Sidford Fields industrial park: Councillor Hughes talks as if it is a shoo-in

… DCC highways boss, Councillor Stuart Hughes said: “Facilities for pedestrians at Sidford Cross are less than ideal and that is unlikely to be helped once further development takes place at the proposed business park.

“We will be able to assess the transport assessment of the business park planning application in detail once it has been submitted to see what the impact of the development will be on this junction.

“From the initial site meeting we’ve had, it appears that the only sensible solution would be for an all-red phase of lights, with some form of pedestrian crossing across the middle of the junction – but design work would be needed on all of the possible options, because it would clearly impact on how the junction operates.”

Allowing time for survey and design work to be carried out, the earliest any proposal could be considered would be at the council’s autumn meeting.

Cllr Hughes admitted the council has a limited budget but expressed hope developer contributions could be negotiated, or external funding sought.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/call_to_sign_petition_amid_review_into_sidford_s_lethal_junction_1_4471078

So, that’s that then – Sidford Fields sorted, even down to a possible developer contribution, and even before a planning application is in.

Leadership

John Redwood, the senior Tory MP and former leadership contender, delivered a warning shot to Cameron to tone down his campaigning.

He wrote on his blog:

“As he wishes to remain prime minister, he has to remember that the prime minister has to speak as best he can for the whole nation. As party leader he has to speak for the majority of his party.”

http://gu.com/p/4hpce

Now, reimagine this quote as EDDC:

“.. he [Diviani] has to remember that as Leader he has to speak as best he can for the whole of East Devon. As party leader he has to speak for the majority of his party.”

If only!

Cabinet Agenda – 5.30 p.m. Knowle, 6 April 2016 – a meaty mix of relocation and devolution WITH NO MEANINGFUL COSTINGS WHATSOEVER

144 pages

Minutes take up the first 31 pages

Relocation – pages 32-49
This update is to advise on progress of the relocation plans and seek Cabinet agreement to further key actions”.
Appendix 1 – Floor plans Honiton HQ and Exmouth Town Hall refurbishment
Appendix 2 – Pegasus Life plan for Knowle Site buildings footprint
Appendix 3 – Service Delivery and Office Relocation Survey results summary

RECOMENDATIONS
;
Knowle Site:
1. Note that Pegasus Life Ltd following public consultation exercises will be submitting its application for development of the Knowle site . The projected likely date of consideration of the application is July 2016
2.Note that Sidmouth Town Council has responded positively to the Deputy Chief Executive ‘s formal proposal to transfer the remaining Knowle Park to Town Council ownership together with a commuted sum and negotiations continue Honiton Heathpark
3. Note that preparations are underway by the design team to submit a planning application for new build Council offices at
Heathpark with a view to Planning Committee consideration in September 2016
4. Note that the new HQ design is moving from concept to detailed design of space allocations for desks, meeting spaces, storage, reception area, Chamber, member area, services and external works
5. Note that construction is planned to commence in November 2016 for a period of up to 12 months, followed by Client Fit Out
Works with occupation of the new HQ targeted for February 2018
6. Note that the Deputy Chief Executive has again met with businesses and staff at the East Devon Business Centre to discuss and advise on project progress Exmouth Town Hall
7. Note that the Deputy Chief Executive and design team have met with tenants of Exmouth Town Hall to discuss their needs,
concerns and expectations regarding the refurbishment of the building and its impact on their operations including any disruption or temporary displacement
8. Note that the Council has issued Section 25 notices to end the tenancies of Town Hall tenants to be followed by negotiation of
new tenancies
9. Note that refurbishment is planned to commence in Autumn 2016 and last between 8 – 10 months, followed by Client Fit Out
Works.

Other
10. That Cabinet approve the use of £47,040 of transformation funds for the additional scope required within the Electronic
Document Management System.
11. Note that the Council has appointed Interserve to provide the Pre Construction Advisory role through a two stage
competitive tender process based upon the CFSW Framework. As part of the second stage tender process, Interserve will be
asked to provide their firm fixed price tender for the Project Works later this Year. If in the event the received tender is not
acceptable a further tendering process will be carried out.
12. Note that there continues to be ongoing detailed engagement with staff and tenants regarding space allocation, twin site
facilities, team locations, internal design, fit out and operational requirements
13. Note that Members have received a presentation on new offices design and layout. Further presentations and discussion will be arranged as the project moves forward
14. Agree SMT’s decision to locate Housing Services in the main as well as availability of other front facing provision (Benefits,
Environmental Health, Planning) on the basis of the findings of the Service Delivery and Office Relocation Survey with
residents (attached at Appendix 3)
15. Note the successful recruitment of a Relocation Facilities Manager post to prepare and oversee the physical relocation of staff and resources”
FOLLOWED BY LOTS AND LOTS OF BUMPH ABOUT WHAT AN EXCELLENT IDEA RELOCATION IS – BUT WITH ALMOST NO NUMBERS …


Devolution – pages 50 – 92

Click to access 060416-combined-cabinet-agendasm.pdf

“To update members on progress of the Devolution Prospectus”
Appendix 1 – Governance Workshop Notes
Appendix 2 – Governance Workshop slides
Appendix 3 – Briefing key messages
Appendix 4 – HoSW Prospectus for Productivity presentation
Appendix 5 – HoSW Productivity Plan Workshop Meeting notes
FOLLOWED BY LOTS AND LOTS OF SLIDES ALL SHOWING WHAT A WONDERFUL THING DEVOLUTION IS – BUT WITH ALMOST NO NUMBERS …
AND ENDING WITH THIS WONDERFUL EXAMPLE OF ALMOST TOTALLY MEANINGLESS LEP JARGON:

“Conclusions and next steps
The key step was felt to be the development of a vision and criteria to drive the development of the productivity plan and the
work streams within the devolution prospectus. Building on the 6 golden opportunities exploring
a) what will move us forward rapidly
b) what will stop us moving backwards

Need this vision to be developed and agreed by our Leaders before we do too much more work within the theme areas.
Recognise that we need to keep the pace.

Twin track process:
The Productivity Plan being the longer term vision of transformation irrespective of what devolution deal we obtain. It will be an overarching plan that will drive ambition for the area.

Devolution – will work rapidly with government to agree a Heads of Terms similar to the East Anglia devolution
model and push for an early deal.

We could commission our universities to undertake some research to explore the options for transformational change in our area to inform the development.

Action:
The PMO will be asked to develop a Next Steps document for comment on the development of the vision, criteria, and the framework and resources required to deliver a shared plan.”

Rules – what rules?

From a story in today’s Daily Telegraph about David Cameron having hissy fits about Brexit Cabinet ministers:

Earlier this year the Prime Minister lifted “collective responsibility” rules for members of the Government, meaning that they are able to campaign on both sides of the EU argument.

https://t.co/1vq1Zbipxx

Isn’t it interesting that, when it is expedient, rules cannot only be bent but ignored.

How often have we heard, at EDDC, that something cannot be done (particularly public speaking) because it is “against the rules” or “against standing orders”. Yet one of the biggest rules (Cabinet collective responsibility) can simply be “suspended” at any time.

All roads lead to Hinkley C?

One of the great mysteries of the HotSW LEP’s devolution plans is the fact that massive development is planned for Exeter/East Devon, but they don’t want to see the A303 dualled between Honiton and Broadway/Ilminster.

We are proposing a huge increase in employment and population, but the LEP is campaigning to keep the road single carriageway. It really is most odd that Devon County Council and the LEP don’t want to see the road dualled, despite ambitions for enormous growth.

Test of new Local Plan: Clinton Devon Estates planning application for unallocated building on green field outside built-up boundary on AONB in Beer

And the original application mentions protected species on the la nd!

Owl commented on the original planning application from Clinton Devon Estates (CDE) for “up to 30” houses at Short Furlong in Beer, querying (amongst other things) why it needed 70 parking spaces. It was described in the planning documents as:

“Planning Application 14/2621/MOUT – Clinton Devon Estates – land at Short Furlong, Beer for development of “up to” 30 houses with “up to” 40% affordable homes. The current application seeks to get planning permission for access only.”

It can be accessed online at:
eastdevon.gov.uk/planning and searching on the planning application number.

CDE asked for an extension before a Development Management Committee meeting in December 2015 and in February 2016 asked for a further extension until April 2016. This has since been extended – again – to the end of May 2016. New documents have been added, particularly a report on drainage of the site:

The latest email is:

“Iestyn
Thanks for confirmation, I shall instruct the DV [District Valuer?] accordingly. Given the earliest committee date is 10th May and that were members to approve the application that there would inevitably be a further period of time involved in the negotiation of a s.106 agreement would it be sensible at this stage to agree a further Extension of Time for the determination of the application until say 31st May 2016 in the first instance?
Regards
Charlie McCullough
Senior Planning Officer”

As above, this suggestion by the Senior Planning Officer was taken up by Iestyn … it’s good to see our developers being helped by our planners. Letters between CDE and EDDC are very cheerful and informal – Charlie this and Amy that, Iestyn the other ….

It seems that attenuation tanks may be needed as there are properties downhill of the site that have to be accommodated with the run off situation (shades of Feniton here?) and this has required detailed information about run off and general drainage though, of course, the report is optimistic about solutions.

Also, it appears that, following advice from EDDC, it has been revised down to 18 homes so that it comes beneath the threshold for strategy 35 of the new Local Plan so that, by building only 18 houses (at this current time) they can be constructed outside the built-up area boundary, if there is need. Mention is made of “affordable houses” but, in the correspondence there is also mention of sorting out exactly what “affordable” will mean in terms of these houses at some later stage (24 February from Nigel Barratt, though for some reason the email starts off about Frogmore Road, Budleigh, rather than Beer, though it has the Beer planning application reference number).

As stated above, and confirmed by EDDC’s Landscape Architect’s consultee report, this is currently a green field site totally within the AONB and not allocated for housing (Consultee, March 2016 document 2215165 online).

She notes that some roads are not shown in plans, and asks why this is. She has concerns that visual relationships of the site are not adequately clear and that the visual “influence” of the site from other significant vantage points in Beer has been underestimated. She is worried about sustainable urban drainage and notes that many of the AONBs requirements are unfulfilled. She believes that EDDC’s own Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and D4 (Landscape requirements) have not been met nor D5 (Trees on site).

It is obvious from the drawings that there could be extensions to this site in coming years, should ways be found in future for such an extension.

Roll on the Development Management Committee meeting.

There appears to be little interest in the application from Beer residents on the EDDC planning application site, with, so far, not one letter of support or objection on file.

has been reactivated

Exmouth seafront tenant loses appeal but doesn’t give up

“SUPPORTERS of the regeneration of Exmouth [aka mostly EDDC and developers] seafront were celebrating a partial victory today.

The redevelopment of the town’s Queen’s Drive site has been given a major boost following a court ruling in relation to the Fun Park and Golf sites on the seafront.

The project is still in its early phases in and specific development will be the subject of public consultation preceding any planning applications.

The tenants of the Fun Park and Golf sites submitted an application for leave to appeal the original County Court decision made in January, which had awarded full possession of these two sites to the council.

The tenant has now applied for an oral application for an appeal hearing.

Councillor Andrew Moulding, deputy leader of East Devon District Council and chairman of Exmouth Regeneration Board, said: “This is an important step in the ongoing legal process in relation to the Queen’s Drive site and we are encouraged by the decision issued on 17 March.

” We are disappointed to hear that the tenant has requested an oral application hearing for an appeal as his actions are causing further delay to the delivery of new road and car park, a £4m Watersports centre and further seafront regeneration on the Queen’s Drive site.

” Our developer partners remain committed to this important seafront site for the benefit of the people of Exmouth.”

The council, which owns the Queen’s Drive area, is committed to redevelop the seafront site and during 2015 had already negotiated with some of the tenants to leave the site following the serving of formal notices.

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Lord-Justice-Appeal-refuses-permission-tenants/story-28970984-detail/story.html

Government guidance on disposal of local authority assets

Disposals

“Where land or property is identified as surplus, there are some important principles which will help ensure that land is disposed of effectively and efficiently. These include;

Every disposal having clear objectives from the outset.

These should establish the key objectives and targets for land disposal – for example, this could be to maximise housing capacity, receipt or employment floorspace, or to reduce costs through divestment.

Disposals rooted in local plans.

Land disposals should help deliver local planning objectives, addressing matters such as the requirement for a five year land supply, or the assessed need for housing and employment land.

Early and meaningful engagement with other public bodies and the market.

Early engagement with other public bodies will ensure that the views of all authorities with an interest can be taken into account, so that land is used as efficiently as possible. Early market engagement should inform the disposal strategy and brief, and ensure the opportunity is attractive to the market.

The appropriate level of investment determined prior to disposal.

To ensure the best possible return, in many cases it may be appropriate to invest in a site before disposal, for example by obtaining planning permission or providing infrastructure. The appropriate type and scale of investment will depend on the individual circumstances of the site, and understanding these early will ensure the best outcome for authorities.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/508307/160316_Land_disposal_guidance.pdf

Chardstock and Dunkeswell: Scrutiny Committee report throws up worrying matters

How sensible it was of Councillor Gardner to make her own recording of this meeting, as it appears the Council’s own audio equipment broke down for this section of the meeting.

What follows is Councillor Gardner’s report.

Scrutiny of late amendments to the Local Plan: what did we learn?
Written by Cathy Gardner on 22-Mar-2016. Posted in Cathy Gardner EDA web site:

“On Thursday 17 March 2016, EDDCs Scrutiny Committee finally examined what went on in March last year when, at the 11th hour, two changes to the draft Local Plan (LP) were voted through. Using clear criteria, Officers had compiled a list of ‘sustainable’ villages, which excluded Dunkeswell and Chardstock. However, at the final Development Management Committee (DMC) meeting for the LP, Dunkeswell was added to the list and at the extra-ordinary Council meeting to finalise the LP, Chardstock was added in. These actions were taken without any request for Officers to verify the evidence supporting the changes.

The decision to include Dunkeswell was made on the suggestion by the then-ward member that a school was going to be built. This was not the case. Arguments made in support of Chardstock by the Deputy Leader Andrew Moulding, on behalf of the ward member, the Leader of the Council Paul Diviani, were also erroneous.

It seems that Planning Officers did not think it was necessary (or even appropriate) to check the information stated by the then ward member for Dunkeswell, despite there being time to do this before the Council meeting. Even more interesting was the assertion by the Councils’ Legal Advisor that it is not the role of any officer (including the CEO Mark Williams) to “…withhold decision-making powers from Councillors” (1). This may be true but surely Officers must give clear advice to Councillors, especially if a proposed decision might be unsound. In this case the CEO did not provide clear advice (2) to full Council that they were being asked to vote on amendments which were both against Planning Officer advice and based on information that had not been verified. He did not suggest that Members might prefer to ask for the information to be confirmed before voting or that making a decision under these circumstances was inadvisable.

The urge to get the draft LP signed off seems to have overridden any caution that making last minute changes might be unsound. Fortunately, in these cases, the Inspector did not uphold the changes and neither village is now in the ‘sustainable’ list. Unfortunately there have been consequences for Chardstock and development was approved on the understanding that the village was to be classified as ‘sustainable’.

So, apparently, Members can make unfounded and unconfirmed assertions and if other Members accept what they are told, they can vote through changes to a document as vital as the LP, contrary to the result of proper process and Officer advice without any difficulty. In the end the Council is accountable for its decisions and they should be evidence-based, but the only recourse for communities affected by an error is a Judicial Review (JR). If someone can afford to bring a JR and wins, the result will be a cost to the Council – which is our money. There are no sanctions for any Members who may present incorrect information to bring such a result about.

Can this happen again?

Yes, almost certainly. In the short term the Villages Development Plan is being finalised. In the medium term the LP will be up for review. So there will always be opportunities for incorrect information to be used to sway the content of development plans.

So what can we do?

I suppose the only thing we can do is to be alert to events like this and make efforts to call them out as they happen; to request that Officers confirm what is being suggested and to ask for any vote to be deferred until this has happened. We have to insist that all decisions are based on sound evidence.

The lesson for Members has to be to not take anything at face value, no matter who says it. Put the interests of residents first, follow evidence-based advice and do not be swayed by persuasive speakers. And perhaps wonder about the motives behind such actions.

Personal audio recording of Scrutiny Committee meeting, March 17 2016 (Council system broke down during this part of the meeting), C Gardner
2. Audio recording of extra-ordinary Council Meeting, March 26 2015, EDDC website (2:42:44) http://eastdevon.gov.uk/recordings/council/eocouncil260315recording

Source: Scrutiny of late amendments to the Local Plan: what did we learn?
Written by Cathy Gardner on 22-Mar-2016. Posted in Cathy Gardner

Rural broadband: East Devon misses out on extra £8m by leaving consortium to go it alone

East Devon decided to pull out of CDS and go it alone with its own broadband deal, thereby missing out on this extra funding and meaning thousands of pounds in the pockets of “consultants” who will be employed by EDDC to duplicate the work of CDC.

“The broadband scheme for Devon and Somerset has received an £8 million windfall in last week’s budget.

Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne awarded Connecting Devon and Somerset (CDS), which is rolling out broadband in rural areas, an extra £4m in funding for so-called ultra-fast connections.

The remaining £4m is expected to come from match funding by the private sector.

This additional funding, which comes on top of a £10m pot announced in the Autumn Statement for the whole South West, is intended to deliver broadband speeds of a minimum of 100Mbps to at least 4,000 premises in phase two of the CDS programme, which will eventually see broadband rolled out across the final 10% of the two counties so far uncovered.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Osborne-hands-Devon-Somerset-8m-ultra-fast/story-28964282-detail/story.html

Jurassic Coast National Park: its time has come

An East Devon Watch post recently drew attention to an article in the Midweek Herald which broke the news that “pressure on local authority budgets is forcing a rethink on the management of the World Heritage Site and there could be a move towards greater community involvement.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/east_devon_residents_to_have_say_on_future_of_jurassic_coast_1_4460051

Owl suggested it was time to re-examine the idea of creating an East Devon and Dorset National Park based on the Jurassic Coast World Heritage coastline.

Recall that EDDC refused to consider the idea because it would have to relinquish planning control to a new authority. A difficult thing to do when it has so many developers to please.

The idea is still being pursued and here is the website with all the details:

https://dorsetandeastdevonnationalpark.wordpress.com/

They would no doubt be pleased to receive support.

Making beach huts more available, or maximizing assets? You can’t have it both ways

Report from Scrutiny Committee meeting:

EDDC’s Deputy Chief Executive, Richard Cohen was directly in the firing line at last night’s Scrutiny Committee held at Knowle. He was obliged to admit that Ward members had not been contacted at all, before the new prices for beach huts were announced in the Councillors’ news sheet, ‘The Knowledge’ (January 2016). It became clear that only a cursory consultation had been made, with town clerks, about possible transfer of ownership of beach huts to local councils … but councillors themselves were left in the dark.

Richard Cohen defended his actions, saying he was working under a Cabinet directive. But the behind closed doors decision to increase beach hut hire charges by over 90% by 2017 in Beer, Budleigh Salterton, Seaton and Sidmouth, has made Ward members livid.

Cllr Marianne Rixson (IEDA, Sidmouth-Sidford) found this level of price hike “staggering”. Her detailed research had shown that comparable wooden beach huts at Lyme Regis had a lifespan of 10 years, and a replacement cost estimated at £600 per hut.

So was EDDC intending to replace the 20 year old Sidmouth beach huts with new ones before handing them over to the Town Council?”, she asked.

Cllr Maddy Chapman (Con, Exmouth-Brixington) twice called the price hike “outrageous”, saying “I do find the way this council goes about things is all over the place” , and adding “I don’t understand why you are trying to make so much money out of people who can’t afford to go abroad.”

Cllr Cathy Gardner (IEDA, Sidmouth Town) said two things had got “mixed up” in Richard Cohen’s claim – that EDDC wanted to make beach huts more available, and to maximize assets. “The two things are at odds”, she told him. “Social benefit has gone out of the window. EDDC should “stop trying to sound as if they are doing people a favour”.

At the suggestion of Cllr Val Ranger (IEDA, Newton Poppleford & Harpford) Committee, there will now be a formal recommendation to Cabinet that a structured process should be introduced at EDDC, for Ward Members to be involved in decision–making from a very early stage.

But a strong warning came from Scrutiny Chair, Cllr Roger Giles (Ind, Ottery St Mary), that recommendations by Scrutiny were not always mentioned by officers in their report for Cabinet. The consequences were clear from a recent instance of a Cabinet meeting which he had attended. Despite there being no less than nine Scrutiny recommendations to be addressed, not one was referred to during the course of the meeting.

So last night’s Meeting also recommended that officers’ reports should in future highlight Scrutiny recommendations, for Cabinet consideration.

Isn’t it high time that Scrutiny was taken seriously?

Source http://eastdevonwatch.org 18/03/2016

Whitehall or Knowle?

For Whitehall substitute EDDC and for the Treasury, substitute its Cabinet and it seems that it may not just be in Whitehall that the Conservatives have a problem.

” … Whitehall (EDDC) is today more preoccupied with short-term news management than the minutiae of policies that may not feel like a political priority at the time. This is exacerbated by the destructive process of the now twice-yearly spending rounds, where the Treasury (Cabinet) makes demands on departments so the chancellor (Leader) can square the books for the latest set-piece budget or spending statement, and made worse by the high turnover of personnel in the Treasury (Cabinet officers) – in excess of 20% a year. This means that the brightest but most inexperienced brains are often dictating policy to departments who know all too well the disastrous effects of poor spending decisions but are powerless to resist the combined might of Nos 10 and 11, (the CEO and the Leader) with their armies of spads and policy advisers. In fact, “policy” becomes no more than the latest demand in the name of the prime minister or chancellor, (CEO or Leader) rather than the considered and consulted approach that departments are so often disempowered to follow through.

The lesson is the paradox of ministers’ (Cabinet members) experience: the more the Treasury (Cabinet) centralises “to get things done”, the less actually gets done, because the officials and structures capable of carrying out real and rational action in departments are frustrated or discouraged from making decisions. The one thing that is delegated is blame. Only after things start to go wrong are those ministers (Cabinrt members) and officials (officers) given responsibility and made accountable. Thus the Treasury (Cabinet) was blaming Iain (Independents or Sidmouth – take your pick!) for the failure of the personal independence payment policy (relocation, regeneration, beach huts – take your choice again!) that it imposed in the first place. It is time for Downing Street (Knowle) to change its ways.

(Bernard Jenkin is chairman of the public administration and constitutional affairs select committee)

http://gu.com/p/4hyec

Freedom of Information: another reason for IDS resignation – and implications for Knowle?

Very reminiscent of the Knowle fiasco. Is it time for an FoI on financial aspects of the move that have hitherto bern kept secret?

“Iain Duncan Smith has surprised political pundits and colleagues by unexpectedly announcing his resignation last night as Minister for Work and Pensions. He had been the focus of much anger against austerity measures during his time in office as he oversaw a number of severe cuts to benefits. According to Mr Duncan Smith, his resignation is in response to this week’s Budget as he said the government’s cuts to disability benefits were “not defensible” at the same time as tax-cuts for high earners.

However, a legal decision this week has come to light which may also have had some bearing on the Minister’s decision. The DWP has been ordered to release potentially damaging documents after a four year long legal battle to suppress them.

In 2012, Freedom of Information requests were submitted to the Department for a number of reports relating to the early stages of Universal Credit. The reports contain details of problems and concerns which DWP staff raised about the programme and the outcome of a high-level review of the scheme. The DWP refused to reveal the information.

Appeals were submitted to the Information Commission who decided that all but one of the requested reports should be published. The DWP contested this again and a lengthy legal battle ensued. This week, once more, another judge ruled that they must publish the information.

The DWP has said it is suppressing the reports because they were compiled on the assumption that the information would remain internally and that if they were to become public knowledge, it would have the “chilling effect” of staff no longer briefing the Department completely honestly as they would always be wary that the information would get out.

However, critics have argued that the Department is more likely to be concerned that information in the reports is damning or embarrassing for the DWP and by extension its Minister, Mr Duncan Smith.

In particular, the DWP has projected that the Universal Credit scheme would be extended to 12 million claimants by 2017. However, figures suggest that a mere 200,000 have joined the scheme, which would represent a gross failure to meet the target.

The Independent has contacted The Department for Work and Pensions for comment.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iain-duncan-smith-lost-court-battle-to-suppress-publication-of-potentially-embarrassing-dwp-memos-a6940881.html

Jurassic Coast: councils can’t make it pay so say public should take over!

People in East Devon are being asked for their views to influence the future of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site.

The spectacular coastline stretching across Exmouth, Sidmouth and Seaton is currently looked after and funded by a partnership of Devon County Council (DCC), Dorset County Council, and the Jurassic Coast Trust charity.

But pressure on local authority budgets is forcing a rethink on the management of the World Heritage Site and there could be a move towards greater community involvement.

[HONESTLY, is Owl reading this right? NOW we can’t afford it, you are asking the public to get involved!! All these years you excluded us and told us you knew what was best for us and now it hasn’t worked out and the chips are down it’s suddenly OUR problem?]

Before any final decisions are made, residents are being asked to comment on the options available.

DDC cabinet members for environment councillor Roger Croad said: “As a World Heritage Site, the Jurassic Coast is an important asset for East Devon, and Devon as a whole, so its future requires delicate consideration.

“We need communities to be part of this process which is why we’re asking for their views. I hope people take this opportunity to have their say and let us know how they’d like to see this beautiful stretch of coastline managed in future.”

The closing date for the consultation is April 28. Read more about the options and have your say by completing the online survey on: http://jurassiccoast.org/consultation.

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/east_devon_residents_to_have_say_on_future_of_jurassic_coast_1_4460051

Does anyone recall that when Dorset suggested that the World Heritage Coast should become a National Park, EDDC said, no, not on your life, we are keeping our bit to ourselves ‘cos we like doing the planning and stuff on it:

“... East Devon District Council has recommended councillors oppose the plans, saying they would result in a loss of planning powers and could restrict growth.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-22894089

Well, now maybe time to put that suggestion back on the table.

Budget: business rates plummet – but not for EDDC beach huts!

“The reduction in business rates will further reduce the ability of already cash-strapped local councils to pay for the social care that people with a learning disability desperately need,” said Jan Tregelles, the chief executive of the disability charity Mencap.

Announcing the plan, Mr Osborne said that business rates were “the fixed cost that weigh down on many small enterprises”.

“In total, half of all British properties will see their business rates fall or be abolished,” he pledged. “A typical corner shop in Barnstaple will pay no business rates. A typical hairdressers in Leeds will pay no business rates. A typical newsagents in Nuneaton will pay no business rates.”

The Independent

How odd then that EDDC is charging business rates on its much-raised beach hut charges! Can anyone shed light on this anomaly?

Councils could become spies – and redundant council offices could become community spaces (right!)

“Councils could place sensors in household rubbish bins which would alert GPs if pensioners fail to take their rubbish out for a fortnight, a Government backed report has found.

Within a decade every bin could have a sensor, the forecast suggests as it sets out how everything from reporting missed rubbish collections to ordering parking permits could be digitised to save money for cash-strapped local councils.

It predicts savings of £14.7 million if authorities make use of new technologies, automating backroom functions thus saving money through job cuts.

The vision for councils is set out by innovation charity Nesta in conjunction with the Public Service Transformation Network, established by the Coalition Government in 2013 and funded by Whitehall as a way to help public services provide value for money.

Town halls would “no longer directly provide most local services”, but would become “digital by default” and act as an online broker, with redundant offices and civic buildings instead becoming community spaces.

The rubbish bin proposal would protect frail elderly residents, the report suggests, because if a pensioner did not put their bins out for two weeks in a row, an alert would be triggered to the local GP surgery so a doctor could check they were healthy.

The fictional example is given of a septuagenarian retired bus driver, Martin, who in 2025 is “far from being a ‘digital native’”.

If Martin doesn’t put his rubbish out for two weeks in a row, this is automatically registered on the council’s system through the sensors in his bins,” it suggests.

“The integrated system knows Martin is in his 70s and has mobility issues so automatically generates a notification for his GP that Martin might need support. From this, a GP can make a quick phone call to check everything is okay.”

The report foresees “instant data sharing across services unless people explicitly opt out”, while noting that such advances would tread a “fine line” between efficiency and the public’s fears over privacy.

Technology could also enable social workers to step in sooner, with algorithms that could automatically alert authorities to children and others at risk of neglect or abuse, or families likely to become homeless.
Local authorities in Bath and North East Somerset already use sensors in public bins to capture data so that they are only collected when they are full.

Islington Council came under fire in 2008 for going through households’ rubbish without seeking permission to investigate whether people were recycling enough.

Campaigners have raised concerns about increased surveillance of residents by councils, especially of vulnerable elderrly people.

Daniel Nesbitt research director of Big Brother Watch said “With big data comes big responsibility, these proposals may sound great on paper but as more of our devices start to analyse information about us the opportunities for monitoring and profiling are clear to see.

“Any potential scheme involving the collection of data can lead to assumptions being made about individuals, these assumptions may not be correct.

“As more devices become connected and as more data is created, it’s vital that people are told exactly what using these devices will mean for them.
“It is critical that people understand what they are signing up to and how much they will be giving away before giving their consent, this is even more important when it involves the elderly or vulnerable.”

Modelling commissioned by Nesta from Social Finance suggested councils could save up to 13% of total spending by 2025 – £14.7 billion based on 2015/16 totals.

A Government spokesman said: “This is research was done in conjunction with the Public Service Transformation Network and gives examples on how councils can use technology to make efficiencies and deliver better services for local people.

“This is one of many examples of what a number of councils are doing across the country and is not central Government policy.”

Sensible use of technology can deliver cost savings, the spokesman said, adding: “We will continue to work with local government to help provide better digital services for local taxpayers.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/council-spending/12194023/Councils-could-snoop-on-elderly-residents-with-sensors-in-their-bins-to-see-if-they-put-out-the-rubbish.html

A bumper Overview Committee agenda: flooding, coastal management, boundary review and engagement with business

Agenda items include:

Devon Local Flood Risk Management Strategy – Delivery Update to East Devon District Council Overview Committee – March 2016

Coastal Protection

Boundary Committee Review (which includes an interesting survey, completed by EDDC councillors on what they do, how long they spend doing it and how satisfied they are with what they are doing). With one (anonymous, of course) councillor commenting:

The public get good value from EDDC compared to the BBC licence fee! ”

(Anyone else fancy opting out of council tax at this rather stupid remark?)

and another saying

The public prefer to lobby councillors than talk to officers”

(er, no, councillors, most of the time officers refuse to talk to us and YOU therefore are our only conduit to officers).

and an agenda item on “business engagement” which always brings Owl out in spots recalling the last business engagement scenario – the East Devon Business Forum!

Some interesting remarks in the report”

In helping to meet the identified need for business growth in East Devon, an even more pressing requirement emerged. It became apparent that the number of Devon businesses registered on the Hinkley Point C Supply Chain portal – a requirement of contracting to Europe’s biggest engineering project – were critically low compared to Somerset. ”

Er, not really surprising when you factor in geographical location and transport costs!

and

East Devon is a low wage and low productivity area with a high proportion of residents retired or in seasonal and part-time work. The West End of the district is experiencing new jobs growth as the Growth Point sites gradually start to build out, but elsewhere in the district the job situation is less certain. Business Parks such as Greendale and Hill Barton are nearing capacity and house prices make change of use from employment to residential an incentive for landowners and developers. This does not make for sustainable or balanced economic growth for much of the district.”

Click to access 220316-overview-agenda-combined.pdf

Exmouth seafront and beach huts: citizens meeting on 14 March at 7 pm

From Facebook:

… Hi Exmouth residents. You may have notices that Exmouth Town Council and EDDC are trying to destroy Exmouth Seafront by building a shopping an leisure complex on the actual seafront. Not only will it include another cinema, but apartments which locals will not be able to afford. On top of this they want to build a water sports complex in an area of the beach that has no swimming due to the strong current. It also means the loss of two blocks of Beach Huts on top of those of us who cannot afford the rise, so have had to give up our huts.

If you feel as strongly as I do about the complete incompetence of both councils on consultation over which many locals do not want, or will be able to be a part of there is a meeting at the

Telfer Building
at Exmouth Community College on
14th March at 7pm.
Please attend if you can to voice your concerns.

East Devon District Council, Exeter City Council and Teignbridge recognised as developers’ friend

The three councils make up the “Greater Exeter” consortium and, along with other chosen council Mid-Devon, ensures a speeded-up planning process in a continuous ring centred on Exeter.

Half a dozen councils across Devon and Cornwall have been chosen to pilot a new Government scheme designed to speed up the creation of new homes.

Housing ministers have selected the six local authorities to take part in the trial launch of their brownfield register initiative.

Under the policy, councils will draw up lists of derelict land and other underused sites which could be used for new developments.

Records will then be available to investors and construction companies to highlight prime redevelopment opportunities. …

… Cornwall, East Devon, Exeter, Mid Devon, Torbay and Teignbridge council have all had their bids to pilot the scheme accepted. They will join 70 other local planning authorities in trialing the scheme, and helping to shape the future implementation of the policy.

Registers will eventually become mandatory for all councils under proposals going through Parliament in the Housing and Planning Bill. Other measures in the Bill will enable “permission in principle” to be granted for registered sites, giving developers “a greater degree of certainty” and ultimately speeding up the planning process. …”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Devon-Cornwall-councils-chosen-pilot-new-housing/story-28901908-detail/story.html

The keywords are “under-used” and “prime redevelopment opportunities”- who decides? EDDC, helped by developers, of course!