Relocation rolls on…

..and the money rolls out, thanks to a District Council which (as Seaton Cllr Peter Burrows put it) “may not be in existence when the loan expires.”
Yet no-one knows whether Pegasus Life Ltd will offer EDDC for the Knowle a figure nearer £7million or nearer £8million (the rough price-range agreed). But with no Heads of Terms yet fixed, councillors’ vote tonight to go ahead with relocation nonetheless, puts the ball firmly in Pegasus Life’s court.

As usual, questions from the public went unanswered.

Extracts from the meeting will be available on YouTube soon. The link, and more on tonight’s Extra Ordinary meeting, will be posted on EDWatch in due course.

District Councillors may be left wondering what happened to “cost neutral?”

Rush, rush, rush! Councillors will have barely had time to read through and fully digest the minutes of the Special Development Management Committee meeting (on Monday 23 March), which have just been sent to them, before they are required to make a ‘final decision’ on relocation at this evening’s 6.30pm meeting.
Will all have opened their e-mails straightaway? And how many will have been able to collect well in time, the paper copy of the minutes available from their pigeon holes from 4pm today?

In a whirlwind week of Extra Ordinary meetings, some Councillors might be hardpressed to sufficiently absorb the latest information on a whole raft of extremely important decisions with long-term consequences. They are being inexplicably and unreasonably squeezed into a decision on the sale of Knowle, AND proposed changes to the revised Local Plan, in the same short period of time.

The links received (hopefully) by Councillors are:
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1002849/260315-extra-ordinary-council-ag
> enda-local-plan.pdf
The previously circulated Special Development Management Committee
> agenda papers:
> Agenda –
> http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/990985/230315-special-combined-dmc-agend
> a.pdf
> Draft schedule of proposed changes –
> http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/990982/230315-sp-dmc-table-of-changes-to
> -local-plan-v3-march-15.pdf
Addendum report with proposed changes –
> http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1018372/230315-sp-dmc-addendum-report-it
> em-5.pdf
Revised Draft New East Devon Local Plan with tracked changes:
> http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/990979/230315-sp-dmc-local-plan-with-cha
> nges-for-post-hearing-consultation-ver-04-march-2015.pdf

Councillors have a lot on their shoulders. The public speaking this evening would clearly like to share the load.

Real Zorro: RIP Knowle

http://realzorro1.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/tonights-eddc-council-meeting-tories-to.html

The thing to remember is that it was not ALL councillors who wanted to move – this was engineered only by Conservative councillors and by its Honiton-centric Cabinet in an atmosphere of secrecy and disdain for the East Devon public.

Knowle Relocation …Will tonight’s ‘final decision’ leave poison chalice for East Devon?

Display 3What’s at stake tonight’s Extra Ordinary Council meeting? No less than our big money (a 20 year Council debt is proposed), and the re-shaping of one of East Devon’s loveliest towns.

So,once again, the public gallery will be full. Once again, Councillors may be seen to be pulled by the nose into making a huge decision, with possibly incomplete information at their disposal. EDDC may be obliged to release further ‘sensitive’ documents in just a few days’ time.

The meeting starts at 6.30pm this evening, at Knowle Council Chamber. Agenda on EDDC website, under ‘ Councillors and Democracy’.

Come early to get a seat..and enjoy a stroll in the whole park, while you still can!

P1030079

It’s not which party you are, it’s whether you are in the majority!

Here are Conservatives talking about the actions of the Labour majority in Plymouth. It really doesn’t matter what the subject is (in this case provision for travellers sites) and it is spooky how the amount of money spent by the majority party (Labour) is so similar to that spent on relocation so far here in Tory East Devon.

What matters most, it seems, is that it seems the party in power likes secrets, the party that isn’t in power doesn’t and there seems to be nothing to choose between them!

“… Labour voted to call the meeting into secret, evicting the public and the Press, after accusing Cllr Beer (Con) of releasing “commercially sensitive” information about a travellers site being considered in the north of Plymouth.

Council leader Tudor Evans (Lab) told the monitoring officer he wanted to hold the rest of the debate in private, saying he couldn’t be sure the Tories “could be trusted” not to mention privileged information again.

Labour councillors supported the call, upon which Tory councillors walked out en masse.

Tory leader Cllr Ian Bowyer, speaking outside the chamber, said Labour had “completely overreacted”.

It is undemocratic to exclude the public from this debate and they should be ashamed of themselves,” he said.

“We won’t be party to that debate if it is not in public.

“There is no point in debating in secret about things that residents are concerned about.

“They [Labour] have been happy to spend £750,000 on clean-ups since they came to power three years ago, but our argument is that enough is enough and that tax payers have the right for their money to be spent wisely.”

Exactly the argument used against TORY secrecy in East Devon!

Source: http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Conservatives-walk-council-meeting-refusing/story-26218708-detail/story.html

Council redundancy payoffs for senior staff must be disclosed

Several high profile officers have left East Devon District Council recently. We look forward to details of their payoffs – which it seems are NOT protected by “confidentiality agreements” (gagging clauses) they may or may not have signed:

In a letter earlier this month to Rother’s Leader (Cllr Carl Maynard), Hopkins highlighted a “clear legal requirement” within the Accounts and Audit (England) Regulations 2011 for authorities to publish certain information on senior remuneration in their annual statement of accounts.
He noted that the secondary legislation set out the separate elements of remuneration that must be published for certain senior staff, and that this included any payments made in connection with the termination of employment.

“Such payments cannot be protected from disclosure by confidentiality agreements,” the minister said. “To be absolutely clear, neither the Code of Local Authority Accounting nor past judgements by the Information Commissioner can override these statutory obligations.”

Hopkins also said that the DCLG had, in light of the approach Rother had taken in its annual statement of accounts, taken the opportunity to look at the local authority’s broader approach to transparency.

This had raised further concerns, the minister suggested in the letter, including that the council did not appear to be following best practice on Localism Act pay policy statements.

“Our guidance states that councils should ensure that pay policy statements are easily accessible to the public as stand alone documents, not hidden in committee papers. Your council does not appear to have followed this guidance,” Hopkins said.

The minister said he was also concerned that the information published on Rother’s website on senior salaries did not meet the requirements of the mandatory Local Government Transparency Code 2014.

“Indeed, I note that your council has stated that it intends to achieve compliance with the Code by April 2015,” Hopkins wrote. “Councils’ statutory obligations under the Code are very clear – the first set of quarterly data had to be published by 31 December 2014 and the first set of annual data had to be published by 2 February 2015.

“It appears from your website that your council has not published data in a number of important areas, for example, contracts over £5,000, land and assets, senior salaries, an organisation chart, trade union facility time, parking revenues, grants to the voluntary sector and the like. This is a significant failing.”

Hopkins said that, in light of this, he had decided to withhold Rother’s new burdens funding for 2014-15 in respect of publishing data in 2014-15 under the Code.

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22297:dclg-to-withhold-funding-from-district-over-transparency-qfailingsq&catid=59&Itemid=27

Claire Wright’s analysis of housing figures – curious, chilling and mysterious – and not in a good way

The disappearing houses

… And something sinister has happened to all the houses built between 2006 and 2013.

They have disappeared!

Before I get on to this I should explain that in the old draft local plan the plan period was between 2006 and 2026.

The new revisions propose a plan period of 2013 to 2031.

So what has happened to all the houses that were in the old draft local plan between 2006 and 2013?

Have they been erased from the towns and villages that they were built in?

No. They simply have not been counted! This means that the figure of 18,000 is a considerable underestimate. I am not sure how many houses are now unaccounted for but I think we can assume it is several thousand. Which does rather increase the true housing hike up to well over 20,000.

I gave the council quite a blast over all this (as did other councillors including Susie Bond and Ian Thomas and a more than a dozen residents) at this morning’s development management committee meeting, which was packed with around 100 members of the public.

I also asked whether the planning inspector had recommended a housing number for the district. The chief executive indicated that he had not.

Then why I asked, does it say on the press release dated 9 March, that the planning inspector had advised on housing growth of 950 a year? This gives a clear (and totally false) impression that the council was implementing the sort of development levels that the planning inspector had told them to. …”

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

Scorched earth – literally.

Bad day for EDDC’s Local Plan officers. Good day for Clyst St Mary.

A barrage of questions from the public (no less than 17 people had pre-registered to speak) were fired at the DMC who were today considering the revised Local Plan. Several councillors firmly added their own particular concerns.

Seven speakers were from the Save Clyst St Mary Group. Campaign leader Gaeron Kayley has just circulated the news copied below:

As you will be aware, today was the day the Development Management Committee met at EDDC to discuss the Local Plan.

This had great significance for Clyst St Mary, given that it had been proposed that both the Winslade Park area and the green field owned by the Plymouth Brethren would be used for the village’s allocation of an additional 200 houses.

22 members of our group met last Monday and discussed our key arguments against this which were to be delivered at today’s meeting.

We are thrilled to announce that, following today’s Committee meeting, it was unanimously agreed by the 15 councillors present to reject the green field proposal and reduce the housing allocation for Winslade Park to 150 in total.

A massive thank you to everyone who attended last Monday’s meeting, including the seven brave souls who spoke so passionately and articulately today, as well as all those local residents who turned up simply to offer moral support. It really was greatly appreciated.

Whilst this was only a hearing for the Local Plan – not a hearing for the specific applications to which we have all objected – it does give us hope for the future. Things certainly appear now to be less bleak than they did ten days ago!

Rest assured, with your support, we will continue to fight in a dignified, professional and open manner to unite and preserve our village community.

Urgent election registration information for those who THINK they are registered

From a reader:

For info, a neighbour of mine emailed the electoral services to check he was eligible to vote… he was told that he was on the register to vote, the only thing is…..
They got his name completely wrong…. nobody of that name has ever lived at his address….. I have advised him to phone…
This is very worrying…

To check your registration entry (or to register)contact the Electoral Registration Team on 01395 517402 or at electoralservices@eastdevon.gov.uk

Give Cabinet control over major planning applications” proposal shocks councillors.

EDW hears that councillors are deeply uneasy about officer proposals to allow EDDC’s Cabinet to decide “strategic” planning applications of more than 50 dwellings and over 5000 square metres of industrial floor space.

Lead Planning Officer Ed Freeman and Deputy Chief Executive, Richard Cohen, made a verbal report to the Audit and Governance (A&G) Committee on March 5th on “improving Strategic Planning Policy”, especially on ensuring a five year housing land supply.

Incredibly, they explained that their first recommendation was to alter EDDC’s constitution to take “strategic” planning applications from the Development Management Committee, (DMC) and to give them to Cabinet for determination.

They admitted spending considerable time looking at this controversial option that would have further strengthened the power of, what many critics consider, an overweening and developer-friendly Executive.

They were forced to drop it, by legal advice pointing out the potential conflicts of interest inherent in the proposal. Their preferred option now is to create a “Strategic Planning Committee” consisting of both Cabinet and DMC members, possibly under the chairmanship of the current Strategic Planning Portfolio Holder Andrew Moulding, to look at strategic planning applications.

This was still too much for members of the A&G Committee. Cllr Geoff Pook said, “We don’t need a second DMC looking at planning applications”. Cllr Tony Howard agreed: what was needed was competent, well-resourced officers who could get a grip on the figures for housing land supply. Constitutional changes giving more power to the Cabinet, he said, “is a different matter”.

A big “Hear, Hear!” to that from East Devon Watch.

And who defines what is “strategic”? Our suggestion: anything that involves a developer and/or a former member of the East Devon Business Forum – leaving only conservatories and extensions to the current DMC!

Local election timetable: final call for Independent candidates

East Devon District Council had published its timetable for elections in May 2015.

Click to access election-time-table.pdf

Candidates must register between:

9:00 am – 5:00 pm from 31 March until 4:00 pm Thursday 9 April 2015

If you are interested in standing as an Independent candidate under the East Devon Alliance umbrella please contact them as soon as possible, details on their website:

eastdevonalliance.org.uk

Roll up, roll up: just a week left for politically-mindec councillors to get their names into the papers!

“Purdah” – the period when all serving councillors (and their supporting officers) have to stop placing party politically-targeted stories and photographs about their party-politically motivated actions in newspapers, journals etc when they involve using council resources and not their party resources.

No more “politically sensitive” press releases, no more pictures taken by press officers of our local majority party councillors doing what they do best .. er .. though not sure what that is!

Expect a raft of mutual back-patting stories and press releases of local do-gooding in this week’s local and regional newspapers!

Once again, here is our guide to what can and cannot be done during this period.

The first question to ask is ‘could a reasonable person conclude that you were spending public money to influence the outcome of the election?’ In other words it must pass the ‘is it reasonable’ test. When making your decision, you should consider the following:
You should not:

• produce publicity on matters which are politically controversial
• make references to individual politicians or groups in press releases
• arrange proactive media or events involving candidates
• issue photographs which include candidates
• supply council photographs or other materials to councillors or political group staff unless you have verified that they will not be used for campaigning purposes
• continue hosting third party blogs or e-communications
• help with national political visits (as this would involve using public money to support a particular candidate or party). These should be organised by political parties with no cost or resource implications for the council.

http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/6869714/L15-91+Unpacking+Purdah_04.pdf/c80978b9-dc0b-4eee-9f81-49bd47afeb2d

EDDC funded hospital bus for Exmouth and Budleigh – no news of similar services for Seaton/Axminster/Honiton/Sidmouth/Ottery

Seems rather unfair – and announced just before local elections too:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Council-funded-minibus-serve-Exmouth-Budleigh/story-26214425-detail/story.html

Wonder which councillor(s) will be jumping in to take the credit before 30th March when this sort of thing has to cease until after the elections!

Probably not worth Ladbroke’s opening a book …..!

Exmouth bowling centre to be taken over by East Devon Leisure

Wonder if EDDC will be subsidising this via LED? Or will it eventually be sold on to the highest bidder after expensive renovation?

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Leisure-trust-takes-Exmouth-8217-s-seafront/story-26214426-detail/story.html

Note: EDDC hived off its leisure interests to Leisure east Devon now known as “Led Leisure Management Ltd” and has subsidised the company with hundreds of thousands of pounds since the handover, with several EDDC Conservative councillors involved in the company who have to declare personal interests whenever the company and its finances are discussed (often in secret).

Is the company, like the banks, too big to fail?

Questions for DMC regarding Knowle site

You say the district’s desperate need is for much more affordable housing.

Will any of the retirement flats be affordable? If not, why not?

If the loss of parkland is only a Sidmouth issue, will all S106/ potential Community Infrastructure Levy income be applied solely to Sidmouth in mitigation?

Local Plan version 2: a layperson’s summary

The Development Management Committee meets this week to nod through the latest draft of our Local Plan, after which it will go out for consultation.

It’s just about a year since the first version was inspected and thrown out straight away – the Inspector saying he expected to re-hear it in October 2014.

That month came and went and the excuse was: we have LOTS more work to do, be patient.

Those dealing with the revised plan were given few extra resources (around £50,000 worth when costs last published), more resources being piled into headquarter PRE-relocation work (£750,000 plus at least £10,000 to keep consultants reports on the project secret after EDDC was taken to court by the Information Commissioner for refusing to publish them).

February 2015: and we are told consultants reports are “imminent” but must not be published before local elections (May 2015) as they are deemed to be “too politically sensitive”. However, Mid Devon (relying on the very same consultants reports) decided to put their Local Plan out for consultation, eventually publishing the reports for the public with no qualms about their sensitivity.

Our Inspector would have no truck with this “political sensitivity” excuse and said he expected our new draft Local Plan to be out for public consultation by April 2015, election or no election.

Out of the mist came the consultants report – short, based on widely available figures and with no explanation as to why they had taken so long and soon after what appears to be a new draft Local Plan hurridly changed to reflect the new numbers and with an extra addendum of vastly more housing for Cranbrook and Clyst St Mary.

The Local Plan still appears to be (possibly fatally) flawed. Whereas it fixes on a number (18,000 plus houses including windfalls) IT DOES NOT MAKE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR WHERE EXACTLY THEY WILL GO except for Cranbrook and Clyst St Mary.

The report says some towns will have their built-up boundary respected (e.g. Sidmouth) whereas no such promise is made in other places (e.g. Budleigh Salterton). Some towns and villages have little idea of what their allocations will be or where they are to go. That makes Neighbourhood Plans very difficult.

What are the chances of this draft Local Plan being passed by the Inspector? Layperson’s opinion: very slim.

Whatever happens it will be a THIRD council that carries the can – the previous two having failed to get to grips with an out-of-date plan. Let us hope the new council will do a better job than the first two (big Conservative majority) councils did.

A vote for Independents is a vote for a new Local Plan to protect the district from free-for-all development. Heaven knows what a vote for Conservatives would bring on past and present performance!

Air pollution alert in the South West this week

..and a cautionary tale about the downside of development, from China.
(There’s no such thing as a cheap t-shirt) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6X2uwlQGQM

Questions for the Local Plan

When maximum, minimum and average figures were compiled why was maximum chosen, as maximums can be skewed.

Why was the final figure designated as the MINIMUM number to be built if maximum numbers were chosen?

Where are these houses to be built: sites for such numbers are not identified nor the number of houses per site. This will encourage very large initial developments with no ability to refuse (aaah). Only Clyst St Mary seems to have designated (large) numbers.

Where is the Community Infrastructure Levy document which specifies the cost per square metre of development to support local and district-wide infrastructure for these massive increases?

What is our current 5/6 year land supply?

With the future of the inter-modal freight terminal uncertain why is this not designated as extra employment land?

The “transparency gap”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22281:ico-calls-for-action-to-tackle-qtransparency-gapq-caused-by-outsourcing&catid=59&Itemid=27