Population of Devon and Somerset combined: approx 2 million
Population of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire combined: approx 2 million
Number of extra homes Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire LEP says they need:
77,000
Number of extra homes Devon and Somerset says they need:
179,000
Explain.
“… Staffordshire MPs Jeremy Lefroy, Gavin Williamson and Karen Brady have called for the creation of a new Mercian combined authority, which would see the county join forces with Shropshire district, as well as Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. Telford & Wrekin, which last week announced it would be joining the proposed West Midlands Combined Authority, would not be included under the plans.
The moves have caused some bemusement among those areas that have been linked to Shropshire.
Civic leaders in the two East Midland counties said they had received no approach from either Shropshire or Staffordshire councils, and would not be drawn on whether they would support such a move.”
http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2015/10/12/special-feature-devolution-remains-a-puzzle/
“At a full council meeting, South Derbyshire District Council leader Bob Wheeler proposed to reject the agreement and this was backed by the members.
He said: “Our concerns include how appropriate an elected mayor would be for an area as diverse as Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, as well as the cost and impact the deal would have on the other authorities concerned.
“We simply don’t know in detail what the powers of an elected mayor or combined authority would be. We can’t recommend getting on a bus when we don’t know what the fare is and we don’t know where it’s going.”
Why?
Because the two deals are very spookily similar! Read the press puff job for Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire and it could almost have been written by the same hand. No, no, no – surely not … but they are SO similar … no, no ….
The press release:
http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/devolution
Here are two snippets almost identical in tone and (localised) content to the Devon and Somerset bid:
“The deal sets out ten key benefits devolution would deliver for the rD2N2 Local Enterprise Partnership (promoting economic growth in Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire) is a partner in the bid.
What could the Devo Deal deliver, if successful?
• 55,000 new jobs by 2023
• Improved quality and quantity of homes across Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire – delivering 77,000 affordable new homes
• Better connected towns and cities through the creation of combined transport authorities covering Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire
• Improved frequency, integration and joint ticketing arrangements on public transport through London-style powers, as well as directly influencing improvements to motorways and major trunk roads in the area
• Increased potential for East Midlands Airport, the second busiest freight terminal in the country after Heathrow, to increase international trade and passenger transport
• More and better quality apprenticeships, tackling the root causes of long-term unemployment, and further reduce rates of young people not in education or employment
• Greater control over further education to ensure all local learners and employers have access to the right, high-quality further education offer, matching the skills of citizens with those demanded by the employer.
• Speeded up planning process and making it more flexible to respond to the different needs of the local areas
• A smart infrastructure that future-proofs growth and prosperity with universal access to 4G and beyond, removing the digital divide facing those in vulnerable and rural communitiesesidents and businesses of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire:
55,000 new private sector jobs
77,000 extra homes
An Investment Fund over 30 years to provide infrastructure such as roads and bridges
Adult skills provision that better meets the needs of businesses
A joint transport fund to spend on key transport improvements
A better co-ordinated public transport system with ‘Oyster’ style smart ticketing
More responsive and co-ordinated business support for growth
The creation of substantially more apprenticeship opportunities
More people entering employment through better targeted local programmes
Journey times to London of less than 90 minutes by train
19 councils across Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire together with business leaders from the D2N2 Local Enterprise Partnership which covers the two counties, are seeking to create a single Combined Authority for the region by March 2016 – the first of its kind featuring district, borough, city and county councils.”
and another:
D2N2 Local Enterprise Partnership (promoting economic growth in Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire) is a partner in the bid.
What could the Devo Deal deliver, if successful?
• 55,000 new jobs by 2023
• Improved quality and quantity of homes across Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire – delivering 77,000 affordable new homes
• Better connected towns and cities through the creation of combined transport authorities covering Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire
• Improved frequency, integration and joint ticketing arrangements on public transport through London-style powers, as well as directly influencing improvements to motorways and major trunk roads in the area
• Increased potential for East Midlands Airport, the second busiest freight terminal in the country after Heathrow, to increase international trade and passenger transport
• More and better quality apprenticeships, tackling the root causes of long-term unemployment, and further reduce rates of young people not in education or employment
• Greater control over further education to ensure all local learners and employers have access to the right, high-quality further education offer, matching the skills of citizens with those demanded by the employer.
• Speeded up planning process and making it more flexible to respond to the different needs of the local areas
• A smart infrastructure that future-proofs growth and prosperity with universal access to 4G and beyond, removing the digital divide facing those in vulnerable and rural communities”
This is the list as provided by East Devon District Council – it appears to have been published upside-down – just an oversight, of course:
“The Heart of the South West devolution partners are:
• Somerset County Council
• Somerset’s district and borough councils: Mendip, Sedgemoor, South Somerset, Taunton Deane and West Somerset
• Devon County Council
• Devon’s district and borough councils: East Devon, Mid Devon, North Devon, South Hams, Teignbridge, Torridge and West Devon
• Plymouth City Council
• Torbay Council
• Exeter City Council
• Exmoor National Park
• Dartmoor National Park
• Northern, Eastern and Western Devon Clinical Commissioning Group
• Somerset Clinical Commissioning Group
• South Devon and Torbay Clinical Commissioning Group
Heart of the South West LEP”
Radio Devon this morning:
Note that he says his council only got involved in September 2015.
Hear him try to slither over the total lack of public consultation.
Listen to a man desperately trying to defend the indefensible!
“A bid to win fresh powers from Westminster has been submitted to the Government after every council in Devon and Somerset gave the document support.
Council chiefs and business leaders in Devon and Somerset have submitted their “prospectus for productivity” in the hope that devolved powers will boost jobs and growth.
They say they a “devolution revolution” would result in higher productivity and better-paid jobs, improved road, rail and broadband links and more homes.
However, business leaders have criticised the move as “dangerous” and likely to hike business rates and council tax bills to pay for the new responsibilities.
Tim Jones, chairman of the Devon and Cornwall Business Council, said: “The agenda has yet to clarify just what the implications are going to be for the business community.
“The business rates just don’t add up. There may be no growth or revenue may go down.
“In poor rural areas reductions could be 15 to 20% and those figures are not speculative.
“Local taxation could go up – we have already seen authorities putting up council tax and don’t want to see a never-ending spiral of increases.”
Long, puff job for devolution – the devolution deal for Devon and Somerset having been sent to the government without one iota of public consultation and with most district and county councillors totally ignorant about exactly what is going on, having been completely cut out of the decision-making, but having agreed anyway.
And the final chilling paragraphs of the press release:
“LEP chairman Steve Hindley said: “Businesses across the Heart of the South West are the driving force that will deliver transformational growth and are keen to be at the helm of a prospective devolution deal alongside local authority partners.
“We look forward to working with Government and investors as we embark on this journey towards prosperity and increased productivity that will benefit not only the Heart of the South West but the UK economy as a whole.”
http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Devolution-bid-boost-prosperity-Devon-Somerset/story-28854690-detail/story.html
Wholesale privatisation of major local government functions to a handful of business owners and a very few career politicians.
A sad day for democracy – and for Devon and Somerset.
EDBF is dead, long live mega-EDBF.
” I I am getting increasingly concerned about our devolution process in the South West.
Devolution is different in each region, but one thing each has in common is a lack of public consultation. In fact here in Devon most people don’t even know we are in the process and that many of the councils in Devon and Somerset have signed up already. Cornwall has already finished the process.
People don’t know what is happening and that is a concern, as the implications of devolution will impact upon all of us and I find the actual devolution bid extremely worrying.
Robert Vint, a Devon county councillor commented, on devolution recently, saying: “The Government has taken away the funds that local authorities were once spending to meet the needs of local people – for affordable homes, care services, repairing local roads etc.
“It now offers to give back £195.5 million – but only if we endorse a package of mega-projects in which we have had no say. This is coercion, not ‘devolution’. “The decisions about how this council spent its money were once democratically decided; the proposals in this Devolution Prospectus were not. “It is not the economic recovery plan that residents would have created themselves if they had been given the opportunity.”
The privatisation of local authorities in other words, yet we know so little about it. We definitely don’t know about the LEP, who are at the heart of it. LEP stands for Local Enterprise Partnership.
The one for Devon and Somerset is known as the Heart of the South West LEP (H0tSW LEP).
It is basically a business quango made up of business men and women and a few elected councillors, who channel money from the government and from Europe into local business and enterprise, or that was what it was originally set up to do.
They are the ones who are enabling devolution down here. Most people know very little about them.
They have a website detailing their aims and grants, but they hold their meetings in private and it is difficult to see the minutes of those meetings.
They say they will deliver £4billion to the UK economy. A lot of that money is going into the Hinkley C nuclear plant.
I personally do not want money spent on a highly controversial nuclear project, at a time when our local services are being cut to an absolute minimum, but I have no say in the matter and nor does anyone else, that I can see.
There is so little transparency in this process that even councillors who are supposed to be involved in the devolution bid are struggling to find information. We do know that they are about growth and not much else it seems.
This seems to me to be the opposite of localism. In the future who is going to control planning applications? Will it be the local authority still or will it be the LEP? If it is the LEP, I cannot understand how there won’t be a conflict of interest.
The proposal is also about creating a new authority but there is no information that says which, if any, current body it would replace.
The HotSW LEP is made up of elected councillors as well as business people, but the process is opaque and undemocratic. Many of those on the board who are self-appointed have business interests in property and construction. I am sure the HotSW LEP is all above board.
But it seems to me that LEPs could be vulnerable to corruption. I would like some guarantees, I would like some transparency, I would like to have my democratic rights adhered to, but I can’t see it happening.
Mr Vint also points out: “There are proposals (in the devolution bid) to build 179,000 new houses across Devon and Cornwall – but the plan ignores the priorities of all the Councils across the South West that want affordable housing for local people – not unregulated market housing.
“While ‘housing’ is mentioned repeatedly, three key words are totally missing from this document – ‘affordable’, ‘social’ and ‘rented’.
“Those are the kinds of houses we most urgently need, not commercial housing.This proposal is an attack on democracy; its priorities are not the priorities of local people; it puts the needs of big business before the needs of local people and it is helping to bail out businesses, such as Hinkley C, that are nowhere near being financially viable without massive subsidy.”
Where does this figure of 179,000 houses come from? Who is going to build them? Why do we need them? Who are the LEP to decide such matters?
I find it all very disturbing. Devolution was supposed to be about local areas deciding on local matters, not the takeover of council services by corporate interest. I read recently that devolution meant “the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership for the Shires”, a reference to the proposed international agreement that many feel hands too much power to businesses. I fear that analysis is correct.”
“The missing link is the cultivation of citizen participation and the development of structures and mechanisms for doing so, without which levels of accountability and alienation could be no better than before, for two reasons.
First, citizens have to wait until the next mayoral election to make their voices heard just as they do with local and general elections.
Secondly, people do not automatically feel more connected to local leaders because proximity is only one part of accessibility, which also involves visibility and approachability.” …
… While it is possible to argue that democratic structures could be developed after powers have been devolved, it makes more sense to set out ambitions for participation and accountability early on. These ambitions will affect which powers are needed and the governance arrangements of devolution agreements. For example, if the ambition is to use ‘pop-up parishes’ to design town- centre regeneration, then it may be necessary to devolve more power over planning and land use, and to ensure that proposalscan be tabled by citizen groups and not just by members of the combined authority leadership. …
… There is neither realism about the growth outcomes of devolution nor much concern about generating particular bene ts for local economic stakeholders, such as residents, local workers, and business owners. NEF’s work on local economies has shown that if cities are to ‘meet their full economic potential’13 in terms of benefiting local economic stakeholders, this will involve:
• Supporting people to be nancially strong individuals in terms of income-to-cost-of- living ratios and being able to have savings.
• Developing a strong local business sector with supply chains connecting small enterprise to big business.
• Making more ef client use of distribution of resources, with positive local circulation of money, low levels of wasted resources in local supply and production systems, a high level of staff retention in jobs, and falling levels of inequality and poverty.
In the documents, these sorts of economic outcome for local people are only rarely discussed. For example, reducing poverty is mentioned four times in a total of 1,129 arguments and cost of living is not mentioned at all. This is a gap in the debate. ‘More jobs’ is the overwhelming focus rather than ‘better jobs and wages’.
In current devolution agreements power remains firmly in the hands of Westminster who can revoke devolved functions and budgets in future if it is dissatis ed with progress, without clear criteria de ning success. Westminster will retain a stick with which to beat localities if they are not achieving outcomes desired by central government, perhaps especially economic growth and cost savings. This could prove restrictive rather than liberating. A Voluntary and Community Sector worker from Liverpool, for example, raised the concern that a devolution agreement for the Liverpool area would ‘cast a potentially narrow economic glow over our world’ and that the local government would be unable to prioritise non- economic outcomes which also matter to local people.
… The devolution debate could go one of two ways. It could roll on in the backrooms of Westminster leading to opacity, confusion, and potentially falling public support for the policy.
Or it could be brought into the open, where there will be space for criticism and consideration of the downsides of devolution, as well as discussion of its potential to transform and strengthen our towns, cities and democracy. “
” … Should growth be the main goal?
Our research found that arguments for economic growth are weak at explaining how these outcomes would be achieved; they tend to focus on the benefits devolution would bring the national purse rather than the local economy. Devolution could improve the lives of local people, yet the current debate pays little attention to how this could be achieved.
How devolution would affect income-to-cost-of-living ratios, which affect everyone’s day to day economic reality, is seldom mentioned. The number of jobs that would be created is discussed far more often than the quality of jobs that would be created. Reducing poverty through economic growth is mentioned only four times in a total of 1,129 arguments.
Devolving fiscal and policy making powers to the local level over skills, housing, business rates and enterprise, could improve how the local economy works for its residents and local stakeholders. It could, for example, enable local government to better shape local business stock and promote resilience to external shocks through reasonable diversity in sectors, business size and ownership models. While economic growth may be one measure of success, it should not be pursued at the expense of other key economic and social goals that devolution could benefit.
Building a more democratic country
Creating a more democratic country seems an obvious aim for devolution but it is neglected by advocates of devolution, particularly in local government as Figure 2 shows. Discussions currently neglect the greater role citizens could play in political decision-making if decisions are made closer to home, but also the ways in which devolution could increase the accountability of elected leaders to the public. Simply creating elected mayors is not enough to revive an ailing democracy. This is why local governments should also be considering the mechanisms and structures for citizen participation which could make devolution worthwhile.
How can we change the debate?
We need to bring the debate into the open for public discussion, locally and nationally, so that everyday economic concerns like the quality of jobs created, and reducing inequality, feature strongly in discussions around what goals devolution should deliver.
So far, the debate has been conducted in the backrooms of Westminster rather than in public forums. Several parties in government have proposed a Constitutional Convention – a citizen forum where the governance of the country is discussed – but are yet to act on the proposal.
In the meantime, a group of academics and civil society groups have piloted this model in Sheffield and Southampton, showing how it would work. Drawing on examples from countries including Iceland, Canada, the Netherlands and Scotland, they show that the direct participation of local people in decision-making improves not only the democratic quality of decisions, but their effectiveness. It’s a match made in heaven for the devolution revolution.”
‘The briefing Democracy: the missing link in the devolution debate’ is available for download here:
http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/entry/democracy-the-missing-link-in-the-devolution-debate
Key findings:
Of the arguments made for devolution, 41.6% focus on achieving economic growth as the main justification for devolving power.
Only 12.9% of arguments make the case for devolution in order to shift power, strengthen democracy, and increase citizen involvement in decision-making.
Just 7.4% of arguments address inequalities in wealth and power between regions.
Environmental sustainability is part of just 0.8% of arguments.
Only 2.9% of arguments address the potential downsides and risks of devolution.
Local governments in particular seldom consider the impact of devolution on democracy, discussing democratic outcomes less than central government or think-tanks.
http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/whats-missing-from-the-devolution-debate
The devil is in the detail here – so many “minor” changes, never seen before – all gearing up to give our LEP total control of the planning system:
“This consultation seeks views on the proposed approach to implementing the planning provisions in the Housing and Planning Bill, and some other planning measures. It covers the following areas:
Changes to planning application fees
Permission in principle
Brownfield register
Small sites register
Neighbourhood planning
Local plans
Expanding the planning performance regime
Testing competition in the processing of planning applications
Information about financial benefits
Section 106 dispute resolution
Permitted development rights for state-funded schools
Changes to statutory consultation on planning applications”
Click to access Planning_consultation.pdf
WE HAVE UNTIL 15 APRIL 2016 TO RESPOND
Isn’t it interesting that all devolution projects include at least one mega-billion pound project that comes off the government’s books and on to those of devolved areas – presumably allowing government to manipulate the national debt to show that the deficit is coming down … when costs have simply moved. And all of them include the word “regeneration” to make them look inviting. Not that the word is an inviting one in East Devon!
“There is no guarantee that investing billions in infrastructure will help the North of England, the man leading the “Northern Powerhouse” project says.
But former CBI chief John Cridland told the BBC that people should take a “leap of faith” on new roads and railways. He said he believed reducing journey times between northern cities would improve the economy.
But critics say the money might be better spent on training and skills – or on transport within cities.
Mr Cridland’s quango Transport for the North is due to publish its first report soon.
The chancellor’s advisory National Infrastructure Commission also will make recommendations on Northern transport.
‘Pie in the sky’
The bodies have been considering transport options such as a motorway running under the Peak District from Sheffield to Manchester, or an HS3 rail link between Leeds and Manchester.
But Anne Robinson, from Friends of the Peak District, told BBC News: “These are just pie-in-the-sky schemes. We haven’t been given the slightest shred of evidence that they will do any good.”
She warned that the motorway scheme – running more than 30 miles underground – would cost a fortune, as well as creating congestion in roads at either end of the tunnel and potentially disrupting the ecology of the Peaks National Park.
Mr Cridland said ambitious infrastructure should be on the agenda: “I’m not claiming there is perfect science here. “But I am convinced that after decades of under-investment, it’s now time to close that investment gap – and it will lead to better travelling experiences and economic growth.
“Transport economics can’t always prove this: sometimes, like the Victorian engineers, you have to take a leap of faith.”
Ms Robinson said it was foolish to take a leap of faith with billions of public money.
It is likely, though, that both quangos reporting on transport in the north will concentrate their efforts on solutions which bring quick improvement for travellers – like electrifying the Leeds-Manchester route and putting on extra carriages.
Regeneration
Another likely favourite option will be to introduce hard-shoulder running by making all of the M62 a “smart” motorway.
The two bodies may also be anxious to keep hope alive for heroic inter-city infrastructure in the north so people have faith in the regeneration of the region.
There is already a degree of cynicism about ambitious words from Westminster. One Manchester business leader disparaged the term “Northern Powerhouse”.
“It’s a bit embarrassing isn’t it? Frankly it looks like a brand in search of a product,” he told me.
Mr Cridland maintains that already the Powerhouse slogan itself has created a sense of excitement and purpose.
The team making key decisions on train operation in the north has been shifted from the south to Leeds, he says – and this is making planners more responsive to local needs.
The big cities of the north are talking to each other, making plans, dreaming they can really breathe new life into the region, Mr Cridland says.
Now, he confesses, some infrastructure has to follow.
If devolution leaves East Devon in the hands of our Local Enterprise Partnership, we know that its vanity project will be the Hinkley Point C nuclear reactor, an “investment” that we will be forced to fund to the tune of millions (or billions) of pounds with other Devon and Somerset councils and other LEPs nearby. This has already been decided behind closed doors:
EDF is attempting to partner with Chinese investors on this project but we have known for some time that they are not only having difficulty raising their own finance but that there are major problems in the Chinese economy and also serious worries that the type of reactor they want to build is entirely wrong.
From “The Ecologist if 20 February 2016.
““EDF were supposed to give a final decision on the project this week but the decision was postponed, though EDF stated their intention to begin the project in 2019.
Definitive construction of what will be built on the site, what we call the first concrete, is on the horizon for 2019.” [says EDF]
The idea that there will be a three year delay before any concrete is poured after a positive decision to proceed has caught observers, and contractors lined up to work on the project, by surprise. Earth moving and site preparation has already been under way for several years, plans are at an advanced stage, and heavy engineering works would normally be expected to begin within months.
The date, 2019, is a year after the reactors were originally due to be completed. The timetable has gradually slipped backwards. Last year the date for power to start being generated was put back to 2025, but this new date for pouring concrete makes 2030 more likely – if the reactors are built at all.
One insider with close contacts within EDF told The Ecologist: “The fact is that EDF is already in a precarious financial situation, with its share price half what it was a year ago, a falling credit rating, and massive liabilities for reactor upgrades and decommissioning.
“It has so far sunk £2 billion into Hinkley C and it simply cannot afford to write that sum off even if has already decided that this project is a total loss. So they have to pretend that it’s a goer and that the £2 billion is a live investment that will, one day, produce a return to its shareholders.”
In other words, a final investment decision to go head may, in fact, be no such thing. The company could just be planning to keep a few earth movers trundling about on the site, for years, on end, to give the appearance of activity while it seeks a graceful way out of the gigantic hole it has dug for itself.
The most likely long term plan, our source continued, is to try to sell the entire site on to its Chinese partner CGN after a few years. However CGN would then want to use a new reactor design, probably its own ‘Hualong’ model – which would then create additional long delays as no example has yet been built and it would have to undergo rigorous safety examination.
Record of delays, cost hikes and safety concerns
The new proposed start date of 2019 is significant for reasons the company dare not spell out. This is because there is no evidence yet that these so-called EPR (European Pressurised Reactor, no renamed ‘Evolutionary Power Reactor’) will operate effectively.
Four EPRs are under construction, but are years behind schedule, and costs have tripled. In Europe their earliest proposed start date is 2018 – so it looks as though EDF is being careful not to begin building another one until it can prove the design actually works.
The EPR, a so called ‘third generation’ design, is the largest nuclear plant in the world. They have a chequered history, even before any has actually produced a single watt of electricity. Construction of the first prototype began in 2005 at Olkiluoto in Finland: expected to be finished in 2009, it is still under construction.
The same is true of the second, at Flamanville in France, where construction began in 2007. It has also hit delays and cost over-runs of staggering proportions, and technical problems – in the form of a metallurgically flawed pressure reactor and lid – that could sink the project completely.
The vessel and lid contains too much carbon and is undergoing stress testing to see if it is safe. While the outcome of these tests remains unknown, a question mark hangs over the station’s future. It too is due to start in 2018 but few believe it will do so.
The other two EPRs are being built at Taishan in China. Both should have been in operation by this year, but both also have undergone unspecified delays.
These difficulties, plus the vast amount of remedial safety work required by the French safety regulators from EDF on its fleet of 58 ageing reactors in France itself, have put the company under severe financial strain. It needs to find €100 billion for repairs, and to improve safety following the Fukushima disaster in Japan, to keep the plants operating until 2030.
As a result of fears that the company might overstretch itself and jeopardise jobs in France the six trade union representatives on EDF’s board have expressed opposition to the company going ahead with building reactors on British soil.
UK energy policy in tatters
This further postponement of a start date for the new reactors leaves the UK government with a gaping hole in its energy policy, despite it offering to pay double the existing price of electricity for the output from Hinkley Point, a subsidy that will continue for 35 years.
The Conservative government has been relying on nuclear energy to replace fossil fuels from 2025, when it plans to phase out all its coal stations. Some renewable energy subsidies have been scrapped to make way for new nuclear stations. As a result the UK is due to miss its EU renewable energy targets.
In all, the Conservative government wants ten new nuclear stations in the UK – four EPRs and the rest from Japan and the US. None of these now seems likely to be built before 2030, if at all.
Perhaps to divert attention from the postponement of the new reactors, EDF announced that it was going to extend the life of four of the nuclear power stations it already operates in Britain. It bought eight ageing stations of British design in 2009 for £12.5 billion.
Some were already due to close in 2018 but have had their lives extended. Now another four will be kept open to bridge the gap left by the failure to build the new stations at Hinkley Point. These are the Heysham 1 plant in northwest England and another at Hartlepool in the northeast, both of which had been due to be switched off in 2019 because of their advanced age. They will be allowed to keep producing electricity for another five years.
Two other reactors, Heysham 2 and Torness in Scotland, have been granted extensions of seven years to 2030. There is no reason – as long as the stations are deemed safe – why further life extensions should not be applied for, and granted.
Continuing to apply for life extensions for old nuclear stations also saves the company from technical bankruptcy. Once a station is closed its decommissioning costs become company liabilities. With the company’s debts already high, it would not take many closures for EDF’s liabilities to exceed its assets.”
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2987225/nuclear_zombie_hinkley_c_build_wont_start_until_2019_if_at_all.html
“We have the intention to proceed rapidly with the investment decision for Hinkley Point,” EDF CEO Jean-Bernard Levy told reporters.
He added that EDF had not yet finalised talks with its Chinese partners before the Chinese New Year break. “Today we estimate this final decision is very close,” he said.
Levy said it would take about three years, possibly a bit more, of study and work with sub-contractors before EDF will begin building the first definitive structures on the Hinkley Point C site, though the company will do terracing and other preparatory work between now and then.”
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-edf-results-britain-hinkley-idUKKCN0VP1TU
Er, not quite a decision then, more a bit of spin?
And, still, we need a BREXIT strategy … how much more will it cost if we are not EU members then?
A correspondent writes:
I must be very naïve as I am at a loss to work out where the LEP gets a remit to make policies on housing.
The latest “board minutes” for November 2015 include a report from the Housing Task and Finish group.” [Who are members of this group, how long has it been meeting? What does it DO?] It was noted that much of this paper is relevant to Devolution in terms of offering a local solution, and it was suggested that rural villages and small towns had a role to play in addressing housing shortages which would also benefit the viability of small communities.”
The councillors, the bureaucrats and indeed the people of East Devon have sweated blood [and spent a great deal of money] over many years to acquire a Local Plan and have an agreed figure for the district of 17,100 new houses until 2031. In conjunction with this plan the majority of rural villages and small towns have or are developing Neighbourhood Plans.
Surely the rural villages and small towns are already making – and will continue to do so in the future – significant contributions to addressing housing shortages?
Will LEP policies take precedence over the Local and Neighbourhood Plans?
Can someone help me solve this one?”
“The dreadful “Devolution” proposals from the Heart Of The South West Local Enterprise Partnership were endorsed by South Hams District Council today – but not before Opposition Group of councillors had put up a big fight. Here is what one of them said:
“The Government has taken away the funds that local authorities were once spending to meet the needs of local people – for affordable homes, care services, repairing local roads etc. It now offers to give back £195.5 million – but only if we endorse a package of megaprojects in which we have had no say.
This is coercion, not ‘devolution’. The decisions about how this council spent its money were once democratically decided; the proposals in this Devolution Prospectus were not. It is not the economic recovery plan that residents would have created themselves if they had been given the opportunity.
ROADS. The Government has taken away the money that County Councils once used to maintain local and rural roads – and then gives the LEP this money for major road projects that are not our top priority.
ENERGY. Government cuts to Feed In Tariffs have wiped out hundreds of community-led renewable energy projects across the South West but now they propose to pump £20,000,000,000 – Twenty Billion Pounds – into subsidising the Hinkley C Nuclear Power Station over the next three decades – a 50% subsidy, that has no mandate from local people, for a project that may only start in 2025 and maybe never.
HOUSING. There are proposals to build 179,000 new houses across Devon and Cornwall – but the plan ignores the priorities of all the Councils across the South West that want affordable housing for local people – not unregulated market housing. Whilst “Housing” is mentioned repeatedly, three key words are totally missing from this document – “affordable”, “social” and “rented”. Those are the kinds of houses we most urgently need, not commercial housing.
This proposal is an attack on Democracy; its priorities are not the priorities of local people; it puts the needs of big business before the needs of local people and it is helping to bail out businesses, such as Hinkley C, that are nowhere near being financially viable without massive subsidy.”
“Deputy leader Cllr Andrew Moulding added: “I think we have to trust our leader, supported by the chief executive, to work in our interest to get the best possible negotiated deal we can for devolution and localism in our area.”
http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/devolution_deal_moves_closer_despite_concern_1_4406297
Well, that’s us sorted then …
And which councillor has most power and influence to gain from the devolution deal? Councillor Diviani, who is currently slated to be responsible for housing expenditure in the whole of Devon and Somerset – along with his old pal Exeter CEO Karim Hassan (ex-EDDC).
Happy days.
“Trust” is key, suggested Deputy Leader, Andrew Moulding (quoting from a conversation between Leader, Paul Diviani, and a government Minister visiting Cranbrook). Cllr Moulding was advising Members who were about to vote at last week’s Extra Ordinary Meeting, on approving delegated powers for the Leader regarding the multimillion pound devolution bid.
Just a few hours later, we understand, EDDC issued a press release that began with an essentially misleading, statement, claiming that “. . councillors have unanimously signed off the devolution prospectus” . The vote in fact was not unanimous, with 7 against and 1 abstention.
The inaccurate press release was corrected, after immediate complaints by Independent councillors.
Our Local Enterprise Partnership would take a pasting:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4b3c1d9e-c506-11e5-808f-8231cd71622e.html
(FT does not allow quotation from its articles, only links to them)
East Devon Watch 