Category Archives: Asset Management Group

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Oct 2015

Posted under

Asset Management Group, Chardstock, Democracy, East Devon Alliance, EDDC, Independent Councillors, Lobbying, Local Plan, Scrutiny, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Two Successes but a thumping Failure for Chardstock at yesterday’s Scrutiny Committee

Two successes for EDA Independent councillors’ campaign for openness and democracy at last night’s EDDC Scrutiny Committee Meeting –and a thumping failure.

At the suggestion of EDA Independent councillor Ben Ingham, the committee unanimously recommended that the shadowy activities of the secretive Asset Management Forum should be dragged into the light. They agreed that Forum meetings from now should be minuted and open to press and public.

They also unanimously approved “best practice” recommendations from a recent Government training session for scrutiny committees.

In fact, EDA Independent councillor Marion Rixson was praised for having already pre-empted the recommendation that individual councillors should do detailed research into topics of concern. Her comparative study of different councils’ management of beach huts was crucial in influencing the EDDC’s recent decision to scrap its plan to auction the rental of its beach huts to the highest bidder.

Sadly the Committee was unable to shine a light on the scandalous Chardstock affair.

Two speakers expressed their frustration and disappointment that the Committee could not scrutinise the dubious way in which their small, isolated community had been declared suitable for large scale development in the Local Plan.

If any village in East Devon in “unsustainable” it’s Chardstock with its few facilities and poor access. The Parish Council thought so, EDDC’s planning officers thought so. But at an Extraordinary Council Meeting on March 25, called to finalise the Local Plan, Chardstock was designated “sustainable”!

Grave doubts have been expressed about the process that led to this astonishing decision. A member of the public, who many assumed was a Chardstock councillor, spoke strongly in favour of designation as sustainable. He was later identified as a developer, not resident in the village.

Deputy Leader Andrew Moulding spoke eloquently in his support – and a majority of the Council agreed to re-designate the unfortunate village.

To many observers, including Independent councillors, this appeared to be a shameful manipulation, and an earlier meeting of the Scrutiny Committee had agreed to investigate the process.

Last night it emerged that the Council’s Legal Officer had advised that the Scrutiny Committee should not discuss the matter until the Inspector had ruled on the Local Plan. By which time it would be impossible to change Chardstock’s designation!

The Legal Officer did not attend, and it was left to a deputy to try justify the decision.

In frustration, one of the Chardstock councillors accused the Committee of kicking the Chardstock scandal “into the long grass”. Chair Roger Giles denied it, and said it would be investigated whenever the Inspector had made his decision.

EDA Independent councillor Cathy Gardner said she was embarrassed to be a member of the Scrutiny Committee which had let down the public.

There’s obviously work to do before all the dark corners of EDDC are open to daylight!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Oct 2015

Posted under

Asset Management Group, Asset sweating, Beach huts, EDDC

Comments

1 Comment

“Significant increases” to cost of beach huts

A report tabled VERY VERY late to Wednesday’s Cabinet meeting at 5.30 pm at Knowle

Click to access item-5-amf-beach-huts-chalets-4.pdf

Is such a late report legally allowed?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Oct 2015

Posted under

Asset Management Group, Asset sweating, Beach huts, East Devon Alliance, EDDC

Comments

1 Comment

An excellent bit of research by EDA councillor on beach huts

Puts officer “research” and Asset Management Forum total lack of research to shame:

http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk/news/20150930/beach-huts-research/

Well done Councillor Marianne Rixon.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Sep 2015

Posted under

Asset Management Group, EDDC, Transparency

Comments

2 Comments

Councillors should not be concerning themselves with Asset Management, says officer

“Donna Best, Principal Estates Surveyor explained the reason behind the Asset Management Forum (AMF) and that most Local Asset Management Forums only consisted of officers and had little if any Councillor representation”

Click to access 030915-amf.pdf

ITS BEEN MEETING WITH OFFICERS AND COUNCILLORS SINCE 2009, AND MS BEST HAS ATTENDED SINCE THEN!

Has it taken her six years to come up with this and an explanation of what she thinks the Asset Management Forum is FOR? And why now, one wonders? Too much of a spotlight on it and a wish to go back to the shadows perhaps – no councillors means no agendas or minutes ..,

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Sep 2015

Posted under

Asset Management Group, Asset sweating, EDDC, Freedom of Information Act, Transparency

Comments

6 Comments

EDDC forced to publish formerly secret Asset Management Group agendas and minutes

Re-posted from
eastdevonalliance.ork.uk:

“After a lot of pressure from opposition Councillors and from Freedom of Information requests, EDDC has now published all the Agendas and Minutes of their Asset Management Forum. There are some redactions.

The documents can be found here:

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

Just to remind you that it was at these meetings that the development of Exmouth seafront was discussed and also the proposals for beach huts were developed.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Sep 2015

Posted under

Asset Management Group, Asset sweating, Beach huts, Scrutiny

Beach hut fiasco for scrutiny Thursday

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Controversial-East-Devon-beach-hut-auction-plans/story-27801323-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Sep 2015

Posted under

Asset Management Group

Comments

1 Comment

Just a little reminder, Chairman Pook

Local authority land

30.Local authorities must publish details of all land and building assets including:

 all service and office properties occupied or controlled by user bodies, both freehold and leasehold

 any properties occupied or run under Private Finance Initiative contracts

 all other properties they own or use, for example, hostels, laboratories,

investment properties and depots

 garages unless rented as part of a housing tenancy agreement

 surplus, sublet or vacant properties

 undeveloped land

 serviced or temporary offices where contractual or actual occupation exceeds three months, and

 all future commitments, for example under an agreement for lease, from when the contractual commitment is made.

For each land or building asset, the following information must be published together in one place:

 Unique Property Reference Number

 Unique asset identity – the local reference identifier used by the local body, sometimes known as local name or building block. There should be one entry per asset or user/owner (eg. on one site there could be several buildings or in one building there could be several users floors/rooms etc – where this is the case, each of these will have a separate asset identity). This must include the original reference number from the data source plus authority code

 name of the building/land or both

 street number or numbers – any sets of 2 or more numbers should be separated

with the ‘-‘ symbol (eg. 10-15 London Road)

 street name – this is the postal road address21

 post town

 United Kingdom postcode

 map reference – local authorities may use either Ordnance Survey or ISO 6709 systems to identify the location of an asset, but must make clear which is being used. Where an Ordnance Survey mapping system is used (the grid system) then assets will be identified using Eastings before Northings. Where geocoding in accordance with ISO 6709 is being used to identify the centre point of the asset location then that reference must indicate its ISO coordinates.

whether the local authority owns the freehold or a lease for the asset and for whichever category applies, the local authority must list all the characteristics that apply from the options given below:

for freehold assets:

o occupied by the local authority
o ground leasehold
o leasehold
o licence
o vacant (for vacant properties, local authorities should not publish the full address details and should only publish the first part of the postcode22).
for leasehold assets:
o occupied by the local authority o ground leasehold
o sub leasehold
o licence.

for other assets:

o free text description eg. rights of way, access etc23.

 whether or not the asset is land only (i.e. without permanent buildings) or it is land with a permanent building.

Click to access Local_Government_Transparency_Code_2014.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Sep 2015

Posted under

Asset Management Group, EDDC, EDDC HQ, Honiton/ Gittisham

Comments

1 Comment

Four supermarkets were competing for EDDC’s new HQ site in Honiton

According to the front page of today’s Midweek Herald:

image

Although Honiton Chamber of Commerce is ecstatic, the missed opportunity to have a Waitrose must get up some people’s noses.

Not to mention that even the lowest bid would probably have been enough (when one includes the £750,000 plus already spent on pre-location costs) to refurbish the current HQ at true zero cost.

Surely our Honiton- centric Cabinet didn’t let the Chamber of Commerce sway their decision?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Aug 2015

Posted under

Asset Management Group, Asset sweating, Democracy, East Devon Alliance, EDDC, Freedom of Information Act, Independent Councillors, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Not-so-secret secret meetings – and the very secret Asset Management Forum

Those of you who are as eagle eyed as the Owl may have spotted that EDDC have now started publishing the agendas and minutes for some of its less well known meetings such as:

  • the Tree Task and Finish Forum (TaFF), of which Claire Wright was previously a member and prime mover;
  • the Arts and Culture TaFF, a pet project of Paul Diviani and his partner (and co-councillor) John O’Leary, which has spent a lot of money on our behalf on the Thelma Hubert Gallery in Honiton;
  • the Grounds Maintenance TaFF (yawn);
  • the Garage Management TaFF (from 2012 – double yawn)
    etc.

But just in case EDDC decide to crow about this being an example of how they have decided out of the goodness of their hearts to voluntarily be more transparent, we should mention that:

  1. EDDC are actually doing this because of the persistence of a local resident and East Devon Alliance member who has complained to the information Commissioner that EDDC are not publishing what ALL councils are already required to publish (i.e. agendas, reports and minutes of all standing forum meetings – see Definition document for principal local Authorities page 7); and
  2. EDDC has still to publish the papers for perhaps the most important of their secretive meetings, the Asset Management Forum.

EDA members and councillors are continuing to fight to have EDDC be fully transparent, so we can all see the full set of documents behind their more controversial decisions.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Jul 2015

Posted under

Asset Management Group, Asset sweating, Beach huts, Development Management Committee, Local Plan

Comments

2 Comments

Can you be a gamekeeper and a poacher? Can you be “Independent” and not independent?

Given all the hoo-ha a couple of years ago when errant Councillor Graham Brown was forced into resigning as an EDDC Tory Councillor due to his extensive personal local development interests:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9920971/If-I-cant-get-planning-nobody-will-says-Devon-councillor-and-planning-consultant.html

the government put out the following press release:

Response to a report in ‘The Telegraph’ that councillors are offering themselves for hire to property developers.
placeholder

Local Government Minister Brandon Lewis said:

“This government has increased accountability and transparency over councillors’ interests, to accompany greater power and freedoms for local councils.

“Councils should adopt a Code of Conduct that reflects the Nolan principles on conduct in public life, with councillors declaring any private interest that relate to their public duties, and councillors must take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.

“In addition, it is now a criminal offence to fail to declare or register disclosable pecuniary interests – which includes any employment or trade carried out for profit or gain. The register of councillors’ interests must be published online by the council.

“Councillors should act in an open and transparent way, to avoid conflicts of interest on issues such as planning applications or benefiting financially from the issuing of council contracts.”

Given this advice, how do our new councillors with extensive property development interests plan to deal with the fact that two of them are on the Development Management Committee and one of them is the Chairman of the Asset Management Forum?

Councillors Colin Brown and Paul Carter are both on the Development Management Committee.

Councillor Brown’s Register of Interests is here:

Click to access roi-colin-brown.pdf

and includes local property development interests (as well as owning a hotel that is currently used as a polling station for local and national elections):

and Councillor Carter’s Register of Interests (recently updated) is here:

Click to access roi-paul-carter.pdf

and includes local property development interests:

In addition, Councillor Carter has submitted land that he owns for inclusion in the EDDC Local Plan.

Councillor Pook may be a more complex case. In HIS Register of Interests (also recently updated) he lists his local property development interests but also adds in Section 4:

“Litehomes purchase of land from and development house for EDDC (May 2015)” (sic)

Click to access roi-geoff-pook.pdf

What on earth does this mean? Perhaps he could enlighten us about Litehomes.

Additionally, he neglects to inform us that, as Chairman of the Asset Management Forum, he leases a site for beach hut in Beer from East Devon District Council and is currently heading meetings about EDDC giving notice to all lease holders so that huts can be auctioned off to the highest bidder – something being handled by … the Asset Management Forum.

In this case, he has sought to say that Beer, where he leases his hut, should be a “special case” because:

“I have suggested that the history of beach hut ownership and use in Beer is perhaps different from other towns and villages in East Devon – families have traditionally had tea on the beach in Beer and this is part of the historic character of the village”.

http://www.beerparishcouncil.org.uk/news.php?id=4604

As EVERYONE who leases a beach hut anywhere in East Devon also by default has “tea on the beach” we are not entirely convinced by this argument for making Beer a special case!

It should also be noted that on 11th May 2015, 4 days after the latest local election, Councillor Pook left the Independent Group. On 15th May he was identified as a cabinet member. At the beginning of June it was rumoured that he may have indicated that he might not continue as an “Independent” councillor for much longer.

Some Beer voters might feel a little miffed if that transpires.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Jul 2015

Posted under

Asset Management Group, EDDC, Transparency

“Clean, green and seen” or still “Pale, male, stale”?

Eight meetings advertised in the current Knowledge e-newspaper from EDDC. 5 of the meetings are secret – just as well Diviani didn’t give a “clean, green, seen” speech:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2014/07/18/clean-green-seen-or-pale-male-stale-you-decide/

this time around!:
Manor Pavilion Steering Committee
Recycling and Refuse Board Partnership
Finance briefing for all councillors
Joint scrutiny event (East Devon, Exeter, Teignbridge)
Asset Management Forum
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1214693/the-knowledge-10-july-2015-issue-9.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Jul 2015

Posted under

Asset Management Group, Asset sweating, Beach huts, EDDC

Sidmouth beach huts meeting: Councillor Pook gets it in the neck – again

Futures Forum of the Vision Group for Sidmouth

PUBLIC MEETING TO CONSIDER EDDC PROPOSALS FOR BEACH HUTS

Kennaway House, Sidmouth: Tuesday 7th July 2015

Minutes/Report

Apologies from: Officer Donna Best (EDDC Property), Cllr Iain Chubb (EDDC StreetScene Portfolio), Cllr Stuart Hughes (EDDC Sidmouth/Sidford), Cllr Dawn Manley (EDDC Sidmouth/Sidford), Cllr Simon Pollentine (STC Tourism Portfolio), Cllr Ian Thomas (EDDC Finance Portfolio)

Attendance: approximately 45 members of the public.
Councillors at the meeting: Cllr David Barratt (EDDC Sidmouth Rural), Cllr Matthew Booth (EDDC Sidmouth Town), Cllr John Dyson (EDDC Sidmouth Town), Cllr Cathy Gardner (EDDC Sidmouth Town), Cllr Roger Giles (EDDC Chair, Scrutiny), Cllr Geoff Pook (EDDC Chair, Asset Management Forum), Cllr Marianne Rixson (EDDC Sidmouth Sidford)

The Chair’s notes/agenda can be found here:
https://www.visionforsidmouth.org/media/93781/vgs-futures-forum-7jul15-beach-huts-debate-chairs-notes.docx

Every attendee was invited to address the meeting. Comments included:

Cllr Roger Giles (EDDC Chair, Scrutiny) confirmed that the issue would be on the agenda of the Scrutiny Cttee of 17th September.

Cllr Geoff Pook (EDDC Chair, Asset Management Forum) clarified that the previous AMF had decided to consider ‘best value’ and ‘market price’. The new Cttee will review the situation, identify the way forward and make proposals.
The EDDC questionnaire was only one part of the current consultation; Cllr Pook has attended other meetings on the issue in the District. He understood the depth of feeling and that the document which had been sent out was flawed.
Cllr Pook would be willing to receive correspondence on the issue and will consider concerns by e-mail: gpook@eastdevon.gov.uk

Tom Griffiths, (former Sidmouth beach hut franchisee) pointed out that in 1962 proposals had been made for ‘double-decking’ of huts at Jacob’s Ladder.

Dr John Twibell (Chair, Devon Plant Heritage) outlined the value of the beach garden at Clifton beach, planted together with Sidmouth in Bloom.

To summarise the conclusions from the meeting:

> There was overwhelming opposition from all parties to ‘commercial development’ along Clifton walkway or the beach in general, in that this would devalue the resort, rather than enhance it. It was felt that Sidmouth’s beaches, including its huts, were family-friendly – and that any new arrangement could seriously compromise the welcoming feel of the resort.

> It was recognised that each seaside town in East Devon is different and that this diversity should be recognised in any proposals.

> It was felt that the long-term sustainability of Sidmouth’s seafront should be the priority. Any plans for beach huts should be included in the current Beach Management Plan.

> It was recognised that the waiting lists were long. Should extra huts be required, alternative sites could include:
– one of the terraces behind the existing Jacob Ladder huts;
– on the Esplanade below the Belmont Hotel.

> A design competition for any new huts would excite positive interest.

> A system of ‘lockers’ was suggested to supplement the provision of beach huts.

> There should be a return to a flexible tenure for the whole year, with approx. 10 huts hired out on a weekly basis during the peak summer season, allowing tourists to benefit. Local residents enjoying a long-term let have been more than prepared to accept this arrangement. This could ensure a doubling of current income – as well as a balance between different types of user.

> It was suggested that a lottery system for the out-of-season period might be a fair system of allocating beach huts in the future.

> The voluntary rotation and sharing of the use/tenure of huts between tenants should be recognised and encouraged – as should the value of the huts as a focal point for the local community and for ‘regular tourists’. A set of different rents/rates for huts would disrupt a sense of social cohesion.

> There were fears that a system of ‘highest bidder’ could bring about a similar situation to that in many parts of Cornwall where ‘wealthy outsiders’ have bought up huts at the expense of local people – who, it was felt, should be the priority. Whilst it was understood that EDDC were facing budget cuts, it was important that an equitable solution be found, that tenants not face eviction and that rents be affordable.

> It was generally felt that the consultation had been based on erroneous information, that it had not been fair and open, that proper responses to concerns had not been addressed and that, consequently, any auctioning process would lack legitimacy.

> The financial basis of the proposals was not clear, including the method for calculating the rates, and the final profit made on the huts.

> On the separate but related issue of street trading, there was also overwhelming opposition to relaxing regulations any further. Sidmouth’s retail and hospitality industry relies on the peak weeks during the tourist season – and any provision of commercial services on the beach could jeopardise Sidmouth as an all-year-round resort.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Jul 2015

Posted under

Asset Management Group, Asset sweating, EDDC

“Sweating assets”: now your bowls club is not safe

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23655:high-court-rejects-challenge-to-planning-permission-on-bowls-site&catid=63&Itemid=31

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Jul 2015

Posted under

Asset Management Group, Asset sweating, EDDC, Transparency

The Asset Management … Group … Forum … bunfight … secret society …

This comment from Paul Freeman to an earlier article has been bumped up to a post because of its great importance in the Battle for Transparency:

“Ah, how I dream that the Asset Management meetings were actually a Committee – as indeed it really should be.

Committees are subject to legal transparency requirements – they need to be open to the public, they need to have published agendas and minutes.

But in its infinite wisdom – or as I call it hypocrisy – the council leadership have decided that the group of people who will manage the councils assets with meet in a Forum rather than a Committee, because then they don’t need to allow the public to be at the meetings and don’t need to publish agendas and minutes.

See if you can find Asset Management on the council meetings web page

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/committees-and-meetings/

But if you look here:

Click to access mtg-prog-201516-matrix.pdf

you can see the dates for the Asset Management meetings.

But if you read the EDDC Constitution which can be found at:

Click to access constitution-2014-october-.pdf

(something that the council leadership apparently doesn’t bother to do), then on page 31 it states “A Panel or Forum will normally sit in public.” (It also states “They will be an important vehicle for ensuring the involvement of the community in policy development and review”, so it is difficult to see how a closed meeting without published agendas or minutes meets this objective.)

Indeed, since it is not a committee, they don’t need to make the Asset Management Forum membership proportional to the number of councillors in each political group either. According to the minutes of the annual council in May 2015 which can be found at:

Click to access annual-council-270515-combined-mins-with-apps.pdf

on page 16 it says that the full members of this Forum are Andrew Moulding (Con.), Phil Skinner (Con.), Ian Thomas (Con.), Geoff Pook (Ind. come Con.), with Paul Diviani (Con.) and Stuart Hughes (Con.) as ex-officio members. So, despite holding 25% of the seats, there are no Independent Group councillors on this Forum at all.

Turning the Asset Management Forum into a formal Committee was a stated Aim of the East Devon Alliance candidates, and I imagine is still an objective if they can ever achieve it.

Is it any wonder that the more informed residents of East Devon think that there is a need for a fresh start at EDDC?”