According to the Journal EDDC has announced plans to turn the free car park by the Public Hall in Budleigh Salterton to one for permit holders only. If so, this is surely the worst of all outcomes. Not only is the car park no longer free but would only be available to permit holders i.e would exclude visitors and those attending events in the Hall! There is no nearby alternative of this capacity.
The plans were due to be decided on by EDDC’s cabinet on Wednesday — however, there was hope that a last-minute compromise could be found.
Councillor Tom Wright, a member of Budleigh Salterton Town Council and EDDC’s deputy cabinet member for environment, is reported as saying: “We hope that the cabinet will arrive at a compromise which will allow flexible, low cost parking, for residents of Budleigh and our visitors.”. But the Town’s fate may already be sealed.
The saga of the car park began in 2012, when the town council, which had rented the car park for £500 a year, was told EDDC wanted to increase this to £35,000. The town council made a counter offer of £6,500, which was rejected, and heard no more about the matter until now.
An EDDC spokesman said: “Our district-wide car parks review found that it was not reasonable for EDDC to subsidise ‘free’ town centre car parking for just one town in East Devon.
But as Cllr Wright pointed out: “EDDC is trying to say it’s a free car park. It’s not free. The people of Budleigh Salterton have been paying for it through their precept levied by the town council.” (Town ratepayers have been paying for maintenance and no costs fall on other East Devon ratepayers.)
In fact the land was “given” to the people of Budleigh in the shape of the then Urban District Council by Clinton Devon Estates on a peppercorn long lease. Ownership, unfortunately, had to be transferred out of local hands to EDDC when the district council was formed in 1976.
Both the Chamber of Commerce and Budleigh in Business, as well as the Town Council, are opposed to the introduction of charging because of the damage it will do to business and social events such as the series of local festivals.
Wasn’t one of the principles of localism to encourage local communities to make these sorts of decisions to suit local needs? Or are we witnessing another example of “one size fits all” policy making aimed at destroying local identity and creating a degree of conformity that one used to see in the USSR?
Seaside towns like Budleigh and Exmouth have large car parks with good access to the sea but far away from the town centres. They need all the help they can get to encourage visitors into the towns themselves.
East Devon Watch 
It might be worth looking at the land deeds and other paperwork to see whether there are conditions of the gift or possibly restrictive covenants which constrain the use of the land and / or charges that can be levied.
(If I was gifting land to the town for use as a car park, I would definitely place such restrictions on it to avoid future hijacking.)
LikeLike
This flies in the face of the Portas Recommendations of keeping town centres alive by having low parking fees. The charges put on the front have already been impacting on the numbers going to Budleigh, evidenced by the fact the shops there have already seen a marked reduction in takings. Since we are supposed to be coming out of the recession, we should be seeing the reverse.
LikeLike
For the record, the EDDC Cabinet listened to local residents, businesses and leisure providers, plus the local Members Cllrs Dent and Wright. After open and transparent discussion, then adopted the compromise solution – as suggested, to change to a long term car park, with no charging after 6pm…
LikeLike
Budleigh Resident has sent the following comment by email:
Ian, greatly relieved to hear that the car park remains free after 6pm but since the cabinet agenda did not mention any compromise, the details of this are far from transparent to residents. I am sure we would like to know, for example, whether the car park will now be restricted only to permit holders as originally proposed.
Grateful if you could also confirm that the town council (and hence town ratepayers) will no longer be liable for the annual rent and maintenance charges. Lastly, in a spirit of openness and transparency, could you please explain why you think EDDC is justified in making money out of land that was gifted to the residents for free parking?
LikeLike
I am pleased we agree the compromise is sensible. The principle of any agenda of this type is that a report is produced by Officers which is then debated by Members who respond to that report, debate on the night and the representations of those who take the opportunity to speak at the meeting (there were a significant number of Budleigh interest representatives there on Wednesday evening – to suggest that a decision alternative to that originally presented based on debate on the night is somehow not ‘open and transparent’ is bizarre (IMHO).
The changes are part of EDDC taking back control of and it owns with all that implies…
A question for ‘transparency for East Devon’ – in the interest of openness and transparency, you will note that I never post on anything other than under my own name, yet the author of virtually all posts on this blog chooses a pseudonym which means readers do not know who is/are posting. How about dropping the facade, following my lead and posting your valued comment under your own name(s)? – in the interest of ‘openness and transparency’/’collective accountability’??
LikeLike
Hi Ian
Paul Arnott here. recent successor to Ian McKintosh, the East Devon Alliance’s founding chairman.
We’re very glad that you feel welcome to contribute on this blog. I agree that it would look absurdly coy for you not to name yourself in your contributions as you are an elected, professional councillor, so coming online as ‘Axmouthlad’ or the like would be unnecessarily opaque. But do please carry on – it’s good to open things up.
There is an interesting balance of freedoms in blogs. If you look at all the forums run by national newspapers – and the leading examples are the right-leaning Mail and the left-leaning Guardian websites – the norm is that blog contributors choose NOT to give their full names.
Some people do this for humour, some to hide behind an identity because what they are saying is plain rude. However, readers soon pick up on a house style for a blogger, and indeed chat to each other in the vein of “Hi, Albatross12, you are so wrong again”, “Get a life, Turkeyman” and other similarly enriching remarks.
On this site, great care is taken not to disseminate anything libellous or which can be construed as unfair or baseless comment. If an individual wishes to post a comment which passes this test, then the way in which they wish to be named is up to them.
For what it is worth, in my personal opinion, if the governing party in East Devon were less inclined to duff up its opponents through fatuous complaints to the Monitoring Office, by repeated and recorded incidents of bullying in parish and town councils, and now the proposed restriction on public speaking at Planning meetings – which I very much hope YOU will refuse to rubber-stamp on July 23rd – then, and perhaps only then, the majority of comment contributors might be happy to publish their real name too.
all best
Paul
LikeLike
Touché!
LikeLike
Touché ?? Not sure I know what you mean Paul?
Nor why you think anyone should fear anything in identifying themselves as author of a contribution which meets your criteria?
Just a simple Yorkshireman here, happy to listen and adapt, not always right – but never feeling the need to hide my identity in anything I say or write…
Happy with my previous post view. I must admit a little surprised that an organisation with the stated objective of ‘bringing the people of East Devon together’ and ‘seeking transparency’ (aims we share) does not apparently support the same line on openness?
Am I missing something?
LikeLike
Whilst we all (you, me, Paul Arnott, other EDA members) all desire openness and transparency here as much as at EDDC, we need to be realistic that (as Paul A commented) the Tory attitude of reporting non-Tory councillors to the Standards Committee for the most minor things, and the Tory-based Standards Committee blatant bias against non-Tory Cllrs, constrains freedom of speech and makes people nervous about posting under their own names.
The reason, of course, that you feel free to speak openly is that you are a Tory, and so are not subject to persecution by the Standards Committee.
So let me ask you a couple of specific questions relating to your personal beliefs (as opposed to Tory policy):
1. As an individual, do you personally agree with the restrictions on Public Speaking that are (presumably) about to be rubber stamped by full council, and, if so then why do you think it is a good idea to prevent citizens from speaking about why they disagree with the Council sufficiently fervently to make the trip to the Knowle and make a public speech which most people (who are not councillors) will find nerve wracking?
2. If you don’t agree with the restrictions on public speaking, then will you be voting without fear or favour against these restrictions, or will you be following the party whip and voting in favour?
Similarly, if you believe fervently that people should feel comfortable with saying who they are, will you be willing to join a campaign to get the Standards Committee to be unbiased, and for Councillors instead to be expected to be more robust (in the cut and thrust of politics) in accepting opinion or fact-based criticism about their behaviour / views without running to the Standards Committee like crying 3 year olds?
In other words, I am asking you to state your personal values, and to show that you apply these values consistently.
I await your next post with interest.
LikeLike
EDA can quite easily” bring the people of East Devon together” and seek transparency from its institutions without forcing anyone to give up their anonymity on its blog. However, EDDC cannot easily bring transparency to East Devon by having many of its meetings in secret, refusing to publish the agendas and minutes of those meetings, refusing to have a TAFF on the influence of the East Devon Business Forum and by cutting off the public’s opportunities to speak at the few public meetings that are left at which they ARE allowed to to attend and speak! Oh, and refusing recorded votes at some crucial meetings.
Anonymity gives the people of East Devon the opportunity to speak without fear of retribution. We have seen what EDDC does to its opposition councillors (Wragg and Wright) and cannot see any point in allowing this to happen to us.
As an example, I suffered mightily at the hands of EDDC when I wrote (privately but with my own name) to Tesco’s Board of Directors and had the email handed to EDDC in order for them to discipline me (when I was Seaton Town mayor) about the questions contained in it. In hindsight, it might have been better if I had asked the questions of Tesco as Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.
LikeLike
“The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.” –Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787
LikeLike
Again a response by email from the Budleigh resident who started this thread:
Ian,
You say that we (you and I) agree the compromise (on parking) is sensible. But you seem to have used the hackneyed trick, so beloved of politicians, and hated by the public, of not answering the question by deflecting the argument onto a different subject.
Since you answered none of my questions I don’t know whether the compromise is sensible or not, and it may be that what looks sensible to EDDC doesn’t look sensible to those in Budleigh trying to make a living in the High Street.
The questions I have asked are perfectly reasonable and I can’t see that the answers depend on knowing my identity. I am not, as you proclaim yourself to be, a Yorkshire man, but simply a Budleigh resident concerned about the economic health and well being of the town (though I wish I was called John Humphries or Jeremy Paxman).
Please do me the courtesy, as one of our elected representatives, of answering the questions.
LikeLike
Sorry you did not think I answered your questions…. Hope this helps (trying to write on a small mobile device so forgive typo’s)
1. The resolution was that the car park lease to Budleigh Town Council is not to be renewed, as the charges for the lease could not be agreed. Historically the free car parking here has been subsidised by both Budliegh TC and EDDC. The resolution of Cabinet was therefor that the car park will revert to the landlord, East Devon District Council.
2. The car park will be operated as a ‘long stay’ facility, not restricted to permit holders, based on suggestions made by local Members. No charges proposed after 6pm.
3. My personal understanding of this would mean that Budleigh TC would not have any greater involvement in the car park than other similar arrangements in other towns.
4. The work on the car parks review determined that it was not equitable for the Council to subsidise ‘free’ town centre car parking for just one town in East Devon.
5. Had it been possible to negotiate a new lease with Budleigh TC, based on an independent valuation, then the TC could have chosen to subsidise the facility itself.
Have not personally been involved in any direct discussion or negotiation with Budleigh TC, but believe these answers to be accurate. I understand that consideration of site covenants was taken into account.
Best regards,
Ian
LikeLike
Email correspondent has asked for this to be passed on:
Thanks
LikeLike
You are most welcome…
Ian
LikeLike
Dear Ian,
The responses here whilst seemingly factual doesn’t represent the entire picture.
1. According to the Town Council, they were not aware that negotiations had come to a close until such time as they were informed that it appeared as an agenda item last Wednesday. Under freedom of information I will be asking the Town Clerk to provide the correspondence from EDDC which informs them of that. A negotiation isn’t over until both parties agree that it is.
2. It is obvious that the Town Council were backed into a corner, which meant that they had to offer a compromise to prevent an unworkable regime being implemented (permit holders only). On the Monday prior to the meeting, all those attending and speaking – and many many more, were not aware that this would be proposed by our Town Council. The meeting where this was agreed was an extraordinary meeting of the Town Council. If there are no minutes for this meeting, how do we (the residents and traders of the Town) know that this decision was reached in an open and democratic way. The Town Council, although alerting the trading groups to the cabinet meeting in the first instance did not tell us that they were going to make the above proposal, giving us no opportunity to respond (pretty much like EDDC apparently not informing the Town Council that negotiations had ended!). There is here an inevitable conflict of interest as 3 of our Town Councillors are also EDDC Councillors.
3. The converse of this point being, will the Town get some sort of financial dispensation because of the inevitable further decline in footfall and traffic that will inevitably occur.
4. Despite the growing realisation that each Town, County etc. is unique, and one size doesn’t fit all, why are you still seeking ‘parity’. What you produce in making everything the same across the region is a blandness and a drive towards the lowest common denominator! If ‘parity’ is what is important, why don’t you (EDDC) make positive and direct moves to keep trade IN the towns and give ALL the towns some free parking (I know that isn’t financially feasible, under current regime, but I hope you see my point?)
5. It is my understanding that the Town Council worked very hard to try to subsidise the carpark – hence the negotiations. It would be very interesting to understand who provided the ‘independent’ valuation, and whether there was more than one. Given the additional costs to EDDC of maintenance, resurfacing, policing, etc. and the acknowledged ‘risk’ to our Town (EDDC state medium on the agenda!), how can EDDC morally, selfishly apply these charges at the expense of the residents and the Town’s livelihood?
I hope that you will be able to provide some clarification and answers to those questions asked.
LikeLike
Hello again, Ian.
Paul Arnott again here. Lots of posts while I was watching the tennis!
Hope it’s now clear from all the above that “transparencyforeastdevon” is posting a comment sent to the site from a Budleigh resident by email.
I have contacted the blog team, and can confirm that the Budleigh resident has elected to provide their name to the team running the site but prefers not to publish it on the blog. This is an honourable choice for a private individual in difficult circs, and in town and district politics perhaps not too surprising. Glad to clarify.
As you first opened the Budleigh parking subject out into blogging etiquette, it seem fair enough that others have opened it out even further to ask a direct question on public speaking rights. There seems to me to be a real opportunity here for a cabinet member to lead opposition to their proposed restriction on July 23rd.
all best
Paul
LikeLike
On a rare holiday at present and not seeking imminent divorce….
But can confirm that I will (as I guess will all my colleagues across the political spectrum) review all items on the extensive agenda papers, contribute to debate and vote accordingly, then be accountable for that voting choice, based my personal judgement.
If anyone ever managed to ‘tell’ me how to vote in any environment that would be a first! Whilst it might be tempting, do not confuse the possibility of shared views within a group as real evidence of the traditional party-political ‘whip’ – I have experienced nothing in my short local government service to suggest it exists….
Signing off…
Ian
LikeLike
Ian, Thank you for your candour which was refreshing, and your willingness to comment whilst on holiday.
Without wishing to intrude too much more on your holiday, since you have said that you have your own views and vote on them rather than any party whip, would you be willing to answer the questions asked relating to your personal views and voting intent on the Restrictions on Public Speaking and on whether Councillors should be more robust and the Standards committee less fervent and biased?
LikeLike
If I may revert to the original point of this thread.
I, as did many others, attended the meeting at which the vote was taken to make the Station Road Car park long term pay and display. Although the public speakers without exception gave compelling and fact based arguments as to why the car park should remain free for the use of the Town, as did Cllrs Dent and Wright, these points were barely alluded to as part of the decision making process.
I wonder what the outcome would have been had Cllrs Dent and Wright, who are also Town Councillors, not offered the pay and display option as a compromise? When we went in to the meeting, those in the audience were of the view that we were there to fight to keep the car park free. In the space of 48 hours, things had changed for some reason? The response to this very point has been ‘they [EDDC] would have taken it anyway’. Is this democracy I wonder – and if so, whose version of it?
The current local political infrastructure, and the relationship between the Town Council, EDDC and DCC has once again allowed an action which will further impact our Town Centre and its viability. Where Councillors represent, or are represented in more than one body, surely a conflict of interest is inevitable?
To the point that the car parks committee felt it unreasonable that Budleigh should retain the free use of the gifted land, I would ask whether the needs of our Town were looked at as a whole – or is this just another example of each council function looking after its own interests, without taking the bigger picture into consideration. The ‘risk’ of this action, as stated on the agenda for that Cabinet Meeting is ‘medium’. Given that, in the light of the Portas and several other High Street/Town Centre reports and EDDC’s own recent (apparently unactioned) TAFF on the High Street, I wonder how the Council can justify imposing ANY measures which are perceived to present ANY risk to the Towns which it is supposedly there to protect!
[To clarify a previous point: It is documented that Budleigh Town Council offered to EDDC an increase in the lease cost to over £6000, an increase of over 1,200 percent from the previous rate of £500. Added to the rateable income from the land, and Budleigh’s willingness to continue to maintain the facility, this comprised a vast and more than fair increase. It transpires that this was not enough for EDDC, a figure of £35,000 was required. (Whose ‘independent’ valuation was this?) A private Landlord would be admonished for expecting such an increase, why is it acceptable for EDDC to demand this, particularly when given the social and economic cost to the Town]
LikeLike
Whilst the issues of democracy, conflicts of interest, etc. are very valid, EDDC are looking at this in purely economic terms, and (providing that there this decision is being driven by economics rather than any political agenda) we should assume that EDDC are asking for £35,000 plus rateable income because they can make as much net profit by running the car parks themselves. So perhaps we should try to work out whether this is the case:
1. Do we know what the EDDC revenues would be either from selling Permits (if it is Permit only parking) or from parking charges (if it is a P&D)? Can we estimate either of these from the number of car parking spaces and / or history of parking volumes?
2. EDDC would be responsible for providing meters, maintaining the asphalt, marking the parking bays, parking wardens to check that people had paid and issue tickets, etc. Can we estimate the costs of this from EDDC accounts for other car parks or by other means?
Based on these what would the net profit be for EDDC? Would it be in the region of the £40,000 total revenue being asked from BTC?
Can anyone help with these estimates?
LikeLike
Hello Paul
There were certainly mutterings that evening that the figures didn’t add up. Presumably a proportion of takings is paid to central goverment also, reducing EDDCs own income from them? Once the meters are in, it’s easy for EDDC to continue to put up the charges to the point where they do cover costs, and even further drive custom from the Town. [eg Lime Kiln at the other end of Town, where at £6 per day, 24 hour/365 day coverage – apart from the sunniest of holiday days there are generally no more that 20 cars present out of the 422 spaces available]. Given their attitude, what is to stop them?
Can these figures ‘justifying’ their decision be requested under freedom of information?
LikeLike
So, let’s see if I understand the EDDC economics correctly…
EDDC apparently believes that the maximum overall revenue for the Lime Kiln car park is to “sell” 20 spaces a day (< 5%) at £6 (= £120 per day income) rather than (say) 300 cars a day at £2 (= £600 per day). Not to mention the loss of business rates for every business that fails.
Looks like we will need to send the relevant EDDC Cllrs and Officers on evening courses for GCSE Mathematics.
LikeLiked by 1 person