Well, we missed the opportunity to "celebrate" four years of this
(Maybe we'll have our own re-purposed bonfire night).
On reflection it's not an anniversary that we felt needed a post all of its own. What requires repeating though is the simple reflection that if Environment Agency officials had simply done their jobs properly four years ago there would be no web site or blog, there would have been no High Court case, the public purse would still have that £1,300,000+++ in it (plus taxes from an operating hydro scheme and holiday lets) and stress levels all round would be much reduced.
The owners of North Mill have been made aware that EA officials are starting to play the victimhood card. The EA's present situation in this matter is absolutely the result of choices officials made and those choices are their responsibility. If they want things to change - the Earls have made it very clear they are open to proposals - but absolutely nothing has been forthcoming.
The mill owners have been surprised by officials "deeming" routine questions asked about a number of subjects during the second licence determination process to be "Freedom of Information" requests - when absolutely no element of FoI compulsion was requested, inferred or intended. This contrasts rather sharply with EA officials generous largesse with information the the Earls have provided in confidence - which has been subsequently disclosed to third parties without permission.
EA officials being presently subjected to an actual FoI request from North Mill's hydro project agent (which although being less work than our original refunded £1000 FoI - they want to charge £37,000 for...) have been bleating to the Information Commissioner's Office that North Mill FoI requests have exceed 40 in number and that they are "vexatious" - neither allegation has been evidenced The North Mill owners take issue with the EA's unsupported assertion that they have been responsible for 40 FoI requests - knocking a zero off would be closer to the mark... and in "overly burdensome" terms we have not seen any detail justification provided as specified in s14 of the Freedom of Information Act.
It would seem that that EA officials need reminding (yet again...) of the trajectory of the original Avoncliff FoI that resulted in the EA refunding the FoI fee and the agency being scolded in an ICO report because involved officials conducted a campaign of obstruction regarding that request in order to influence a High Court case and it took an "external" EA FoI specialist to find, review and issue the missing documents in a week after 18 months+ of evasion by some of her colleagues....
Did EA management learn a lesson from this?
Did oversight get enhanced?
- or did they simply carry on as before allowing the subjects of FoI to meddle obstructively with responses until things get really-messy-sticky and a defence against a persistent inquiry has to be orchestrated? The procession of wrong, inept and unanswered FoI responses from the EA speaks for itself.
The Earls and others have been accused of "acting in concert" to make unreasonable, vexatious, overly burdensome Freedom of Information requests which I find pretty rich when it's abundantly clear that officials at The Environment Agency in our opinion acted "in concert" to defraud the Earls of a licence in the first place and have persisted in deliberately mangling the licence process to disadvantage the Earls right up to the present time. Yes, the Avoncliff North Mill team know something about "in concert".
It's a funny old world where an organisation with 11,400 staff (well... at the moment anyway*) and a budget of £1,200,000,000 (£105K each - it's a nerdy thing) complains about being "put upon" by two builders from Bradford on Avon when it's clear that the Environment Agency started the fight in the first place.....
Renaming Avoncliff The Duchy of Grand Fenwick has a certain attraction :-)
(Subject to a referendum of course)
(Subject to a referendum of course)
"It's worth noting that "The Independent" is moderating "unsupportive" comments on the EA redundancy story
- we've tested it.(wading through more saliva than seen at a late 70s punk gig)
The "Q Bomb"?
- we've tested it.(wading through more saliva than seen at a late 70s punk gig)
The "Q Bomb"?
This government was supposed to have brought down public sector salaries - it is still significantly higher than relevant private sector salaries. Cameron, pull your finger out of your a*** and get the public sector back in order (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20442666)
ReplyDeleteI don't know about salaries - but the numbers on Henry's last blog are astonishing.
DeleteNOBODY IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR SHOULD BE PAID MORE THAN THE PRIME MINISTER
Deletecrikey - went and looked at the Independent comments - I thought Indy readers might be a level headed, articulate bunch - I hope the comments aren't representative of the main readership
ReplyDeleteIt would appear that using your numbers and let's just say your cost estimate is double the have wasted the cost of 2 staff, with 11,400 that's a tiny percentage 0.018%. Not worth worrying about, it's a drop in the quagmire.
ReplyDeleteWhat is however laughable is the EA complaining that they are being put upon and 11,400 staff are being stressed by vexatious, burdensome requests from two builders and an agent. Are they real? Would any of them survive in a real job where you had to perform and also put up with stupid requests from civil servants. I won't say EA officers because hopefully the EA will disappear in a cloud of smoke when the government eventually decides to rid itself of this qango. Unfortunately the idiots will just be relabelled and placed in another named department with the same role = make it as difficult as possible, delay and prevaricate. The dictionary definition of not open and not transparent can then be shortened to read EA.
Aye, but our numbers are for a single project in Wiltshire. We've heard unconfirmed reports that there are a non trivial quantity of undetermined / disputed hydro projects around the country (tip-offs v.welcome!) beyond Pershore and the Small Hydro Co. that we have detailed here on the Avoncliff North Mill blog.
DeleteA straw poll of WEEE recyclers and skip hire companies will doubtless turn up a crowd of v.uhappy bunnies and no mistake.
4 years not surprised the developers are pissed off WHAT'S GOING ON. Put more people on the job you have enough to spare 11400. Clearly the EA are up to no good?
ReplyDeleteI question why Natural England and the Environment Agency were not combined - could it be because of unnecessary questions about the size of the combined organisation:
ReplyDeleteNatural England - 2,291 staff, budget £199 million
Environment Agency - 11,400 staff, budget £1.3 billion
Combined body - 13,691 staff, budget £1.499 billion
There is a large amount of overlap between the agencies - I know, having worked in a role coordinating some of the overlapping duties. This, of course, is ignoring other bodies with overlapping duties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_England
Henry - according to my sources this is one duplication of duties that has not gone un-noticed and some PTB are intending that the merger happens - the job cuts are an opening gambit.
DeleteThat said I have deep reservations about the amount of misanthropic eco-activism that Natural England exhibit. They were planning on closing the southern UK coastline to public access pretty much from Cardiff to Clacton on the flimsiest (shockingly so to anybody with any marine biology experience ) of grounds and splurged loads of money on redundant LIDAR surveys as part of the "project". Misanthropic control freaks should fit right in /sarc
By my calculation from the numbers given a Natural England staff member costs £86,861 and an EA staff member costs £114,035. If they combine the question is will the NE staff pay rise to match the EA or will the EA staff wages reduce (I think not)? Of course the obvious difference is uniform costs I presume. Why do I presume this? Well Natural England staff must be naturalists and they don't have uniforms.
Deletenaturists surely? I mean, these Emperors ain't got no clothes....
DeleteI'm not sure, is what they do benefiting nature? But they will want to be linked to the EA cost they just got new clothes (uniforms) again.
DeleteI knew David Jordan, Director of Operations was well paid, but £160,000+ is beyond belief. http://data.gov.uk/organogram/environment-agency
ReplyDeleteWhat... and Chris Smiff is value for money? - face meet palm... :-) I've been looking at data.gov.uk for a few years now. The invoices from barrister's chambers look quite juicy.... as do those from AMEC and other "consultancies" - I'd be curious to map out the "cross pollination" between public and private sectors here. On that note - anybody out there know where our old sparring partner John Aldrick has a perch these days?
DeleteIf one cross references Google searches with people on LinkedIn claiming EA connections - there appear to be some tantalising connections - company searches too.... just saying.
DeleteI knew chair warmers were expensive but £160k is ridiculous. I would expect him to do some constructive work for that amount. If he was a football player he would be expected to score goals. All I can see him doing having read this blog regularly is scoring own goals. Who would want someone who does that on their team.
Deleteanon@10:36 Please don't torment us! - if you've some links it'd be appreciated.......
ReplyDeleteNot only is the EA a sprawling bureaucracy, it cultivates a whole host of other outfits - for instance this lot who actually seem to operate out of the EA's Exeter office - what's that about?
ReplyDeleteUse "outside" organisations that share the same agenda, but refer to them as independent or expert, without making their true aim or provenance clear.
Deletejust wonderful
It's just a place for them to shift some of the 11,400 staff to make the numbers look less and jobs for the boys and girls for when the EA disappears. It is also a "we told you this would happen if you got rid of us" set up.
DeleteIsn't that outside the EA's remit? No wonder their gov bill is so much - funding random programmes like this, which is under the DECC and associated agencies remite. If this isn't a sign of an organisation that isn't so bloated with public funding then I don't know what is. Tell you what EA, if you are so lost on how to spend your excessive funding, why not use it for something useful, such as actual working flood defences. I guess the North isn't worthy of the services of this non-descript EA organisation - not like we don't face any flood risks from "climate change" is it?
ReplyDeleteI think you three (two builders and by the sound of it a hydropower consultant (the agent)) should be ashamed of yourselves, how could you be so rotten as to bully 11,400 EA staff who are well qualified and highly paid with in all probability far superior qualifications to do their work.
ReplyDeleteOn second thoughts maybe you should be given a medal or maybe an OBE for Services to the Environment.
Or even better lots of money as compensation for being screwed around by a load of overpaid civil servants who think they are above the law.
You should think of the consequences of your actions. These poor EA staff that you have bullied and harassed will now require counselling which will further inflate the, by the sounds of it, already bloated costs of this project to the general taxpayer. By rolling over and allowing yourselves to be shafted by the EA it would have saved the taxpayers a fortune.
DeleteWell, had a catch up session with a disillusioned friend who is still with the EA. Seems things have changed little, even with the cuts coming in. Apparently, it's a get what you can out of it whilst it lasts atmosphere in some areas. I don't foresee the Avoncliff or other licence payers getting any further with their applications/enquiries In fact, I think the low has yet to be reached.
ReplyDeleteOnly to be expected really - no change....
Delete"Too big to fail" and a build-out of semi-detached "bolt holes". The nabobs on their thrones will reduce the amount of chairs and provide counselling to those left standing when the music stops.
We've stuck a few pins in the dinosaur's tail but there is something rather more radical in the works.