Category Archives: Local Enterprise Partnership

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Jul 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Climate crisis, Coastal communities, Environment (local), Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

“Heatwaves test limits of nuclear power”

Not true, as the article implies, that because Hinkley C uses seawater, which is cooler, it is not at risk. There are many examples of coastal nuclear reactors having to close down because seawater has become too warm in heatwaves – including in places such as Finland, Sweden and Germany. Here’s the evidence:

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/27/632988813/hot-weather-spells-trouble-for-nuclear-power-plants?t=1562937536321

“Enthusiasts describe nuclear power as an essential tool to combat the climate emergency because, unlike renewables, it is a reliable source of base load power.

This is a spurious claim because power stations are uniquely vulnerable to global heating. They need large quantities of cooling water to function, however the increasing number of heatwaves are threatening this supply.

The French energy company EDF is curbing its output from four reactors in Bugey, on the Rhône River near the Swiss border, because the water is too warm and the flow is low.

Some reactors in the US are also frequently affected. This matters in both countries because the increasing use of air conditioning means electricity demand is high during summer heatwaves and intermittent nuclear power is not much help.

This does not affect nuclear power stations in the UK because they draw their water supplies from the sea, which stays relatively cool. However, it may affect plans to build small reactors on a lake in Trawsfynydd, Wales. And it may also reduce some of the UK’s power supplies during the summer.

As heatwaves intensify, the flow of electricity from French reactors through the growing number of cross-Channel interconnector cables cannot be relied on.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/08/weatherwatch-heatwaves-nuclear-power?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Jun 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Developers/ Development, Local Enterprise Partnership

Regional imbalances to be examined by MPs

Bet our Local Enterprise Partnership has some “bigly beautiful” figures to support much more housing – fuelled by nuclear energy probably (bacause, as their hero Trump says – wind turbines cause cancer!).

“A parliamentary inquiry has been launched to examine the impact of regional imbalances in the UK economy.

The treasury committee is to examine the nature and impact of regional imbalances in economic growth across the country and the extent to which these explain poor productivity growth across the UK.

It will establish what regional data is currently available in the UK, how it could be used more effectively in policy development, and whether official regional economic forecasts should be produced.

MPs will seek to learn lessons from other countries on the use of regional economic data and forecasts, and understand how devolution has changed the need for regional data.

The effectiveness of regional bodies, such as combined authorities, in promoting growth will also be considered, as well as the extent to which the devolution of funding can help reduce regional disparities.

Treasury committee chair Nicky Morgan said that disparities between the areas represented by committee members had become “abundantly clear” in her time as chair.

“Whether it be a divide between north and south, towns and cities, or urban and rural, people experience the chasm which exists between various parts of the UK through their day to day lives,” said Ms Morgan.

That included differences not just in economic growth and income, but also in health and educational outcomes and the quality of infrastructure, she said.

“As part of this inquiry, we’ll examine why this is the case, what the effects are in terms of imbalances, such as wages and employment, and how successful regional programmes have been in promoting regional economic growth.

“The treasury committee will seek to identify the disparities and explore how better data can inform policy makers on how best to level the playing field.”

Committee member Alison McGovern said the inquiry would help build an accurate picture of how the economy affected people in different parts of the UK.

“We must understand how regional economic performance shapes people’s lives and their perceptions of where they live and work,” she said.

“It is not sufficient for the government to only offer figures on economic success in aggregate terms. I hope this inquiry can show how the government can get a full picture of the whole of the UK economy in the future.”

Written evidence will be accepted on the treasury committee website until 2 August.”

https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2019/06/mps-investigate-economic-disparities-uk

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Jun 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Greater Exeter, Housing (local), Infrastructure, Land Supply, Local Enterprise Partnership, Local Government Finance

Comments

2 Comments

Is our Local Enterprise Partnership attempting to hi-jack housing and infrastructure funding and control?

Yet another attempt by this unelected bunch of conflicted business people to suck up funding meant for local councils:

“…
Recommendations
2.1. 1.
That the Joint Committee pursue an area-based package to accelerate housing delivery which, at headline level, should include:

a. Resourcing of a strategic delivery team (capacity funding)
b. A major infrastructure delivery fund to unlock growth
c. A small schemes liquidity fund to bring forward stalled sites

2. That the proposed package as set out in appendix 1 is agreed as an
appropriate package to accelerate housing delivery across the HotSW
geography.

3. That the proposed package as set out in appendix 1 is used by officers as
the basis for future engagement with central government and its agencies in seeking to secure a bespoke deal for the HotSW area to structurally embed collaboration with central government on housing delivery.

4. That the Task Force seeks to now engage with senior figures within both Homes England and the MHCLG Growth and Delivery Unit to understand their appetite for driving growth and willingness to work with the Joint Committee on some kind of housing deal.

5. That the Task Force brings back any updates or progress to the Joint Committee to consider in due course.”

Click to access HotSW%20JC%20-%20Housing%20Task%20Force%20report.pdf

The appendix on pages 5 and 6 is particularly worrying.

And where does this leave the (stalled due to political changes) Greater Exeter Strategic Plan?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Jun 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

Why is the south-west (particularly our LEPs and press) backwards at coming forward on our behalf?

We are reading an awful lot in the press about how the north of England is being discriminated against compared to the south-east and London.

For example:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/10/northern-newspapers-demand-revolution-in-regions-treatment?

Why does our local press and LEPs in the West Country appear to lack the ambition and drive to do something equally bold for our region?

Aren’t we in danger of being left behind (again). Owl thought LEPs were supposed to be leading us somewhere …not just spending our money on vanity projects.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Jun 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

“Nuclear: Energy bills ‘used to subsidise submarines’ “

Not just energy bills in Devon … a large tranche of our money is being used to subsidise Hinkley C via our Local Enterprise Partnership.

“Energy bills in the UK are inflated partly because households are subsidising nuclear submarines, MPs have been told.

Experts think one government motive for backing civilian nuclear power is to cross-subsidise the defence industry.

They say nuclear power is so expensive that it should be scrapped in favour of much cheaper renewable energy.

Others argue that nuclear still plays a key role in keeping on the lights, so the military aspect is not significant.

But in evidence to MPs on the Business Select Committee, researchers from the University of Sussex said the government should be frank about the inter-dependence of the civilian nuclear programme and the nuclear defence industry.

Supply chain

Prof Andy Stirling from Sussex argues that one reason the government is willing to burden householders with the expense of nuclear energy is because it underpins the supply chain and skills base for firms such as Rolls Royce and Babcock that work on nuclear submarines.

He said: “It is clear that the costs of maintaining nuclear submarine capabilities are insupportable without parallel consumer-funded civil nuclear infrastructures. …

The government has declined to comment on the research, but a committee source told BBC News the researchers’ evidence appeared persuasive and well-researched.

The committee is expected to release the evidence in coming days as it prepares to discuss whether the UK really needs nuclear power for energy security.

The debate has taken on greater significance as the true costs of nuclear power have been revealed.

It was once forecast that nuclear energy would be too cheap to meter. But it’s clear now that bill-payers will give price support to the Hinkley Point C nuclear station at a cost of £92.50 per megawatt hour, compared with £55 for offshore wind.

Ministers expect that, before long, wind energy will operate without support.

Prof Stirling says the issue of nuclear inter-dependence is addressed openly in the US.

In 2017, the former US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz (a nuclear scientist) said: “A strong domestic (nuclear) supply chain is needed to provide for Navy requirements. This has a very strong overlap with commercial nuclear energy.”

Prof Stirling told BBC News: “We need this sort of transparency in the UK.”

Catch-22

But the government faces a Catch-22 situation on this issue.

If it continues to decline to admit the inter-dependence of civil and military nuclear, it will stand accused of hiding a self-evident truth.
But if it accepts that decisions on nuclear power are influenced with half an eye on manufacturing jobs and nuclear deterrent, it will face resistance from consumer groups unwilling to cross-subsidise submarines.

The MPs’ hearing is timely, as the government will shortly publish an energy white paper outlining how the UK will supply electricity in a zero carbon economy.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48509942

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Economy, Growth Strategy, Local Enterprise Partnership, Local Government Finance, Scrutiny

Those optimistic “growth” figures from our LEP look even more unlikely

“Calling an organisation the “UK 2070 Commission” is not without its risks. Who cares what happens that far out?

But that, in a sense, is the point. The commission, set up to investigate Britain’s “marked regional inequalities”, publishes its first report today. And, as its chairman Lord Kerslake puts it: “If you want to understand what happens in economics, you need to look 50 years back and 50 years out.” Indeed, as the commission notes: “The reference to 2070 is an explicit recognition that the timescales for successful city and regional development are often very long, in contrast to the short-termism of political cycles.”

A Brexit-addled government nicely illustrates that — not that it’ll have been any surprise to Lord Kerslake, the ex-head of the home civil service. And in these distracted times, the report is doubly welcome. It kills the myth that inequality is not on the rise and helps to explain Brexit — or at least the disparity between Remainer London and the Brexiteer regions.

The report finds London “de-coupling from the rest of the UK”. And to nobody’s benefit. Research from Sheffield University professor Philip McCann finds the “UK is interregionally more unequal” than 28 of the 30 advanced OECD countries, the exceptions being Ireland and Slovakia.

Productivity in the capital is 50 per cent higher than the rest of the UK. Indeed, similar growth between 1992 and 2015 from cities outside London would have added at least “£120 billion to the national economy”. And, on present trends, half of the UK’s future jobs growth will be in London and the South East, which accounts for only 37 per cent of the population.

The effects show up everywhere. Healthy life expectancy in the UK’s poorest regions is “19 years lower”. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation found in 2016 that dealing with the effects of poverty costs the UK £78 billion a year. And, even then, poor is a relative term. The children’s commissioner for England found that “a child who is poor enough for free school meals in Hackney, one of London’s poorest boroughs, is still three times more likely to go on to university than an equally poor child in Hartlepool”.

No one wins from such imbalances. People and businesses in the North “miss out on the benefits of growth” — forcing more spending on benefits. But those in “overheating” London and the South East find “increasing pressures on living costs and resources”, so reducing “quality of life”. That forces spending on pricey infrastructure, exacerbating the imbalances. Hence Crossrail, a phase-one HS2 skewed to the capital and an environmentally damaging third Heathrow runway.

So, what to do? Well, here the commission suggests a mix of regional devolution and German-style national planning. It points to the eye-popping €1.5 trillion spent post-unification to help to bring east Germany up to speed with the west. For Britain, it proposes an extra £10 billion spend annually for the next 25 years: a fabulous sum equating to 0.5 per cent of GDP. Lord Kerslake says it’s for government to decide whether it would come from borrowings, tax or such things as levies on uplifts in property values.

Yet he reckons “higher regional growth rates would over time offset this cost”. He emphasises, too, that this is just an initial report, seeking feedback. And don’t the divisions over Brexit underline that Britain needs to do something? Waiting until 2070 isn’t an option.”

Source: The Times (pay wall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Corruption, Developers/ Development, Economy, Local Enterprise Partnership, Local Government Finance, Scrutiny, Transparency

Surprise, surprise: the business people running Local Enterprise Partnerships are not attracting funding – from business people!

As Owl has been saying for YEARS – THESE EMPERORS HAVE NO CLOTHES!!!!! Neither do they have transparency or accountability.

It’s verging on the corrupt, definitely a conflict of interest and is certainly unethical – it means a very, very few business people, taking no risks for themselves or their businesses, divvying up OUR money for their own pet projects, with almost no oversight from the councils they have robbed of funds and no loss for them if projects fail or over-run in time or cost.

A national scandal.

“Private sector firms are not matching public sector funding for local regeneration, senior civil servants have admitted.

Two senior civil servants at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government told MPs on Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) that cash from the EU, public sector and higher education are still the main sources for funding regional development projects.

The department’s permanent secretary Melanie Dawes and director general Simon Ridley said match funding for the £9.1bn Local Growth Fund is largely dependent on match funding from councils and other public bodies.

Ridley also admitted there were still challenges over transparency and the boundaries of some Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs).

The LEPs were set up following the abolition of regional development agencies with the idea that they would be a partnership between business and local government – with an expectation that firms would help funding regional regeneration.

Ridley told the committee that the main private sector input into the LEPs is the time and expertise of board members who work for free.

Committee member Anne Marie Morris said: “Clearly, you are having the private sector involved, so how come you haven’t got a significant financial commitment from them?”

Ridley responded: “The capacity funding we give requires match from the LEP in different ways.

“A large number of business people on the boards do it without renumeration. A lot of the capacity support around the accountable body that the local authority provides is paid for by the LEP.

“Our core expectation was to set up partnerships between the private sector and local government to think about local area development.

“Some of those funding streams are matched by private sector funding schemes.”

Committee chair Meg Hillier asked if developers and construction firms were giving over and above Section 106 contributions to enable projects.

She said: “There is a danger that without having any skin in the game, businesses can walk away and local taxpayers end up picking up the bill.”

Ridley replied: “What the LEP is seeking to do is bring forward projects in the local area that wouldn’t otherwise be coming forward.

“They are often funded by more than one funding stream from the public sector.”

The committee also challenged the pair over a claim that LEPs tended to go to the top-five local employers and as a result, other firms were being left out of key decisions.

Oxford University has become a major decision-maker for its LEP, the committee heard.

Committee member Layla Moran asked: “How do we know that everyone who is a stakeholder in this money is actually involved in the decision?”

Hillier also questioned if the LEPs were accountable, citing Oxfordshire, where meetings were not being held in public.

Dawes said the use of scores in the LEPs annual performance review were conditional for funding being released and this had impacted on responses.

She said: “The real test is how it feels for local communities and I think that’s something that’s very difficult for us to judge in central government. We are on a bit of a journey here. It’s going to take a while.”

Ridley said local authorities had a crucial role in oversight, specifically through Section 151 officers who are ideally placed to deal with complaints.

He said: “All LEPs have got their complaints procedures. We have a clearer role realisation with the accountable body and the 151 officer, so they [the public] might write to them.

“The section 151 officer does have to get all the information that goes to the LEP board. I can’t personally here guarantee that absolutely all of that is in front of every scrutiny committee.”

Dawes confirmed the department has no metrics for assessing complaints being made about the LEPs.

MPs also raised concern about territorial battles between LEPs and combined authorities.

Decisions have still yet to be made about the boundaries in nine LEPs.

Dawes told the committee: “There are legitimate reasons why these geography questions are there. We are working actively with them.

“What ministers will have to work through is whether to impose a decision centrally.

“That would be a matter of last resort.”

Businesses failing on LEP match funding, MPs told

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Local Enterprise Partnership, Local Government Finance

Comments

1 Comment

Local Enterprise Partnerships being better held to account? Not really

No evidence so far … Although LEP control is mostly with DCC, EDDC has an LEP role. Now we have a different councillor mix at EDDC we might get some answers about our LEP’s finances …..

“The National Audit Office has reported a significant improvement in the financial transparency of England’s Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) after section 151 officers were given extra responsibility for ensuring that key data is publicly available.

But the public-spending watchdog has warned that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s unwillingness to evaluate the impact of the £9bn in Growth Deal funding channelled through LEPs since 2015 means it is unable to learn lessons on what has worked well. A total of £12 bn is committed to the fund by 2021.

Set up to drive economic growth as part of coalition government reforms introduced from 2011, there are now 38 LEPs in England, tasked with bringing together business and political leaders in a patchwork of sub-regional areas.

In its first report on their progress for three years, the NAO found a leap in the level of openness displayed by the partnerships, following concerns about financial transparency levels explored by the Ney Review, in 2017.

The NAO said that in 2016 only 13% of LEPs published financial data such as salaries on their websites, while only a third published their annual reports online.

As of February this year, 84% of LEPs were publishing their annual reports online and all gave financial information on the projects they funded.

The NAO said the improvements had followed an MHCLG and CIPFA drive to “set out stronger expectations” of the role of section 151 officers in assuring good financial governance of LEPs.

Section 151s now sign off monitoring information reported to the department.

Sign-off is also required for local assurance frameworks that confirm a LEP’s governance arrangements.

The drive came after the Ney Review’s 17 recommendations and is one of a series of initiatives addressing its findings.

Despite the improvements in transparency, the NAO report said MHCLG’s ability to make the most of opportunities presented by the UK Shared Prosperity Fund – created to replace EU economic development funding post-Brexit – would be hampered by its lack of understanding of LEPs success with the Growth Deals.

“We have previously reported that the department opted not to set quantifiable objectives for Growth Deals, including, for example, the number of jobs created,” it said.

“The absence of robust evaluation means the department and LEPs are less able to learn from what has worked well and ensure that this is reflected in the design or objectives of the new UK Shared Prosperity Fund.”

The report observed that that there was an “inherent tension” in the government’s need to develop a system of governance for a finance model that devolved funding and new responsibilities to ad-hoc business-led partnerships.

“While the assurance framework is stronger, backed up by checks on compliance, it is not proven yet whether these measures will be effective in detecting and responding to governance failures over significant sums of public money,” it said.

“The department’s accounting officer is accountable for the Local Growth Fund delivered through LEPs.

“However, the department has made no effort to evaluate the value for money of nearly £12bn in public funding, nor does it have robust plans to do so.

“The department needs a grip on how effectively these funds are used. It needs to act if it wants to have any hope of learning the lessons of what works locally for future interventions in local growth.”

Public Accounts Committee chair Meg Hillier said MHCLG had to ensure that huge sums of public funding were not wasted as it presses ahead with its devolved approach to delivering economic growth.

“It is too early to tell if the ministry’s remedial actions will get its governance up to scratch,” she said.

“Worryingly, the ministry also does not know if the funding is being used effectively to benefit local communities and businesses as intended.”

Last year the PAC called on MHCLG to implement the Ney Review recommendations and strengthen transparency and governance arrangements at LEPs following failings at the Greater Cambridgeshire Greater Peterborough LEP.

Concerns included the LEP’s relationship with local developers, and how it managed conflicts of interest. GCGP LEP went into voluntary liquidation in December 2017 after the department withheld funding from it.

This week’s NAO report notes that MHCLG “acknowledges that it cannot mitigate entirely the risk of a failure similar to the GCGP LEP”.

Boosted s151 officer role ‘significantly improves’ LEP transparency

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 May 2019

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, EDDC, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership, Local Government Finance, Scrutiny

Comments

1 Comment

What is our Local Enterprise Partnership up to?

Well, if you strip out the projects that are actually “stand alone” and directly-funded by its members from its latest newsletter – not very much at all – and all funded by money that used to go directly to local authorities (and not a murmer about their biggest project – Hinkley C nuclear power station:

https://mailchi.mp/heartofswlep/hotsw-lep-march-newsletter?e=9367babecc

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Apr 2019

Posted under

Accountability, East Devon economy, East Devon Tories, Growth Strategy, Local Enterprise Partnership, Voting

Growth – the good, the bad and the ugly …

“Owl asks: Who is “growth” FOR? Developers definitely, privatised company bosses too – but ‘the workers’ – hhmmmm.”

COMMENT

Devon workers rank among the lowest paid in UK. We are an acute example of what is a general national economic malaise.

For decades Britain has had a big productivity gap compared to our rivals; it’s a result of low pay, inadequate training, and endemic short-termism in investment. It is aided by a “flexible” labour market. Why take risks investing in plant and machinery when you can hire and fire staff easily and still make a profit? Unless we break out of this culture we will continue to have a low paid economy, poor productivity and economic growth. A decade on from the banking crisis, wages haven’t reached pre-recession levels. George Osbourne’s austerity continues.

Heart of the South West, our Local Enterprise Partnership, has set wild targets to raise productivity and double growth by 2038; but don’t have too much faith in an organisation so out of touch with the reality of austerity that in 2017 it secretly voted its Chief Executive a 26% rise.

The flipside is that we have high levels of employment. This may have been a benefit during the depths of the recession but not now.

East Devon Conservatives in their local election manifestos claim they are delivering an economy that works for all and will deliver 10,000 new jobs. Doesn’t sound to me as if they are in touch with reality and addressing the fundamental problems either. With low pay, compared with the rest of the UK, the locally employed will always be out-bid for a house by those relocating from more affluent parts. Net inward migration to East Devon, from outside Devon, was 12,400 over the ten years to 2016.

The reality is that we have full employment and an ageing population in which the proportion of those of employment age will only grow at about 0.16% p.a. This results in a need of only around 230 jobs/year, including expected inward migration. For years EDDC Conservatives have been fixated on pushing job targets and using this to justify housing development well beyond what is actually needed. For example, in formulating the “Jobs-led Policy on” strategy for the 2013 Local Plan a target of 950 jobs/year was used to justify building a minimum of 17,100 houses over 18 years. Currently job creation is running at around 260/year. Where does the 10,000 new jobs target come from and who needs the 17,100 houses? It is not difficult to guess who benefits from this policy, but it certainly isn’t a policy that works for all of us.

Have Conservatives finally lost the plot on economic management as well?”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Apr 2019

Posted under

Accountability, East Devon Tories, Independent Councillors, Lib Dem (local), Local Enterprise Partnership, Voting

Leader of large district council explains why he’s not standing as a Tory this time: party-political tribalism at its worst

“York council leader Ian Gilles is not standing for re-election on May 2. He told STEPHEN LEWIS why

IAN Gillies has never been one to mince his words. But the former policeman turned Tory leader of City of York Council has to bite his tongue to keep his frustration about the state of local politics from spilling over.

Owl says: BUT this is the kind of I dependent to be Very wary of! if there is a REAL i dependent to vote for – no brainer!

“It can be very tribal,” he says. “Very… challenging.”

We’ve met over coffee to talk about his reasons for deciding not to stand in next month’s council elections: a decision which means that, from May 2, he won’t even be a city councillor, let alone council leader.

He took over as leader of a fractious Tory/ Liberal Democrat ruling coalition early last year, when previous Tory council leader David Carr sensationally quit the Conservative Party, accusing some within the council’s Conservative group of committing an ‘act of betrayal’ against him.

Cllr Carr is one of a number of former Tory councillors who will be standing as an independent on May 2. But it’s not exactly all sweetness and light in the city’s other political parties, either. Former Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors will also be standing as independents this time around.

Cllr Gillies, a former Conservative group leader and one-time Lord Mayor, was clearly seen as a safe pair of hands when he took over as head of the Tory group and as council leader last year.

But, while he insists he’s perfectly willing to try to work with members of other political groups in the interests of getting things done, he admits it has been hard work.

“The Liberal Democrats are not natural bedfellows for us,” he says. “And the situation in my own group has been very challenging.”

He says that when he took over as group and council leader last year, he intimated to other group members that it would only be until the next election.

But it is clear his frustrations run deep.

A couple of years ago he even thought of setting up a new centrist party in York, so as to escape some of the traditional party tribalism and infighting. It would have been effectively a collection of independents – none of them ‘extremists’ – whose viewpoints were similar enough for them to work together to get things through, he says.

That never happened, and he ended up leading the Tory group again and becoming council leader.

But he has begun to seriously question whether party politics should have a place in local government.

“Do we really need political parties in local government? No. I’m a Conservative: that’s what I am. But as far as this city is concerned, what matters is what is best for the city. Whipped party politics (ie a system where councillors have to obey their party line) isn’t really necessary in a local environment.”

What you need, he says, is intelligent, able people from all kinds of backgrounds who are willing to work together to get things done. “Is that Utopian? I don’t see why. You’d still have debates and arguments. But it wouldn’t be so tribal.”

Party politics isn’t the only thing that has frustrated him to the point of persuading him not to stand again, however.

The glacial pace of the move towards Yorkshire devolution has also got to him.

He places the blame for that squarely at the feet of Whitehall.

Sheffield has gone its own merry way. But council leaders in Leeds, Bradford, North Yorkshire and York all want to have a single tier of government for Yorkshire, with an elected mayor at its head, he says.

That would mean more money for the region – and more powers for regional decision-making on things such as transport. Yorkshire could become a real financial powerhouse. “I want that for Yorkshire and for York,” he says.

A proposal for such such a devolved regional government is now sitting with the Treasury. But the government has been slow to respond, and keeps drip-feeding suggestions that it would prefer smaller devolved authorities, such as one for West Yorkshire and one for York and North Yorkshire, he says.

He believes there’s only one reason for that. A regional government made up of West Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, York and Humberside combined would have a population bigger than Scotland, he points out. “I think the government is scared of the size of Yorkshire.” …

And what about the prospects for York Conservatives at the election?

He chooses his words carefully. “I don’t want to decry them,” he says. “But I think there will be a lot of people who won’t vote in the local elections.” Who knows? in other words.

His own part in local politics is over, at least for now. And once he ceases to be a councillor and council leader, he will also give up his place on various other local and regional bodies – as a director of the York BID, for example, and as vice-chair of Transport for the North. But he’s not ruling out a return to public life altogether. …”

https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/17580657.do-we-really-need-political-parties-in-local-government-outgoing-council-leader-ian-gillies-speaks-out/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Mar 2019

Posted under

Economy, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

“MPs are set to review the government’s plans for Britain’s energy sector after a string of major projects were abandoned by international companies”

Owl says: Such a shame that our Local Enterprise Partnership – dominated by people with a vested interest in the nuclear industry – has put all our growth and regional investment eggs in the Hinkley C basket!

“MPs are set to review the government’s plans for Britain’s energy sector after a string of major projects were abandoned by international companies.

The Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy Committee said it would look into the government’s plans to see if they are fit for purpose.

It will examine if the country needs a new approach to speed up investment into low-carbon, low-cost energy and secure supplies in the long term.

The decision comes after Japanese firms Hitachi and Toshiba pulled out of the Wylfa and Moorside nuclear projects, dealing a serious blow to the government’s plans.

The committee also said it will investigate concerns over foreign investors in British nuclear. This comes amid worries about Chinese involvement in major projects.

Committee chair Rachel Reeves said: “In the wake of investment decisions over nuclear plants at sites such as Moorside and Wylfa, a giant hole has developed in UK energy policy. With coal due to go off-line, and the prospects for nuclear looking unclear, the government needs to set out how it will create the right framework to encourage the investment needed to plug the gap.

“In this inquiry, we want to examine the government’s approach to creating the right conditions for investment to deliver the secure energy capacity to meet the nation’s needs. A bigger shift in our energy infrastructure to a low cost, low carbon energy system is necessary.

“As a committee, we will want to consider what more the government needs to do to attract greater investment into financing future energy capacity, including renewables.”

http://www.cityam.com/273977/mps-launch-inquiry-into-government-energy-policy-after

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Feb 2019

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, Economy, EDDC, Growth Strategy, Local Enterprise Partnership, Local Government Finance, Scrutiny

Comments

1 Comment

“Heart of the South West, our Local Enterprise Partnership, gets its first school report and it’s not good”

Local David Daniel, a former senior government strategist, who has done much work on the East Devon economy, Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership (HotSWLEP) statistics and forecasts and county growth figures (and presented these to EDDC and Devon County Council) has provided this analysis of the current “achievements” of HotSWLEP.

It must be recalled that HotSWLEP is sucking up vast amounts of money that in the past would have gone direct to local authorities and its board members (apart from a few councillors) have vested interests in housing development, the nuclear industry, commercial banking and Hinkley C recruitment.

Here is the report:

“As a result of the 2017 Mary Ney review of Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Governance, a newly formed Joint Scrutiny Committee is to scrutinise Heart of the South West’s (HotSW) annual performance review. This will take place on

Thursday, 14 February, in County Hall at 2.15.

There will, however, be no opportunity for public engagement or speaking and this Scrutiny Committee is not politically balanced but appointed by the very councils that agreed HotSW’s strategy in the first place.

Credit where credit’s due, this is progress! Remember, HotSW was appointed by the Government to act as our “devolution body in waiting” in 2011. It didn’t publish minutes of any meetings in the public domain until 2015. Yet it had already agreed a growth deal with the Government on our behalf the year before, 2014.

It has since published wildly ambitious strategy papers culminating with its Productivity Strategy in late 2017 aimed at doubling our local economy first in 18 years, later revised to 20 years, through transformational growth in the “Golden Opportunity” economic sectors of: Aerospace; Marine; Nuclear; Data Analytics and Healthcare. Economic growth comes from increasing the labour force and/or increasing productivity.

Demographically, the population is set to grow 0.8% p.a. but it is an ageing one and the growth of those of employable age will only be a fifth of this at 0.16% p.a. HotSW intends to “limit growth” in employment to 0.8% per annum and concentrate on raising productivity way above the national average. But even this “limited” growth in employment is five times the trend and will need substantial inward migration.

When this strategy was written, productivity in the HotSW area ranked 7th worst in England. An Office of National Statistics (ONS) report last week said: “The lowest labour productivity in 2016 was in Cornwall and Isles of Scilly. Other largely rural LEPs with relatively low labour productivity included Heart of the South West, Greater Lincolnshire, and The Marches”. The ONS now places HotSW lower at 4th worst, 18% below UK average.

We now have the opportunity to lift the lid and peer into how successful HotSW has been in meeting the targets it agreed, by reading the HotSW annual performance review for 2017, commissioned from Ash Futures.

Investment

HotSW has secured a total of some £245M to date from central government funds, though, when assessed on a per head basis, HoSW has actually received one of the lower allocations across the LEP network. These funds are supposed to be matched by funding from other sources.

LEPs have to be business-chaired and business-led and it was intended that LEPs would unlock private investment. However, the bulk of this matched funding is forecast to come from public bodies including 17% from local authorities. Only 23% will come from the private sector. In regard to this the report says: “Our consultations have also highlighted that the strategic plan is not perceived as having had any significant influence over private sector investment plans.”

Only seven of the 56 funded projects are yet complete in spending terms and so the bulk of the benefits are yet to come. Though this needs to be read in the context of a continuous stream of past funding previously distributed through Regional Development Agencies.

Of these projects, 30 are designed to create conditions for growth e.g. transport and digital infrastructure; 17 are designed to capitalise on distinctive assets in expected high growth sectors such as low-carbon and nuclear energy, marine, big data and photonics; and seven on maximising productivity and growth such as opening up employment space.

Several stakeholders feel that rural areas have been ‘overlooked’ by LEP investments and much of this due to this original identification of urban-based transformational opportunities. However, this should not come as a surprise given the composition of the original HotSW board which was dominated by individuals from a construction/development; defence/nuclear or big education background.

Here are some examples of the sort of projects submitted in the bid proposals:

£13 million to provide Hinkley C infrastructure and £55 million of pump priming to provide Hinkley housing;

a Nuclear Training College;

and one of the deals agreed includes £13.7 million loan funding to three developers to accelerate home building at: Frome, Brixham, Exeter and Highbridge. (You may ask why developers need such funding).

Much is made of the “Golden Opportunity” offered by Hinkley C. This is not the first nuclear power station to be built on the site. Hinkley A was constructed between 1957 and 1965 and Hinkley B between 1967 and 1976. So there should be plenty of historical evidence of the short and long-term economic benefits of such developments. Where are they or are they too insignificant to be found? It is no longer obvious that this is a growth industry.

Economic Measures and Growth

Lack of progress in making any significant changes to our economy are best illustrated by two direct quotes from the review:

“…….the review of economic data leads to the overall conclusion that the HoSW economy, at best, continues to track the ‘baseline’ growth scenario. That is, there is no firm evidence that it is achieving either ‘strong’ or ‘transformational’ growth as aspired to in the Strategic Economic Plan.” [Baseline – continuing to fall behind UK average; Strong – keeping pace with UK average; Transformational – faster than UK average]

“The plan outcome measures and objectives in the current economic environment do not currently look achievable, certainly in the short-term. Some of this is outside of the LEP partnership’s control (with more muted conditions nationally). However, the fact that many of the Strategic Plan outcome measures are expressed in relative terms does means that even if significant absolute improvements have been made to the HoSW economy, they may still never meet their outcome measures given that other areas will grow more quickly, notably London and South East. It is our view that some of the outcome targets, particularly those associated with the ‘transformational’ target, now look very aspirational in their nature.”

The only areas on track appear to be in the delivery of broadband coverage and in housing development density (development rates against existing stock).

Conclusion

For an unelected body that made a pitch to Government eight years ago that it could transform the local economy, including, initially, delivering health and transport, this below average performance from unlocking investment to falling productivity surely can only be seen as a failure?

The review catalogues the “critical issues” (excuses) for shortfalls: the economic context has changed; the expected ‘freedom and flexibilities’ have subsequently been rolled-back by Government; parameters [strings] have been tied around what could be funded; HoSW is a relatively new ‘construct’ and does not naturally represent a functional economic, or political, area as found elsewhere in the UK.

But that’s life. Any worthwhile strategic plan needs have been developed to be robust against a set of likely future scenarios. The “critical issues” listed above shouldn’t have come as surprise and the sensitivity of the plan to these sorts of “issues”, some use the term risks, should have been examined and reported. Another essential component, given the extreme uncertainty of how to improve productivity, should have been the development of a set of metrics and a feedback mechanism. So it is heartening to see that the reviewers make this recommendation:

“Currently, there is no ‘feedback loop’ back to the Strategic Investment Panel to develop its understanding of ‘what has worked well, and what not’ with investments made. Whilst we recognise that many projects are still at an early stage of development, we feel this is a missed opportunity. A better understanding of how investments have developed would lead to better long-term decision-making.”

On the basis of this review, is HotSW delivering value for money (our money)?

SOURCES:

Joint Scrutiny Agenda and Ash Futures Review reports pack:
https://democracy.devon.gov.uk/documents/g3570/Public%20reports%20pack%2014th-Feb-2019%2014.15%20Heart%20of%20the%20South%20West%20HotSW%20Local%20Enterprise%20Partnersh.pdf?T=10

Office for National Statistics latest productivity data:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/labourproductivity/articles/regionalandsubregionalproductivityintheuk/february2018#results-for-local-enterprise-partnerships-and-city-regions

HotSW Productivity Strategy:

Click to access HeartoftheSouthWestProductivityStrategy.pdf

HotSW Strategic Economic Plan

Click to access Non-tech-summary-FINAL.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Feb 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

Nuclear options?

“Nuclear power plants divide opinion. But on one thing everyone agrees: it’s nice if they’re welded together properly.

EDF still can’t convince France’s nuclear regulator that it can do it at Flamanville: the €10.9 billion nuke that’s years late and oodles over budget.

Still, not to worry. It’s only the prototype for Hinkley Point C.”

Source:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk
Business Commentary – Alistair Osbourne

Yes, all is well.

We know this because our Local Enterprise Partnership is still pumping oodles of Devon’s money into it – and coincidentally into their own pockets too!

So what does it matter if we don’t get it? The multi-billion pound “investment” will have helped a handful of people along the way and we will have had an invaluable (literally) experience!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Jan 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Clinton Devon Estates, DCC, Exeter City Council, Exmouth, Greendale, Local Enterprise Partnership, Police (local)

Comments

1 Comment

Greendale owner 30th most influential Devonian

Our old friend Karime Hassan (CEO Exeter City Council) is in 19th place, Steve Hindley (Chair,Local Enterprise Partnership) is 18th, Alison Hernandez (Police and Crime Commissioner) in 12th place, John Varley (CEO, Clinton Devon Estates) in 9th place, with Devon County Council’s CEO Phil Norey in 2nd place and DCC Leader John Hart in first place.

“30. Rowan Carter, Director Greendale Group

The company behind the Greendale Farm Shop and Waterdance fishing fleet, incorporates a diverse range of businesses. From its beginning as a farming enterprise set up by the Carter family more than 150 years ago, the group includes the farm shop, Waterdance Fishing, Greendale Living, Greendale Business Park, Greendale Haulage, Exmouth Marina and Greendale Leisure. Last year, the Carter family unveiled major expansion plans for the Greendale Farm Shop to create 30 jobs and provide ‘significant benefits’ to East Devon.

The family has also made a £5million commission of two new fishing boats, including the largest beam trawler to be launched under the British flag in over 20 years. The company also wants to build more agricultural buildings and intends to acquire more farmland in order to expand its farming business.”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/business/50-most-powerful-people-devon-2450702

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Jan 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership, Renewable energy

Hitachi suspends Wales nuclear plant – what is the business case for Hinkley C

Hinkley C is leaking out money from Devon via the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership, whose board (past and present) includes people with direct and tangential interests in the nuclear industry and that particular site.

Now we hear that Hitachi is suspending work on the nuclear plant it was meant to build in Wales. It is prepared to take a hit of more than £4 billion to walk away.

It begs questions:

How can the French (EDF) and Chinese – who now own Hinkley C – make a business case for Hinkley C even with the massive subsidy for its (eventual) electricity?

Just how much of OUR money is propping up these French and Chinese businesses?

What is the Plan B if one or both of the companies fail; how much of OUR money will be used to plug financial holes?

What effect has this had on renewable energy sources in Devon and Cornwall?

How much more money is our LEP going to divert to this project?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Jan 2019

Posted under

Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

Disaster for some LEP members with fingers in Wales nuclear pie

Several members of our Local Enterprise Partnership also have an interest in this nuclear power plant in Wales …..

“Hitachi set to cancel plans for £16bn nuclear power station in Wales”

… Just one new nuclear power station, EDF Energy’s Hinkley Point C in Somerset, has been given the green light and begun construction. The French company and Chinese firm CGN both want to build more.” …

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/11/hitachi-cancel-plans-nuclear-power-station-angelsey-wales

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Dec 2018

Posted under

Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership, Sustainability

“UK’s nuclear plans in doubt after report Welsh plant may be axed” but too late for Hinkley C …

… which absorbs much of our regional funding via our Local Enterprise Partnership and its nuclear-benefitting business members.

“Fresh doubts have been raised over prospects for the UK’s new nuclear power programme after a report that Hitachi is considering axing plans for a plant in Wales.

The Japanese conglomerate’s mooted 2.9GW nuclear power station on Anglesey is next in line in the UK’s nuclear plans after EDF Energy’s 3.2GW Hinkley Point C scheme in Somerset.

However, Japan’s TV network Asahi reported that the Wylfa Newydd scheme may be scrapped, sending Hitachi’s shares up by almost 3%, before ending up by 1%.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/10/uk-nuclear-plant-hitachi-wylfa-anglesey

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Dec 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Unitisation

Never trust a Tory with numbers!

“Mayor James Palmer admitted he underestimated the cost of running the new combined authority, and says original predictions it would cost £850,000 a year were never going to be realistic.

The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority was founded in 2017 in a bid to simplify local government. It is involved in many major housing and infrastructure schemes, including the proposed Cambridge metro, and the Wisbech rail link.

However, having initially been hailed as an “efficient” and low-cost authority, some are beginning to worry about rising costs and the “spiralling” cost of paying for staff.

Initially, it had been claimed the authority could be run on £850,000 a year.

Now there are fears costs are “spiralling out of control” after it emerged the authority is set to spend £5.6million on staff salaries alone this year. Total operational costs of the combined authority are set to come to £7.6million.

In leaflets distributed when Conservative James Palmer was running to be mayor of the combined authority, Mr Palmer said: “Under my leadership, the new combined authority will have very few staff, less than 20, and will be very efficient, costing around £850,000 a year to run. Most authorities cost tens of millions. As mayor, I will make sure the cost is kept low.”

Today (November 26) Lucy Nethsingha, chairwoman of the combined authority’s overview and scrutiny committee, noted that costs at the authority were “considerable higher” than had been originally expected. She asked Mr Palmer what he had to say about the increased costs.

Mr Palmer now says he “can only apologise” for the increased costs of running the authority, saying he “underestimated” its running costs.

Mr Palmer said: “I can only apologise. I underestimated the cost of running such an important authority. I think, realistically, we were never going to be able to function on £850,000 a year.”

Mr Palmer said he was concerned about costs at the authority which is why he has commissioned a review of its structure. He also pointed out that the combined authority had taken on staff and spending from the local enterprise partnership (LEP), a group which supported business and sustainable investment and growth, which was scrapped in December 2017.

Mr Palmer also noted that senior staff at the combined authority were not earning more than similarly senior staff in other tiers of local government. He said, however, that after the review is completed, he anticipates the authority will be spending less on staffing. He said he expects running costs to be reduced as the authority relies less on consultants.

“It is a difficult one, “said Mr Palmer. “It’s something the general public rightly gets concerned about. It is their money. But we are working to deliver extraordinary infrastructure and doing things that were previously not achievable.”

https://www.elystandard.co.uk/news/james-palmer-and-cost-of-combined-authority-1-5795358

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Nov 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Growth Strategy, Local Enterprise Partnership, South Hams, Spin

LEP Growth Strategy branded “ludicrous” but still supported by (Tory) South Hams council!

Owl says: Owl has a strategy to catch twice as many mice as it catch now. The fact that there are far fewer mice, much less farmland, Owl is getting very much older and no owl has ever caught that many mice ever is immaterial – but it gives Owl “something to aim for”!

Councillors really do need to sit a test before they pretend to represent us!

“Plans to double SW productivity branded ‘ludicrous’

Plans to double the productivity of the South West by 2038 have been slammed as “ludicrous and a fairytale”.

The Heart of the South West Joint Committee has a vision for the whole of the region to become more prosperous, for people to have a better quality of life and to create a more vibrant economy where the benefits can be shared by everyone.

The productivity strategy says: “Our ambition is simple – to double the size of the economy over 20 years. We have ambitious local plans that outline needs and opportunities for housing and economic growth. To accelerate our progress towards our ambition and vision, improving productivity is our collective focus.”

South Hams District Council’s executive were noting the progress report they made since it was established in March.

Cllr Julian Brazil questioned how realistic and achievable the plans to double the economy in the next 20 years really were.

He said: “We haven’t seen that kind of growth in my lifetime. It is ludicrous and rubbish, and if they follow these fairytale and fictitious views about the economy, it doesn’t give it any credence. They should be much more realistic and things like this doesn’t give me any confidence they will come up with anything of any use.”

Cllr John Tucker leader of South Hams, said it was a stretch target but gave the LEP something to aim for.

And Cllr Trevor Pennington said the economy has grown over the years and there is more employment than there has ever been.

The executive unanimously noted the progress report, agreed to delegate development and endorsement of the HotSW Local Industrial Strategy (LIS) to the HotSW Joint Committee, and said it had made a £1,400 annual budgetary provision for it.”

Source: Western Morning News