Conservative councillors in Exmouth do not see eye to eye it seems

From a correspondent:

This evening, Exmouth Town Council met to discuss the planning application to demolish Jungle Fun and Crazy Golf.

There was a packed public gallery and councillors Fred Caygill (Conservative), Brenda Taylor (Liberal Democrat) and Tim Dumper (Liberal Democrat) did what they should do – spoke to represent the views of residents. Exmouth Town Council then voted 4 to 3 against the application. Councillors Caygill, Taylor, Dumper and Masding (Green) voted against.

However, one councillor – Conservative Bill Nash – caused quite a stir.

Councillor Nash was the first councillor to speak after public speaking ended, first requesting a recorded vote and then speaking in support of the application. He turned to the public gallery to speak in what seemed to be a very heated way, and appeared to have the erroneous idea that all the public were worried about was phase 3 (the final stages of development as planned). He seemed agitated and several people thought he spoke somewhat patronisingly, saying that it was “a straightforward demolition”. He did not seem amenable to any discussion with anyone who did not share this viewpoint.

After the recorded vote, and as the public left the gallery, councillor Nash turned to councillor Fred Caygill (who was sitting next to him) and appeared to say to him, in a very agitated and angry way, that he wanted a quiet word with him for a couple of minutes.

Cllr Caygill, to his credit, did not rise to this but – as Chair Councillor Lynn Elson became aware that members of the public were watching this exchange – she advised them to stop.

It was not clear from the exchange exactly what Councillor Nash wished to discuss with Councillor Caygill after the meeting.

French ruling party has grave doubts about Hinkley C

“The ruling Socialist Party of French President Francois Hollande said on Monday the Hinkley Point nuclear project in Britain is a risk to the survival of state-owned utility EDF and that all doubts about the project must be cleared up before it continues.

The party, which has traditionally been pro-nuclear, said in a statement on its website that the utility’s decision to go ahead with the 18 billion pound ($23 billion) project was a cause for concern.

“The Socialist Party believes that a project that is so important that it could jeopardize the solidity and survival of the national energy company requires that all doubts and hesitations be cleared up before the project continues,” the party said.

It added that it was convinced that the state would do all it can to achieve this aim.

A deeply divided EDF board approved the Hinkley Point project with a narrow 10-7 majority on July 28. Hours later, the British government – which had been expected to sign the contracts the next day – said it needed more time to consider the project and would decide in the autumn.

EDF’s unions are all against the project and the company’s finance director and one of its board members have resigned over it.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-edf-britain-socialists-idUSKCN10J27I

EDF board members: conflict of interest?

“EDF’s decision to invest in the £18bn Hinkley Point should be declared invalid, French trade unions have said, as pressure builds against the troubled nuclear power plant project. …

… The CGT, CFE-CGC and FO unions said not enough consideration was given to whether EDF board members were subject to a conflict of interest, because some are employed by companies that stand to benefit from Hinkley.

“Who can say that with a rigorous management of the conflicts of interest and real transparency of information, the board decision would not have been different,” the unions said. …”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/08/edf-decision-hinkley-point-should-be-declared-void-french-unions-government-approval-nuclear

It seems that conflicts f interest are simply swept under many carpets these days.

Our Local Enterprise Partnership has several members with direct and indirect nuclear interests.

“Control of assets” more important than creating a national park says EDDC

Owl says: how come Dorset is so enthusiastic then? It, too, has assets but seems happy to use them for the greater good.

Of course, assets can be bought by developers … but it is much harder to develop a national park … and our LEP would be very unhappy, as where would those EXTRA 176,000 houses go, over and above those in Local Plans.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/plans_for_east_devon_national_park_dismissed_as_opportunistic_approach_on_region_s_assets_1_4645079

What ‘Architects Journal’ has to say about Exmouth Splat remarketing!

“If you’re stuck in a sweltering office and need a professional reason for beachfront leisure to be at the forefront of your mind Exmouth could be the answer

East Devon Council is soon to be seeking ‘fresh ideas’ for the coastal town’s Queen’s Drive with £18 million plans by development partner Moirai Capital Investments expected to be cannonballed into the deep blue.

The sun baked site – just metres away from a sandy beach and the cooling waters of the English Channel – had been earmarked for new apartments, retail and a multi-screen cinema.

But after lengthy legal negotiations with site tenants the local authority has decided new concepts are in order and has announced it is considering to re-market the plot.

Now it’s your opportunity to dust off your contacts in the area – Moirai has already declared its intention to rebid – and let your imagination go wild.

Although before you commission a working model water slide or any mankini strewn renders it’s worth considering the brief. The council – seeking the predictable twin pillars of a ‘money making and vibrant’ solution – has in mind wet weather facilities catering for the many non-heatwave days of the year.

Furthermore the site already has outline planning permission for a café, retail units, play facilities and a hotel or holiday accommodation which the council prefers over any residential.”

http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/competitions/comps-insider-fresh-ideas-sought-for-exmouth-beachfront-plot/10008942.fullarticle

Can the NHS add up? Not in Sidmouth and Ottery

“Health bosses have been warned that a lack of trust and transparency continues to hang over the future of hospitals in Sidmouth and Ottery St Mary.

The NHS Success Regime – tasked with determining the model of care provision – has been called to account in the wake of cancelled public meetings and discrepancies in published figures over hospital beds.

Representatives from the region’s health and care forums (HCF) have said better community engagement is needed. They have also questioned how decisions are being reached after one document stated the daily cost of a community bed in East Devon was £750, and another at £313. The correct figure for the average cost of an occupied community hospital bed in East Devon is £289.

Chief executive of the Success Regime Angela Pedder has apologised for the error, but reiterated that the status quo does not ensure the best outcomes for patients.

In letters sent to Ms Pedder on behalf of the region’s HCF, Ottery town councillor Elli Pang said: “A lack of trust and transparency continues. We can agree with you that our objectives are also to maximise best outcomes for patients. We would, however, challenge that your actions will achieve that in the short-term if you follow rigidly the idea of community bed removal.”

Speaking at an Ottery Town Council meeting on Monday, she revealed that an event on the future of the town’s hospital had been cancelled and expressed fears that the outcome of a future consultation has been predetermined. …”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/sidmouth_and_ottery_st_mary_representatives_claim_there_is_a_lack_of_trust_in_wake_of_hospital_beds_cost_discrepancy_1_4645063