Government “special advisers” cheaper than EDDC!

“The cost of ministers’ special advisers has risen to £8.4m following a rise of more than £1m in the past year.

There are now 103 “spads” employed to give advice over and above the work carried out by civil servants, up from 98 last year, official figures show.

They include a total of 26 working for David Cameron in Downing Street and 20 working for Nick Clegg.”

But it doesn’t seem so much when one adviser is costing EDDC upwards of £10,500 per month to provide relocation expertise (which led to hundreds of thousands of pounds being abortively spent on the Skypark project).

At that cost Ministers could only have afforded 70 special advisers rather than the 103 they actually employed!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30541478

EDDC’s relocation project….let’s take a close look

Last night’s Full Council gave the all clear for deputy Chief Executive Richard Cohen’s team to press on with the sale of the Knowle site, and the relocation of Council offices.

“At what cost?” is the burning question still unanswered, and unlikely to be any clearer for many months yet. As acknowledged at yesterday’s Full Council meeting,  it may not established before next May’s elections.

Another kind of reality check is possible, though. See photos below:

The first shows Exmouth Town Hall (energy rating ‘C’) , and the second, Honiton’s (energy rating ‘D’) East Devon Business Centre. These are to be refurbished, together with some newbuild council offices, to the tune of £10,000,000.

ExmouthHQEDDCBusCen

In contrast, at EDDC’s current HQ at Knowle, pictured below, (energy rating ‘C’), employees and visitors currently enjoy ample cost-free parking and a short pleasant walk into Sidmouth town centre (where there is regular bus service to other parts of the District). Save Our Sidmouth has long argued that the former hotel on the site could be sold off, possibly for flats, with no loss of the peaceful parkland. Does the planned decimation of a typical site that makes East Devon a place with a special identity, add to the highly questionable costs of the Cabinet’s “ambition”?

Knowle, Sidmouth

Display 2

 

 

 

Leader reveals Cabinet sees no need to consult Members of EDDC!

Our final example taken from the very long list of questions at the 17 Dec 2014 Full Council (there were others from Cllrs Hull and Giles). Readers can decide for themselves whether the answers match the questions….

Question 11: Procedure Rule 9.2 to the Leader of the Council from Councillor Ben Ingham

With so many potential options open to EDDC regarding cost saving projects with other councils, does the leadership of EDDC not think it may be viewed as irresponsible to tie ourselves to one tri partied arrangement before the Members of EDDC have had an opportunity to consider the full range of options open to us with other authorities?

Answer:

It would be helpful if the Councillor could provide some examples of the potential options he considers we may be missing out on. Over the last few years we have actively tracked down all sharing and collaboration opportunities with other Councils and have reported major successes with Exeter, Mid Devon, Teignbridge and South Somerset. What we have found is that other Councils ‘talk the talk’ but don’t necessarily ‘walk the walk’. It has been my proud achievement that we have frozen the Council Tax for 5 years in succession, partly as a result of all the costs savings we have achieved through sharing with other Councils.

 

 

 

What, more questions for the Leader? (Full Council, 17 Dec 2014)

Question 9: Procedure Rule 9.2 to the Leader of the Council from Councillor Roger Giles

When were the EDDC staff last consulted about relocation from The Knowle? Please indicate the questions asked in the consultation, and give the detailed results of the consultation.

Answer:

Every year we conduct a staff engagement survey – last year 89% of staff said they were happy with EDDC as their employer. We will continue to conduct this survey throughout the period of our impending relocation.

This is the question that I included in last year’s staff engagement survey.

Q5. Members have decided to relocate from Knowle and will soon decide where we move to based on various criteria.

If it were up to you, which of the following would be your preferred locations?

Answer: 239 staff gave 355 responses, the results are shown below:

NOTE FROM RG -NOT COPIED THE BAR CHART WHICH SHOWS PERCENTAGES:

HONITON 57 CLYST HOUSE 42 CRANBROOK 29 SKYPARK 21

 

Question 10: Procedure Rule 9.2 to the Leader of the Council from Councillor Claire Wright

Does the leader of the council share my very great concerns at the loss of vitally important facilities from very many communities in East Devon as a result of the government announcement of a reduction in S106 funding for small developments? What actions does he propose to take to make the government aware of the damaging impact of the decision, and what does he plan to persuade the government to recognise the needs of smaller rural communities and to reverse the iniquitous decision?

Answer:

I am very concerned that as a result of recent changes to government planning guidance small scale developments in rural areas will not be making contributions towards infrastructure and affordable housing. This change in guidance is unfortunate and is something that as a council we formally objected to when consulted in May. We have to acknowledge the government’s plan to get the country building again and this is a measure that will hopefully help to achieve this admirable aim. Putting this need in context, the Council currently has 2,813 (B Band – 262; C Band – 481: D Band – 786: E Band – 1284) applications for an affordable home in East Devon. The thresholds for developer contributions should however be set at a local level so that they have regard to local circumstances such as property values and local demand. Without such local input there is a danger that the profits of small of scale developers are put ahead of the needs of communities

The first thing we now need to do is work within this new guidance to minimise the loss of infrastructure funding and affordable housing provision that will result from these changes. This is something that officers in our planning team are looking at in terms of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations and the re-drafting of policies in our new Local Plan. It is considered that we can minimise the impact of these change but we think that there will still be a significant impact. Sadly the government did not listen to our reasoned arguments for why this change was a bad idea and so it would appear that real life evidence is needed to demonstrate the impact of the new guidance. Once we have gathered such evidence we will be in a stronger position to persuade the government to change the guidance again but in the meantime we have to work within the guidance that has been put in place.

Yet more questions for the Leader at Full Council (17 Dec 2014)

Question 7: Procedure Rule 9.2 to the Leader of the Council from Councillor Ben Ingham

During the last ten years, the Conservative Group at EDDC have managed to deplete millions of pounds of reserves to nothing. The Leadership of this council, following the advice of senior officers, now want us to believe that selling the Knowle, refurbishing Exmouth Town Hall and extending a site at Honiton, which only weeks ago we were told should be sold, will save us money. The premise is based on a twenty year payback and a heating inflation rate of ten per cent over the period. On top of that, at a time when we are told to expect extensive cutbacks in local government funding, you say we should be borrowing millions. What on earth makes you think this is a rational strategy to deploy on behalf of the people of East Devon when you plainly have no idea whether EDDC will even exist in five years time?

Answer:

The Council’s audited Accounts as at 31 March 2004 showed usable reserves of £13.6m, the latest audit Accounts as at 31 March 2014 show usable reserves at £12.7m. The reserve levels will fluctuate between years to reflect what is considered the appropriate level to hold depending on risks and the Council’s need to earmark monies for specific expenditure in the future.

This Council is faced with extensive and unpredictable basic repair costs if it remains at the Knowle not to mention any investment in modernisation. These costs would be unfunded in the absence of a capital receipt from the sale of Knowle. Selling Knowle and prudent borrowing considered against capital and operational costs makes sense. The future may well be unpredictable so we need to be flexible in how we operate and able to manage change. One thing we can be certain of is that the Knowle is not fit for purpose and not a part of that future.

Question 8: Procedure Rule 9.2 to the Leader of the Council from Councillor Roger Giles

When was advice first given to the Council Leader, that the process for site acquisition and development of Skypark aspect of the Knowle relocation project would be likely to be required to meet EU regulations?

What advice was given about the likelihood of the proposals meeting EU regulations? What advice was given about the cost and timescale of meeting EU regulations?

Answer:

Throughout the process EDDC has received advice in respect of procurement including EU aspects from the Relocation Manager and EDDC Procurement Officer. Land acquisition and contracting are matters that need to include consideration of EU requirements. No secret has been made of the complexity of European law – one specific recommendation at the June Cabinet meeting was that the Council commission specialist expertise as required to advise on the detail of appropriate procurement, value for money and legal matters in relation to Skypark.

Between Feb and June 2014, the way forward on Skypark was the subject of discussion between officers and Executive Members including the Leader.

The advice we received was that EU requirements could be met as part of a build out on Skypark and negotiations began to that end. Various possible options were under consideration. These included the Council procuring the building contractor itself which would have added something of the order of 3-4 months time and associated preparation costs.

In actuality, negotiations with St Modwen began but did not conclude – the reason being that the Heathpark sale price was reduced and the marketing of Knowle and Manstone process got underway. At which point the Skypark discussions (and further legal costs) were parked.

Supplementary Q from Roger Giles:
In the 3rd paragraph of the answer it is stated: “The advice we received was that EU requirements could be met as part of a build out on Skypark and negotiations began to that end.” Does he accept that the advice given was flawed?

Supplementary Answer from Paul Diviani:”It was the right advice at the time”

Is the Leader listening? More questions put to him at Full Council

Question 6 1-5: Procedure Rule 9.2 to the Leader of the Council from Councillor Claire Wright

Question 1: Please detail the total costs incurred so far by EDDC as a result of resisting the Information Commissioner`s ruling that EDDC should release information relating to the office relocation project.

Answer: It was not this Council’s desire to see this matter go to a tribunal and EDDC offered to resolve the matter by correspondence but the Information Commissioner decided otherwise resulting in time and expense. The legal expertise required by the Council has cost £7600 to date Please state the estimated figure before commencing the court action. Please state the expected final total of the cost to EDDC.

Q2 Please state the estimated figure before commencing the court action. Please state the expected final total of the cost to EDDC.

Answer: As has been previously said, this kind of tribunal is a new process. It is not EDDC that ‘commenced’ this action. The Council had sought to resolve the matter by correspondence rather than the more expensive and time consuming process of a hearing. As such we did not have a budget estimate for the activity.

Q3 As the Skypark element of the office relocation project has now been abandoned, the argument against publishing financial details on the grounds that this would compromise the financial viability of the scheme is no longer valid. Would the council leader therefore publish the full details of estimates made, and costs incurred, relating to the Skypark proposal with immediate effect?

Answer: Negotiations on land purchase and development costs were and remain confidential between the Council and St Modwen, the Skypark developer. Were we to make public such information it would potentially disadvantage St Modwen in their negotiations with future end users.

Over time it is likely that the information will become less sensitive and officers will review the opportunity to publish. This would need to be done in discussion with St Modwen.

Q4 Now that the Skypark option has fallen through will the council leader agree to examining in careful detail, Sidmouth resident, Robin Fuller’s proposal for refurbishment of the Knowle buildings?

Answer: Mr Fuller’s proposals produced in August 2013 have been considered by the Council and found to be unrealistic practically and financially. The following are a selection of reasons why the proposals do not make sense:

 Mr Fuller himself recognises in his proposals that the 70s/80s offices are less than the Council’s space requirement

 He then proposes that we might fit 600 staff in this space but it looks like he has used HSE figures of cubic space for safe working as opposed to design standard desk space and circulation space calculations

 Mr Fuller suggests that EDDC might also build a ‘modest’ extension of, say 600m2, build over the old Chamber or build an entirely new Chamber. He does not cost the construction or factor in loss of car parking or increased density of development near neighbouring homes.

 His scheme appears to be predicated on an unspecified capital receipt from sale of the old hotel building for ‘luxury’ flats. Unfortunately the design and condition of the existing buildings has proved to be comprehensively unattractive to any developers in the recent marketing exercise

Q5 Please state the energy efficiency rating of Exmouth Town Hall? Please detail the current heating, lighting and water costs and the estimated expenditure necessary to bring Exmouth Town Hall up to a high energy efficient rating.

Answer: The DEC Certificate, issued 19 November 2013, shows a rating of 66, which places it in Band C. For the FY 2013 / 2014 utilities costs (electricity, gas, water) totalled £ 18,724.00. The overall budget estimate for the refurbishment of Exmouth Town Hall including works to provide a higher energy efficiency rating is £ 0.9 mill, including a 20% Design and Construction Risk allowance.

Leader bombarded with questions from Opposition, at Full Council last night.

The Council’s inefficiency in producing an urgently-needed  Local Plan, was targeted in many of the questions. Here is a sample, with the answers received (More to come in following posts) :

Question 2: Procedure Rule 9.2 to the Leader of the Council from Councillor Ben Ingham

Development Management Committee (DMC) Members were told in October to expect an update on the SHMA report, revised housing numbers, and the 5 year supply of housing land at a separate DMC meeting in December 2014. Calculation of the five year housing land supply was reported as “work in progress” to the 21st October DMC. However, none of these three items are on the DMC agenda for December.

It is essential this information is made available before the DMC meeting in January 2015. Six weeks consultation are required before it can be brought back to the DMC and our Full Council. All of this must be finalised and approved before the end of March. I suggest it is highly likely that everything will slow down in March in the run-up to the EDDC elections.

As each week goes by, we are not able to make sound, rational decisions on planning applications without this data. Can I have the Leader’s assurance that we will have comprehensive feedback on the SHMA report, revised housing numbers, and the 5 year supply of housing land at the January 2015 meeting of DMC?

Answer:

The minutes of Development Management Committee in October state that Members were advised that a report setting out proposed changes to the Local Plan and Community Infrastructure Levy would be considered at a special meeting of the committee in December 2014/January 2015. The items that Cllr Ingham refers to are all elements of this report which was never timetabled to be considered on the scheduled December DMC meeting.

Officers are acutely aware of the need to progress the Local Plan and are doing all they can to achieve this. The continuing delays with the SHMA are however outside of our direct control as it is a joint commission with several other authorities and reliant on the work of consultants. Furthermore recent changes to government guidance affecting the Council’s ability to secure planning obligations from small scale developments have created a need to review our affordable housing policies and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) calculations which may lead to further delay but are completely outside of our control. The Special DMC meeting to consider revisions to the Local Plan will be held as soon as humanly possible but may not now be until February.

Whilst this is far from ideal, our Officers and Members of the DM Committee have an excellent track record on appeals as the reality is that none of this prevents sound, rational decisions being made on planning applications as the adopted East Devon Local Plan coupled with the National Planning Policy Framework and its associated guidance provide the necessary policy support to prevent developments that are harmful from being approved.

Question 3: Procedure Rule 9.2 to the Leader of the Council from Councillor Ben Ingham

The emerging East Devon Local Plan.

In two recent Inspectors’ letters it is said that a Local Plan Examination cannot or should not be suspended for more than six months:

Eastleigh Local Plan Examination paras 83-86: “I would be concerned if this timetable required a suspension of more than 6 months. In my experience, longer suspensions make effective resumption of the Examination very difficult for all parties, as evidence becomes out of date.”

Uttlesford Local Plan page 3: “My normal strong inclination would be to ‘keep the Development Plan process on the road” wherever possible in order to keep the planning process moving along with as little disruption as possible. However, the scale of work which the Council would need to undertake to propose and consult upon changes to deal with these matters would be greater than could be completed within the normal maximum six month period of a suspended examination.”

Question: Bearing in mind that it is now ten months since East Devon’s Examination hearings and it will be well over twelve months until the revised Plan is submitted, what is the process going to be?

Answer:

Every Local Plan is different. For every example quoted by Cllr Ingham where inspectors have expressed concern about suspending a plan for more than 6 months there are plans that have been further delayed than our own including some that were submitted for examination as far back as 2012 such as Swindon Borough Council who have only recently completed examination of their plan which was submitted in August 2012 and Wiltshire Council whose Core Strategy was only found sound earlier this month having been submitted for examination in July 2012. It is however best to focus on our own plan and with that in mind we are working on technical evidence gathering with a number of neighbouring authorities and expect to receive conclusions soon. The expectation is that we will report findings and recommended changes to the plan to Council in early 2015. The intent will be that consultation will follow and we would hope to reconvene oral hearing sessions as soon as practically possible after consultation.

3

Question 5: Procedure Rule 9.2 to the Leader of the Council from Councillor Susie Bond

Given recent developments regarding the police investigation into former Cllr Brown, could the Council confirm its commitment to its own whistleblowing policy?

Answer:

Yes – a copy of the policy is attached to this set of questions and answers.

 

Sidmouth Councillors, were you listening?

It was left to opposition councillors , and to the public, to point out the “alarming weaknesses” in the relocation project, at the Full council meeting yesterday evening. Here’s what SOS had to say: http://saveoursidmouth.com/2014/12/18/relocation-has-alarming-weaknesses-in-assumptionsplanning-and-estimating-says-sos/