Category Archives: Democracy

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Aug 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC

Gushing praise from EDDC leader for developer

From a commentator below:

Surely no-one would dare to suggest Cllr Diviani would put the interests of property developers before the interests of his constituents?! Oh, hang on…

http://www.cgfry.co.uk/news/27/Withycombe+House+Officially+Opened

In all seriousness, it is, I suppose, legitimate for a local dignitary to open a new housing development. However, in the current circumstances, is it really appropriate for the leader of EDDC to be quite so gushing in his praise for developers?

“It was a pleasure to be part of the ribbon cutting ceremony and see first-hand the quality of workmanship undertaken to restore Withycombe House. Family owned independent developer C G Fry has shown us once again how they use their extensive experience in listed buildings by taking a landmark building and restoring it to its former glory to create high quality and bespoke homes with the surrounding area. We have worked with C G Fry in the past, most recently they developed the Devon and Cornwall scheme at Holmdale, Sidmouth, a site that was owned by the council.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Aug 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Local Plan

Comments

2 Comments

DMC meeting: a member of the public reports – CEO Mark Williams told to “get a grip”

“EDDC Chief Executive Mark Williams was bluntly told by a Tory councillor to get a grip on his planning department’s “unacceptable level of performance”.

The barb came from Cllr Mike Allen at today’s Development Management Committee which was given a “progress” report on the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) which Planning Inspector Anthony Thickett ordered the Council to conduct following his rejection of the Local Plan earlier this year. Originally it was supposed to be completed in June

Several other councillors were angry that the assessment of how many houses the district needs was proceeding at snail’s pace, and will not be ready until next year, implying that the Local Plan cannot be re-submitted until after the 2015 Local Elections.

Independent councillor Ben Ingham said EDDC “lacked a coherent strategy and a timetable for completion” of this crucial research. As a result with no Local Plan in place, it was “open season in the Devon countryside” for developers. He concluded, “It’s a shame that this work was not tackled three years ago.”

The obedient, loyal majority of DMC members were acutely embarrassed by all this, and rapidly passed Sidmouth councillor Peter Sullivan’s motion to “move on”!

PS. Mike Allen has been unflattering before about Mark Williams who was his boss when Allen was a senior officer at South Somerset District Council. At last Summer’s full Council Meeting which discussed the Local Plan, the councillor for Honiton said Williams didn’t understand the National Planning Policy Framework! As a former chair of the Local Plan Panel he speaks with some authority.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Aug 2014

Posted under

Austerity cuts, Democracy

Buckinghamshire County Council devolves functions (and cash) to clusters of parishes

Interesting idea:

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19739:nalc-welcomes-county-plan-to-hand-services-to-clusters-of-parishes&catid=59&Itemid=27

Now all we need is district council powers devolved to clusters of parishes and we have cracked it.

Oh, wait, that’s what Devon County Council wanted to do when it wanted to unitise but EDDC spent more than £250,000 to try to persuade us not to do it. And one of the first things the new government did was to cancel the project – now it’s flavour of the month!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Aug 2014

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Democracy, EDBF, EDDC, Environment (local), Feniton/ Talaton, NPPF, Seaton/ Colyford / Colyton, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Comments

5 Comments

EDA Chairman 1 – Leader of East Devon District Council own goal – and a STUNNING revelation!!!!

This morning the Chairman of East Devon Alliance, Paul Arnott, once again went head-to-head with a top EDDC councillor – this time EDDC Council Leader Paul Diviani on the lack of a Local Plan.  The EDA Chairman said that he was not surprised but still disappointed that, having been dealing with this project since 2007, EDDC still is not in a position to put a (third) draft Local Plan forward to the Planning Inspectorate and leaving the district vulnerable to speculative development.  And he comes up with a STUNNING REVELATION why he thinks current research for the Local Plan is wrong and the reason why it is being held up.  Read on …

Councillor Diviani trod the well-worn track of saying that there really is nothing to worry about – EDDC has so far won more than 70% of its appeals and (occasionally) says no to developers.  The EDA Chairman noted that it is NOT EDDC alone that champions these appeals – particularly in the case of Feniton and Seaton, where it was local people who raised funds and made their case to inspectors, so implying that EDDC alone does this is somewhat disingenuous.

However, then came the total shock.  You may recall that two sets of consultants employed by EDDC before the last iteration of the Local Plan said that they thought that around 12,000 homes should be built in the district.   EDDC (and, it has to be said members of the East Devon Business Forum and developers, sometimes the same thing) said, no, no – this could not be right and at least 15,000 homes were needed – which is what got put in the draft put before the Inspector.

The Inspector threw out the plan, specifically saying that he could see no back-up research that confirmed the 15,000 number that EDDC came up with.

And what does Leader Diviani say to this – if we take his interview at face value believing that he is being topical  we could read it as THREE sets of consultants coming to around the same figure but we must assume he is talking about the two reports?  He says, no no – they CANNOT be right.  The government wants us to build more houses, we NEED more houses so we are going to “look at the figures again” because they must be “realistic”.

HOW MORE REALISTIC CAN YOU GET THAT TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF CONSULTANTS COMING TO THE SAME CONCLUSION THAT WE NEED 11,000 – 12,000 NEW HOMES AND NOT 15,000?

So, here we have it – Councillor Diviani thinks he is more expert than consultants and will not give up until – presumably – another set of consultants comes up with the figure that he and the government want.  A figure not based on evidence.  As usual – fire the arrow, then draw the bulls-eye around it.

So, we ask ourselves:  where did the figure of 15,000 that Councillor Diviani so desperately wants come from?  Developers?  Out of thin air?  from the Government which has told us (via the NPPF) to come up with LOCAL figures backed up with LOCAL evidence?

Some very, very, trenchant questions need to be asked.  Not least by our councillors and, particularly, by Councillor Diviani

Source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p024pn5v

(THE INTERVIEW IS 2 HOURS 6 MIN AT 8.38 AM)

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Aug 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Skypark

“Informed, considered, proportionate, fair and necessary” …

Under a heading “Making decisions that are lawful and fair for East Devon’s communities” in this week’s Knowledge e-newspaper the following information appears.

Notwithstanding that it reads as if the publication is implying that the PUBLIC might find itself in trouble here when it is actually the local authority, read this in the context of the move from easily accessible Sidmouth to almost totally inaccessible Skypark and see if you see a problem for EDDC. Particularly with regard to one of the last paragraphs where it says that actions can be taken by councils only if they are: informed, considered, proportionate, fair and necessary.

As a council it is important that we represent the wide-ranging needs, views and aspirations of our communities. We have a higher than average older population with over 28% of the population being aged 65 and over and with many people living in rural isolation.

In the 2011 Census 10.3% of people in East Devon said they were carers, with 21% of people

Reported as having a disability/long-term health problem . Women make up 52% of East Devon’s population.

65 .6% said they were Christian, 25.1% had no religion, and many other religions/beliefs made up 1.1%.

Ethnic minority communities reported a slight increase to 1.6% since the last Census.

When making decisions, it’s not only important to consider how different people will be affected but it is a legal requirement under the Equality Act 2010 Public Sector Equality Duty.

This is because people have diverse needs and may be disadvantaged by something we do.

A disadvantage could result in them having poor access to services and information which could affect their health, wellbeing and opportunities to achieve their own potential.

Therefore, there is an economic and cost benefit to considering the effects of decisions on diverse communities.

East Devon has a good track record for promoting equality and supporting diverse communities.

To reduce the risk of court challenges and the associated legal costs , need to be aware of the following:

When making decisions, the Equality Act 2010 Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) requires you to give due regard to the need to:

Eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation.

Advance equality by encouraging participation, removing disadvantage, taking account of disabilities and meeting people’s needs.

Foster good relations between people by tackling prejudice and promoting understanding.

Questions to ask when making decisions:

Taking into account people’s ages, disabilities, race/ethnicity (includes Gypsies and Travellers), gender/gender identity, religions and beliefs (includes people who have ‘no belief’ and atheists) or sexual orientation, pregnant women/new mothers, marriage/civil partnership status and any other factor you consider relevant such as caring responsibilities, rural isolation or socio-economic disadvantage…

Who might be affected by the proposal or issue?

Have stakeholders been consulted adequately and what was their feedback?

Have diverse needs and community impacts been considered fully?

For example, is an appropriate impact assessment provided?

What supporting information (needs assessment/profiles etc.) is provided by officers and is this sufficient and robust?

In what way could the proposal or issue under consideration benefit certain groups of people?

Are there any opportunities for further improvement , particularly for disabled people?

In what way could the proposal or issue under consideration disadvantage certain groups of

people? For example, could it result in discrimination, poor or worse access, outcomes or community relations?

Are any negative impacts/disadvantages necessary, reasonable and proportionate?

What are the risks of going ahead/not going ahead with the proposal and how can these risks be managed?

Is there an alternative, less disadvantageous option?

Are there mitigations in place to address negative impacts?

Can we make a decision on the basis of the information given to us?

Chairpersons should make sure there is a record (minute) of the attention given to the PSED when making decisions or carrying out a scrutiny Function.

One final point, equality is not about …

Favouring particular groups above others, although there are provisions in the Equality Act to allow organisations to advance equality by taking ‘positive action’ to achieve more equal outcomes for groups which are disadvantaged and a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people.

Preventing councils from making difficult decisions which may result in the closure or reduction of a service, provided such decisions are informed, considered, proportionate, fair and necessary.

Banning words like “blackboard” “because it’s racist” (it isn’t).

Source: http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/220814_the_knowledge_issue_15.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Aug 2014

Posted under

Democracy, Duty to co-operate, EDDC, Freedom of Information and EIA, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Skypark

Important issues being debated this week: today (Tuesday) and Thursday

See above for details of the DMC meeting this afternoon where the lack of a 5 (and 6) year land supply will be “debated”

note that you can video, record, photograph, tweet or email about this meeting in real time, provided that you do not upset the participants …

and

check out the First Tier tribunal case:

Information Commissioner v East Devon District Council,

Thursdy 28 August 2014 at 10 am in Court 3 of Exeter Magistrates Court

(taking notes at this meeting is allowed but no other form of recording)

where the important decision on how much information EDDC can keep secret about its relocation to Skypark will be (eventually) decided

A public authority, the requester or both can appeal against the Information Commissioner’s decision notice. [This is what EDDC has done].

If the Tribunal decides that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong in law, or that he exercised his discretion wrongly, it can overturn the decision and issue a substitute decision notice. This decision notice has the same legal status as the first one. Like the Commissioner, the Tribunal can only consider questions relevant to the Act, not any wider dispute that may arise from the request.

Appeals may be by oral hearing, where witnesses give evidence in person. If the evidence can be presented entirely in writing, the appeal will be decided on the basis of those documents.

Source: http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/freedom_of_information/guide/complaints#what-happens-when-someone-complains-6

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Aug 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC

Comments

3 Comments

So, you want to be a councillor … PLEASE!

… if so, EDDC is right behind you. Advertised in this week’s Knowledge e-newspaper produced by EDDC is a link to a handy guide produced by the Local Gocernment Association.

And, just in case you thought that all councillors do is promote costly vanity projects or increase parking fees for local residents by 330%, the Guide has this to say about a councillor’s role:

“A councillor’s primary role is to represent their ward or division and the people who live in it. Councillors provide a bridge between the community and the council.

As well as being an advocate for your local residents and signposting them to the right people at the council, you will need to keep them informed about the issues that affect them.

In order to understand and represent local views and priorities you will need to build strong relationships and encourage local people to make their views known and engage with you and the council.”

So, if you think our council should get back to basics and you are a do-er rather than a can’t do-er, you CAN bring about change.

Source:
http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/5854661/Councillors+guide+-+A+guide+for+new+councillors+2014-2015/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Aug 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC

Openness, transparency, conflicts of interest, poor minutes, inadequate scrutiny …

“The values of any well governed Council include openness and transparency, honesty and integrity, tolerance and respect, and equality and fairness. “In recent years these values have evidently not been applied or followed”.

Sir David believes that this is not the fault of the general body of councillors but that responsibility lies in the hands of the Executive Board and the Chief Executive. “There needs to be a change in culture”.

It is not that the rules are procedures are not adequate, more a case that they are not applied in practice because of “the internal culture in County Hall”.

Basic rules and values concerning conflicts of interest which should be obvious to all have not been applied by some members of the Executive Board and senior management. “They are not mere technicalities as some have suggested”

As for ‘recent events’, he says they “will not happen if there is a proper professional relationship between the Chief Executive, the Executive Board and the Council generally and if the Scrutiny Committees are given the full facts.”

As for the notoriously brief Minutes of meetings, he states that “there is a culture of hiding difficult or troublesome items” and goes on to say, “It is unclear to me whether or not the committee clerks are instructed to adopt this unhelpful approach and if so by whom.”

Relax, councillors this is a comment on the situation at a council in Wales – but today Wales, tomorrow …..

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Aug 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Freedom of Information and EIA, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Skypark

EDDC v Information Commissioner – press release from J Woodward

Press release from Jeremy Woodward, Sidmouth resident, whose Freedom of Information request led to this case, and who will be allowed full representation at the Magistrate’s Court on 28 August 2014 at 10 am, Court 3:

“This Tribunal is the first of its kind for East Devon District Council.

The Council has acted as both executive and policeman, making key decisions in private and then determining which information it deems fit to be made public. And yet the default position is to make information available – but the Council refuses to abide by the spirit of Freedom of Information legislation.

The fact that the Council has appealed against the Information Commissioner’s decision shows how determined it is to keep these key reports on relocation from the public gaze: one wonders, therefore, what is hidden within.

This case is fundamentally about transparency of process. Research I have carried out strongly suggests that the political leadership at the Council has been making decisions about its relocation project in private without adequately informing Members. Moreover, it is clear from reports in the press and other documentation that the decision to relocate from Knowle was made well before 2012 – and yet the Council insists that there can be no disclosure of sensitive information because the project is still ‘live’.

This has had the effect of preventing any proper debate of the issues. There has been virtually no open discussion, hampered by the political leadership controlling the flow of information. I have argued that key documents which have guided decision-making on relocation should be published in full (apart from any company or private names, of course) to enable an informed debate to take place.

The fact that the reports were produced by external consultants Davis Langdon, who employs the author of the reports Mr Steve Pratten, simply consolidates the argument that these documents should be published.

The East Devon Alliance blog is following the case closely – with helpful directions to the Court for members of the public:
http://eastdevonalliance.org/

I will not be able to attend, due to professional commitments. However, I will be represented by Mr Richard Thurlow; he is also the Chair of the Save Our Sidmouth campaign, as well as the Chair of the Sid Vale Association’s planning committee. I am copying him into this correspondence as he will be taking any questions from the press next Thursday.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Aug 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Environment (local), Honiton/ Gittisham, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Skypark

Comments

3 Comments

“Honiton for Sale” part 2 – some questions but very little chance of answers

This week’s Midweek Herald adds some interesting information to the story carried yesterday that former Chairman of East Devon District Council and town councillor, Peter Halse, believes that Honiton is being asset-stripped to pay for the vanity project EDDC HQ office relocation.

The Midweek Herald adds more comments from Councillor Halse:

… “In my personal view, Honiton is being put up for sale. Assets are being raised in order for the council to move to the outskirts of Exeter, which is not in the public interest”.

Mr Halse told the meeting that he had made strong protests to the district council regarding the move and added that he thought the district council had now realised “the Knowle is not quite the jewel in East Devon’s crown as it thought it was and that it was having to find other assets elsewhere.

An EDDC spokesperson said in response to this:

… “The question of succession to East Devon Business Centre has given us an opportunity to look again at how we can help meet the needs of business into the future in a words of enterprise and entrepreneurism very different from what existed when Heathpark Business Centre first opened its doors.

Lead members for business and officers carried out a tender exercise and interviewed four different consultancies. The chosen company, Carter Jonas, are in the process of gathering evidence and are expected to report back with their findings and recommendations within the next month or so”.

This raises several interesting questions:

If a respected and long-serving majority party Councillor has no real idea what is going on – how on earth do councillors not privy to the thoughts of those in the “inner sanctum” understand what they are voting for with the Skypark project?

The press release speaks only of something going out to tender – it does not say exactly what the tender was for and we will never know because the Asset Management Forum at EDDC has always met in secret and provides no agendas or minutes of its meetings for the public.

Councillor Halse’s comments seem to imply that EDDC is not going to get as much as it had wanted for Knowle. They have long said that the move will be “cost neutral” but that was when only Knowle and Manston Depot were mentioned. Is it still cost neutral when you add in the loss of the Heathpark site and the East Devon Business Centre? Again we will never know because the Relocation Working Party meetings are also held in secret and no agendas or minutes are produced.

We have a situation now where ALL decisions are now made in secret. Instead of information going to committees for discussion and decision they are being referred to creatively-named “Forums” and “Groups” so that the decision-making can all take place behind closed doors where even majority party councillors have no idea what is going on.

Let us hope that when the next council is convened it votes for a Committee system of decision-making rather than an Executive Board system which allows a very small number of people – hand-picked by the Leader – to take decisions on behalf of the majority.

Remember Leader Diviani’s last election promise: Clean, Green and Seen. Not Unclean, Ungreen and Unseen.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Aug 2014

Posted under

Democracy, Seaton/ Colyford / Colyton

Comments

4 Comments

“Who dares gets battered” at Colyton Council says editor of local newspaper.

Four out of 13 members of Colyton Town Council represent the nearby village of Colyford and those four are becoming increasingly annoyed as Colyton appears to be grabbing all the goodies for the town rather than sharing them with the smaller village.

Editor of the View newspapers, Philip Evans, criticised Colyton Town Council for trying to stop reporters writing

” … on matters that the council would prefer not to be publicised, despite such matters being discussed in open council, the inference being that we should onbly report on the positives and never the negatives. That view, of course, is contrary to the basic prinnciples of democracy and we have resisted any attempt to stop us doing our job responsibly.

We really upset the council recently when we had the audacity to record their deliberations at a particularly controversial meeting, to ensure we got it exactly right. To do was contrary sto the council’s standing orders (rules). We had never been sent a copy of tose standing orders and they are not listed on the council’s website, at the library, on the council notice board or any other place.

The council threatened to report us to the Press Complaints Commission for contravening their rules but common sense prevailed and if we want to record their meetings in future, we have to seek permission, which, from time to time, we will do.

[The Editor is wrong in this matter: since 6 August 2014 it has been illegal for ANY council to stop anyone recording, tweeting or videoing their meetings as long as they are not causing an obstruction].

He continues: ” … But it was his [The Mayor of Colyford’s] democratic right to riase the matter and he should not be unnecessarily castigated because he did not toe [not tow as appears in the editorial} the party line.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Aug 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC

When black is white and white is black …

Here is an article from 2001 where the Conservative Party (then in opposition) bemoan the fact that, under Labour, there is too much town hall secrecy and pledging that, should they get into power, everything will change.

“Before the election, Tony Blair promised to make government more open. But obsessed with control-freakery, Labour are now creating a new culture of secrecy in local councils.”

He warned that the new law could create a “breeding ground for inefficiency and corruption” and accused the government of trying to “sneak through” the regulations.

Tories will revoke law

Mr Norman pledged that a future Tory government would reverse the changes and “force” councils to open their meetings to both public and press alike.

But the new law was defended by a spokesman for the Department of the Environment who said that the old access to information regime was “not appropriate for the new executive constitutions” introduced by the Act.

“The system is changing, therefore the kinds of regulations you have covering scrutiny and access change as well.

“At the heart of the new system is accountability, efficiency and transparency.”

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1099004.stm

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Aug 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC

Buckinghamshire businesses raise £25,000 to research better ways of running local government and cutting waste

Including research into whether a unitary authority would save money:

https://make-a-donation.org/campaign/cutting-the-cost-of-local-government

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Aug 2014

Posted under

DCC, Democracy, EDDC

Cornwall Council outsources legal services and makes them available to other public bodies in south west

The contract will be let in six lots: property, planning and highways; commercial (excluding PFI); criminal and civil litigation; social welfare; employment, equalities and pensions; governance, parliamentary agency and electoral law.

Does this include tracing 6,000 missing voters under “Parliamentary Agency and Electoral Law” – and “criminal litigation” is interesting!

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19589:cornwall-to-set-up-p15-3m-external-legal-panel-for-south-west-public-bodies&catid=51:management-articles&q=

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Aug 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC

Filming of council meetings is “major advance”

Here’s today’s press release from EDA:

EAST DEVON ALLIANCE WELCOMES RIGHT OF PUBLIC TO FILM COUNCIL MEETINGS

“Transparency and openness should be the fundamental principle behind everything councils and other local government bodies do.” That, according to EDA chairman Paul Arnott, has been one of the fundamental objectives of the organisation. However, these words come not from EDA but the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Journalists and members of the public are now allowed to use “modern technology and communications methods such as filming, audio recording, blogs and tweeting, to record the proceedings of the meetings of the councils and other local government bodies”.

There are no restrictions and the right to record such meetings is already in effect.

The EDA is delighted with this major advance. “This means that East Devon District Council’s inadequate and even hostile replies to questions raised legitimately can be exposed to wider public scrutiny by council tax payers. Similarly, as open debates will be recorded by the public, councillors may decide to adopt a mature and courteous approach to each other and to the public. We hope that this overdue reform will serve to encourage democracy at district, town and parish councils across the district. ”

12.8.14

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Aug 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC

EDDC informs its officers and councillors that they cannot stop filming, tweeting, blogging and recording of public council meetings

THIS ARTICLE appears in this week’s EDDC e-edition of the Knowledge weekly newspaper sent out to all councillors and many others.

Anyone want to take bets that there will be some councillor or officer who will try to fudge this issue!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Aug 2014

Posted under

COVOP, Democracy, EDDC, Neighbourhood Plans, NPPF

New government guidance on planning reform and on public access to decision making.

Two pieces of news from the Government this week:

1. A new planning reform package has been unveiled for consultation. Local residents will have a greater say over the future development of their area, under plans announced by Housing and Planning Minister Brandon Lewis (according to the press release) – what do you think?

2. Wide ranging new government guidance on public access to local authority decision making. Worth reading for planning! According to this, Councils and other local government bodies are required to allow any member of the public to take photographs, film and audio-record the proceedings, and report on all public meetings.

Links to both are available on the home page of Community Voice on Planning (CoVoP), of which EDA is an active member http://www.covop.org/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Aug 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Environment (local), Freedom of Information and EIA, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Skypark

Knowle relocation: interesting case law on disclosure

Recently we reported on a case where the London Borough of Southwark was forced to disclose contract information in a planning matter. Below is a lawyer’s summary of the points raised by the judgment.

Of great interest is the section where it states clearly that a viability forecast comes under Environmental Information Regulations and not Freedom of Information. This may have implications for the case of EDDC v Information Commissioner where EDDC is refusing to disclose information about Knowle relication. EIR requires far more disclosure than FOI. Note also the remarks about transparency

The ICO heard the challenge to LB Southwark’s decision to refuse disclosure last year:

It accepted that disclosure of redacted elements of the reports would be commercially harmful. Nonetheless, applying the public interest test under the EIR regime, it decided that the interest in disclosure outweighed the harm. LB Southwark appealed the decision to the First Tier Tribunal, which has now held that:

The viability assessment is “environmental information” under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

The EIR regime operates with a presumption of disclosure, unlike the Freedom of Information Act 2000 regime.

Publication of viability forecast data relating to deals to be done with other businesses should not be disclosed, because the commercial harm was not in the public interest, but private sales and registered provider deals should be.

The ICO was wrong to refuse to treat Lend Lease’s development model as a “trade secret” and there was no need to show monetary loss arising from disclosure.

The Council’s suggestion of absolute confidentiality in relation to the activities of its staff was wrong. Likewise, there is not always a public interest in maintaining secrecy around public private partnership negotiations – the law on information disclosure is drawn to ensure transparency where it matters.

Disclosure of the starting point in negotiations (i.e. the initial viability reports) is not the same as the disclosure of the full continuum of those negotiations – the likelihood of a chilling effect on other deals should be viewed in that light. The public interest warranted disclosure of much of the information – given “the importance, in this particular project, of local people having access to information to allow them to participate in the planning process”. That factor was held to outweigh the public interest in maintaining the remaining rights of Lend Lease and those subcontractors who contributed to the document. –

See more at: http://www.planninglawblog.com/#sthash.UeaDHxAP.dpuf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Aug 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation

Next meeting of the (non) Overview and (none) Scrutiny Committee

The Overview and Scrutiny agenda for 14 August 2014 at 6.30 pm is published here:

Click to access 140814_combined_os_agenda.pdf

and, of course, yet again the fate of the Task and Finish group looking into the influence of the East Devon Business Forum has not been included – nor is it given a scheduled date to be reconvened in the committee’s Forward Plan.

There is an interesting research paper on how meetings should be conducted. Summary: allow the CEO to re-word motions or kick them into the long grass of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, make it harder for anyone to speak out about anything but make it easier for “partners” to make presentations.

Also of interest is that, what IS in the Forward Plan, is that Knowle relocation is scheduled for discussion on 18 December 2014 in the confidential section of its meeting (Part B).

Question: how can you know in August 2014 if something scheduled for discussion in December 2014 will be confidential? Or is confidential the default for this subject?

If so, the judge in EDDC v Information Commissioner at Exeter Magistrates Court on 28 August 2014 may be interested!