Perhaps also look a little closer to home, Mr Swire, and let us know your views on EDDC’s secret meetings, curtailment of public speaking and its refusal to allow the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to investigate the role of the East Devon Business Forum in the Local Plan.
THEN criticise others.
According to the Journal EDDC has announced plans to turn the free car park by the Public Hall in Budleigh Salterton to one for permit holders only. If so, this is surely the worst of all outcomes. Not only is the car park no longer free but would only be available to permit holders i.e would exclude visitors and those attending events in the Hall! There is no nearby alternative of this capacity.
The plans were due to be decided on by EDDC’s cabinet on Wednesday — however, there was hope that a last-minute compromise could be found.
Councillor Tom Wright, a member of Budleigh Salterton Town Council and EDDC’s deputy cabinet member for environment, is reported as saying: “We hope that the cabinet will arrive at a compromise which will allow flexible, low cost parking, for residents of Budleigh and our visitors.”. But the Town’s fate may already be sealed.
The saga of the car park began in 2012, when the town council, which had rented the car park for £500 a year, was told EDDC wanted to increase this to £35,000. The town council made a counter offer of £6,500, which was rejected, and heard no more about the matter until now.
An EDDC spokesman said: “Our district-wide car parks review found that it was not reasonable for EDDC to subsidise ‘free’ town centre car parking for just one town in East Devon.
But as Cllr Wright pointed out: “EDDC is trying to say it’s a free car park. It’s not free. The people of Budleigh Salterton have been paying for it through their precept levied by the town council.” (Town ratepayers have been paying for maintenance and no costs fall on other East Devon ratepayers.)
In fact the land was “given” to the people of Budleigh in the shape of the then Urban District Council by Clinton Devon Estates on a peppercorn long lease. Ownership, unfortunately, had to be transferred out of local hands to EDDC when the district council was formed in 1976.
Both the Chamber of Commerce and Budleigh in Business, as well as the Town Council, are opposed to the introduction of charging because of the damage it will do to business and social events such as the series of local festivals.
Wasn’t one of the principles of localism to encourage local communities to make these sorts of decisions to suit local needs? Or are we witnessing another example of “one size fits all” policy making aimed at destroying local identity and creating a degree of conformity that one used to see in the USSR?
Seaside towns like Budleigh and Exmouth have large car parks with good access to the sea but far away from the town centres. They need all the help they can get to encourage visitors into the towns themselves.
In fact, as I write, there is a Parliamentary Select Committee grilling the Electoral Commission on Voter Engagement in the UK – MILLIONS of voters appear to have been missed due to changes being made to how voters are registered – how convenient as many of these voters will be those who might vote for minority parties and it could drastically affect the results of the next General Election.
Write to Chris Ruane, MP for Vale of Clwyd, if you want to tell this commission what you think – he’s the MP who seems to have a total grip on exactly what a scandal this is.
Currently they are talking about the performance of Electoral Registration Officers.
Fabian Hamilton, MP for Leeds North is also asking some very pertinent questions on this aspect of the scandal. Apparently, it is the responsibility of EROs to arrange house to house visits and some 6% of local authorities are not doing this as some lack skills and capacity and because they don’t understand the law! They are even talking about a “special measures” scenario for such situations …
http://www.leedsne.co.uk/contact_information
There is a way(apparently) of highlighting where Electoral Registration Officers are underperforming!
They are also covering electoral fraud: 30% of people believe that fraud is taking place. Phil Thompson, Research and Evaluation Manager of the Electoral Commission says it is hard to find the true figure … er, but that’s his job! There are 16 local authorities which are “at risk” and most likely to happen at local government elections usually in specific wards.
Hello, EDDC Electoral Registration Officer (Mark Williams, solicitor and CEO?).
Beavers are a native species, hunted to extinction 500 years ago. Re-introductory trials (at some expense) are taking place in Scotland but it seems that Nature is taking is taking her own course here in the river Otter.
The photo above was taken very recently in Otterton. Defra, whose first response to most problems seems to be to cull, wants to get rid of them.
Devon-based wildlife consultant Derek Gow, who was responsible for three imported beavers destined for an animal sanctuary in Scotland, is a long-standing campaigner for the animals to be returned to the wild. He is reported as saying: “At the moment they [Defra] are ringing all the zoos and asking them if they will take the beavers. “What Defra should do is look at a more informative project where by the beavers are left and studied – it becomes an English beaver trial.”
He blamed angling groups for demanding the beavers be removed [beavers are vegetarian]. “Why should three beavers be three beavers too many?,” he said. “This will be the first time in history that we have exterminated a native mammal twice, setting an extraordinary historical precedent”.
Only recently have Otters returned to the lower Otter. The water vole has been in decline nationally attributed partly to the American mink, an aggressive predator of the vole, together with unsympathetic farming and watercourse management which destroyed parts of the water vole’s habitat. The water vole, an important indicator of a healthy environment, has not yet returned to the lower Otter.
American mink are a non-native, carnivore species, introduced to Devon so that they could be farmed for their fur. Over the years escapees have naturalised and there are still mink in the Otter. EDDC Countryside Service monitored the mink rafts in the Otter, owned by Clinton Devon Estate, for many years because of the threat that they posed, but this has now stopped due to budget cuts. The Axe, which belongs to EDDC, has priority for funding and monitoring continues there.
Some believe that beavers make a positive contribution to flood prevention and river quality. With the Environment Agency expressing concern over the bathing water quality in Budleigh Salterton, and flooding a well-known vexation, one wonders whether we have got our priorities right.
More information, including reference to two “save the beaver” on line petitions, can be found here:
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/petitions-Devon-beavers-remain-large/story-21312530-detail/story.html#comments
http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/beavers_found_living_wild_in_devon_countryside_to_be_sent_to_the_zoo
Good to see that one of our readers has put in a Freedom of Information request to East Devon District Council about the missing 6,000 plus voters missing from the electoral roll:
As promised in the interests of balance, here is a story of Labour Party lobbying to pair with the one on Tory lobbying below
“THE woman chosen by councillors to scrutinise their decision-making processes has complained she felt “undermined” in her role.
Cllr Jenny Roach, who represents Silverton told a meeting of Mid Devon District Council said she had been shocked to find that questions asked by another councillor last month had been answered on her behalf by council officers without the courtesy of the responses being sent to her first.
The council leadership said to try to improve the “smooth running” of council business, officers would regularly answer technical questions which elected chairs of committees were unable to answer themselves.
Cllr Roach told members: “As chairman of the scrutiny committee, I have felt several times I have been undermined. I didn’t expect to answer the question myself but I did expect that the answer would be run past me before it was sent out in my name.
“The scrutiny committee is a very important role, sadly I have felt undermined and alone. This sort of situation should not be happening in a democratic and well-run council. ” Cllr Linda Holloway said she was shocked that question to a chair of a committee could be answered without the response going through the chair of that committee. “What else do our briefing papers say that isn’t true?”, she queried.
Cllr Mel Lucas who chairs the council managing the environment policy development group said the way Cllr Roach had been treated reflected poorly on the council. He said: “I am annoyed and dismayed at the conduct of this council I have seen in the last few years a great deterioration in our conduct. This is possibly the last straw. People should not put down answers to questions without even having the courtesy to let the person they are answering for see it first.”
Council chief executive Kevin Finan said the scrutiny had a wide remit and could be asked questions on a wide range of subjects. He said there were tight deadlines in which to respond to questions and committee chairs had to rely on officers for information.
He said; “We are only trying to help the smooth running of the council by answering the questions put to us.
The scrutiny committee exists to consider and review issues relating to the council’s policies and service delivery and can “call-in” decisions made by the council cabinet for further examination. The questions which had been answered without Cllr Roach’s knowledge were raised by Cllr David Pugsley and related to the version of the council’s constitution available to view on the website.
Cllr Pugsley did not attend the meeting of the full council held on Wednesday, July 2 in Tiverton Town Hall, but he did put forward a motion that the council abandon its decision to adopt a ‘strong leader’ governance model which he believed was undemocratic.
Cllr Mary Turner said she did not believe Cllr Pugsley had “chickened out” of presenting his motion to the meeting, reasoning that he liked “stirring things up”.
Cllr John Berry who chaired the meeting said Cllr Purgsley had had not one but two opportunities to discuss this motion but not attended the meetings in question, and he accused him of “bringing the council into disrepute”.
The motion was brought forward in Cllr Pugsley absence but was defeated.
Takes lobbying to a whole new level:
… The precise amount raised from the 2013 event cannot be quantified, but Electoral Commission filings show that since the ball those present have donated a total £5m, £1.1m of which was registered in the week after the event. Table sales raised at least £250,000, with the cheaper tickets going for £400 a time. …
… The summer party is the Conservatives’ second largest fundraiser after the winter “black and white ball”. Altogether, guests at the event have donated an estimated £22m to the Conservative party since records began in 2001, either in a private capacity and through companies of which they are directors. …
The article goes on to detail the presence of numerous international billionaires and Russian oligarchs including Vladimir Putin’s judo partner.
In the interests of political neutrality, we will be happy to receive and publish similar current information about other political parties or individuals.
As a correspobdent has pointed out: if you are not on an electoral roll it can stop you getting credit for things as simple as changing phone or broadband suppliers to getting a mortgage.
Here is the data about the missing 6% of voters. They appear to form an almost perfect bell curve with the largest losses concentrated in the middle-size areas in percentage terms. Page 1 is a frequency chart, page 2 is the raw data by area and page 3 is an analysis of the raw data.
A report in today’s Western Morning News is about trying to avoid a parliamentary constituency which straddles Devon and Cornwall. This was brought about because there is a strict rule that no parliamentary constituency must be more than 5% larger or 5% smaller than any other.
We are missing 6% of our electors ….. could it be a requirement that our political boundary should be redrawn if they reappeared or the number increased beyond that of 2013 as might be expected? Was this what brought the new constituencies of East Devon and Honiton to Tiverton into being? Might another redrawing of the boundary be required?
and here is the relevant legislation:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/1/section/11/enacted
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011
….. Electorate per constituency
2(1)The electorate of any constituency shall be—
(a)no less than 95% of the United Kingdom electoral quota, and
(b)no more than 105% of that quota.
…..
If you are not yet registered to vote you can do this with a “one stop” registration direct with the Electoral Commission:
https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote
With the swing to minority parties such as UKIP and to Independent candidates your vote could make all the difference to election results in East Devon.
Asks one commentator.
Well, there are several reasons and maybe you can think of others.
One is that our Local Plan relies on current data to set its targets. EDDC constantly tells us we need more houses. This data says that almost every part of East Devon may be losing population. The numbers dropping in each area is not explained by them moving to other parts of the district – so where are they going and why?
Another is that if it reflects people unwilling to join the electoral roll – what is the reason? Those who do not vote, when encouraged to do so often seem to vote for minority parties, si it might mean results are skewed towards the majority party if they are not encouraged to register. In a district where majority could be decided by a handful of votes this becomes important.
Finally, these could be people attempting to avoid council tax or second home owners – we need to be able to trace such people both for income and statistical purposes.
A 6% drop in one year is a big drop – it needs explanation. Maybe there is a simple one – either way we need to know.
In the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 (the 3 years after the last local elections) the number of electors hovered at just over 104,000 each of those years. In February 2014 it plummeted to around 98,000.
Where are all these missing electors taken from? Well, it turns out that in EVERY one of the 69 areas enumerated with the exception of Broadclyst, Clyst St Lawrence and Dalwood there were substantially fewer electors this year than in the previous year in every one – yes, in 66 out of 69 areas, there are fewer electors!
Broadclyst’s jump from 2,370 to 2,818 is understandable: it now includes Cranbrook. Dalwood increases from 341 to 349, Clyst Lawrence up from 56 to 59. EVERYWHERE ELSE FALLS! Some of the smaller places by only a few, bigger places substantially, though the percentages may show differences, of course.
For example, take the larger places. Axminster down from 5,028 to 4,707, Budleigh Salterton has dropped from 4,259 to 4,063, Exmouth has fallen from 25,890 to 23,831, Feniton down from 1,411 to 1,291, Ottery St Mary down from 6,652 to 6,298, Seaton down from 5,960 to 5,539, Sidmouth down from 11,964 to 10,957.
Then take some of the smaller places: Beer down from 1,087 to 995; Farringdon down from 283 to 263, Huxham down from 64 to 47, Newton Poppleford down from 1,717 to 1,626, Shute down from 495 to 471, Uplyme down from 1,383 to 1,281.
If each of these represents 2 electors per household, it means, at say an average of £1,000 council tax per household East Devon could be losing at least £3 million in council tax if the new total figure of electors for 2014 is wrong!
A more forensic calculation of all the figures to follow.
Whilst this judgment is about a Cabinet member who spoke in favour of the application the ruling seems to make it clear (to us) that this must also apply to ward members, who are currently not allowed to speak.
The judgment said:
Decision
The High Court held that the planning committee was made up of experienced councillors who were aware of the need to base their decisions on relevant planning considerations alone. In the absence of an express provision in the council’s constitution preventing attendance any councillor, where there is no disabling personal interest and with the committee’s permission, can attend and address it.
The councillor’s motives in addressing the committee were irrelevant. The relevant issue was the impact on the committee members’ decision. There was no reasonable basis for concluding that the committee would have voted differently in the absence of the councillor’s intervention.
The Court noted that members should be free to express their views as, if they do not, their real reasons for voting may be veiled or unclear. Retrospectively asking individual councillors to explain their voting was ‘deplorable’. The court’s view was that “excessive forensic analysis of political debate has the appearance of fettering the democratic process”.
What happens if you don’t register
If you meet the conditions for registering to vote (eg you’re 16 or over and you’re British or a national of an EU or Commonwealth country) and you’re asked to register, you have to do so.
If you don’t, your local Electoral Registration Office could fine you £80. They won’t fine you if you have a valid reason for not registering – eg a long stay in hospital, or you have severe learning difficulties.
So why is the Electoral Registration Officer not doing something about this? Could it be that there is a worry that the missing people may not be majority party voters?
As readers of the EDA website will know, campaign groups throughout the country have created a united Community Voice on Planning organisation (CoVoP). Our Formby branch will take part in in a discussion on Greenbelt and housing, in this weekend’s BBC Politics Show on Sunday morning. Details here: http://www.fragoff.co.uk/
Information on CoVoP at this link: http://www.covop.org/
Only when you fear democracy do you stifle public speaking.
http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Town-council-trouble-brews/story-21297778-detail/story.html
And when you fear democracy you fear accountability.
Never seen so many Cabinet items to be discussed in secret! At this rate the Cabinet will be soon meeting in a secret bunker!
Click to access 020714_cabinet_combined_agenda_-_public_version.pdf
8 items in public, 7 items in secret. Is this a record?
Would the Information Commissioner agree?
Sir Andrew Motion points out the irreparable damage resulting from the current National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), in an article published today: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/26/fields-england-postwar-countryside-englishness
East Devon Watch 