“EDDC falls foul of its own policies”

“Exmouth Splash – FacebookPublic Opinion & Discussion Page

A little while ago we reported that EDDC had decided to make permanent a trial that restricted the right to speak at public meetings.

Thanks to one alert Exmouth resident, it was noticed that on the list of speakers in the planning matters relating to Queens Drive, two names had appeared to speak in support. One was Ian MacQueen chairman of Exmouth Chamber of Commerce who is also on the Exmouth Regeneration panel. The second name didn’t ring any bells locally.

One of the conditions now set by EDDC for speakers is that they must have previously submitted a written comment on the application. Nobody could find any such written representation from Mr MacQueen or the second party. In fact there were no comments in support from anyone.

EDDC were contacted by a number of pteople who questioned why these two speakers were on the list to speak in what appeared to be a clear contravention of the new EDDC rules.

The two individuals were removed from the speakers list but we have no explanation as to how ever they got on the list (yet- we will ask).

Cllr Moulding was also on the list to speak but this too seemed to be without complying with the new rules. He was allowed to speak – the explanation being that it was at the chairman’s discretion. Although this seems fundamentally wrong to give the applicant (EDDC) more than the one permitted opportunity to speak, Cllr Moulding’s apparent comments about the swan ponds being nothing more than holes in the ground may well have helped the case for opposing the applications!”

Broadband suppliers to be forced to give automatic refunds for slow speeds or loss of service

Recall that EDDC is planning to go-it-alone for broadband distribution in East Devon. Will EDDC or the broadband provider pay the automatic compensation if the service goes down? If it is EDDC it would mean that all of us would end up paying for outages!

“Ofcom, the communications watchdog, has said BT and other operators will have to pay consumers and businesses when they are cut off or have slow broadband.

Mr Moore said: “I would welcome automatic payouts, but it depends on the amount of compensation. What we were offered was pittance. We are still being massively affected.”

Under the current system for telecommunications, customers have to make a claim for compensation rather than receive an automatic payout.

The new ruling is likely to be similar to automatic compensation schemes imposed on utility companies in which customers receive discounts when there is a problem.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Broadband-automatic-compensation-scheme-welcomed/story-28892867-detail/story.html

75 bed Premier Inn for Seaton

Planning application 16/0424/MFUL has been validated but documents are not yet online. So far, reaction in Seaton seems unanimously positive, the town having sorely lacked this level of tourist investment. The hotel will be sited on the regeneration area on Harbour Road close to Tesco, Seaton Tramway and the Jurassic Coast interpretation centre due to open by Easter.

The remaining development large tourism development site in Seaton is at Seaton Heights on the A3052, which has had planning permission for many years but has had numerous setbacks.

Will EU referendum purdah rules affect some or all council decisions from 27 May 2016?

It means even more major government decisions and activity will be postponed until June, adding to the delays in the government’s childhood obesity strategy, Trident, BBC reforms and airport expansion.

The combination of the elections to the Scottish parliament, Welsh Assembly, London mayoral elections and local council votes across England and the national referendum on Britain’s EU membership means Government will be forced to abandon much of its other work due to neutrality rules during election periods.

Purdah – which bars the use of public money to promote one side in the final weeks before a poll – will block ministers or civil servants making any major decisions until after the elections are over.”

In the case of the EU referendum, this commences on 27 May 2016.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3481915/The-great-referendum-shutdown-Ministers-civil-servants-set-twiddling-thumbs-work-THREE-WEEKS-Easter-June-s-EU-poll.html

Parliamentary Committee Report on Devolution So Far:

House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee
“Devolution: the next five years and beyond”
First Report of Session 2015–16

SUMMARY:

“The Government has announced a ‘devolution revolution’, transferring powers and opportunities to local government through a series of ‘devolution deals’. The Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill gives statutory authority to deals and enables some of the specific reforms the Government wishes to make, such as introducing directly- elected mayors for combined authorities. This inquiry set out to examine the contents of the Bill and, in particular, whether Greater Manchester’s deal is a model for other areas, but its scope quickly widened to a review of the way in which devolution in England is proceeding.

We strongly support the principle of devolution. We welcome the fact that, at the start of this new Parliament, it occupies such a prominent position on the Government’s agenda. We acknowledge the personal contribution of Greg Clark, whose support and involvement since 2010 has been key in driving devolution. We expect to see this commitment continue, and for it to be shared by an increasing number of Departments, over the next four and a half years.

We are acutely aware that all deals are at an early stage and need time to bed in, and that many devolution bids are still to be negotiated. We therefore expect to review progress by the end of this Parliament and at regular intervals thereafter. Although it was not the focus of this inquiry, in line with our predecessors, we will continue to press for fiscal devolution: our next inquiry will look at the plans to allow local authorities to retain 100 per cent of business rates, and we will review the progress made on fiscal devolution.

We have identified various aspects of the current approach that we recommend are refined and improved now. Otherwise, the policy risks being rushed and appearing driven by a purely political timetable. We see a role for scrutiny by select committees of the secondary legislation enacting deals and the Government’s annual report on devolution, required by the Bill.

We have found a significant lack of public consultation and engagement at all stages in the devolution process. People are keen to be involved; our public session in Greater Manchester highlighted residents’ strong appetite to be included and consulted. The public should be engaged in the preparation of devolution proposals, insofar as possible during the negotiations and once the results of a deal have begun to make an impact, and communicated to throughout the process. This is particularly the case for health devolution where the systems in place are complex, changes are consequently more difficult to understand and the public’s response is likely to be more emotional.

We also believe that the Government’s approach to devolution in practice has lacked rigour as to process: there are no clear, measurable objectives for devolution, the timetable is rushed and efforts are not being made to inject openness or transparency into the deal negotiations. We suggest various ways in which proper process can be ensured; for example, with an agreed timetable for the negotiation and agreement of a deal.”

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmcomloc/369/369.pdf

Would you bet on a one-legged horse in the Grand National?

The biggest investment our LEP is going to make is in the new Hinkley Point nuclear power station in Somerset:

“EDF has confirmed that its finance director has quit ahead of an expected final investment decision on the £18bn Hinkley Point nuclear power plant.

Thomas Piquemal stepped down because he feared the project could jeopardise EDF’s financial position, according to reports.

EDF shares opened 8.2% lower on Monday.

Last month, Chris Bakken, the director of the project that could produce 7% of UK electricity by 2025, said he was leaving to pursue other opportunities.

EDF has provisionally appointed Xavier Girre, who joined the company last year as finance director of its French business, as the group finance chief.
The company’s board is expected to finalise in April how it will fund the project after postponing the decision a number of times.

The project has been plagued by delays, but publicly the firm has insisted a decision to move forward is imminent.

In October last year, EDF agreed a deal under which China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGN) would pay a third of the cost of the £18bn project in exchange for a 33.5% stake.

But according to reports, EDF is struggling to find the cash for its remaining 66.5% stake and is seeking help from the French government, which owns 84.5% of EDF …

… The company is also facing opposition from French union officials, who have suggested that investment in Hinkley Point C should be delayed until 2019.

The CFE-CGC Energy union said there were problems with a similar reactor design in France that needed to be solved.

The new Hinkley plant was originally due to open in 2017, and it has come under fire for both its cost and delays to the timetable for building.

The government has also been criticised for guaranteeing a price of £92.50 per megawatt hour of electricity – more than twice the current cost – for the electricity Hinkley produces.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35741772

And all this against the background of an EU referendum.

External auditors: watchdogs or bloodhounds?

Interesting article in Sunday Times Business section with the boss of former external auditors Grant Thornton (Sacha Romanovich, who lives in Exmouth and London). EDDC were forced by new government rules to change to KPMG recently.

The reporter quizzes her about several recent alleged failings at Grant Thornton (including a very high-profile law suit taken out against the company involving alleged pressure used by the company with the Serious Fraud Office to do with a property tycoon) and reveals that the Financial Reporting Council fined the firm £1m over flaws in its auditing of a Manchester building society.

She points out that the company has more than 40,000 clients so this should be put into context.

She ends her interview by saying: ” … audit is a watchdog, not a bloodhound. If people have deliberately gone about their affairs to hide things, it won’t always be found by a statutory audit … “

which then begs the question – so how will it be found?

Grant Thornton were criticised in East Devon for producing a very superficial consultants report into whether disgraced ex-councillor Graham Brown (who chaired the first iteration of the Local Plan committee and was Chairman of the East Devon Business Forum) brought too much influence to bear on the council after he was secretly filmed telling Daily Telegraph reporters how he could influence planning but “didn’t come cheap”.

Here is an extract from the Daily Telegraph front page expose almost exactly three years ago:

Another councillor in Devon appeared to use his position in a similar way. Graham Brown has been a Conservative councillor for Feniton and Buckerell ward on East Devon district council for more than 10 years.

He is also chairman of East Devon Business Forum, a member of the council’s overview and scrutiny committee and the business and tourism champion.

“I’m the best,” said Mr Brown at a meeting with undercover reporters in Devon last month. “If I can’t get planning, nobody will … I’m low-profile, have access to all the right people for the right clients. Don’t come cheap.” He said he was no longer involved in planning decisions and would need to be careful when talking to other councillors about projects he was involved in, but he was clear about what benefits he would bring.
“I know — without trying to be clever — I know more than most of the councillors, and I know more than most of the officers.”

When a reporter asked what his “strategy” was when it came to winning approval for a planning application, Mr Brown explained: “Where I’m good, I know all the different people to go to … Like if you came to me with a set of problems, I’d say, ‘Right the first thing we do, we need to go and talk to, say, the economic development manager’.

“So I’d pick up the phone to [name removed for legal reasons] and I’d say, ‘I’ve got a project, I want to talk to you about it.’ And it’s about almost kick-starting a dead motorbike”. Mr Brown told the undercover reporters that Devon had traditionally been one of the hardest areas in which to obtain planning permission for new developments, but that it might change because the council had not met its targets for land supply, meaning it was “quite vulnerable to any planning application that can be seen as sustainable”.
Mr Brown explained why this might be useful for the overseas developer the reporters were purporting to represent.

“What it means is — or what it could mean, and I can’t tell you definitely yet because it could get a deal worse or a deal better depending on — I’ve talked to three Government ministers about it because I’m reasonably — I sound terribly pretentious but I’m not — but you know, I’ve spoken to three individual Government ministers I know because I’ve been sort of in the Tory party for a long time and — how can I say it without sounding – I bet you go away and say, ‘that fat arrogant bastard’.”

“It sounds like you’re very well-connected?” the reporter suggested.
“Let’s take that for granted then,” Mr Brown said.

“Which means that whereas East Devon was traditionally one of the three hardest areas in the country to get planning permission, that will change … They will retain within the rules the ability to refuse things which fall down like if the design is poor, certain green belt areas, there will be certain areas so I don’t see it as the floodgates opening, but I do see a stampede coming.” His costs would vary according to the project, but he said he was normally paid £80 an hour or between £1,000 and £20,000 for a project.

His fees would vary “depending on the viability of the scheme, if we get it, like if I turned a green field into a housing estate and I’m earning a developer two or three million, then I ain’t doing it for ­peanuts … especially if I’m the difference between winning it and losing it.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9920971/If-I-cant-get-planning-nobody-will-says-Devon-councillor-and-planning-consultant.html

Devolution deal partners … an upside down list

This is the list as provided by East Devon District Council – it appears to have been published upside-down – just an oversight, of course:

“The Heart of the South West devolution partners are:

• Somerset County Council
• Somerset’s district and borough councils: Mendip, Sedgemoor, South Somerset, Taunton Deane and West Somerset
• Devon County Council
• Devon’s district and borough councils: East Devon, Mid Devon, North Devon, South Hams, Teignbridge, Torridge and West Devon
• Plymouth City Council
• Torbay Council
• Exeter City Council
• Exmoor National Park
• Dartmoor National Park
• Northern, Eastern and Western Devon Clinical Commissioning Group
• Somerset Clinical Commissioning Group
• South Devon and Torbay Clinical Commissioning Group
Heart of the South West LEP”

Disquiet over Devon and Somerset Devolution deal

” I I am getting increasingly concerned about our devolution process in the South West.

Devolution is different in each region, but one thing each has in common is a lack of public consultation. In fact here in Devon most people don’t even know we are in the process and that many of the councils in Devon and Somerset have signed up already. Cornwall has already finished the process.

People don’t know what is happening and that is a concern, as the implications of devolution will impact upon all of us and I find the actual devolution bid extremely worrying.

Robert Vint, a Devon county councillor commented, on devolution recently, saying: “The Government has taken away the funds that local authorities were once spending to meet the needs of local people – for affordable homes, care services, repairing local roads etc.

“It now offers to give back £195.5 million – but only if we endorse a package of mega-projects in which we have had no say. This is coercion, not ‘devolution’. “The decisions about how this council spent its money were once democratically decided; the proposals in this Devolution Prospectus were not. “It is not the economic recovery plan that residents would have created themselves if they had been given the opportunity.”

The privatisation of local authorities in other words, yet we know so little about it. We definitely don’t know about the LEP, who are at the heart of it. LEP stands for Local Enterprise Partnership.

The one for Devon and Somerset is known as the Heart of the South West LEP (H0tSW LEP).

It is basically a business quango made up of business men and women and a few elected councillors, who channel money from the government and from Europe into local business and enterprise, or that was what it was originally set up to do.

They are the ones who are enabling devolution down here. Most people know very little about them.

They have a website detailing their aims and grants, but they hold their meetings in private and it is difficult to see the minutes of those meetings.

They say they will deliver £4billion to the UK economy. A lot of that money is going into the Hinkley C nuclear plant.

I personally do not want money spent on a highly controversial nuclear project, at a time when our local services are being cut to an absolute minimum, but I have no say in the matter and nor does anyone else, that I can see.

There is so little transparency in this process that even councillors who are supposed to be involved in the devolution bid are struggling to find information. We do know that they are about growth and not much else it seems.

This seems to me to be the opposite of localism. In the future who is going to control planning applications? Will it be the local authority still or will it be the LEP? If it is the LEP, I cannot understand how there won’t be a conflict of interest.

The proposal is also about creating a new authority but there is no information that says which, if any, current body it would replace.

The HotSW LEP is made up of elected councillors as well as business people, but the process is opaque and undemocratic. Many of those on the board who are self-appointed have business interests in property and construction. I am sure the HotSW LEP is all above board.

But it seems to me that LEPs could be vulnerable to corruption. I would like some guarantees, I would like some transparency, I would like to have my democratic rights adhered to, but I can’t see it happening.

Mr Vint also points out: “There are proposals (in the devolution bid) to build 179,000 new houses across Devon and Cornwall – but the plan ignores the priorities of all the Councils across the South West that want affordable housing for local people – not unregulated market housing.

“While ‘housing’ is mentioned repeatedly, three key words are totally missing from this document – ‘affordable’, ‘social’ and ‘rented’.

“Those are the kinds of houses we most urgently need, not commercial housing.This proposal is an attack on democracy; its priorities are not the priorities of local people; it puts the needs of big business before the needs of local people and it is helping to bail out businesses, such as Hinkley C, that are nowhere near being financially viable without massive subsidy.”

Where does this figure of 179,000 houses come from? Who is going to build them? Why do we need them? Who are the LEP to decide such matters?

I find it all very disturbing. Devolution was supposed to be about local areas deciding on local matters, not the takeover of council services by corporate interest. I read recently that devolution meant “the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership for the Shires”, a reference to the proposed international agreement that many feel hands too much power to businesses. I fear that analysis is correct.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Comment-Devolution-mean-localism-quangos/story-28835533-detail/story.html

Brexit Ministers get a taste of civil service “impartiality”

“… Is the civil service orchestrating an EU referendum cover-up?

Whitehall sources have confirmed that Heywood [Head of Civil Service] told senior civil servants that there would be times when they would have to bypass the six senior ministers who want to leave the EU.

And in a statement issued by the Vote Leave campaign group, Patel said: “It is important that the civil service maintains impartiality during the EU referendum. Jeremy Heywood’s unconstitutional act threatens the reputation of the civil service.

“Secretaries of state are responsible for their departments. For an unelected official to prevent them being aware of the information they need for their duties is wrong. …

… Bernard Jenkin, the chairman of the Commons public administration select committee, who is tabling an urgent question in the Commons, said Heywood appeared to be acting in an “unorthodox and unprecedented” manner. The row first broke out last week when Heywood issued guidelines banning civil servants from showing official papers related to the EU referendum to Brexit.

In a move aimed specifically at Iain Duncan Smith, Heywood issued guidelines last week to ban civil servants from preparing new research for anti-EU cabinet ministers that could be used in the EU referendum campaign. No 10 had feared that Duncan Smith, who has strong doubts about the welfare elements of the prime minister’s EU reform plan, would seek to ask his officials to assess the credibility of the plan.

At least one permanent secretary is understood to have raised concerns with their Brexit secretary of state that Heywood may be acting in a constitutionally inappropriate manner because secretaries of state, technically at least, are solely responsible for their departments under a seal granted by the Queen.

Officials in Heywood’s office are also contacting the private offices of ministers who have yet to declare which side they are supporting in the referendum, asking them to make their intentions clear. This is designed to work out whether they are entitled to see all papers in their department related to the referendum. Duncan Smith urged David Cameron to reverse the Heywood guidelines.

Jenkin said that any attempt by Heywood to bypass a secretary of state would be unconstitutional and could be unlawful by infringing the Carltona principle, which says that officials in a department work “under the authority of ministers”. Jenkin, whose committee will question Heywood on Tuesday, said of the cabinet secretary’s guidelines: “This is unorthodox and unprecedented. In law the minister is indivisible from his or her department.”

Well, we can tell them all about how restricting information works in East Devon! If you don’t belong to the Cabinet (even if you are a councillor from the same political party) you will never get to know how some decisions start out, get developed or even end up. Your colleagues won’t tell you and senior officers won’t tell you either.

Welcome to our world Ms Patel!

Time to put an end to retrospective planning applications?

East Devon District Council deals with a large number of retrospective planning applications – sites that were started without planning permission. If these sites remain undetected for long enough, sometimes a local authority is powerless to refuse permission.

One major area where retrospective planning applications has been relatively common is at Greendale Business Park, for example, where the speed of development appears to have outstripped the speed of obtaining the relevant permission at the proper time. And at Pooh Cottage (see previous posts)

What excuse is there for this? One can understand, say, a single householder not realising that they need permission for a new window opening or a new drive. But can one really excuse hard-nosed businessmen and women who know the score but don’t quite manage to keep to the rules, even with the best architects and “consultants” available to them?

Once there is a Local Plan, surely there is no excuse for this. A development is either in it or it is not.

In the case of illegal developments commenced BEFORE the Local Plan came into existence, people could be given six months to “come clean” and have their cases decided.

AFTER the Local Plan has been adopted and after the six month period of grace has elapsed the ability to put in retrospective planning applications should totally cease. The consequence of starting work BEFORE planning permission had been granted should automatically be that the building(s) be demolished within three months at the applicants expense. No ifs, no buts, NO fines – they would almost certainly be disproportionate and developers would happily pay up to circumvent the Local Plan – with planning lawyers getting rich on case law.

With a Local Plan there is no case for retrospective planning applications.

Retrospective planning applications

Rural broadband: still only sticking- plaster solutions

Will BT being “asked nicely” to let other providers share their network more make a difference?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35657210

Hard to say, especially as EDDC has decided to “go it alone” with rural broadband and try to provide its own service (if or when funded).

Will rural mobile “not spots” improve (a different matter, but still important) – some towns and villages still having no service or just 2G (unable to connect to internet)?

If you want answers to these questions get in touch (if you can from where you are) with EDDC Councillor Phil Twiss:

Email: ptwiss@eastdevon.gov.uk

Telephone: 01404 891327

Address: Swallowcliff, Beacon, Honiton, EX14 4TT

who is the councillor tasked with improving these services

Yet another battle to fight: more, many more, sneaky changes to planning

The devil is in the detail here – so many “minor” changes, never seen before – all gearing up to give our LEP total control of the planning system:

“This consultation seeks views on the proposed approach to implementing the planning provisions in the Housing and Planning Bill, and some other planning measures. It covers the following areas:

Changes to planning application fees
 Permission in principle
 Brownfield register
 Small sites register
 Neighbourhood planning
 Local plans
 Expanding the planning performance regime
 Testing competition in the processing of planning applications
 Information about financial benefits
 Section 106 dispute resolution
 Permitted development rights for state-funded schools
 Changes to statutory consultation on planning applications”

Click to access Planning_consultation.pdf

WE HAVE UNTIL 15 APRIL 2016 TO RESPOND

Sidford Fields owner wastes no time putting in planning application

And DCC allows the owner to dictate where cycle and footpaths should go. Nicely done.

“A planning application for a 12-acre business park between Sidford and Sidbury is expected in the spring, according to the district council.

The Herald reported last week that a long-awaited cycle link between the villages had been put on hold to allow ‘further dialogue’ between Devon County Council and the park’s applicant.

County Hall’s decision came after a government inspector controversially ruled that the employment land allocation must be included in East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) Local Plan.

An EDDC spokeswoman told the Herald this week: “We anticipate receiving an application [for the business park] in spring 2016.

“However, even if an application were to be successful, we don’t know when work would commence on site.”

Designs for Devon County Council’s 900-metre cycle route and footpath showed it running from Sidford to Sidbury alongside the A375 – starting in an area allocated for development.

It agreed to withdraw its planning application to allow further dialogue with the business park applicant about what alignment changes might be needed.

The delay will not affect a scheme linking Byes Lane and Laundry Lane as this does not require planning permission. Funding is in place for work to start in the next financial year.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/sidford_business_park_plans_anticipate_in_spring_1_4425821

Exmouth seafront demo: Wednesday 24th February at 5.45pm,

Campaign group Save Exmouth Seafront will hold a demo outside The Knowle over development plans.

Louise MacAllister, spokesperson for the group highly critical of the £18m Queen’s Drive project, said many of their questions about “remain unanswered” by East Devon District Council.

It’s despite EDDC recently publishing information in the form of a Q&A on their website.

Louise will lead the demo outside the council offices in Sidmouth on Wednesday 24th February at 5.45pm, as district councillors arrive ahead of a full council meeting.

The group will then field some of the “unanswered” questions at the district authority during the public speaking section of the meeting.

“Previous questions asked by the campaign group have remained unanswered …”
http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Save-Exmouth-Seafront-hold-demo-ahead-council/story-28784552-detail/story.html

Public speaking at EDDC planning meetings – or public gagging?

A “success” for whom? Certainly not us. And transparency – of course not. But thank you for trying, Susie.

This is why we need independent councillors.

And how do we know that it REALLY is “first come, first served”?

From the blog of Independent Councillor Susie Bond:

“The year-long trial for public speaking at planning meetings (DMC) has come to an end and my pleas for the Council to return to the old system of allowing anyone to speak on a planning application have fallen on deaf ears.

Under the old system, all an interested resident had to do was to add their name to a list at the entrance of the council chamber on the day of the meeting.

It was as simple as that.

Now, in order to be able to speak, you have to jump through several cumbersome hoops. Instructions on EDDC’s website and DMC agendas read:

“To speak on an application at Development Management Committee you must have submitted written comments during the consultation stage of the application. Those who have commented on an application being considered by the Committee will receive a letter or email (approximately 9 working days before the meeting) detailing the date and time of the meeting and instructions on how to register to speak. The letter/email will have a reference number, which you will need to provide in order to register.

Those who are eligible to speak for up to 3 minutes on an application can register from 10am, 6 working days before the meeting up until 12 noon, 3 working days before the meeting, by leaving a message on 01395 517525 or e-mailing planningpublicspeaking@eastdevon.gov.uk.”

The trial was instigated because the length of meetings was becoming ridiculously long and (it was suggested) it was members of the public who spent too long putting their points across and, heaven forfend, repeating themselves, which made them so.

My view is that DMC meetings were becoming overlong because of the very many applications being submitted by landowners and developers keen to secure planning consent in inappropriate locations while EDDC had no Local Plan in place. Without a Local Plan and the required 5-year land supply, planning applications were determined on the sustainability of the site … and lengthy meetings were made even lengthier by DMC members trying to find reasons for refusal which would stand up at appeal.

But the hoops are even more complex. The instructions continue:

“The number of people who can speak on each application is limited to:

• Major applications – parish/town council representative, 5 supporters, 5 objectors and the applicant or agent

• Minor/Other applications – parish/town council representative, 2 supporters, 2 objectors and the applicant or agent

Whether an application is classified under the legislation as a major, minor or other will be noted on the agenda for the meeting.

An officer will only contact those whose request to speak has been successful. Speakers will be registered on a first come, first served basis. The contact details of registered speakers, unless advised otherwise, will be posted on the website to allow others, who may have wished to speak, to contact them.

The day before the meeting a revised running order for the applications being considered by the Committee will posted on the website. Applications with registered speakers will be taken first.”

A report on the public-speaking arrangements came before the Standards Committee in January and then to DMC on 16 February and it was resolved to continue with the trial for a further year with a view to making it permanent thereafter. Members of DMC were asked to acknowledge the success of the trial.

‘Success’

The ‘success’ of the trial is debatable.

It has certainly made planning meetings more efficient and less time-consuming, but the length of time they take is now the same as it was before the introduction of the Draconian planning laws (the NPPF), so the stringent rules on public speaking at DMC are no longer necessary.

Members of the public are outraged at their speaking rights being curtailed and are making their voices heard to their district councillors.

It’s through listening to the views of the communities who are affected by any planning application that pertinent planning questions have been raised at DMC and which planning officers have been required to clarify.

We have created a system which is unnecessarily complicated for the general public to navigate and places an extra burden on Democratic Services officers who run the meetings.

Some might consider that this policy of making it difficult for the people of East Devon to exercise their democratic right is a bad thing and indeed that it reflects poorly on EDDC.

https://susiebond.wordpress.com/2016/02/22/public-speaking-at-planning-meetings/

Hinkley Point: all our eggs in a very fragile basket

If devolution leaves East Devon in the hands of our Local Enterprise Partnership, we know that its vanity project will be the Hinkley Point C nuclear reactor, an “investment” that we will be forced to fund to the tune of millions (or billions) of pounds with other Devon and Somerset councils and other LEPs nearby. This has already been decided behind closed doors:

http://www.heartofswlep.co.uk/news/south-west-nuclear-cluster-%E2%80%93-delivering-benefits-hinkley-point-c-local-business-community-and

EDF is attempting to partner with Chinese investors on this project but we have known for some time that they are not only having difficulty raising their own finance but that there are major problems in the Chinese economy and also serious worries that the type of reactor they want to build is entirely wrong.

From “The Ecologist if 20 February 2016.

“EDF were supposed to give a final decision on the project this week but the decision was postponed, though EDF stated their intention to begin the project in 2019.

Definitive construction of what will be built on the site, what we call the first concrete, is on the horizon for 2019.” [says EDF]

The idea that there will be a three year delay before any concrete is poured after a positive decision to proceed has caught observers, and contractors lined up to work on the project, by surprise. Earth moving and site preparation has already been under way for several years, plans are at an advanced stage, and heavy engineering works would normally be expected to begin within months.

The date, 2019, is a year after the reactors were originally due to be completed. The timetable has gradually slipped backwards. Last year the date for power to start being generated was put back to 2025, but this new date for pouring concrete makes 2030 more likely – if the reactors are built at all.

One insider with close contacts within EDF told The Ecologist: “The fact is that EDF is already in a precarious financial situation, with its share price half what it was a year ago, a falling credit rating, and massive liabilities for reactor upgrades and decommissioning.

“It has so far sunk £2 billion into Hinkley C and it simply cannot afford to write that sum off even if has already decided that this project is a total loss. So they have to pretend that it’s a goer and that the £2 billion is a live investment that will, one day, produce a return to its shareholders.”

In other words, a final investment decision to go head may, in fact, be no such thing. The company could just be planning to keep a few earth movers trundling about on the site, for years, on end, to give the appearance of activity while it seeks a graceful way out of the gigantic hole it has dug for itself.

The most likely long term plan, our source continued, is to try to sell the entire site on to its Chinese partner CGN after a few years. However CGN would then want to use a new reactor design, probably its own ‘Hualong’ model – which would then create additional long delays as no example has yet been built and it would have to undergo rigorous safety examination.

Record of delays, cost hikes and safety concerns

The new proposed start date of 2019 is significant for reasons the company dare not spell out. This is because there is no evidence yet that these so-called EPR (European Pressurised Reactor, no renamed ‘Evolutionary Power Reactor’) will operate effectively.

Four EPRs are under construction, but are years behind schedule, and costs have tripled. In Europe their earliest proposed start date is 2018 – so it looks as though EDF is being careful not to begin building another one until it can prove the design actually works.

The EPR, a so called ‘third generation’ design, is the largest nuclear plant in the world. They have a chequered history, even before any has actually produced a single watt of electricity. Construction of the first prototype began in 2005 at Olkiluoto in Finland: expected to be finished in 2009, it is still under construction.

The same is true of the second, at Flamanville in France, where construction began in 2007. It has also hit delays and cost over-runs of staggering proportions, and technical problems – in the form of a metallurgically flawed pressure reactor and lid – that could sink the project completely.

The vessel and lid contains too much carbon and is undergoing stress testing to see if it is safe. While the outcome of these tests remains unknown, a question mark hangs over the station’s future. It too is due to start in 2018 but few believe it will do so.

The other two EPRs are being built at Taishan in China. Both should have been in operation by this year, but both also have undergone unspecified delays.

These difficulties, plus the vast amount of remedial safety work required by the French safety regulators from EDF on its fleet of 58 ageing reactors in France itself, have put the company under severe financial strain. It needs to find €100 billion for repairs, and to improve safety following the Fukushima disaster in Japan, to keep the plants operating until 2030.

As a result of fears that the company might overstretch itself and jeopardise jobs in France the six trade union representatives on EDF’s board have expressed opposition to the company going ahead with building reactors on British soil.

UK energy policy in tatters

This further postponement of a start date for the new reactors leaves the UK government with a gaping hole in its energy policy, despite it offering to pay double the existing price of electricity for the output from Hinkley Point, a subsidy that will continue for 35 years.

The Conservative government has been relying on nuclear energy to replace fossil fuels from 2025, when it plans to phase out all its coal stations. Some renewable energy subsidies have been scrapped to make way for new nuclear stations. As a result the UK is due to miss its EU renewable energy targets.

In all, the Conservative government wants ten new nuclear stations in the UK – four EPRs and the rest from Japan and the US. None of these now seems likely to be built before 2030, if at all.

Perhaps to divert attention from the postponement of the new reactors, EDF announced that it was going to extend the life of four of the nuclear power stations it already operates in Britain. It bought eight ageing stations of British design in 2009 for £12.5 billion.

Some were already due to close in 2018 but have had their lives extended. Now another four will be kept open to bridge the gap left by the failure to build the new stations at Hinkley Point. These are the Heysham 1 plant in northwest England and another at Hartlepool in the northeast, both of which had been due to be switched off in 2019 because of their advanced age. They will be allowed to keep producing electricity for another five years.

Two other reactors, Heysham 2 and Torness in Scotland, have been granted extensions of seven years to 2030. There is no reason – as long as the stations are deemed safe – why further life extensions should not be applied for, and granted.

Continuing to apply for life extensions for old nuclear stations also saves the company from technical bankruptcy. Once a station is closed its decommissioning costs become company liabilities. With the company’s debts already high, it would not take many closures for EDF’s liabilities to exceed its assets.”

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2987225/nuclear_zombie_hinkley_c_build_wont_start_until_2019_if_at_all.html

How can you have a Part A on an agenda when everything is secret!

This is what the EDDC website says about the Asset Management Forum:

The Forum is currently held in private, excluding the press and public. Agendas, reports and minutes are published below but some information has been redacted due to its confidential nature.”

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/committees-and-meetings/other-panels-and-forums/asset-management-forum/

lips

The Asset Management Forum therefore appears to meet in secret. This is its latest agenda:

Click to access 110216amfcombinedagenda.pdf

How can you have a Part A (public) section when everything is held in secret and is therefore automatically Part B?

All Part B agenda items must be announced well in advance and the reasons for the secrecy must be given.

This does not happen with the Asset Management Forum.

Why?

Or, has it suddenly been made open to the public – but no-one thought to tell us?

Curious.

Freedom of Information: information refused or not held by EDDC

Freedom of Information – Requests for information where it was refused or where they say no information is held dealt with by East Devon District Council in the last six months (September 2015 – February 2016)

Bear in mind these are only those published on the What Do They Know website – there will have been others submitted directly and refused and a large number are awaiting reply which may be refused or “awaiting internal classification” [no idea what that means!] or are subject to appeal.

Refusal to say by how much EDDC is subsidising the Leisure East Devon Ocean facility in Exmouth
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_ocean_complex_exmouth_what_f#comment-66779

More detailed information on past electricity consumption at Knowle and saying that EDDC does not “hold” utility bills like domestic consumers so it cannot provide the information requested:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/electricity_consumption_at_the_k#incoming-754358

A request as to how much temporary staffing is costing EDDC is long overdue for reply:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/temporary_staffing_121#incoming-741085

Refusal to publish the contract agreed between EDDC and PegasusLife for sale of Knowle:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/temporary_staffing_121#incoming-741085

Gas consumption at Knowle (see electricity consumption above):
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/gas_consumption_at_the_knowle#incoming-734172

Evidence for more retail outlets on Exmouth seafront – information not held so cannot be divulged:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/evidence_of_need_of_more_retail#outgoing-492759

Reports: were they critically examined or simply accepted as fact? Information not held:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/were_commissioned_reports_critic#incoming-724381

What strikes Owl: how much information EDDC ought to have at its fingertips and doesn’t.

How can they know relocation is the right thing if they don’t have numbers? How can they be sure reports are accurate if they are not critically reviewed and transparent? Why can’t we know how much our council taxes are subsidising Leisure East Devon? Why can’t we know how much temporary staff cost when Jeremy Hunt is so profligate with this information for the NHS?

Alternative photographic competition.

For those of you who never read the “sticky” section at the top of the page and rush to see the latest post, this is duplicated for your benefit:

NEWS- PHOTOGRAPHIC COMPETITION
The alternative East Devon Photographic Competition

EDDC, in its infinite wisdom, has decided to run a photographic competition. The intention is to offer a prize and to use the 12 best shots to make up an EDDC Countryside calendar:

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/get_snapping_for_district_photo_contest_1_4422625

Entries by 30 April 2016.

Owl, in its flights over East Devon has been struck by an increasing absence of “countryside” – catching the vermin it needs to survive has become increasingly difficult!

So, Owl is running an Alternative East Devon Calendar Photo Competition:

THE EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNTRYSIDE DESTRUCTION CALENDAR
PHOTOGRAPHIC COMPETITION
All entries will be considered and entries will close on 30 April 2016.

The twelve winning entries will be published (that’s the prize) and, if you want to make a calendar from them, feel free!

Anonymous contributions will be allowed but please let us know when and where your entry was photographed.