Toxic Emissions

South Hams Council’s ‘down and dirty’ PR for the Freeport

One of the many issues with Plymouth & South Devon Freeport (PASD) is the fact that it is poor value for public money. Committed to making ‘the best of a bad job’ South Hams Council is pedalling hard to ’sell’ the project to tax-payers.

Residents of Plymouth, Devon and South Hams have all been dragged into this complex Freeport ‘deal’. Us residents will all shoulder substantial costs and re-appropriation of resources that could be going instead into other more solid forms of useful job creation; social care, housing, infrastructure and children’s services to name a few. There are huge numbers of job vacancies across many of our essential services, and if the equivalent South Hams’ finance (£5.5 million and counting) was directed not at PASD but at these areas, we would have meaningful real-world jobs that directly benefitted residents in every way- and not discredited trickle-down economics.

Meanwhile, South Hams Council seems determined to mislead its own residents on the supposed benefits of the project.
On the 1st of December South Hams Council sent out a Press Release with the headline “The Freeport is on Track Following Review”
This headline was far beyond being simply ‘misleading’. The Council’s own Audit and Governance Report (the ‘Review’ referenced in the Press Release itself) actually stated the exact opposite of the headline, that:

• “ …some aspects of the Freeport timescale, planned in January 2023, are already up to five months late by August 2023.”

The Review in question even went further to point out: “In these 18 months the net income in the first 5 years of operation has changed from net positive projection of £2m to a net deficit of £288,000. This cashflow impact is because of the delay in occupancy and due to the fact that business rate income…has moved back approximately 2 years.”

Based on its own ‘Review’, South Hams Council (supposedly bound by the Nolan Principles of Public Life including ‘openness’ and ‘accountability’ to tell the truth) could not possibly argue that the Freeport ‘is on track’. So why did it?
The delay highlighted by this Review is important: the first five years of this 25 year Freeport project are all about developing the Freeport tax and customs sites to enable business occupancy. With delays already occurring at this stage, it means occupancy will result in far lower financial returns to South Hams than their optimistic – and already outdated – projections.

The press release continued in the same vein with an attempt to whitewash substantial concerns; “A report by our Audit and Governance group has also made several recommendations to manage any possible risks.” This is also untrue. ‘Any possible risks’ misleads that ‘all risks are in hand’.

Press releases shouldn’t be toxic emissions that cloud the facts and mislead.

South Hams makes a big deal of being ‘on the inside’ of this Freeport deal. But, despite the millions to be committed to the project, our Council can only ‘seek’ and ‘encourage’ the Freeport (a private company serving the interests of multinational companies such as Babcock and Princess Yachts).
The Council’s own ‘Review’ actually listed the following risks; important unanswered questions remain about what happens to tax-payers’ money that has been sunk into the project should these risks materialise;

1. Risk that a new Government changes the way the Freeport operates, or the way that retained business rates can be used.
2. Risks that costs escalate, or that the projected income stream fails to meet its target so that income does not cover the loan repayments costs.
3. Risk that land values decline after an SHDC purchase, risk that land values decline after an SHDC purchase, leading to a reduced capital receipt.
4. Risks that the operational or other costs increase.
5. Risk of land contamination or environmental or carbon impact from the works on the sites.
6. Risk that there are fewer Freeport jobs created than projected, or that the jobs are lower paid, leading to reduced economic or social benefits for residents.
7. Risk that firms from other parts of the South Hams relocate into the Freeport, displacing jobs and reducing the net benefit for the region.

Environmental legislation

There are other risks too. The risk of weakening environmental legislation, the encouragement for companies to be ‘flexible’ with regulations (which the Freeport calls ‘regulatory sandboxing’) are not even listed by South Hams, meaning the long list of risks above is not exhaustive.
South Hams Council has a duty to abide by the Nolan principles of good governance and truthfulness. There is no mention of the fact that all Freeport ‘profits’ go back into the Freeport. South Hams has not been straight with residents that all aspects of this project only serve to develop the interests of the Freeport- not South Hams residents directly.
Critically, this misleading Press Release was also shared with South Hams councillors. Factually incorrect press releases create a toxicity around facts and truthfulness – and we should expect more of our Liberal Democrats-led Council.

It is a shame that the press release has been taken at face value by local and regional media. By failing to scrutinise the veracity of South Hams’ claims and call them out, local newspapers have failed in their duty to give communities accurate information. Simply regurgitating press releases is not ‘news’- it is just repurposed propaganda. Press releases shouldn’t be toxic emissions that cloud the facts and mislead.

Residents also need to know that Plymouth & South Devon Freeport is meant to specialise in Marine, Defence and Space systems. These are all areas that carry substantial risks of possible contamination and health and safety breaches and are likely to come with high security infrastructure on South Hams land.

Don’t the public – who are helping finance this Freeport – deserve the truth, and not manipulative PR from their own Council?

Write to the Leader of South Hams District Council and demand that they treat their residents with respect and truth, rather than with PR spin.

Do you have a view? Comment below…