Registered voters in East Devon – time for an update?

Remember our campaign to find out why at least 6,000 voters were lost in East Devon? Here are EDDC’s current figures:

Electorate (People registered to Vote)

February 2013 104,274

February 2014 103,254

January 2015 102,849

January 2016 108,502

Strange that during the period that Cranbrook was developed and residents started moving in, figures went down every year. After EDW highlighted discrepancies – and after Returning Officer appeared before a Parliamentary committee to explain himself – (he preferred telephone registration over the advised check-up canvassers) there was a sudden jump in registrations.

EDW looks forward to seeing the figures for January 2017 very very shortly – in good time for DCC elections in May 2017.

Diviani steps down from DCC “to concentrate on being Leader of EDDC”

Honiton and Tiverton Conservative constituency has announced its candidates for DCC elections:

We have now completed the selection of our candidates to stand for the Conservative Party at the Devon County Council elections in May 2017. Paul Diviani has withdrawn his candidacy to concentrate solely on Leading East Devon District Council.

Therefore the candidates are as follows:-

Axminster, Ian Hall
Seaton and Colyton, Helen Parr
Feniton and Honiton, Phil Twiss
Whimple and Blackdown, Iain Chubb
Tiverton East, Colin Slade
Tiverton West, Polly Colthorpe
Willand and Uffculme, Ray Radford,
Cullompton and Bradnich, John Berry

https://www.tivertonhonitonconservatives.co.uk

Oh poor, unlucky DCC to be missing out on all his experience …

And Councillor Moulding presumably needs to keep his eye on those Bovis builders in Axminster, some of whose purchasers are none too happy with the quality of their homes.

Still, with his work on increasing housing numbers for the Local Enterprise Partnership AND all the developments going on all over East Devon, those developers will be needing a firm hand … AND there is “Greater Exeter” to be sorted too …

Has EDDC’s new Manstone depot satellite office block been included in relocation costs?

The following Freedom of Information request implies that the cost may not have been included, but we shall see, we hope.

Owl wonders why just one set of employees has been left in Sidmouth in brand new offices and why they could not be accommodated on the Honiton site or the Exmouth site. Surely, THREE sets of offices will be MUCH more expensive to run than one HQ? But cost barely seem to concern Tory councillors, who seem to feel there is little need to scrutinise them.

“Laissez les bons temps rouler!”

“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.

On 22nd December, I corresponded with the Planning Department with regard to the Council’s planning application for offices for its Estates Department at the Manstone Depot in Sidmouth: https://planning.eastdevon.gov.uk/online…

Several of my questions were answered, but not the following:

“The site is now clearly part of the District Council’s relocation project. This application represents the relocation of one of the key departments from the Knowle site – and yet there has been no mention in the Moving and Improving site pages: http://eastdevon.gov.uk/moving-and-impro…
“And I am unable to find any other information about this relocation of the Estates Department elsewhere.”

Could you provide me with any such references to this project (other than the planning application itself), either as documentation or weblinks.

And could you provide me with the full and exact costings for this planning application: the building costs of the new offices and where the finance for this project will be coming from.

On 9th January, the District Council stated the following to the press:

“The transfer of depot activities is an existing costed element of the relocation project and, as such, included within the independent and positive cost modelling of relocation.”
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/dis…

Could you provide me with the documentation which shows how the transfer of depot activities is an existing costed element of the relocation project.

And could you indicate exactly where this information is located within the independent and positive cost modelling of relocation.

I would be grateful if you could answer the four stipulated questions above.

Thank you.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully,
Jeremy Woodward
Sidmouth”

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

Cranbrook New Community Manager – salary up to £47,632

“We are looking for a highly motivated individual to lead the Council’s planning team in achieving the vision for Cranbrook to develop as a vibrant and sustainable new community. Cranbrook is already a thriving community that is home to over 3000 people. You will be at the forefront of guiding the expansion to nearly 8000 homes and delivering the work spaces and community infrastructure needed to ensure that it is a truly sustainable new town.”

https://jobs.theguardian.com/job/6463206/cranbrook-new-community-manager/

Good luck with that job!

Many councils expect to find themselves technically insolvent soon

Many councils fear that they will become technically insolvent. So what does ours do? Pursues a vanity project relocation from one HQ to an HQ with two satellite offices – one which needs a massive amount of money spent on it because estimates of cost were made before a full survey was done (Exmouth) and one that requires new build (Manstone) – all three when building costs are rising 20-35% coupled with a growing shortage of skilled labour which will push wages up.

Fiddling while Rome burns? Play that fiddle! 🎻

“Some local authorities may be forced to declare technical insolvency in the next two years, experts have said, as councils struggle to weather the financial pressures caused by budget cuts and growing demand for social care.

A survey of councils in England and Wales by the Local Government Information Unit (LGIU) thinktank found that three-quarters had little or no confidence in the sustainability of local government finances and more than one in 10 believed they were in danger of failing to meet legal requirements to deliver core services. …

… “Councils have no faith in the system. They are patching together their finances by putting up council tax, drawing down reserves and increasing charges. Increasingly they worry that they will not be able to provide the vital services that people rely on.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/10/councils-budget-cuts-social-care-bills

Banana councils, the NHS and social care

If Surrey’s ‘secret deal’ is to be a harbinger of a new health and care service then the whole murky world of local government funding needs rethinking.

The algebra is simple. The NHS is having another terrible winter. It does not collapse, but “spills demand” on to the next line of defence, local government welfare. But while the NHS gets more money annually from the Treasury, local government gets less, some 30% less since 2011. It cannot cope with the new pressure.

The equation resolves itself into rationing, by quantity and quality: fewer care places, fewer home visits and fewer district nurses leads to more bed-blocking, fewer operations, longer trolley waits.

Tory Surrey is a responsible supplier of post-hospital care. Like all councils, it is allowed by the Treasury to increase its council tax by 5%, specifically to boost its care budget and thus ease pressure on the NHS – which the Treasury is responsible for funding. Surrey county council regarded this as nothing like enough. It therefore activated its statutory right to hold a referendum on a 15% increase.

Far from showing delight at a wealthy council accepting this burden, the Tory government was appalled. Tories do not increase taxes. The chancellor (and Surrey MP) Philip Hammond duly did what Jeremy Corbyn called a secret deal. If Surrey abandoned its referendum and the 15% hike, it could retain revenue from a different tax – the local business rate, which normally went to the Treasury. That is, the Treasury would in effect spend more on health and care in Surrey, but secretly and, so far, just for Surrey.

This is the stuff of a banana republic. If Britain wants to spend more on health and elderly care, it should raise it and spend it honestly. Instead, the Treasury is running around its fiscal A&E department, staunching the flow of political blood by slamming on plasters wherever a patient screams or twists an arm.

Leaked Surrey council tax texts allow Corbyn to ambush May at PMQs
Some might argue that an NHS free at the point of delivery has had its day. New disciplines and incentives, through fees or insurance or more prevention, must constrain marginal demand. But for the time being, it makes no sense to squeeze the NHS at the top – where politicians are exposed – and dump its problems on to local government and different funding streams at the bottom. It wastes money and distorts priorities. It is illiterate public finance.

If Surrey is harbinger of a new health and care service, and business taxes are to relieve an ever-burgeoning NHS, so be it. But few places are as rich as Surrey. Revenue will have to be redistributed from rich to poor areas. In other words, it is not just the NHS that needs rethinking, but the whole murky world of local government finance.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/10/surrey-local-council-funding-health-care-nhs

Exmouth: Dinan Way extension paused by government

Yet another example of problems with the planning process in East Devon:

“In a statement issued by the National Trust this week, a spokesperson said: “We have no objection to the principle of the road, but we are concerned that the planning process designed to protect our historic environment has not been followed thoroughly.

“Conservation issues raised during the consultation period have not been addressed in the current plans.

“The National Trust’s concerns centre around the impact of the proposed route on A la Ronde, a Grade I listed building, but also on how the road might harm the wider A la Ronde setting in the longer term.

“The concerns of the National Trust are such that we felt that our only option was to submit a request to the Department for Communities and Local Government for the planning application to be considered at national level.

“Historic England, the Government’s advisory body on heritage matters, corroborates the view that the application has the ‘potential for very long-term harmful consequences to a heritage asset of the highest significance.’…”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/government-blocks-exmouth-s-dinan-way-scheme-after-national-trust-objection/story-30123973-detail/story.html

Some building costs up 35% – another (expensive) nail in the relocation project?

And to think, some careful maintenance of Knowle and some judicious spending when the sun was shining and councillors could have been enjoying up-to-date facilities for years!

“Bricks and timber have become the latest products to be hit by sterling’s slide after Britain’s decision to leave the European Union.

An investigation by The Mail on Sunday into the effects of the referendum has identified sweeping price rises of up to 35 per cent on some building materials.

The revelation comes in the week the Government unveils its Housing White Paper aimed at easing the country’s housing shortage with a massive boost to home-building.

The building industry is also under pressure from an acute skills shortage – which trade bodies warn may be made much worse if tradesmen from countries such as Poland find it more difficult to work in the UK.

The Mail on Sunday’s analysis of figures released last week shows prices on a wide variety of materials, including loft insulation, plasterboard and chipboard, rising at their fastest rate for 25 years.

The increases will hit not only those looking to buy new-build homes, but anyone thinking of extending their house or planning a loft conversion. …”

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-4191564/Building-costs-rocket-brick-timber-prices-soaring.html

Single unitary councils would save most money say researchers

This post is from November 2016 but is reprinted here due to its topicality. Given LEP power-grabbing and “Greater Exeter” and “Golden Triangle” options, our district council’s plan to move to Honiton looks questionable to say the least.

Should any of the above options pan out, even the current bases at Sidmouth and Exmouth (plus changing Manstone depot to part-office) seems grandiose!

“Creating 27 unitary councils across the whole of England could save as much as £2.9bn, according to an independent analysis of local government reorganisation options undertaken for the County Councils Network.

The report by consultants EY examined six different single and two-tier governance scenarios for county and district authorities, using existing county boundaries. Based on the analysis of national data, EY found that creation of unitaries along county boundaries could save between £2.37bn and £2.86bn over five years, and average up to £106m per county. The single unitary option has the shortest payback period, generating savings within two years and two months, according to the review.

Among the other options examined was a move to create two unitary authorities per county, which would establish 54 councils.

Under this proposal, savings worth £1.17bn and £1.7bn would be made in a five-year timeframe, only around 59% of the saving of the proposal to create unitaries along current boundaries.

A third approach considered abolishing county and district authorities and creating three unitaries per county. However, the creation of 81 new councils countrywide could result in a net cost to the taxpayer of £33m over five years, although the range could also include a saving of £526m, dependent on how senior management and councillors are structured across the authorities. Whatever transpires, our council serms hell-bent on the most expensive option:

The review also considered reforming the current two-tier system through merging districts to reduce the average number in a county area from 7.4 to 3. Such a scenario could make savings of between £531m and £839m over five years.

A further scenario to create three unitary authorities and a combined authority, which would then deliver major services like adult social care, children’s social care and transport, was likely to cost between £36m and £366m over five years. Such an approach has been considered in areas such as Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire, but EY highlighted the risks of this ‘untried and untested’ model of reorganisation. …”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/11/local-government-reorganisation-switch-unitaries-could-save-ps29bn#disqus_thread

Relocation and local government reorganisation – a chance to save money!

What is currently more important in local government? Saving money, saving money by merger or being profligate? These seem to be the stark choices facing our district, with its reliance on the Local Enterprise Partnership for strategy, direction and funding.

Closer examination of the agenda for the next Cabinet meeting reveals that there are two references to local government reorganisation: at the bottom of page 111 and on page 115:

“Identify opportunities for rationalising/improving existing public sector governance arrangements and make recommendations to the constituent authorities/partners”

This appears to be a clear reference, as it not only refers to reform, but also says that the recommendations will go to ‘constituent authorities’. In other words we are not talking just about the LEP. The new Joint Committee clearly has mergers in mind. Add “Greater Exeter” into the mix and we come out with even more likelihood of massive changes. THEN add a mooted “Golden Triangle LEP” and we have a truly chaotic situation.

Owl wonders if these are circumstances in which to pursue a new HQ for EDDC at Honiton. Any proposal involving EDDC and avoiding building at Honiton can immediately claim to have made a minimum saving of £10 million plus interest payments, plus many associated costs – savings now being the mantra nowadays.

The relocation from Knowle could, in the above circumstances prove to be most expensive suicide note in the history of our district. And those EDDC members who waved through the move to Honiton, without the slightest idea of the cost, could in these circumstances be likened to turkeys voting for Christmas.

We have seen with the reorganisation in Dorset, that the reform and merger of local government authorities is very much in the air, and Dorset has been suggesting that the creation of two unitaries will lead to annual savings of many millions of pounds.

So it’s not surprising that things have gone very quiet with EDDC relocation. Firstly, there is local government reorganisation all around us and within our nearby city and the county. Secondly, the Pegasus deal for Knowle has seemingly gone very much on the back burner.

We have recently seen the formal separation – ‘decoupling’ – of the Exmouth Town Hall work from the Honiton proposal which seems to have had more to do with mothballing Honiton than it had to do with allowing Exmouth to proceed more quickly.

Work to refurbish Knowle is almost certainly millions of pounds cheaper than relocating. Plus, a new building in Honiton would immediately depreciate enormously on day one of occupation – 50% plus has been suggested.

Of course, PegasusLife could always put in a planning application for the Honiton site!

EDDC Cabinet to discuss devolution and LEP on 8 February … councils only “influence” LEP

From Cabinet agenda – Owl summary: it has taken 5+ years for the participating councils to realise that the business people on the LEP are running rings round them and still the only thing councils can do is “influence” those same business people:

“Risk implications will continue to be addressed at all stages of these proposals.

The Secretary of State is yet to formally clarify his position on the HotSW devolution proposal although the overall policy direction seems to be becoming clearer.

In the circumstances the Leader feel that the partnership needs to move forward with the priority development of the HotSW Productivity Plan and that this can best be achieved through the establishment of a formal Joint Committee in place of the current informal governance arrangements. This will put a formal governance structure around the Productivity Plan preparation, approval and delivery so minimising risk to the County Council and the other partner authorities. It will give partners the ability to negotiate with Government at pace, particularly on the emerging Industrial Strategy but without the statutory commitment required to establish a Combined Authority.

Without a Productivity Plan and Joint Committee in place the Council and its partners will be at a disadvantage in negotiating and lobbying Government on a range or policy initiatives including the growth agenda and are likely to miss out on potential funding streams.

…..

The HotSW Joint Committee will provide a formal strategic partnership to complement and maximise the ability of local sub- regional arrangements to deliver their aspirations. It will allow the partners to collaborate to agree and deliver the Productivity Plan as well as engage effectively with the Government, other deal areas and other LEPs on a range of policy agendas. It will allow the partnership to test and improve its ability to work together as a potential precursor to the establishment of a Combined Authority at some point in the future. It will also provide a mechanism to work alongside and influence the LEP on strategic investment decisions affecting the HotSW area and to secure improvements to LEP governance and accountability.”

Click to access combinedcabagenda080217final.pdf

(topic begins on page 107)

“Queen’s Drive. Is it a full planning application or not?”

Press Release 31.1.17

A most heated debate took place at Exmouth Town Council’s Planning Committee meeting last night.

Cllr Megan Armstrong, an EDA Independent District Councillor for Exmouth explained at some length that the “Reserved Matters Application” they were about to debate was in effect a “Full Planning Application” for phases 2 and 3 for the Queen’s Drive development.

The Chairman however interjected half way through her 3 minute allocated time and stated she wished to make a point clear. She then explained that East Devon District Council (the Applicant) has not allocated funding for the project, and therefore was not in a position to proceed.

NOTE (The consideration that an applicant has funds to deliver a project is not a consideration for a planning committee to debate).

Cllr Megan Armstrong was then allowed to proceed and stated she hoped the committee would consider the planning application without reference to the press releases and documents sent to each councillor by the applicant.
“Forget the promise of further consultations and further promises of more planning applications, don’t be confused by the press releases and further information sent to you, they are inadmissible.”

“You have to consider this application on its own merits from the documents and plans presented and anything else you have been told is irrelevant and should not be a consideration.”

NOTE (Planning regulations state that an applicant can apply in one of two ways. To submit a “Full Planning Application”, or if the application is substantial or problematic the applicant can submit an “Outline Planning Application” reserving all the detailed drawings and details to be submitted if the outline application is approved within a 3 year time period. This is known as a “Reserved Matters Application”).

Following the representations from a number of local residents and Cllr Armstrong the Chairman opened the debate to the planning committee.
Cllr Bill Nash (Conservative) started the proceedings explaining to the committee that Cllr Armstrong was incorrect and referring to the press release and documents sent by the applicant, explained that the application was merely an extension to the outline, and that there will be further planning applications and consultations for Phases 2 and 3.

At no time during the whole debate were the plans explained or shown on the large screen. The only document shown throughout the debate on the overhead projector was a flowchart of the possible suggested consultations and planning applications that may be brought forward at a later date.

In fact one councillor stated he looked forward to the plans for the “Watersports Centre” in phase 2 and another councillor was most interested in seeing the proposals for the hotel plans in phase 3.

This simply demonstrated that some of the planning committee members had not seen the full list of documents that they were now discussing.

The local authority planning portal has all the detailed plans for the application, and it is standard practice for major planning applications for the local authority to provide paper copies as well as providing the information online to assist councillors to understand the proposal that they were required to debate and on which they should agree a proposal.
Within the documents provided were very detailed drawings of both the proposed hotel and full details of the watersports centre, showing every aspect including the positions of the tables and chairs and the cycle store layout!

The public who are not allowed to comment or interject during the debate were at times most vocal to the discussion and content of the debate, demonstrating their displeasure as much as they were able.

The whole debate centred on the issue that it was a “mere exercise” in extending an outline application (this is not permitted in National Planning Policy). The other issues debated were the further consultations and further planning applications.

NOTE. (A planning application should be considered in its entirety with only the planning documents presented by the applicant and separate from any other planning application).

Without a single explanation of the design and layout and without a single illustration of the proposal the chair asked for a vote and the decision was carried 6 votes to 3.

The decision demonstrates the change in opinion as the previous outline application was not supported by the Town Council and in fact Cllr Bill Nash wrote a very strong letter of objection regarding the outline proposal in 2013 on behalf of his constituents living on Trefusis Terrace overlooking the proposed development.

Cllr Megan Armstrong when asked about the decision said:

“I was not surprised by the inconsistencies and change in opinion. It is unfortunate that such an important decision seems to have been turned into a party political game which is so sad. Party politics should not be an issue for such a momentous decision for the people of Exmouth.”

“However the town council planning committee is simply a consultee and the final decision will be made at East Devon’s Development Management Committee meeting at Sidmouth in a few months’ time.”

“Let us all hope that the facts will be explained without any spin and the decision is agreed democratically by the members on the district council committee.”

“Budleigh fishermen’s fury at 350% shed rent hike”

If any of the fisherman voted Tory at district elections, they really should have expected this!

“Users of the sheds, used by many to store vital equipment and petrol for their boats, have been told they face having to pay more than four times their usual ground rent.

Landowner East Devon District Council (EDDC) has written to the fishermen to inform them that, when their current annual licence expires in April, renewal will cost £450 instead of £100.

Former town mayor Roger Pym, 72, has been fishing on the seafront for 50 years and still helps his son Sam, 43, with the business.

He said: “I’m furious – we’re being ripped off. It appears to me that they are trying to price all the fishing fraternity out for extra beach huts.
f
“You don’t need to have a beach hut. If you have one, it’s for pleasure. We need to have a shed as we have a 16ft boat with crab pots.”

Dave Perkins, 60, has been fishing full-time on Budleigh beach for 12 years.

He said: “I expected prices to go up, but to suddenly get a jump of that amount is silly.

“The thing is they’re trying to put it down as commercial ground rent to be in line with all commercial rents, but not all the huts are used by commercial fishermen.

“Nothing is supplied with the sheds – no water, no electricity, no amenities.

“With everything else, with trying to fish on the beach, to get this thrown at us is ridiculous.”

Current Budleigh town mayor Chris Kitson said: “I support the fishermen that have been there on our beach for years and this is not acceptable to have these hikes in rent imposed on them.”

An EDDC spokeswoman said: “As with all our commercial transactions, we prefer to deal directly with our tenants and we would therefore ask Mr Pym to write to our property services team or to telephone them to discuss the matter of his rent.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/budleigh_fishermen_s_fury_at_350_shed_rent_hike_1_4864134

Knowle relocation costs: it’s up to us to check as councillors don’t get the information

And this is how we do it (whilst we have a Freedom of information Act):

Dear East Devon District Council,

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.

Please let me have the costs to date of the Knowle relocation project, to include all preliminary pre “moving decision” costs, and subsequent costs of all work associated with the intended reallocation, including those at The Knowle, Manstone, the intended Honiton site and Exmouth Town Hall

I should also like to know the current projected costs of the Exmouth Town Hall move, (including all associated costs such as moving, staff compensation and travel costs and fitting out costs), and for Honiton and costs associated with the “mothballing” of various parts of the Knowle contingent upon the intended relocation of 90 staff to Exmouth.”

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/costs_to_date_of_knowle_bhonito?nocache=outgoing-618160#outgoing-618160

And if they say they can’t tell us how much it has cost so far …..

Exmouth Visitor Survey

Last year nearly 5000 people in Exmouth voted in favour of further “INDEPENDENT consultation before any further action (including submission of planning applications) was taken on The Queen’s Drive.

While this has been roundly ignored by EDDC. they did at least seek the opinion of visitors. When independent Cllr Megan Armstrong carried out the Seafront Survey with support from SES we found visitors hold similar values around the seafront as residents, and that it was Exmouth’s unique charm that kept them coming back. Alarmingly many said they would no longer visit Exmouth if The Queen’s Drive development went ahead. I would have thought EDDC would be concerned about this yet it is just another piece of evidence that has been ignored.

Here is the EDDC website announcing the visitor survey, note the last paragraph states the results will be reported to ‘the team’ (Coastal Communities) at the end of the year (2016) …”

https://saveexmouthseafront.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/exmouth-visitors-survey-an-update-of-sorts/

Just poor grammar in the Sidmouth Herald? …

In its piece on EDDC being forced to publish the PegasusLife contract for The Knowle, it concludes:

“… Mr Woodward had previously challenged EDDC in 2015 when it refused to comply with Freedom of Information requests, also on its relocation. The eight-month legal battle saw EDDC blasted as ‘discourteous and unhelpful’ and cost taxpayers £11,000 in lawyers’ fees.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/revealed_how_eddc_reached_7_5m_deal_for_sidmouth_hq_1_4866174

What is not made crystal clear is that it was the JUDGE in the case – the judge in the case, Judge Brian Kennedy QC – who made this remark, not Mr Woodward.

In fact the full sentence read:

“Correspondence on behalf of the council, rather than ensuring the tribunal was assisted in its function, was at times discourteous and unhelpful including the statement that we had the most legible copies possible.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/judge-tells-east-devon-councillors-classified/story-26559459-detail/story.html

Sloppy, Sidmouth Herald, very, very sloppy.

Save Exmouth Seafront response to Councillor Skinner and EDDC

“Representatives from SES were invited to attend the presentation from Cllr Skinner and EDDC Officers Richard Cohen and Alison Hayward at Ocean on 18th January, and SES would like to thank EDDC for this invitation.

While the event provided some information for those businesses and associations perhaps not so aware of the plans, the SES representatives found they left with many questions still remaining.

For example there was no answer given on whether the watersport’s centre will be run as a members only club and who is to manage this facility.

Unfortunately Cllr Skinner also fended off some of the questions with evasive answers, such as when asked how ‘phase three’ of the development is even to be funded.

SES would welcome the opportunity for an open public event so that all members of the public can hear what is planned for the seafront now and in the future, and ask questions, yet EDDC seem reluctant to do this.”

Save Our Sidmouth press release on PegasusLife contract

PRESS STATEMENT

EA/2016/0279-0280 East Devon District Council v Information Commissioner

It is well over a year since Freedom of Information requests were made to have key EDDC documents published – the contract with developer Pegasus to buy the Knowle site and the agent’s report on the bidding process and sale.

EDDC refused to publish these, even after being told to by the Information Commissioner. But, now that the case has gone to Tribunal, it has decided to release the documents.

But why now?

What is very clear is that the release of the contract and agent’s report is happening only now that Pegasus’ planning application for Knowle has been considered.

As the EDDC press release makes clear: “With the PegasusLife planning application having been refused, it is considered that this sensitivity has now been reduced and that publication of the information is acceptable.”

And this is very much the point.

Not only was the leadership at EDDC keeping this ‘sensitive’ information from the public – it did not want its own Councillors to know what was in the contract and the bidding process. What is particularly alarming is that the leadership at EDDC hid these details from the planning committee (the DMC) before it made its decision over Knowle.

Looking at the details, the documents reveal the following:

> The agent warned that the development might be perceived by the planning committee as ‘over development’. As they said: “If this is the case, then the application may lead to refusal, delay or in the worst case prevent the relocation of the Council’s offices.”

> The agent also said that “Pegasus is not making any allowance for affordable housing or 106 contributions, as they are classing it as C2”. In other words, the plans were always about classifying the development as C2 (a care home) and not C3, which would mean paying for affordable housing.

> Finally, Pegasus were not prepared to offer significant ‘overage’ – meaning that EDDC would not be able to ‘claw back’ any excess profits Pegasus might make.

But what is particularly disturbing is what these documents reveal about how EDDC operates:

> From the outset, Planning Officers challenged the C2 designation and the scale of development and clearly wanted to give the site C3 status – but later they changed their mind and recommended approval of the Pegasus plans.

> In which case, the DMC have been totally vindicated in their decision to reject the planning application. But we only know this now that the contract and bidding process have been revealed.

> Had the Full Council been aware of the terms of the deal with Pegasus – for example, no significant overage – then then their approval of Pegasus as the ‘preferred developer’ might not have been forthcoming.

> The Information Commissioner insisted that EDDC reveal the contract and negotiations to the public. But what is particularly reprehensible is that the leadership at EDDC refused to reveal these crucial details to their own Councillors.

We now have to ask how the Council will respond – in particular, whether they will want some answers as to how the whole process was mismanaged.

And we have to ask why once again the leadership at EDDC continue to be so secretive in their dealings over the Knowle relocation project – and whether they are going to act on their promise to be truly open and transparent – with both the public and their own Councillors.”

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/knowle-relocation-project-full-pegasus_26.html

“Positive and passionate discussions for future regeneration of Queen’s Drive” says EDDC

Somehow, Owl thinks ” the community” might see things somewhat differently to EDDC – and Councillor Skinner’s remark that it “just wants EDDC to get on with it” when the fact that EDDC just getting on with it has been the problem, not the solution.

Not to mention that EDDC “just got on with” appointing Moirai Capital as their preferred bidder – and just see where that led!

This press release seems designed to pre-empt a judicial review on lack of consultation. BUT a press release does not constitute evidence … pudding … proof …

EDDC press release:

“Regular meetings between council and community to discuss improvement plans for Exmouth’s Queen’s Drive will be an ongoing feature of the project

East Devon District Council, local businesses and community organisations of Exmouth came together at The Ocean last week for a lively discussion about Exmouth’s regeneration and, in particular, the vision for its seafront development.

This meeting marked an important opportunity for dialogue and discussion, which will be an ongoing feature of the next phases for the improvement plans for Queen’s Drive.

There were presentations by the council detailing how Exmouth is growing and moving forward, the challenges it faces and the vision for this much-loved seaside town as it evolves into a 21st century destination with attractions for everyone to enjoy.

Council officers set out in as much detail as is currently known the journey and timelines for Queens Drive, emphasising the need to move forward with the reserved matters planning application process and, most importantly, setting out clearly opportunities for public consultation, which will continue to underpin each phase.

Officers also underlined the need to take a measured approach in terms of timescales to ensure that Grenadier, the provider of the watersports centre, secures the necessary planning permissions before the council commits financially to the necessary works to the road and car park.

Councillor Philip Skinner, chairman of the Exmouth Regeneration Board, said: “These discussions demonstrated a shared and very deep affection for the town. Most people there were overwhelmingly optimistic, passionate and positive and the message coming through loud and clear was get on with it!

The reserved matters planning application to extend planning permission will go before the council’s development management committee in the next few months.”

Scotland plans to stop council CEOs from getting extra money as Electoral Officers

At present, council CEOs all receive extra payments for this task and are not subject to Freedom of Information laws about how they spend their money on it.

“Senior council executives in Scotland should lose their system of multi-thousand pound payments for acting as returning officers at elections and referendums, according to MSPs.

A report from the Scottish Parliament’s local government committee found that the payments regime for overseeing the conduct and counting of elections, a role usually taken on by council chief executives, was insufficiently transparent, inconsistent, and little understood by the general public.

Bob Doris, the committee convener, said: “We believe that all costs associated with elections should be processed around the principles of openness and transparency if the public are to have confidence in how our elections are run.

“There is a lack of transparency around the value of these payments and how they are allocated,” Doris said.

“We heard that payments can range from £2,500 in Orkney and Shetland to over £16,000 in Edinburgh and may reportedly be worth as much £1m in total.” …”
http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/01/scrap-special-payments-scots-returning-officers-say-msps