If Boris can do it surely Leader Diviani can do it too!
Category Archives: EDDC
Information Tribunal rules on councils keeping employee grade criteria secret: they can’t
Bradford Council loses its appeal as they tried to stop an employee finding out how posts are graded:
The council had originally argued against disclosure under s. 43(2) FOIA (prejudice to commercial interests) but at the tribunal changed this to claim an exemption under s. 36(2)(c) FOIA (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs).
Bradford argued that disclosure would lead to “a risk that a proportion of applicants will exaggerate the responsibilities of the post which could then result in an undeserved higher grading” and that were the methods published there would be an incentive for a significant proportion of the 3,000 or so staff to whom its ‘Professional Scheme’ applied to make fresh grading applications.
The resulting applications would “themselves place a significant burden on the authority’s resources and would be likely to thereby prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs,” it argued.
The council suggested that the balance of the public interest favoured non-disclosure.
But the Information Commissioner said that even where applicants do not know the criteria upon which their posts will be graded, it was still open to them to speculate on this and non-disclosure could not, therefore, sensibly be said to prevent exaggeration by applicants.
The idea that disclosure would lead to an increase in exaggeration was merely a hypothesis unsupported by evidence, it said.
If employees did exaggerate, this would not necessarily create a cost burden for the council since a single evaluation might apply to a number of individual post-holders.
It was therefore unlikely to be the case that each individual application would need to be dealt with separately, the Commissoner said, adding that transparency – as guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission made clear – was “the cornerstone of a non-discriminatory pay structure”.
The tribunal said it agreed with the Commissioner and the requester in their analysis of the public interest test, concluding that there was a significant public interest in favour of disclosure of the disputed information.
“Further we are not persuaded that there will be any significant damage to the public interest by disclosure,” it added. “In particular we are not persuaded that such risk of exaggeration by applicants as does occur is either increased or altered in any way that cannot be dealt with in the normal scope of the Human Resources work. [The council’s single status project manager] conceded that exaggeration is commonplace in any event.
“We find little tangible evidence of the nature or extent of the perceived increase in applications or in difficulties that would arise in dealing with any increase in the number of applications as a result of disclosure. Again we find little evidence about the increase in the financial burden that the council might suffer over and above that which will be incurred in the transfer that is already planned.”
http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19458%3Atribunal-tells-council-to-disclose-criteria-used-for-grading-positions-of-employees&catid=57&Itemid=25
It seems that the push is for greater transparency …..
Let’s hope none of our rash of new homes have these problems
“Families are increasingly being forced to squeeze into smaller spaces, with many children forced to share a bedroom and many new homes not having a garden or adequate storage space.”
Though we have heard of at least one local model house that had to have fitted wardrobes inserted in bedrooms during the early part of the build because not even flat packs will go up the stairs!
The missing 6,000 voters: a personal perspective from an EDA blog commentator
Paul Freeman, a regular commenter on the EDA blog, has sent in this blog entry which represents his personal view after asking questions of the district council at last week’s full council meeting:
“Mr Chairman, Councillors
I would like to make a statement and ask some questions relating to democracy in East Devon which is on today’s agenda.
It has come to light in the past few weeks that the Electoral Registration Officer for East Devon has deregistered at least 6,400 people in East Devon and possibly as many as 7,000 citizens from the Electoral register. This is equivalent to 1 in 15 of all voters in East Devon, In other words, of all the councillors and officers in the room today, the entire top-table has been disenfranchised. Or of the visitors, the public here, these three gentlemen behind me have lost their vote. It is a matter of public record that the Electoral Registration Officer for East Devon has failed to meet the standard set by the Electoral Commission on doorstep canvassing for the past three years in a row. In addition, last year the Electoral Registration Officer reported to the Electoral Commission a perfect score, in doorstep canvassing, i.e. he reported that the number of households not canvassed was zero, yet when the Electoral Commission looked into this further they decided that his performance was still below standard in this area.
1. Can the council assure us that this lack of performance was not, even indirectly, the cause of these citizens losing their vote?
2. Secondly, can the council please tell us whether mis-reporting his performance is a disciplinary offense against the Electoral Registration Officer?
3. Can the council please confirm whether the telephone canvassers that have been promised to be recruited, have indeed been recruited, yet?
And finally:
4. Is the council aware that as part of his activities to implement Individual Electoral Registration, that our ERO has already mislaid a further 900 voters in Budleigh Salterton?”
Leaving aside the appropriateness of the Chairman handing these questions to the ERO himself to answer (CEO Mark Williams) when they included questions about his own performance and possible disciplinary action …
The statement made by Mark Williams, EDDC CEO and ERO, probably says more about his own regard (or lack of it) for the voters of East Devon than any number of assertions by members of the public such as myself:
“Well I will answer on behalf of the council.
I think first of all, Mr Freeman, I recommend that you double check your facts.
The second thing I’d say is that as members know from a report I took to the Cabinet Meeting, that we are transitioning from an Electoral Registration System that the government has said is unfit for purpose.
And the third thing I’d say to you is that in any major change process it is not where you start from that counts but where you end-up.”
(You can listen to the question and the ERO’s answers in the first 3 minutes of the recording of the meeting available on the councils web site at http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/council_agendas_and_mins.htm .
Disregarding that he didn’t actually answer ANY of the questions asked …
And leaving aside that he effectively denied the facts I stated (which have been discussed in depth on this blog) and which I can back up with citations to Electoral Commission documents and to documents from the ERO himself released in response to a Freedom of Information request…
And disregarding his misrepresentation of the old electoral system which was certainly fit for purpose for several decades, and is being changed only to ensure that voters do not lose their registration if the head of household refuses to add them to the form (a rare but regrettable occurrence)…
The key point is that I am sure that all of the 6,400 – 7,000 deregistered voters who were unable to vote in the European Elections will be heartened to know that the ERO believes that it doesn’t really matter that they missed this recent election because they will eventually be reregistered and able to vote in some future election – maybe in time for the May 2015 local council elections, or maybe some future election after that. Does Mark Williams think that elections are like busses – if you missed this one, never mind because there will be another one along in a minute or two?
In the light of this public statement, I again call upon the East Devon Electoral Registration Officer, Mark Williams, to resign his post of EDDC CEO (which includes his role as ERO) because his position is (even more) untenable.
Councillors who voted for and against curtailment of public speaking
Councillors voting in favour of the amendment (16): [i.e. that public speaking should NOT be curtailed]:
Mike Allen, Susie Bond, Derek Button, Trevor Cope, Steve Gazzard, Pat Graham, Stuart Hughes, Douglas Hull, Ben Ingham, John Jeffery, Sheila Kerridge, Jim Knight, Frances Newth, Brenda Taylor, Graham Troman, Claire Wright.
Councillors voting against the amendment (29): [i.e. those voting FOR public speaking to be curtailed]:
Graham Godbeer, Christine Drew, Paul Diviani, Ray Bloxham, Roger Boote, Peter Bowden, Bob Buxton, David Chapman, Maddy Chapman, Iain Chubb, David Cox, Deborah Custance Baker, Martin Gammell, Steve Hall, Peter Halse, Tony Howard, John Humphreys, David Key, Andrew Moulding, John O’Leary, Helen Parr, Philip Skinner, Pauline Stott, Peter Sullivan, Phil Twiss, Chris Wale, Mark Williamson, Tim Wood, Tom Wright.
Councillors abstaining (4):
Peter Burrows, Jill Elson, Stephanie Jones, Ian Thomas.
Question: how could anyone ABSTAIN on this subject? Surely those abstaining were not ambivalent – if they were they could have made amendments to suit their reservations? To not know whether you are for or against this seems bizarre.
And well done those Tory councillors who voted with the minority – that’s real courage.
Plans for Mamhead slipway (Exmouth) submitted
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.
Local statistics: fight fire with fire
Anyone needing local statistics need look no further than
For example. putting in a postcode, choosing “Local Authority” and then the subset ” Environment” gives the most recent available data for:
Physical Environment
Key figures for Physical Environment
Commercial and Industrial Floorspace and Rateable Value Statistics (1998 – 2008)
Commercial and Industrial Property Vacancy Statistics (1998 – 2005)
Domestic Energy Consumption (2005 – 2011)
Land Use Statistics (Generalised Land Use Database) (2001 – 2005)
Land Use Statistics (Previously-Developed Land) (2004 – 2010)
Filming, tweeting and photographing council meetings legal from 6 August 2014
Democracy is dead (EDDC has voted to curtail public speaking at theit meetings) long live democracy (new laws allow public more opportunities to inform rhe public about such meetings):
The regulations state that members of the public may film, take photographs, or make audio recordings of meetings; provide oral or written commentary on a meeting as it takes place; and use any other methods to enable people not at the meeting to follow proceedings, either as they take place or afterwards.
Developers allowed by High Court to see secret contract documents
So why not electors? We shall see on 28 August 2014 at Exeter Magistrates Court perhaps:
A Deputy High Court judge has ordered a local authority to make early specific disclosure to a leisure services provider bringing a claim over a recent £120m concession procurement.
The ex tempore ruling was made in Wealden Leisure Limited v Mid-Sussex District Council HC14F01304 (16 July 2014) by Andrew Hochauser QC, sitting in the Chancery Division.
Wealden, the claimant, was the incumbent provider but lost out to Places for People Leisure.
According to 11KBW, one of whose barristers (Joseph Barrett) is acting for the company, Wealden launched proceedings after being told that Mid Sussex’s preferred bid was in the region of 20% cheaper than its own proposal.
The claimant has expressed concern that the preferred bid was “abnormally low, unsustainable and non-compliant”.
Wealden’s concerns “were heightened when it discovered that the council had permitted the preferred bidder to make significant changes to its pricing submission after final tenders were opened”, the chambers said. “The council admitted that it had allowed the preferred bidder to increase its stated costs figures by more than £200,000 per annum.”
Mid Sussex refused a request for early specific disclosure of the final tenders it received.
Wealden, which had previously proposed that disclosure would be restricted to a confidentiality ring of its lawyers and an independent expert, applied to the High Court.
It argued that it needed the information to allow it to properly plead its case that the preferred bid was abnormally low.
The Deputy High Court judge ordered the council to disclose the entirety of the final tenders, 11KBW said.
Mid Sussex also agreed – following a suggestion made by the judge – to disclose the evaluation documents evidencing what, if any, investigation it had conducted regarding the sustainability of the preferred bid.
The council was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs in full.
Tom Clark, Solicitor to Mid Sussex, said the authority would be vigorously defending the claim.
He added: “The council conducted the procurement exercise fairly and properly in accordance with its obligations. At the end of the process, it awarded the contract to Places for People Leisure a competitor of Wealden, having been satisfied that their bid was sustainable and viable and that it would provide the best and most effective service.
“On 1 July 2014, the council entered into a contract with PfPL, who have been operating the leisure facilities within the Mid Sussex since that date.”
Skypark: modern architectural gem? Er ….
It will be interesting to see how EDDC’s consultants “compliment” the first building to be completed at Skypark. But maybe the parcel depot will scoop the architectural prize!
Take the Knowle walk while you can … and park while you can
Click to access walkingfestivalleaflet3fold.pdf
Bit rich isn’t it? This leaflet is promoting one of the walks as you can see using the Knowle free Park and Walk car park…
Yet if EDDC have their way, this facility will not be available for long…
Public speaking (or rather public gagging) continued …
speaking Truth to Power will always cause you trouble! Thank goodness some people are prepared to do so.
So EDDC didn’t spot “extraneous and unlawful planning inducement” in planning app?
Newton Poppleford resident Mark Coppell is one of many who wonders where the blame lies. Below is his letter to the Sidmouth Herald (23 July 2014).
Sir
I write in response to EDDC’s recent statement that the judicial review relating to the planning permission granted at King Alfred Way, Newton Poppleford, was conceded despite no fault being apportioned to the Council itself. Having first-hand experience of EDDC’s internal investigative procedures I am not in the least bit surprised they have reached this conclusion.
However, it would be interesting to know precisely whose fault do EDDC consider it to be that an extraneous and unlawful planning inducement was included in the draft Section 106 agreement before the application was heard at committee? Whose fault was it that, during the planning meeting, the council accepted the offer of a unilateral undertaking of the surgery, a form of planning obligation governed by the same regulations that made provision via section 106 unlawful?
The committee and legal team were recorded discussing making approval “subject to demonstration of a mechanism” to secure something, in full knowledge that it could not legally be secured. It was resolved to word the approval vaguely such that “everybody knows what needs to be done (provision of the surgery) but without making that issue (it being unlawful) raise its head”. If that was not the council’s fault, then who is to blame?
Even more curiously, if the council truly believed they had not erred and their position was defensible, who authorised the decision not to contest the judicial review, thereby costing £11k of taxpayers’ money?
Once again, in their statement, EDDC have adopted a defensive attitude towards the electorate, and are trying to absolve themselves of blame for their planning advice and decision-making being legally unsound. This whole episode suggests that the council are not sufficiently familiar with the regulations that govern planning matters and made a genuine but extraordinary mistake. The alternative explanation is that they have a flagrant disregard for such things when they interfere with awarding planning permission to a major landowner in whose thrall they appear to exist. I am not sure which option worries me to a greater extent.
District council planning and legal departments appear to be regulated either within house, or by those who once were in the profession. As a result they are effectively self-regulatory. Little wonder then, that they find it difficult to admit any wrong doing on their part as they are seldom held to account. It would appear the only regulation they are subject to is when legally challenged by members of the public, and this is only feasible for those with access to large funds of money. The loss of £11k to the taxpayer is highly regrettable and was utterly avoidable on EDDCs part. However, the risks taken by the public when challenging unlawful decisions are far greater proportionately and as such are not taken lightly. It was hoped that at the very least EDDC might offer some contrition and resolve to amend their practices in future. Alas not.
All in all this represents yet another shameful episode in EDDC’s recent history.
Matt Coppell
Fracking to be allowed in AONBs, National Parks and World Heritage sites as long as it is done “sensitively”!
Drilling wells disguised as trees? Lorries disguised as dragon flies? Has anyone seen a sensitively-located coal mine or a sensitively-located car plant?
Full story HERE
… About half the UK is open for licensing, including parts of National Parks. But applications there will only be accepted in “exceptional circumstances and in the public interest”, said the government. The same rules apply for the Broads, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and World Heritage Sites. …
Unfortunately, we are in a district where our council refused to consider the creation of a new national park alongside Dorset as it meant they would lose control of planning.
Also interesting how organisations like the National Trust have interpreted it as a safeguard and not what it is: a loophole. Councils will use “economic growth” as the reason to allow it – rather like the NPPF uses the word to justify housing on AONBs and Green Belts.
If the Coalition had NOT wanted fracking in these areas, they would have explicitly banned it.
Letters to the Sidmouth Herald … oh dear for EDDC
This week’s Sidmouth Herald has 6 critical letters about our council:
One letter from Paul Freeman about the missing 6,000 (plus) voters missing from the electoral roll and finding the “explanation” from EDDC very wanting
One about how our council is mired in bureaucracy in spite of the major party’s pledge to “cut red tape”
One about the upcoming court case between EDDC and the Information Commissioner about EDDC’s refusal to release documents in spite of the Information Commissioner’s request that it should be published
Two about the omnishambles of planning and development in Newton Poppleford where a reason to allow one development was turned on its head to refuse another and where EDDC did not find it necessary to have an Environmental Impact Assessment on the Clinton Devon Estates site in spite of it being beside an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
One about the inability of the council to improve access the Byes even though they own the land which could allow improvements
Add the item about EDDC “restricting free speech” at its meeting and another item about voting for funding for £15,000 of sports cash has been delayed twice because EDDC felt that not enough old people and not enough young people had voted in the previous two rounds and it just hasn’t been a good week for our council.
A response to “NIMBYs have had their day”
Dear [Daily Telegraph] Editor,
This morning’s headline story (Minister: Nimbys have had their day – 26 July) in the Daily Telegraph beggars belief!
What on earth will it take to get the current government, and Brandon Lewis in particular, to wake up and smell the abject disbelief amongst the rural community in particular that “people now have a greater say in where housing goes”. A survey of only 3000 people in 2010 compared with a similar one of only 1000 in 2013 certainly does NOT compare with the responses registered with Community Voice on Planning (www.covop.org) and is remarkably thin evidence upon which to trumpet the progress of national government policy. If ministers quote from such a small sample it only serves to reinforce what the community has been saying for years – our ministers’ dogmatic presumptions hold sway in spite of the real world situation they are attempting to govern.
Those of us who have raised the uncontrolled inappropriate development rush issue – for in practice that is EXACTLY what it is at present, are NOT against development per se. What we are infuriated over is the repeated examples of poor strategic planning by local authorities. This is exacerbated by blatant exploitation of land-banking by developers – invariably on the easiest of development land, ie green spaces, who then make all sorts of promises of affordable home provision to gain outline planning permission only to renege subsequently by pleading non-viability once permission is gained and requisite infrastructure costs imposed; local authorities then invariably buckle under threat of legal costs of appeal and the developers get their way.
Construction of the open market houses doesn’t begin until the developer feels like it and the 5 year housing supply doesn’t get updated until they do. This leads to more applications while the going is good and infrastructure improvements to support any of this cannot be funded until the houses are built.
The community has NO say in this process yet it gives our blinkered politicians a warm and cuddly feeling that everything is going well! Oh really?
Paul S G Adams MBE
Vice-Chairman
DefeND North Devon
A little note for the Development Management Committee
Just in case the Development Management Committee tries again to say that planning applications must be decided in 8 weeks (as it did when it rushed through the enormous Pinhoe development a little while ago) here is the definitive statement on this matter:
“Under the revised criteria, where 40% or fewer major planning applications are determined within the statutory time frame during the two-year assessment period, the LPA will be regarded as under-performing. The statutory determination period of 13 weeks must be adhered to, unless the application has involved the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment (where 16 weeks is the alternative) or any extended period was previously agreed with the applicant. There will be a limited exemption for LPAs that have decided only two major applications during the 24-month assessment period. “
When is “the public interest” not the public interest – a confusing conundrum when applied to our missing 6,000 voters
An exchange between the Chairman of the Parliamentary Constitutional Reform Committee, Graham Allen MP and the Chief Executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators on 1 May 2014 regarding Electoral Returning Officers (EROs) failing to complete house-to-house canvassing [recall it has been confirmed by Chris Ruane MP of the same committee that
EDDC’s ERO, Chief Executive Mark Williams failed to carry out house-to-house surveys in 2011, 2012 and 2013]:
Q282 Mr Turner: Are we speaking of a criminal offence or a civil offence?
John Turner: Which?
Mr Turner: The failure to do what Chris Ruane has asked should be done.
John Turner: There is a section in the Representation of the People Act 1983 that makes it a breach of official duty for a registration officer not to do that and follow the law.
Q283 Mr Turner: Does that mean a police officer would be handling that or a civil matter?
John Turner: No, it is a criminal matter, a criminal offence. It carries a penalty. I can’t recollect what it is offhand, but it is definitely a criminal offence. What I should also tell you is that I have been doing this for some long time now and I have never known anybody to be prosecuted for it.
Q284 Mr Turner: I am just wondering whether it would help if it were drawn to the attention of the local police officer.
John Turner: We go down an interesting route here. Things have happened where there have been investigations by the police—the police are only the investigating body in this sense—and it always ends up at the door of the Crown Prosecution Service and we get into matters where we start talking about public interest and decisions to prosecute. That would take us another five hours I fear, Chair, so—
Q285 Chris Ruane: Is it in the public interest to have 6 million people and the poorest people in the country off the electoral register? Is it in the public interest or not?
John Turner: That is a different question from the public interest to prosecute, but what I am saying is, in answer to your question, there is already on the statute book an offence of breach of official duty. It is certainly not within my bailiwick to decide how that should be enforced but it is there. It sits there.
Skypark: “Improved accessibility to customers and visitors and cultural transformation!
Page 28, EDDC “Corporate Property Asset Management Plan 2014-2017
“Knowle Office Relocation
Following a review of the Council’s main headquarters accommodation at the Knowle, Sidmouth, the Council have committed to the implementation of an office relocation programme. A Member Working Party has been established to oversee the programme and progress of the work of the Officer Working Group led by Richard Cohen, Deputy Chief Executive.
The key outcomes of the project will be:-
• Reduced overheads
• Improved carbon footprint
• Improved accessibility to customers and visitors
• Cultural Transformation”
Source: http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/assetmanagementplan2014.pdf
Well, the “customers” are developers according to EDDC but as for “cultural transformation” – anyone hazard a guess as to what transformation people will have on what is currently a mostly industrial park adjacent to an airport runway!
East Devon Watch 