One council has courage to pull out of Derby/Nottingham devolution deal

“At a full council meeting, South Derbyshire District Council leader Bob Wheeler proposed to reject the agreement and this was backed by the members.

He said: “Our concerns include how appropriate an elected mayor would be for an area as diverse as Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, as well as the cost and impact the deal would have on the other authorities concerned.

“We simply don’t know in detail what the powers of an elected mayor or combined authority would be. We can’t recommend getting on a bus when we don’t know what the fare is and we don’t know where it’s going.”

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Local-council-pulls-East-Midlands-devolution-deal/story-28837942-detail/story.html

Devolution: Devon and Somerset to twin with Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire?

Why?

Because the two deals are very spookily similar! Read the press puff job for Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire and it could almost have been written by the same hand. No, no, no – surely not … but they are SO similar … no, no ….

The press release:

http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/devolution

Here are two snippets almost identical in tone and (localised) content to the Devon and Somerset bid:

The deal sets out ten key benefits devolution would deliver for the rD2N2 Local Enterprise Partnership (promoting economic growth in Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire) is a partner in the bid.

What could the Devo Deal deliver, if successful?

• 55,000 new jobs by 2023
• Improved quality and quantity of homes across Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire – delivering 77,000 affordable new homes
• Better connected towns and cities through the creation of combined transport authorities covering Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire
• Improved frequency, integration and joint ticketing arrangements on public transport through London-style powers, as well as directly influencing improvements to motorways and major trunk roads in the area
• Increased potential for East Midlands Airport, the second busiest freight terminal in the country after Heathrow, to increase international trade and passenger transport
• More and better quality apprenticeships, tackling the root causes of long-term unemployment, and further reduce rates of young people not in education or employment
• Greater control over further education to ensure all local learners and employers have access to the right, high-quality further education offer, matching the skills of citizens with those demanded by the employer.
• Speeded up planning process and making it more flexible to respond to the different needs of the local areas
• A smart infrastructure that future-proofs growth and prosperity with universal access to 4G and beyond, removing the digital divide facing those in vulnerable and rural communitiesesidents and businesses of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire:

55,000 new private sector jobs
77,000 extra homes
An Investment Fund over 30 years to provide infrastructure such as roads and bridges
Adult skills provision that better meets the needs of businesses
A joint transport fund to spend on key transport improvements
A better co-ordinated public transport system with ‘Oyster’ style smart ticketing
More responsive and co-ordinated business support for growth
The creation of substantially more apprenticeship opportunities
More people entering employment through better targeted local programmes
Journey times to London of less than 90 minutes by train
19 councils across Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire together with business leaders from the D2N2 Local Enterprise Partnership which covers the two counties, are seeking to create a single Combined Authority for the region by March 2016 – the first of its kind featuring district, borough, city and county councils.”

and another:

D2N2 Local Enterprise Partnership (promoting economic growth in Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire) is a partner in the bid.

What could the Devo Deal deliver, if successful?

• 55,000 new jobs by 2023
• Improved quality and quantity of homes across Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire – delivering 77,000 affordable new homes
• Better connected towns and cities through the creation of combined transport authorities covering Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire
• Improved frequency, integration and joint ticketing arrangements on public transport through London-style powers, as well as directly influencing improvements to motorways and major trunk roads in the area
• Increased potential for East Midlands Airport, the second busiest freight terminal in the country after Heathrow, to increase international trade and passenger transport
• More and better quality apprenticeships, tackling the root causes of long-term unemployment, and further reduce rates of young people not in education or employment
• Greater control over further education to ensure all local learners and employers have access to the right, high-quality further education offer, matching the skills of citizens with those demanded by the employer.
• Speeded up planning process and making it more flexible to respond to the different needs of the local areas
• A smart infrastructure that future-proofs growth and prosperity with universal access to 4G and beyond, removing the digital divide facing those in vulnerable and rural communities”

Another chance to meet your LEP helpers – this time with your EU problems

But, of course, if we do Brexit, this will not be all that useful!

Technical Assistance European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) Applicants

Register now for European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Information Events

April 2016 will see the launch of a new round of ERDF funding opportunities. In the Heart of the South West, monies are expected to be available to support:

Initiatives to further innovation in the marine, environmental futures, big data and healthy ageing areas of economic activity in Devon, Plymouth and Torbay only;
Activity to support the start-up and growth of social enterprises in the Heart of the South West;
Enterprise/incubation space in the Heart of the South West where the market has failed to provide and there is evidenced unmet demand;
Activity to support SMEs to take advantage of new digital technologies in the Heart of the South West.

To aid potential applicants in preparing for and engaging with these ERDF funding opportunities, the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership is holding two half-day ERDF information and networking events.

Events will take place from 13.30 to 16.30 on:
Wednesday 16 March 2016 at the Westpoint Centre, Clyst St Mary, Exeter, EX5 1DJ;
Thursday 17 March at Taunton Rugby Football Club, Hyde Park, Hyde Lane, Taunton, TA2 8BU

Local businesses: LEP volunteers will show you how to make you more productive and successful ….

Heart of the South West Pop-Up Business Cafes

Exeter – 5 April 2016:

Fresha Limited
23 Bittern Road
Sowton
Exeter
Devon
EX2 7LW

tel : 01392 44 77 01
fax : 01392 44 77 02

18 April 2016

Organised in the lead-up to the Growth Hub, from March until the end of April, HotSW LEP will run a series of Pop-Up Business Cafés at established café venues across the area. These will be informal events co-hosted with a local business organisation offering free, one-to-one ‘no pressure, no sales pitch’ advice from volunteer business experts. The Business Cafés are for budding and experienced business leaders and entrepreneurs.

The business cafés aim to raise awareness of the benefits of business support and the range of support available to them locally to make their organisation more productive and successful.

The service is a forerunner to the main service for all element of the Growth Hub which will start very soon. The HotSW website will be regularly updated with the latest events in your area, in the meantime the following events have been arranged:

March
Tue 15 – Shaul’s Café, Bridgwater
Wed 16 – Plymouth Science Park
Thu 17 – Riverside Café, Taunton
Fri 18 – Jelly Café, Newton Abbot & Yeovil Innovation Centre
Tue 22 – Plymouth Skills Summit – Guildhall, Plymouth
Thu 24 – Rumpus Cosy – Plymouth Social Enterprise Network Focus

April
1 April – Old Church School, Frome
5 April – Wavemark, Ivybridge
6 April – Fresha Café, Exeter
12 April – Lilico’s, Barnstaple
13 April – Gerties Café, Bideford
19 April – Enterprise Hub, Tavistock

The Pop-Up Business Cafés will run from 8am to 12 mid-day.

http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=4e59660292bd6b4a5c7d7b8a7&id=dae36e0b59&e=fa5cdb1f18

Devolution: pennies drop, the backlash begins …

“A bid to win fresh powers from Westminster has been submitted to the Government after every council in Devon and Somerset gave the document support.

Council chiefs and business leaders in Devon and Somerset have submitted their “prospectus for productivity” in the hope that devolved powers will boost jobs and growth.

They say they a “devolution revolution” would result in higher productivity and better-paid jobs, improved road, rail and broadband links and more homes.

However, business leaders have criticised the move as “dangerous” and likely to hike business rates and council tax bills to pay for the new responsibilities.

Tim Jones, chairman of the Devon and Cornwall Business Council, said: “The agenda has yet to clarify just what the implications are going to be for the business community.

“The business rates just don’t add up. There may be no growth or revenue may go down.

“In poor rural areas reductions could be 15 to 20% and those figures are not speculative.

“Local taxation could go up – we have already seen authorities putting up council tax and don’t want to see a never-ending spiral of increases.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Devolution-revolution-sparks-fears-tax-business/story-28860642-detail/story.html

Broadband in some English villages slower than on Everest!

Dan Howdle … warned that “digital black holes” risked economic decline as businesses needed an online presence.

… “These often beautiful, scenic locations will become ghost towns,” he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35718107

Perhaps our new super-devolved Devon and Somerset Local Enterprise Partnership could divert some of the vast sums of our money they are pledging to the Hinkley Point power station that may never be built to this good cause that will no doubt promote “economic growth”, though perhaps not for the people they would rather it went to.

Devon and Somerset Local Enterprise Partnership – by Powerpoint

It says at the end that they are always keen to hear from stakeholders …

https://www.petroc.ac.uk/_assets/downloads/1.%20hotsw%20lep%20overview%20-%20chris%20garcia.pdfb

Tangled LEP webs …

Recent comment on EDW:

“Please note that the man who claims to have “initiated the East Devon Business Forum” is on the HotSWLEP panel, together with his CEO, and that the former joined the LEP when the East Devon Business Forum disbanded following the exposure and [subsequent resignation of] fellow EDBF member Cllr G Brown in 2013.”

[And also note another member of the LEP is former EDDC Regeneration Supremo Karim Hassan, now CEO of Exeter City Council. Diviani and Hassan will be in charge of all the extra housing that the LEP says the two counties need – nearly 180,000 of them].

What an interesting Constitution our Local Enterprise Partnership has!

The full application for our LEP to be a Community Interest Company (!) was submitted on 6 February 2014, so our councillors and business people were working on this for a full 18 months before letting anyone know what they were doing.

The full document is here:

application-pdf

A few things to note:

There are a lot of blank spaces in the application!

It is a 53 page document and the Constitution commences on page 22.

Community Interest Companies are supposed to “lock” their assets so that, if the company is disbanded, they are firstly offered back to the community that is supposed to be interested. However:

3.1 says they must be transferred at full consideration but if article 3.3 is satisfied this will not apply. Article 3.3 says that assets can be disposed of at less than full consideration!

The “Object” of the company is that the Company is to “carry on activities which benefit the community and in particular (without limitation) which contribute to the economic growth and increased prosperity of Devon, Somerset, Plymouth and Torbay with a view in particular (without limitation) to creating better and more sustainable jobs.”

Article 9 basically says that Directors can delegate anything to anyone and can change the terms of delegation at any time.

Article 18 says that if Directors have a conflict of interest they should absent themselves from those parts of the meeting in which they occur. HOWEVER:

Other directors decide whether that particular director has a conflict of interest and

Article 19 says that even if a director seems to have a conflict of interest directors can allow that the Director CAN take part and vote in the matter on which they have a conflict of interest – it is up to the Directors to decide about that too!

Article 32: ANYONE CAN APPLY TO BECOME A “STAKEHOLDER” BUT DIRECTORS CAN REMOVE ANY SUCH ENTITY IF IT IS “IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE COMPANY”.

Article 52: Minutes must be taken of all proceedings, etc and they must be kept for at least 10 years.

Our Local Enterprise Partnership members declarations of interest

And very interesting they are too!

http://www.heartofswlep.co.uk/board-members%E2%80%99-conflicts-interest

Former Tory Energy Minister (and Osborne’s father-in-law) calls Hinkley C a dinosaur

SO WHERE IS OUR LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP’S PLAN B AS IT STILL INSISTS ITS MAJOR INVESTMENT IN DEVON AND CORNWALL WILL BE THIS ‘DINOSAUR’?

“More delays on the horizon for Hinkley Point as design gets labelled a dinosaur

A final investment decision on the long-awaited Hinkley C nuclear power plant in Somerset could be delayed another year it has been claimed, as a former Energy Secretary dubbed the design a “dinosaur”.

Lord David Howell, Energy Secretary under Mrs Thatcher, and a Foreign Office Minister in the early years of the Coalition Government, said the liklihood of French state-owned developer EDF giving final approval to the project is “very iffy indeed.”

Last month EDF said: “final steps are well in hand to enable the full construction phase to be launched very soon.”

Lord Howell was speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme today, hours after the Financial Times reported that a final decision on the £18bn project could be delayed by up to a year.

Hinkley C is scheduled as the first in a new generation of eight nuclear reactors needed as part of the energy mix to meet the UK’s energy needs.
The ten-year construction phase alone would generate 25,000 jobs, but the project has been dogged by delays. It was once said that Britons would be cooking their Christmas turkeys with Hinkley C-generated power in 2017.
The FT says the EDF board is split over the decision.

The French firm’s original partner in the project, Centrica, pulled out three years ago citing rising costs, and delays. EDF found a new Chinese investor, and that deal was announced in a blaze of publicity last October during the Chinese President’s State visit to the UK.

The Chinese will take a one third stake, with EDF being responsible for the rest. The total cost of Hinkley C is more than the value of the company, and French unions have expressed concern.

In 2015 Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne announced a £2billion guarantee for Hinkley C, as the government sought to pave the way for construction.

Ironically Lord Howell is Mr Osborne’s father-in-law.

Asked on the ‘Today’ programme whether Hinkley C will go ahead Lord Howell said: “It’s a big ‘if’ and it’s getting more ‘iffy’ and I see this morning they are still wondering about how to raise the finance for it, and the reason is that it is a gigantic, a dinosaur of a model. There is no other model like it working in the world.

“The one they built in Finland is years behind and well over budget. This is probably the wrong design. It’s the last battleship, an old-fashioned system.”

He said it would be better to wait until the 2020s or 2030s for nuclear development in this country, adding: “It will be smaller, cheaper, safer and solving all sorts of technology problems, but this is a great lumping pyramid from the past.

“I have been very doubtful all along whether it will take off. I don’t know the answer now but it’s looking very iffy indeed.”

EDF Chief Executive Officer Vincent de Rivaz has said: “Our project is based on proven technology. Britain is buying the best and the safest.

“The EPR is a Pressurised Water Reactor with the highest safety standards that society rightly demands. We run 58 PWRs in France and there are 277 around the world.

“Thanks to the visionary investment made 40 years ago France now has among the cheapest electricity in Europe. Hinkley Point C will be the fifth and sixth EPRs worldwide.

“It is true that there have been delays at Flamanville. The experience gained there – and at Taishan in China – will be immensely valuable when we come to Hinkley Point C. And for the UK we have a design which is stable: We are sure of what we will build before we begin construction.

It was approved by the UK regulator following a four-year year assessment which included 850,000 hours of engineering studies. The EPR is the only new generation reactor design which has completed this process.

“Hinkley Point C is the first of its kind in the UK. It won’t be the last. It will be followed by the two EPRs we plan to build at Sizewell C.

“Our experience will ensure that this technology – which has been through a teething and somewhat challenging period – will mature to deliver its full potential for the UK and around the world.”

http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/delays-horizon-Hinkley-Point-design-gets-labelled/story-28830203-detail/story.html

Disquiet over Devon and Somerset Devolution deal

” I I am getting increasingly concerned about our devolution process in the South West.

Devolution is different in each region, but one thing each has in common is a lack of public consultation. In fact here in Devon most people don’t even know we are in the process and that many of the councils in Devon and Somerset have signed up already. Cornwall has already finished the process.

People don’t know what is happening and that is a concern, as the implications of devolution will impact upon all of us and I find the actual devolution bid extremely worrying.

Robert Vint, a Devon county councillor commented, on devolution recently, saying: “The Government has taken away the funds that local authorities were once spending to meet the needs of local people – for affordable homes, care services, repairing local roads etc.

“It now offers to give back £195.5 million – but only if we endorse a package of mega-projects in which we have had no say. This is coercion, not ‘devolution’. “The decisions about how this council spent its money were once democratically decided; the proposals in this Devolution Prospectus were not. “It is not the economic recovery plan that residents would have created themselves if they had been given the opportunity.”

The privatisation of local authorities in other words, yet we know so little about it. We definitely don’t know about the LEP, who are at the heart of it. LEP stands for Local Enterprise Partnership.

The one for Devon and Somerset is known as the Heart of the South West LEP (H0tSW LEP).

It is basically a business quango made up of business men and women and a few elected councillors, who channel money from the government and from Europe into local business and enterprise, or that was what it was originally set up to do.

They are the ones who are enabling devolution down here. Most people know very little about them.

They have a website detailing their aims and grants, but they hold their meetings in private and it is difficult to see the minutes of those meetings.

They say they will deliver £4billion to the UK economy. A lot of that money is going into the Hinkley C nuclear plant.

I personally do not want money spent on a highly controversial nuclear project, at a time when our local services are being cut to an absolute minimum, but I have no say in the matter and nor does anyone else, that I can see.

There is so little transparency in this process that even councillors who are supposed to be involved in the devolution bid are struggling to find information. We do know that they are about growth and not much else it seems.

This seems to me to be the opposite of localism. In the future who is going to control planning applications? Will it be the local authority still or will it be the LEP? If it is the LEP, I cannot understand how there won’t be a conflict of interest.

The proposal is also about creating a new authority but there is no information that says which, if any, current body it would replace.

The HotSW LEP is made up of elected councillors as well as business people, but the process is opaque and undemocratic. Many of those on the board who are self-appointed have business interests in property and construction. I am sure the HotSW LEP is all above board.

But it seems to me that LEPs could be vulnerable to corruption. I would like some guarantees, I would like some transparency, I would like to have my democratic rights adhered to, but I can’t see it happening.

Mr Vint also points out: “There are proposals (in the devolution bid) to build 179,000 new houses across Devon and Cornwall – but the plan ignores the priorities of all the Councils across the South West that want affordable housing for local people – not unregulated market housing.

“While ‘housing’ is mentioned repeatedly, three key words are totally missing from this document – ‘affordable’, ‘social’ and ‘rented’.

“Those are the kinds of houses we most urgently need, not commercial housing.This proposal is an attack on democracy; its priorities are not the priorities of local people; it puts the needs of big business before the needs of local people and it is helping to bail out businesses, such as Hinkley C, that are nowhere near being financially viable without massive subsidy.”

Where does this figure of 179,000 houses come from? Who is going to build them? Why do we need them? Who are the LEP to decide such matters?

I find it all very disturbing. Devolution was supposed to be about local areas deciding on local matters, not the takeover of council services by corporate interest. I read recently that devolution meant “the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership for the Shires”, a reference to the proposed international agreement that many feel hands too much power to businesses. I fear that analysis is correct.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Comment-Devolution-mean-localism-quangos/story-28835533-detail/story.html

Devolution 2: the missing link and the heart of our problem with it

The missing link is the cultivation of citizen participation and the development of structures and mechanisms for doing so, without which levels of accountability and alienation could be no better than before, for two reasons.

First, citizens have to wait until the next mayoral election to make their voices heard just as they do with local and general elections.

Secondly, people do not automatically feel more connected to local leaders because proximity is only one part of accessibility, which also involves visibility and approachability.” …

… While it is possible to argue that democratic structures could be developed after powers have been devolved, it makes more sense to set out ambitions for participation and accountability early on. These ambitions will affect which powers are needed and the governance arrangements of devolution agreements. For example, if the ambition is to use ‘pop-up parishes’ to design town- centre regeneration, then it may be necessary to devolve more power over planning and land use, and to ensure that proposalscan be tabled by citizen groups and not just by members of the combined authority leadership. …

… There is neither realism about the growth outcomes of devolution nor much concern about generating particular bene ts for local economic stakeholders, such as residents, local workers, and business owners. NEF’s work on local economies has shown that if cities are to ‘meet their full economic potential’13 in terms of benefiting local economic stakeholders, this will involve:

• Supporting people to be nancially strong individuals in terms of income-to-cost-of- living ratios and being able to have savings.

• Developing a strong local business sector with supply chains connecting small enterprise to big business.

• Making more ef client use of distribution of resources, with positive local circulation of money, low levels of wasted resources in local supply and production systems, a high level of staff retention in jobs, and falling levels of inequality and poverty.

In the documents, these sorts of economic outcome for local people are only rarely discussed. For example, reducing poverty is mentioned four times in a total of 1,129 arguments and cost of living is not mentioned at all. This is a gap in the debate. ‘More jobs’ is the overwhelming focus rather than ‘better jobs and wages’.

In current devolution agreements power remains firmly in the hands of Westminster who can revoke devolved functions and budgets in future if it is dissatis ed with progress, without clear criteria de ning success. Westminster will retain a stick with which to beat localities if they are not achieving outcomes desired by central government, perhaps especially economic growth and cost savings. This could prove restrictive rather than liberating. A Voluntary and Community Sector worker from Liverpool, for example, raised the concern that a devolution agreement for the Liverpool area would ‘cast a potentially narrow economic glow over our world’ and that the local government would be unable to prioritise non- economic outcomes which also matter to local people.

The devolution debate could go one of two ways. It could roll on in the backrooms of Westminster leading to opacity, confusion, and potentially falling public support for the policy.

Or it could be brought into the open, where there will be space for criticism and consideration of the downsides of devolution, as well as discussion of its potential to transform and strengthen our towns, cities and democracy. “

Click to access 1888588d95f1712903_e3m6ii50b.pdf

At last some straight talking on devolution

” … Should growth be the main goal?

Our research found that arguments for economic growth are weak at explaining how these outcomes would be achieved; they tend to focus on the benefits devolution would bring the national purse rather than the local economy. Devolution could improve the lives of local people, yet the current debate pays little attention to how this could be achieved.

How devolution would affect income-to-cost-of-living ratios, which affect everyone’s day to day economic reality, is seldom mentioned. The number of jobs that would be created is discussed far more often than the quality of jobs that would be created. Reducing poverty through economic growth is mentioned only four times in a total of 1,129 arguments.

Devolving fiscal and policy making powers to the local level over skills, housing, business rates and enterprise, could improve how the local economy works for its residents and local stakeholders. It could, for example, enable local government to better shape local business stock and promote resilience to external shocks through reasonable diversity in sectors, business size and ownership models. While economic growth may be one measure of success, it should not be pursued at the expense of other key economic and social goals that devolution could benefit.
Building a more democratic country

Creating a more democratic country seems an obvious aim for devolution but it is neglected by advocates of devolution, particularly in local government as Figure 2 shows. Discussions currently neglect the greater role citizens could play in political decision-making if decisions are made closer to home, but also the ways in which devolution could increase the accountability of elected leaders to the public. Simply creating elected mayors is not enough to revive an ailing democracy. This is why local governments should also be considering the mechanisms and structures for citizen participation which could make devolution worthwhile.

How can we change the debate?

We need to bring the debate into the open for public discussion, locally and nationally, so that everyday economic concerns like the quality of jobs created, and reducing inequality, feature strongly in discussions around what goals devolution should deliver.

So far, the debate has been conducted in the backrooms of Westminster rather than in public forums. Several parties in government have proposed a Constitutional Convention – a citizen forum where the governance of the country is discussed – but are yet to act on the proposal.

In the meantime, a group of academics and civil society groups have piloted this model in Sheffield and Southampton, showing how it would work. Drawing on examples from countries including Iceland, Canada, the Netherlands and Scotland, they show that the direct participation of local people in decision-making improves not only the democratic quality of decisions, but their effectiveness. It’s a match made in heaven for the devolution revolution.”

‘The briefing Democracy: the missing link in the devolution debate’ is available for download here:

http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/entry/democracy-the-missing-link-in-the-devolution-debate

Key findings:

Of the arguments made for devolution, 41.6% focus on achieving economic growth as the main justification for devolving power.

Only 12.9% of arguments make the case for devolution in order to shift power, strengthen democracy, and increase citizen involvement in decision-making.

Just 7.4% of arguments address inequalities in wealth and power between regions.

Environmental sustainability is part of just 0.8% of arguments.

Only 2.9% of arguments address the potential downsides and risks of devolution.

Local governments in particular seldom consider the impact of devolution on democracy, discussing democratic outcomes less than central government or think-tanks.

http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/whats-missing-from-the-devolution-debate

LEPs: Vince Cable helped to create them then had second thoughts, as did others

Lots and lots of people and institutions saw that LEPs were not what they were supposed to be – including Vince Cable who helped to create them!

Vince Cable has questioned the coalition’s “messy” system to help businesses across the regions of Britain and admitted that ministers may not have “got it right”.

The Liberal Democrat business secretary said he was sceptical of whether local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) and the “City Deal” project, which the government ushered in to replace regional development agencies (RDAs), had been successful.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/01/vince-cable-local-enterprise-partnership-messy_n_5245455.html

Insight Public Affairs in 2013:

“Accountability”

It is imperative that the government put in place improved accountability structures that will provide a conduit for the effective assessment of the performance of LEPs, appraising the value-added by major funding streams and also the extent of local economic development. While the creation of the local growth committee is welcome, it operates in a vacuum at the heart of government with little interaction with Parliament and the 39 LEPs, and as a result, it is not ultimately responsible for the performance of LEPs in delivering economic growth. Accountability will not be established until lines of responsibility are improved within Whitehall; this can only be achieved by appointing a minister for local growth with sole responsibility for the performance of LEPs.”

Click to access IPA-LEP-Report-Clarity-or-Confusion.pdf

Financial Times 2013:

The fear is that, if weaker LEPs do not catch up, Lord Heseltine’s bidding process will result in money being allocated according to how effective a LEP is rather than how needy a region may be.

“We need stronger LEPs across bigger areas,” said Robert Hough, chairman of Liverpool city region LEP. “Many depend on local authority support. That is difficult to give when they are cutting elsewhere and libraries and leisure centres are closing.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f8d387e-5cdb-11e2-8229-00144feab49a.html

Q: What is a “Mayoral Development Corporation? A: Another unelected, unaccountable group of business-people!

A mini-LEP!

They both use unelected, unaccountable businessmen to take control of local assets and shortcut legal and democratic processes to enrich a select few business people.

The DCLG said an advisory board would be established to provide leadership and direction to the MDC for the regeneration of sites across Tees Valley. Ministers will work with local partners to appoint members for the board.”

watch out people of Teeside – you have no idea what is coming your way!

You see where this is going? Local councils and electors – OUT, local and non- local business people – unelected, unaccountable. nontransparent replacing them.

But it isn’t ALL business people – just a very, very select few.

Owl really isn’t a conspiracy theorist – this is just the way it is in Dave’s England now.

Yet another battle to fight: more, many more, sneaky changes to planning

The devil is in the detail here – so many “minor” changes, never seen before – all gearing up to give our LEP total control of the planning system:

“This consultation seeks views on the proposed approach to implementing the planning provisions in the Housing and Planning Bill, and some other planning measures. It covers the following areas:

Changes to planning application fees
 Permission in principle
 Brownfield register
 Small sites register
 Neighbourhood planning
 Local plans
 Expanding the planning performance regime
 Testing competition in the processing of planning applications
 Information about financial benefits
 Section 106 dispute resolution
 Permitted development rights for state-funded schools
 Changes to statutory consultation on planning applications”

Click to access Planning_consultation.pdf

WE HAVE UNTIL 15 APRIL 2016 TO RESPOND

Brexit: Bank of England makes contingency plans

“The Bank of England is preparing a contingency plan for the aftermath of Britain’s referendum on European Union membership.

However Mark Carney, the Governor, said the central bank will not predict the likely outcome or economic consequences of a vote to leave.

Mr Carney also acknowledged that uncertainty about the outcome was fueling instability for the pound in evidence to MPs on the Treasury select committee.

Mr Carney said: “We’re treating this vote exactly how we treat any other political event, which is not to make a judgment on the outcome and assume the status quo continues. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12170936/EU-referendum-Bank-of-England-is-making-contingency-plans-says-Governor-Mark-Carney.html

So, where is our Local Enterprise Partnership’s Plan B, bearing in mind it sees one of its funding streams as being the European Union? AND, if there is a Brexit, will the cost of Hinkley C increase, it being majority-funded in France?

Our chances of finding out from the LEP – zero.

Quote of the day

“The people of England regards itself as free; but it is grossly mistaken; it is free only during the election of members of parliament. As soon as they are elected, slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing.”

Jean-Jaques Rousseau, “The Social Contract”, 1762

District councils and LEPs didn’t exist in 1762!

Everything you wanted to know about devolution but couldn’t get our Local Enterprise Partnership to tell you’

A meeting about Devolution – Thursday 25th February at 6.30 in the Guildhall, Totnes.

A paper written in 2012 that predicted with uncanny and very scary accuracy what would happen when LEPs decided to rule the world:

http://transitionculture.org/2012/05/28/why-we-need-to-put-the-local-back-into-local-enterprise-partnerships/

And a petition to sign if you feel that all this is happening democratically and non-transparently::

go to

change.org

and search for the petition:

Stop the ‘unlawful’ devolution process in Devon and Somerset