“Rise of dealmaker CEOs puts governance skills ‘at risk’ “

“The rise of the commercially-minded “dealmaker” as a local authority chief executive requires a “reappraisal” of council governance skills, according to CIPFA chief executive Rob Whiteman.

Whiteman spoke to Room151 at the 2018 CIPFA conference in Bournemouth, explaining the need for his organisation’s new financial resilience index.

Whiteman said that it made sense for many councils to appoint chief executives with commercial skills, but added that traditional oversight skills are in danger of being lost.

“Councils are now understandably appointing dealmakers, and that is good in terms of developing their commercial and their development opportunities.

“But there is a risk to that. For want of a better word, the town clerk element of being a chief executive is under pressure.

“This is the element which insists on good governance; that insists on options being looked at; that gives advice on there being a fit and proper relationship between officers and members, where officers can speak truth unto power and can give an opinion even if that opinion is unwelcome.”

Whiteman said that hand-in-hand with improved commercial know-how, councils must have “a reappraisal of governance skills because we are placing the taxpayer and public at more risk unless we strengthen the safeguards and assurances that we have”.

He added: “If we are going to have more dealmakers we have to have better governance and better assurance.”

Whiteman said CIPFA’s new index is a necessary response to the decision earlier this year by Northamptonshire County Council to issue a section 114 notice bringing a halt to all but essential spending.

“There is a strong feeling that, as the body that regulates professional conduct and the quality of financial management support in local government, we need to take steps to acknowledge that Northamptonshire was a failure of sector-led improvement.”

Northamptonshire’s section 114 notice was issued in February, five months after a financial peer review commissioned by the Local Government Association raised a number of issues with the authority’s financial management.

“The advice from Max Caller, the independent inspector of Northamptonshire, is that a section 114 notice should have been served earlier and, if it had been, it may have stopped the authority getting to a position which, to the lay person, was one of insolvency,” Whiteman said.

He went onto say that in some authorities, a lack of effective communication between finance officers and top level council decision makers can hinder efforts to avoid financial problems.

He said: “I speak to finance officers who think they are not being listened to by the corporate management team or by members or by the chief executive. On the other hand, I could speak to corporate managers, or members or chief executives, who think finance officers are not listening to them.

“What we cannot allow, as a sector, is the position that people might be heading for financial failure and they don’t know it.”

The proposed resilience index is also intended to help prevent a culture of denial leading to overlooked financial problems , Whiteman said.

“The reason that CIPFA is looking at the index is to make sure we have an alternative to speculation that can be dismissed or discounted.”

He said the index was driven by a need to ensure council finances were heading in the right direction.

“That is not only good for those councils but it is good for the sector,” he said.

Whiteman said that CIPFA would produce the index using its in-house team of 30 analysts, would not take sponsorship to fund it and would not charge councils for it.

“It is important that an independent body such as CIPFA produces a way of warning where failure could occur in a few years’ time,” he said.

“If CIPFA doesn’t do it, who else would do it? And, if nobody does it, could we have other Northamptonshire style failures?”

http://www.room151.co.uk/funding/rob-whiteman-rise-of-dealmaker-ceos-puts-governance-skills-at-risk/

Investigation launched at Greendale Business Park by the Environment Agency

The Environment Agency has announced they will be investigating a serious incident that happened at the Anaerobic Digestion Plant next to Greendale Business Park on Tuesday morning 03.07.2018.

The AD Plant at Hogsbrook Farm is owned by FWS Carter and Sons who also run Greendale Business Park but lease the plant to “Ixora Energy Ltd.” The plant uses farm crops harvested locally and livestock manure to produce biogas and bio fertiliser. The Gas is then used to produce Electricity that is fed into the National Grid and is used by Greendale Business Park.

The Grindle Brook has been impacted by the incident of a substantial leakage of “digestate” from the AD Plant. However, the impact was minimised by the direct action of bunding the watercourse and removing the effluent by vacuum tanker, actions which were taken almost immediately by the AD plant (and staff at Greendale Business Park).

The Environment Agency are confident that this action captured most of the discharge itself. However, it did result in a small stretch of deprived reach. Impact to this reach was minimised by tankering fresh water below the bund and frequent monitoring of the watercourse for any wildlife in distress by both the site and EA officers over the 3 or 4 days that this incident took place.

There was concern from members of the public, who saw operators discharging what appeared to be effluent into the stream at Greendale, however this was not the case. They were putting freshwater in at the point at which the discharge entered the stream, which helps provide oxygen to the stream and move any residual polluted water down towards the vacuum tankers to facilitate removal.

Water for this operation was taken from a lake between Honey Lane and the Greendale Farm Shop.

The AD Plants at Hogsbrook and at Clyst St Mary were both run by a company called “Greener for Life”, until the company went into receivership last year after 3 years of trading. However, several the directors secured further funding for a new company “Ixora Energy Ltd” to buy the assets and contracts of Greener for Life Energy Ltd.

There has been a number of incidents relating to Greener for Life Energy Ltd, which was a Devon-based company producing energy from agricultural waste.

In 2015 the company and the site owner of a farm near Tiverton Nomansland Biogas Ltd, were fined over £10,000 and made to pay £7,019 in costs for negligently polluting a watercourse and contravening the requirements of an environmental permit.

The two companies were handed the fine at Exeter Magistrates’ Court in June 2015 after being found guilty of polluting two and a half kilometers of the River Dalch where the effects of the pollution were substantial, with the Environment Officer finding 100 per cent sewage fungus coverage for one kilometer from the discharge point and significant sewage fungus growth impacting a total of two and a half kilometers of the River Dalch.

An Environment Officer said at the time: “The effluent has a severely polluting effect – it is 100 times more polluting than raw sewage. Starving the river of oxygen has led to a significant adverse effect on water quality, animal health and flora.

The Environment Agency have said that the incident at Hogsbrook may result in regulatory or enforcement action with regards to how and why it happened and how it should be prevented from happening again.

They also say that it was fortunate that no wider impact was identified and therefore the pollution was contained within the bunded area – which is probably a best-case scenario given the nature of the incident.

Shocking survey: Two-thirds of public finance officers have been pressurised to behave unethically

CIPFA, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, is the professional body for people in public finance. Its 14,000 members work throughout the public services, in national audit agencies, in major accountancy firms, and in other bodies where public money needs to be effectively and efficiently managed.

This is their report on pressure on public finance officials being pressurised to behave unethically.

“Almost two thirds of finance professionals say they have come under pressure to act in an unethical way at some point in their careers, according to early findings from CIPFA’s ethics survey revealed today.

Of the 63% that said they had faced this kind of issue in the workplace, nearly half (47%) said it had happened once or twice, 29% between two and five times and 23% more than five times.

Pressure was exerted by line managers in 42% of cases, by chief executives or chief finance officers in 30% of cases, and board, cabinet or council in 15% of cases.

This was often done in the form of threats to bypass individuals for promotion and disciplinary action.

Respondents working in auditing firms were told that if they did not comply with a client’s wishes their bill might not be paid or they could lose out on future work.

Only 7% of respondents said they had carried out the unethical request and 29% said they had partially carried out the request. Almost two third (64%) said they had refused to act unethically or gave no answer.

Unethical experiences highlighted included excessive optimism in budgets and business cases, ‘getting around’ financial regulations, unreasonably downplaying risks and accounting for revenue as capital.

Among the comments submitted by respondents were that “ethics [is] seen as theoretical and discarded when convenient for senior management” and “commercialisation of local government is distorting the view of what ethical activity should be”.

The findings were based on 157 responses to the ethics survey as of 30 June. Eighty seven per cent of respondents were qualified accountants, while 73% were CIPFA qualified.

Four in ten respondents worked in local government, 20% in the NHS and the remainder from a variety of sectors including charities and audit firms.

Results were revealed by Rick Tazzini, a member of CIPFA’s ethics working group, at the CIPFA annual conference today. Tazzini said some of the issues were the “kind of things that got Carillion into trouble”.

The survey also revealed relatively low awareness of the code of ethics. Just 76% said they were aware of the code and less than half of these had read it recently.

Tazzini said he was expecting awareness of the code to have been higher.

“It’s a really important document for all of us as professionals,” he said.

Opening the session, Margaret Pratt said: “Every CIPFA colleague should be challenged to take their ethical temperature from time to time.”

She added that members needed to be equipped with “moral courage and resilience”.

Pressure on finance professionals was now greater than it ever has been, she said.

CIPFA’s ethics survey remains live and can be completed here. PF will be reporting on the full findings later in the year.”

https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2018/07/majority-finance-professionals-pressured-acting-unethically-says-survey

Claire Wright concerned about unpaid carers – asks for them to contact her

Could you imagine Swire being concerned about this – concerned, not just anodyne words.

“Some of Devon County Council’s Health and Adult Care Scrutiny Committee will visit Westbank League of Friends to hear from staff who support unpaid carers, later this month, following my proposal for a spotlight review into how unpaid carers who look after friends and family members are faring.

I have seen a confidential report of a focus group meeting that took place last year, which indicates that the 24 people in Devon who took part, are suffering from a lack of support, a lack of money and a lack of respite care….. many reported that their mental and physical health was suffering as a result.

I asked for the (anonymised) report to be published with the June health scrutiny papers, but this was refused as the focus group report was not ever intended to be made public and consent had not been given. Instead a rather more neutral version of the report was published, but as I told the committee, this did not reflect the original report and I don’t believe people’s voices have been heard.

The media reports today that unpaid carers save the economy a massive £60bn a year – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40560827 – here’s the BBC story on the subject.

Anecdotally, my conversations with local people 100 per cent support the findings from Devon County Council’s focus group. Many unpaid carers are at their wits end.

I did propose a spotlight review into how unpaid carers are faring but this was not voted on unfortunately. There didn’t seem support from around the room. However, the issue will return to the agenda in September and I will pursue it then.

If you are an unpaid carer and wish to get in touch I would be very pleased to hear from you.

Email me at claire@claire-wright.org

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/unpaid_carers_are_they_getting_the_support_they_need

“How to maintain high ethical standards in local government: a perspective on the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s review so far”

Professor Colin Copus is a specialist advisor to the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s review into local government ethical standards. He writes here in a personal capacity:

“As academic advisor to the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s review into ethical standards in local government, I’ve been reflecting on the evidence I’ve heard so far.

The aim of the review is to test the robustness of the current system for maintaining high standards of public behaviour in local government. It is not a hatchet-job on councillors or intended to identify a problem where there is not one. Rather, the review will assess evidence to enable a judgement to be made about what, if any, changes are required to the current regime to ensure the maintenance of the highest ethical standards in local government.

My impression so far is that there are two competing themes emerging that pose a challenge to anyone considering how best to create the environment for strong ethical behaviour in local government. Those themes result in the question: do we nationalise or do we localise ethical standards in local government?

The danger in any review in local government is for rose-coloured spectacles to temper one’s view of past systems. It is nowhere more the case than in the ethical standards debate.

The evidence received by the Committee so far has highlighted some difficulties with the effectiveness of localising standards that came with the abolition of the standards board and the past regime associated with the board by the Localism Act 2011.

Concern has also been expressed about placing control over the ethical regime (and code of conduct) with councils themselves and about the apparent weaknesses in the sanctions available to councils when dealing with ethical and behavioural issues.

Moreover, the review has heard that local codes of conduct can result in councillors who sit on county, district and parish councils at the same time potentially being subject to three different codes. We do not yet know how widespread this issue is or if it generates regular and intractable problems for councillors and officers.

But the review has also heard that there is a recognition that centralising and nationalising ethical standards can result in a system that is remote, anonymous, lacking in appreciation of local differences of culture, tradition and behaviour.

Nationalising the system also prevents flexibility and responsiveness to specific local issues and at worse can result in councillors feeling on ‘trial’ and subject to a remote and bureaucratic system, which in itself can damage local democracy.

The issue of sanctions also looms large as does the role of independent input or oversight of the local process of assessing standards issues.

Sanctions pose a particular problem, not least because under the current arrangements, a party in power may be tempted to misuse their majority when imposing sanctions, but also because there is a line between what is appropriate for councils to be able to require and impose as sanctions and what is appropriate that the electorate themselves have at their disposal.

The question of sanctions is closely tied to that of oversight: even the power to suspend councillors from committees, council meetings or council premises and restrict resources for a short while may be subject to misuse. Robust safeguards and rights of appeal must, therefore, be available to councillors whose behaviour is not the real problem – but instead find themselves the subject of a complaint when they are an effective and vocal opponent of the ruling administration.

We also do not yet know how widespread such a problem may be. It is clear that the issue of sanctions, the system by which they are imposed and independent oversight and involvement, will be a key theme of the Committee’s assessment of the evidence in this review.

The hazard with any ethical regime – local or national – is how the political parties in local government respond to that regime.

Given that over 90 per cent of all councillors in England are from the Conservative and Labour parties and the Liberal Democrats, the temptation to use a set of rules and regulations designed to control councillors’ behaviour for party political advantage or to silence councillors from other parties, is considerable.

Any ethical regime must not provide a system that can be misused for party advantage or by officers to restrain troublesome councillors as both can damage free speech within local democracy.

It must also be remembered that ethical standards in English local government are among the highest across Europe and that results in a commitment by the overwhelming majority of councillors to public service and the public wellbeing.

The Committee has a difficult tightrope to walk to make observations and recommendations that provide an opportunity for all local authorities and the central government to finesse and reform the current system, to ensure the highest standards of ethical behaviour are maintained and strengthened in local government. It is well worth the walk.”

http://www.democraticaudit.com/2018/07/10/how-to-maintain-high-ethical-standards-in-local-government-a-perspective-on-the-committee-on-standards-in-public-lifes-review-so-far/

EDDC: consultation on Statement of Community Involvement

“The Council is currently consulting on the new Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). This is the document which sets out how, where and when we will consult on planning matters such as Policy documents, planning applications and Neighbourhood Plans.

The SCI is available for comment from

3rd July to 15th August 2018

All comments will be considered by the Council and will inform subsequent versions of the document.

Any comments should be marked ‘SCI’ and emailed to:

planningpolicy@eastdevon.gov.uk
or posted to
Planning Policy Team, East Devon District Council, Knowle, Sidmouth, EX10 8HL
Phone: 01395 571533

Government has “shaky grasp” of local government finance

“The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has only a “shaky grasp” of the issues facing local authority finances, the Public Accounts Committee has claimed.

A report published by the committee today noted a significant reduction in councils’ spending power had been imposed at the same time as increases in demand pressure.

Local authority spending power, comprising government funding and council tax, has fallen by 28.6% since 2010-11, while key services have come under increased pressure, the PAC said.

In the same timeframe there has been a 14.3% growth in the estimated population aged 65 and over in need of social care, while authorities have endured a 10.9% increase in the number of children being looked after.

PAC chair Meg Hillier said: “It is no secret that councils are under the cosh.

“The mystery is how central government expects their finances to improve when it has such an apparently shaky grasp of the issues.”

The committee criticised MHCLG’s lack of an agreed measure of sustainability for local government finance or a clear definition of ‘unsustainable’.

The PAC suggested that MHCLG is holding out for a favourable spending review, but noted that the review is now under greater pressure given the announcement of long-term NHS funding.

The committee report also pointed to the first year of the 2015 spending review (2016-17) in which councils with social care responsibilities overspent their service budget by over £1bn and used £858m in reserves.

Hillier said: “Central government’s view is, in effect, that it expects everything to work out in the end. We beg to differ.” …”

https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2018/07/pac-highlights-whitehalls-shaky-grasp-council-finances

EDDC’s recent external auditor facing fourth inquiry; regulator “feeble and timid”

“The accounting watchdog has launched an investigation into KPMG’s audit of Conviviality, the collapsed drinks and off-licence supplier.

It is the latest regulatory scrutiny into the Big Four firm, which is also under investigation over its audits of Carillion, Rolls-Royce and BNY Mellon.

The Financial Reporting Council has accused KPMG of an “unacceptable deterioration” in the quality of its audits and put its audits under special supervision. Last month it fined the firm £3.2 million for misconduct in its audits for Quindell, the insurance technology company. Pressure is increasing on KPMG and its competitors PWC, Deloitte and EY. Carillion and BHS shone a spotlight on the firms’ roles as both auditors and consultants to companies.

Conviviality, owner of the Bargain Booze and Wine Rack chains, collapsed into administration in April. It had been valued at more than £500 million in March but fell from grace after admitting that it had made an error in its forecasting and had found a £30 million tax bill due by the end of the month. It had 4,000 employees and 760 stores. Almost 2,000 jobs were saved when C&C acquired the wholesale business from the administrator. Bestway bought the retail business. The FRC is looking at financial statements for Conviviality in the year to the end of April 2017.

A spokesman for KPMG said: “We believe we conducted our audit appropriately. As reported by the company, it experienced margin weakness at the start of 2018 and also a significant payment to HMRC which had not been included within its short-term cash-flow projections, creating a short-term funding requirement.”

The FRC said that it would also investigate a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales over the preparation and approval of Conviviality’s financial statements but did not name the individual.

This investigation comes as the FRC, the ICAEW, and the industry-backed Audit Quality Forum prepare to launch a government-backed review that will consider the effectiveness of the existing model for auditing. They are looking for an independent business leader to lead the review.

Bill Michael, who took over as head of KPMG UK in September, supports a review. “The profession needs to be re-evaluated, otherwise we run the risk of eroding trust,” he told The Times . “We can’t have a profession that isn’t trusted. It has consequences for society and the capital markets. You only need one bad apple to lose trust in the system.”

KPMG UK employs 15,000 partners and staff, 3,600 of whom work in its audit practice. Its tax consulting, deal advisory, management and risk consulting practices have grown in recent years and now employ about 7,500 staff.

The FRC is the subject of a parliament-led review which is expected to overhaul how the FRC works and shake up the accountancy profession. MPs looking at Carillion’s collapse accused regulators of being “feeble and timid”.”

Source: Times (pay wall)

Two-thirds of (mainly Tory) county councils expect to be bankrupt by 2020

“… New research this week by the County Councils Network (CCN) shows that England’s largest, mainly Conservative-led, councils face a combined funding pressure of £3.2bn over the next two years; due to projected demand for services, inflation, and government cuts.

Even more worryingly, our research reveals that faced with these funding pressures, council leaders’ confidence in delivering balanced budgets – a legal requirement of councils – is dramatically falling.

Without a cash injection over the next two years, just one-third of respondents are confident of balancing their books in 2020.

Clearly, any scenario that sees a council unable to balance its budget in 2020 may seem a long way off, but it does not paint a reassuring picture for local councils nor bode well for the future of local services

In the short term, what does this all mean for local residents?

Essentially, the worst is yet to come in reductions to local services if county authorities are to balance their books over the next two years with no additional help from government.

The £3.2bn funding black hole will be filled, but substantial cutbacks will have to be made to residents’ local services.

With county authorities seeing their core government support grant reduced by 92 per cent by 2020, the room for manoeuvre is becoming increasingly small for our councils.

Having made savings in back-office, less visible, or non-essential services, our member councils tell us that they will have little choice but to now cut frontline services substantially.

Last month, our research pointed out that due to unavoidable reductions in home to school travel, some 20,000 less pupils receive free travel to local schools.

This week’s budget survey shows more of this is on the way, with at least £466m in savings being made to frontline areas – think adult social care, children’s social services, pothole filling, and bus services.

At the same time, they will have to introduce new charges for services, or significantly raise council tax to make up the shortfall.

While Liz Truss may not want ministers to make the case for extra cash now, a strong but considered voice round the cabinet table for local government – in the form of James Brokenshire – is desperately needed.

Counties want to work with government in a proactive, and constructive way; supporting the new communities secretary in his case to the Treasury for more resources for councils. Otherwise, we might see drastic changes to our local services over the next few years.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/local-councils-england-county-finances-chaos-uk-government-2020-a8421591.html

Should local party members elect council leaders?

So says a writer (Labour) in a Huffington Post blog. No problem in East Devon – most of the dwindling local Tory party membership are already councillors!

Some of the comments seem quite pertinent to East Devon:

” … a council leader who oversees a large budget and thousands of local government workers, is only selected by the party members who live in their individual ward to be a candidate for councillor, from there a vote of councillor colleagues takes place behind closed doors. There is no mechanism for members to have a say on who should be the Labour [or other political party] group leader or to debate the principles, priorities and policies they will lead before they are in place. In practice, there is no recourse for members if the leader chooses to act in a way that undermines the values our party is founded upon – other than to deselect them as a candidate to be councillor when they are next up for election, which may be four years away. …

[Ah, yes, who can forget Diviani being told to save community hospitals at EDDC and voting to close them at DCC]

… Too often we see Council Cabinet members dependent on the grace and patronage of their leader for their income and livelihood – no Cabinet position means no job, and as such very little dissent. In some places even scrutiny chairs – the name should give away what they’re there for – are put in place by the very leadership they are supposed to scrutinise. …”

[Scrutiny – we never did manage to get to the bottom (or even very slightly below the surface) of the relationship between disgraced Councillor Graham Brown, the council and their relationship with the East Devon Business Forum]

Source: Huffington Post

“‘Britain’s fearless and independent Press is one of the foundations of democracy and must be protected’: Minister’s call to save print media as 300 local papers shut”

Owl says: Well, some local papers might be fearless and independent- but others are fearful and political toadies – naming no names …!

“Britain’s ‘fearless and independent’ Press is one of the ‘foundations’ of democracy and must be protected, the Culture Secretary has warned.

Matt Hancock has spoken out in defence of journalism as figures released today reveal that more than 300 local and regional titles have closed since 2007 – meaning some large towns are left without a local newspaper.

There are also 25 per cent fewer full-time journalism jobs than there were in 2007, while a quarter of all regional and local publications have closed. …

… The figures released today are part of a report conducted by research group Mediatique and commissioned by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

It found that the newspaper industry has been under ‘sustained threat’ for the past decade – with print advertising slashed in half since 2007.

The Mediatique report found that the ‘dramatic changes’ in revenue and number of publications had been fuelled by shifts in consumer behaviour – and the reliance on devices such as phones and tablets.

Figures by Mediatique revealed that there were 1,303 regional and local newspapers in 2007 compared with 982 in 2017.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5893993/Minister-calls-save-print-media-300-local-papers-shut.html

“Grenfell Tower borough ‘behaved like a property developer’ “

Fancy that … a council more interested in property development than public service … rather like a council that sells off its land to a luxury retirement housing developer so it can build itself a new, expensive HQ elsewhere …

“The chief executive of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea told survivors of the Grenfell Tower disaster that the council had been behaving like “a property developer masquerading as a local authority”, MPs have been told.

Barry Quirk, who took over at the borough one week after the fire in June 2017, made the comment in a private meeting with Grenfell United, the survivors’ group, one of its leading members, Edward Daffarn, told the House of Commons housing select committee.

“Think about that,” Daffarn told the MPs. “They were property developers masquerading as a local authority. They failed to keep us safe because they had higher priorities – getting their hands on the land, this massive goldmine they had.”

The council said it accepted Daffarn’s remarks and agreed. It indicated its strategy has changed since the fire, which sparked the resignations of the leader and deputy leader, Nick Paget-Brown and Rock Feilding-Mellen, the latter of whom works as a property developer.

Kim Taylor-Smith, current deputy leader, said: “We know we have to change, to listen to our residents and to act on their wishes. We respect Ed Daffarn’s views … The new council has pledged to build new social homes in the borough and have also taken on private developers like Capco, who are building high-end flats in Earl’s Court, and have made them include more social homes in their developments.”

Daffarn also criticised the council’s evidence to the public inquiry into the disaster, which claimed 72 lives. He said it was not being honest about “the little cabal of senior councillors and senior council officers from housing, from corporate property and from planning who have decided to asset strip the whole of our community, sweat our public buildings, disregard the people that live there and force them from the land they were living on because it was a gold mine.”

The committee heard from residents’ leaders that a year after the fire the relationship between the Conservative-led council and residents was riven with mistrust, particularly over the process of rehousing. It also took evidence from Elizabeth Campbell, the leader of the council, and Quirk.

Quirk told the committee that several of the senior executives at the council have been changed, notably in the housing department.

Sixty-eight households from Grenfell Tower and the walkways below have yet to move into a temporary or permanent home, according to the latest figures.

Nineteen households have yet to accept any offer, although Campbell, said 18 of these cases were in hand. Quirk said errors had slowed down rehousing by up to three months.

Sophie Earnshaw, of the North Kensington Law Centre, told the MPs: “The level of mistrust between the council and survivors and residents is significant. In initial months there was a lot of pressure on survivors to make very important decisions about their housing and survivors felt under pressure to accept unsuitable offers. The council has improved to a certain extent but residents do still feel that pressure.”

She said the council bought 100 properties soon after the fire that disregarded the needs of survivors, with some in high-rise buildings.

Jacqui Haynes, from the Lancaster West Residents’ Association, which represents residents in the wider area, said the problem with rehousing them was similar to those of Grenfell itself. Of the 127 Lancaster West residents only 39 have moved into a permanent home.

“They are being given one offer that they have to take,” Haynes said of some residents. “Some of the policies that surround their tenancy effectively mean they feel they are being forced to move out when they are unsure or uncertain. This is years of disempowerment and years of being looked upon as if we don’t matter and it is something that has cascaded.

“We have been suffering this sort of treatment for years and decades and it has been OK. It was just the fact that this disaster happened that everything blew up into the air and we can see this cannot continue. We don’t trust them and possibly that won’t happen for years.”

Campbell said: “Each household will come to a different decision. We hope that some of them will return home”. If they don’t they will be given high priority in bidding for other homes, she said.

Quirk told the committee that the council had addressed the rehousing challenge early on “without genuinely appreciating the depth of grief and despair”. He said the council had made housing its priority, but it should have been the humanitarian response. The council has bought 320 properties for rehousing in all.

Daffarn told the committee that some of the properties had not had fire risk assessments carried out.

“Residents weren’t informed of that when they were viewing and choosing,” he said. “Examples like that show the way that we feel we are not being treated with the respect we deserve. Even if they didn’t have the fire safety certificates, they should have informed us these properties would have to undergo further tests.”

Campbell denied the council had shown indifference. “We absolutely do care,” she said. “People have been in hotels a long time, but it’s complicated. We have worked extremely hard to build that [trust].”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/20/grenfell-tower-borough-behaved-like-property-developer-barry-quirk

Sidford Business Park – a grubby history

Tim Ford, once a much-respected plumbing and electrical contactor in Sidmouth, is renewing his controversial application to build a business park in the AONB at Sidford. (18/1094/MOUT)

Incredulous locals wonder how it was possible for a council to allocate an ‘employment site’ in its local development plan that is on a flood plain, is a rich wildlife habitat, and whose main access would be a narrow street where two lorries can’t pass without mounting the pavement!

For the dominant Tory group on East Devon District Council it was easy!

First, they let landowners and developers decide where to build. In 2007 they asked East Devon Business Forum how much employment land the district would need over the next 25 years. EDBF was a lobby group which included the Carters of Greendale, the Stuarts of Hill Barton and Tim Ford of Sidmouth. Their answer was predictable: lots and lots!

Second, they put Chair of EDBF, Cllr Graham (‘I ain’t doin’ it for peanuts!’) Brown:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/12/17/the-disgraced-ex-eddc-tory-councillor-graham-brown-if-i-cant-get-planning-nobody-will-scandal-refuses-to-die/

in charge of quietly asking landowners where they would like to build. Apparently, the proposal for a Sidford business park was first mooted at one of these confidential meetings in July 2010.

Third, in 2011 they elected Paul Diviani, founder member of EDBF, as leader. Under him the District Council became what many saw as a ‘Development Corporation’, the planning system became less about protecting the environment and more about encouraging building.

Fourth, they didn’t listen to the public or community groups whom they ignored or misrepresented. Sidmouth Chamber of commerce said the business park would be catastrophic for local businesses, Council minutes recorded the Chamber as supporting it!

Fifth, they whipped their large political majority to vote through the Sidford allocation. When hostile public reaction worried them just before the 2015 council elections they voted to ‘remove it’ from the Local Plan. Universal Rejoicing! But in 2016 the Inspector kept it in the Plan. Why? Because East Devon’s chief planning officer had not been instructed to give the Inspector reasons for the council’s change of mind!

Former EDDC Leader Diviani is now EDDC’s representative on the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan. In its confidential meetings he is helping to oversee a gigantic overspill project along the A3052 in the west end of the District where hundreds of acres of land are being earmarked for a massive expansion of business parks and thousands of new houses.

Indeed one such expansion was announced only this weekend near Cranbrook, where the developer is quoted as saying:

“The first, ‘Scenario 1’ is a response to existing market demand with the provision of a single large unit of around one million square feet (92,9000 sq.m.).

‘Scenario 2’ would see the site offer a multi-unit option, providing a range of sizes and configurations informed by ongoing market need.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/huge-distribution-centre-near-cranbrook-is-given-the-nod-by-planners-1-5564832

Which all makes the wretched Sidford application even less necessary!

Would you choose immediate A-road and motorway access to Exeter and the M5 or access down a country road where two medium-size vehicles cannot pass?

Ottery Health Matters! Meeting 29 June 2018, afternoon and evening

Ottery St Mary & District Health & Care Forum, in partnership with:
RD&E, Coleridge GP’s, NEWCCG, Devon County Council, East Devon District Council & Ottery St Mary Town Council

Ottery Health Matters!

Health and Wellbeing Community Information Event

Date: Friday 29th June 2018

Time: Two drop-in sessions
2pm – 5pm
6pm – 8pm

Venue: The Institute, Yonder Street, Ottery St Mary, EX11 1HD.

Come along to this informal drop-in event to find out about the care and support available in Ottery and the surrounding areas. It will be a great opportunity to talk to health and care experts plus volunteers about the local services and activities to help people live well.

We need to hear from you about what’s important to you, what you think the challenges and priorities are to improve health and care for people in our community now and in the future.

Refreshments will be provided. Transport to and from may also be available. For any queries or feedback please contact:

Elli Pang via e-mail: ellipang@btinternet.com or Tel: 01404 812268 or Leigh Edwards via e-mail: leighp3@sourcemode.com or Tel: 01404 814889

Teignbridge Council CEO given £264,000 to push off – now working for West Sussex on £138,000 plus perks

“A council chief executive was given a golden handshake of more than £250,000 in a deal that bosses tried to keep secret to avoid causing her “unnecessary or unjustified distress”.

Nicola Bulbeck, 60, left Teignbridge district council in Devon last summer after 11 years’ service. The council had repeatedly refused to reveal how much she received but its draft annual accounts disclosed yesterday that the former barrister left with a £264,000 “exit package”.

It was also revealed that she was allowed to stay on until the day after the general election last year so that she could earn a further £30,000 for being the returning officer.

After leaving the local authority she was appointed an executive director at West Sussex county council last January on an annual salary of £138,000.
There has been concern about a “revolving door” of senior local authority staff receiving significant payoffs before moving to similar jobs.
Several Teignbridge district councillors have alleged that Ms Bulbeck kept her company car as part of the leaving package. The council has declined to comment on the claim.

Phil Shears, who replaced Ms Bulbeck, had defended the decision not to release details of her payout when she departed. He claimed that the disclosure would “cause unnecessary or unjustified distress or damage” to his predecessor. Mr Shears was appointed the council’s managing director on a salary of £94,656, considerably less than Ms Bulbeck earned. Ms Bulbeck had been criticised for accepting a 12 per cent pay rise that took her annual pay packet from £126,000 to almost £142,000.

The district council and the Information Commissioner’s Office rejected several attempts by the Mid-Devon Advertiser to unearth Ms Bulbeck’s settlement. The accounts show that she received £173,091 “compensation for loss of employment” as part of her exit package”.

Jeremy Christophers, the council’s Conservative leader, said: “We have followed strict council policy and abided by the legal advice given.”

Gordon Hook, a Liberal Democrat councillor, said: “The leaving packages for some senior officers at local authorities are nothing short of obscene in the eyes of many. My view is that the general public have every right to know how their council tax is spent.”

Ms Bulbeck was not available for comment yesterday.”

Source: The Times (pay wall)

“Downing Street Accused Of Burying Electoral Commission Investigation Into Theresa May’s Advisors”

“Downing Street has been accused of pushing through key Brexit votes before MPs know the result of an investigation into whether Theresa May’s advisors broke the law during the EU Referendum

Stephen Parkinson, the PM’s political secretary, and Cleo Watson – also a Downing Street staffer – are both being investigated by the Electoral Commission as part of an inquiry into whether the official Brexit campaign broke spending limits.

The investigation was launched in November, but the Electoral Commission has now presented its findings to those under investigation. They have 28 days to provide a response to the conclusion before the report is made public.

Labour’s Deputy Leader Tom Watson is questioning if the votes on the EU Withdrawal Bill – planned for Tuesday and Wednesday – are being rushed through before MPs have the chance to consider the results of the investigation.

He said: “Each day the plot thickens about the murky dealings of the various Brexit campaigns.

“Now it seems senior figures at the heart of Number 10 who were involved in Vote Leave could have been informed about the contents of this important Electoral Commission investigation long before anyone else.

“If that’s true Number 10 would have had time to plan and even ensure key Brexit votes like the ones this week could happen before the investigation
should really still be shaping and taking decisions at the heart of Government.”

The investigation centres around payments made by Vote Leave to clear debts of £625,000 run up by university student Darren Grimes with the digital campaign company AggregateIQ Data.

Grimes – who ran the BeLeave group – was allowed by electoral law to spend £700,000 in the campaign.

As the official campaign group, Vote Leave could spend £7million, and if it had commissioned and spent that £625,000 itself it would have breached the spending limits.

The Electoral Commission initially accepted the Vote Leave argument that it had donated the money to Grimes, despite settling the bill with AggregateIQ directly.

A separate group, Veterans for Britain, also received £100,000 from Vote Leave.

But in November it reopened its investigation, claiming new information had come to light.

Downing Street is drawn into the investigation as Stephen Parkinson – the PM’s Political Secretary – was National Organiser for Vote Leave during the referendum campaign.

He is accused by former Vote Leave volunteer Shahmir Sanni of directing how BeLeave should spend money – something which would be a breach of electoral law.

In March, Parkinson revealed he and Sanni had been in a relationship as part of his denial, prompting Sanni to claim his family in Pakistan – who did not know he was gay – were forced to take “urgent protective measures” for their own safety.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/downing-street-brexit-electoral-commission_uk_5b1e58a0e4b0adfb826bbe6e?guccounter=1

Devon County Council Tories kill off community hospitals

From the blog of Claire Wright:

“Seven Conservative councillors today block voted down my proposal to “strongly support” retaining all Devon community hospital buildings and to “strongly oppose” any potential plans to declare them surplus to requirements.

And in what became a rather heated debate, one conservative, Cllr Richard Scott, disgracefully accused the assiduous and polite Independent Seaton councillor, Martin Shaw of abusing his right to address councillors.

I had requested an item on community hospital buildings at today’s Health and Adult Care Scrutiny Committee meeting, as there is a continual threat in the air of the possibility that the buildings may be declared surplus to requirements and be sold off. There remains anxiety and concern in local communities as a result.

Last month, NEW Devon Clinical Commissioning Group was forced to deny they had “any plans” to declare Honiton and Seaton Hospitals surplus to requirements, following comments made at a campaign meeting.

Dr Simon Kerr, the GP who was quoted in the notes published, later said his comments had been misinterpreted.

The Estates Strategy, which will set out what is proposed to be done with the buildings owned by the local NHS, is due out soon, possibly as early as next month.

In presenting my case I set out how the committee had been unable to secure assurances from health service managers for a long time that buildings were safe, that Dartmouth Hospital is being sold off and that the ownership of 12 community hospitals in Eastern Devon was in the hands of NHS Property Services which was charging over £3m rents for the upkeep of the buildings.

I believe these rents are still being met by NHS England, but this is only a temporary measure and soon the bill will fall on the doormat of the deeply in deficit NEW Devon Clinical Commissioning Group.

Cllr Brian Greenslade seconded my proposal.

Speaking in support were also Cllr Carol Whitton (Labour) and Cllr Nick Way (Libdem).

For some reason the conservative councillors were all opposed to my proposal. Several said there was no evidence, that it was just speculation that there was even a risk to the buildings.

Conservative councillor, Jeff Trail, didn’t appear to like my proposal but said he thoroughly supported Cllr Carol Whitton’s position, which was rather confusing as she had just said she backed me!

Cllr John Berry didn’t like my recommendation because the committee didn’t own the buildings. He wanted us to write to the CCG to ask what the status of the buildings was instead.

Cllr Sylvia Russell thought she had heard an NHS manager say at some point at today’s meeting that the buildings were safe so there was nothing to worry about. No one else seemed to recall this.

Cllr Richard Scott dismissed my proposal as “speculation” and claimed there was “no evidence” to back up my concerns.

Referring to Cllr Martin Shaw, who had just set out calmly and eloquently the concerns of his own community of Seaton, Cllr Scott added: “In some respects this is an abuse of a right to speak at this committee. There’s nothing here to consider.”

Chair, Sara Randall Johnson, wanted to take account of Paul Crabb’s view, which was that some hospitals might be old and in a poor state of repair, but I said we should have a simple and clear proposal or the CCG would drive a coach and horses through it.

I reminded the committee (yet again) that our committee was the only legally constituted check on health services in the county and it is our job to act on issues of public concern, which this very much was.

I added that it was important to take a position now and before the Estates Strategy was published so our views could inform the strategy.

My words fell on deaf ears. I had genuinely thought, that despite all the past political shenanigans on that committee – and there have been many – that the Conservatives might have backed this one, as not a single member of their own communities would have surely wanted them to vote a different way.

There was every reason for the entire committee to be unanimously in favour of my proposal.

What a huge shame.

Voting in favour: Me, Brian Greenslade (LibDem – Barnstaple North), Nick Way (LibDem – Crediton), Carol Whitton (Labour – St David’s and Haven Banks).

Voting against: (All Conservative): John Berry (Cullompton and Bradninch), John Peart (Kingsteignton and Teign Estuary) Sylvia Russell (Teignmouth) Richard Scott (Lympstone and Woodbury), Paul Crabb (Ilfracombe), Andrew Saywell (Torrington Rural), Jeff Trail (Lympstone and Woodbury)

The debate is available to view at item 10 from this link – https://devoncc.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/325480

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/health_scrutiny_conservative_councillors_block_vote_down_proposal_to_protec

“Two Dorset councils take out [allegedly] ‘fraudulent’ high-risk loans worth over £120m”

“Campaign group Debt Resistance UK revealed that Dorset County Council and Weymouth and Portland Borough Council have taken out £123m of Lender Option Borrower Option loans (LOBOs) in an effort to reduce their debts.
Dorset County Council took out £95.9m, while Weymouth and Portland Borough Council took £27m at the end of the 2015-16 financial year.
The LOBOs, which were uncovered on Channel 4’s Dispatches documentary series, allow private banks to propose or impose a new fixed rate on a pre-determined future start date.

This means that the borrowing party can either accept the new interest rate or repay the entire loan, paying a ‘breakage penalty’—the fee a client must pay its lender to break from the contract— incurring further costs on the local authority.

Last month the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) urged local councils to review their LOBO loans after auditing firms expressed concern at their impact on local authorities’ accounts. Channel 4’s Dispatches found that over 200 authorities had used the loans, totalling up to £15bn.

Cllr John Whitworth, chair of the Newham Council Scrutiny Committee, labelled the LOBO loans a “fraud on the people,” arguing that many local authorities took out the loans when they were struggling financially during the economic downturn in 2008. He added that the loans became “a very serious handicap” on councils dealing with austerity in later years.

Debt Resistance UK campaigner Joel Benjamin noted: “it is always cheaper for government to borrow than banks, and that PFI and by extension LOBO loans are therefore a fraud.”

Last week a merger between all nine Dorset councils was approved, creating the formation of Christchurch and Poole Council and Dorset Council. The deal is expected to deliver £6m in savings.”

http://www.publicsectorexecutive.com/Public-Sector-News/two-dorset-councils-take-out-fraudulent-high-risk-loans-worth-over-120m

Why the Grenfell Tower fire happened – by a survivor

““Every single link in this chain is going to be found to be rotten and cancerous,” Daffern [the survivor who had lived there for 16 years and predicted the tragedy in his blog] said.

“The government didn’t implement the inquest recommendations after the Lakanal House fire where six people died in 2009. Had they done that Grenfell wouldn’t have happened. RBKC failed to carry out scrutiny of the TMO.

“The way the TMO [Tenant Management Organisation] operated, the handling of the contracts, the construction, through to the building regs, the materials that were used, the consultation process.”

When asked what links these failures, he said: “Greed, lack of respect, lack of humanity. It is the opposite of everything it should be. This is housing as a commodity to be exploited. It is not only in RBKC [Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea], it is what housing has become.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/03/grenfell-survivor-blames-landlords-cancerous-decisions-for-disaster