REMINDER: Meeting 20/01/2015 at Clyst St Mary

BISHOPS CLYST PARISH COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO INVITE YOU TO:

AN EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE PARISH COUNCIL

Tuesday 20 January 2015
Clyst St Mary Village Hall starting at 7.30 pm

Items on the Agenda:-
To consider and agree representations in connection with the following planning applications submitted by Friends Provident at Winslade Park, Clyst St Mary:-
14/2637/OUT Demolition of Brook House and Clyst House and outline application (seeking to discharge means of access only) for up to 237 new dwellings, 1805 sq metres of B1(A) and D1 commercial floorspace, together with replacement sports facilities comprising two football pitches, a cricket pitch and sports pavilion, and associated development including parking and access
14/2638/LBC Renovation works to secure the continued use of the building for B1(a) purposes. Removal of the modern bridge link between the Manor House and Winslade House.
14/2640/MFUL Conversion of the building from current B1(a) office use to 61 (C3) residential units including the removal and making good of the bridge link between Winslade Manor and Winslade House and provision of basement car park.
14/2641/LBC Conversion of Winslade House from B1(a) office to 61 (C3) residential units including the removal and making good of the bridge link between Winslade Manor and Winslade House and provision of basement car park.
14/2642/FUL Demolition of modern extensions and conversion of the former Stable Block form D2 Leisure Use to 6 residential units
14/2643/LBC Demolition of modern extensions and conversion of the former Stable Block form D2 Leisure Use to 6 residential units
14/2644/MFUL Change of use from Agricultural Land to Community Park including the provision of footpaths, new landscaping and changes to levels

To consider and agree representations in connection with the following planning application submitted by The Turnstone Group at Land to North of A3052 between Cat & Fiddle and Devon County Showground, Sidmouth Road, Clyst St Mary:-
14/2237/MOUT
(amendment) Outline application with some matters reserved for the construction of up to 93 dwellings and new access and associated open space (access to be considered)

To consider and agree representations in connection with the following planning application submitted by Solstice Renewables Ltd at land surrounding Walnut Cottages, Oil Mill Lane, Clyst St Mary
14/2952/MFUL Installation of ground mounted photovoltaic solar arrays together with power inverter systems; transformer stations; internal access tracks; landscaping; CCTV; security fencing and associated access gate.

Knowle relocation and “public consultation” – a blast from the past

Information Commissioner v. East Devon District Council at Exeter Magistrates Court in August 2014.

We were told that the judgment in this case (about whether EDDC should be forced to disclose reports on relocation) is due this month – we shall see.

In the meantime this “blast from the past” – what EDDC called its “stakeholder consultation” should give us all a good laugh:

https://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/from-our-correspondent-1-fly-me/

A bumper Overview and Scrutiny Committee agenda with some hidden gems!

Thursday 22 January 2015, 6.30 p.m. Knowle

The agenda is here:

http://new.eastdevon.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/committees-and-meetings/overview-and-scrutiny-committee/

It really is hard to know where to start! So much to overview and (maybe not quite) scrutinise!

1.  An update on relocation – the first for this committee since June 2014 (pages 14-35). Includes a long report about why Knowle is too run down to work in and the horrendous cost of putting this right. No mention of the fact that the buildings have had little or no maintenance for the at least the last 4 years (and almost certainly longer) so they have been allowed to deteriorate. Costings that would include stripping out and replacing just about EVERYTHING!

And, by the way, a little paragraph tucked away that confirms that EDDC was somehow planning to enter a “fixed price” contract for Skypark that would have been against EU regulations. Now, why wasn’t THAT spotted by the experts right at the start?

2.  Then we move on to how to “improve” Task and Finish Forums. Basically, this would be done by agreeing the scope of such TAFFs in advance and not deviating from them one little bit. Oh, and getting the Legal Officer’s “advice” on such scoping. You see what we mean about a lot of overview and very little scrutiny. In this case, the Legal Officer fires the arrow, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee draws a bulls-eye around it and a TAFF says “look at that – exactly in the centre of the target!”.

A TAFF is meant to INVESTIGATE. To investigate it has to have a format that allows it to explore areas that might not at first be evident. No way, says EDDC, a TAFF does what our officers tell it to do, no more no less – though less would be good.

3. And then we get to an agenda item on the Business Task and Finish Forum (pages 61-65) which basically says that, as its Chairman Graham Brown is no longer with us, what’s the point of all this – let’s kick it into the long grass where it belongs just before an election.

It misses the point entirely: this was not (just) about its Chairman and his myriad of council and business interests. It was about a group of big local landowners and developers carving up the district in their own image (something which has,to a certain extent, since happened) and whether this was an appropriate way to bring together evidence and policy for a district council and its Local Plan.  Well, that isn’t going to get an airing is it!

Much is made of a successor to the East Devon Business Forum – the EAST DEVON BUSINESS SUPPORT GROUP.

This group apparently has a one-page website which lists its members (basically Chambers of Commerce, the NFU and Federation of Small Businesses) but contains no mention of any constitution, meetings, scope, etc (perhaps the EDDC Legal Officer could help with that, just like the Economic Development Officer was SO helpful to the East Devon Business Forum as its Hon Sec). However, at least two of the “same old” names appear on the list of members crossing over with the old EDBF.  And it has this addition:

“The East Devon Business Leaders Group.

“This organisation represents the larger businesses that operate within our district & it provides them with a forum where they can meet together to discuss matters which are of interest to the larger businesses.”

No web pages, no names of members, no names of businesses involved- oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!

 

Overview and Scrutiny Committee, 14 January 2015 at 10 am Knowle

Snippets:

If high priority schemes wish to be advanced by members, such as Exmouth Town Hall refurbishment, then consideration could be given to the financial position of not utilising NHB monies to reduce loan repayments for the Exmouth Regeneration schemes and to use this funding on such projects but this will have revenue implications in borrowing costs.”

Our translation: We have spent the relocation money. If you want more then you will have to think about taking it from elsewhere, such as the New Homes Bonus, but if you do, there will be less money for the Exmouth regeneration scheme  currently taking that money. (Elsewhere in the document it warns not to get too reliant on doing this as the Government might move the goalposts).  Cost neutral, eh?

And it appears that “Implement provisions of Transparency Code legislation” responsibility goes to EDDC employee Terry Wilson to whom we offer our sincere condolences.

 http://new.eastdevon.gov.uk/media/668309/140115-os-agenda-budget-combined.pdf

West Dorset: Cabinet system savaged as undemocratic

Substitute EDDC for West Dorset and we are in the same situation.

There’s a rebellion brewing …

http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/11708637.District_council_criticised_as_residents_discuss_democratic_issues/

Councillor who fraudulently claimed childcare allowances jailed

“A spokesperson for Wigan Council said: “Councillors are elected by the people of the borough who expect them to be honest, respectful and live up to the trust placed in them by the electorate. Thankfully these are qualities most of our councillors possess, but this is not true of former councillor Emma McGurrin – sadly she chose to abuse her position of power and responsibility.

The council hopes this sentence helps to restore people’s faith in local democracy and underlines Wigan Council’s determination to stamp out this bad behaviour no matter what political party a councillor is a member of. Unfortunately, Wigan Council does not have the power to remove badly behaved councillors – only voters can do that through the ballot box.”</em>

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21287:councillor-jailed-for-fraudulently-claiming-childcare-costs&catid=59&Itemid=27

Extraordinary Parish Council Meeting called tonight at Clyst St Mary (7.30pm in the School Hall)

Yet another East Devon Village could be swallowed up by massive development, which would more than double Clyst St Mary’s size in just a few years. The Express and Echo have taken up the story.
Understandably, local residents want to have their say in the matter. Hence the extraordinary meeting organised for this evening. All welcome. Details on the campaign group’s excellent website http://saveclyststmary.org.uk/2015/01/05/save-clyst-st-mary-story-now-on-express-echo-webiste/

Information Commissioner v EDDC: are press releases and FAQ web pages “public consultation”?

Readers will be aware that only 2 “public consultation” events have ever neen organised regarding Knowle relocation – a very brief and rather uninformative event in Sidmouth and a highly stage-managed “stakeholders meeting” at Exeter Airport.

However, it seems that EDDC believes that highly stage-managed press releases with only good news and a highly stage-managed Frequently Asked Questions page on their website where they choose all the questions is all the public consultation required.

Why are we not surprised?

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Decision-East-Devon-District-Council-publish/story-25781816-detail/story.html

East Devon District Council or the Vatican?

Here are the “15 ailments of the Curia” that the pope recently identified.

How many apply to EDDC?

1) Feeling immortal, immune or indispensable. “A Curia that doesn’t criticise itself, that doesn’t update itself, that doesn’t seek to improve itself is a sick body.”
EDDC Translation: impotent Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

2) Working too hard. “Rest for those who have done their work is necessary, good and should be taken seriously.”
EDDC: No comment! Try getting some people on a Friday!

3) Becoming spiritually and mentally hardened. “It’s dangerous to lose that human sensibility that lets you cry with those who are crying, and celebrate those who are joyful.”
EDDC: Cry WITH us – no way!

4) Planning too much. “Preparing things well is necessary, but don’t fall into the temptation of trying to close or direct the freedom of the Holy Spirit, which is bigger and more generous than any human plan.”
EDDC: Freedom of speech at committees!

5) Working without coordination, like an orchestra that produces noise. “When the foot tells the hand, ‘I don’t need you’ or the hand tells the head ‘I’m in charge.’”
EDDC: Today Skypark, tomorrow Honiton …

6) Having “spiritual Alzheimer’s”. “We see it in the people who have forgotten their encounter with the Lord … in those who depend completely on their here and now, on their passions, whims and manias, in those who build walls around themselves and become enslaved to the idols that they have built with their own hands.”
EDDC: Vanity projects! Secrecy!

7) Being rivals or boastful. “When one’s appearance, the colour of one’s vestments or honorific titles become the primary objective of life.”
EDDC: Putting party politics before people.

8) Suffering from “existential schizophrenia”. “It’s the sickness of those who live a double life, fruit of hypocrisy that is typical of mediocre and progressive spiritual emptiness that academic degrees cannot fill. It’s a sickness that often affects those who, abandoning pastoral service, limit themselves to bureaucratic work, losing contact with reality and concrete people.”
EDDC: Couldn’t put it better! Information Commissioner v EDDC.

9) Committing the “terrorism of gossip”. “It’s the sickness of cowardly people who, not having the courage to speak directly, talk behind people’s backs.”
EDDC: Private and secret meetings behind closed doors for the privileged few.

10) Glorifying one’s bosses. “It’s the sickness of those who court their superiors, hoping for their benevolence. They are victims of careerism and opportunism, they honour people who aren’t God.”
EDDC: Williams, Cohen and Diviani

11) Being indifferent to others. “When, out of jealousy or cunning, one finds joy in seeing another fall rather than helping him up and encouraging him.”
EDDC: hatred of common sense from those with different political views.

12) Having a “funereal face”. “In reality, theatrical severity and sterile pessimism are often symptoms of fear and insecurity. The apostle must be polite, serene, enthusiastic and happy and transmit joy wherever he goes.”
EDDC: Joy is limited to the Press Office otherwise fear and insecurity rules!

13) Wanting more. “When the apostle tries to fill an existential emptiness in his heart by accumulating material goods, not because he needs them but because he’ll feel more secure.”
More, bigger, new offices NOW.

14) Forming closed circles that seek to be stronger than the whole. “This sickness always starts with good intentions but as time goes by, it enslaves its members by becoming a cancer that threatens the harmony of the body and causes so much bad scandals especially to our younger brothers.”
EDDC: The Executive Committee, the private groups behind closed doors.

15) Seeking worldly profit and showing off. “It’s the sickness of those who insatiably try to multiply their powers and to do so are capable of calumny, defamation and discrediting others, even in newspapers and magazines, naturally to show themselves as being more capable than others.”
EDDC: trashing those of other parties and trying to destroy their reputations.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/22/pope-francis-scathing-critique-vatican-officials-curia-speech

Sidmouth Town Council unhappy with Chair of Development Management Committee for ignoring councillors

This letter, in the public domain, has been passed on to us:

image1

It seems that ward councillors, even those of her own party, just don’t count in Mrs Parr’s world – where she appears to have become very regal …

Full Council votes for “full checks and balances” on relocation costs, which were going to happen anyway!!

Three fine opening speeches from the public were deftly rolled into one tonight, by the Chief Executive Mark Williams, yet again ignoring the specific and critical detail. They were all asking the same question, he said, which was for an independent report on figures for the claimed financial and energy savings used to justify EDDC’s office relocation plan. The answer was definitely “No”. This suggestion would be an affront to EDDC’s consultants and auditors, said the CEO, sweeping it firmly aside.
Later, however, the council heartily supported a motion read out by Sidmouth Councillor Graham Troman, that there should be “full checks and balances” carried out on the costs of moving from Knowle. This appeared a somewhat obvious procedure, with such a heavily-criticised multi-million pound project, not just to observers in the public gallery, but also to the Chief Executive, who insisted that that would happen anyway.
Significantly, perhaps, there was general agreement in the council chamber, that the results of these “full checks and balances” were not likely to be known before the May 2015 election. Councillor Claire Wright’s proposal that relocation should be put on hold until after May 7th, 2015, was rejected, leaving the way clear for a possible Knowle sale contract to be meanwhile signed.

So that’s alright, then….

More posts will be added here, on the large number of questions from opposition councillors and from the public.

EDA Vice-Chair John Withrington, asked for a date for the completion of the Local Plan. NO DATE WAS GIVEN, and the meeting moved on….

So that’s alright, then….

Claire Wright on BBC Radio Today programme causes “EDDC Tory” Twit-terer to “choke on cornflakes” – and where should Knowle For Sale sign go?

East Devon Tory Party (?) -see below) Twitter comment following Claire Wright’s appearance on the BBC Today programme this morning (link to follow on at approx 8.10 am available via iPlayer Radio):

Listening just now to @BBCr4 today caused us to choke on out tea and cornflakes as @ClaireWrightInd was interviewed as PPC. Whats going on?”

Does the Twitterer think only Tories should get air time? Does he or she not know what is going on? Is he or she REALLY a Tory?

Oh, and it’s just above a Tweet that says:

“Public Consultation: Where is best at Knowle EX10 8HL For Sale signs be located to maximum effect? Views welcome.”

At last public consultation!!!! But only on a For Sale sign!!!!!

But surely this cannot be a REAL East Devon Tory Twitter site? It’s just too hard to tell – especially as Councillor Twiss has proved they don’t understand irony!

I am confused, off for a lie down in a darkened room!

East Devon District Council twinned with Birmingham City Council?

The city council’s size acted as “both a badge and a barrier: it has led to a not invented here, silo based and council knows best culture”. These characteristics were not an inescapable feature of the authority’s size but they needed to be acknowledged and addressed. There was much to learn here from other large authorities;

The narrative within Birmingham and the council needed to become more positive. “Birmingham City Council too often sees itself as a victim. Whilst the financial and other challenges are considerable and must be tackled, the public and businesses are calling for a more positive vision”;

Thirty years ago the council was at the cutting edge of innovation in local government but had lost ground. “To return it needs to start with getting the basics right”;

There was a blurring of roles between members and officers. “The relationship needs to be reset and officers given the space to manage”;
The current devolution arrangements within the city were confused and very few people understood them. They had also not been reconciled with the council’s financial position;

The council’s vision for the future of the city was neither broadly shared nor understood by the council’s officers, partners or residents;
Instead there was a multiplicity of strategies, plans and performance management processes which lead to unnecessary complexity and confusion and were not followed through to delivery;

The chief executive and corporate leadership team lacked the corporate support and capacity that was needed to undertake their role effectively;
Neither the savings nor the staff reductions the council had made had been underpinned by a long-term strategic plan for the nature and shape of the future council and the people it needed;

The council faced very significant budget difficulties in the next few years and did not yet have credible plans to meet these;

Performance management was ineffective and not up to the scale of the task;
The council, members and officers had too often failed to tackle difficult issues. They needed to be more open about what the most important issues were and focus on addressing them;

Partnership working needed fixing. “While there are some good partnerships, particularly operationally, many external partners feel the culture is dominant and over-controlling and that the council is complex, impenetrable and too narrowly focused on its own agenda”;

The council needed to engage in across the whole city, including the outer areas, and all the communities within it; and,

Regeneration must take place beyond the physical transformation of the city centre. There was a particularly urgent challenge in central and east Birmingham.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The council should draw up an improvement plan with clear dates for delivery. Regular updates should be provided to the Communities Secretary and updates on progress should be provided to residents;

A report should be published in December 2015 about how the council had implemented the review’s recommendations;

The authority’s governance needed to be “reset” in a number of ways. These included clarification of the roles, responsibilities, behaviours and ways of working expected in relation to the Leader, Cabinet, councillors, chief executive and officers. The strategic, executive, independent scrutiny and community roles of members needed to be clearly defined and better supported. The council should also develop a simplified planning framework, and transformation support services such as finance and Human Resources should be managed corporately;

The Communities Secretary should move the council to all out elections replacing the current election by thirds. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England should conduct an electoral review that reflected existing communities. This should be completed to enable elections by May 2017;

The council needed as a matter of urgency to develop a robust plan for how it was going to manage its finances up to 2018/19 without recourse to further additional funding from central government;

The HR function should be strengthened in a range of ways. These included vesting the strategic role of workforce planning and HR in an existing Cabinet member. The whistleblowing processes that are being put in place in the child safeguarding service should also be mirrored in the council’s other services;

Birmingham should establish a new model for devolution, with the council focused on getting basic services right. The ten district committees should not be responsible for delivering services or managing them through service level agreements. The number of city-wide scrutiny committees should be reviewed and potentially reduced to three;

The creation of a new independent Birmingham leadership group should be facilitated. This group should approve the new long-term City Plan and be used to hold all involved in the delivery of the plan to account;
The council should redefine its partnership approach. This should be done by, amongst other things, having shared clarity about the mission, objectives and purpose of individual partnerships and how they will judge their performance;

A combined authority governance review based on an authority formed of at least in the initial stage the core functional economic area of Birmingham, Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall, Wolverhampton and Solihull should be completed by July 2015. Once this has happened the Government should begin to engage in a dialogue about further devolution;

The Government should support the creation of a new locally-led high powered partnership vehicle focussed on increasing employment and improving skills, starting in the most deprived parts of Birmingham. An agreed plan including proposals for Government should be developed by April 2015.

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21098:kerslake-review-calls-for-improvement-panel-at-birmingham-for-qrobust-challengeq&catid=59&Itemid=27

Full Council agenda: Knowle – Wednesday 17 December 2014, 6.30pm

Full council isn’t in the mood to do anything much this month UNLESS a shock announcement is made under agenda item 6 – announcements from Chairman and Leader provokes surprise. That leaves public questions (PLEASE!) and the following motion which, not unsurprisingly, has no paety political support – just (truly) independent councillors!

“10 Motion – East Devon District Council Scrutiny

An effective and independent scrutiny function is important for achieving
a transparent and an effective council. Scrutiny should be a completely open and impartial process, not subject to interference or pressure.

This Council believes the Overview and Scrutiny Committee alone should determine what matters it considers, who it calls as witnesses and who forms part of
its considerations. The Chairman and Vice Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny must be non-majority party councillors in order for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to be fully effective.

Proposed by Councillor Roger Giles, Seconded by Councillor Ben Ingham and supported by Susie Bond, Trevor Cope and Claire Wright.

Agenda for Council
Wednesday, 17 December 2014; 6.30pm

Click to access 171214-council-combined-agenda-inc-minute-book.pdf

Relocation plan 100b (Honiton/Exmouth) doesn’t add up … at all

Skypark has been abandoned because, at around £8 million, it could not be funded from the sales of the Heathpark site, the Knowle site and Manstone Depot.

Now,  Heathpark is getting no income from a supermarket, Knowle is worth less than they expected, no-one wants Manstone Depot and the cost of the dual site has gone up to £10 million.

If they couldn’t afford 8 million by selling 3 sites how can they afford £10 million with only the reduced-priced Knowle for sale?

Something’s not right here!

Is there something in the water in this part of Devon?

I ask because a councillor doesn’t comprehend basic English, a district council can deal only in imaginary numbers and just now, on Spotlight, someone from the Clinical Commissioning Group has confirmed that people in our area who are morbidly obese or who smoke will have their care rationed but people who have a drug and/or alcohol problem won’t have their care rationed.

Add to that people who will now only have only one cataract fixed and those with hearing problems in both ears who will get only on hearing aid and you begin to wonder if you are in your own nightmare.

What is going on?

Long and VERY strange EDDC press release on relocation released – a critique

Here:

http://new.eastdevon.gov.uk/news/2014/12/combined-honiton-and-exmouth-sites-to-be-considered/

and the “Notes to Editors” which accompany it are truly hilarious (below)!

But on the serious side: is this really a press release or is it a party political spin sheet- something Eric Pickles says should attract sanctions from his office?

And notice that the Skypark relocation is described as moving to Skypark as it was “considered the best location for an ambitious and prestigious new office” … austerity, what austerity?

The ‘Notes to Editors’ are a sign of true desperation! Here are the notes@

Is this a u-turn?

No. The council has been clear that SkyPark was the preferred option but that a move to this location would be subject to affordability. We now know that this option is not financially viable.  (It’s taken £705,000 PLUS officer time plus 4 years to find this out)

How much has been spent so far on the relocation project and how can you justify this?

The overall project development cost of £705,000 to the end of 2014/15 represents an annual requirement project cost of approximately £200,000. Half of that cost is the project management staffing and the other half is taken up with survey, valuation, legal, marketing and other costs. There is also a significant and prudent element of contingency as one would expect in the management of a project of this scale and importance.  (No officer time charged, includes high charge for specialist Relocation Officer, does not include the legal costs of keeping information secret)

A project of this scale is going to incur significant costs. Relocating necessitates getting expert consultancy on board to help us through this process.  (But the “expert relocation consultant didn’t appear to spot higher costs, EU regulations, poor valuations of existing property, etc nor does there seem to have been a stress test of areas that might be subject to weakness such as the supermarket offer)

Why move at a time of austerity?

That is one of the main reasons that we want to relocate. Like other councils we need to maximise the use and value of our assets so as to continue to deliver high quality services efficiently and be ready for the future.  (But costs have already spiralled from “around £4 m” to “around £10 m” – with no real idea of what the final cost may be)

At present we are struggling to maintain an oversized, inefficient and low value headquarters on a site that has significant capital value as well as continued amenity value. Capital receipts from Knowle will be invested in the new headquarters.  (The “oversized” HQ has no obvious structural problems and has a modern 1980s constructed wing which could be refurbished at minimal inconvenience)

Against a background of continuing austerity and national funding cuts, the council approved a budget for 2014/15 and was able to freeze its council tax bills for the fourth consecutive year – and kept at the same level for the fifth year. As well as the freeze on council tax, the council’s budget involved no cuts to services East Devon residents value the most. This has been achieved through prudent financial management.  (Council tax has been frozen by selling off assets, increasing prices of some council services, stopping or reducing others and passing costs on to parish and town councils which will have to increase their precepts)

If the council is to continue to provide cost effective and high quality services, it needs to find new ways of creating efficiencies and generating income. Like other councils, this involves squeezing as much value as possible from assets. Remaining at Knowle keeps us tied to old and inefficient buildings, expensive to maintain or improve and fails to make best use of this valuable council owned asset.  (Many other councils have accepted that at this time tired and neglected buildings will have to remain in use and that refurbishing them has a lower carbon footprint that constructing a new building.
Why move when local government could be shaped differently in the future?

This and future governments will continue to expect local government to enter into new ways of working including cross-border partnerships and shared space. Accessible, fit for purpose offices designed around the way we work will help the council to succeed.  (EDDC has only just agreed a tri-partite agreement to share costs, etc with Exeter and Teignbridge.  It has no idea how this partnership will evolve or how it will affect staffing levels. Only 250 of the current 500 staff are covered by Honiton (170) and Exmouth (70))

An HQ at Honiton and a significant Exmouth satellite operation offer both a physical presence for the council in key locations and an asset base that can be adapted to respond to future change in the way local government is structured and carries out its business. (The council has no idea how much the town hall will cost to refurbish as DCC has only just moved out.  Exmouth is as poor a location as Skypark for some EDDC residents to reach and the cost of “satellite” offices cannot be known until it is known where those offices will be and which staff will be using them).

Why is SkyPark no longer an option?

SkyPark was considered the best location for an ambitious and prestigious new office but due to the market response this option can no longer be pursued and this preference was always contingent on finances. The council had always said that capital receipts from the sale of parts of Knowle, Manstone and the council’s site at Heathpark would be invested in the new headquarters so that it keeps its commitment not to place any extra burden on council tax payers. However, a reduced offer for Heathpark means that this is no longer a viable option.  (There is no mention here of being in breach of EU regulations, as mentioned in Cabinet papers – what exactly did this mean?  If Knowle is worth less than anticipated, receipts from Honiton are lower than anticipated and none of the Knowle developers wanted Manstone depot, how could comparative costs have been correct in the first place?)

Why haven’t you revealed any financial costs associated with the move?

This is due to the commercial sensitivity of costs associated with relocation. We will be negotiating with contractors and developers. Revealing our figures would disadvantage us. Officers and councillors are confidentially made aware of the sums involved.  (The first bit of good news.  Now that Skypark is off the agenda there is no commercial sensitivity and all documentation on that aspect of relocation can now be put into the public domain!)

Why do you need to leave Knowle?

Remaining at Knowle keeps us tied to old and inefficient buildings and fails to make best use of this valuable council owned asset. At present, the council is struggling to maintain an oversized, inefficient and low-value headquarters on a site that has significant capital value.  (EDDC has apparently not maintained Knowle since they made the decision to relocate in 2011 – this lack of routine maintenance may have led to its current problems.

Essential repair works to existing buildings would cost £1.5 million and there is no funding available to cover this cost. Refurbishment of all existing buildings would cost up to £15.9m – and again there is no funding for this – we would need to borrow £15.9m. We have already made the decision to leave Knowle and use the capital receipt to fund a new HQ. Knowle has high annual energy costs of £83,900 per year compared to a predicted energy cost for Honiton/Exmouth combined of £33,700 per year. This  (We have absolutely no way of checking these figures – they are kept secret and EDDC has refused to allow an independent surveyor to visit the building to make an independent report for electors. Please also see related question from Chair of SOS to Richard Cohen http://saveoursidmouth.com/2014/12/05/costs-of-running-knowle-compared-with-those-of-running-honiton-and-exmouth/

Given the squeeze on public expenditure – which is set to continue at least until 2020– we need to make year on year savings to release money for frontline services and as such have explored opportunities for savings from all assets including our property portfolio.  (Again, given current austerity, cherry-picking of EDDC’s most valuable assets is not a sensible way of proceeding.  What if Honiton fails the test?  What if Knowle is not given planning permission?)

What will happen to Knowle and surrounding park land?

Existing parkland will be retained for public use. We would like to hand it over to Sidmouth Town Council’s ownership. (But a prime part of the existing historic parkland, giving the site its unique character, will be lost to the planned development. No “golden hello” is mentioned,so Sidmouth will have to increase its precept to pay for it from Day 1 of ownership)

How will residents be able to access the council?

In the same way they do now. Residents access services through a number of channels – whether that is face-to-face, over the telephone or via the council’s website. The council aims to expand its digital services and has an ongoing project to improve existing online transactions and develop a further online service for customers who would like to do their business online.  (Many of East Devon’s residents are elderly and not part of the internet generation; some have disabilities that preclude telephone use or digital services.  Services will almost certainly not be available at weekends or evenings (as now) when working people need such access)

Two sites covering East Devon’s largest towns provide an ideal opportunity for the council to respond to the demand for various services and offer a front door for residents. It is clear there is a need to increase service provision for housing benefits, Council Tax, housing and debt advice in both Exmouth and Honiton.  (Two sites means two sets of expenses for heating, lighting, communications, etc and travel expenses between the two sites.  There will be a three-tier office system:  senior officers and councillors in Honiton, junior officers in Exmouth, blue collar workers at Manstone Depot with all the expenses that includes.)

The council will provide surgeries in other towns as they already do for example in Cranbrook, Seaton, Axminster and would experiment with frequency and range of services depending on demand.  (EDDC has not said where surgeries will be, when and how people will access them, they have not been costed in, they will need to rent premises in some towns or perhaps evict tenants of EDDC buildings in other towns.  And what about rural villages that need services?)

If Honiton and Exmouth Town Hall become the new council offices, when would the council relocate?

It looks likely to be in 2017.  (If the political make-up of the next council has a Conservative majority – everything is back to basics if  not)

Why haven’t residents been consulted?

We don’t have a duty to consult on operational matters but we do have a duty to provide best value for our residents. As a general rule (set out in Local Government Act 1972) a council can dispose of land in any manner they wish, subject to getting the best consideration that can be obtained. We have a best value duty towards our community. Our duty is to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way council functions are exercised, having regard a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
However, we have kept residents and stakeholders informed of decisions we have taken.  (Well, this speaks for itself – we don’t count and we don’t matter.  They have no idea what “best value” is, having said first that it was one site at Skypark and now three sites at Exmouth, Honiton, and Sidmouth )

As a planning authority, we do have a duty to consult on planning applications.  (They can’t get out of that one – it is a legal requirement.  Recall the first Knowle planning application when residents queried costs and statistics and there had to be several consultations one after the other)

Why has it taken so long?

Relocation was first mooted in 2008 when the then council leader, Sara Randall Johnson asked one of the directors to start looking at options for moving. It wasn’t until 2011 when cabinet called for a project team to investigate an office move from Knowle to purpose built offices.  (Interesting:  we never knew about the 2008 suggestion and project teams )
A project of this scale is going to take time and we’ve encountered significant challenges.  (Such as not getting costs right, not stress-testing plans, not knowing you were breaking EU rules …)

Who is on the Office Accommodation Project Executive Group?

This includes Councillor Paul Diviani (leader), Councillor Andrew Moulding (deputy leader), Councillor Ray Bloxham (corporate business), Councillor David Cox (finance), a small number of senior officers and a project manager.  (How small a number of senior officers – which project manager – how much officer time has this taken/will it take)

What are the next steps and what could we expect to see on Knowle?

In response to marketing of Knowle and Manstone, a mix of proposals were received, which contained variations on residential, retirement and/or care and extra care communities whilst retaining the public park. All proposals were based on the removal of existing buildings at Knowle (whilst keeping or re-provisioning the bat roost). A range of matters still need to be explored before selecting a preferred bidder but once selected, it will be for the developer to enter into discussions with the planning authority to explore proposals.  (All proposals will now be predicated on the potential buyers knowing they have EDDC in a cleft stick – watch offer prices go down and S106’s – if there were to have been any – may disappear in a puff of smoke)

Recommendations from cabinet will be considered by full council on 17 December.  (No they won’t – most councillors have never seen the secret documents and never will, so Cabinet recommendations are flawed to begin with and should not be voted on.  A proper Overview and Scrutiny Committee and/or Audit and Governance Committee would be insisting that they deal with the matter first.)

A decision to sell Knowle will be brought to a future cabinet following further negotiation.  (Er, how can you decide to sell the Knowle when you have already marketed it and received offers!)

We forecast the future – again!

Suddenly, for no obvious reason (!) politicians and their families are trumpeting their volunteering work. According to weekend newspapers, Sam Cam apparently does it and Andrew Mitchell’s children are paragons of international volunteering virtue.

It won’t be too long before all this spreads to East Devon. Watch for new and unusual combinations of local politicians and charities between now and May 2015 – with lots of photo- opportunities, particularly when bad news needs to be offset.

Those local politicians who have consistently worked hard for charities (Steve Gazzard of Exmouth for example springs to mind) would have good cause to feel just a little bit miffed.