NHS cuts on EDDC scrutiny agenda – 24 November 2016, 6 pm

The full consultation document begins on page 9:

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

Is a cost over-run of £1.1 million or £10 million more serious than a Section 106 loss of £250,000?

Owl asks because an elector successfully petitioned EDDC’s external auditor over Section 106 discrepancies. A sample found a wrongly-attributed bill of some £400,000 and an uncollected sum of around £250,000. As a result, the auditors have requested many changes in procedures:

Click to access item-12-management-of-s106-contributions-report.pdf

Now we hear at Cabinet this week that, in two years, development costs for Exmouth seafront have risen from £1.5 million to £3.2 million. Yet Cabinet apparently found this totally acceptable and, without detailed figures, nodded it through with no explanation of:

– what did the £1.5 million cover

and

– what does the extra £1.6 million cover.

Added to this, the projected cost of HQ relocation has risen from cost-neutral (zero due to sale of Knowle HQ for around £7 million) it is now said to be nearly £10 million – or at least that was figure a few months ago.

These are eye-watering numbers yet majority party councillors and auditors (internal and external) appear unconcerned.

Some scrutiny (internal and external) needed here, Owl thinks.

Exmouth seafront cost increase – fantasy, incompetent, iconic or ironic!

“Calls have been made for the sacking of the ‘owner’ of the Exmouth Seafront Regeneration Project after costs spiralled from £1.5million to more than £3million.

However, East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) cabinet backed the plans with a majority vote, despite heavy criticism from some councillors.

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/seafront_plans_backed_despite_soaring_costs_1_4780508

Rob Longhurst (Ind), Ben Ingham (Ind) and Eileen Wragg (LD) spoke against, saying that it was incompetence.

Ian Chubb said it was worth paying and he was happy paying the extra costs. Unclear whether he meant worth paying despite the increases or worth paying despite the incompetence, but nice of him to offer to fund the increased costs personally.

Phil Twiss said they had to proceed because to stop would be to go backwards. Of course only true because they have destroyed existing attractions before getting the plans right and before knowing the real costs – so they can’t go back.

Philip Skinner got his words mixed up when he said the plans were iconic but clearly he meant ironic, and thought it was good for Exmouth because they all like doing watersports.

Tom Wright obviously thought the debate was about football not water-sports because he kept referring to the premier league, and said that Exmouth residents should be grateful for the cost increases.

Honestly, Trump or EDDC Tories – not sure which are the greater fantasists!!”

Poor commercial judgement and skills at local authorities worrying

Hot on the heels of news that EDDC’s development costs for Exmouth seafront have more than doubled from £1.5m to £3.2m comes this report:

The increasing scale of commercial activity carried out by local authorities could put council finances at risk, and town halls might lack the necessary skills for such projects, the Public Accounts Committee has warned.

In a report examining the financial sustainability of local government, published today, MPs accused Whitehall of being complacent about the risk to local authority finances.

Today’s “Financial sustainability of local authorities” review highlighted that councils were increasingly undertaking commercial activity intended to generate revenue income from capital investment in properties and businesses in an effort to offset government cuts. This includes projects such as developing houses and commercial units for rent or sale.

But the MPs warned councils may lack experience of such schemes, and council tax bills or other services could be hit if they go wrong. They called on the Department for Communities & Local Government to review the commercial skills in different types of authorities, and provide an update by next summer on the scale and nature of these activities in order to better anticipate risks.

We do not share the department’s confidence that the increased commercial activity in the sector adds no particular risk to the department’s own work,” the report stated. The department should also work with CIPFA to ensure the local government capital finance framework “remains current and continues to reflect developments”.

Committee chair Meg Hillier said funding cuts had led councils to rethink the way they use public money, and the government wanted councils to become largely self-financing, including through business rates retention. However, she warned that poor investment decisions could cost money that might otherwise be spent on public services.

“Our committee has previously highlighted gaps in the commercial skills of the civil service as a factor in the failure of some projects and we have similar concerns about local government,” she stated.

“Local authorities need the skill-set to invest wisely and the department must bear its share of responsibility for ensuring these skills are in place. But more fundamentally, the information central government uses is inadequate for understanding trends and associated risks in local government finance.”

This represented a serious flaw in DCLG’s ability to plan properly for the future and ensure councils are following a sustainable path, she concluded, but the department was complacent about the risk. …

Franksy writes to East Devon Watch

See below the letter Franksy asked a correspondent to send to East Devon Watch:

To Tyrannosaurus Exe, also known as EDDC,

I marched with 386 others on Saturday to try and save Exmouth Seafront.

Did you not see us because your head is so high in the clouds filled with your own obstinate dreams of power?

Did you not hear us because you can only hear the sound of your own species? Maybe you cannot hear at all.

With your big and brutish attitude and your enormous footprint, you can barely see the ants you look down upon.

But ants are strong and resilient. They work hard, communicate and co-operate to achieve a common goal.

Important to note that ants are not extinct.

We hope this troubles you in your arrogance.”

Franksy.

Whatever happened to ….. EDDC councillor ” champions”?

A year or two ago, you couldn’t move for EDDC councillor “champions” – Tory councillors without cabinet portfolios but with “special responsibilities” for specific tasks. Now, without fanfare, they seem to have disappeared without trace.

Those recently memorable to Owl were Councillor Phil Twiss, who had special responsibility for broadband services in East Devon and a councillor who had “special responsibility” for tourism who seems never to have said anything meaningful about it – ever. And who could forget the councillor with “special responsibility” for construction design – whose legacy is … er … perhaps best not go there!

History tells us that at least two councillors in the past declined these “champion” roles, having been awarded championships without even being consulted, of what might be perceived as “poisoned chalices – “beaches and foreshores” (Councillor Wragg) and “affordable housing” (then EDDC councillor Claire Wright)

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/councillors-reject-role-champions/story-12682633-detail/story.html

And who could forget Councillor Philip Skinner being stripped of his role as “rural champion” by then EDDC leader Sarah Randall-Johnson when he sent her what she perceived to be offensive Christmas greetings:

http://www.cornwalllive.com/leader-sacks-rural-champion-christmas-card-message/story-11517317-detail/story.html

Oh, and finally, perhaps the “creme de la creme” of champions, disgraced ex- councillor Graham Brown who was excommunicated and stripped of his “business champion” role (and his Chairmanship of the notorious East Devon Business Forum”) after a Daily Telegraph front page sting in which he asserted:

“If I turn a green field into an estate, I’m not doing it for peanuts”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9921333/If-I-turn-a-green-field-into-an-estate-then-Im-not-doing-it-for-peanuts.html

Ah, perhaps Owl has accidentally solved its own conundrum!

£117.3m spent on tourism in East Devon

And does our Local Enterprise Partnership value tourism in its ” growth” agenda? Not on your life, unless you count trips around Somerset nuclear plants, perhaps! And does EDDC have a dynamic tourism strategy? Attempts to find a councillor “champion” for tourism on the EDDC website were fruitless.

“New figures have revealed that the value of tourism in East Devon is continuing to rise.

In 2015 alone, tourism contributed £3.5million more to the local economy than it did in 2014, rising to £252.5million.

“The figures come from a new report provided to Visit South Devon and the Devon Tourism Partnership, which analyses trends in tourism year-on-year.

The latest findings show that UK-originated and overseas trips to East Devon increased four per cent to 521,000 trips in 2015, compared to 502,000 trips 2014.

The average number of nights per East Devon trip rose by eight per cent, equivalent to 166,000 additional nights in the local area.

Associated spend by tourists visiting from outside the local area leapt by £7.6million to £117.3million in 2015.

However, income from day trips fell by £4.1million to just over £135million – equivalent to a three per cent drop.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/figures_reveal_that_value_of_tourism_in_devon_is_rising_1_4779567

Skypark: 30,000 sq ft let – only 1,300,000 sq ft or so left to go!

“Exeter-based housing association DCH is set to relocate its city centre headquarters to a new office building at Skypark.

It will be the first office occupier on the new business park near Exeter Airport when staff move into a new 30,000 sq ft office space at the 1.4 million sq ft scheme.

The new offices will join the Ambulance Special Operations Centre (ASOC West) and DPD UK’s new 60,000 sq ft distribution centre on the site.”
http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/housing-association-dch-to-move-exeter-headquarters-to-skypark/story-29906748-detail/story.html

30,000 sq ft out of 1.4 million sq ft available!

The (quite small) ambulance centre opened in 2014 and the 60,000 sq ft DPS distribution centre opened in 2015. With DCH in (probably) 2017 this will be 3 tenants in 4 years.

No wonder EDDC mooted having their HQ there – and plans are now being changed to accommodate things such as a nursery and hotel … remember, Diviani promised us all 6,500 new jobs from this development.

And how will people from areas outlying Exeter area find their way to Skypark? At the moment one bus will take most people (tenants, potential tenants and employees) into the central offices in Exeter – getting to Skypark will entail another journey out, with consequent expense.

But selling off the offices in Exeter (for student housing? which already surrounds the bus station) will be very lucrative.

KPMG Section 106 report: high-level risks identified by external auditor

Verbatim from the report to be discussed by the Audit and Governance Committees

17 November 2016, 2.30 pm, Knowle

“The Council currently has no summarised monitoring document which shows the value of all s106 contributions outstanding at any one point, with the trigger which would lead the contribution to be payable and, if the contribution is liable to be paid, the current status of the collection process. In addition to this the Council does not currently have the information in a format which is consistent with s106 contribution triggers so it cannot determine if triggers have been met.

From our understanding there is no challenge or enforcement of the developers’ legal obligation to provide the Council with details of the number of dwellings constructed, sold and occupied, instead only information on completions is supplied. In addition this information should be received quarterly but our testing suggests that it is received on an ad hoc and untimely basis. This means that there is a risk that the Council has inaccurate information on which to track outstanding s106 contribution monies.

It has been found that at present there is a gap in the understanding of the financial and accounting implications of a contribution trigger being met within Planning, due to an oversight in communication between Finance and Planning over the treatment. When contributions become virtually certain to be received, but are not invoiced for practical or commercial reasons, they should be recognised as accrued income.

At current however, given this gap in understanding in the planning team, the Council’s Finance team only accounts for s106 contributions when the cash has been received or an invoice has been raised. This has led to the financial accounts having an incomplete accrued income balance on the Statement of Financial Position.”

Click to access item-12-management-of-s106-contributions-report.pdf

Clinton Devon Estates wants to make it easier to build in AONB

A landowner is using its drawn-out application to build 40 homes and a doctors’ surgery in Newton Poppleford as a case study to lobby for changes to planning rules.

Clinton Devon Estates (CDE) was awarded outline permission to develop a field south of King Alfred Way in 2012, but its detailed, reserved-matters, plans have failed to win over decision-makers.

It initially expected that construction would have finished by the end of February 2017, but now it is unlikely before 2019.

CDE is appealing the refusal – but is also calling for it to be made easier to develop in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), harsher sanctions for ‘poor’ decisions, and for the potential for legal challenges to be reduced.

East Devon District Council (EDDC) has told CDE that the 16 ‘affordable’ houses should be ‘pepper-potted’ throughout the King Alfred Way development, as this is a policy in its Local Plan.

The landowner, now in a joint venture with developers Cavanna Homes and Pencleave 2, has also faced opposition from residents, who voiced fears about flooding and that the doctors’ surgery would not be delivered.

A CDE spokesperson said the report is an early draft of a case study that was submitted in its final form to the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) in May. It was also copied – for information only – to EDDC and a Cabinet Office representative.

The spokesperson said: “It is interesting to note that since the paper was submitted to RICS six months ago, the planning application is no closer to determination. A series of legal arguments and appeals have stalled the progress and a hearing date has still not been set for the latest appeal.

“It is disappointing that, five years after a housing needs survey in Newton Poppleford identified the pressing need for 18 affordable new homes in the community, that they are no closer to being delivered.

“Even if the appeal is heard early in 2017 and the development is given the go-ahead, it is unlikely that the first homes and the surgery will be available before 2019.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/devon_landowner_lobbies_for_planning_rule_changes_1_4770875

Laura Freeman’s speech at the Exmouth seafront march – Skinner where are you?

““In April this year, just over 4,500 Exmouth people voted yes in a Town Poll. We voted yes for independent, public consultation. This means that we told East Devon District Council – and anyone else listening – that we want to have a say in what happens on our seafront.

“We came out in huge numbers, despite none of the usual help that comes with a general or council election. We came out despite the fact that polling stations were only open for a very, small space of time. Some of us even went out prior to voting, to stand around town – in all weathers – to tell people about the poll, as many people didn’t even know what was going on.

“And what’s happened since the poll in April? Nothing. Why are we being ignored? Ignored by the very people we elect. Well, that’s just not good enough. Today, we have sent a message to East Devon District Council. We have said “We will not be ignored. Our views are important.” East Devon District Council, you need to listen to us.

“We live here. We work here. Some of us will have grown up in this town like generations before, and others will have moved here for a better life or opportunity. When people feel they are being ignored, they shout louder. And that’s what we are doing here today. We are shouting louder!

“Now for those who don’t know, there is a group of people at East Devon District Council who are responsible for the development of this site on the seafront. They are the ‘Exmouth Regeneration Board’. The Chair of this board is Councillor Philip Skinner. We asked Councillor Skinner to come today, along with all East Devon District Councillors and all Exmouth Town Councillors.

“Now, we’ve asked Councillor Skinner to meet with the public before, but this has proven a very tricky task. Actually, we’ve been asking him for months. But he just cannot seem to find any time for meeting with the public. Though, we will still keep trying!

“Councillor Skinner, we hope that you – as someone who can influence something that affects our lives so much – will still come and meet with the people of Exmouth, to answer questions we have, and discuss our ideas and concerns. But with the demolition of assets, closing of businesses and loss of jobs, I’m sure everyone here today will all agree with me, that this meeting with Councillor Skinner must happen soon. There is urgency in this situation.

“So, thank you all for coming here today, standing side-by-side with other members of your community.

“We have shown East Devon District Council that we will take to the streets when they refuse to listen to us through official platforms.

“In a few weeks’ times, on Thursday, December 1, we are having an SES meeting at 7.30pm in the Harbour View Cafe. I really hope many of you will be there. I know that together we can create some great ideas to sort through this situation, and help to protect, as well as enhance, this town we call home.

“Oh, and before I finish, please show your support for the businesses still trading on the proposed development site, The Crazy Golf Course is open today, so go and have a play! And also pop along to the Harbour View Cafe for a nice hot cup of tea and cake! Thank you so much!”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/save_exmouth_seafront_speech_by_laura_freeman_1_4773423

Well done, Laura!

Exmouth seafront demonstration: video

Just in case EDDC or a local newspaper tries to give the impression of only a handful of protesters today, here is a video which disproves it.

https://www.facebook.com/Exmouthsplash/?ref=br_rs

and here:
http://m.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/save-exmouth-seafront-campaigners-stage-protest-march-over-redevelopment-plans/story-29889839-detail/story.html

Exmouth Save our Seafront rally

Campaigners in Exmouth staged a protest march calling for further consultation on controversial seafront redevelopment plans.

The Save Exmouth Seafront group organised the rally on Saturday morning.

It said the peaceful event was held “to express the public’s feelings that their Town Poll request for an independent consultation about the seafront is being ignored by East Devon District Council”. …

… Save Exmouth Seafront recently raised concerns about the escalating costs of the redevelopment, which the council argues will bring long term economic benefits.

Campaign spokeswoman Louise MacAllister said: “SES have been calling for over a year for an independent consultation on the future of the seafront, and have been previously told that it would be too costly.

“Now we hear that EDDC officers are asking cabinet to accept a more than doubling of projected costs for this contentious project from £1.5m, to over £3m. We call on the cabinet to represent the public as they were democratically elected to do so, and ensure that the assumptions and claims made in this report are scrutinised, and that this flawed project is considered in light of evidence rather than an officer’s report based on countless assumptions.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/save-exmouth-seafront-campaigners-stage-protest-march-over-redevelopment-plans/story-29889839-detail/story.html

EDDC 2015/2016 accounts still not signed off by external auditors

Report from external auditors KPMG (page 10 of agenda papers). The auditors original statement was that they hoped to have concluded the outstanding matter by the end of October 2016. This has obviously not been possible.

We received an objection to the Authority’s financial statements from a local elector. We are currently concluding the outcome of our work on the matters raised and, until this is completed, we are unable to issue our certificate. Once issued, the certificate will confirm that we have concluded the audit for 2015/16 in accordance with the requirements of the Local Audit & Accountability Act 2014 and the Code of Audit Practice.
We will report separately on the outcome of the objection to the Authority’s Audit & Governance Committee.”

The matter is now pushed on to the next Audit and Governance Committees on 5 January 2017. (page 42 of agenda):

Click to access 171116combined-a-and-gagenda.pdf

Diviani votes against Claire Wright DCC motion to re-examine Honiton hospital closure

Reblogged from the site of Claire Wright, indefatiguable independent councillor fighting non-stop on health service cuts.

NOTE: EDDC Tory Leader Paul Diviani sabotaged her effort to “stop the clock” on cuts to re-examine the effects of closing Honiton and Okehampton hospitals.

REPORT FROM CLAIRE WRIGHT, DCC HEALTH SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

“• CCG does not know how many more staff it needs

• No answer (yet) to public health stated assumption that care at home costs the same as care in big hospitals

My proposal at yesterday’s health and wellbeing scrutiny committee meeting to suspend the consultation which proposes to halve the remaining community hospital beds in Eastern Devon, fell by two votes.

There was a packed public gallery. Several members of the public, including Di Fuller, chair of Sidmouth’s patient and public involvement group and Cathy Gardner, EDDC Independent councillor for Sidmouth spoke powerfully, expressing deep concerns about the bed losses.

Di Fuller said the consultation should be rejected as “invalid.”

Cathy Gardner called on the committee to demand more funding from central government.

Councillors, Kevin Ball and James McInnes from Okehampton made strong representations on behalf of the town relating to the hospital being excluded from the consultation.

(I am part of a sub-committee of health scrutiny that meets tomorrow to scope an investigation into the funding formula for Devon’s health services, which many people, including me believe is unfair, despite the government’s claims that Devon receives more funding than its fair share).

Staff from the NEW Devon Clinical Commissioning Group presented to the committee. They were Rob Sainsbury, Jenny McNeill and GPs – Joe Andrews and Simon Kerr.

We were shown a video of patients happy with the hospital at home scheme which operates in Exmouth and Budleigh Salterton only, as evidence that care in people’s homes work.

This to me didn’t seem to be adequate evidence given that hospital at home is limited to Exmouth and Budleigh Salterton, is consultant led and mirrors the kind of care one might expect in a hospital. It is a good service but expensive to run.

This is not what is being proposed for the remainder of Eastern Devon.

The four presenters tried their best to sell us their new model of care. Some of us weren’t convinced.

Cllr Andy Boyd was critical of the plans and other members asked questions about housing and various NHS procedures.

I asked how many more staff they would need to operate their new system. We heard they needed more “therapy staff” and other disciplines, but not how many more of each. We were told that a staff analysis was currently being carried out.

I said I was surprised that this information was not known, halfway through the consultation, with an expected figure of savings at around £5-£6m. How can the CCG be confident that the new system will save money when basic information is not known, such as how many staff are required?

Under the previous agenda item I had turned to page three of the October 2015 public health acuity audit – a document used by the CCG to back up its case for shutting beds, where it states as an assumption: “Caring for a patient in an acute care setting is either more expensive than, or at least as expensive as, caring for a patient in alternative setting, including at home.”

I asked for a reaction to this statement. Angela Pedder, Success Regime chief, said she would get back to me about it.

It is surprising that in a document the CCG is using to back up its case, where they say caring for people at home will save money, it states that this care costs the same as acute care (such as the care provided at the RD&E for example).

I raised the issue of Devon County Council’s adult social care budget being £5m overspent and how this overspend will need to be brought back to zero by April 2017. This will surely have a potentially significant impact on any NHS care that is provided in people’s homes.

But Rob Sainsbury said that social care packages could be organised in a different way to support care in people’s homes.

I said that earlier NHS (incorrect) statements about a third of community hospital beds not being used has now morphed into third of bed space not being used. If this is the case surely it is due to previous community hospital bed cuts over the years!

And the other CCG claim relating to Eastern Devon having far more beds than other parts of the county is surely because they have been cut in other parts of the county!

According to a public health audit from last year, there are 94 per cent bed occupancy levels in Eastern Devon. They are far from being half empty.

Finally, I raised the issue of a government watchdog – the Independent Reconfiguration Panel – that examined the Torrington Hospital case for bed losses. It stated in its response that communities must feel they have a genuine opportunity to influence the outcome of a consultation.

I proposed that the consultation be suspended while the CCG included both Honiton and Okehampton in the options to retain beds.

The proposal was seconded by Brian Greenslade but unfortunately was lost 5-7.

Instead, chair, Richard Westlake asked for urgent talks between the CCG and Honiton and Okehampton communities.

In other news, two motions calling for more funding to Devon’s NHS and for the Success Regime to be paused, were agreed by the committee and will go before full council in December.

To view the webcast see – https://devoncc.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/244717

To comment on the consultation email: d-ccg.yourfuturecare@nhs.net
The deadline is 6 January.

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/proposal_to_suspend_plans_to_cut_71_east_devon_community_hospital_beds_fail

How many tiers can “Local” Government take before it collapses?

Owl has lost count of the number of tiers and organisations and partnerships currently interfering in so-called “local” government, see:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2016/11/03/unitary-councils-save-money-yet-a-few-years-ago-they-didnt/

Which leads to the question: just how many tiers of government do we NEED and how many can we AFFORD? And how many is too many?

For example, the savings by eliminating district councils, regional super-authorities and makeshift arrangements such as Greater Exeter would almost certainly be huge. You could still have flexible cooperative arrangements such as Strata, without having all the paraphernalia and bureaucracy.

Anyone campaigning for the County Council who includes on their platform local government reorganisation, with County and Parish Councils as the only tiers of local government might well be very popular. It would be possible to combine such a package with maximum localism/subsidiarity. For example, if the District Council was dissolved, all its responsibilities, where practicable, could be transferred to the lower tier councils for truly local management.

Removing two or three tiers of government would almost certainly produce enough savings to eliminate local NHS cuts and debts at a stroke. “Save the NHS by cutting local government bureaucracy” would be a heck of a slogan!

And the elimination of all that bureaucracy and repetitive form-filling and buck-passing could bring enormous efficiency savings and productivity.

In East Devon we would probably be immediately £15-20 million better off just with the cancellation of the new HQ at Honiton.

Whilst many staff would be transferred to town councils to continue to do the jobs that they presently perform, there would probably be a loss over time through natural wastage of perhaps 100 to 200 jobs, representing a cost saving of £3-5 million per annum. Plus reduced operational running costs of around £2 million.

This means a cash windfall of about £300-400 per household to everyone in the District, and average council tax bills would be about £130 lower.

But the big benefit would be in greater efficiency and local connectivity. A huge democratic boost.

Discuss!

A response to PegasusLife Knowle extra documents

“URGENT:

Please comment on latest changes to 16/0872/MFUL not later than this FRIDAY 11 November by emailing planningcentral@eastdevon.gov.uk or writing to the Central Team at EDDC Knowle, Sidmouth.

Please send a copy to Heloise at Town Council on planningclerk@sidmouth.gov.uk

Revised drainage and bat mitigation reports and changes to Building E are available on the EDDC website and can be viewed at Council Offices.

Amendments to the design and footprint of Building E and associated landscaping:

EDDC’s Chief Planning Officer’s concerns about the “bulk, scale and massing” * of Buildings D and E resulting from their forward projection as well as their impact on the listed summerhouse and his recommendation that “Building E be set back “ to the existing office footprint “to remove the harm to the setting of the listed building” have received only a token response from PegasusLife, with minor and mainly cosmetic changes that do little to address the issues.

Although Building E has been set back a few metres it will be on higher ground and the equivalent of at least 60 feet high, dwarfing the listed folly. Its impact will be at least as serious as was the previous proposal, especially as ground levels will be raised as well. The two buildings D & E will dominate the park and in no way “tastefully ornament” the listed building.

(The recent growth of vegetation near the folly is a direct result of neglect on the part of the Council. Until recently the listed building has enjoyed a spacious green setting and this should have been and should be maintained.)

Drainage:

The excessive number of apartments and the bulk and massing of the buildings, particularly those on the lawn terraces, together with the steep slope of the internal road leading to the car park and raised ground levels will exacerbate the flood/drainage problems referred to in the latest drainage report. Planting a few small trees will in no way compensate for the large ones chopped down.

It would be hard to find a more obvious example of overdevelopment and unsustainable development than this.

(* see letter from Tibbalds 4 August 2016)

Sidford employment land victim of “electioneering”

District council chiefs who voted to remove Sidford’s controversial 12-acre employment site from a strategic plan were in fact powerless to enforce the decision, a campaigner has been told.

Councillor Marianne Rixson last week questioned why – after the decision was made unanimously in March 2015 – officers were never instructed to submit a ‘flood of new evidence’ to put it into action. Despite the last-ditch vote to have it removed, a Government planning inspector later ruled the allocation must remain in East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) Local Plan.

The answer to Cllr Rixson’s question, given at last Wednesday’s full EDDC meeting, confirmed the instruction was never given to remove the allocation from the plan – because a public inquiry was already under way.

Members heard that officer advice would have been to allow the planning inspector, who led the inquiry, to ‘reach his own conclusions’.

Last week’s meeting heard: “Members’ resolution to remove the allocation from the plan was, and could only ever have been, a suggestion to the inspector as, following its submission for examination, the council no longer had the power to make changes to it.

“There was, therefore, no opportunity to submit evidence to support this change, however, even if there had been, the evidence produced up to that point had supported its allocation and it is likely that any future evidence would have reached the same conclusion.”

Cllr Rixson, a long-time campaigner against the allocation who was elected last May, said the Conservative-majority council only took the vote because it felt threatened by her and her East Devon Alliance colleagues.

She said: “The final comment [above] confirms our suspicions that EDDC never changed its mind about the Sidford site being in the Local Plan.

“Voting to ‘remove it’ was purely an electioneering stunt just before the district council elections in 2015.”

An application to develop the employment site into a 9.3-acre business park was refused in September, although EDDC bosses said they remain committed to its development.

Cllr Rixson added: “The recent refusal of the application to develop the site exposed significant planning policies that should have been considered when the Local Plan was being drawn up.

“The outstanding question is why they did not come to the fore when they could have made an impact on the Local Plan?”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/vote_to_remove_sidford_employment_site_electioneering_1_4761216