The TaxPayers Alliance (TPA), which is, in essence, a right wing libertarian organisation funded by millionaires, recently produced a ‘report’ on council owned assets which said the following:

“New research from the TaxPayers’ Alliance today demonstrates that councils up and down the United Kingdom are hoarding  assets as diverse as golf courses and a model railway despite the scale of Britain’s financial challenge.

Between 2009-10 and 2014-15, local authority spending has been reduced by 23.4 per cent per person in real terms.

With growing populations, reductions in central government grants in many areas, and a cap on Council Tax increases, many councils are reducing services. However, as this report details, a number of authorities retain significant property assets.”

This angers me on many levels, but primarily because the TPA are making people think that councils owning assets is a “bad” thing when it’s not: or at least its not necessarily a bad thing.

The questions to ask are:

• Does the asset in question make more money than it costs to maintain?
• Is the council’s ownership of the asset of benefit to the public?
• Would money in the bank bring a better return than the asset?

Something to remember is that money realised by the sale of assets can’t be used to fund day-to-day services. It goes into a separate pot and can only be used to fund other capital expenditure. For an explanation look here.

If councils are using their assets to keep council taxes low then surely that is a good thing?

The Taxpayers Alliance seems to have an anodyne enough name.

In fact it’s a name that resonates with most people.

It gives the impression that it’s looking out for the interests of the vast majority. Of people who work hard, pay taxes, and struggle to make ends meet.

It suggests that it’s about the ‘little’ person fighting government.

Is that really the case?

No – it certainly isn’t.

But I’ll come back to that in later posts.

All I’ll say is: Be Afraid,  Be Very Afraid.

I spotted this chair in a wood at the beginning of April but forgot all about it ’til today.

Perhaps it’s not a chair at all but the throne of the woodland folk?

UPDATE: I’ve been asked to point out that it’s a private wood, and members of the public aren’t allowed to walk there.

In case any UKIP supporters are reading this, the title refers to a long cylindrical wooden object rather than a person!

Some parking bays at the bottom end of East Street have been coned off, and this sign explains why. Oddly the sign has collapsed whereas the offending pole (see below) appears to be in perfect health.

I can’t understand why only parked cars are deemed to be at risk. What about pedestrians, the adjoining houses or vehicles using the road?

I first spotted this sign on Monday at the junction of New Road and East Street (there’s another past the scaffolding and traffic lights at the other end of town).

When I first saw it, it said the road would be closed for one day. Today it says it’ll be closed for two days. I wonder what it will say tomorrow?

Nobody seems to know where exactly the road will be closed or why it will be closed. UPDATE: I’ve seen a small printed notice attached to the Belisha Beacon which said the road would be closed because of the Olde English Fayre.

A cheeky fox in our back garden on Friday night.

I’ve no issues with the fox (we don’t have any chickens) but if a fox can get in it means that the dog can probably get out!

I noticed that on Sunday afternoon the lorry park was full of fairground equipment.

It appears that the district council have given the fun fair permission to use the lorry park for one and a half weeks and it’ll be open from Thursday through to Sunday.

What a very professional looking advertisement!

I think it’s only local in that it’s in South Molton. I doubt very much indeed whether any of the rides are owned or operated by local people.

Apparently they’ve already been in Tiverton and they’ll be moving onto Barnstaple.

Bizarre that the District Council  can do this without either notifying the town council or asking them whether it’s a good thing.

I wonder where all the Land Rovers and trailers will park on market day?

I suspect the first question you’ll have is What on earth is a wayleave?

It’s a right of way granted by a landowner typically for such  purposes such as the erection of telephone/power lines or laying of pipes. Generally a payment is made to the landowner.

In order for the anaerobic digester at Great Hele to get its gas to the mains gas network a pipe has to be laid to the nearest access point. South Molton Town Council were offered, and accepted, a payment of about £14,000 to allow the pipe to cross their land.

This payment was quoted by the developer at a planning meeting as one reason why the development should be granted planning permission. In their words “there will be community benefit as a substantial [!} payment will be paid to South Molton Town Council”.

Has this been paid? No.

Will it ever be paid? No.

Why not? Because the pipe is taking a longer, but apparently cheaper, route and largely being laid under the public highway. That’s why Limers Lane and the road past Ford Down Farm have been closed!

Utility companies (e.g. gas, electricity and power companies) have so-called Code Powers. This means they can lay cables and pipes under public roads without having to pay a way leave.

I suspect that what has happened in this case is that the rules have been bent and the gas pipe from the digester to the gas mains has been deemed to have been laid by a utility company! Another case of private profit at public expense.

A lot of people think that the four waiting time targets for A&E are all about how long it takes to be seen.

They’re not!

The four hour target is about how long it takes until you’re admitted to a ward, transferred to another hospital or discharged. An entirely different thing.

I’d like to see figures on how quickly people are first assessed (i.e. triaged) when they arrive at an A&E department.

At this morning’s NHS Clinical Commissioning Group meeting it was decided that the number of community hospital beds in North Devon should be reduced from 72 to 40.

The voting was unanimously in favour. It should be noted that, with one exception, all those who are allowed to vote are local GPs. So this wasn’t a decision made by faceless managers but one made by practising local doctors.

The next step in the process is to decide where those beds should be, and therefore which community hospitals will lose their beds. This certainly doesn’t mean that any hospitals will close but it does mean that there will be a change of focus.