Council launches review of polling districts and stations

“East Devon residents are asked for their views and suggestions on polling stations ready for council to consider in December

East Devon District Council is due to launch a review into the district’s polling districts and polling places and is seeking feedback from the public.

The council will be pleased to receive views from anyone, but particularly stakeholders, such as electors, parishes, political parties and councillors. It will also be grateful for comments from people and organisations with expertise in access for people with disabilities.

Anyone who would like information about a particular parish or part of the district should contact us either by e-mail (elections@eastdevon.gov.uk) or telephone (01395 517550).

East Devon District Council’s Chief Executive, Mark Williams, said:

“Over the years, the locations where voting takes place in East Devon have remained the same, except for occasions where a building is no longer available. Following the recent election we now need to review the existing situation.

“If anyone thinks we should be looking at alternative locations to the polling stations that were used in May this year or have comments on the stations that were used, please could they let us have their views as soon as possible.”
Views and comments should be made in writing, setting out any alternative suggestions, by no later than Friday, 25 September 2015 to the Electoral Services Manager, East Devon District Council, Council Offices, Knowle, Sidmouth EX10 8HL

The Chief Executive will make proposals to the council, taking account of all the views and comments that are received. The council meeting where the recommendations will be considered will be held on Wednesday 16 December 2015 and will be open to the public.”

If you have any reservations about locations or access to polling stations do let Mr Williams know. It is a very long time since these locations were first chosen and some of them may now be inappropriate.

One assumes that locations in the ownership of or linked closely to serving councillors will not be considered appropriate.

Scrutiny Agenda: Thursday , 30 July 2015 ; 6.00pm

Click to access 300715-scrutiny-agenda-combined.pdf

8  NHS Northern, Eastern and Western Devon Clinical Commissioning Group decision on community hospital beds (pages 9 – 10)   A representative from the NEW Devon CCG has been requested to attend by the Chairman to discuss the recent decision on community beds on 16 July 2015, with particular focus on the weight given to the stakeholder report, chaired by Sir JohnEvans.
9
Financial Plan and Draft Transformation strategy
(pages 11- 45) A  chance for the Committee to debate the Financial Plan and draft Transformation
Strategy that sets both the financial and cultural approach for the future.
10
Sickness absence (pages 46–51) A report on measures in place to impact on the number of working days lost due to sickness absence. The requirement for this report was previously identified by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in reviewing the performance indicator relating to working days lost.
11 Media Protocol (pages 52 – 62) An opportunity for the Committee to familiarise themselves with the recently updated and approved protocol and raise questions in respect of the Council’s East Devon District Council communications.   The protocol as presented to Cabinet on 17 June 2015 is reproduced in these agenda papers.
12
Local Elections 7 May 2015 (pages 63 – 71)  A report of the Chief Executive on the issues raised by the Committee in relation to the recent local elections and the learning points for future elections.
13
Scrutiny forward plan (page 72)  Opportunity for the committee to raise topics for scoping, to determine if and when they should be listed on the forward plan.

Highlight:

ELECTORAL COMMISSION REPORT ON MAY 2015 VOTING PROBLEMS:
“Multiple errors
64* –Some authorities experienced more than one issue in their delivery of the elections which either individually or cumulatively may have had a detrimental impact on voters and those standing for election.
*

Seven ROs overseeing elections in the following local authorities: Allerdale, Darlington, East Devon, East Lindsey, Kingston upon Hull, Stoke on Trent, and West Lindsey.”

So, when Mark Williams makes light of his difficulties with this year’s elections and blames  pressure of work and inexperienced staff , remember that only these 7 local authorities out of a total of 433 had multiple mistakes.

 

How many missing voters now?

Voter registration leaflets are dropping through our doors. It is SO tempting not to return them to see if we get a visit from a nice lady or gentleman who will ensure that we do!

Mark Williams is not a great believer in those visits, not having not arranged any for several years – a fact that Members of Parliament heavily criticised when he was hauled before them last December to explain an alarming drop in voters – from around 102,000 to 96,000.

Now intriguingly we learn from this week’s Sidmouth Herald that he is talking of a current 110,000 voters who are registered – which would mean a whopping 14,000 people have only recently been registered.

Typo surely? Fortunately, he is appearing before a committee in September to explain why so many things have gone wrong with voter registration in the past few years, so we can all know what is really the correct number.

Lord Falconer concerned about missing voters

Too Many People Are Not Registered to Vote – And It’s About to Get Worse

Too many people are not registered to vote. The reasons for this vary – they don’t have the time, they are disillusioned with party politics, they don’t see how voting will make any difference to their lives. But the result is the same: they are not getting heard and the future of our country is being decided by an increasingly narrow section of society.

And it is about to get worse. This week, the government decided to bring forward by a year the end of the transition to Individual Electoral Registration, removing millions of people from the electoral register and ignoring the advice of the Electoral Commission.

This raises serious concerns for our democracy and is the latest in a long line of deeply partisan moves by a government intent on stifling democratic scrutiny and rigging the game in its favour.

The Electoral Commission has warned that 1.9million people could fall off the register if the transition deadline is brought forward.

We know what kinds of voters are more likely to be missing: they are private renters, members of the BAME communities, those who live in built up areas or towns with a high student population. Perhaps the greatest divide is between the older and younger generations: some 95% of the over-65s are on the electoral register, yet only around 70% of 18 to 24-year-olds are estimated to be registered.

The register is the beating heart of our democracy. The coming year will see a significant number of elections, which makes it even more important for the register to be as complete and accurate as possible.

But it also performs a wider function. It provides the foundation for the boundary review, which determines parliamentary constituency boundaries. The next review is due to start early in 2016 and the registers published in December 2015 will be used as its basis.

David Cameron has decided to push ahead with an arbitrary reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600, despite warnings that this could lead to constituencies that do not reflect local communities.

Now he is proposing to do so on the basis of a severely depleted register with missing voters concentrated in certain communities and parts of the country – a clear move by the Government to give the Tories an electoral advantage and one that would call into question the legitimacy of our democracy.

This of course has to be placed in the context of a government who after severely restricting access to justice and reducing the ability of charities to challenge government policy in the last Parliament, has, barely two months in the job, promised to limit Freedom of Information powers, scrap the Human Rights Act, create two-classes of MPs by the backdoor and only this week published a Bill to stifle legitimate rights to take industrial action.

David Cameron’s Government may claim the one nation mantra but their politics are divisive and partisan. We will not stand by and allow millions to lose their voice.

Lord Falconer is Shadow Lord Chancellor and the shadow secretary of the state for justice

Source: Huffington Post UK

Tories accept voting register with nearly 2 million people missing – ignores Electoral Commission advice to spend a further year working on it

Labour accuses David Cameron of manipulating electoral system:

http://gu.com/p/4am25?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Well, that will please Mark Williams – the Electoral Registration Officer who “lost” 6000 voters in East Devon, was heavily criticised for it in Parliament and refuses to apologise for his mistakes:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/07/15/being-in-charge-of-elections-at-eddc-means-never-having-to-say-sorry-and-blaming-your-staff/

Being in charge of elections at EDDC means never having to say sorry and blaming your staff

Anyone else think this press release is another whitewash, hogwash, brainwash spin cycle.

Elections watchdog report confirms that complexity of polls contributed to errors

East Devon Returning Officer welcomes Electoral Commission comments and confirms improvements to service
The Electoral Commission has today (15 July) published its review of the multiple elections that took place on 7 May 2015 – an unusual occurrence, where for the first time since 1979 the General Election, District, Town and Parish Council elections all took place on the same day. To put this into context, in East Devon, election notices were published for a total of 119 elections covering four local authority boundaries (East Devon, Exeter, Mid Devon and West Devon).

The report – which includes the elections watchdog’s assessment of the performance of Returning Officers – highlights the many administrative issues that arose across the country, ranging from ballot papers issued in error to printing mistakes. But it also confirms that: ‘…the complexity of the polls was a contributing factor: errors were predominantly made in areas where more than one election was taking place…such complexity must be considered as an increased risk factor in the planning and delivery of the election(s).’

A lack of experienced staff was another problem that affected administration efficiency: ‘As most ROs rely on a small dedicated team of staff to organise elections, they rarely have additional experienced staff available to augment the core team to support the management of combined polls or where there are complex cross-boundary issues to resolve.’

However, overall satisfaction was good, as the Electoral Commission’s report found that:

• ‘Nine in ten people surveyed (91%) said the elections in May were well-run.’
• ‘Nearly all (94%) of those who voted in person at a polling station were satisfied with the process.’
• ‘Nearly all (97%) of those who voted by post were satisfied with voting this way. Just over 16% of electors chose to vote by post at the General Election, at the 2010 General Election, the figure was 15%.’

East Devon’s Returning Officer (RO), Mark Williams, is referenced in the report due to his failure to meet two of the Electoral Commission performance standards, as a result of two administrative errors, which may have had a detrimental impact on voters and those standing for election. These were:

1. Incorrect guidance on the back of the postal voting statement that potentially affected a number of postal voters in the district elections.
In response to this comment, Mark Williams said: “Fortunately this matter was identified very speedily and prompt corrective action was taken. I fully accept that the error shouldn’t have happened and I apologised at the time. Even though we issued in excess of 11,000 postal votes, only 14 postal votes needed to be re-issued as a result of the error. It was clear that postal voters used their common sense and followed the instructions on the ballot paper rather than the general guidance on the back of the postal voting statement.

“I know that comment has been made about the cost of the mail-out to those potentially affected by the mistake, but I can assure Council Tax payers that they have not been affected by this, as the cost was covered by ring fenced grants, which we received from HM Government.”

2. The second issue related to a temporary 24-hour arrangement that applied to district council postal votes as a result of concerns raised by a registered political party.
Commenting on this issue, Mark Williams said: “All ROs come under intense pressure during an election period and the Electoral Commission’s report is a timely reminder that we must comply with guidance and legislation despite the pressure of an election. In the case of this matter, it affected 12 postal votes for the district council, all of which were actually included in the count.”

Conclusion
Overall, Mark Williams feels that the 2015 elections were an intense, but successful experience, although he is at pains to point out that he and his team will be redoubling their efforts to ensure that the lessons learnt from these multiple elections are not repeated in the future. “I have a young team who did their very best to provide an excellent service to electors. I acknowledge that we fell short – as highlighted by the Electoral Commission – but when put in context, all 110,000 electors had the opportunity to cast their vote and the election results were robust and not challenged.

“We will be working with the Electoral Commission to identify and implement practical measures that will improve the voting process. Developing the resources of the elections and electoral registration teams is a key immediate priority and we are looking to recruit an additional officer for these services, who will be fully trained in the use of the specialist software that is used for electoral registration and elections. It is important that the high levels of trust that voters place in us are sustained.”

Scrutiny
A report on the issues that arose from the combined Parliamentary, District and Town & Parish Council elections will be presented to the Scrutiny Committee by the Returning Officer Mark Williams on 30 July 2015.

Majority of voters will be over 55 at the next election

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11721749/Liam-Byrne-Labour-must-target-the-over-55s-or-stay-in-Opposition-for-10-years.html

Well that’s the pension triple lock and bus passes protected then!

Shame if you are a poor student who must now pay your maintenance allowance back but presumably they expect you not to vote next time round or be totally squashed by those pesky over-55s!

Voters – targets for the future – and those polling stations must be reviewed

Electoral Commission targets for voter registration – Mr Williams is no doubt working on these targets as we write!  Hmmm.

On-going work to get people registered to vote

From 1 July 2015, Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) across Great Britain will be carrying out a comprehensive household canvass. They will send ‘Household Enquiry Forms’ to all properties to identify who is resident at an address and eligible to be registered. This will help EROs identify how many of the 1.9 million register entries are redundant and should be removed before the publication of the revised registers in December 2015; and how many relate to an individual who is entitled to be on the register and therefore needs to complete an individual registration application.

The Electoral Commission will run campaigns ahead of the elections in May 2016 to encourage people to register and to make the registers more accurate and complete. In Scotland, a specific campaign to encourage 15 – 17 year olds to register to vote will coincide with the canvass.

Attainers (16 and 17 year olds)

The Commission’s report found that there remains an issue with the number of registered attainers (16 and 17 year olds). There were fewer than 250,000 attainers on the May 2015 registers, a fall of 47% since February / March 2014. The Commission largely attributes the decline to the one-off lack of comprehensive household canvass activity in 2014. In 2015, comprehensive household activity will take place and each Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) will have plans in place maximise the number of attainers on their registers.

 Polling Stations

We hear from a correspondent that EDDC did not make a review of polling stations before the last election – this was a mandatory task which should have been completed, put out for public consultation and agreed formally at Council well before the election. Here is how Dorset explained it:, which applies to all councils:

https://www.dorsetforyou.com/article/412025/Review-of-polling-districts-polling-places-and-polling-stations

It seems the Electoral Commission has informed EDDC that it must not wait any longer to conduct such a review and it MUST be started in July 2015.  A number of polling stations are no longer fit-for-purpose as regards facilities for disabled people and consideration will need to be given to polling stations that may give rise to perceived conflict with councillor interests.  Watch this space.

The requirements:

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/electoral-administrator/polling-place-reviews?

Here is how you appeal if you think a particular polling station does not meet requirements:

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/electoral-administrator/polling-place-reviews/polling-place-review-appeals

EDDC in the electoral limelight again

From Electoral Commission reports below:

“In contrast, in East Devon, where the challenges are different, there has been an increase in the number of entries on the register. The ERO has attributed this to the success of making visits to non-responding properties and individuals, which were carried out across the area in 2014 for the first time since 2010.”

Many will recall the very successful East Devon Watch campaign that resulted in many, many extra voters being added to the electoral roll prior to the elections in May this year.  Our CEO and Electoral Officer, Mark Williams was summonsed to Parliament in December 2014 to be grilled on why East Devon’s total electorate had falled spectacularly between 2010 and 2014.

Mr Williams maintained that it wasn’t so bad and that he had made the executive decision that simply telephoning potential voters was good enough, despite a ruling that all missing voters should receive personal household visits – now it seems from the above that he has done a complete about-turn!  He memorably said that this would be much too dangerous in a dark and wintry East Devon – something which cut no ice at the hearing and must have been a bit puzzling to those canvassers out in Cumbria, Scotland and the like – not to mention London!

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2014/11/09/those-missing-voters-and-telephone-canvassing/

The Electoral Commission took a very keen interest in East Devon with the result that some 20 or so canvassers were hurriedly recruited in time for the elections, though little else by way of voter encouragement was offered, despite a large budget for election expenses.

Now the Electoral Commission has brought out reports on things as they were in December 2014 and East Devon is mentioned specifically several times (see quote at top of article).

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/182375/Analysis-of-the-December-2014-electoral-registers-in-England-and-Wales.pdf

It is noted that AFTER EDW’s campaign, EDDC’s Electoral Register jumped FIVE PER CENT!  That’s 4,665 electors that Mr Williams appears not to have been able to contact by telephone between 2010 and 2014!

The Government wanted the Electoral Commission to end its work promoting voter registration by the end of 2015 [possibly due to the SNP effect it isn’t keen to see Scottish registration improve?] but, citing East Devon and other councils, the Electoral Commission says it is essential that it continues until the end of 2016.  The report is HERE and cites report in justification HERE:

 

 

 

Roger Giles (Ind) polls highest vote in District Council elections

We’ve had further feedback from today’s election of East Devon District Councillors, when Independents gained considerable ground. Here are some highlights:

– The voters’ favourite was Roger Giles, the seasoned Independent Councillor for Ottery St Mary Town Ward, with 2087 votes.
– Paul Diviani, Leader of the Council) retained his seat at Yarty. He received 776 votes. But votes against him totalled 795.
– Cabinet member, Ray Bloxham (525 votes) lost in Raleigh Ward to IEDA candidate, Geoff Jung (950 votes).
– IEDA Leader, Ben Ingham successfully held Woodbury & Lympstone, where he and IEDA colleague, Rob Longhurst, defeated David Atkins (Con).
– The most significant cull of Tory Councillors was in Sidmouth, with Independents now in control:
There was a surprise defeat for Graham Troman, who ironically has often stood up alone for Sidmouth, without the backing of the other local councillors.
Stuart Hughes is the sole remaining Conservative, sharing Sidmouth-Sidford with Dawn Manley and Marianne Rixson, both IEDA.
Sidmouth Town Ward is in the hands of Cathy Gardner (IEDA), Matt Booth(IEDA) and John Dyson (Independent).

The Sidmouth Herald reporters were quick to pick this up: http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/election/eddc_independents_oust_tories_in_sidmouth_town_1_4066681

For complete election result information, go to http://eastdevon.gov.uk/elections-and-registering-to-vote/elections-2015/2015-district-council-elections-results/

“Is the Deputy Chief Executive fit for purpose?”, some are now asking

EDDC’s press release today (see our previous post) speaks of ‘lessons to be learned’ from the Tribunal’s scathing report, though it overlooks the fact that the criticism was “unanimous”, and not solely from the judge. There is no reference to the reportedly “discourteous” manner exhibited by EDDC , though the Council regrets  that the Tribunal found it at times “unhelpful”.

To compare this press release with the one posted earlier today from Save Our Sidmouth (which contains the the Tribunal’s devastating comments), go to these links:
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/news/2015/05/council-prepares-to-release-documents-that-sparked-tribunal/
and http://saveoursidmouth.com/2015/05/05/sos-press-release-on-tribunal-decision/

Hugo doesn’t get Hilary’s vote

Sent by a correspondent:

Couple of good pieces in the online Echo today which hopefully will transfer to the print version tomorrow.

First a report on the Telegraph blog:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Daily-Telegraph-writer-suggests-East-Devon-s-Hugo/story-26440948-detail/story.html

And second a report on the News Statesman Hilary Mantel support:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Election-2015-Wolf-Hall-s-Hilary-Mantel-says-vote/story-26448285-detail/story.html

 

 

Who will take the decision whether to appeal the appeal for disclosurof Knowle relocation documents?

The Chief Executive (Williams) and Deputy Chief Executive (Cohen) along with ? who else must have taken the original decision to suppress the reports discussed in secret meetings when they were requested by Mr Woodward,

This decision to suppress the reports, to our knowledge was never brought to any public council committee.  Who took the decision to suppress?

Eventually, the Information commissioner said that (redacted) reports should be published.

The ” council” then decided to appeal this decision.  Who made that decision and why?  Who reviewed it and agreed with it?  How many councillors knew what was happening?  Who thought up the idea of saying reports could not be published because the consultant was “an embedded employee” of the council?

The Deputy Chief Executive (Cohen) was chosen to present the justification for suppression and appeal at the court case in August 2014.  The council’s solicitor (Lennox Gordon) presumably must have been asked for advice (though at the Court case they had engaged an outside barrister to present the case).  The Chief Executive and ? who else must have then sanctioned this course of action.  It was, to our knowledge, never brought to any public council committee.  Who else knew about this?

At the Court case, Deputy Chief Executive Cohen admitted that at least one report from the outside consultant (Pratten) had been changed by him – Cohen – before being given to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  The Overview and Scrutiny Committee were not aware of this at the time and (as far as we know) still do not know what was changed or why.  Who else (if anyone)  was involved in the decision to change the document before it went to them?  Have members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee since seen the original?  Would it have changed their views if they did not see it and have not since seen it?

Are there more reports (changed, not changed) other than those under review that they and other councillors should have seen prior to making an informed decision about relocation either to Skypark or Honiton/Exmouth and then sale of Knowle that might have affected their decision?

After the Court case in August 2014 it appears that EDDC dragged its heels in providing the judge with documents and insisted that some of them were illegible.  However, subsequently, legible copies were found and submitted as late as March 2015.  Who insisted that only illegible copies were available?  Who knew that there were legible copies available and why were they delayed?  Why the long delay?

Now that the court has heavily criticised all those involved, the decision can again be appealed, at probably even greater cost than the last appeal.  We do not yet know the full cost of the last appeal except that it is more than £11,000 PLUS officer time, as EDDC never apportions cost of officer time to its work.

So, who takes the decision to appeal the appeal?  The same people who suppressed the documents?  The person/people who altered at least one document before it went to a committee?  The people who said that some documents were illegible when they were not?   The people criticised by the court for being “unhelpful and discourteous?

Who is left who has not been involved in this sorry saga who can be trusted to find out the answers and make decisions now?  If we return the “same old” how can we be sure this will not be brushed under a carpet so precariously balanced on all that is now underneath it?

Brave independent councillors kept bringing this subject up time and time again only to be told to stop tilting at windmills.  What is here is definitely not windmills.

Only a vote for Independents tomorrow can ensure that the carpet is lifted so that we can all see what has been swept underneath it all these years.

Including, of course, some searching questions about the seven year delay to a Local Plan which has left us at the mercy of rapacious developers.

The  future is in your hands tomorrow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bucks, so many bucks, so many questions … such a nasty, nasty smell of dirty linen

Now we have had time to digest the findings of the judge in Information Commissioner and Jeremy Woodward (and many, many thanks are due to Jeremy and his occasional stand-in Richard Thurlow for doggedly pursuing this) there are SO many questions to be asked, some of which current commentators have already suggested.  Now, where will the buck stop and who is going to answer questions ?

First and foremost we must be concerned with the damning evidence.  In Tower Hamlets, when the Commissioners arrived to take it over, the first thing they did was sequester ALL documents and correspondence though it is believed that some were already missing.  Is it possible that some of OUR evidence is vulnerable to deletion and shredding?  We hope not but we cannot be sure.  However, traces will abound everywhere and sometimes what is missing throws even more light on what is going on.

At best what has occured is incompetence and, at worst, deceit –  as a correspondent says – which is it?

The questions people are posing:

1.  The different versions of documents and their legibility.  The Judge in the case is STILL not sure he has original documents or all documents.  He says that for months EDDC said that they could not provide legible copies of documents and yet, at the last moment, some turned up.  However, the judge also says that he is not entirely sure they saw ALL the documents they were meant to see – he refers to document 5A when he appears not to have been given document 5, for example.

2.  At the hearing Richard Cohen admitted that he did not give an original version of a document to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee but an “amended” one.  Where is the original copy of THIS document and would it have changed what that committee decided?

3.  Why did EDDC officers and top councillors keep delaying the process.  Were they hopeful that this could be kept under wraps until after the election tomorrow.  They almost managed it if this was the case.

4.  How and why were the decisions to prevaricate made and by whom:  was it CEO/Cohen/Diviani or a larger (or smaller) group?

5.  How will those in (4) above manage to keep this from the NEXT Overview and Scrutiny Committee?

6.  Who decides what goes to an Overview and Scrutiny Committee?  Those in (4) above!  And will it go to the Standards Committee?  (Answer here:  almost certainly not if the same people remain in power).

7.  What is now the position of Knowle sale?

8.  Who takes these decisions – officers and then the councillors are led by the nose, or councillors and then officers are led by the nose or a combination of councillors AND officers and then everyone else is led by the nose?  We know from Councillor Peter Sullivan that, as a Conservative councillor, he was not allowed to see documents.  Who was in the “golden circle”?

9.  Why did NO-ONE blow the whistle when they realised what was happening?  Why was it left to brave Independent councillors, bloggers and – most important – local resident Jeremy Woodward, to uncover this very dirty, dirty linen?

Should Council officers shamed by QC’s comments, be considering their position?

SOS may not be alone in thinking so. This press release has just been issued: http://saveoursidmouth.com/2015/05/05/sos-press-release-on-tribunal-decision/

EDDC loses its appeal to keep Knowle relocation reports secret, with scathing commentary on Council’s behaviour!

The Judge’s report ends with this REMARKABLE paragraph:

‘ This Tribunal takes the unusual and unfortunate step of commenting on the conduct of the appeal itself.

We are unanimous in our view that this appeal has taken much longer than it should have done and the reason for this seems to be the failure on the part of the public authority, the appellant, to address itself with sufficient attention to the details of what information and documents it was sup- plying to the Commissioner and ultimately also to the Tribunal.

It was not until March 2015 that a fully legible copy of the disputed information was supplied and seemed to be complete. This is, in our collective experience, wholly exceptional and the time spent dealing with what we believe to be five different sets of disputed information is simply not a good use of the Tribunal’s time nor fair, in terms of delay, to the requester.

Correspondence on behalf of the Council, rather than ensuring the Tribunal was assisted in its function, was at times discourteous and unhelpful including the statement that we had the most legible copies possible. A statement, which was clearly inaccurate as subsequently, we have been provided with perfectly legible documents.

We believe this appeal could and should have been dealt with completely at the hearing in August 2014 and the decision promulgated six months ago had the Council discharged its responsibilities properly’.

A press release is due shortly, from Save our Sidmouth.

Our CEO/Returning Officer makes yet another mistake

Mr Williams, in his capacity as Electoral Returning Officer, contacted Count Agents with the following information. Under the heading “Count Schedule and Location” it says:

Due to the obligations of the Returning Officer, it will not be possible to hold local counts for the local elections this year. All counting will take place at East Devon District Council Chamber, Sidmouth on Friday 7 May *and estimated timings are enclosed with this letter.”

It seems his staff for which he had a budget of more than £120,000 doesn’t include a proof reader … or anyone who knows that the elections take place on Thursday 7 May and the count commences on the morning of Friday 8 May 2015 (district).

And what EXACTLY are these new obligations that mean votes are not counted where they were cast?

Local Tories show their true colours

Andrew Moulding and Steph Jones’s election leaflet issued in Axminster, seems designed to misinform.

AxmstrLeaflet

A close look at the leaflet (above..click to enlarge) reveals some apparent misconceptions and economies with the truth:

Moulding/ Jones: Imply East Devon Alliance is centred in Sidmouth.
Incorrect: EDA Chair lives in Colyton; Vice-Chair in Feniton; vast majority of East Devon Alliance Independent candidates are from other parts of the District.

Moulding/Jones: Suggest Knowle is just adapted bedrooms and bathrooms.
Incorrect: Only the old part, which was once used as a hotel, then as flats.  No serious attempt has been made to market this individually to fund update of the newer building, which consists of purpose built offices in 1970-80s, with outside space for extension if required.

Moulding/Jones:  Move will save £6m over 20 years.
Figures are disputed ( posts on http://www.saveoursidmouth.com may explain why ‘Sidmouth’ is a painful subject for EDDC Deputy Leader, Cllr Moulding) – and some withheld documents concerning office relocation are still under legal review (Tribunal decision imminent: Information Commissioner and J. Woodward vs East Devon District Council).

Moulding/Jones: Why Honiton and Exmouth? “Because Honiton is more central, and Exmouth is the largest town.”
Then why did they previously support Skypark (which could not be less central) and selling the site in Honiton? In reality, a newbuild office at Honiton is just the fall-back plan, as the Honiton site couldn’t be sold for enough money to make a move to Skypark financially viable. And Exmouth has only now come into the equation, as space at the Town Hall has become available. The leaflet makes no mention of the issues of running a split site; nor of existing air pollution problems where the £7m newbuild HQ at Honiton would be sited (no such problem in Knowle parkland!), etc.,etc. 

Moulding/Jones; Why is Local Plan taking so long? “Because we want to get it right”
Or is it because EDDC are struggling, having got it so wrong in the past, and exasperating the Inspector, who rejected the previous one? (Remember the 53 ‘minor changes’ which the Inspector found to be ‘major’? SIN blogged the story: https://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/sum-thing-amiss/)

Moulding/ Jones: Why so much new housing in Axminster? “Because you wanted it!!”
Who are ‘you’? Does it embellish the town and help it to thrive? Or is it symptomatic of consequences when deciding where to build the massive number of new houses EDDC has chosen to opt for?

Moulding/Jones:  Do you have a plan for the future of Axminster. “Yes, we have a vision.”
Who are ‘we’, and has the vision, with no neighbourhood plan yet in place, been led by speculative development?

This leaflet, along with quotes from Hugo Swire in the local press yesterday (https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/05/02/east-devon-alliance-responds-to-hugo-swire-misinformation/), show tired tactics which are looking rather stale. On May 7th, East Devon voters may well show they’ve had enough of them.