Update: it seems that Mr Cohen does not think that the word “stymied” indicated a lack of neutrality on his part. We leave that to readers to decide. Owl only adds that Mr Cohen was appointed to lead regeneration AND relocation – so it is hardly surprising that any interference with either of those roles is difficult for him to handle.
However, fortunately, help is at hand for him in the shape of EDDC’s own Constitution, where, on page 212, it states:
“39. Officers have a contractual and legal duty to be impartial. They must not allow their professional judgment and advice to be influenced by their own personal views”
Click to access constitution-july-2016-web-version.pdf
Owl – always happy to help and advise.
As expected last night’s EDDC Cabinet meeting unanimously rubber stamped the decision to raise another half million or so of taxpayers’ money to fund the refurbishment of Exmouth Town Hall as part of their Relocation Plan.
But, in an extraordinary outburst, Deputy CEO Richard Cohen, in charge of relocation, made a scathing attack on last week’s Development Management Committee’s decision to refuse planning permission for Pegasus Life’s application to develop 113 “assisted living” apartments on the Knowle.
He said the Council’s “commitment” to sell its HQ had been “stymied by a decision of the committee, (taken) purely about planning” (sic!) It hadn’t considered “the future of the Council, nor the independently proven savings” of relocation but made its decision “only because of heights (of buildings), a listed curiosity and arguments about care provision.”
So much for the myth that EDDC leaders, pursuing the relocation agenda, will allow the planning committee to serenely make its decisions on planning grounds alone, and won’t try to pressure it!
East Devon Alliance councillor Cathy Gardner was shocked, and said it was “inappropriate” for a council officer to criticise a planning committee in such a way.
But then Richard Cohen has form when it comes to arrogance and a cavalier attitude to convention. He handled the Council’s appeal in 2014 against the Information Commissioner’s call to publish documents about secret aspects of relocation. The Tribunal described the Council’s failure to cooperate properly and its economies with the truth as “discourteous and unhelpful”.
East Devon Watch 
The DMC refused the Pegasus Life planning application on sound planning grounds – it was Pegasus Life’s fault that they didn’t make a planning application that confirmed with the Local Plan, not something that RC should criticise DMC for.
This is not the first time either that senior EDDC officers, who are there to SERVE our elected representatives, overstep the mark and seem to think that they are in charge and making the decisions and not our elected councillors.
Perhaps one of the councillors on DMC will ask the CEO, Mark Williams, to remind Richard Cohen of his position – or perhaps even to suggest that Richard Cohen should “consider his position” i.e. resign.
LikeLike
Dear Paul
If memory serves me one Richard Cohen was appointed by one Mark Williams to spearhead the move from the Knowle – as I understood it he got his job provided EDDC moved from the Knowle.
Now most normal folks would be concerned that, if it were the case, such a focused appointment would be inappropriate because of the rather too obvious pressure to find reasons for moving. It would be a basic flaw. It would mean that the project all along has been to get out of the Knowle. I suggest that it has not been about how to run the Council more effectively, efficaciously and efficiently, but about leaving Knowle. Cost savings appear to have been bolted on afterwards because otherwise why bother?
If all that were true it would go a long way to explaining the ennui. The DMC has the sheer impertinence to apply planning tests to the Pegasus proposals – and found them wanting. The DMS is behaving in exactly the way we expect such an impartial body to perform. They have clearly and in my opinion properly looked solely at the merits of the planning case without fear or favour and have found, as, it would appear, several other Councils have previously found when receiving similar proposals, that the proposal was flawed and could not be supported.
That is not to excuse the reported behaviour of Council Officers.
It is unacceptable that Council Officers should feel free to make critical remarks, whether in private or in public, about Councillors or about the decisions of duly constituted committees or their membership, whilst at the same time sheltering under the protection of being immune from criticism themselves. Fortunately I am not a councillor so I feel no pain from statute or the whip.
What is, I think, entirely laughable, is the representation that staff will now have to exist in substandard conditions as a result of this decision. The Exmouth adventure is to a significantly older building than the custom developed parts of Knowle, with a poorer EPC and with, amongst other problems, asbestos and lead. So money has to be spent merely to get it up to the standard of Knowle. Perhaps that could be considered a cost saving if you don’t know what S106 payments are outstanding or have any reporting and control system to manage them.
Meantime, back in the real world, we wonder how anyone could ever have claimed that splitting into two centres is cheaper than just having the one.
I think you are spot on with the observation that those in control of EDDC have scant regard for the results of this exercise. It has, to my mind, become a cause celebre that they are determined to push down the throats of the electorate come Hell or high water. In a period when budgets are fast reducing, and where frontline services are being cut hard, it is not the moment to splash the cash on pointless moving projects or additional staff for multi-site operations.
So less of this criticism of the DMC. They did a good job stopping a truly shocking plan from being approved. Sidmouth does not need more compulsory retirement ghettos or the infrastructural costs that already risk overpowering NHS resources as well as the local sewage constraints. Nor does it benefit from replacing over 100 high grade council jobs with 14 minimum wage positions.
The lawyers have a test for such situations – cui bono – who gets the money? It would seem that developers are the only ones to gain from the plan as it is being unleashed upon us?
LikeLiked by 1 person