transparent or accountable to parents and local communities”, MPs have said.

Half of all children in English state-funded schools are educated by academy trusts, the Public Accounts Committee noted, in a report out today.

Academies have greater freedoms than local authority-maintained schools and can set staff pay and conditions, determine their own curriculum and are directly responsible for financial as well as educational performance.

But the PAC report said that parents and local people “have to fight to obtain even basic information” about trusts, and they do not explain decisions on how they are spending public money.

PAC chair Meg Hillier said: “When things go wrong in schools, pupils can be badly affected. We have seen the troubling consequences of poor governance and oversight of academy trusts government must raise its game to ensure the failures of the past are not repeated.

“Parents and the wider community are entitled to proper access to transparent information about their local academy schools. They must have confidence that when issues arise, robust measures are in place to deal with them.”

Academies have been criticised in recent years for paying excessive salaries to members of staff.

The Education and Skills Funding Agency had tried to tackle this issue, on the PAC’s advice, the committee noted.

The ESFA wrote to 29 single academies in November 2017 asking for justification of salaries over £150,000.

But, the committee said, the ESFA action alone would not prevent academy staff being paid excessive salaries.

The PAC also noted that Ofsted and ESFA are not able to assess the impact of funding pressures on the quality of education and the outcomes schools achieve.

It recommended the ESFA should require academy trusts, in the academies financial handbook 2019, to make financial information more readily available. The guidance should also require academies to be more transparent about governance and decision-making at all levels. …”

https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2019/01/academy-schools-not-accountable-enough

“What It’s Like To Lose Your Local Post Office”

Another in the Huffington Post series of the effects of local authority cuts:

“Mole Meade is dedicated to the Post Office. The trade union rep has spent half of his life working as a clerk, while also representing its thousands of employees.

But after 30 years, his expresses his loyalty to the firm in a different way. He now frequently fights alongside councillors and community leaders to halt the disappearance of post offices from British high streets, as branches are closed across the country.

“I’ve seen it go through rack and ruin,” says Meade, who is now an executive at the Communication Workers Union.

Last year, Lewisham in London lost the last two Post Offices branches directly controlled by the company, known as “crown” sites, as Sydenham and New Cross pulled down their shutters for good in a move local councillor Alan Hall described as a “national scandal”.

But the Post Office has been under immense pressure to shut down those branches. Crown post offices now make up just 2% of the national postal network, having fallen from 373 branches in 2009, to 262 in March last year. Mostly, they have been subsumed into local news agents, or WHSmiths.

The closures are particularly poignant in light of rising concerns about the death of the high street, and discussions about how to draw more customers in as numbers continue to fall nationwide. Forecasters predict some 175,000 jobs could be lost as footfall declines again this year.

“You’ve got a government currently banging on about ‘oh, we’ve got to do something about the high street’, and they’re the ones killing it off,” Meade said.

The Sydenham closure was “probably one of the most offensive” closures, he said. It wasn’t just a place to post a letter or a package – as a full service site it was also where people could apply for work permits, or sort out issues with their immigration status.

“What happened in Sydenham, this happens in every office that’s got UK border agency facilities. People who come to Britain for economic, political, asylum reasons have to get UK border agency facilities at some point and with the closure of Sydenham, those facilities evaporated,” he told HuffPost UK.

But like so many decisions driven by austerity over the past few years, the closure made sense on paper. Services were not withdrawn completely, and people could go to WHSmith stores for some of the things the post office provided them with. But as with similar cuts across the UK, there was a quiet but profound impact on the people who relied on it.

The slow decline of the post offices is just one of the cuts that we have been examining in our new series, What It’s Like To Lose. After nearly eight years of shrinking local budgets, HuffPost UK has been focusing on the disappearing bus routes, leisure centres, clinics and job centres that together paint a picture of what life is like for millions of people who rely on public services in the age of austerity.

Now, the shuttered branch in south London’s New Cross stands vacant. “This was a post office that was very well used – always queues out the door. So there was very much a need in the neighbourhood, and we didn’t want either of them to go,” says Laura Wirtz, a local resident.

Wirtz was an instrumental figure in the campaign against the New Cross closure, heading up the petition of 3,000 signatures which was eventually presented to Downing Street last February.

She told HuffPost UK: “When I started the campaign and started taking the petitions around the pubs, I would hear comments like ‘Oh, we’re going to lose that as well?’.”

“We’d already lost the bank, and the library was only kept open for two days a week but then volunteers are running it. We’re just losing all of our essential services and the only things that still exist are private, promotional spaces.

“There’s nothing owned by us, nothing that’s for the community and so there’s just a general feeling that the amenities we depend on, they’re not going to be open for us, and there’s nothing we can do about it.”

But this is not simply a story of one post office being closed, says Lewisham councillor Joe Dromey, who opposed the closure of the New Cross crown site. This was a whole constellation of pressures. “It’s part of a wave of closures of Crown post offices we’ve seen in recent years which has been an effort by the post office to save money and cut costs,” he told HuffPost UK.

“The reason why it delivers big savings for the Post Office is because it replaces decent, well-paid union organised jobs on secure terms, with low-paid, insecure work. The savings are on the back of undermining decent, quality work,” he said.

Grievances were aired at local council meetings last year, with local residents fearing the economic impact of the closure, as well as longer queues and poorer service. Consultations were even held between residents and Post Office bosses, which councillor Liam Curran labelled a “cosmetic exercise”.

A campaign was launched online, adopting the #SaveOurPostOffice hashtag. Their action culminated in a number of petitions being presented to Downing Street. But it didn’t stop the closures.

Curran told HuffPost UK: “They all closed down one by one. Last year, there was about just under 300 that were crown branches. But before that, there was thousands and thousands of them. Now they’re closing, despite all the lobbying a petitions from people up and down the country, they’re being ignored.”

Founded in 1986, Post Office Ltd now has a network of 11,500 branches across the UK, directly employing 8,000 employees in its Crown branches, and 50,000 in its sub-post offices. It broke off from the privatised Royal Mail in 2012 to become an independent, state-owned firm as part of the Postal Services Act 2011.

But it has weathered challenging conditions, and faced questions over its viability as it began to report losses reaching £108m in 2007.

In a bid to overhaul the brand’s fortunes, the government provided a £1.7bn cash injection in 2007, in hopes that it could become profitable again by 2011. Part of this deal saw 85 Crown sites close, most of them sold to retailer WHSmith.

The 2007 government subsidy was followed up in 2010 with £1.3 billion in funding to help the firm further. As part of efforts to modernise, it introduced two new types of shop – open plan ‘main sites’ with longer hours and more services, and ‘local style’ post offices which are housed within corner shops and are open during retail hours.

Simultaneously, the number of Crown sites fell, with figures showing that by the end of March, there were 262, making up 2% of the entire network, compared with 373 in 2009. A 10-year deal was drawn up between Post Office Ltd and WHSmith, in which 61 sites are to be sold to the high street giant until 2026.

Curran said he fears that the government is set on privatising the Post Office completely. “It’s the equivalent to a national service like the railways, water, power, that actually should be under the ownership of the public through the government, and that provides a service that benefits people.”

He said it is part of “the story of wider privatisation, and government priorities.”

The Post Office told HuffPost UK it does not take branch changes lightly.

“The Post Office is not immune to the pressures facing all retailers, and we must respond to the unprecedented change taking place on high streets and adapt to changing customer needs.

“We want our services to remain at the heart of communities, including in Lewisham, in a way that’s financially sustainable, not just for today’s customers but tomorrow’s too. 98% of the Post Office network is run in this way, on an agency or franchise basis. It’s a model that works through delivering the benefits of shared overheads and footfall.”

The company reassured customers that they would still be able to rely on the facilities they expect, adding that there are “very rarely changes” to services over the counter.

“We do not make changes to our branches lightly – but we need to make them if we are to ensure that our services remain at the heart of towns and cities, not just in the short term, but for the long term too.”

It is clear that, amid the changing face of New Cross high street, the loss of the Crown post office signifies the fall of yet another constant, a reliable community nerve centre.

Meade said: “It affects the very fabric of our high streets and our society, because what you can’t put a price on is a person, whether young or old, can go to the post office weekly, and that’s probably the only people they speak to.

“You can’t put a price on that.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/what-its-like-to-lose-your-post-office_uk_5c46f58ae4b0bfa693c6e267?guccounter=1

“Outgoing NHS digital chief wrote ‘puff piece’ for future employer in ‘jaw-droppingly inappropriate’ behaviour”

“NHS England’s outgoing chief digital officer has been criticised for “jaw-droppingly inappropriate” behaviour after she announced her departure for a health technology start-up she had praised in a “puff piece” article without disclosing she was joining its payroll.

Juliet Bauer is currently serving out her notice period after announcing she was departing from NHS England last week, and faced criticism for leaving the NHS to join a health tech firm— days after the long-term plan called for a major NHS expansion in the sector.

Bauer, one of the top officials who worked on the NHS Long-Term Plan, is accused of a conflict of interest after she wrote a high-profile article in The Times newspaper praising Kry, a video appointment app, without disclosing she had been hired by the company.

In the article last week, and under her NHS title, Bauer wrote that data provided by “Europe’s biggest video GP consultation provider” showed “high levels of patient and GP satisfaction.”

She said that from April she would taking up a new job at “one of the largest and most trusted digital healthcare providers in Europe,” but did not specify that she would be joining Kry, leading to NHS England distancing themselves from the article.

Speaking to the Financial Times (FT), Meg Hillier, chair of the public accounts committee (PAC), labelled the article a “puff piece advert for the new employer,” and said she was “shocked at the lack of judgement.”
“This revolving door of senior officials going into businesses they have worked with has long been an issue but this is brazen,” Hillier added, arguing that the move was “jaw-droppingly inappropriate.”

As reported in the FT, the chief clinical information officer for health and care Simon Eccles defended his former colleague and said she was a “fantastic” during her time at the NHS, but acknowledged that the article had been inappropriate.

He said: “I think muddling that (view) with any individual commercial provider, which that piece did, was a mistake.

“There’s nothing wrong with saying ‘I now work for a company who’s trying to do this and I think that this company will do great things’ once you’ve left us, but that’s not what happened.”

Bauer announced her departure days after the long-term plan she helped to develop was published, but Eccles emphasised that she could not have had any undue influence over the tech-focused NHS Long-Term Plan.”

http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/Robot-News/outgoing-nhs-digital-chief-wrote-puff-piece-for-future-employer-in-jaw-droppingly-inappropriate-behaviour