Yesterday, 3rd September, EDDC updated its page about Exmouth Queen’s Drive Development. (http://eastdevon.gov.uk/regeneration-projects/regeneration-projects-in-exmouth/queens-drive-leisure-area/)
There were a number of striking, and confusing statements within the update. In relation to the current tenants, it listed the dates when there had been communication between the parties. It listed the latest as January 2015. This comes as rather confusing given EDDC’s public claims of keeping the existing tenants fully informed.
This confusion may be explained by a later paragraph which is worth quoting verbatim here.
Businesses currently operating at Queen’s Drive will continue to trade beyond 30 September 2015 until the necessary legal procedures have been followed and concluded regarding their future. We would like to apologise to our tenants and their customers for any confusion or misleading statements that have been in the press. Residents and visitors to Exmouth will be able to continue to use the facilities for the foreseeable future.”
Explained by EDDC’s confusion and misleading statements that have been in the press perhaps, and news to the tenants?
As recently as the 2nd September, at least one of the existing tenants considered themselves potentially forced out of business according to EDDC and their 30th September deadline.
Not only that, in the Express and Echo story of the 3rd September, EDDC are quoted “EDDC said that the existing tenants on the Queen’s Drive site have been informed of the news and can trade until September 30, when work will begin shortly afterwards.
Another notable omission from EDDC’s page is the absence of any mention of the developers who had put forward the most recent plans – though their June debut still features on EDDC’s website ( http://eastdevon.gov.uk/news/2015/06/18-m-waterfront-transformation-beckons-for-exmouth/)
It was this company’s proposals that added significant residential elements to the plans, at, it would appear, the expense of children’s play areas and water play elements. There have been concerns about the favoured developer and some of their past projects.
Elsewhere EDDC have been challenged to provide the evidence for their claims that they have consulted widely, and the inference that their projects are supported by residents and visitors. Their response is eagerly awaited.