Sale of Knowle HQ ‘inevitable’, says EDDC Chief Executive

So reads the headline of a report in today’s Sidmouth Herald, about Mark Williams’ recent talk to the Sidmouth Men’s Forum. The EDDC CEO is also quoted as telling the group, “It is very nice to be (at the Knowle) but it is too big for what we need”.  A pity he hasn’t looked carefully at the research by Robin Fuller ….http://saveoursidmouth.com/2013/08/16/serious-questions-over-size-of-modern-offices-at-knowle/ , nor considered properly costing the option of ‘staying and improving’ , as prudent householders do in times of austerity.

In his presentation, Mr Williams dropped some hints about the future reorganisation of local government, possibly towards one large unitary authority for Devon. This chimes with what EDA has heard from those in the know, who believe East Devon is likely to merge with Exeter and Teignbridge.  Could this be more than a rumour….?

Three Dorset councils merge all admin functions

Three separate councils and councillors will remain but will share a CEO and all admin functions:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-29870925

Where Dorset leads will East Devon, Mid-Devon, Teignbridge and/or Exeter follow? It is said the Dorset councils will save around £200 million a year.

More on those IT partnerships

After news that EDDC is spearheading an IT parthership with Exeter and Teignbridge,we reported on the fiasco in Somerset when an IT partnership went spectacularly wrong here:

http://eastdevonalliance.org/2014/10/01/what-happens-when-shared-and-partnership-it-services-go-wrong/

Following on from this is this critique which could equally be applied to the Skypark vanity project:

Mutual incentives?

The Somerset report says each side in an outsourcing relationship needs to be motivated by similar incentives. But can that ever happen? Councils exist to provide good public services as cheaply as possible. Suppliers exist to make as much money as possible.  There can only be similar incentives if a council is so inefficient that there’s enough spare cash to cover council savings and the supplier’s profits.  If there isn’t the spare cash, the council, in its enthusiasm to do something different by outsourcing, can simply fictionalise the figures for benefits and potential savings.

This creative (and legal) exercise is perfectly possible given the depth of the conjecture needed to project costs and savings over 6 years or more.  Part-time councillors who are considering a big outsourcing contract have the time only to glance at summary documents or the preferred supplier’s Powerpoint slides. They are unlikely to spot the assumptions that pervade the formalised legal language.

During such a pre-contract exercise, the most sceptical councillors are often excluded from internal scrutiny, and the disinterested ones who are admitted into the inner chamber can find their heads swimming in a supplier-inspired language that either swathes uncertainty in the business jargon of near certainty or obscures reality in opaque legalese.

How are these lay councillors to get at the truth? Do they have the time?

Big outsourcing deals between councils and suppliers are inherently flawed, as this Somerset report indicates. Too many such deals have ended badly for council taxpayers as Dexter Whitfield’s investigations have shown.

But still some councils sign huge outsourcing deals. Their leading officials and councillors say they took lessons from failed contracts around the country into account. But what does that mean? If a deal is inherently flawed, perhaps because of diverging incentives, it is inherently flawed.

The disaster that is Southwest One could be a priceless jewel in the public sector’s display case if it serves to deter councillors and officials signing further large-scale council outsourcing deals.

http://ukcampaign4change.com/

When you click on the link to Dexter Whitfield’s investigations, you get this interesting comment:

The number of PPP strategic partnerships has increased 35% in just two years with 18 additional contracts valued at £8bn. 60 contracts are currently operating, four were terminated and one completed the contract term, but was not renewed. A further two are being terminated in 2014. Strategic partnerships originated in ICT and corporate services, but have extended into planning, education, police, fire and rescue and property services. The failure rate is very high – nearly 1 in 4 contracts are either terminated, reduce scope as services are brought back in-house, and/or suffer major financial and operational problems. Savings, new business and new jobs targets continue to be illusive.


What happens when shared and “partnership” IT services go wrong

Recall EDDC, Exeter and Teignbridge are about to share IT services. Although they currently do not have a public/private partnership in mind it could happen but the pitfalls ennumerated here could happen to any joint arrangement where “transparency” becomes an issue:

Click to access 2014%20Sept%2025%20-%20Item%207%20Lessons%20Learnt%20report.pdf

“Greater Exeter” initiatives continue – EDDC “driving force” says Diviani

And he says it will make it easier for officers to deal with “clients”:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Exeter-East-Devon-Teignbridge-councils-approve/story-23010939-detail/story.html

Skypark “realising the full economic potential of Exeter” …

So says Alder King, the company marketing the site on Rightmove HERE

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-to-let/property-47604236.html/svr/1119;jsessionid=36322F4BFF5D15AED9C64DC02D3526D9?premiumA=true

The vision for the site is to realise the full economic potential of Exeter as a major regional centre, providing a range of employment opportunities and highlighting the area as a self-sufficient new urban community. A community offering people the ability to live in a much sought-after part of the country in close proximity to where the majority of new jobs will be provided.”

Three Dorset councils in merger talks

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-29205950

Skypark starts to make sense but only in strategic terms, not in terms of residents needs.

What is quite shocking is that, if mergers save so much money, why was the extra tier created in the first place.

One suspects the word “localism” would have been bandied about in the 70s when it was happening, but now the buzz phrase = “economic growth and efficiency” to explain why mergers are needed.

One might then conclude that you can’t have localism AND economic growth and efficiency!

From one of our correspondents: “Greater Exeter”?

Interesting response from Peter Whitfield to the piece on local government reorganisation.

Take a look at the current ‘dispute’ between Hull City Council and East Riding District Council, which is getting quite nasty.

http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Head-Hull-boundary-commission-border/story-22926385-detail/story.html

Hull want to take a chunk of East Riding, and the parallels with Exeter and East Devon are obvious.

The case for Exeter taking control of the growth point area is strong, and we know that Exeter is ambitious for expansion both economically and politically. They wanted to become a unitary council, and also had aspirations to absorb Exmouth. EDDC, in political turmoil, having made a colossal mess of the Local Plan, and now proposing a very unpopular relocation, look like sitting ducks. EDDC is the largest District Council in Devon, and one of the largest by population in the country. Exeter City Council are well regarded, and have the highly rated Karime Hassan ex EDDC) in charge as Chief Executive: the call for devolution following the Scottish referendum will surely be an opportunity to trigger an attempted snatch of territory from EDDC.

The Growth Point is already a joint enterprise between various authorities and is widely perceived as an extension to the economic zone of Exeter. Its political and economic orientation is completely dominated by its proximity to and relationship with the City.

I have often wondered at the way in which East Devon’s boundaries are arranged, with Pinhoe, so obviously part of Exeter, being included, and areas to the north and east of Exeter bizarrely being administered by EDDC.

Of course, once the loss of the Growth Point is conceded, the next issue is where would the new boundaries of the City be set? Presumably, Cranbrook would be included in Greater Exeter.