Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Inequality

Dorset cuts services and vastly increases managers’ pay ‘because they are worth it’

” … The item was listed as exempt in the staffing committee meeting, meaning press and public could not attend, but minutes published online since reveal that the committee recommended the pay rise for approval.

Heads of service are currently paid between £63,348 and £79,714 per year. The new pay structure would mean heads of service are paid a chief officer salary of £80,500 to £85,000 (Band 4) or £86,500 to £91,000 (Band 3).

Wages for all the heads of services are available in documents publicly available online and research by the Dorset Echo reveals that if all 15 heads of service are given the pay rise to the lowest end of Band 4, the annual cost would be £61,443.62.

A spokesman for the county council confirmed that six heads of service would be eligible for a band three and nine would be eligible for band four.

In the minutes from the meeting, the pay increases are justified by stating that the role has ‘changed significantly’ and there has been a reduction of heads of services over the last 10 years.

But Amanda Brown, Dorchester branch secretary for Unison, said the rise is ‘just not acceptable’. …”

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/14436155.Council_cutting_services_gives_managers_a_pay_rise___but_they_deserve_it__says_report/?ref=twt

Where Dorset leads no doubt Devon and Somerset will follow.

Wonder how much our LEP members pay themselves …

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Democracy, Developers/ Development, Planning System

Parish councils don’t need the right to appeal planning decisions says government

“The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Give parish councils the right to appeal planning decisions.”.

Government responded:

The Government places great importance on community involvement in the planning system. Parish councils have statutory rights to contribute their views in the planning process.

The planning system is centred on community involvement. Communities, including parish councils and individual members of the public, have statutory rights to become involved in the preparation of the Local Plan for their area, through which they can influence development in their area. The local community can also come together to produce a neighbourhood plan, which sets out how the community want to see their own neighbourhood develop. Neighbourhood plans are often initiated by parish councils. Local and neighbourhood plans form the basis for decisions on planning applications.

In addition to input on local plans and neighbourhood plans, which set out the local development strategy, communities are also able to make representations on individual planning applications. Interested parties can raise all the issues that concern them during the planning process, in the knowledge that the decision maker will take their views into account, along with other material considerations, in reaching a decision.

The right of appeal following the refusal of an application is an important part of a planning system which controls the ability of an individual to carry out their development proposals. The existing right of appeal recognises that, in practice, the planning system acts as a control on how an individual may use their land. As a result, the Government believes it is right that an applicant has the option of an impartial appeal against the refusal of planning permission. This existing right of appeal compensates for the removal of the individual’s right to develop.

However, the Government does not believe that a right of appeal against the grant of planning permission for communities, including parish councils, is necessary. The Government considers that communities already have opportunity to guide and inform local planning issues via Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans, and it would be wrong for them to be able to delay a development at the last minute, through a community right of appeal, when any issues they would raise at that point could have been raised and should have been considered during the earlier planning application process. The Government does not think that the planning system would benefit from the grant of a community right of appeal which would lead to added delay, uncertainty and cost for all those involved.

Department for Communities and Local Government

Click this link to view the response online:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/110489?reveal_response=yes

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership

LEP pop-up cafes – anyone been to one? Anyone want to go to one – please!!!!

Deafening silence …

There is still time to book for the one in Exeter on 27 April

36 sessions of which only 8 have so far been booked.

Details:
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/heart-of-the-south-west-pop-up-business-cafe-exeter-registration-22583110692?aff=erellivmlt

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Land Supply, Local Plan, National Planning Policy Framework

Councils appeal decision on interpretation of 5-year land supply

“The disputes relate to an important provision in the National Planning Policy Framework. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF requires all decision makers across the country who are determining planning applications and appeals to treat “[r]elevant policies for the supply of housing as not up to date if the local planning authority (LPA) cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.”

There were a number of High Court rulings on the phrase ‘relevant policies for the supply of housing’ before the Court of Appeal judgment.
The Court of Appeal ruled that Paragraph 49 should be interpreted widely and that it applies to all policies which are restrictive of where housing development can go.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26660%3Acouncils-to-take-battle-over-planning-policies-and-housing-to-supreme-court&catid=63&Itemid=31

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Clyst St Mary, Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plans

Save Clyst St Mary – April update

Save Clyst St Mary update***SAVE CLYST ST MARY ~ APRIL UPDATE ***

Friends Life site

It’s now approximately two months since our last update and we were hoping following the Parish Council Meeting on 11th April, which was attended by members of the Save Clyst St Mary Campaign, that we would have some more news for you on the redevelopment of the Friends Life site.

However, nothing came out of the meeting about any new planning applications or forecasts of when these might appear. You will recall from our previous newsletter that a representative from Friends Life briefed the Parish Council on a revised plan for the entire site. This would involve building a substantial number of houses on the existing green sports field areas in a line parallel to the rear gardens of the houses that back on to the Friends Life sports pitches.

A key element of this outline proposal is to swap the existing Clyst Valley football pitch for pitches on the Friends Life site, allowing houses to be built on the existing Brethren field, with a Brethren Meeting Hall proposed on the current Clyst Valley football ground. We have heard nothing more on these proposals, so can only assume that the developers are working on this behind the scenes.

One substantial element discussed at the latest Parish Council meeting was that, at the request of the Parish Council Chairman, the trustees of the Clyst Valley Football Club will show the trust documents to the Parish councillors at a meeting on 25th April. At the football club’s request, this meeting will be held in private, between the trustees of the football club and Parish Council members only, with no members of the public permitted in order to maintain strict confidentiality. This will enable the Parish Council to try to establish the ownership of the football club land and the legal powers of the football club trustees to negotiate swapping and any disposal of the land, should that decision be taken in the future. It must be noted that at present the football club trustees have assured us that they have not reached any agreement with Friends Life or the Plymouth Brethren regarding the swapping of the football field and have only agreed to enter into discussions on future proposals.

Recently, our own District Councillor, Mike Howe, resigned as a long-standing trustee of the football club, recognising a possible conflict of interest in connection with his role as both Parish Councillor and also Deputy Chair of the Development Management Committee at East Devon District Council with responsibilities for planning decisions.

On a more positive note, the Adopted East Devon Local Plan to 2031 is now fully operational and Councillor Howe informs us that it is being used ‘robustly and routinely’ to successfully oppose planning applications that do not conform to the Plan. We can only hope that this will be the case when the revised planning proposals are submitted for the Friends Life site.

The planning limit has been allocated by EDDC at around 150 houses on the brown field areas only with the Planning Inspector agreeing with this allocation to safeguard the future of the historic Manor House but also recognising the significance of the high quality parkland contributing to the setting of the Grade II House.

On 15th January 2016 the Inspector stated: “The promoters of the site seek to incorporate more of the large green space to the North West of the buildings in the allocation. The Council’s vision is for development to enable the sensitive conversion of the listed building within the high quality parkland which is a significant contributor to its setting. Having seen the site, I consider that the allocation boundary will enable this setting to be maintained.”

Obviously, if the land swap proposed by Friends Life were to go ahead, this agreed District Council allocation would be exceeded substantially, with the numerous detrimental consequences to our village that we have previously outlined.

Although only speculation at present, we suspect that Friends Life are hoping that by offering sports facilities (to be used by groups such as the football and cricket club) in return for significant extra housing on our green field sites (despite the fact that they have already withdrawn substantial sports facilities available to residents in this village); we suspect that an exception to the Adopted District Local Plan, the agreed Built-Up Area Boundaries and the Emerging Neighbourhood Plan could be made.

However, it must be stressed that our views on this are merely a hypothesis at present.

The Emerging Neighbourhood Plan is now at a very advanced stage and should give us an important extra level of protection against any inappropriate level of development on the Friends Life site and throughout the village. Though, as yet, not formally adopted, it is at such an advanced stage that the EDDC Planners must take it into consideration and credit it with substantial weight.

The Save Clyst St Mary Campaign was set up to voice the views of the majority of parishioners on future development in the village. Over the past 18 months we have volunteered tirelessly to ensure our village does not simply become another anonymous suburb of Exeter. We are not opposed to new development, but are committed to ensuring any new housing remains both sustainable and proportionate.

Currently, in excess of 400 objections have been submitted to EDDC objecting to the planning application for residential development on the sports fields of Friends Life, with 254 objections submitted to the residential development of the Plymouth Brethren field (prior to its withdrawal).

On the basis of continued positive feedback from residents, it is our belief that the majority of parishioners continue to be opposed to residential development on our open green areas and we intend continuing to campaign for their protection against development. However, an anonymous claim has been brought to our attention alleging that opposition to residential development on the green field areas has become “diluted” and that some local residents may now favour additional residential development on our green, open spaces as a “trade-off” for facilities for outside sporting groups.

Our assumption is that this information is incorrect, and as such, we would be most grateful if you could continue to voice your support.

The anaerobic digester

This continues frequently to emit strong unpleasant odours which the Environment Agency are keen to monitor on an individual complaints basis (a group complaint is invalid). Their free telephone number is 0800 80 70 60 should anyone wish to make comments.

Fund raising

Thanks to the support of local people, the Tesco Bags of Help Funding Scheme has awarded the Parish Council the £10,000 second prize for funding the levelling of the QEII field behind the Village Hall which will provide field sports for the community.

Police training exercise On 21/4/16 there will be a Police simulation taking place around the Winslade Park area. Do not be alarmed if you hear or see anything unusual such as helicopters, mock gunfire or ‘casualties’.

Communication
Please continue to visit our website:
http://www.saveclyststmary.org.uk

If you would also like to receive emailed Campaign updates, want to offer assistance to the group or simply want to voice a comment, we always welcome residents’ feedback. You can either email us at saveclyststmary@gmail.com or write to 11 Clyst Valley Road. We will continue to forward comments to the Parish Council as appropriate.

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Democracy, Voting

Monday 18 April 2016 – last day to register to vote in local voting and EU referendum

Use this service to apply to register to vote or to:

update your name, address or other details on the electoral register
change your voting preferences, eg to vote in person or by post
change whether you’re on the open register

It usually takes about 5 minutes.

You may need the following, if you have them:

your National Insurance number
your passport if you’re a British citizen living abroad

You need to be on the electoral register to vote in elections and referendums.

https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Misc

Politics can descend to an even lower level – Prime Minister proves it

“Break out the mind-bleach, the Prime Minister has been telling smutty jokes again”

The Prime Minister ordered MPs to trek to posh hotel in deepest Chipping Norton on Thursday night, hoping to calm the party’s worsening civil war over Europe.

The evening was lubricated by a free bar – with a £2,000 tab reportedly laid on by Mr Cameron’s buddy, the millionaire Tory chairman Lord Feldman.

And after a lavish dinner, the PM himself got up to deliver a brief speech. …” …

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-told-joke-rough-7772891

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Misc

Naughty Tory MEP!

Is this really the level to which politics has descended?

http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/tory-mep-syed-kamall-was-caught-doing-something-very-nsfw-in-the-european-parliament–ZyMpHjvebZ

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Misc

Guidance to Chief council officers on Referendum

“SOLACE [the trade union for council CEOs and senior officers] has produced guidance for chief officers ahead of the EU referendum on 23 June.

Dr Dave Smith, SOLACE Spokesperson on Elections and Democratic Renewal, said: “The purpose of this document is to provide advice and guidance on the statutory rules regulating publicity produced at any time by the council or by other persons with the council’s assistance; the tighter rules on council publicity produced by the council in the run up to polling day for the EU referendum; and the areas of the council’s operations which are affected by the referendum process.”

The specific areas covered in the guidance, which can be viewed here, are:

publicity produced or facilitated by the council:

the Local Government Act 1986;

Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity; s. 125 Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA);

assistance to campaigners at the referendum poll;

use of council premises: for campaigners’ meetings; campaigners’ posters and other advertising;

visits to council premises by elected representatives such as MSPs, MPs, MEPs, and campaigners;

promoting political literacy in schools in connection with the referendum;
council employees in politically restricted posts;

time off work for council employees: for polling purposes; for campaigning;
frequently asked questions and answers.

The guidance on the referendum was produced with input from the Cabinet Office, the Electoral Commission and Lawyers in Local Government.

Many chief officers are expected to serve as counting officers for the referendum.

“As a consequence,” the guidance says, “such officers should be aware that in due course, they will be acting as Counting Officers (or working for the Counting Officer) in an entirely neutral capacity. Such officers should be aware of this now, and take account of this in what views they express now in regard to EU in this context.

“As senior and seasoned public servants, senior officers will naturally manage their behaviour in regard to party politics. Expressing views on Europe (on social media for example) may not feel a potential issue at this stage but it will still be subject to public scrutiny as the referendum approaches.

“As a consequence, senior officers who are likely to be undertaking a role in the EU referendum should be mindful of their actions and words in their day job in relation to Europe given the forthcoming referendum.”

The document also advises chief officers, “particularly those who hold the roles of Head of Paid Service (HoPS) or Monitoring Officer (MO)”, to give consideration to providing some proactive (rather than reactive) guidance to officers.

“Unlike ‘normal’ elections, the traditional political divides along party lines may not apply. However, similar expectations and issues may arise, some legitimate and some illegitimate. It is a matter for the HoPS and MO to give advice and guidance to the officers on matters such as those set out in this guidance. The provision of early proactive advice will avoid a vacuum and uncertainty, or worse a vacuum which may be filled by others (not necessarily correctly or reflecting the advice which the HoPS / MO would wish to give),” the guidance says.

SOLACE’s Smith pointed out that the document was guidance, and as such, it had no formal status. “Each issue will be a matter for that council or chief officer and each council or chief officer will wish to adapt and interpret this guidance to meet their own local circumstances,” he said.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26657%3Asolace-produces-guidance-note-for-chief-officers-on-eu-referendum&catid=59&Itemid=27

Our CEO and Monitoring Officer have undoubtedly received this guidance. Not sure if our MP will know about it though. No visits to council premises, Hugo – not that we see much of him but he might be tempted away from his home in mid-Devon to pay us visits before the end of June to help his friend and old school mate Dave. Or then again they might both decide to go on holiday to the Caribbean – lovely places like the British Virgin Islands, the Caymans or Panama – the weather is lovely there this time of year.

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Claire Wright, DCC, Tax avoidance

Claire Wright’s attempt to tighten DCC’s tax avoidance rules hits the buffers – again

Just remember that Independent DCC councillor Claire Wright has been attempting to persuade DCC not to deal with tax dodgers for several months – long before it became a sexy headline:

“A disappointed councillor has vowed to carry on fighting for changes to crack down on tax dodgers.

Claire Wright’s motion to Devon County Council (DCC), to see companies declare convictions of tax avoidance, or of using avoidance strategies, when bidding for contracts with the authority, went before cabinet on Wednesday.

However, the matter was deferred for a second time, despite cross-party support from Liberal Democrat and Labour leaders.

The motion sought to lower the threshold for when tax avoidance questions could be asked of companies.

If all corporation tax was collected, it is estimated £380million could have been saved in Devon alone.

Councillor Wright urged Conservative councillors to back the motion and act on the ‘modern scourge’ of tax avoidance by wealthy corporate giants.

“That’s money which could be spent on our schools, our hospitals, children’s services and the elderly. All of these services are horribly underfunded and horribly under pressure,” she said.

“It is really disappointing…It would be so easy for the council to do this. It would literally be changing a couple of questions on a questionnaire.”

Chairing the talks on Wednesday, Councillor John Clatworthy told the meeting that the Cabinet Office had stated the current threshold had been set in order to avoid administrative burdens to low value procurements and small businesses.

He added that the office’s current guidance was also being updated and, since DCC was complying with legislation and government policy, he would be more comfortable waiting for its publication.

“In the meantime, I would like to thank Cllr Wright for bringing this motion to us, but no further action will be taken at this stage,” said Cllr Clatworthy.”

The motion will be put before the full council on May 12.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/vows_made_to_crack_down_on_devon_tax_dodgers_1_4497229

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Economy, Local Enterprise Partnership, Transparency

A scary description of the state we are in (and a manifesto for Local Enterprise Partnerships?)

“Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.

Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.

We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.

Never mind structural unemployment: if you don’t have a job it’s because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you’re feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it’s your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers. …

… The privatisation or marketisation of public services such as energy, water, trains, health, education, roads and prisons has enabled corporations to set up tollbooths in front of essential assets and charge rent, either to citizens or to government, for their use. Rent is another term for unearned income. When you pay an inflated price for a train ticket, only part of the fare compensates the operators for the money they spend on fuel, wages, rolling stock and other outlays. The rest reflects the fact that they have you over a barrel.

Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What About Me? are epidemics of self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness, performance anxiety and social phobia. Perhaps it’s unsurprising that Britain, in which neoliberal ideology has been most rigorously applied, is the loneliness capital of Europe. We are all neoliberals now.” …

… Perhaps the most dangerous impact of neoliberalism is not the economic crises it has caused, but the political crisis. As the domain of the state is reduced, our ability to change the course of our lives through voting also contracts. Instead, neoliberal theory asserts, people can exercise choice through spending. But some have more to spend than others: in the great consumer or shareholder democracy, votes are not equally distributed. The result is a disempowerment of the poor and middle. As parties of the right and former left adopt similar neoliberal policies, disempowerment turns to disenfranchisement. Large numbers of people have been shed from politics. …

… The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by invisible backers. Slowly, very slowly, we have begun to discover the names of a few of them. We find that the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has argued forcefully in the media against the further regulation of the tobacco industry, has been secretly funded by British American Tobacco since 1963. We discover that Charles and David Koch, two of the richest men in the world, founded the institute that set up the Tea Party movement. We find that Charles Koch, in establishing one of his thinktanks, noted that “in order to avoid undesirable criticism, how the organisation is controlled and directed should not be widely advertised”. …

… The words used by neoliberalism often conceal more than they elucidate. “The market” sounds like a natural system that might bear upon us equally, like gravity or atmospheric pressure. But it is fraught with power relations. What “the market wants” tends to mean what corporations and their bosses want. “Investment”, as Sayer notes, means two quite different things. One is the funding of productive and socially useful activities, the other is the purchase of existing assets to milk them for rent, interest, dividends and capital gains. Using the same word for different activities “camouflages the sources of wealth”, leading us to confuse wealth extraction with wealth creation. …

… These anonymities and confusions mesh with the namelessness and placelessness of modern capitalism: the franchise model which ensures that workers do not know for whom they toil; the companies registered through a network of offshore secrecy regimes so complex that even the police cannot discover the beneficial owners; the tax arrangements that bamboozle governments; the financial products no one understands.”

• George Monbiot’s How Did We Get into This Mess?

extracts from
http://gu.com/p/4tbfb

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Andrew Moulding, Devolution, EDDC, Local Enterprise Partnership

Comments

Councillors Elson and Moulding think our LEP will improve healthcare – but seem unable to explain why

We must go forward they say – but don’t appear to know which forward is. And they don’t seem to have any idea what they are signing up for. Neither do they appear to know just how an LEP with no NHS membership or background, or even a dedicated budget, or without any proven track record on health-related funding might improve things.

But it won’t stop them puffing it up or voting for it! Read and weep – yet again. If anything proves the sheep mentality of our majority party councillors, this is the cast-iron evidence:

“If successful, The Heart of the South West (HOTSW) deal will see powers devolved from the Government to a new combined authority made up of 19 local authorities in Devon and Somerset.

It is hoped devolution will attract more investment to East Devon, leading to 163,000 new jobs in the South West, as well as faster road and rail journeys to the region and wages higher than the national average by 2030.

The matter was up for discussion when it went before members of EDDC’s cabinet last week.

Councillor Jill Elson said she had concerns about the democratic value of the deal and how much input constituents would have. She added: “If you have 19 leaders for all the councils making the decisions, how is that going to be disseminated to the elected members of all the various councils and their residents?”

Cllr Elson said there was also an issue with the health budget, because nobody knew how much it was going cost.

“Older populations need more and more care – whether they are at home or in homes, it is not going to be financially viable because at the moment there are not enough community care workers to actually have people in their own homes,” she added.

“There is one whole ward at the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital of people just waiting to come out because Devon County Council cannot provide the service – the council is going to be left with some real problems, as is the NHS.”

Cllr Elson said nobody seemed to know how the skills shortage issue would be addressed either.

“The one thing we are missing is a national vocational qualification for those residents who do not have an English degree, but are very good electricians, plumbers and so on,” she said.

Cllr Andrew Moulding, deputy leader, said it was not known exactly what was going to be negotiated, but there would be a period of negotiation and bosses would get the details they needed.

He added one of the deal’s main aims was to improve productivity and that would come by getting younger people involved in learning the right skills earlier on, which in turn would lead to more apprenticeships.

Cllr Moulding said there was a vast need to improve healthcare.

“If that can be done by bringing it down to a level where we can really get to grips with healthcare in this region, to me that has to be a benefit over what we have at the moment,” he added.

“I think we should grasp this opportunity. We want to get more control over our own decisions, rather than leaving them with the Government. If this can be done at a more regional level, then I welcome it.”

Cllr Mark Williamson said: “We should go into this positively, looking at it as an opportunity for East Devon and our residents.It will hopefully mean we can deliver a better service.”

Cllr Eileen Wragg added: “Everything needs much fairer funding and we will only get a chance to influence this if we go forward with this.”

The next step of the process will be for EDDC to nominate a representative who will then join 18 others from similar authorities at briefing sessions on the devolution proposals.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/east_devon_devolution_should_be_grasped_as_opportunity_1_4497198

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Devolution, Economy, Environment (local), Infrastructure, Local Enterprise Partnership, Small and Medium businesses, Sustainability

“The planning and delivery potential of LEPs” – Royal Town Planning Institute briefing

…”LEPs need to keep their private sector representation under review, and strengthen their relationship with local business organisations and local authority economic development teams, to ensure that plans and priorities reflect local business and interests. …

… LEPs should assess the social and environmental implications of decisions as part of their project appraisal processes. …

… The Local Growth Deals that have been agreed focus on transport and infrastructure aimed at unlocking employment and housing development. These appear quite generic in nature, with only a relatively small proportion of projects directed towards supporting priority growth sectors. Funding is also focused on principal urban areas and main transportation corridors. The resources secured and allocated by LEPs are being directed more towards areas of opportunity rather than need. …

… The relationship between local authorities and LEPs appears to be led at a corporate level and is largely resourced from economic development teams of upper tier authorities. There is little direct involvement of local authority planners with the work of LEPs and their awareness of LEPs’ activities is typically low (the exception is the West of England LEP, where the West of England Partnership has helped to bring forward additional joint working). …

… From the perspective of local planning authorities, LEPs are not seen as having a significant role to play in sustainable development given their clear remit around local economic growth. This stands in contrast to the work of the former South West RDA, which had a significant focus on environmental and social dimensions. …”

http://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/1733440/rtpi_research_briefing_-_local_enterprise_partnerships_in_the_south_west_18_march_2016.pdf

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Police (local), Rural communities

Police cuts leave rural villagers feeling abandoned

“Rural communities feel “abandoned” by police and no longer report many crimes, a former senior policemen standing for election as police and crime commissioner has warned.

Independent Bob Spencer, a former acting assistant chief constable in Devon and Cornwall, says cuts to funding and staff, allied to police station closures, has left vast swathes of countryside without adequate cover. …”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Villages-feral-police-cuts-leave-countryside/story-29110656-detail/story.html

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Democracy

How to become a “high achiever” the Alan Duncan MP way

“The fees office began insisting that MPs provide documentation to prove that they have a mortgage only in 2003. In the last six years, Mr Duncan has claimed £127,658 under the second home allowance – £126 short of the maximum. Mr Duncan is rich thanks to his career as an oil trader before his election as an MP.

He worked with Marc Rich, the disgraced commodities trader, and has maintained his connections with the energy industry. He declares that he still owns Harcourt Consultants, which advises on oil and gas matters. Last year, it emerged that Mr Duncan’s private office was being funded by donations from Ian Taylor, the chairman of Vitol, a controversial oil company. Mr Duncan was shadow business secretary with responsibility for energy policy at the time. He later declared the funding in the register of MPs’ interests.

In the 1990s, Vitol paid $1 million to Arkan, the Serbian war criminal, to act as a “fixer” on a deal in Slobodan Milosevic’s Serbia that had collapsed. In 2007, the company was fined over the oil-for-food scandal. Vitol pleaded guilty to larceny in a New York court and paid $13million to the Iraqi people in restitution.

Mr Duncan’s main home in Westminster has also attracted controversy in the past.

Mr Duncan bought his first house on the street in 1986 and lent it to John Major as the base for his leadership campaign. In 1992, Mr Duncan was elected and was soon made a minister under John Major.Within weeks it emerged that he had lent his elderly next door neighbour money so that he could buy his home under the right-to-buy legislation.

The neighbour bought the 18th century council house at a significant discount and sold it to Mr Duncan just over three years later. In the ensuing furore, Mr Duncan resigned from his ministerial position.
He then combined the two properties into one. Mr Duncan said yesterday: “It was me who raised the issue of gardening costs with the fees office. “Although it was a legitimate claim, we agreed that it might be seen as too large a single item and therefore I did not claim it.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5304976/Alan-Duncan-claimed-thousands-for-gardening-MPs-expenses.html

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Consultation, Corruption, Democracy, Transparency

New book lifts lid on what it is like to be a council officer

“Local government worker ROB TAPE decided to write a book based on the experiences of his council work career. He called it Sorry, It’s Not My Department. …

… Response to the book to date has been mixed. The public seem to actually quite like it and are positive about the messages it contains. On the other hand, councillors and council managers seem to be somewhat quieter. For example after sending information to more than 10,000 councillors across the country, most – including all 70 of Croydon’s councillors – have ignored my correspondence entirely.

That being said the number of independent and smaller party councillors who have been in touch has been impressively high in comparison to those from the main two parties. Read into that what you will.

But given that it is the public who deserve a clearer picture about council management, it is the public that I want to read the book.”

https://insidecroydon.com/2016/04/12/whistleblowers-book-ignored-by-all-croydons-councillors/