Should those standing for town and/or district council seats be allowed to trumpet their Devon County Council “influence” – especially when said trumpeting is hot air rather than anything else?
At least one local newspaper seems to think it’s fine.
Purdah? What’s purdah? Oh, that’s when you ban stories about those not in power – yet!
This is the case where the Information Commissioner ordered release of (redacted?) information on relocation discussions and costings, only for EDDC to appeal this decision.
Initially, after a hearing at Exeter Magistrates Court in August 2014, we were told at that time by the judge that a judgment could be expected in late 2014 or early 2015,
It is now late April 2015 and no sign of it.
Surely our officers and (current) councillors are not dragging this out until after elections?
What could possibly be in these documents that would cause such a delay?
Congratulations to Vision Group for Sidmouth (VgS) for organising last night’s hustings, in a particularly civil atmosphere, thanks to the VgS Chair, Dave Bramley.
All candidates standing in Sidmouth and Sidford Wards, for election to East Devon District Council, had been invited. ONLY ONE current District Councillor, Christine Drew, turned up, making the absence of all the others appear all the more reprehensible.
Candidates who did take this opportunity to engage with the public were: Dawn Manley (East Devon Alliance Independent,iEDA, Sidford Ward); Matt Booth (iEDA, Sidmouth Town Ward);Cathy Gardner (iEDA, Sidmouth Town); Marianne Rixson (iEDA, Sidford);Christine Drew (Conservative, Sidmouth Rural); David Barratt (Independent, Sidmouth Rural); John Dyson (Independent, Sidmouth Town).
A broad range of topics were raised, including affordable housing; interaction between Town/ District/ and County Councils; current EDDC management style: neighbourhood plans, etc. All were thoughtfully addressed.
Hats off to the iEDA Independents,for their positive message of how together they could improve the way things are done at District Council. Their pooled knowledge of local issues, and individual expertise in such things as sources for grants; tourism and marketing; and most urgently, the importance of encouraging neighbourhood plans, was impressive.
Next VgS hustings, for Sidmouth Town Council candidates, is at Sidmouth College, 6pm, on Tuesday 21 April. Wonder how many candidates will take advantage of this pre-election platform offered to them? We’ll see.
As you can see on our HOME page, several pre-election hustings are being organised by independent bodies around the District. This evening, there’s one in Sidmouth, where for the first time, every single District Councillor is being challenged by Independent candidates. So, tonight’s hustings is a particularly newsworthy event for the press, who will be there.
St Francis Hall, Woolbrook, will be open from 7.30pm, and the hustings will start at around 7.50pm. Questions in advance, please, to Dave Bramley (VgS Chair) or submit them on arrival, to the organisers.
For details of the meeting, and to contact Dave Bramley, click here: https://www.visionforsidmouth.org/calendar/2015/april/district-council-hustings.aspx
The full list of Sidmouth Election Candidates is on the front page of the latest edition (14 April) of Pullman’s View from Sidmouth. You can’t miss the headline: ‘Independent alliance target Sidmouth’!
Westpoint has applied for an exemption to its planning permission to allow timed car trials on its site. Obviously this is a concern as it is likely to be very noisy and could potentially cause additional pollution to the area too..
This is the link to the planning application (15/0139/VAR):
https://planning.eastdevon.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NIGLWSGHHHM00
Save Clyst St Mary spokesperson, Gaeron Kayley, says:
“Having spoken to The Parish Council, I can confirm there will be a public meeting in the School Hall on Wednesday 15th April Starting at 19.30″
About a hundred people from various parts of East Devon gathered on the lawn terraces at Knowle on Sunday afternoon 12th April to listen to speeches from parliamentary candidates and others about the national planning set-up.
The event was part of a nationwide Day of Action called for by Community Voice on Planning (Covop) and was organised by Covop trustees and Vision Group for Sidmouth.
Parliamentary candidates representing all parties, except the Conservatives ( from both the Honiton and Tiverton and the Devon East constituencies) gave their views on the national planning system and in particular the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
All of them promised reforms, mostly involving prioritising brownfield developments, protecting the countryside and building more affordable homes for local people. Conservative candidates were unable to attend and failed to respond to requests to send a written statement.
The first speaker was ex-judge Ian McKintosh, of East Devon Alliance and Covop. After reviewing the situation nationally and locally, he argued that local communities were being ignored in favour of developers.
Caroline Kolek, Labour candidate for Honiton and Tiverton, claimed that Labour would stop land-banking and prioritise brownfield sites. She shared her slot with Henry Brown, district councillor candidate for St Paul’s ward, Honiton,who made the case for more affordables for local young people.
Paul Edwards of the Green party and candidate for Tiverton and Honiton, said the countryside was our greatest resource and should be protected.
John Kelly, standing in for Andrew Chapman, UKIP parliamentary candidate for Devon East, who was indisposed, argued that the planning crisis was caused by EU regulations.
Stuart Mole, Liberal-Democrat candidate for Devon East, contended that the reforms recommended by the recent Communities and Local Government committtee should be immediately instated, for instance the proposal that all planning permissions be counted towards the 5-year land supply.
Claire Wright, Independent candidate for Devon East, put the blame for the massive increase in inappropriate development squarely on the government’s deregulation of the planning system and on the Local Council’s developer-bias and failure to produce a Local Plan.
Robert Crick, for Vision group of Sidmouth, read a litany of some of the inappropriate developments approved in the district in the past three years together with statistics provided by the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England. These included the prospect of about a thousand houses a year in East Devon until 2031.
A Covop petition, to be presented to the new government, was handed out along with a short guide to the planning system and suggested reforms. The petition is available online at https://you.38degrees.org.uk/p/covop2015
Commenting on the publication of a new poll by the Committee on Standards in Public Life outlining widespread mistrust amongst the public towards major donors to political parties, Director of Unlock Democracy Peter Facey commented:
“It is clear from the Committee on Standards in Public Life that the public do consider the influence ‘big money’ has on politics is important and that it makes very little distinction between influence from individuals, companies and trade unions.
“This research should make sobering reading for politicians from across the political spectrum. It ought to spur them into action. Let us hope that it does not take another funding scandal before they are prepared to do so. With public confidence in politicians continuing to plummet, urgent action is required.
“Introducing a cap on donations to political parties may be risky but not as risky as doing nothing. It is high time government and opposition parties alike ended the rhetoric and got around the negotiating table.”
Summary of the polls findings:
82% of people considered party funding to be an issue of “some” or “great” importance.
81% of people believed people donated to political parties in the hope of receiving favours, special treatment or special access and influence over the party.
85% of people thought that politicians very often or sometimes do special favours for donors.
76% of people thought that politicians very often or sometimes based decisions on what their donors wished.
52% of people thought that giving special favours to donors was never acceptable.
In a separate poll, the CSPL also found that the percentage of people in England who believe that MPs are dedicated to doing a good job for the public dropped from 46% to 26% between 2008 and 2010.
Both polls can be found here:
http://www.public-standards.org.uk/OurWork/Public_Attitude_Surveys.html
The only Parliamentary candidate who does not take donations from Big Business or Unions is Independent Claire Wright.
Click here for details: VGS hustings poster1.pages
New concerns for Save Clyst St Mary campaigners, outlined in this message today from organiser Gaeron Kayley:
‘ In case you weren’t aware, Westpoint has applied for an exemption to its planning permission to allow timed car trials on its site. Obviously this is a concern as it is likely to be very noisy and could potentially cause additional pollution to the area too..
This is the link to the planning application (15/0139/VAR):
https://planning.eastdevon.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NIGLWSGHHHM00
As you can see, there is barely any info about what it actually entails at present
Here are the links to the company’s website:
http://www.bhpperformanceshow.com/
and
http://www.bhpperformanceshow.com/gallery
It might also be useful to have a look at their own clip on YouTube:
Although the application is for one day, we fear this will be a sliding slope and that there might be additional requests for more days – hence the reason we have brought it to your attention.
Having spoken to The Parish Council, I can confirm there will be a public meeting in the School Hall on Wednesday 15th April Starting at 19.30 (This date and time is subject to confirmation once the school has re-opened).
On a different note, we understand there have been some recent changes in personnel at East Devon District Council, including a new Head of Planning. However, at present, there is no clarification of this on their website. To save time and ensure that we can have direct contact with the right people, if and when this is required,we would be grateful if any member of our group working for EDDC could contact us to confirm appointments and contact details. This will ensure we can get in contact with the right people and not disturb those unconnected with our interests!’
<!
Which, with any luck, will have many more Independent councillors prepared to scrutinise decisions of the council demicratically and transparently:
“12. Petitions asking for officers to give evidence
If your petition contains more than 750 signatures your petition may ask for a senior council officer to give evidence at a public meeting about something for which the officer is responsible as part of their job.
Your petition may ask the officer to explain progress on a particular issue or to explain the advice given to the Leader and/or councillors to enable them to make a particular decision. The petition must relate to the officer’s job and cannot relate to their personal circumstances or character.
The evidence will be given at a public meeting of the council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee and not at a meeting of the Council. The officer giving evidence at the meeting may be accompanied by another officer, technical expert or a representative from a partner agency. You will be given details of the meeting so that you can attend. The Committee meetings are normally held in public, but the Committee has the option to exclude the press and public from any part of the meeting that discusses confidential information. If the Committee does exclude the press and public you will also have to leave the meeting. If possible you will be given the opportunity to present your petition first. If it is likely that the press and public will be excluded from the whole or any part of the meeting you will be notified of this and given the reason(s) for this when we give you the details of the meeting. You should be aware that the committee may decide that it would be more appropriate for another officer to give evidence instead of any officer named in the petition – for instance if the named officer has changed jobs. The committee may also decide to call the Leader or relevant councillor to attend the meeting. Only the Committee will ask questions at this meeting, but you will be able to suggest questions you would like them to ask by contacting the Democratic Services Manager (by telephone 01395 517541 or Team number 01395 516546 or e-mailing dvernon@eastdevon.gov.uk) by 4.00 pm three working days before the meeting.”
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/committees-and-meetings/petitions/petitions-asking-for-officers-to-give-evidence/
For those who do not click on links, here is the text of Paul Arnott of the independent East Devon Alliance’s hopes for change at the crucial district elections as they appear in the current Devonshire magazine:
My first published book about fifteen years ago concerned a subject with a very boring name – adoption – with its potentially dull backdrop of social services and filing cabinets. The only way to animate it was by my personal story. I did not know until my mid-thirties that I had been illegitimately conceived in 1961 by a scared young Irish couple in London, who later went on to marry in Dublin and have four more children, my full-blood siblings. I was a devoted Englishman who it transpired had flesh and blood from County Carlow.
Now here is another boring word – planning. How to persuade a reader that at its dark heart may be the seedbed for the rebirth of our moribund national democracy? It has to be me again, for which I apologise. I was diagnosed with leukaemia four years ago, had a bone marrow transplant three years ago, am fully recovered and should be doing something quiet and nurturing with this reborn life – learning to paint, taking up the harp etc.
Instead I find myself chairman of a movement called the East Devon Alliance, which is supporting a network of Independent candidates to fight the majority of ward seats in the district election happening on the same day as those for Parliament.
It is the biggest Independent effort in British electoral history, more than 40 individual, plucky people who have decided they cannot trust our beloved environment to the whims of a one-party council dominated by pals of developers any longer. They have realised, in supposedly sleepy East Devon, that democracy can only be revived by entirely changing the guard. Indeed, perhaps in this roots-up path may be found the eventual route to national reform?
When I first fell amongst these lovely people, their horror stories from about twenty towns and villages were of a piece with my experience before being ill, making J.K Rowling’s A Casual Vacancy seem like a Year One show-and-tell project. To all of us, it was now beyond doubt that many dominant parish, town and district councillors (and sometimes clerks) mainly sought office to grease the wheels for planning consents for their allies.
Dysfunction was endemic in even the loveliest communities. Rigged agendas, bullying in meetings, and fixed minutes, were all product of the ugly elephant in too many civic rooms. In 2011, the coalition government, announced that in Planning the mantra would now be a “presumption in favour of development”.
It was game on for many well-placed councillors. The only protection against ill-conceived building in the wrong places (key agricultural land) for the wrong people (we need low-cost housing, not executive homes) was for a district to have an adopted (that boring word, again) Local Plan in place. By extraordinary chance, East Devon District Council has managed its affairs in such a way that after an unopposed four year term of office, in a relatively simple area to deal with, it has no such Local Plan at all. Naked in the conference chamber.
Instead, as in the Ireland of my genetic forebears, there is a rush for re-zoning arable for industrial estates, and a gross over-inflation of need at the upper end of the housing market. Of equal concern, there is no positive vision either. Nimbys is the stale acronym thrown at the likes of us. This is unjust.
All of us have identified adjacent to our towns and villages former factories or farmyards which are ideally located for brownfield development, many derelict for years.
Why isn’t the District Council making a united effort to build on these? Is it because this would reduce the need to build on the greenfield locations owned or agented by councillors’ pals, who have long favoured decisions to be made in skittle alleys, lodges and clubs.
We are now at the eleventh hour. I emerged from five months incarceration in a sterile, isolated hospital room to recuperate not in the pollution and tarmac of the London where I was born, but the valleys and hills of the county I love, the landscape which sustains our two essential industries of agriculture and tourism. I, and my fellow Independents, cherish and understand the meaning of stewardship – that we are but passing through. And if we can take back the reins of our afflicted district from the one-party group who now have hold, it is not too late for East Devon to become governed not as the land for robber barons but for a new era of stewards protecting democracy and environment alike.
Click to access devonshire_magazine_april-may_2015-return_of_the_good_stewards.pdf
AFTER a seven-month wait, the outcome of a costly tribunal which examined whether East Devon District Council should publish reports regarding its controversial relocation project, is expected imminently.
So far, the council has spent £10,200 on legal costs in its appeal against the Information Commissioner’s decision that it should have disclosed certain information regarding its relocation project, as a result of a Freedom of Information request made by Sidmouth resident Jeremy Woodward.
Following the hearing at Exeter Magistrates’ Court on August 28, further written submissions were made and, at the time, a four-week wait was expected. However, the legal process instead continued for almost seven months, and due to legal sensitivities the authority has not been able to give any details as to why.
In February 2013, Mr Woodward requested all internal correspondence between council officials regarding the office relocation. This, and requested minutes from Office Relocation Working Party group meetings, were refused.
However, the commissioner ruled that reports written by an outside consultant were not covered by exemptions and should be revealed.
Deputy chief executive Richard Cohen told the First Tier Tribunal at Exeter Magistrates’ Court that the role of the author of the reports, project manager Steve Pratten, who works for Davis Langdon LLP, closely resembles that of an officer and therefore the contents of his reports should not be disclosed.
The judgement was expected last Friday, March 27, but was not forthcoming.
Criticism was heaped on the council for scheduling its full council meeting, to decide upon its office relocation, two days before the tribunal decision was due. On Wednesday, March 25, members resolved to relocate from its Sidmouth headquarters to new purpose-built offices in Honiton, and Exmouth Town Hall.
A council spokesperson, said: “The council is surprised that the target date has passed and the outcome of the tribunal’s deliberations has not yet been handed down.
“Along with all the other parties, we await the judgment and hope that the waiting will soon be over, but we are subject to the tribunal’s scheduling.”
Last year saw a massive assault on public speaking by Tory councillors, particularly Councillor Ray Bloxham (a man not known for using one word when 100 will do the job!). This post from Claire Wright’s blog sums up this issue which led to a reduction in people allowed to speak, at planning meetings in particular, and an increase in bureaucratic red tape to gain permission to speak which would daunt most potential speakers:
http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/restrictions_imposed_on_public_questions_at_eddc/
Lympstone residents, Hugo Swire, and Ben Bradshaw, discuss this in the Sunday Politics show:
“Detective Inspector Neil Devoto of Dorset Police said: “This was a meticulous and impartial investigation into allegations under section 31 and 34 of the Localism Act 2011 following a referral from the East Dorset District Council (EDDC) Monitoring Officer. The Localism Act 2011 is relatively new and I believe that this is one of the first offences brought to trial under this legislation.
“Dorset Police is duty bound to consider evidence and investigate all allegations of criminality. In conjunction with the CPS a decision was made to bring charges. It was decided that charging Mr Flower was in the public interest. It is important that the public have confidence in local representatives and local politics and can trust that due process takes place.”
Hhhmmm … wasn’t reported to Action Fraud then!
Richard Thurlow’s speech, at the Extra Ordinary Meeting of Full Council last week, explains : https://saveoursidmouth.wordpress.com/2015/03/30/a-huge-number-of-uncertainties-and-unresolved-problems-being-glossed-over-yet-council-has-approved-eddc-office-relocation/
Timothy Garton Ash in today’s Guardian:
“One reason for this [political posturing] is that so many MPs depend so directly on the party leaders. At the last count, there were roughly 150 ministers, parliamentary undersecretaries and parliamentary private secretaries. If you add a similar number for those shadowing them on the opposition benches, that brings you close to half the lower house (even allowing for some of those ministers being peers). How many will step out of line to ask a critical question?
Everything is coordinated by an army of special political advisers – known as spads; hence “the spadocracy” – and heaven help the aspiring politician who departs from the script to say something original interesting or (perish the thought) honest.
… Between the childish Punch and Judy of PMQs and the PR Stalinism of the spads, the substance of deliberative democracy is lost. …
… The scrutiny of legislation in the lower house is often woefully inadequate. We depend on unelected lords and then on unelected judges to defend our civil liberties against badly worded and over-broad legislation. These bills have usually been produced as a kneejerk reaction to some event or popular outcry, on the lines of the great satirical syllogism: “Something must be done; this is something; therefore we must do this.” The best select committees do a fine job of cross-examining the powerful, both from government and the private sector, but they need more funding and staff.
And then, of course, there is corruption. When the scandal about MPs fiddling their expenses broke a few years ago, a cartoon showed a pinstriped gent fending off an angry crowd in front of the Houses of Parliament saying, “No, no, I’m a banker!” Call me naive, but I did find it shocking to see two former foreign secretaries caught on camera by a journalistic sting offering their services to a bogus Hong Kong-based company for about £5,000 a day. Yes, money howls still more loudly through American politics; but we don’t want to descend to that level, do we? … ”
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/27/parliament-lawmakers-pmqs-special-advisers
Tories tried to get the Speaker of the House (a Tory they seem to hate) removed by secret ballot as their last act of this Parliament (see post below).
Today’s Guardian reports that David Cameron rushed back to the House to vote for secrecy.
Were Tories whipped?
“Tory MPs say that although it was nominally a free vote, a three-line whip was imposed to be in Parliament. At a parliamentary meeting, Tory MPs were told it was Hague’s birthday and he deserved the present of not being defeated”.
Now we know what model our EDDC Tories follow!
More to follow when we have details.
Here is what one of the 23 rebel Tory MPs said about William Hague trying to change the way the Speaker of the House is voted for – secretly instead of transparently:
“In a tearful speech, Tory MP Charles Walker, chairman of the Commons procedure committee, claimed he had been “played for a fool” by ministers over the issue.
Mr Walker said he had attended Mr Hague’s leaving drinks this week, spending 20 minutes saying goodbye to his special adviser and speaking to Deputy Commons Leader Tom Brake and Chief Whip Michael Gove, “all of whom would have been aware of what was going on”.
He said: “I have been played as a fool and when I go home tonight I will look in the mirror and see an honourable fool looking back at me and I would much rather be an honourable fool in this and any other matter than a clever man.
Labour MPs got to their feet and gave the Tory MP a round of applause – something that is not supposed to happen under Commons rules.”
…Labour’s shadow commons leader Angela Eagle said Mr Hague should be “ashamed of himself” for “going along” with what she claimed was a plot by David Cameron to get rid of Mr Bercow.
“It is a petty and spiteful act because he hates his government being properly scrutinised thanks to this reforming Speaker,” she told MPs.
In a statement, she added: “This is a humiliating defeat for David Cameron on the last day of this Parliament. Instead of talking about ways to improve the lives of working people, in the last week all the prime minister has done is play petty partisan games and arrogantly talk about his retirement plans. In today’s vote decency and democracy prevailed.”
East Devon Watch 