Question 6 1-5: Procedure Rule 9.2 to the Leader of the Council from Councillor Claire Wright

Question 1: Please detail the total costs incurred so far by EDDC as a result of resisting the Information Commissioner`s ruling that EDDC should release information relating to the office relocation project.

Answer: It was not this Council’s desire to see this matter go to a tribunal and EDDC offered to resolve the matter by correspondence but the Information Commissioner decided otherwise resulting in time and expense. The legal expertise required by the Council has cost £7600 to date Please state the estimated figure before commencing the court action. Please state the expected final total of the cost to EDDC.

Q2 Please state the estimated figure before commencing the court action. Please state the expected final total of the cost to EDDC.

Answer: As has been previously said, this kind of tribunal is a new process. It is not EDDC that ‘commenced’ this action. The Council had sought to resolve the matter by correspondence rather than the more expensive and time consuming process of a hearing. As such we did not have a budget estimate for the activity.

Q3 As the Skypark element of the office relocation project has now been abandoned, the argument against publishing financial details on the grounds that this would compromise the financial viability of the scheme is no longer valid. Would the council leader therefore publish the full details of estimates made, and costs incurred, relating to the Skypark proposal with immediate effect?

Answer: Negotiations on land purchase and development costs were and remain confidential between the Council and St Modwen, the Skypark developer. Were we to make public such information it would potentially disadvantage St Modwen in their negotiations with future end users.

Over time it is likely that the information will become less sensitive and officers will review the opportunity to publish. This would need to be done in discussion with St Modwen.

Q4 Now that the Skypark option has fallen through will the council leader agree to examining in careful detail, Sidmouth resident, Robin Fuller’s proposal for refurbishment of the Knowle buildings?

Answer: Mr Fuller’s proposals produced in August 2013 have been considered by the Council and found to be unrealistic practically and financially. The following are a selection of reasons why the proposals do not make sense:

 Mr Fuller himself recognises in his proposals that the 70s/80s offices are less than the Council’s space requirement

 He then proposes that we might fit 600 staff in this space but it looks like he has used HSE figures of cubic space for safe working as opposed to design standard desk space and circulation space calculations

 Mr Fuller suggests that EDDC might also build a ‘modest’ extension of, say 600m2, build over the old Chamber or build an entirely new Chamber. He does not cost the construction or factor in loss of car parking or increased density of development near neighbouring homes.

 His scheme appears to be predicated on an unspecified capital receipt from sale of the old hotel building for ‘luxury’ flats. Unfortunately the design and condition of the existing buildings has proved to be comprehensively unattractive to any developers in the recent marketing exercise

Q5 Please state the energy efficiency rating of Exmouth Town Hall? Please detail the current heating, lighting and water costs and the estimated expenditure necessary to bring Exmouth Town Hall up to a high energy efficient rating.

Answer: The DEC Certificate, issued 19 November 2013, shows a rating of 66, which places it in Band C. For the FY 2013 / 2014 utilities costs (electricity, gas, water) totalled £ 18,724.00. The overall budget estimate for the refurbishment of Exmouth Town Hall including works to provide a higher energy efficiency rating is £ 0.9 mill, including a 20% Design and Construction Risk allowance.