“Hinkley Point deal out of date and too expensive, says energy chief “

The head of energy giant ScottishPower has waded into the row over Hinkley Point, insisting that the controversial subsidy deal for EDF’s proposed nuclear plant should be renegotiated because it is too expensive.

Keith Anderson, the firm’s chief corporate officer, said the deal, provisionally agreed by the Government in 2013 following lengthy negotiations, no longer made sense in the light of lower gas and offshore wind costs.

“It looks like a contract that was written five years ago on a business case that was probably pulled together 10 years ago. It looks out of line with what’s going on in the market now,” he said. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/03/hinkley-point-deal-out-of-date-and-too-expensive-says-energy-chi/

The article raises very serious concerns about the business sense of our Local Enterprise Partnership, which seems blind to the economic realities of the Hinkley C project.

We know, of course, that many members of our LEP have enormous direct and indirect investment in the project and presumably need it to continue to allow their own interests to thrive.

But is it in OUR interest to allow them to trouser likely profits from such an unbalanced deal?

They will say that they are doing this for our benefit, of course – more jobs, more houses, etc. But with Brexit we now look towards having fewer people coming to this country from the EU (though exceptions would doubtless be made for French and Chinese workers) and much higher import costs if we do not have free trade in the EU. Plus the business case for renewables is strengthening all the time, especially as battery storage research and implementation has made enormous progress.

Our LEP members know all this but only last week its CEO was telling us how hard he and his members are battling to keep the project going:

http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=4e59660292bd6b4a5c7d7b8a7&id=a36a037523&e=fa5cdb1f1

We have to ask: who are they battling for – and why?

The great scandal of LEPs now lies before us: small (very small) groups of business people who look to their own interests before those of the residents where they live. Often in secret and with minimal or no scrutiny. And who pursue their own interests even when they put them at odds with the majority of people in the areas they purportedly represent.

Our East Devon Business Forum seems to have been a practice run for our Local Enterprise partnership, and we all know how that ended – also coincidentally in the Daily Telegraph:

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

Resident raises concerns about possible business park ‘deal’


“This letter, copied with the author’s permission, was published in today’s Sidmouth Herald:

Dear Sir,

I was delighted to read, on page 4 of last week’s Herald, that residents have got a second opportunity to voice their concerns on the proposed business park between Sidbury and Sidford.

Then on page 10, I read that the County Council have withdrawn it’s proposal for a path between Sidbury and Sidford, because Ford’s have offered to pay for it, should they get permission for the business park.

The proposed path is now part of a section 106 agreement between the District Council (as the planning authority) and Fords. Such an agreement is described as a ‘ a DEAL to mitigate the impact of development’. I wonder if the use of the word ‘deal’ indicates what is really happening here- that the offer to fund the path is being used as a “bargaining chip”, to quote Stuart Hughes. As the business park has yet to receive the go ahead and another period of public consultation is in progress, I wonder how the council can justify their decision?

I have written to them to ask for an explanation and I suggest others do likewise. Meantime, may I urge readers with concerns about the proposed business park, to write or email the District Council. The reference number to quote in correspondence is: 16/0669/MOUT. The deadline for comments is 16 September and not 2 September, as is given in the EDDC website.”

Yours sincerely
Alison Kerruish,
Sidford

Resident raises concerns about possible business park ‘deal’

Franksy returns to Exmouth!

image

image

Pictures with the following statement:

“Franksy represents a group of Exmouth residents who are concerned about further unsustainable overdevelopment of the seafront and loss of public facilities subsidised by taxpayers money.

Franksy will be back to gently express the value of green open spaces and free access to what is left of the uninterrupted seafront along with a concern for longstanding and much loved local businesses who have already lost jobs and been closed down. Franksy welcomes appropriate conservation and development and has the heart of the people. Franksy will be back .

Franksy came back on the front of the once popular closed down railway cafe next to Jungle Fun on Exmouth sea front.

Franksy asks “Is this the road to nowhere ?” as local residents have voiced concern over the proposed change of route of the road to make way for the planned water sports centre.

This would be a massive seafront development the size of a supermarket on the seafront side of the road. It could be a centre for kite surfing but does not seem to offer any water play for residents- no Lido pool, play fountains or paddling pools- and is sited directly opposite the red flag dangerous water area.

Popular local businesses have been closed down to make way for this dream which may never happen. More are to go in the Fun Park area. The email above is just an associate of the Franksy group and not Franksy’s own email but a contact address for this anonymous group.”

Feniton village boundary: putting the record straight

From the blog of Feniton district councillor Susie Bond:

“Development in Feniton always excites comment, but I was especially disappointed to read an ill-informed, anonymous letter in the September issue of Feniton’s parish magazine.

It’s all too easy to set rumours running and temperatures rising, by which time of course the damage is done. However, this letter was so unhelpful, I thought it needed addressing paragraph by paragraph:

“I was surprised to receive details of the so called proposed changes in Feniton’s Built Up Boundary through an e-mail from a local estate agent.”

Why would an estate agent have any interest in Feniton’s Built Up Area Boundary (to give it its proper name)? Unless of course the correspondent meant a ‘planning agent’, i.e. developer, who of course would have a vested interest in moving the site in question to within the boundary.

“There is a large piece of land to the east of Ottery Road leading up to the station which has been the home to some dilapidated greenhouses for as long as I can remember having lived in the village for nearly fifteen years and as far as I know throughout this time, this land has been included in Feniton’s Built up Boundary.”

This paragraph is probably the only paragraph that is factually correct.

“Why suddenly do I hear of a proposal to take it outside the Built-up Boundary and who exactly proposed this. There is no point in pretending that further development will not occur in Feniton at some point to come, but I do object to this eleventh hour clandestine approach to remove a site that has always been earmarked for such further development without understanding who and what reasons are behind such a proposal.”

I posted a blog about this on 9 August (https://susiebond.wordpress.com/2016/08/09/planning-policy-strengthened-in-east-devon/), and of course EDDC’s proposed changes have been discussed extensively, including at the monthly public meeting of Feniton Parish Council on 11 July (minuted in the August issue of the parish magazine). There is nothing ‘clandestine’ about any of this, and the author seems not to understand what a Built Up Area Boundary (BUAB) actually is. It does not, for example, designate areas for development.

The proposed BUAB also draws a line tightly around the current Wainhomes estate, i.e. making it harder for Wainhomes to build the hundred or so more houses it wants to there.

“Essentially such a proposal, if successful will once again leave the rest of the village wondering nervously where further inevitable development will take place.”

Had the correspondent undertaken some elementary research, including on the Villages Development Plan Document (DPD) to which he refers, a lot of this scare mongering could have been avoided.

For example, the Villages DPD is an ancillary document underpinning the Local Plan. Planning policy in East Devon, outlined in the newly adopted Local Plan, is for development to be prioritised around Cranbrook, where there is easy access to employment within the thriving city of Exeter. Indeed, the draft East Devon Villages DPD makes clear just how unsuited Feniton is to mass development.

The decision to site the black line (proposed boundary) for Feniton as it is shown in the parish magazine and in my 9 August blog was taken by EDDC following extensive discussions by a team of planning policy officers and no-one else. Not landowners, not developers, not District Councillors, not Parish Councillors, not the residents of villages who may/may not own land they wish to propose for development. The planners undertook a full site assessment (the results of this exercise can be found through a link on my blog of 9 August).

The Built-Up Area Boundary is for consultation at this stage, but the black lines drawn on the map will only move if there is strong evidence that they should do so. I feel sure that the anonymous correspondent will put in a submission to EDDC voicing his views … although he should be aware that if he does this, he will lose his anonymity.

East Devon is not looking to increase development in Feniton for the time being. This position will undoubtedly change in the future, but the decision as to where development should take place will have to take into account Feniton’s emerging Neighbourhood Plan.

I would urge the anonymous correspondent to come along to Feniton Parish Council meetings where there are frank and open discussions. Using the parish magazine to needlessly raise inaccurate and misleading stories only fuels the fires of rumour and gossip.”

https://susiebond.wordpress.com/2016/09/01/confusion-in-feniton-over-villages-plan-consultation/

Council record- keeping – an EDDC example

A recent comment on the original article:

“This finding should come as no surprise to EDDC.

In a decision published in January 2004, the Ombudsman found against EDDC in regard to a number of complaints concerning planning matters in Exmouth at Camperdown Terrace. The Ombudsman noted that

‘material relating to the application was misleading and gave no indication that the council was being asked to approve a 6.8 metre high metal boat racking system at the end of their small gardens, nor that the racks would be used for the storage of large motor boats which are moved around the site by a gigantic fork lift truck.‘

Consultees were not provided with sufficient information to make informed comments.

The Council’s record keeping was very poor and there was a failure to give adequate consideration to the points raised by the consultees and others who commented on the application. The Ombudsman found maladminstration causing injustice and recommended that …..

(g) “undertake a review of the record keeping by planning officers and the delegated decision making arrangemnents to ensure that proper records are kept and delegated decisions are made on the basis of written reports, so that those affected may see how a particular decision has been reached.”

The most striking sentence for me is “Consultees were not provided with sufficient information to make informed comments”. Anyone knowing anything about the Exmouth Masterplan consultation, in regard to Elizabeth Hall v Premier Inn, will appreciate how EDDC said one thing meant something quite different, how wanting to see the EH site improved was taken as meaning approval for a Premier Inn. EH is but one of very many examples.

Also, anyone who is familiar with EDDC’s answers to FOIs will be all too familiar with EDDC’s failure to keep proper records of decision making.

The record of this Ombudsman’s finding is no longer available online but I have the 24 page report should anyone want it.”

Councils need to keep proper records of contractual decisions

East Devon District Council does like its private, non-note-taking meetings …

“A judge has issued a warning to contractual authorities that might be tempted to minimise the amount of paperwork they keep particularly where they fear that a high profile procurement exercise might be challenged. Helen Prandy reports.

In finding in EnergySolutions EU Limited v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority [2016] EWHC 1988 (TCC) that a contracting authority had made “conscious decisions” in relation to sparse record keeping a High Court judge noted that serious consideration appeared to have been given to restricting the keeping of contemporaneous records of evaluation because it was known that these would be disclosable in litigation.

The court took the view that if the evaluation process is performed in accordance with the obligations under the Regulations then they would present no danger to the Authority because they would constitute an ‘audit trail of the decision making’.

He also went on to find that a proposed destruction of notes relating to the evaluation was extremely worrying given the express obligations of transparency on public authorities under the Regulations.

In the absence of adequate contemporaneous documents a court is forced to rely on the recollection of witnesses. Documents may be embarrassing but the memory of witnesses is extremely unreliable and is just as likely to lead to an ‘embarrassing’ revelation. In this most recent case the witness most closely involved with the evaluation admitted on cross examination that he did not accept that inconsistency in evaluation of bids might amount to unequal treatment.

The judge found the almost complete absence of documents relating to a critical dialogue phase of the procurement and a reliance solely on the memory of witnesses to “verge on the incredible”.

The case arose under the 2006 Regulations and there is a requirement now under Regulation 84(8) of the 2015 Regulations to keep “sufficient documentation to justify decisions taken in all stages of the procurement procedure…” and to do so for a period of at least 3 years from the date of the award.

This case is not the first where a deliberate failure to keep documents has created problems for a contracting authority. However tempting it might be it is always far better to have a clear audit trail of reasons for evaluation decisions at every stage, including moderation, and for that audit trail to be in writing.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28164%3Aexplain-yourself&catid=53&Itemid=21

(Re)location, (Re)location, (Re)location

Dorset has announced a decision to work towards mergers of its councils:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-37196316

It does rather beg the question: what is to happen to West Dorset Council’s brand new HQ, built at a cost of more than £10 million?

It was always going to be a risky venture, when mergers and reorganisation were even at the time of the planned move being spoken of as a possibility.

To be fair to WDDC, their existing premises were very poor, very old and haphazardly arranged on three sites. They expected to sell the sites for £2.5 million, but in the end only achieved £1 million.

We do hope that our district council – in its desire to move to a spanking new set of offices in Honiton – has taken note of Dorset’s (un)intended consequences.

If such talks are abroad in Devon (which is already pretty much merging with Somerset if our Local Enterprise Partnership has its way) then it surely would be a dereliction of duty or even a misfeasance in office to consider such a move when it could be almost immediately redundant.

But, as in all important decisions in East Devon, we the residents will be the last to know what is being decided behind those closed doors in our names.

Further consultation on new documents submitted by Sidford Business Park developer

New documents to “provide further reassurance”. Er, further implies there was reassurance in the first place! More than a touch of spin speak PR there!

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/new_consultation_on_sidford_business_park_plans_1_4673518

Consultation extended to 16 September 2016.

Owl wonders who told Ford’s “further reassurance” would be a good move …

Such a fraught and confusing road so far …

Folkestone and Margate: a warning for East Devon’s seaside “regeneration” plans

” … The renovated pier is the first phase of a £337m redevelopment of the harbour, which will see 1,000 homes, restaurants, shops, sports centres and gardens built on the seafront over the next two decades. But experts on seaside regeneration warn that the project by local philanthropist and former Saga group tycoon Roger De Haan’s Folkestone Harbour Company risks a polarising gentrification of one of the town’s most deprived areas, with only 8% of the new homes classed as affordable.

James Kennell, a regeneration expert at Greenwich University, said: “It’s not a development for local people. All the primary benefits are for people moving in or for visitors.”

Over the past decade, De Haan’s Creative Foundation has transformed the town into an arts hub with a triennial art show, a new music and performance venue, a book festival and a public art collection featuring works by Tracey Emin, Mark Wallinger and Cornelia Parker.

Jonathan Ward, a sociology researcher at Leeds University, who recently published a report questioning the benefits of cultural regeneration in Folkestone and Margate, contends that the harbour development casts De Haan’s support for the arts in a different light. He said: “[It’s] a bit of cultural branding used to conceal what is basically a speculative property development aimed at elite consumers.”

Paul Sharp, senior branch manager at Ward & Partners estate agents in Folkestone, says there is a growing influx of wealthy out-of-town buyers, particularly from London, accounting for up to 40% of sales in the last 14 months. He expects the harbour development to bring local house prices more in line with Hythe, its more affluent neighbour, within five years. “We’re already seeing that with different people in the town,” he said. “Not so long ago I could walk down the street and bump into quite a few people I knew. That isn’t the case now.”

David Crump, director of the harbour development, said the homes on offer would range from “entry level apartments through to luxury detached beach houses”. He added that only 8% would be affordable housing due to the costs of converting the existing harbour, claiming the development was “utterly unattractive to a commercial developer”.

James Kennell said: “I’m quite positive about the harbour as a short-term intervention because of the jobs it will create in construction for local people. [But] 8% [affordable housing] is a clear statement of intent to gentrify an area of the town that has always been the most deprived. That brings it in line with controversial London housing developments such as those around the 02 or at the new Battersea power station site.”

He added that Folkestone was lucky to have a Victorian-style benefactor like De Haan but, despite the vast sums spent on cultural regeneration, the Office for National Statistics still rated the town as deprived. “It’s great to have a futuristic vision of the town being an entrepreneurial/creative hub with fantastic links to London but it’s all very outward-looking. Folkestone and Shepway have deeply entrenched social problems and the regeneration that takes place over the next 20 years has to bring those people in, otherwise what you’ll end up with is a very polarised town.”

Jonathan Ward said many low-earning artists who had been instrumental in the town’s cultural renaissance had been marginalised by the focus on attracting new consumers and investors.

Local artist Matt Rowe said: “Folkestone was on its knees before Roger’s money came in. The Creative Foundation does work. It’s now that there’s more demand that it is slightly different. The harbour arm and the housing development are going to bring in a much more mass culture audience. The people who come down are happy to spend £8 on a burger but they’re not happy to spend £20 on a print.” …

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/aug/27/folkestone-gentrification-row-saga-tycoon-harbour-development

EDDC cannot be sure what assets it owns and whether it is maintaining assets they no longer own

Some input from the Scrutiny Committee here, thinks Owl!

The following paragraphs detail all findings that warrant the attention of management.
The findings are all grouped under the objective and risk that they relate.
1.
Risk:
The Authority is not aware of all assets/land owned.” …

…The Principal Estates Surveyor believes EDDC could be maintaining assets that is no longer owned by EDDC because of a lack of interface between different systems. We understand that the Strategic Lead – Housing is currently looking at reducing the amount of cost/time spent maintaining land that is Devon County Council’s jurisdiction. …

… there is no senior officer with overall responsibility for managing the asset management system including the required changes needed to improve usage of the system. There is a risk that limited actions are undertaken to imp
rove the usage of the Uniform system as a result of lack of responsibility and ownership at a senior level. …

… 2.
Risk:
Land or assets owned by the Authority cause injury or harm to a member of staff or member of the public due to insufficient inspection, record management and actioning of work.

Click to access 010916amfcombinedagenda.pdf

What locals like least about the Sid Valley

“… In total, 88 people said the thing they liked least about the town was transport, which included parking, cars, traffic and speeding.

The second most-disliked response was East Devon District Council, said some 45 residents. This included topics such as planning, the Local Plan and Knowle.

Housing and inflated prices due to wealthy retirees, along with elderly residents and too much emphasis on their needs, were next on the list with 25 votes each.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/questionnaire_results_reveal_your_likes_and_gripes_about_sid_valley_1_4669051

London Mayor releases land for affordable housing

Imagine what a difference EDDC could have made if it released land at Knowle or Honiton – or even the grossly under-tenanted Skypark Business Park …
for affordable housing NOT but-to-rent landlords creaming off housing benefit payments.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2016/aug/23/london-housing-tfl-land-set-for-affordable-homes-as-sadiq-khan-picks-expert-team

New broom CEO for South Somerset District Council

In July 2015, South Somerset District Council suddenly terminated an arrangement whereby they and East Devon District Council shared a CEO Mark Williams. This severance cost SSDC upwards of £100,000. No reason was given at the time but SSDC decided temporarily to have a management team without an overall CEO. Mark Williams, whose salary and hours had been shared 50/50 with SSDC returned to EDDC full-time (though we seem to have been managing quite well with his half-time the job split).

At the time the two councils seemed keen on sharing even more posts but the CEO post was the only one that ever emerged.

Fast forward a year and South Somerset now has a new CEO – Alex Parmley:

Alex is currently a Corporate Director at Eastleigh Borough Council where he leads a major business transformation programme, as well as the building of the new Fleming Park regional leisure centre, regeneration and regional schemes to support business growth and jobs through innovation and the green economy. Prior to working at Eastleigh, Alex was a Director and General Manager at Weymouth and Portland Borough Council and also worked at Parramatta City Council, Australia, leading the implementation of their City Strategy.”

http://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/latest-news/august-2016/alex-parmley-formally-confirmed-as-south-somerset-district-council%E2%80%99s-new-chief-executive/

For background on the old and new appointments see:

Click to access 8%20Recruitment%20of%20New%20CEO%20Report.pdf

Some things about this train of events will forever remain a mystery it seems.

EDDC: some assets not sweating?

Why didn’t EDDC get planning permission for the Knowle site BEFORE they offered it to PegasusLife? They might have got up to twice as much for the site?

Independent councillor saves the day (again) in Sidmouth

The way of the EDDC world – don’t choose the best long-term option – choose the cheapest short-term option – except when it comes to their own offices,

District chiefs have backed down in the face of united opposition from Sidmouth representatives on a project to shore up the seafront.

East Devon District Council (EDDC) looked set to choose the least expensive scheme, Option 1, but beach management plan (BMP) steering group members said this was putting economics ahead of finding a solution that could protect the town for 100 years.

The authority has agreed to look again to see if £11million can be secured for the ‘technically preferred’ Option 4B, to install breakwaters along the seafront. Option 1, to install one or two groynes at East Beach, would need £2.3million in partnership funding.

EDDC will also sound out key stakeholders on whether they would give their blessing to works that will dramatically change the seafront.

Speaking after Wednesday’s steering group meeting, district councillor Cathy Gardner said: “There was so much opposition in the room to EDDC’s attempts to railroad through Option 1. The BMP is about finding a solution to protect the seafront for the next 100 years, but it’s become about making it affordable. There are so many unknowns. If we find out in a couple of years [the chosen scheme] doesn’t work, we haven’t really achieved anything.”

A report to steering group members from EDDC’s consultants, CH2M, said Option 4B would be the most effective – but it had the ‘worst economic case’, so recommended Option 1.

An EDDC spokeswoman said the authority has done some initial work to look at external funding sources, but securing £11million for Option 4B is ‘unlikely’. To provide ‘further confidence’ in the level of availability, EDDC has formed a sub-group to look specifically at funding over the next six months – while the BMP progresses.

Unless partnership funding can be secured, an Environment Agency (EA) grant of between £5million and £6.75million towards the chosen BMP scheme will not be made available.

Sidmouth Town Council chairman Jeff Turner said: “We’re getting the message that the scheme everybody favours and seems would be most effective is extremely expensive. Funding Option 4B would need such a huge council tax increase across East Devon there would need to be a referendum. The chances of the rest of East Devon supporting that are pretty remote.

“We still back 4B – we haven’t given up on it yet.”

Steering group chairman Cllr Andrew Moulding said: “It is vital that we maintain momentum with this crucial project.

“We are delighted that the local community has committed to working with EDDC and the EA to look at funding, which is crucial to ensure the ongoing protection of Sidmouth.”

He said the BMP is due to be completed this autumn and EDDC is having ongoing discussions with various statutory bodies to ensure the chosen scheme ultimately gains the relevant permissions.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/eddc_to_look_again_at_funding_for_11million_sidmouth_seafront_option_1_4662917

Well, they could always cancel their plans for their plush offices which will coincidentally cost about £11 million!

And perhaps a joined-up plan for the whole coastline might be a good idea in case there are unintended consequences to other coastal communities?

Whose Standards?

WHO MONITORS THE MONITORS?

If you are a parish, town or district councillor who gets on the wrong side of East Devon District Council’s Monitoring Officer and the controversial “Standards Board” who will be the “independent” person appointed to investigate, report and recommend a verdict and sanction?

Step forward Mr Tim Darsley, for whom these little dramas have been a welcome source of income since he took a six figure redundancy payment from West Wiltshire Council in 2009. Mr Darsley is the go-to person for EDDC and has been paid consultancy fees for a good number of cases over the years.

So, who is Mr Darsley and what makes him uniquely qualified for this job?

Darsley’s title in West Wiltshire was Corporate Director Planning Services and Monitoring Officer. An interesting combination of responsibilities, one our EDDC officers and senior councillors EDDC might well relish.

Here is background:

THE creation of a single Wiltshire council next month will cost the taxpayer £5.5 million in redundancy packages.

Altogether 29 redundancies will be made when the four district and one county councils merge into a single unitary council on April 1.

The five employees being made redundant from West Wiltshire District Council will share a £950,000 redundancy payout.

Last July the implementation executive, which included councillors representing all five councils, agreed to introduce a redundancy package for staff.

It was decided that any council worker losing their job as a result of the merger would receive four times the redundancy package owed to them. A budget of £7 million was agreed. The amount offered is decided using a formula, which includes length of service, age, salary and years left to retirement.

The five being made redundant from West Wiltshire are Ian Gallin, acting chief executive; Ian Jamieson, finance director; Sharon Larkin, human resources director; Nicola Mathieson, head of legal services and Tim Darsley, corporate director planning and monitoring officer. …

… West Wiltshire leader Cllr Graham Payne said: “It’s difficult to see how the county council can claim that they are saving money for the taxpayer when the redundancy costs throughout the county are £5.5 million.”

http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/news/headlines/4219278.__5_5m_payout_as_jobs_go_at_councils/

Evidence from a Freedom of Information request in 2013 showed that, over a 2 year period Mr Darsley’s services were used no less than 14 times with one investigation costing just over £1,400:

1. Please can you tell the total cost of the EDDC investigation into the complaint made against Cllr Eileen Wragg brought by Richard Cohen, Deputy Chief Executive, which was heard by the Standards Committee
The total cost paid to the Investigating Officer was £1405.86 (including VAT)
Undertaking investigation and preparing report into complaint: £900
Attendance by Investigating Officer at hearing – preparation and attendance: £420
Travel (@45p per mile): £85.86
These costs do not include officer time.

2. How many times has Tim Darsley been used by EDDC to conduct independent investigations into complaints made against councillors?
14 (2011 – 2013)

3. Have any other independent investigators been used by EDDC in the last two years to conduct independent investigations into Councillors?
No”

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

In police forces officers are frequently moved to avoid institutionalisation and the danger of becoming too identified with one team.

Might it be time for EDDC to employ some fresh monitoring eyes and ears?

“Franksy” artwork update

The reason given by the council for removal of the art work was “it didn’t seem particularly contentious ” but E.D.D.C. were “trying to create a positive vibe in the town.”

As the site was re-visited this morning in order to remove any staples left sticking out by the hasty removal, these photographs were taken of a ripped circus poster to the back of the building, there clearly dated July 13 to 17:

image

and various little piles of screws left around the base of the building:

image

The art work was much admired and had a Great Vibe. The torn poster and abandoned debris and weeds less so.

It seems that if it does not emanate from the Thelma Hulbert Gallery (heavily subsidised by EDDC) it isn’t art!

image

This shows Councillors Diviani, Chubb and O’Leary perhaps indicating their idea of portraiture.

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/gallery_launches_competition_to_celebrate_new_signs_1_4167515

Exmouth’s (fleeting) answer to Banksy … not EDDC’s cup of tea

DJs café was temporarily wrapped with some ‘art’ work yesterday. ‘Franksy’, the artists, left a message and a mobile number clearly displayed in 3 places so that contact could be made for removal and stated that responsible residents would do that. Nothing was dangerous and no criminal damage was incurred. It may have been seen as slightly contentious. Political art can be!

This morning residents saw it had been removed. Stolen? The staples had been left sticking out dangerously. At least 2 hours later, the work was tracked down to a council’s rubbish depot in Camperduin. It’s removal had been ordered by ‘the powers that be.’

Nobody had contacted Franksy on the given mobile number.

Advice is being sought on what should now be done.

The “Exmouth Coastal Community Team”

This ISN’T the Regeneration Board but seems to have as its remit everything that ISN’T Queens Drive. Both are chaired by Councillor Skinner. It seems to duplicate items discussed by the Exmouth Regeneration Board but with a different group of councillors and officers.

At its last meeting

Click to access agenda-22-07-2016.pdf

this “Team” discussed:

Update on Coastal Communities Initiative – Coastal Communities Funding

Visitor Survey

Future Meetings – Next meeting – Friday, September 9th at 11.45, Exmouth Town Hall

The tourism season is already half over – does anyone know if there has been a “Visitor Survey”?

Also, no minutes have been produced for the last two meetings, only notes, with this note from a previous meeting in May 2016:

LB [Lisa Bowman, Exmouth Town Council] outlined discussions with Clinton Devon Estates regarding joint marketing of investment opportunities in Exmouth.

Click to access exmouth-coastal-community-team-notes-from-19-05-2016-approved.pdf

Can anyone on the council enlighten us about this one?