Independent councillor Susie Bond (Feniton) slams EDDC for keeping housing numbers secret

“Working in the dark” she calls it. Absolutely spot on.

Two possible reasons for the secrecy:

1. The number suggested is low and would put a complete stop to current inappropriate development.

2. The number suggested is high and would lose the Tories thousands of votes at the forthcoming district council elections in May 2015.

Take your choice.

2 thoughts on “Independent councillor Susie Bond (Feniton) slams EDDC for keeping housing numbers secret

  1. Our Conservative Councillors should repute these statements if they are not facts, which the voters have so many concerns about. The problem we have in Exmouth is that truth has gone out of the window, since the last Election in 2011.


  2. Keeping secrets even from their own is a routine part of the way this undemocratic ruling group and their senior officers carry on.
    The way the complaints procedure is controlled with conservatives protected and opponents bullied is one nauseating example.
    When we look at the financial deceits practiced during the last district and local elections perhaps we should ask persistently the following questions.
    When it was realised that the sums were wrong over the planned Exmouth Strand pavilion, why didn’t they tell the public? Did all councillors of all groups agree to keep this secret? I was told about it by a conservative during the campaign, in confidence. When they did advise the public after the election why did they pretend this was due to a ‘cost overrun’ rather than tell the truth?
    How many tory councillors were aware that their cabinet had given a 50k payment that could be considered unethical to their EDBF chums Clinton Devon Estates in order to remove the protective covenants on Exmouth sea front? Remember that their election leaflets at the time promised no inappropriate development on the sea front.
    How many tory councillors knew that an overpayment from Exmouth Town Council under a service level agreement had been ‘discovered’ in February 2011? The official line is that no councillors were aware until October 2011, but in truth this would have been an extraordinary breach of faith and procedures by members of staff. The line was held as a duty of care to staff issue, although concerned members of the public were really trying to find out who else had been involved in the secrecy over a period of at least eight months. When a member of the public asked if all councillors could state individually when they had been made aware of this the mayor was advised by a very senior EDDC officer with a legal background that this question should not be answered. Was this to keep the truth from the public or to prevent the tory group’s own mushrooms (particularly those on the relevant management committee who each confirmed to me that they were not aware) from discovering that their colleagues had been kept in the dark.
    The machinations involved in keeping all of these secret when the public were making their decisions do not reflect well on those involved. We cannot blame the whole tory group for this so we should ask persistently who was behind this, in order that decent tories might be kept and the guilty parties electorally culled.


Comments are closed.