“As a young person of Exmouth, I feel misled and horrified …”

image

So said the Exmouth College student who questioned EDDC leaders last night (16 Dec,2015), about the process behind the seafront development proposals in her town. But Deputy CEO Richard Cohen’s answer skirted around her main point (“I feel misled”), in a Full Council meeting that showed EDDC manipulative management at its very worst.

Blind block-voting without debate; and a Chair who allowed 5 serious questions from Exmouth residents to be rolled into one by the responding officer, thus enabling central points made by the speakers to be glossed over or, (as with the offer by Louise McAllister, specialist in surveys, to meet EDDC), simply ignored.

Not a single question was asked by any Majority Party councillor: only one of the 9 questions put, all from Independents, had a satisfactory answer (given thoroughly by Environment Portfolio holder, Cllr Iain Chubb).

Corporate Services portfolio holder, Cllr Phil Twiss, was unavailable to answer embarrassing questions about broadband, leaving Cllr Ian Thomas apologetically unable to provide informed replies.

The meeting reached a crescendo of ‘confidentiality’, when the critical information needed by councillors before deciding whether to give Leader Paul Diviani ‘delegated powers’ regarding the multi-million pound Heart of the South West (HotSW) devolution bid, was declared (without debate) too sensitive for press and public. So the devolution item was dealt with in private, at the end of the session.

Just a few minutes into this part of the agenda, the Chair, Cllr Stuart Hughes, closed the meeting, somewhat prematurely perhaps. There had been no discussion by councillors, and the whole point of this session had been missed: there was no vote on delegated powers for the Leader.

EDDC quietly drops the “eco town” from Cranbrook in Draft Local Plan

According to the front page of this month’s Cranbrook Herald, the lead story is that EDDC has dropped the words that it is built ton”eco-town standards” when describing Cranbrook in the draft Local Plan.

http://www.cranbrookherald.com
(e-edition)

The town council agrees, saying that the phrase cannot apply when EDDC is “downgrading future environmental requirements for the town”.

It is apparently now being described as a “modern market town”.

Hhhmmm …

Local Plan progress – is telepathy involved?

According to Great Leader Diviani’s Christmas message, he expects the latest version of the draft Local Plan to be adopted early next year.

But how does he know this?

According to the EDDC web page where ALL correspondence with Mr Thickett is supposed to be published:

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/document-libraries/local-plan-documents/correspondence-between-council-and-inspector/

EDDC has not written to Mr Thickett since February 2015 and Mr Thickett has not replied since March 2015.

Special telepathy perhaps to which the public is not allowed access?

Devolution: our fate decided in secret

Upgraded from comment to post:

What a pity that press and public were excluded from the Devolution debate at this evening’s Council meeting. This way of behaving by the majority Party really leads one to assume something nefarious is going on. Why oh why can’t the Tories have the courage to debate things openly? If they have to muzzle press comment and keep their electorate in ignorance of what they are deciding, is it any wonder that we doubt them?

East Devon’s future to be decided tomorrow

What sort of future are EDDC leaders leading us all into? What will their legacy be in our coastal towns, e.g. Exmouth, and in the lost years for rural economies lacking fast broadband?

And is their imminent devolution bid (to be submitted to Westminster in early January 2016), based on thorough consultation with councillors?

Answers a-plenty will emerge at the Full Council meeting tomorrow evening at EDDC HQ, Knowle, Sidmouth.

Public welcome. Come early to get a seat!

“Government planning reforms threaten to ‘destroy’ urban/rural boundaries”


“Boundaries preventing the spread of development across the South West countryside could be “destroyed” by proposed changes to national planning policy, campaigners have warned.

Members of the Campaign to protect Rural England (CPRE) claim the Government’s reforms would open up land around towns and villages to a “flood” of new planning applications.

They also argue they would make it harder for rural communities to push for the prioritisation of brownfield sites, while undermining local control over the wider planing process.

The criticisms from the campaign group come in response to a new Government consultation on plans to reform to the National Planning Policy Framework. The aim of the changes is to boost house building – thereby addressing the UK’s growing housing crisis – by simplifying and speeding up the planning process.

Policies outlined in the document include increasing development around so-called “commuter hubs”, creating up-to-date registers of brownfield sites for new housing, and freeing up “unviable” commercial land for discount starter homes. Ministers say these proposals will encourage the delivery of high quality new homes “that the country needs”.

However, some measures, including plans to loosen restrictions for development on Green Belt sites, have come under fire from conservation groups. And the CPRE has warned that even areas like Devon and Cornwall, which do not have Green Belts, will still be affected by reforms.

One policy in particular suggests that more consideration could be given to applications for small developments “adjacent” to settlement boundaries, which act as a dividing line between urban and non-urban areas. Matt Thomson, CPRE head of planning, said this could signal the end of clear cut barriers to the development of greenfield sites.

“Those boundaries have been drawn up with good intention, usually with the support of local people, to give them certainty about how development will or will not take place in their areas,” he said.

“While we recognise that there needs to be some development, this changes the established direction of planning policy…It would destroy those boundaries.

“It opens the floodgates to speculative developments because it’s raising the hope for people that they might be able to get a development on the edge of a village.

“We expect small towns and villages will be flooded with applications for these kinds of developments as a result.”

He added that while the charity supports the overall aim to tackle the lack of new housing in the UK, a focus on planning rather than the construction industry “never has the desired impact”. He also suggested that the Government should look to achieve some of its goals by empowering local communities, including through the use of neighbourhood plans.

This is a view shared by some councillors, who have expressed concern about the impact on local control of the planning process. North Devon District Council member Brian Greenslade said the reforms could see ministers “tighten the screws on local democratic decision taking”. This would be with a “very clear drive” to “open goalposts for developers” and render local planning authorities “impotent”, he added.

“With the economic recovery not making the progress the Government wants they will resort to the blunt instrument of housing development at any price to fuel growth,” he said. “They give no consideration whatever to the impact on established communities and the infrastructure provision needed to support large housing developments.

“There are unintended consequences for housing arising from what the Government seem to be proposing.”

Responding to some of the criticisms, a Department for Communities and Local Government spokesman said changes would give communities a bigger say in deciding where developments go.

He said: “No settlement will be imposed on local communities.

“These proposals are about delivering the homes local people have already agreed and have been tested through consultation and public examination.

“Local people now have a bigger say in deciding where developments should and shouldn’t go and what is needed in their area thanks to our planning reforms.”

Councils say the proposals still need “careful consideration” to fully understand their implications. East Devon District Council said it would seek members’ views before drawing up a response to the consultation, which closes on January 25.

The implications for affordable and starter homes

Government proposals to reclassify discount starter homes as affordable housing have been a growing source of concern in recent week, particularly among rural residents.

There are fears that the prioritisation of these properties over rented accommodation could see even more low income families priced out of the countryside.

These have been re-enforced by the Government’s new planning consultation, which suggests rural sites set aside for affordable housing should be used to deliver its home ownership strategy.

Critics have been quick to point out that with caps for starter homes set at £250,000, these properties will remain out of reach for many residents of rural Devon and Cornwall.

“The proposal for starter homes with a 20% discount is fool’s gold and will not assist many young local people to buy a home,” says North Devon councillor Brian Greenslade. “The very real need is for homes for rent because of the large gap between average incomes and average house prices.

“As a survey in the Western Morning News recently shows, people on average incomes in our area would need a pay increase of some 130% to get them to the point where they may get a mortgage.

“The Government’s ideas of selling off social housing just simply will make a difficult situation worse … Local young people are facing an appalling outlook for their housing needs.”

The consultation indicates that some councils could be granted powers to introduce a local connection test when allocating affordable homes in rural areas. This would allow local authorities to prioritise the needs of local residents in “exceptional” circumstances.

Matt Thomson of the Campaign to Protect Rural England is sceptical about whether this policy will make a significant difference.

“It’s a good idea in principle but they can be difficult to manage in practice,” he said. “These local connection tests are already used in other areas with patchy result – it is often difficult to prove local connection.

“Starter homes have a role where there is a large amount of young people who would like to own a home but can’t quite afford it,” he added. “But the problem is, once they’re bought and occupied, they’re no longer a starter home – there’s no affordability in perpetuity.”

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Government-planning-reforms-threaten-destroy/story-28348092-detail/story.html

Successful coastal fund projects – none in East Devon

Many in Devon, many in Dorset, none in East Devon.

So, all our coastal communities must be thriving, then ….

Seaton in better nick than Lyme Regis?

Click to access Coastal_Revival_Fund_-SW_and_West.pdf

Scrutiny at its best … excuses at their worst … “corporate relations” (un)explained by Councillor Twiss

Last night’s Scrutiny committee meeting exposed two more examples of EDDC leaders’ instinct to make decisions without proper consultation.

The ubiquitous Cllr Phil Twiss (Conservative, Honiton St Michael’s) who, in addition to all his other roles, is portfolio holder for corporate relations, was summoned to explain why the democratic process had been so blatantly short-circuited by a council press release in September.

Cllr Cathy Gardner (Independent, Sidmouth Town) asked him why she and the other Sidmouth ward councillors had been taken by surprise by an announcement in the Sidmouth Herald that the Council was considering building affordable housing on Mill Street carpark. There had been no consultation with interested parties like the town council, and ward members were sent copies of the press release 14 minutes before it was published!

Cllr Twiss’ replied that he had not been involved with the release, (“It wasn’t me, guv”) but claimed it was a matter of urgency because a journalist had asked for a statement, and the deadline was pressing.

Cllr Marianne Rixson (Independent, Sidmouth Sidford) retorted that this sounded very much like “the journalist tail wagging the council dog” and it was no excuse for not consulting democratically before arbitrarily publishing controversial initiatives.

The Scrutiny Committee agreed and voted to remind Cabinet that there was a Protocol that councillors concerned should be consulted before press releases were authorised. It also welcomed guidance produced by the Communications Officer which made a similar point.

Silence remained about who had authorised the Sidmouth story but Cllr Bill Nash (Conservative Exmouth Town) may have been warm when he said only floods and other emergencies required urgent press releases. All other communications were non-urgent and should not be released if authorised only by “the Leader and senior officers.”

In passing, Cllr Nash also slammed the Council leadership for publishing detailed pictures and maps of developments along Queen’s Drive in Exmouth which were very different from any plans that had been consulted upon.

This was taken up by Scrutiny Chair Cllr Roger Giles (Independent, Ottery St Mary Town) who read a letter from two Exmouth residents complaining about pending planning applications for major works, including diverting Queen’s Drive, part of the latest, much altered, waterfront development scheme.

Exmouth Cllr Brenda Taylor (Lib Dem,Exmouth ) angrily commented that these plans proposed massive residential development which had never been agreed to by councillors. She felt she was “wasting her time” attending meetings when such arbitrary decisions were made in secret.

At this point the Democratic Services Officer and a Legal Officer intervened to argue that the Scrutiny Committee could not discuss the Waterfront Project because planning was outside its remit.

Cllr Rob Longhurst (Independent, Woodbury and Lympstone) wasn’t having any of this. “The reputation of EDDC is nil in Exmouth,” he said, because the current extravagant plans were being “justified” by a few hundred replies to a questionnaire about the different, more modest, “Splash” project.

Cllr Megan Armstrong (Independent, Exmouth Halsdon) agreed. “It’s not about planning, it’s about independent public consultation”, she said. It was about whether the people of Exmouth wanted or needed what the Council leadership was imposing on them.

Cllr Val Ranger (Independent, Newton Poppleford and Harpford) said it was quite within the remit of Scrutiny to look at questions of process, on “whether public consultation is being properly followed.”

The committee voted to do precisely that, once the current legal actions over Exmouth seafront businesses are resolved.

In the meantime, watch out for fireworks over Exmouth seafront at the full Council meeting on Wednesday 16th December.

Coastal Revival Fund – but not for us ….

£1m for the South West
Brixham, Lynmouth, Plymouth and Paignton in Devon got £250k
£250k for ten projects in Dorset
ZERO for EAST DEVON

Once again our political and bureaucratic representatives have ensured that we maintain our self-sufficiency.

Click to access Coastal_Revival_Fund_-SW_and_West.pdf

Swire to have ” talks” about Exmouth Splash

As a 100% supporter of the government’s “growth agenda” we can pretty much see how those will go.

On the other hand, there must be even more Claire Wright supporters in Exmouth than ever before …!

How to appear to keep both sides happy? Well, his Foreign Office job – which keeps him away from East Devon so much – in fact, almost all the time – should help there.

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/mp_in_seafront_talks_as_group_campaigns_1_4342213

Development Management Committee under the legal microscope

“In the full risk register there was one risk currently scored as high:

Failure of correct procedures and practices causing challenges to decisions – Impact: Serious, Likelihood: Very likely, Good scope for improvement.

An aggrieved party had recently been given leave by the High Court to pursue a judicial review against a decision of the Council to grant permission for a dwelling on land adjoining their property. The case revolved around whether Members of Development Management Committee in making the decision were consistent in their approach with prior decisions on the same site for a similar form of development. Members of DMC had been briefed on this case and these issues would be picked up through future Members training sessions.”

Click to access 161215-combined-council-agenda-and-minute-book.pdf

Councillors: are you sure our LEP and your council are operating properly?

If not, read this:

Click to access bis-14-1241-local-enterprise-partnership-LEP-national-assurance-framework.pdf

Just a couple of examples:

the LEP and councils should:

…. publish their arrangements for making, and recording decisions, and for ensuring that papers, decisions, minutes, agendas etc are published in line with existing local authority rules and regulations [access to information, Schedule 12A of the LGA 1972, as amended by the FOI 2000];

and they should:

….. ensure that there is appropriate local engagement – both with public and private stakeholders to inform key decisions and with the general public around future LEP strategy development, and progress against delivery of the SEP, including key projects and spend against those;

Juicy judicial review material!

Devolution: Independent DCC Councillor Claire Wright and East Devon Alliance express grave concerns on the process

Councils across Devon and Somerset are on the verge of submitting a bid to government on devolving control and funding for some services to a local level.

On Thursday Devon County Council will debate a broadbrush bid that is set to be signed off by cabinet tomorrow.

This might sound like a very positive move, however, there are concerns. Mainly around transparency and consultation.

The government has decreed that the process must be “business led” which means that the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) has been heavily involved in discussions on what will be included in the bid to central government.

The LEP meets in private and does not publish its minutes or agendas.

Councillors have not been involved in the process, save for the forthcoming agenda item coming to full council on Thursday.

There has been no public consultation.

In the paper that goes to full council on Thursday, the list of topics to be included in the bid are:

– Health, care and wellbeing
– Connectivity and resilience
– Housing and planning
– Employment and skills
– Business support

What is always true in my experience is that the devil is in the detail.

The bid must be with central government by 18 December.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Here’s a press release from the East Devon Alliance, which is also unhappy about the process.

• To most people ‘devolution’ implies greater local involvement: local democratic power

• The process being followed for the ‘Heart of the South West’ devolution bid has no democratic element at all:

o No public consultation

 Input has been sought from the business community but not the public or elected representatives

o No consultation with elected Councillors regarding the process or on the content of the bid

 The information submitted so far has the logos of the Councils and implies endorsement that has not been explicitly sought or given

 Nolan Principles not followed

o It has been suggested that government guidance is to keep devolution planning confidential

o The Heart of the South West LEP (Local Enterprise Partnership) meetings, including those on the devolution bid, are not open to the public or press; agendas and minutes are not published

o The Electoral Reform Society are concerned about the lack of democracy and public engagement in the devolution process of England

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/press-releases
• Timing is extremely tight, the final ‘bid’ is due to be submitted on Dec 18th with a deal expected to be agreed with central government in March 2016

• EDDC Joint Overview and Scrutiny committee and Cabinet on Dec 2nd are being asked to give delegated authority to the Leader to sign off on the bid – the draft of which has not been shown to Councillors

o EDDC full Council have not and will not get to debate the bid (or the benefits and risks of the proposal)

o Information suggests that this situation is being repeated in Devon County Council with limited information or opportunity for debate

• Past history of unelected bodies delivering services and economic benefits does not bode well: East Devon Business Forum

Click to access scaring-the-living-daylights-final.pdf

and Connecting Devon and Somerset (broadband)
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/11/23/broadband-for-devon-and-somerset-the-fantasy-saga-continues/

• EDA calls for:

o The Heart of the South West devolution planning process to be more open and democratic from now on

o The public and elected representatives to be regularly consulted

o Decisions involving the use of public funds (e.g. business rate revenue) to be made in public by accountable, elected representatives

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

Exmouth Town Council unhappy about Dinan Way Section 106 fait-accompli

Honestly, some of Exmouth’s town councillors are also majority party district councillors (including Councillor Maddie Chapman).  You would think that the left hand ought to know what the right hand is doing!  However, she IS on the EDDC Scrutiny Committee, so she might like to ask them to have a look at how this happened!

“Exmouth Town Council’s planning committee this week considered amended plans for 98 homes at Higher Marley Road.

But during the debate, councillors criticised a Devon County Highways statement saying that ‘Section 106’ money from the developers could be used to fund the completion of Dinan Way, between Hulham Road and the A376, and possible traffic calming works. Devon County Council later denied any wrongdoing.

During the town planning meeting, town mayor Councillor Maddy Chapman said: “I would like this council to object to the fact that a county council department is making deals with developers, behind the planning authority [East Devon District Council] and the town council’s back, by saying that Section 106 money can be used for traffic calming in Higher Marley.

“It’s not up to the county council to decide. [Section 106] is supposed to be community infrastructure, not spent on roads.”

Councillor Cherry Nicholas said: “What disturbs me is that they’ve already calculated, if they end up with 98 residential buildings, a contribution amounting to £5,000 per dwelling, ie £490,000, would be appropriate and consistent with the amounts required under a Section 106 agreement which can be applied to the Dinan Way extension.

“I just think that it is rather morally reprehensible that they’ve already jumped that far ahead.”

Town councillors voted to oppose the planning application – an outline application seeking approval for access only – with concerns also raised about overdevelopment, the loss of part of a Devon bank and a lack of community infrastructure. East Devon District Council will decide on planning permission.

A Devon County Council spokesman denied that the authority had gone behind the council’s back, and added: “Ultimately, Section 106s are a matter of negotiation between the county and district councils, because those authorities are responsible for highways and local planning, and the developer. But there’s no reason why the town council cannot suggest what it thinks the priorities for Section 106 contributions may be.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/homes_opposed_amid_dinan_way_funding_dispute_1_4335249

That Devolution meeting part 2: the dark gets darker

Mark Williams, CEO of East Devon District Council, was given a rough ride by majority and opposition Party Councillors alike, following his presentation this week (Weds 2nd Dec), to the District Council’s two watchdog committees.

The combined Overview and Scrutiny Committees (O&S) met to find out what lies at the heart of the Heart of the South West (HOTSW) devolution bid, shortly to be sent to Westminster.

Mr Williams compared the devolution bid to a train just starting on its journey from the heart of South West to London. But one Tory Councillor warned the CEO, “Before we get to Exeter, the lines may be broken because we’ll have run out of money”.

(There’s a summary of the presentation in our earlier post https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/12/03/devolution-eddc-ceo-asks-us-to-trust-him-and-diviani/ )

After hearing it, the O&S Councillors expressed three areas of major concern:

1. Finance
2. Health service provision
3. Governance

Here is a sample of their questions to Mark Williams (MW) with some answers received:

Cllr Roger Giles (Ind, Ottery St Mary Town : Has any attempt been made to assess the cost savings of devolution?
MW : “No. It’s too early.” He went on to add, “We all know there is waste in (any) system” and “It’s better to have shared outcomes for a hope of savings.”

RG: “Has there been any estimate of officer time?”
MW: “No.”

Cllr Alison Greenhalgh (Con, Exmouth Littleham) “How do we make a decision about governance?“

MW replied that he thinks the bid will be for a combined authority, though “the Government will struggle to understand” why a mayor is not appropriate for this region.

Cllr Marianne Rixson (IEDA, Sidmouth,Sidford ), referring to other enterprise zones asked, “ What’s the certainty of us being successful against bids from elsewhere?”

MW: HOTSW “can operate independently from enterprise zones.”

MR also wanted to know “how financially viable are the councils involved?”

MW referred the point to Ian Baker, of the South West Audit Partnership (SWAP), who confirmed that at a recent seminar attended by Cllr Rixson, a representative of external auditors Grant Thornton had warned that SOME councils are due to go bust by 2020.

Cllr Peter Faithfull (INdependent, Ottery St Mary Town) made the point that Councillors are “still largely in the dark”. “Can we have an independent observer, to understand what’s going on in (HOTSW) meetings?” We only get feedback AFTERWARDS, he said.

MW: There is “no need” to have an impartial report.
RG: Can the public attend?
MW: No. They are private meetings.

Cllr Mike Allen (Con, Honiton St Michael’s) had a barrage of questions: “Where is the money going to come from for business support?” How would the retraining of older people work? “How will infrastructure for planning issues get financed?” “Where is the money going to come from, for example, for schools?”

MW: There is money, but it gets lost in the system.

Matt Booth (Ind, Sidmouth Town ) asked “How much of health service will be outsourced to private businesses?” and wondered what would be the knock-on effect on health services already facing further cuts. He also wanted to know “Where do Neighbourhood Plans fit into the HOTSW devolution bid, in terms of protecting areas?”

MW : “Neighbourhood Plans (NPs) will continue irrespective.” But he was not sure that those preparing the NPs “would see the opportunity of tapping into growth possibilities”.

Cllr Ben Ingham( IEDA, Woodbury &Lympstone), citing the “complete lack of control in recent years regarding health care”, said that HOTSW’s 5 year view for ‘health & wellbeing’, is “just pie in the sky”. “We are being given an option we know nothing about”, he continued. “Are we being given a hospital pass?”

MW replied that Manchester, for example, has received invitations to develop a plan for integrating health and social care. And Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCG) have been present at two HOTSW meetings, although “I don’t think they were committing themselves,” he mentioned….. leaving some people wondering, if CCG were not cooperative, would this kill the bid?

(More to follow…)

EDDC wants to manage its own rural broadband coverage … oh dear!

Has anyone seen the project below discussed or agreed on by district councillors – or is it yet another example of the EDDC CEO Mark Williams wagging the body of the councillor dog?

Is our multi-partner STRATA IT company behind this decision? Do they even know about it? Who knows – certainly not us!

And how does it affect EDDC’s relocation plans which lay great stress on broadband connectivity as the main way in which residents will access council services?

At last night’s EDDC Cabinet meeting in response to questions from the public asking why EDDC had not committed match funding to the Connecting Devon & Somerset (CDS) Phase 2 programme run by Devon & Somerset County Councils, a statement was read out which appears to that EDDC plans to withdraw from the CDS Phase 2 programme – at the moment the only council in Devon and Somerset that is doing this.

EDDC apparently plan to run their own project to provide predominantly Fibre To The Home broadband (FTTH) across all of the rural EDDC area that is not covered by the existing Phase 1 hcontract with BT.

Anyone who knows the saga of our ( still pending) Draft Local Plan – around seven years in discussion is allowed to groan at this point!

A letter sent by Mark Williams to BDUK, (the government body responsible for UK broadband subsidies), on November 24, appears to confirm this.

EDDC is hoping to tap some of the additional £10M that was announced in the Chancellors Autumn Statement to fund the project, but it remains to be seen how much of this money may come EDDC’s way since every other District and County in the South West can be expected to claim portions of this funding and when divided up, so EDDC’s allocation could be relatively small.

At this stage the statement should not be regarded as anything more than an “Expression of Interest” since a great deal of work will have to be done by EDDC before rural residents could expect to see the fruits of this initiative.

In the meantine, CDS, funded with up to £45.5M for Phase 2 are continuing in their third attempt to find Phase 2 suppliers for 95% coverage and are holding a “supplier day” which over 20 interested companies will attend on December 4 (see post on this by Ian Liddell-Grainger below) CDS say they intend to sign contracts with suppliers in June 2016.

It is likely that any 100% coverage programme that EDDC sets up will take significantly longer than this to put in place.

The full statement as read by Cllr Ian Thomas at last night’s EDDC Cabinet meeting:

‘The questions rightly identified the fact that up till now the matter of Superfast Broadband roll out had fallen within the remit of Connecting Devon & Somerset (CDS) joint venture set up by the County Councils) and their contractual arrangements with BT. EDDC had chosen not to be a contractual party to the matter because of the excessive secrecy surrounding the original contracts.

The issue of agreeing an ‘in principle contribution’ to the phase 2 roll out or making a ‘commitment’ was not just a matter of semantics. Without an open approach to discussions and an ability to share that information with communities, it would be irresponsible to commit funding – or in effect, give it away.

EDDC was committed to pursuing the matter on behalf of its communities and recently on 24 November, the Chief Executive wrote in the following terms to the Commercial Lead of Broadband Delivery UK:

“We are writing to confirm our intention to apply for support from the South West Fund for a project to provide superfast broadband to the remaining 10% of premises in East Devon District not otherwise covered by the CD&S/BT Phase 1 buildout.

We have been in discussion with potential suppliers for the past year on a possible co-investment arrangement whereby public and private funds would be applied to the construction of a predominantly FTTH network, and we find their proposals appealing and well worth supporting, both financially by way of co-investment by EDDC, and in ‘soft’ terms.

In the absence of an application form, we intend to address the various points raised in the guidelines by way of a paper to be submitted to EDDC Cabinet and to BDUK. In the meantime, we can confirm the Council’s intention to comply with mandatory criteria points 1-5 and priority criteria points 6-9, and to satisfy information requests a-d.
We look forward to working with BDUK on the successful initiation, funding approval and execution of this important and worthwhile project.”

A reply is awaited in order to commence the stage of preparing a detailed report. We also understand that CD&S are in discussions to try to ensure the delivery of their original objectives.’

Devolution: EDDC CEO asks us to trust him and Diviani … …

Before reading the report below, does anyone recall Kaa the Snake singing “Trussssst in me” to Mowgli in Jungle Book?  Lyrics:

“Trust in me, just in me, Shut your eyes and trust in me, You can sleep safe and sound, Knowing I am around
Slip into silent slumber, Sail on a silver mist, Slowly and surely your senses, Will cease to resist
Trust in me, just in me, Shut your eyes and trust in me.”

th

The whole song is here on You Tube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1ILPl5FQaM

From a correspondent:

“This afternoon, EDDC Chief Executive, Mark Williams, gave a presentation on Devolution to a special session of the Combined Overview & Scrutiny Committees. The meeting, was apparently at the request of Cllr Roger Giles, who chaired the meeting, held at Knowle Council Chamber, Sidmouth.

Mr Williams introduced the Heart of the South West devolution bid, by using the analogy of a train journey just beginning. We are still “on a single track towards Exeter”, en route for London. The government had “opened conversations” about devolution, and the Heart of the South West (HOSW) is currently being led by Devon County, Somerset County, Plymouth City and Torbay.

“We shouldn’t kid ourselves” about what a low productivity region this is, the CEO cautioned, and listed the following key areas devolution would focus on:

1.Health,care & wellbeing ……Devon County is taking the lead, but EDDC says more can be done in e.g.housing & leisure.

2.Housing & Planning…..Constraints to attracting more businesses include the lack of readily available appropriate land; inadequacy of the A 303; Western Power supply constraints; and the issues around rural broadband. The “challenge of the lack of affordable housing” had to be tackled.

3.Employment & skills…Aim is to reduce to zero (‘Not in Education or Employment’) NEETs in the area. On-going career opportunities needed, with the increasing instability in the workplace.

4.Business support…..There should be more, and with better co-ordination. Aim to look for alternative, more lucrative, businesses than tourism & the care industries.

5.Governance ..Options might be e.g. elected mayor? Combined authority? EDDC favours Place Based Boards with local focus, such as Greater Exeter & Growth Point.

In conclusion, Mr Williams explained the devolution bid as “Our ask”. EDDC wants to work in partnerships, with Exeter, Teignbridge, Devon County Council & Exeter University. Meetings are held at the Science Park, seeking innovation and more investment. The ambition is for Exeter to become a centre for data sciences and analytics, with the possibility of a new Exeter Institute of Technology.

Some “golden opportunities” would be in marine-based developments (Plymouth);nuclear energy (from Chinese-funded power station proposed for Hinkley Point, and Bridgewater College now centre for nuclear studies); and environmental futures (e.g. the Met Office, Exeter Science Park).

A 30- year strategic labour & employment plan would be presented to central government, emphasising resilience of infrastructure, and resilience of “a population that is productive”.

A draft paper will be issued on Monday, said Mr Williams, and he “would be happy to circulate it to (Council) members”. He predicted that it probably “won’t depart from this presentation” .

Admitting that the time pressure to get the bid submitted meant that there was no possibility of “forensic scrutiny” , he acknowledged that had caused some frustration.

“There is no secrecy,” he declared. “And someone has to take responsibility”. That “someone”, recommended for HOTSW delegated powers in Mr Williams’ report, would be EDDC Leader, Paul Diviani.

In the ensuing debate, questions from councillors came thick and fast, asking for much more detail, particularly on the financial basis of the devolution bid. And Councillor Rob Longhurst (East Devon Alliance Independent ) told his colleagues “ I don’t think we should be asked to authorise someone to sign a document that we haven’t seen.”

“It’s a matter of trust”, retorted a Conservative colleague, hitting the nail squarely on the head.

(Report of the meeting to be continued…)

Mill Street car park – EDDC muddies the fudge!

Can anyone work out what the future of Mill Street from this article below? Is it a car park? Is it a development site? And why does EDDC need a ” partner” on this one site?

“East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) cabinet will consider bringing in a commercial partner to run the facility when it meets on Wednesday.

The review comes after more than 50 residents and businesspeople united in support of bringing the spaces, currently for permit holders only, back into wider use. EDDC is considering developing the site for affordable housing.

A report to cabinet says that EDDC could manage a pay and display car park itself, but the process would likely take too long to get it open in time for Christmas. Bringing in an external partner to manage it using number plate recognition technology would save the council £10,000 in legal work, consultation and advertising costs needed to vary its parking regulations. Revenue would be split 50-50 between EDDC and the external contractor – a move intended to avoid ‘incentivising over-zealous enforcement’ that could damage the council’s reputation.

EDDC reviewed the previous system of permits because it found that some spaces were being used by second home owners – while other had changed hands unofficially. The council trebled the annual cost of a permit for Mill Street or Holmdale to £1,800. When it sold only 22 out of a possible 58 permits, it suggested that Mill Street could be developed for affordable housing.

EDDC is still considering developing the site, but says it will continue to offer sufficient reserved car parking spaces at Mill Street and Holmdale to meet the needs of its existing customers.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/partner_for_mill_street_1_4326479

Conflicting views on Devon/Somerset devolution

Tories gung-ho on the prospect of East Devon being am ” economic powerhouse”

“An EDDC spokesperson said: “If a successful bid is negotiated with the Government, then it is likely that the strategic importance of East Devon as a prime location for growth, jobs and housing will be recognised and we will see more investment into our local economy.”

Indie more cautious:

Councillor Matt Booth has urged caution on rushing into any deal. The independent ward member for Sidmouth Town told the Herald: “It’s a huge ask and a huge task – it has to fit in with the financial plans of 16 other local authorities.

“I’m not for it. I think that it is just another way for central government to wash its hands of its responsibilities.

“If central government did its job properly, there wouldn’t be any need for devolution.

“But if we do go ahead, then as councillors we need to find a way to keep the process open and a way to bring it back to members.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/economic_powerhouse_promise_of_devolution_1_4326893

EDDC special meeting on devolution tomorrow (Wednesday) at 3 pm

Thanks to Martin Shaw of Seaton Matters for this important information. Why schedule it for a time when many people will, of necessity, be at work?

“Our county and district councils are steaming ahead with proposals for devolution in the daftly named ‘Heart of the South West’ (that’s Devon and Somerset to you and me) to be agreed on 18 December and then submitted to Government. They hope it will all be done and dusted by March. Apart from an odd piece in the local press, what do most people know about this? I’d always thought that ‘devolution’ was about more democracy, not less.

On

Wednesday 2nd December, at 3pm,

EDDC has scheduled a special extra meeting of Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee, the sole opportunity for the press and public to be present at a devolution discussion.

This will prepare the ground for the Cabinet Committee at 5.30pm when EDDC Leader’s delegated powers for ‘Heart of the South West’ are expected to be pushed through.
http://seatonmatters.org/2015/11/30/sw-devolution-when-do-we-have-our-say/