Category Archives: Accountability

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Sep 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Asset sweating, EDDC, JLL Property Consultants, Midweek Herald, Philip Skinner, Regeneration, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Comments

2 Comments

Misleading headline about future of Sidmouth’s Drill Hall

The Midweek Herald website has an article entitled “Concerns over Sidmouth’s redundant Drill Hall site quelled”. On reading the article it will become patently clear that, far from being quelled, the future of the Drill Hall looks extremely insecure:

“… In June, community groups were given six months to make a bid for proposals to redevelop the site – they have until February 4, 2019.

Exeter-based agent JLL, which was appointed by East Devon District Council (EDDC), plans to open the bidding up to the commercial property sector in the Autumn, giving them three months to put forward a bid.

Two members of the public came forward at the latest Sidmouth Town Council meeting on Monday. Resident Di Fuller raised issues with there being no published criteria on what the bids would be judged on. While, resident Simon Fern spoke out about his fears that the owners of the Drill Hall (EDDC) will simply sell to the highest bidder.

District and Town Councillor David Barrett said: “It would be impossible for me properly discuss the details of that criteria until it is discussed in the forum that decides the criteria.”

He added that the forum was hoping to meet soon and that he believed they would be looking at the criteria then.

Town Clerk Christopher Holland said: “My understanding is that it isn’t this council that gets the final say on this, it is not even this council who will have a say on this as such. We are being consulted and that is about it.

“My understanding is that when the criteria has been agreed they will be made publicly available to everybody but that will be through the agent. It won’t be through us, it won’t be through EDDC. It will be through the appointed agent so that they are fair to absolutely everybody and that is commercial and community bids both. They have to be fair to everybody and treat everybody in exactly the same way. So approaching us or EDDC for other information is just not going to work, you have to deal with the agent.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/concerns-over-sidmouth-s-redundant-drill-hall-site-quelled-1-5685665

Are your fears quelled? Owl’s are not!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Sep 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Education (local), Privatisation

“Fat cat bosses were paid more than £1million from ‘taxpayers cash and student debt’ to run luxury £559 per week student halls complete with posh kitchens, gyms and cinemas”

“Three fatcat bosses were paid more than £1million each by a firm last year to run student halls of residence, figures show.

Unite Students, the country’s largest student accommodation provider, paid £3.9million in total to the trio in salary, benefits and bonuses.

The highest paid was chief executive Richard Smith, who received £1.4million – more than 50 times the average UK salary. This included £437,167 in wages, an annual bonus of £401,407, pension benefit of £84,506 and £476,619 via a long-term incentive plan. …

The priciest of these halls were in London, where private firm CRM Students was charging £559 per week for 51 weeks at its Canto Court site – a total of £28,500 a year – for King’s College students.

Accommodation in Cardiff was offered for £9,639 over 51 weeks which had a shared cinema, gym, and music practice room – again courtesy of CRM Students.

And those at Bristol can pay £14,280 for a studio in Brunel House via Unite Students.

While most private halls are not officially affiliated to universities, they target students who have missed out on traditional campus ‘digs’ – often because they went through clearing.”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6148961/Fat-cat-bosses-paid-1million-taxpayers-cash-student-debt.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Sep 2018

Posted under

Accountability, AONB, Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site, Ladram Bay Holiday Park, Planning System

Could we lose World Heritage Site status in the East Devon section of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site through EDDC lack of concern over retrospective planning application at Ladram Bay?

Retrospective planning application EDDC 18/1517

UK National Commission for UNESCO already alerted by members of the general public

“Jurassic Coast Trust (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 04 Sep 2018

Firstly, we would like to point out that the Jurassic Coast Trust, as the organisation responsible for the protection of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site, should have been formally consulted on this application.
You should also be aware that this application has been raised by the general public with the UK National Commission for UNESCO, with whom we are now liaising.

Response: Object

The core issue for us is the extension of the viewing deck or ‘ice cream deck’ into the World Heritage Site (WHS). The boundary for the WHS is described for this part of the coast in appendix 2 of the Site management plan. Both the full plan and its appendices are available to download freely from http://www.jurassiccoast.org. At Ladram Bay the WHS sits between the break in slope at the top of the cliff and the mean low water mark. The extension of the decking therefore has a direct impact within the Site’s boundaries.

These potential impacts should be considered under the following policies from the WHS management plan:

1.1 Protect the OUV (Outstanding Universal Value) of the site through prevention of developments that might impede natural processes, or obscure the exposed geology, as set out in the GCR / SSSI details, now and in the future.

1.2 Where developments affecting the Site or setting do take place, avoid or at least mitigate negative impact on the natural processes and exposed geology.

1.3 Oppose developments in the Site’s setting that may warrant a future need for coastal defences, particularly in light of potential sea-level rise and extreme weather events.

1.4 Protect the landscape character, natural beauty and cultural heritage of the Site and setting from inappropriate development.

Retrospective planning permission is wholly inadequate to deliver these policies for three key reasons:

1 There is not enough information provided about the nature of the structure and how it is anchored and supported. A proper assessment of its impacts on the WHS is impossible based on this application.

2 Retrospective permission does not allow for the mitigation of impacts within the design process.

3 There is no evidence that alternative approaches that provide similar benefits to the holiday park’s users whilst protecting the natural environment have been considered.

National Planning Policy provides World Heritage Sites with the highest level of protection (see NPPF paragraphs 184 and 194). The long operation and high rating of the holiday park does not excuse the applicant from following proper planning procedures.

If the applicant had followed normal planning procedure, we would have had the chance to comment early on the design, suggest alternatives if necessary or, if deemed to be appropriate development, recommended suitable consent conditions.

Protection of the World Heritage Site relies on the planning system to deliver these opportunities.

We strongly recommend that East Devon District Council refuse this application.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Sep 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Accountable Care Organisation, Austerity cuts, DCC, Health and Social Care (local), Integrated Care Systems, Scrutiny

Meeting in Parliament on the failure of scrutiny of NHS changes

DCC Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee- and particularly its chair Sarah Randall Johnson – take note:

“NHS campaigners meeting with MPs to call for better scrutiny and review to stop damaging cuts

Defend the NHS campaign groups from across England are to lobby MPs at a meeting in the House of Commons on Monday 10th September.

They will share their experiences of the need to improve the process of scrutiny and review of substantial changes to NHS services, in order to stop damaging cuts and changes.

The meeting is hosted by Paula Sherriff, MP for Dewsbury – where the District General Hospital has lost many of its key services.

Local campaign group, North Kirklees Support the NHS, will explain the risks this has created for the Dewsbury public.

Along with six other campaigns from Lincolnshire, West Yorkshire, Devon, Northumbria, Dorset and Oxfordshire, the Dewsbury group will tell MPs that there is an urgent need to address serious flaws in the process whereby Councils’ scrutiny committees refer proposals for damaging NHS cuts and changes to the Secretary of State for Health and the Independent Reconfiguration Panel.

Christine Hyde, from North Kirklees Support the NHS, said,

“The process of referral to the Secretary of State was opaque. The Independent Reconfiguration Panel is the key body with the power to advise the Secretary of State for Health to stop and/or require changes to major NHS cuts and “reconfigurations” – but there was next to no information about how it worked.

Once we had figured that out, we naively thought public opinion would have some weight. Together with the other five local NHS protector groups, we encouraged Independent Reconfiguration Panel members to visit Dewsbury.

We were ignored.

The Independent Reconfiguration Panel’s decision that local commissioners could sort out the failings in the hospital cuts proposals has not, for the most part, been borne out.

As the hospitals reconfiguration has been implemented, it has created huge problems for the most vulnerable groups – housebound patients, infants, children with disabilities and patients with life threatening illnesses like cancer.

The hospital changes were sold as being ‘better for patients’ but it really was all about the money and even so, the savings are recorded in a response to a Freedom of Information request as ‘nominal’.”

Campaigners will also demand political impartiality in the scrutiny and referral process.

The need for this is shown by Save Our Hospitals Devon’s observation of a discussion and decision by Devon County Council’s health and adult social care scrutiny committee, that reversed an earlier vote to refer the closure of community hospital beds in Eastern Devon to the Secretary of State.

Members of Save Our Hospitals Devon Netti Pearson and Sue Matthews said,

“The feeling among observers was certainly that the decision was a political one rather than one borne of effective and satisfactory scrutiny.”

Steven Carne from 999 Call for the NHS, the national campaign group which has convened the meeting, said,

“We are very excited about the campaign groups coming together from across the country to share their experiences of wrestling with the scrutiny and referral process.

This is key to stopping damaging NHS cuts, closures and inappropriate importation of insurance-based ‘care models’ from USA’s Medicare/Medicaid system. This provides a limited range of state-funded healthcare, on the basis of financial considerations – not clinical need, to people who can’t afford private health insurance. It is not what the NHS is about.

For the first time, campaign groups across England are pooling our knowledge and experience to lobby MPs to make this scrutiny and referrals process work better, because it definitely needs to.

And also to encourage other campaigns to get more actively involved with the process, in defence of NHS and social care services in their area.

The Department of Health guidance on health scrutiny says its primary aim is to strengthen the voice of local people in the commissioning and delivery of health services.

So it needs to make sure this happens.

This meeting is just a start. We are going to pursue this goal through thick and thin.”

http://999callfornhs.org.uk/scrutiny-failing-us/4594418128

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Sep 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Barratt Homes, Developers/ Development, Persimmon, Redrow, Taylor Wimpey

“Help to buy” – or help to rip off?

“Britain’s biggest housebuilders have doubled the average profits they make from each home since the Help to Buy scheme was launched.

Analysis by The Times reveals that the top five builders in Britain are making an average profit of £57,000 on each house they sell, compared with a mean average of about £29,000 in 2007.

Barratt, the biggest builder, is making almost double the amount of profit compared with ten years ago but is building only 411 more homes. Another builder, Bellway, is making more than £58,000 profit a house compared with a little more than £30,000 in 2007 but is building 2,000 fewer homes.

At the time of its launch in 2013, it was hoped the scheme would stimulate house-building. When it was extended in 2014, Mark Clare, then chief executive of Barratt, said: “Britain urgently needs more homes and by setting out a longer-term framework for Help to Buy this announcement will enable the industry to deliver just that.” Yet figures show that the total number of new houses delivered has barely changed since the introduction of the scheme.

The profits last year have been compared with 2007 because this was the last full year that housebuilders were at their peak before the financial crash. Annual pre-tax profits were divided by the number of homes built in each year to reach a “profit per house” figure.

Britain is facing its worst housing crisis in generations, with ownership at a 30-year low and a record 1.8 million families with children renting privately.

Housebuilders were quick to point out that underlying growth will have boosted profits, with house prices having risen by 23 per cent across the UK since 2007. They also noted that they were paying huge amounts back in debt each year at high interest rates before the financial crash, compared with today, when they have millions in cash at the end of each year.

However, analysts believe that a large driver of profits is the government’s Help to Buy scheme, which supports about 40 per cent of housebuilders’ sales. Robin Hardy, an analyst at Shore Capital, believes that housebuilders would be making £22,000 less in profit on each house built for first-time buyers if Help to Buy was not in place. “We reckon that homes sold through Help to Buy are 53 per cent higher than in June 2013, whereas house price figures from Land Registry or Nationwide suggest that across all first homes it’s more like 19 per cent,” he said. “That suggests that someone is gaming the system.”

Neal Hudson, a housing expert at Resi Analysts, said that shareholders had become “the main priority” for housebuilders since the financial crash. “The over-arching factor has been big pressure from the City,” he said. “The priority for them is profit margin not the number of homes built.”

Persimmon, Britain’s second-largest housebuilder, made an average profit of just over £60,000 on each house it built in 2017. In 2007 the figure was £36,787. It built only 138 more homes.

The housebuilder made pre-tax profits of £966 million in 2017 and has a war chest in net cash of £1.3 billion. Jeff Fairburn, its chief executive, was paid £75 million in a bonus scheme last year, which was more than the highest paid banking executives on Wall Street.

Lord Best, vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on housing, said: “These bumper profits come at a time of growing recognition of the catalogue of failings of major housebuilders: poor design, miserable space standards, defective workmanship, delaying development to keep prices high . . . and exploiting a loophole in the planning process to renege on their obligations to include affordable homes in their developments.”

However, developers said the type of product they build has changed, with far fewer flats and a much tighter control over what type of land they buy.

A Home Builders Federation spokesman said: “House building is cyclical. After the financial downturn companies posted big losses and had to make huge writedowns on the value of their land. Many companies disappeared. Since 2013 output has increased by 74 per cent, an increase that as well as providing desperately needed homes has given the economy a huge boost.”

Source: The Times (pay wall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Sep 2018

Posted under

Accountability, AONB, East Devon Alliance, EDDC, Local Infrastructure and CIL, Local Plan, Otterto

Unrest in Otterton – planning policies in shambles

Otterton Residents frustration to visitor and contractor traffic.

Residents in the beautiful village of Otterton are very concerned after the hot summer which has seen a heavy increase to their village roads with serious problems in noise pollution and traffic with visitors to Ladram Bay Holiday Park and now large mobile homes getting stuck in the village and causing further frustration to local people.

Residents blame EDDC and the County Council for allowing the Holiday Park to expand over the last 20 years and not listening to their views or those of the Parish Council concerns.

However, District Councillor Cllr Geoff Jung who has been the District Councillor for the last 3 years for Raleigh Ward that includes Ladram Bay, says:

“I have done everything possible to control the expansion of the Holiday Park. The Park is there and there is nothing that a Planning Authority can do to reduce its size.”

“The East Devon Local Plan does not support any further expansion for any Holiday Park within the AONB, and with the site being on the Jurassic Coast which is a World Heritage site, this you would think would be reason enough to protect the area from further expansion.”

“However as demonstrated at East Devon’s planning meeting last Tuesday regarding Industrial units to be built at Blackhill Quarry in the AONB of Woodbury Common, that although it was against East Devon’s local plan policies, the lack of support from Natural England and the controlling party Tory Councillors supporting Enterprise over Environmental issues, the committee unfortunately voted to approve the application by just one vote!!”

“The justification for Blackhill was – it will provide jobs and unfortunately RSPB and National England did not object won the day. I fear the same will happen when three outstanding Ladram Bay planning applications that are being considered at present.”

The 3 planning Applications awaiting determination are:

18/2015/FUL LPG storage tanks Ladram Bay Otterton Budleigh Salterton EX9 7BX.
This is for the siting of large storage tanks in the field above the existing Holiday Park and the Public Road.

8/1517/FUL Retrospective application for a new ‘splash’ zone adjacent to the indoor swimming pool, extension to viewing deck at junction of beach and slipway; relocation and re-orientation of bases and addition of static caravan. These developments have already been built and the owners have been requested to summit the applications to comply to Planning Policy.
The Jurassic Coast Trust has objected, plus the Parish Council and 10 individuals. The Planning department are awaiting further comments from the AONB and Natural England before they come to a decision.

17/1584/FUL for revisions to a planning permission submitted in 2016, 16/1709/FUL for the construction of new service yard and building. Again, this application covers work that has already been carried out with new roads car park and a service yard being built one third larger than originally approved.

This application is being held up for further landscaping proposals from the applicant before it can be finally being determined by the planning department.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Sep 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Councillor Marianne Rixon EDA, East Devon Alliance, East Devon economy, High Street decline, Independent Councillors, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Comments

3 Comments

Independent EDA Councillor Rixon speaks up for Sidford parking

Here is her speech to Cabinet which led to reconsideration of an increase in car parking charges.

“My comments echo those made earlier by Richard Eley, on behalf of Sidmouth Chamber of Commerce.

I would ask you to reconsider the proposal to standardise car park fees. Evidence in my Ward suggests that a one size fits all policy will not help small businesses to survive, let alone thrive.

Sidford is a clear example. We have already lost many shops over the years. Everyone knows that retail is suffering due to competition from online shopping from the likes of Amazon which makes huge profits but contributes little to the UK economy.

Business rates weigh heavily on SMEs, which pay a disproportionate rate by comparison with large business.

Add to this the increase in the minimum wage, high levels of VAT and general running costs.

And then the local council decides to hike up the cost of parking to your customers by a whopping 150%. Taking Sidford Spar as an example, why would anyone pay a 50p premium for half an hour to buy a loaf of bread or pint of milk when they can drive to Temple Street and park for nothing or onto Waitrose and park for nothing, or even Newton Poppleford and park for nothing?

The Operations Director of Spar told me they “lost significant customer flow when the Doctor’s surgery relocated and now these increases will only hit our business even more.”

The owner of Lexys, the hairdressers, said, “I am not happy at all with the charges proposed. If I were to raise my charges by 150%, I wouldn’t stay in business.”

Cllr Pook stated “the Council has listened carefully to what has been said during the public consultation and the cabinet report recommendations reflect the views of the respondents”.

This is not the case with regard to Sidford, where 64% agreed with the proposal to introduce free parking for the first two hours. Nor does it reflect the views of business owners.

Looking at the current revenue generated, this car park contributes only 0.32% towards annual revenue at £10,676 for 2016/17. There are 60 spaces which generate only £29 a day for the whole car park (so less than 50p per space per day). Raising the parking fees by 150% would only equate to £43.50 per day, which is still miniscule. And apparently the amount for 2017/18 was even less, £10,535, so still less than 50p per space per day).

In summary, a dramatic increase in car park charges could hasten the closure of more local businesses through lack of custom. Precisely how much do the Sidford companies pay in business rates? Could it be more than £29 per day? I would suggest that this information be made available, so that it can be reviewed by Cabinet.”

Speeches by councillors for Lympestone and Phear Park led to reconsideration of their charges as reported here:

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/parking-charges-rise-devons-cheapest-1948853

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Sep 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, East Devon Tories, Neil Parish, Post-Brexit Adjustments

Neil Parish will only talk to party members about Brexit – not even non-member spouses allowed! And questions in advance only

“Date Thursday, 13th September 2018
Time 1900
at COLLITON BARTON EVENTS AND TRAINING CENTRE, BROADHEMBURY, EX14 3LJ

(by kind permission of the Persey family)

ROGER PERSEY, past President of Tiverton & Honiton Conservative Association, to host and moderate the evening.

Please take this opportunity to make your voice heard via our MP.

Timetable & format

7:00pm Arrival and take your seats

7:15pm Questions from members – submitted in advance to arrive by email or post by 5:30pm on 11th September

8:15pm Final questions and finish followed by cheese & wine provided by Neil Parish M.P.

8:45pm Close

This event is only open to current Conservative Party members of the Tiverton & Honiton Conservative Association. This means that spouses, partners or others arriving with a member must themselves be current members – otherwise with regret they will be refused admittance.

RSVP,with details of any companions, by 5:30pm on 11th of September”

https://www.tivertonhonitonconservatives.co.uk/events/brexit-question-time-neil-parish-mp

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Sep 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Inequality, Local Government Finance

The 10 councils under most financial pressure (8 Conservative, 2 Labour)

Includes Somerset and Torbay – both Conservative councils.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45435368

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Sep 2018

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, EDDC, Post-Brexit Adjustments

Comments

3 Comments

EDDC has done no Brexit planning

Response to Freedom of Information request:

“Brexit impact assessments

Date submitted: 3 August 2018

Summary of request

1. Please provide any Brexit impact assessments conducted by your council, or other forms of Brexit planning. If you haven’t undertaken any Brexit impact assessments please provide other forms of Brexit planning, as well as any notes for context.

2. Please provide any emails relating to Brexit planning/the impact of Brexit.
Summary of response

1. Please provide any Brexit impact assessments conducted by your council, or other forms of Brexit planning. If you haven’t undertaken any Brexit impact assessments please provide other forms of Brexit planning, as well as any notes for context – EDDC have not carried out any Brexit impact assessments or any other forms of planning. For further information please refer your enquiry to the Brexit Resilience Group ran by Phil Norrey at Devon County Council:

Frances Williams
Executive PA to the Chief Executive & Head of Organisational Development
Devon County Council
County Hall
Topsham Road
EXETER
EX2 4QD
Tel: 01392 383201 or Frances.williams@devon.gov.uk

2. Please provide any emails relating to Brexit planning/the impact of Brexit – None

Date responded: 14 August 2018”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Sep 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Environment (local), Privatisation, South West Water, Spin

South West Water – the great consumer con

“South West Water’s half-baked plan won’t cool nationalisation fever

Guardian: Nils Pratley Tuesday 4 Sept

Utilities company’s plan to give customers free shares equates to only £25 per household.

One can guess at how the thinking went in the boardroom at Pennon, owner of South West Water. The Labour party is threatening to nationalise the water industry, so let’s try to defuse some tension by giving customers free shares. We’ll call it “a new deal” and talk about “empowering” people.
Up to a point, one can understand the idea to do something eye-catching. The shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, has yet to explain how he would pay for his plans, or which of the many versions of public ownership he prefers (two big oversights), but he has definitely tapped into resentment with the current privatised model in England and Wales. Water companies know they are seen as greedy and unaccountable. It is why, as they unveiled their business plans for the next five-year regulatory period, many announced various “partnership” ideas that were nods to the nationalisation debate.

Pennon’s plan, however, looks half-baked. It apparently polled strongly, but one wonders if the researchers described a worked example. The company plans to offer customers a shareholding, or “shadow” shareholding, worth £20m, which sounds vaguely impressive until you realise it equates to £25 per household for the 800,000 households in the south-west. At Pennon’s current share price of 755p that means three-and-a-bit shares each, which would be hideously fiddly to administer.

As for the claim that customers will “be able to receive a share of the company profits as shareholders do”, punters should know that Pennon’s shares currently yield 5%. So the starting dividend income on a £25 holding would be about £1.25 a year, not always enough for half a pint of beer in a Cornish hostelry. Such tiny sums probably wouldn’t convert many waverers to the joys of privatisation. Pennon tends to be more open than most of its breed, but this looks like a gimmick that could easily backfire.

Rivals kept things simpler. Thames, whose financial engineering, pollution and leaks have done most to excite nationalisation fever, said its private owners would have to accept lower dividends while an extra £2bn is spent on infrastructure. Severn Trent said it would give 1% of profits to a “community fund”. Both approaches ignored soaraway boardroom pay, another source of complaint, but at least they are easier to understand than token shareholdings.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2018/sep/03/customer-shareholding-plan-for-south-west-water-is-half-baked

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Sep 2018

Posted under

Accountability, AONB, Blackhill Quarry, Clinton Devon Estates, EDDC, Environment (local), Neighbourhood Plans, Woodbury

Comments

4 Comments

“Gove wasting his time” – “Wild Woodbury” responds to Blackhill Quarry incursion further into AONB

Press release:

“Michael Gove is Wasting his time!

Conservative Councillors Undermine Government Environmental plans

The Woodbury Common “Area 12” development in East Devon is a classic example of members of the conservative party undermining the leadership and the will of the electorate. The proposed development of factories within an Area of Outstanding Natural beauty caused a local outcry. There were 198 objections to the plans and 4 people supported the application. When the development was put to the planning committee the council chamber was packed with objectors. The plans were passed with 6 people voting in favour and 5 against. The 6 supporters were all Tory Councillors who were not only out of step with the wishes of the electorate but also showed a total disregard for Michael Gove’s 25-year Environmental Plan.

Michael Gove is wasting his time! He is being undermined by his own Party and would be more effective working for an organisation with real environmental integrity such as The Wildlife Trust. He may be the most progressive and forward thinking Conservative Secretary for the Environment that we have had in decades. He recently stated “Outside the EU we are going to make sure that our environment is enhanced and protected. We believe in a greener Britain.”

If he hasn’t been a closet environmentalist all his life he has learned very quickly. He has listened to the much maligned “so called experts” and taken their ideas onboard. He isn’t afraid of speaking out either. When Donald Trump pulled the USA out of the Paris International Climate agreement most of the government were shuffling around looking at their shoes and scared to speak out in case they caused any offence. Michael however came out and condemned the move in his first speech after being returned to the cabinet. People have said that the new Tory “Green” policies that he is putting forward are just “vote bait” and that the conservatives are desperate to grab votes from the younger generation.

It is true that the younger generation in general tend to be greener than the traditional Tory voter, but they are also quite canny. It is not enough these days for a party to Talk the Talk, they will have to be seen to Walk the Walk if they are to get the youth vote. If the Tories don’t make good on their promises the next generation of voters will be even more disaffected about politics than the current ones. Plans for environmental initiatives like the bottle deposit scheme, banning single use plastics, and a switch to electric cars are very welcome, but until the legislation necessary to get them working is in place they are just a good idea and nothing more. Michael may have good intentions but after a year in the job the harsh reality is that he has changed very little.

Michaels downfall will not come because of criticism from environmental groups as most of the conservationists I talk to agree with his proposals. He is in step with most current thinking on environmental protection and is happy to express his own ideas. The document “A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment” contains enough positive ideology to satisfy most environmental campaigners. The document is elegantly designed, and its contents has been carefully thought out. It covers a huge range of subjects: sustainable land use, enhancing the beauty of landscapes, ways of reducing pollution and waste, fishing policy that ensures seas return to health and fish stocks are replenished, climate change, and new forests. The document even covers wildlife crime, poaching and illegal wildlife trade beyond our borders.

The problem that Michael has is that the document is a vision and not legislation. It is a collection of really good ideas, but it is not law. When there is a conflict between potential industrial development and the environment the ideals will get thrown into the river like toxic waste. If there is a chance for a profit to be made Tory councils will always find ways to get around even the most stringent protections. The “Green Future” is not seen as a moral compass for development it is just viewed as a bit of a nuisance.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Sep 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Barratt Homes, Developers/ Development

“Housebuilder Barratt shrugs off market worries to post record profits”

“Britain’s largest housebuilder Barratt Developments has shrugged off fears of a slowdown in the property market to post record profits.

The FTSE 100 giant made £836m in pre-tax profits in the year to June, a 7.9pc improvement on the previous year, after revenues grew 4.8pc to £4.9bn.

Barratt sold 17,579 houses in the year, up 1.1pc, at an average selling price of £289,000, a rise of 5pc.

While there are signs of a slowdown in the wider housing market, John Allan, chairman, said Barratt’s new builds were continuing to attract strong levels of interest from buyers.

He said: “Market conditions remain good with a wide availability of attractive mortgage finance, which, alongside Help to Buy, continues…”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/09/05/housebuilder-barratt-shrugs-market-worries-post-record-profits/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Sep 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Hugo Swire, Inequality, Neil Parish, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Standards Committee, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

“Standards watchdog head Sir Kevin Barron resigns over cover-up fears” – there really one law for MPs and one for the rest of us …

Owl says: what did you expect from this government?

“The head of the Commons standards watchdog has resigned and accused parliament of “sacrificing transparency” by banning the identification of MPs who are under investigation.

Sir Kevin Barron announced yesterday that he would step down next month after eight years of chairing the standards and privileges committee. “I am proud of the changes made to the code of conduct over the years, including the recent introduction of a new system of investigation into bullying and sexual harassment,” he said. But he took a swipe at his fellow MPs, adding: “It is a shame that some of those changes had to come with the sacrifice of transparency.”

In July members voted in favour of plans to keep secret the details of all MPs under investigation. The change was part of reforms being pushed through in response to reports of sexual harassment and bullying at Westminster.

Sir Kevin fiercely opposed the motion, describing it at the time as a “step backwards in transparency”. Lay members of the committee said that the move was “a detrimental step in continuing to build the credibility of the reputation of the House”. Less than two hours after the vote passed, the parliamentary standards commissioner had removed the list of current inquiries from its website.

Since 2010 details of MPs under inquiry, as well as rulings, have automatically been published. The new rules mean that the commissioner will no longer automatically publish verdicts.

Sir Kevin said: “I feel that now is an ideal time for me to move on and focus on other projects.” He commended the work of the lay members of the committee.

Jeremy Corbyn was reported to the standards commissioner last month for allegedly failing to declare his contentious trip to Tunisia or reveal who paid for it. If the commissioner were to rule that he broke Commons rules on declaring an overseas trip, he would have to apologise to MPs. Under the new system, however, the public would not automatically know of the details of the investigation. A spokesperson for Mr Corbyn has said: “The cost of the trip did not meet the declaration threshold.”

Source: The Times (paywall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Sep 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Blackhill Quarry, Clinton Devon Estates, EDDC, Environment (local)

“Un-Natural England! Industrial Development on Woodbury Common Agreed”

Reactions to the decision:

Yesterday at East Devon District Council the Planning Committee agreed to an area on Woodbury Common to be allowed to become an extension to an Engineering works. The application will allow the engineering plant to become twice as large.

Tony Bennett chair of “Wild Woodbury” responded to the news

“Area 12” Factory Development for Heavy Industry on Woodbury Common – I would like to thank everyone who campaigned to get this proposal thrown out. Sadly, the council voted to accept the submission.

There was a fantastic turnout for the meeting and I think it is fair to say everyone left feeling let down, angry, and betrayed. The floodgates are now open. This will probably be biggest development (apart from mineral extraction) to have taken place on Woodbury Common since the Doomsday book was written! A golden opportunity has been missed.”

The site known as area 12 was the processing and offices area for a large gravel and sand quarry which originally had been agreed back in 2003 to be returned to heathlands after a payment of £6.4M was paid to the landowners and operators in compensation for stopping mineral extraction and processing of materials due to the special status of the Pebblebed Heaths. However, following further temporary planning changes, it was later agreed that consideration would be allowed for Area 12 to be used for another purpose.

Most of the Existing Engineering buildings next to area 12 had been granted “stand alone” planning permission by the previous planning Authority in the early 1960s and 1970s, which preceded the area being designated an “Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty”

The Application yesterday was submitted by the landowners Clinton Devon Estates to allow the expansion of the Engineering plant because of the “exceptional justification” and “economic importance” of allowing their tenant to expand the operational facilities at their site.

The Councillors that voted for the proposal where, Colin Brown, Brain Bailey, Paul Carter, David Key, Jim Night, and Helen Parr (all Conservative Councillors)

The Councillors that voted against the development where Ben Ingram, Susie Bond, Geoff Jung, and David Barratt (all Independent Councillors) and Bruce de Saram (Conservative.)

In a bizarre twist to the debate Councillor Paul Carter seemed to be against the proposal saying it was against the Planning Authorities planning policy and approval to this application may allow developments in inappropriate locations be approved in the future, but then voted for the proposal!

The Committee was advised by officers that although the application was against local policy two important consultees, the RSPB and Natural England both supported the Application.

Natural England said in their written response:

“It is not likely to have a significant effect on the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Special Area of Conservation (SAC), East Devon Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) or East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).”

RSPB said in their response:

“Therefore, we feel that the alternative proposals proposed in the Ecological Appraisal Addendum (Richard Green Ecology, April 2018) are adequate to address the lost opportunity to restore the Blackhill Quarry application site.”

Further in Natural England’s response they requested an additional condition if the application was approved to “personalize” the application so the industrial site could only be used by the Blackhill Engineering or their parent company.

“However, given that the need is specific to Blackhill Engineering/Super Cat and is not a general need for development of industrial space in an otherwise un-spoilt and iconic part of the AONB Natural England recommend that, if you are minded to grant permission, you include a condition or planning obligation which ties the permission to occupancy by this company and requires decommissioning and restoration, as per the original minerals planning permission, should they vacate the site in the future.”

Therefore, this Outline Application which was approved yesterday allows Clinton Devon to submit a “Full Planning Application” for all the details of the Industrial expansion, but with a number of stringent conditions.

A substantial area (larger than Area 12) of managed woodland close to the development site will need to be cut down and returned to heathlands.

Also, that permission is specifically for the occupancy of Blackhill Engineering, if ever they vacated the site the area would be required to be decommissioned and restored as originally agreed by the mineral extraction license agreement.

However, this condition could not be applied to the existing Engineering units on the existing site.

Local residents are very disappointed with the decision taken yesterday by the Planning Committee and by the lack of support from Natural England and the RSPB, which seemed to have swayed the committee.

The Pebblebed Heaths are considered the “Crown Jewels” of this part of East Devon and over the years there have been many battles to preserve these heathlands. The use by the military, creating golf courses, new roads, quarrying, and intensive farming and forestry have all been a threat. It had been hoped with the changing attitudes and better environmental knowledge, National bodies such as Natural England and the RSPB would have supported local people in their endeavours to restrain the Industrial area from expanding on one of the most heavily protected locations in Europe.}

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Sep 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Accountable Care Organisation, Austerity cuts, Health and Social Care (local), Inequality, NHS (local)

“Almost 1,000 elderly people a day needlessly admitted to hospital amid social care crisis “

“Almost 1,000 elderly people a day are being admitted to hospital needlessly amid a crisis in social care, Age UK has found.

Analysis of NHS figures by the charity found that there were 341,074 avoidable emergency admissions for people aged 65 and over during the year to April 2017.

The number has risen by 107 per cent since 2003 for those aged 65 to 69, and by 119 per cent for older people aged 75-79.

Among the general population of England, the number has risen by 63 per cent.

The figures relate to admissions because of conditions such as ear, nose or throat infections, kidney and urinary tract infections, and angina, for which hospitalisation could potentially have been avoided had the person been better looked after.

Many older people rely on family and friends to help them in the absence of reliable social care, the charity warned.

One in three over-65s live alone, and one in ten have no children, and these figures are expected to rise as younger generations, who are less likely to have married or had children, reach retirement age.

Many of those who do have loved ones to care for them rely on elderly relatives who may have health problems of their own.

One case study highlighted by the charity involved a 67-year-old woman who has been a carer for 40 years, first for her parents and more recently for a younger sister who has Alzheimer’s disease.

In another case a 73-year-old woman has been the sole carer for her 75-year-old husband since he had a stroke and brain haemorrhage four years earlier. She cancelled previous at-home care because it was “unreliable and lacking in continuity”.

Its report also highlights the problem of older people stuck in hospital and unable to go home, putting more strain on the healthcare system.

Care not being in place was the main reason there were delays for older people leaving hospital in England last year, according to figures released by the NHS. …”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/04/almost-1000-elderly-people-day-needlessly-admitted-hospital/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Sep 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Inequality

“Four million UK children too poor to have a healthy diet, study finds”

…”The poorest fifth of families would have to set aside more than 40% of their total weekly income after housing costs to satisfy the requirements of the government’s Eatwell guide, the study finds. …

The study estimates that 47% of all UK households with children do not spend enough on food to meet the Eatwell cost targets, a proportion that rises to 60% for single parent families. Just 20% of households where the main earner is unemployed spends the recommended amount, it estimates.

The costs of healthy eating fall disproportionately on the poorest half of the population, for whom a healthy balanced diet would account for nearly a third of disposable income on average, the study finds. This compares with an average 12% of disposable income for the wealthiest half of households.

Households in the lowest two income deciles – earning less than £15,860 a year – would need to spend 42% of their income after rent, while those in the top 10% of incomes would need to spend just 6% of their disposable income, the researchers estimate. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/sep/05/four-million-uk-children-too-poor-to-have-a-healthy-diet-study-finds

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Sep 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Education (local), Inequality

Comments

2 Comments

Schools cutting hours – some open only four-and-a-half days a week

… “Many have been left with no choice but to bring in a 4.5-day week for kids as they cannot staff classrooms properly.

The measures come as a Mirror ­investigation found schools are so strapped for cash many special needs pupils are not getting support as heads have had to axe teaching assistants, leading to fears of behavioural problems.

That is coupled with a lack of basic ­equipment, growing class sizes, no cash to repair leaky buildings, staff shortages and cancelled school trips.

At least 24 schools across the land, including 14 in Birmingham alone, have ditched lessons on Friday afternoons. And more than 200 other heads have warned they are considering doing the same. …

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/thousands-children-face-shorter-week-13193641

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Sep 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Consultation, Democracy, Fracking, Planning System

“Government faces court action over ‘illegal’ planning policy”

“The government is facing a legal challenge over its new planning policy, which campaigners say was illegally adopted because the government failed to assess its environmental impact.

The revised National Planning Policy Framework, published in July, informs local policies across England, from planning permission to town and country planning and land use. It has significant weight in development decisions, from the amount and location of built development to the way environmental impacts are assessed, and also deals with policies concerning air pollution, energy generation, water management and biodiversity.

A strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is required by EU law for public plans relating to land use and planning, among other things. It is required wherever policies are likely to have a significant impact on the environment. Friends of the Earth wants to force the government to undertake an SEA, consult the public and modify the framework based on those findings.

The NGO has filed a claim at the high court, saying the NPPF makes it “virtually impossible” for councils to refuse local fracking schemes, fails to rule out future coal developments, and introduces harsh new rules for wind energy schemes. It argues it is impossible to gauge the environmental impact of such policies without a strategic assessment. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/04/government-faces-court-action-over-illegal-planning-policy