No sanctions to be taken against Cllr Graham Salter.

Councillors and officers..and all of us… are busy people. But there are signs that the Standards’ sub-committee were having their own time wasted, as well as Cllr Graham Salter’s valuable worktime (he’s self-employed) at this week’s hearing called by EDDC’s Monitoring Officer. It went on and on…..and after only a majority vote (2 to 1) , he was found to have breached the councillors’ code of conduct on one count. But it was clearly not a serious issue, as it was then decided no sanctions were warranted.

Consultants (paid)  council officers (paid), Cllr Salter (unpaid )  and members of the public (unpaid) were obliged to wait for hours, while the sub-committee deliberated.

Had this been a serious case, the expense and length of the hearing could be seen to be justified….  and not perceived as part of a District-wide pattern of apparent attempts to gag dissenters.

Our earlier report on the same hearing is here: https://eastdevonwatch.org/2014/05/15/why-did-you-become-a-councillor/

 

Public gagged, councillors gagged … and the strange case of the Legal Highs!

Decisions this week, likely to be rubber-stamped by Cabinet and Full Council, mean that now the public must make written representations in advance before being (possibly) allowed to speak at the Development Management Committee (only 5 objectors will be allowed 3 minutes each on a first come, first served basis).

Councillors are now to be banned from putting motions that are not appropriate to the business of the council – the final arbiter probably being the Chief Executive (or perhaps one of his Deputies – see post below).  The Council’s Constitution will be so amended – even though the introduction of the amendment has not followed the procedure laid down in the current Constitution!

Proposed by Councillor Bloxham who recently put forward a motion to ban the use of Legal Highs and who spoke so eloquently for 27 minutes recently, emphasising that restricting public questions should be an essential part of saving time for committees.

So Councillor Bloxham, which councillor is that is using Legal Highs – I think we should be told!

Lies, damned lies – and Minutes!

It isn’t just Lord Salisbury and his Cabinet who would be proud of Norman Tebbit – he is almost certainly a hero to some at EDDC:

…. Finally, to the problem that bedevils coalition ministers: the feeling that after just one term in government, quite a few of them have been around too long. Francis Maude, Cabinet Office supremo and cutter-in-chief, is one such, and a peek at his parliamentary biog explains why: “Member for Horsham 1997–; Member for North Warwickshire, 1983-92; Contested North Warwickshire byelection 1900.” He didn’t win, of course. That’s a shame. Lord Salisbury and his cabinet would have thought the world of him.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/15/hugh-muir-diary-paxo-permutations

Councillor Key misses the (decimal) point!

What would you say was the average number of public speakers at planning meetings over the past year? 10? 15 perhaps?  It’s actually 1.5.

Councillor Graham Troman presented his research on this to last night’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC), in the debate on how to shorten the length of the currently unwieldy planning meetings. Reducing the number of public speakers was one suggestion in Cllr Bloxham’s proposals for resolving the problem.

Cllr Troman found that between May 2013 and April 2014 (i.e. the latest twelve-month period), there were 165 applications heard by the Development Management, with 249 contributors (including parish councillors) to public question time (maximum of 3 minutes allowed per speaker)…so an average of 1.5 public speakers per planning application.

But these complicated calculations seemed all too much for Cllr Key to take on board. He remarked that Cllr Troman had “overestimated himself” , and that an average of 2 people was more accurate.

Which left more than one of his fellow councillors wondering, “If he doesn’t understand 1.5, does he understand 4.5 minutes (= the time limit for 1.5 public speakers)?

 

After a rather rambling discussion, which jumped from one agenda item to another, and saw a marked division in voting between the majority party (not all of whom spoke), and the other councillors, the motion to have new rules on speaking was passed., with some amendments.  Amongst these were: listing and publishing in advance, the precise material planning applications to be addressed; introducing a buzzer system for time limits to speaking; insisting on pre-application for public questions; and stronger powers for the DMC Chair.

Cllr Bloxham’s report will now go to Cabinet, and then back to Full Council for approval.

 

“The public are crafty. They make the same arguments in different ways”, says Councillor Key.

Cllr Key made clear his view of the public, in this comment he made at tonight’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee. He left the Knowle Chamber smiling broadly, after he and his like-minded colleagues had voted in favour of restrictions to public speaking, as a solution to overlong Development Management Committee meetings.

More details to follow.

“Why did you become a councillor?”

 

In a confusing decision at Knowle today, Newton Poppleford councillor Graham Salter was found guilty of a breach of the councillors’ code of conduct.

After deliberating for over two and a half hours, a majority verdict of an EDDC Standards Sub-committee (Cllrs Godbeer (Chair),Bond and Newth) ruled that Cllr Salter should not have spoken and voted at two parish planning meetings (May 13th and June 24th 2013) concerning Clinton Devon Estates’ (CDE) controversial King Alfred Way (KAW) application .

The grounds were that a “reasonable member of the public with a knowledge of the facts” would conclude that the proximity of Cllr Salter’s house to the KAW site meant he had a personal interest that must “have prejudiced his judgement”.

But the ruling seemed strangely at odds with  the subcommittee’s acknowledgement that he had publicly declared a personal interest, and with their conclusion that he had acted “only in the public interest” (thereby apparently agreeing with his statement  that he was representing the many residents who oppose the building of 40 houses on prime agricultural land, in the AONB, outside the built-up perimeter of the village).

Does this mean that the supposed opinion of a theoretical man or woman “on the Clapham omnibus” weighs more heavily in code of conduct considerations than the support of informed locals?

Cllr Salter commented after the decision that it would not affect his view of his role as a councillor. He added that he saw the complaint against him as part of a concerted campaign to silence his opposition to the CDE project.

Two other complaints were made against Councillor Salter at the same time as this one, and are thought to be from a single source,. Both have already been dismissed. One alleged that he had an undeclared Pecuniary Interest, and was sent to the police, who discounted it; the other, sent to the Standards Committee, complained that he bullied fellow councillors, but was similarly found to be groundless.

When asked by Cllr Susie Bond, “Why did you become a councillor?”, Cllr Salter, replied that he had been to a Newton Poppleford parish meeting where SHLA (Strategic Housing Land Allocation) figures were mentioned, and he noticed the figures were incorrect. Soon afterwards, a vacancy occurred, and villagers encouraged him to apply. “I went on the council to represent villagers’ views”, he said.

Cllr Chris Cole, the complainant, who has strongly supported the KAW application, did not attend today’s hearing.

At the time of “going to press” no sanctions had been decided, though “councillor training” for Cllr Salter seems most likely.

 

For background to this case, see AREAS Newton Poppleford, or LINKS for Sidmouth Independent News archive.

 

 

Newton Poppleford Councillor summoned to special Standards sub-committee meeting tomorrow (Thurs 15th May)

As reported in the Sidmouth Herald, 11th May 2014, charges against Newton Poppleford Councillor Graham Salter,  for alleged non-declaration of a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) concerning the controversial King Alfred Way planning application , were dismissed by the police.

Nevertheless, Councillor Salter has been called to appear before an EDDC disciplinary committee tomorrow morning (see http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/standards_hearing_sub_committee_agenda_150514.pdf )

This may well fuel the widespread suspicion that the allegations against him are linked to his vigorous criticism of the process by which the Clinton Devon Estates application was brought forward.

Some have also pointed out that the requirement to declare a DPI was intended to prevent councillors from making personal gain from planning decisions. As the Herald report mentions, who exactly brought the charges against Councillor Salter, remains unclear.

This Thursday’s Standards Sub-Committee minutes are awaited with interest.

Important changes to public speaking rules to be debated at O&S Committee this Thursday evening (15th May)

The meeting, at Knowle, begins at 6.30pm on Thursday. Details at this link: http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/os_agenda_150514_combined.pdf

The Council is seeking ways to reduce the length of some meetings, which have become unwieldy, particularly those including major planning applications. What is the best solution? Does the heart of the problem lie with too much participation from the public, or is it a question of better management required (e.g. advance notification and brief precision about the planning matters which can be addressed; avoidance of repetition and overlong reviews of officer reports, etc) .

This is a sensitive issue in the run up to the 2015 elections.

 

 

 

 

Boles: do his left and right hands understand they are part of the same body?

The man who encourages councils to build everywhere now sats “don’t build everywhere”.

It’s a sure sign we are in an election period when we see ministers rowing back from unpleasant policies they know will lose them votes!

Stop unnecessarily threatening the green belt, Nick Boles tells councils
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10828669/Stop-unnecessarily-threatening-the-green-belt-Nick-Boles-tells-councils.html

EDA submission to parliamentary select committee on the NPPF, is now published

Please see following link and scroll down to East Devon Alliance to see our submission:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/communities-and-local-government-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/national-planning-policy-framework/?type=Written#pnlPublicationFilter

Speak now or forever hold your peace …

EDDC tries to silence minority councillors
http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/eddc_to_impose_restrictions_on_motions

Police try to silence blogger:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/12/police-ask-blogger-remove-legitimate-tweet-ukip

Is there a pattern here?

And here is an American view on it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/13/michael-abberton-police-ukip_n_5316613.html?ncid=flipboard

Tourism: the hidden economy in East Devon

….. “Last year, Devon, Cornwall and Somerset attracted 1.3m visits from abroad – 536,000 in Devon (up 148,000), 319,000 in Cornwall (an increase of 16,000) and 496,000 in Somerset (up 101,000).”

Can anyone. recall any major initiative on tourism by East Devon District Council in the last few years? Anyone recall the name of the EDDC Champion for Tourism?
Read more at http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Foreign-tourist-lavish-552m-Devon-Cornwall/story-21086915-detail/story.html#FUWOoiyvj6dzSEcO.99

Why Local Plans fail

This is a somewhat technical article but one point made is that your Local Plan will fail if you have not documented and minuted things such as how you have dealt with the “Duty to Co-operate”.

Our council is very lax with its minutes:  some meetings have no minutes at all, some have minutes that seem to bear little resemblance to the meetings that took place and some minutes are so secret that no-one except those in the meetings get to see them.  Transparency pays off in the end.

http://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18400%3Awhy-are-local-plans-failing&catid=63&Itemid=31

Axminster to get special treatment for parking reductions

And why, one asks, only Axminster?

Could this not be construed as political, especially as Councillor Chubb represents an Axminster ward and this is announced during the political “purdah” period before elections?

EDDC has listened to traders in Axminster and is proposing to launch a special car parking rate in all its pay and display car parks in the town – starting this month.
The move follows the success of an experimental Christmas parking promotion in December 2013, which proved successful in a number of East Devon towns.

Councillor Iain Chubb, EDDC’s Cabinet Member for Environment, said: “This scheme is an example of EDDC working smarter and engaging with communities. We have been working with town representatives to find a mutually acceptable way of supporting town centre economies. We remain open to innovative ideas to support other towns. We are continuing to have talks with the Association of East Devon Chambers of Commerce.”

At a meeting of Cabinet last Wednesday, EDDC Members backed a proposal to trial a promotional offer for up to six months.

During the trial period, running from the first available date in May until 31 October, and subject to certain conditions, there will be a tariff of £2 maximum charge for parking after 10am and for the rest of that day in any of EDDC’s pay and display car parks in Axminster.

Councillor Chubb added: “We are implementing this new car parks pricing initiative at the request of Axminster Chamber of Commerce. The trial has been designed to better serve the needs of the town.
EDDC will monitor usage and reserves the right to withdraw the offer before the closing date if car parks become unduly congested with cars parked by people abusing the spirit of the new system.

EDDC to administer flood relief grants

Flood resilience support given approval
Measures designed to help home and business owners protect their properties from future flood events have been approved by the council.
Last week, members agreed to give delegated authority to the chief executive to administer the East Devon elements of a scheme that forms part of a nationwide Government initiative prompted by the devastating storms and floods experienced during the past winter.The Government has launched a number of initiatives to assist householders and businesses recover from flooding and make their premises more resilient to future bad weather.

Councils have been invited to administer several schemes to:
• provide grants to householders and business owners to protect their properties
• offer Council Tax and Business Rate relief
• provide small ‘one-off’ grants called the Business Support Scheme.

The offers are available to owners of properties actually flooded between 1December 2013 and 31 March 2014 and for work designed to prevent future flooding as opposed to work that should be covered by insurance.

Guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government working with Defra means councils can administer the scheme on behalf of the Coalition.

EDDC’s local scheme is based on guidance issued in March and is mostly concerned with administration of the Repair and Renew Grant, which councils can award and then claim back from Westminster.

 

Measures designed to help home and business owners protect their properties from future flood events have been approved by the council.
Last week, members agreed to give delegated authority to the chief executive to administer the East Devon elements of a scheme that forms part of a nationwide Government initiative prompted by the devastating storms and floods experienced during the past winter.

The Government has launched a number of initiatives to assist householders and businesses recover from flooding and make their premises more resilient to future bad weather.

Councils have been invited to administer several schemes to:
• provide grants to householders and business owners to protect their properties
• offer Council Tax and Business Rate relief
• provide small ‘one-off’ grants called the Business Support Scheme.

The offers are available to owners of properties actually flooded between 1December 2013 and 31 March 2014 and for work designed to prevent future flooding as opposed to work that should be covered by insurance.

Guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government working with Defra means councils can administer the scheme on behalf of the Coalition.

EDDC’s local scheme is based on guidance issued in March and is mostly concerned with administration of the Repair and Renew Grant, which councils can award and then claim back from Westminster.

EDDC: the OAPs “friend”

Typical EDDC: find a problem, blame other people and don’t even think of providing a solution:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Exmouth-pensioners-told-mobility-scooters/story-21086542-detail/story.html

And this at the time when East Devon is in the top 10 places for a majority of people being over 65 …

 

Section 106 agreements: recent changes

In our spirit of helping EDDC to do the right thing at the right time, we draw their attention to an update on Section 106 agreements:

http://www.pas.gov.uk/3-community-infrastructure-levy-cil/-/journal_content/56/332612/4090701/ARTICLE

And just in case EDDC tries to make the same mistakes again …..

A judge has ruled quite clearly that attempting to use figures that are pre-National Planning Policy Framework is NOT allowed:

http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1293181/local-plan-ruling-a-warning