Do EDDC consultants know how long their piece of string is?

Freedom of Information request on “What Do They Know” website:

Dear Ms Symington,

I would like to make a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I am also making this Request under the Environmental Impact Regulations 2004 which require disclosure on the part of Local Authorities.

1) The Davis Langdon report to Cabinet of 17th July 2013 states the following:
“3.4.3 The current gross internal floor area totals some 7,722 m2, with the former Hotel providing 5,784 m2 and the Office Extensions 1,938m2.” http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1183866/ca…

This is also referred to in an earlier FOI Request, where you state:
“The floor space area was calculated by an independent consultant and cross-checked with the Display Energy Certificate (DEC).” https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c…

2) The Valuation Office website states the following:
“Address of property: KNOWLE THE, STATION ROAD, SIDMOUTH, DEVON, EX10 8HL
“Total area: 4871.85 [sqm]”
http://www.2010.voa.gov.uk/rli/en/basic/…

I would be grateful if you could provide an explanation for the apparent discrepancy and provide me with evidence as to how the actual floor space at Knowle is calculated.

Thank you.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Jeremy Woodward

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/total_floor_area_of_knowle

Beach huts: EDDC’s numbers don’t add up.

23 May 2016, EDDC Website:

Remaining East Devon beach hut/chalets/beach hut sites vacancies

Beer – three beach hut sites available – join the waiting list now
Seaton – 14 beach hut sites available – join the waiting list now and secure a spot near the new Seaton Jurassic centre
Budleigh – seven sites available – join the waiting list now
Exmouth – one chalet remaining (currently under offer)
Exmouth – four beach huts available – join the waiting list now

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/news/2016/05/east-devon-beach-huts-prove-popular-for-2016-season/

Save East Devon Beach Huts Facebook page today:

“Here is EDDC’s reply on beach hut waiting lists – it does not record individuals on multiple site lists:

Beer East Beach – 45
Beer East Shelf – 47
Beer West Beach – 35
Beer Far East – 48
Budleigh Salterton East huts – 69
Budleigh Salterton West huts – 71
Budleigh Salterton East sites – 86
Budleigh Salterton Police sites – 80
Budleigh Salterton Rolle sites – 87
Exmouth Foxholes – 27
Exmouth Queens Drive – 53
Seaton West Walk sites – 98
Seaton West Walk (former) huts – 98 (assumevthis duplicate of above)
Seaton East Walk sites – 68
Sidmouth Jacobs Ladder – 18″

So, 29 huts or chalets available on 23 May, 832 on the waiting list on 1 June and 832 people on the waiting list on 1 June

How can you have a press release telling people about 29 empty sites AND more than 800 on a waiting list on 1 June!

Councils bleeding residents dry with residential parking permit prices

“UK councils have increased the cost of resident parking permits by an average of 51% since 2011, research has found.

An investigation by car insurance firm esure also revealed that more than half of local authorities have expanded the number of parking zones which require payment in the past two years.

The study revealed that the average cost of an annual permit is £64, but some motorists pay more than 10 times that amount. However the Local Government Association (LGA) insisted that councils are “on the side of motorists” and have to balance the requirements of residents and commuters.”

http://gu.com/p/4jfyc

Sidmouth isn’t Brighton – but WE knew that!

So, in its wisdom, EDDC’s Asset Management Forum (Chairman, Geoff Pook) decided to compare East Devon with Brighton and to almost double rents for beach hut sites.

Result? 115 people gave up their huts (out of a total if 445), people on waiting lists declined offers and empty sites abounded. They had to resort to advertising on the huts in Sidmouth to get people to take them up.

If sites ARE taken up all it now proves is that:

A. Sidmouth – and Exmouth, Budleigh and Seaton are NOT Brighton.
B. The Asset Management has no idea what asset management is.
C. Only the really well-off can now afford to rent sites.

Thanks Councillor Pook, thanks for nothing.

Beach huts – what is a stronger word than omnishambles?

So, EDDC has a great idea. Squeeze beach hut site tenants until their pips squeak. Almost double their rents, increase them hugely again next year, stitch renters up so that many cannot reclaim the business rates charged (block rateable value for whole sites), shorten the season by a month and all under the guise of “long waiting lists” and ” only charging market rents” (one of the markets being Brighton).

What happens?

image

image

The yellow notices here in Sidmouth beg for tenants to come forward.

All sites now have between 10-25% plus vacant sites and no waiting lists.

Lost revenue, lost reputation and lost trust.

Well done Asset Management Group and its Chairman, Councillor Geoff Pook.

Green spaces in Easy Devon – for how much longer?

EDDC Asset Management Meeting,

Thursday 7 April, 9.30a.m,

includes an update on the ‘green space strategy’….. could be a prelude to all sorts of things.

Agenda:

Click to access 070416amfcombinedagenda.pdf

Asset Management Forum – no papers available for any agenda item

7 April 2016, Knowle, 9.30 am
Asset Management Forum

Agenda published with four items to be discussed – the only document provided – minutes of last meeting.

Part A Matters for Decision:

7 Rent support grant scheme – launch details – draft Cabinet report to follow
8 Data – Verbal update by Donna Best, Principal Estates Surveyor
9 Asset Devolution – draft Cabinet report to follow
10 Green Space Strategy – Update on progress.

Click to access 070416amfcombinedagenda.pdf

SO NOT ONE SINGLE DOCUMENT AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE IN ADVANCE OF THIS MEETING.

WHY?

What’s that smell? Oh, fish!

Government guidance on disposal of local authority assets

Disposals

“Where land or property is identified as surplus, there are some important principles which will help ensure that land is disposed of effectively and efficiently. These include;

Every disposal having clear objectives from the outset.

These should establish the key objectives and targets for land disposal – for example, this could be to maximise housing capacity, receipt or employment floorspace, or to reduce costs through divestment.

Disposals rooted in local plans.

Land disposals should help deliver local planning objectives, addressing matters such as the requirement for a five year land supply, or the assessed need for housing and employment land.

Early and meaningful engagement with other public bodies and the market.

Early engagement with other public bodies will ensure that the views of all authorities with an interest can be taken into account, so that land is used as efficiently as possible. Early market engagement should inform the disposal strategy and brief, and ensure the opportunity is attractive to the market.

The appropriate level of investment determined prior to disposal.

To ensure the best possible return, in many cases it may be appropriate to invest in a site before disposal, for example by obtaining planning permission or providing infrastructure. The appropriate type and scale of investment will depend on the individual circumstances of the site, and understanding these early will ensure the best outcome for authorities.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/508307/160316_Land_disposal_guidance.pdf

Making beach huts more available, or maximizing assets? You can’t have it both ways

Report from Scrutiny Committee meeting:

EDDC’s Deputy Chief Executive, Richard Cohen was directly in the firing line at last night’s Scrutiny Committee held at Knowle. He was obliged to admit that Ward members had not been contacted at all, before the new prices for beach huts were announced in the Councillors’ news sheet, ‘The Knowledge’ (January 2016). It became clear that only a cursory consultation had been made, with town clerks, about possible transfer of ownership of beach huts to local councils … but councillors themselves were left in the dark.

Richard Cohen defended his actions, saying he was working under a Cabinet directive. But the behind closed doors decision to increase beach hut hire charges by over 90% by 2017 in Beer, Budleigh Salterton, Seaton and Sidmouth, has made Ward members livid.

Cllr Marianne Rixson (IEDA, Sidmouth-Sidford) found this level of price hike “staggering”. Her detailed research had shown that comparable wooden beach huts at Lyme Regis had a lifespan of 10 years, and a replacement cost estimated at £600 per hut.

So was EDDC intending to replace the 20 year old Sidmouth beach huts with new ones before handing them over to the Town Council?”, she asked.

Cllr Maddy Chapman (Con, Exmouth-Brixington) twice called the price hike “outrageous”, saying “I do find the way this council goes about things is all over the place” , and adding “I don’t understand why you are trying to make so much money out of people who can’t afford to go abroad.”

Cllr Cathy Gardner (IEDA, Sidmouth Town) said two things had got “mixed up” in Richard Cohen’s claim – that EDDC wanted to make beach huts more available, and to maximize assets. “The two things are at odds”, she told him. “Social benefit has gone out of the window. EDDC should “stop trying to sound as if they are doing people a favour”.

At the suggestion of Cllr Val Ranger (IEDA, Newton Poppleford & Harpford) Committee, there will now be a formal recommendation to Cabinet that a structured process should be introduced at EDDC, for Ward Members to be involved in decision–making from a very early stage.

But a strong warning came from Scrutiny Chair, Cllr Roger Giles (Ind, Ottery St Mary), that recommendations by Scrutiny were not always mentioned by officers in their report for Cabinet. The consequences were clear from a recent instance of a Cabinet meeting which he had attended. Despite there being no less than nine Scrutiny recommendations to be addressed, not one was referred to during the course of the meeting.

So last night’s Meeting also recommended that officers’ reports should in future highlight Scrutiny recommendations, for Cabinet consideration.

Isn’t it high time that Scrutiny was taken seriously?

Source http://eastdevonwatch.org 18/03/2016

Public invited to meeting on future of Monmouth Beach in Lyme Regis

Now THIS is how you deal with local assets, EDDC:

The future of the Monmouth Beach area at Lyme Regis will be discussed in public by town councillors.

Residents are being invited to sit in on the important meeting of the Monmouth Beach Car Park Assets Working Group in The Guildhall on Wednesday, March 22, at 7pm.

Working groups are usually closed to the public, but councillors have agreed to hold an open meeting because of the high level of public interest in the area.

Lyme Regis Town Council owns a significant part of Monmouth Beach car park and the surrounding area, which it leases to other organisations.

This includes land used by the power boat club, the bowling club, the boat building academy, the trailer park, the gig club, and West Dorset District Council.

Councillors in the last administration agreed to carry out a review of the town council-owned assets in-and-around Monmouth Beach.

The working group meeting next week will be the first time the new council administration will consider the future use of these assets.

Any recommendations from the working group will be formally considered by the full council or one of its committees.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/public_invited_to_meeting_on_future_of_monmouth_beach_1_4456753

Yet another hokey-cokey for EDDC: sell assets – no, invest in them!

From Minutes of the last Asset Management Forum:

“The recent Treasury Management review had indicated that EDDC should be looking at using some of its reserves to invest in assets to make a better return on the assets and reserves.”

Click to access 100316amfcombinedagenda.pdf

How can you have a Part A on an agenda when everything is secret!

This is what the EDDC website says about the Asset Management Forum:

The Forum is currently held in private, excluding the press and public. Agendas, reports and minutes are published below but some information has been redacted due to its confidential nature.”

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/committees-and-meetings/other-panels-and-forums/asset-management-forum/

lips

The Asset Management Forum therefore appears to meet in secret. This is its latest agenda:

Click to access 110216amfcombinedagenda.pdf

How can you have a Part A (public) section when everything is held in secret and is therefore automatically Part B?

All Part B agenda items must be announced well in advance and the reasons for the secrecy must be given.

This does not happen with the Asset Management Forum.

Why?

Or, has it suddenly been made open to the public – but no-one thought to tell us?

Curious.

EDDC – duplicitous or negligent about heritage assets?

This is about Ottery St Mary, but it could be your town or village.  And should this not be an Asset Management Forum issue?

“Ottery’s conservation area is ‘at risk’ – but civic leaders say they have been kept in the dark about its deteriorated state until now.

District chiefs admitted last week that a lack of communication needs to be addressed after it emerged many of the town’s heritage assets are in ‘very bad’ condition, yet no information had been reported to representatives who advise on planning decisions.

A conservation area is categorised as a place particularly valued by the community because of its historic character and associations.  An annual survey conducted by East Devon District Council (EDDC) highlighted a number of concerns and officially identified the fragile state of Ottery’s conservation area.  Results are recorded on Historic England’s ‘at risk’ register, but details were only revealed to town councillors at a meeting last week.

Councillor Jo Talbot highlighted the issue following a talk she attended to gather information for the creation of the Neighbourhood Plan, which will shape the future of the parish.  She said: “A representative from Historic England told us that Ottery’s conservation area is in the ‘at risk’ category. EDDC knew about this, but it did not follow through to us.  “We should have had guidance on what to say when shops come up in the conservation area. We need to look at restoring our conservation area.”

Cllr Roger Giles condemned the lack of information that he said should have been taken into account in all planning recommendations.

In response, an EDDC spokeswoman said: “Like all local authorities, we are required to carry out an annual survey of our conservation areas by Historic England. Following the survey work and during discussions with Historic England, concerns were raised about Ottery town centre – particularly regarding shop fronts, signage and the use of uPVC windows.  “These concerns have led to it being identified as ‘at risk’, along with over 500 other conservation areas nationally.”

In response to the authority’s failure to pass on the information, the spokeswoman said: “We do not have any specific processes for reporting when heritage assets are at risk. This is something that needs to be looked at, together with how we can engage more with our communities to prevent heritage assets being put at risk and how we can address this when it happens.”  She added advice is available to town councillors with regards to planning matters on request.

The full assessment reveals that Ottery’s conservation area is in a ‘very bad’ condition, but its vulnerability is classed as ‘medium’, with the trend towards improving.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/ottery_st_mary_s_heritage_assets_at_risk_1_4416364

Beach hut site increased rents = £521,631 per acre per year!

On a Facebook site, a Seaton beach hut renter has plotted a graph of price increases against cost-of-living increases. Here is a comment on that post:

“£574.80 per year for 48 sq ft [of beach pebbles] = £521,631 per year per acre. To put this in context, the price for an acre of prime agricultural land is c. £5,000-£6,000, so the price for wasteland would be substantially lower and for pebbled beach lower still. So for what EDDC are charging in rent for wasteland, you can buy 100 times that area and keep it forever.

I would presume that EDDC’s justification is “market rates”, and so long as people keep paying these exorbitant amounts, then they can quite reasonably claim that these are “market rates”.

The real answer is that the council leadership, prompted by their pals in government, see themselves more as a capitalistic organisation that needs to be market driven and take local residents for every penny they can rather than a body elected by local residents to serve local residents to provide public services for their benefit.

The only ways I can see to get EDDC to change will be to:

a) Vote with your feet on Beach Huts – stop renting and show the council that their rates are much higher than the market will support; and

b) Use your vote at the next county and district local government elections to elect councillors who see their role as benefiting local residents rather than supporting central government policy.”

Beer to take over beach management, tourist area. open spaces and car park announces Councillor Pook

“Councillor Geoff Pook (pictured) unveiled proposals to take over the management of the beach, Charlie’s Yard, Jubilee Gardens, the cliff-top car park and a number of open spaces around the village at a parish council meeting on Tuesday.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/if_we_own_it_we_can_shape_our_future_1_4406343

No doubt the news that Exmouth, Budleigh Salterton, Branscombe and Seaton will be taking over beach management, tourist spots, car parks and open spaces will soon follow, as Beer seems to have no unique or special qualifications to take over such lucrative assets.

“Independent” Councillor Pook is Chairman of EDDC’s Asset Management Forum – a currently secretive EDDC group which has only recently been forced to publish its agendas and minutes but does not allow public scrutiny by open meeting.

It was responsible for the initial idea to sell short-term leases on beach huts (which got thrown out after massive public outcry) and for the recommendation on new huge price increases that followed.

In his capacity as a member of Beer Parish Council, Councillor Pook stated that Beer was uniquely placed to take over management of EDDC-owned sites.

Watch this space.

Cash cows

Furore over beach hut and chalet site rental increases of 200% over the next two years:

Click to access the-knowledge-22-january-2016-issue-35.pdf

So, is it now time to revisit charging councillors and officers for parking at Knowle? This comes up most years but is always voted down.

Oh, and Owl hears they also get free parking in the district when out and about on ” council business”.

Let’s say, for the sake of easy maths, there are 60 councillors and 240 of the 400-plus officers parking there each week = 300 cars. If each car was charged £10 per week for 50 weeks of the year (let’s be generous and give them free weeks at Christmas and Easter) that would be an income of £150,000 per year. Then, when in council business, they could pay for their parking and claim it on expenses – where they would have to explain what business they were on.

Imagine the good things a council could do with £150,000 …

Are we likely to see this being discussed at an Asset Management Group – no – not least because we are not allowed to see the Asset Management Group at work.

National Public assets being sold off too cheap and investment evaluations not robust

“The Committee of Public Accounts publishes its Sixteenth Report of this Session, following its inquiry into the sale of the taxpayer’s stake in Eurostar.

Members conclude there is an over-reliance on a small pool of financial and legal advisers in some asset sales and projects, and the government relies heavily on external advisers for corporate finance skills and expertise.

The Report also highlights the Committee’s concerns about the Department for Transport’s approach to evaluating the benefits and economic impact of transport projects.

It is concerned the Department does not accept its own evaluation of HS1 shows the project was poor value for money – and describes the two year delay in publishing this evaluation as “unacceptable”.

The Committee finds this meant “important information that could have been used by Parliament to consider other projects, such as HS2, was not available”.

It calls on the Department for Transport to develop a “robust way” to evaluate its investments and report on progress by September 2016, and urges that in future such evaluations will be made available “promptly regardless of their findings”.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news-parliament-2015/sale-of-eurostar-report-published-15-16/

Covered by BBC here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35357507

Cloudy Transparency

10 EDDC meetings listed in this week’s Knowledge:

1 cancelled ( but would have been in private)
2 not needed (Licensing meetings, no licenses up for discussion)
3 meetings in public: Scrutiny, Housing Review and Development Management Committee, where it would be hard to justify secrecy

4 meetings in private:

Asset Management( in spite of assurances that this could be public with only commercially sensitive matters in Part B)

Recycling and Refuse Board Partnership

Community Fund Panel (ANOTHER group with no minutes and no agendas, save a passing reference in January 2015

Transparency gets more opaque.

10 EDDC meetings listed in this week’s Knowledge:

1 cancelled ( but would have been in private)
2 not needed (Licensing meetings, no licenses up for discussion)
3 meetings in public: Scrutiny, Housing Review and Development Management Committee, where it would be hard to justify secrecy

4 meetings in private:

1. Asset Management( in spite of assurances that this could be public with only commercially sensitive matters in Part B)

2. Recycling and Refuse Board Partnership

3. “Community Fund Panel” – which appears to meet in secret to decide whaT to spend money on. As its funds totals only about £22,500 per year it is hard to see why its deliberations are in private. Wouldn’t you want to know why your parish didn’t get funds yet another one did?

4. An intriguing meeting on “Work and Issues facing the Major Project Team in Development Management” ( another secret group with no agendas or minutes? Anyone seen anything about this group and its remit?). Presumably called to justify the hundreds of thousands of pounds being spent on more staff in Development Management. But we will never know!

Click to access the-knowledge-8-january-2016-issue-33.pdf

EDDC budget: Financial black holes and how to fall into them

A correspondent writes (views expressed below are the personal views of the correspondent).

“At Cabinet on Wednesday this week (agenda here), and at joint Scrutiny & Overview Committee on Wednesday of next week (agenda here), EDDC will be discussing the proposed budget for the next financial year.

Comments:

a. EDDC has already had cuts in central government revenue of £2.3m between 2011 and 2014 and a further cut of £0.8m last year. They are facing a further cut of £0.8m this year – so a total reduction of almost £4m from c. £7.5m to £3.6m between 2011 and 2016. The government is phasing out the Revenue Support Grant by 2020, so there are c. £3.6m of cuts to come in the next 3 years. To put this in perspective, the total revenue income / expenditure is c.£15m so this is a very significant proportion.

b. The government has stated that in the future it expects councils to be funded from business rates, but it has also given business rates for the Enterprise Zones (where the majority of business growth is expected) to the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) for 25 years, presumably as a means of them raising capital loans to fund development of the Enterprise Zones in East Devon these are the East Devon Growth Point and Cranbrook). So growth in Business Rates is unlikely to replace the Revenue Support Grants.

c. EDDC is planning to increase Council tax for the first time in 6 years by 1.99% (para 2.14). No explanation is provided about why this particular level has been chosen, though it appears to have been decided upon as being as close to the 2% as they can get without triggering a referendum.

d. Despite increasing council tax, they state that the New Home Bonus will be used to cover a further revenue shortfall this year (see paragraph 2.9 in the budget report in the agenda papers) in addition to the same £1.5m needed again to make up last year’s revenue shortfall.

e. EDDC plans to run the Capital Reserve fund to zero (para 4.7) in order to provide the bridging funds required to build the Honiton Offices before receiving moneys from the sale of the Knowle. This does not seem to me to be financially prudent – and the figures are further risked by unknown capital projects and the reduction in New Homes Bonus.

f. As usual, it is essential to review these finance documents to see what is missing. Whilst I do not have either the time or the knowledge to do this, I have spotted that the Sidmouth Beach Management funding is disappearing from the budget!!!

The most worrying thing is the increasing reliance on capital receipts to plug increasing shortfalls in revenue income. This does not seem financially prudent, for several reasons:

  1. Revenue shortfalls continue every year and are cumulative, whilst capital receipts are one-off and not guaranteed in the future.
  2. The NHB is the current means of plugging this gap, but is under review by government and likely to fall substantially per home. It also seems fairly likely that EDDC will never get close to the number of homes they have committed to deliver in the draft Local Plan – so EDDC won’t make the money they expect either.
  3. On the other hand, EDDC will definitely be facing further cuts in central government funding of £3.6m per year – which is a lot more revenue shortfall to plug using a reducing NHB stream.

This is NOT a sound means of financing its ongoing costs. Put simply the council cannot afford to continue balancing its books by covering revenue shortfalls from capital receipts which are likely to decline substantially over the next few years.

This is the legacy of keeping Council Tax the same for 5 years running. The Tory leadership at EDDC did this because they accepted the Council Tax Freeze Grant, offered to councils (like EDDC) who kept their council tax the same year after year. The only problem with this is that a Council Tax increase (however unpopular) is a cumulative income increase (i.e. an increase this year creates additional revenue in each following year too) whilst the grant is a one-off payment. You would not decide that you could afford electricity by paying using one-off income like premium bond wins, so EDDC’s decisions appear to be both short-term and short-sighted.

Indeed, it appears that EDDC is addicted to one-off fixes from central government to the long-term detriment of the council’s finances.

However, continuing use of one-off capital payments to plug a widening gap in revenue is not a good direction for the future. If these capital receipts ever stop coming in, EDDC’s finances will be in real trouble.

With a current shortfall of £1.85m and a further reduction in government funding of £3.6m, EDDC will need to find £5.45m per year by 2020 (which is approximately 35%of expenditure) over the next 4 years – and it is difficult to see how EDDC can come even close to achieving these through efficiency savings or revenue increases or even both. EDDC’s plan appears to be too use the Transformation Strategy (pages 115-132) to fill this gap in funding through to 2020 – and whilst this does included a lot of small aspirational efficiency improvements, they all appear to be relatively minor in nature, with the bulk of the funding gap presumably covered by selling off assets (which again provide only one-off income boosts and failing to address the real issue of revenue shortfall). Of course, the detail of EDDC’s plans are deemed confidential – but is it any wonder that EDDC works so hard to keep the Agendas and Reports of its Asset Management Committee secret when it needs to sell assets in such quantities to plug this huge gap in its finances?

Eventually (presumably in 2020), there will be a £5m+ revenue funding gap, no more government Revenue Support Grant, no more New Homes Bonus and presumably no more assets remaining to sell – and then what happens?

It appears to me that this ongoing and increasing funding gap, temporarily bridged using first the Council Tax Freeze Grant and then the New Homes Bonus, is a direct consequence of Tory dogma to freeze council tax (which is a reduction in real terms). It also appears to explain why EDDC has been so set on having a Local Plan which includes huge numbers of new homes – because these new homes attract the New Homes Bonus and this appears to be their means of keeping the finances afloat.

I urge people to take an interest in what is happening at EDDC and to go and look at the budget and local plan documentation for themselves.

EDDC needs to start working towards being able to balance the revenue accounts without using NHB to cover the shortfall and to wean itself off one-off central government fixes to which it seems to be addicted.

The proposal to increase council tax by 1.99% is a start, but even with this proposal the revenue short-fall is still increasing compared to last year. And if increasing it by 2% or more triggers a referendum, all the better – as this will shine a light on the council’s finances and enable open debate about how the council’s services are best funded.

Whilst council tax rises will never be popular, to continue on this current slippery slope is to invite complete financial meltdown in 4 years time!!

EDDC Corporate Asset Management Plan

Can be found in this document page 5 onwards:

Click to access 051115amfcombinedagenda.pdf

Highlights

Table (page 4)

Sports centres and facilities appear to be operating at a large loss – presumably, this is the subsidy paid to East Devon Leisure

Parking get EDDC an income of more than £3 million on an outlay of just more than £1 million – all profits from parking must be spent on transport- related projects.

The East Devon Business Centre appears to be unprofitable (page 11)

IT STILL MEETS IN SECRET