http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/knowle-relocation-project-report-to-be.html
Category Archives: Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation
Knowle relocation and the new transparency rules – trouble ahead?
According to the Department, the Code will require councils to publish udetails of contracts and all land and building assets “they are sitting on” as well as subsidies given to trade unions including so-called ‘facility time’.
Local Government Minister Kris Hopkins said: “Greater power for local government must go hand in hand with greater local transparency and local accountability. Therefore it is only right we give council tax payers the data they deserve to play a bigger role in local democracy.
“This new wave of town hall transparency will empower armchair auditors right across the land to expose municipal waste and ensure councils are making the sensible savings necessary to freeze council tax and protect frontline services.
“For instance, opening up parking profits to the eyes of local democracy will protect residents from the risk of being treated as cash cows by trigger-happy town hall traffic wardens and expose councils using parking policies in an unlawful way.”
In response Cllr Peter Fleming, Chair of the Local Government Association’s Improvement and Innovation Board, warned that bringing forward the deadline for publishing the required information would only add strain and burden to local authorities faced with major cuts to their funding.
“Councils now need a firm commitment that they will receive adequate funding to cover these new expectations,” he demanded.
Cllr Fleming insisted that the sector was already the most open and transparent part of the public sector.
Councils already published information on budgets and revenues, performance, salaries, assets and annual parking reports, he pointed out. “This allows residents to democratically hold them to account and helps drive innovation and efficiencies.”
Cllr Fleming added that the LGA had recently launched its LG Inform online public tool, which is designed to make it easier for councils to generate and publish reports about how their services are performing.
EDDC HQ Version 2.0?
“No District Councils in Ten Year’s Time”
An extraordinary revelation by Cllr Ken Potter at last night’s Newton Pop parish council meeting.
He said in his report that he attended a recent meeting of the Local Government Association to discuss the future of post offices.
The meeting was addressed by a minister who predicted that within ten years “there would not be a single free-standing district council left”.
Several astonished members of the public tried to ask why, then, was EDDC planning to spend many millions building a new HQ, but the Chair moved on to discuss Himalayan balsam in the Otter.
Update on Knowle sale and Freedom of Information Tribunal
Fettering discretion in the planning process
EDDC current constitution page 196
Do be aware that you are likely to have fettered your discretion where the Council is the landowner, developer or applicant and you have acted as, or could be perceived as being, a chief advocate for the proposal. (This is more than a matter of membership of both the proposing and planning determination committees, but that through your significant personal involvement in preparing or advocating the proposal you will be, or perceived by the public as being, no longer able to act impartially or to determine the proposal purely on its planning merits.)
and page 197:
Don’t speak and vote on a proposal where you have fettered your discretion. You do not also have to withdraw, but you may prefer to do so for the sake of appearances.
Do explain that you do not intend to speak and vote because you have or you could reasonably be perceived as having judged (or reserve the right to judge) the matter elsewhere, so that this may be recorded in the minutes.
Do take the opportunity to exercise your separate speaking rights as a Ward/Local Member where you have represented your views or those of local electors and fettered your discretion, provided you do not have a disclosable pecuniary interest.. Where you do exercise these speaking rights:
– advise the proper officer or Chairman that you wish to speak in this capacity before commencement of the item;
– remove yourself from the Member seating area for the duration of that item; and
– ensure that your actions are recorded.
…..
Be aware that you should not speak or vote on any matter which you have discussed at Cabinet unless you have demonstrated there and can do so at the relevant planning meeting that you have not predetermined the application. …
…Do not take part in any planning meeting on a matter in which you may have been seen as advocating a proposal as a Cabinet Member.
The Scottish referendum and Skypark: what links them?
The Scottish vote on Thursday has significant implications for the proposed move of EDDC to Skypark.
This follows the recent strong performance of the ‘Yes’ campaign, who may well win, but have in any event secured huge concessions from the Westminster establishment. The choice is now between full independence and ‘devo max’, a further massive transfer of powers to the Scottish Assembly.
All parties are now agreed that the existing constitutional arrangements are dead in the water, and that widespread reform is inevitable with a transfer of powers away from Westminster. In a sense, a logical extension of the popular policy of ‘localism’.
Regardless of Thursday’s vote, Wales and Northern Ireland will be given more powers, and there is likely to be an English Parliament. This may be located away from London, in Birmingham or the North, but is more likely to be housed at Westminster, with only English MPs sitting to determine English issues.
The English regions will be included in this anti-centrist, anti-Westminster process, but a repeat of the maligned and unsuccessful regional assemblies of the last Labour government is highly unlikely. Power is going to be devolved to lower tiers of government, and in our neck of the woods that means Devon County Council.
As part of this transfer of power and general constitutional and administrative upheaval, the number of tiers of government will be closely examined. The continuation of District Councils is highly questionable. Whilst County Councils will have the viability to administer more powers, there will be huge demands to counter their power with a transfer of local decision-making to Parish level. In particular, planning. This is the essence of localism, and government generally is well aware of the popular demand for people to have a greater say over what happens in their neighbourhood.
And of course, having three tiers of local government is widely seen as overly complicated and expensive. Hence the decision to make Cornwall a unitary authority. So District Councils are looking like they are heading for the chop.
Scottish voters have been promised constitutional reform in a great hurry, with legislation scheduled for just after the May 2015 elections. Reform to the English system will either be at the same time or very soon afterwards.
At the very moment when District Councils are likely to cease to exist, here in EDDC we will be committing to a £20 million new HQ. The ultimate white elephant.
And what will be the value of the new building, when it has to be sold? Surely no more than £2-3 million. We already know that there is no demand for offices at Skypark, or anywhere else in East Devon for that matter. And especially for a new building purpose designed to house our District Council.
In these circumstances will the residents elsewhere in Devon be prepared to stomach the losses incurred by East Devon politicians. Or will the £17 million loss be transferred to East Devon’s parish councils, saddling them with debt for a generation?
“Embedded officers” types 1, 2 and 3
We have received the following on “embedded officers” from Sandra Semple, who attended the Information Commissioner v EDDC First Tier Tribunal.
“I have been giving further thought to the concept of “embedded officer” as described by Richard Cohen at the First Tier Tribunal Hearing last month.
I am only a layperson but it seems to be a very strange situation, without precedent.
A trawl of Google has found only two areas where “embedded officers” generally seem to operate: journalists with the military on operations and dedicated police officers in American schools.
1. In the case of journalists embedded with the military, the military attempts to influence their work by getting them to see the day-to-day work of soldiers on the front line but they CANNOT control what the journalist then says. The journalist is always employed by the newspaper or journal to which they are accredited and which pays them.
2. In the case if police officers, their beat is the school but the justice they dispense is that of the law and they are responsible to their police authority which pays them.
If Mr Pratten were employed as (1) his reports would not have been changed and censored by EDDC’s Mr Cohen (who admitted under oath that he “edited” a report which went to EDDC’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee about HQ relocation).
If Mr Pratten was employed in case (2) again, because he was paid via an outside agency then he would be considered as a representative of that agency (especially as Mr Pratten used cover sheets and back sheets of Davis Langdon). A “headmaster” would not influence his course of action.
But what if they were “embedded officers” a la EDDC? How would that affect the outcome of 1 and 2 above?
In case (1) it would mean a journalist submitting his or her report to a military commanding officer who would then change it to suit it to his or her requirements, circulate it and then expect it to be described as the work if the journalist but with (undocumented) bits missing. The journalist would have had no control over which bits were missing.
In case (2) the police officer would investigate a crime, find a particular. pupil allegedly committed it and then go to the headmaster and ask him if it was ok to charge the criminal on the. evidence that a crime had taken place. If the headmaster said no, the crime would go unreported and unpunished, with the police person’s bosses having no idea of this action.
EDDC seems to want to create a third category – where although the consultancy employs the worker, the client controls the worker’s output totally – neither 1 or 2 above.
This would create a dangerous precedent where a consultant would have to accept that his or her work could always be changed but the name in the report would always be theirs – no matter how much the report might be changed.
For example, a consultant might put in a report saying “Do not take this course of action, it is far too dangerous” but an embedded officer could put in the same report and have his report changed to say “Take this action, there is absolutely no danger at all”. Still with his name on it (and the cover and back page of a report that started out the opposite of what was originally written) but with a totally different conclusion. This happens to officers, they have no control over what course of action their boss decides to take.
A dangerous precedent and one that a consultant might think twice about if told that his or her status would be as an “embedded officer type 3”.
Though there was no evidence given at the tribunal that Mr Pratten was ever considered an “embedded officer” when he was taken on by EDDC via Davis Langdon – it only came up as their defence after EDDC refused to publish Mr Pratten’s reports – after the Information Commissioner’s decision that they should be published.
Sidmouth Herald “Streetlife” readers comments on Knowle secrecy
Extracts from the “Streetlife” section of this week’s Sidmouth Herald and is reported verbatim:
“What the heck?
In the Herald it states,on page 6, that EDDC are trying to keep a report secret because the man they brought in as an expert from a (presumably) independent firm is so deeply “embedded” that he can be considered as the same as an employee. And has the powers similar to a council officer.
Apparently the report, although appearing in the format and branding of the company who actually employs him is his personal work and therefore belongs to the council !! If this is accepted then it will set a dangerous legal precedent about work produced during employment which currently belongs (copyright) to the employer not employee.
Also, doesn’t this negate his position as an expert if he is, in fact, controlled by EDDC?”
To which one response from “Barnacle Bill” is:
“E(m)bedded or ‘in bed?’
They are so deep in the sh*t that they are going to stink to high heaven when the truth is out.”
Not your usual polite Sidmouth comments and a measure of their anger and frustration perhaps?
Assets of Community Value
Knowle sale and relocation – Equalities Act 2010 – Equality Impact Assessment
Knowle relocation – has EDDC shown that it has complied with its Public Equality Duty – Equalities Act 2010? Has anyone seen an impact assessment? if not, could it be the subject of judicial review (aling with lack of consultation)?
“Members’ attention was drawn to the Equality Impact Assessment and Decision Making report within the agenda papers. This report highlighted the key points of a recently published Devon County Council report, which had been the subject of a judicial review. The report also stressed the importance of the Public Equality Duty, how that duty should be exercised and how decisions might be challenged and the possible impact if they were. The Committee noted that the Council had put a number of measures in place to ensure that decisions were not subject to judicial review under the Equality Act 2010. When making decisions leading to changes to policy or services the Council needed to demonstrate that active consideration had been given to the impact assessment. Most of the judgements against councils were made where it was evident that the decision makers had not genuinely considered equalities’ impacts in their decision-making.”
Source: http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/osc_mins_270214.pdf
(Overview and Scrutiny Committee Minutes 27 February 2014)
Re. Knowle officially for sale
Some background from earlier this year:
Knowle relocation costs: We have not been properly informed, says EDDC Committee
Knowle officially up for sale
Today’s Tribunal : EDDC vs Information Commissioner & Jeremy Woodward
The decision of the Hearing at Exeter Magistrates’ court, which took the whole day, is anticipated in two or three weeks’ time.
Here is where interviews, and some of today’s reports on the case, can be found:
BBC Radio Devon. Good Morning Devon interview with Jeremy Woodward 04:15-08:05 ; Jenny Kumah interviews Jeremy Woodward and Richard Thurlow 34:40-38:13; and later, discussion of how Local Authorities usually deal with Freedom of Information requests 01:35-01:40.24
http://www.saveoursidmouth.com
An interesting First Tier Tribunal (Information) case with “public interest” requirements
Not quite the same as EDDC but with some interesting similarities:
and the decision:
http://35percent.org/blog/2014/05/10/foi-appeal-decision/
The full official decision notice is here:
http://ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2013/fer_0461281.ashx
and includes the following pertinent paragraphs:
“In relation to the disposal of the council’s land, land which would previously have been a public resource which provided council housing for significant numbers of residents, there is a public interest in knowing that the decision to sell this resource to a private company was based on a sound evaluation of relevant factors and represented good value and an effective use of a public resource. Disclosure of the requested information would provide the public with the same level of detail available to the council in its decision making which, in turn, would facilitate public engagement with the scheme and provide reassurance that the council gave due consideration to the relevant factors.
The Commissioner accepts that it is in the public interest for authorities to secure best value when disposing of assets and that, in the current economic climate, this presents particular difficulties. It is arguable, therefore, that the council should be allowed to progress the regeneration without this process being jeopardised. However, the Commissioner is also mindful that, given the fact that the asset in question is a public resource and that Lend Lease is a private company which stands to profit from the regeneration, there is a compelling, countervailing argument in favour of making this process as transparent as possible. Whilst it may be that the regeneration will free council resources which were previously tied up with maintaining the Heygate Estate, the Commissioner considers that size of the redevelopment and the number of residents affected should provide a trigger for transparency and engagement with council tax payers.
The Commissioner further considers that, as the planning authority responsible for adjudicating on Lend Lease’s planning application (which the viability assessment was created to accompany) and the authority responsible for the significant land disposal associated with the scheme, there is a further argument for a high level of scrutiny to be directed to the council’s actions. Whilst the Commissioner is not suggesting that there is a conflict of interests in play, the public perception that a public authority might be subject to such a conflict and the potential damage to an authority’s reputation which might ensue provides an argument in favour of transparency and disclosure. The Commissioner considers that disclosure in this case would address the general mismatch between the resources of the developer and those of residents directly affected by the scheme and council tax payers within the borough.
The Commissioner notes that an independent report published by Spinwatch alleges that the council’s consultation with the local community was deficient and raises concerns about the relationship between the council and Lend Lease26. Whilst the Commissioner does not endorse the veracity of these conclusions, he considers that the reputation of public institutions and their legitimacy and effectiveness in carrying out their role can be damaged by public perceptions. As it is not in the public interest for public authorities’ actions to be perceived or potentially constrained by such perceptions, disclosure would provide reassurance about the council’s conduct and would serve the interest in transparency and accountability.
The Commissioner considers that the significant expenditure of public funds, the need for public reassurance, confidence and engagement with the council’s decision making in relation to the scheme, the disquiet about the levels of affordable housing which will be delivered and concerns about the value for money provided by the disposal of public land combine to produce a heavy public interest weighting in favour of disclosing the information.
Probity in Planning
A very useful reference tool – note it says that councils dealing with their own planning applications should be as transparent as when they deal with all other applications:
Important issues being debated this week: today (Tuesday) and Thursday
See above for details of the DMC meeting this afternoon where the lack of a 5 (and 6) year land supply will be “debated”
note that you can video, record, photograph, tweet or email about this meeting in real time, provided that you do not upset the participants …
and
check out the First Tier tribunal case:
Information Commissioner v East Devon District Council,
Thursdy 28 August 2014 at 10 am in Court 3 of Exeter Magistrates Court
(taking notes at this meeting is allowed but no other form of recording)
where the important decision on how much information EDDC can keep secret about its relocation to Skypark will be (eventually) decided
A public authority, the requester or both can appeal against the Information Commissioner’s decision notice. [This is what EDDC has done].
If the Tribunal decides that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong in law, or that he exercised his discretion wrongly, it can overturn the decision and issue a substitute decision notice. This decision notice has the same legal status as the first one. Like the Commissioner, the Tribunal can only consider questions relevant to the Act, not any wider dispute that may arise from the request.
Appeals may be by oral hearing, where witnesses give evidence in person. If the evidence can be presented entirely in writing, the appeal will be decided on the basis of those documents.
Cost of selling Knowle: a useful graphic
EDDC v Information Commissioner – press release from J Woodward
Press release from Jeremy Woodward, Sidmouth resident, whose Freedom of Information request led to this case, and who will be allowed full representation at the Magistrate’s Court on 28 August 2014 at 10 am, Court 3:
“This Tribunal is the first of its kind for East Devon District Council.
The Council has acted as both executive and policeman, making key decisions in private and then determining which information it deems fit to be made public. And yet the default position is to make information available – but the Council refuses to abide by the spirit of Freedom of Information legislation.
The fact that the Council has appealed against the Information Commissioner’s decision shows how determined it is to keep these key reports on relocation from the public gaze: one wonders, therefore, what is hidden within.
This case is fundamentally about transparency of process. Research I have carried out strongly suggests that the political leadership at the Council has been making decisions about its relocation project in private without adequately informing Members. Moreover, it is clear from reports in the press and other documentation that the decision to relocate from Knowle was made well before 2012 – and yet the Council insists that there can be no disclosure of sensitive information because the project is still ‘live’.
This has had the effect of preventing any proper debate of the issues. There has been virtually no open discussion, hampered by the political leadership controlling the flow of information. I have argued that key documents which have guided decision-making on relocation should be published in full (apart from any company or private names, of course) to enable an informed debate to take place.
The fact that the reports were produced by external consultants Davis Langdon, who employs the author of the reports Mr Steve Pratten, simply consolidates the argument that these documents should be published.
The East Devon Alliance blog is following the case closely – with helpful directions to the Court for members of the public:
http://eastdevonalliance.org/
I will not be able to attend, due to professional commitments. However, I will be represented by Mr Richard Thurlow; he is also the Chair of the Save Our Sidmouth campaign, as well as the Chair of the Sid Vale Association’s planning committee. I am copying him into this correspondence as he will be taking any questions from the press next Thursday.”
“Honiton for Sale” part 2 – some questions but very little chance of answers
This week’s Midweek Herald adds some interesting information to the story carried yesterday that former Chairman of East Devon District Council and town councillor, Peter Halse, believes that Honiton is being asset-stripped to pay for the vanity project EDDC HQ office relocation.
The Midweek Herald adds more comments from Councillor Halse:
… “In my personal view, Honiton is being put up for sale. Assets are being raised in order for the council to move to the outskirts of Exeter, which is not in the public interest”.
Mr Halse told the meeting that he had made strong protests to the district council regarding the move and added that he thought the district council had now realised “the Knowle is not quite the jewel in East Devon’s crown as it thought it was and that it was having to find other assets elsewhere.
An EDDC spokesperson said in response to this:
… “The question of succession to East Devon Business Centre has given us an opportunity to look again at how we can help meet the needs of business into the future in a words of enterprise and entrepreneurism very different from what existed when Heathpark Business Centre first opened its doors.
Lead members for business and officers carried out a tender exercise and interviewed four different consultancies. The chosen company, Carter Jonas, are in the process of gathering evidence and are expected to report back with their findings and recommendations within the next month or so”.
This raises several interesting questions:
If a respected and long-serving majority party Councillor has no real idea what is going on – how on earth do councillors not privy to the thoughts of those in the “inner sanctum” understand what they are voting for with the Skypark project?
The press release speaks only of something going out to tender – it does not say exactly what the tender was for and we will never know because the Asset Management Forum at EDDC has always met in secret and provides no agendas or minutes of its meetings for the public.
Councillor Halse’s comments seem to imply that EDDC is not going to get as much as it had wanted for Knowle. They have long said that the move will be “cost neutral” but that was when only Knowle and Manston Depot were mentioned. Is it still cost neutral when you add in the loss of the Heathpark site and the East Devon Business Centre? Again we will never know because the Relocation Working Party meetings are also held in secret and no agendas or minutes are produced.
We have a situation now where ALL decisions are now made in secret. Instead of information going to committees for discussion and decision they are being referred to creatively-named “Forums” and “Groups” so that the decision-making can all take place behind closed doors where even majority party councillors have no idea what is going on.
Let us hope that when the next council is convened it votes for a Committee system of decision-making rather than an Executive Board system which allows a very small number of people – hand-picked by the Leader – to take decisions on behalf of the majority.
Remember Leader Diviani’s last election promise: Clean, Green and Seen. Not Unclean, Ungreen and Unseen.
East Devon Watch 