“Conservative Councillors Gatecrash Save Exmouth Seafront Meeting “

Interesting that Councillor Skinner feels he can bully his way into an SES meeting but does not allow anyone to attend (and listen) at an Exmouth Regeneration Board meeting! One law for him one law for others, it seems.

“An unexpected and uninvited band of Conservative councillors descended on the Harbour View cafe last night for the meeting of the Save Exmouth Seafront (SES) campaign group.

Councillor Philip Skinner, Chair of the Exmouth Regeneration Board was flanked by two Conservative Exmouth Town councillors, Fred Caygill and Richard Scott, when they arrived to the meeting of the campaign group. SES aims to push for independent consultation on the future of the seafront before any further work, including the submissions of additional planning applications. This is in sharp contrast to the Exmouth Regeneration Board who appear determined to press ahead with their development vision without consultation.

Councillor Skinner said he’d come to listen. People at the meeting were stunned but used the opportunity to question him. Laura Freeman, an SES member explained “I attended the meeting to help with SES’s campaign for independent consultation and the support of the existing seafront businesses. I was shocked to see Councillor Skinner, but like others, I tried to use the opportunity to ask him questions. However he rudely laughed at me as I tried to ask a question, which he then avoided answering. His presence at the meeting seemed to be more about disrupting SES than listening to what any of us had to say”.

SES spokesperson Louise MacAllister has been trying for some time to organise a public Q&A session with Councillor Skinner, and despite the negative feeling surrounding Councillor Skinner’s unexpected arrival at an SES meeting, hopes that this is a sign he is willing to engage with the wider public and ensure a Q&A session is organised as soon as possible. SES are not against meeting with external stakeholders but would rather they did not gate-crash their meetings. SES are now seeking an arranged meeting with Dr Mark Dixon the benefactor of the Watersport’s Centre.
—ENDS—

Knowle officer decision exposes hypocrisy of planning system

Unsurprisingly, planning officers have recommended the PegasusLife planning application for luxury flats at the Knowle.

Well, be honest, would you go against the wishes of your CEO, deputy CEO and all the Tory councillors?

Yet a very similar (almost identical) planning application in Bath has just been turned down – but that isn’t being built on council land and part- financing a new HQ.

Funny that.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/knowle_demolition_wins_officer_support_1_4800636

Lympestone has to suffer to “benefit” Exmouth

“Lympstone residents have accused Devon County Council (DCC) of ignoring the village during the Dinan Way extension consultation process.

Council officers were subjected to scrutiny by the public at an open meeting in the village over a proposed £12million extension, which will link Dinan Way to the A376.

Mary Truell, who has lived in the area for 88 years and currently resides in Wotton Lane, Lymsptone, said the council had taken no notice of where the road was due to be built.

She said: “I would like to know who put in the application for the road because it is erroneous.

“All the time it talks about Exmouth and Exmouth benefits, but the whole thing is in Lympstone.”

DCC’s chief engineer for highways, Rob Richard, responded by admitting it was a project for Exmouth.

He said: “I am not going to stand here and say this is a scheme for Lympstone because it clearly isn’t. I am not pretending it is something it isn’t.

“It was quite clear the strength of feeling about the south route. It was very much the preference, not only from residents and the community of Lympstone, but also Exmouth as well.

“Unfortunately, consultation for us goes wider than the community and residents and, unfortunately, it is not us that dictates the importance of listed buildings, it’s government policy.

“We don’t get on with the National Trust and English Heritage any better than you guys do.”

Mr Richards added: “Hopefully, the road will provide a long, feasible structure that is going to help move traffic in and around Exmouth.”

DCC has voted through a compromise third route for Dinan Way after two proposed routes – a ‘south’ route and ‘valley’ route – were rejected after consultation. Despite being more popular with the public, the south route, which passed near A la Ronde in Summer Lane, was opposed by the National Trust.

Lympstone district and parish councillor Rob Longhurst accused the county council of letting everyone down with the road extension.

He said: “We are talking about loss of homes, financial hardship and social trauma.

“I am afraid I consider Devon County Council has failed us on these consultations.

“I think £12million is a ridiculous amount. It ignores the views of the consultations, raises the prospects of flooding in Lympstone and puts transient traffic problems over and above the effects on residents here.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/villagers_hit_out_at_dinan_way_extension_1_4800155

Exmouth: have councillors been misled – asks councillor

PRESS RELEASE
Have Councillors been misled?

East Devon District Council’s Cabinet “rubber stamped” the go ahead for a “full planning permission” on the redevelopment at Queen’s Drive, Exmouth which they were told needs to be submitted by the end of the year.

This is part of what the Cabinet recommended on the 9th November:
“To note that under delegated powers and an exemption to standing orders, officers have engaged planning and design services to take forward a reserved matters application for the continuance of the current planning approval of Queen’s Drive.”

This means that contrary to normal procedures officers engaged the planning and design services of a company to design and submit a full planning application proposal for the remainder of the Queen’s Drive Development.

Within the submitted papers presented to the Cabinet it explains officers drew up a proposal to hire consultants in September 2016 and gave details of the costs which are estimated at £65,000.

The document states it is “necessary to submit the application by the end of 2016.” It also claims to be a “technical exercise” simply to “sustain a planning application”.

Local Independent District Councillors believe that the advice given to the Cabinet members was misleading. Rather than a “technical exercise” the proposal to submit a “reserved matters application” would provide full planning permission which in theory would allow contractors to start development as soon as it is approved. The ‘reserved matters’ application does not need to be submitted until 24th January, when the current outline application expires.

Megan Armstrong, District Councillor for Exmouth said “Independent colleagues and I cannot understand why the Council has now decided to appoint a designer to submit a full planning application at vast expense when all that is required is to submit a further outline planning application to replace the present one.

The cost of a new outline application would be far less than the ‘reserved matters’ proposal.”

Councillor Armstrong added “If this goes ahead, it contradicts the recommendation that “the Council will give Exmouth people another opportunity to have their say on what happens on that site. The Council will bring in external expertise to carry out a review. This will involve full consultation that is neither developer nor Council led.”

“I believe the District Council should put in a fresh outline planning application for phases two & three, which could be done before the current one expires. Then we can have the full consultation, rather than setting out the ‘reserved matters’ details first, which seems to be putting the cart before the horse. We understand that these Cabinet decisions will be discussed further at the next Full Council meeting on 21st December.”

— ENDS —

Health crisis: EDDC scrutiny committee grills NHS rep

01 December 2016
Scrutiny committee questions CCG representative
Councillors voice concerns over proposed East Devon in-patient bed provision within Your Future Care consultation

At a meeting on Thursday 24 November 2016, members of East Devon District Council’s Scrutiny committee listened to Rob Sainsbury, the Chief Operating Officer of the NHS North Eastern & Western Devon Clinical Commissioning Group (NHS NEW Devon CCG), give a talk about the NHS’s Your Future Care consultation.

Mr Sainsbury spoke about issues such as the financial pressure faced by the NHS, the changing way in which people are cared for, proposed models of care and the number of community inpatient beds in East Devon. He outlined the options set out in the consultation and reassured the committee that no changes to services would be made until tests created by local clinicians had been undertaken to ensure the changes are safe and reliable.

Consultation options
• Option A: Tiverton 32 beds, Seaton 24 beds, Exmouth 16 beds
• Option B: Tiverton 32 beds, Sidmouth 24 beds, Exmouth 16 beds
• Option C: Tiverton 32 beds, Seaton 24 beds, Exeter 16
• Option D: Tiverton 32 beds, Sidmouth 24 beds, Exeter 16 beds
The CCG’s preferred option is A, as this combination is considered by the CCG to result in the smallest changes in travel time and to have the greatest impact on the whole system.

Prior to councillors questioning Mr Sainsbury and debating a number of issues, the Scrutiny Chairman Councillor Roger Giles reminded the committee of recent comments made by Neil Parish MP who asked that action be taken to: “Fight all closures across East Devon.” Cllr Giles expressed a hope that the committee would adopt a unified front rather than focus on arguments between the towns where community hospitals are located.

Following a wide range of questions from councillors, which Mr Sainsbury answered, councillors voted in favour of the following comments being sent in a response from the Scrutiny committee to the NEW Devon CCG Your Future Care consultation:

1. Asks that the New Devon CCG presents an outline of how care delivery integrates health, social, and mental care, as well as physiotherapy, and how it is provided to patients

2. Consider that the comparison with Northern and Western Devon areas is unfair as the demographics were not the same as Eastern Devon

3. The committee considers that the models proposed in the consultation will not meet the needs of the District because of the local issues of social isolation, and the support that carers need

4. The NEW Devon CCG should review the expenditure on management and administration as a means to realise savings that could be used to provide care rather than divert funding from in-patient beds

5. The committee considers that the evidence presented to date by the NEW Devon CCG is not sufficient to convince them that the new model of care will be successful

6. The Committee does not accept Options A – D, but recommends that the NEW Devon CCG should retain the current level of in-patient beds in community hospitals in the Eastern Devon locality

7. Should a decision be made to close in-patients beds, the Committee insists that this is not undertaken until the replacement model of care is recognised as safe and in place; subject to the provision of evidence that the model of care has resulted in no bed blocking at acute hospitals, non occupancy of beds in community hospitals, and full care in the community

Commenting on the content and outcome of the meeting, Councillor Roger Giles said:

“The Scrutiny Committee were very far from convinced about the practicality of the CCG proposals to close beds in East Devon community hospitals and replace them with care in the community. There was also concern about the accuracy of the CCG costings used to justify closure of hospital beds. The committee felt strongly that East Devon hospitals provided an excellent and essential local service and that the existing hospital beds should be retained.”

ENDS

Exmouth regeneration costs – 6 times bigger than Exeter bus station!

It appears that Exeter City Council has spent “more than £500,000” on fees for its £26m bus station and leisure centre development and is getting some stick for this:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/council-have-spent-over-590-000-on-st-sidwell-s-point-and-exeter-bus-station-already/story-29947204-detail/story.html

What’s the fuss? EDDC has already said its costs for Exmouth regeneration (officially supposed to be developer-led and funded) will be AT LEAST £3.2 million.

Should someone be patting Exeter City Council on the back and perhaps giving EDDC some stick? And perhaps querying why the Exmouth Regeneration Board (Chair: Councillor Philip Skinner) and EDDC’s Cabinet doesn’t seem to have a handle on the expenditure.

Maybe another elector should be contacting external auditor KPMG as that seemed to get some action on the S106 crisis.

Knowle relocation: EDDC defies Information Commissioner AGAIN and heads for court AGAIN

“EDDC TO DEFY INFORMATION COMMISSIONER – AND TO TAKE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS ON KNOWLE TO TRIBUNAL

East Devon District Council have formally announced that they will only be complying with one of three Decision Notices issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office on 25th October.

They have formally released the already widely-known information that the price for the Knowle site to developers PegasusLife is £7.5 million – on condition that they receive planning permission. (Decision Notice on Case: FER0608237).

However, the Council do not wish to divulge the “minutes of meetings and correspondence on the subject the decision to award the contract to PegasusLife” (Decision Notice on Case: FER0623403) or give “a copy of an agreement between East Devon District Council and a developer, Pegasus Life, in relation to a site at Knowle” (Decision Notice on Case: FER0626901)

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/knowle-relocation-project-breaking-news.html
http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/knowle-relocation-project-information.html

It is clear that the Council do not want any information to be revealed about the contractual arrangements it has with the developer. And in particular, they do not want this to happen before a crucial vote by their planning committee on 6th December – when the Development Management Committee will consider the controversial planning application 16/0872/MFUL from PegasusLife.

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/knowle-relocation-project-planning_24.html

This timing seriously puts into question the extent to which the DMC’s decision-making is thereby being compromised, in that any information touching on the planning application should be made available to DMC Members – and the developer’s contract clearly refers to the planning application.

It is now obvious, therefore, that the Council would rather incur further embarrassment and potential damage to their reputation by appearing at the Information Tribunal – as this is the second time it will be appealing against the Information Commissioner.

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/knowle-relocation-project-foi-request_27.html

The obvious question which has to be asked is: What are they so desperate to hide?

Moreover, the Council is clearly prepared to spend yet further on defending itself, no doubt with the use of expensive legal representation – and yet it complains regularly about the expense of having to deal with FOI requests.
Why, then, is the Council so determined to avoid being held properly accountable, let alone transparent to its rate-paying electorate?

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/knowle-relocation-project-continuing.html

It will be interesting to see how the Council deals with the legal process which will now ensue. Will it drag matters out as it did two years ago, during the first time it appeared at the Tribunal?

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/knowle-relocation-project-we-believe.html

And how will the Council’s representatives conduct themselves on this occasion?

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/knowle-relocation-project-information.html

END

Can EDDC do basic arithmetic?

Read this first – the response to their external auditors that their Section 106 system is not working:

“An EDDC spokesman said: “We know exactly how much section 106 money is owed. “However, we only hold that information by development and do not hold a total of all monies outstanding across all developments. “This is currently being addressed.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/we_know_exactly_how_much_community_cash_is_owed_eddc_1_4790645

(The rest of the press release is just as bizarre)

IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE!!!!!

Let’s say, for argument’s sake, EDDC has 100 developments which owe Section 106 money. What they are saying is: “We know what each of the 100 developments owes but we can’t add them all up and get a total!”

Or is Owl missing something here?

PegasusLife jumps the gun …

There was a full page advertisement on the back page of yesterdays Property section of Telegraph for Pegasus with a list of “Developments coming soon” which includes Sidmouth!!

Owl in its innocence thought the DMC meeting this coming Tuesday would
make the decision.

But it seems PegasusLife knows things we don’t. … Nothing new there then.

It will be interesting to see how the DMC talks itself out of a decision very similar to the company’s development in Bath – which was very recently refused, in part because the way the company presented the development, it did not feel that it needed to make provision for affordable housing.

is this a mock-up of Grenadier’s Exmouth watersports centre?

Sent by a correspondent who says it has appeared on the Grenadier website:

img_1345

Owl thinks … well, no matter what Owl thinks … what do others think?

If it ISN’T a Grenadier mock-up, perhaps the company would confirm this and perhaps send us an image of their plans.

East Devon ward boundary changes- days left to comment

“Professor Colin Mellors, Chair of the Commission, said: “We will consider every submission we receive from local people before we draw up draft recommendations. We will then open another phase of consultation on those proposals in February.

He added: “Don’t miss this chance to have your say on how your council is run.”

This phase of public consultation closes on December 5.
Consultation responses should be sent to:The Review Officer (East Devon), Local Government Boundary Commission for England, Floor 14, Millbank Tower, London SW1P 4QP”

More information at:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/it-s-the-last-call-for-views-on-ward-boundary-changes-in-east-devon/story-29936690-detail/story.html

EDDC and Knowle – reasons for refusal of PegasusLife planning application – but will a new HQ sway councillors?

A letter from Michael Temple, Sidmouth

“Compare and Contrast

The highly controversial PegasusLife application for Knowle is to be decided at 10.30 am on Tuesday 6 December in the Council Chamber at Knowle, Sidmouth.

Readers might like to compare it with other recent PegasusLife applications:
1. Bath (assisted living): refused: “excessive and incongruous height”, “harmful impact upon surrounding heritage assets”, “nearby listed buildings undermined”, “the excessive tall building fails to respect its context”, “harmful impact on character and appearance of surrounding conservation area”.

Bristol (Nuffield Hospital site) – officers can’t support due to “excessive bulk and massing”, “doesn’t relate to surrounding context”, would “dominate the townscape”.

Wilmslow: refused: “too large, too high, no affordables”.

Harpenden (retirement flats) – refused due to “height (20.7 metres)”, “lack of privacy for neighbours”, “footprint 28 degrees greater than existing buildings”, “visually intrusive”, “residents’ parking would spill onto neighbouring roads”.

Knowle, Sidmouth (assisted living – or second homes?) – officers approve.

The East Devon District Council’s planning officer, departing from the Local Plan and its planning strategies, claims the the “benefits” to Sidmouth outweigh the harm to an English-Heritage listed building.

“Benefits”? Could he mean

the overbearing, intrusive impact on the park and neighbourhood of an excessively high, out-of-scale massed development?

the loss of heritage buildings and public assets like the Council Chamber where so many people met recently over the proposed hospital bed cuts?

the loss of weekend parking to this tourist town?

the loss of about 100 jobs?

the blot on Sidmouth’s skyline?

the loss to the public of the park’s fine lawn prospect?

the lack of a contribution towards affordable housing?

possible downtown drainage overflow during flash floods?”

Section 106 scandal: New controls and a surprising revelation from CEO Mark Williams

S106 Funds and EDDC Audit & Governance Committee – report from an attendee:

On Thursday November 17th the Audit & Governance Committee of EDDC voted to make several changes to the Council’s finance systems which will now ensure that s106 payments will go to the local community amenities for which they are intended.

S106 payments are agreements under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, often referred to as ‘developer contributions’ whereby developers agree to make financial contribution to the community infrastructure when they build property. These contributions are usually used to provide amenities such as playground equipment or other local projects, and usually decided with local councillors in the town or parish councils.

The recommendations to make changes in the way EDDC manages and monitors the s106 monies comes from auditors KPMG who received an objection from a local elector. KPMG mounted a financial investigation into the elector’s complaint and concluded that the council’s control systems had the following weaknesses:

1. An absence of summarised financial information to facilitate the monitoring of s106 contributions

2. Lack of challenge or enforcement of the developers’ legal obligation to provide information

3. Lack of understanding of financial and accounting implications of triggers being met and the communication between Planning and Finance over this.

EDDC Chief Executive Officer Mark Williams, at one point in the discussion, disclosed that he watches some s106 debts grow (because interest at 4%+ base rate is applied) rather than collect them when due so that the council can gain more money.

No one challenged or questioned the ethics of this as a strategy for dealing with the funds that could have gone sooner to the communities for which it is intended (or whether developers could be benefitting by delaying payments). Neither was it established whether that interest earned is applied to the s106 amenities for the community or left in the council’s general reserves.

EDDC Monitoring Officer Henry Gordon Lennox, referring to the £730,000 he had previously disclosed (through a Freedom of Information query) was owed in 2014/15 and 2015/16 for s 106 payments, interjected that the £730,000 owing had included a mistaken overstatement of £409,000. The current status of the other £321,000 was not established during the committee discussion however.

The auditors, in upholding the objection to the accounts, made Priority One recommendations to address each area of weakness because these are fundamental and material to EDDC’s systems of financial controls. The committee resolved that these should be implemented by set dates and KPMG will follow up in their next audit.

Councillors of various political parties during the discussion on this item thanked the elector for having raised the lid on this issue. Now that the previously weak system has had “a light shone on it” and addressed, the Audit & Governance Committee will be able to require regular reports on s106 monies owed and collected. They will be able to ensure that the funds are being directed to and spent on the amenities in towns and parish council communities projects for which they are intended.

Beggars belief! Local Tories implicitly defend local bed cuts then put out a press release saying the total opposite!

EDDC Tories have released the following statement and press release below.

The wording of this statement seems to imply to Owl that our local Tories are 100% behind the cutting of beds and the closure of our community hospitals. Note that it takes no account of the warning bells from the King’s Fund (plans are vague, poorly costed and badly evidenced) and the UK Statistics Agency (the NHS is underfunded) – it simply offers knee-jerk pandering to a CCG shown to be not fit for purpose and (much as usual in Devon these days) with people at the top with glaring conflicts of interest.

THE STATEMENT

We have decided as a group to issue this statement on the proposed bed closures throughout Devon which we will continue to oppose in their current form. Those wishing to cause mischief are doing a great disservice to our residents as they do not offer a sustainable solution to the endemic problems the NHS faces and tinkering with the process is no solution to the root and branch reform needed. The process is being piloted in Devon and Sir Hugo Swire and Neil Parish, our MPs, are continuing the fight in Westminster as do I as the South West Board Member for the District Councils Network nationally and as a Member of Devon County Council’s Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee.”

Readers will recall that Councillor Leader Diviani voted against DCC Councillor Claire Wright’s motion to “stop the clock” on the closure of Honiton hospital until its viability had been reassessed and rechecked. Councillor Leader Diviani and his fellow Tories can hardly claim to be defending our services – indeed they seem anxious for the process to be concluded as quickly as possible, including the closure of Honiton hospital.

They also state that our MPs are “fighting for us” when their voting records, lack of speeches on our behalf and watering down of a parliamentary motion shows that they are doing nothing of the sort.

To all those vulnerable people out there who will suffer from these cuts: use your vote much more wisely in council by-elections, elections and general elections.

Now, compare what they say in the paragraph above to the press release sent out below. REMEMBER, when they say THEY – they mean their own party!

THE PRESS RELEASE

STARTS

Conservatives call for second opinion on Devon NHS funding crisis treatment
ENSURE THAT BED-CUT ‘CURE’ DOESN’T DAMAGE PATIENTS

East Devon Conservatives are deeply worried about proposals from the NEW* Devon Clinical Commissioning Group to restructure hospital care in the North, East and West of the county in a bid to plug a £400 million budget shortfall over the next three years.

They believe the hospital bed closures proposed by the Devon health provider as the cure for a funding crisis may be the wrong treatment – and could have harmful side-effects for patients.

So the 37 Conservative members of East Devon District Council are sending a collective response to the CCG’s current consultation in the hope of persuading the NHS commissioning group to change its approach to tackling the immediate £100m funding gap, expected to rise to £400m by 2020.

The Conservative councillors are advising the CCG that it would be dangerous to move from a system of mostly inpatient treatment to care at home until a robust structure is in place to provide the alternative cover. Taking this step without the necessary resources in place and with no vital transition budget to call upon, could put patients at risk, they say.

Dangerous

Having studied the CCG’s report, Conservative group members were unimpressed with the strength of the argument in favour of bed closures and home care, especially because the CCG has not been able to provide accurate and meaningful financial detail or convincing trial evidence to back up its proposed Community Care Package.

They also wonder if the massive funding gap could not be closed by greater attention to efficiency savings.

And they are counselling the commissioning group not to adopt a “one-size-fits-all” approach to tackling the area’s financial ills, bearing in mind the differing demographics and age profiles of each local authority area in Devon, especially remote rural communities. Patient vulnerability and loneliness must also be addressed.

The CCG appears to favour a new model of care that has been subject to limited testing, with little hard evidence that it improves the service to patients.

The Conservative group are not convinced by the scant evidence provided after their requests for more detail and are nervous of the CCG’s reliance on a notional target of county hospital beds, regardless of variations in proven need.

Blunt instrument

They want to know more about the 80 clinicians the CCG claims to be in support of the new model. And they are sceptical of a ‘blunt instrument’ approach to treatment, especially when many elderly patients have dementia in addition to multiple clinical problems.

Finally, the Conservative members contest that many areas in East Devon appear to have a reducing stock of nursing and residential home beds. This only aggravates the situation, because these beds are often required in the short or long-term for patients stuck in hospital.

Phil Twiss, Conservative Group Secretary, said: “Some people want to boycott this consultation process – but that won’t help anyone. We believe constructive feedback is the best way.

“We all agree that bed-blocking is a serious issue and we also accept that the clinical commissioning group need to save money. The question is how should they go about it so as to deliver results without making the situation worse.

“We feel that they have the solution the wrong way round. They want to move to a care-in-the-home model at a time when the resources just aren’t there to support that model. It might be the right approach in theory, but it will only work in practice if the social care infrastructure is robust enough to take the strain – and it is not.

Panic measures

“We’re not convinced that the new model has delivered the right standard of success in trial areas and we don’t believe it can be rolled out across other parts of the county until the necessary support structure is in place. And we should not be moving to a new model as a panic measure to solve a funding shortfall that could be tackled by other means.

“For example, a lot of money can be wasted on high-cost agency staff who appear to be a short-term emergency man-power fix but all too often are relied upon as part of the workforce establishment.

“We don’t know whether the budget shortfall was perhaps caused by wasteful practices that are still in place, and so we don’t know whether the CCG could find alternative ways to save money. What we do know is that their current proposals are unconvincing and ill-advised”.

East Devon Conservatives will be responding to the CCG consultation with their views and will be calling on the commissioning group to think again.

ENDS

SO, are they for cuts or against them? A dangerous business deciding which bit is truth and which bit is post-truth!

Exmouth Regeneration Board has not discussed council overspend

Strange that! You might think they would need to know what is happening, what has been spent so far and what is to be spent in future.

Yet no mention of funding changes at their last meeting in September

Click to access 150916erpbcombinedagenda.pdf

when officers and senior councillors were almost certainly aware of the problem. Or was that the ” more thoughtful approach” mentioned in the minutes!

Perhaps EDDC just has an open chequebook approach.

Here is what they DID report about Queen’s Drive:

RC (Richard Cohen) gave an update on the Queens Drive development. It was noted that agreement had now been reached with tenants. There was a meeting next month with Grenadier and there was enthusiasm that the project was moving forward. It was hoped that planning permission would be in place for Phase 2 of the project by the end of the calendar year.

It was reported that a more thoughtful approach could be taken towards Phase 3 of the project and take steps to take this to the market. There was a need to go out to public consultation on Phase 3 o the works and also go out to tender.

Agreement had been reached with the tenants of Harbour View Cafe to end the formal lease and they were currently on licence until the end of September. A request had been made to leave the tenant in situ until the Council needed the site for redevelopment works. The Board members were keen that the building was not left vacant and the tenant remains in situ.
TW (Tim Wood) expressed his disappointment that a cafe/restaurant had not been established at Orcombe Point.

JME (Councillor Elson) raised the issue of having a Master Planning meeting of all /Exmouth District Councillors on Monday 12 September at 6.00pm.”

About ….. turn! Councillors doing contortions?

With the proposal to severely cut community hospital beds and totally close some community hospitals (Owl STILL insists a ” community health hub” with no beds is NOT a hospital) comes some interesting behaviour from majority party councillors in East Devon.

For example”

Suddenly, they have become “experts” on consultation, loudly stating that the CCG consultation is “flawed” because users of NHS services were not consulted.

They check numbers and find some don’t add up and some are missing.

They ask for “more evidence” on some of the CCG’s wilder claims.

They suddenly discover their voices and some, who have been mute for many a long month or even years, decry the whole project – even though their own party is 100% responsible for it.

They complain bitterly about the amount of money spent on so-called consultants who seem ready to tell the CCG what it wants to hear – for a price.

Well, councillors, welcome to our world – the world of residents battling some of YOUR sillier decisions (so many of them) and profligate spending. Now YOU know how WE feel – if only for a fleeting moment and because it is YOUR health and YOUR families that will suffer from these decisions. Especially as so many of our majority councillors are of the age and lifestyle that often makes most demand on community hospital services.

Just one caveat: Councillor Leader Diviani HAS stayed true to his principles and has tacitly agreed to CCG proposals to close Honiton hospital – having not spoken out AND voting against the motion from Councillor Claire Wright at DCC to “stop the clock” on the plans until Honiton and Okehampton hospitals (both due to close under CCG proposals) could have their viability assessments checked and included in the plans.

Expect some rousing speeches when the head of the CCG comes before the EDDC Scrutiny Committee on Thursday this week at 6 pm. But do watch out for any majority councillors crossing their fingers behind their backs.

Yes, welcome to our world indeed – if only for a very short time.

Save Clyst St Mary update – November 2016

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

A big thank you for all the emails of support that we have received in the last few days regarding the latest planning application for development proposals for the Friends Provident site. We are currently working our way through this latest planning application. Although we remain open minded to the eventual solution to the site, we currently have grave reservations regarding these proposals for Winslade Manor and the Stables because the developer hasn’t offered any solution to a number of key National Planning policies such as :

-The loss of the leisure facilities (Stables Club) that were closed down at the end of 2015

-The flooding that has continued to occur at the site and the proposals to build houses and industrial buildings in the areas that frequently flood. (As I am writing this email I have just been advised of the closure of the A376 due to flooding!)

-The fact that our village remains unsustainable for such a significant population increase, having only one shop and a pub

-Lack of public transport links and the scale of congestion that already occurs on a daily basis (set to be exacerbated by the poorly considered location to the entrance by our Village Hall)

-The proposed site sits outside of the current approved Built Up Area Boundary

These are just a few of the examples and valid reasons why the proposals won’t enhance our village; worryingly, the proposed scheme has many other areas where we have serious concerns.

We have started writing some template letters of objection which you may want to use. We hope to be able to email them to you within the next week. Moreover, we understand that the Parish Council may be arranging a Public Meeting at the beginning of December to further discuss the planning application. As soon as we get a date and time, you will be informed.

FOUL ODOUR

East Devon District Council’s Environment Department is currently conducting a survey of households within our neighbourhood regarding the odours that were omitted from Enfield Farm and the anaerobic digester. Hopefully, since the last major problem five weeks ago, things have considerably improved. We have been told that this should finally solve the ‘odour issue’ that has annoyed residents for so long.

Proposed Sidford Industrial estate – flooding issues

Being planned on older flooding regulations because the application went in before they changed.

Today’s newspaper:

“The A375 between Sidford and Sidbury road is partially flooded and difficult driving conditions are reported on the A375 Sidbury Hill in both directions. Cotford and Woolbrook Road are also flooded.”

The Environment Agency is already in trouble for not spending money it was allocated for natural flood prevention schemes.

What about unnatural flood increase schemes?

If you had a child car seat that you bought a while ago that was declared unsafe for children under new regulations, would you continue to use it?

Why are developers allowed to ignore new regulations if their planning applications went in before changes which are designed to keep people and property safer?

UPDATE 5 pm: “The A375 is closed at Sidbury due to flooding and a landslip.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/here-s-how-you-ll-get-home-tonight-in-exeter-mid-and-east-devon/story-29921797-detail/story.html

Save Exmouth Seafront meeting – 1 December 2016, 7.30 pm Harbour Cafe

see:

https://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk/event/save-exmouth-seafront-ses-meeting/

and Exmouth Splash Facebook page

External auditors not best placed to review Local Plan – Duh!

Honestly, you could not make it up. Independent councillors recently flagged that the NEXT review of the existing Local Plan needs to be sorted out NOW and not (as in the past) faffed-about with at the last minute.

So, some bright spark came up with the idea of asking EDDC’s FINANCIAL external auditor (KPMG) to get it going. Here is what happened next.

Problem (page 134 of agenda papers):
Undertake a Review of the process for writing the Local Plan in future”

The solution
“A meeting has been held with our external auditors to scope out this review but it was quickly determined that they are not the right people to undertake this review due to their lack of knowledge of the plan making process. Other options including using the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) are now being pursued.”

Click to access 241116-scrutiny-agenda-combined.pdf

Duh, duh and more duh!