Category Archives: Democracy

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

25 Jun 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Skypark, West End: WestClyst BroadClyst/ Pinhoe

Comments

6 Comments

Why the ink must dry quickly on Skypark

In the roughly six weeks before a general election local authorities should not take any actions that might affect the outcome of such elections, such as signing contracts for controversial projects.

The next general election and local elections will be on 7 May 2015. This means that controversial activity should cease by 26 March 2015.

One can see why the Skypark issue is being railroaded and kept so secret. The ink must be dry on the purchase of the site by the end of March next year. Especially if the European Election results in 2014 are replicated in East Devon as, if they are, the Conservatives will lose their overall majority and will be at the mercy of Independents, Greens and UKIP.

Here is the political guidance which was issued for 2014 elections.

http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=SN05262

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Jun 2014

Posted under

Democracy

Osborne likes the (old) idea of mayors for cities

But what about districts?  Might it be a good thing if we (the electorate) could vote in our own leader ourselves?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/23/george-osborne-elected-city-mayors-raised

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Jun 2014

Posted under

Democracy

Village councils: consultation on audit

Those in small villages whose parish councils have a turnover of less than £25,000 per annum are invited to comment on audit requirements:

Click to access Local_Audit_Consultation_1.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Jun 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDBF, EDDC, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Skypark

Comments

1 Comment

Nuggets from Audit and Governance Committee agenda

A couple of snippets to make you grimace, laugh or cry – or possible all three:

The mechanisms for maintaining and reviewing the effectiveness of the system of internal control throughout the year include.

Cabinet is responsible for considering overall financial and performance management and receives comprehensive budget monitoring reports on a monthly basis and council service performance reports.

Overview & Scrutiny Committee holds the Cabinet Committee to account.

Overview and Scrutiny hold the Cabinet to account – pull the other one. Anyone remember the East Devon Business Forum Business Task and Finish Group … Overview and Scrutiny? Happily toothless tiger.

Page 68

Risk: [That] Council services are not delivered where and how customers need them . Services do not consult effectively to ensure service delivery meets customer demand and the expectations of all our communities that we will deliver services in line with the Equality Act 2010.

This risk has been removed as it falls under other risks within the register and forms part of our Open for Business and flexible working projects.

Anyone been consulted about the move to Skypark and its effect on those people who will not be able to get there. Hubs? What happens if you can’t get to a “hub” on the day or time that it comes to your nearest town or village (and nearest towns and villages are NOT the same as accessible personally or by public transport).

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Jun 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC

“Ethical standards for providers of public services”: a report

Don’t know whether to laugh or cry here:

Click to access CSPL_EthicalStandards_web.pdf

On balance, cry. How little this means to EDDC.

A few choice bits:

Ethics matter. The public are right to expect high ethical standards and the government must ensure that this is achieved regardless of who is providing public services. This is increasingly recognised by the business community as a necessary part of winning trust and building confidence in the public service markets. Ethical standards should not be taken for granted and they have not been taken seriously enough to date. These risks are recognised by some commissioners and providers but they are rarely addressed explicitly. Where implicit, ethical expectations are articulated in different ways.

We recommend that:
■■ accounting officers actively seek assurance that public money is being spent in accordance with the high ethical standards expected of all providers of public services and annually certify (as part of managing public money duties) that they have satisfied themselves about the adequacy of their organisation’s arrangements;

….. the behaviours that members of the public expect of public office holders are:
■■ to be committed to public rather than private ends (selflessness and integrity);
■■ to be honest and open in decision-making;
■■ to make decisions in the light of the best evidence (objectivity);
■■ to be held accountable (particularly senior public figures); and
■■ to lead exemplary lives in public office (leadership)

The organisation needs a culture where everyone is encouraged to question and challenge and report unethical behaviour, where complaints are respected and concerns addressed, feedback is encouraged and acted upon in order to continuously improve and whistle-blowing is seen as last resort.

..

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Jun 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Misc

Comments

2 Comments

EDDC officer shake-up

Cabinet Minutes 4 June 2014:

Click to access cabinet_mins_040614.pdf

Disclosable Pecuniary Interest

Richard Cohen, Denise Lyon, Simon Davey, John Golding, Karen Jenkins, Rachel Pocock

these officers left the room when item 25 was discussed:

…..The proposed management restructure would achieve a flatter and leaner structure with 4 strategic leads assisting the Chief Executive and clearer accountability for service delivery being supported by its service leads. The savings that would be achieved from the restructure were included within the report.

RECOMMENDED that the proposed management structure be agreed and that delegated authority be given to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader to fully implement the proposals (this delegation to include the conclusion of consultations, any minor changes and consequential revisions).

REASON This proposal is designed to present a clear management structure which addresses current gaps and recognises the broader remits that staff have already taken on.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Jun 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC

Sarah Woolaston elected Chairman of Health Select Committee

The success of the Conservative MP for Totnes is said to be a “nightmare” for David Cameron as she has shown an independence that has made Whips very unhappy.

Whips, always unhapoy …

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Jun 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Environment (local), NPPF

A reader writes …

Eric Pickles has said that large solar farms and wind farms are not to his liking but has said nothing about the “small” ones referred to below:

Threat looms over everyone’s back yard – a cri de coeur fromCrediton.

Letter to the Editor, The Independent, 16 June:
We live under the shadow of a massive wind turbine application, overlooking rural hamlets that have been there for 1,000 years, with more than 50 listed buildings.
I can understand why some people would consider these things unimportant; that is a matter of opinion. However, when one looks at how the Government has established the planning rules for these constructions, the principle is very clear. These turbines can be put up anywhere unless “there is a very good reason not to”. Usually local people object, and in some cases the local councils refuse permission. The turbine developer then appeals to the Government, which usually agrees that there is no very good reason not to and permission is granted.
My belief is that when the question of forcing through wind turbine applications was first suggested, some bright politician said: “If we force this through, how many people will it really upset?” The answer came back “Well, they are all out in the country, spread out, probably throughout the UK about 50,000 very unhappy people”. So the bright politician responded: “Oh is that all? Well, if they all vote against us in a general election, it will make no difference to the result. Those people do not matter.”
Julian Pratt Crediton, Devon

Our reader responds:

The problem, Julian, is that most of us live in a safe constituency (Crediton is in the Central Devon constituency with a Conservative majority of 9230 or 52% of the vote). In safe constituencies, of whatever political colour, the voters are taken for granted. If the majority stay blindly loyal (as they tend to), their views on “minor” things such as building wind turbines in sensitive places, or development in AONB’s etc., can be safely ignored. (Other voters’ views can be disregarded anyway). The only way to be heard is to turn safe constituencies into unsafe ones or find a candidate who will put the interests of his or her electorate above those of career advancement within the party.As you say: “Those people do not matter”.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Jun 2014

Posted under

Democracy

It helps if, as an MP, you know something about your constituency!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2659003/Embarrassment-Labour-MP-praises-constituency-village-beautiful-waterfalls-caves-without-realising-belong-namesake-70-miles-away.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Jun 2014

Posted under

Democracy, Local Plan

Stirrings at Westminster, and nationally, to reform NPPF

The national group to which EDA belongs (Community Voice on Planning, CoVoP) , has sent this report:

Dear All
We had a CoVoP committee meeting on Sunday and seem to have a lot going on nationally at the moment. We’re sure that you know about much of it but just in case you don’t:
Community and Local Government Inquiry into the operation of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
The committee has received over 200 written submissions (many from our affiliates and their members) which are available on their website – see links on our page in the “News” section http://covop.org/inquiry/ . They are now starting to take oral evidence and the first session was Monday 9 June – you can find a recording via our page on the enquiry. We are in contact with them to see if we can provide oral evidence on behalf of community groups in a future session.
Greg Mulholland’s Bill for amendment of the NPPF
This private members bill has lapsed due to the shortage of parliamentary time but Greg is currently organising a roundtable for groups who share such a vision for the future of our planning system. The aim of the roundtable event is to make clear to both the current and next government the planning issues they must tackle. We will be attending the event.
All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Greenbelt
This group was set up last year by Chris Skidmore and was due to publish a report in spring of this year – as spring is now officially over we are trying to find out exactly what this group is doing and how we can influence their activities.
All political parties are now in election fever
With the elections now less than a year away, all parties are now focusing on how to win the next election. We are strictly non-party-political but feel that all of the major parties can be tarred with the same brush. They are not listening to the views on the voters when they are told that the planning system is not working – localism doesn’t exist and developers are running riot all over the country. With the current status of the planning laws, developers can obtain planning permission to build almost anywhere and then have the possibility of land banking while they obtain additional permissions. More houses will be built in the countryside and small towns and not where the real need is which is in the large employment centres. This will increase carbon emissions as more people have to travel longer to work. The NPPF talks about well-being, environment, infrastructure and sustainability, which are all good things. However, in reality the only thing being considered is whether the LPA have a five year supply, or not.
We need your help:
Tell us what the 3 KEY ISSUES are in your area and let’s try to get the common issues promoted more widely.
Tell all planning protest groups that you know about us and ask them to affiliate to us – it doesn’t cost them anything and it will strengthen our hand when we are talking to MP’s and Ministers.
During the questioning at the oral evidence session in Parliament on Monday, two comments were made by members of the committee which we think were incorrect. If anybody has any evidence to the contrary, please would they send it in so that we can write to the committee to refute the statements.
Simon Danczuk MP stated that Local Planning Authorities had had ten years to formulate their Local Plans. We are aware that there are some areas of the country where there has been local government re-organisation and this has interfered with the plan preparation. Has anybody any information on this?
Mark Pawsey MP stated that there had not been any instances of the greenbelt being developed or being lost because of the Local Plan.
In both these instances, the people being questioned were not able to give instances. As one person stated, he was not aware of any instances. That does not mean that they don’t exist. Please can anybody put forward any evidence for either of these circumstances?

Thanks for reading.
Julie
Admin at CoVoP
Community Voice on Planning
A National Alliance to provide communities with an effective voice on planning.
http://www.covop.org

 

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Jun 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Freedom of Information and EIA

Comments

3 Comments

EDDC accounts: public inspection of accounts – dates and procedures

in. public notice in today’s Express and Echo, EDDC has announced that the annual period during which the public can inspect its accounts will be

1 July 2014 – 28 July 2014
between 08.30 and 5.00 pm Monday – Friday

This refers not only to accounts but also to other documents referred to in Section 15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998.

Requests for unaudited accounts should be made to Simon Davey (Head of Finance) at the usual council address or by email to: sdavey@eastdevon.gov.uk or telephone 01395 517490,

The unaudited accounts will be on the council website on 30 June 2014.

Notice is also given that Grant Thornton (the council’s auditing body) has been appointed.

Tuesday 29 July 2014 at 10.00 am as the date on or after which local government electors for the EDDC area (or any representative of such elector) may exercise their right under Sections 15 and 16 of the Act to question the auditor about or make objections to the accounts for the year ended 31 March 2014.

Any objections to the accounts must relate to the matter in respect of which the auditor could take action under section 17 of the Act (namely, an unlawful item of account or failure to bring the amount into account) or to make a report in the public interest Section 8 of the Act.

No objection may be made by or on behalf of a local government elector unless the auditor has received written notice of the proposed objection and the grounds on which it is made. In addition an elector is required at the same time to send a copy of any notice of the objection to East Devon District Council.

The addresses of the auditor are:

B Morris, Appointed Auditor, Grant Thornton UK LLP, Hartwell House, 55-61 Victoria Street, Bristol BS1 6FT

EDDC:
Simon Davey, Head of Finance, EDDC, Council Offices, Knowle, Sidmouth, Devon EX10 8HL

A copy of the Audit Commission Act 1988 is here
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/18/contents

and a very useful FAQ about the workings of the Act is here:
http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/about-us/frequently-asked-questions/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Jun 2014

Posted under

Democracy, Exmouth

“No punishment for Eileen” – Exmouth Town Council shows more common sense than EDDC

Under the heading of “No punishment for Eileen” today’s Express and Echo reports that,  although the EDDC Standards Board had recommended that town and district councllor Eileen Wragg (Lib Dem) be censured by the town council, they unanimously decided to ignore the “advice” and to take no action against her. This included Tory members of the town council even though it was the town’s Conservative group that reported her in the first place!

She had been accused of “being extremely rude” to former Town Mayor John Humphreys at last year’s town meeting.

She refused to attend the EDDC Standards Board meeting, branding it “an appalling waste of taxpayers’ money” and saying she had “real life things” to do.

For two diametrically opposite views on this see:

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/exmouth-life/if_you_can_t_take_criticism_resign_1_3609931

or

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/exmouth-life/a_sorry_affair_1_3600292

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Jun 2014

Posted under

Democracy, Misc

Comments

1 Comment

Lobbying Bill: the stifling of all political dissent begins – criticise the Government at your peril

The Lobbying Bill has done nothing to stop the lobbying of Parliament by big business nor has it stopped large donations to parties in power.  What it is doing is stopping charities and the like from campaigning during the period prior to the general election:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27783331

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Jun 2014

Posted under

Democracy

CPRE Cornwall attempts to unite countryside campaign groups

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/CPRE-conference-aims-unite-campaign-groups/story-21212510-detail/story.

spokesman Orlando Kimber admitted that the group [CPRE Cornwall]  had “lost its way” in recent times and had relaunched at the turn of the year with new trustees and a new constitution. …
“What we want to do is bring everyone together who feels strongly about these issues to create a single voice.  “By bringing everyone together whether we are at the table with the council or at the House of Lords then we are much, much harder to deny.”  Mr Kimber stressed the group were not “anti development” but wanted to make sure scheme were appropriately located.  He added: “It is everyone’s best interests, commercially and otherwise, to protect what we have here.”
Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Jun 2014

Posted under

Democracy

Some background on the Hammersmith and Fulham situation (see post below)

This is, of course, the view from what was the opposition party at the time but which is, since the May elections, the majority party:

http://www.thecowanreport.com/2014/02/is-there-such-thing-as-free-lunch-h.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Jun 2014

Posted under

Democracy

Comments

6 Comments

One reason why Tory flagship borough was a surprise win for Labour in May 2014?

SPECIAL MOTION NO. 3 – HOSPITALITY AND PUBLIC CONCERNS ABOUT THE “TOO CLOSE FOR COMFORT” RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATION AND PROPERTY DEVELOPERS DOING BUSINESS IN THIS BOROUGH
Standing in the names of:
(i) Councillor PJ Murphy
(ii) Councillor Andrew Jones
“The Council notes that its self-confessed “property-developer-friendly” approach has resulted in many controversial land development schemes being opposed by large numbers of Hammersmith and Fulham residents who have attended the Planning Applications Committee and expressed concerns that the Council’s relationship with many developers are “too close for comfort”.
The Council therefore regrets the decision of administration cabinet members and other Conservative councillors to enjoy “gifts and hospitalities” from property developers operating in the Borough. The Council notes that no minutes or records are kept of the conversations that take place during these generous social engagements and that meetings such as these do nothing to dispel residents’
concerns.
Hammersmith and Fulham Council resolves to tighten its protocols and halt councillors from accepting personal gifts and personal hospitality from businesses hoping to profit from decisions they might make or the influence they may be able to bring to bear on decision makers.
Furthermore, the Council agrees that agenda and minutes need to be made of all meetings its councillors, officials and representatives have with businesses, their agents or their lobbyist when discussing issues pertinent to the Borough and those businesses. Those records will be made available for public scrutiny”.

Click to access Special%20Motion%203.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Jun 2014

Posted under

Democracy

“Whose fault is it that the public are pessimistic about modern politicians?”

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglascarswellmp/100274690/whose-fault-is-it-that-the-public-are-pessimistic-about-modern-politicians/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Jun 2014

Posted under

Democracy

Beware trolls!

We have until now published all negative comments on this blog, even those that appear to come from different people with different names but are actually from the same source.  We have done this to encourage debate.  

However, the comments from one particular source are now becoming simply unpleasant personal attacks on individuals rather than reasoned arguments and we therefore reserve the right to block comments from multiple names from the same source that do not add to debate.

The technical term is trolling and it can be a criminal offence.

It’s election year.