The effects of a 40% cut in local authority spending

40 percent funding reduction would devastate local services and communities, councils warn
LGA media release 19 October 2015

“A further 40 per cent real terms reduction in local government grant funding in the Spending Review would deliver the £10.5 billion knock-out blow to cherished local services, the Local Government Association warns today.

Non-protected government departments have been ordered to draw up savings plans worth, in real terms, 25 and 40 per cent of their budgets ahead of the Spending Review on November 25, which will set out government spending plans for the next four years.

Analysis by the LGA, which represents more than 370 councils in England and Wales, reveals a 40 per cent real terms reduction to core central government funding would be worth £8.4 billion. The same cut to separate local government grants would see a further £2.1 billion lost from council budgets.

This would mean local government losing 64 per cent of its grant funding between 2010 and 2020.

In its Spending Review submission to the Treasury, the LGA has already predicted councils will face almost £10 billion in separate cost pressures, through government policies, inflation and demand, by 2020 even before another penny is taken out of council budgets.

Together with another 40 per cent reduction to funding from central government, this would leave councils facing £20 billion in funding cuts and increased cost pressures by the end of the decade. Local government leaders say this would devastate local services and communities.

To put those figures into context, annual council spending on individual services in 2013/14 include:

Bin collection and recycling – £3.3 billion;
Arts and leisure (libraries, leisure centres, museums) – £2 billion
Road maintenance – £1.3 billion;
Subsidised bus services and free travel for elderly and disabled – £1.7 billion
Street cleaning – £717 million;
Parks maintenance – £690 million;
Street lighting – £530 million
Trading standards, noise, environmental health – £480 million.

The LGA said even if councils stopped providing all of these vital services for their residents, it would still not be nearly enough to plug the potential £20 billion hole in their finances by the end of the decade.

Lord Porter, LGA Chairman, said:

“Councils are under no illusions about the challenge that lies ahead. We know we face almost £10 billion in cost pressures by 2020 even before the prospect of further challenging funding reductions over the next four years.

“What is clear is that another 40 per cent real terms reduction to local government grant funding on top of these cannot be an option on November 25.

“It is a false economy to reduce funding to local government while attempting to prop up other departments.

“Providing councils with fairer funding is the only way to avoid the unintended consequence of other parts of the public sector, such as the NHS, being left to pick up the financial pieces. When making its spending decisions government must consider the huge pressure funding reductions to councils would have not just on vital local services but on the public sector more widely.

“Councils have worked tirelessly to shield residents from the impact of the 40 per cent government funding reductions they have been handed since 2010. However, the resilience of local government services cannot be stretched much further.

“It would be our residents who would suffer as councils are no longer able to deliver some of their statutory duties, like street cleaning and providing the free bus travel that is a lifeline to our elderly and disabled.

“Closing every children’s centre in England would save £700 million but this would only be enough to plug the funding gap facing adult social care for one year. Councils could stop fixing the two million potholes they fill each year to save £600 million by 2020, but this would still not be enough to keep providing free bus travel to elderly and disabled residents.

“These are the difficult decisions councils will be forced to face. Many of the things people take for granted, like clean and well-lit streets, maintained parks and access to leisure centres, will become a thing of the past as a result.”

Additional information

Breakdown of local government core spending (figures in £000s and exclude expenditure on schools and housing benefit).

2013/14
Education
£4,249,676

Highways
£1,591,039

Public Transport
£1,850,344

Children’s Social Care
£6,914,607

Adult Social Care
£14,565,464

Housing
£2,003,473

Cultural Services
£2,708,616

Waste Management
£3,324,260

Other Environmental Services
£798,707

Regulatory Services
£888,334

Planning and Development
£1,262,183

Central services
£2,618,551

All other services, capital financing and other costs
£4,693,501

Public Health
£2,507,832

Total net expenditure
£49,976,587″

http://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/media-releases/-/journal_content/56/10180/7534443/NEWS#sthash.NUWHvIN4.dpuf

Devon one of worst places to live for quality of life

Worst places to live:

Bradford
Kingston Upon Hull
North of Northern Ireland
Eilean Siar (Western Isles)
West & South of Northern Ireland
Blackpool
Devon
Central Valleys
East of Northern Ireland
South Teesside

Devon came in at 132 out of 138, a drop of 46 places from last year.

“The uSwitch.com study assessed 138 local areas (NUTS3 regions) for 26 factors such as salaries, disposable household income, and the cost of essential goods including food bills, fuel costs and energy bills. The study also factored in lifestyle issues like hours of sunshine, working hours and life expectancy to ensure a full picture of the quality of life in each NUTS3 region.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/leisure/11948329/The-best-and-worst-places-to-live-in-the-UK-ranked-by-quality-of-life.html

Is what is best for East Devon District Council best for East Devon?

It is now widely accepted that councils are no longer viewed as “public services”.  A council used to be elected to represent the interests of its area and its councillors were supposed to represent the views of their electors (though this was not always the case).  Council tax was seen as the price we paid for our public services.

Now councils are seen as businesses.  They exist to make a profit.  They are no longer guardians of public assets but are looking to sell off as many of their “unprofitable” assets as possible whilst retaining cash cows.  They do not see a responsibility to council tax payers or to future generations and now developers are what they call their real “customers” that they are there to serve.  Indeed, a few years ago, one of EDDC’s senior officers said that, yes, developers are their real customers as they pay large sums into council coffers, more than council tax and therefore they should be considered the council’s most important customers – far more important than council tax payers.

Now we have the situation where the “council businesses” no longer has the interests of electors at their heart and they are increasingly attempting to be simply profitable businesses.  But the problem then arises when what is best for the business is not best for electors.

Take the situation in Exmouth.  The district council does not want Marks and Spencers Food to be sited near the railway and bus stations (on land owned by Devon County Council) but on its own land which is currently designated as a rugby field.  Marks and Spencers knows what it wants and would have been aware of the choice of sites and they chose the one that suited their needs.

This now pitches council business against council business – EDDC against DCC.  Some might say this is a good thing as it stimulates competition.  However, there is a BIG stumbling block.  One of these businesses (EDDC) holds the right to allow or refuse the planning application on the other businesses’s land.  Today it is EDDC which holds the trump cards, tomorrow it may be DCC (for example, Straitgate Quarry, where DCC wants it to continue and EDDC does not).

In the past, the deal-breaker would have been:  what is best for the district?  Now the deal-breaker is:  what effect does this have on our income stream and our ability to sell off assets to the highest bidder?

Increasingly, councillors are playing no part in these decisions, except to follow government guidelines that services must be slashed and developers must be encouraged and they must toe the party line on this.

We, the electors, are not just marginalised but practically eradicated from the decision-making process, since our interests are not those of the businesses which our councillors now serve.

Is this what we should accept?  If not, how do we ensure that we get what is best for our district and not what is best for EDDC plc or DCC plc?

Blackhill Quarry

It is interesting that Natural England, the East Devon AONB and even EDDC oppose this extension of use for a further 5 years.

If this site had been reclaimed in 2012 (as could have happened) the increased recreational area would be a great recreational benefit to the developments in the western side of East Devon (SANGS) and also Exeter yet this did not seem to make any difference to DCC’s decision at the time.

Industrial Aggegates has now submitted new evidence in its quest to continue to use the Blackhill Quarry for a further 5 years to process imported sand and gravel from Straitgate Quarry, Ottery St. Mary. ( planning application DCC/3775/2015)

Two previous deadlines for de-commissioning have not been honoured. The original restoration of the site was supposed to be complete in 2012. A further decision in 2008 allowed importation until November 2009. The final approval in April 2011 stipulated that all operations cease by 2016.

The impact is severe as traffic takes aggregate in for storage & processing and the same traffic movements ships it out on very narrow Devon roads , in total 200 movements daily.

The site is in the East Devon AONB and lies adjacent to the Pebblebeds Heaths SYA, SAC and SSSI. It therefore has the highest level of protection in regards to the environment, landscape and habitats. The stocking of large amounts of aggregate is contrary to all international, national and local policies.

It is interesting to note that a planning inspector recently refused a planning application in Talaton in part because it was within 10 km of the East Devon pebblebeds SSSI, when this quarry is even closer.

http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/environmentplanning/planning-system/planning_applications-mw/planning_applications.htm

A tale of two Science Parks …

In Plymouth, their Science Park is flourishing:

“Since June, 15 new businesses have relocated to the 25 acre site near Derriford Hospital which specialises in supporting businesses in the areas of science, technology, marine and digital.

The park is a world-class office, research and laboratory environment that provides the space, flexibility and support for businesses to accelerate their growth and success.

Its community of 80 businesses employing upwards of 800 people, combines to create one of the South West’s most desirable working environments – plus it offers a free mentoring service for all businesses on site through it’s bespoke Advisory Board.”

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Record-number-businesses-Plymouth-Science-Park/story-27983859-detail/story.html

In Exeter, a further £2.5 m is being put in by Devon County Council to make it more attractive to the Met Office and any other tenants which might turn up. Quite why it wasn’t originally designed with footpaths, cycleways and proper drainage isn’t made clear.

“An access road to the Met Office site and GEFC has already been completed. The funding boost from Devon County Council will be now be used to create a network of footpaths and cycleways, car parking and improved drainage. Planning permission has already been obtained for the essential infrastructure works.”

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/100m-growth-investment-unlocked-Exeter-Science/story-27985321-detail/story.html

When does an “inconvenient” pothole become a ” dangerous” one?

Devon County Council intends to “relax” the rules about when potholes must be filled.

” … Potholes in the county will now be assessed based on where they are in the road and whether they are a “danger” or a “serious inconvenience”, says the report.

It also proposes that the “defect classification” for road markings is to be “relaxed”, senior Conservatives heard.

Liberal Democrat opposition leader, Alan Connett, called it “another assault on Devon’s roads and motorists”.

“Now they’re looking at whether it’s the right type of pothole to be eligible for repair, they want to take longer to repair the pathways and slacken the classification for repairing road markings,” he added.”

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Wrong-kind-potholes-fixed-quickly-Devon/story-27983532-detail/story.html

Buck stops with councils when contracting-out goes wrong

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24666:ombudsman-fires-warning-to-councils-over-contracting-out-and-accountability&catid=52&Itemid=20

Devon County Council “to gamble on property investment”

Devon County Council’s senior councillors are being urged to gamble up to £30million on the rising property market to help make up for Government cuts.

They are also advised to put Barclays Bank back on its approved list of “counterparties for lending” , despite its recent downgrading in the light of new banking rules.

The ruling executive will next week consider a report recommending they sanction an investment in the Churches, Charities and Local Authorities) Property Fund (CCLA) instead of bank deposits.

The CCLA fund currently has investments of over £300 million, with over 100 local authority investors including Plymouth City Council and four Devon town councils.

A report to the cabinet meeting points out the “risk” that property value could go down and that with charges a 3% rise in the market would be required for the authority to break even.

“This means that any investment would need to be medium to long term, a minimum of 2-3 years” the report said.

“Capital growth would need to be around 3% per year to ensure that the capital redeemed at the end of the investment was at least equal to the initial amount

invested,” it added.

Finance officers at the council calculate that a £30 million investment “would have the potential to yield up to £1 million additional investment income in 2016/17 and 2017/18 to help offset the budget pressures facing the council”.

But it also represents “an increased risk of loss of capital in comparison to the use of term deposits with banks and building societies”.

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Devon-County-Council-gamble-30m-property-market/story-27941787-detail/story.html

More on that anti-social behaviour in Cranbrook. .. it’s adults as well as children

. .. as referred to in the recent DCC report. Yet another example of why appropriate infrastructure and social support MUST be built into new communities from the start:

“Anti-Social Behaviour, Cranbrook Park
On Monday 13th July PCSO Stannard held a Police surgery at St Martin’s Primary School with Mrs Beard (Head of the school) to listen to parents concerns about the level of anti-social behaviour (ASB) in the play park in Cranbrook.

Around a dozen parents showed up to discuss with me some of the issues that they have witnessed and had reported to them from their children. Some of these issues include bullying, intimidation and damage being caused to some of the play equipment. Many children now feel too scared to use the park in case they encounter any of this bullying.

The ASB is not just being caused by the children, with some adults causing problems too. There have been occasions when parents have been encouraging their child’s unruly behaviour, arguments between parents and also reports of adults smoking in the park.

This is all totally unacceptable.

PCSO Stannard has been given a list of names of some of the people acting inappropriately and we will be going to speak to them all over the next week about their behaviour.

If you witness anti-social behaviour in and around the park area, please report it to the police so we are fully aware of all of the problems and can take action to stop it, after all, the park is there to be enjoyed by all. Extra patrols will be undertaken in the area and anybody acting inappropriately will be dealt with in an appropriate manner.

release date: 14 Jul 2015”

https://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/teams/Ottery-Rural/News/8b8d33aa-9f8c-4444-92c4-5b853d7354b6

That report on Cranbrook again: design – or rather lack of it

“The quality of the architecture does not reflect the distinctive characteristics of the built environment in Devon. Cranbrook looks like it could be anywhere in the country. A more detailed and robust design guide should be created and enforced in future phases of the development.”

http://www.devon.gov.uk/cma_report.htm?cmadoc=report_cs1519.html

Er, didn’t East Devon District Council have a “Design Champion” during all this time? In 2014 the “Planning design and heritage champion” was Councillor Alen Dent and we seem to recall that Mrs Helen Parr also once held the job. Did they not notice this?

There also appears to be an “East Devon Design Review Panel”:

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/planning-services/planning-development-management/design-review-panel/

Anyone else ever heard of that before? And where are its agendas and minutes?

What mainstream media isn’t telling you about that DCC Cranbrook Report!

What the Express and Echo article on Cranbrook DIDN’T report:

Firstly, that along with Councillor Moulding, other EDDC (or former EDDC) councillors were part of the DCC task group which were closely involved with the development of Cranbrook: councillors Bowden and former EDDC Leader Sarah Randall-Johnson.

and bits of the report that didn’t make the mainstream media have been extracted here:

Developers are house builders, not town builders. The planning of e.g. the town centre and open spaces is the responsibility of the district council as the local planning authority whose responsibility it is to ensure that developing land commercially is coordinated with building a new community with social as well as physical facilities and infrastructure. It took five years to negotiate the original Section 106 Agreement.

Numerous concerns were shared with the task group in relation to the developers’ activities, among them a large number of incidents relating to the quality of the completed homes, including compliance with plans and residents struggling to encourage developers to address any shortcomings. Landscaping of community space has followed rather than preceded development and the management and maintenance of future community space and development land is lacking. The number of complaints regarding the quality of the built environment resulted in some community representatives being concerned about Cranbrook’s future reputation and the success of future phases.

Despite numerous invitations it was disappointing that none of the four house builders were available to comment on the concerns which participants shared with the task group.

Community Infrastructure

There is no standard model for planning community infrastructure and negotiating with developers, service commissioners and providers, but what is critical in creating a new town is upfront funding to support delivery the development of roads, community infrastructure and affordable housing from the public purse. Some of those facilities, e.g. the primary and secondary schools, Clyst Honiton bypass and Younghayes Community Centre, have been finalised ahead of schedule in Cranbrook. For others, notably the train station, there is a strong public perception that facilities are substantially behind schedule. Building and operating facilities without residents to use them is not viable but equally, residents expect facilities as soon as they move in. Participants repeatedly called for a multi-disciplinary team to plan and shape the future provision of services in Cranbrook.

In the absence of alternative public transport provision other than a limited but expanding bus service, car parking facilities were described as inadequate, including insufficient car parking allocation per bedroom, no visitors’ car parking, allocated parking bays being situated away from homes and garages being physically too small for cars to fit in them. Concern was expressed that habits formed in the early days would be hard to unlearn and that transport infrastructure should be delivered in line with residential development. Residents criticised “blue sky” bicycle thinking ignoring the reality that today’s Society had a two car per dwelling dependency which should be catered for in new development.

The roads in the town are not yet adopted, and as they are carrying significant volumes of construction traffic, the County Council does not currently have timescales for when responsibility will be transferred. The maintenance for the roads remains the responsibility of the developers, including gritting in the winter. The task group understands that the developers have an agreement with Devon County Council to finance gritting by the highway authority in severe weather. Several participants expressed concerns about dangerous car parking by residents and developers on pavements, corners and junctions but Devon County Council cannot extend its civil parking enforcement service until the roads are adopted.

Safe access routes to the Cranbrook Education Campus (primary and secondary schools) were due to be completed by the end of August 2015, including secure footpaths. An Infrastructure Site Manager employed by the Developer Consortium was overseeing their completion.

The task group remains concerned about the secondary school being located next to the railway line. Network Rail has committed to delivering awareness training for the children once per year in the school. The school was also planning to operate manned gates.

The main road through Cranbrook is not finished which might cause problems for parents whose children attend both the Cranbrook Education Campus. They would have to drop children off at both sites at similar times with no direct access route to both.

A pre-school facility would have assisted at an early stage.

When the first residents moved into Cranbrook in the summer of 2012, there was no social or community infrastructure or service provision beyond the completion of their homes. The task group repeatedly heard how this was a problem especially for the more vulnerable residents, including single parent families and residents without access to private transport. Social housing occupants were housed in Cranbrook and thereby removed from established communities, with shops, public transport and public services, and lived in Cranbrook in isolation. The complete lack of healthcare, social care or other professional support during the first 18-24 months meant that some residents were left to struggle on their own, exacerbating existing problems, including (post-natal/long-term) depression and drug/alcohol dependency.

Participants repeatedly expressed how there was provision for young children under the age of five in the form of open spaces and safe play areas, and some surrounded by unsafe fencing, but still no facilities exist for older children and teenagers. This resulted in problems, e.g. older children using the park and making it an unpleasant environment for younger children to play. Although funding had been available in the Section 106 Agreement from the beginning, the youth bus had only commenced at a later date. The task group understands that this provision was temporally withdrawn following an alleged antisocial behaviour incident at the end of July 2015. Participants commented that the provision should increase in order to combat antisocial behaviour issues, rather than be withdrawn.

The Cranbrook Medical Centre opened on 20 April 2015, nearly three years after the first residents moved in. An unsuccessful tender for new services and premises had been issued by the then Devon Primary Care NHS Trust in the past. The reorganisation of the NHS saw the responsibility for the commissioning of primary care services transfer to NHS England which awarded the contract to Devon Doctors. A funding challenge remains: Core services delivered in GP surgeries are funded per capita based on the number of formal registrations with a surgery. Although the current practice in Cranbrook has a capacity for approximately 3,500 patients, only 514 patients were formally registered at the end of July 2015. NHS England has provided some core minimum funding to the practice whilst the list size remains low and this will be paid until the registered population reaches a certain size, at which point capitation-based funding will be applied; another example of upfront funding required in the initial period. Two GPs, who are building their work load up to full time, and one nurse are currently practicing.

A backlog of patients who still need to be registered remains. When moving to Cranbrook, residents had to register with the Pinhoe & Broadclyst Medical Practice in cases where their old surgeries would not keep them registered. The Pinhoe & Broadclyst Medical Practice was difficult to access with public transport from Cranbrook which had proved a challenge for the more vulnerable members of the community.

Cranbrook is forecast to have approximately 20,000 residents by 2031 and the GP surgery will have to slowly evolve in order to grow in conjunction with the growth in residents and their future healthcare needs. The surgery will need a new building in the future with sufficient capacity to expand in a modular way to grow with the population. It would therefore be important for the NHS to be able to access Section 106 funding as appropriate to enable such premises to be facilitated, although there are concerns around State Aid which will need to be addresses as GP practices are effectively private businesses. NHS England is currently working with other health partners to develop a joint response to planning applications being received.

Pharmacy

The independent pharmacy is being accommodated in temporary premises at present and the task group heard from participants how its provision might have been better coordinated and co-located with the GP surgery with improved forward planning.

One of the objectives in the development of Cranbrook is to develop the employment infrastructure, i.e. create one job per residential dwelling. Employment opportunities exist in nearby Exeter, the SkyPark and the Science Park and eventually in the town itself, with the intention that Cranbrook develops as a small enterprise town. The development of small-scale employment spaces is currently being pursued with the conversion of two residential dwellings into offices. Commercial properties in the town centre have not yet sold. The task group questioned where spaces are in the town for small- and medium-sized enterprises to establish their businesses. An Economic Development Strategy has been developed for Cranbrook.

Well, duh, We knew it wasn’t right! Can you BELIEVE the developers, officers and councillors didn’t see any of these major flaws? Or was it just a rush for maximum profits as fast as possible to take advantage of government sweeteners? AND Councillor Moulding (with his EDDC councillor hat on) was around the whole time but now criticises the project with his DCC hat on? You could not make it up! AND it seems Mr Cohen may have been too busy on the Knowle project to notice, too!

A NEW report has found that Cranbrook is not yet “future proof”, as there is no provision of bungalows, retirement homes, extra care housing and nursing homes for older residents.

The problem was highlighted in findings from a review by a county council task force. The task group’s report states that “a huge amount has been achieved” since building work began at Cranbrook in June 2011.

Cranbrook held its first elections in May and it now has its own Town Council to serve its estimated current population of around 2,500 people living in just over 1,000 homes.

The reports states that although the Cranbrook Medical Centre opened in April 2015, there was a “complete lack of healthcare, social care or other professional support during the first 18-24 months”.

The GP surgery will need a larger premises in future to have sufficient capacity for the town’s expanding population. The task group also found that the pharmacy, which is in a temporary premises, would be better served if it was located with the GP surgery.

The first residents moved to the town in summer 2012 and St Martin’s Primary School opened its doors shortly after, when less than 50 homes were occupied.

The school opened with just 32 children, but over 400 were attending by the end of the Summer Term. The Cranbrook Education Campus opened its doors to primary and secondary school children for the first time this month.

Cranbrook is served by a half-hourly bcus service and it has a network of cycle and walking routes which link to Exeter. The railway station is due to open this autumn, but its delivery is later than initially planned.

Residents in the town benefit from reduced energy prices, thanks to the district heating system which supplies Cranbrook and SkyPark. The system, which is the first low-density district heating system in the country, was hailed a success.

The report highlights some problems which need addressing as well as some areas where things could have been done differently.

It states that “Cranbrook is not yet future proof”, as there is currently no provision of bungalows, retirement homes, extra care housing and nursing homes for older residents.

It also highlights that the planning process for “crucial community infrastructure”, such as a leisure centre, library, children’s centre and town council offices, is only just starting despite the first residents moving in more than three years ago. However, the Younghayes Community Centre was completed ahead of schedule.

Councillor Andrew Moulding, who chaired the task group and is Chairman of the Place Scrutiny Committee, said: “Although the development of the town is a huge success, this task group uncovered many issues which need resolving, such as planning future development in a co-ordinated manner, accelerate provision for older children and young people, and identify the healthcare, social care and general wellbeing needs of the residents in order to plan future services.

“The task group commenced at a time when the development at Cranbrook reached a milestone with the near-completion of Phase 1 and with the imminent development of Sherford, a new town of similar size and scope in the South Hams close to the border with Plymouth.”

The task group’s final report contains a number of recommendations and lessons learnt. These include:

– The establishment of a multi-disciplinary team across Devon County Council to plan and implement the provision of future services in Cranbrook, Sherford, and large extensions to existing settlements. This team would cover everything from waste management to public health.

– Provision of services for older children and young people should be enhanced until permanent services are established.

– The establishment of a strategic health and wellbeing group to oversee the development of a health and wellbeing strategy for the town.

The report is available here

http://www.devon.gov.uk/cma_report.htm?cmadoc=report_cs1519.html

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Report-finds-Cranbrook-8216-future-proof-8217/story-27794930-detail/story.html

DCC wants “more transparency” about broadband not-spots

Devon County Council scrutiny committee conducted an investigation in the Connecting Devon and Somerset (CDS) superfast scheme. …

… The meeting saw councillors issue a number of recommendations for CDS, including for an open market tender for phase two of the roll out, the publication of frequent progress reports and an ethos “greater openness and transparency”.

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Ministers-confirm-plans-universal-service/story-27774783-detail/story.html

Good luck with that!

Devolution: Devon and Somerset letter of intent sent today

Style over substance or the real thing? You decide:

https://new.devon.gov.uk/democracy/how-the-council-works/devolution/

So, about that EDDC new HQ ……

Does this decision about a public green in Exeter affect Knowle Parkland

Judge upholds challenge over town green and local authority land

Friday, 04 September 2015 09:43

A High Court judge has recently upheld a judicial review challenge by a campaigner over an inspector’s refusal of an application to register land in Exeter as a town green, it has been reported.

The case of R (Goodman) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs related to Exhibition Fields in Pinhoe. The application to register the land as a town green had been referred by Devon County Council to the Planning Inspectorate for determination (as Devon is a ‘pilot’ registration authority.

The planning inspector rejected the application for the following reasons:

He concluded that Exeter City Council, as landowner, had impliedly appropriated Exhibition Fields from employment use such that the land thereafter became held as recreational open space and any recreational use was “by right”; and (and in the alternative)

as the city council had held fairs and a circus on part of the Fields, any recreational use of the land for sports and pastimes had been impliedly permitted, following the decision in R (Mann) v Somerset County Council [2012] EWHC B14.

The claimant took the case to the High Court, with Mr Justice Dove ruled in their favour on 30 July.
According to Francis Taylor Building, the judge held – in relation to the inspector’s first conclusion – that, for an implied appropriation to have occurred, there must be evidence that the local authority directed its mind to, and answered, the statutory test for appropriation set out in s.123 of the Local Government Act 1972. Simply managing land as recreational open space was not of itself sufficient to give rise to an implication that an appropriation had occurred.

In relation to the second of the inspector’s reasons, the High Court judge held that for an implied permission to arise there must be evidence that the landowner intended to grant permission and also that, in the case of local authorities, the nature of the landowner’s action was relevant including, in the Goodman case, that the intervening acts of the landowner were of themselves for the purposes of public recreation.

FTB’s Douglas Edwards QC acted for the claimant, leading Simon Lane of Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. They were instructed by Susan Ring and Harry Campbell of Richard Buxton, solicitors.

Commenting on the case, FTB said: “The case helpfully clarifies some elements of the law relating to town and village greens as it applies to local authority land and reduces the scope for local authorities to rely on ‘implied’ appropriation and implied permission for recreational use so as to defeat a town green application.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24257:judge-upholds-challenge-over-town-green-and-local-authority-land&catid=58&Itemid=26

Rural broadband campaigners will be allowed to speak at DCC scrutiny meeting but transparency is a gift not a right according to Councillor Moulding

Amazing what a little adverse publicity and pointing out of hypocrisy can do:

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Public-invited-speak-council-broadband-scrutiny/story-27723281-detail/story.html

The Owl takes some credit for this change of mind after pointing out that Councillor Moulding did not practise what he preached:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/08/27/businesses-without-broadband-not-allowed-to-give-evidence-to-dcc-scrutiny-committee-which-is-chaired-by-councillor-andrew-moulding

But we still have to point out that the right for the public to speak is being touted as a special and generous gift from said Councillor when, in fact, he, and DCC should be highly embarrassed by the fact that normally the public can’t address a SCRUTINY committee!

Anyone see the problem here – that the only people allowed to scrutinise the council are the councillors themselves and that the Scrutiny Committee is chaired by a majority party councillor, against accepted guidelines that the Chair should be from a minority party! It was touted thus by Councillor Moulding:

“It is not common practice for the public to give evidence at council scrutiny meetings, so the decision by chairman councillor Andrew Moulding marks a break from tradition.”

and thus by the Vice-Chair:

“I have always favoured public involvement and very much welcome this change of heart,” he said. “Openness and transparency are vital ingredients of any democratic process”.

The moral of this story? If you want transparency, you have to fight for it, it isn’t your right it is their privilege to grant it to you.

Anyone up for another Freedom of Information fight?

The post below, with its mention of Skypark, got the Owl thinking… never a good thing.

Is it time someone asked for the information about WHY EDDC chose Skypark as the site for its new HQ and then returned to its original decision? It won’t come voluntarily though, Owl thinks.

There can’t be much “commercial sensitivity” now that it has fallen through and what little there is (if any) should be easily redacted.

A few questions spring to mind – maybe you have more.

Who suggested Skypark?
When?
Why?
What was the financial thinking behind it?
What interventions did other partners (DCC, St Modwyn) institute?
What correspondence did EDDC enter into and with whom about its decision to change to Skypark?
Why did they pull out so suddenly?
Why did the plans fall foul of EU directives, who noticed that and when?
How much was spent on the abortive project?

Owl thinks we should be told.

Straittgate Farm Quarry – DCC consultation

Under the latest draft set out by Devon County Council (DCC), Straitgate Farm near Ottery St Mary is one of just two proposed new areas for quarrying.

This site is the subject of a controversial application submitted by Aggregate Industries to extract sand and gravel, which has been met with opposition from Ottery residents and civic leaders.

Now DCC is consulting the public about this for a new Minerals Lical Plan.

The document will eventually replace the existing Minerals Local Plan of 2004 and covers the period up to 2033. Following this process, the plan will be submitted to the Secretary of State, together with all responses. DCC anticipates it will be adopted by the end of 2016.

The consultation runs until Monday, November 16. Visit https://new.devon.gov.uk/haveyoursay/. Residents can also call 01392 383510 or email minerals@devon.gov.uk

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/have_your_say_on_quarrying_plan_1_4210680

Businesses without broadband not allowed to give evidence to DCC Scrutiny Committee which is chaired by Councillor Andrew Moulding

Remind yourself, when you read this article, that Councillor Moulding said the following about consultation when Axminster Hospital’s beds were threatened:

“At a well attended meeting to discuss progress in the fight to maintain in-patient beds at Axminster hospital, Cllr Andrew Moulding (wearing both his Town and County councillor hats) spoke to concerned residents about his representations to the Devon CC Health and Wellbeing OSC. He made clear his feelings on the matter to the OSC and stated that his only job as a Councillor was to convey the feelings, views, anger and frustration of Axminster people over the shameful way in which the CCG and NDHT had conducted themselves, with misleading figures, loaded and biased consultations and the heavy-handed (and expensive) use of lawyers to force a decision through…

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/01/30/to-a-louse-with-particular-reference-to-councillor-moulding-axminster-hospital-and-knowle-relocation/

Whereas here, he seems to have totally forgotten what he said:

Business leaders have spoken of their disappointment and “frustration” that the pleas of thousands of local companies to give evidence in a pending broadband inquiry have not yet been acknowledged.

Members of Devon County Council’s scrutiny committee are due to hold a meeting to discuss handling of the Connecting Devon and Somerset (CDS) superfast broadband programme next week.

Officials initially decided to invite only those close to the programme to give evidence – which sparked a campaign by residents and businesses to include external witnesses.

Organisations representing 19,500 firms across the two counties issued an open letter to the committee, urging it to reconsider its decision. But the newly published agenda for the meeting reveals arrangements currently remain the same.

Graham Long, chairman of the Broadband for Rural Devon and Somerset action group, said the inquiry threatened to become a “whitewash” if only those involved in the roll-out scheme are allowed to speak.

“Rural businesses and residents cannot plan their future with the uncertainty that now exists around their broadband service, and the scrutiny committee should hear from the organisations that have added their names to the open letter,” he said.

“The failure to secure a phase two contract means that Devon and Somerset are now the only English counties without a programme to provide a minimum of 95% superfast coverage.

“This is now an urgent issue and the digital apartheid that exists between the towns and cities where fast broadband is ubiquitous and rural areas where it is almost non-existent cannot be allowed to continue.”

The committee scheduled a “special” meeting for September 3 following the collapse of negotiations between CDS and BT for delivery of phase two of the Government’s superfast scheme.

The only individuals listed to give evidence on the formal agenda are representatives of BDUK, CDS and BT, members of the council, local MPs and the broadband provider Airband.

The open letter, submitted to last week, warns councillors this approach “will not produce a fair examination of the programme” and calls for affected businesses and residents to be heard. Signatories include the Devon and Somerset branches of the Federation of Small Businesses, the NFU, the Country Land and Business Association and the Blackdown Hills Business Association.

Development manager for Devon FSB, Sue Wilkinson, described the situation as “frustrating”. “It’s disappointing for our members and all businesses in Devon and Somerset that chance for us to have a fair hearing and to make our very valid points has been lost,” she said.

The chairman of the committee, Conservative councillor Andrew Moulding was unavailable to comment yesterday. However, vice chairman and Liberal Democrat councillor Gordon Hook said he believed residents should be free to “question and probe” the issue.

A council spokesman said a decision on whether or not to take representations from the public would be made when coun. Moulding was available.

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Businesses-ongoing-frustration-exclusion-council/story-27689551-detail/story.html

One born every minute?

Letter in today’s Sunday Times magazine Driving supplement, page 3

“Verging on the ridiculous”

“The article about volunteers cutting the grass and tidying the verges of Devon’s highways [last week] makes interesting reading, especially when you consider that the chief executive of Devon council, Phil Norrey, is on £150,000 – more than our PM gets for running the entire country. Looking at the photo of the happy band of volunteers, I recalled the words attributed to P T Barnum: “There’s a sucker born every minute”. I’m sure Mr Norrey would agree, as he laughs all the way to the bank.”

Ali Kelman, Surrey