Regional newspapers pick up story on criticism of LEPs – our LEP fights back

Unfortunately, no mention of our LEP members conflicts of interest and their decision to spend much of our money on Hinkley C nuclear power plan (several board members are involved in nuclear power-related work, one (Midas) is a major player in a contract for Plymouth Docks regeneration).

“A lack of transparency and insufficient resourcing are just some of the criticisms levelled at the Government’s flagship scheme to deliver £400 million of investment in Devon and Cornwall. But at least the media is waking up.

The findings from the new report on Local Enterprise Partnerships also highlight “confusion” about their role in local devolution deals, and difficulties assessing value for money.

The critical report from spending watchdog the National Audit Office, suggests that five years on from their creation, there is still some way to go to ensure LEPs are delivering the economic growth they promised.

But organisation’s operating in South West have welcomed the report – arguing they have made strong progress in the creation of new jobs, homes and investment opportunities in the region.

“The role of LEPs has expanded rapidly.”

The Coalition Government launched the Local Enterprise Partnership programme in 2010 to replace the UK’s nine Regional Development Agencies. Since then, 39 LEPs have been established, including fone or Cornwall and Isles of Scilly (CIOS) and for Devon and South West Somerset (the Heart of the South West, or HotSW).

The aim of these bodies is to boost economic development at a local level, using funding from Local Growth deals to support business and infrastructure improvements. But over time, the NAO notes, they have taken on a “significant” number of responsibilities, including positions on local transport boards and leading roles in devolution deals.

HotSW board member, Tim Jones suggests LEPs have faced a “whirlwind” of changes in recent years. He says this has contributed to a sense of “doing business on the hoof”, as the Government devolves more and more powers.

“The NAO report marks a good time to pause, reflect and make sure we are doing it right,” he said. “Now that the questions are being asked, it’s an opportunity to make sure LEPs are fit for purpose.”

“LEPs do not possess the resources necessary.”

The Government has pledged to make a total of £12 billion available to LEPs between 2014/15 and 2019/20. So far, Cornwall has received £60 million from this fund, with a further £150 million put forward by private investors, HoTSW has been awarded £195.5 million.

LEPs also have an influential say in the allocation of European funding, in the area. This amounts to roughly £470 million for the CIOS area and £92 million for HoTSW.

However, according to the NAO report, only 5% of LEPs surveyed felt they had sufficient resources to deliver the services and projects expected of them. And as they rely heavily on partnerships with local authorities to achieve their aims, the study warns many will struggle as cuts to council budgets take their toll.

Mr Jones said challenges around resources affect all LEPs. But he is not in favour of increasing staff numbers and returning to “the bad old days of big bureaucracy”.

“As an example, the demands around devolution have been huge, around half of the LEP team has been diverted to writing the devolution agenda,” he said. “But the expectations of government need to be managed against the resources that are available, rather than the other way round.”

CIOS chief executive Sandra Rothwell stressed her LEP is keen to make sure as much funding as possible goes to economic growth “not organisation”. “We are a partnership and we work with councils, chambers of commerce and businesses in developing and implementing strategies,” she explained. “Could we use more [resources]? Yes of course. But it should be proportionate to the scale of the programmes we deliver.”

“LEPs… are not as transparent to the public as we would expect.”

Management of LEPs currently consist of a mixture of private sector representatives and local councillors. The NAO report found that the proportion of private sector membership ranged from 45% to 80% across the 39 bodies.

It says the Department for Communities and Local Government has taken steps to improve LEP governance and transparency. But it suggests the department should do more “to ensure that the required standards of governance and transparency are being met”.

At the Cornwall LEP, four of the 16 board members are elected councillors, with remaining members coming from local businesses and other professions. Ms Rothwell believes that this is a fair representation of public, private and voluntary sectors.

She also stresses that the LEP reports back to local authorities on its decisions, and makes information about board members and their registered interests available online.

“Most of our resources are focussed on running an accountable process, because at the end of the day this is public money,” she added. “We were one of just seven LEPs in England interviewed in depth for this report and we received excellent feedback on our own systems and processes.”

At HotSW, six of the 20 board members are councillors – a ratio Mr Jones describes as a “healthy balance”. He also states that prospective board members face a “very rigorous” selection process.

“I think [the mix] has created an understanding about the needs of the business community, and improved their understanding of the needs of the local authority,” he said. HotSW also published information on board members and meetings on its website.

“It is not clear how LEPs fit into devolution.”

The NAO notes that ministers see LEPs as “central” to their plans for English devolution. But it claims LEPs are often “uncertain of their role within a more devolved landscape”, particularly in areas where their boundaries do not match those of the combined authority.

Ms Rothwell said CIOS, which leads on the employment and skills and business supports aspects of Cornwall’s devolution deal, is “very clear” on its involvement. “This one of the strengths that Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly has in terms of focus and geography,” she said. “So we are in a slightly different place than other LEPs].”

The Heart of the South West devolution submission is still in the bid stage. As the name suggests, it corresponds with the area covered by the LEP, but Mr Jones said their role is as “an observer and a consultee” in the process. “There is some degree of confusion around the fact that it is not a complete deal… but it is being led quite rightly by the local authorities,” he said.

“LEPs are at the heart of driving local growth”

Both the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly LEP and the HotSW LEP maintain that they are well on their way to hitting their targets for growth, but it is “too early” to accurately measure their success. They also stress that the NAO report is a “general” comment on the LEP model, and not an assessment of individual bodies.

The DCLG argues the study “misses the point”. A spokesman said: “LEPs are pivotal to driving local economic growth and have an important leadership role in devolution. That is why we have announced this week a further £1.8 billion through a new round of Growth Deals, maintaining our commitment to a £12 billion Local Growth Fund over the course of the Parliament.”

LEP targets for 2020/21

Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly LEP aims to:
Create 20,000 new jobs
See superfast broadband rolled out to 100% of homes and businesses
Build 13,000 homes
Support the creation of at least 336 new businesses
Upgrade the Night Riviera sleeper service

Heart of the South West LEP aims to:
Create 22,000 new jobs
Build 10,000 new homes a year
Reduce rail journeys between Plymouth and London to 2 hours 45 mins
See 95% superfast broadband roll out
Achieve partial dualling of A303/A30 corridor

Further analysis

Torbay MP and Public Accounts Committee member Kevin Foster: “The NAO report highlights the role our local LEPs play in economic development policy, but with this responsibility must come better accountability. It is right that LEPs can decide what reflects local priorities, rather than have them set by government or quangos across artificial regions that do not reflect our actual economic areas. Yet with the amount of money spent via them there needs to be clear measures to ensure the taxpayer gets value for money.”

Devon councillor and HotSW board member Andrew Leadbetter: “The Heart of the South West LEP has successfully enabled the private and public sectors to work together more efficiently to improve the lives of residents by creating jobs, attracting investment and in increasing the diversity of the regional economy. Together we will continue to improve productivity and growth in the region and I look forward to continuing to work with government and our regional partners Plymouth, Somerset and Torbay in the future.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/know-LEPs-New-report-raises-transparency-fears/story-28993422-detail/story.html

Exeter (and by extension its environs) in top ten least affordable cities

“Truro tops the South West list as the seventh least affordable – though many non-city areas could lay claim to worse affordability – with a ratio of 9.11.

It is followed in tenth place by Exeter where average house prices now stand at 8.36 times average earnings.

Devon and Cornwall’s only other city, Plymouth, was not featured in the top fifteen least or most affordable cities.

Affordability in UK cities is, on average, now at its worst level since the average house price to earnings ratio rose to 7.2 at the height of the last housing market boom in 2008.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Truro-Exeter-affordable-cities-buy-home/story-28998321-detail/story.html

Five-week consultation announced on local plan reforms sneaked out with the budget

“The government has announced it will consult on the recommendations in the report of the Local Plans Expert Group until 27 April.

The report was published at the same time as the Budget last week. The Group reported an almost unanimous consensus about the problems facing local plan preparation.

These centre on agreeing housing need; difficulties with the duty to cooperate (including the distribution of unmet housing needs); a lack of political will and commitment; a lack of clarity on key issues, particularly SHMAs, strategic planning, green belt and environmental constraints; too many changes of policy, advice and factual changes in forecasts; and a lack of guidance, support and resources.

Developers and professional planners have given a broad welcome to the group’s proposals for shorter and faster plans which are more effective on growth and ensure proper community engagement.

President of the Royal Town Planning Institute Phil Williams said: “We want to see shorter, more proportionate and responsive, local plans and a greater focus on planning collaboratively across boundaries.

“Overall, the conclusions of the report will provide planners with greater certainty, for example, by allowing for judgments to be made on simpler evidence bases, and being subject to more flexible tests of soundness by the Inspectorate.

“We are also very pleased that the group has acknowledged the role that central government can play by taking steps to incentivise the development of growth points to ensure that housing needs are met”.

Ministers have made it clear that they want to see the planning system move towards a more zonal and ‘red lining’ approach where local authorities use their local plans to signal their development strategy from the outset and make maximum use of permissions in principle to give early certainty and reduce the number of stage developers must go through to get planning permission.”

Five-week consultation announced on local plan reforms

THE REPORT CAN BE FOUND HERE:

Click to access Local-plans-report-to-governement.pdf

Test of new Local Plan: Clinton Devon Estates planning application for unallocated building on green field outside built-up boundary on AONB in Beer

And the original application mentions protected species on the la nd!

Owl commented on the original planning application from Clinton Devon Estates (CDE) for “up to 30” houses at Short Furlong in Beer, querying (amongst other things) why it needed 70 parking spaces. It was described in the planning documents as:

“Planning Application 14/2621/MOUT – Clinton Devon Estates – land at Short Furlong, Beer for development of “up to” 30 houses with “up to” 40% affordable homes. The current application seeks to get planning permission for access only.”

It can be accessed online at:
eastdevon.gov.uk/planning and searching on the planning application number.

CDE asked for an extension before a Development Management Committee meeting in December 2015 and in February 2016 asked for a further extension until April 2016. This has since been extended – again – to the end of May 2016. New documents have been added, particularly a report on drainage of the site:

The latest email is:

“Iestyn
Thanks for confirmation, I shall instruct the DV [District Valuer?] accordingly. Given the earliest committee date is 10th May and that were members to approve the application that there would inevitably be a further period of time involved in the negotiation of a s.106 agreement would it be sensible at this stage to agree a further Extension of Time for the determination of the application until say 31st May 2016 in the first instance?
Regards
Charlie McCullough
Senior Planning Officer”

As above, this suggestion by the Senior Planning Officer was taken up by Iestyn … it’s good to see our developers being helped by our planners. Letters between CDE and EDDC are very cheerful and informal – Charlie this and Amy that, Iestyn the other ….

It seems that attenuation tanks may be needed as there are properties downhill of the site that have to be accommodated with the run off situation (shades of Feniton here?) and this has required detailed information about run off and general drainage though, of course, the report is optimistic about solutions.

Also, it appears that, following advice from EDDC, it has been revised down to 18 homes so that it comes beneath the threshold for strategy 35 of the new Local Plan so that, by building only 18 houses (at this current time) they can be constructed outside the built-up area boundary, if there is need. Mention is made of “affordable houses” but, in the correspondence there is also mention of sorting out exactly what “affordable” will mean in terms of these houses at some later stage (24 February from Nigel Barratt, though for some reason the email starts off about Frogmore Road, Budleigh, rather than Beer, though it has the Beer planning application reference number).

As stated above, and confirmed by EDDC’s Landscape Architect’s consultee report, this is currently a green field site totally within the AONB and not allocated for housing (Consultee, March 2016 document 2215165 online).

She notes that some roads are not shown in plans, and asks why this is. She has concerns that visual relationships of the site are not adequately clear and that the visual “influence” of the site from other significant vantage points in Beer has been underestimated. She is worried about sustainable urban drainage and notes that many of the AONBs requirements are unfulfilled. She believes that EDDC’s own Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and D4 (Landscape requirements) have not been met nor D5 (Trees on site).

It is obvious from the drawings that there could be extensions to this site in coming years, should ways be found in future for such an extension.

Roll on the Development Management Committee meeting.

There appears to be little interest in the application from Beer residents on the EDDC planning application site, with, so far, not one letter of support or objection on file.

has been reactivated

Lewisham GP warns against devolution and health care

NHS reform: Devolution is not the only path to integrated healthcare

Plans to devolve control of health services to local areas are moving ahead quickly in parts of England. But handing powers to local authorities [or in our case the Local Enterprise Partnership] is not the only way to achieve health and social care integration, argues Socialist Health Association vice president Dr Brian Fisher – and devolution carries significant risks for the NHS.

In my area of Lewisham, the CCG and local authority have agreed to be a devo pilot. It will result in better services, possibly new powers, more integration. What’s not to like?

Devolution has real risks and I’d like to explore them here. And I am not convinced it’s needed at all.

Integration, on the other hand, is definitely needed. We know that patients fall through boundary cracks, and communication and culture is often a problem between sectors and organisations. Integration means many things. Including spanning the NHS and social care; primary and secondary care; community care and primary care; third sector and the NHS. Patients would benefit from better integration and communication across all those fences.

NHS integration

But integration and devolution are not the same thing. We have moved a great deal on integration without the need for devolution, and we could do a lot more. It seems a convenient elision to automatically link integration and devolution.

Devolution is the transfer or delegation of power to a lower level, especially by central government to local or regional administration. There are two kinds of devolution: the Sporadic kind, such as Devo-Manc and the Lewisham form – and the Systematic variety coming down the road in the shape of a parliamentary bill. This has big implications.

As I understand it, Devo-Manc has not attracted any new powers to either the NHS nor the LA. So, it may stimulate new conversations, but it doesn’t actually change anything fundamental.

It also brings no new money. Quite the opposite – the costs in money, time and resources of another local redisorganisation may be quite high.

There is little democracy or accountability in the NHS in any case, but devolution does not seem to help. The Devo-Manc changes have gone through with no consultation whatsoever, with even a local MP being unaware of them. Similarly in Lewisham. In addition, much decision-making then appears to take place on a much larger scale, with committees-in-common merging CCGs and localities – it takes planning even further from the citizen.

NHS privatisation

People on the ground in Manchester say they see no privatisation now or in the future. Indeed, they say that the Manchester arrangements militate against privatisation. Nonetheless, in principle, devolution is likely to lead to more shifts in contracts, new organisations – and all that, with the mechanisms in place through the HASCA, will lead to more tenders and more privatisation.

I understand that in Manchester, they are using devolution to carry through cuts to as much as a third of their hospital beds and estate. This, led by the leader of the council. In the current climate this kind of group think is very dangerous.

Meanwhile, the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act will enable local authorities to run NHS organisations.

The Act enables a transfer of local functions of the NHS to a local authority or ‘combined authority’, with a local authority’s permission. The ‘core duties’ of the health secretary – including roles set out in NHS England’s mandate, cannot be transferred. The local authority could take on a current NHS role, or carry it out alongside or jointly with the NHS. The NHS may or may not continue to provide that service itself. There is provision to abolish the public authority where it will no longer have any functions. It allows for a joint committee of the devolved bodies, including at least one CCG, to establish a pooled fund to manage NHS cash.

In principle, it makes sense for NHS services to be run by a local authority: they are structurally democratic; they understand commissioning; much of our health is determined by areas under the control of local authorities; there could be a rapid integrative process; everyone knows their local authority, but is often ignorant of their CCG.

Deregulation of NHS services

But, do you really want your local NHS run by a politician – and particularly a Tory – in the current climate of austerity? Do you want an organisation, your local authority, which has privatised virtually every public service to do the same to the NHS? Do you want an organisation whose life blood is means-testing, trying to do the same to your health services?

The Devolution Act could lead to the deregulation of NHS services, too. The Act mentions ‘standards and duties to be placed on that authority having regard to the national service standards and the national information and accountability obligations’. The phrase ‘having regard to’ is weak in legal terms. It becomes possible for the nationalised standards of care and practice to be slowly abandoned. Surely highly dangerous. And we have seen this in so many other areas of work, for instance banking and food.

The kind of integration we should seek includes the following:

Integrated national standards with nationally recommended treatments.

Integrated methods of allocating resources to areas of greatest need.

Integrated funding through national taxation.

National accountability, democratic control over commissioning, effective PPI, shared power with communities.

An integrated national system of pay, terms and conditions for NHS and social care staff.

Meanwhile, making social care free at the point of need is an essential prerequisite for integration. It would transform the whole scope, scale and landscape of care. The King’s Fund think tank has calculated that it is possible – and we need this to be the direction of travel. It may take some time, but it is absolutely necessary.

So, in short – integration definitely yes. Let’s do more. Devolution, however, seems to have far more risks than benefits, so, in the current climate – beware.

Dr Brian Fisher, GP News, 15 March 2016

Government Report on NPPF to be published on April Fool’s Day …

“The Communities and Local Government Committee will publish its Third Report of session 2015-16, Department for Communities and Local Government consultation on national planning policy, at 00.01 on Friday 1 April 2016.”

What an appropriate date! Watch this space!

“NHS being pressured by government to “fiddle the figures” to make finances seem better”

NHS trusts are being placed under pressure from Government to change the way they report on their finances, in what critics described as a desperate attempt to reduce a looming health service deficit.

The health service is currently forecasting a deficit of £3bn by the end of this month – the highest in the history of the NHS – amid widespread failures by NHS trusts to cut their spending.

But documents seen by The Daily Telegraph disclose that the Department of Health has embarked on a national programme to change current accountancy practices, and to encourage trusts to be more optimistic about their financial problems.

The review being carried out by four major accountancy firms aims to explore “areas of opportunity” about ways which NHS finances could be reported differently. …”

… “This definitely falls into the area of fiddles – being clever about when you book income and when you book expenditure” – Sally Gainsbury, Nuffield Trust” …

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/12203691/NHS-being-pressured-by-government-to-fiddle-the-figures-to-make-finances-seem-better-documents-reveal.html

UK winter floods cost councils £250 million -what is our LEP’s role in building flood resilience ?

“The final tally could be even higher, as councils are still counting the cost of the winter devastation. The total cost to households and businesses hit by the winter floods could be as much as £5bn, KPMG said in December.

The worst-hit council was Cumbria, which saw around £175m in damage to local authority-owned infrastructure, with costs for flood-hit bridges, landslips, carriageway damage, survey work and the need to build a temporary road on the A591.

Calderdale has a bill of £33m, Northumberland £24m and Lancashire has suffered £5m damage due to the floods.

The LGA said government funding had been important in helping local authorities and communities recover from the floods, but warned councils will need more help as the full cost of damage emerges.

The organisation also called for new flood defence funding to be devolved to local areas so authorities can work with communities and businesses to ensure money is spent where it is most needed.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/25/uks-winter-floods-land-councils-with-nearly-250m-bill-survey-shows

This is what our LEP said in February 2014:

“Given its strategic role on both economic and funding matters, the Heart of the South West LEP has been asked to lead the Economic Impact and Funding workstream. The workstream will provide an underlying case for funding of immediate mitigation measures and wider assistance, as well as set out evidence for investment in longer term solutions for the levels and moors area.”

http://www.heartofswlep.co.uk/news/flooding

In June 2014 a £50,000 grant was given to establish “work hubs” in areas that had experienced flooding in the Mendips:

http://www.heartofswlep.co.uk/news/flooding

The only other mention of flooding is in the LEPs response to the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement last year on the same webpage”

“We are pleased that the Exeter Flood Defence Scheme, which will help protect around 3200 businesses and residents across the city is taking shape. It’s vital that we take proactive flood alleviation measures to reduce the potentially disastrous consequences that flooding can have for the economy throughout the HotSW area.”

So, don’t hold your breath on the LEP being proactive with funding for flood resilience infrastructure – it has too much invested in the Hinkley C nuclear power plant and far too many “hubs” of all kinds to fund for business (wo)men for “growth” opportunities.

Rural broadband still losing out as cities spped up

“The latest report from Ofcom on UK broadband speeds suggests that there is still a wide disparity between urban and rural areas.

The average broadband speed in the UK stands at 28.9Mbps (megabits per second), a 27% increase on the average speed last year, the study indicates.
But it was weighted towards urban areas, where users enjoy services three times faster than in rural areas.

Speeds in the countryside had “not improved” said one expert.
An Ofcom spokesperson said: “Most people’s broadband is getting faster, but too many people still can’t get a good, reliable service.”
Dan Howdle, editor-in-chief of broadband comparison site Cable told the BBC: “Ofcom’s report is quick to highlight the increase in UK broadband speeds as an overall average and goes as far as to split things down into urban, semi-urban and rural contexts. …”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35890905

A dictionary of (planning) doublespeak

A Dictionary of Doublespeak

accountability:
failure to account to and utter contempt for the public

affordable:
not affordable, beyond the reach of lower-income local people; of property snapped up by rental companies and second-home buyers

A.O.N.B.:
an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and therefore a place where luxury homes or industrial parks may be built (e.g. Shakespeare Cliff, Sidfields)

appeal:
a planning law allowing developers to overturn Local Authority planning refusals, Councils usually lacking the will and means to contest

Council House(obs):
a misguided post-war attempt to provide housing for social need; property to be sold off to landlords and to buy votes

democracy:
rule by the fortunate few for the fortunate few

devolution”
a scheme designed to by-pass local democracy by transferring power to self- selecting, unelected, unaccountable people with business interests

five-year land-supply:
a planning device that encourages developers to build on more green fields when they haven’t yet built on what they’ve got

flood plain:
land suitable for large-scale building developments

F.O.I.request:
Freedom of Information request – a system designed to delay, deny and obfuscate the truth, usually treated with contempt by Council Officers

green belt:
highly profitable land near large conurbations earmarked for development

Local Authority:
a soft touch for developers

localism:
a means of transferring local democracy to business associates

Local Plan:
an unintelligible, complicated process involving creative accounting in the calculation of job and housing forecasts, designed to ruin the countryside and cause distress to local communities

Neighbourhood Plan:
a plan involving much time and effort expended by local communities but carrying little or no weight when challenged by developers

N.P.P.F.(obscene):
National Planning Policy Framework, a planning system designed by developers for developers

Ombudsman:
an arbitrator without teeth, an irrelevance or charade

one-nation:
serving the interests of the rich at the expense of the poor and disabled (as in “one-nation compassionate Conservatism”)

Right-to-Buy:
a government scheme offering lucrative investment opportunities for landlords and developers to acquire social housing at taxpayers’ expense

sustainable:
definitely not sustainable; without infrastructure or local services; of land profitable for developers, especially on green fields (obscene, as in a presumption in favour of sustainable development)

transparency:
secrecy and obfuscation e.g. failure to produce, or doctoring of, minutes, failure to consult the public, etc

and if this amuses you, “definitions of numpties” on twitter might appeal:

https://mobile.twitter.com/omandprem/status/688698563690385408/photo/1

Could our Local Enterprise Partnership end up running our schools?

They have already collared post-16 training under the general heading of “investment in skills training” and at least one college and one university head is involved with its board.

A small step to schools.

In the meantime Tory shires still very unhappy:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35897430

And recall they already embrace the remit of “health” already (though “growth” in health probably means involving more private enterprise).

How long before undemocratic, unelected, non-transparent LEPs run everything?

“Academy Trust lauded by Cameron in ‘serious breaches’ of guidelines

When you read what has actually happened, one wonders why the group has been allowed to continue its business.

“An academy trust singled out for praise by David Cameron and both current and former Conservative education secretaries has been given a financial notice to improve, after an investigation found “serious breaches” of guidelines.

Government reports raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest involving Perry Beeches academy trust and companies linked to some of its senior administrators. They also found problems with the number of pupils declared as eligible for free school meals.

The trust, which runs five schools – four of which are free schools, was told earlier this month that it would be required to run financial transactions by the government until it made sufficient improvements. The news comes soon after ministers announced that all schools were to become academies by 2022.

“Parents will be deeply worried that this government has completely failed to put in place the appropriate checks over academy chain funding decisions, prioritising converting schools into academies over school standards and the protection of public money,” said Labour’s shadow minister for schools, Nic Dakin.

He added: “It is extremely concerning that so much taxpayer money is ending up in the pockets of academy chain directors and trustees. Labour will fiercely oppose this top-down, costly reorganisation of our schools, which nobody wants and schools don’t need, ensure there is proper oversight of all our schools, and put local parents and communities at the heart of decisions when it comes to their children’s schools.”

Among the concerns raised by the government’s report was its finding that the trust paid a firm called Nexus for services, which were then subcontracted to a firm run by the trust’s own accounting officer.

It also said’s the trust’s chair of governors (CoG) had “joint business interests with the primary director of Nexus”. It added: “A review of declarations of interest confirmed the CoG did not disclose these on the [2014] annual declaration.”

In a letter dated 8 March, the government’s Education Funding Agency said there had been “serious breaches of the academies financial handbook, including serious concerns about financial management, control and governance”.

Perry Beeches has been a favourite of Cameron, as well as former education secretary Michael Gove and his successor Nicky Morgan.

In 2013, the prime minister said its first school was “one of the most successful comprehensive schools ever in Britain”, noting that the trust had since created “other good schools”.

The previous year, Gove was told the Conservative party conference: “There are some amazing schools in Birmingham, there are some great independent schools, there are some great grammar schools, but I have to say the best schools in Birmingham are Perry Beeches I and Perry Beeches II.”

The current education secretary Nicky Morgan has also spoken favourably about the trust.

http://gu.com/p/4hpc5

“New report calls for legal framework for devolution”

A new report has said more must be done to protect the independence of local government through legislation…

An inquiry chaired by Lord Bob Kerslake has called for primary legislation to be introduced to protect local government.

A report, which was published by the inquiry, also said more must be done to encourage government departments to support devolution.

The inquiry into Better Devolution was established by the All-Party parliamentary Group on Reform, Decentralisation and Devolution. It looked at how to achieve greater devolution across the country.

Some of the issues brought up by the inquiry included the scope of devolution deals to date and said all levels of the government must “establish a new understanding of accountability, with citizens looking to local leadership first, and central government second”.

The report added: “At a political level, devolution can only succeed if the electorate perceive a shift in accountability from national politicians to local.

“The temptation for central government to step in when something goes wrong at a local level must be resisted if we are to see this shift occur.

“There needs to be a new legal basis for the independence of local government, made through primary legislation.”

One of the main issues to be brought up during the inquiry was not all parts of the government are backing the drive to devolve powers to regions. Instead, the focus on growth is limiting the scope of devolution deals.

“It was put to us that despite the apparent open door attitude of the government, in practice there has been greater engagement from some government departments than others; a notion of so-called ‘no go’ areas was raised,” the report stated.

“There was also consensus that far from bespoke negotiations, the deals done to date are somewhat template arrangements with little room for variability, the overriding focus being on growth.”

The inquiry said to incorporate devolution successfully across the nation, “all of the UK civil service” will need reforming. There needs to be a more equal partnership between central and local government, as well as change within Whitehall to allow more services to be delivered locally.

Lord Kerslake said: “Greater devolution has the potential to deliver a stronger economy, better services and a stronger Union. But what we are doing now is piecemeal and incoherent.

“As we lead up to the EU referendum and consider our identity within Europe, the need for a wider debate on how we better empower our local areas and govern is greater than ever.

“The time has come for a bigger conversation – one involving all citizens – if we want to reduce the gap between those that govern and those that are governed, and ensure devolution has a strong and lasting legacy whatever the result in June.”

http://www.adjacentgovernment.co.uk/local-council-news/new-report-calls-legal-framework-devolution/25135/

National Audit Office criticism of Local Enterprise Partnerships in more detail

“The National Audit Office has expressed concern at the level of transparency provided by Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and the failure to test their governance assurance frameworks.

In a report on LEPs, the spending watchdog also warned that the approach taken by the Department for Communities and Local Government to overseeing Growth Deals risked future value for money.

Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, said: “LEPs’ role has expanded rapidly and significantly but they are not as transparent to the public as we would expect, especially given they are now responsible for significant amounts of taxpayers’ money.

“While the Department has adopted a ‘light touch’ approach to overseeing Growth Deals, it is important that this doesn’t become ‘no touch’. The Department needs to do more to assure itself that the mechanisms it is relying on ensure value for money are, in fact, effective.”

The NAO report acknowledged that the DCLG had acted to promote standards of governance and transparency in LEPs, and all 39 LEPs had frameworks in place to ensure regularity, propriety and value for money by March 2015.

But it noted that the Department had yet to test the implementation of such assurance frameworks at the time that Growth Deals were finalised. The watchdog said it had found “considerable gaps” in LEPs’ compliance with the DCLG’s requirements in this regard, and that the availability and transparency of financial information varied across LEPs.

The NAO highlighted how, with the advent of the Local Growth Fund, the amount of central government funding received by LEPs was projected to rise to £12bn between 2015-16 and 2020-21 via locally negotiated Growth Deals.

“The Department, however, has not set specific quantifiable objectives for what it hopes to achieve through Growth Deals, meaning that it will be difficult to assess how they have contributed to economic growth,” it suggested.

The report also revealed serious reservations among LEPs themselves about their capacity to deliver and the increasing complexity of the local landscape.

The NAO said: “To oversee and deliver Growth Deal projects effectively, LEPs need access to staff with expertise in complex areas such as forecasting, economic modelling and monitoring and evaluation. Only 5% of LEPs considered that the resources available to them were sufficient to meet the expectations placed on them by government. In addition, 69% of LEPs reported that they did not have sufficient staff and 28% did not think that their staff were sufficiently skilled.”

The report revealed that LEPs relied on their local authority partners for staff and expertise, and that private sector contributions had not yet materialised to the extent expected. In addition, there was a risk that projects being pursued would not necessarily optimise value for money, the watchdog said.

“Pressure on LEPs to spend their Local Growth Fund allocation in year creates a risk that LEPs will not fund those projects that are most suited to long term economic development. Some LEPs reported that they have pursued some projects over others that, in their consideration, would represent better value for money. LEPs have also found it challenging to develop a long-term pipeline of projects that can easily take the place of those that are postponed.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/

Academies: backlash in Tory shires

There is no such thing as “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it” with this Government. When there is money to be made, it must be made.

All in East Devon will be forced to seek investors and change to academy status within the next three years. Their land will go with them, free of charge.

Wainhomes Academy or Persimmon Academy anyone?

“The government is facing opposition from its supporters on Conservative-held county councils who are angry about plans to force all schools to become academies.

Leading Tory councillors across the country, dismayed by key elements of the education white paper outlined by the government last week, are calling on education secretary Nicky Morgan to rethink her policy of compulsory academisation for all schools.

Their concerns echo those of many teachers and parents, who took part in rallies in London and many other towns and cities on Wednesday, to protest against the government’s forced academy programme.

Around the country, councillors – many of them lifelong Tories who have devoted decades to working with schools in their areas and in many cases improving attainment – expressed profound reservations about the changes.”

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

Knowle drainage to be sorted by DCC just in time for Pegasus development

What excellent timing for Pegasus. But perhaps they might be tapped to provide water storage – perhaps in one of their private swimmimg pools.

“Devon County Council (DCC) was this week surveying Station Road to extend a topographical study of the parkland – a first step in implementing Sidmouth’s 2014 surface water management plan (SWMP).

The authority has a funding allocation for 2018/19, so it is working to appraise the project and justify the cost – estimated at £436,000 in 2014’s SWMP – before it approaches government department Defra.

Councillor Stuart Hughes said: “One of the recommendations of the Sidmouth SWMP was to consider attenuating surface run-off in the grounds of Knowle. The preferred scheme and design are very much in the early stages, so this additional survey data being collected will assist us in determining the viability of this option.

“If suitable, then we will look to develop the detailed design and project appraisal to secure the required funding from Defra.”

The SWMP, compiled by Jacobs, said that the total predicted damage in Sidmouth town centre could be worth £12million over a 50-year period if surface water flooding is not addressed. Some 14 per cent of homes and 49 per cent of non-residential properties are at risk. It said ‘realistic and sympathetic’ landscaping at Knowle could provide storage for three million litres of floodwater that would otherwise run down Station Road toward the town centre.

The basin would be dry most of the time and would only store water during times of extreme rainfall, allowing the site to remain accessible. It would then be discharged into the drains once the peak of the flood has passed. Water storage at Knowle was among the options put forward for reducing the flood risk – but it would be most effective if combined with other measures. These include re-profiling All Saints Road and Station Road. The SWMP also proposed a pumped drainage system to prevent water ponding in Bedford Square and a ‘quick-win’ scheme to contain Cheese Lane’s watercourse.

It did not consider the risk of flooding from the River Sid or the sea, which remain the responsibility of the Environment Agency.”

Gateshead and Sunderland join Durham pausing devolution deal

THE North-East’s devolution D-Day looked to have been dramatically postponed tonight (Wednesday), after two more councils refused to sign up to the Chancellor’s flagship offer.

Seven North-East councils had been expected to thrash out a final decision on Chancellor George Osborne’s Boris Johnson-style “metro mayor” package tomorrow (Thursday, March 24).

But after Gateshead threw the process into chaos by rejecting the offer outright on Tuesday (March 23), today (Wednesday) both Durham and Sunderland voted to postpone their decisions until further details are confirmed.

Now when the seven councils meet together tomorrow afternoon (Thursday), under the banner of the North East Combined Authority (Neca), they are expected to follow suit and demand more time.

That request is understood to have grudging agreement of the Government, which is focused on the EU referendum, its under-fire Budget and devolution deals for other regions.

Durham County Council leader Simon Henig said the Government had failed to deliver “fair funding” for hard-up North-East town halls or say whether the new North-East mayor would be able to levy taxes; and if the deal went ahead without safeguards it would be setting the region up to fail.

“This needs to be the right decision for the North-East. We need to take the time to get it right,” he said.

His deputy, Alan Napier, said no-one of “sane mind” would sign up until they knew what was going on.

But Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland councils have already backed the deal.

The seventh and final council involved, South Tyneside, will discuss it tomorrow morning (Thursday).

Sunderland City Council leader Paul Watson said his cabinet had given its unqualified support for the principle of devolution and was “minded” to support the proposals, but added: “We will, in the extra time that has been granted by Government, be seeking further clarification on some details before a decision in the week beginning Monday 9 May.”

Conservative businessman Jeremy Middleton, the only person to publicly declare his candidacy for mayor, warned the region risked being left behind. “This delay shows the impact Labour infighting is having on the devolution process,” he added.

The package on offer would see powers over economic development, skills, transport, housing and planning, plus a £30m-a-year investment fund, handed to a North-East mayor to be elected in May 2017.

Neca will meet at Durham’s County Hall tomorrow (Thursday) at 2.30pm.

A similar devolution package for the Tees Valley, carrying a £15m-a-year investment fund, has already been backed by its five councils, Darlington, Stockton, Middlesbrough, Hartlepool and Redcar and Cleveland.

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/14379159.Two_more_North_East_councils_refuse_to_sign_devolution_deal/?ref=rss

Grimsby not happy about devolution

Devolution revolution – is it all it’s cracked up to be?

The Chancellor confirmed last week that a deal had been agreed for Greater Lincolnshire, with a collaborative agreement in place stretching from the Humber to the Wash.

It’s already been greeted with accusations of bribery and blackmail from Caistor and Market Rasen MP Sir Edward Leigh.

But the Government was keen to push its credentials this week, with the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) more than obliging when the Grimsby Telegraph asked for a chat on the topic.

Getting hold of press officers, never mind a Secretary of State, can be a problem normally, but not so when it came to the big D-word.

And I didn’t even have to call the Communities Secretary – he called me, from his mobile and everything.

Secretary Greg Clark stressed that there were “no downsides” to this devolution deal with no erosion of the current set-up – only more powers on top of it all.

The man in charge of George Osborne’s “devolution revolution” said he had been so impressed with Lincolnshire’s offer that he decided to bump the announcement up the waiting list.

But even he recognised the deal had a “uniqueness”, with the industrial engine of the Humber combined with what is principally a rural county – a combination not everyone believes sits naturally.

‘Huge moment’

The likes of Grimsby MP Melanie Onn and Scunthorpe MP Nic Dakin had pushed for a Humber Estuary devolution deal instead, linking the South Bank with Hull and the East Riding, but North East and North Lincolnshire leaders turned their attention south.

What is interesting about this yellowbelly formation, uniting a population of one million people, is what a vast area it combines.

Stamford in south Lincolnshire is almost as close to London as it is Grimsby, but yet now the two will be tied economically after Westminster handed the county control over a number of functions, including transport, infrastructure investment, health care and even prison services.

“This is a huge moment for Lincolnshire,” said Mr Clark, an advocate for devolution for more than a decade.

“It is the first deal we have done with a predominately rural area. It has got the important local authorities along the South Bank of the Humber and that is what makes it unique – that large rural area combined with an important industrial area.

“It deserves huge congratulations on beating many other areas who had prepared bids, as it managed to get to the head of the queue.”

The bumper £450 million devolution investment – a cash pot of £15 million annually for the next 30 years – will come on the proviso that all ten councils agree to the terms which includes an elected metro mayor for the region. Think Boris Johnson but with less panache.

Advocates for the deal say it could boost the area’s economy by £8 billion, provide 29,000 jobs and see 100,000 homes built.

Will it be enough money?

But the deal was not without its critics.

Ms Onn said, when broken down, the money equated to £15 per person every year and questioned whether it was enough to deliver the growth promised.

Infrastructure projects cost a great deal of money.

The transformation of the A160 at South Killingholme into a dual carriage superhighway comes with a £90 million price tag, and even the Immingham bypass, costing nearly £8 million, would have wiped out half the county’s new devolution budget for the year.

But yet, if the heavy infrastructure spending does have to come out of the devolution fund, that same cash pot would have to still stretch to pay for healthcare improvements, the upkeep of courts and the upgrading of flood defences, however.

The question is, will it manage to finance it all?

Mr Clark argued that the pot of cash allowed the “super authority” to be more inventive with the money.

“It allows them (the Lincolnshire councils) to leverage other money from investors,” he explained as he cut in and out of phone signal while he rode a train to his next meeting.

“This is money that wouldn’t have been available to the area. Without the deal, it simply wouldn’t be there. It can be used intelligently to encourage more investment in the area.”

Lincolnshire acted ‘shrewdly’

When the deal was announced, Conservative Cleethorpes MP Martin Vickers said it had been imperative North East Lincolnshire got in on the act sooner rather than later as the devolution packages on offer were getting “less generous” by the month. …”

http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Devolution-revolution-8211-s-cracked/story-28969214-detail/story.html

Durham defers devolution deal

A multi-billion pound devolution deal for the North East is on the ropes after ANOTHER council raised concerns over the proposal.

Durham County Council’s cabinet on Wednesday decided to defer making a decision, following Gateshead Council’s decision on Tuesday to reject it.

The two authorities had previously signed up to the programme, which could unlock £3.4bn in job creation and skills training cash.

Both authorities have said they support “genuine devolution for the North East” – but councillors have argued that they don’t believe what is being offered matches up to that.

Durham County Council leader Simon Henig told councillors that fair funding for the region needed to be in place to make the deal work, adding that more time was needed to get the deal right.

Gateshead leader Mick Henry blamed the politicians in Westminster for the lack of a breakthrough.

He said: “Government needs to think again about how to address the issues of the North East and how they are going to be seriously and properly fair to us.

“I think it’s a real shame that they seem to want devolution to take place but aren’t prepared to be open minded.”

On Thursday, the leaders of the seven councils which make up the North East Combined Authority will meet to discuss the proposals.

They will in effect have four options – turn down the deal, agree the deal, agree the deal with conditions attached, or delay the deal.

The North East Liberal Democrats have called for the decision to be deferred to allow for further negotiations.

A spokesman said: “We recognise many of the concerns expressed about the current deal, including the requirement for an elected mayor, and the lack of say afforded to the public on this decision.

“We believe a decision should be deferred to allow for further negotiations with Government and we encourage NECA to explore this with a view to establishing whether a better deal with wider support is possible.

“We call for urgent cross-party discussions on how the devolution deal process can be taken forward with greater consensus.”

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/north-east-devolution-deal-takes-11085019