Wednesday 21 January 2015

A history of the East Devon Business Forum, part nine ....... "The local development framework would enable businesses to progress land allocation. It was agreed that the strategy should reflect the Forum’s views."

Tomorrow evening, the District Council's Scrutiny Cttee will look at 'what to do' about the task force (or TAFF) it set up over two years ago to look into the now-defunct EDBF:
Futures Forum: East Devon Business Forum task force to be considered at Scrutiny Cttee: Thursday 22nd January

This blog has considered the role of the EDBF:
Futures Forum: A history of the East Devon Business Forum, part eight ...... "The lessons that should be learnt from the previously existing relationship between the former East Devon Business Forum and the Council..."

And one of its central roles seems to have been influencing the amount of employment land in the District, as the history shows...

LATE 2012/MARCH 2013:

To review the state of affairs at the inauguration of the EDBF TAFF:
Futures Forum: Lobbying: East Devon Business Forum

The complaint from the EDBF has been how 'little' new employment land has been proposed:

Roy Stuart, Vice Chairman of the EDBF, reminded the Committee of why the Forum was set up and the contents of its constitution. He outlined the varied membership of the Forum. He told the Committee of the Forum’s work in investigating the Atkins report and how their work found only 6 hectares of viable employment land.

Meeting of the Task and Finish Forum: Business: Tuesday 12 March 2013

Since EDBF dismissed the independent Atkins ‘employment land’ report, which was published in 2007 - and got their own recommendations adopted instead - other organisations have stepped in to express concerns over the amount of employment land now proposed, including an independent report conducted in 2011 and Dorset County Council, which says it has ‘significant concerns’ over the amount of land proposed.

Chairman and secretary to defend business forum: 18 September 2012 - Claire Wright

The District Council leadership has declared that the matter of the employment land allocation is a matter for the Local Plan and the Inspector:

... the TAFF is not designed to look at allegations that the EDBF might have had an undue or improper influence over employment land allocation in the draft Local Plan. Any allegation is a matter for an independent planning inspector, who will examine the plan in public next year.

“If people wish to question the evidence behind employment land allocation in our draft Local Plan, it is most appropriate to respond to the consultation so that the independent Inspector can consider it.

“The Task and Finish Forum is not independent of the Council and not the right place for it, and I would hope that encouraging formal reporting will reassure everyone that we take any complaints seriously. We co-operate fully with formal external investigations”.

East Devon District Council - Archived News
EDDC tries to justify gagging committee on business forum: 15 December 2012 - Claire Wright

And yet the Scrutiny Cttee has made it clear that the remit of the EDBF TAFF includes employment land:

Cllr Troman confirmed that the remit of the Taff, which includes looking into what influence the Forum had on determining the level of employment land to be included in the emerging Local Plan, would be fulfilled.

Delay on business row group | Exeter Express and Echo

RESOLVED that the remit of the Business Task and Finish Forum include employment land planning issues (but not individual planning allocations) without delaying the development of the Local Plan or impinging on the Police Investigation currently being carried out. 

Minutes of a Meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held at Knowle, Sidmouth on 28 March 2013

APRIL 2004:

To go back to the minutes of the EDBF from before the time of Cllr Brown's chairmanship - which show the thinking of the larger business which dominated the Forum:

It was also noted that there was a link between industrial expansion and the allocation of land and affordable housing and also that larger businesses migrating into the area generally offer higher rates of pay than the established traditional smaller businesses. 
[NB: contradicted in: Futures Forum: Can supermarkets ever be sustainable? ... 'Localising economies is a better way of making an economy more transparent and giving people more control.']

It was agreed that Exeter Airport land allocation should be driven by employers’ needs and not by Devon County Council, East Devon District Council etc. Market forces drove land value, with housing being the most expensive, followed by employment land and then, agricultural land. It was agreed that there is a need to ease planning restrictions to facilitate growth.

Karime Hassan explained that a new Local Development Plan would replace the current Plan and would be produced and refined every 3 years.
It was noted that two-thirds of the district was AONB designated. Councillor Diviani highlighted the need for AONB to be conserved and enhanced and not just preserved.

KH explained that the Local Plan enquiry would commence in September 2004. The local development framework would enable businesses to progress land allocation for employment and businesses. It was agreed that the strategy should reflect the Forum’s views.

Concerns about these issues have been raised over the proceeding years - for example:
East Devon Business Forum’s influence over the Local Plan: 06 July 2012 - Claire Wright
Local Plan – EDDC’s justification for employment land | Sidmouth Independent News
East Devon Business Forum airbrushed out of Local Plan employment land sections | Sidmouth Independent News
Too much employment land – so it could be changed into more housing developments | Sidmouth Independent News


To look at the Minutes of a meeting of the EDBF, when Cllr Brown was its chair, until his resignation in March 2013:
Futures Forum: Lobbying: East Devon Business Forum

These record how the compiler of the Atkins Report into Employment Land gave an interim presentation to the EDBF - and that he would be asked back to give the final presentation of the Report to the Forum the following January, BEFORE it would go to the District Council's own Executive Board...

17 East Devon Employment Land Review

The Business Forum received a copy of the brief from Atkins on the East Devon Employment Land Review. Members welcomed Marcus Wood from Atkins Ltd who gave a presentation on the progress made so far.

The Business Forum acknowledged the complexity of the subject and its connection with the Regional Spatial Strategy. The final report would be presented to the next meeting of the Business Forum on 11 January 2007 and onto the meeting of the Executive Board on 17 January 2007. Atkins had looked at 44 employment sites within the District and 750 premises of which 63 were vacant.

Employment requirements for the next 10 years to 2016 were expected to be in the range 50 – 80 hectares with 75 – 115 hectares to 2026.

During discussion the following points were noted:
·         Forecasted economic growth in East Devon would continue to out perform the UK as a whole;
·         the Regional Spatial Strategy wished to promote sustainability of communities;
·         the East Devon District had a strategic location on the eastern side of Exeter with good links to the M5;
·         East Devon had a higher than average level of entrepreneurship than other areas of the South West;
·         East Devon was a high quality environment with a shortage of business premises;
·         The AONB status of the District constrained the opportunities for development and growth, particularly in Exmouth;
·         There were high levels of self employment in East Devon;
·         The Business Forum was impressed with the level of thoroughness given in the report;
·         The District needed a vision to identify what business wanted in its District;
·         The need to distribute employment land around the district and involve local communities.

Marcus Wood was thanked for his presentation

RESOLVED: That the Review be noted

EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL- Minutes of a Meeting of the East Devon Business Forum held at East Devon Business Centre, Honiton onThursday 9 November 2006


To look at when the District Council was more than happy to 'do business' with this grouping - and to help redress the 'lack of employment land supply':

East Devon Business Forum, 3 February 2011 
Report by Karime Hassan, Corporate Director

Councillor Graham Brown was pleased to report that Karime Hassan, Corporate Director, had agreed to make a report to the Forum.

Karime Hassan reported that the biggest challenge facing the Business Forum was ensuring that there was a clear voice from business in East Devon. Before the formation of the Business Forum, engaging with business in East Devon had not always been easy, whereas in Exeter City there was a single voice for business. It had always easier to engage with resident groups and those who opposed development rather than those who were supportive. He confirmed that the regulatory regime that local authorities imposed could be felt to stifle business, particularly within the planning process. The way the local authority engaged with business was a matter of fundamental importance and had improved greatly due to the relationship EDDC had established with the Business Forum. 

The greater weight that had been given to the views of business since the establishment of the Business Forum was recognised, particularly over issues such as the lack of employment land supply.

Karime Hassan reported that the establishment of East Devon Business Forum had made his job as Corporate Director of EDDC easier as it was the voice of business in East Devon.

Minutes of the Meeting of the East Devon Business Forum held at East Devon Business Centre, Honiton on Thursday 3 February 2011 

> 2011 > 2014 >

To stay in 2011 - and to look at how the issues of employment land and housing numbers conflate:
Futures Forum: Housing numbers in East Devon ... "The region, which is earmarked for 11,000 new homes..."

A later study carried out by the CPRE contradicted the District Council's analysis in its representation to the Local Plan:

East Devon CPRE Representor Number 28. Transaction Number 3220

Housing numbers:
It is important to have realistic and achievable housing numbers. (NPPF 154)
The rationale for choosing 15,000 is not clear from the evidence presented by EDDC. It seems they have placed considerable reliance on the population projections based on the ONS/CLG 2008 statistics. CPRE would argue that these are no longer up to date and have proved inaccurate. More recent assessments are available which take account of the economic, social and environmental
characteristics of the area, as required by NPPF 158.

These include the Roger Tym Report (Roger Tym and partners (2011) “East Devon Housing and Employment Study 2011”) commissioned by EDDC, which the Council appear to have largely ignored. CPRE suggest that this more recent evidence supports a much lower housing number target of around 11,000. Furthermore, CPRE consider that housing numbers of 15,000 are not deliverable, and this strategy is therefore unsound for this reason also.


This was reported in the press:

East Devon branch of Campaign to Protect Rural England raise concerns over amount of development planned across the district

By Exeter Express and Echo | Posted: February 15, 2014

Under current proposals 15,000 homes are recommended for the district between 2006 and 2026. But Dr Margaret Hall, secretary for the East Devon branch of the campaign group has calculated that only 11,000 – 12,000 houses are needed to meet the demand for housing.

After day three of the inquiry, Dr Hall said she had been “impressed” with how objective the inspector had been but still had some major concerns about the amount of houses and employment land planned.

Dr Hall reiterated previous assertions that the council’s housing prediction numbers are based on incorrect population predictions as per the 2008 Office of National Statistics and Department of Communities and Local Government.

The annual population growth, according to the boards, from 2008-2026 was one per cent, when according to the 2011 census the rate was less than 0.5 per cent. “If you look at census figures, there are not as many people living in East Devon as predicted,” she added.

In addition, Dr Hall said the branch remained “unconvinced” by the council’s recommendation for 64 hectares of employment land – double the recommendation made in the Roger Tym Report which was commissioned by the council in 2011 to assess the amount of employment land needed.

East Devon branch of Campaign to Protect Rural England raise concerns over amount of development planned across the district | Exeter Express and Echo
Futures Forum: Public Examination of the New East Devon Local Plan ... housing: numbers much too low for developers ... much too high for CPRE

The Vision Group for Sidmouth's representation to the Local Plan in 2013 supported this analysis:

It seems that the District Council has ignored significant findings in the Tym’s Report of 2011 ‘East Devon Housing and Employment Study’. It is clear that the demographic profile for Sidmouth differs to much of East Devon:

“6.21 The West area has higher percentages in the age groups under 55. The East area, which contains the main retirement locations such as Sidmouth, has higher proportions over 54.
“6.25: Movements into the East area are quite different. Here the peak is of retirement‐related moves around the late 50s. There is an earlier peak around the late thirties (together with their children) these presumably being housing related moves. So the net gain in the Sidmouth/ Honiton area is predominantly of middle‐aged and elderly people.”


There are considerable doubts as to how the District Council arrived at its figures for proposed housing in Sidmouth. The Sid Vale Association makes this point:

“3.3. We are puzzled by the arbitrary allocation of 150 houses in the period to 2026. There is no justification in the LDP for this figure, which appears to have been “plucked out of the air”. The provision of housing needs is generally based on population growth, but there are no figures, (current or projected), given for Sidmouth in the LDP. EDDC’s own consultants, Roger Tym and Partners, noted that the population would in fact fall, which appear to have been ignored.”


The Sidmouth Chamber of Commerce welcomed the Tym’s Report in questioning the District Council’s assumed relationship of jobs to households of ‘roughly 1:1’:

“…rather, they have recalibrated it to an exact relationship of 0.81:1, which a very different number”


To quote directly from the Tym’s Report:

“Job Density:
“2.41 To assess the balance of local jobs and working age residents, a job density chart is shown in Figure 2.12 for all districts in the south west region, with the figure for East Devon highlighted. An equal number of jobs and working age residents would result in an index of 1, and is likely to suggest a good balance of local jobs and local workers. Across the South West districts (weighted) average is 0.81.”


Whilst the Tym’s Report does explore different future scenarios (constant or low migration population levels over the period of the Local Plan), both current and maximum projected job density does not approach the District Council’s proposals of ‘one person, one job’ when matching proposed new housing to required new employment provision. The Tym’s Report provides well‐defined methodologies and evidence; the District Council does not:

“Impacts on Employment Projections and Job Density:
“6.36 A general measure for this purpose is job density, the number of jobs divided by the resident population of working age. Based on ONS job densities in Chapter 2, East Devon had a job density 0.73 in 2008, which was compared to a South West district average of 0.81. Using the latest employment figures (2009) matched against the estimates of working age population in 2009, East Devon is shown to have some 45,000 jobs and a working–age population of 75,000, giving a job density of 0.60.”

> That the District Council has developed such an intimate relationship with the EDBF has allowed the Business Forum to go beyond being merely a ‘consultee’ in the Consultation process and has encouraged it to successfully lobby the District Council “particularly over issues such as the lack of employment land supply.”
Since 2007, when the EDBF was recommended as a planning consultee for the District Council, the interests of the District Council and the EDBF have corresponded to a considerable degree in the promotion of certain types of economic activity.
Both the Atkins’ and the Tym’s Reports have been effectively side‐lined by ‘evidence’ supplied by the EDBF, leading to the inflation of numbers for housing and employment land in the draft Local Plan.


To return to more recent times, and fears that the promised investigation into the influence of the EDBF on housing and employment land allocations would not happen:

Scrutiny councillors probing East Devon Business Forum are GAGGED!

By councillor | Posted: December 13, 2012

Despite a major influence on planning issues being the catalyst for establishing Tuesday night's East Devon District Council (EDDC) scrutiny committee to investigate East Devon Business Forum, the subject has been vetoed on the advice of officers.

The meeting – possibly one of the most controversial ever staged at East Devon District Council - was quite bizarrely almost completely devoid of conservative councillors, save the three serving on the committee and a further three who were observing proceedings.

Not a single member of East Devon Business Forum (EDBF) appeared to be present either.

Around 50 members of the public attended but the absence of EDBF and almost all the 43 members of the ruling group, including the chairman, leader, deputy leader, and most of the cabinet, gave the distinct impression of a mass boycott.

Public speaking

Five members of the public spoke:

First was Sidmouth businessman, Barry Curwen, who said there was insufficient separation between EDDC and EDBF to allay fears and the reputation of both had been damaged as a result. There needed to be a replacement body which was entirely separate from EDDC and meetings needed to be open to the press and public. "Radical surgery", was the only option, he said.

Alan Durrant from Save Our Sidmouth campaign group, said he had spoken to hundreds, if not thousands of people who were worried about the influence of EDBF. The council was not held in high regard and needs to do something to regain the trust of electors. The scope of the committee needed to be widened, he added.

Paul Newman from Westclyst near Pinhoe said the scope of the TAFF appeared to be in favour of East Devon Business Forum. He then made a number of references to an ombudsman investigation in 1990 into current EDBF vice-chair, Roy Stuart's involvement in a planning decision on his own land, which was the creation of the Hill Barton Industrial Estate. At the time Mr Stuart was an EDDC councillor and vice-chair of the planning committee.

Mr Newman informed the meeting that the matter was so serious that the ombudsman had contacted the Director of Public Prosecutions. Cllrs Stuart and Brown resigned together over the incident.

He explained that at Westclyst in 2010, that Mr Stuart applied to build 450 houses on grade 1 agricultural land. The Local Development Framework Panel councillors (LDF Panel) asked for an early application to be brought forward, for a decision, ahead of finalising the LDF and the application at Westclyst was approved in December 2010. Cllr Brown was chairman of the LDF Panel at the time the committee agreed to bring the land forward.

He said he had raised this as a complaint with EDDC but it was denied. However, the minutes of the LDF Panel (previously secret) proved otherwise, once published in 2011.

Mr Stuart is vice chair and Cllr Brown, who runs a planning consultancy and a building firm, is chair, of EDBF, Mr Newman advised the meeting.

Sidmouth resident, Tony Green congratulated Cllr Graham Troman for pushing for an inquiry into EDBF and said that it may allay some suspicion about the forum.

He said the draft scope excluded two key concerns, including debating undue influence on planning policy and clarifying the confused legal status over the status of EDBF. Mr Green added that the set up risked compromising councillors and officers as there was a "minefield of conflicts of interests."

It was painfully clear from the beginning, said Mr Green, that a key objective of EDBF was to lobby the council and the council had eased planning restrictions as a result. He gave two examples quoting from EDBF minutes, which he said backed up this statement.

He said EDBF has an 'insatiable appetite' for employment land, and made references to Cllr Brown's claims that the forum was 'completely independent' when it receives funding from the council. Mr Green said he had two awkward questions.

Firstly if EDBF was independent why are councillors part of it. Secondly, if it is part of the council why does EDDC support spending so much time lobbying itself?

Sidmouth Chamber of Commerce member, Steven Kendall-Torry, said that he looked forward to the opportunity to look into the activities of the forum. He said that EDBF was trying to show it had a range of interests other than planning."

Mr Kendall-Torry then made a number of remarks about the restrictions that applied to the membership of small businesses, such as the Federation of Small Businesses and businesses that had less than 10 employees were not even allowed to attend until recently.

The draft scope must be amended to be allowed to touch on planning issues, he said. The first and most important, as well as controversial item on the agenda was 'The Scope." The scope is basically the subjects that the committee are allowed to discuss … and not allowed to discuss.

The draft scope was, in my view, a nice try at trying to get EDBF off the hook and attempting instead to shoehorn the committee into discussing the nice airy fairy subject of business in general in East Devon, with EDBF only getting a passing glance.

The scope, apparently written by chief executive, Mark Williams, insisted that we weren't allowed to talk about planning issues at all. This was despite the fact that it is the public outcry over EDBF's influence over planning issues that was the main driver in setting up the committee in the first place!


The main questions from that meeting - which are the main questions for tomorrow evening's meeting - are:

> To what extent did the EDBF influence the amount of employment land - and why should the current EDBF TAFF not consider this question?

A few years ago, a Task and Finish Forum was set up by EDDC to look into the issue of employment land (Chairman of the TAFF, Councillor Graham Brown, who was then and is now Chairman of the East Devon Business Forum). The TAFF recommended that the advice of two separate sets of consultants who suggested a moderate amount of employment land should be ignored and that EDDC should go along with the recommendations of the East Devon Business Forum which wanted a very large amount of business land in the Local Plan. This was agreed by EDDC. This TAFF obviously had to look into planning policy as consultants’ advice was part of the council’s planning policy research.

The Local Plan is currently in its final consultation period, so the Local Plan is not yet with a Planning Inspector and could still be amended, otherwise why have this consultation period at all? So why cannot the TAFF look into planning policy?

Here is a council (Newcastle Borough Council) whose Task and Finish Forum has been looking into planning policy. The first sentence of its report says: “Below is a synopsis of Planning Policy – considered by the Task and Finish Group on 8 June”.

Here is an example of another council Task and Finish Group (Luton) looking into planning policy .

> To what extent is the Scrutiny Cttee free to determine what it can and cannot scrutinise?

The District Council’s own Constitution makes it very clear that it is the responsibility of Scrutiny Committees and their TAFFs to hold any part of the District Council to account: “Each Committee operates within the guiding principles of effective scrutiny promoted by the Centre for Public Scrutiny, namely: 1. Provide a ‘critical-friend’ challenge to the Cabinet… 2. Reflect the voice and concerns of the public and its communities. 3. Take the lead and own the scrutiny process on behalf of the public…

The Chief Executive also claimed that ‘[neither] this TAFF nor its members could properly be considered independent, and this constrained any ability to look into such areas [as planning]’.

However, the Centre for Public Scrutiny, the body respectfully cited in the District Council’s own Constitution, defines public scrutiny as “the ability to critically examine the activities of those exercising power on behalf of the wider populace, in order to hold them accountable for it.”

In other words, the Constitution allows for any TAFF under the Overview & Scrutiny Committee to consider planning issues; and nowhere in the Constitution does it expressly bar any such consideration.

And in fact, there is a great deal of precedence to draw on. It is extraordinary that no mention has been made of the fact that the East Devon District Council itself has set up several TAFFs to look into planning issues – for example, the Employment Land TAFF of 2007 and the Land Supply for Housing TAFF of 2009.

Could it be, I ask, that there is extreme pressure being exerted on this Business TAFF because these earlier TAFFs were heavily influenced by the EDBF and its members – and to open this particular can of worms could be explosive?
> To what extent was the Local Plan fashioned to the liking of the EDBF?
The influence of the East Devon Business Forum on the Local Plan | Sidmouth Independent News
EDDC must distance itself from East Devon Business Forum:13 July 2012 - 15 Comments - Claire Wright

> Lastly there seems to be a contradiction:

Notes of a Meeting of the Business Task and Finish Forum held at Knowle, Sidmouth on 11 December 2012

4 Scoping report
Broadly, the issues for discussion were how EDDC engaged with business and the role historically and currently played by the EDBF in facilitating that link.

RESOLVED The scoping report be agreed as below:
Broad topic area: To produce an in-depth report on the East Devon Business Forum to include all business engagement and its relationship with the Council.

Areas NOT covered by review: 
- Individual planning applications
- Planning policy
- East Devon Local Plan
- Individual contracts between the council and contractors or suppliers

Notes of a Meeting of the Business Task and Finish Forum held at Knowle, Sidmouth on 11 December 2012

> In other words, where does 'an in-depth report' begin and specific 'planning applications' end?

“The A3052 corridor” – When is discussing planning applications NOT discussing planning applications?

3rd March 2013

When it is called something else.

We are increasingly concerned about what the East Devon Business Forum has designated the “A3052 Corridor” – see posting here earlier this week and agenda item 68 HERE.

Councillor Brown has always said that EDBF does not discuss individual planning applications. However, this re-naming of an agenda item at EDBF seems to be bunching together several planning applications or potential planning applications of EDBF members and then having a presentation and a discussion about them in the presence of councillors and officers, some of whom are wearing their “other” hats.

What “A 3052 corridor” seems to mean is the business and development interests of three families which have large holdings in the area roughly between Woodbury Salterton, Farringdon and Clyst St Mary and who all assiduously attend EDBF meetings. It does not seem to mean the road that runs from the Dorset border to the outskirts of Exeter and the M5 at junction 30.

The Stuarts own the Hill Barton Industrial Estate and FWS Carter owns Greendale Business Park and is rumoured to have recently acquired more land at Farringdon. The Carters also own Ladram Bay holiday park, land at Otterton, the Kings Arms at Otterton, Exmouth Docks and had or possibly still have plans to develop a marina at Sidmouth, as outlined in the Sidmouth Herald a couple of years ago. The third potential developer is Mr Chris Down, who owns Crealy Adventure Park, and got permission to turn his farm buildings at Clyst St Mary into an industrial estate in 2011 and who has spoken at LDF meetings of his desire to develop the area around Crealy.

The ambitions for FWS Carter in the Woodbury Salterton area can be summarised by the presentation they made to the LDF Panel in 2011 to be found HERE.

The ambitions for the Stuarts can be found HERE -in EDDC’s draft Local Plan (page 34) where they have been collectively allocated around 30 acres of green fields on which to extend their industrial land.

We must also remember that just before the Cloakham Lawns (Axminster) planning approval in September 2010, the Managing Director of Axminster Carpets (which owns the site) made a special presentation to EDBF and attendant district councillors (some of whom were wearing their “other” hats) stressing how important the planning application was for the future of the now very insecure company.

This would be totally acceptable if EDBF were a group completely independent of East Devon District Council and did not have the frequent and regular services of district council officers, one of whom has the remit to comment on planning applications of “economic interest”.

With its total reliance on funding from EDDC and the Chief Executive insisting that the relationship between EDDC and EDBF is that of a joint body (though this is disputed by many) it does seem that pre-presentation and discussion of development opportunities by developers such as Axminster Carpets and the landowners in the “A 3052 corridor” and the involvement of an EDDC Officer in EDBF on a regular and routine basis runs a high risk of giving the appearance to the general public that these issues may become intertwined and inter-related between individual developers, EDBF and EDDC councillors and officers in a very complicated way – not a situation that would seem to be a sensible one for EDDC.

Let us hope that the future meetings of the East Devon District Council Overview and Scrutiny Task and Finish Forum is able to discuss this very complex relationship and come up with some solution.

Or will the Chief Executive rule it out of bounds?

“The A3052 corridor” – When is discussing planning applications NOT discussing planning applications? | Sidmouth Independent News

Of course, we mustn't forget the fundamental question:

> What exactly does 'employment land' mean?
Futures Forum: Are 'retail parks' a good thing?
Futures Forum: What is the difference between a 'business park'... and a 'retail park'?
Futures Forum: What is the difference between a 'business park'... and a 'retail park'... Part Two
Futures Forum: Crony capitalism and lemon socialism in East Devon........ The costs of "substantial growth and expanding business"
Futures Forum: "Statistics show us that small and medium-size businesses (including those in tourism) are our life blood."

No comments: