Making beach huts more available, or maximizing assets? You can’t have it both ways

Report from Scrutiny Committee meeting:

EDDC’s Deputy Chief Executive, Richard Cohen was directly in the firing line at last night’s Scrutiny Committee held at Knowle. He was obliged to admit that Ward members had not been contacted at all, before the new prices for beach huts were announced in the Councillors’ news sheet, ‘The Knowledge’ (January 2016). It became clear that only a cursory consultation had been made, with town clerks, about possible transfer of ownership of beach huts to local councils … but councillors themselves were left in the dark.

Richard Cohen defended his actions, saying he was working under a Cabinet directive. But the behind closed doors decision to increase beach hut hire charges by over 90% by 2017 in Beer, Budleigh Salterton, Seaton and Sidmouth, has made Ward members livid.

Cllr Marianne Rixson (IEDA, Sidmouth-Sidford) found this level of price hike “staggering”. Her detailed research had shown that comparable wooden beach huts at Lyme Regis had a lifespan of 10 years, and a replacement cost estimated at £600 per hut.

So was EDDC intending to replace the 20 year old Sidmouth beach huts with new ones before handing them over to the Town Council?”, she asked.

Cllr Maddy Chapman (Con, Exmouth-Brixington) twice called the price hike “outrageous”, saying “I do find the way this council goes about things is all over the place” , and adding “I don’t understand why you are trying to make so much money out of people who can’t afford to go abroad.”

Cllr Cathy Gardner (IEDA, Sidmouth Town) said two things had got “mixed up” in Richard Cohen’s claim – that EDDC wanted to make beach huts more available, and to maximize assets. “The two things are at odds”, she told him. “Social benefit has gone out of the window. EDDC should “stop trying to sound as if they are doing people a favour”.

At the suggestion of Cllr Val Ranger (IEDA, Newton Poppleford & Harpford) Committee, there will now be a formal recommendation to Cabinet that a structured process should be introduced at EDDC, for Ward Members to be involved in decision–making from a very early stage.

But a strong warning came from Scrutiny Chair, Cllr Roger Giles (Ind, Ottery St Mary), that recommendations by Scrutiny were not always mentioned by officers in their report for Cabinet. The consequences were clear from a recent instance of a Cabinet meeting which he had attended. Despite there being no less than nine Scrutiny recommendations to be addressed, not one was referred to during the course of the meeting.

So last night’s Meeting also recommended that officers’ reports should in future highlight Scrutiny recommendations, for Cabinet consideration.

Isn’t it high time that Scrutiny was taken seriously?

Source http://eastdevonwatch.org 18/03/2016

Public invited to meeting on future of Monmouth Beach in Lyme Regis

Now THIS is how you deal with local assets, EDDC:

The future of the Monmouth Beach area at Lyme Regis will be discussed in public by town councillors.

Residents are being invited to sit in on the important meeting of the Monmouth Beach Car Park Assets Working Group in The Guildhall on Wednesday, March 22, at 7pm.

Working groups are usually closed to the public, but councillors have agreed to hold an open meeting because of the high level of public interest in the area.

Lyme Regis Town Council owns a significant part of Monmouth Beach car park and the surrounding area, which it leases to other organisations.

This includes land used by the power boat club, the bowling club, the boat building academy, the trailer park, the gig club, and West Dorset District Council.

Councillors in the last administration agreed to carry out a review of the town council-owned assets in-and-around Monmouth Beach.

The working group meeting next week will be the first time the new council administration will consider the future use of these assets.

Any recommendations from the working group will be formally considered by the full council or one of its committees.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/public_invited_to_meeting_on_future_of_monmouth_beach_1_4456753

Transfer “assets” to town and parish councils, then threaten them if they put up their precepts to pay for them!

BOTH THESE STORIES ARE FROM THIS WEEK’S KNOWLEDGE E-NEWSLETTER PUBLISHED BY EDDC:

That’s what happens when you live in Eton La-La Land!

Council finances are in a “mess” and the vast majority have said they will need to increase charges for services to make ends meet in the face of a government funding cut of 28%, a think-tank has said. As councils finalise their 2016/17 budgets, nearly 90% said they will have to increase charges,
according to a survey by the Local Government Information Unit. The think-tank also found that:

40% would need to cut frontline services that are “evident to the public”. Nine in 10 councils will raise council tax in the coming year, compared with half in 2015. In addition, 82% of councils said they will have to dip into reserves to balance the books, up from 55% in 2015. Jonathan Carr-West, Chief Executive of LGiU, said: “Local government finance is a mess. Our research shows that right now councils are cobbling together their finances by using reserves and increasing charging wherever they can.”

So, district councils are transferring “assets” that cost money to maintain to towns and parishes – toilets, halls, etc – but not assets that make them lots of money, such as car parks. To retain these services, towns and parishes have to increase precepts to pay for them.

BUT

HERE IS THE SECOND STORY:

Parish councils wanting to raise council tax “excessively” may have to first consult the public in line with larger authorities, the Government has warned. Analysis by BBC News show 3,659 parish councils raised the basic Band D tax bill by more than 1.99%, the referendum threshold for larger councils. Sixty small authorities at least doubled residents’ bills last year. Another 130 put their bills up by between 50 and 99% while 1,001 increased the annual bill for a Band D home by £5 or more.

A Department for Communities and Local Government spokesman said: “Town and parish councils should protect their taxpayers from excessive council tax increases; if they fail to do so, government has the option of making them subject to the referendum principles in future.”

Click to access the-knowledge-19-february-2016-issue-39.pdf

Would you call this a “Transformation Strategy”? Or “slash and burn”?

Look at pages 7, 8, 11 and 14 for example …

Click to access transformation-strategy.pdf

Privatise, reduce democratic input to committees, boot out small businesses from the Honiton Business Centre but keep our own nests nice and cosy.

Sometimes you simply cannot do cheaper and better at the same time

NHS to carry out investigation of 111 service in the southwest
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35586997

Devon 999 response worsens again for sixth year:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-35585147

Why is anyone surprised? That’s austerity. There are some things you cannot do cheaper AND better.

When and how does £265,000 of savings become £400,000 of savings?

What does one make of this, on the agenda of the Joint Overview and Scrutiny meeting to be held on Tuesday 9 February 2016 at 6 pm from the agenda papers and talking of the potential savings to be made on a new refuse and recycling contract:

“The recommended Lot being proposed in the report does give a saving to the Council in the order of £0.265m along with providing an enhanced recycling service. The draft budget however assumed a saving of £0.400m in line with our Transformation Strategy thereby giving us a shortfall of £0.135m in our budget proposals should members wish to adopt the recommended option. This issue is dealt with the Revenue and Capital Estimates Report 2016/17 contained on this agenda on the assumption that members adopt
the recommendation”

Click to access 090216-joint-overview-and-scrutiny-agenda-combined-public.pdf

It seems to say: This contract will save us £265,000 but the draft budget assumed that it would save us £400,000 and we have found a way to make it come to £400,000 …. by some sort of wizardly accounting?

How many committee members will take the time and trouble to look at the Revenue and Capital Estimates Report 2016/17 to see exactly how this wonderful accounting is dealt with and reassure themselves that 265 really does mean 400?

Beach hut site increased rents = £521,631 per acre per year!

On a Facebook site, a Seaton beach hut renter has plotted a graph of price increases against cost-of-living increases. Here is a comment on that post:

“£574.80 per year for 48 sq ft [of beach pebbles] = £521,631 per year per acre. To put this in context, the price for an acre of prime agricultural land is c. £5,000-£6,000, so the price for wasteland would be substantially lower and for pebbled beach lower still. So for what EDDC are charging in rent for wasteland, you can buy 100 times that area and keep it forever.

I would presume that EDDC’s justification is “market rates”, and so long as people keep paying these exorbitant amounts, then they can quite reasonably claim that these are “market rates”.

The real answer is that the council leadership, prompted by their pals in government, see themselves more as a capitalistic organisation that needs to be market driven and take local residents for every penny they can rather than a body elected by local residents to serve local residents to provide public services for their benefit.

The only ways I can see to get EDDC to change will be to:

a) Vote with your feet on Beach Huts – stop renting and show the council that their rates are much higher than the market will support; and

b) Use your vote at the next county and district local government elections to elect councillors who see their role as benefiting local residents rather than supporting central government policy.”

Beer to take over beach management, tourist area. open spaces and car park announces Councillor Pook

“Councillor Geoff Pook (pictured) unveiled proposals to take over the management of the beach, Charlie’s Yard, Jubilee Gardens, the cliff-top car park and a number of open spaces around the village at a parish council meeting on Tuesday.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/if_we_own_it_we_can_shape_our_future_1_4406343

No doubt the news that Exmouth, Budleigh Salterton, Branscombe and Seaton will be taking over beach management, tourist spots, car parks and open spaces will soon follow, as Beer seems to have no unique or special qualifications to take over such lucrative assets.

“Independent” Councillor Pook is Chairman of EDDC’s Asset Management Forum – a currently secretive EDDC group which has only recently been forced to publish its agendas and minutes but does not allow public scrutiny by open meeting.

It was responsible for the initial idea to sell short-term leases on beach huts (which got thrown out after massive public outcry) and for the recommendation on new huge price increases that followed.

In his capacity as a member of Beer Parish Council, Councillor Pook stated that Beer was uniquely placed to take over management of EDDC-owned sites.

Watch this space.

New threat to Hinkley nuclear plant cash


Danny Fortson Published: 31 January 2016
thesundaytimes.co.uk

“BRITAIN could withdraw financial support for the controversial £18bn nuclear power station at Hinkley Point, Somerset, if a similar plant being built by France’s EDF is not running by 2020, The Sunday Times can reveal.

The condition, attached to a Treasury loan guarantee, raises fresh questions about the future of Britain’s first new atomic power plant in a generation.
Last week EDF, which is 84% owned by the French state, postponed a board meeting in Paris to approve Hinkley Point, amid concerns about the heavily indebted company’s ability to fund the project. The plant will be financed by EDF and its Chinese partner CGN, with the backing of a 35-year contract to sell power to households at above-market rates.

The arrangement hinges on a Treasury agreement to guarantee up to £17bn in loans. Mounting problems at Flamanville, where EDF is building a plant of the same reactor design, could void that commitment.

Flamanville is years behind schedule and three times over budget. Last year inspectors uncovered “very serious anomalies” in the €10.5bn (£8bn) plant’s reactor vessel. In the worst case, France’s nuclear regulator, which is carrying out a review of the project, could force EDF to break the steel vessel out of the reactor building, adding years to the timetable. Another project, in Taishan, China, has also been delayed.
m
When the European Union signed off on the Treasury’s guarantee of Hinkley Point, it insisted it be conditional on Flamanville having “completed the trial operation period” and other operational milestones by December 2020.

If Flamanville misses that deadline, EDF would be forced to immediately repay any loans that benefited from government support.

George Osborne last year announced the Treasury would guarantee £2bn in Hinkley debt, “with further amounts potentially available in the longer-term”. The National Audit Office and the EU put the potential liability at £17bn.

The Treasury said: “The initial £2bn guarantee is not contingent on the Flamanville and Taishan reactors, and will be repaid in December 2020 by EDF and CGN.”

Cash cows

Furore over beach hut and chalet site rental increases of 200% over the next two years:

Click to access the-knowledge-22-january-2016-issue-35.pdf

So, is it now time to revisit charging councillors and officers for parking at Knowle? This comes up most years but is always voted down.

Oh, and Owl hears they also get free parking in the district when out and about on ” council business”.

Let’s say, for the sake of easy maths, there are 60 councillors and 240 of the 400-plus officers parking there each week = 300 cars. If each car was charged £10 per week for 50 weeks of the year (let’s be generous and give them free weeks at Christmas and Easter) that would be an income of £150,000 per year. Then, when in council business, they could pay for their parking and claim it on expenses – where they would have to explain what business they were on.

Imagine the good things a council could do with £150,000 …

Are we likely to see this being discussed at an Asset Management Group – no – not least because we are not allowed to see the Asset Management Group at work.

National Public assets being sold off too cheap and investment evaluations not robust

“The Committee of Public Accounts publishes its Sixteenth Report of this Session, following its inquiry into the sale of the taxpayer’s stake in Eurostar.

Members conclude there is an over-reliance on a small pool of financial and legal advisers in some asset sales and projects, and the government relies heavily on external advisers for corporate finance skills and expertise.

The Report also highlights the Committee’s concerns about the Department for Transport’s approach to evaluating the benefits and economic impact of transport projects.

It is concerned the Department does not accept its own evaluation of HS1 shows the project was poor value for money – and describes the two year delay in publishing this evaluation as “unacceptable”.

The Committee finds this meant “important information that could have been used by Parliament to consider other projects, such as HS2, was not available”.

It calls on the Department for Transport to develop a “robust way” to evaluate its investments and report on progress by September 2016, and urges that in future such evaluations will be made available “promptly regardless of their findings”.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news-parliament-2015/sale-of-eurostar-report-published-15-16/

Covered by BBC here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35357507

Heseltine (just put in charge of council estate regeneration by Cameron) thought that all council tower blocks had lift attendants …

“Sometime in the dim and distant 1970s I attended a housing conference chaired by the then Labour Environment chief Peter Shore.

Having listened to various speakers making promises they would soon break, a tenant rose up to complain that on his high-rise estate the lifts were out of order more often than not, which was a serious problem for mums with prams and the disabled.

From the back of the room then rose the unmistakable figure of Michael “Tarzan” Heseltine. “WHY”, he thundered, “did not the lift attendants do something about it?”

There was a stunned silence, as half the room were unable to digest what this tall golden-maned toff was saying, while the rest were too embarrassed to correct him.

… So now, at the tender age of 82, Lord Heseltine is to be in charge of Cameron’s latest conjuring trick: the transformation of leaden council estates into golden private housing. On Sunday morning the PM tweeted: “I’ll be talking to Andrew Marr about ensuring everyone has a chance to get on in life in the next few minutes on BBC1.”

… He may look, as a shining example, to the Heygate Estate in Southwark which Labour leader Peter John sold (at a loss of around £20 million) to Australian developer Lend Lease. Around 3,000 people lived in its large and light flats, although the council’s failure to maintain in properly resulted in it looking the worse for wear. The sale to Lend Lease will result in over 2,000 private homes – which are already selling well in Singapore – but fewer than 100 will be for social renting. Mr John has just received an OBE for his services to, er, ahem.

… As with Heseltine’s lift attendants, Cameron has no idea that most tenants who rent substandard homes on poorly maintained estates do so because they can afford nothing else. Most of them are on benefits, squeezed by the Bedroom Tax, benefit caps and “sanctions” – thanks to the efforts of Iain Duncan Smith – and often one payment away from the street.

How Mr Cameron intends to give them “a chance to get on in life” by destroying their homes remains to be seen.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/cameron-s-housing-policy-is-as-misguided-as-heseltine-s-belief-that-council-estates-had-lift-a6806291.html

Selling assets?

Overheard:

“The council is selling its assets” …

Response: “No, it isn’t, it’s offloading costs to very reluctant buyers who get no discount for taking them on!”

EDDC budget: Financial black holes and how to fall into them

A correspondent writes (views expressed below are the personal views of the correspondent).

“At Cabinet on Wednesday this week (agenda here), and at joint Scrutiny & Overview Committee on Wednesday of next week (agenda here), EDDC will be discussing the proposed budget for the next financial year.

Comments:

a. EDDC has already had cuts in central government revenue of £2.3m between 2011 and 2014 and a further cut of £0.8m last year. They are facing a further cut of £0.8m this year – so a total reduction of almost £4m from c. £7.5m to £3.6m between 2011 and 2016. The government is phasing out the Revenue Support Grant by 2020, so there are c. £3.6m of cuts to come in the next 3 years. To put this in perspective, the total revenue income / expenditure is c.£15m so this is a very significant proportion.

b. The government has stated that in the future it expects councils to be funded from business rates, but it has also given business rates for the Enterprise Zones (where the majority of business growth is expected) to the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) for 25 years, presumably as a means of them raising capital loans to fund development of the Enterprise Zones in East Devon these are the East Devon Growth Point and Cranbrook). So growth in Business Rates is unlikely to replace the Revenue Support Grants.

c. EDDC is planning to increase Council tax for the first time in 6 years by 1.99% (para 2.14). No explanation is provided about why this particular level has been chosen, though it appears to have been decided upon as being as close to the 2% as they can get without triggering a referendum.

d. Despite increasing council tax, they state that the New Home Bonus will be used to cover a further revenue shortfall this year (see paragraph 2.9 in the budget report in the agenda papers) in addition to the same £1.5m needed again to make up last year’s revenue shortfall.

e. EDDC plans to run the Capital Reserve fund to zero (para 4.7) in order to provide the bridging funds required to build the Honiton Offices before receiving moneys from the sale of the Knowle. This does not seem to me to be financially prudent – and the figures are further risked by unknown capital projects and the reduction in New Homes Bonus.

f. As usual, it is essential to review these finance documents to see what is missing. Whilst I do not have either the time or the knowledge to do this, I have spotted that the Sidmouth Beach Management funding is disappearing from the budget!!!

The most worrying thing is the increasing reliance on capital receipts to plug increasing shortfalls in revenue income. This does not seem financially prudent, for several reasons:

  1. Revenue shortfalls continue every year and are cumulative, whilst capital receipts are one-off and not guaranteed in the future.
  2. The NHB is the current means of plugging this gap, but is under review by government and likely to fall substantially per home. It also seems fairly likely that EDDC will never get close to the number of homes they have committed to deliver in the draft Local Plan – so EDDC won’t make the money they expect either.
  3. On the other hand, EDDC will definitely be facing further cuts in central government funding of £3.6m per year – which is a lot more revenue shortfall to plug using a reducing NHB stream.

This is NOT a sound means of financing its ongoing costs. Put simply the council cannot afford to continue balancing its books by covering revenue shortfalls from capital receipts which are likely to decline substantially over the next few years.

This is the legacy of keeping Council Tax the same for 5 years running. The Tory leadership at EDDC did this because they accepted the Council Tax Freeze Grant, offered to councils (like EDDC) who kept their council tax the same year after year. The only problem with this is that a Council Tax increase (however unpopular) is a cumulative income increase (i.e. an increase this year creates additional revenue in each following year too) whilst the grant is a one-off payment. You would not decide that you could afford electricity by paying using one-off income like premium bond wins, so EDDC’s decisions appear to be both short-term and short-sighted.

Indeed, it appears that EDDC is addicted to one-off fixes from central government to the long-term detriment of the council’s finances.

However, continuing use of one-off capital payments to plug a widening gap in revenue is not a good direction for the future. If these capital receipts ever stop coming in, EDDC’s finances will be in real trouble.

With a current shortfall of £1.85m and a further reduction in government funding of £3.6m, EDDC will need to find £5.45m per year by 2020 (which is approximately 35%of expenditure) over the next 4 years – and it is difficult to see how EDDC can come even close to achieving these through efficiency savings or revenue increases or even both. EDDC’s plan appears to be too use the Transformation Strategy (pages 115-132) to fill this gap in funding through to 2020 – and whilst this does included a lot of small aspirational efficiency improvements, they all appear to be relatively minor in nature, with the bulk of the funding gap presumably covered by selling off assets (which again provide only one-off income boosts and failing to address the real issue of revenue shortfall). Of course, the detail of EDDC’s plans are deemed confidential – but is it any wonder that EDDC works so hard to keep the Agendas and Reports of its Asset Management Committee secret when it needs to sell assets in such quantities to plug this huge gap in its finances?

Eventually (presumably in 2020), there will be a £5m+ revenue funding gap, no more government Revenue Support Grant, no more New Homes Bonus and presumably no more assets remaining to sell – and then what happens?

It appears to me that this ongoing and increasing funding gap, temporarily bridged using first the Council Tax Freeze Grant and then the New Homes Bonus, is a direct consequence of Tory dogma to freeze council tax (which is a reduction in real terms). It also appears to explain why EDDC has been so set on having a Local Plan which includes huge numbers of new homes – because these new homes attract the New Homes Bonus and this appears to be their means of keeping the finances afloat.

I urge people to take an interest in what is happening at EDDC and to go and look at the budget and local plan documentation for themselves.

EDDC needs to start working towards being able to balance the revenue accounts without using NHB to cover the shortfall and to wean itself off one-off central government fixes to which it seems to be addicted.

The proposal to increase council tax by 1.99% is a start, but even with this proposal the revenue short-fall is still increasing compared to last year. And if increasing it by 2% or more triggers a referendum, all the better – as this will shine a light on the council’s finances and enable open debate about how the council’s services are best funded.

Whilst council tax rises will never be popular, to continue on this current slippery slope is to invite complete financial meltdown in 4 years time!!

Regenerate, degenerate, exterminate …

Regeneration and Economic Development?

The Watch has already blogged (26 Dec) “East Devon Economy Booming? Not according to cabinet agenda data.” But we now have had time to explore the latest “Regeneration” proposals in greater depth.

A special item in the pack of papers for the 6 Jan 2016 EDDC Cabinet Meeting (page 107) proposes an additional £287,000 be spent in 2016/17 (with similar costs for 3 years) to add three more staff to the three full time and three part time members of the Regeneration and Economic Development Team.

Context – Central government grants are being cut severely and will disappear completely by the end of the current parliament in 2019/20. The Council core funding will then come from business rates, council tax and fee income (eg car parking). The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) predicts the 30% loss from central government funding will be made up from an increase in retained business rates, from the current level of around 25% to around 55% in 2019/20, rather than by other measures such as efficiency savings.

The £287,000 pa will be used directly to promote economic growth and increased business rate income outside the Growth Point and across the district.

The East Devon Growth Point is set to become an Enterprise Zone, where businesses can get up to 100% business rate discount worth up to £275,000 per business over 5 years but we gather that ALL business rates in enterprise zones go direct to the (you guessed it) Local Enterprise Partnership.

So what chance has this team got in succeeding? Aren’t businesses simply going to transfer to the growth point?

We are sure everyone wants to see a vibrant local economy, especially one attracting high value jobs. But why are we so underwhelmed by this proposal that we think this money could be spent in better ways?

It all gets off to a bad start. The proposal itself spells out the lacklustre performance to date of the three full time and three part time Regeneration and Economic Development Team. The economic profile for East Devon (Grant Thornton, Feb 2015) highlights:

•The average gross weekly earnings in East Devon are low at £409 compared with £503 nationally.

•The knowledge economy in East Devon accounted for just 13.5% of total employment in 2013, compared with 18.13% for the SW and 21.75% nationally.

•The self employment rate in East Devon is high and stable by national standards but new business formation rate is very low, ranking in the bottom 20%.

According to the Economics page of the EDDC web site the services industry accounts for 85.7% of the employment in East Devon with a large section of this being in the retail, hospitality and health sectors, all of which it admits are predominantly lower-paid sectors.

The South West Regional Tourist Board data (2011) shows a fall in visitors to East Devon from 800,000 visitor trips per annum in 2005 to 472,000 visitor trips in 2011. The income from overnight stays also fell from £3.7m to £1.8m in the same period. Tourism, according to EDDC’s Cabinet proposal is a key driver!

(The Watch has repeatedly drawn attention to the way EDDC has ignored Tourism and to its deficiencies in rolling out high speed broadband.)

In the proposal the Council claims it is adept at using its assets to “de-risk locations” and attract private sector interest. Two examples cited: the delivery of the new Premier Inn in Exmouth and the commercial success around Exmouth Strand, where the Council has used its land and property assets to achieve this aim.

But none of this is really relevant to realising the stated aim that: “our ambitions lie in high tech growth and an improved knowledge economy, exploiting the opportunities now emerging through our Growth Point and Enterprise Zone”. (It should be noted here that the growth Point was not successful in making Exeter the “Internet of Things” lead demonstrator city – which Manchester won).

According to the proposal, the draft local plan retains a target of 1 job per new house and predicts 18,500 new homes over the 18 year Plan period i.e. delivery of the plan requires the creation of 1,000 jobs every year. The only quantified successes claimed in job creation by the Regeneration and Economic Development Team, 44 jobs at the Exmouth Premier Inn and a projected 45 next year from Seaton Jurassic, represent only 4.5% of what is needed annually. Not much of an achievement is it? It begs the question of whether 1,000 jobs per year are remotely achievable.

The demographic trend in East Devon requires the creation of between 160 and 190 jobs per year. This should be achievable as it assumes average economic growth. In EDDC’s chosen metric this equates to delivering four Premier Inns across the district every year (not just the one held up as an example of success). However, to this total, in their wisdom, EDDC has added in the draft Plan a “policy on” job led growth scenario with a target of an additional 549 jobs a year.

The actual annual target in the draft Plan is still a large figure, and one that is clearly way beyond the Team’s ability to deliver, but is only about 70% of the astronomical 1,000 quoted to the Cabinet. So this is another example of EDDC playing fast and loose with numbers, ratcheting up the growth agenda at every opportunity.

Job creation on this scale should be easy to spot. We are already 2 years into the new Plan period so it should now be possible to review the Team’s progress to date in creating 2,000 jobs. Such a review would form a much better basis for judging the success of past measures and on deciding the direction of future expenditure on the best way to promote growth.

The “aims and objectives moving forward” of EDDC’s proposal contains nothing but platitudes such as: “delivering an economy which stimulates start ups and new businesses to grow to bring better paid jobs and increased wealth into East Devon”. There is no concrete plan, no: how to do it. It is an example of the poverty of ideas that results from Cabinet decisions made in secret.

The people of East Devon are not bereft of ideas or talent but they are never consulted. So here’s a radical idea. Consult the people of East Devon. They are the potential customers for these businesses, and isn’t the customer is always right?

Here’s another: with regions across the country all putting forward their own enterprise plans for devolution the priority might be to put more emphasis on winning the publicity war, though that might be difficult with the whole district a giant building site.

Finally, how does the Regeneration and Economic Development Team reconcile the conflicts between maximising fee income from car parking, and saving the High Street and encouraging Tourism?

A lot of people in Exmouth appear not to trust Swire and Moulding

“Campaigners against plans for the proposed redevelopment of Exmouth seafront have renewed calls for an independent consultation with residents.

The Save Exmouth Seafront (SES) campaign group was reacting to the outcome of East Devon MP Hugo Swire meeting with Councillor Andrew Moulding about the plans for the seafront.

The meeting was organised after Mr Swire met with representatives from SES, who welcomed the meeting but were disappointed to have been excluded.

SES said it seemed the meeting was nothing more than Cllr Moulding relaying to Mr Swire what was being planned for the area, as no clear actions appear to have been agreed upon or made clear to the public.

Louise MacAllister for SES,said: “While Mr Swire’s emphasis on local businesses, affordable facilities, and genuine consultation are welcomed, he states that he finds this development exciting for Exmouth.

“This is not representative of the majority view of his constituents in Exmouth who find this anything but an exciting time.

“The failure of any of our elected representatives to act in the interests of residents will only increase the alienation and sense of mistrust that is growing in Exmouth.

“We therefore reiterate the importance of an independent and fully considered consultation with Exmouth residents before any further steps towards development are undertaken”.

After the meeting, which took oplace earlier this month, Mr Swire said: “I stressed to Cllr Moulding the importance of any development being affordable for local people as well as visitors.

“Cllr Moulding assured me that, under the plans, there will be a number of free facilities for the people of Exmouth and new attractions for younger people.

“I also highlighted the importance of a genuine consultation with the people of Exmouth, their elected councillors and local businesses.

“I am particularly keen on the idea of a 3D model of the plans so that my constituents can get a better idea of what this proposed development will look like.”

Mr Swire has also met with campaigners to discuss their concerns over the proposals and what they perceive as a lack of consultation on the plans.

The authority claims there is clear support for the redevelopment and said it was crucial for the future success of Exmouth.

The latest development proposals currently being discussed include a free water splash play area, mini golf, a multi-screen cinema and a large open public space area.

The council claims the development will be a major benefit to the town by boosting visitor numbers and creating new jobs.

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Campaigners-plans-Exmouth-seafront-redevelopment/story-28434868-detail/story.html

When privatisation of council services goes wrong

“Since the 1st December, BT Cornwall (BTC) and Cornwall Council have been locked in a legal battle in the High Court over the BT contract. The reason is because the Council believes it has the right to terminate the agreement for breaches in that contract by BTC. Of course, BTC disagrees with this.

To recap, BTC filed an application with the High Court in order to seek an injunction on 12 August 2015, preventing the Council from terminating the agreement. This resulted in a hearing which took place on 12 August 2015 in the High Court (Commercial Courts). The outcome was that the Court agreed to the request to have an expedited trial set for December.

As for the reasons why, please read the previous blog post HERE.

Anyone who has been reading this blog, will know I have written a lot (all blog posts HERE) about this subject. Reading back through them reminds me how the Council was in open warfare against the Cabinet. There were petitions; the Portfolio Holder for Finance, Jim Currie resigning and the no-confidence motion which saw the disposing of the Leader of Cornwall Council. It was a bloody and costly war that saw the BT-light deal being signed on the 27th March 2012. I finished off that post with the line of: ‘Lets hope the Council does not regret this day’.

Today, the Judge gave his judgement after hearing the evidence from both sides. I am very pleased the judgement was in favour of the Council. This judgment which confirms our argument that BT Cornwall had been in material breach of the contract due to their failure to carry out services to the required contractual standards and, therefore, that the Council was justified in reaching the decision to terminate the contract.

The ruling also means that the Council will be seeking payment of its costs from BT Cornwall in connection with this legal action. From this, the Council intends to hold discussions with BT Cornwall to agree the level of damages the Council will receive. This could run into the millions.

I would also like to say well done to the Council’s legal team who took on the might of an international corporation – and won.

Has the Council regretted that day? I have thought about this and it would be easy to say ‘I told you so’ but that would serve no purpose. However, it is clear the principle of outsourcing great swathes of public sector to commercial companies who have little, if any, understanding of the public sector is flawed.

I feel the reason why so many council’s took the outsourcing route is because they thought it was an easy way of saving money. The commercial companies were quick to whisper sweet nothings into any local government ear promising to solve their funding problems. The truth be told, local governments, are better at knowing how to save money. They do this without thinking of how it will affect the profit margin. Local government do not think about profit margins, but how changes will affect the service user.

Following this legal ruling the Council intends to provide notice of termination of the contract before Christmas, but there will be no immediate change in the arrangements as termination will not take effect until January. The process of transferring staff and services from BT Cornwall to the Council and our Public Sector Partners will begin in January and will be completed as quickly and smoothly as possible. This will involve approximately 250 members of staff.

The following services will transfer back to the authority: HR Transactional Services including Payroll, HR Employment Support, First Point Helpdesk, Financial Processing, ICT, Despatch, Printing and Telecare. My thoughts are with the staff who will yet again be affected with this judgement.

I will now wait till the judgement is released to give a further viewpoint……”

http://www.cllrandrewwallis.co.uk/bt-cornwall-verses-cornwall-council-judgement-goes-in-favour-of-the-council/

“Charging old people for falling down is an affront to human decency”


During my time at Essex county fire and rescue service, barely a shift went by without receiving a call from an elderly person who had fallen in their home, or from their concerned neighbour or carer.

The calls were always the same: a frightened voice, racked with humility and embarrassment, apologising profusely for “wasting” our time. “I telephoned because I know you can get in my house. I can’t get up, you see. I’m so sorry to trouble you.”

I would mobilise a crew and inform the ambulance service, which wouldn’t be far behind. We’re the “fire and rescue” service, you see, and that’s what we do. It was all part of the service, along with rescuing donkeys from swimming pools, righting overturned horse boxes and getting dogs out of lakes. These days the service is so much more than pointing wet stuff at burning stuff.

So news that Tendring district council in Essex is planning to introduce a “falling fee” for elderly residents struck a blow to all that I knew about decency, humanity and my years in the service.

I only did four years and thought perhaps attitudes were changing, so I contacted a former colleague to ask his opinion. He responded with expletives, with anecdotes of broken hips and shattered wrists and ribs smashed on the sides of bathtubs, and how dealing with them needed the professional care that comes of regular first-aid training and having a paramedic on hand.

Paul Honeywood, a Conservative councillor for Tendring, defended the measure saying the council needs the £26 annual charge in order to continue offering a “lifting service”. “Having consulted users, we have discovered there is a demand – and the idea is now going through the budget process with a final decision to be made in February,” he said.

Ironically, Mr Honeywood is also an officer with the Citizens Advice Bureau , which offers assistance to people who feel that they are being unfairly discriminated against on the grounds of age under the Equality Act 2010. If I were an elderly resident of the area, I might feel that being charged £26 for the inconvenience of growing old would count as discrimination, and might complain to Mr Honeywood at both of his offices. Politics, local and national, feel so desperate and deluded as to be beyond satire.

The falling charge will apply from April, if approval goes through. But this has wider implications. If passed, it will almost certainly prompt other cash-strapped local councils to follow suit. Yet old people will have contributed to healthcare services all their lives, through income tax, council tax (part of which is diverted to their local fire service) and taxes on goods and services. And many of them will have served their countries in the second world war, fighting for Mr Honeywood and others to have the freedom to decide to fine them for growing old.

In Essex, older residents already pay £21 a month if they want a Careline “big red button” alarm system in their homes – the falling fee is extra. The sinister undertone in this discussion is one of fear, and the same old nasty politics. Instil fear in people who are not as young as they were, not quite as sprightly, who may be living alone, and may already be fearful not just of taking a tumble on the stairs but of what the future holds.

For public officials to capitalise on this fear of infirmity is both sinister and cruel. My grandmother, who is in her early 80s, has had the odd fall. But if Southend council thought to offer a £26-a-year service to pop her back on her feet, I’m sure she would politely tell them where to stick it.

Elderly people, save your pennies and buy a £10 mobile phone. Stick it in your pocket, and if you should find yourself needing to be picked up and nobody else can get into your home, 999 is – and will always be – free to call.

In the meantime, this Essex council wants a “consultation”. Let’s give it to them. As Martin Luther King once said: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter … What are you doing for others?”

http://gu.com/p/4f94g

Tendring council will charge elderly people who fall £26 to pick them up

The proposal by Tendring District Council, Essex, would affect some 3,000 elderly and vulnerable residents who pay for its Careline service, which helps users live independently at home.

Pensioners who need help getting to their feet after a fall will be charged a £26 call-out fee as part of planned cost-cutting measures.

The proposal by Tendring District Council, Essex, would affect some 3,000 elderly and vulnerable residents who currently pay for its Careline service, which helps users live independently at home.

Among the technology offered by Careline is a pendant which allows the wearer to send out a distress signal to a call centre in case of a fall or other minor emergency.
The Careline service currently costs £21.60-a-month but the council is planning to introduce an additional £25.92 charge in the event that a worker is called out to pick up someone after a fall.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3364544/Pensioners-trip-fall-home-charged-26-local-council-come-pick-again.html

Devon County Council: charges rise, services fall

“Six English councils – Breckland, Devon, Hinckley and Bosworth, South Northamptonshire and Sedgmoor – have seen their income from fees, sales and charges rise by more than 100% in the past three years, while Derbyshire, Westminster, Bristol and Shropshire, were the biggest risers in real terms, taking tens of millions of pounds more each year.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34966267