“The feeling of power has been found to have a similar effect on the brain to cocaine. It increases the levels of testosterone and its by-product 3-androstanediol in both men and women. This in turn leads to raised levels of dopamine, the brain’s reward system called the nucleus accumbens, which can be very addictive.
Like cocaine, scientists now believe power can lead to too much dopamine causing more negative effects such as arrogance and impatience.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-29430955
Is it contageous?
Newton Pop District Councillor Ken Potter must be regretting his invitation to the unfortunate Ray Bloxham to explain EDDC’s decision to reduce public speaking at council meetings.
Cllr Bloxham, architect of the controversial new restrictions, struck completely the wrong note. He blamed verbose public speeches for endless DMC meetings. He argued EDDC were much more generous than other councils in time allowed, and concluded that ,anyway, the chance for a few people to speak was “the icing on the cake” of a long planning process!
Several Newton Pop councillors and residents couldn’t wait to get their teeth into the speaker. They expressed angry distrust of the planning system. The impression given at DMC meetings was that many applications were “predetermined”, they said. Public comments were ignored. The management and chairing of planning meetings was abysmal. Councillors waffling and repeating each other were the real time-wasters.
Finally asked one resident, “What is the point of your coming here tonight when the decision has been taken already?”
Poor Ray could only stammer something about it only being an experiment for a year. Any gamblers at NP last night wouldn’t have put good money on it lasting that long.
Some thought- provoking thoughts from an EDA member:
An argument often used by EDDC Councillors when they wish to ignore local opposition to an unpopular decision is to appeal to their instinctive knowledge of the real wishes of the “silent majority”.
Here is a cautionary tale of an attempt to turn a school in Sussex into an academy using just such an argument which appears to have backfired. The story appeared in the Independent last week written by columnist Mark Steel. Mark Steel’s style is to intersperse facts with wry comment – here are the facts extracted from the article:
“In March, the head…… announced his plan for the school to become an academy, subject to a “consultation”. Because the rules decree there must be a consultation……. A meeting was called in which parents, students and teachers expressed outright opposition, but the consultation went on, in the form of a series of presentations by the head and his executives. These included an “artist’s impression” of the gleaming structure – linked with magical walkways and smiley children – that the school would surely become once it was an academy.
On the other hand, we were told, if it remained as it was, that there would be “no money” for repairs, and we were shown a photo of a decaying art block. …….
Despite this, hundreds of our children wore badges in opposition to the plan, posters went up in countless windows, there was a march, and the teachers went on strike. Then the local council, sticking to the obsolete definition of “consultation”, arranged a ballot of parents. The head and his allies contacted parents personally to win their vote, but the result was 29 per cent for the academy and 71 per cent against, on a turnout of 40 per cent………..
Immediately those pushing for the academy responded by insisting the vote was irrelevant. A local Conservative councillor told me: “It counts for nothing, because if you add the Yes vote to those who didn’t vote that’s a majority for those in support”…………………………….
Still the school, backed by the Department for Education, marched on with its plans. ………..
But, amazingly, and who could have predicted this, their response made people even more furious. More strikes were planned, elections for vacant governor posts were won overwhelmingly by opponents of the academy, and on Monday this week it was announced that the plans had been dropped entirely, due to the scale of opposition.
Full text here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/weve-won-the-battle-to-prevent-our-school-becoming-an-academy-9756328.html
So the debate about what is, and is not, ‘ lobbying’, is on hold at EDDC.
Meanwhile, the discussion continues apace at http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/district-council-meets-to-consider.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-29400166
No problem with councillors changing allegiance IF they become REAL Independents. However, many Councillors who supposedly jump ship actually vote totally with their former party all the time once they are re-elected or new independents suddenly find they really always believe in everything the majority party believes in but didn’t realise until after they were elected.
This means that when Committees are formed that must have proportional representation (for example, an Overview and Scrutiny Committee) the Leader chooses the “Independents” who used to be in his party and they then form a majority that votes together. So, an “Independent” could chair an Overview and Scrutiny Committee (it has to be someone not from the majority party) when he or she is really a majority party sympathiser.
There is no suggestion that this is happening in Teignbridge but, if any party becomes toxic, it is a common occurence – it happens a lot in Wales for some reason!
We all know who the REAL independents are: the ones who started out that way!
From our correspondent:
Councillor Potter has now asked Councillor Ray Bloxham to address the Parish Council this coming Monday 29th September on the issue of public speaking. This is what the agenda says:
“Cllr Ray Bloxham, Corporate Business Portfolio Holder will speak on public
speaking at meetings of EDDC, at the request of Cllr Potter. He will however arrive late, due to another meeting”.
Recall that Cllr Bloxham was the person who lead the vote to restrict public speaking at EDDC. During the EDDC debate he read out the full report of recommendations which councillors had already received in written format. After much debate in the meeting, with many councillors repeating themselves and agreeing and repeating the points of others, the Chair asked Councillor Bloxham to summarise his points. He proceeded to go over the entire report again, giving a perfect example of why DMC meetings are so long. He demonstrated perfectly that some councillors have no understanding of the term’summarise’ or indeed the phrase ‘I have nothing to add to the report you have already read’. However the majority of councillors then voted to heavily restrict the right of the public to speak to them for no more than 3 minutes each.
Quite why councillors Potter and Bloxham are so keen to discuss the matter now the vote has taken place I am not sure, but if you would like to ask them that question, come along to Monday nights Parish Council meeting in Newton Poppleford. 8.00 PM in the Village Hall.
Public speaking for the first 15 minutes but I will request standing orders
are suspended when Cllr Bloxham has addressed the meeting if there are
further questions.”
Something that has exercised the minds of several EDA members and especially when we see from current Audit and Governance Committee papers that EDDC “members” would rather have retained current external auditors because they get on well with them and our CEO would much prefer to have the same auditors in each of the districts he heads:
http://www.nao.org.uk/keep-in-touch/our-surveys/consultation-code-audit-practice/
So, let’s review the current situation.
We have one councillor who resigned 18 months ago after a sting that made the front page of the Daily Telegraph. He was concurrently: A district councillor, Chairman of the council’s first Local Plan panel which met in secret, the council’s Business Champion, Chairman of the East Devon Business Forum, a planning consultant, builder, and at least for some of this time, a farmer who neglected to tell anyone that he was allegedly reducing his farming activities so much that the agricultural tie on his house had lapsed long enough for him to be able to ignore it when he sells said house as he has managed to stay under the radar for more than 10 years and therefore gets what he wants even though this could be seen as something a councillor should not do.
We have one Economic Development Manager who was concurrently the Hon Sec of the (totally subsidised by EDDC) East Devon Business Forum whilst at the same time responsible for making (usually favourable) comments on planning applications for EDBF members. At the point where EDBF disbands he disappears into the EDDC woodwork for 18 months and nothing is heard of him until he suddenly reappears this month to gather garlands at an EDDC committee meeting for work none of us had heard of during that time, soon after which it is leaked out that he is leaving EDDC next month. For the whole of those 18 months the CEO, Mark Williams, has refused to allow an EDDC Task and Finish group on the influence of EDBF on the (non) Local Plan to meet (and thereby question) Mr Harrison.
We have one ex-Monitoring Officer who, we know, at first thought her only action after the Daily Twlegraph sting, should be to report the fact to “Action Fraud” (which monitors internet scams) and not the police which wasted valuble time and who, we also know, received many, many complaints about all of the above from members of the public but no action was ever taken. Said officer left EDDC in a very low-key way last month to be replaced (temporarily and without going through any committee) by the Legal Officer of South Somerset District Council (with whom we share a CEO) – said Legal Officer presumably also continuing his job at South Somerset.
Have we missed anything?
Nigel Harrison, EDDC’s Economic Development Manager (EDM) , is to step down in October this year. This must surely come as a complete surprise to Chief Executive Mark Williams who, just a few weeks ago, gave a public assurance that Mr Harrison would remain as Lead Officer for the Business TAFF. And was Cllr Frances Newth similarly in the dark? No hint was given about this unfortunate imminent resignation, while she gave fulsome praise to Mr Harrison for helping one small business in Sidmouth (sadly, it wasn’t the town’s signature shop, Trumps), when he made only his second brief appearance, at the recent Overview and Scrutiny Committee, since the embarrassment of March 2013.
In his role as the council’s EDM, Nigel Harrison was of course a close associate of the then Chair of the now defunct East Devon Business Forum (EDBF), ex-councillor Graham Brown, who has been in the news again this week http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Concerns-raised-East-Devon-councillor-attempts/story-22966678-detail/story.html
Postscript:
The Business TAFF (‘Task and Finish Forum’) is the Scrutiny Committee set up to take “an in-depth look” at the relationship between East Devon District Council and the EDBF. Its purpose was not to scrutinise solely the EDBF Chair, Graham Brown.
Key Witnesses
1. A key witness in this relationship would be Nigel Harrison, but he has apparently so far been unavailable to talk to the Business TAFF Chair, Cllr Graham Troman. It is unfortunate that his resignation is timed for before the TAFF reconvenes (TAFF date continues to be deferred, seemingly on the recommendation of the Chief Executive).
2.By chance, another potentially key witness, former EDDC Monitoring Officer Denise Lyon, has similarly resigned.
One particular question the Business TAFF would like to ask, when it is finally allowed to do so, is why the East Devon Business Forum is no more.
Rather than re-invent the wheel about why the Task and Finish Group at EDDC should re-convene this archive report from Sidmouth Independent News in March 2013 says it all and for extra colour read the report of national investigative journalist Anna Minton HERE where she takes many of her examples from East Devon.
Planning in East Devon and the East Devon Business Forum:
1. Introduction: Cause for Concern?
There is a growing lack of public trust in the planning process in East Devon. (1) Many controversial planning applications have been approved in the face of massive public opposition and frequently contrary to the adopted local plan and other planning guidelines. Extensive industrial and residential developments are seen by many residents and small businesses as damaging to the economy, environment and quality of life in this unique part of England. This situation is likely to worsen over the next 15 years if the draft Local Plan is adopted with its ‘excessive’ allocations of employment land and housing.
Many informed residents of East Devon are concerned that planning policy in the district has been unduly influenced by a small group of developers and landowners who have played an important role in the preparation of the draft Local Plan, and in the relaxation of planning rules to protect the countryside. These developers and landowners are strongly represented in the East Devon Business Forum which has served as a lobby for large-scale development.
Worryingly, this independent, private organisation has among its members some councillors and a council officer who have had a significant influence on planning policy as well as in approving controversial major planning applications which have benefitted EDBF members.
2. The nature of the East Devon Business Forum (EDBF)
a) EDBF is a Forum defined in the EDDC Constitution as a body of “representatives of outside interests” with whom the council can discuss “specific areas of activity” Though it receives some funding from the Council, it is widely understood not to be part of the council but “completely independent of it.” (2)
b) The EDBF overwhelmingly represents businesses with a strong interest in planning and development, and landowners and developers have played a big role in the Forum since 2007. Ex-councillor Roy Stuart (A E Stuart and Son) is current vice-chairman , and his predecessors were Angela Wright (Crealy Park, 2009-10) and Christine Seddon Smith (Devon Cliffs, 2010-2012) (3)
c) Unsurprisingly, the thrust of EDBF lobbying has been to persuade the council to relax planning controls for big developers and to decrease the protection for greenfield and AONB areas. After all, the Forum commented in 2011, only 1% of East Devon was developed! (4) At 34 out of 40 meetings since 2007 planning and development issues were raised, to the evident frustration of at least one member- not himself a property developer- who wondered if other matters like education and training could be discussed.(5)
d) Smaller businesses dependent on town centre commerce and quality tourism fear that excessive expansion of business parks in greenfield sites could damage their interests. These businesses however, clearly have significantly less influence on EDDC policy than the property developers. Two former chairmen of chambers of commerce have said they felt unwelcome at EDBF meetings. (6)
e) The Forum proudly admits its crucial influence on the council’s targets for ‘employment land’ in the draft Local Plan. (7) It is recognised as having been successful in increasing the amount of employment land in the Draft Local Plan, and in persuading the council to relax planning rules after 2007. (see part 3 below)
f) Throughout the formation of the Local Plan, members of EDBF were privileged interlocutors with apparently more influence on the Council than independent consultants like Atkins (2007) or Roger Tym (2011), both hired at public expense, and whose conclusions were largely disregarded. The employment land allocation in the local plan has been widely criticised as excessive. (8)
3. Councillors and the EDBF
i) Councillor Graham Brown
a) Cllr Brown has been chairman of the EDBF since August 2006. He runs a planning consultancy, Grey Green Planning Ltd, and a building company, Brown Builders, according to his Register of Interests entry. He represents the N.F.U at Forum Meetings .Many observers have been astonished that the chairman of a lobby group was permitted, as a councillor, over a long period, to deliberate on and help decide council policy which favoured members of that lobby group.
b) Cllr Brown, in his dual role as EDBF chairman and councillor, was important in changing the outcome of an independent report on employment land (industrial land.) In 2007 a Forum sub-committee chaired by him challenged the findings of the independent Atkins Report (which recommended the allocation of a moderate amount of employment land) and said much more was needed.
c) The Council were then persuaded to set up a Task and Finish Forum, on Employment Land which he led, where presentations were made by EDBF members with large land-owning interests.
d) At the Corporate Overview Committee of November 22 2007 Cllr Brown led the debate on employment land and got agreement that planning policy on industrial land should be changed immediately because there was an ‘undersupply’ in East Devon, despite the Atkins Report evidence to the contrary.
e) The Corporate Overview Committee of October 23 2008 of which Cllr Brown was a member confirmed the ‘urgent need’ for more ‘employment land’, and recommended Greendale Barton, Hill Barton and Exeter Airport Business parks for expansion (all are EDBF members). From 2008 planning applications from EDBF members for large extensions to their industrial estates were approved as a direct result of this change in policy in 2007/8.(see part 5)
f) Cllr Brown attended the Development management Committee meeting of 20/10/2009, when approval was granted for expansion of Greendale Business Park.(091195/MOUT) Cllr Brown knows the owners well and they are frequent attendees at EDBF meetings. At the same meeting approval was granted for the construction of a crematorium at Strete Raleigh (09/1549/MFUL) where Cllr Brown’s company, Grey Green Planning Ltd, had acted as advisors for the applicants.
g) In 2009-10 Cllr Brown was chairman of the Local Development Panel whose meetings were held in private, and whose minutes were not published until later. What these minutes (often heavily redacted) show is that presentations were made on behalf of leading members of the Forum, and their claims to be included in the allocations in the Local Plan were supported by the chairman.(9)
h) In none of these council meetings did Cllr Brown declare an interest in EDBF despite the clear provisions of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct which required him to declare “personal interests in your membership of any body …exercising functions of a public nature…whose principal purposes include the influence of public opinion or policy. (see also ii) d) below)
i) It could be argued that he had a prejudicial interest in some of these meetings, for example of the decision of the Corporate Overview Committee of October 23 2008, which gave a considerable commercial advantage to a close acquaintance of Cllr Brown’s, Roy Stuart. (10)
ii) Cllr Paul Diviani
a) As a founder member of the EDBF, Cllr Diviani has been closely associated with the Forum since 2004. To June 2012 he had attended 27 of its meetings
b) From its inception he strongly supported the Forum’s lobbying function, arguing that it was its aim “to influence the council to take action and consider various projects in advance of decisions being taken by its members”. (11) And this influence, he argued, should be in favour of economic development which was ”the key priority for the district.” (12) The EDBF lobbied consistently for the expansion of large-scale development and less protection for the countryside.
c) Cllr Diviani has been a consistent champion of council support for the EDBF. For example in 2005 he promised EDDC was “committed to providing support for the Business Forum in terms of administration, rooms, refreshments etc. as it regarded the Forum as a core function.” (13) In 2011 he said he was willing to allow the Forum to use the Communications Officer at EDDC to issue press releases. (14)
d) Former and current codes of conduct for councillors emphasise the need to avoid potential conflicts of interest and the necessity of declaring such interests. Cllr Diviani has repeatedly failed to declare a personal interest in the EDBF in breach of articles 7.2, 7.6, 8.1 and 8.2 of the 2012 Code (15) For example he was present and failed to declare an interest at:
i. Meeting of the Executive Board on 26/09/2007 which ordered a review of the Atkins Report in conjunction with the EDBF
ii. Meeting of the Corporate Overview Committee 24/04/2008 which endorsed a submissiom by the chairman of the EDBF that more “employment land” was urgently needed in the District
e) Most seriously, Cllr Diviani has failed to declare an interest in EDBF while present at, or chairing a series of meetings of the Development Management Committee which approved major and controversial planning applications from fellow members of the EDBF with whom he was obviously well acquainted. Such non-disclosure may well have breached the then applicable Code on avoiding prejudicial interest.
These Meetings approved the following applications
i. AE Stuart (09/0282/MOUT) Extension to Hill Barton Business Park into green fields of 18.75 acres Approved by Development Control Committee 07/04/09, chair Tony Reed, Cllr Diviani present.
ii. May Gurney . (09/0410/MFUL) Expansion of Greendale Business Park into agricultural land for offices parking etc. Approved by Development Control Committee 07/04/09 chair Tony Reed, Cllr Diviani present.
iii. FWS Carter (09/1195/MOUT)15.5 acre expansion of Greendale Business Park. Approved by Development Management Committee 20/10/09, chair Cllr Diviani,
iv. Clinton Devon Estates (09/2533/MOUT) 12.5 acre extension to Liverton Business Park Approved by Development Management Committee 06/04/2010 chair Cllr Diviani
v. AE Stuart and Sons (10/0641/MOUT) for Housing at Westclyst, Old Park Farm up to 450 homes and 2000 sq m. of business use land on 50 acres of grade 1 agricultural land. Approved by Development Management Committee 7/12/2010, chair, Cllr Diviani
vi. Axminster Carpets(10/0816/MOUT) Cloakham Lawns Axminster for urban extension of 400 dwellings and 1000-12000 sq.ft of managed employment floor space. Approved by Development Management Committee 21/10/2010, chair, Cllr Diviani (This application was discussed at the EDBF meeting of 10 June 2010)
vii. Crealy Park (Chris Down) 10/2537/MFUL Conversion of agricultural buildings to light industrial use, Enfield Farm Clyst St Mary EX51DN Approved by Development Management Committee 3/5/2011 Approved by Development Management Committee 7/12/2010, chair, Cllr Diviani
f) In his public statements on the EDBF, as Leader of the Council ,Cllr Diviani has been seriously misleading. For example in an interview on Radio Devon (29/10/2012) his trivialisation of the role of the Economic Development Officer as merely ‘clerical’ is completely untrue. (see part 5 below)
4. Council officers and the EDBF
a) Forum members enjoy exceptional access to officers to inform themselves of council thinking and policy, and to influence it. No other interest group could expect such treatment.Betweeen 2004 and June 2012 there were 130 officer attendances at EDBF meetings. Karime Hassan, Corporate Director, attended 17 EDBF meetings between 2005-11. Kate Little, Head of Planning, spoke to the EDBF six times in 2011-12
b) EDBF expects to be told in advance of important developments.The Head of Finance at EDDC provided the Forum with his budget proposals for their comments. In February 2010, members expressed concern that the Chief Executive had not informed them in advance of his decision to job share with South Somerset District Council. Mr Williams was invited to address them to justify his move , which he did in August 2010. In July 2011, an EDBF member with interests in property development asked for the Forum to be updated on the proposed EDDC relocation from the Knowle
c) The aspirations of developers and district planners increasingly coincide. As EDDC Head of Planning, Kate Little said to EDBF on 15th December 2009: “The planning system had been taken apart to serve the needs of the customer” (EDDC regards the customer as the applicant) and was moving from a more “landscape focus to a more economic one”. Lobbying pressure from EDBF, combined with the changed policy of EDDC planners since 2007, seems to have created a development juggernaut. (16)
5. The role of the Economic Development Manager, Nigel Harrison
a) Mr Harrison has played a vital role in the activities of the Forum as Honorary Secretary. It is clear that his professional competence as Economic Development Manager has been valuable in helping Forum members to frame policy and to present the wishes of the Forum to the Council (17)
b) He has acted as a spokesman for the Forum and was called on to defend it against criticism at a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 27 September 2012.
c) Why this role is inappropriate
An officer’s role is limited by the Constitution to serving and advising the Council and serving the public. (Officers Code of Conduct 1.1) For an officer to be deployed in the service of any outside private body, especially one with an avowed lobbying purpose, would seem to be a serious breach of this Code.
During his long tenure as Honorary Secretary, Mr Harrison has engaged in activities which appear incompatible with his role as a public official, and should have raised concern. For example:
i) In 2008 Mr Harrison intervened in an important disciplinary matter between the then Leader of the Council, Cllr Randall-Johnson and the chairman of the EDBF Cllr Graham Brown, publicly expressing his strong personal support for Cllr Brown. (18)
ii) In 2010 Mr Harrison was tasked by the Business Forum to write to the Head of Planning to facilitate a planning issue affecting a leading member of the Forum whom he knew well. (19)
d) Most seriously, the role of Economic Development Manager is an important one affecting major planning matters. He is called upon to advise councillors on planning strategy, to occasionally attend Development Management Committees, (20) and most importantly to act as consultee for all planning applications of economic importance. This role is impossible to reconcile with that of honorary secretary of a private business group whose members’ planning applications are considered by himself, as Economic Development Manager.
e) Since 2007, Mr Harrison has supported, –often enthusiastically- as consultee at least fourteen planning applications by members of the Business Forum. Most of these were very controversial and contrary to the adopted Local Plan. All were approved. (21) It is clear that his comments carry considerable weight with Development Management Committees. This procedure risks breaching The Planning Code of good practice Article 1.1. which is intended to “ensure that in the planning process there are no grounds for suggesting that a decision has been biased, partial or not well founded in any way”.
f) The apparent conflict of interest here is so serious that it should never have been tolerated . It was very likely that there would be a public perception of partiality on the part of Mr Harrison when – especially in controversial planning applications- impartiality is a key principle in the officer’s code of conduct. For example article 39 of The Protocol covering relations between councillors and officers refers to officers’ “contractual and legal duty to be impartial.”
6. The role of the Chief Executive.
a) Under the EDDC constitution the Chief Executive has a duty to manage officers and ensure that they do not breach their code of conduct.(22) It is remarkable that Mr Williams took no action over Mr Harrison’s conflict of interest.
b) He cannot have been unaware of public expressions of concern over the relationship between EDDC and the EDBF. As early as 21 May 2010 a letter from the Farringdon Residents Association concerning the controversial Waldron’s Farm planning approval mentioned unease over the influence of the Forum. The EDBF, as a potential minefield of conflicts of interest, has been raised several times in council meetings.(23) Recent local, regional and national media coverage of planning procedures at EDDC, have often centred on the perceived undue influence of the EDBF. (24)
c) Even local MP Hugo Swire has raised the matter with the Chief Executive. Mr Williams’ reply was dismissive and complacent: there was nothing to worry about and residents’ concerns, he suggested, were merely from a politically-motivated minority. (25)
This total failure to address this situation risks bringing the council into disrepute, as indeed will any attempt to ‘water down’ the terms of reference of the TaFF, set up last month by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, to investigate relations between the Council and the EDBF.
References
1) For example: “We think EDDC is more interested in engaging with big business rather than engaging with the local community in trying to achieve the aims and ideals of the coalition government’s Big Society.” Friends of Elizabeth Hall quoted in Exmouth People online 11/10/2012
2) For example the chairman of the EDBF quoted in the Sidmouth Herald of 5 October 2012: “We are a totally independent organisation who go to the council for some degree of funding.”
And at the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of 27 September 2012 the chairman, Cllr S Hughes, stated: “that a Task and Finish Forum could only make recommendations to the EDBF, as it was a separate entity from the Council.”
3) Number of attendances at EDBF Meetings 2007- June 2012 (Number of meetings: 40)
1.Carter Businesses (FWS Carter, Greendale Business Park, Greendale Industries) 36 *
2. Crealy Park (Chris Down, owns Crealy Farms as well) 32
3. Worldwide Trading (Cllr Philip Skinner) 30
4. AE Stuart and Sons (Roy Stuart) 25
5. Honiton Development Trust (Cllr Bob Buxton) 21
6. Blackdown Hills Business Association 19
7. Fords of Sidmouth 17
8. May Gurney 15
9. Halse of Honiton 15
10. Allwood Buildings 14
11. Bicton College 14**
12. Tru Homes 14
13. East Devon Federation of Small Businesses 14
14. Devon Contractors 13
15.Martha Mockford 13
16. Thomas Westcott 12
17. Devon Cliffs (Bourne Leisure) 11
18. Ladram Bay 10
19. Stags 10
20. Waitrose 10
*often more than one representative attended.
** Bicton college is currently lobbying to build 225 houses at Woodbury Salterton where it owns land.
Members with an interest in planning and development shown in red.
4) EDBF minutes 13/10/2011
5) William Casely, Otter Nurseries EDBF Minutes 10/4/2008
6) For example, on 28 July 2012 Fred Wells wrote on Cllr Wright’s blog:
“I have been unhappy with East Devon Business Forum for a long time and in particular their relationship with EDDC. It is interesting to note that when I was Chairman of Axminster Chamber of Commerce and Industry, I was invited to the Forum but as soon as I started making waves about the Cloakham Lawn development, I was no longer asked to attend!”
7) “Members noted that the work the Business Forum had done on the Atkins Report had made an enormous difference to the final report prepared by the Employment Land Issues Task and Finish Forum. …..This had been accepted by the Executive Board. The report was now being used by the Development Control Committee as a base when considering planning applications for employment land” EDBF minutes 31/1/ 2008
8) “the only piece of evidence relied on by EDDC to justify the employment land figures) is …a report from EDBF. It therefore seems likely that the views of landowners and developers on EDBF led directly to these proposals”. Cllr Claire Wright’s Response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, January 2012
Sidmouth Chamber of Commerce concluded that the EDBF “grossly underestimated” the amount of land already available, for example it missed many vacant commercial premises. Response to Draft Local plan Consultation, January 2012
and
“Sidmouth Chamber of Commerce said it had identified ‘serious flaws’ in EDDC’s calculations, something the council has denied. It said had the ‘correct’ numbers been used, the employment land allocation across the district would have been about 20 hectares less, and Sidmouth would have only had one hectare rather than five. The chamber wants EDDC to revisit employment land in the Local Plan, adding: “We conclude that the process by which employment land allocation in Sidmouth has emerged is very seriously unsound, a shambles in fact.” Sidmouth Herald 20/6/2012
In Dorset County Council’s consultation response, (to the EDDC draft local plan) senior planning officer Gill Smith said the 180 hectares of employment land proposed “considerably exceeded” both county and region-wide requirements of 100 hectares….She also criticised plans for 650 homes and eight hectares of employment land at Axminster, saying neither proposal had been clearly explained, and impacts on schools, traffic and roads had not been considered. Western Morning News 23/8/2012
9) At LDF meeting on 25/5/2009 Bell Cornwell made presentation for an expansion of the Liverton Business Park owned by Devon Clinton Estates.Warmly encouraged by the Panel
10) Cllr Brown and Mr Stuart were fellow district councillors in the 1980s until, in 1990, Cllr Brown resigned in sympathy with Mr Stuart who was obliged to resign from the EDDC planning committee after an ombudsman’s enquiry criticised him severely for planning irregularities.
11) EDBF minutes, 21/4/2005
12) EDBF minutes, 20/4/2006
13) EDBF minutes, 21/4/2005
14) EDB F minutes, 21/7/2011
15) Extracts from 2012 Code of Conduct for Councillors
Personal interests
7.2 Those other personal interests laid down by the Council, namely your membership of any body to which you have been appointed by the Council or exercising functions of a public nature, directed to charitable purposes or whose principal purposes include influence of public opinion or policy, including your membership of any other local Authority, any political party or trade union
received by virtue of your office
7.6 In addition to those interests listed at 7.1 to 7.5 above which you are required to register, you may wish also to declare membership of any body which, in your view, might create a conflict of interest in carrying out your duties as a Councillor, such as membership of the Freemasons or any similar body.
Declaration of Interests and participation at meetings
8.1 and you must also observe the restrictions the Council may also place on your involvement in matters where you have a personal interest as defined by the Council and shown at paras 7.2 to 7.7 above.
8.2 You also have a personal interest in any business of your authority where a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would regard the interest as greater than would affect the majority of residents or inhabitants in the affected area such that it is likely to prejudice your judgment of the public interest
16) see also:
Planning Policy manager, Matt Dickins told the Forum on 29th April 2011: “EDDC has a new approach and attitude to encouraging development within the district …..if planning policy is a barrier to development, then consideration should be given to changing this policy” EDBF Minutes 29/04/11
Corporate Director, Karime Hassan on 3rd February 2011 reported to EDBF before leaving for Exeter and expressed his relief that it was becoming easier to engage with groups like EDBF “supportive of development” rather than just with residents’ groups who opposed it. He recognised the “greater weight given to business since the establishment of the Business Forum” especially over such issues as the lack of business land.”EDBF Minutes 3/2/2011
17) Examples of Mr Harrison’s important role (from EDBF Minutes):On 25 January 2007 he was appointed member of an EDBF sub-committee which over several months researched the availability of employment land in the District and had the results referred to in reference 3 (above).
On 29 April 2010 he led a Forum discussion on the Environment and Rural Development during which it was suggested that it might be necessary to reconsider the strict protection of the AONB.
On 4 January 2012 he was tasked, with the chairman, to draw up the EDBF response to the Draft Local Plan which included an appeal for more employment land in addition to the 180 hectares allocated in the Plan.
18) EDBF Minutes of 8 May 2008 record that the then Leader of the Council wished to remove Cllr Brown from his position as Member Champion for Business because of “accusations of impropriety involving planning applications within East Devon”. Mr Harrison defended Cllr Brown, saying “he had brought energy and enthusiasm to that task and he had enjoyed working with him”. Such personal support for a councillor against his Leader possibly contravenes article 45 of the Protocol covering relations between councillors and officers which warns of the risks of “personal familiarity” and article 4.1 of the Officers Code of Conduct which states: “You must avoid having close personal friendships with individual Councillors”
19) On 4 February 2010 (EDBF minutes) Nigel Harrison was tasked to write to Kate Little, Head of Planning, on behalf of Angela Wright of Crealy Park to help remove a number of obstacles to her project to build staff housing.
To allow an outside body to instruct an officer would seem to breach article 30 of the Protocol covering relations between councillors and officers that states that officers can only be instructed through the “formal decision-making process” of the council. For an officer to be seen to be attempting to influence a colleague in a planning matter on behalf of someone he knows well and who has significant business interests must raise serious ethical issues.
20) For example:
Mr Harrison attended the Development Management Committee on 5 May 2009 when the owner of Crealy Park (a member of EDBF) was given a three year extension in the time limit for noise mitigation work and on 30 June 2009 when the owner of Ladram Bay caravan site (a member of EDBF ) was given approval for changes to a touring and tenting field.
21) Successful Planning Applications by EDBF members supported by Mr Harrison include:
Crealy Park (Chris Down) (07/3108/COU) Conversion of agricultural buildings to light industrial use, Enfield Farm Clyst St Mary EX51DN re-submission of an earlier application that was contrary to adopted local plan.
Crealy Park (Chris Down) (07/3218/MFUL) Application for 30 holiday lodges, lake etc. on a greenfield site. Contrary to adopted Local Plan.
Stoneleigh Holiday Village (M2 Services Ltd) (08/2558/MFUL) 17 new residential units, upgrading of bar and pool. in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and contrary to adopted Local Plan.
FWS Carter. (08/2936/FUL) Jetset Concrete. Retention of concrete batching plant at Greendale Business Park. Contrary to adopted Local Plan and retrospective application to avoid enforcement action.
AE Stuart (09/0282/MOUT) Extension to Hill Barton Business Park into green fields of 18.75 acres Contrary to adopted Local Plan
May Gurney (09/0410/MFUL) Expansion of Greendale Business park into agricultural land for offices parking etc. Contrary to adopted Local Plan and to regularise unauthorised expansion.
FWS Carter (09/1195/MOUT)15.5 acre expansion of Greendale Business Park: Contrary to adopted Local Plan and countryside protection policies.
Clinton Devon Estates (09/2533/MOUT) 12.5 acre extension to Liverton Business Park Contrary to adopted Local Plan in an Area of Great Landscape Value.
Crealy Park (Chris Down) (10/0070) Approval for waterslide and associated works
AE Stuart and Sons (10/0641/MOUT) for Housing at Westclyst, Old Park Farm up to 450 homes and 2000 sq m. of business use land on 50 acres of grade 1 agricultural land.– contrary to adopted Local Plan
Ladram Bay (FWS Carter and Zoe House) (10/2287/MFUL) expansion of caravan park to new field. or 38/00027 in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Crealy Park (Chris Down) 10/2537/MFUL Conversion of agricultural buildings to light industrial use, Enfield Farm Clyst St Mary EX51DN Contrary to policies TR2 and TR5 of the Devon County Structure Plan.
Axminster Carpets (10/0816/MOUT) Cloakham Lawns 400 dwellings and 10-12000 sq ft of employment land. In an area of Great Landscape Value and contrary to the adopted Local Plan
Devon Cliffs (Bourne Leisure) (10/1210/MFUL) Expansion of Caravan Park contrary to adopted Local Plan.
22) The Constitution of the EDDC states that the Chief Executive (and Head of Paid Service) has overall corporate management and operational responsibility (including overall management responsibility) for all officers.
23) See minutes of Executive Board 30 March 2011, Full Council 25 July 2012, and Overview and Scrutiny Committee 27 September 2012.
24) For Example: Private Eye, Nooks and Corners, p.14, 7 September 2012
25) “I am aware that the relationship of the Council with the EDBF has become a source of concern to some. That being said, many might comment that the issue is perhaps being articulated more as a result of local party differences of opinion rather than anything of notable substance.” Letter of Mark Williams to Hugo Swire, 19 September, 2012.
And for further background information other archive documents can be found at:
From the agenda of the next Audit and Governance Committee meeting taking place on 25 September 2014 at 2.30 pm at Knowle. You could not make this up – why would EDDC MEMBERS (councillors) complain that the auditor should not change because their CEO wants the same one in East Devon and South Somerset – how would they get that information and why would they think it was THEIR problem?
“The Council has been notified that the Audit Commission is intending to appoint KPMG LLP to audit the accounts of East Devon District Council from 2015/16 for two years. The appointment will start on 1 April 2015.
… Members were verbally updated of this situation at the last meeting and that the Audit Commission had a duty to consult local government bodies on the auditor appointment.
As requested by the Committee the Head of Finance did make contact with the Commission to determine the areas were a Council might consider an objection, however these did not really accord with members reasons for an objection, these being; the excellent relationship that had been formed particularly with Barrie Morris, acknowledgement of the help in improving the Council’s processes and practices and the link with South Somerset District Council who were to remain with Grant Thornton. In consultation with the Chief Executive and the Audit & Governance Chairman the Head of Finance did not make an objection to the change in auditor. ”
Source: http://eastdevon.gov.uk/250914_a_and_g_cttee_combined_agenda.pdf
EDDC current constitution page 196
Do be aware that you are likely to have fettered your discretion where the Council is the landowner, developer or applicant and you have acted as, or could be perceived as being, a chief advocate for the proposal. (This is more than a matter of membership of both the proposing and planning determination committees, but that through your significant personal involvement in preparing or advocating the proposal you will be, or perceived by the public as being, no longer able to act impartially or to determine the proposal purely on its planning merits.)
and page 197:
Don’t speak and vote on a proposal where you have fettered your discretion. You do not also have to withdraw, but you may prefer to do so for the sake of appearances.
Do explain that you do not intend to speak and vote because you have or you could reasonably be perceived as having judged (or reserve the right to judge) the matter elsewhere, so that this may be recorded in the minutes.
Do take the opportunity to exercise your separate speaking rights as a Ward/Local Member where you have represented your views or those of local electors and fettered your discretion, provided you do not have a disclosable pecuniary interest.. Where you do exercise these speaking rights:
– advise the proper officer or Chairman that you wish to speak in this capacity before commencement of the item;
– remove yourself from the Member seating area for the duration of that item; and
– ensure that your actions are recorded.
…..
Be aware that you should not speak or vote on any matter which you have discussed at Cabinet unless you have demonstrated there and can do so at the relevant planning meeting that you have not predetermined the application. …
…Do not take part in any planning meeting on a matter in which you may have been seen as advocating a proposal as a Cabinet Member.
A report, by the IPPR North think-tank, calls for a ‘metro mayors’ for city regions, and would give greater powers to vary taxes to local councils.
Eric Pickles said:
“The Coalition government has delivered significant devolution of power and finance to local communities and there is real scope to go further in England.
“However, localism in England should be about devolving power to the lowest appropriate level – down to councils, to neighbourhoods and to individuals. There may be some role for combined authorities on a strategic level to promote economic development and transport, but there is a real risk they will suck power upwards away from local councils and local taxpayers.
“Nor should localism be a fig leaf for hitting hard-working people with a new range of municipal stealth taxes. Creating new taxes, more politicians and new tiers of local administration is not the answer – the starting point should be increasing local democracy and local accountability.”
Er, what about localism not actually working in any way, shape or form – where do we go then?
The Scottish vote on Thursday has significant implications for the proposed move of EDDC to Skypark.
This follows the recent strong performance of the ‘Yes’ campaign, who may well win, but have in any event secured huge concessions from the Westminster establishment. The choice is now between full independence and ‘devo max’, a further massive transfer of powers to the Scottish Assembly.
All parties are now agreed that the existing constitutional arrangements are dead in the water, and that widespread reform is inevitable with a transfer of powers away from Westminster. In a sense, a logical extension of the popular policy of ‘localism’.
Regardless of Thursday’s vote, Wales and Northern Ireland will be given more powers, and there is likely to be an English Parliament. This may be located away from London, in Birmingham or the North, but is more likely to be housed at Westminster, with only English MPs sitting to determine English issues.
The English regions will be included in this anti-centrist, anti-Westminster process, but a repeat of the maligned and unsuccessful regional assemblies of the last Labour government is highly unlikely. Power is going to be devolved to lower tiers of government, and in our neck of the woods that means Devon County Council.
As part of this transfer of power and general constitutional and administrative upheaval, the number of tiers of government will be closely examined. The continuation of District Councils is highly questionable. Whilst County Councils will have the viability to administer more powers, there will be huge demands to counter their power with a transfer of local decision-making to Parish level. In particular, planning. This is the essence of localism, and government generally is well aware of the popular demand for people to have a greater say over what happens in their neighbourhood.
And of course, having three tiers of local government is widely seen as overly complicated and expensive. Hence the decision to make Cornwall a unitary authority. So District Councils are looking like they are heading for the chop.
Scottish voters have been promised constitutional reform in a great hurry, with legislation scheduled for just after the May 2015 elections. Reform to the English system will either be at the same time or very soon afterwards.
At the very moment when District Councils are likely to cease to exist, here in EDDC we will be committing to a £20 million new HQ. The ultimate white elephant.
And what will be the value of the new building, when it has to be sold? Surely no more than £2-3 million. We already know that there is no demand for offices at Skypark, or anywhere else in East Devon for that matter. And especially for a new building purpose designed to house our District Council.
In these circumstances will the residents elsewhere in Devon be prepared to stomach the losses incurred by East Devon politicians. Or will the £17 million loss be transferred to East Devon’s parish councils, saddling them with debt for a generation?
Well, would you believe it!? At tonight’s O&S meeting, Nigel Harrison put in a surprise appearance. Business Information Point (BIP) gave a presentation on why they are worth a grant from EDDC and several councillors asked questions regarding the type of businesses, number of start ups, etc that they dealt with, without a shred of deep questioning about value for money.
Then Cllr Newth commented that she had been in discussion with a Sidmouth business which was having difficulties. Within days of suggesting they contact Nigel Harrison, he had visited this business and given three possible avenues they could pursue. One could almost think … no … no … not an orchestrated presentation surely? (And one Sidmouth business which doesn’t seem to have benefitted is Trumpers).
Now, as seems he has been missing from any council meeting and not mentioned on any agenda for eighteen months or more (ever since the demise of the East Devon Business Forum of which he was the very, very busy Hon Sec), presumably this nugget of information was meant to demonstrate that he had been beavering away on behalf of local businesses. However, has anyone seen any reports or other evidence of his work output? What have we been paying him for? Now that the East Devon Business Forum is defunct, how has he been filling his time?
And is it a coincidence that he reappears on the day the EDBF TAFF is officially buried?
The Forward Plan for the EDDC Overview and Scrutiny Committee no longer mentions the reconvening of the TAFF which was to have investigated the influence of EDBF on the (non) delivery of the Local Plan.
The CEO squashed it, delaying it until after submission of the draft Local Plan (though this was never discussed or agreed at any public meeting).
Now it has been airbrushed out of history.
Why?
East Devon Watch 