EDDC budget: Financial black holes and how to fall into them

A correspondent writes (views expressed below are the personal views of the correspondent).

“At Cabinet on Wednesday this week (agenda here), and at joint Scrutiny & Overview Committee on Wednesday of next week (agenda here), EDDC will be discussing the proposed budget for the next financial year.

Comments:

a. EDDC has already had cuts in central government revenue of £2.3m between 2011 and 2014 and a further cut of £0.8m last year. They are facing a further cut of £0.8m this year – so a total reduction of almost £4m from c. £7.5m to £3.6m between 2011 and 2016. The government is phasing out the Revenue Support Grant by 2020, so there are c. £3.6m of cuts to come in the next 3 years. To put this in perspective, the total revenue income / expenditure is c.£15m so this is a very significant proportion.

b. The government has stated that in the future it expects councils to be funded from business rates, but it has also given business rates for the Enterprise Zones (where the majority of business growth is expected) to the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) for 25 years, presumably as a means of them raising capital loans to fund development of the Enterprise Zones in East Devon these are the East Devon Growth Point and Cranbrook). So growth in Business Rates is unlikely to replace the Revenue Support Grants.

c. EDDC is planning to increase Council tax for the first time in 6 years by 1.99% (para 2.14). No explanation is provided about why this particular level has been chosen, though it appears to have been decided upon as being as close to the 2% as they can get without triggering a referendum.

d. Despite increasing council tax, they state that the New Home Bonus will be used to cover a further revenue shortfall this year (see paragraph 2.9 in the budget report in the agenda papers) in addition to the same £1.5m needed again to make up last year’s revenue shortfall.

e. EDDC plans to run the Capital Reserve fund to zero (para 4.7) in order to provide the bridging funds required to build the Honiton Offices before receiving moneys from the sale of the Knowle. This does not seem to me to be financially prudent – and the figures are further risked by unknown capital projects and the reduction in New Homes Bonus.

f. As usual, it is essential to review these finance documents to see what is missing. Whilst I do not have either the time or the knowledge to do this, I have spotted that the Sidmouth Beach Management funding is disappearing from the budget!!!

The most worrying thing is the increasing reliance on capital receipts to plug increasing shortfalls in revenue income. This does not seem financially prudent, for several reasons:

  1. Revenue shortfalls continue every year and are cumulative, whilst capital receipts are one-off and not guaranteed in the future.
  2. The NHB is the current means of plugging this gap, but is under review by government and likely to fall substantially per home. It also seems fairly likely that EDDC will never get close to the number of homes they have committed to deliver in the draft Local Plan – so EDDC won’t make the money they expect either.
  3. On the other hand, EDDC will definitely be facing further cuts in central government funding of £3.6m per year – which is a lot more revenue shortfall to plug using a reducing NHB stream.

This is NOT a sound means of financing its ongoing costs. Put simply the council cannot afford to continue balancing its books by covering revenue shortfalls from capital receipts which are likely to decline substantially over the next few years.

This is the legacy of keeping Council Tax the same for 5 years running. The Tory leadership at EDDC did this because they accepted the Council Tax Freeze Grant, offered to councils (like EDDC) who kept their council tax the same year after year. The only problem with this is that a Council Tax increase (however unpopular) is a cumulative income increase (i.e. an increase this year creates additional revenue in each following year too) whilst the grant is a one-off payment. You would not decide that you could afford electricity by paying using one-off income like premium bond wins, so EDDC’s decisions appear to be both short-term and short-sighted.

Indeed, it appears that EDDC is addicted to one-off fixes from central government to the long-term detriment of the council’s finances.

However, continuing use of one-off capital payments to plug a widening gap in revenue is not a good direction for the future. If these capital receipts ever stop coming in, EDDC’s finances will be in real trouble.

With a current shortfall of £1.85m and a further reduction in government funding of £3.6m, EDDC will need to find £5.45m per year by 2020 (which is approximately 35%of expenditure) over the next 4 years – and it is difficult to see how EDDC can come even close to achieving these through efficiency savings or revenue increases or even both. EDDC’s plan appears to be too use the Transformation Strategy (pages 115-132) to fill this gap in funding through to 2020 – and whilst this does included a lot of small aspirational efficiency improvements, they all appear to be relatively minor in nature, with the bulk of the funding gap presumably covered by selling off assets (which again provide only one-off income boosts and failing to address the real issue of revenue shortfall). Of course, the detail of EDDC’s plans are deemed confidential – but is it any wonder that EDDC works so hard to keep the Agendas and Reports of its Asset Management Committee secret when it needs to sell assets in such quantities to plug this huge gap in its finances?

Eventually (presumably in 2020), there will be a £5m+ revenue funding gap, no more government Revenue Support Grant, no more New Homes Bonus and presumably no more assets remaining to sell – and then what happens?

It appears to me that this ongoing and increasing funding gap, temporarily bridged using first the Council Tax Freeze Grant and then the New Homes Bonus, is a direct consequence of Tory dogma to freeze council tax (which is a reduction in real terms). It also appears to explain why EDDC has been so set on having a Local Plan which includes huge numbers of new homes – because these new homes attract the New Homes Bonus and this appears to be their means of keeping the finances afloat.

I urge people to take an interest in what is happening at EDDC and to go and look at the budget and local plan documentation for themselves.

EDDC needs to start working towards being able to balance the revenue accounts without using NHB to cover the shortfall and to wean itself off one-off central government fixes to which it seems to be addicted.

The proposal to increase council tax by 1.99% is a start, but even with this proposal the revenue short-fall is still increasing compared to last year. And if increasing it by 2% or more triggers a referendum, all the better – as this will shine a light on the council’s finances and enable open debate about how the council’s services are best funded.

Whilst council tax rises will never be popular, to continue on this current slippery slope is to invite complete financial meltdown in 4 years time!!“

“In defence of scrutiny”

Article by Baroness Smith, House of Lords

“At this time of the year, we often reflect on the past and make plans for the future. For politicians, it is particularly poignant as we look back over the first eight months of the only wholly Conservative government for 18 years and consider what the future holds.

Already, the true character of the government is evident. The Lobbying Bill – or rather, ‘Gagging Bill’ – introduced by the Coalition set the tone, by making it much harder for charities and campaigning organisations to get their messages across. But the Conservatives have now taken this aversion to challenge and scrutiny to a level that I thought was lost with the court of Charles I.

We’ve had had the review of constituency boundaries, where the Prime Minister took the unprecedented step of instructing the Boundaries Commission on how many constituencies there should be. As he seeks to reduce the number of MPs however, Mr Cameron continues to appoint Life Peers at faster rate than any of his predecessors.

Changes to voter registration have also been rushed in, contrary to Electoral Commission advice – meaning many thousands of people could lose the right to vote. No prizes for guessing which political party is expected to gain from this.

Then there’s the Trade Union Bill, which seeks to decimate the Labour Party’s funding base whilst making no commensurate changes that would impact on the Conservative’s sources of income.

And now, smarting from a defeat in the House of Lords on plans to slash tax credits for working families, the government is using a review by Lord Strathclyde as a Trojan horse to blunt Peers’ powers of scrutiny over secondary legislation.

So what did the Lords do that was so terrible? We dared to suggest that perhaps the Chancellor hadn’t got this right, declined to pass a Statutory Instrument, and gave the government the opportunity to pause and think again. Mr Osborne took full advantage of this and promptly scrapped his planned changes. After months defending his flagship policy, he realised what many others had from the start – that taking away thousands of pounds from the lowest-paid was neither good policy nor good politics.

Had the Lords not asked Ministers to think again, two million families would have had a very different Christmas. Indeed, that whole debate showed the Lords at its best – doing the quiet, unglamorous work of marking the government’s homework; going through legislation line-by-line, tweaking and improving; and from time to time asking the government to reconsider.

Since the beginning of this Parliament, Peers have scrutinised 60 pieces of legislation over hundreds of hours. We’ve had 42 votes and defeated the government 23 times. (MPs have voted close to 150 times during the same period.) At no point have we stopped a policy that the Conservatives were elected to implement; and crucially, 16 of the defeats were on Bills that started in the Lords and so had no prior scrutiny or approval from the Commons. A fair few of the Bills were in fact, half-baked.

On the day back in July when we broke for summer recess, I wrote another blog for Huffington Post on the votes we’d won by that point. Since then, we’ve won thirteen more.

We’ve amended the Childcare Bill to increase flexibility for parents and ensure the regulations derived from it are properly debated on. In the Energy Bill, we’ve voted to broaden the purposes of the Oil and Gas Authority, change the UKs climate budget’s metric to give greater certainty to Green investors, and block cuts to onshore wind subsidies. And in the Enterprise Bill we’ve voted to ensure the Green Investment Bank maintains its green purposes after privatisation, and supported pub owners in requiring pub companies to offer a market rent only option to tied tenants.

We also suggested that the early introduction of Individual Electoral Registration be halted, to prevent one million people dropping off the register, and called for 16 and 17 years olds to have a vote in the EU referendum. Although on both occasions, the government subsequently defeated us.

Finally, and in addition to our ‘help’ to Mr Osborne on tax credits, we also provided the opportunity for Lord Chancellor Michael Gove to reverse his ill-fated policy on criminal courts charges, which he duly did.

All of this doesn’t add up to a major attack on democracy. It is the job of Parliament to scrutinise the actions of the Executive – a job that becomes all the more vital when Mr Cameron is reported as telling Ministers to: “use statutory instruments wherever possible to get legislation through”.

During thirteen years in office between 1997 and 2010, Labour was defeated over 500 times in the Lords. We didn’t like it but we just got on with the job. No government likes to be told they’ve got something wrong, but the current Prime Minister needs to learn that scrutiny, transparency and challenge is fundamental to a healthy democracy. And, as the Chancellor will no doubt confirm, it can sometimes even be his friend.”

Baroness Smith of Basildon is Labour Leader in the House of Lords

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/baroness-smith/house-of-lords_b_8911780.html

Sidmouth architecture competition gets mixed reaction at town council meeting

“At Sidmouth Town Council (STC) tonight, the architecture competition for eastern town was described as “a fantastic opportunity” (Cllr Dawn Manley) , and “a great initiative” (Cllr John Rayson). Chair, Jeff Turner was also supportive, saying he regarded the competition as “part of a mix” of ideas alongside those that would emerge from Sidmouth’s Neighbourhood Plan now being prepared by the Town Council, and from the District’s Local Plan. Cllr David Barratt, too, took an optimistic view. “It’s going to happen, let’s make it positive”, he urged his colleagues, emphasising that “it costs us nothing”, but with the proviso that “it must be open-ended”.

Cllr Ian Barlow found himself a lone voice amongst the councillors. In an untypically rambling speech criticising the competition as “too early”, he was straightaway countered by Cllr Dawn Manley. “It’s never too early”, she said, pointing out that “EDDC say they do want to work with the Town Council and with the public”.

Cllr Kelvin Dent welcomed the “crucial” scoping exercise about to be started by EDDC with STC, but added a note of caution. He asked the Chair, “In view of our contribution (£2,000 from STC, with £8,000 from EDDC), could I request that the Town Council be represented on the scoping exercise committee,” to ensure that we are involved in, for example, the choice of consultants?”

The reply was not entirely reassuring. “I understand we still have to finalise the format for the scoping exercise” , Jeff Turner said.

At this point, the town clerk, Chris Holland, was invited to comment. “It is this council who will be leading the scoping exercise “ he vehemently claimed, adding, “I don’t care what’s happened in Exmouth and in Seaton” and “I don’t care what baggage EDDC brings with it. This is Sidmouth, and we will get it right”.

With this somewhat parochial assurance, the discussion was closed.”

http://saveoursidmouth.com/2016/01/04/architecture-competition-for-eastern-town-part-of-a-mix-of-ideas-says-chair-of-sidmouth-town-council/

EDDC’s New Year Resolutions

Diviani has put together the usual oleaginous press release about what wonderful things EDDC promises us this year.

Owl refuses to print it, discuss it or link to it – why waste precious breaths on weasel words.

You think Feniton is the only place where Wainhomes mucked up surface water drainage? Think again!

“Following heavy rain in November and December, local residents living at Hurst Meadows and Craiglands are in despair due to “dark brown” flood water that has been flowing towards their properties from a Broad Lane development.

At the beginning of November, it is understood that residents of Craiglands advised Rochdale Council that an attenuation pond at the top of Hurst Meadows was almost “full to the brim” and that that outflow pipe had “disappeared under the water and foliage that had not been removed”.

A resident reported to the council that surface water from the Wain Homes side of the development was “pouring onto the footpath and grass” around the attenuation pond and added that “the water was dark brown in colour” and that “so much of it had flowed into the pond that its contents were also dark brown.”

Neil Longsden from the Broad Lane Action Group (BLAG) said: “Rochdale Council has responded to the affected outflow pipe (which is owned by United Utilities) that had become defective and it was hoped the situation would be resolved quite quickly. Our member advised the council that when she walked over the land at 11am on Monday 16 November, the pipe was visible and the dark brown surface water only appeared between 11am and 12 noon that day. We question what is the ‘brown water’? Is it a danger to local residents and families? Where is it coming from? How will it be rectified?

“We do not hold our breath for an answer because we have been waiting almost 12 months for Rochdale Council to appoint an expert to identify the source of the water which has plagued Craiglands residents for 25 years and continues to do so. Councillor Kath Nickson requested this report at the beginning of 2015 and confirmed funds were available – the council say they cannot find an expert to carry out this research into an issue which has caused so much distress over the years.”

Plans to build a housing development on the site were approved by councillors in April 2014.

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/86525/broad-lane-housing-development-plans-approved

Mr Longsden added: “When BLAG was objecting to the then proposed developments one of the issues raised was the extremely wet conditions of Spring Hill (the area going to be developed). During the Planning Inspector’s hearing Taylor Wimpey and Wain Homes both agreed to install attenuation tanks that would retain almost all surface water and then slowly release it into the attenuation pond at Hurst Meadows before being again released into the culvert which runs towards Oldham Road.

“Towards the end of November 2015 Rochdale started to experience continuous rainfall and the pond soon reached critical levels. The open space at the top of Hurst Meadows was flooded and covered in silt and other concoctions, as were the public footpaths running through the area which are used by local residents extensively on a daily basis.”

It is understood that Wain Homes have commenced groundworks to clear up the silt and other debris and is working to reinstate the land to its former ‘grassed terrain’. They also plan to install an attenuation tank, which should help to control the previously rapid flow of water.

Taylor Wimpey are said to be installing their attenuation tank and other control devices in the next couple of weeks, with their part of the engineering to control the surface water on schedule.

Rochdale Council did not respond to our request for comment.”

http://rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/99902/hurst-meadows-and-craiglands-residents-in-despair

Wainhomes: not Tavistock’s favourite developer

” WEST Devon Borough Council is investigating a possible breach in the Section 106 agreement of a planning application for the development of 61 homes in North Tawton.

The investigation relates to a marketing strategy.

Developers Wain-homes Ltd, first submitted a controversial planning application back in October 2013, for the construction of a new housing estate at Batheway Fields, west of High Street, in North Tawton.
Despite public concern, NTTC (North Tawton Town Council) supported the application because of a medical centre and industrial area (employment land) that were included in the plans.

The developers had also obtained planning permission for roads, footways, parking, landscaping, drainage, open space and allotments.

Wainhomes has since submitted a new application for 28 more residential dwellings at the site with associated footways, parking, landscaping and drainage. The plans no longer show employment land and the allotments have been relocated.

Recently West Devon Borough Council has been made aware of a possible breach of terms set in the Section 106 agreement for the initial application of 61 homes.

The Section 106 agreement outlines a detailed timetable of the dates that West Devon Borough Council has set for the completion of particular written documentation or payments.

The fifth schedule is that the developer should submit marketing strategy to the council for written approval prior to the occupation of the first dwelling and subsequently to marketing the employment land and medical centre site in accordance with those strategies for a period of five years unless planning permission is granted for an alternative use.

One local resident told the Times that she believed that the first house on the site was occupied two weeks ago and that West Devon Borough Council had not received the marketing strategy.

A spokesperson for the borough council said: ‘We’ve been made aware of a possible breach in the Section 106 agreement concerning the planning application for 61 homes at Batheway Fields, North Tawton.

‘We’re committed to ensuring that Section 106 agreements are complied with across the borough and planning enforcement are currently investigating, and as such, we are not in a position to provide any more information at this point in the process.’

In submitting the new application for 28 extra dwellings the developer has proposed the relocation of the allotments to outside the site area and it no longer shows the employment land.

However, Matthew Loughrey-Robinson, land manager at Wainhomes previously said to the Times: ‘The bigger picture is that employment could be provided in an alternative location in North Tawton which could be considered as part of another connected wider application for the area.’

Wainhomes has not responded to the Times’ request for a comment.

http://www.tavistock-today.co.uk/article.cfm?id=411530&headline=Possible%20breach%20%20in%20agreement%20on%20homes%20investigated&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2016

Oliver Letwin not Dorset’s golden boy these days

“?..Whilst 36% of the constituency did vote for him in the last election I genuinely feel that his views do not represent those of the vast majority of people living in West Dorset which, whilst it does have an affluent side, also has a large population on very low incomes, reliant on tourism and farm work to make ends meet. We need an inclusive society and these divisive opinions do nothing to foster that. I look forward to the revelation of his opinion on the Poll Tax riots which were mostly by people with white skin. …”

http://www.dorseteye.com/west/articles/constituents-calling-for-resignation-of-oliver-letwin-mp

Feniton: a tale of two flood relief systems where Wainhomes comes bottom

Feniton’s Independent Councillor Susie Bond report on Feniton’s most recent flooding challenges shows there were mixed results. Those of the Environment Agency’s Phase 1 works appear to be doing their job – but those of the controversial Wainhomes development are a very different story.

It is worth going to Councillor Bond’s web page (link below) to see the photographs.

EDDC’s negligent attitude to this problem must surely be a case for the Ombudsman.

“… Less successful was the works carried out by Wainhomes on the Winchester Park site.

Surface water poured around the attenuation tanks, straight into the Parish Council play area. The special surface under the swings is now full of silt and will have to be cleaned again (I’ve lost track of how many times this has had to be done and at what cost to the public purse). From there, it flooded the allotments (again) and poured under the gates into the drains. With a night of rain ahead, the flood wardens were out in force to slow the rate of flow such that the drains would be able to cope.

It was cold, miserable work.

The frustrating thing is that this is still happening at all, even after Wainhomes has built the 50 houses they were allowed. As is well known, Wainhomes failed initially to install attenuation tanks to help mitigate surface water run-off from their site. Another measure was for them to install swales – a system of ditches between the estate and the adjoining agricultural fields – to help store surface water.

When flood wardens and I looked at the swales over New Year to see how well they were coping, to our amazement they were virtually empty.

Were the swales built according to the specifications drawn up by Wainhomes’ consultants? Or is the design of the surface water drainage system substandard, as Feniton Parish Council suspects?

Either way we were amazed to see that the new bank between Station Road and the open space vacated by the temporary site office has been deliberately breached.

Why?

This irresponsible action has resulted in water being allowed to pour from the site down Station Road towards houses which have a long history of flooding.”

https://susiebond.wordpress.com/2016/01/04/water-water-everywhere-here-we-go-again/

Re-imagining Port Royal: drop-in session 9 January 10-12 noon

Reimagining Port Royal

Architecture competition for eastern town and Port Royal

Public information drop-in session, Sat 9 January 10 a.m to 12 noon

Leigh Browne Room at the Old Meeting Dissenters’ Chapel (opposite Tesco)

The consultation can be completed on the spot, e.g. for those who don’t have internet access

Refreshments available
Donations welcome to cover costs
Organised by the Eastern Town Partnership
http://www.easterntownpartnership.com

Clinton Devon attempts to reassure those who might be affected by its plans to ” restore” the lower River Otter

It definitely needs some careful reading between the lines – our compliments to the communications expert who drafted it! As always, what is NOT being said is probably much more important than what IS being said. Owl would not be at all happy if it lived in South Farm Road….

And the “reassurance” that it will conform to “guidance in force at the time of planning” doesn’t quite cut the mustard after Storm Frank.

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/lower_otter_restoration_project_questions_answered_by_project_manager_1_4362486

Even Totnes has fallen to greedy developers – what hope for the rest of us?

“… Totnes has become a victim of the government’s 2012 relaxation of planning laws. The failure of South Hams District Council to produce a new Local Plan has given developers and landowners alike a loophole, through which they have swarmed, eager to build all around and over this popular historic town.

Landowners like the Duke of Somerset, or the ‘Dukes a Hazard’ as he’s known here, have made millions selling off their ancestral lands to developers like Linden Homes and Cavanna, who are in the process of building hundreds and hundreds of homes around Totnes, hundreds of identikit boxes. Sites like the misnamed ‘Camomile Lawn,’ where they have managed to water down the provision for affordable homes and have built enormous £850,000 executive villas on the banks of the Dart, 100 mixed houses, only eleven of which are deemed affordable. A year ago sheep peacefully grazed here.

They are cramming houses into any green space they can find between Totnes and the neighbouring villages of Dartington and Berry Pomeroy. There are plans to build on school fields, on wildlife corridors, over the assisted houses of elderly people. The last dairy farm in Totnes, a farm of 400 acres with a 4th generation tenant farmer attached, has been sold off by the Duke of Somerset to developers and the farmer pushed off his land. Despite all the protests, all the agonising by local people, the developers continue and they seem unstoppable. There’s talk of enlarging the road to Torbay, of building alongside it. This is all farmland. The only development the council managed to oppose was contested in court by Linden Homes and the council ended up having to pay both costs. Local people effectively therefore, had to pay to aid the developer in the destruction of their town.

In the 2011 general census Totnes had 8,056 inhabitants. The population has hardly grown since then and yet nearly 1,500 houses between here, Berry Pomeroy and Dartington have been granted or are in the process of being granted, planning permission. That could mean up to 4,000 new people, maybe more as many of these houses are 4 to 5 bed houses; this could result in the near doubling of the population. There has been little to no new infrastructure built alongside this mass development. The developers, Linden, Cavanna and Bloor have paid for a couple of roads to be tarmaced, a couple of new bicycle lanes extended, but no new car parks, no new doctors surgeries, no extension of the sewerage works, the schools are at capacity and traffic here throughout the year is appalling, it takes 40 minutes often to drive the couple of miles between Dartington and Totnes. All of these developments bar two are on greenfield sites.

Its an absolute disaster, the greed of a few to the detriment of the many. And they don’t even deal with the stated reason for it all – affordable housing for those on the housing lists. There was a housing problem before the mass developments started and there still is one. Prices are high in Totnes because of incomers money and the large amount of holiday homes here. Totnes and nearby Dartmouth and Salcombe are expensive because they are still beautiful and were spared the planning fiascoes of the 60’s which decimated towns like Paignton, Torquay, Newton Abbot and Plymouth, which is one of the poorest urban areas in Europe. The unspoilt towns and villages of the South Hams are where incomers and retirees want to live, where people want to visit, house prices are therefore higher. There is also a lack of rental property. It is more profitable for landlords to rent out their houses in the summer than rent them to local people, so many houses are left empty throughout the winter or have seasonal tenants only. This needs to be resolved, but this mass building on our farmland has not helped at all.

A large number of these new houses are being sold to second home owners or as buy to let properties. Investors have been buying the very few cheaper houses on offer and renting them out at the usual exorbitant prices. The most expensive of the new builds, the £850,000 villas on the Dart have gone as second homes according to a local estate agent . Unless they manage to get one of the few houses that offer shared ownership, then people in need can no more afford to buy the £250,000 new builds than they can buy the hundreds of houses for that price that are on the market already and which linger in estate agents windows for years. There are a great number of empty homes in Torbay and the South Hams. There isn’t a lack of houses here, it’s a lack of money that’s the problem and still is. In fact the new builds have made the situation much worse because they threaten our livelihoods as well.

Devon’s main asset is its countryside. We are lucky enough to have fertile, productive land, which is also beautiful enough to attract tourists. We have a profitable and growing food industry here, which is being hit hard by the loss of prime farmland. Land is at a premium and is being sold at very high cost; farmers are looking to sell to developers, knowing that if planning permission is sought, it is very likely to be granted by a council unable to cope. Although Mr Cavanna of Cavanna Housing describes the countryside as ‘empty land’, its anything but. This is where people live and work, this is where our food is grown and our wildlife lives. Once it has been built over it has gone for good, there is no reversal, prime farmland and wildlife corridors are being concreted over and are lost forever.

Tourism is also suffering; people come to see the rolling hills and bucolic villages of the Devon countryside, not enormous housing estates and choked roads. Visitors I talked to in the summer spoke of their dismay at the number of houses going up in AONB, that the problems with traffic and building would put them off coming back to Devon. People will lose their jobs – the B&Bs in the ancient villages, which are now being consumed by giant estates, talk of disappearing visitor numbers. Landowners are leaving the county with millions in their pockets for a nice retirement in the sun, while organisations like the National Trust and CPRE talk of a catastrophe. Devon is sinking and its all because of the government’s blind rush to build houses without giving local people a chance to direct and be involved in the development.

Totnes, being a place full of enterprising and creative people has tried to become involved. The old Dairy Crest site, which closed 8 years ago has been the focus of a community led development group. They have secured investment and have plans for truly affordable homes and an arts centre on the site, called Atmos. Its a very interesting, thoughtful project, but is totally overshadowed by the mass developments going on around it. Leading down from Atmos by the train station, there is a row of 3 story buildings planned by a developer and hardly in the spirit of Atmos. ‘It will look,’ says a local campaigner, ‘like you’re coming in to a redbrick London suburb.’

On the northern edge of Totnes, the largest landowner is Dartington Hall Trust. This is a charitable trust which was left their land for the good of the community to advance research in alternative education and agriculture. They have have found it just a little bit more profitable however, to sell to developers, offering a large amount of their green fields to the council for consideration The village attached to the estate polled a no confidence vote in the Trust last year and yet against all the wishes of their local populace and against the legacy of their trust they have refused to remove their land from consideration.

Dartington is interesting because the chairman of their property board, Tim Jones, also sits on the board of Devon’s LEP, an organisation set up by the government to promote business and enterprise in the South West. The board is given millions by the government to encourage development, much of which has gone to promoting house building. There’s talk of the LEP funding 11,000 new homes in Devon. On the board with Tim Jones, also sit CEOs of housing corporations, property managers, Devon county councillors and people with business interests in transport construction. There is concern amongst local people, who want questions answered. They also want questions asked of the council, who have failed to turn down any of the mass developments here. They reject self-builds and extensions because of ‘adverse impact on traffic’; but that doesn’t seem a problem when there are major builds at stake and the council gets paid a new house bonus on each house built. Questions should also be asked also of where this new house bonus goes. The council has it listed as revenue on its books and use expected revenue from house bonuses as a part of their predicted annual budget, even before the development goes before them for planning permission. Therefore it is in their interest, it seems, to pass them, however inappropriate and damaging they are.

Totnes is not alone. There are many, many other villages and towns facing the same problem not just in Devon, but across the country and its hard to see many positives. We are losing greenfield sites like never before, people are disenfranchised and ignored, our jobs and infrastructure are being adversely affected and it doesn’t seem to be slowing down. All you hear from the media and from parliament is the need to build, not the need to build well, or only to build where its actually needed. We need protection from this land grab, this profiteering.

The future for the Totnes of 2016 is a lot less rosy than it was just a couple of years ago when the Guardian wrote a piece called, ‘Totnes: Britain’s town of the future’, that all rings a little hollow now.”

https://allengeorgina.wordpress.com/2015/11/08/the-sad-fate-of-totnes/

“Systems Thinking” EDDC style or: how to compliment the naked emperor on his beautiful robes!

Tucked away on page 155 of the 6 Jan 2016 Cabinet papers is the Monthly Performance Report November 2015 with a hot link to the “Systems Thinking Reports for Housing, Development Management and Revenues and Benefits”.

For our planning officers (or Management Development Team) “Systems Thinking” tells us something very profound: work pressures are still high and complex due to lack of adopted Local Plan; and its adoption will greatly assist with morale and workloads.

The essence of “Systems Thinking” is to think “in the round” or – if you are flogging it as a consultant “holistically”. When doing so, you might think this would include how the policies under review might affect the long-suffering residents of East Devon, who have had to watch this management-speak jingoistic fiasco play out since the first early attempts at drafting of the Local Plan were published for consultation in 2002. Alas, not.

“Systems Thinking” might also tell us that if you don’t answer the exam questions you are not likely to pass the exam!

The principal reasons Inspector Thickett threw out the Draft Local Plan, sent to him in 2014 were: that the housing targets were not based on empirical evidence; there was no 5 year land supply; the plan period was too short (given the time it had taken to draft); and there was no plan for Gypsies and Travellers. Not much systems thinking there then!

In July 2015 we had the Public Examination of EDDC’s exam resit after Inspector Thickett put a halt on all the foot-dragging and imposed a timetable for it.

As a result of this Public Examination, Inspector Thickett has decided to make the decision on the overall housing target himself, presumably after running out of patience. EDDC’s reaction to his other concern – that divvying up 5% of the target to small towns and villages was arbitrary and not based on evidence – has been to simply remove the target. End of problem? Maybe not as some villages will almost certainly be forced to have to have some development (see Chardstock below, and Dunkeswell) unless Mr Thickett can sort that out too.

On the 5-year land supply the developers have written at length explaining that although they might have been granted sufficient (indeed, more than sufficient) planning permissions, there are very good reasons (to them) why build out rates are falling behind. This is not, as most people would claim, to keep house prices artificially high. The developers don’t give any alternative explanation, they just argue that more land should be released for more building ( or non- building, which would mean releasing more land ad infinitum. It should be noted that, as a penalty for not having a Local Plan or a 5-year land supply, the Government adds an extra 20% to this land supply target, so developers could play this out for decades to come!

For many years the draft Local Plan covered the 20 year period 2006 to 2026. For reasons known only to EDDC, the current draft runs for 18 years from 2013 to 2031. The minimum time horizon for a Plan is 15 years. We are now in 2016, having wasted another three years of the revised Plan period. So things are getting tight again, depending on how Inspector Thickett interprets this. Another year’s delay could mean back to the drawing-board – again.

Inspector Thickett himself has decided that, in order to speed things up, he must draft the missing Gypsies and Travellers policy himself. But EDDC has managed to put a spoke in that wheel by announcing that it wants most places around Cranbrook – not, of course, popular with the new locals there!

During the Local Plan Examination another potential show stopper became apparent. This is that EDDC had failed to get Natural England to agree on how EDDC proposes to meet the habitat mitigation regulations to offset all the building, something that is a legal requirement. This is one of those compulsory exam questions that EDDC hadn’t really attempted to answer. Despite being asked by the Inspector to go away and reach agreement with Natural England, it is clear from EDDC’s latest submission (how many resits do you get to take?) that they now expect him to adjudicate between them and Natural England, too. Yet again, not much evidence of systems or thinking!

You might have thought that the Exmouth Masterplan, if it is going to achieve anything substantive, should be an important element of the new Local Plan. But all references to it have been removed from the current Local Plan draft because meeting the habitat conditions in this case would take a couple of years at least. Does “Systems Thinking” include anticipating problems and planning ahead?

Lastly, poor Chardstock! Classified as a village unsuitable for further development up until the last moment (thanks to some nifty footwork from Councillor Andrew Moulding), then suddenly and without explanation reclassified as “suitable for sustainable development”, its fate now depends upon Inspector Thickett’s reading of the local bus time-table!

So let us give Cllr Paul Diviani the last word, from his Christmas/New year message:

“Finally, it gives me enormous pleasure to say that the finalisation of our Local Plan is now within sight and we are anticipating being able to adopt it early next year. This detailed and robust document will help us deliver the aspirations and housing needs of local people, as well as land for employment. It will also help protect our beautiful countryside from unwanted and inappropriate development.”

Or nearly the last word because how much of this plan will be EDDC’s and how much Inspector Thickett’s?

And whose Systems and whose Thinking!

“People before wildlife” says Environment Agency on flooding

“People will always come first” in the battle to defend the UK against flooding, the Environment Agency’s chief executive has said.
“If we have to choose between people and wildlife, we will always, of course, choose people,” Sir James Bevan to
ld BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-352133

OR you could put it another way:

Developers building on floodplains will get the money ….

This effectively means that forests, woods, open spaces and other wildlife havens are not important.

Regenerate, degenerate, exterminate …

Regeneration and Economic Development?

The Watch has already blogged (26 Dec) “East Devon Economy Booming? Not according to cabinet agenda data.” But we now have had time to explore the latest “Regeneration” proposals in greater depth.

A special item in the pack of papers for the 6 Jan 2016 EDDC Cabinet Meeting (page 107) proposes an additional £287,000 be spent in 2016/17 (with similar costs for 3 years) to add three more staff to the three full time and three part time members of the Regeneration and Economic Development Team.

Context – Central government grants are being cut severely and will disappear completely by the end of the current parliament in 2019/20. The Council core funding will then come from business rates, council tax and fee income (eg car parking). The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) predicts the 30% loss from central government funding will be made up from an increase in retained business rates, from the current level of around 25% to around 55% in 2019/20, rather than by other measures such as efficiency savings.

The £287,000 pa will be used directly to promote economic growth and increased business rate income outside the Growth Point and across the district.

The East Devon Growth Point is set to become an Enterprise Zone, where businesses can get up to 100% business rate discount worth up to £275,000 per business over 5 years but we gather that ALL business rates in enterprise zones go direct to the (you guessed it) Local Enterprise Partnership.

So what chance has this team got in succeeding? Aren’t businesses simply going to transfer to the growth point?

We are sure everyone wants to see a vibrant local economy, especially one attracting high value jobs. But why are we so underwhelmed by this proposal that we think this money could be spent in better ways?

It all gets off to a bad start. The proposal itself spells out the lacklustre performance to date of the three full time and three part time Regeneration and Economic Development Team. The economic profile for East Devon (Grant Thornton, Feb 2015) highlights:

•The average gross weekly earnings in East Devon are low at £409 compared with £503 nationally.

•The knowledge economy in East Devon accounted for just 13.5% of total employment in 2013, compared with 18.13% for the SW and 21.75% nationally.

•The self employment rate in East Devon is high and stable by national standards but new business formation rate is very low, ranking in the bottom 20%.

According to the Economics page of the EDDC web site the services industry accounts for 85.7% of the employment in East Devon with a large section of this being in the retail, hospitality and health sectors, all of which it admits are predominantly lower-paid sectors.

The South West Regional Tourist Board data (2011) shows a fall in visitors to East Devon from 800,000 visitor trips per annum in 2005 to 472,000 visitor trips in 2011. The income from overnight stays also fell from £3.7m to £1.8m in the same period. Tourism, according to EDDC’s Cabinet proposal is a key driver!

(The Watch has repeatedly drawn attention to the way EDDC has ignored Tourism and to its deficiencies in rolling out high speed broadband.)

In the proposal the Council claims it is adept at using its assets to “de-risk locations” and attract private sector interest. Two examples cited: the delivery of the new Premier Inn in Exmouth and the commercial success around Exmouth Strand, where the Council has used its land and property assets to achieve this aim.

But none of this is really relevant to realising the stated aim that: “our ambitions lie in high tech growth and an improved knowledge economy, exploiting the opportunities now emerging through our Growth Point and Enterprise Zone”. (It should be noted here that the growth Point was not successful in making Exeter the “Internet of Things” lead demonstrator city – which Manchester won).

According to the proposal, the draft local plan retains a target of 1 job per new house and predicts 18,500 new homes over the 18 year Plan period i.e. delivery of the plan requires the creation of 1,000 jobs every year. The only quantified successes claimed in job creation by the Regeneration and Economic Development Team, 44 jobs at the Exmouth Premier Inn and a projected 45 next year from Seaton Jurassic, represent only 4.5% of what is needed annually. Not much of an achievement is it? It begs the question of whether 1,000 jobs per year are remotely achievable.

The demographic trend in East Devon requires the creation of between 160 and 190 jobs per year. This should be achievable as it assumes average economic growth. In EDDC’s chosen metric this equates to delivering four Premier Inns across the district every year (not just the one held up as an example of success). However, to this total, in their wisdom, EDDC has added in the draft Plan a “policy on” job led growth scenario with a target of an additional 549 jobs a year.

The actual annual target in the draft Plan is still a large figure, and one that is clearly way beyond the Team’s ability to deliver, but is only about 70% of the astronomical 1,000 quoted to the Cabinet. So this is another example of EDDC playing fast and loose with numbers, ratcheting up the growth agenda at every opportunity.

Job creation on this scale should be easy to spot. We are already 2 years into the new Plan period so it should now be possible to review the Team’s progress to date in creating 2,000 jobs. Such a review would form a much better basis for judging the success of past measures and on deciding the direction of future expenditure on the best way to promote growth.

The “aims and objectives moving forward” of EDDC’s proposal contains nothing but platitudes such as: “delivering an economy which stimulates start ups and new businesses to grow to bring better paid jobs and increased wealth into East Devon”. There is no concrete plan, no: how to do it. It is an example of the poverty of ideas that results from Cabinet decisions made in secret.

The people of East Devon are not bereft of ideas or talent but they are never consulted. So here’s a radical idea. Consult the people of East Devon. They are the potential customers for these businesses, and isn’t the customer is always right?

Here’s another: with regions across the country all putting forward their own enterprise plans for devolution the priority might be to put more emphasis on winning the publicity war, though that might be difficult with the whole district a giant building site.

Finally, how does the Regeneration and Economic Development Team reconcile the conflicts between maximising fee income from car parking, and saving the High Street and encouraging Tourism?

So now we know how Mr Swire spends his time …

… not only does he not have a home in his constituency, he seems much too busy jet-setting to even mention it. He can’t speak about East Devon in Parliament because he is a Minister but he doesn’t seem to have much time to even think about it either. As he ends a LONG column about his ministerial duties, he adds at the very end:

” … He states that his time in the role has been a “privilege” but admits it is “not forever”, with the demands of being a minister and a constituency MP continually pulling him in different directions. “The challenge is to keep all the balls in the air. Everyone wants a bit of you, so it’s busy, but it’s not impossible,” he says.

But he argues it is possible to be a good MP and a good minister – “we just have to do it in a different way”.

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Prime-Ministers-Nobel-prize-winners-s-day-s-work/story-28442350-detail/story.html

Don’t believe everything you hear – and check it!

Express and Echo today, article on Exmouth seafront campaign, quote from Swire:

“Councillor Moulding assured me that under the plans, there will be a number of free facilities for the people of Exmouth and new attractions for younger people.”

Er, that number could be ONE Mr Swire – and note the construction of the sentence means that the facilities for younger people may well not be free!

Could we have clarification, Councillor Moulding? It seems plans are well advanced so you should have something less vague to tell us.

“What have we done to make flooding worse?”

Building on flood plains … not dredging rivers … straightening rivers … destruction of upland habitats … neglecting flood defences … ignoring the effects of climate change …

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35199963

Is austerity really worth the price we all pay?

We see the devastating effect of flood prevention and relief cuts in the north of England and, closer to home, the effect of flooding on the school at Tipton St John yesterday – denied new buildings even though it floods frequently – which Claire Wright illustrates so movingly here:

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/tipton_st_john_school_floods_yet_again_as_devon_county_council_advises_agai

Yes, we have to live within our means. But which of us lucky home owners has a mortgage – which, given that we pay back around twice the purchase value of our homes over 25 years – could be said to be very much living beyond our means. We buy cars and pay for them (with interest) if we are not rich enough to pay cash. Why? Because we want secure roofs over our heads and many of us (given our poor and worsening public transport links) must have cars to go to jobs to pay for those roofs.

Surely, when it is the education of our children we should similarly expect them to have a decent, secure roof – and floors and walls – as they learn.

Austerity for some but not for others … and our children suffer in so many ways.