Category Archives: Asset sweating

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

28 Jul 2015

Posted under

Asset sweating, EDDC, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Crowd funding for access to law to save Knowle Parkland

https://www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/save-knowle-parkland/

Sidmothians – and others who wish to save our historic parkland are being asked to contribute towards a fund of £660 to draft a pre-action protocol letter setting out the legal errors in the Council’s decision.

The specialist legal practice of Richard Buxton Environmental & Public Law has been recommended by campaigning group SAVE Britain’s Heritage to do this work.

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

16 Jul 2015

Posted under

Asset sweating

Comments

1 Comment

Broken parking machines lead to massive increase in trade

After thieves smashed all four parking machines in Cardigan’s main car parks last month, custom in local stores soared by up to half. Council can’t find £22,500 repair bill, allowing drivers to park as they wish.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3163067/Surprise-surprise-North-Wales-town-parking-meters-action-month-sees-shopping-boom.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Jul 2015

Posted under

Asset sweating, Seaton/ Colyford / Colyton

Extra parking in Seaton is a “cash cow for EDDC” says district councillor

A £250,000 project to add an overflow car park with 69 parking spaces has been approved despite opposition from some residents. …

… East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) development management committee said it is looking to reverse some of the losses caused by the creation of the Seaton Jurassic Centre.

“Seaton Town Council’s Jim Knight voiced his concerns in the planning officer’s report, calling the decision ‘unwanted and a cash cow for EDDC’.

He said: “There will be more congestion from all the new entrances being allowed on The Underfleet road with severe speeding problems and the loss of a very valued amenity and no proof that it is needed.”

Cllr Knight added that there would be a decrease in the quality of life in the area with the possible increase of noise and light pollution.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/go_ahead_given_for_250_000_car_park_1_4150211

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Jul 2015

Posted under

Asset sweating, Austerity cuts, Seaton/ Colyford / Colyton

Seaton wartime searchlight building renovation – a fortuitous coincidence

http://www.devon24.co.uk/news/seaton_s_searchlight_building_set_for_grand_unveiling_1_4151316

Lovely. The renovation wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that EDDC has put the building up for sale would it? No, just a coincidence.

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

10 Jul 2015

Posted under

Asset sweating

Even the Queen can’t avoid “sweated assets”!

“The sale of two government buildings in central London will compromise national security and put the Queen at risk, Lord Reid, the former Home Secretary has said.

Admiralty Arch and the Old War Office, in the heart of Whitehall, were sold to private developers for almost £200 million and are to be turned into luxury hotels.

But peers expressed grave concerns about the plans, warning that they were on the State Procession route between Buckingham Palace and the Palace of Westminster and that terrorists could use them to target the Royal Family.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11730492/Sale-of-two-government-buildings-to-hotel-developers-will-put-Queen-at-risk-peers-warn.html

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?”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Jul 2015

Posted under

Asset sweating, EDDC

Street trading “consent streets”: whose consent?

From a correspondent:

One of the interesting facts in the report to this week’s EDDC Overview Committee about street trading is the proposal that all currently Prohibited Streets in Sidmouth are proposed to be changed to be Consent streets as far as street trading is concerned.

Any applicant for a License to trade on one of these Consent streets must submit, as part of the application, the written consent of “the owner”.

In Sidmouth the beach is having its status changed from Prohibited to Consent for street trading from the mouth of the Sid westwards as far as Clifton cottage.

Now the Queen owns the beach up to the high tide mark for much of the UK – does she own East Devon’s beaches? And is she likely to give her signed approval for street trading on Those beaches? She owns up to the high tide mark and, for example, in Sidmouth that is pretty well at the sea wall.

It is not up to the applicant to identify who the owner is since the owner’s name is not required on the application form. So it will just be down to an EDDC Licensing Officer to check who owns a street or any place to which the public has access without paying and ensure that the consent in writing is given?

Why aren’t the beaches in Seaton and Exmouth included as Consent beaches – is Sidmouth being marked out for bad treatment here or good treatment? The Sidmouth Chamber of Commerce is against this proposal. It was approved by the Overview Committee and so will begin its progress to full approval.

I’ll bet EDDC have no idea who owns each part of various areas involved. If an area becomes a Consent Street under this proposal. I may know who owns what, indeed, I may even own it, but does East Devon? I wouldn’t mind betting that some street traders in Folk Week will apply to set up stalls along various streets not previously allowed and which might have very high passing footfall during Folk Week.

Interestingly on pages 41 and 42 of the Overview papers, where the process about dealing with objections to an application for street trading is detailed, there is an implication that even if the owner of a site objects, then the Licensing and Enforcement Committee may still approve the application. This seems to imply that if someone applies to put a market stall on my part of a private street, then whether or not someone is allowed to trade there is not in my determination but in the determination of and EDDC Committee of Conservative Councillors.

So what is the point of demanding the owner’s consent in writing as part of the application? Di I count at all in this process?