Category Archives: Sustainability

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Jul 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Economy, Local Enterprise Partnership, Sustainability, Transparency

Final big nail in Heart of the Southwest Local Enterprise Partnership coffin?

The type of organisation detailed here is exactly how our LEP is structured. Surely, now someone, somewhere will pull the plug on it?

“The six mayor-led combined authorities risk becoming “a curiosity of history” as there is little evidence to back their assumption that devolution will improve local economies.

That is among findings by the National Audit Office in a report Progress in Setting Up Combined Authorities.

Parliament’s spending watchdog said the six – Liverpool City Region, Tees Valley, West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and West of England – could have been joined by other areas but these had “been unable to bring local authorities together to establish combined authorities”.

The NAO said there was “a logic to establishing strategic bodies designed to function across conurbations and sub-regional areas, and there is a clear purpose to establishing combined authorities especially in metropolitan areas, as economies and transport networks operate at a scale greater than individual local authority areas”.

Most combined authority proposals were put to the government on the basis that they would deliver more rapid economic growth by spending money and exercising powers locally.

But the NAO noted the combined authorities were “inherently complex structures” and evidence that investment, decision-making and oversight at this level was linked to improved local economic results was “mixed and inconclusive”.

It said combined authorities “often assume in their plans that there is a strong link between investment in transport and economic growth, for example”, but evidence on the additional value that governance at this level can bring to economic growth is mixed, the NAO said.

It was also concerned that combined authorities’ administrative boundaries do not necessarily match functional economic areas, or the existing boundaries of local enterprise partnerships.

“We assessed combined authorities’ draft monitoring and evaluation plans, and found that while they are working to link spending with outcomes and impact, they vary in quality, and measures tend to vary depending on data already available,” the report said.

Despite this, the combined authorities’ economic regeneration role “would become more pressing” if Brexit leads to reductions in regional funding at present received from the European Union.

Combined authorities “are generally in areas which receive the most EU funding”, it noted.

NAO head Amyas Morse said: “For combined authorities to deliver real progress and not just be another ‘curiosity of history’ like other regional structures before them, they will need to demonstrate that they can both drive economic growth and also contribute to public sector reform.”

The County Councils Network strongly opposed the government’s requirement for elected mayors to lead combined authorities – and only Cambridgeshire and Peterborough involves a county council.

CCN director Simon Edwards, said: “This report from the NAO highlights many of the concerns the majority of CCN members raised over the prospect of mayoral combined authorities in county areas: an added layer of bureaucracy in an already complex landscape, a lack of co-terminosity with key public sector partners, and questions over whether this format would lead to economic growth in rural areas.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/07/combined-authorities-risk-becoming-curiosity-history

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Jul 2017

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, Democracy, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local), Scrutiny, Sustainability, Transparency

Councillors turn on head of NHS: claim too much top-down cost-cutting and secrecy

“Councils have turned on the NHS over “secretive, opaque and top-down” reforms that they say will fail patients.

Simon Stevens, chief executive of NHS England, has staked his tenure on co-ordinating care more effectively and has said that local authorities are crucial to the process because they oversee public health and social care for the elderly.

However, only a fifth of councils think the plans will succeed amid widespread complaints that they have been shut out of the process by the NHS, according to a survey by the Local Government Association.

Not one councillor who responded said they had been very involved in drawing up plans and nine out of ten said the process had been driven from Whitehall rather than locally. Cultural clashes with a “command and control” NHS that did not trust elected councillors meant that more local authorities believed the process was harming social care than helping it.

Mr Stevens has created 44 “sustainability and transformation partnerships” (STPs) where hospitals and GPs are meant to plan with councils on how to improve care and help close a £22 billion black hole in the NHS budget. However, four out of five councillors said the system was not fit for purpose and criticised the NHS for prioritising cost-cutting and closing hospital units over preventing illness.

Izzi Seccombe of the Local Government Association said: “Many councillors have been disappointed by the unilateral top-down approach of the NHS in some of the STP areas. As our survey results show, the majority of local politicians who responded feel excluded from the planning process. If local politicians and communities are not engaged then we have serious doubt over whether STPs will deliver.”

Half the 152 councils with social care responsibilities responded to the survey and 81 councillors with responsibility for health contributed. “The way in which the STP has been handled (top down, secretive, lack of engagement) has harmed relationships between the council and some NHS colleagues,” one said.

The NHS simply does not understand the decision-making of local government
Another said: “It is entirely driven from the top, via budget pressures. The process has been overly secretive and opaque. It has got in the way of closer working between councils and health.”

Councillors criticised STPs as “complex and full of jargon”, saying “the NHS simply does not understand the decision-making of local government”.

Ms Seccombe said that in a centralised NHS, managers often did not want to share information with party political councils accountable to local voters, saying that the process was “trying to mix oil and water”.

Chris Ham, chief executive of the King’s Fund think tank, said: “This survey suggests worrying numbers of council leaders are still frustrated by the process and lacking in confidence in their local plan. A huge effort is now needed to make up lost ground.”

A spokesman for NHS England said: “By creating STPs we have issued a massive open invitation to those parts of local government willing to join forces, while recognising that local politics can sometimes make this harder. The fact that public satisfaction is more than twice as high for the NHS as it is for social care underlines the real pressure on councils. It should serve as a wake-up call to every part of the country about the importance of joint working.”

Source: The Times (paywall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, General Election, Neil Parish, Sustainability, Voting

Tiverton and Honiton parliamentary candidates – more staid than East Devon!

Neil Parish – Conservative
Described as “blustering” in a recent Private Eye. Pays much more attention to the north of his constituency (A303 widening enthusiast, farming) at the expense of the poorer, coastal southern end. Originally a Somerset farmer and former MEP.

Caroline Julia Kolek – Labour
Embattled former Mayor of Honiton, where the town council is involved in some sort of police investigation and where newspaper reports of allegations of bullying and harassment have been made. Teacher.

Matthew Wilson – Lib Dem
Describes himself as campaigner, entrepreneur and teacher “currently run companies that support businesses providing networks that allow them to access new markets and support public sector staff such as NHS works by providing them with retail discounts.”

Green – Gill Westcott
Leading light and green campaigner in Exeter and wider area Green and Transition Towns movement, economics graduate of Oxford and Cambridge, helped create “Exeter pound”. Has taught sustainability in schools and writes and gives talks on economics and sustainability.

http://www.devonlive.com/devon-general-election-candidates-2017/story-30327104-detail/story.html

Hhhmm – which one does land, sand and sea Tiverton and Honiton need? Farmer, teacher, entrepreneur or sustainability campaigner?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Apr 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Councillor Marianne Rixon EDA, DCC, Democracy, East Devon Alliance, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Stuart Hughes, Sustainability, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Sidford hustings: strong performance from Councillor Rixson (Independent EDA)

Best candidate for County Council? It’s your choice. Voting’s on 4th May!

The Devon County Council hustings at Sidford on Wednesday evening (19 April),brought together five of the six candidates vying for the Sidmouth division, which now covers the whole of the Sid Valley.

They are Jeannie Alderdice (Green), Ray Davison (Labour), Stuart Hughes (Conservative), Marianne Rixson (Independent East Devon Alliance) and Richard Wright (UKIP). Only Lewis Ragbourn (Lib Dem) was unable to attend the event, which was Chaired by Cathy Debenham of the Sidford-Sidbury Residents’ Group.

A common thread for most candidates was “transparency, accountability and listening to residents”; concerns about cuts to NHS, social care, and education; and inappropriate development. Despite passionate speeches from Jeannie Allerdice (“EU environmental rules should apply post-Brexit”); Ray Davison (“Conservative austerity policy is past its sell-by date”);and Richard Wright (“countryside not concrete”), just two serious candidates emerged based on their respective records as serving councillors: Marianne Rixson, and Stuart Hughes.

Cllr Rixson has a solid reputation for thoroughness and efficiency, much appreciated by local people in the successful fight against the planned Sidford business park. Long-serving Cllr Hughes offered promises such as “the long-awaited Sidmouth traffic management plan”, and “funding for Alma Bridge” this year.

On the basis of this hustings, Caroline Lucas’ suggestion this week of an informal coalition of e.g. Greens, Labour and Lib Dems, against the Conservative Party machine, sounds a sensible idea.

A second hustings, arranged by the Vision Group for Sidmouth, is scheduled for 28th April , 7pm, in the cellar bar at Kennaway House. For details, see futuresforumvgs.blogspot.com Voting for this DCC election is 4th May, 7am-10pm.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Apr 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Local Plan, NPPF, Sustainability

Useful case law on sustainability

“A judge has dismissed all seven grounds on which a developer sought to challenge the Community Secretary’s decision to reject a planning inspector’s recommendation.

The case concerned Arun District Council’s refusal to grant permission to developer Keith Langmead to build 100 homes at Yapton, West Sussex.
An inspector recommended that Langmead’s appeal be allowed, but this was overturned by the Secretary of State.

Giving judgment in Keith Langmead Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2017] EWHC 788, Mrs Justice Lang noted the Secretary of State had concluded the appeal did not accord with either the overall local plan or Yapton’s neighbourhood plan.

Arun lacked the five-year supply of housing sites required by the National Planing Policy Framework (NPPF) and so could be liable to the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

But the Secretary of State concluded that the proposed development did not comply with the social element of sustainability, and the “adverse impacts of this proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the identified benefits”.

Langmead appealed on the grounds that the Secretary of State misunderstood and misinterpreted the NPPF, failed to apply it correctly, failed to take into account the independent examiner’s reservations about the Neighbourhood Plan and made a decision internally inconsistent with regard to the weight given to the local plan.

The company also argued that the decision was irrational and failed to give adequate reasons.

Lang J said the Secretary of State’s decision “did not disclose any misinterpretation or misapplication of the NPPF”, while it was unlikely that any material change came to his notice at the right time.

The inspector’s view had been incorporated and the Secretary of State “disagreed with the inspector’s conclusions, as he was entitled to do”.
Langmead had obtained by disclosure a copy of the internal planning casework division (PCD)’s submission to the Secretary of State to allow the appeal and while the decision letter did not mention this “it seems very unlikely that the Secretary of State failed to consider it, since an internal submission of this kind would usually be a helpful starting point for the minister”, the judge noted.

She said: “Although this appeal was controversial, it was not especially complex, in fact or law. The reasons in the [decision letter] were adequate and intelligible.

“In my view, the claimant knew full well the Secretary of State’s conclusions on the principal important controversial issues. Its real complaint was that the conclusions reached were unreasonable and misguided.”
The judge added: “The Secretary of State was entitled to make up his own mind, and reach a different conclusion to that of the PCD and the inspector.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30835%3Ajudge-dismisses-challenge-after-minister-rejects-recommendation-of-inspector&catid=63&Itemid=31

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Apr 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Environment (local), Greater Exeter, Inequality, Infrastructure, Land banking, Land Supply, Local Enterprise Partnership, Planning System, Sustainability

“Greater Exeter Strategic Plan”: are we already shafted?

Time is running out to comment on the “Greater Exeter Strategic Plan” initial consultation on “Issues”. Comments must be in by

10 April 2017

and the document is here:

https://www.gesp.org.uk/consultations/issues/

and the full (12 page) document is here:

Click to access Greater-Exeter-Strategic-Plan-proof-v14.pdf

Owl thinks that there is precious little in the document that points either to a strategy or a plan! There are, however, many issues not covered such as:

– inequality ( how are the “just managing”, the “barely managing” and the “not managing at all going to access Greater Exeter’s resources (housing, transport, infrastructure, environment, health care, education) none of which is geared to them – only to the “managing very nicely thank you and ready to trade up to a bigger property or luxury retirement village” group

– the effect of Brexit, labour and skills shortages on the much-vaunted “economic growth”

– landbanking and housing supply – how they undermine all strategic planning projects

Owl also thinks this “plan” is shutting the door well after several horses have bolted, as already in the pipeline are massive developments planned to circle the city:

– west of Exeter: the 5,000-plus houses planned for “Culm Village” (Mid Devon)
– north/east of Exeter: the more than doubling in size of Cranbrook (East Devon) and the connected developments at Tithebarn Green, Pinn Brook Pinhoe and Monkerton (East Devon and Exeter City)
– south of Exeter: the massive development of Alphington and similar plans for doubling the size of Newton Abbott
– not to mention city developments such as St James’s Park and the thousands of student units in the city centre
– Local Enterprise Partnership plans to build extra houses just about everywhere else

Can anyone tell Owl which bits of “Greater Exeter” are left to consult on?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Apr 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership, Sustainability

“Energy projects including Hinkley Point threatened by Brexit, experts warn”

“Vital energy projects including the £18bn Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant and interconnectors used to import cheap electricity from Europe are under threat due to Brexit, energy experts have warned.

They said the projects, which are key to efforts to keep the UK’s lights on, could be at risk if the energy sector is denied entry to Europe’s internal energy market.

That looks increasingly likely, after the European parliament passed a resolution on Wednesday opposing “piecemeal or sectoral provisions” for individual UK industries.

Speaking at an event organised by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, experts said plans by French power firm EDF to build two new reactors at Hinkley Point C could be affected.

Antony Froggatt, senior research fellow at Chatham House, said EDF was already concerned that Brexit will make it harder to import skilled EU nationals to build Hinkley, which is slated to provide 7% of UK electricity.

“I was at a conference recently where EDF were saying their main concern about skills was specialised steel fitters for the construction of Hinkley,” he said.

“They said there were not enough in the country to build Hinkley and therefore this is the main area that they’re concerned about.”

He added that the staff shortage could be exacerbated by the building of the HS2 high-speed rail link, which will be competing with Hinkley to attract steel fitters.

EDF did not return requests for comment.

Froggatt and his fellow panellists at the ECIU event also raised concerns about the impact on plans for interconnectors, wires connecting the UK with the European electricity network.

Interconnectors are considered increasingly important as Britain turns to renewable energy, because they allow electricity to be imported to make up for shortfalls when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine.

Plans are in place to build 14GW of interconnectors between the UK and countries including Norway, France, Belgium and Iceland.

But building them could prove less attractive to investors if the UK cannot remain part of Europe’s internal energy market.

This is because the agreement allows electricity to be automatically traded on a short-term “intra-day” basis, improving efficiency and making it more lucrative to build interconnectors. …”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Apr 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Council tax, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, PegasusLife, Scrutiny, Sustainability

EDDC relication costs £10.3 million and counting …

Owl says: are these audited costs or still on

“District chiefs are being advised to press ahead with their £10million relocation from Sidmouth – despite having no guaranteed buyer for their ‘not fit-for-purpose’ Knowle HQ.

East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) cabinet is being asked to sign off nearly £8.7million to press ahead with building work at Honiton’s Heathpark, on top of the approved £1,7million pot to refurbish Exmouth Town Hall.

If approved, the relocation project’s total budget will stand at £10.36million, up from £9.2million in March 2015.

Members will also be asked if they support a further £225,000 cost for an improved access road to the Honiton base when they meet next week.

EDDC originally promised that the relocation would be ‘cost neutral’, that it would not borrow money and the project would not progress before Knowle was sold.

But after refusing PegasusLife’s £7.5million bid to redevelop Knowle into a 113-home retirement community, the authority now has to decide how to proceed with the relocation.

According to cabinet agenda papers, members have three options to choose from:

• ‘Go now’ – press ahead with building in Honiton in anticipation of an acceptable combination of cash for Knowle and prudential borrowing. Work could be completed as soon as December 2018.

• Delay relocation for one to two years, or more, so planning permission for Knowle can be secured to fund the project. EDDC understands PegasusLife is preparing an appeal, which would have to be lodged before June 9.

• A ‘do minimum’ option of giving up on the new-build Honiton HQ, completing the refurbishment of Exmouth Town Hall and modernising a section of Knowle. Essential repairs to Knowle would cost £1.9million, but there is no capital receipt for this expenditure.

Councillors have been recommended to pursue the ‘go now’ option. EDDC maintains that the move will save money in the long-run.

Its development management committee refused PegasusLife’s application because it represented a departure from Knowle’s 50-home allocation in the authority’s Local Plan and due to the lack of ‘affordable’ housing.

EDDC has considered various re-marketing options for Knowle – if a PegasusLife appeal is unsuccessful – that could fetch between £3.22million and £6.8million. One scheme proposes 50 homes, half of which would be ‘affordable’, and could bring in £4.2million.

Critics have long said EDDC could remain at Knowle rather than relocate. The cabinet papers say modernising the former hotel would cost nearly £11.3million, or, for the newer offices, the bill is expected to be more than £5.9million.

The relocation project has cost £1,784,884 to date.

Cabinet members will meet to discuss the options at Knowle at 5.30pm on Wednesday (April 5).”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/budget_for_eddc_s_relocation_tops_10_3million_1_4955207

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Clinton Devon Estates, Developers/ Development, Spin, Sustainability

Clinton Devon Estates offers to “fix broken housing market”

Owl says: the winning formula: promises, promises, promises, pseudo-eco words, pseudo-eco words, pseudo-eco-words spin, spin, spin, build, build, build. And when a “consultation” gives you the wrong answer – ignore it. Well, it does seem to be working so far

Even if you have to take half a “hospital hub” garden (the excuse there? Because it is “no longer being used for its original purpose”! Proof that hubs aren’t hospitals when it comes to land grabbing!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Cranbrook, Developers/ Development, Greater Exeter, NPPF, Paul Diviani, Planning System, Sustainability, Transparency

“New Cranbrook” and creeping unitisation worry Greater Exeter councillors

Owl says: Read with the post below Owl thinks there will be more than one “New Cranbrook” in the Greater Exeter area!

“Consultation events held in Devon this week shed light on the creation of a major strategic blueprint, which could lead to new settlements on the same scale as Cranbrook.

Mid Devon, East Devon, Teignbridge and Exeter City Council, in partnership with Devon County Council, are teaming up to create a Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP) which focuses on the creation of jobs and housing until 2040.

Hundreds visited Exeter’s Guildhall today to see early Greater Exeter plans between 2pm and 8pm. Similar consultations were held at Phoenix House, Tiverton yesterday and at Mackarness Hall, Honiton on Wednesday, March 8.

Andrew Robbins, city development manager for Exeter, said: “We need to provide more houses for the population and more jobs. What we’re looking to do is plan for the next 20 years, with Exeter City Council working with its neighbours because we see the influence of Exeter outside its boundaries. We’re looking at the best places for new housing and the best places for new jobs.

“For example, the new settlement at Cranbrook has been developed in recent years. One of the things we’re thinking of is ‘do we need another settlement outside of the city.'”

“What we want to do is get people involved in the process at what we call the issues stage. This is the absolute beginning of the process and its asking people for their ideas for how they see the region developing, before consulting on a draft plan at the beginning of 2018.”

Cllr Jeremy Christophers, Leader of Teignbridge said: “The creation of a strategic plan across a wider geography responds to how people actually live their lives. Combining housing options with job opportunities and providing the proper transport will support our ambition for local people to live the lives they wish for. As councils, we need to work together to deliver better results for the future – clearly, this is the way forward.”

Cllr Paul Diviani, Leader of East Devon said: “It has been clear for some time that there was a significant gap left with the demise of the Devon Structure Plan and without wishing to re-invent the wheel, we should be establishing a strategic plan for our Greater Exeter area which has input from Exeter, Mid Devon, Teignbridge and ourselves, alongside the County Council. We are the epi-centre of the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership and we need to ensure we have a central, aligned, significant role to play as we take our well-established partnership forward.”

Cllr Pete Edwards, Leader of Exeter City said: “Every weekday 37,000 people commute into Exeter and 11,000 people head out of Exeter. These volumes are second only to Cambridge and it is imperative that we address housing, transport and infrastructure in a joined-up way to respond to this reality.”

Cllr Clive Eginton, Leader of Mid Devon, said: “This is an excellent opportunity to reflect on how our residents and businesses live their lives across council administrative boundaries and to start embedding our shared aspiration for a successful future in plans for the Greater Exeter area.”

Cllr John Hart, Leader of Devon County Council, said: “The emerging relationship between the four local authorities in preparing a single Strategic Plan for the area is a very positive step and will help the planning system to work efficiently to boost the supply of housing and growth required. We are pleased and well-placed to be part of this collaborative way of working, which will improve and streamline our planning system.”

However the plans have raised fears that councils are “sleepwalking” into becoming unitary authorities. Liberal Councillor Jenny Roach who represents Silverton expressed fears that Mid Devon District Council would be ceding powers.

She said: “We’re looking like we could be ceding power to this planning partnership, and I know people will shake their heads and say no, but there are several points which worry me.

“Exeter needs land and you can imagine where I sit in my ward, Exeter City Council could be looking at developing the swathe of land that is between Silverton and Exeter and similarly between Thorverton and Newton St Cyres. If you look at the East Devon side there are huge estates marching across that land, so this worries me.

“It worries me that it’s being done by degree and almost by stealth. When we went to the public to talk about the sort of governance the district wanted, they didn’t like the cabinet, but unfortunately we didn’t get the 3000 signatures we needed in that period of time.

“There are a tremendous amount of people who were not happy with the governance of this authority as it is now, they don’t like the cabinet system, and it is the cabinet system that is sleepwalking us into a unitary authority. I’ve seen this happen before and I would really like to know that the very least we would do is have a state of the district debate on this Greater Strategic Exeter Plan.”

An online consultation form can be found at http://www.gesp.org.uk/issues”

http://www.devonlive.com/greater-exeter-plan-could-lead-to-a-new-cranbrook/story-30209261-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Mar 2017

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Austerity cuts, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), Land Supply, Planning System, Sustainability

“UK government woos world’s housebuilders”

“The housing minister, Gavin Barwell, has told the world’s housebuilders that if they cannot find enough land on which to build new homes they can “come and see me” and he will try to help.

Barwell told developers at the world’s biggest property conference in Cannes on Thursday that he wanted to be “clear and unequivocal” that he was there to help them build hundreds of thousands of new homes to help fix the UK’s housing crisis.

“If you’ve got parts of the country where you want to build homes and you’re struggling to find land, you come and see me and I will then raise those issues with the relevant local authorities,” he told investors at the UK government’s first promotional stand on the famous waterfront in the south of France. “I don’t want people who want to build unable to do so because they can’t find the sites they want.

“That’s an offer to anyone in this room – if you’re struggling to find sites you [can] come talk to me and I’ll try and do something about it.” …

… Barwell told property industry figures that he wanted to “change the politics” of housebuilding so that local people did not automatically protest at the suggestion of new construction. The Croydon MP also vowed to have “hard discussions” with local politicians who held up development.

Barwell said he would try to make sure housebuilding projects came with fresh infrastructure investments to allow communities to cope with additional residents. He also said more needed to be done to ensure newbuild homes were of good quality and design.

“People welcome homes that are really innovative in design, or fit in with the local area,” he said. “What they don’t like are homes that look like they could have been plonked down in any area of the country.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/16/uk-government-woos-worlds-housebuilders

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Mar 2017

Posted under

Developers/ Development, Environment (local), Rural communities, Sustainability

Lecture: Natural Capital and Sustainable Growth

Natural Devon’s 2017 Lecture

Professor Dieter Helm CBE – Natural Capital and Sustainable Growth

Thursday 6th April 2017, 6pm
Newman Blue Lecture Theatre, Exeter University, Streatham Campus, EX4 4ST

Professor Dieter Helm is an economist specialising in utilities, infrastructure, regulation and the environment. He is a Professor of Energy policy at the University of Oxford, a member of the Economics Advisory Group to the UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and Chairman of Defra’s Natural Capital Committee, as well as being Honorary Vice President of the Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust.

In the face of growing environmental pressures Professor Dieter Helm is looking to offer a set of strategies for establishing natural capital policy that is balanced, economically sustainable, and politically viable. He believes that the commonly held view that environmental protection poses obstacles to economic progress is false, and that the environment must be at the very core of economic planning.

Professor Helm’s lecture is particularly relevant this year given opportunities presented by Brexit, the development of Devon Local Plans and the development of the Heart of the South West Productivity Plan.

In partnership with The University of Exeter

Directions: http://www.exeter.ac.uk/visit/directions/streatham/
The Newman Blue Lecture Theatre is number 18 on this link – htttp://www.exeter.ac.uk/visit/directions/streathammap/

If you would like to book a place please email – tom.whitlock@devon.gov.uk

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, East Devon Growth Point, Economy, Greater Exeter, Local Enterprise Partnership, Skypark, Sustainability

More MASSIVE speculative industrial development at Clyst Honiton with benefits to LEP

Owl says: watch the claims of “new” jobs – most companies are relocating from premises just outside the “Growth Point” to take advantage of subsidies such as business rate holidays and are NOT creating “new”jobs at all.

“It appears major development at Clyst Honiton on the edge of Exeter will not cease any time soon, with outline plans in for an 110,000sqm industrial park next to the Lidl depot. The massive development would create between 1,530 and 1,817 new jobs and contribute an extra £90 to £105m to the regional economy. [Owl says: pinch of salt needed here – Skypark made similar claims but has attracted few NEW jobs – mostly only locally relocated ones, see above].

It’s second phase of development at land at Hayes Farm on behalf of Church Commissioners For England. The huge chunk of land is earmarked for more storage and distribution warehouses, offices and business space as part of the Exeter and East Devon Growth Point.

It would also need associated parking, servicing, yard areas, landscaping and engineering works including demolition of existing building within the site. The development also sits near the Skypark, a similar development of a similar size [Owl:which is currently still mostly empty after several years of marketing and an abortive attempt to relocate the EDDC HQ from Sidmouth].

At the moment the future occupiers are unknown, but it’s possible a major company could take the entire site. Options for the land include space for 540 car parking spaces on a two unit scheme, and 530 for a multi-unit scheme. [Translation: speculative building].

Alongside news of the latest planning application, buildings at the nearby Skypark development are already taking shape. Built over 20 years, the 110-acre Skypark site will provide 1.4 million sq ft of warehouse, industrial and office space and deliver up to 6,500 new jobs.

When it completes this autumn, this new office building will create 17,142 sq ft of employment space.

The new offices will join the Ambulance Special Operations Centre (ASOC West) and DPD UK’s new 60,000 sq ft distribution centre on site [relocated from nearby Sowton]. They will benefit from the £3.5 million worth of investment in road and services infrastructure at Skypark and the five-acre public realm area, complete with trim trail exercise stations.

Ian Guy, Senior Development Manager for St. Modwen and Devon County Council’s development partner for the £210m Skypark development, said: “These speculative [Owl’s BOLD] offices are going up alongside the new headquarters for Devon and Cornwall Housing [relocating from central Exeter], which is also under construction on site. They represent the first major office development in Exeter for many years and are a strong sign of the improving occupier market in the local area.”

http://www.devonlive.com/massive-homes-plan-next-to-lidl-depot-near-exeter/story-30206010-detail/story.html

How can you say the market is improving when buildings are speculative, they have no confirmed interest and those which ARE occupied are taken by locally relocated businesses taking advantage of incentives such as no business rates for 5 years to move. And, of course, the Local Enterprise Partnership benefits!

“The current iteration of Enterprise Zones was established by the Government in 2012, as part of their long-term economic plan. They are geographically defined areas, which aim to support growth by encouraging businesses to locate within them, providing a number of incentives including:

Up to 100% business rate discount worth up to £275,000 over 5 years
Simplified local authority planning
Roll out of super-fast Broadband where necessary
For zones in Assisted Areas, 100% enhanced capital allowances (tax relief) to businesses making large investments in plant and machinery.

Any business rates growth generated by the Enterprise Zone (over the next 25 years) is retained by the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) to reinvest in local economic growth.”

Click to access CS1622%20Enterprise%20Zones.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, East Devon Alliance, Independent Councillors, Sustainability, Transparency, Voting

East Devon Alliance manifesto for Devon County Council election, May 2017

“The East Devon Alliance campaigns for transparency, accountability and democracy in local government. It supports Independent candidates who are responsible to the electors rather than a national party machine.

In the County Council elections, we are supporting Independent East Devon Alliance candidates in the Axminster, Seaton & Colyton, and Sidmouth divisions. Our candidates aim to make Devon County Council more accountable and transparent in all its dealings.

Like all local authorities, Devon County Council is facing an unprecedented long-term loss of funding and control. Once elected, Independent EDA County Councillors will use their positions to campaign for fair funding for local services and ensure local democratic control – rather than allowing central government and corporations to increasingly privatise everything which affects our communities.

Our candidates all support the following platform:

1. We will speak up for our constituents and campaign for local needs, not be bound by a national party line.

2. We will work for Devon County Council to support proper funding of the local NHS and the restoration of a fully public National Health Service, and oppose privatisation of NHS services and closures of community hospitals and beds.

3. We will fight to achieve adequate social care, especially for Devon’s growing population of older people, in the face of continued underfunding of this and other key services including mental health and children’s services.

4. We oppose the reductions in funding for many East Devon schools which will result from the supposedly ‘fairer’ National Funding Framework, and any new proposals to force local schools to become academies.

5. We will work to protect library services in the new mutual framework.

6. We will support local residents fighting for proper road maintenance and highway safety improvements.

7. We believe that rises of 9% in Council Tax over 2 years are unfair to many residents, yet not enough to protect services. Until there is a fairer local tax system, the Government should restore national funding for local services.

8. We also believe that small businesses should be protected from the Government’s changes to business rates.

9. We support genuine devolution of powers from central Government to Devon but we oppose the merger with Somerset in the so-called ‘Heart of the South West’ and the central role which the current opaque devolution proposals give to unelected businessmen in the Local Enterprise Partnership. We oppose the priority to the outdated and ruinously expensive Hinkley C project in these proposals.

10. During the forthcoming negotiations with the EU, we will work to represent the interests of all residents in healthcare, tourism, farming, and rural affairs. We also support initiatives to develop Devon’s tourism economy, welcoming visitors from home and abroad.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Consultation, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Environment (local), Greater Exeter, Infrastructure, Land Supply, Local Plan, Planning System, Sustainability, Transparency, Transport (local)

Greater Exeter Strategic Plan consultation – only one public meeting to discuss implications for East Devon

NOTE THAT, UNLIKE THE EMAIL TO EDDC COUNCILLORS (see earlier post) WE ARE NOT BEING ASKED IF WE WANT TO PUT FORWARD SECRET LAND HOLDINGS – THOUGH NO DOUBT THE TAXMAN WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IF YOU DID!

THE BIGGEST PLANNING ISSUE TO HIT EAST DEVON SINCE THE LOCAL PLAN AND YOU MUST TREK TO HONITON ON 8 MARCH IF YOU WANT TO HAVE YOUR SAY. THAT’S IT – ONE MEETING IN ONE PLACE.

DO YOU RECALL BEING ASKED IF YOU WANTED TO BE PART OF GREATER EXETER? OWL NEITHER!

“Greater Exeter Strategic Plan Consultation: Issues

The local authorities of East Devon, Exeter, Mid Devon and Teignbridge in partnership with Devon County Council are working together to prepare a Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP). This formal statutory document will provide the overall spatial strategy and level of housing and employment land to be provided up to 2040. Please visit http://www.gesp.org.uk for more information.

Engagement with stakeholders and communities will be critical to the success of the Plan. At this first stage, the authorities are consulting on an initial ‘issues document’ which, after setting out some background information, looks to explain the scope and content of the plan as well as describing the key issues facing the Greater Exeter area. This early stage of consultation is designed to stimulate debate and the local planning authorities are seeking your views on the scope and content of the plan as well as the key issues facing your area.

A number of other associated documents are also being consulted on:

Draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report:

· The Draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report is the first stage of work in undertaking the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) for the plan. This process is used to assess the sustainability of the plan content as it develops.

Statement of Community Involvement:

· The joint Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) sets out the approach for consultation in the GESP. The SCI sets out the way in which we will be engaging with communities and other interested parties throughout the process.

The consultation will run from 27 February 2017 until 10 April 2017. To view the consultation material and to make your comments please visit http://www.gesp.org.uk/consultations/issues/.

Alternatively, paper copies of the consultation document are available to view at your local library and Council Office.

A series of exhibitions are being held during the consultation period in the following locations:

Honiton: Mackarness Hall, High Street, EX14 1PG – Wednesday 8 March 2017, 2pm-8pm

Tiverton: Mid Devon District Council Office, Phoenix House, Phoenix Lane, EX16 6PP – Wednesday 15 March 2017, 2-8pm
Exeter: The Guildhall, High Street, EX4 3EB – Thursday 16 March 2017, 2-8pm
Newton Abbot: Old Forde House, Brunel Road, TQ12 4XX – Thursday 23 March 2017, 2- 8pm

A ‘call for sites’ has also been arranged to run alongside the consultation. This is a technical exercise which allows interested parties to submit potential sites for development to the Local Authorities. The sites are then assessed to consider whether they are suitable for possible inclusion in the plan. Further information is http://gesp.org.uk/call-for-sites/.

If you need further information please visit the website, email GESP@devon.gov.uk or contact your Local Council using the phone numbers below:

East Devon: 01395 571533
Exeter: 01392 265615
Mid Devon: 01884 234221
Teignbridge: 01626 215735

As there are four Councils contacting their stakeholders for the consultation and call for sites, you may receive duplicate letters/emails. Please accept my apologies if this is the case.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Audit (EDDC), EDDC, Sustainability, Transparency

Audit and Governance – internal audit appears to be not too happy with governance

“… In our sample of capital projects, it was evident in speaking to staff that the Council had not anticipated the level of funding required for the Seaton Workshop project at an early stage, which may suggest that insufficient research was done to review the viability of the project prior to approval of the project/budget.

The Finance Team should consider whether evidence to support capital appraisals should be clearly documented. They should also consider implementing clear guidance on the level of initial assessment which should be required to be undertaken for capital projects if this is not clearly stated on any current policy/guidance. Any approach should be based on the level of risk and funding of the project as it was evident that some capital projects are lower in risk and value than others.

There is a risk that proposed projects are not being subject to the right level of assessment which could increase the likelihood of funding the wrong projects, and could also lead to delays and overspend to individual projects.”

Click to access 020317combinedagagenda.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plans, Rural communications, Sustainability, Villages BUAB

Villages – check if your built-up boundaries have been changed

From Strategic Planning Committee agenda (meeting on 20 February at 2pm – when most people will be at work:

“That it is recommended to Council:

1. That approval is given for the attached East Devon Villages Plan (and documentation that underpins the Plan) to be ‘published’ for a period of six weeks to allow formal comments to be made,

2. Following the six week period the East Devon Villages Plan be submitted for examination together with any comments received during that period,

3. That the Built-up Area Boundaries defined in the Publication Villages Plan, from the 23 February 2017, be used as primary policy for development management purposes instead of the boundaries on the inset plans included in the previously adopted Local Plan.”

Click to access combined-agenda-spc-200217-compressed.pdf

page 9 plus appendix maps

“4.6 Main Changes from Consultation Draft Plan August 2016

The draft plan of August 2016 included justification for the approach of using BUAB’s and discussion of alternative approaches and details of how BUAB’s had been defined that is not necessary in the final plan. In terms of individual settlements the main differences between the two plans are highlighted below and full details of how individual sites were assessed against the criteria set and the refinement of this approach for Newton Poppleford and West Hill are included in the ‘Site by Site’ assessments for individual settlements.

Beer – the majority of the western part of the village and the new
housing at Little Hemphay and Bluff Terrace are now included in the BUAB. The wording of policy Beer 01 – Village Centre Vitality now reflects that of Policy E9 of the adopted Local Plan.

Broadclyst – the community orchard and car park in front of the primary school are now excluded and the new buildings at the secondary school included.

Clyst St. Mary – no change to the preferred approach boundary.

Colyton – part of the former Ceramtec site is now included together with
part of a former garage site. Policy 01 has been changed to reflect the
wording of Policy E9 of the adopted Local Plan.

East Budleigh – minor change to exclude parts of three gardens.

Feniton – the ‘Ackland Park’ site and is included but the land adjoining
the railway on the ‘nursery’ site is excluded.

Kilmington – additional land to south west of village is now included.

Musbury – both the ‘Mountfield’ land and ‘Baxter’s Farm’ site (including
village hall) are now included.

Newton Poppleford – minor change to reflect size of King Alfred Way
planning permission and preferred approach boundary followed, which excludes western part of village that was included in previously adopted local plan.

Sidbury – no changes to preferred approach boundary.

Uplyme – boundary now follows that proposed in the Uplyme Neighbourhood Plan.

West Hill – preferred approach boundary largely followed, but with some
limited expansion.

Whimple – no change to preferred approach boundary.

Woodbury – no change to preferred approach boundary.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Cranbrook, Developers/ Development, Sustainability

Cranbrook: Facebook page created to complain about problems with district heating

The page is called:

“Cranbrook District Heat by eon is Useless”

Although it is new, it has already attracted more than 50 members and E.on is said to be arranging a meeting on the subject.

A selection of comments (and remember this is an 80 year monopoly contract where developers collect fees):

“No hot water again in Brooks Warren. Called Eon and yes, rubbish customer services yet again. ” [E.on] We do not know of any problems, someone will be in contact within 24 hrs.”

“Just had a call from Eon to say there is a site issue (AGAIN). They are hoping to get everything up and running by the end of the day.
Yet again another problem and yet again we are all suffering with the lack of services.”

“Went to have a shower this morning around 11:00, yep you guessed it no hot water. Called e.on and they said they had no reports of problems, perhaps I’m the first to report I said. Absolutely useless, notice several others having problems on the other Cranbrook facebook page.”

“We had an Eon engineer over today. He told us that we should avoid peak times to use got water e.g. between 6am and 8am, and 6pm to 8pm. Apparently they should fix it in a week… They recognise it’s a Cranbrook wide issue.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local), Scrutiny, Sustainability, Transparency

National Audit Office slams health and care integration implementation

HOW CAN CUTS TO COMMUNITY HOSPITALS GO AHEAD AFTER THIS STINGING REPORT?

The National Audit Office report issued today
Summary

“Health and social care integration

The Better Care Fund has not achieved the expected value for money, in terms of savings, outcomes for patients or hospital activity.

National Audit Office

“Integrating the health and social care sectors is a significant challenge in normal times, let alone times when both sectors are under such severe pressure. So far, benefits have fallen far short of plans, despite much effort.

It will be important to learn from the over-optimism of such plans when implementing the much larger NHS sustainability and transformation plans.The Departments do not yet have the evidence to show that they can deliver their commitment to integrated services by 2020, at the same time as meeting existing pressures on the health and social care systems.”

The National Audit Office warns that progress with integration of health and social care has, to date, been slower and less successful than envisaged and has not delivered all of the expected benefits for patients, the NHS or local authorities. As a result, the government’s plan for integrated health and social care services across England by 2020 is at significant risk.

In the face of increased demand for care and constrained finances, while the Better Care Fund, the principal integration initiative, has improved joint working, it has not yet achieved its potential. The Fund has not achieved the expected value for money, in terms of savings, outcomes for patients or reduced hospital activity, from the £5.3 billion spent through the Fund in 2015-16.

Nationally, the Fund did not achieve its principal financial and service targets over 2015-16, its first year. Planned reductions in rates of emergency admissions were not achieved, nor did the Fund achieve the planned savings of £511 million. Compared with 2014-15, emergency admissions increased by 87,000 against a planned reduction of 106,000, costing £311 million more than planned. Furthermore, days lost to delayed transfers of care increased by 185,000, against a planned reduction of 293,000, costing £146 million more than planned.

The Fund has, however, been successful in incentivising local areas to work together; more than 90% of local areas agreed or strongly agreed that delivery of their plan had improved joint working. Local areas also achieved improvements at the national level in reducing permanent admissions of people aged 65 and over to residential and nursing care homes, and in increasing the proportion of older people still at home 91 days after discharge from hospital into reablement or rehabilitation services.

There is general agreement across the health and social care sectors that place-based planning is the right way to manage scarce resources at a system-wide level. However, local government was not involved in the design and development of the NHS-led sustainability and transformation planning programme. Local authorities’ engagement in the planning and decision making phase has been variable, although four sustainability and transformation planning areas are led by local authority officials.

The Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government have identified barriers to integration, such as misaligned financial incentives, workforce challenges and the reticence over information sharing, but are not systematically addressing them.

Research commissioned by the government in 2016 concluded that local areas are not on track to achieve the target of integrated health and social care by 2020.

Today’s report also found that NHS England’s ambition to save £900 million through introducing seven new care models may be optimistic. The new care models are as yet unproven and their impact is still being evaluated. According to the NAO, while the Departments and their partners have set up an array of initiatives examining different ways to transform care and create a financially sustainable care system, their governance and oversight of the initiatives is poor. The Integration Partnership Board only receives updates on progress of the Better Care Fund with no reporting from other integration programmes.

In addition, the NAO found no compelling evidence to show that integration in England leads to sustainable financial savings or reduced acute hospital activity. While there are some good examples of integration at a local level, evaluations have been inhibited by a lack of comparable cost data across different care settings, and difficulty tracking patients through different care settings. The NAO today reiterates its emphasis from its 2014 report on the Better Care Fund that there is a need for robust evidence on how best to improve care and save money through integration and for a co-ordinated approach.”

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/health-and-social-care-integration/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Jan 2017

Posted under

Cranbrook, EDDC, Flooding, Fords of Sidmouth, Rural communities, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Sustainability

(Greater) Exeter area rainfall expected to increase by 73% say researchers

“The trend of paving over gardens is putting Exeter homes at risk of flooding as the city is set to see a 73 per cent increase in rain, and paved gardens could see the city’s drains overwhelmed. …”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/exeter-rainfall-to-increase-by-73-per-cent-and-your-paved-garden-will-make-the-city-flood/story-30073383-detail/story.html

One can presume that this includes the East Devon area. Cranbrook is already a concrete jungle and those close to rivers or on flood plains will be particularly hard hit.

And just imagine the effect on properties around it of building on and paving over the proposed Sidford Industrial estate, not to mention its effect on the River Sid!