Agenda item

To receive any questions relating to items on the agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.

 

Note:   A maximum of 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

Sarah Coffin (The Chairman read out on Sarah Coffin’s behalf)

 

Ref: Scrutiny Meeting 08/11/2021 (Agenda Item No. 11)

I am writing with reference to the above proposal submitted to Scrutiny by Councillor Barnell and accepted by Committee members; calling for a cross-agency investigation into the various nuisance and planning breaches, arising from the unfettered expansion of farm-fed anaerobic digester (AD) plants and servicing farm operations.

In view of the sheer volume of expert evidence submitted and the ongoing related issues, can the Committee please confirm:

Question 1: Whether a detailed investigation took place, as requested by the proposal?

Answer: Further to the November 2021 Scrutiny meeting, the then Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee wrote to neighbouring authorities in order to consider whether a joint investigation in to AD plants could be progressed with the input of those authorities – this being considered necessary in order to inform any investigation. Ultimately, the investigation did not progress beyond this stage but further work did progress within Mid Devon – including a visit to an AD plant in a neighbouring authority and further and ongoing work relating to AD plants within Mid Devon, led by officers.

 

Question 2: Whether there was a record of those invited who attended, as well as those who did not?

 

Answer:This was not relevant as the investigation did not progress.

Question 3: Were any conclusive findings and recommendations published in a closing report and made available to both elected Councillors and the public?

Answer: This was not relevant as the investigation did not progress.

In relation to the following Nuisance/ Enforcement related issues:

Question 4: What ‘risk assessment’ process was used by Council officers prior to advising elected Members on potential ‘legal costs’ implications, related to contentious Planning/Enforcement Appeals; who has sight and final decision over interpretation of any ‘legal opinion/advice’ if obtained?

Answer: Any ‘Risk assessment’ would vary between applications and will be dependent upon the unique characteristics of any application – as does who, for example, (an officer, members or both) makes final decisions.

 

Question 5: Does such process include counter consideration of potential lost revenue via ‘withheld rates’ (escrow account) or ‘reduced rates’ (Rates Tribunal) awarded to proven ‘Nuisance/blight impacted’ properties?

Answer: Planning enforcement matters were considered in light of relevant planning legislation and best practice.

 

Question 6: If Councillors agree ‘Planning integrity’ requires ‘effective Enforcement’ and without both, there can be no credible ‘Net Zero/Climate’ pledge/policy, please grant this review urgently?

Answer: This question relates to both a specific case and policy. Planning enforcement is discretionary and has to be managed from within the Council’s limited resources. Nonetheless, Mid Devon District Council is committed to effective and proportionate enforcement and is accordingly focused on addressing the most severe planning breaches. Mid Devon is equally committed to ensuring that net-zero and climate policies are achieved.

 

 

Barry Warren

 

Questions in relation to item 11 on the agenda:

 

In Section 1, page 82, it states: “It should be noted that within the time constraints the working group has not been able to interview every stakeholder of potential interest nor examine every single document from the previous 7 years related to this topic.”

Question 1: Who by, and how were the time constraints decided and set?

 

Answer: The Leader of the Council in concert with the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee set the time constraints.

 

Question 2: Who advised and then decided who should be interviewed?

Answer: The Working Group decided for themselves who should be interviewed, the Working Group had the support of the Policy Research Officer to the Scrutiny Committee but they were not “advised” as you suggest, the Working Group took their decisions on the basis of the process they were going through.

It further states: “However, all the relevant material was made available, etc.

Question 3: Who decided what material was to be made available?

Answer: The Working Group decided, they had access to all material that they requested.

Question 4: As none of the Working Group were members of the last administration or the previous one when 3 Rivers was set up, who decided what material was relevant?

Answer: The Working Group had access to all material and decided for themselves which areas to concentrate on so as not to go over ground previously covered by outside auditors.

Question 5: Did the Working Group listen to any of the audio recordings of ‘relevant’ meetings as they contained all the discussions and, not just the brief summaries contained in the minutes, some of which have been challenged at times?

Answer: The Working Group did not listen to any audio recordings, although they were well aware that they were available and they could have listened to them but they did not feel the need to do so, much of the debate happened in Part II for which there would not be audio recordings.

The 10 recommendations are ‘For Noting only’.

Question 6: Does not the potential loss of many millions of pounds of public money by MDDC warrant more action or comment than this?

Answer: The Working Party were asked to carry out a “Lessons to be Learned” exercise – it was appropriate that the recommendations were to be noted.

Question 7: Recommendation 8 talks of Trust. Previously, any questioning of the advice being offered by Officers was invariably deemed as ‘Criticism’ and Members have been intimidated into not questioning officer advice at all. Look where that has got us. Trust can only be achieved if elected Members are able to thoroughly examine, and question, the advice being given by officers in order to gain a fuller understanding of it.  Will the Working Group make a further recommendation regarding this?

Answer: The Working Group felt able and confident to thoroughly examine and question the advice given by officers and the resulting recommendation that trust between all stakeholders is a precondition of successful delivery of future development projects satisfies the objective.

 

 

Nick Quinn(The Chairman read out on Nick Quinn’s behalf)

 

In relation to Agenda item 11- WorkingGroup LessonsReport on3 Rivers

Thereare somefactual errorsin thewording ofthe report(not therecommendations).

In the summary section on the first page of the report, the Working Group state that timeconstraints meantthey werenot ableto seeall personsand documents.If moretime hadbeen allowed, additional information could have been obtained and used for the double-checking andvalidation ofall points,prior tothe publicationof thisreport.

 

Question 1: Whywas theWorking Groupnot givenall thetime theyfelt necessary,to completethis task?

 

Answer: The Working Group do not accept that there are any factual errors on the report and have not been shown any evidence to the contrary. The Working Group had to adhere to a timetable set by the Leader of the Council.

 

There arestatements inthe reportwhich areincorrect, andother statementswhich appear tobe incorrect.

 

Question2: Ifevidence isprovided tothem, willthe WorkingGroup correctspecific statementsin thereport?

 

Answer: As mentioned before, the Working Group do not accept that any of the statements they made are incorrect and are satisfied with the report. The report is complete and it is too late to submit further evidence.

 

Question 3:If askeddirectly todo so,will theWorking Groupprovide theevidence theyused asthe basisfor someof thespecific statements?

Answer: No

Lastly: This report is being presented to Scrutiny Committee and is “For noting only”. For the finalreport to have real value, and to prevent any possibility of a re-occurrence of what hadhappened, therecommendations would needto beconsidered andadopted byFull Council.

 

Question4: Willthe finalreport beput beforeAudit Committee,Cabinet andFull Councilfor acceptance?

 

Answer: No

 

 

Paul Elstone

 

Questions in relation to Agenda Item 11, The 3 Rivers Lessons Learned Report:

 

Question 1: Section 1 Summary and Recommendations states

Quote “All relevant material was made available”.

How can this be stated and when the Working Group had been told that Council Officers were threatening Members of the General Public with criminal action, if they provided certain documents?

It seems that former Council Leaders also received veiled threats if they made documents they may have held available.

That despite being fully aware, the current Council Leader failed to intervene to ensure key documents were released. 

 

Question 2: Why were the former Council Leaders not interviewed in person, especially when the Working Group were made fully aware of the threats against them?

 

Question 3: Evidence is available which conflicts with several statements in the report. Did the Working Group have time to fully fact check the information they were provided with?

 

Question 4: The Working Group Report identified many and serious governance failings. What the Working Group have failed to do, is to reference who should have prevented these serious failings and how. It should be clear to any anyone with an understanding of the responsibilities of Local Government Statutory Officers, what the full root cause is. It has nothing to do with the various excuses the Public have previously been given including Government policy.

Why was the root cause not directly addressed in the report and something that is a serious omission?

 

Question 5: There is one email that fully identifies the root cause.

An email written to an MDDC Senior Officer in February 2020 and signed by all the Cabinet Members then, including the current Council Leader and a Deputy Leader. 

Yet in the report there is no reference to some very serious concerns even allegations including concerns that there could have been a prima facia case to involve the police. An email that can only be described as explosive.

Was this relevant material given to the Working Group?

If so, and given its importance, how many of the signatories were interviewed and who? It is an email given the full content that warrants being in the public domain.

 

The Chairman explained that as the questions had not been provided in writing in advance of the meeting and that written responses would be provided to him in the fullness of time.

 

 

Kate Clayton-White

 

Having attended the scrutiny meeting in October I have concerns about the process of establishing ‘lessons learnt’ from 3 Rivers Developments. 

The public want accountability. The fact that you agreed that 5 ex-councillors who made the decisions that led to this mess are allowed to give statements to this committee behind the protection of agreed anonymity is extraordinary. Those Councillors must be accountable to yourselves and the public they were elected to serve. Otherwise, how are you providing the openness and transparency you promised as a new administration?

I have not heard anyone on the streets of Tiverton praise the way this council is handling this matter. Unless you want to continue to be tainted by the actions of previous councillors then you need to be above board and honest with public and demonstrate your new culture of mutual respect. This committee needs to do its job properly – thoroughly scrutinise the actions and decisions of the previous incumbents, make all your findings available to and communicated to the public with absolutely nothing hidden behind part 2 proceedings. Taxpayers deserve to know how and why MDDC got into this mess and who was responsible. Otherwise, any lessons learned report, however well intentioned, will not be worth the paper it is written on.

My questions are

 

Question 1: Why were the previous councillors, successfully allowed to request that their statements remain in part 2?

 

Answer: In order to get some of the Councillors to provide meaningful statements and in order to provide anonymity to all, it was agreed by Officers and the Scrutiny Committee that all statements to the meeting of the Scrutiny Committee would remain anonymous. Had we not done so, then it was likely that the statements would be superficial and not helpful to the Working Group.

 

Question 2: Which of the internal and external reports mentioned in the working party report are available to the public?

 

Answer: There have been numerous internal and external reports received during the lifetime of the company. The majority of those reports have been in part 1. Clearly there have been a number of commercially sensitive reports which went into part 2.

All the part 1 reports are available on the Mid Devon Website.

 

 

Mr Goff Welchman

 

Questions in relation to Agenda Item 11 – the Working Groups’ report into Lessons to be Learned from the 3 Rivers Developments Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV):

 

Question 1: In the Working Party’s report, you list the lessons learned from it, most of these lessons are actually fundamental to the setting up of any business and requisite for any loans from a credible financial institution. The implication is therefore that these steps were not taken at the outset of 3 Rivers otherwise you wouldn’t be needing to learn lessons from them. There are just four reasons why these steps were not taken: either ignorance, incompetence, negligence or deliberate avoidance, which of these reasons applies to 3 Rivers and its setting up?

 

Question 2: If the answer to question 1 is ‘none of those’ what reason can you give that you can disclose for such vital lessons in setting up a vast financial enterprise being ignored?

 

The Chairman explained that as the questions had not been provided in writing in advance of the meeting and that written responses would be provided to him in the fullness of time.