Category Archives: Devolution

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Jul 2016

Posted under

Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership

Devolution: if one size doesn’t fit all, how can you be sure you have the right size?

“… In his speech Clark also announced the launch of an official consultation on business rates retention, and insisted that devolution deals were “very much available to all of the country”.

The Communities Secretary said: “No place is the same and no deal should be the same. The geography and powers and governance that are right for one place will not be right for another. But in every case I will look for local agreement, not central imposition.

“Now I know that in many cases it would seem easier to give a standard blueprint and compel authorities to adopt it. But if you believe in devolution as I do that is to miss the whole point. I will not compel any council to join any devolution arrangement. It needs to be locally agreed.

“But in a Britain in which the question has changed from whether to devolve to how significantly, there is a huge opportunity for leaders who are willing to work together in harmony to take powers and budgets which can be used to magnify the impact on the lives of their residents.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27623%3Alocal-government-to-have-seat-at-brexit-negotiating-table-says-communities-secretary&catid=59&Itemid=27

Unfortunately, this probably means that those areas which have not built in robust scrutiny will probably not get it.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Corruption, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Transparency

Local Enterprise Partnership scrutiny: Owl says “I told you”!

From Conclusions and Recommendations of Public Accounts Committee Report on Cities and Local Growth:

9. It is alarming that LEPs are not meeting basic standards of governance and transparency, such as disclosing conflicts of interest to the public.

LEPs are led by the private sector, and stakeholders have raised concerns that they are dominated by vested interests that do not properly represent their business communities.

There is a disconnect between decisions being made by local business leaders and accountability working via local authorities. It is therefore crucial that LEPs demonstrate a high standard of governance and transparency over decision making, at least equal to the minimum standards set out by government in the assurance framework.

It is of great concern that many LEPs appear not be meeting these minimum standards. The scale of LEP activity and the sums involved necessitate that LEPs and central government be pro-active in assuring the public that decisions are made with complete probity.

The fact that 42% of LEPs do not publish a register of interests is clearly a risk to ensuring that decisions are made free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest.

The varying presentation and detail of financial information across LEPs also makes it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions or make comparisons across LEPs on how they spend public money.

Recommendation: The Department should enforce the existing standards of transparency, governance and scrutiny before allocating future funding to LEPs. LEPs themselves also need to be more transparent to the public by, for example, publishing financial information.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmpubacc/296/29605.htm

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Transparency

Public Accounts Committee sees BIG problems with devolution scrutiny

FINALLY MPs WAKE UP TO MAJOR FLAWS IN DEVOLUTION PLANS! BUT IS IT TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE?

“MPs on the Public Accounts Committee have stated they have little confidence in scrutiny arrangements being put in place around the government’s flagship devolution deals, and called for these to be improved in order to protect taxpayers’ interests.

A report by the Public Accounts Committee published on 1 July, warned that, following the abolition of the Audit Commission, the existing arrangements for local scrutiny of devolved functions must be made more robust.

Examining devolution agreements in 10 areas – Greater Manchester, Cornwall, Sheffield City Region, the North East, Tees Valley, Liverpool City Region, the West Midlands, East Anglia, Greater Lincolnshire, and the West of England – the PAC said local authority scrutiny was constrained.

The devolution deals for these areas, while all bespoke, share a number of elements, including devolved responsibilities in areas of local transport, business support and further education.

Committee chair Meg Hillier said English devolution represented a big change to the way large sums of taxpayers’ money is spent. “It is therefore alarming to report that, as we hurtle towards mayoral elections planned for next year [in these combined authority areas], so many questions still hang over the process,” she added.

“Parliament and the public must be assured that devolved spending is subject to effective scrutiny and there are clear lines of accountability for delivering value for money. “These vital arrangements are still very much work-in-progress and must be confirmed as a matter of urgency.”

The committee recommended that government should set out by November how it intends to ensure local scrutiny of devolved functions and funding will be well supported.

The Cities and Local Growth report highlighted that, currently, local auditors focus on individual bodies’ financial statements and arrangements for securing value for money.

“It is not yet clear whether there will be any sort of independent institutional scrutiny of devolution deals as a whole, or what form this might take,” it stated. “As more powers, funding and responsibilities are devolved to the local level, we are therefore concerned that a gap in the scrutiny of value for money might be appearing.”

The report, which the committee acknowledged was being carried out in an evolving policy context, highlighted this was an untested policy area. There were already clear tensions emerging in the deals, with evidence that some deals may disintegrate. There should be greater clarity from ministers about what they are hoping to achieve, Hillier added.

“The government has set an ambitious timetable to implement devolution deals but it must not skip over crucial details in a blinkered race to the tape. “The interests of taxpayers are paramount and we urge the government to act on our recommendations now to ensure devolution fully serves those interests.”

A DCLG spokesman said the report “misses the point of devolution, which is to end the one-size-fits-all approaches of the past and hand power from Whitehall to local people who know their areas best”.

He added: “We’ve agreed 10 landmark devolution deals covering nearly 30% of the country, with local leaders accountable to their residents including through the election of mayors to oversee the new powers.

“This is a voluntary, bottom-up process based on local proposals demonstrating strong local agreement and clear accountability.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/07/pac-raises-doubts-about-devolution-scrutiny

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Devolution, Economy, Local Enterprise Partnership, Post-Brexit Adjustments

Osborne has a 5 point plan …

“Chancellor George Osborne has come up with one [plan] and his also has five points [see Johnson, Boris], key among them a proposal to cut corporation tax to below 15% – the lowest of any major economy – to encourage businesses to invest in post-Brexit Britain. The others, as revealed in an interview with the Financial Times, are:

Ensuring support for bank lending.

A push for more investment in China.

A focus on delivering the Northern Powerhouse.

Maintaining Britain’s fiscal credibility.

No word from the chancellor on the brightness of the future, though he does urge everyone to stop “moping around”.

Source: Guardian Live blog

If that’s the plan, where does it place devolution outside the “Northern Powerhouse”?

And did he mean investment IN China or FROM China?

Whatever, our LEP members – all hit hard by Brexit implications in their individual sectors (nuclear, arms dealing, housing development and universities) – must surely be taking time out from their LEP duties to spend more time with their own businesses, now in dire need of their expertise.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Jul 2016

Posted under

Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership

The latest devolution “plan”

No mayor and LEP downgraded? But what is in it for East Devon? And who creates the ” blueprint” that comes before councillors are allowed a (very small) voice?

Heart of the South West devolution partners to consider Combined Authority

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Jul 2016

Posted under

Devolution, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

“Hinkley Point C critics try to derail it amid Brexit vote turmoil”

“Britain’s flagship energy project, Hinkley Point C, is hanging by a thread as critics inside key backer EDF use the political turmoil from the Brexit vote to try to derail the already delayed £18bn scheme.

Jean Bernard Levy, the EDF group chief executive, and the French and British governments, have in recent days insisted they are as committed as ever to a positive final investment decision being taken as soon as possible.

But well-placed sources in Paris have told the Guardian that the already divided EDF board, which must make that decision, is in danger of fracturing further as former supporters of the project worry about Brexit.

“The situation for Levy was already very delicate,” said one source. “But it has become a lot more difficult because there is so little certainty around the British government,” they added. “No one could know today which way a vote [of the board on Hinkley] would go.”

Those arguing against the project say it is impossible to make any decisions when it is unclear who will be the future prime minister, chancellor of the exchequer and energy and climate change secretary.

Highly critical EDF unions in France, which have six representatives on the main board, are pressing waiverers among the five independent board members who have previously supported Levy to change their minds.

Growing concern has led to four British trade unions urging EDF to press ahead with Hinkley.

It was a first “litmus test” that major infrastructure projects will proceed as normal following the Brexit vote, they argued. …”

http://gu.com/p/4ne38

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Jul 2016

Posted under

Democracy, Developers/ Development, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Paul Diviani, Spin, Transparency

Comments

2 Comments

Devon and Somerset Devolution: would you buy a used car from these people?

DID YOU SPOT THE ELEPHANTS IN THE ROOM?

No members of the business- and developer-heavy Local Enterprise Partnership in the video – particularly the LEP Chairman, who is Chairman of Midas house builders and the half-dozen with vested interests in nuclear power and those University chiefs who want to ensure they get all the money for skills and training! Together THEY make up the majority of the Board taking decisions, NOT councillors.

And that LOVELY bit from Diviani about other councillors getting a chance to comment AFTER this loathsome group has created its “blueprint” for devolution in its own image.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership

Post-Brexit devolution: an end to the “gift from Whitehall” model?

“… Last week’s referendum was a turning point for the devolution agenda. Just as Scotland’s near miss on independence sparked the current round of devolution deals, so the decision to Brexit could spark a new wave of demands for change: and this time, the calls for more local and regional autonomy are likely to be sharper and angrier.

Commentators are rushing to point out that an out-of-touch London elite has not listened to the cries of pain from suffering regional towns and cities. Any plan to address the underlying reasons for the Brexit vote must start by recognising that the British model of economic development is not working for most people. While the capital and wider south east have boomed, regional centres like Birmingham have fallen catastrophically behind. The idea that our economic model can be fixed by the national elite that broke it in the first place seems fanciful. Politically, it will be hard to ignore the need for economic reform.

The need to fix regional economies will be compounded by the deep social divisions that the referendum has painfully exposed. Look at the map of the Brexit vote and London sticks out like a sore thumb; an island of Remainers in a sea of Brexit. Some will say that the capital’s sense of anger and grievance is due payback for decades of ignoring the rest of the country. This attitude will hardly reduce the emotional shock that many Londoners currently feel, an experience that will be replicated in cities like Bristol, Cambridge, Liverpool and parts of Manchester. At the same time, the shires are clearly on manoeuvres to ensure that they translate their political power within the Conservative Party into a more generous approach to devolution to counties, ideally without the troublesome requirement for a mayor.

There are two ways to make devolution happen. For the past few years we have been following what might be termed the Whitehall gift model. Local leaders negotiate with George Osborne and, if he likes what he hears, he passes them down a package of new powers. It is a model that is unlikely to work very effectively in a post-referendum world. Mr Osborne is arguably already a lame duck chancellor. Parliament and the civil service face years of Brexit-related legislative congestion. Why would devolution deals be high on their agenda?

If we stick with the gift model, then devolution will stall. Greater Manchester might have enough momentum to carry on, but places like Merseyside and the West Midlands may find themselves struggling to win more powers. The counties may find it even harder to make progress, especially if they remain mired in complex debates about local government reorganisation.

But Scotland did not win its devolved settlement by waiting for Westminster’s beneficence. Its political class mobilised the voters and civil society to forge a consensus for change, before steadily campaigning to make it happen. The SNP went even further, demanding the right to declare independence unilaterally though their referendum last year. The decision to leave has unleashed a sense of grievance across the country that will be hard to put back in the bottle. Local leaders have an opportunity to channel that feeling in the direction of greater local autonomy. The difficult truth is that leaving the EU will not in itself do much to address grievances rooted in two generations of de-industrialisation, especially if the process of leaving brings a recession with it. Parliament may be preoccupied with Brexit, but the country as a whole will be worried about jobs.

The time for gifts may be over, but the moment for building a genuine movement for constitutional change might just be arriving.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/opinion/2016/06/brexit-turning-point-devolution

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Jun 2016

Posted under

Devolution, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

Hinkley C: “very different this week to last week”

“Hinkley

27th June 2016

EDF’s plans to build an £18bn nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset will be subject to a fresh wave of uncertainty following Brexit.

EDF reiterated its commitment to the project, which has already suffered repeated delays, after Brits voted to leave the EU on Friday.

But asked whether Brexit could lead to Hinkley being scrapped, Angus Brendan MacNeil, chair of the energy and climate select committee, said: “Anything could happen … Hinkley is in a very different position this week than it was last week.” “At the very least the final investment decision (FID) will again be kicked down the road … you can’t see the French committing billions to a country they thought was in the European Union and is no longer.”

Peter Atherton, utilities analyst at Jefferies, said: “It’s yet another added complication in what’s already a very complicated process.” He added that if chancellor George Osborne, who is a strong supporter of the project, leaves the Treasury his replacement “might take a somewhat different view”. …

Hinkley

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

Conflict of interest? Of course not!

LEP member SC Innovations Ltd (Supacat, M D Nick Amey) is making it clear exactly what it is expecting from its nuclear activities:

“… SC Innovation is Fit for Nuclear (F4N) accredited by The Nuclear Advance Manufacturing Research Centre (NAMRC) and is also the first South West England based engineering business to open an office in the Somerset Energy Innovation Centre (SEIC). The centre has been established to create collaborative opportunities for prospective Hinkley Point C contractors to engage with local and regional companies.

“SC Innovation can offer a flexible range of attractive opportunities to potential partners. We can offer workshop facilities and capabilities including subassembly, testing, verification and validation acceptance testing as well as documentation management. We can also project manage the local supply chain where they can benefit from our access to over 2000 suppliers in the south west region”, said Joe Wilcox, Head of SC Innovation. “One of our core competencies is delivering engineering projects in sectors which demand a high level of compliance with strict regulatory and technical standards, as evidenced by our F4N status”, said Joe Wilcox, Head of SC Innovation.” …

http://scgroup-global.com/newsevents/news/sc-innovation-seeks-collaborative-opportunities-with-international-suppliers-for-hinkley-point-c-in-wne-debut/

No conflict of interest there then!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Jun 2016

Posted under

Devolution, East Devon Growth Point, Economy, EDDC, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership, Post-Brexit Adjustments

Google ” most-searched-for words locally pre-Referendum

Exeter, Cornwall, Plymouth and North Devon – immigration (unsurprising)

Torridge and the South Hams – expats (obviously second-homers on both sides of the channel!)

Mid Devon, West Devon and Teignbridge – NHS (they are about to lose several local hospitals)

And East Devon? The economy. The only area that searched first on the economy.

Owl thinks it’s because lots of East Devon developers (particularly those at the Growth Point and Cranbrook) farmers who might become developers ( you know who you are) and councillors worried about paying for their new HQ hogged the search engine!

Wonder what our LEP members searched for? Still waiting for that upbeat press release, guys.

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/google-stats-show-the-most-searched-for-issue-in-exeter-ahead-of-the-eu-referendum/story-29449216-detail/story.html

Update: the nearest other county that searched for the economy near us was North Somerset – so close to Hinkley C!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Jun 2016

Posted under

Devolution

Directly elected Mayors, criminals and cats!

Just seen this Facebook page “About directly elected Mayors in England and Wales”and just LOVE the “Related Pages” links to:

  • International Criminal Court
  • Alcohol
  • Sean Connery
  • Cats
  • Bruce Lee

image

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Jun 2016

Posted under

Devolution, Post-Brexit Adjustments

Devolution Dead Duck?

“… Thursday’s referendum delivered a 52% vote in favour of leaving the EU, causing David Cameron to resign as prime minister and £120bn to be wiped off the FTSE 100.

Alexandra Jones said: “Now that the result of the referendum is clear, we need to focus on what happens next. It’s too early to understand the full implications of Brexit for places across the country, but the political and economic uncertainty ahead will clearly have a huge impact on the future of UK city economies.”

She added that there are “big questions” about how Brexit will affect cities which have historically relied on EU funding to strengthen their economies, as well as places which have been able to attract international jobs and investment partly due to the UK’s membership of the Single Market.

“There is also a serious risk that the government’s devolution agenda will come to a standstill, with the political focus likely to shift to moving powers from Brussels to Westminster, rather than empowering UK cities to grow their economies,” said Jones.

“In the weeks ahead, it’s vital that political leaders seek to provide as much clarity and certainty on these issues as possible, and demonstrate that UK cities remain open for trade, talent and investment.” …

http://www.publicsectorexecutive.com/Public-Sector-News/devolution-could-come-to-a-standstill-following-brexit-says-centre-for-cities

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, DCC, Devolution, EDDC, EU Referendum, Local Enterprise Partnership

EDDC, DCC, LEP – tell us how Brexit will ( or will not ) affect us

Owl eagerly awaits the pronouncements of:

Paul Diviani – EDDC
John Hart – Devon County Council
and
Chris Garcia – Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership

on how leaving the EU will affect our locality, their plans and their budgets.

You did all have a Plan B for this eventuality didn’t you?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Jun 2016

Posted under

Devolution, East Devon Growth Point, EDDC, EU Referendum, Post-Brexit Adjustments

Devon and our Local Enterprise Partnership’s dependence on EU funding

“The 2007-13 round of the European Regional Development Fund delivered 65,000 jobs and more than 15,000 new businesses.

The main priorities in the Heart of the South West for this round of the programme are:

• research and innovation;
• supporting and promoting small to medium-sized enterprises;
• low carbon;
• Information and communications technology …

… A total of £116,315,073 of ESIF has been provisionally allocated to the Heart of the South West LEP, made up of: £57,596,574 European Regional Development Fund; £43,178,166 European Social Fund and £15,540,333 European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. (Exact figures will vary slightly reflecting changes to exchange rates.)

A European Strategic Investment Fund Committee for the Heart of the South West has been established. This committee, which was set up following an open advertisement, is made up of leading figures in the HotSW private and public sector and is on hand to assist and inform potential applicants about the process and advise on criteria that is most likely to achieve success. …

… The European Growth Programme is worth just over €7.3billion (almost £5.8billion). It is made up of the following three Funds:

• European Regional Development Fund (€3.6billion)
• European Social Fund (€3.5billion)
• Part of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development* (€221million)

The Rural Development Programme 2014 to 2020 has a total value of over £3.5 billion, of which €221 million will be invested through the European Growth programme to help promote rural economic growth.

We have agreed the major points of principle about the ERDF operational programme with the European Commission. Therefore, although the programme document has not formally been agreed, we feel able to invite applicants to apply for funding. The references in the call documents are based on the latest text of the ERDF Operational Programme. This text may be subject to further amendment during final agreement with the Commission. We will take the possibility of relevant changes to the text into account when assessing outline and full applications, and where such changes occur, will notify applicants of any issues that arise, and propose a method of dealing with them. We expect the operational programme to be formally agreed before the need to enter into funding contracts with applicants.

Between 23 March and 27 March, calls for projects are going live across all three of the above programmes. These can be accessed at http://www.gov.uk/european-growth-funding.

European Structural and Investment Funds
The Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Work and Pensions are the managing authorities for ERDF and ESF funding through the Growth Programme, funds established by the European Union to help local areas stimulate their economic development. By investing in projects the funds will help to support innovation, businesses, skills and employment to improve local growth and create jobs. For more information visit https://www.gov.uk/european-growth-funding”

http://www.heartofswlep.co.uk/news/new-european-funding-programme-opens-today

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Democracy, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Post-Brexit Adjustments

Comments

1 Comment

And the first devolution worries appear …

“The devolution genie is out of the bottle. As we debate our future sovereignty there needs to be a strong role for local governance.

So now we know. Or do we? The UK faces months of uncertainty as the consequences of the Brexit vote, followed by David Cameron’s own exit, play out.

As all eyes turn to messy wrangling at Westminster, where does this leave local government? At this moment, the sector needs its voice heard, and clearly.

As a priority, local government needs a seat at the table as the financial and legal implications of Brexit are considered. The sector needs clarity over the replacement of nearly £6bn of European Structural Investment Funds invested in regional infrastructure, skills and youth unemployment schemes across the country. These funds play an important but largely hidden role in community infrastructure, with little public understanding of them. A Leave-led government will need to commit to continuing these or face huge local disruption. Beyond that, the practical implications for local government in legal and regulatory terms over huge swathes of activity – procurement, waste collection and disposal, energy efficiency – will need to be understood by those navigating the consequences of working outside EU directives.

Secondly, the future of devolution is by no means certain. George Osborne’s political future remains as bound to Cameron’s as it has ever been and so is now in serious doubt. Since devolution to date has been driven by a chancellor who invested his personal political capital in the agenda, local government now needs to make the policy resistant to personnel change at the Treasury. Whatever happens at Westminster and Whitehall, the impending invocation of Article 50 and ensuing trade negotiations will consume the energy of SW1 – so new and deeper devo deals will be much harder for the foreseeable future.

Thirdly, the repatriation of powers from Brussels to the UK will strengthen the supremacy of Parliament. It is likely that Scotland and Northern Ireland’s Remain majorities raise questions about their future within the UK. Local government in England needs to make sure any constitutional discussion does not stop at the national level and addresses how we are governed more fully. The Referendum vote lay bare the geographical divides within England and the alienation of swathes of the country from the Westminster establishment.

It is clear that representative democracy as we know it is in crisis – to ensure legitimate government in the future we need a serious discussion about where power lies and how our communities can have more influence in their own future. For those of us who are localists this is a given – but the terms of the national debate are not yet set in this way and they need to be. Local government needs to be heard.

Over the coming months there will be more opportunity for this. Continued dysfunction at Westminster, with both main parties divided from the Referendum fallout, gives an opportunity for local leadership to stand out on the national stage as never before. By the end of this year, candidates for new directly elected mayors will be in place and many of our city and county regions will have the opportunity to decide the future of their places. Will this help to shift the centre of political and constitutional gravity away from Westminster? Can we breathe new life into our struggling national democratic culture? Time will tell, but it is likely that the politics and kinetic energy generated by the referendum will continue and may influence these elections in ways we cannot yet foresee.

As we continue a national discussion over what sovereignty looks like, we need to make sure there is a strong local dimension which gives life to the rich diversity of our nation of cities and shires. The devolution genie is already out of the bottle and even as the Westminster bubble bursts, stronger local governance has the opportunity to take on a new life of its own. The future legitimacy of our democracy may well depend on it.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/opinion/2016/06/brexit-raises-questions-about-osbornes-devo-push

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership, Transparency

Hinkley C: delay piles up on delay

“EDF’s nuclear plant at Hinkley Point could face further delays after its workers launched legal action against the company in French courts and asked for the project to be put off.

The Works Council at EDF claims the energy firm has refused to grant access to key documents and that staff have been left unable to form a clear view on Hinkley.

The plant was due to be running by 2017 but the company is now aiming for completion by 2025, and has yet to make its final decision on how to raise the £18billion needed.

The decision was due in May, but delayed to consult the unions. Some representatives of EDF workers have asked for Hinkley to be put off for another three years – something the French energy company does not wish to do.

Their concerns echo those of senior managers at EDF, who last week wrote to the Energy and Climate Change Committee calling for Hinkley to be postponed.

In May, EDF’s UK boss Vincent De Rivaz faced questions from MPs over its failure to reach a funding decision last month, as had been promised.

If EDF fails to make its decision by September, it will be called back before the select committee again in October.

Jean-Luc Magnaval, secretary of the EDF workers’ committee, has said that even if judges force EDF to hand over the documents in question, the unions will struggle to come to a decision by their set deadline of July 4.

EDF said it had supplied comprehensive information on the project to the unions and participated in meetings to enable representatives to reach a decision in time.

A spokesman for EDF said: ‘EDF is confident in the quality of the information it has provided to the [union] in support of the Hinkley Point C project.’”

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3657038/Threat-delays-Hinkley-Point-Nuclear-plant-workers-launch-leagal-action-against-EDF.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Jun 2016

Posted under

Devolution, Rural communications, Rural communities, Tourism, Transport (local)

Rural roads need more money

“… A report published today by the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) shows that half of all small firms believe this country’s road and public transport system has got worse over last few years.

The three biggest issues highlighted in the report by small companies operating in rural areas are congestion on local roads, potholes and the cost of fuel.

It also warns a lack of regional planning is hampering business growth, particularly in rural area and FSB has also called on the newly-formed combined authorities around the country to commit to spending more on rural transport infrastructure and give the matter a higher priority.

The FSB’s national chairman, Mike Cherry, said while the Government is investing in transport, the ‘lion’s share’ is being spent on ‘big flagship projects’.

‘Most small businesses mainly rely on their local roads and public transport, so there is a strong case to prioritise investment in these smaller projects which will help to alleviate congestion and bottlenecks,’ said Mr Cherry.

‘The current devolution agenda in England presents a real opportunity to make a positive difference to rural communities. Small businesses want to see more resources earmarked for rural transport.

‘This will help support rural small businesses as well as the UK tourism industry, which are both disproportionately affected when local bus networks and roads are left to deteriorate,’ he added.”

http://www.localgov.co.uk/Small-firms-demand-more-money-for-countryside-roads/40935

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Consultation, Democracy, Developers/ Development, Devolution, EDDC, Local Enterprise Partnership, Transparency

Latest information on EDDC and devolution – done deal

Pages 104-116 here:

Click to access 280616-overview-agenda-combined.pdf

NOTE: THERE HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY NO CONSULTATION WITH RESIDENTS ON ANY PART OF THIS DEAL WHICH IS BEING RAILROADED THROUGH EACH MEMBER COUNCIL

A summary:

“Our Prospectus for Prosperity was submitted to Government at the end of February 2016. Since then the Partnership has pressed the Secretary of State to enter into discussion with its negotiation team to secure a deal for the Heart of the South West.

Following an invitation from the Secretary of State, on the 25th May 2016, leaders from the upper tier authorities met with the Greg Clarke, Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government to seek his view on our next steps forward.

The Secretary of State made the following comments:

Geography – the Devon and Somerset area is agreed as the appropriate scale. The proposal must clearly demonstrate why this is the right geography for the Devolution agreement and all councils and MPs must support the proposal.

Combined Authority – the Partnership will move forward into the negotiation process based on a Combined Authority model. The Mayoral issue may be considered at a later stage, within the timeline agreed by our Partnership. A Mayor will not be imposed or be a pre-condition of any initial deal.

Extent of the deal – areas that have agreed to have a Mayor will get more powers than a non-Mayoral Combined Authority deal. However, the negotiation process will be an opportunity to push the limits of this initial deal, and the process should be viewed as being incremental.

Timeline – we will still work towards an Autumn Statement timeline for the announcement of an initial deal.

Growth Deal 3 – the LEP would not be penalised in Growth Deal 3 negotiations because the area does not have a Devolution deal with a Mayor. The decision for allocation will be based purely on the quality of the Growth Deal bid.

The Secretary of State went on to advise that if the Partnership, backed by each Council and MPs, would sign up to the principle of creating a Combined Authority by the end of July 2016 he would arrange for the Treasury to open up negotiations towards a deal.

This report seeks approval to sign up ‘in principle’ to the pursuit of a Devolution Deal and the creation of a Combined Authority for the Heart of the South West sub-region to administer the powers devolved through the Deal.

An ‘in principle’ agreement from all of the authorities, partners and MPs involved in the Heart of the South West devolution process will open up negotiations with Treasury to work towards a deal.

Any final devolution deal with government will be subject to further approval/ratification by all partners individually. A Heads of Terms document will be used as a negotiating tool to seek additional powers and funding to accelerate the delivery of 163,000 new jobs, 179,000 new homes and an economy of over £53bn GVA by 2030.

It should be noted that there is no intention for the Combined Authority to take existing powers or funding from local authorities, or existing city deal governance structures, without the explicit agreement of those constituent local authorities. More detailed work will be undertaken to identify the decision-making powers and the constitution of the Combined Authority, and all partners will be fully involved and consulted on these arrangements as they develop.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Developers/ Development, Devolution, Environment (local), Local Enterprise Partnership, Natural England, Transparency

“Cronyism in the south west”

Something we all know about in East Devon!

“Cronyism in the South West”
The sheer amount of unsuitable and damaging development that has been pushed through against all objections in my home town of Totnes, but also throughout the south west, is making me question the role of cronyism in the deals made.

It starts at the very top of course in government, but appears to have sucked up many of our more august bodies that we are more used to seeing as our defenders and protection, into its net. The National Trust for example, now has a right wing business leader as its head. I wouldn’t suggest for a moment that this is as a result of any wrong doing, but I question why he is there, when he comes with no history of interest or involvement in conservation or the heritage sector. It is a coincidence of course that the National Trust appear to be engaged recently in the development business themselves, aiming to sell land, given to them in trust in Bovery Tracey and also in Somerset, for housing. To say local people aren’t happy is a bit of an understatement.

Natural England also, is now headed up by a right wing business man, an ex-developer actually, with little to no interest up to now in the environment, or preserving the countryside, he was too busy working to concrete it over as head of Linden Homes. George Monbiot describes his appointment as, ‘The government wants a chairman who can flog nature and have chosen a Tory party donor with a background in investment banking and housing developments.’

So our conservation and heritage organisations appear to be headed by cronies, our secretive Local Enterprise Partnership appears to be also. This is the self-appointed group tasked with pouring vast amounts of public money into encouraging enterprise and business down here and with running our devolution bid. The fact that the majority of those on the board come from the construction and housing sector and a few who are involved in weapons manufacturing won’t come as a surprise when you see that our devolution bid, which they mostly engineered, is very heavy on giant construction projects, which the board’s companies appear to profit from and very weak on tourism, farming and sustainability. This bid is about growth. ‘I want to only build structures that you can see from space,’ the chair is quoted as saying. The fact that this undemocratically elected group hold their meetings in private, have no head office, very little accountability and have managed to keep the lid on their activities very successfully is worrying and the ultimate in cronyism.

This culture goes down the line; housing developments pushed through when they are so obviously damaging and ridiculous. In Totnes, Great Court Farm was sold to developers in very suspect circumstances in my opinion. It is the last dairy farm in Totnes, the home to a fourth generation of farmers, a totally unsuitable spot for yet more mass building in this beleaguered town. The access is terrible, the logistics ridiculous and yet it was pushed through by a combination of cronyism and mis-management. The people who suffer are the people who always suffer when cronyism is allowed to flourish and that’s us – everyone else and in this instance the farmer and his family and the people of Totnes, who see their landscape the plaything of those in power.

Across the county, across the country in fact, the same story is played out endlessly. Local people left shocked and devastated as those in power find the wherewithal to circumnavigate due process and make an absolute fortunes flogging nature and our land to line their own pockets.”

https://allengeorgina.wordpress.com/2016/06/19/comment-piece-for-western-morning-news-cronyism/