Another devolution difficulty … Part 1

See also post directly above this one – what a mess.

Councils are said to be getting 100% of business rates in 2020 ( though our Local Enterprise Partnership will gobble up all those due in Enterprise Zones such as the Exeter and East Devon Growth Point).

Looks like that may be 100% of very little … or nothing.

“[A government]Committee found the impact of appeals by ratepayers is dwarfing increases in business rates revenue and affecting growth incentives, with local authorities setting aside substantial sums of money, often for long periods of time, in case an appeal is successful.

The interim report – focusing on plans to bring in the reformed scheme in 2020 – also states that without RSG [Rates Support Grant] it will prove difficult to provide a system which gives incentives to growth and looks after those authorities with particular need.

It calls on the Government to specify how it will protect councils which rely on redistributed business rates and are worried that they will lose out under the new system.

The Committee hopes the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) will consider the report ahead of its consultation on business rates proposals this summer. Once this is complete, the Committee will invite DCLG Ministers to give evidence before making a final report.”

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/communities-and-local-government-committee/news-parliament-2015/business-rates-report-published-16-17/

Cranbrook ” consultation”

“People who live and work in and around Cranbrook are to have their say on a range of subjects as part of the ‘Your town, Your future, Your say’ consultation.

Health and wellbeing, culture, sport and community, economy and enterprise, energy and climate change, transport, landscape and biodiversity, design and housing which have been published in a Cranbrook Issues and Options Report. …

… Mark Williams, Chief Executive of East Devon District Council said:“This is the first major consultation to engage residents of Cranbrook and give people an opportunity to influence how their town grows and what they would like to see happen.

We have made amazing progress over the past five years. Cranbrook has grown from zero to over 1,300 homes and in the next five it will more than double in size. In 20 year’s time Cranbrook will be as big as Barnstaple!” …

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Question-time-Cranbrook-near-Exeter/story-29394049-detail/story.html

Good luck with that, people of Cranbrook – especially if you don’t want to live in a town the size of Barnstaple.

And you might want to check the developers’ plans – they will be very well advanced and will certainly take precedence over any ideas you may have.

Perhaps start with truly-affordable housing, garages wide enough for cars, streets wide enough for buses and a hospital (after all there is one in Barnstaple with 423 beds for its 20,000 plus population) … see where that gets you!

If Persimmon tells you they can’t afford affordable housing …

… this is why:

“A leading City investor has called on housebuilder Persimmon to cut back an executive pay plan that could see the management share £600m over the next five years.

The scheme is one of the largest ever at a FTSE 100 company outside banking.

The biggest beneficiary will be chief executive Jeff Fairburn, who could earn more than £100m.

Mike Fox, from Royal London Asset Management, said the payments were too high “in all circumstances”.
He called on the board to show restraint in the light of the housing crisis and government support for the housebuilding industry.

When the scheme was put in place, the housing market had begun to recover from the 2008 recession. About 150 managers were given the opportunity to earn shares worth up to 10% of the company’s total value, provided they hit tough targets on returning money to investors.

The company recently said it was running well ahead of those targets, and analysts say it is likely the scheme will pay out in full. Persimmon shares have more than tripled in value since the incentive plan was put in place, rising from £6.20 to about £20.

Disclosure of the size of the payments is likely to stoke the debate over executive compensation.

There has been a string of investor rebellions against pay deals this year, and in April a majority of shareholders voted against a £14m package for BP boss Bob Dudley.

Shareholders cannot veto amounts paid, but do have the final say on companies’ pay policies. …

… The company has defended the payouts, saying that since the scheme was put in place. Persimmon has increased the number of new homes it builds by half and invested more than £2bn in new land. Over the same period it has handed back £1bn to shareholders.

“This is a long-term plan that runs for almost a decade which is designed to drive outperformance through the housing cycle and to incentivise the management to deliver the capital return, grow the business and increase the share price,” the company said.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36501536

“An ethical crisis in British capitalism”

“It is pointless to deny now that there is an ethical crisis in British capitalism. The issue is not just the primacy of cash extraction over investment. There is a deeper malaise that has blurred the distinction between enterprise and racketeering.

When Ed Miliband drew that line in a speech in 2011 he found himself in the press pillory reserved for politicians of the left whose rhetoric is insufficiently deferential to business. But Mr Miliband was on to something and, slowly, ever greater numbers of Conservatives are drawing the same conclusions. Tory MPs are prominent in the charge to see Sir Philip stripped of his knighthood. There is a recognition on the right that rising anti-corporate sentiment cannot be written off as an envious leftwing ideological tantrum. It expresses justified outrage at a system that allows rich and powerful individuals to wreak social and economic havoc with impunity.

With breathtaking cynicism, hardline Eurosceptics even try to steer this sentiment against Britain’s EU membership, denouncing Brussels as a corporate conspiracy. In truth, workers and consumers need protections agreed at a European level to prevent cross-border competitive junking of rights leading to more rampant exploitation – Brexit’s real destination.

The new Tory critique of rapacious capitalism points towards the potential for a new consensus. It might encourage business leaders to discover that their self-interest lies in a more enlightened approach to workers’ rights and acceptance of wider social responsibilities. Most businesses would welcome such a shift and most politicians would gladly facilitate one. The idea that all capitalism is cruel and that private profit is all theft from the public is confined to the left-most fringe. Likewise, only a handful of ultras on the right now believe that all regulation is a suffocation of economic freedom.

A workable solution to the challenge posed by cases such as BHS, Boots and Sports Direct can come about only through a partnership of business and politics. The full force of existing laws must be applied, and the bully pulpit of the Commons should be used to greater effect. But that is just a prelude to a cultural change, whereby the spirit of enterprise might more plausibly be invoked as a force for progress. Too often now it is a cover for something much darker.”

http://gu.com/p/4yv5p

Blot on the landscape: Knowle retirement megalith

See link below for before and after pictures.

Residents on higher floors had better hope their lift never breaks down!

Pegasus Life planning application for Knowle. Deadline for YOUR comments this Wednesday 15 JUNE

“Housing crisis giving capitalism a bad name”

“… In the early 1990’s, low and middle-income workers needed to save 5% of their wages for three years to build a deposit for a first-time property. Today they need 24 years of such savings. …

… Survey evidence suggests over half of first-time buyers in 2015 had to rely on financial assistance from their parents, rising to two-thirds in London and the South-East. The UK housing market is giving capitalism a bad name. We are no longer a progressive, meitocratic society”. ...

Liam Halligan, today’s Sunday Telegraph, article: “No amount of EU hysteria can bury our housing crisis”, page 4, Business section

Devolution: the ultimate powers of a unitary mayor

Given that Hinkley C is the primary focus of our devolution deal, it would be almost certain that a Somerset-centric Mayor would be elected.

“Where they exist, the elected mayor will chair the combined authority, and will appoint the combined authority’s ‘members’ (the leaders of the participating local councils) to portfolios in their ‘cabinet’.

The members will be able to overrule the mayor by a two-thirds majority on certain matters, such as the budget and mayoral strategies. On other matters, such as spatial plans, unanimity will be required.”

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CDP-2016-0122/CDP-2016-0122

Spatial plans = housing, commercial and industrial development in the whole of Devon and Somerset in the hands of one person unless every other cabinet member disagrees.

Thus, the Mayor only needs to have a close understanding with one person within the Cabinet to make the whole of the rest of the Cabinet impotent on decisions about development – and, on other matters, the Mayor only has to carry one-third plus one with him or her to overrule the remaining two- thirds minus one.

Modern democracy!

Warrington doesn’t like the idea of devolution either

” … An imminent agreement between ministers and council chiefs is now highly unlikely but Warrington North MP Helen Jones said the Labour group made the ‘right decision’ for the town.

She added: “The Tories are trying to force us into an alliance with councils with whom we have little community of interest.

“Warrington spent a long time trying to get out of Cheshire to run its own affairs, now there are attempts to force us back in.

… If anyone really believes that this is not a prelude to future local government reorganisation, they are in cloud cuckoo land.

“This deal offered us very little and almost nothing for my constituency. In fact, some parts of it would transfer money from Warrington to elsewhere in Cheshire.

“I am glad that the Labour group wants to explore other options. If the Government was really serious about devolution it would offer it to recognised communities like Warrington instead of trying to force us into a one size fits all formula.”

http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/14549677

Academy schools and the potential for corruption

” … in a meeting between union officials and Blue Support executives shortly after the letter arrived [about the award of a cleaning contract for an academy school], a diligent, if overworked, Unison official admitted to being puzzled. Sitting with her back to the window in one of the new-build school’s soulless rooms, Hazel Corby wondered why the lucky company had the same Stockport address as Bright Tribe’s headquarters. She asked how the company had been so swiftly selected after Bright Tribe’s takeover? Who else had a chance to bid for the contract?

‘Joining a multi-academy trust is like marriage without divorce’

The school’s principal didn’t know. An answer wasn’t forthcoming from those representing the company that afternoon, or in the days to come. Bright Tribe later said the question was irrelevant as the contract with Blue Support was made on an interim basis.

But an exchange of business cards between Corby and Blue Support’s human resources manager, Sally Jarvis, gave rather more away. “Sally’s card said Equity Solutions on it,” said Corby.

ES Management Services – where the ES stands for Equity Solutions – is the parent company of Blue Support, of which Dwan’s brother, Andrew, is managing director. Equity Solutions is also Mike Dwan’s main business interest, among 90 other companies of which he is, or has been, a director.

Bright Tribe insists that it has always been transparent about its commercial partners. But, for Corby, Jarvis’s business card was a loose thread that, once pulled, unravelled what she felt was a worrying complex of interconnected commercial and charitable interests.

Here was a financier who had quietly moved into sponsoring academies and with ostensibly philanthropic ambitions. Dwan’s spokesman said that he had donated £3.5m “directly or indirectly” to his academy empire, which included 11 failing schools desperately in need of his resources. The spokesman added that, while Dwan is aware “some will seek to find some ulterior motive for his actions”, he is “involved in the provision of school improvement services for a sole single purpose, to promote better outcomes for our children”.

Yet in 2013-14 alone, it was to emerge, there were nearly £1m worth of payments not recorded in the publicly available accounts by Dwan’s academies to his own private businesses. In 2014-15 another £1.9m in such payments, known as “related party transactions”, were made, albeit this time reported in publicly available accounts following pressure from government regulators.”

http://gu.com/p/4kqm2

Councils must follow through on planning enforcement says Local Government Ombudsman

” … Councils and other planning authorities need to act more decisively when taking enforcement action against planning breaches in order to maintain control of the built environment, the local government ombudsman has said.

Publishing a report examining a case where a man complained that Hackney Council spent more than five years trying unsuccessfully to get his neighbour to remove an unauthorised extension, Jane Martin said all authorities must ensure effective enforcement measures are taken.

Planning authorities must keep track of enforcement action, and follow through when they promise to act in order for the system to function, she stated.

The report highlighted problems that can occur when councils do not take decisive enforcement action or keep neighbours up-to-date on progress. …

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/06/ombudsman-urges-councils-take-firm-action-planning-breaches

North Somerset council overwhelmingly rejects devolution deal

“One of Bristol’s neighbouring councils has given a resounding thumbs-down to a devolution deal which could see £1 billion of Government funding pumped into the Bristol region.

At an extraordinary meeting held tonight, North Somerset councillors voted overwhelmingly against the devolution deal which would see the four local authorities – Bristol, South Gloucestershire, North Somerset and Bath and North East Somerset, come together as a combined authority under an elected ‘Metro Mayor.’

North Somerset leaders had previously said they were against the deal, arguing the new money would do nothing for the area.

They fear Government funding allocated to the region as part of the devolution deal would be sucked away by Bristol, leaving the area they represent, which includes Portishead, Clevedon and Weston-super-Mare, as the poor relation.

Council leader Nigel Ashton said a combined authority and elected mayor was ‘unwanted’ and ‘unnecessary.’

Mr Ashton said: “North Somerset, South Gloucestershire and Bath & North Somerset are some of the best performing councils in the country.

“I wonder why anyone would want to get rid of them?

“We have an excellent relationship with our councils and this will continue.

“Local residents are overwhelmingly against a centralised mayor. Eighty five per cent of responses from residents and town and parish councils were against the devolution proposal.

“People do not want another level of government which could lead to North Somerset becoming a poor relation to Bristol.

“It didn’t work when it was Avon, Now it would be worse

” I love Bristol but it has different priorities to North Somerset.

“If the deal goes through there are no guarantees that North Somerset will get any significant money.

“All future power and resources will be devolved to an elected mayor.”

Councillors said that North Somerset already had excellent relationships with other councils and local businesses.

Many said that if the current arrangements were not broken, why fix them.

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/North-Somerset-Council-rejects-devolution-deal/story-29372319-detail/story.html

USA pulls big Chinese partnership deal over “performance issues”

What price Hinkley C if the USA pulls out of a big deal with China:

“A [billions of dollars] high-speed railway project that was seen as a landmark deal in China’s export of advanced ­technology to the United States has fallen apart over performance and American regulatory issues.”

http://uk.businessinsider.com/us-china-partnership-ended-on-nevada-xpresswest-rail-project-2016-6?amp?r=US&IR=T

China wanted the rolling stock to be manufactured in China ( one wonders how things got so far before this crucial point was introduced) and a Chinese spokesperson said:

“It will be more effective if China just exports its equipment to other nations,” said Zhao Jian, a professor at Beijing Jiaotong University. “But China should avoid giving out massive loans and gaining operating rights for such projects. Many nations consider railway operation as a sovereignty issue, and it’s not easy for China to get involved.

“Such projects are costly, and not many nations have a sufficient population to generate profits. The demand is not enough to ensure long-term viability.”

Does this apply to Hinkley C, Owl wonders?

If Plymouth has to say how much it sold its former HQ for, why is EDDC keeping us in the dark?

“The Civic Centre in Plymouth was sold to developers Urban Splash for £1, it has emerged.

Plymouth City Council confirmed that it received payment of £1 for the sale of the 14-storey local authority headquarters in the city centre. …

… The city council provided the £1 figure to David Every after a Freedom of Information inquiry. The council initially withheld the information, but finally reversed that decision this week.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Plymouth-s-Civic-Centre-sold-1/story-29385867-detail/story.html

How did business-park on-a-Sidford -floodplain come to be in the Local Plan?

From the good old days of the much-lamented Sidmouth Independent News on 25 July 2015:

“Cllr Graham Troman (Sidmouth) claimed there was “no justification” for an out-of-town business park which would damage the vibrancy of Sidmouth town centre. He was shocked by the dubious way in which this proposal had been inserted in the Local Plan without any proper discussion.

Cllr Christine Drew (Sidmouth) said that EDDC had ignored overwhelming public opposition to the site, and she was very suspicious of the recent “minor amendment” to add retail to the type of businesses proposed.

Stuart Hughes argued that adequate employment land could be provided for Sidmouth by realising the potential of the Alexandria Road site, and new access could be provided for half the cost of the £1 million pounds estimated by EDDC planners. And funding might be available for this from a variety of sources.

He also highlighted the acute flood risk at the Sidford site which was on a flood plain. The Council’s argument that the problem could be solved by a SUDS system was weak: a similar system at Woolbrook failed during recent flooding. He feared the impact that building at Sidford would have on flooding downstream.

As county councillor responsible for roads, he stressed the inadequacy of the main road which would serve the site which was subject to regular flooding.

Cllr Mike Allen (Honiton), former chair of the Local Plan Panel made a swingeing attack on the Sidford allocation.

It was “not compliant” with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which gave “great weight” to the protection of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

There was no evidence that it was needed by Sidmouth. It would require people to commute into the town to work. It was “against the public interest”.

He was also suspicious of how the Built Up Area Boundary had been extended to the north of Sidford by officers without consultation.

It would be straightforward to remove the Sidford allocation from the Local Plan: failure to do so would risk the rejection of the whole plan by the Inspector. He seconded Cllr Troman’s motion that it should be deleted.

Chief Executive Mark Williams then advised that this would not be possible legally as it was not a minor amendment.

This provoked an extraordinary attack on Mr Williams by Cllr Allen. His advice was a “biased” view which showed ignorance of the NPPF. He did not have a “grip” on the legal situation, and had not taken account of all the legal considerations.

Tory Whip, Phil Twiss, jumped up to defend the CEO who must be right “because he is a solicitor” and Cllr Allen wasn’t!

Allen, who, in his day job is the Officer Responsible for Regeneration at South Somerset District Council, calmly replied that he had a considerable legal authority on his side – the NPPF.

A rather shell-shocked Council then proceeded to vote on the motion to delete Sidford. It was rejected.

The Tory majority – immune to argument- went on to approve all the “minor amendments” to the Local Plan which approves the Knowle and Sidford proposals.”

https://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/knowle-housing-and-sidford-site-stay-in-local-plan-as-ceo-savaged/

Hernandez smoked cannabis but says it shouldn’t be legal!

The Katie Hopkins of the Police and Crime Commissioner world!

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Plymouth-crime-chief-says-smoked-cannabis-shouldn/story-29384722-detail/story.html

The “No Party Party”

Perhaps an unfortunate choice of name but still supporting independents:

Independence in Democracy Interview: Danny Bamping

The movement is DEFINITELY growing – REAL localism in action!

Two more Independent groups in the south-west

Plymouth Independents:

A group of independently minded people who have their own individual ideas, attitudes
and personalities.

“The object of the Party is to have a central point for the “Lone Voices” who regularly stand in local elections to gather, get advice and plan strategies for PLYMOUTH.

We want ORDINARY people to join us and get involved with local Democracy, we are not being told what to do by some remote CENTRAL OFFICE, our Central Office is the City and its residents.

Not all of us will agree, not all of us will even get on! But, and it’s a big but, we will ALL work for the City.”

http://www.pisw.uk/

and

North Somerset First Independents

“We believe that the current administration within North Somerset Council is not democratic or transparent due to its majority stronghold. We want to break down this stronghold to make it a fairer and more balanced democratic council. We aim to reinvigorate local politics and believe localism is the key to this. But above all we want to renew your trust within local politics.”

http://www.northsomersetfirstindependents.org.uk/FAQs

Who “owns” Seaton Heights?

Lyme Bay Leisure Ltd is usually quoted as the owner of the property and has a (somewhat optimistic) website where it is currently advertising “off plan” opportunities to purchase units for a £1,000 deposit:

http://lymebayleisure.co.uk/seaton-heights/

However, there are four charges outstanding on the site, the two most recent on 17 and 23 May 2016 to Simon Oliver Developments Ltd (debentures) and two earlier ones (also debentures)to Stonesby House Developers Ltd:

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08513325/charges

No details are given of the extent of the charges involved.

“MPs criticise government over flood protection plans”

Of interest to those in Sidford, who are being let down by flood protection by inappropriate development.

… “Labour MP Ms Creagh said: “We know that flooding is projected to get worse and occur more frequently because of climate change, so it just isn’t good enough for government to react to flooding events as they occur.

“Communities at risk deserve certainty from government.”
The committee found that funding for flooding fluctuates year-on-year. Funding was initially cut during the last parliament and only increased after the winter floods of 2013-14.

The government has committed to spending £2.3bn on building new defences and to protect spending on maintaining existing defences – but the EAC warned they were “sceptical” the government would reach its target of protecting 300,000 properties, saying it was based on an optimistic forecast that assumed the greatest efficiency in spending decisions.
The committee also said it was surprised to learn the extra £700m funding for flood defences announced in this year’s Budget was based on a “political calculation” and may not be allocated with the same strict economic criteria as the £2.3bn.

The report said that could lead to inefficiencies in flood investments, poor decision-making and outcomes that were potentially unfair to some regions. …

… The condition of critical flood defences is in decline, according to the committee.

Ms Creagh said: “The government needs to put money into the upkeep of existing flood defences as well as investing in new defences. Failure to do so can have terrible consequences for residents and businesses when defences fail.

“Any decline in the condition of critical flood defences represents an unacceptable risk to local communities in flood prone areas. We urge the government to go beyond its current target and aim to have virtually all its critical assets meeting the Environment Agency’s required condition by 2019.”

The committee said it was concerned the government does not know how prepared local authorities are for flooding, with Ms Creagh adding that local authorities “are not receiving the support they need to prepare for, and mitigate, the impacts of flooding”.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36480213