The closed Budleigh Salterton Shandford care home will be auctioned next week with funds going to a new East Devon charity set up for old people. [Guide price £750,000 – Owl]

About Author Becca Gliddon eastdevonnews.co.uk 

This poignant photo says it all – Owl

A pile of metal walking frames dumped at Shandford. Photo: Helen Tickle.

The Abbeyfield Society, site owners, said proceeds from the Tuesday, November 3 sale of Lot 68 will be given to newly-formed registered charity The Shandford Trust, to support older people in need who live within the area of Budleigh Salterton and the villages of East Budleigh, Otterton, Colaton Raleigh and Bicton.

The charity will be managed by a board of trustees drawn from the local community and one from The Abbeyfield Society.

When the funds become available, a new website will be launched to highlight the charity, its work, who can apply for financial support and how to apply.

A spokeswoman for The Abbeyfield Society said: “When Abbeyfield originally took over the site it was agreed that any funds raised from a potential sale would be used for the benefit of older people in Budleigh Salterton and other local communities, in line with the objectives of the charity which originally ran the Shandford home.

“In accordance with this, The Abbeyfield Society will be applying funds from the sale of Shandford to a new charity, The Shandford Trust.

“Its main purpose will be to support those older people in need who live within the area of Budleigh Salterton and the villages of East Budleigh, Otterton, Colaton Raleigh and Bicton.

“The Trust will be managed by a board of trustees drawn from the local community and one from The Abbeyfield Society.”

She added: “As soon as funds from the site sale are available, a fully structured website will be launched and publicised locally.

“This will give further details of the background and purposes of the Trust and the names of its trustees, together with information on the criteria for qualifying for support, and when and how to apply.”

The detached 26-bedroom former Shandford care home is being sold at auction through agent Savills, with a freehold guide price of £750,000.

Selling details, with photographs of the building and grounds, highlight the site’s vacant possession, off-street parking, rear garden, ground, second and first floors and ‘further potential subject to the usual consents’.

Abbeyfield said a pile of metal walking frames, dumped outside, are due to be cleared this week.

The former care home, in Station Road, fully-closed in March 2020, during the coronavirus lockdown.

The last remaining residents were moved to other care homes because of an earlier decision made by Abbeyfield that Shandford was ‘not a viable option’ to keep open.

At the time, Abbeyfield said the decision to close Shandford was ‘with great regret’ and taken after a lengthy review of the service, which took into consideration the future of the care home.

It said the decision to close was the result of a detailed review of the infrastructure, building condition and financial performance of the home.

A community drive by Budleigh residents to set up a Community Interest Company to run Shandford as a not-for-profit venture, with public volunteers and annual subscriptions, attracted ‘significant support’ but did not progress.

For more information about Registered Charity Number 1192048 The Shandford Trust, email shandfordtrust@gmail.com

The sad closure of Shandford, well recorded on EDW, raises issues. 

Shandford started as care home in 1958 for local people funded by the people of Budleigh Salterton. In 2012, the trustees ceded it to Abbeyfield.

The closure is based on Abbeyfield’s declared aim of “freeing up assets” as it changes its business model to concentrate on larger homes; and County Councillor Christine Channon’s handpicked adviser, Chris Davis, who claims that Shandford was no longer viable. Owl understands Chris Davis’ report has never been made public.

A local community effort to take back control, failed despite the intervention of newly elected Simon Jupp MP.

During this process Owl received plausible arguments that showed that there were grounds to challenge the case for non-viability.

The latest press report mentions the creation of a new charity to manage the funds “released”. This must have been so recently created that Owl has had difficulty tracking it down. However, Owl’s ferrets did find it through the link between trustees declared on the League of Friends of Budleigh Salterton Hospital.

From the list of the trustees for the newly created Shandford Trust Owl note that Chris Davis now Chairs both the Shandford Trust and the League of Friends. Who chose the trustees? Were the people of Budleigh Salterton consulted?

These Charities have distinctly different aims that do share some common elements. From a conflict of interest point of view, should they share the same Chair?

Hot on the heels of Shandford’s closure, Owl posted the sudden closure of Budleigh Salterton Age Concern facilities provided at the health and wellbeing hub because it was “economically unsustainable”. Examination of the last set of accounts posted on the Charity Commission web site shows assets of over £80,000. Where is this money going?

Owl simply draws attention to the lack of transparency over the way that assets donated by the community over many years has been handled in these cases.

This isn’t just any old retrospective application but one in England’s first Natural World Heritage Site!

At the beginning of May, Owl’s attention was drawn to the latest retrospective application the Carters have made, in a catalogue of retrospective applications going back for years, during their development of Ladram Bay.

This is retrospective application 20/0297/FUL for the partial retention at Ladram Bay of a raised viewing platform including balustrade and storage areas.This raised viewing platform appeared without planning permission and was certainly seen by members of the public in the summer of 2018. 

An enforcement notice was issued by EDDC on the 26th June 2019 seeking the removal of the raised platform, in its entirety. The notice took effect on the 01/08/2019 and a subsequent appeal was lodged. 

Interestingly, the current application was lodged before the appeal was determined (a not unusual Carter practice).

The appeal was dismissed on 17 August 2020 and the enforcement notice was upheld for the removal of the platform in its entirety due to its unacceptable visual impact, lack of planning policy support given the location of the site in a designated World Heritage Coast, AONB and Coastal Preservation Area. The structure needs to be removed by the 17th March 2021.

Worth noting that it was within the power of the Inspector to allow the retention of part of the structure if she had found part of it to be acceptable. However, the appeal and Enforcement Notice upheld the removal of the whole structure.

The new application goes before EDDC’s Planning Committee on Wednesday 4 November 10.00 with a recommendation from officers to refuse.

 In Owl’s view the matter is straightforward and one of fundamental principles. You don’t go developing the Jurassic Coast World HeritageSite, without seeking planning permission. Any permission granted would have to pass a very high threshold indeed.

Surprisingly (or perhaps not, given the prominent part the first two played in trying to keep the Tories in power in the “changing of the guard” debates), the local ward councillors: Alan Dent, Tom Wright and “Ingham Indy” Paul Jarvis support the development valuing the economic benefit above the consequential environmental damage.

The most authoritative and persuasive case for refusal and has been made by the World Heritage Site/Jurassic Coast Management Team, including these points [Owl’s emphasis]:

1. As with the previous application regarding the deck, the principle stands that retrospective planning consent is incompatible with the World Heritage Site. Although this new planning proposal has a much reduced impact on the WHS, it is still asking consent for an existing structure.
2. No methodology has been provided for removal of part of the existing structure. This must be done in a way that minimises damage to the cliff face. We recommend that a methodology should be provided and approved before any work is undertaken, including in the case that this application is refused and the related enforcement is upheld.
3. We can accept that the combe leading down to the beach is an area of development, but the buildings currently diminish gradually seawards, providing a ‘soft’ transition from the caravan site out into the natural environment of the beach / coast. The timber structure, within this context, would make that transition abrupt, with a high, imposing structure running alongside the path right down to the shingle. Paragraph 6.3 of the LVIA states that the developments within the Combe are largely obscured when viewed from outside it, but we note that retaining a portion of the timber deck will permanently introduce a visible built structure into that view. It will also interrupt the natural sweep of the cliff line in the bay, compromising the way in which the character of the WHS’s geomorphology is presented. We recommend that advice is sought from relevant landscape officers regarding the level / significance of these impacts.
4. Although this application repeats the assertions from the previous application and appeal that the deck provides valuable access and amenity for disabled persons, there is still no evidence provided that establishes this need, or, more importantly, that alternative approaches to answer that need have been explored and discounted. As stated in previous responses, we would support any desire to improve access to the World Heritage Site, but we question whether this timber deck is the most appropriate way to do that in this location. 
5. Following on from point 4 above, we remain concerned that the position of the deck means that users are being invited to dwell beneath what is a natural cliff face. The Geological Assessment appendix to the Planning Support Statement describes that the geology at Ladram Bay is susceptible to rock falls. The risk posed to users of the deck is obvious. Risk management is the responsibility of the landowner, and not within our remit. Our particular concern here is that any future rock fall above the deck could trigger a desire to stabilise the rock face in order to mitigate the risk to users. Such stabilisation would run counter to various different natural environment management policies at this site. 

In his latest column, East Devon leader discusses how his usual autumn tradition has had to change, as has the district council’s constitution

Paul Arnott www.midweekherald.co.uk 

Autumn in Devon is my favourite time of year. Soon, the trees will have shed their golden leaves and make stark silhouettes on a Halloween morning. It’s a time of change – in many ways.

But this year, my Autumn will be missing its finest celebration, the Tar Barrels of Ottery St Mary. I first attended in 1980 and although not a big drinker if ever there is a time and a place to have a pint rooted to the spot as a man with a barrel on fire runs within a few feet of your head, this is it.

Over the last twenty years it has became important to my children too. Years ago, we’d drive them over and hold the hands of two children each as they were thrilled and terrified by the blaze appearing to come out of the back of some plucky Otteryman’s neck.

Cut forward ten years, when they or their friends could drive, and they’d disappear off into the seemingly infinite number of pubs with their mates, leaving my wife and I to get home exhausted in time for the ten ‘o clock news. They’d do whatever it was that teenagers do before returning at midnight. No Polos were strong enough to conceal their cider breath as they plonked themselves on the sofa and I’d look at them, a sentimental old fool, thinking: well, this is the life.

Ottery Tar Barrels 2019. Picture: Alex Walton Photography

This autumn, three of our four children, plus a girlfriend, have been back with us again, like a Groundhog Day of what happened in March. They decided to escape the city before it went into a higher tier and are now all working from home here in East Devon.

We would have all loved to have gone together to the Tar Barrels again but it is not to be this year. And this time they might not have scarpered with their pals into the mischievous night, but would have probably actually have bought us a drink.

Yes, all middle age parents mark that day well, when a child buys you a pint, or even a meal, instead of the other way round. Of course, if you live to be about a hundred and fifty you might recoup the cost of all the drinks and meals you have bought for them.

Instead this year our kitchen surfaces are covered with local blackberries and apples cooked and then frozen to keep us until next year. We’ve had amazing homemade quince jelly with roast pork (my department), and astonishing blackberry jam on freshly baked scones. It might be a horrible year but a generation seems to have learned to cook.

My other reason for wanting to go with them to Ottery this year would have been to introduce a remarkable local person, Vicky Johns. Vicky is a district councillor who is part of the administration with me at East Devon – but she has also recently become the first ever female mayor of Ottery St Mary.

We had a great debate at East Devon last week to make sure our constitution was changed to be respectful of both men and women. This addresses issues of maternity rights for councillors too. And in future we won’t address women running our meetings with such archaic terms as ‘Madam Chairman’ or ‘Councillor Mrs Smith’. It’s the kind of thing you might have thought was done and dusted in about 1970.

There was much talk from some of the more cobwebbed members about how they would now find it difficult to address someone as ‘Chair’. I made the point that if MPs had tried saying Madam Mrs Prime Minister to either Margaret Thatcher of Theresa May they’d have got short shrift. But it’s in the constitution now and in the end if you want to secure change and not allow things to slip back, that’s what you have to do.