KPMG led a consortium that received £10 million to ensure overseas aid was spent effectively.
At the same time they were awarded contracts worth more than £25 million to scrutinise departmental spending.
KPMG and the Government insist there is no conflict of interest, KPMG insisting that most of the aid money was channelled through its office to groups abroad.
Sunday Times, page 17
Well, that’s ok then.
No wonder our LEP has no qualms about its board members who have nuclear interests!
The more Owl reads about what our Local Enterprise Partnership should be doing and what it does do, the more it seems that the LEP inhabits a totally different universe to us where its own rules don’t apply
Check out this publication from December 2014: Her Majesty’s Government LEP Framework. And then contrast it with what has happened in the two plus years since it was published.
Click to access bis-14-1241-local-enterprise-partnership-LEP-national-assurance-framework.pdf
Here are a few choice highlights – let’s start with one that appears on the very last page of the document (page 17):
“Business cases must be published (and publicised) before funding approval decision is made so that external comment is possible. Opinions expressed by the public and stakeholders must be available to LTB members when decisions are being take.”
Does anyone recall being consulted about ANYTHING by our LEP? Has anyone SEEN a business case for anything?
And there is more:
“… 3.1 It is important that LEPs have clear arrangements in place which enable effective and meaningful engagement of local partners and the public. They should operate transparently giving people confidence that decisions made are proper, based on evidence, and capable of being independently scrutinised.
3.2 We expect LEPs to take a proportionate approach to sharing and publishing information, using the prompts set out below as the basis for determining what they release. We fully expect that there will be information which is not appropriate for publication – including information that is commercially confidential, and expect LEPs to use their own discretion in determining what shouldn’t be published. Our expectation however, is that the public should see that the LEP is applying similar standards of transparency as other public sector organisations over decisions it makes over public funding. Within reason we would therefore expect LEPs to:
• have a dedicated website through which local partners and the public can keep in touch with progress on implementing the Growth Deal, access key documents etc;
• publish their arrangements for making, and recording decisions, and for ensuring that papers, decisions, minutes, agendas etc are published in line with existing local authority rules and regulations [access to information, Schedule 12A of the LGA 1972, as amended by the FOI 2000];
• through their accountable local authority, ensure that Freedom of Information and Environmental Information Regulation requests are dealt with in line with relevant legislation;
• have a published conflicts of interest policy, register of interests covering any decision makers, and published complaints policy;
• ensure that there is appropriate local engagement – both with public and private stakeholders to inform key decisions and with the general public around future LEP strategy development, and progress against delivery of the SEP, including key projects and spend against those;
• publish arrangements for developing, prioritising, appraising and approving projects, with a view to ensuring that a wide range of delivery partners can be involved (see also Part 5 on value for money below);
• clearly set out the LEP’s priorities and mechanisms for maximising the social value of its investment funding and activities so that partners and beneficiaries can play an active role in the programme. …
… 4.2 The lead local authority, working with relevant officers will need to put in place appropriate arrangements for the proper use and administration of funding, building on the existing local government systems, and which fall under the annual audit of the local authorities accounts. The accountable local authority would also be responsible for ensuring that decisions are made in accordance with the local LGF assurance framework. …
… 5.4 Across both of these aspects, LEPs should ensure that they have robust processes in place which ensure all funding decisions are based on impartial advice. The arrangements set out in the local assurance framework will need to ensure a clear separation between those acting as scheme promoters and those advising decision makers will be maintained, so that the LEP is acting on impartial advice on the merits of (potentially competing) business cases.
5.5 LEPs should also ensure that arrangements are in place which support the active management of risk across all matters for which the LEP is responsible, including but not limited to propriety and value for money issues. This should include having a named individual of appropriate seniority who is responsible for the identification and management of risk.”
ANYONE SEEN THE IMPARTIAL ADVICE? Until recently, we had no published agendas or minutes, and even now we get only notes not full minutes.
But what can we do? Who do we tell? The government doesn’t want to know, it just wants an annual report. Our councils? No, they have gone into this with little or no consultation.
It is left to us, the public to attempt to hold these people to account. And how do they respond?
Listen to the deafening silence.
Billions of pounds being given to a few businessmen and even fewer career politicians, some of whom have heavily vested interests.
And the blame for this cannot now be left at the door of Labour or coalition politicians.
It is a national scandal that no-one powerful enough is prepared to call out. And who suffers – us.
House of Commons
Communities and Local Government Committee
Devolution: the next five years and beyond. First Report of Session 2015–16 25 Jan 2016
Extracts
Devolution Objectives (Conclusion para 21)
“As set out above, our witnesses gave us many important and ambitious reasons for pursuing devolution, particularly so for health devolution. However, with the exception of increasing economic growth, we are not certain whether these are intended to be the measurable objectives of devolution and are not convinced that the Government itself is any clearer. We are also not satisfied that the Government has considered and identified how to measure the success of a devolution deal once in place.”
The Approach to Devolution (from para 24 and 25)
“….the current approach to devolution in England is overtly one of deal-making, which can be characterised as negotiations behind closed doors between central government and representatives of local authorities….
……Indeed, one of the consequences of deal-making is that devolution does not happen in a uniform manner; deals have so far been agreed with seven city regions and with Cornwall. Professor Pike described it as “very ad hoc” and “piecemeal”…..”
On Public Engagement (from para 51 and 52)
“We have been struck by the lack of discussion and consultation with the public in areas which have proposed, negotiated and agreed devolution deals.
At the question and answer session we held with residents during our visit to Greater Manchester, the vast majority of contributions, often made in angry tones, arose from the perceived lack of efforts by the combined authority to engage the public about the deal relating to their local area.
While many valid points were made, we note that attendees, having elected to attend the session, were not necessarily representative of all Greater Manchester residents who are likely to be less aware of devolution.
We were told that there had been a “complete, utter and total lack of democratic engagement”, “insufficient information” and that most people did not understand what Devo Manc was all about.
When we raised this with our Greater Manchester witnesses, Cllr Kieran Quinn, the Leader of Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council, said he fully accepted there could have been more transparency. Cllr Sue Jeffrey, the Leader of Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, told us that Tees Valley had not consulted the public before signing up to a deal and Cllr Alan Rhodes, Leader of Nottinghamshire County Council, said they were talking about the deal in the media and would hold a public consultation once it was agreed.
…..Cllr Quinn reasoned that, as the deal was bringing new powers to local people, not taking them away, limited public engagement could be excused……….
Conclusion (para 56)
“We think it is too late to engage the public only once a deal has been agreed. While it is reasonable that the actual negotiations are not open to the public, steps should be taken to inject more openness into the process by publishing on the relevant authorities’ websites:
• Devolution proposals and the Government’s counter-offers, within a reasonable time of them being made;
• An outline of what is being negotiated; and
• Drafts of the deal, and the text of the final deal.
The Government should also publish the criteria it uses to assess and agree proposals so local areas can refer to these when drawing up their devolution bid. A similar level of transparency should continue to be maintained once the deal has been agreed.”
Scrutiny (Conclusion para 77)
“As the DCLG says, the overview and scrutiny requirements in the Bill are an initial framework to be used as a basis for more robust provisions, which we believe have a role in fostering public confidence in the new arrangements, as well as balancing vested interests. These should be developed to suit the characteristics of the local areas as a result of deliberate efforts to hold active discussions at local level, with residents involved in designing new and more open methods of scrutiny.
Local areas need to give active consideration to how the mayor will work with the council leaders and how s/he will be held to account. Although the elected mayor is intended to be a ‘first among equals’, s/he may soon establish, or already have, a profile and position which makes this balance difficult to achieve.”
How sensible it was of Councillor Gardner to make her own recording of this meeting, as it appears the Council’s own audio equipment broke down for this section of the meeting.
What follows is Councillor Gardner’s report.
Scrutiny of late amendments to the Local Plan: what did we learn?
Written by Cathy Gardner on 22-Mar-2016. Posted in Cathy Gardner EDA web site:
“On Thursday 17 March 2016, EDDCs Scrutiny Committee finally examined what went on in March last year when, at the 11th hour, two changes to the draft Local Plan (LP) were voted through. Using clear criteria, Officers had compiled a list of ‘sustainable’ villages, which excluded Dunkeswell and Chardstock. However, at the final Development Management Committee (DMC) meeting for the LP, Dunkeswell was added to the list and at the extra-ordinary Council meeting to finalise the LP, Chardstock was added in. These actions were taken without any request for Officers to verify the evidence supporting the changes.
The decision to include Dunkeswell was made on the suggestion by the then-ward member that a school was going to be built. This was not the case. Arguments made in support of Chardstock by the Deputy Leader Andrew Moulding, on behalf of the ward member, the Leader of the Council Paul Diviani, were also erroneous.
It seems that Planning Officers did not think it was necessary (or even appropriate) to check the information stated by the then ward member for Dunkeswell, despite there being time to do this before the Council meeting. Even more interesting was the assertion by the Councils’ Legal Advisor that it is not the role of any officer (including the CEO Mark Williams) to “…withhold decision-making powers from Councillors” (1). This may be true but surely Officers must give clear advice to Councillors, especially if a proposed decision might be unsound. In this case the CEO did not provide clear advice (2) to full Council that they were being asked to vote on amendments which were both against Planning Officer advice and based on information that had not been verified. He did not suggest that Members might prefer to ask for the information to be confirmed before voting or that making a decision under these circumstances was inadvisable.
The urge to get the draft LP signed off seems to have overridden any caution that making last minute changes might be unsound. Fortunately, in these cases, the Inspector did not uphold the changes and neither village is now in the ‘sustainable’ list. Unfortunately there have been consequences for Chardstock and development was approved on the understanding that the village was to be classified as ‘sustainable’.
So, apparently, Members can make unfounded and unconfirmed assertions and if other Members accept what they are told, they can vote through changes to a document as vital as the LP, contrary to the result of proper process and Officer advice without any difficulty. In the end the Council is accountable for its decisions and they should be evidence-based, but the only recourse for communities affected by an error is a Judicial Review (JR). If someone can afford to bring a JR and wins, the result will be a cost to the Council – which is our money. There are no sanctions for any Members who may present incorrect information to bring such a result about.
Can this happen again?
Yes, almost certainly. In the short term the Villages Development Plan is being finalised. In the medium term the LP will be up for review. So there will always be opportunities for incorrect information to be used to sway the content of development plans.
So what can we do?
I suppose the only thing we can do is to be alert to events like this and make efforts to call them out as they happen; to request that Officers confirm what is being suggested and to ask for any vote to be deferred until this has happened. We have to insist that all decisions are based on sound evidence.
The lesson for Members has to be to not take anything at face value, no matter who says it. Put the interests of residents first, follow evidence-based advice and do not be swayed by persuasive speakers. And perhaps wonder about the motives behind such actions.
Personal audio recording of Scrutiny Committee meeting, March 17 2016 (Council system broke down during this part of the meeting), C Gardner
2. Audio recording of extra-ordinary Council Meeting, March 26 2015, EDDC website (2:42:44) http://eastdevon.gov.uk/recordings/council/eocouncil260315recording
Source: Scrutiny of late amendments to the Local Plan: what did we learn?
Written by Cathy Gardner on 22-Mar-2016. Posted in Cathy Gardner
Report from Scrutiny Committee meeting:
EDDC’s Deputy Chief Executive, Richard Cohen was directly in the firing line at last night’s Scrutiny Committee held at Knowle. He was obliged to admit that Ward members had not been contacted at all, before the new prices for beach huts were announced in the Councillors’ news sheet, ‘The Knowledge’ (January 2016). It became clear that only a cursory consultation had been made, with town clerks, about possible transfer of ownership of beach huts to local councils … but councillors themselves were left in the dark.
Richard Cohen defended his actions, saying he was working under a Cabinet directive. But the behind closed doors decision to increase beach hut hire charges by over 90% by 2017 in Beer, Budleigh Salterton, Seaton and Sidmouth, has made Ward members livid.
Cllr Marianne Rixson (IEDA, Sidmouth-Sidford) found this level of price hike “staggering”. Her detailed research had shown that comparable wooden beach huts at Lyme Regis had a lifespan of 10 years, and a replacement cost estimated at £600 per hut.
So was EDDC intending to replace the 20 year old Sidmouth beach huts with new ones before handing them over to the Town Council?”, she asked.
Cllr Maddy Chapman (Con, Exmouth-Brixington) twice called the price hike “outrageous”, saying “I do find the way this council goes about things is all over the place” , and adding “I don’t understand why you are trying to make so much money out of people who can’t afford to go abroad.”
Cllr Cathy Gardner (IEDA, Sidmouth Town) said two things had got “mixed up” in Richard Cohen’s claim – that EDDC wanted to make beach huts more available, and to maximize assets. “The two things are at odds”, she told him. “Social benefit has gone out of the window. EDDC should “stop trying to sound as if they are doing people a favour”.
At the suggestion of Cllr Val Ranger (IEDA, Newton Poppleford & Harpford) Committee, there will now be a formal recommendation to Cabinet that a structured process should be introduced at EDDC, for Ward Members to be involved in decision–making from a very early stage.
But a strong warning came from Scrutiny Chair, Cllr Roger Giles (Ind, Ottery St Mary), that recommendations by Scrutiny were not always mentioned by officers in their report for Cabinet. The consequences were clear from a recent instance of a Cabinet meeting which he had attended. Despite there being no less than nine Scrutiny recommendations to be addressed, not one was referred to during the course of the meeting.
So last night’s Meeting also recommended that officers’ reports should in future highlight Scrutiny recommendations, for Cabinet consideration.
Isn’t it high time that Scrutiny was taken seriously?
Source http://eastdevonwatch.org 18/03/2016
A most interesting agenda for the next Scrutiny Committee:
The beach hut omnishambles shambles on .. graphs, pie charts, illustrate how best to fleece beach hut renters …
A most interesting section on why Dunkeswell and Chardstock were added to the Local Plan at the last minute (and removed by the Inspector at the last second). A tale of meetings between Diviani and Moulding (the latter unable to attend the meeting and having sent in a written report), of an eloquent developer coincidentally having the same views as Moulding and the unfortunate absence due to sickness of Diviani when the decision was made ….
What’s that smell?
“Rt Hon. Andrew Tyrie MP, Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, said:
“Public appointments to quangos need more rigorous scrutiny. They have needed it for years. More of the most powerful appointments – of the Chief Executive of the FCA and the Governor of the Bank of England – should be subject to full pre appointment scrutiny. The Government continues to disagree, appealing to the ‘market sensitivity’ of these appointments. That is not an adequate explanation.
The time has come to entrench the independence of the post of Chief Executive of the FCA. On behalf of the Treasury Committee, I have tabled an amendment to the Bank of England and Financial Services Bill to give this effect. The Chief Executive of the FCA should be able to operate with the confidence that he or she cannot be dismissed without Parliament’s – the Treasury Committee’s – approval. The public, too, need to have confidence that the Government is not interfering with independent supervisors and regulators.
The OBR provides an appropriate precedent. In 2010 the Chancellor agreed that the appointment and dismissal of the head of the OBR should be subject to Select Committee approval. He also agreed that this would bolster the independence – and the perception of independence – of Robert Chote, to the benefit of both the Chancellor and the country. And so it has proved. The Chancellor has frequently alluded to the Chairman of the OBR’s independence from the Treasury to reinforce the credibility of the forecast. A similar arrangement should also be put in place to entrench the FCA’s independence.
The OTS’ independence certainly needs to be bolstered. The OTS cannot achieve much if it appears – whether fairly or not – to be a creature of the Treasury. It is crucial that the scope and limitations of its independence are fully understood by HM Treasury, the OTS, Parliament and the public.”
“To launch our consultation, we have published our first paper on Misconduct in Public Office.
Misconduct in Public Office: Issues Paper 1 – The Current Law is a background document that sets out the current law of misconduct in public office, highlighting problems that arise through areas of uncertainty, as well as gaps and overlaps with alternative offences.
We launched the first phase of our consultation with a symposium of eminent speakers and delegates, which coincided with the publication of Issues Paper 1 on 20 January 2016 (we have published a selection of tweets from the day). Our focus at this stage is on the current law and its problems. The aim of the paper and symposium is to provide us with an opportunity to stimulate informed debate on the problems identified, explore the options for reform and engage with practitioners and experts who deal with the offence. We seek responses to the questions set out in this background paper by 20 March 2016.
The second phase of consultation will begin later this spring with the publication of a paper exploring options for reform. A final report will be published in 2017.
Our project
Our reform objectives are to decide whether the existing offence of misconduct in public office should be abolished, retained, restated or amended and to pursue whatever scheme of reform is decided upon.
The legal concepts involved in the offence of misconduct in public office are highly technical and complex and not easily accessible to non-lawyers.
Furthermore there is often some confusion between what the law is and what it should be. The question of the appropriate boundaries of criminal liability for public officials is clearly a matter of broad public interest.
The offence and its problems
Misconduct in public office is a common law offence: it is not defined in any statute. It carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The offence requires that: a public officer acting as such; wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself; to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder; without reasonable excuse or justification.
Historically the offence held public officers to account for their misconduct, where there were no other adequate ways of doing so. Nowadays such misconduct will usually amount to another, narrower and better defined, criminal offence.
The offence is widely considered to be ill-defined and has been subject to recent criticism by the government, the Court of Appeal, the press and legal academics.
Statistics suggest that more people are being accused of misconduct in public office while fewer of those accusations lead to convictions. One possible reason is that the lack of clear definition of the offence renders it difficult to apply.
We have identified a number of problems with the offence:
“Public office” lacks clear definition yet is a critical element of the offence. This ambiguity generates significant difficulties in interpreting and applying the offence.
The types of duty that may qualify someone to be a public office holder are ill-defined. Whether it is essential to prove a breach of those particular duties is also unclear from the case law.
An “abuse of the public’s trust” is crucial in acting as a threshold element of the offence, but is so vague that it is difficult for investigators, prosecutors and juries to apply.
The fault element that must be proved for the offence differs depending on the circumstances. That is an unusual and unprincipled position.
Although “without reasonable excuse or justification” appears as an element of the offence, it is unclear whether it operates as a free standing defence or as a definitional element of the offence.
Please contact us if you have any enquiries about this project.”
“George Osborne avoided official channels and Department for Transport oversight to offer the London mayor, Boris Johnson, funding for the garden bridge scheme, parliament’s spending watchdog has found, warning the project may not have been approved if the normal processes had been followed. …
… Sir Amyas Morse, of the National Audit Office, said of the project: “It is important to note that the results would not in normal circumstances suggest a compelling value for money case … The department’s own quantitative analysis suggested that there may or may not be a net benefit and, especially once concerns over deliverability were taken account of, the project might well not have met the department’s normal threshold for allocating its finite funds. …
… Gareth Thomas, MP for Harrow West, on Friday called on Osborne to justify the use of public cash on a “vanity project”. He said: “At a time of deep public sector cuts, this money could have been spent on countless other projects where the business case has already been proved.” …
Article by Baroness Smith, House of Lords
“At this time of the year, we often reflect on the past and make plans for the future. For politicians, it is particularly poignant as we look back over the first eight months of the only wholly Conservative government for 18 years and consider what the future holds.
Already, the true character of the government is evident. The Lobbying Bill – or rather, ‘Gagging Bill’ – introduced by the Coalition set the tone, by making it much harder for charities and campaigning organisations to get their messages across. But the Conservatives have now taken this aversion to challenge and scrutiny to a level that I thought was lost with the court of Charles I.
We’ve had had the review of constituency boundaries, where the Prime Minister took the unprecedented step of instructing the Boundaries Commission on how many constituencies there should be. As he seeks to reduce the number of MPs however, Mr Cameron continues to appoint Life Peers at faster rate than any of his predecessors.
Changes to voter registration have also been rushed in, contrary to Electoral Commission advice – meaning many thousands of people could lose the right to vote. No prizes for guessing which political party is expected to gain from this.
Then there’s the Trade Union Bill, which seeks to decimate the Labour Party’s funding base whilst making no commensurate changes that would impact on the Conservative’s sources of income.
And now, smarting from a defeat in the House of Lords on plans to slash tax credits for working families, the government is using a review by Lord Strathclyde as a Trojan horse to blunt Peers’ powers of scrutiny over secondary legislation.
So what did the Lords do that was so terrible? We dared to suggest that perhaps the Chancellor hadn’t got this right, declined to pass a Statutory Instrument, and gave the government the opportunity to pause and think again. Mr Osborne took full advantage of this and promptly scrapped his planned changes. After months defending his flagship policy, he realised what many others had from the start – that taking away thousands of pounds from the lowest-paid was neither good policy nor good politics.
Had the Lords not asked Ministers to think again, two million families would have had a very different Christmas. Indeed, that whole debate showed the Lords at its best – doing the quiet, unglamorous work of marking the government’s homework; going through legislation line-by-line, tweaking and improving; and from time to time asking the government to reconsider.
Since the beginning of this Parliament, Peers have scrutinised 60 pieces of legislation over hundreds of hours. We’ve had 42 votes and defeated the government 23 times. (MPs have voted close to 150 times during the same period.) At no point have we stopped a policy that the Conservatives were elected to implement; and crucially, 16 of the defeats were on Bills that started in the Lords and so had no prior scrutiny or approval from the Commons. A fair few of the Bills were in fact, half-baked.
On the day back in July when we broke for summer recess, I wrote another blog for Huffington Post on the votes we’d won by that point. Since then, we’ve won thirteen more.
We’ve amended the Childcare Bill to increase flexibility for parents and ensure the regulations derived from it are properly debated on. In the Energy Bill, we’ve voted to broaden the purposes of the Oil and Gas Authority, change the UKs climate budget’s metric to give greater certainty to Green investors, and block cuts to onshore wind subsidies. And in the Enterprise Bill we’ve voted to ensure the Green Investment Bank maintains its green purposes after privatisation, and supported pub owners in requiring pub companies to offer a market rent only option to tied tenants.
We also suggested that the early introduction of Individual Electoral Registration be halted, to prevent one million people dropping off the register, and called for 16 and 17 years olds to have a vote in the EU referendum. Although on both occasions, the government subsequently defeated us.
Finally, and in addition to our ‘help’ to Mr Osborne on tax credits, we also provided the opportunity for Lord Chancellor Michael Gove to reverse his ill-fated policy on criminal courts charges, which he duly did.
All of this doesn’t add up to a major attack on democracy. It is the job of Parliament to scrutinise the actions of the Executive – a job that becomes all the more vital when Mr Cameron is reported as telling Ministers to: “use statutory instruments wherever possible to get legislation through”.
During thirteen years in office between 1997 and 2010, Labour was defeated over 500 times in the Lords. We didn’t like it but we just got on with the job. No government likes to be told they’ve got something wrong, but the current Prime Minister needs to learn that scrutiny, transparency and challenge is fundamental to a healthy democracy. And, as the Chancellor will no doubt confirm, it can sometimes even be his friend.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon is Labour Leader in the House of Lords
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/baroness-smith/house-of-lords_b_8911780.html
It’s hard to see an argument AGAINST the public being able to speak at Scrutiny Committee meetings, but DCC seems to be afraid of it.
Transparency is something that all councils SAY they have but time and again they show that this is just meaningless.
Is DCC up to this? We shall see.
Last night’s Scrutiny committee meeting exposed two more examples of EDDC leaders’ instinct to make decisions without proper consultation.
The ubiquitous Cllr Phil Twiss (Conservative, Honiton St Michael’s) who, in addition to all his other roles, is portfolio holder for corporate relations, was summoned to explain why the democratic process had been so blatantly short-circuited by a council press release in September.
Cllr Cathy Gardner (Independent, Sidmouth Town) asked him why she and the other Sidmouth ward councillors had been taken by surprise by an announcement in the Sidmouth Herald that the Council was considering building affordable housing on Mill Street carpark. There had been no consultation with interested parties like the town council, and ward members were sent copies of the press release 14 minutes before it was published!
Cllr Twiss’ replied that he had not been involved with the release, (“It wasn’t me, guv”) but claimed it was a matter of urgency because a journalist had asked for a statement, and the deadline was pressing.
Cllr Marianne Rixson (Independent, Sidmouth Sidford) retorted that this sounded very much like “the journalist tail wagging the council dog” and it was no excuse for not consulting democratically before arbitrarily publishing controversial initiatives.
The Scrutiny Committee agreed and voted to remind Cabinet that there was a Protocol that councillors concerned should be consulted before press releases were authorised. It also welcomed guidance produced by the Communications Officer which made a similar point.
Silence remained about who had authorised the Sidmouth story but Cllr Bill Nash (Conservative Exmouth Town) may have been warm when he said only floods and other emergencies required urgent press releases. All other communications were non-urgent and should not be released if authorised only by “the Leader and senior officers.”
In passing, Cllr Nash also slammed the Council leadership for publishing detailed pictures and maps of developments along Queen’s Drive in Exmouth which were very different from any plans that had been consulted upon.
This was taken up by Scrutiny Chair Cllr Roger Giles (Independent, Ottery St Mary Town) who read a letter from two Exmouth residents complaining about pending planning applications for major works, including diverting Queen’s Drive, part of the latest, much altered, waterfront development scheme.
Exmouth Cllr Brenda Taylor (Lib Dem,Exmouth ) angrily commented that these plans proposed massive residential development which had never been agreed to by councillors. She felt she was “wasting her time” attending meetings when such arbitrary decisions were made in secret.
At this point the Democratic Services Officer and a Legal Officer intervened to argue that the Scrutiny Committee could not discuss the Waterfront Project because planning was outside its remit.
Cllr Rob Longhurst (Independent, Woodbury and Lympstone) wasn’t having any of this. “The reputation of EDDC is nil in Exmouth,” he said, because the current extravagant plans were being “justified” by a few hundred replies to a questionnaire about the different, more modest, “Splash” project.
Cllr Megan Armstrong (Independent, Exmouth Halsdon) agreed. “It’s not about planning, it’s about independent public consultation”, she said. It was about whether the people of Exmouth wanted or needed what the Council leadership was imposing on them.
Cllr Val Ranger (Independent, Newton Poppleford and Harpford) said it was quite within the remit of Scrutiny to look at questions of process, on “whether public consultation is being properly followed.”
The committee voted to do precisely that, once the current legal actions over Exmouth seafront businesses are resolved.
In the meantime, watch out for fireworks over Exmouth seafront at the full Council meeting on Wednesday 16th December.
Honestly, some of Exmouth’s town councillors are also majority party district councillors (including Councillor Maddie Chapman). You would think that the left hand ought to know what the right hand is doing! However, she IS on the EDDC Scrutiny Committee, so she might like to ask them to have a look at how this happened!
“Exmouth Town Council’s planning committee this week considered amended plans for 98 homes at Higher Marley Road.
But during the debate, councillors criticised a Devon County Highways statement saying that ‘Section 106’ money from the developers could be used to fund the completion of Dinan Way, between Hulham Road and the A376, and possible traffic calming works. Devon County Council later denied any wrongdoing.
During the town planning meeting, town mayor Councillor Maddy Chapman said: “I would like this council to object to the fact that a county council department is making deals with developers, behind the planning authority [East Devon District Council] and the town council’s back, by saying that Section 106 money can be used for traffic calming in Higher Marley.
“It’s not up to the county council to decide. [Section 106] is supposed to be community infrastructure, not spent on roads.”
Councillor Cherry Nicholas said: “What disturbs me is that they’ve already calculated, if they end up with 98 residential buildings, a contribution amounting to £5,000 per dwelling, ie £490,000, would be appropriate and consistent with the amounts required under a Section 106 agreement which can be applied to the Dinan Way extension.
“I just think that it is rather morally reprehensible that they’ve already jumped that far ahead.”
Town councillors voted to oppose the planning application – an outline application seeking approval for access only – with concerns also raised about overdevelopment, the loss of part of a Devon bank and a lack of community infrastructure. East Devon District Council will decide on planning permission.
A Devon County Council spokesman denied that the authority had gone behind the council’s back, and added: “Ultimately, Section 106s are a matter of negotiation between the county and district councils, because those authorities are responsible for highways and local planning, and the developer. But there’s no reason why the town council cannot suggest what it thinks the priorities for Section 106 contributions may be.”
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/homes_opposed_amid_dinan_way_funding_dispute_1_4335249
Report sent to East Devon Watch:
‘More ‘best practice’ was evident at EDDC Scrutiny Committee at Knowle yesterday evening (12/11/2015). From the start, Chair Roger Giles (Independent, Ottery St Mary) insisted that presentations should be brief and not include the reading out of information that had been circulated to councillors in advance. Using questions and answers was a more useful tool for this committee , he advised.
This proved correct straightaway, in the close examination of Devon’s broadband provision. Five stakeholders had been called to speak and answer questions. They were Andrew Moulding, Chair of Devon County Council’s (DCC) Place Scrutiny Committee and Deputy Leader of East Devon District Council (EDDC); Cllr Phil Twiss, EDDC Corporate Services portfolio holder; Paul Coles, BT Regional Manager, South West ; Phil Roberts, Programme Manager for superfast broadband delivery, Connecting Devon & Somerset (CDS) ; and Graham Long, Upottery Parish Councillor, with 20 years’ experience with Hewlett Packard, for whom he ran the EU support network.
Questions included one sent, in her absence, from Cllr Susie Bond (Independent, Feniton & Buckerell), asking why the broadband situation in parts of her constituency was “appalling”. Particularly intense questioning came from Cllrs Marianne Rixson (Independent, Sidmouth Sidford Ward ) , and Val Ranger (Independent, Newton Poppleford & Harpford),who had clearly done their homework, both closely referring to the document submitted by CDS, and finding some apparent inaccuracies (e.g. Could the audit done by EDDC’s internal auditors, SWAP, properly be described as ‘independent’?). Cllr Ranger wondered why, of 26 interested parties in 2014, only two had submitted a formal tender.
Phil Roberts (CDS) reported that CDS had decided not to sign a second contact with BT, and that there would now be a different approach to tendering . For the next phase, CDS were currently looking at other providers , as well as talking to BT, he said.
Much of the time, Cllrs Moulding and Twiss looked uncomfortably out of their depth, not least when it emerged that EDDC and DCC had not worked together to obtain maximum funding, thereby missing out on millions of pounds.
Graham Long, “astonished to find how slow broadband is in Devon”, explained that “Fibre is best for reliability, speed and bandwidth. But fibre-to-cabinet works as an urbancentric solution. It doesn’t work in rural areas”. Cllr Ben Ingham (Independent, Woodbury & Lympstone) told the Committee, “I’m really flabbergasted that BT are picking the poor relation of technology”.
The broadband issue is certain to continue. Next Monday DCC’s Place Scrutiny Committee will hear CDS feedback on its recommendations (14h00, County Hall, Exeter). More questions and answers are no doubt being prepared!’
Cabinet agenda and paper are here:
Click to access 041115-combined-agenda-cabinet.pdf
Below is an interesting extract, where it notes that Habitat Regulation will no longer be dealt with at district level, instead being the responsibility of the “Greater Exeter” area (East Devon, Exeter, Teignbridge combined). Habitat Regulation will also not be scrutinised at each district but will have its own cross-district scrutiny committee and this worried officers, should districts disagree. It also says that EDDC will fully fund the committee and its Legal Department will be responsible for legal matters.
“Agenda Item 15
… Following the decision of Council on 29 July 2015 to agree to enter into joint arrangements with both Exeter City Council and Teignbridge District Council, it has been necessary to review and alter the governance arrangements to ensure clarity and consistency in terms of its operation going forward.
South East Devon Habitat Regulations Joint Committees …..
….. High Risk
It is essential to secure appropriate mitigation alongside granting of and implementation of planning permissions for development which impact upon sites of European importance. To not be able to ensure mitigation is delivered could cause problems in terms of being able to grant planning permissions and ensure delivery of development as set out in the Local Plan.
… That review has now been completed and it is considered that the Terms of Reference previously endorsed is not sufficient to enable the business of the committee to be properly conducted. There was some lack of clarity in terms of the remit for the committee, the procedures for meetings and a misunderstanding over how to deal with the powers between the Executive Committee and officers. Most crucially however, the scrutiny arrangements for the committee were left to the local level. This meant that each of the three authorities had the ability to scrutinise decisions and moreover that these would be in accordance with each authority’s own scrutiny arrangements. Aside from the difficulties imposed by having to deal with three different sets of scrutiny arrangements from a timing and administration point of view, the biggest difficulty, both operationally and politically, would be what happens if each authority’s scrutiny function resulted in different recommendations being made back to the Executive Committee. All of the above would be likely to cause problems in terms of trying to run the committee and ensure that effective habitat mitigation is delivered.”
Councillor Moulding appears already to have been confirmed as a member and three other EDDC councillors will be appointed (NOT elected).
On scrutiny, the document says:
“The Councils have appointed the HMSC to scrutinize the operation and performance of the Habitats Mitigation Executive Committee and its governance arrangements.”
and
“The HMSC shall comprise three members of each of the Councils, to be appointed by the group leaders of the Councils. Each member of the HMSC shall have an equal vote.”
Two successes for EDA Independent councillors’ campaign for openness and democracy at last night’s EDDC Scrutiny Committee Meeting –and a thumping failure.
At the suggestion of EDA Independent councillor Ben Ingham, the committee unanimously recommended that the shadowy activities of the secretive Asset Management Forum should be dragged into the light. They agreed that Forum meetings from now should be minuted and open to press and public.
They also unanimously approved “best practice” recommendations from a recent Government training session for scrutiny committees.
In fact, EDA Independent councillor Marion Rixson was praised for having already pre-empted the recommendation that individual councillors should do detailed research into topics of concern. Her comparative study of different councils’ management of beach huts was crucial in influencing the EDDC’s recent decision to scrap its plan to auction the rental of its beach huts to the highest bidder.
Sadly the Committee was unable to shine a light on the scandalous Chardstock affair.
Two speakers expressed their frustration and disappointment that the Committee could not scrutinise the dubious way in which their small, isolated community had been declared suitable for large scale development in the Local Plan.
If any village in East Devon in “unsustainable” it’s Chardstock with its few facilities and poor access. The Parish Council thought so, EDDC’s planning officers thought so. But at an Extraordinary Council Meeting on March 25, called to finalise the Local Plan, Chardstock was designated “sustainable”!
Grave doubts have been expressed about the process that led to this astonishing decision. A member of the public, who many assumed was a Chardstock councillor, spoke strongly in favour of designation as sustainable. He was later identified as a developer, not resident in the village.
Deputy Leader Andrew Moulding spoke eloquently in his support – and a majority of the Council agreed to re-designate the unfortunate village.
To many observers, including Independent councillors, this appeared to be a shameful manipulation, and an earlier meeting of the Scrutiny Committee had agreed to investigate the process.
Last night it emerged that the Council’s Legal Officer had advised that the Scrutiny Committee should not discuss the matter until the Inspector had ruled on the Local Plan. By which time it would be impossible to change Chardstock’s designation!
The Legal Officer did not attend, and it was left to a deputy to try justify the decision.
In frustration, one of the Chardstock councillors accused the Committee of kicking the Chardstock scandal “into the long grass”. Chair Roger Giles denied it, and said it would be investigated whenever the Inspector had made his decision.
EDA Independent councillor Cathy Gardner said she was embarrassed to be a member of the Scrutiny Committee which had let down the public.
There’s obviously work to do before all the dark corners of EDDC are open to daylight!
Agenda for Scrutiny Committee Thursday, 17 September 2015; 6.00pm
Click to access 170915-scrutiny-agenda-combined.pdf
The “analysis” of the questionnaires should be used for university first year econometrics students as a model study in how NOT to do and report a “consultation”!
East Devon Watch 