Interesting exchange of emails regarding the contract for Knowle between EDDC and Pegasus:
You can see why the Conservatives want to water down the Freedom of Information Act.
Category Archives: Transparency
“The public law obligation to conduct fair consultation”
“In the recent case of Moseley v Haringey, the Supreme Court considered the necessary ingredients of proper consultation by a local authority. The Court endorsed a set of six requirements. It remains to be seen how the requirements set out in this case will translate across other types public authority consultation.
Moseley concerned the introduction of a new Scheme for council tax relief in Haringey. The council had consulted residents on their draft Scheme, as required by statute. The appellants successfully argued that the council’s consultation had, incorrectly, assumed that the council’s preferred approach was the only option available. Alternative approaches were not set out in the consultation documents, and they should have been, if only to explain why they were not appropriate.
Haringey’s consultation exercise was declared unfair and therefore unlawful, but the Court concluded that ordering a fresh consultation would not be proportionate in the circumstances. The Court also highlighted specific statutory duties placed on public authorities from time to time; in this case there had been a duty on the council to ensure public participation in the decision-making process, which Haringey had failed to fulfil.
In carrying out consultations, public authorities must be mindful of both their common law duty of fairness, and their obligations under statute.
Consultation requirements
Amongst other things, the judgment endorses six general principles: the four “Sedley criteria” plus two additional principles arising from wider case law.
So, what are the Sedley criteria? In R v Brent London Borough Council, ex p Gunning it was accepted that the following four “basic requirements are essential if the consultation process is to have a sensible content”:
1. “a consultation must be at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage”
2. “the proposer must give sufficient reasons for any proposal to permit of intelligent consideration and response”
3. “adequate time must be given for consideration and response”
4. “the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account in finalising any statutory proposals”
In addition, the Court also endorsed two further general principles:
5. “the degree of specificity with which, in fairness, the public authority should conduct its consultation exercise may be influenced by the identity of those whom it is consulting.”
Is the public authority consulting e.g. local authorities, or members of the public? The latter and “particularly perhaps the economically disadvantaged” may require the consultation to be laid before them to a greater degree of specificity than the former, in order to be able to respond satisfactorily.
6. “the demands of fairness are likely to be somewhat higher when an authority contemplates depriving someone of an existing benefit or advantage than when the claimant is a bare applicant for a future benefit.” (citing Simon Brown LJ in R v Devon County Council, ex parte Baker [1995] 1 All ER 73).
Whilst the Supreme Court’s approval of these principles provides a helpful steer, it is not clear how they will be applied to consultations with different facts. In addition, Lord Reed stressed that, “The content of a duty to consult can… vary greatly from one statutory context to another… A mechanistic approach to the requirements of consultation should therefore be avoided.”
http://www.bwbllp.com/knowledge/2014/11/04/the-public-law-obligation-to-conduct-fair-consultation/
Westcountry MP on Commons Standards Committee fails to declare massive earnings on time
[Geoffrey Cox MP – Torridge and West Devon] …
is known as one of parliament’s highest earners, and has argued that continuing to practise law alongside his parliamentary duties means he has “practical experience of a world outside politics”.
“According to the latest register of members’ financial interests, Mr Cox received £325,000 on June 15 and 16 this year for 500 hours of work carried out between June 2014 and March 2015.
… Under Commons rules external income needs to be registered within 28 days, but the sum was not declared to the authorities until September 30.”
A number of other payments also appear to have been registered late.”
Two Successes but a thumping Failure for Chardstock at yesterday’s Scrutiny Committee
Two successes for EDA Independent councillors’ campaign for openness and democracy at last night’s EDDC Scrutiny Committee Meeting –and a thumping failure.
At the suggestion of EDA Independent councillor Ben Ingham, the committee unanimously recommended that the shadowy activities of the secretive Asset Management Forum should be dragged into the light. They agreed that Forum meetings from now should be minuted and open to press and public.
They also unanimously approved “best practice” recommendations from a recent Government training session for scrutiny committees.
In fact, EDA Independent councillor Marion Rixson was praised for having already pre-empted the recommendation that individual councillors should do detailed research into topics of concern. Her comparative study of different councils’ management of beach huts was crucial in influencing the EDDC’s recent decision to scrap its plan to auction the rental of its beach huts to the highest bidder.
Sadly the Committee was unable to shine a light on the scandalous Chardstock affair.
Two speakers expressed their frustration and disappointment that the Committee could not scrutinise the dubious way in which their small, isolated community had been declared suitable for large scale development in the Local Plan.
If any village in East Devon in “unsustainable” it’s Chardstock with its few facilities and poor access. The Parish Council thought so, EDDC’s planning officers thought so. But at an Extraordinary Council Meeting on March 25, called to finalise the Local Plan, Chardstock was designated “sustainable”!
Grave doubts have been expressed about the process that led to this astonishing decision. A member of the public, who many assumed was a Chardstock councillor, spoke strongly in favour of designation as sustainable. He was later identified as a developer, not resident in the village.
Deputy Leader Andrew Moulding spoke eloquently in his support – and a majority of the Council agreed to re-designate the unfortunate village.
To many observers, including Independent councillors, this appeared to be a shameful manipulation, and an earlier meeting of the Scrutiny Committee had agreed to investigate the process.
Last night it emerged that the Council’s Legal Officer had advised that the Scrutiny Committee should not discuss the matter until the Inspector had ruled on the Local Plan. By which time it would be impossible to change Chardstock’s designation!
The Legal Officer did not attend, and it was left to a deputy to try justify the decision.
In frustration, one of the Chardstock councillors accused the Committee of kicking the Chardstock scandal “into the long grass”. Chair Roger Giles denied it, and said it would be investigated whenever the Inspector had made his decision.
EDA Independent councillor Cathy Gardner said she was embarrassed to be a member of the Scrutiny Committee which had let down the public.
There’s obviously work to do before all the dark corners of EDDC are open to daylight!
Beach Management and Think Tanks
East Devon councillor Cathy Gardner reports on the EDA website:
“I had some new experiences this week – attending a ‘think tank’ and a Sidmouth Beach Management Plan (BMP) Steering Group meeting. Think Tanks are informal discussions arranged by Portfolio Holders (Cabinet members given specific areas of responsibility like Economy or Tourism). I have no idea yet if there will be any actions as a result of the discussions on Monday (12/10/15) but Officers were present and some good ideas were put forward. The topic of this meeting was how to use grant money that the Council had received for supporting the local economy. The workings of EDDC are becoming clearer, if still frustrating.
The BMP meeting was very informative, although progress seems to have been slow. The Steering Group consists of a range of people, mostly not on EDDC although it is Chaired by Cllr Moulding (Axminster) who is Deputy Leader. An area of concern is Alma Bridge: continued erosion means that another solution will be needed soon. Even so it seems highly likely that the coastal path will be diverted over the footbridge at the ford at some point. There does not seem to be any urgency from DCC to start work on a long-term answer (probably with the bridge further inland than it is now). They seem to want to wait until the BMP process advances some more. Another challenge for the BMP is the quality of the data being used to estimate erosion rate. This is a historical problem as good data has only been recorded recently, however the inclusion of data that everyone agreed was wrong seems counter-intuitive. We will have to wait many more months before a plan is drafted and then more months before funding is found to start work.
I hope this insight into the workings of EDDC is informative.”
Beach huts: a very messy “compromise”
Some reading between the lines needed here:
Auctioning leases has NOT been ruled out when 5 year leases are offered ( it is unclear if leases apply to all sites or just Budleigh Salterton and Seaton sites).
Taking out the word “significant” from the original phrase ” significant increase” means nothing.
“Market rents” will be charged.
A typical EDDC non-transparent fudge that only benefits one side: EDDC.
Tenants beware!
Standards in public life – not high enough
” …..In late 2013 Lord Bew, the Chair of the Committee for Standards in Public Life, made a keynote speech for lawyers in local government and observed that:
“the lack of sanctions meant that success of the standards regime is entirely dependent on robust local leadership and ethical championing. This is a fragile balance and we fear those local authorities who are “good at this stuff” will continue to be while others resort to monolithic culture which have in the past had the most difficulty in dealing with issues internally.” (Bew 2013, p.4)
Bew’s view was that it was necessary to establish an open culture in which challenge of poor behaviour is encouraged. He made a further observation at the OEDC Policy Forum that leadership behaviours were established on either:
1. Compliance based systems – that is a well designed and systematically enforced external system of rules; or
2. Integrity based – that is internally driven.
But by dismantling the national body of Standards for England and the Audit Commission, the Government has removed much of the compliance means of control of behaviour. This leaves the integrity based formula. The question is can an integrity based system suffice, if the next election is years away?
Recent research (Feild 2015) confirms that there is widespread concern held regarding misconduct of council leaders and lack of sanctions. The evidence from this research supports an argument that there needs to be a statutory ability of the Secretary of State to intervene where there is failing leadership on standards. As Lord Hanningfield’s credit card expenses case shows and re-inforced by the Tower Hamlets (PwC 2014) and Rotherham Borough Council (Casey 2015) interventions, the authorities concerned were not capable on their own of remedying their failure of leadership.
This sustained a local culture of poor standards. Indeed the research supports the thesis that the Localism Act standards duty in its current form cannot displace a poor local culture. In a nutshell, those organisations were no longer capable of healing themselves and needed external intervention. While there was intervention, it was taken under the Local Government Act 1999 because of a failure to deliver ‘best value’. Yet the failure to deliver was arguably at least equally due to lack of adherence to the Nolan principles rather than just organisational inefficiencies.
In addition, the Local Government Act 1999 intervention arrangements to date are heavily dependent on the use of expensive external expertise. It is unfair that the council tax payers of a failing standards council have to suffer bad governance and then have to pay the cost of the external consultants to tell them of it!
Worse still, adding insult to injury, if there is a finding of poor value or poor administration, there is no power to remove the member(s) from their elected positions or their members’ allowances. So there needs to be a process for dealing with errant members and particularly leaders which includes the power of suspension including allowances and if need be disqualification. This must be located with the Secretary of State via an amended 1999 Act because the Localism Act seems incapable of changing a culture that has set in of poor leadership on standards at the local level.
Time for a change
So what can be done now? There is a consultation being led by the anti-corruption Tsar Sir Eric Pickles to look particularly at the implications of electoral fraud (contact here by 13 October 2015).
The key issue that has prompted this review has much about the consequences of unethical leadership with the reins of power of elected mayors. I suggest we all get involved and tell Sir Eric Pickles your experiences and views for change. In my view the power to intervene needs to be increased before we allow any further power to be transferred from the centre to local leaders, be they powerhouse mayors or Sheriffs. It is not good enough that the intervention is based on “best value”; there needs to be a power to remove errant leaders and their appointees if there is a failure in standards.
Furthermore this responsibility for standards needs to be set out in a functions and responsibilities regulation made under the Local Government Act 2000. It appears that many authorities have simply placed the S.27 (1) 2011 Act promotion of standards responsibility with their now non-statutory standards committee or its successor. Not good enough.
For it to be effective there has to be leadership from the council leader and the chief officers together with full council. Apart from the strong leader measures there is very little legislation directly affecting the council leader, but it is not unknown to place special responsibility on an elected Member, indeed the Children Act 2004 section 19 establishes a ‘lead member for children’s services’. It would seem right to place a similar responsibility on the council leader to be lead member for the promotion and maintenance of high standards of conduct.
Dr Paul Field has just completed his doctorial thesis – How does localism for standards work in practice? The practitioner’s view of local standards post Localism Act 2011. Paul is a local government lawyer.
Why transparency works
Campaign4Change has previously quoted the late Lord Chief Justice Lord Bingham on openness but it’s worth requoting:
“… Modern democratic government means government of the people by the people for the people.
“But there can be no government by the people if they are ignorant of the issues to be resolved, the arguments for and against different solutions and the facts underlying those arguments.
“The business of government is not an activity about which only those professionally engaged are entitled to receive information and express opinions.
“It is, or should be, a participatory process. But there can be no assurance that government is carried out for the people unless the facts are made known, the issues publicly ventilated.
“Sometimes, inevitably, those involved in the conduct of government, as in any other walk of life, are guilty of error, incompetence, misbehaviour, dereliction of duty, even dishonesty and malpractice.
“Those concerned may very strongly wish that the facts relating to such matters are not made public.
“Publicity may reflect discredit on them or their predecessors. It may embarrass the authorities. It may impede the process of administration. Experience however shows, in this country and elsewhere, that publicity is a powerful disinfectant.
“Where abuses are exposed, they can be remedied. Even where abuses have already been remedied, the public may be entitled to know that they occurred.”
… Leaving officers to decide what to tell councillors, hiding away discussions behind locked doors, forcing some councillors to sign confidentiality agreements, and trusting supplier assurances that outsourcing deals don’t really go wrong – it’s all made up by the media – are factors that make outsourcing failure almost inevitable.
And it’s undemocratic for a cabal of officers and councillors to treat one of the council’s most important decisions as a private matter.
Any councillor whose authority is considering a major outsourcing deal may, perhaps, wish to think about all the councillors and officers who have waved enthusiastically from the open window of their train carriage as they headed unknowingly on a track ending at a precipice – councillors and officers from:
– Bedfordshire County Council which paid £7.7m to terminate an unsatisfactory £250m 12-year outsourcing deal prematurely. The then leader of the council, said the decision to end the partnership was to “improve quality and performance”.
– Suffolk County Council which looked to become a “light” organisation and outsource a lot of its duties but found it “simply did not work” according to then leader Mark Bee.
– Sandwell Council which left its planned 15-year partnership with BT, called Transform Sandwell, nine years early. Councillors were unhappy with the service.
– Liverpool Council which said last year it would save £30m over 3 years by ending its outsourcing/joint venture Liverpool Direct with BT.
– Birmingham City Council which plans to end its £1bn outsourcing deal with Capita early and has taken a 500-strong contact centre back in-house.
– Cornwall Council, which is only 2 years into a 10-year outsourcing contract with BT, and says the supplier has not met key performance indicators, and not delivered on jobs promises.
http://ukcampaign4change.com/2015/06/16/sensible-advice-on-plans-to-end-to-10-year-outsourcing-deal/
What is EDDC’s “Members Advisory Panel”? We had to go to Torbay to find out!
Reference is made in the post on Exmouth below to a “Members Advisory Panel”. Efforts to find this on East Devon District Council’s website came to nought, but Owl didn’t stop there – Owl traced a copy to Torbay Council’s website where it appears it may have been used as an illustrative document.
The whole 4 page document is actually titled “EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICE – PRE APPLICATION ADVICE
CUSTOMER CHARTER” and gives very helpful advice to developers (the customers, of course) about how much help the council can give them (and charge for in some cases).
Page 4 gives details of how helpful the “Members advisory Panel” can be. Here is what they say:
“The Council also offers a Members Advisory Panel for major applications. This is a group of senior officers and Councillors and other interested parties who can listen to a presentation from the agent and then through its officers respond in writing. The Council has a protocol for dealing with requests from agents to put a proposal before the MAP. Officers can advise if a particular scheme warrants a submission to the MAP.
The Member’s Planning Advisory Group is comprised of:-
The Chairman of the Development Management Committee.
The Chairman of a possible Policy sub-committee or Policy Champion.
Strategic Planning Portfolio Holder.
Environment Portfolio Holder.
Economy Portfolio Holder – as appropriate
Communities Portfolio Holder as appropriate.
Ward Members.
The system for running this group would be as follows:
(i) Developers to make presentation to Member’s Planning Advisory Group with Officers present.
(ii) Members to have previously acquainted themselves with the site in question by a site visit with Officers.
(iii) Members to ask questions of the Developers, seek clarification, test arguments but not to give any form of view in support or against the proposals.
(iv) Advice on the way forward or changes to be made to the proposal would be provided by the Officers to the Developers in writing following advice from Members in a debate once the developers have left the meeting.
(v) Any Member of the Planning Advisory Group who has a personal or prejudicial interesting the proposal should not form part of the group for that particular site.
E Freeman Development Manager January 2011
Click to access Generating%20Income%20from%20Planning%20Pre-Application%20Advice%20final%20App2.pdf
Seems like a good time for some Freedom of Information requests here – perhaps going back several years …..
Parliamentary Committee on Freedom of Information meets in secret
They seem to have taken a leaf out of East Devon’s (very secret) book:
EDDC confirms that meetings about Exmouth seafront are taking place in secret with no minutes
“You have asked for details of meetings held with Grenadier, Exmouth Bowling Club and NCIS as well as a copy of a presentation to Exmouth Town Council, in relation to the development at Queens Drive, Exmouth.
I am advised that no minutes of the meetings referred to above are held.”
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/meetings_re_the_splash#incoming-716477
The (huge, extra) cost of one party councils
A report from the Electoral Commission states:
Study shows ‘one-party councils’ could be wasting £2.6bn a year in lost procurement savings
University of Cambridge research analyses 132,000 public procurement contracts between 2009 and 2013 to identify ‘red flags’ for corruption
One-party councils have on average 50% higher ‘risk of corruption’ than politically competitive councils
First report to use ‘Big Data’ to look at the financial dangers of single-party authorities
Click to access THE%20COST%20OF%20ONE-PARTY%20COUNCILS.pdf
The lead researcher reports:
“Fazekas said: “The persistence of uncontested seats and one-party dominated councils at the local level is a cause for concern across England in terms of quality of public services, value for money, and government responsiveness to citizen needs. One particular high-risk area is the integrity of government contracting when controls of corruption are weak.
“In modern democracies, one of the main pillars of good government and control of corruption is elections and electoral accountability. The change of political leadership or the risk of such change is expected to discipline holders of political power to use it for the public good rather than their own private benefit.”
And ERS chief executive, Katie Ghose, said: “It’s not true of all one-party councils, but it’s bound to be true of some – and this new research suggests that lack of scrutiny could be costing us dear.
“The fact that taxpayers in England could be losing out on £2.6bn a year in potential savings is a damning indictment of an electoral system that gives huge artificial majorities to parties and undermines scrutiny. This kind of waste would be unjustifiable at the best of times, let alone during a period of austerity.
“The risk of corruption at the local level should set off alarm bells in Whitehall. The public are getting a poor deal through our voting system.”
Josiah Mortimer, communications officer at the ERS, said that a fairer and more proportional electoral system – “such as the one used in Scotland for local elections” – would make one-party councils “a thing of the past”.
The problem is, of course, that one-party councils keep much secret because they are afraid that if we knew what is really going on, they would lose power. Holding on to power (and the inherent or perceived or real risk of corruption is seemingly much more important than governing ethically.
We wonder how many majority party councillors prefer silence about corruption to whistleblowing – too many we suspect.
We also have to question the role of the police in council corruption issues – where often they seem to lack the desire, the will and/ or the resources to make investigations – perhaps wary of covering up their own inadequacies in this area and the disruption of cosy cross- interest relationships which keep the wheels of power oiled.
NHS crisis much bigger than government is letting on
“Government ministers have buried NHS statistics that show the service hurtling towards an unprecedented £2bn deficit to avoid overshadowing the Tory party conference, say top NHS officials.
One senior figure at the health service regulator Monitor said his organisation had been “leaned on” by Whitehall to delay its report, which shows that NHS finances are worsening.
Neither Monitor’s quarterly report on how the NHS is faring, nor equivalent data from the NHS Trust Development Authority (TDA), have been published, as they usually are around the time of the organisations’ board meetings last month. Hospital trusts passed their information to the two regulators two months ago.”
http://gu.com/p/4dxy6?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Well, we all know that the crisis in Devon is being covered up by the fragmented way bad news on bed closures is being fed to the media and residents hospital by hospital over a period of time instead of all at once. And we know that positive spin takes the place of real numbers and total lack of information and transparency in press announcements.
It is never too long before the excrement that hits the air circulation system starts dropping down on us all.
EDDC: an awful lot of Freedom of Information requests pending
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/east_devon_district_council
Hint: the more transparent you are, the fewer Freedom of Information requests people make.
Councillors should not be concerning themselves with Asset Management, says officer
“Donna Best, Principal Estates Surveyor explained the reason behind the Asset Management Forum (AMF) and that most Local Asset Management Forums only consisted of officers and had little if any Councillor representation”
Click to access 030915-amf.pdf
ITS BEEN MEETING WITH OFFICERS AND COUNCILLORS SINCE 2009, AND MS BEST HAS ATTENDED SINCE THEN!
Has it taken her six years to come up with this and an explanation of what she thinks the Asset Management Forum is FOR? And why now, one wonders? Too much of a spotlight on it and a wish to go back to the shadows perhaps – no councillors means no agendas or minutes ..,
EDDC forced to publish formerly secret Asset Management Group agendas and minutes
Re-posted from
eastdevonalliance.ork.uk:
“After a lot of pressure from opposition Councillors and from Freedom of Information requests, EDDC has now published all the Agendas and Minutes of their Asset Management Forum. There are some redactions.
The documents can be found here:
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/committees-and-meetings/asset-management-forum/
Just to remind you that it was at these meetings that the development of Exmouth seafront was discussed and also the proposals for beach huts were developed.”
Only 4% of lobbyists covered by government rules
“Corporate lobbyists who peddle the interests of big business remain shrouded from public scrutiny as lax lobbying regulation increases the risk of corruption in Britain, a scathing new report warns.
Following detailed analysis of figures from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, Transparency International UK (TI UK) found the UK’s lobbying register is “entirely unfit for purpose.”
The think tank, which seeks to fight corruption in all its forms, says the British public is “left in the dark” as unaccountable architects of public-policy mold Britain’s political landscape.”
https://www.rt.com/uk/316185-lobbyists-unregulated-transparency-politics/
“Exmouth Splat?” – report of yesterday’s public meeting
Conservative-led East Devon District Council (EDDC) was branded as undemocratic, secretive and devious at a packed meeting in Exmouth yesterday.
Campaign group Save Exmouth Seafront (SES) called the public meeting in the town’s All Saints Church Hall to fight EDDC’s latest grandiose plans for the redevelopment of Queen’s Drive.
Independent Exmouth councillor Megan Armstrong, SES Acting Chair Louise MacAllister, and SES researcher Tim Todd described the background to the project, known originally as “Exmouth Splash” and a lively, sometimes angry, audience expressed strong opposition to it.
Interesting revelations emerged:
· It was claimed that leading EDDC councillors and officers have a clear agenda to sell Exmouth’s assets to help fill the gaping hole in their revenue caused by Government cuts [and their expensive move from Sidmouth? ed].
· The plans for Exmouth have been hatched in secret meetings where minutes are not taken, the public are excluded, and councillors sworn to secrecy.
· EDDC’s “extensive” consultation is a sham – based on 518 replies to a 2011 publication, and comments from 14 pupils at Exmouth College!
· SES’ own recent survey confirms strong support for keeping the traditional charm of Exmouth seafront and the popular local businesses established there for many years.
· These modest local businesses have been “sabotaged” by EDDC with 12-month leases making investment and expansion difficult so they can be replaced by big outside speculative developers.
· Extensive residential and retail development including a cinema and expensive “attractions” will reduce children’s play areas from over 14000 square metres to about 3000.
· A new Water Sports Centre is planned at the most dangerous point of the beach, and entails a diversion of Queen’s Drive costing one and a half million pounds.
The meeting ended with the SES desks swamped by volunteers eager to help the campaign to reclaim the future of their town from bureaucrats and speculators who have no respect for what makes a place unique, special and loved.
Sidmouth Mill Street “car park” – the latest scandal
“District councillor Matt Booth, a Sidmouth town ward member, said the first he saw of the ‘bombshell’ Mill Street proposals was in the Herald – and claimed the authority showed a ‘lack of transparency’.
Mr Booth claimed: “It has a problem of transparency and accountability – and it can’t go on ignoring that.
“It does a disservice to the councillors and officers who do such fantastic work. It’s also massively disrespectful to us as ward members – we weren’t consulted.”
Cllr Booth said he and Councillor Cathy Gardner had met EDDC chief executive Mark Williams two months ago to talk about how the section 106 funding would be spent. Cllr Booth said they discussed potential affordable housing on the Manstone Depot site or in Woolbrook Road – but claimed Mill Street car park was never mentioned.
An EDDC spokeswoman said: “We would like to emphasise that this is very early days in the decision-making process and that absolutely nothing has yet been agreed.
“There will be a fully transparent and participative debate about how people would like to see this important site used to its best advantage in the tow
And follow Sidmothian conversations here:
http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/the-district-council-developing-mill.html
Colyton: where a committee chair is elected before the comittee is chosen!
Queer goings-on in Colyton where the first public meeting to discuss developing a Neighbourhood Plan descender into chaos and must at times seemed like an episode of “Yes, Minister”.
According to the “View from Colyton” (see digital edition online) the first public meeting – where it was anticipated that people would be informed and a committee chosen – were told that the-committee-that-didn’t-yet-exist would be chaired by Parish Councillor Caroline Collier, who had been elected, in advance of the committee being constituted, by the parish council at an earlier meeting.
This news was met with cries of “Undemocratic” and with council Chairman Andrew Parr telling people “It’s the parish council’s committee” whereas, apparently, others in the room thought that the clue was in the name – and that the neighbourhood would be in charge – once a committee was constituted!
Mr Parr (husband of EDDC councillor Helen Parr) and Mrs Collier have been very, very long-standing members of the Parish Council.
It also transpired during the meeting that Mrs Parr, in 2011, had said that the area did not need a Neighbourhood Plan as the then (and still) emerging Local Plan would suffice. Her response when this was pointed out was “That was then and this is now”!
Many Neighbourhood Plan committees have few or no councillors on them so that the process can be seen to be fully inclusive and not responding to the wishes of one particular group and many are chaired by local people with no council background.
The need for Colyton Parish Council to own the process does not auger well for others who may have different views on development in the area, particularly when some councillors may also be Feoffeex and/or landowners and developers.
East Devon Watch 