Consultants £1,430,867
Agency staff £477,119
Total £1,907,986
A full list of payees appears with the appendix. Relocation supremo Steve Pratten (Aecom) takes up a large chunk.
But what is the £11,000 paid to Monitoring Officer and Legal Officer Henry Gordon-Lennox as “Legal Services Retainer”? Surely he is not employed by an agency?
Click to access item-10-consultants-fees-with-appendices.pdf
A commentary moved to post:
“So the Budleigh Hospital opens as a Hub – the first hospital in Devon to have no beds.
“A Hub, according to its website, is a term used to describe a place where many different services and organisations are based. This usually has a focus on a building, but can be virtual – internet or literature based.” [I don’t think they mean Jane Austen – just bumf].
“[At the Budleigh “health hub”] It is anticipated that a range of activities, such as arts, sport, dances and other social events will provide opportunities for people to socialise. There will also be an internet café, public WiFi and cinema space screening educational productions as well as films.”
“Staff at the centre will be able to refer people onto other services if required, meaning that waiting times are reduced, and you will be able to access support as and when you need it.”
According to the Oxford Dictionary a hospital is an institution providing medical and surgical treatment and nursing care for ill or injured people. Welcome to the brave new post truth world where words mean what you choose them to mean (Alice in Wonderland). [I bet “access support” doesn’t mean what you think either].
Oh and another thing – the Friends are reported to be donating c. £200K to pay the rent to NHS Property Services (a private limited company currently 100% owned by the S of S for Health) who are now charging economic rents for the property. But remember where this property came from. The Budleigh Hospital, like many others, started as a charity but was absorbed into the NHS in 1948. Looks like donors are having to pay twice over!
“A consultancy firm has apologised to the government for the “disruption” caused by a leaked memo that suggested ministers had no plan for Brexit.
Deloitte said it regretted the publication, adding it had proposed a plan “to put this matter behind us”.
The Times reported this included an agreement not to bid for government contracts for six months.
Downing Street dismissed the memo when it was published last month, saying it had been unsolicited. The document claimed “well over 500 projects” were being undertaken by Whitehall departments to implement Brexit, creating the need for up to 30,000 extra civil servants, and highlighted “divisions” within government over the strategy.
Its publication in The Times generated a backlash from No 10, which said it “wholeheartedly” rejected the comments it contained, and Deloitte played down the memo’s significance. Five weeks on, the company has said: “Deloitte regrets the publication of the two-page note, and has apologised for the unintended disruption it caused government.
“The note was for internal audiences and was not a Deloitte point of view. We have put forward a plan for working with central government to put this matter behind us.”
Downing Street did not dispute The Times’ report that the agreement involved Deloitte not bidding for government contracts for six months, but the the company declined to comment on any withdrawal from such bids.”
Richard Cohen has not had a good year (well, actually he has, as he remains Deputy CEO and Relocation Manager for EDDC).
He came under fire last week for saying (twice) that the DMC had “stymied” relocation plans – though actually if anyone stymied anything it was PegasusLife putting in a planning application that was unfit for purpose.
Just so show this wasn’t a one-off, let us remind ourselves of this is transcript of part of a speech by a well-known Sidmouth businessman with experience of property development, made at a Sid Vale Association Meeting at the Unitarian Church, Sidmouth, 9th December 2014.
The speech begins with a discussion of Cohen’s estimate of total relocation costs at about £10 million.
“The numbers are completely, hopelessly and scandalously wrong. They are useless, they are terrible and have to be challenged vigorously and strenuously. These numbers are rubbish. They don’t include the green travel plan, they don’t include compensation for the staff, they don’t include the cost of the move itself, they don’t include the costs of hubs the other towns and, most importantly, they don’t include the cost of officer time and members time that is involved in all of this.
The expert, Mr Steve Pratten from Davis Langdon, he is going to cost £1million or more on his own. It doesn’t include the legal costs in all this. I say to the District Council that I have estimated the real costs to be £20million. That figure was not disputed – Richard Cohen did not say it was exaggerated – he said he didn’t recognize the number. What that means is that I was bang on the money.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are trusting Richard Cohen to mastermind this whole process and we are assuming that he’s accurate in the mathematical calculations. This is the same man who measured the Knowle 40% smaller than it turned out to be! He got it wrong by 40%. Robin Fuller had to write a paper, he was rubbished in the press and it turned out that he was correct. The Knowle is 40% bigger than Richard Cohen thought it was.
This is the same man who was responsible for four attempts to compose the economic impact assessments rejected by his own planning committee. He can’t get simple mathematics right. This same man tells us that energy prices are going to go ahead for the next 20 years at 10% over inflation. He is alone in the entire world in thinking this. Nobody else believes that including your energy companies who will fix your energy costs for the next four years. That instantly takes £1.5million out of all the savings that are supposed to be made by moving, so he hasn’t even bothered to explore that possibility.
He is also the man who shifted the southern boundary of the Knowle to include the second tier of parkland without telling anybody and in contradiction to the specific instructions of the Development Management Committee. I was told this would not be investigated because the Inspector would look at it, which he would not do because it was not in his remit. So that has never been investigated by anybody at the Knowle.
He did it without managing to record that process; without managing to record any conversation with any individual, without writing a single email, or keeping a single note or sending any kind of correspondence to any third party. Because I made a freedom of information request, and there was nothing there.
He did it unilaterally, on his own, secretly, and he didn’t tell a single soul, and I only found out by accident.
This is not the kind of person I would trust to do these calculations. Now when he says it is going to cost £15.9million to refurbish the Knowle, I would tell him that that’s a load of bunkum. This relates to the entire building, which nobody advocates retaining. Why is anybody working in a bathroom when the Knowle is two and a half times the size of the building EDDC says it needs? How can that be possible? Mr Cohen in his calculations also asserts that there is nil chance, not 1% chance of local government reform in the next 20 years.”
“Every worker employed in public office will have to swear an oath of allegiance to British values under plans to defeat extremism.
Communities Secretary Sajid Javid said it was impossible for people to play a ‘positive role’ in public life unless they accepted basic values like democracy, equality and freedom of speech. …”
…Mr Javid’s loyalty pledge would be expected to cover elected officials, civil servants, and council workers. …
…The oath could include phrases such as ‘tolerating the views of others even if you disagree with them’, as well as ‘believing in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from abuse … a belief in equality, democracy, and the democratic process’ and ‘respect for the law, even if you think the law is an ass’.
Here in Devon and Somerset, we have no idea what our LEP has spent our money on in the past (only vague headlines), no idea who is spending it on what now. We don’t even know how many staff the LEP has, how much they and board members are paid or even where they work from. They boast about securing “economic growth” yet we have no evidence that they are making any impact whatsoever.
Each member of the LEP board has a post that wants to attract “growth funding” to themselves – be it the Chairman of Midas builders or the MD of Supacat which has designs on getting more involved in the nuclear industry – each one has a vested interest in getting the biggest possible slice of the growth cake and ensuring that, even if they don’t get the biggest slice, that there is no cake left for anyone else.
Here is what the Public Accounts Committee has to say.
Additionally, someone somewhere ensured that our LEP was top-heavy with unelected business people and light on local politicians who could at least be voted out. Whose bright idea was that?
“The Public Accounts Committee has issued a renewed warning over scrutiny in devolution deals, saying the government has still not set out how combined authority mayors will be held accountable for public money.
“MPs called on the government to specify what it is trying to achieve through devolution and communicate this clearly to citizens and service users.
The Devolution in England report said that every pound spent by a combined authority mayor – which will be elected for the first time next May – must be traceable by parliament to maintain transparency and accountability.
For example, the review highlighted the ‘opaque’ nature of accountability for the activities of local enterprise partnerships – designed to bring together the public and private sector – which are currently negotiating a revised round of local growth deals funded to the tune of £12bn over five years.
The Department for Communities and Local Government must also do more to demonstrate the link between devolution and economic growth, according to the committee.
PAC chair Meg Hillier said the government’s devolution plans in England have significant implications for the lives of millions of people. …
… Hillier said the government still has serious questions to answer about the benefits of these proposals as “generalisations about the potential benefits” would not be enough.
“The public care about the future of vital local services; about jobs, housing, education,” she stated.
“They want to know not just who is spending their money and to what end, but also how well it is being spent.
“When things go wrong, they want to know who is responsible and how they will be held to account. And, when they elect their first mayors in May, they want to be confident the government has done all it can to protect their interests.”
According to the MPs, there is a “considerable scope for tension” between local government, which is required to deliver and maintain services within a devolved budget, and central government, which provides funding in areas such as skills and transport, and in Greater Manchester, health.
Central government must not “absolve itself of its responsibility to ensure that devolved areas receive adequate funding for sustainable services”, the report stated, and DCLG in particular must ensure devolution benefits work for all local areas and not just central zones or key cities covered by combined authorities, says the committee.
“The government’s annual report on devolution, published this month, does nothing to address these concerns nor to set out a detailed strategic vision for the programme,” Hillier added.
“Every pound of public money spent by an elected mayor, local enterprise partnership or other body must be a pound Parliament can trace. Spending must face robust scrutiny.”
http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/12/pac-repeats-warning-importance-devolution-scrutiny
A reader comment on a Western Morning News article that Exeter, Plymouth and Torbay are talking (in secret) about setting up their own Local Enterprise Partnership”:
“Even though we seem to be dragging ourselves free of the EU, we still seem to be stuck with the EU’s ‘regional’ policies – as imposed by John Prescott with his Regional Assemblies and Regional Development Agencies.
The EU were insistent that our cities should be the economic drivers for regions, and that we should have figureheads – regional Metro Mayors.
The objective is always the same – rather than decentralising power to regions, whole parcels of cities, rural towns, and villages become subject to one imposed rule, with little real democratic accountability; the bigger the authority, the less accountability at local level.
Our council apparatchiks will jump at the chance to build their empires, puff up their importance, and vastly improve their bank balances while they are at it. Out of sight, out of mind – the manufacturers of brown envelopes will be rubbing their hands in anticipation.
As with Police and Crime Commissioners, there will not be any enthusiasm for these positions; hardly anybody will vote; they will be politically tribal and not representative; and they will be distant from ‘the people’. As a result, they will be hugely disliked and distrusted. No change there then.”
ExTorPly = Exeter, Torquay, Plymouth. It gets complicated if it takes in more councils!
Owl suggests it might be called “Rip the Heart out of the South West LEP”, though the acronym RTHOOTSW LEP is a little clunky, even if it includes the word “hoot” in it. Still not happy about the “Golden Triangle LEP” for obvious reasons! But good to see (part of) Devon standing on its own feet, avoiding being sucked into an LEP where Hinkley C in Somerset takes most of the very little money on offer.
Council leaders in Exeter and Plymouth say they are convinced that a bid for devolution for Devon and Somerset is doomed to fail.
Fifteen councils across the region have been working on a joint bid to take over powers and funding now controlled by Whitehall.
But the Heart of the South West has reached a sticking point over the Government’s insistence that significant devolution will require an elected mayor for the region.
As we reported last week, Plymouth and Exeter refused to go along with a vote for all 15 councils to work exclusively with the Heart of the South West local enterprise partnership.
David Thomas, the leader of Torbay’s Conservatives, said later that they too would support a rival bid with Plymouth and Exeter.
The two councils said they had written to colleagues across the region “to assure them of their ongoing commitment to joint working to improve skills, productivity and infrastructure in the Heart of the South West”.
They said they were fully committed to working with the other 13 councils on a joint productivity plan – but would continue to explore other opportunities.
“We believe that there will be no significant devolution deal for tuhe Heart of the South West given the lack of a consensus on the issue of an elected mayor/leader with responsibility for receiving devolved powers and financial resources from Whitehall,” they said.
“The Government’s position on this has been very clearly outlined by the Secretary of State, Sajid Javid.
“We feel it would be remiss of us not to explore the sub-regional opportunities for further and faster delivery of economic growth with a deal that doesn’t rule out an elected mayor/leader as described above.”
A meeting of the Heart of the South West leaders’ and chief executives’ group on Friday heard that Plymouth and Exeter councils had met with Torbay to discuss the potential to work together on a sub-regional level to drive economic growth further and faster.
Today’s letter defends the “exploratory discussions”, which were not attended by Torbay’s Mayor, Gordon Oliver.
“Proposals by Exeter City Council to restructure decision-making in Devon are being challenged.
In a letter to Council Leader, Pete Edwards, Exeter Green Party has raised concerns about the ways Exeter City Council is developing initiatives to restructure the authority – all of which will give binding powers to new layers of local government.
[The letter states]
Exeter Green Party is deeply concerned about the ways in which the various initiatives to restructure local government decision-making in Devon are being pursued. We are referring to:
The “devolution” proposals for a combined authority covering the Heart of the South West, from which we understand the City Council withdrew at a meeting on 9 December.
The proposal for a Greater Exeter Growth and Development Board (GEGDB], agreed in principle by the City Council’s Executive on 8 November.
The proposals which emerged at the end of last week for a South Devon Unitary Council, involving Exeter, Plymouth, East Devon, Teignbridge, Torbay and possibly South Hams councils.
We do not at present wish to take a position on the merits of the various alternatives, though there are many concerns and questions to be addressed.
At this stage, we ask the following questions:
1. What mandate does the City Council have from the residents it serves to:
(a) attempt to reorganise local government decision-making structures?
(b) propose arrangements which would suck key decisions upwards from the elected representatives of the people of Exeter to a new superior authority – the GEGDB – which would not be directly elected?
(c) propose a strategic authority – the GEGDB – which on the evidence of the 8 November paper would focus solely on economic growth to the exclusion of social and environmental considerations?
2. When does the City Council plan to publicise its thinking and actively consult residents and businesses on whether they actually want new local government arrangements and, if so, on the form they should take and how any new body might be fully accountable to local people?
Because we believe there should be public debate now on these issues, we are issuing this letter to the media. I am also sending a copy to Karime Hassan.
I look forward to your reply.
In a surprise move proposals emerged at the end of last week for a new super South Devon Unitary Council. It could see a ‘super mayor’ governing Exeter, Plymouth, East Devon, Teignbridge, Torbay and possibly South Hams councils.
The Greens concerned that decisions are being made without any public consultation or mandate to give power to unelected bodies.
Exeter City Council had previously committed itself to the Heart of the South West “devolution” proposals for a combined authority. It is now understood Exeter City Council withdrew from this plan at a meeting on Friday. The Council’s Executive has also agreed in principle to set up a ‘Greater Exeter Growth and Development Board’ with East, Mid and Teignbridge Councils, and give this new body powers to make binding decisions on each Council.
Green Party spokesperson, Diana Moore, said:”These decisions about major changes to the structure and functions of local government are taking place behind closed doors.
“We want to know what mandate the City Council has for these proposals and when they intend to consult residents and businesses on whether they actually want new local government arrangements.
“They need to be transparent about their intentions and the power they intend to give away.
“The proposed arrangements would take away key decisions from the elected representatives of the people of Exeter and hand them to distant unelected bodies.
“The economic growth priorities of any of these bodies doesn’t address social and environmental considerations or the rising inequality in the city.
“Councils must focus on their duty to co-operate – and do that to the benefit of local people and not obsess about new structures which will only serve vested interests.
“Any new proposals for local government must be fully consulted on and that whatever structure emerges must be transparent and accountable to local people.”
As a long-time campaigner against Hinkley C, Molly [Scott-Cato] has welcomed news that Greenpeace Energy, a green energy supplier in Germany, is taking renewed legal action through the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over subsidies for the new nuclear power station.
The new action follows a complaint by the supplier lodged with the General Court of the EU in Luxembourg last year against the EU Commission for approving billions of euros of State aid for the controversial nuclear project. The General Court dismissed this action so Greenpeace Energy has now lodged an appeal with the ECJ.
Molly has also made her own challenge. In March this year she wrote to the Commission asking it to investigate whether a proposed rescue plan for Hinkley C was in breach of European state aid rules. She said:
“Any efforts to try and block this economically illiterate and technically flawed project deserves support. The subsidies being offered to the Hinkley project will distort competition on the electricity market in Europe and have a chilling effect on investment in renewables.”
“Yet this is just the time when we need an innovative renewable energy revolution, not to resort to the failed technologies of the past. With the climate crisis wiping out a large chunk of the Great Barrier reef; unprecedented sea ice melt occurring this year, and the Paris Agreement committing nations to keep the rise in global temperature to less than 2 degrees, we need an emergency Plan B for energy. A plan based on a wide range of renewable energy technologies, energy efficiency and innovative smart grid and energy storage solutions.
“With strong political will – rather than the ideological opposition to renewables we have seen from the Conservatives – these are solutions that can be implemented in the speedy time frame required for tackling climate change and meeting our commitments under the Paris Agreement. Hinkley won’t deliver a single watt of electricity until at least 2025.
“If legal action is the only way to make our government and the Commission see sense on the disaster that is Hinkley, then we must support it. And it is no good the government trying to hide behind the veil of Brexit; as long as the UK is a member of the EU, it is bound by European law.”
The views below are those of an expert correspondent. Owl, needing only the branch of the nearest tree to call it home, is no expert and is happy to hear from others with different views
The build cost of the new building at Honiton must have increased: there is no way they will build it for less than £7 million.
But the big ‘economy with the truth’ is that relocation will be achieved for less than £10 million, because the costs of moving will be very high, not least for compensation to staff for having to travel further to work. Steve Pratten (the relocation consultant) alone is going to cost £1 million by the time the project ends and then there is all the officer time (never, ever costed by EDDC), and legal fees.
The real numbers, in my personal opinion (writes the correspondent) are likely to be:
Exmouth refurbishment:
£2 million
New Build at Honiton:
£11 million
(West Dorset’s new HQ was smaller three years ago and cost £10 million +)
Steve Pratten:
£1 million
Staff Compensation:
£1 million
Officer Time:
£2 million
Legal and other consultants:
£1 million
The move itself (physically relocating, plus things like new notepaper, equipment, etc):
£2 million
And, significantly, the immediate loss in asset value (the new building will only have a value of £2-3 million).
So subtract that figure from the asset value of Knowle (£7.5 million ):
loss of £5 million
Total: £25 million.
The improvements at Exmouth might give a modest boost to the value of the building, say £0.5 million, so a total cost of £24.5 million.
These figures are conservative. In truth, the ultimate cost is probably going to be higher. The ‘officer time’ figure of £2 million looks very low for example. It would not be at all surprising if the ultimate cost is of the order of £30 million.
The refurbishment of the modern buildings at Knowle was estimated at less than £2 million, which looks incredibly good value by comparison.
The refusal of the Pegasus application, together with the current upheaval over local government reorganisation in Devon, offer a clear opportunity to think again.
Cabinet on Wednesday might see the first signs of cracks appearing.
The full extent of the crisis facing social care is revealed by an Observer investigation which demonstrates the government’s flagship policy to keep elderly people out of hospital is failing in most parts of the country.
The findings – amid claims from senior NHS figures that “we are going backwards in many places” – come as ministers face calls to provide an urgent injection of extra cash to local councils to avoid services buckling under increasing financial pressure.
The Tory chair of the Commons select committee on health, Sarah Wollaston, said ministers should act immediately to prevent more suffering for elderly people, their families and other patients.
She also demanded all-party talks on the future of the NHS and social care. “We are at a tipping point,” she said. “We are seeing indications of the great stresses in the system and these need addressing now.”
Underfunded and overstretched – the crisis in care for the elderly
The Observer’s investigation reveals that the landmark government scheme designed to relieve the strain on overcrowded hospitals – the Better Care Fund – is failing to deliver its aims of keeping older people healthy at home and so cutting “bedblocking”, despite £4bn a year being poured into it.
Theresa May and the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, have repeatedly claimed that the fund, and a separate policy of allowing councils to raise more money for social care by increasing council tax, are jointly addressing the spiralling problems in social care.
Responses to freedom of information requests submitted to 151 local councils reveal that in England 58% of targets for improving care in people’s homes and local communities were missed.
In another blow to ministers, new figures from the King’s Fund think-tank show English councils will raise just a fraction of the sums required to plug gaps in their budgets by increasing council tax bills. …
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/10/tory-plans-making-social-care-worse
Click here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08401p5/sunday-politics-south-west-11122016
for more on the Bermuda … whoops … Golden Triangle LEP described by one MP as a “pig’s ear” … (with Sajid David denying saying something that it is shown he said)
Angela Peddar of the [Lack of] Success Regime saying that it has no plans to cut anything … and then talks about cutting services …
Bringing back fox-hunting (so important in this crisis-ridden world …
and more promises on rail lines and avoiding flooding.
Best get a stiff drink first … it isn’t pretty.
25 March 2015 extraordinary Meeting regarding Relocation:
‘Councillor Moulding emphasised the cost savings that would be achieved and highlighted key figures:
• The Knowle Site offer price agreed is £7-8m • Exmouth Town Hall modernisation will cost in the region of £1m • New Offices at Honiton will cost in the region of £7m • The Council will secure relocation in total for under £10m’
So it’s a £669,000 increase, not £408,000.
A 69% increase in costs in less than two years, without a brick being laid!
Owl THINKS these are the current choices:
Heart of the South West LEP – except Exeter, East Devon and Exeter are refusing to play. Does not include an elected mayor at present.
Greater South West – proposed by Communities Minister Sajid David – which seems to stretch from Dorset in the east, Somerset to the north and Cornwall in the south – and any other bits left out of other Devolution deals around that area. Does include an elected mayor.
Greater Exeter Travel to Work Area – East Devon, Exeter, Mid-Devon and Teignbridge – as proposed at the secretive Greater Exeter Visioning Board. Silent about whether it includes an elected mayor.
All permutations include adding unelected business people and a single focus – economic growth.
No-one seems to have put a simple unitary Devon in the melting pot, or a unitary combination chosen from a Devon/Cornwall/Dorset pick-and-mix. Nor has anyone spelled out the constitutional basis for these changes.
But it’s probably only a matter of time!
Could it be more complicated? Hardly.
Will it get sorted so that it benefits anyone but big businesses? Answers on a postcard to Paul Diviani, Leader, East Devon District Council!
“A ‘GOLDEN Triangle’ of local authorities could lead South Devon to a new and prosperous future with government investment running into hundreds of millions of pounds.
That’s the belief of Torbay Council ruling Conservative Group leader David Thomas who has confirmed that very preliminary talks have been held to change the way councils are run in South Devon and the county.
Under the new structure Torbay and Plymouth would unite and then invite Exeter to join the devolution party as a ‘real Trinity’ for the future.
But one politician reportedly against a new ‘super’ South Devon council is Torbay mayor Gordon Oliver who has decided to snub the talks. He is believed to be still firmly behind working with Devon County Council who, with other partners, have already submitted a devolution bid of their own.
Cllr Thomas revealed: “I had a phone call to ask if I would attend an informal meeting of the chief executives and leaders of Torbay, Plymouth and Exeter councils.
“The leader in Torbay is Mayor Oliver. I was asked as leader of the majority group because anything that moves forward will be a council decision.
“Once I was invited the mayor made it clear that that he did not wish to attend the meeting. He sent out an email saying he was not attending and that he did not want to deal with Exeter and Plymouth. He was only interested in a Devon unitary authority.”
“The deal that we would look at bidding for would be £1billion for the local economy and it would bring decision making into the South West.
“”This could be the opportunity for a Golden Triangle, a real trinity. I can only speak for Torbay. The only way this can work is if the two unitariies, Torbay and Plymouth, work together. Exeter can be asked to join shortly afterwards. Any other districts may be part and parcel of this.”
He said under the new potential deal, the councils will not change. The new authority would sit above. But he said part of the devolution deal is that they would have to have an elected leader, commissionaire or mayor.
Cllr Thomas said: “These are very early days, but the rules of the game as set out by the government minister is that if you want devolution powers you have to an elected leader. You have to have to have that if you want the Full Monty.”
He claimed some of the local authorities in the Devon/Somerset devolution deal do not want to have an elected mayor at the helm and he added: “My view is why would you not want to investigate the opportunities here?
“I cannot understand why the elected leader or any councillor would not want to investigate this potential route on the table. We all know the problems we have in Torbay including deprivation and declining budgets. This is an opportunity to resolve some of those issues.”
He said he had spoken to his group and they are ‘on board.’ He said he had also talked to opposition group leaders and, although they have yet to take it to their members, they have said personally the options should be explored.
So, “a route on the table” and he’s on board! Imagine if only the 3 councils ganged up – where would they have their HQ!
Sajid Javid Speaking on the Exeter University campus in October, said:
“Some in Cornwall see their county as distinct from the rest of the region, a special case that should be handled separately from everywhere east of the Tamar.
Some in Poole and Bournemouth associate themselves more closely with Southampton, Portsmouth and the M3 corridor than with rural Dorset.
And then there the traditional, often historic, rivalries and tensions that you find in any region.
One county looking down on another.
A smaller one mistrusting a larger neighbour.
Urban areas versus rural ones.
And so on.
If we’re going to make a success of the South West, that whole attitude has to change.
And that’s why today’s conference is so important.
It’s about recognising that this region can achieve MORE TOGETHER THAN APART.
About long-term strategic thinking and planning that benefits everyone – NOT PROMOTING ONE AREA AT THE EXPENSE OF ANOTHER.”
He was speaking at the creation of the “South West Growth charter Group” (spearheaded by leadership of the Pennon Group, owners of the utility company South West Water). Encouraged, this group pulled together a charter for the South West covering all the four counties in a matter of days and sent it to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Javid) ahead of the autumn statement.
This strongly suggest that neither the Exeter and Plymouth nor the Heart of the South West bids might be going anywhere (one is too parochial, the other hasn’t got a mayor). $64,000 question is who will get how much from the £191 million allocated to South West LEP in the autumn statement?
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/a-south-west-that-works-for-everybody
PS Can anyone explain to Owl why the head of the local monopoly water company with its captive customers and charging astronomic bills is the right choice to lead a regional growth plan?
Robert Vint, South Hams Lib Dem, DCC:
“We’re slowly piecing this together… Apparently Exeter City, Plymouth City & East Devon Council don’t want to be part of the HOTSW scheme and want to set up their own unitary authority – presumably with their own unitary Mayor. South Hams have apparently just been invited to join but West Devon have not. John Tucker says that SHDC [South Hams District Council] have not been involved in these discussions but that Torbay City and Teignbridge Council have. It seems odd that all the South Devon councils except South Hams & West Devon knew about this. There’s apparently a meeting of chairs of councils today where this will all come up. All very cloak & dagger!!”
BBC Spotlight just now (iPlayer soon and probably at 6 pm)
Martyn Oates reported many councillors angry that they had no idea of the “southern Devon” supermayor bid.
AND, he said, there was an attempt to get unanimous approval of a bid to retain the current Devon and Somerset LEP which Plymouth and Exeter refused to support.
Spotlight: BBC Spotlight today
East Devon Watch 