The building costs (£850,000) did not include VAT so add another £150,000 plus (assuming most work done at 17.5% and not the current 20%)
So it isn’t £850,000 – it’s a £1 million olus building that’s being demolished.
Now, bearing in mind how small it is – can you see the Skypark HQ being built for a TOTAL cost of £4m including land costs and planning costs?
Many will recall rhe furore when the National Planning Policy Framework was initially drawn up by a group of builders and developers, the majority of them 3 out of 4) large donors to the Tory Party. Now the Institute for Government has issued a report on the background to this project, and what a sleazy business it apoears to uncover.
Here are a few snippets from their report:
… But there is increasing interest in different approaches to policy making from both ministers and from the leadership of the Civil Service. The Civil Service Reform Plan published in mid-June states that “open policy making will become the default. Whitehall does not have a monopoly on policy-making expertise. We will establish a clear model of open policy making…” …
… DCLG had been planning before the election how to address the manifesto commitment to produce a new planning framework. They had set up a programme board, and had produced a 500-page draft before the election. …
In parallel to establishing the practitioners’ advisory group, but without mentioning it, Greg Clark announced the review of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 20 December 2010. He asked for views and set a deadline for the end of February:
The group was only acknowledged in March 2011. Its ad hoc establishment meant it could not be given official status. However people in the know in Whitehall and beyond were aware that there was an exercise in train which added to the awkwardness. The lack of official status meant that DCLG emphasised to external bodies that the department was drafting the new NPPF.
They were not given a formal terms of reference by the minister – indeed they were asked to produce their own.
PAG members told us that the process was much more time-consuming than they expected. None of them were paid for their work, so there was a clear bias in favour of those for whom this could be part of their day job.
One outsider told us that he was unclear whether the PAG thought their remit was simply to précis existing guidance or to make new policy. And indeed there seemed to be continuing confusion over whether the NPPF was simply a restatement of existing guidance in more usable form or a real change in policy. The PAG themselves report heated debates over:
the presumption in favour of sustainable development
issues such as flood protection – a big issue in Gary Porter’s home county of Lincolnshire,
but where the environmental view held sway
the viability of building
whether there should be local or national standards for sustainability
And there is MUCH more …
To read the full report – on which we will report further:
Click to access opening_up%20policy%20making_final.pdf
…
The selection of the four (on the NPPF Panel) was very ad hoc. The participants appeared to be very surprised to be asked and did not really understand the reasons for their selection. They were each invited for a chat about planning with Greg Clark at which they were invited to take part. There was no hint of using Nolan processes for public appointments and no formal announcement of the establishment of the PAG. The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) pointed out that the informality and secrecy of the process meant that none of the normal sounding-out of interested parties happened.
http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Lib-Dems-warn-sale-council-s-HQ/story-21285820-detail/story.html
Or is it, as we have mentioned before “scorched earth”?
From Wikipedia:
“A scorched earth policy is a military strategy which involves destroying anything that might be useful to the enemy while advancing through or withdrawing from an area. It is a military strategy where all of the assets that are used or can be used by the enemy are targeted, such as food sources, transportation, communications, industrial resources, and even the people in the area.”
In the roughly six weeks before a general election local authorities should not take any actions that might affect the outcome of such elections, such as signing contracts for controversial projects.
The next general election and local elections will be on 7 May 2015. This means that controversial activity should cease by 26 March 2015.
One can see why the Skypark issue is being railroaded and kept so secret. The ink must be dry on the purchase of the site by the end of March next year. Especially if the European Election results in 2014 are replicated in East Devon as, if they are, the Conservatives will lose their overall majority and will be at the mercy of Independents, Greens and UKIP.
Here is the political guidance which was issued for 2014 elections.
http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=SN05262
Click to access Bicton_College_-_Further_Education_Commissioner_assessment_summary.pdf
Prime development land for its closest neighbour perhaps?
Where will Economic Development Manager and former Hon Sec of the East Devon Business Forum be decanted to one wonders?
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/value_of_it_contracts_placed_wit#incoming-532767
Probably even less in East Devon where most developers recently appear to have been let off their affordable obligations.
Oh dear – watch out Skypark, Cranbrook and Ottery and everywhere inbetween:
It seems that these days we are being pressurised into believing that only supermarkets can fund ” improvements”. How did we do this before supermarkets existed? Surely there must be other ways of raising funds. And does everyone necessarily want “improvements” that they don’t get a say in anyway?
How have Exmouth, Axminster, Ottery and Seaton “improved” thanks to supermarkets?
Kate Little, erstwhile Head of Planning, made no secret of her wish to encourage developers to ignore town design statements and conservation areas in order to increase the stock of iconic contemporary buildings in East Devon. It was a manifestation of the extraordinary power that unelected officials have to change our landscape.
But this policy is not without dangers. There is always the risk that the aesthetics of contrasting styles won’t work when juxtaposed in a real setting rather than on the drawing board, though by the time you discover this it’s too late. There is also the risk that revolutionary, unconventional, structures won’t stand up to the elements as well as those which incorporate evolutionary development of tried and tested techniques. The Basil Spence tower at Exeter University is a local example of a problem iconic building and more recently Lloyds of London have let it be known that they are looking to vacate the Richard Rogers iconic building sometimes known as the “inside out building”, grade I listed in 2011, because the maintenance costs are too high. The Exmouth Bowling Alley has not been without structural problems either.
Spare a thought then for this domestic example, as described in a design and access statement recently posted on the EDDC planning portal (14/1494/FUL).
“……………An inherent feature of the design as an appropriate response to the site and context is extensive glazing to the seaward south facing elevation. Whilst this has proved highly successful in delivering both the intended visual impact of the design and internal experiential qualities, our clients were shocked to experience during the exceptional weather conditions which occurred over the past winter an unanticipated phenomenon which resulted in relatively significant damage to the glazing.
This concerns an action whereby small pebble-like material bedded within the adjacent cliff top becomes exposed by persistent heavy rain and is then transported by strong winds directly towards the seaward face of the building. The relatively flat open area between the cliff-top and the house allows considerable wind driven acceleration of such stone particles which then impact upon the glazing with significant force, sufficient to shatter the toughened glass panes of double glazed units. In one instance, a piece of material actually became embedded within the cavity of a double glazed unit.
The first instance of this action occurred over night and, our clients recount, was actually quite terrifying to experience, the impression being of the glazing apparently imploding. This phenomenon had certainly not been foreseen at design stage and neither had any immediately neighboring owners anecdotally drawn our clients’ attention to such a problem existing in this location although it now seems other property owners have previously experienced similar instances of damage.
Although this past winter’s weather may still currently be deemed exceptional, it is increasingly likely that such conditions will occur more frequently in the future. To date, damage has been caused to several different areas of the glazing on the affected elevation inflicted during several separate episodes of the action occurring and our clients have incurred relatively significant expense in repairing the damage.
It is against this background that a potential solution to permanently protect the building has been sought given it is beyond doubt the same circumstances will occur under future storm conditions……”
The proposed solution involves adding solid glass wind screens for winter storms (maybe it was a mistake to clear the vegetative shelter belt to improve the view) and brise-soleil devices to offset another problem: solar heating in summer.
Large panes of glass, high speed, corrosive (salt), wind vortices and pebbles from the cliff edge site, strong sunshine – What could possibly go wrong?
Remedies sound expensive – let’s hope they work.
But what about districts? Might it be a good thing if we (the electorate) could vote in our own leader ourselves?
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/23/george-osborne-elected-city-mayors-raised
Those in small villages whose parish councils have a turnover of less than £25,000 per annum are invited to comment on audit requirements:
Just in case you haven’t seen it, officers and councillors here is the latest government paper on how to calculate 5 year land supply. We wouldn’t want to get it wrong again would we?
http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=sn03741
Many organisations, including EDA, Save our Sidmouth and Sidmouth Independent News, have availed themselves of the free notice board positioned outside Pure Indulgence in Sidmouth’s pedestrianised shopping area.
East Devon District Council objected to this notice board. Many people wrote in supporting its position and use and, at the time of the closing date for objections there had been only one objection, but, for some reason, the consultation period was extended. It seems that other notice boards (including one belonging to EDDC), A-boards and other materials were acceptable to EDDC but not this particular notice board.
In a very short judgment (2 pages) the Planning Inspector decided to allow the appeal details of which can be found HERE.
The last two paragraphs of his judgment are below:
7. Concern has been expressed about the untidiness and proliferation of different notices on the board itself. It has been remarked that the appearance of it has improved recently. Notices can come in a range of sizes and be placed upon one another in a haphazard fashion but there is no evidence that this has occurred here to make it unsightly. The submitted details show the board with notices placed in a neat and tidy manner. Indeed, the board has been designed with wooden rims which would encourage the placing of notices within the confines of the board itself. Moreover, the notice board would enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area because it would improve the look of this wall for the reasons referred to.
8. In conclusion, the proposal would enhance the character and appearance of the Sidmouth Conservation Area for the reasons referred to. The proposal would comply with Policy EN11 of the East Devon Local Plan, which amongst other matters, permits development affecting setting or views where it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The Council have suggested a condition confirming the retrospective nature of the development. In accordance with the tests specified within the PPG, this would be unnecessary and therefore has not been imposed. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
Although many would consider this a minor matter it throws into question one thing: if EDDC can get it SO wrong about whether something will enhance or degrade the appearance of a Conservation Area can we trust THEIR judgment?
Budleigh population exceeds that of Sidmouth – Official!
Because of funding cuts imposed by central government a two tier system is being proposed for Devon Libraries. Medium and larger libraries will upgraded to become “Devon Centres” while smaller and less well-used will have to be run by the community, if they are to remain open at all. To separate the well-used from the less well-used, County Hall policy makers are using some very dubious numerical analysis which has been exposed in a letter from an alert Budleigh resident published in this week’s Journal.
Budleigh always thought its library was one of the most heavily used in the county for its size. It has 2,400 borrowers in a town of around 5,000 (48% active borrowers). In comparison Sidmouth has just under 4,000 borrowers for a population around 13,000 (only 31% active borrowers).
Yet in the hands of the bean counters Sidmouth comes near the top of the county pecking order in terms of utilisation rates with Budleigh relegated towards the bottom. The reason is that DCC statistics are calculated on an interesting definition of the catchment area for each library. These are not based straightforwardly on the population of the town in question, nor on the town plus its surrounding villages (which in the case of Budleigh might push its population up to 7,700).
The calculation is much more complicated, adding to the catchment area the population of the postcode of every borrower. So, if a book is borrowed from Budleigh Library by an Exmouth resident (because he or she prefers Budleigh’s poetry section, for example) then Budleigh’s catchment area is increased accordingly. The result is to raise Budleigh’s official catchment area to more than 18,000 (larger than Sidmouth’s) simultaneously reducing its utilisation rating from 48% to a mere 13%!
Budleigh Library seems to have become a victim of its popularity and theand the Mayor, Caz Sismore-Hunt, is quoted as saying “I don’t think using those figures is fair”. We agree.
The message to officials, and councillors for that matter, is that the East Devon Alliance has a team of forensic bean counters always on the lookout to expose any misleading use of data!
A couple of snippets to make you grimace, laugh or cry – or possible all three:
The mechanisms for maintaining and reviewing the effectiveness of the system of internal control throughout the year include.
Cabinet is responsible for considering overall financial and performance management and receives comprehensive budget monitoring reports on a monthly basis and council service performance reports.
Overview & Scrutiny Committee holds the Cabinet Committee to account.
Overview and Scrutiny hold the Cabinet to account – pull the other one. Anyone remember the East Devon Business Forum Business Task and Finish Group … Overview and Scrutiny? Happily toothless tiger.
Page 68
Risk: [That] Council services are not delivered where and how customers need them . Services do not consult effectively to ensure service delivery meets customer demand and the expectations of all our communities that we will deliver services in line with the Equality Act 2010.
This risk has been removed as it falls under other risks within the register and forms part of our Open for Business and flexible working projects.
Anyone been consulted about the move to Skypark and its effect on those people who will not be able to get there. Hubs? What happens if you can’t get to a “hub” on the day or time that it comes to your nearest town or village (and nearest towns and villages are NOT the same as accessible personally or by public transport).
Don’t know whether to laugh or cry here:
Click to access CSPL_EthicalStandards_web.pdf
On balance, cry. How little this means to EDDC.
A few choice bits:
Ethics matter. The public are right to expect high ethical standards and the government must ensure that this is achieved regardless of who is providing public services. This is increasingly recognised by the business community as a necessary part of winning trust and building confidence in the public service markets. Ethical standards should not be taken for granted and they have not been taken seriously enough to date. These risks are recognised by some commissioners and providers but they are rarely addressed explicitly. Where implicit, ethical expectations are articulated in different ways.
We recommend that:
■■ accounting officers actively seek assurance that public money is being spent in accordance with the high ethical standards expected of all providers of public services and annually certify (as part of managing public money duties) that they have satisfied themselves about the adequacy of their organisation’s arrangements;
….. the behaviours that members of the public expect of public office holders are:
■■ to be committed to public rather than private ends (selflessness and integrity);
■■ to be honest and open in decision-making;
■■ to make decisions in the light of the best evidence (objectivity);
■■ to be held accountable (particularly senior public figures); and
■■ to lead exemplary lives in public office (leadership)
The organisation needs a culture where everyone is encouraged to question and challenge and report unethical behaviour, where complaints are respected and concerns addressed, feedback is encouraged and acted upon in order to continuously improve and whistle-blowing is seen as last resort.
..
East Devon Watch 