Disgraced ex-councillor Brown and the East Devon Business Forum: call for action at East Devon District Council

Rather than re-invent the wheel about why the Task and Finish Group at EDDC should re-convene this archive report from Sidmouth Independent News in March 2013 says it all and for extra colour read the report of national investigative journalist Anna Minton HERE where she takes many of her examples from East Devon.

Planning in East Devon and the East Devon Business Forum:
1. Introduction: Cause for Concern?
There is a growing lack of public trust in the planning process in East Devon. (1) Many controversial planning applications have been approved in the face of massive public opposition and frequently contrary to the adopted local plan and other planning guidelines. Extensive industrial and residential developments are seen by many residents and small businesses as damaging to the economy, environment and quality of life in this unique part of England. This situation is likely to worsen over the next 15 years if the draft Local Plan is adopted with its ‘excessive’ allocations of employment land and housing.
Many informed residents of East Devon are concerned that planning policy in the district has been unduly influenced by a small group of developers and landowners who have played an important role in the preparation of the draft Local Plan, and in the relaxation of planning rules to protect the countryside.  These developers and landowners are strongly represented in the East Devon Business Forum which has served as a lobby for large-scale development.
Worryingly, this independent, private organisation has among its members some councillors and a council officer who have had a significant influence on planning policy as well as in approving controversial major planning applications which have benefitted EDBF members.

2. The nature of the East Devon Business Forum (EDBF)

a) EDBF is a Forum defined in the EDDC Constitution as a body of “representatives of outside interests” with whom the council can discuss “specific areas of activity” Though it receives some funding from the Council, it is widely understood not to be part of the council but “completely independent of it.” (2)
b) The EDBF overwhelmingly represents businesses with a strong interest in planning and development, and landowners and developers have played a big role in the Forum since 2007. Ex-councillor Roy Stuart (A E Stuart and Son) is current vice-chairman , and his predecessors were Angela Wright (Crealy Park, 2009-10) and Christine Seddon Smith (Devon Cliffs, 2010-2012) (3)
c) Unsurprisingly, the thrust of EDBF lobbying has been to persuade the council to relax planning controls for big developers and to decrease the protection for greenfield and AONB areas. After all, the Forum commented in 2011, only 1% of East Devon was developed! (4) At 34 out of 40 meetings since 2007 planning and development issues were raised, to the evident frustration of at least one member- not himself a property developer- who wondered if other matters like education and training could be discussed.(5)
d) Smaller businesses dependent on town centre commerce and quality tourism fear that excessive expansion of business parks in greenfield sites could damage their interests. These businesses however, clearly have significantly less influence on EDDC policy than the property developers. Two former chairmen of chambers of commerce have said they felt unwelcome at EDBF meetings. (6)
e) The Forum proudly admits its crucial influence on the council’s targets for ‘employment land’ in the draft Local Plan. (7) It is recognised as having been successful in increasing the amount of employment land in the Draft Local Plan, and in persuading the council to relax planning rules after 2007. (see part 3 below)
f) Throughout the formation of the Local Plan, members of EDBF were privileged interlocutors with apparently more influence on the Council than independent consultants like Atkins (2007) or Roger Tym (2011), both hired at public expense, and whose conclusions were largely disregarded. The employment land allocation in the local plan has been widely criticised as excessive. (8)

3. Councillors and the EDBF

i) Councillor Graham Brown

a) Cllr Brown has been chairman of the EDBF since August 2006.  He runs a planning consultancy, Grey Green Planning Ltd, and a building company, Brown Builders, according to his Register of Interests entry. He represents the N.F.U at Forum Meetings .Many observers have been astonished that the chairman of a lobby group was permitted, as a councillor, over a long period, to deliberate on and help decide council policy which favoured members of that lobby group.
b) Cllr Brown, in his dual role as EDBF chairman and councillor, was important in changing the outcome of an independent report on employment land (industrial land.) In 2007 a Forum sub-committee chaired by him challenged the findings of the independent Atkins Report (which recommended the allocation of a moderate amount of employment land) and said much more was needed.
c) The Council were then persuaded to set up a Task and Finish Forum, on Employment Land which he led, where presentations were made by EDBF members with large land-owning interests.
d) At the Corporate Overview Committee of November 22 2007 Cllr Brown led the debate on employment land and got agreement that planning policy on industrial land should be changed immediately because there was an ‘undersupply’ in East Devon, despite the Atkins Report evidence to the contrary.
e) The Corporate Overview Committee of October 23 2008 of which Cllr Brown was a member confirmed the ‘urgent need’ for more ‘employment land’, and recommended Greendale Barton, Hill Barton and Exeter Airport Business parks for expansion (all are EDBF members). From 2008 planning applications from EDBF members for large extensions to their industrial estates were approved as a direct result of this change in policy in 2007/8.(see part 5)
f) Cllr Brown attended the Development management Committee meeting of 20/10/2009, when approval was granted for expansion of Greendale Business Park.(091195/MOUT) Cllr Brown knows the owners well and they are frequent attendees at EDBF meetings. At the same meeting approval was granted for the construction of a crematorium at Strete Raleigh (09/1549/MFUL) where Cllr Brown’s company, Grey Green Planning Ltd, had acted as advisors for the applicants.
g) In 2009-10 Cllr Brown was chairman of the Local Development Panel whose meetings were held in private, and whose minutes were not published until later. What these minutes (often heavily redacted) show is that presentations were made on behalf of leading members of the Forum, and their claims to be included in the allocations in the Local Plan were supported by the chairman.(9)
h) In none of these council meetings did Cllr Brown declare an interest in EDBF despite the clear provisions of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct which required him to declare “personal interests in your membership of any body …exercising functions of a public nature…whose principal purposes include the influence of public opinion or policy. (see also ii) d) below)
i) It could be argued that he had a prejudicial interest in some of these meetings, for example of the decision of the Corporate Overview Committee of October 23 2008, which gave a considerable commercial advantage to a close acquaintance of Cllr Brown’s, Roy Stuart. (10)

ii) Cllr Paul Diviani

a) As a founder member of the EDBF, Cllr Diviani has been closely associated with the Forum since 2004. To June 2012 he had attended 27 of its meetings
b) From its inception he strongly supported the Forum’s lobbying function, arguing that it was its aim “to influence the council to take action and consider various projects in advance of decisions being taken by its members”. (11) And this influence, he argued, should be in favour of economic development which was ”the key priority for the district.” (12) The EDBF lobbied consistently for the expansion of large-scale development and less protection for the countryside.
c) Cllr Diviani has been a consistent champion of council support for the EDBF. For example in 2005 he promised EDDC was “committed to providing support for the Business Forum in terms of administration, rooms, refreshments etc. as it regarded the Forum as a core function.” (13) In 2011 he said he was willing to allow the Forum to use the Communications Officer at EDDC to issue press releases. (14)
d) Former and current codes of conduct for councillors emphasise the need to avoid potential conflicts of interest and the necessity of declaring such interests. Cllr Diviani has repeatedly failed to declare a personal interest in the EDBF in breach of articles 7.2, 7.6, 8.1 and 8.2 of the 2012 Code (15) For example he was present and failed to declare an interest at:
i. Meeting of the Executive Board on 26/09/2007 which ordered a review of the Atkins Report in conjunction with the EDBF
ii. Meeting of the Corporate Overview Committee 24/04/2008 which endorsed a submissiom by the chairman of the EDBF that more “employment land” was urgently needed in the District

e) Most seriously, Cllr Diviani has failed to declare an interest in EDBF while present at, or chairing a series of meetings of the Development Management Committee which approved major and controversial planning applications from fellow members of the EDBF with whom he was obviously well acquainted. Such non-disclosure may well have breached the then applicable Code on avoiding prejudicial interest.
These Meetings approved the following applications
i. AE Stuart (09/0282/MOUT) Extension to Hill Barton Business Park into green fields of 18.75 acres Approved by Development Control Committee 07/04/09, chair Tony Reed, Cllr Diviani present.
ii. May Gurney . (09/0410/MFUL) Expansion of Greendale Business Park into agricultural land for offices parking etc. Approved by Development Control Committee 07/04/09 chair Tony Reed, Cllr Diviani present.
iii. FWS Carter (09/1195/MOUT)15.5 acre expansion of Greendale Business Park. Approved by Development Management Committee 20/10/09, chair Cllr Diviani,
iv. Clinton Devon Estates (09/2533/MOUT) 12.5 acre extension to Liverton Business Park Approved by Development Management Committee 06/04/2010 chair Cllr Diviani
v. AE Stuart and Sons (10/0641/MOUT) for Housing at Westclyst, Old Park Farm up to 450 homes and 2000 sq m. of business use land on 50 acres of grade 1 agricultural land. Approved by Development Management Committee 7/12/2010, chair, Cllr Diviani
vi. Axminster Carpets(10/0816/MOUT) Cloakham Lawns Axminster for urban extension of 400 dwellings and 1000-12000 sq.ft of managed employment floor space. Approved by Development Management Committee 21/10/2010, chair, Cllr Diviani (This application was discussed at the EDBF meeting of 10 June 2010)
vii. Crealy Park (Chris Down) 10/2537/MFUL Conversion of agricultural buildings to light industrial use, Enfield Farm Clyst St Mary EX51DN Approved by Development Management Committee 3/5/2011 Approved by Development Management Committee 7/12/2010, chair, Cllr Diviani

f) In his public statements on the EDBF, as Leader of the Council ,Cllr Diviani has been seriously misleading. For example in an interview on Radio Devon (29/10/2012) his trivialisation of the role of the Economic Development Officer as merely ‘clerical’ is completely untrue. (see part 5 below)

4. Council officers and the EDBF

a) Forum members enjoy exceptional access to officers to inform themselves of council thinking and policy, and to influence it. No other interest group could expect such treatment.Betweeen 2004 and June 2012 there were 130 officer attendances at EDBF meetings. Karime Hassan, Corporate Director, attended 17 EDBF meetings between 2005-11. Kate Little, Head of Planning, spoke to the EDBF six times in 2011-12
b) EDBF expects to be told in advance of important developments.The Head of Finance at EDDC provided the Forum with his budget proposals for their comments. In February 2010, members expressed concern that the Chief Executive had not informed them in advance of his decision to job share with South Somerset District Council. Mr Williams was invited to address them to justify his move , which he did in August 2010.  In July 2011, an EDBF member with interests in property development asked for the Forum to be updated on the proposed EDDC relocation from the Knowle
c) The aspirations of developers and district planners increasingly coincide. As EDDC Head of Planning, Kate Little said to EDBF on 15th December 2009: “The planning system had been taken apart to serve the needs of the customer” (EDDC regards the customer as the applicant) and was moving from a more “landscape focus to a more economic one”. Lobbying pressure from EDBF, combined with the changed policy of EDDC planners since 2007, seems to have created a development juggernaut. (16)

5. The role of the Economic Development Manager, Nigel Harrison

a) Mr Harrison has played a vital role in the activities of the Forum as Honorary Secretary. It is clear that his professional competence as Economic Development Manager has been valuable in helping Forum members to frame policy and to present the wishes of the Forum to the Council (17)
b) He has acted as a spokesman for the Forum and was called on to defend it against criticism at a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 27 September 2012.
c) Why this role is inappropriate
An officer’s role is limited by the Constitution to serving and advising the Council and serving the public. (Officers Code of Conduct 1.1) For an officer to be deployed in the service of any outside private body, especially one with an avowed lobbying purpose, would seem to be a serious breach of this Code.
During his long tenure as Honorary Secretary, Mr Harrison has engaged in activities which appear incompatible with his role as a public official, and should have raised concern. For example:
i) In 2008 Mr Harrison intervened in an important disciplinary matter between the then Leader of the Council, Cllr Randall-Johnson and the chairman of the EDBF Cllr Graham Brown, publicly expressing his strong personal support for Cllr Brown. (18)

ii) In 2010 Mr Harrison was tasked by the Business Forum to write to the Head of Planning to facilitate a planning issue affecting a leading member of the Forum whom he knew well. (19)

d) Most seriously, the role of Economic Development Manager is an important one affecting major planning matters. He is called upon to advise councillors on planning strategy, to occasionally attend Development Management Committees, (20) and most importantly to act as consultee for all planning applications of economic importance.  This role is impossible to reconcile with that of honorary secretary of a private business group whose members’ planning applications are considered by himself, as Economic Development Manager.

e) Since 2007, Mr Harrison has supported, –often enthusiastically- as consultee at least fourteen planning applications by members of the Business Forum. Most of these were very controversial and contrary to the adopted Local Plan. All were approved. (21) It is clear that his comments carry considerable weight with Development Management Committees.  This procedure risks breaching The Planning Code of good practice Article 1.1. which is intended to “ensure that in the planning process there are no grounds for suggesting that a decision has been biased, partial or not well founded in any way”.

f) The apparent conflict of interest here is so serious that it should never have been tolerated . It was very likely that there would be a public perception of partiality on the part of Mr Harrison when – especially in controversial planning applications- impartiality is a key principle in the officer’s code of conduct. For example article 39 of The Protocol covering relations between councillors and officers refers to officers’ “contractual and legal duty to be impartial.”

6. The role of the Chief Executive.

a) Under the EDDC constitution the Chief Executive has a duty to manage officers and ensure that they do not breach their code of conduct.(22) It is remarkable that Mr Williams took no action over Mr Harrison’s conflict of interest.
b) He cannot have been unaware of public expressions of concern over the relationship between EDDC and the EDBF. As early as 21 May 2010 a letter from the Farringdon Residents Association concerning the controversial Waldron’s Farm planning approval mentioned unease over the influence of the Forum. The EDBF, as a potential minefield of conflicts of interest, has been raised several times in council meetings.(23) Recent local, regional and national media coverage of planning procedures at EDDC, have often centred on the perceived undue influence of the EDBF. (24)
c) Even local MP Hugo Swire has raised the matter with the Chief Executive. Mr Williams’ reply was dismissive and complacent: there was nothing to worry about and residents’ concerns, he suggested, were merely from a politically-motivated minority. (25)

This total failure to address this situation risks bringing the council into disrepute, as indeed will any attempt to ‘water down’ the terms of reference of the TaFF, set up last month by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, to investigate relations between the Council and the EDBF.

References
1) For example: “We think EDDC is more interested in engaging with big business rather than engaging with the local community in trying to achieve the aims and ideals of the coalition government’s Big Society.” Friends of Elizabeth Hall quoted in Exmouth People online 11/10/2012
2) For example the chairman of the EDBF quoted in the Sidmouth Herald of 5 October 2012: “We are a totally independent organisation who go to the council for some degree of funding.”
And at the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of 27 September 2012 the chairman, Cllr S Hughes, stated: “that a Task and Finish Forum could only make recommendations to the EDBF, as it was a separate entity from the Council.”

3) Number of attendances at EDBF Meetings 2007- June 2012 (Number of meetings: 40)
1.Carter Businesses (FWS Carter, Greendale Business Park, Greendale Industries) 36 *
2. Crealy Park (Chris Down, owns Crealy Farms as well) 32
3. Worldwide Trading (Cllr Philip Skinner) 30
4. AE Stuart and Sons (Roy Stuart) 25
5. Honiton Development Trust (Cllr Bob Buxton) 21
6. Blackdown Hills Business Association 19
7. Fords of Sidmouth 17
8. May Gurney 15
9. Halse of Honiton 15
10. Allwood Buildings 14
11. Bicton College 14**
12. Tru Homes 14
13. East Devon Federation of Small Businesses 14
14. Devon Contractors 13
15.Martha Mockford 13
16. Thomas Westcott 12
17. Devon Cliffs (Bourne Leisure) 11
18. Ladram Bay 10
19. Stags 10
20. Waitrose 10
*often more than one representative attended.
** Bicton college is currently lobbying to build 225 houses at Woodbury Salterton where it owns land.
Members with an interest in planning and development shown in red.

4) EDBF minutes 13/10/2011
5) William Casely, Otter Nurseries EDBF Minutes 10/4/2008
6) For example, on 28 July 2012 Fred Wells wrote on Cllr Wright’s blog:
“I have been unhappy with East Devon Business Forum for a long time and in particular their relationship with EDDC. It is interesting to note that when I was Chairman of Axminster Chamber of Commerce and Industry, I was invited to the Forum but as soon as I started making waves about the Cloakham Lawn development, I was no longer asked to attend!”
7) “Members noted that the work the Business Forum had done on the Atkins Report had made an enormous difference to the final report prepared by the Employment Land Issues Task and Finish Forum. …..This had been accepted by the Executive Board. The report was now being used by the Development Control Committee as a base when considering planning applications for employment land” EDBF minutes 31/1/ 2008

8) “the only piece of evidence relied on by EDDC to justify the employment land figures) is …a report from EDBF. It therefore seems likely that the views of landowners and developers on EDBF led directly to these proposals”. Cllr Claire Wright’s Response to Draft Local Plan Consultation, January 2012
Sidmouth Chamber of Commerce concluded that the EDBF “grossly underestimated” the amount of land already available, for example it missed many vacant commercial premises. Response to Draft Local plan Consultation, January 2012
and
“Sidmouth Chamber of Commerce said it had identified ‘serious flaws’ in EDDC’s calculations, something the council has denied. It said had the ‘correct’ numbers been used, the employment land allocation across the district would have been about 20 hectares less, and Sidmouth would have only had one hectare rather than five. The chamber wants EDDC to revisit employment land in the Local Plan, adding: “We conclude that the process by which employment land allocation in Sidmouth has emerged is very seriously unsound, a shambles in fact.” Sidmouth Herald 20/6/2012
In Dorset County Council’s consultation response, (to the EDDC draft local plan) senior planning officer Gill Smith said the 180 hectares of employment land proposed “considerably exceeded” both county and region-wide requirements of 100 hectares….She also criticised plans for 650 homes and eight hectares of employment land at Axminster, saying neither proposal had been clearly explained, and impacts on schools, traffic and roads had not been considered. Western Morning News 23/8/2012
9) At LDF meeting on 25/5/2009 Bell Cornwell made presentation for an expansion of the Liverton Business Park owned by Devon Clinton Estates.Warmly encouraged by the Panel
10) Cllr Brown and Mr Stuart were fellow district councillors in the 1980s until, in 1990, Cllr Brown resigned in sympathy with Mr Stuart who was obliged to resign from the EDDC planning committee after an ombudsman’s enquiry criticised him severely for planning irregularities.
11) EDBF minutes, 21/4/2005
12) EDBF minutes, 20/4/2006
13) EDBF minutes, 21/4/2005
14) EDB F minutes, 21/7/2011

15) Extracts from 2012 Code of Conduct for Councillors
Personal interests
7.2 Those other personal interests laid down by the Council, namely your membership of any body to which you have been appointed by the Council or exercising functions of a public nature, directed to charitable purposes or whose principal purposes include influence of public opinion or policy, including your membership of any other local Authority, any political party or trade union
received by virtue of your office
7.6 In addition to those interests listed at 7.1 to 7.5 above which you are required to register, you may wish also to declare membership of any body which, in your view, might create a conflict of interest in carrying out your duties as a Councillor, such as membership of the Freemasons or any similar body.
Declaration of Interests and participation at meetings
8.1 and you must also observe the restrictions the Council may also place on your involvement in matters where you have a personal interest as defined by the Council and shown at paras 7.2 to 7.7 above.
8.2 You also have a personal interest in any business of your authority where a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would regard the interest as greater than would affect the majority of residents or inhabitants in the affected area such that it is likely to prejudice your judgment of the public interest

16) see also:
Planning Policy manager, Matt Dickins told the Forum on 29th April 2011: “EDDC has a new approach and attitude to encouraging development within the district …..if planning policy is a barrier to development, then consideration should be given to changing this policy” EDBF Minutes 29/04/11
Corporate Director, Karime Hassan on 3rd February 2011 reported to EDBF before leaving for Exeter and expressed his relief that it was becoming easier to engage with groups like EDBF “supportive of development” rather than just with residents’ groups who opposed it. He recognised the “greater weight given to business since the establishment of the Business Forum” especially over such issues as the lack of business land.”EDBF Minutes 3/2/2011

17) Examples of Mr Harrison’s important role (from EDBF Minutes):On 25 January 2007 he was appointed member of an EDBF sub-committee which over several months researched the availability of employment land in the District and had the results referred to in reference 3 (above).
On 29 April 2010 he led a Forum discussion on the Environment and Rural Development during which it was suggested that it might be necessary to reconsider the strict protection of the AONB.
On 4 January 2012 he was tasked, with the chairman, to draw up the EDBF response to the Draft Local Plan which included an appeal for more employment land in addition to the 180 hectares allocated in the Plan.
18) EDBF Minutes of 8 May 2008 record that the then Leader of the Council wished to remove Cllr Brown from his position as Member Champion for Business because of “accusations of impropriety involving planning applications within East Devon”. Mr Harrison defended Cllr Brown, saying “he had brought energy and enthusiasm to that task and he had enjoyed working with him”. Such personal support for a councillor against his Leader possibly contravenes article 45 of the Protocol covering relations between councillors and officers which warns of the risks of “personal familiarity” and article 4.1 of the Officers Code of Conduct which states: “You must avoid having close personal friendships with individual Councillors”

19) On 4 February 2010 (EDBF minutes) Nigel Harrison was tasked to write to Kate Little, Head of Planning, on behalf of Angela Wright of Crealy Park to help remove a number of obstacles to her project to build staff housing.
To allow an outside body to instruct an officer would seem to breach article 30 of the Protocol covering relations between councillors and officers that states that officers can only be instructed through the “formal decision-making process” of the council. For an officer to be seen to be attempting to influence a colleague in a planning matter on behalf of someone he knows well and who has significant business interests must raise serious ethical issues.

20) For example:
Mr Harrison attended the Development Management Committee on 5 May 2009 when the owner of Crealy Park (a member of EDBF) was given a three year extension in the time limit for noise mitigation work and on 30 June 2009 when the owner of Ladram Bay caravan site (a member of EDBF ) was given approval for changes to a touring and tenting field.
21) Successful Planning Applications by EDBF members supported by Mr Harrison include:
Crealy Park (Chris Down) (07/3108/COU) Conversion of agricultural buildings to light industrial use, Enfield Farm Clyst St Mary EX51DN re-submission of an earlier application that was contrary to adopted local plan.
Crealy Park (Chris Down) (07/3218/MFUL) Application for 30 holiday lodges, lake etc. on a greenfield site. Contrary to adopted Local Plan.
Stoneleigh Holiday Village (M2 Services Ltd) (08/2558/MFUL) 17 new residential units, upgrading of bar and pool. in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and contrary to adopted Local Plan.
FWS Carter. (08/2936/FUL) Jetset Concrete. Retention of concrete batching plant at Greendale Business Park. Contrary to adopted Local Plan and retrospective application to avoid enforcement action.
AE Stuart (09/0282/MOUT) Extension to Hill Barton Business Park into green fields of 18.75 acres Contrary to adopted Local Plan
May Gurney (09/0410/MFUL) Expansion of Greendale Business park into agricultural land for offices parking etc. Contrary to adopted Local Plan and to regularise unauthorised expansion.
FWS Carter (09/1195/MOUT)15.5 acre expansion of Greendale Business Park: Contrary to adopted Local Plan and countryside protection policies.
Clinton Devon Estates (09/2533/MOUT) 12.5 acre extension to Liverton Business Park Contrary to adopted Local Plan in an Area of Great Landscape Value.
Crealy Park (Chris Down) (10/0070) Approval for waterslide and associated works
AE Stuart and Sons (10/0641/MOUT) for Housing at Westclyst, Old Park Farm up to 450 homes and 2000 sq m. of business use land on 50 acres of grade 1 agricultural land.– contrary to adopted Local Plan
Ladram Bay (FWS Carter and Zoe House) (10/2287/MFUL) expansion of caravan park to new field. or 38/00027 in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Crealy Park (Chris Down) 10/2537/MFUL Conversion of agricultural buildings to light industrial use, Enfield Farm Clyst St Mary EX51DN Contrary to policies TR2 and TR5 of the Devon County Structure Plan.
Axminster Carpets (10/0816/MOUT) Cloakham Lawns 400 dwellings and 10-12000 sq ft of employment land. In an area of Great Landscape Value and contrary to the adopted Local Plan
Devon Cliffs (Bourne Leisure) (10/1210/MFUL) Expansion of Caravan Park contrary to adopted Local Plan.
22) The Constitution of the EDDC states that the Chief Executive (and Head of Paid Service) has overall corporate management and operational responsibility (including overall management responsibility) for all officers.
23) See minutes of Executive Board 30 March 2011, Full Council 25 July 2012, and Overview and Scrutiny Committee 27 September 2012.
24) For Example: Private Eye, Nooks and Corners, p.14, 7 September 2012
25) “I am aware that the relationship of the Council with the EDBF has become a source of concern to some. That being said, many might comment that the issue is perhaps being articulated more as a result of local party differences of opinion rather than anything of notable substance.” Letter of Mark Williams to Hugo Swire, 19 September, 2012.

And for further background information other archive documents can be found at:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Scrutiny-councillors-probing-East-Devon-Business/story-17576957-detail/story.html

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/east_devon_district_council_and_east_devon_business_forum_cause_for_concern/

Farmer Brown or Mr Brown? The saga continues

” …. However at last night’s meeting, committee chairman [of Ottery Town Council’s planning committee] Councillor Ian Holmes said that in an application for a replacement driveway in 2005, Mr Brown stated that he had 325 cattle and hundreds of ewes and lambs.

And he said, in 2008, in an application for a horse menage, he had 160 acres, 70 at Ware Farm, and around 80 beef cattle and around 200 lambs which wintered at the farm.

Source: http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Concerns-raised-East-Devon-councillor-attempts/story-22966678-detail/story.html

We must now wait to see if EDDC arranges for this to be decided by officers behind those oft-closed council doors or in public by the Development Management Committee …

What was that promise about transparency made by Leader Diviani?

And can we now expect a swift re-convening of the Task and Finish Group which was supposed to look at the influence of the East Devon Business Forum (Chairman – the council’s Business Champion and erstwhile Chairman of the council’ first Local Plan Panel, planning consultant builder (and possibly farmer) Graham Brown)?

Ex-councillor Brown’s facts disputed

The following press release was issued by East Devon Alliance this morning:

“Disgraced ex-EDDC councillor Graham Brown is at the centre of a new controversy over a planning application concerning his Ware Farm property in the East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) near Ottery St Mary. This is due to be discussed at Ottery St Mary Town Council this evening. (EDDC Planning Ref: 14/2032/CPE)

He is applying for the lifting of a planning condition on his farmhouse, built by him in 2000, which says it can only be occupied by a person “solely or mainly” working in agriculture. He is apparently planning to sell the property on the open market.

In an affidavit with the application, he swears that his farming business “quickly and drastically diminished between 2002 and 2003” to such an extent that for at least ten years his farming activities have been insignificant. For this reason he says he has occupied Ware Farm in breach of the condition in the planning permission granted in 2000. Because EDDC has taken no enforcement action, he claims that, legally, the condition should be removed. This would enable him to sell the farm without restriction.
But campaigners from the East Devon Alliance claim that Mr Brown’s sworn statement appears to be seriously misleading.

They say Mr Brown’s suggestion that his farming activities “drastically diminished” after 2003 lacks credibility. Evidence discovered by EDA shows that he claimed and received 222,922 euros in farm subsidies between 2000 and 2009.

http://farmsubsidy.openspending.org/GB/recipient/GB647145/brown-g-p/
In addition Mr Brown’s own figures for farm income submitted with his application reveal he earned over £850,000 from his land between 2004 and 2013. This would seem to indicate that he was running an agricultural business during this time.***

EDA point out that Mr Brown himself contradicted his claims in his affidavit that his farming activities were minimal, when he applied for planning permissions for new construction at Ware Farm citing agricultural necessity. EDDC planning records show that :

In 2005 (05/2000/FUL) a new access road to Ware Farm was approved after Mr Brown’s agent claimed it was necessary because the farm had “expanded” and “the nature of the farming enterprise causes many movements of increasingly large machinery”.

In 2012 (12/1880/AGR) an extension to an agricultural building was approved.
In 2013 (13/0819/ AGR) the re-siting of an agricultural building was approved as permitted development because it was considered “necessary for the purposes of agriculture.”

EDA question the figures for weekly working hours spent on farming given by Mr Brown. They seem to include only his own time and not the hours worked by two men said to have been employed by him.

Mr Brown claims in his affidavit to have virtually abandoned farming by 2013 but in the EDDC list of members’ interests for 2012/13 he describes himself as a farmer, and member of the National Farmers’ Union which he represented on the East Devon Business Forum until March 2013.

EDA chair Paul Arnott commented:

“If Mr Brown’s application is successful, the protection of the AONB from speculative development will be further eroded. This is an important test case and must be ultimately decided in public by councillors in EDDC’s Development Management Committee, not as is rumoured to be the Council’s intention, by an officer’s decision behind closed doors.”

*** Using Brown GP and Ware Farm as search terms produces this link
http://farmsubsidy.openspending.org/search/?q=Brown+G+P+Ware+Farm

The story is also reported on the Western Morning News website:

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Disgraced-Tory-attempts-lift-300-000-tie-farm/story-22963165-detail/story.html

Councillor vows to challenge Police Commissioner

The Chair of the EDDC Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Littleham Councillor Tim Wood, told his Committee on Thursday 11th September that he shares the widespread frustration and dismay at the failure of the Council to pursue an enquiry into the Business Forum.

He vowed to raise the issue with the Police Commissioner Tony Hogg at the earliest opportunity.

In answer to a public question, Councillor Wood said that he had been given “very firm legal advice” that the enquiry could not be permitted to reconvene until after the Devon and Cornwall Police had completed their investigations into alleged malpractice by ex-Councillor Graham Brown.

Sidmouth citizen Robert Crick advised Councillor Wood that 18 months after the Chief Executive Mark Williams had referred the case to the police, Mr Brown has still not been charged or even questioned, despite volunteering to meet the police.

Mr Crick claimed that Mr Brown was being used as a scapegoat to prevent inquiries into deep systemic problems in the way the Cabinet and Senior Officers had been operating. It seemed that Mr Brown had done nothing illegal and the case should now be closed.

Mr Crick suggested that the legal advice given to the chair might not be impartial or independent and that a second opinion might be needed to enable the formal enquiry into the Business Forum’s dealings to proceed.

“In the interest of fairness and justice, Graham Brown should be brought in from the wilderness, and given a chance to clear his name” asserted Mr Crick.

The fourth meeting of the Business “Task and Finish Forum” was postponed at short notice in early September 2013. This formal enquiry had been launched a year before to investigate public concerns about the possible abuse of power by the East Devon Business Forum and allegations of influence behind closed doors in the production of the now discredited Local Development Plan.

It had made little progress before it was suspended a year later.

Former Hon Sec of East Devon Business Forum reappears at Knowle meeting

Well, would you believe it!? At tonight’s O&S meeting, Nigel Harrison put in a surprise appearance. Business Information Point (BIP) gave a presentation on why they are worth a grant from EDDC and several councillors asked questions regarding the type of businesses, number of start ups, etc that they dealt with, without a shred of deep questioning about value for money.

Then Cllr Newth commented that she had been in discussion with a Sidmouth business which was having difficulties. Within days of suggesting they contact Nigel Harrison, he had visited this business and given three possible avenues they could pursue. One could almost think … no … no … not an orchestrated presentation surely? (And one Sidmouth business which doesn’t seem to have benefitted is Trumpers).

Now, as seems he has been missing from any council meeting and not mentioned on any agenda for eighteen months or more (ever since the demise of the East Devon Business Forum of which he was the very, very busy Hon Sec), presumably this nugget of information was meant to demonstrate that he had been beavering away on behalf of local businesses. However, has anyone seen any reports or other evidence of his work output? What have we been paying him for? Now that the East Devon Business Forum is defunct, how has he been filling his time?

And is it a coincidence that he reappears on the day the EDBF TAFF is officially buried?

RIP East Devon Business Forum Task and Finish Forum

The Forward Plan for the EDDC Overview and Scrutiny Committee no longer mentions the reconvening of the TAFF which was to have investigated the influence of EDBF on the (non) delivery of the Local Plan.

The CEO squashed it, delaying it until after submission of the draft Local Plan (though this was never discussed or agreed at any public meeting).

Now it has been airbrushed out of history.

Why?

EDDC East Devon Business Forum Task and Finish group – even greater need for it to reconvene:

There is now even greater and more urgent need for the EDDC East Devon Business Forum Task and Finish group to reconvene, given recent revelations about the behaviour of its former Chairman – disgraced ex-councillor Graham Brown.

Below is the text of a comment by “councillor” on an article in the Express and Echo which lays out concerns expressed in 2012 and never allowed to see the lighr of day at EDDC:

Comments (0)
Despite a major influence on planning issues being the catalyst for establishing Tuesday night’s East Devon District Council (EDDC) scrutiny committee to investigate East Devon Business Forum, the subject has been vetoed on the advice of officers.

The meeting – possibly one of the most controversial ever staged at East Devon District Council – was quite bizarrely almost completely devoid of conservative councillors, save the three serving on the committee and a further three who were observing proceedings.

Not a single member of East Devon Business Forum (EDBF) appeared to be present either.

Around 50 members of the public attended but the absence of EDBF and almost all the 43 members of the ruling group, including the chairman, leader, deputy leader, and most of the cabinet, gave the distinct impression of a mass boycott.

Public speaking

Five members of the public spoke:

First was Sidmouth businessman, Barry Curwen, who said there was insufficient separation between EDDC and EDBF to allay fears and the reputation of both had been damaged as a result. There needed to be a replacement body which was entirely separate from EDDC and meetings needed to be open to the press and public. “Radical surgery”, was the only option, he said.

Alan Durrant from Save Our Sidmouth campaign group, said he had spoken to hundreds, if not thousands of people who were worried about the influence of EDBF. The council was not held in high regard and needs to do something to regain the trust of electors. The scope of the committee needed to be widened, he added.

Paul Newman from Westclyst near Pinhoe said the scope of the TAFF appeared to be in favour of East Devon Business Forum. He then made a number of references to an ombudsman investigation in 1990 into current EDBF vice-chair, Roy Stuart’s involvement in a planning decision on his own land, which was the creation of the Hill Barton Industrial Estate. At the time Mr Stuart was an EDDC councillor and vice-chair of the planning committee.

Mr Newman informed the meeting that the matter was so serious that the ombudsman had contacted the Director of Public Prosecutions. Cllrs Stuart and Brown resigned together over the incident.

He explained that at Westclyst in 2010, that Mr Stuart applied to build 450 houses on grade 1 agricultural land. The Local Development Framework Panel councillors (LDF Panel) asked for an early application to be brought forward, for a decision, ahead of finalising the LDF and the application at Westclyst was approved in December 2010. Cllr Brown was chairman of the LDF Panel at the time the committee agreed to bring the land forward.

He said he had raised this as a complaint with EDDC but it was denied. However, the minutes of the LDF Panel (previously secret) proved otherwise, once published in 2011.

Mr Stuart is vice chair and Cllr Brown, who runs a planning consultancy and a building firm, is chair, of EDBF, Mr Newman advised the meeting.

Sidmouth resident, Tony Green congratulated Cllr Graham Troman for pushing for an inquiry into EDBF and said that it may allay some suspicion about the forum.

He said the draft scope excluded two key concerns, including debating undue influence on planning policy and clarifying the confused legal status over the status of EDBF. Mr Green added that the set up risked compromising councillors and officers as there was a “minefield of conflicts of interests.”

It was painfully clear from the beginning, said Mr Green, that a key objective of EDBF was to lobby the council and the council had eased planning restrictions as a result. He gave two examples quoting from EDBF minutes, which he said backed up this statement.

He said EDBF has an ‘insatiable appetite’ for employment land, and made references to Cllr Brown’s claims that the forum was ‘completely independent’ when it receives funding from the council. Mr Green said he had two awkward questions.

Firstly if EDBF was independent why are councillors part of it. Secondly, if it is part of the council why does EDDC support spending so much time lobbying itself?

Sidmouth Chamber of Commerce member, Steven Kendall-Torry, said that he looked forward to the opportunity to look into the activities of the forum. He said that EDBF was trying to show it had a range of interests other than planning.”

Mr Kendall-Torry then made a number of remarks about the restrictions that applied to the membership of small businesses, such as the Federation of Small Businesses and businesses that had less than 10 employees were not even allowed to attend until recently.

The draft scope must be amended to be allowed to touch on planning issues, he said.

The first and most important, as well as controversial item on the agenda was ‘The Scope.”

The scope is basically the subjects that the committee are allowed to discuss … and not allowed to discuss.

The draft scope was, in my view, a nice try at trying to get EDBF off the hook and attempting instead to shoehorn the committee into discussing the nice airy fairy subject of business in general in East Devon, with EDBF only getting a passing glance.

The scope, apparently written by chief executive, Mark Williams, insisted that we weren’t allowed to talk about planning issues at all.

This was despite the fact that it is the public outcry over EDBF’s influence over planning issues that was the main driver in setting up the committee in the first place!

And the list of people the committee could interview read like a membership list of EDBF … but only the more respectable non-developer members, such as Bicton College – although they are, in fact, wishing to develop part of their land for housing near Woodbury.

Also, we were told, we couldn’t make recommendations because EDBF was a dual body, only ‘suggestions.’

I had come along to the meeting armed with an alternative version of the scope.

Before settling down to agree the scope, chairman of the scrutiny sub-committee, Cllr Graham Troman asked Mr Williams to outline his reasons on why planning issues were not allowed to be included.

Mr Williams spent a long time explaining why individual planning applications could not be included.

He then spent an even longer time outlining why it wasn’t appropriate to include the Local Plan in discussions. This, he said, was down to the planning inspector, as the document had already been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Mr Williams claimed that the proper route was for people to put their concerns to the inspector.

Mr Williams also claimed that it was not appropriate for the scrutiny committee to debate planning policy, because it wasn’t independent.

I said that the committee had already agreed that individual planning applications were not going to be discussed and the main reason the TAFF was set up was to discuss EDBF’s influence.

I added that, if the committee’s areas for discussion were going to be squashed from the outset then people would come to the conclusion that the exercise was a whitewash, before it had even started.

Cllr Mike Allen said that he and I had sat on the Local Development Framework Panel. He added: “Regarding Claire Wright, her statements and the way she has managed to stir things up is regrettable. She had every opportunity to make her view about EDBF clear while she was on the panel, but chose not to.”

The statement was such nonsense I didn’t bother to respond.

Mr Allen continued by saying that every business had the right during the LDF Panel, to influence the Local Plan and comment and the only part of the community that didn’t for some reason, were small businesses.

This was also complete rubbish as I remember reading and hearing many submissions from Sidmouth Chamber of Commerce during my time on the Local Development Framework (Local Plan) Panel. Also Honiton Chamber of Commerce, among others, responded and objected to the 15 hectares of industrial land proposed at Heathpark Industrial Estate.

Cllr Allen then told people who were concerned about EDBF’s influence on planning matters to go to the Standards Committee, if there were breaches of the code of conduct.

Cllr Allen claimed that there was a ‘legal defamation’ situation and if there was evidence of wrong-doing or maladministration it should be reported.

I said that despite what the chief executive had told us I could still see no logical reason to exclude planning policy from the committee’s remit and made a proposal. I said: “On the basis that this exercise will be regarded by local people as a whitewash if planning is removed from the agenda, I propose that we include it, regardless of the advice of the chief executive.”

But I could not get a seconder, so my proposal fell.

Cllr Troman, clearly in a tricky position, said that he could not go against the legal advice of the chief executive.

We then started debating the rest of the scope and I proposed a series of amendments. Most were agreed, including:

The ‘Broad topic area’ was amended from the woolly: How the council engages with business.”

To: “To produce an in-depth report on the East Devon Business Forum to include all business engagement and its relationship with the council.”(wording taken from revised minuted resolution to September 2012 overview and scrutiny committee)

Specific areas to explore within topic area changed from another woolly set of words about business, to four broad areas relating to EDBF (planning unfortunately deleted from my list):

1. EDBF membership and objectives

2. EDBF relationship with EDDC and other organisations

3. EDBF funding

4. The way forward

Areas NOT covered by review are: Individual planning applications, individual contracts between the council and its contractors or suppliers and (quite wrongly) planning policy.

Desired outcomes of the review – yet another wishy washy set of statements about how membership for EDBF can be increased and “suggesting topics for their agendas” (I ask you!) has been altered from wording similar (but not precisely) this: “Recommendations on a positive and transparent way forward for EDDC to engage with business, that has the confidence of East Devon businesses and residents.” (The chief executive said here that we were setting ourselves up for an unachievable objective because we may not come up with a proposal that residents like).

The list of who should be consulted to obtain evidence got changed from the suggested list, which were largely EDBF members (the non landowner-developers), to the following: (note this may not be the final list)

East Devon Business Forum chairman

East Devon Business Forum vice chairman

EDDC economic development manager/EDBF honorary secretary

Member services clerk and minute-taker to EDBF meetings

Chambers of Commerce representatives

Local enterprise partnership

Blackdown Hills Business Association

Federation of Small Businesses

EDDC monitoring officer

EDDC planning policy manager

EDDC leader

Representative from Mid Devon Business Forum

District auditor

Members of the public

Malcolm Sherry, local businessman (added by Cllr Troman)

What evidence already exists remained the same, ie Mid Devon Business Forum and other forums nationally.

I queried under experts needed to help with the review the appropriateness of including the economic development officer/honorary secretary. I asked whether it might be considered a conflict of interest, given that a sub-committee of the scrutiny committee was looking into EDBF and EDDC’s links.

But no one agreed with me on this and the view appeared to be that it was entirely appropriate for Mr Harrison to take this role.

Cllr Allen couldn’t resist another jibe. He said: “I am amazed that Claire Wright doesn’t want Nigel Harrison as part of the expert help, but I suppose that is in accord with her general views.”

Meetings will be more frequently than in the draft scope (why would five meetings take until July?) so the committee’s work will probably be complete by around April 2013.

Finally, but VERY importantly, the bizarre attempt to completely water down anything the scrutiny committee might come up with by claiming we can only make ‘suggestions’ and not recommendations, was clarified. The committee will be making recommendations.

Cllr Allen then asked a good question. “What was the current legal relationship between EDBF and EDDC?”

Mr Williams reply, after a few moments was: “A type of joint body.”

“Does it only have an influencing capacity?”

The chief executive said that EDBF “was one of the many bodies from which EDDC seeks intelligence.”

Cllr Allen asked another good question. “Do any of the other bodies have an EDDC officer working for them?”

Mark Williams gave the licensing committee as an answer. I could not see the relevance of this at all. Licensing was quite a different issue as it is a quasi-judicial committee which has to meet for legal reasons.

Cllr Allen asked a third good question. “Is it appropriate that an EDDC officer should be lobbying on its behalf?”

Mark Williams replied: “As a general principle, no.”

On the agenda item of Background information on EDBF, Cllr Troman said he was “very disappointed” with one page of A4 provided to the committee. He asked why there was no constitution included in the papers for EDBF either, despite one being included for Mid Devon Business Forum.

There was then a confusing discussion about who had written the background information paper included in both last night’s agenda papers, and in the papers for the EDBF item at the scrutiny committee in September.

Economic development officer, Nigel Harrison claimed that he hadn’t written them.

Cllr Troman asked why Mr Harrison’s name was at the bottom of the paper.

Mr Harrison said he wasn’t sure but the scrutiny officer (the name of Mrs Debbie Meakin was mentioned) had written the paper and then explained how EDBF had been set up.

He claimed that the constitution was on the website and that there “was no mystery about it.”

But the only reference to an EDBF constitution I can find online is three short bullet points on the EDBF minutes section of EDDC’s website.

I said that I had received a copy of the constitution from Chris Lane (member services officer) and queried whether it was the latest version. It was. I then asked why three bullet points taken from the constitution and included with the agenda papers were different.

The word ‘major’ had been inserted into the agenda papers version, in the following sentence: “To act as a forum in which business organisations, major employers and the district council can meet on a regular basis ….

The word ‘major’ did not appear in the adopted constitution.

Also, at the end of the bottom bullet point in the agenda papers version was a sentence about putting together a ‘community plan.’

This sentence did not appear in the constitution either, I pointed out. Why were the two versions different, I asked?

Mr Harrison stuck to his line about not being the author. I asked him whether Debbie Meakin, the scrutiny officer had spoken to him before writing it. He said she did.

He said that he had never been in any doubt about who his employer was.

Cllr Allen got back on his favourite subject about ‘innuendoes’ and ‘residual innuendoes’ how important it was that the committee dealt with them – and that of bias – and made a reference to Tony Green.

I asked why there were restrictions on membership, as outlined in the full constitution.

Mr Harrison replied that if the membership could be increased from the “20 or so souls” at the EDBF meeting on Thursday he would be very pleased.

Steven Kendall-Torry put up his hand. The chief executive was already shaking his head as speaking time was over, but Cllr Troman allowed him to speak.

Mr Kendall-Torry referred to the ‘reputations’ of certain people involved in EDBF and asked that if the planning history is not allowed to be debated, how the reputations will be able to be debated. This was important, he said, because public had a deep suspicion of EDBF and it was important that public perception and reputation issues were addressed.

Cllr Troman said that the committee needed to look forward not back, but agreed it was important.

Mr Kendall-Torry’s comments started Cllr Allen off (yet again) on “innuendoes” and evidence of wrong-doing, which should go to the standards committee, he said.

I suggested that reputation issues could be addressed under the meeting when the committee discusses the relationship between EDBF and EDDC.

I added that Mr Kendall-Torry had made a good point and members of the public had no control over whether a complaint went to the standards committee, all they could do was lodge a formal complaint and it was up to officers to decide what happened to it.

Public perception was very important and an issue that needs to be addressed. If we don’t address it we are not doing our job properly, I added.

But, how can we do our job properly when the chief executive, no doubt urged on by the all-conservative cabinet, has gagged the committee on the most important subject of all?

Residents are likely to be left wondering what EDDC has to hide.

For an observer’s perspective, visit http://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com/

Read about the background to this committee being set up here – http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/committee_to_investigate_east_devon_business_forum/

Source: http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Scrutiny-councillors-probing-East-Devon-Business/story-17576957-detail/story.html

Disgraced ex- councillor Graham Brown breached planning conditions on his own home for more than 10 years!

Well done, Express and Echo for getting this story!

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Disgraced-councillor-seeks-make-Ottery-St-Mary/story-22898229-detail/story.htm

So, just to be clear, the man who dominated Planning in East Devon for many years, who indicated in the Telegraph that he was interested in receiving tens of thousands of pounds in exchange for winning planning approvals, was all along living in a new property he had promised his own Planning Department would always remain for someone working in agriculture. When in fact he was living there pursuing other commercial activities all along.

Did no fellow councillors, or planning officers – all fully aware that he was a planning “consultant” and builder – think this a bit odd. Did nobody pipe up?

Still, a splendid entertainment is promised at the district in the next few months. How will Planning Chairman Helen Parr deal with this when it comes – as it must – before the Development Management Committee? Will Mr Brown perhaps grace the chamber with his presence? And just how hard will EDDC strive to keep this one off any public agenda before next May?

Let us not forget that while he was illegally occupying this property, he was:

A district councillor

Chairman of the first Local Development Framework (Local Plan) panel (which met in secret)

Chairman of the East Devon Business Forum – a group fully-funded by East Devon District Council, and with one of its senior officers as its Secretary, and made up of local landowners and builders who persuaded EDDC to ignore two sets of consultants in order to favour their figures, particularly on employment land

Director of a local planning consultancy (Greygreen Planning Ltd) and building company

For part of the time EDDC Business Champion

AND

Councillor for Feniton and Bucketell when, by coincidence, that area was flooded by developers wanting to increase the size of the village by 40%

And all this time he was breaking planning rules …..

People asked to solve their own crimes and PCSOs being used as detectives

“The inspector who led the review, Roger Baker, said: “It’s more a mindset, that we no longer deal with these things. And effectively what’s happened is a number of crimes are on the verge of being decriminalised.”

He added: “So it’s not the fault of the individual staff; it’s a mindset thing that’s crept in to policing to say ‘we’ve almost given up’.”

So, it’s not CSI then, more DIY:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29053978

Probity in Planning

A very useful reference tool – note it says that councils dealing with their own planning applications should be as transparent as when they deal with all other applications:

http://www.pas.gov.uk/documents/332612/1099271/Probity+in+planning+guide/c2463914-db11-4321-8d38-be54c188abbe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Disgraced ex-Councillor Graham Brown: Express and Echo update

Good precis of the current situation here

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Police-confirm-investigating-East-Devon/story-22045324-detail/story.html

One has to wonder why this is taking so long. The original story broke on the front page of the Daily Telegraph in March 2013

see here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9921344/Councillors-for-hire-who-give-firms-planning-advice.html

and here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9921333/If-I-turn-a-green-field-into-an-estate-then-Im-not-doing-it-for-peanuts.html

Memo to the next Overview and Scrutiny Committee

East Devon Business Forum Task and Finish Forum: remember that?

The missing 6,000 voters, 3 years of not doing house to house canvassing (a criminal offence) – an explanation from the CEO.

That should do to start with … too late for public speaking, of course.

Further comment from Paul Arnott on post below re EDDC, Devon and Cornwall Constabulary and disgraced ex-Councillor Brown

Paul Arnott here. I requested this FoI disclosure, and thank the police for their response, made on the twentieth day of the 20 allowed them in law.

I would also like to make clear that this matter ought to be cleared up quickly and if anyone is hanging under an unjust cloud their good name ought to be restored.

That said, what was most noteworthy in the police reply was the confirmation that although the Monitoring Officer made a minuted pledge to provide a joint statement on the status of any investigation absolutely none was ever made, or, it seems, attempted. (I put in an identical FoI to EDDC on this “joint statement” issue. They have two and a half hours to meet their own legal obligation to respond within 20 days)

Did anyone think this could all drift for eighteen months in silence? Did the Monitoring Officer’s boss, or the Leader, or the Cabinet, not wonder about this?

Last night, Cllr Susie Bond asked a number of clear questions about the status of this investigation. The line from the top desk was, the police haven’t told us anything … and, er ….

The other interesting detail in the police reply is about the inital, risible call to the Action Fraud hotline, which it is now confirmed by police was followed up by an EDDC call to local police, and the eventual passing of the file to a former policeman, now the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary’s Senior Fraud Investigator.

What we don’t know is if any actual complaint was ever made, or by whom, or whether there is a vital “crime number”, or whether this investigation has even been entered as an investigation in the Devon and Cornwall Police Public Sector Corruption Register – as should be the course.

Ultimately, a year and a half on, this guarded Freedom of Information response is all we have from our regional police force, of a piece with last night’s three wise monkeys routine from East Devon Council.

What we do know is that this is NOT sub judice., but to deduce that you have to read between the lines. A simple “No it isn’t” would have covererd it.

Don’t know really. Is that the cheese in my fridge going off in the hot weather, or is this growing whiff coming from somewhere else?

EDDC Monitoring Officer has never asked for police interview re disgraced ex-Councillor Brown

And the enquiry is ongoing – here is correspondence between Paul Arnott and Devon and Cornwall Constabulary on the subject, whiich was elicited by a Freedom of Information request via the whatdotheyknow website, this correspondence therefore being in the public domain:

Freedom of Information Act Request No: 3614/14

At a meeting of the East Devon District Standards Committee 14 months ago on 29th April 2013 the Monitoring Officer gave a statement in relation to Councillor Graham Brown and his comments published the previous month in the Daily Telegraph.

According to EDDC’s minutes she “advised that the matter had been referred to the Police soon after the article had been published. The issue was then, on advice from Police, directed to Action Fraud under the Bribery Act 2010 and the Council’s own Fraud, Theft and Corruption policy. Devon and Cornwall Police were continuing to look into the matter and the Monitoring Officer was currently in discussions with them about releasing a joint statement.”

According to the Devon and Cornwall Police published policy D22 Corruption in the Public Sector at point 3.1.4 “A person alleging public sector corruption will, if he/she so requests, be interviewed by an officer not below the rank of Detective Superintendent”

Please confirm the date on which the Monitoring Officer was interviewed by an officer of Detective Superintendent rank or above in relation to her report to the police.

Please provide me with any and all “joint statements” made by EDDC and D&C Police as referred to on 29th April 2013.

Please confirm that the investigation is not sub-judice.

The Crime Department and Press Office have provided the following information:

Please confirm the date on which the Monitoring Officer was interviewed by an officer of Detective Superintendent rank or above in relation to her report to the police.

N/A – No request was made by the Monitoring Officer to be interviewed by a Detective Superintendent

Please provide me with any and all “joint statements” made by EDDC and D&C Police as referred to on 29th April 2013.

No joint press statements were made by East Devon District Council and Devon & Cornwall Police

Please confirm that the investigation is not sub-judice.

A report was initially made to Action Fraud in March 2013 who declared it was not a matter with which they dealt. The allegations were subsequently reported to the local Police by the East Devon District Council who appointed a Senior Fraud Investigator to manage enquiries with regards to third party allegations. These enquiries are ongoing.

Source:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/police_protocol_d22_and_east_dev#incoming-542682

Nieghbourhood Plan? Not if your local developer doesn’t like it!

A housebuilder has launched a judicial review challenge to a neighbourhood plan with the Planning Court.

In a statement Larkfleet Homes claimed that the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan was “flawed in several areas and therefore not legally valid”.

The company added: “In particular, we feel that it is not appropriate that the process of deciding where housing should be located – known as ‘site allocation’ – should be delegated to the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan instead of being part of the Site Allocation Policies prepared by the county council [Rutland]. Site allocations in Uppingham currently form part of the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan prepared by Uppingham Town Council.

“We do not believe that this is an appropriate way of delivering the county council’s Core Strategy – which sets out how Rutland will meet future housing need – as the Core Strategy expressly states that the location and details of future housing development should be determined through the Site Allocation Policies.”

Larkfleet said that when it became aware that Rutland planned to hold a referendum on the neighbourhood plan, it asked the council to give an assurance that, following the referendum, it would not take any further steps to formally adopt the plan before the company’s legal challenge had been considered by the Court.

“As a result of that assurance, the council will take no further action towards adopting the neighbourhood plan pending the final determination of the legal proceedings,” the company revealed.

Source: http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19325%3Ahousebuilder-launches-planning-court-challenge-to-neighbourhood-plan&catid=63&Itemid=31

Our new Planning and Housing Minister had strong views on the Daily Telegraph front page story former EDDC Councillor Graham Brown’s fall from grace

Commenting on the front page story in the Daily Telegraph last year, new Planning and Housing Minister Brandon Lewis, MP said:

Local Government Minister Brandon Lewis said:

“This government has increased accountability and transparency over councillors’ interests, to accompany greater power and freedoms for local councils.

“Councils should adopt a Code of Conduct that reflects the Nolan principles on conduct in public life, with councillors declaring any private interest that relate to their public duties, and councillors must take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.

“In addition, it is now a criminal offence to fail to declare or register disclosable pecuniary interests – which includes any employment or trade carried out for profit or gain. The register of councillors’ interests must be published online by the council.

“Councillors should act in an open and transparent way, to avoid conflicts of interest on issues such as planning applications or benefiting financially from the issuing of council contracts.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/councillors-interests-and-planning

Perhaps we should now all write to him updating him on the progress our council has made on investigating disgraced ex-Councillor Brown’s chairmanship of the EDDC Local Plan working group at the same time as chairing the group of local developers, the East Devon Business Forum. Progress:none as EDDC CEO Mark Williams has refused to allow the EDDC Task and Finish group on this subject to meet.

How NOT to undertake a police investigation: a cautionary tale

There is an ongoing scandal in Carmarthenshire, where the question of unlawful payments to the Chief Executive of Carmarthen Council became a national scandal. For the background on this see:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/police-launch-investigation-unlawful-payments-6701913

As a result it was decided that there would be a police investigation. However, it was decided that because council and police in the area had many joint undertakings, the investigation would be undertaken by an outside force. Gloucestershire and Avon police were chosen to do this investigation:

http://carmarthenplanning.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/gloucestershire-police-to-investigate.html

After three months, the police called off the investigation saying there was no case to answer:

http://carmarthenplanning.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/police-call-off-investigation.html

However, a local blogger was not satisfied with this and asked the police how they had come to this conclusion:

http://carmarthenplanning.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/unlawful-payments-police-foi-response.html

Here is what she says:

Following the conclusion of the police investigation I made a freedom of Information request to Gloucestershire police. The response came today and there is a link at the end of this post.

I asked for;

1. A list of any persons interviewed, and /or job titles, and whether any of these were 
interviewed under caution 
2. Correspondence between Gloucestershire Constabulary and Carmarthenshire County 
Council
3. Whether or not the Crown Prosecution Service were involved and if so, any relevant correspondence. 

The responses were that;

….nobody was interviewed,
….there was no correspondence between the council and the police and
….the CPS weren’t involved.
This was, you recall, a three month long criminal investigation….

I also asked for;

4. The final report following the conclusion of the investigation 

5. A list, or summary, of all documents in either paper or electronic form which formed part 
of the investigation.

These were refused under the Section 30 exemption in that the release of this information may jeopardise police tactics in the future…presumably they’re expecting a flurry of similar local authority unlawfulness.

A thorough investigation? We’ll have to take their word for it. I remain of the view that in both instances there was, amongst other matters, the deliberate prevention of proper scrutiny as documented in the two Wales Audit Office reports.The full FOI response can be read here.
I am now considering whether to request an internal review of their response.

What do the police know about the investigation into disgraced ex-councillor Brown? Not much, it appears, as they don’t know what a “joint statement” is

See this interesting exchange of correspondence between Paul Arnott and Devon and Cornwall Constabulary, via a Freedom of Information request about the procedure followed by EDDC and the police after the front-page expose of Councillor Brown in the Daily Telegraph last year (“if I can’t get you planning permission no-one can, but I don’t come cheap”):

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/police_protocol_d22_and_east_dev#incoming-538562

including this cracker:

“The Crime Department have asked if you can clarify what you mean by ‘joint statement’ to assist us with our searches. Are you referring to press statements? If you are unsure on the nature of the statement then we recommend you contact East Devon District Council to clarify what was stated in their minutes.

Therefore could you please provide further detail on the type of statement required or, if you wish, withdraw that question from the request so that the other questions can be progressed.

After receiving your reply, your request will then be considered.”

Er, sorry, they don’t understand what “joint statements” means and this is holding up the entire response from them?

Fortunately, with members of the EDDC Executive being ex-police officers, no doubt they can explain to their current and former colleagues what the phrase “joint statement” means!

Oh, and we haven’t forgotten the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Task and Finish Forum into the relationship between East Devon District Council’s first Local Development Framework Panel (Chairman, Graham Brown) and its relationship with the East Devon Business Forum (Chairman, Graham Brown) … EDDC may have attempted to kick it into the long grass, but we will keep mowing it!

Hello, hello …

From the blog of Councillor Claire Wright:

“Doubt has been cast over whether a police investigation is still ongoing into a former East Devon councillor, who made the front page of the Daily Telegraph in March 2013 in an undercover sting operation last March (2013).

At the EDDC audit and governance meeting of 26 June, a councillor can be heard on its audio recording, enquiring about the status of the investigation as he understands that Mr Brown went to see the police with his solicitor and was informed that the investigation had concluded.

He adds that several other councillors were also reporting this.

A senior EDDC officer replies that the council believes that the investigation was still live.

But the councillor is insistent that he has heard differently and asks the officer for clarification, appearing to refer to next year’s council elections.

The officer agrees to double check the status of the police investigation.

Here’s the recording – the question comes at about 1:01 – http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/webasp/recordings/auditgovernance/ag260614recording.mp3

Mr Brown resigned as an EDDC conservative councillor last March, following the publication of the Telegraph undercover sting operation, which has him on camera boasting to journalists posing as developers that if he couldn’t get planning consent nobody could. He added that he wouldn’t do it for peanuts.”

So, who do we believe – and why? And why do some councillors and officers seem to know far more than others about what may or not be happening?

Have all witnesses been interviewed? …

Watch this space …..