Category Archives: EDDC

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Oct 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, East Devon Tories, EDDC, Paul Diviani, Spin

Comments

1 Comment

Fake News: “I have the support of my Cabinet”

This phrase is fake news at any level – let’s take it at national and local level as an example

1. As with the national government where May chose her Cabinet, so does the Leader of EDDC. They choose people closest to them and the ones most inclined to do their bidding – it would be foolish to do anything else.

2. Cabinets are not chosen for quality – they are chosen for obedience. It’s no use May saying she tolerates Boris for not being a “yes man” as it is precisely that which has endangered her. A foolish “strategy” to follow if, like her or any other Leader, you want to cling to power. See Trump and Kim Jong-Un. You upset Trump, he fires you; you upset Kim … let’s not go there.

3. It pays to choose weak and feeble Cabinet members if you are their Leader. It strengthens your position. The downside is that you then have to forge VERY close relationships with your civil servants and officers as they are the route to getting your agenda fulfilled (or, in the case of the current government, a very close relationship with the DUP forged with a £1 billion bribe).

4. As soon as anyone hits a Cabinet, they get a vastly increased taste for power – it’s like a drug. They spend days and nights thinking about how THEY could make a better job of things. There is no such thing as loyalty to a Leader in a Cabinet.

So, when any leader says they have the full support of their cabinet – FAKE NEWS!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Oct 2017

Posted under

Coastal communities, EDDC, Exmouth, Grenadier, Regeneration

Exmouth water sports centre plans revealed

First thoughts?

Owl’s – well, it doesn’t look like it will win any design awards! Personally, Owl preferred the boating lake and swan pedallos.

http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/watersports-centre-plans-exmouth-seafront-575281

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Oct 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Asset sweating, Austerity cuts, East Devon Tories, Economy, EDDC

Comments

2 Comments

EDDC’s strategy for dealing with budget deficit: bleed residents dry?

“There is a significant shortfall projected in 2020/21 (£1.412m) which is as a result of an assumed rebasing of business rate income thereby reducing our income by £1.2m. It is proposed in the Finance Plan that work is started now in bridging this gap and driving self- sufficiency of the Council. Members have indicated that the strategic theme within the Transformation Strategy “Maximise the value of our assets through commercial thinking with a focus on income generation, sustainability and developing local economies” is one they believe has significant potential. The Financial Plan considers how this might be progressed with the use of a Member Group (possibly the Budget Working Party) to consider business cases and suggests that a fund is created to unlock barriers to the Council progressing this aim. Detailed recommendations will be presented within the 2018/19 Budget approval process.”

Click to access 041017-cabinet-agenda-combined.pdf

page 60

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

25 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Exeter City Council, Greater Exeter, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Post-Brexit Adjustments

Comments

1 Comment

Pete’s pool in Exeter, Paul’s folly in Honiton?

Exeter City Council Leader Pete Edwards is known for having a dream of what has been dubbed “Pete’s Pool” on the site of the current Exeter Bus Station, despite warnings that Brexit could send it pear-shaped. And now, indeed, the pear has been shaped as both the Princesshay extension AND the pool plans have, at least for now, bitten the dust, with Brexit price rises cited as part of the problem.

Is there a lesson here for “Paul’s Folly” – the new EDDC HQ which could cost us anything from £3 million – £10 million (depending on whether EDDC can sell its current HQ to luxury-retirement home developer PegasusLife?

“Exeter’s hoped-for city centre development has been hit by a “double whammy” after a deal to build the new leisure centre and bus station collapsed, the city council leader has revealed.

It emerged on Monday morning that the Crown Estate had cancelled its plans to extend Princesshay shopping centre, citing “market conditions”.

This consigned to the rubbish bin an ambitious plan for a huge public space and amphitheatre across Paris Street into the old bus station and up to the back of Sidwell Street.

Following this, Exeter City Council revealed that a contract with the firm lined up to build the state-of-the-art swimming pool and bus station, believed to be Sir Robert McAlpine, had not been signed.

The authority has now walked away from the deal and plans to re-tender for both projects, adding a year to the completion date, now set at 2020.

Asked if the two were connected, council leader Pete Edwards said the building firm may have been banking on securing the contract to construct the Princesshay extension. …

… Economic uncertainty around Brexit has been blamed for rising prices and the falling value of the pound may have made the leisure centre even more expensive.

Cllr Edwards believes the exchange rate is making material from mainland Europe more expensive but has vowed to complete the project, dubbed by critics “Pete’s Pool”, “before he dies”.

“It is a double whammy and a disaster for the city,” he added. …”

http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/exeters-double-whammy-leisure-centre-529532

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, EDDC, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, PegasusLife, Transparency

EDDC lays foundations for new HQ in Honiton – but who is paying?

EDDC must be feeling VERY positive about the outcome of the PegasusLife Planning appeal as the sale of Knowle land, at around £7.1 million, is meant to contribute to the £10,361,000 cost (at last years costing – who knows what it is this year).

And does it include the £1m plus cost of Exmouth town hall?

Next year’s council tax deliberations will be interesting!

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/building-work-begins-on-new-district-council-hq-in-honiton-1-5206184

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, DCC, Democracy, EDDC, NHS (local), Paul Diviani, Sarah Randall Johnson, Scrutiny

Comments

2 Comments

Q: who does Diviani represent on the NHS? A: Jeremy Hunt

How does Owl know?

Well, he DOESN’T represent East Devon District Council – they told him to vote to keep local community hospital beds and maternity services open. He went to a DCC scrutiny meeting and voted to close them.

He DOESN’T represent the eight district councils he is supposed to represent at DCC [as a co-optee NOT a full member of the committee – and he was only allowed to vote because the badly-worded DCC constitution does not make the voting power of a co-optee clear] because he admitted in public that he did not consult any of the other councils before voting.

He DOESN’T represent DCC because he has not stood for election to that council and been successful.

WHAT was his reason/excuse/pathetic flim flam for his vote then?

That other attempts to refer the closure to the Secretary of State had failed, so this one would also fail.

How did he know that? Does he have a direct line to Hunt’s office or what passes for Hunt’s brain? He must have one or the other because he KNEW in advance what would happen and chose to vote on what he says he KNEW.

But if he KNEW what would happen (and he says he did) then why not vote as EDDC told him to do? The letter would have failed and he could still say he had voted as instructed at EDDC (though not as other councils wanted as he had no idea about that.

BUT – as he again admitted – it would have slowed down the closure. It would have given councils, the staff and supporters of the hospitals, the patients and their carers, more time to put alternative plans into action. More home care staff, more suitable plans for hospital buildings, better care for patients at home.

He did none of these things. He and Sarah Randall-Johnson consigned community hospitals to the rubbish heap.

And all because, he says, he knew what Jeremy Hunt would do.

So, now we know, he has a direct line to Jeremy Hunt and does what Jeremy Hunt wants him to do.

But why? Owl can only guess that he wants a gong from this despicable government to add to his only other qualification – an innkeepers certificate.

And the only way to do that is do the bidding of those who hand them out.

And if that isn”t his rationale, Owl would welcome a comment from him which would be published on the blog in full.

And what of his “representation” of the other councils? Who voted for him to be their representative? Was there a vote at all?

Or conversations in dark corners of County Hall?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Councillor Cathy Gardner EDA, DCC, East Devon Tories, EDDC, NHS (local), Paul Diviani

EDDC Tory councillors voted against themselves to protect Leader

Sir

“A letter, copied below, from today’s Sidmouth Herald (22/09/17), explains:

The issue of no confidence in EDDC Leader Paul Diviani is nothing new, as the 4,000 people who took part in the SOS Mass March to Knowle, nearly 5 years ago, would agree. (Nov 3rd, 2012, photos archived on http://www.saveoursidmouth.com).

How is it, then, that the ‘Motion against East Devon District Council leader’ failed’ (Sidmouth Herald, 15/09/17)?

Paul Diviani had, according to a senior Conservative colleague, clearly broken trust with the District Council. At the County Health Scrutiny Committee, the EDDC Leader had failed to represent his own Council’s unanimous (i.e. cross-party) recommendation that hospital bedcuts should stop until an effective alternative had been shown to be in place. His contrary vote had influenced the outcome at the DCC, the only body capable of statutory action, thereby apparently betraying not just his own Council, but the people of East Devon that they represent. This left the Tory group of District Councillors “caught between a rock and a hard place”, as Cathy Gardner (EDDC Ward Member Sidmouth Town, East Devon Alliance) reminded them, at the Extra Ordinary Meeting at Knowle (13/09/17).

But all the Tory Councillors present (just one abstained), did an extraordinary thing. To the disbelief of the public crammed into the Council Chamber, they turned the debate away from their uncomfortable Leader’s conduct, and onto problems with the National Health Service. Then, in voting against the Motion of No Confidence in the Leader, they effectively blockvoted against their own unanimous recommendation regarding NHS problems and bedcuts, taken just a few weeks’ earlier. The sort of thing, and Leader, that brings a Council into disrepute?
Jacqueline Green
Sidmouth”

How ‘no confidence vote’ came to be rejected by Council let down by its Leader

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Sep 2017

Posted under

Developers/ Development, EDDC, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, PegasusLife

“Knowle plans would create ‘elderly ghetto’ “

<em“Appeal documents published this week reveal the continued strength of feeling against redevelopment plans for Knowle – with claims Sidmouth would be dealt a ‘devastating blow’.

PegasusLife has taken landowner East Devon District Council’s decision to refuse its scheme to the Planning Inspectorate.

In emotional submissions, residents said the developer’s proposals for 113 retirement flats ‘run a coach and horses’ over the site’s 50-home allocation in the Local Plan and would create an ‘elderly ghetto’.

Organisations including Sidmouth Arboretum, the Vision Group for Sidmouth, and the Knowle Residents’ Association have also responded to reiterate their calls for the application to be thrown out.

The Sid Vale Association said: “PegasusLife has clearly done its utmost to maximise the development on the site for commercial reasons.

“The appeal should be refused on the grounds that it seeks more than double the number of dwellings earmarked in the Local Plan; that it proposes buildings of a poor architectural design, and that its impacts on nearby residents and on the public parkland are unacceptable.”

Liz Fuller, the buildings at risk officer at SAVE Britain’s Heritage, restated its strong objection to the proposals, saying they represented a ‘devastating blow’ to the history and character of Sidmouth.

Knowle Drive resident Robin Fuller said: “If, at the first major test of the Local Plan, a developer succeeds in turning over its objectives by a huge margin, then the process of local planning is null and void and local democracy can be considered dead and buried.

“Approval on appeal will set a precedent for other developments to run a coach and horses through the intentions of the plan.”

PegasusLife said its scheme will only ‘materially impact’ Hillcrest and its amenity will not be adversely affected.

Homeowners Rob and Sandra Whittle challenged this, adding: “It is crucial that the planning inspector make an internal visit to Hillcrest to understand the negative impact on our home and appreciate what a permanently devastating blow this development in its present form would have on our lives.”

Submissions said 20 homes besides Hillcrest, in Knowle Drive and Broadway, would be adversely affected.

George and Ann Ellis live in Knowle Drive but were in support of the appeal. They said: “Although parts of the development will have some effect on us we feel that these will not be too much of an inconvenience in what to us seems an otherwise satisfactory and necessary scheme. We are very conscious that there is a great need for more housing in the UK with a growing and ageing population.

“Sidmouth is a very popular retirement location and there now appear to be few sites for development – hence the suitability of Knowle.

“There is a big demand for older people to downsize and the benefit of this is that more properties are freed up for younger families.”

EDDC’s development management committee defied officer advice to refuse the scheme last December – arguing it represented a departure from Knowle’s 50-home allocation in the Local Plan. Members also objected to the scale, height, bulk and massing of the proposed development.

At the appeal, PegasusLife will argue the scheme is ‘thoughtful and considered’, its benefits outweigh any potential harm to the listed summerhouse and there is a ‘compelling need’ for extra care accommodation in East Devon.

The deal is worth £7.505million to EDDC, which is relocating to Exmouth and Honiton.

The inquiry will open at 10am on Tuesday, November 28.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/knowle-plans-would-create-elderly-ghetto-1-5203821

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Asset sweating, EDDC, Mark Williams CEO EDDC, Voting

EDDC has other ways of raising cash … but not votes

Owl says: shame they couldn’t put the same amount of effort into getting voters to register. CEO Williams said it was much too dangerous to go around the dark, rural roads in East Devon seeking them out.

Owl hopes the officers tasked with weeding out these miscreants have had good martial arts training for dealing with those elderly widows, widowers and single mums!

And just as well officer time is never costec when accounting for how such an exercise!

“Council Tax paying resis who wrongly claim they live alone and get a council tax discount are being targeted in East Devon. Checks are beginning this month to ensure that the 21,000 East Devon householders who currently claim a 25% discount for living alone are still entitled to it.

Councillor Ian Thomas, portfolio holder for finance, said “anyone genuinely claiming a reduction should not be concerned. However, if you are found to be deliberately misleading the council, you could face a penalty of £70, as well as having to repay the discount,” he added.”

[Source: BBC Devon]

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Exmouth Creative Group, Philip Skinner, Regeneration, Small and Medium businesses, Spin, Tourism, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

EDDC seems to prefer income loss to seafront attractions

Owl has spotted a disclosure by EDDC in relation to a FOI on the loss of income and business rates on closed Exmouth seafront businesses:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lost_council_income_from_queens#comment-80255

EDDC effectively admit that council rental income from those properties on Queens Drive, which they closed a while back, mean a loss at a rate of over £18,300 pa. On top of the rent, they will have lost an as yet unspecified amount of council business rates and beach hut hire income. Oh, and the area now looks derelict.

Though there were claims that the Fun Park site was needed in connection with works on phases 1 and 2, there are plans in existence (see on Save Exmouth Seafront Facebook page) which show no such need for access as yet to the Fun Park.

It seems clear that EDDC have done little or nothing about arrangements for ‘temporary attractions’ on the Fun park site next year – at least as far as the public can determine.

So, we know that already part of the seafront is looking run down and desolate, and is losing money into the bargain. Further, the case for getting rid of the Fun Park seems much more to do with EDDC taking offence at a long established family business having the sheer gall to take EDDC on in pursuit of that families legitimate rights, than allowing them to continue to provide a much-loved service to the community – including thousands of tourists.

No, rather EDDC take a chance that something “might” come up by way of temporary attractions if only it hopes hard enough.

And surely EDDC is breaking its own (well-honed) rules on confidentiality when it voluntarily gives information that one owner allegedly had an outstanding unpaid bill – again.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Asset Management Group, EDDC, EDDC HQ, Exmouth, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, PegasusLife, Post-Brexit Adjustments, Scrutiny, SWAP (EDDC internal audit)

Council’s £1 million overspend investigated; our council’s multimillion overspend on new HQ not investigated!

OUR council has already spent nearly that much on its satellite HQ in Exmouth. The Honiton HQ was supposed to be cost neutral with the proceeds of the £7 Knowle sale to PegasusLife but latest estimates (some while ago and not adjusted for post-Brexit soaring costs) was around £10 million.

How come SWAP could do this in Herefordshire but not in East Devon. Or why KPMG – its new auditors – are not doing it now?

“A special investigation into how the costs of establishing a joint customer services hub in a refurbished building soared from £950,000 to more than £1.9m has found evidence that officers “knowingly disregarded council process and procedures”.

The investigation into the Blueschool House refurbishment was carried out by the South West Audit Partnership for Herefordshire Council. The local authority has been working with the Department of Work and Pensions on the project. Have we ever seen the (updated) business case for the new HQ?

The business case for the hub was approved by the council’s Director of Resources on 13 May 2016 and the key decision taken on 2 June 2016 was approved by the Cabinet Member Contracts and Assets.

The SWAP report said: “Overall the council’s normal governance processes have not been followed by key officers involved in the Blueschool House refurbishment.

The key decision did follow the correct governance process however the business case to support the key decision lacked clarity over what works would be included in the £950K agreed financial envelope.

“It would appear that key staff including senior officers at Director level were aware of the council processes and procedures but these have not been applied during this project and there is evidence that officers have knowingly disregarded council process and procedure.”

The investigation found that although there were early indications from the framework provider that the project could not be delivered within the financial envelope even with value engineering, key officers failed to report this to Cabinet.

The report also said:

The rationale for the selection of the contractor could not be demonstrated as there were no records to support this. The property services team had responded to client requests without providing robust challenge, and had not followed the council procedure rules in relation to procurement.

The relationship between the property services team and contractors appeared to be informal for a capital project of this value and throughout the project there was little evidence that value for money could be demonstrated.

In line with the capital guidance, major projects should be overseen by a project board. The Accommodation Programme Board had oversight of the overall accommodation strategy until November 2016 however, there was no project board for the Blueschool House refurbishment project.

The timescale of the project was identified as a major risk in the business case as the project was subject to a time constraint pressure due to the DWP serving notice on their current property. This was a key factor in ensuring the project was progressed and had contributed to the overall poor governance.

The SWAP report said it was “for management to consider and determine whether any further action such as disciplinary action, should be taken against individual officers as it is clear there has been disregard for processes and procedures which has resulted in a significant overspend on the project”.

The report was due to be considered by the council’s audit and governance committee at a meeting this week (20 September).”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, EDDC, Local Enterprise Partnership, Sleaze, Somerset

Comments

1 Comment

Compare and contrast: pay rises

£81,000 to £95,000:

“The board that oversees Glasgow’s three further education colleges has dropped plans to award a 17% pay rise to a senior official.

This followed intervention by the deputy first minister after the proposal was roundly criticised by Holyrood’s public audit committee.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/09/scottish-fe-executives-17-pay-rise-blocked-after-ministerial-intervention

MEANWHILE, here in Devon:

£90,727 to £115,000:

“So, here we are: Somerset County Council theoretically holds the purse strings – except it obviously doesn’t! There is no scrutiny or transparency, no way of stopping this juggernaut that we have never been consulted about.

AND we have no way of knowing how Diviani voted – the LEP doesn’t release such information.

“Chris Garcia, chief executive of the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), could see his pay jump nearly 27% from £90,729 to £115,000. [This was agreed today with the two councils objecting].

“Somerset council leader John Osman said: “The pay of £90,000 is already too much so I believe it should be at least 10% less than that.”

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/01/17/17562/

As a recent commentator points out:

“Two key points:

1. LEP is completely and utterly unaccountable either to the people of the SW directly or via our elected representatives on the CCs.

2. Unlike the Scottish government, the UK government is unwilling to step in in the interests of prudent and acceptable public spending, and by failing to step in is giving the appearance that they promote this sort of excessive pay for their friends (and in some case party sponsors) in what many of would consider a corrupt way.

Funny how there is never any money for essential rank-and-file public sector workers like nurses and firemen and prison officers and the police etc. whose pay rises (when they get them) continue to be below inflation, but they never have anything to say and never take any action when it is their mates and sponsors who are getting them. And if the excuse is because of the weight of their responsibilities and the stresses of the position, why does not that also apply to nurses etc. who face danger and traumatic experiences every day, and whose workloads are increasing due to cuts in staff numbers?

SUMMARY: Its one rule for the Conservative elite and their friends / sponsors, and another for the remaining 95%-98% of the population.

CONSERVATIVES: “For the few not the many.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Exeter City Council, Exmouth, Greater Exeter, Transparency

Is there enough oxygen at Oxygen House?

Owl is intrigued by just how much oxygen there is in Oxygen House, Grenadier Road, Exeter Business Park, Exeter EX1 3LH

Click to access Exeter-Business-Park-brochure.pdf

and whether it will be enough to allow everyone working there to breathe it in.

The building is shown here as home to 16 companies:

https://www.companieshousedata.co.uk/a/18713

Of course, it is the headquarters of Grenadier, the preferred developer of the Exmouth watersports centre and Grenadier is shown as having, or having had, no less than eight companies there.

Grenadier Exmouth has five directors, who share 37 directorships of other companies also based at Oxygen House and more companies in different parts of the country (for example head honcho Mark Dixon has 17 of his 20 directorships based in the building and other directorships of other companies in nearby properties on the same business park).

The building’s blurb says:

“The Oxygen House group invests in environmental rebalance on which building a prosperous society depends. A dynamic mix of established companies and start-ups, our specialities include venture capital & private equity, impact investment, property, renewable energy & clean tech, education technology, city planning and data analytics.

Our business model mobilises financial, scientific, mathematical and engineering expertise to address the following urgent goals:

A carbon-neutral society. This will be based on MWs of both renewable energy produced and demand reduced by more prudent energy consumption.
An overhaul in educational standards through shrewd, patient investment in radical data technology.”

AND it is a friendly place for all based there:

“Oxygen House enables individuals and our partner companies to develop and flourish. Literally we’re a shared physical space. Conceptually we’re a mutually supportive value system. Emotionally we’re a family of likeminded companies and individuals. And our commitment to common goals is unshakeable.”

http://www.oxygenhouse.com

But less obvious is the “shared physical space” and individual connections with “Greater Exeter” and, through that link, to other interests pertinent to East Devon.

For example, “Exeter City Futures” is also shown as having its base there:

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09891138

and one of its directors is Exeter City Councillor, Rosie Denham.

“Exeter City Futures” describes itself laudably thus:

“Exeter City Futures goal is to make the Exeter region congestion free and energy independent by 2025.”

However, Councillor Denham is also an Exeter City Council signatory to one of the major “Greater Exeter” documents, “Exeter and Heart of Devon Economic Partnership Strategy 2017-2020”:

Click to access S0031_EHOD%20shared%20strategy_lowres.pdf

Exeter City, East Devon, Mid Devon and Teignbridge are the partners in that. (Quite how Councillor Denham will make Exeter energy independent without pushing its problems on to the other areas of the partnership, including East Devon, in which she is involved will be very challenging for her)!

Shown also as a director of “Exeter City Futures” is Glen Woodcock. He is a director of no less than NINE companies registered at Oxygen House (plus 5 others elsewhere). He shares several of these directorships with Grenadier boss Mark James Dixon – director of Grenadier Exmouth.

Mr Woodcock is also a director of “City Science Corporation” also based at Oxygen House which includes a description as “Management consultancy activities other than financial management”
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09801932

Owl feels it would be possible to go on and on almost infinitely with these “six degrees of separation” links that bind the individuals popping in and out of Oxygen House and the companies that exist, parallel and overlapping in the building.

But suffice to say, there must be an awful lot of oxygen (and possibly hot air) in the building!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Greater Exeter, Local Enterprise Partnership, Paul Diviani, Philip Skinner, Transparency

Diviani and Skinner lead EDDC for “Greater Exeter” and business-led Local Enterprise Partnership

“Pragmatic in its focus, the strategy sets out how our economic development teams are working effectively on the areas where our respective council/corporate plans overlap.
The strategy also sets out our collective growth ambitions, priorities and future approach that we will take to support economic growth and development for the greater Exeter area.

No new resource or structural changes are being put forward in this strategy – only an assurance that EHOD authorities continue to dedicate the existing economic officer resource to the four key EHOD economic initiatives where we can show collaborative working to be more effective and efficient in delivering outputs for our local authority areas beyond what we could achieve in isolation. …

… We will use the Shared Economic Strategy to communicate to partners our ambitions and plans, with a view of improving collaboration and maximising leverage.”

The strategy will address the key themes of the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership (HoTSW LEP) Devolution Prospectus and support the delivery of the emerging Single Productivity Plan, maximising the effectiveness of the group’s work with the HoTSW LEP. …”

Signature here Cllr Paul Diviani Leader
Signature here Cllr Philip Skinner Economy PFH Exeter City Council
Signature here Cllr Pete Edwards Leader, Exeter City Council
Signature here Cllr Rosie Denham Economy and Culture PFH, Exeter City Council

Click to access S0031_EHOD%20shared%20strategy_lowres.pdf

So, no resources except officer time … a very expensive resource, the hourly cost of which is never counted by our councils and comes out of our pockets.

Diviani and Skinner … a marriage made in … ! Still, our Tory councillors do so trust each other, so that’s … er … fine?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, EDDC, Midweek Herald, Scrutiny, Spin

Comments

1 Comment

Newspapers and their dependence on council advertising revenues

Owl says: Recent research and Freedom of Information requests revealed that around 90% of EDDC’s advertising budget goes to Archant titles (Midweek Herald, Sidmouth Herald, Exmouth Journal), up to 5% with Express and Echo and up to 5% to View from … titles.

Most major controversial or contentious news stories involving EDDC seem to emanate from the Express and Echo and View from … titles (though the Daily Telegraph revealed the explosive story of disgraced ex-Councillor Graham Brown’s conflicts of interest on its front page in March 2013).

“853 exclusive: Greenwich borough’s newest local paper scrapped its news coverage after Greenwich Council objected to “negative” stories and considered withdrawing its advertising, sources have told 853.
The free Greenwich Weekender launched in May this year after publisher Southwark Newspaper successfully bid for a contract to carry the council’s public notices – official notifications about planning applications, traffic restrictions and other council functions.

Public notices used to appear in the council’s own weekly, Greenwich Time, which closed in June 2016 after government restrictions were put on “council Pravdas”.

33,500 copies of the what’s-on paper are delivered door-to-door across Greenwich borough, with a further 8,500 available at collection points across the area.

As well as covering culture and leisure items, early editions of Weekender devoted space to straight news stories, following a template set by its sister paper in Lambeth. Ahead of its launch, reporter Kirsty Purnell made contact with local community groups to introduce herself and get stories.

An editorial introducing issue one, signed by managing directors Chris Mullany and Kevin Quinn, promised “local news, town hall events and all your community events and campaigns”. And Purnell’s efforts paid off, with Weekender featuring many stories missed by other outlets.

But this didn’t go down well with Greenwich Council.

The first edition gave space to people concerned about Greenwich Council’s plans to redevelop the old Woolwich covered market and neighbouring buildings. Later editions saw traders in Greenwich Market get space for their fears over business rates, while residents in Woolwich grumbled about council staff taking their parking spaces. …

In short, Greenwich Weekender was doing the job of a proper local paper. Indeed, it even planned to run columns from local political leaders, again echoing a feature in Lambeth Weekender. Hartley was among those approached, but the columns never apeared.

This website understands leading figures in the council were angry about the paper covering “negative” news stories – and were also unhappy about Efford’s coverage in the paper during June’s general election campaign.

A proposal to scrap Greenwich Weekender‘s ad contract – which would effectively close the paper – was discussed. But councillors voted down the measure at a meeting of the council’s Labour group in mid-June, which is said to have descended into a “huge row”. One idea discussed was to place the ads in the London Evening Standard instead, 853 has been told.

Instead, it was decided that the council would tell Weekender to stop covering news stories.

News stories disappeared from the title at the end of June, and the only “news” in Greenwich Weekender – which still bills itself as “an independent weekly newspaper” – since have been advertorial pieces paid for by Greenwich Council. …

The three-year Greenwich Weekender deal is worth up to £1.2 million to Southwark Newspaper. It also means the paper can be distributed from libraries and other council-affiliated locations.

But in the council report recommending taking up the contract, it said it wanted its public notices to be “published… in the context of engaging local editorial content which helps to positively inform local residents about the measures that their neighbours and local service providers are undertaking to make the borough a great place to live, work, learn and visit”.

It would appear that Greenwich Council believes this means snuffing out scrutiny of its actions in any outlet that carries its ads. …

Greenwich’s newest local paper drops news coverage after council pressure

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, East Devon Electoral/Returning Officer, EDDC, General Election, Mark Williams CEO EDDC, Scrutiny, Voting

Plymouth postal votes fiasco gets fierce criticism; EDDC’s SECOND postal vote fiasco still awaiting scrutiny

Our fiasco here:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/07/17/eddc-second-postal-votes-fiasco-will-be-scrutinised/

Plymouth fiasco here:

“Plymouth City Council has received a report into electoral issues that led to problems at the last general election.

Between 150 and 200 people were unable to vote, and about 2,000 postal ballots were not sent out.

An independent report headed by Dr Dave Smith, the former chief executive of Sunderland City Council, looked into all aspects of the way the election was managed.

He will present it to full council on 25 September.

The council said his recommendations included telling it to:

Act swiftly to permanently recruit enough suitably experienced electoral registration staff to ensure the elections team is up to recommended staffing levels

In the meantime, ensure there are enough interim staff with sufficient operational experience to manage the team, build capacity and ensure focus

Make sure sufficient resources and properly documented systems, procedures and processes are put in place to ensure a successful election canvass and prepare for local elections in 2018 and plan for a future general election

Develop a more detailed communications plan with key stakeholders to ensure effective election communications especially when unusual situations arise

Carry out an independent review in January 2018 to ensure the council is suitably prepared for elections in May 2018″

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-devon-41161495

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Consultation, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Regeneration, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Spin

Sidmouth Drill Hall ‘propaganda’

Owl says: starting a consultation by illustrating it with a detailed schematic plan of 5 storey buildings is asking for trouble – duh!

If you then go on to construct those 5 storey buildings, it would get very murky indeed!

“A campaigner determined to see Sidmouth’s Drill Hall considered as part of any regeneration plans for Port Royal has slammed ‘propaganda’ from project leaders.

Mary Walden-Till’s research into the history of the eastern town has covered much of the same ground as the scoping study commissioned by landowners Sidmouth Town Council (STC) and East Devon District Council (EDDC).

Town clerk Christopher Holland and Councillor Jeff Turner sat down with the Herald in a bid to reassure residents nothing has yet been decided – but Ms Walden-Till took issue with several of the points they raised.

She raised: “I know that both Cllr Turner and Mr Holland are committed to doing what they think is the best for Sidmouth so I was very disappointed to read something in the Herald (‘Port Royal could see massive development – or nothing at all’) which appeared to be propaganda rather than unadorned fact.

“If we want the best outcome for the town, we all need to make sure we are not playing games, even accidentally. If they can’t avoid ‘spin’ then they can’t claim to be open-minded on the issue. It is a matter of fact that both of them are on record as being vehemently opposed to preserving the Drill Hall.

“If the starting point is that the Drill Hall must be demolished, then it has to be accepted that it is unlikely that a developer would be interested in such a small plot, so then the search begin for a way to make it worth a developer’s time.

As a designer, it is important to me to start a project with no preconceptions about what should be removed or retained in order to achieve the desired result.

“The scoping exercise consultants should have started from the same point, and we should be able to see that they had considered a range of ways of increasing what Port Royal can offer to the town.

“This development should be about the town and not about ways of making money for the district as a whole. The district has already benefitted from Sidmouth’s loss in far too many circumstances: for example the loss of Fortfield Hotel to expensive apartments, the Section 106 money from which went to the district not solely to Sidmouth, and the upcoming loss of the council jobs at the Knowle, moving employment from Sidmouth to other areas of the district.

“To suggest that reusing the Drill Hall will of necessity ‘take away from other users’ of Port Royal is clearly ridiculous. How would preserving what is there at the same time reduce what is there?”

In a joint statement, Mr Holland and Cllr Turner said: “STC and EDDC would like to reiterate the aims of the scoping study. It is to research, investigate and report on the opportunities and constraints of improving the whole important Port Royal area.

“The councils have yet to receive the independent consultant’s Scoping Study to even begin discussing issues such as detailed designs, which would come further along in the project.

“The study is the start of a process that would, if supported by the councils, involve a much more detailed visioning for future consideration.

“To champion a single building at this stage which is a small part of a much larger area and be in constant opposition to a simple study which only aims to help inform councillors is not helpful.

“Members of both councils will decide how and if to proceed once the scoping study report is presented to them.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/drill-hall-campaigner-hits-out-at-port-royal-propaganda-1-5194185

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, East Devon Tories, EDDC, Health and Social Care (local), Independent Councillors, Paul Diviani, Scrutiny, Spin

Diviani: Confidence or protection of cronies?

NO, NO, NO – Diviani does NOT have the trust of the Council.

He has the PROTECTION of his Tory cronies.

“East Devon District Council’s Conservative Leader says that he still has the confidence and trust of the council after a failed vote of no confidence into his leadership – but the leader of the opposition says that he will now do all in his power to kick out all the Tories at the next election.

Speaking after the meeting, Cllr Ben Ingham, the leader of the East Devon Alliance, said that he would do everything in his power to ensure that he could field 59 candidates at the next district elections.

Cllr Ingham said: “The Tories on this council voted to protect the political career of Paul Diviani instead of looking after the people of East Devon.

“As a result, I will do all that I can in my power to in 20 months field 59 independent councillors at the East Devon District Council elections and this will give the people a chance to kick out the lot of them, and I challenge the people of East Devon to do that.

Cllr Diviani though said that the vote showed that he did have the trust of the council. …”

http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/east-devon-council-leader-says-478749

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Sustainability, Transport (local)

Councillor and council officer parking perks

Devon County
Staff pay between 50p and £2 per day depending on salary and there are two compulsory car-free days. No information on cost to councillors.
Visitors: up to £7 per day.

Exeter City Council:
120 people can park £2 per day in council car parks in Exeter for which the public must pay £10 per day. No information on who the 120 people are and whether some or all are councillors.

North, East, Mid and West Devon:
Free parking for officers, councillors and visitors.
(Almost every year Independent Councillor Roger Giles presses for charges to be introduced and each time he is voted down)

Plymouth:
Staff
Permits for £50 per month in nearby car park. No information on whether or not this includes councillors.

Torridge and Torbay:
Refused to provide the information – Freedom of Information request made.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, DCC, EDDC, Exmouth, Honiton/ Gittisham, Independent Councillors, Inequality, NHS (local), Paul Diviani, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Spin

Comments

1 Comment

Some councillors value party over people … and they are all Conservatives

“Knowle Council Chamber yet again rang with cries of “Shame” from the public gallery, as entrenched Party allegiance took precedence over East Devon’s wellbeing, and the Motion of No Confidence in the EDDC Leader was lost by 31 votes to 18.

Of the 32 Tory members present (there were some notable absences, including some who had distanced themselves from Diviani), one abstained and 31 voted against. The Motion, called by the Independent Group, was supported by strong and clear arguments condemning Diviani for his conduct at the Devon County Health Scrutiny Committee*. As Cllr Roger Giles (Ottery St Mary) spoke of it as “a day of shame and infamy”, adding, ”In 26 years on this Council, I cannot think of a single occasion where a Leader has gone against his Council”.

Condemnation came from Council representatives far and wide across the District, to frequent applause from the crammed-full public gallery. Cllr Ben Ingham (Lympstone), who had called the Motion, pointed out why Diviani’s conduct had failed “all of the 7 Nolan principles in one go”, indicating how “This council continues to fester under a pernicious Leader”. Cllr Val Ranger (Newton Poppleford and Harpford) reminded Members that “We relied on Paul Diviani”, and arguing that “He does not understand the role of his own Scrutiny Committee.”

Cllr Cathy Gardner (Sidmouth) sympathised with Tory Councillors now finding themselves “between a rock and a hard place” (as they’d voted unanimously for the decision that their Leader had then ignored), and asked them, “Are your principles with your Party or with the people of East Devon?”

Cllr Geoff Jung (Woodbury) put his support for the No Confidence Motion succinctly, “Cllr Diviani agreed to take our vote to the DCC meeting, but he voted the other way”. Cllr Cllr Marianne Rixson (Sidmouth-Sidford ) said, “He’s betrayed everyone. How can we trust a Leader who ignores us? When will he do it again?”. Cllr Susie Bond (Feniton & Buckerell) reported her own town council’s “unanimous and extreme dismay”. Cllr Steve Gazzard (Exmouth) reasoned that “The Leader has got it totally wrong” . Cllr Peter Burrows (Seaton) said, “Councillors should support Community first, Party second.” Cllr Peter Faithfull (Ottery St Mary) drew attention to the central issue that “The personal views of one councillor (Diviani) is not what this is about. It’s whether we can have confidence in him”.

In contrast, contributions from the Conservative Councillors supporting their Leader, seemed to be largely out of focus. Cllrs Mark Williamson , Geoff Pook, Ian Hall and others, spoke mainly about NHS difficulties, some citing personal stories at some length. There were frequent calls of “irrelevant” from the public.

The Chair made no attempt to remind them of the wording of the Motion they were there to debate, but cautioned the public on several occasions, that hecklers would be removed.

So many members of the public had registered to speak, but the time allocation of 15 minutes in total, meant that several questions could not be put. The Chair, Andrew Moulding (Axminster) did however ensure that one question to the Leader, from East Devon resident, Jane Ashton, was answered straightaway. Here it is, with the response.

Jane Ashton : “When members of the public stand up for democracy, honesty and representation, to accuse them of being politically motivated is disrespectful. Would you acknowledge that?”

Paul Diviani replied that he “doesn’t recall himself ever saying these words. I would not like to be seen to be disrespectful in any way.”

The Leader’s reply might perplex the public who were there last night for the second Extra Ordinary Meeting concerning the fate of the Exmouth Fun Park.

Full report on both Extra Ordinary Meetings on the Devonlive news:

http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/council-leader-survives-vote-no-473700&#8221;