Category Archives: Transparency

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Nov 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Sovereignty, Transparency

English devolution: 4 deficits and “unelected dictatorship”

In an article on the London School of Economics website by Bob Hudson, a Professor in the Centre for Public Policy and Health, University of Durham, he argues that the current process has four major deficits and goes i to detail about each one. The four are:

Democratic Deficit
Constitutional Deficit
Financial Deficit
Strategic Deficit

An interesting comment on the article from Malcolm Bell reads:

“The whole trend in contemporary government is to suppress democracy and impose control by unelected elites. The principle is established in the EU where the commission trumps the elected Parliament. Devolution to the regions is intended to develop this theme. The British government is rapidly changing to decision-making in the increasingly remote “executive” as the House loses control. It used to be said that we had an elected dictatorship, that is rapidly being replaced by an unelected dictatorship of the elite. Accountability is almost entirely a thing of the past, this is not accidental but deliberate policy.”

So much for sovereignty of Parliament!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Nov 2016

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Exmouth, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, KPMG, Section 106, Transparency

Is a cost over-run of £1.1 million or £10 million more serious than a Section 106 loss of £250,000?

Owl asks because an elector successfully petitioned EDDC’s external auditor over Section 106 discrepancies. A sample found a wrongly-attributed bill of some £400,000 and an uncollected sum of around £250,000. As a result, the auditors have requested many changes in procedures:

Click to access item-12-management-of-s106-contributions-report.pdf

Now we hear at Cabinet this week that, in two years, development costs for Exmouth seafront have risen from £1.5 million to £3.2 million. Yet Cabinet apparently found this totally acceptable and, without detailed figures, nodded it through with no explanation of:

– what did the £1.5 million cover

and

– what does the extra £1.6 million cover.

Added to this, the projected cost of HQ relocation has risen from cost-neutral (zero due to sale of Knowle HQ for around £7 million) it is now said to be nearly £10 million – or at least that was figure a few months ago.

These are eye-watering numbers yet majority party councillors and auditors (internal and external) appear unconcerned.

Some scrutiny (internal and external) needed here, Owl thinks.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Nov 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Coastal communities, Consultation, EDDC, Exmouth, Moirai Exmouth project, Philip Skinner, Regeneration, Transparency

Laura Freeman’s speech at the Exmouth seafront march – Skinner where are you?

““In April this year, just over 4,500 Exmouth people voted yes in a Town Poll. We voted yes for independent, public consultation. This means that we told East Devon District Council – and anyone else listening – that we want to have a say in what happens on our seafront.

“We came out in huge numbers, despite none of the usual help that comes with a general or council election. We came out despite the fact that polling stations were only open for a very, small space of time. Some of us even went out prior to voting, to stand around town – in all weathers – to tell people about the poll, as many people didn’t even know what was going on.

“And what’s happened since the poll in April? Nothing. Why are we being ignored? Ignored by the very people we elect. Well, that’s just not good enough. Today, we have sent a message to East Devon District Council. We have said “We will not be ignored. Our views are important.” East Devon District Council, you need to listen to us.

“We live here. We work here. Some of us will have grown up in this town like generations before, and others will have moved here for a better life or opportunity. When people feel they are being ignored, they shout louder. And that’s what we are doing here today. We are shouting louder!

“Now for those who don’t know, there is a group of people at East Devon District Council who are responsible for the development of this site on the seafront. They are the ‘Exmouth Regeneration Board’. The Chair of this board is Councillor Philip Skinner. We asked Councillor Skinner to come today, along with all East Devon District Councillors and all Exmouth Town Councillors.

“Now, we’ve asked Councillor Skinner to meet with the public before, but this has proven a very tricky task. Actually, we’ve been asking him for months. But he just cannot seem to find any time for meeting with the public. Though, we will still keep trying!

“Councillor Skinner, we hope that you – as someone who can influence something that affects our lives so much – will still come and meet with the people of Exmouth, to answer questions we have, and discuss our ideas and concerns. But with the demolition of assets, closing of businesses and loss of jobs, I’m sure everyone here today will all agree with me, that this meeting with Councillor Skinner must happen soon. There is urgency in this situation.

“So, thank you all for coming here today, standing side-by-side with other members of your community.

“We have shown East Devon District Council that we will take to the streets when they refuse to listen to us through official platforms.

“In a few weeks’ times, on Thursday, December 1, we are having an SES meeting at 7.30pm in the Harbour View Cafe. I really hope many of you will be there. I know that together we can create some great ideas to sort through this situation, and help to protect, as well as enhance, this town we call home.

“Oh, and before I finish, please show your support for the businesses still trading on the proposed development site, The Crazy Golf Course is open today, so go and have a play! And also pop along to the Harbour View Cafe for a nice hot cup of tea and cake! Thank you so much!”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/save_exmouth_seafront_speech_by_laura_freeman_1_4773423

Well done, Laura!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Nov 2016

Posted under

Coastal communities, Consultation, EDDC, Exmouth, Moirai Exmouth project, Philip Skinner, Regeneration, Transparency

Exmouth seafront demonstration: video

Just in case EDDC or a local newspaper tries to give the impression of only a handful of protesters today, here is a video which disproves it.

https://www.facebook.com/Exmouthsplash/?ref=br_rs

and here:
http://m.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/save-exmouth-seafront-campaigners-stage-protest-march-over-redevelopment-plans/story-29889839-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Nov 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Police (local), Scrutiny, Spin, Transparency

“Police yet to quiz Exeter’s crime tsar as inquiry into election expenses draws to close”

“Police have still not even asked for a date to interview Police and Crime Commissioner Alison Hernandez about expenses for the general election campaign, her chief of staff has revealed.

Ms Hernandez, who was criticised for taking a “selfie” with the chief fire officer at the scene of the Exeter fire last week, is set to be interviewed following a complaint about alleged false accounting, following her role as the Conservative Party election agent in Torbay MP Kevin Foster’s victorious campaign in 2015.

The allegations relate to expenses for the Tory “Battle Bus”, which brought activists to constituencies from outside the area with leaflets and are thought to have helped swing the vote.

Cornwall MPs Scott Mann and George Eustice are among those caught up in the investigations, which are continuing.

The issue has dogged the PCC since the story broke days before her own election victory in May by a narrow margin.

She has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and insists she stands ready and willing to assisst any investigation.

Andrew White, chief executive of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) said the investigation in Devon and Cornwall by West Mercia police was expected to conclude in weeks but no request has been made to speak to the commissioner.

Mr White, who I referred allegations about election expenses and potential breaches of electoral law on expenses in the Torbay constituency, said: “I am informed by the IPCC that the investigation is progressing. It is expected that the investigation should conclude by November this year. I can confirm that West Mercia Police have not yet requested an interview with the PCC, Alison Hernandez.”

“Following the investigation, a report will be presented to the IPCC and a decision will be made whether the case should be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS),” Mr White added

“This investigation is one of a number of similar investigations being undertaken across the country.

“I will issue further updates as and when any relevant information, that I am allowed to disclose by the relevant bodies, becomes available.”

It emerged last month that Chief Constable Shaun Sawyer was also under investigation after comments he made about diverting police resources to deal with the inquiry.

The remarks which have got Mr Sawyer into hot water were made in a BBC interview, when he said that although “democracy is important” Parliament needed to consider procedures for dealing with complaints about the way elections are run.

“This is taking up police time,” he said. “It is taxpayers’ money.”

Adrian Sanders, who made the complaint, has said that it was not for the chief constable to make such comments.

“You can’t make statements like that unless you have some background detail,” he told the BBC.

“He’s not in a position to know that detail, especially when it’s his boss who is the subject of investigation.”

In a statement, the chief constable denied any wrongdoing and said he would cooperate fully with the investigation.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/police-yet-to-quiz-exeter-s-crime-tsar-as-inquiry-into-election-expenses-draws-to-close/story-29884683-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Nov 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Audit (EDDC), EDDC, KPMG, Scrutiny, Transparency

EDDC 2015/2016 accounts still not signed off by external auditors

Report from external auditors KPMG (page 10 of agenda papers). The auditors original statement was that they hoped to have concluded the outstanding matter by the end of October 2016. This has obviously not been possible.

“We received an objection to the Authority’s financial statements from a local elector. We are currently concluding the outcome of our work on the matters raised and, until this is completed, we are unable to issue our certificate. Once issued, the certificate will confirm that we have concluded the audit for 2015/16 in accordance with the requirements of the Local Audit & Accountability Act 2014 and the Code of Audit Practice.
We will report separately on the outcome of the objection to the Authority’s Audit & Governance Committee.”

The matter is now pushed on to the next Audit and Governance Committees on 5 January 2017. (page 42 of agenda):

Click to access 171116combined-a-and-gagenda.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Nov 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Freedom of Information Act, Spin, Transparency

Comments

2 Comments

Government reject former Cabinet MP’s FoI request for report he commissioned!

“As Energy Secretary, he was a target for journalists wielding the Freedom of Information Act.

Now, after being ousted from Parliament in the May 2015 general election, Sir Ed Davey has been forced to resort to using the transparency legislation himself – in an attempt to read a report he commissioned.

But, in a dark twist, civil servants, who just 18 months ago worked with him, have rejected his FOI request asking them to publish a study on the true costs of different electricity sources.

The former Lib Dem cabinet member has accused the Government of “an abuse of power” after it rejected his FOI request to publish the Frontier Economics study into the true costs of different electricity sources, which was submitted to ministers by the consultancy at the start of this year.

Responding to Sir Ed’s requests, the Government acknowledged a public interest in publishing the report but said it would do so “in due course” when it could provide “sufficient context”.

“The excuse for this delay is clearly self-serving nonsense,” Sir Ed said. “It’s an independent report that can stand alone without any spin from Conservative ministers.”…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/05/access-denied-government-rejects-sir-ed-daveys-request-for-energ/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Nov 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Councillor Marianne Rixon EDA, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Independent Councillors, Local Plan, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Spin, Transparency

Sidford employment land victim of “electioneering”

District council chiefs who voted to remove Sidford’s controversial 12-acre employment site from a strategic plan were in fact powerless to enforce the decision, a campaigner has been told.

Councillor Marianne Rixson last week questioned why – after the decision was made unanimously in March 2015 – officers were never instructed to submit a ‘flood of new evidence’ to put it into action. Despite the last-ditch vote to have it removed, a Government planning inspector later ruled the allocation must remain in East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) Local Plan.

The answer to Cllr Rixson’s question, given at last Wednesday’s full EDDC meeting, confirmed the instruction was never given to remove the allocation from the plan – because a public inquiry was already under way.

Members heard that officer advice would have been to allow the planning inspector, who led the inquiry, to ‘reach his own conclusions’.

Last week’s meeting heard: “Members’ resolution to remove the allocation from the plan was, and could only ever have been, a suggestion to the inspector as, following its submission for examination, the council no longer had the power to make changes to it.

“There was, therefore, no opportunity to submit evidence to support this change, however, even if there had been, the evidence produced up to that point had supported its allocation and it is likely that any future evidence would have reached the same conclusion.”

Cllr Rixson, a long-time campaigner against the allocation who was elected last May, said the Conservative-majority council only took the vote because it felt threatened by her and her East Devon Alliance colleagues.

She said: “The final comment [above] confirms our suspicions that EDDC never changed its mind about the Sidford site being in the Local Plan.

“Voting to ‘remove it’ was purely an electioneering stunt just before the district council elections in 2015.”

An application to develop the employment site into a 9.3-acre business park was refused in September, although EDDC bosses said they remain committed to its development.

Cllr Rixson added: “The recent refusal of the application to develop the site exposed significant planning policies that should have been considered when the Local Plan was being drawn up.

“The outstanding question is why they did not come to the fore when they could have made an impact on the Local Plan?”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/vote_to_remove_sidford_employment_site_electioneering_1_4761216

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Nov 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Audit (EDDC), Austerity cuts, Council tax, Developers/ Development, Greater Exeter, Planning System, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Sustainability, Transparency

Black holes and green fields

Comment reproduced from post below:

The leaderships approach to finances over the last decade or more has been driven by a single-minded dogma to avoid any rise in council tax, even to match inflation. They have achieved this by relying not only on the government’s normal grant, but also on the government’s New Homes Bribe (ooops, Bonus – which gives payments for 6 years for each house built) which in turn has driven the mind-boggling growth numbers in the East Devon Local Plan which could easily see overall growth of more than 35% – YES THAT IS NOT A TYPO, I DO MEAN GROWTH OF HOMES OF MORE THAN A THIRD – over the period of the current Local Plan.

(Imagine all the buildings in East Devon – in Exmouth, Budleigh, Sidmouth, Seaton, Axminster, Honiton, etc. etc. – all lumped together – that’s a lot of land built on. Now take a third of that huge area, and imagine all the green fields in East Devon that will need to be built upon to make that happen, a lot of which will be in our AONBs. That is the EDDC Conservative vision for East Devon.)

Anyway, back to the finances. So EDDC’s future financial plans were predicated on large income from the New Homes Bonus. But George Osborne introduced an austerity regime which decided to abolish not only the normal grant but also the New Homes Bonus, so now the EDDC’s finances have a huge hole in them (made worse of course by the vanity projects they are undertaking like the no-longer-cost-neutral move from the Knowle).

And that is why we have seen a 4% increase in Council tax this year, and likely to see further increases in council tax way above inflation in the next few years.

Fortunately (????!!!!!), the government has thrown EDDC a lifeline by deciding to allow councils to keep all the local business rates as revenue – so we are now seeing EDDC allowing dubious business developments approved (like the recent Greendale application – submitted by a generous donor to the local Conservatives) and we should expect this to ramp up as the cash flow from the New Homes Bonus runs down.

Now back to the mental picture of 1/3 growth in homes – take the amount of land you have pictured for new homes, and add to it a significant growth in industrial buildings (like Sidford and Greendale). Terrifying isn’t it.

Of course, if you take have been watching EDDC’s actions, you will know that they have already rationalised this by joining (without any consultation with the public or indeed councillors) with Exeter City Council and Teignbridge District Council to form so called Greater Exeter. Think of Greater London and Greater Manchester and you will get the picture – huge sprawling joined up conurbations, with extensive suburbs to feed the businesses in the city centre. We are already seeing assaults on the green wedges that separate our towns and villages – so this is not as far from reality as you might think.

So there you have it. A double whammy – huge increases in Council Tax whilst rampant developments start to cover our beautiful countryside and Exeter grows exponentially in order to meet the huge Local Plan targets for new homes.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Nov 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), Planning System, Spin, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

“Ministers on course to miss target of selling enough public land for 160,000 new homes by 2020”

“The Public Accounts Committee said the Government will have to order a “significant acceleration in the last years of the programme” to sell land for the remaining 149,000 homes still to be built, over the next three and a half years.

Officials in charge of the policy at the Department for Communities and Local Government had “taken their eye off the ball” before the last election, they said.

The MPs said the Government’s plans to build 160,000 new homes between 2015 and 2020 were “back-loaded, which increases the risk that government will not meet its commitment”.

The Government told the MPs that only enough land for 8,380 new homes – five per cent of the total – had been sold.

They said the “slow start to the new programme” was either because they “took their eye off the ball at the end of the previous programme that ran up to 2015 or are struggling to find suitable sites”.

Meg Hillier MP, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said: “There is a desperate need for new homes and public land is an irreplaceable asset.

“Taxpayers clearly have a right to know whether they are getting a good deal from its sale and how many homes are being built as a result.

“Sluggish sales have hindered progress towards the 2020 target while questions continue to hang over the potential of many sites earmarked for sale and whether homes will be in the places people want to live.

“Ultimately the public will judge the success of this programme on the basis of the homes built and the Government must make clear who taxpayers should hold to account for this.”

Earlier this year the Government was criticised after it emerged that officials were not required to keep track of whether new homes were actually being built on public land sold for housing.

It then emerged in January this year that only 1,800 new homes had built on public land out of the 109,000 promised by former Prime Minister David Cameron in 2011.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/02/ministers-on-course-to-miss-target-of-selling-enough-public-land/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Nov 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Housing (local), Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

EDDC planning leaflet on what to do if build quality of new homes is bad

Cabinet meeting 9 November 2016, 17.30
Agenda Item 10

“Cabinet are asked to defer a decision on recommendation Minute 13 Recommendation 2 “that the Officers consider the resource and
financial implications for EDDC on the production of a leaflet giving advice to purchasers of new homes, on options available to them if issues arise regarding the quality of the build”; until further research has been undertaken by the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management.”

Click to access 091116combinedcabagenda-sm.pdf

QUESTION: Isn’t Building Control supposed to pick up poor build quality?
QUESTION: Should local authority searches identify poor quality buildings if the local authority knows this is the case?
QUESTION: Where are these poor quality homes and why are they not being identified?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Nov 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Asset sweating, Austerity cuts, Developers/ Development, EDDC Monitoring Officer, Exmouth, Moirai Exmouth project, Regeneration, Scrutiny, Transparency

Comments

3 Comments

Exmouth/ EDDC: more of our money down the drain

“A report has highlighted that costs for Exmouth’s Queen’s Drive project have now more than doubled – from £1.5 million to £3.1 million.

The figures come as East Devon District Council (EDDC) continue looking for “fresh ideas” for the biggest chunk of the nine-acre development site – after sacking the previous developer, Moirai, over the summer.

They say they will be consulting with residents, businesses and tourists for this ‘third phase’ of the Queen’s Drive site in Exmouth.

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/costs-double-for-exmouth-s-in-limbo-queens-drive-development/story-29858563-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Nov 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Development Management Committee, EDDC, Housing (local), Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, PegasusLife, Transparency

Residents want clarification of Knowle housing designation

An EDDC spokesperson says it will be up to the DMC to decide classification but then says there are legal aspects to be considered.

The DMC are laypersons- surely they are not qualified to take such decisions?

“District chiefs have yet to decide how the use of a proposed 115-home retirement community at Knowle should be classified.

The Knowle Residents’ Association this week called for clarity on the matter. Householders say that, if the development ends up classed as ‘C3’ – housing – developer PegasusLife will need to either include ‘affordable’ homes on-site, or pay towards them.

If it is care accommodation [C2], the group says the development will be even further from the 50 homes the site is allocated in East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) Local Plan.

Residents’ association chairman Kelvin Dent said the group is ‘amazed’ the authority has not decided what use class the development falls into. He added: “Our view is that the application is akin to housing – albeit with the occupants of the proposed apartments being able to purchase a package of care to suit their needs.

“Under planning law, this equates to a C3 use and PegasusLife will be obliged to provide social housing as part of their development or to make a substantial financial contribution towards the social housing that Sidmouth desperately needs and support for the local community.

“We look forward to receiving confirmation from EDDC that they agree and will be helping local young people to find a home.”

A spokeswoman for EDDC – which intends to relocate from the Knowle HQ to Exmouth and Honiton – said officers had been working on the basis that the development’s use would be C2.

She added: “However, officers have been considering whether the form and layout of the proposed development and the manner in which it is proposed to operate would constitute a C2 use or not.

“In considering this issue, officers have been, and continue to consider, the views expressed by residents and relevant case-law.”

The spokeswoman said the officers’ conclusions on PegasusLife’s application will likely be presented to EDDC’s development management committee (DMC) on December 6. The agenda will be published 10 days beforehand.

She added: “Ultimately, a decision on this issue is for the members of DMC to make.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/residents_call_for_clarity_over_future_knowle_use_1_4756297

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 Oct 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Hinkley C, Transparency

BBC Inside Out – Exeter Fire and Hinkley safety concerns

When on iPlayer, worth watching tonight’s Inside Out (BBC)- a brief overview of the Royal Clarence Hotel fire and interviews about the safety of the current Hinkley nuclear reactors where there may well be serious cracks in the structure and graphite blocks weakening around the nuclear rods in a plant at the end of its useful life.

EDF says on the programme that cracks should be ok till “at least 2023” which is very reassuring! And that it wants to be allowed to work with 20% cracks and not the current 10%.

The debate on this will continue on Radio 4’s “Costing the Earth” at 3 pm tomorrow (Tuesday).

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Oct 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Freedom of Information and EIA, Hinkley C, Transparency

“Secret government papers show taxpayers will pick up costs of Hinkley nuclear waste storage”

“Taxpayers will pick up the bill should the cost of storing radioactive waste produced by Britain’s newest nuclear power station soar, according to confidential documents which the government has battled to keep secret for more than a year.

The papers confirm the steps the government took to reassure French energy firm EDF and Chinese investors behind the £24bn Hinkley Point C plant that the amount they would have to pay for the storage would be capped.

The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy – in its previous incarnation as the Department for Energy and Climate Change – resisted repeated requests under the Freedom of Information Act for the release of the documents which were submitted to the European commission.

“The government has attempted to keep the costs to the taxpayer of Hinkley under wraps from the start,” said Dr Doug Parr, Greenpeace chief scientist. “It’s hardly surprising as it doesn’t look good for the government’s claim that they are trying to keep costs down for hardworking families.”

But, earlier this month, on the very last day before government officials had to submit their defence against an appeal for disclosure of the information, the department released a “Nuclear Waste Transfer Pricing Methodology Notification Paper”. Marked “commercial in confidence”, it states that “unlimited exposure to risks relating to the costs of disposing of their waste in a GDF [geological disposal facility], could not be accepted by the operator as they would prevent the operator from securing the finance necessary to undertake the project”.

Instead the document explains that there will be a “cap on the liability of the operator of the nuclear power station which would apply in a worst-case scenario”. It adds: “The UK government accepts that, in setting a cap, the residual risk, of the very worst-case scenarios where actual cost might exceed the cap, is being borne by the government.”

Separate documents confirm that the cap also applies should the cost of decommissioning the reactor at the end of its life balloon. …”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/30/hinkley-point-nuclear-waste-storage-costs?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Oct 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Consultation, East Devon Alliance, Honiton/ Gittisham, NHS (local), Transparency

Honiton NHS bed closure “consultation” meeting 10 November 2016

Beehive

10.00 – 12.30

Please register to guarantee your place.
Call 01392 356 084 or email d-ccg.YourFutureCare@nhs.net.

For more details see:
https://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk/event/nhs-future-care-consultation-beehive-honiton/

Honiton is to be left with no beds at all in current plans, so it is hard to see what the town is being consulted about.

So far, EDDC top brass have issued watered-down, anodyne statements about the situation, so you might want to quiz your Tory district councillors BEFORE this meeting.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Oct 2016

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Environment (local), Exmouth, Freedom of Information Act, Transparency

EDDC: Can’t tell us what they did – because someone else did it for them and they have no paperwork!

THIS IS HOW EDDC DEALS WITH MANY OF OUR FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS – A MASTERPIECE OF LAME EXCUSES, AVOIDANCE AND POSSIBLY WORSE.

The implication in the correspondence below raises serious questions.

1. EDDC does not appear to check what a third-party has done on its behalf.
2. It does not seem to ask for proof that the third party has done the work.
3. It seems to allow work that needs legal clearance to go ahead on the basis of 1 and 2 above with seemingly no proof that it IS legal.

FIRST YOU MAKE A CLEAR REQUEST:

Dear East Devon District Council,

“Following Cllr Moulding’s statement of today’s date (28.09.16) on BBC Radio Devon, that EDDC had ‘used a badger expert, and applied for the relevant license from Natural England’, in respect of the badgers identified as living on the site of the Jungle Fun and Crazy Golf, on The Queen’s Drive, Exmouth, I would like to request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Environmental Information Regulations 2004, the following additional information:

1. When were badgers first identified as living on the Jungle Fun and crazy golf site?
2. On what date was the ‘badger expert’, Dr. Brown, enlisted by EDDC in respect of the badgers on the Jungle fun and crazy golf site, and what was his brief?
3 – Please provide Dr. Brown’s report pertaining to the badgers on the Jungle Fun and crazy golf site in full.
4. On what date was a license to interfere with a sett applied for with Natural England?
5. Please provide full details of the application made (the original application form and all attached material, and any relevant communications).
6. On what date, if at all, was this license granted?
7. Following the Radio Devon report in which it was stated permission had been given to move the badgers to a new site, please confirm that date on which that has, or will, happen, and any related documentation.

Yours faithfully,”

THEN EDDC GIVES YOU A REPLY ON SOME POINTS – WITH CRUCIAL INFORMATION MISSING ON THE REST – THIS TIME SAYING IT IS BECAUSE ANOTHER ORGANISATION MADE THE APPLICATION ON THEIR BEHALF AND THEY HAVEN’T SEEN WHAT THAT ORGANISATION ASKED FOR OR THE LICENCE THAT ORGANISATION SAYS IT GOT FOR THEM:

[Points 1-3 are answered]

“… In respect of parts (4-7) of your request, the application was made on behalf of the council and we do not hold a copy of the application or
licence itself.”

SO YOU ASK AGAIN – ANOTHER DELAY FOR UP TO 20 DAYS TILL THEY REPLY

“I would like to further request under the FOI act 200 and Environmental Regulations Act 2004:

1 – Who made the application of behalf of the Council.
2 – On what date did they make this application.
3 – As the requested application was made on behalf of the Council I would like to re-request a copy of the original application, as I believe this is ‘information held by another person on behalf of the authority’, which as stated in the ICO report (https://ico.org.uk/media/1148/informatio… ) , is held for the purposes of the FOI act.”

A smell of badger poo somewhere?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Oct 2016

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Freedom of Information Act, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, PegasusLife, Scrutiny, Transparency

EDDC’s knuckles thrashed three times by Information Commissioner

From Save our Sidmouth website today. Coruscating condemnation of their secrecy over Knowle relocation.

“Knowle relocation project: BREAKING NEW

Information Commissioner tells East Devon District Council to publish documentation

News just in that the ICO have released three Decision Notices. They will be available on their website shortly:

https://search.ico.org.uk/ico/search/decisionnotice

Meanwhile, here is an overview:

Case: FER0626901
Pegasus agreement re Knowle

The ICO are telling EDDC to come up with all of this:

“I would like the Council to disclose the details of the agreement it has entered into with Pegasus for the Knowle site.
I would like to see the full, unredacted version of the agreement.
I understand that the information at issue would not be exploited by a competitor and that disclosure would not place either party at a commercial disadvantage.
All parties, including Pegasus, will have known that they would be subject to the FOIA when the agreement was signed.
To reiterate, I would like the full publication of the commercial terms of the agreement.
I would like you to provide me with all of the documentation I have requested: in their original electronic versions and not in their scanned versions.”

From: Pegasus agreement re Knowle – a Freedom of Information request to East Devon District Council – WhatDoTheyKnow

Case: FER0608237
Projected maintenance costs for relocation project

The ICO say EDDC don’t have to produce spreadsheets but have to publish the following re the new-build at Honiton:

“To disclose the price that the developer is prepared to pay for the land from the cash flow documents which the council withheld.”

The ‘Conclusions’ are interesting, however:

“53. There is a public interest in protecting the public purse, in this case this is balanced in this case against the public interest in allowing the public to scrutinise the council’s decisions and financial assumptions about the project to develop new offices for itself. This latter aspect clearly raises the level of transparency which would be expected as the council could be seen to be spending public money on its own facilities, for its own purposes. It has argued that it needs to change offices as overall, doing so would save the public money compared to staying in its current offices. The public however cannot know whether this is true without further information being open for them to scrutinise.”

With ref to:
Projected maintenance costs for relocation project – a Freedom of Information request to East Devon District Council – WhatDoTheyKnow

Case: FER0623403
Decision process which led to the award of the conditional contract with Pegasus re Knowle

The ICO are telling EDDC to come up with the last from this list – EDDC having given the first 5, but not the 6th:

“I request information on the decision to award a contract to PegasusLife for the development of the Knowle site in Sidmouth, including, but not limited to:
1. Bid documentation provided to prospective bidders;
2. process for and criteria for selection of successful bidder;
3. Number of organisations who expressed an interest in bidding;
4. Number of organisations who submitted a bid;
5. Names of organisations who submitted a bid;
6. Minutes of meetings and correspondence on the subject.”

From:
Decision process which led to the award of the conditional contract with Pegasus re Knowle – a Freedom of Information request to East Devon District Council – WhatDoTheyKnow