Look at pages 7, 8, 11 and 14 for example …
Click to access transformation-strategy.pdf
Privatise, reduce democratic input to committees, boot out small businesses from the Honiton Business Centre but keep our own nests nice and cosy.
Category Archives: EDDC
The privatisation of public spaces – a fast-growing threat
” … Our parks are in the midst of a funding crisis which will almost certainly see the commercial world take another step inside our public space. Despite the widely recognised benefits that parks provide – in terms of health and wellbeing, social cohesion and biodiversity, as well as protection against flooding and defence against pollution – there is no national body to protect them and no statutory requirement for councils to pay for them.
Local authorities have subsequently announced huge cuts to park budgets – 50% in Liverpool, and more than 60% in Newcastle. Others seek alternative sources of funding that threaten the integrity of public space, like Go Ape or Winter Wonderland. These range from the mildly irritating – the Chinook helicopter that hovered over my nearest park filming James Bond for several hours in the middle of the night last summer – to the potentially devastating, such as in Bexley, where the council is selling off at least four of its open spaces.
More will follow. Our parks are in the midst of a funding crisis which will almost certainly see the commercial world take another step inside our public space. Despite the widely recognised benefits that parks provide – in terms of health and wellbeing, social cohesion and biodiversity, as well as protection against flooding and defence against pollution – there is no national body to protect them and no statutory requirement for councils to pay for them.
Local authorities have subsequently announced huge cuts to park budgets – 50% in Liverpool, and more than 60% in Newcastle. Others seek alternative sources of funding that threaten the integrity of public space, like Go Ape or Winter Wonderland. These range from the mildly irritating – the Chinook helicopter that hovered over my nearest park filming James Bond for several hours in the middle of the night last summer – to the potentially devastating, such as in Bexley, where the council is selling off at least four of its open spaces. …”
Sidmouth beach erosion: support – but no money
Everyone SEES the problem
Everyone KNOWS the solution
NOBODY has the money
And all Swire can say: nice to see a bit of progress since 2001 but don’t look at me – pay for it by flogging off Port Royal!
“After the recent wild weather, Councillor Stuart Hughes fears that the Ham’s sewage pumping station could be ‘overwhelmed’ and said it needs protecting – and now, writes Stephen Sumner.
East Devon’s MP Hugo Swire also says any necessary work will have his ‘full support’.
However, East Devon District Council (EDDC), which is leading a long-term plan to protect the beach, told the Herald that there is no government funding available for immediate intervention.
“If the sewage pumping station was affected, Sidmouth would close down,” said Cllr Hughes. “Where would all the sewage go? How can you have a holiday resort without a sewage system? We need to do something before it’s too late.”
South West Water (SWW) has played down any concerns.
EDDC is drawing up a beach management plan (BMP) for the town and a draft of it is expected in the autumn. However, the implementation of any protection scheme could take years.
Mr Swire said: “This is a prime example of why it is absolutely vital that we deal with the problem of cliff erosion at Pennington Point and improve Sidmouth’s flood defences. This has been an ongoing issue since I was first elected as MP in 2001, and I am pleased that progress is finally being made with the publication of the BMP. However, it is likely that the BMP will not be implemented for another five years, so interim measures might be needed. Any necessary measure will, of course, have my full support. Generally speaking, I believe that any solution which addresses the problem of cliff erosion and the Alma Bridge needs to be part of a wider redevelopment that includes Port Royal and the Ham.”
Sewage is pumped from The Ham up to the treatment works at Sidford and final effluent is discharged out to sea.
A spokeswoman for SWW said the ‘substantial reinforced concrete’ pumping station is not considered to be at ‘significant or immediate risk’ of structural damage by the sea. It has an overflow it can operate in the event of it becoming overwhelmed by surface water.
An EDDC spokeswoman said there is currently no government funding available for interim measures to protect the seafront while the BMP is being drafted and funding would need to be found elsewhere. She added that a repair project to stabilise the training wall and retaining wall at Port Royal is under way.
“The timeframe for work to start on the main scheme depends on the preferred option coming out of the BMP, but we are looking to complete the funding application to the Government as soon as practicable,” said the spokeswoman.
Among potential protection works being considered in the BMP are options to remove rock groynes from the main beach and raise the height of the sea wall. Other possibilities are the construction of new groynes off the east beach, a replacement promenade at Jacob’s Ladder and a continuation of shingle recycling.”
In 2014 our enterprise partnership had an income of £250,000 so how come it can now run Devon and Somerset?
Here is an interview the LEP CEO, Chris Garcia, gave in February 2014:
“We have core funding but we are not a Regional Development Agency. I get £250,000 as core funding per annum and there’s some money to pay for contractors so you can see that’s not a lot of money.”
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Q-HotSW-LEP-chief-executive-Chris-Garcia/story-20658175-detail/story.html
Was this including salaries of Board Members and staff – we don’t know because they don’t publish accounts.
He then went in to say, in the same article:
… Partnership is fundamental to us. My view is that the LEP is there to facilitate and build those partnerships that will make a difference.
Q) That sounds like a public sector approach when the LEP is meant to be private sector-led. What’s your response to that?
A) Investment comes from two sources –the private sector and public sector. Our role is to maximise both so we can’t just say we’re only private sector. We have to recognise that the £200 billion that is out there is money controlled by the public sector and distributed by the public sector. If I’m to maximise the amount of money that comes into the South West, I have to satisfy the National Audit Office and government departments. We have to recognise that’s fundamental – but at the same time we need the flexibility to work however we wish. …”
However they wish – hmmm.
For anyone wanting to understand the history of LEPs (originally having taken over Regional Development Agency assets and tied in only with Enterprise Zones) this is useful reading:
How our LEP (secretive, unaccountable, non-transparent, politically-appointed business people whose only driver is “growth”) suddenly morphed into a group capable of taking control of millions and millions of pounds of our assets, potential grants and direct income from all of us in Devon and Somerset – as well taking responsibility for “health and well-being” AND directing where Housing IN ADDITION to that in neighbourhood and Local Plans should go, is not covered in that document and remains a mystery.
Whose idea WAS it to give this small group such a lot of power?
Rural broadband – another omnishambles – our public (non EDDC) champion addresses Parliament
A cracking good appearance before Parliament by our own rural broadband champion on broadband – or lack of it. No, definitely not Councillor Phil Twiss who has seemed woefully out of his depth on the current and future situation – but real expert Graham Long.
If the audio or transcript are too long for you, simply open the transcript and look at Mr Long’s replies to MPs – highly enlightening:
The Video record of the hearing is online at:
http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/677e94ae-4479-451e-b139-ee2af3dc2a2e
And a transcript of the hearing is at:
EDDC would rather we did not bother them with Freedom of Information requests
“The Herald reported in July how authority bosses were considering hiring an extra member of staff – at a cost of up to £33,000-a-year – to help process the hundreds of applications the council receives.
This has since gone ahead, but EDDC says it still ‘expends a large amount of resource’ on handling FoI requests – including time spent by senior officers, their staff and the council’s legal team.
The FoI Act allows anyone to request information which is not already publicly available.
At present, people can lodge a request with a local authority or public body, so long as finding the information does not cost more than £450. Last year, Sidmouth resident Jeremy Woodward successfully used FoI requests to force EDDC to release confidential documents about its relocation from Knowle.
EDDC dealt with 486 requests in 2014/15 – down from 563 the year before.
But at a meeting in December, EDDC leader Councillor Paul Diviani told members that the council still spends ‘an awful lot of taxpayers’ money dealing with FoI requests’.
The Herald asked EDDC exactly how much is spent, but a spokeswoman said it does not usually quantify officer time spent dealing with FoIs as part of their day-to-day work.
The spokeswoman added: “We employ one permanent (part time) member of staff to deal with FoIs and complaints and have more recently taken on another post (fixed-term for one year) to assist in dealing with the volume of work in this particular department.
“Approximately, over half of their time is spent on FoI requests as opposed to complaint handling. Of course, it is not just the time of the officers directly responsible for handling requests that should be noted.
“The monitoring officer also has to spend time dealing with internal reviews and, perhaps more significantly (in terms of overall time), the time spent by other senior officers (and their staff members) in dealing with a request that involves their service, also has to be taken into account.
“Finally, there is the time spent by the legal department in helping the information and complaints officers carry out their role.
“Suffice to say, given the number of requests, the council expends a large amount of resource in dealing with FoIs.”
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/eddc_spends_a_large_amount_on_foi_requests_1_4416248
Good heavens, the amount of money spent is miniscule when you compare it to the amount EDDC spends trying to keep things secret ( they also refuse to say how much last year’s court case on FoI ( which they lost) cost where they also refused to cost the time of their lawyers and consultants in fighting it.
Sour grapes Owl thinks!
The more transparent things are, the less work the FoI officer will have to do.
And why engage another person when the number of requests have fallen?
Are you anticipating a high number of new requests for some reason? The HQ move, shrouded in secrecy; the devolution deal being done behind closed doors; the meetings with developers that have things cut and dried BEFORE public consultation? Hhmm.
Friday deadline to apply for Independent Standards Committee Member
Details here:
Click to access independent-standards-committee-member-job-pack.pdf
Has Owl applied? Not telling!
Does Local Enterprise Partnership trump local and neighbourhood plans: if so, who said so and why bother getting them?
A correspondent writes:
I must be very naïve as I am at a loss to work out where the LEP gets a remit to make policies on housing.
The latest “board minutes” for November 2015 include a report from the Housing Task and Finish group.” [Who are members of this group, how long has it been meeting? What does it DO?] It was noted that much of this paper is relevant to Devolution in terms of offering a local solution, and it was suggested that rural villages and small towns had a role to play in addressing housing shortages which would also benefit the viability of small communities.”
The councillors, the bureaucrats and indeed the people of East Devon have sweated blood [and spent a great deal of money] over many years to acquire a Local Plan and have an agreed figure for the district of 17,100 new houses until 2031. In conjunction with this plan the majority of rural villages and small towns have or are developing Neighbourhood Plans.
Surely the rural villages and small towns are already making – and will continue to do so in the future – significant contributions to addressing housing shortages?
Will LEP policies take precedence over the Local and Neighbourhood Plans?
Can someone help me solve this one?”
“Seafront campaign group issues set of questions from seafront users in response to EDDC’s own Q&As”
PRESS RELEASE
15 February 2016
“The Save Exmouth Seafront Campaign Group (SES) welcomed the news in January 2016, that East Devon District Council (EDDC) pledged to publish a set of question and answers in relation to the Queen’s Drive Development.
However the questions and answers, which have now been published online and in local media, are disappointingly vague and fail to address key concerns. The questions EDDC answered were not truly representative of the concerns of seafront users. As such SES has compiled a list of questions that they would like to see answered by EDDC, to actually address the concerns of those who use the seafront.
Louise MacAllister, SES spokesperson, stated that “SES would like to challenge EDDC to answer the questions which we have compiled, from seafront users, and the recurring themes found within the Seafront Survey of 2015.
The entirety of plans for Queen’s Drive have been shrouded in secrecy all along, understandably this only increases the anger of seafront users towards EDDC and the imposition of a largely unwanted seafront development.
While EDDC claim to listen to the public’s views, they have to date, failed to acknowledge the findings of the Seafront Survey, simply brushing off the thoughts and feelings of the public. To give honest answers to these questions would at least demonstrate that EDDC are listening to the public as they claim to be”.
SES would also like to point out that since the release of EDDC’s Q&As, it has been revealed that although EDDC linked Nando’s to the development, Nando’s have no intention of opening a branch in Exmouth. SES are concerned that if the Q&As have misled the public in this respect, what else within the Q&A document is mis-representing what is actually planned?”
QUESTIONS
Save Exmouth Seafront
Questions about the Queen’s Drive re-development:
Compiled by Exmouth residents and seafront visitors
Consultation
There are many paragraphs in East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) double page spread which explain who EDDC previously consulted and how. So why does EDDC appear to be deliberately misleading readers by omitting to disclose the actual results of that consultation? Why are the public being misled on this issue? Those previous consultations netted very few responses and, of those that did respond the majority did not support the proposed changes. Will EDDC accept the challenge to immediately issue to local media an honest version of those results.
In light of the small consultation numbers, why will EDDC not commit to undertaking a further independent consultation, and as soon as possible?
Does EDDC recognise that the initial consultation was misleading in stating ‘NO permanent residential’ and overstating the potential for children’s outdoor space, and that therefore further independent consultation should be undertaken?
Regeneration and project management
Why, if EDDC is set on ‘regenerating’ Exmouth, are they concentrating on altering a large part of our seafront, and creating in effect a separate ‘estate’ of shops, flats and restaurants, instead of regenerating Exmouth town centre, which many recognise as an area in far more need of ‘regeneration’?
Where is the evidence of need for the ‘regeneration’ of Exmouth’s seafront?
Where is the proof of how much extra income would be generated for the town, (as opposed to EDDC)?
When will there be a café at Orcombe Point? This has been raised time and again for years. Why is this not taking priority?
What is the rationale behind forcing the closure of existing businesses now, when the development is in 3 stages, especially the incredibly popular Model Railway/Carriage Café site which had to close last September?
Why is the leader of Exmouth’s regeneration a councillor, living at least half an hour’s drive away, with no known connection to the town? How can he act in the best interests of a town to which he has no connection?
Has EDDC made plans to support local tourism through the many years of ‘redevelopment’ in which many regular visitors will leave, and possibly not return?
If this project goes ahead, and the businesses that open on the Queen’s Drive fail, will EDDC bail them out with public money as it did with Ocean, which, unlike the independently trading is subsidised by EDDC?
Developers and investors
What is the ‘market research’ undertaken to ascertain demand for a cinema, and who undertook this research? Does it demonstrate that the existing cinema will remain a viable and thriving business? When will the findings of this market research be made public?
With so much at stake for the future of Exmouth’s seafront, why would EDDC risk the likelihood of completion of the replacement scheme, by being in talks with Moirai as the preferred developer, when Moirai have filed for bankruptcy and recently had swathes of their company struck off the Companies House Register? Moirai do not have any track record of excellence or even completion of previous projects.
With the credibility of the preferred developers in question, what will happen if they become unable to complete the project?
Businesses
What will be the criteria for leases to be given to those wanting to take on a lease on the development?
Will EDDC commit not to discriminate in any way against existing seafront businesses, should they wish to take on a lease on the development?
Does EDDC recognise the importance of local knowledge in running businesses on the seafront, especially when it comes to challenging Winter conditions?
Will the development include fast food outlets?
What evidence has been obtained or proposed to suggest that existing food outlets, primarily in the town, will not be adversely affected by drawing people away?
Similarly, what evidence has been obtained or proposed to suggest demand for the eight food outlets on Queen’s Drive?
What are the 175 jobs to be created in the ‘wider development’?
Environment
How does EDDC intend to meet the habitat regulations with respect to the development?
In light of the challenging Winter conditions on The Queen’s Drive, does EDDC recognise that a development of this nature would be better placed on an out of town location such as the Liverton Business Park, which could potentially have dual access from Concorde Road?
Accessibility
Will the development include improving wheelchair/pram access to beach and amenities?
Families
What are the three generational, all weather leisure activities provided in the new development (apart from eating)?
What is the justification for the reduction in space for children’s play from 14,500 square feet, to just 3430 square feet, as per EDDC’s response to an FOI request on 27th August 2015.
Free Play and Water Play
Free play and water play is a much vaunted aspect of the development, indeed the original consultation called the development ‘The Splash’, suggesting it would be predominantly water play. Yet there is to date no details around this. Why not? It must by now be possible to offer some detail and for the people to evaluate if this is worth the otherwise unwelcome features suggested?
Why did the ‘Splash’ title disappear, to be replaced by the ‘Queen’s Drive Development’?
Water Sports Centre
Is the water sports centre going to be a private members club?
What evidence is there to suggest that the location of the proposed water sports centre is in fact safe, especially for novices? Has a safety study been carried out?
Will this be a centre actually offering a range of water sports for all, or will this be a kite-surfing centre?
What efforts have there been to ensure there is a viable desire for watching kite surfing festivals that warrants a new, large, dedicated building?
If such efforts have been made, when will the results be made public?
Why is it necessary to spoil an open aspect sea front promenade, that is appreciated by many, for the unproven benefit to a few?
Why did EDDC make so little effort to preserve an existing Spinnakers water sports centre in the docks area? This is a safer area and did incorporate facilities for experienced and trainee sailors.
What are the 45 jobs to be created at the water sports centre?
Visitors and other seafront users
What evidence is available to prove the current numbers of people visiting Exmouth seafront and beach?
What evidence is there that the ‘Queen’s Drive Development will attract even more people to Exmouth seafront and beach’? (As stated by EDDC’s question and answers – question 6).
Dogs
Does the council recognise that for many people, they come to Exmouth seafront because it is dog friendly? And therefore will there be a dog friendly café in any future development?
Save Britain’s Heritage makes plea to save Knowle building
“Defund, make sure things don’t work, get people angry – privatise”!
Several media sites have recently quoted famous philosopher Noam Chomsky on privatisation (and devolution):
“That’s the standard technique of privatization; defund, make sure things don’t work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital.”
So is that what happened with Knowle?
And will we see the new EDDC HQ in Honiton one day sold off to Clinton Devon Estates or Eagle One – or even Moirai Capital investments when district councils cease to exist!
Community Interest Levy – we need a public list of projects the money will be spent on!
Now that CIL is a reality in East Devon, we (i.e. those of us who are not in the EDDC cabinet) need to see how we can make it work for us. It will be difficult.
The levy is charged on a square metre basis for all new development, though there is still some complex crossover with the old Section 106 charging system. Different levies are charged in different areas: in some parts of Cranbrook it is zero, whereas Sidmouth attracts one of the highest levies.
Few people realise that at least 15% of the levy should be rebated by EDDC to the town or village involved – 25% if that town or village has a Neighbourhood Plan in place. Indeed, ALL of it can go to a place which solely suffers the downside of development (think here Sidford and Sidbury).
Of course, knowing our district council, our majority party will already be closely examining the loopholes to see if they can work for them.
One such loophole is that – of course – there will be exemptions. The CIL rules mean that all such exemptions must be advertised. Watch the small print of your local newspapers where, no doubt, the same old names will crop up with many and varied reasons why they should not pay up.
Another unfortunate loophole is that a council can keep quiet about what they spend the money on – and it can be spent anywhere in a district.
RED FLAG: anywhere – for example, the money raised could find itself 100% directed say towards only Honiton, or the Blackdown Hills or Cranbrook.
RED FLAG: Councils are encouraged (but not obliged) to make a list of the infrastructure projects it wants to spend its CIL pot on. Or it can have no list and just dip into the pot whenever it feels like it.
RED FLAG: Will we be “consulted” about what we want the money spent on? Dream on.
RED FLAG: will EDDC try to interfere on what towns or villages spend the money on. If it ever trickles down to them as, in some places where CIL operates, they have yet to see a penny of their money, for reasons unexplained to them – maybe the developers dragging heels and not paying the district and the district turning a blind eye?
RED FLAG: What are you betting our council drags its heels on such a list and that, if it and when it considers where CIL will be spent, it will be decided by a forum, or working party or think tank that meets in secret and has no agendas or minutes.
For a primer on CIL, see here:
Exmouth “regeneration”: ” You couldn’t make it up” – but EDDC just did!
“You couldn’t make it up” – but EDDC just did with Exmouth Q and A:
“Nando’s have “no plans” to open up a branch in Exmouth, despite being linked to the future seafront development in a council Q&A.
The popular Portuguese restaurant was listed by East Devon District Council, alongside La Tasca and Pizza Express, as being examples of restaurants that could open in the £18m Queen’s Drive redevelopment project.
But before East Devon piri-piri and chicken fans could get excited, the chain quickly shot down any further speculation.
They say their nearest branch for Exmouth diners will continue to be Exeter.
East Devon District Council has since defended its decision to include the names of three operators in connection with the project.
A spokesperson for the authority said: “It was clear in the responses to the Q and A that Pizza Express, La Tasca and Nando’s were given purely as examples of the type of restaurants that like to attach themselves to multiplex cinema developments.”
Adding: “We think it is helpful to give people some sense of the style of restaurant offer that might be available.”
La Tasca and Pizza Express are yet to comment on their own involvement.”
How did Chardstock and Dunkeswell get introduced into the local plan at the last millisecond?
The timeline of how the decisions were taken make VERY, VERY interesting reading – in documents accompanying the Scrutiny Committee agenda for
18 February 2016, 6.00pm
here:
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1531428/180215-scrutiny-agenda-combined.pdf
particularly page 13 onwards:
DUNKESWELL
“Councillor B Buxton asked for inclusion of Dunkeswell on the BUAB list, on grounds of size of settlements, 160 firms many on industrial site and felt that the village met most of the criteria. In response, the committee were informed there was no school- Cllr Buxton responded that a school was expected as consultation was underway with the County Council and a site had been designated.
Recommendation from DMC to add Dunkeswell to the list with build up area boundary.
What evidence supported that statement by Cllr Buxton?
Follow up by officers and Clerk of Dunkeswell confirmed that no plans by Devon County Council for a school. Clerk also checked if a ny plans for a free school, again no plans. When produced the sustainability assessment was undertaken (which determines which villages should retain BUABs) DCC confirmed no plans for a school.”
CHARDSTOCK
Council 26 March 2015
David Mortimer (public) spoke to as k to add Chardstock to list of sustainable villages on the Local Plan having build up boundary, in light of DMC recommendation to include Dunkeswell. He stated that he agreed
with the DMC recommendation to add Dunkeswell;
transport as a measure of sustain ability is too simplistic. Why not add other villages with similar; in terms of Chardstock, stated that it had an undersubscribed new primary school with 66% of pupils coming from
outside the parish village school, and a number of other facilities and services available in the village.
Councillor Andrew Moulding proposed to add Chardstock; Including stating reasons of school of 150 pupils in place, community services and transport available at one end of location which could be reached by the community. The proposal was debated with councillors speaking both for and against inclusion; in response on request of the Chairman, the CX reminded the Council of the officer advice that the village did not meet the criteria but there were clearly opposing views an d the proposal should be voted on.
Carried on vote to include Chardstock in the BUAB list. DMC recommendations agreed, therefore also including Dunkeswell.
Email from Cllr Giles to Chief Executive
27 March 2015
“I am writing to express my great unease about the way a decision was made about Chardstock at yesterday`s Extra Ordinary meeting of EDDC to make submissions to the Local Plan Inspector. I was unaware, and I suspect the vast majority of councillors were unaware, that a decision about the status of Chardstock was to be made at the meeting. Certainly there was no specific documentation supplied for the meeting to suggest this.
At the beginning of the meeting, under the public speaking arrangements, a Mr David Mortimer spoke in support of Chardstock being a sustainable community and seeking its designation to be changed. As I recall Mr Mortimer gave no details of himself, of where he lived, of whether he was a landowner in Chardstock, or whether he was acting for a landowner in Chardstock. Of course if he fitted into either of the last two categories that ould not have stopped him speaking – but it would have been relevant to know.
There was no further mention of Chardstock until much later in the meeting when the Council Deputy Leader, Council lor Andrew Moulding (who is not the ward member) spoke in favour of Chardstock`s status being changed because it is a sustainable location. As I recall (but I apologise if I am wrong), Councillor Moulding said that Mr Mortimer was speaking on behalf of Chardstock Parish Council. There seemed to be considerable doubt about whether Mr Mortimer was actually speaking on behalf of Chardstock Parish Council. My recollection is that he did not say he was.
My particular concerns are that a decision was taken without any information to justify it, in spite of the Inspector making very clear that he wanted an evidence-based Local Plan submission from EDDC.
Specific questions that I would like answered please are:
What is the Chardstock Parish Council view on the redesignation of Chardstock, as far as we are aware?
Did Chardstock Parish Council make a recent submission to EDDC relevant to the Extra Ordinary meeting of yesterday?
When and what was the nature of the most recent Chardstock PC submission to EDDC about its situation in the EDLP?
What evidence does EDDC have of consultation exercises undertaken within the Parish of Chardstock about the EDLP? If EDDC has such evidence, what does it show of the view of Chardstock residents?
What discussions specifically about Chardstock took place at or following the EDDC LDF/LP Panel hearings?
I look forward to early answers to the above questions.
Meanwhile I am greatly concerned that a fundamental change of policy was agreed at a meeting yesterday without any supporting documentation, purely on the basis of arguments made at the meeting by just two people–one a councillor and the other a member of the public, on a matter that (unlike the Sidford 5ha of employment land) had not previously been discussed, and on which the view of the Parish Council was uncertain.”
1 April 2015
Approved 15/0217/FUL in YARTY ward (Chardstock) for five dwellings against officer advice on unsustainable location.
17 June 2015
Representation from one Chardstock Parish Councillor that decision taken by Council was not evidence based.
25 June 2015
Representations from two Chardstock Parish Councillors that the decision taken by Council to include Chardstock was not evidence based.
4 July 2015
Application 15/1007
South View, Chardstock decision was refused:
“Whilst in other respects the application is considered to be acceptable and despite the site’s location within the village and the builtup area boundary, defined under the Adopted East Devon Local Plan, this is not considered to be a sustainable site to accommodate new development. Chardstock has only a limited range of services and access to a wider range of services and employment opportunities, necessary for day to day living, is only available via private transport due to the lack of public transport service to the village. Despite the site being included with the draft New Local Plan Strategy 27 as a sustainable village, this policy can only be afforded limited weight as the Strategy has been out to public consultation and has not been endorsed by the Local Plan Inspector and as such the application falls to be considered on the basis of its sustainability. As such, the limited social and economic benefits that would arise from the delivery of a single dwelling are considered to be outweighed by the environmental impact of the development resulting from its unsustainable location served by a limited range of services and lack of public transport.
The application is therefore recommended for refusal on this basis.
January 2016:
Inspector report on Local PlanParagraph 31–
“Chardstock and Dunkeswell have limited facilities and do not benefit from access to public transport. Their addition to Strategy 27 is not supported by the Council’s Small Towns and Villages Development
Suitability Assessment 2014 and I have removed them from Strategy 27”.
”.
EDDC – duplicitous or negligent about heritage assets?
This is about Ottery St Mary, but it could be your town or village. And should this not be an Asset Management Forum issue?
“Ottery’s conservation area is ‘at risk’ – but civic leaders say they have been kept in the dark about its deteriorated state until now.
District chiefs admitted last week that a lack of communication needs to be addressed after it emerged many of the town’s heritage assets are in ‘very bad’ condition, yet no information had been reported to representatives who advise on planning decisions.
A conservation area is categorised as a place particularly valued by the community because of its historic character and associations. An annual survey conducted by East Devon District Council (EDDC) highlighted a number of concerns and officially identified the fragile state of Ottery’s conservation area. Results are recorded on Historic England’s ‘at risk’ register, but details were only revealed to town councillors at a meeting last week.
Councillor Jo Talbot highlighted the issue following a talk she attended to gather information for the creation of the Neighbourhood Plan, which will shape the future of the parish. She said: “A representative from Historic England told us that Ottery’s conservation area is in the ‘at risk’ category. EDDC knew about this, but it did not follow through to us. “We should have had guidance on what to say when shops come up in the conservation area. We need to look at restoring our conservation area.”
Cllr Roger Giles condemned the lack of information that he said should have been taken into account in all planning recommendations.
In response, an EDDC spokeswoman said: “Like all local authorities, we are required to carry out an annual survey of our conservation areas by Historic England. Following the survey work and during discussions with Historic England, concerns were raised about Ottery town centre – particularly regarding shop fronts, signage and the use of uPVC windows. “These concerns have led to it being identified as ‘at risk’, along with over 500 other conservation areas nationally.”
In response to the authority’s failure to pass on the information, the spokeswoman said: “We do not have any specific processes for reporting when heritage assets are at risk. This is something that needs to be looked at, together with how we can engage more with our communities to prevent heritage assets being put at risk and how we can address this when it happens.” She added advice is available to town councillors with regards to planning matters on request.
The full assessment reveals that Ottery’s conservation area is in a ‘very bad’ condition, but its vulnerability is classed as ‘medium’, with the trend towards improving.
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/ottery_st_mary_s_heritage_assets_at_risk_1_4416364
EDDC ” public servant” should consider his position
Just in case anyone doesn’t realise who the “public servant” is – it is Mark Williams, CEO of East Devon District Council. And maybe here, we should see what his “union” [aptly called SOLACE – Society of Local Authority Chief Executives] says about the role and contrast this with what is reported later on:
“At its most simple, the role has four principle aspects:
Managerial leadership of the organisation;
Providing and securing advice to the Council on strategy and policy;
Acting in an executive capacity by making decisions or ensuring a system is in place for other officers to make decisions, as authorised by the Council; and
Delivering probity, value for money and continuous improvement.”
Click to access SOLACE_response_CO_Pay_Inquiry_140130.pdf
Nowhere does it mention insulting members of the public or whole TOWNS!
THE LETTER TO THE PRESS:
“The conduct and comments of EDDC’s most senior officer at last week’s Extra Ordinary Council Meeting, continue to cause shock waves in the press.
The letter copied below, from Save Our Sidmouth member, Robert Crick, appears in Pullman’s View from Sidmouth (9th February, 2016).
‘On behalf of the Save Our Sidmouth campaign our widely respected neighbour Richard Eley read a short statement during public questions before last Thursday’s District Council meeting. The statement expressed regret at the problems the Local Plan process had caused over the past few years, and reminded members that residents regarded the proposal to build an industrial estate on the Sidford Flood Plain as an act of folly.
Mr Eley then stated that since this process has now come to an end, Save Our Sidmouth recommends a fresh start to rebuild trust between the authority and the town of Sidmouth.
After putting their questions, members of the public then witnessed a remarkable event.
A non-elected public servant appropriated elected councillors’ speaking privileges by rounding on the people of Sidmouth. He angrily blamed us for having delayed the process by daring to question the Council’s original proposals. He then denounced Mr Eley personally, claiming he had called Inspector Thickett “an idiot”.
Challenged by the meeting, he refused to acknowledge that he had misrepresented Mr Eley’s words. When forced to admit his error, he absolutely refused to apologise.
Councillor Stuart Hughes, Chair of the Council, finally gave a dignified apology, which allowed the elected members to proceed and adopt the Local Plan.
It was evident to all that the paid official has a deep-rooted and obsessive personal animosity to the town and people of the Sid valley, which must surely disqualify him from a continuing role as a servant of East Devon. Perhaps it is time for him to consider his position.‘
Public servant at centre of ‘remarkable event’ should ‘consider his position’
Moirai expands further in Swindon – free skate park may be at risk
“Moirai Capital Investments are seeking approval for their 31 acre (12.5ha) leisure development which will be built adjacent to and around the newly refurbished Oasis Leisure Centre at North Star.
But although the outline plans mention a skate park – at the moment it is not clear whether it will be a free to use outdoor one to replace the current facility on the site or an indoor paid-for one.
A campaign to save the free outdoor facility has been launched by Diana Kirk of ATBSkate Warehouse at Hawksworth but she believes that their pleas are being ignored as it appears on the plans that it will be an indoor site. You can sign the petition, which so far has over 1,o00 signatures at:
http://www.bit.ly/oasis-skate …
… The plans submitted by Moirai include:
• Up to 50,000 square metres of mixed leisure including a cinema, 5,000 seat entertainment arena, ski centre and other leisure uses which could include a crazy golf centre, comedy club, laser tag and skate park;
• Up to 12,000sqm of restaurants and cafes
• Up to 12,000sqm retail space, with a minimum of 9,000sqm of sports retailing;
• Up to 9,000sqm for a hotel.
The vast £120 million leisure scheme will be one of the largest projects of its type in the UK.
Moirai chairman Martin Barber said: “This is a crucial step in the process of delivering this major development. Getting to this point has been complex, with consideration given to the best possible layout for the project, but also to address issues such as traffic management and the potential environmental impact of the development.”
Coun Garry Perkins, Swindon Cabinet Member for Economy, Regeneration & Skills said: “The application represents another step in this exciting project. I am satisfied that now Moirai have put together a proposal that matches the council’s ambitions; I look forward to hearing more as they get closer to turning these plans into a reality .
“These are only the outline plans and until we see the detailed ones it is difficult to say what form the skate park will take, but at least it is part of the plans at the moment.”
It is believed that many visitors to the facility will arrive by train, as Swindon’s station is only a short distance away. Forward Swindon has completed a feasibility study for a new pedestrian crossing over the mainline, adjacent to the station, connecting the north and south parts of the town centre. Seeking funding for the crossing is the next stage.
Chris Hitchings, director of development at Forward Swindon, said: “Swindon is well connected to a huge, affluent catchment. The arena and ski centre, for example, will provide Swindon with high profile destinations to compete with the likes of Cardiff, Bristol and Milton Keynes.”
How a contract between Swindon Borough Council and Moirai Capital Investments changed over time
An article about how a contract between Swindon Borough Council and Moirai Capital Investments for the development of the Oasis leisure facility changed over time
From a blog written in 2014:
“Given the importance of the Oasis example to the council’s plans for the future of the leisure centres, I think we should try to find out what is actually going on there. Here are some facts:
• The agreement between SBC and Moirai was signed in March 2012. In January 2013, the lease was varied at the request of Moirai. The revised terms included the following:
• Moirai’s obligation to provide a minimum area of development on the Oasis site was lifted.
• SBC gave up its option to purchase back the Oasis if no development takes place.
• Should recovery of debt be required as a result of loan default, the bank would be able to sell the lease into the open market.
• In January 2011 the Council invited expressions of interest to build a new leisure centre based on the former Clares site. The plan originally submitted by Moirai showed a ski centre, 7,500 seat arena and hotel on the Clares site.
However, in March 2013, Moirai presented a revised plan for the site, moving the arena (reduced to 6,500 seats) to the south side of the Oasis and apparently leaving half the Clares site vacant.
• Moirai said an application for outline planning application would be submitted in June 2013 (it had previously been expected in March that year).
• At the beginning of May 2014, the application had still not appeared on the council’s planning pages. An application for outline planning permission is now expected later in 2014.
• Oasis Operations Ltd, a management company set up by Moirai, was declared insolvent in 2013 (The London Gazette). The directors, who had resigned earlier in the year, are currently named by online data company Companycheck as directors of other Moirai companies.
• According to Companycheck, at the beginning of May 2014 two of the Moirai companies, Oasis Waterpark Ltd and Moirai Capital Investments (Swindon) Ltd, had recommended credit limits of £0.00. Companycheck could not assign them a risk score as it was too long since they filed audited accounts.
On 8 May 2014 Oasis Waterpark Ltd. had filed accounts and the credit limit has been raised to £25,000 with a credit score of 40 out of 100.
According to the lease variation referred to above, Oasis Waterpark Ltd is the company with the lease on the Oasis.
the time the agreement was signed in March 2012, Mr Martin Barber was described as the Chairman of Moirai. Mr Barber’s directorship of Moirai Capital Investments Ltd ended on 17 February 2014. (CompanyCheck)
• Mr Barber said in March 2012: “We are ready to press forward enthusiastically with the first phase, the refurbishment of the Oasis Leisure Centre. . . We have already plans in hand for the replacement of the Dome”.
…
I don’t know anything about finance, and I do not know what is going on at the Oasis. Clearly these little gobbets of information do not present anything like the whole picture, and they may well be misleading.
However, I question whether, as early as March 2013, when the Council report included the option of “an Oasis type deal”, the council should not have been keeping a closer eye on developments at the Oasis.
I question whether Swindon people should feel confident that the Oasis provides an encouraging model for the future of their leisure centres and golf courses.
In the light of the lease variation agreed in January 2013, I question whether Swindon people can have any confidence that the terms of a lease agreed with a private sector operator to take over the leisure centres and golf courses will not be altered in future at the request of the leaseholder.
And I question whether the Oasis model suggests that Swindon Borough Council is professionally equipped to make a deal with private sector operators over the future of the leisure centres and golf courses which will be to the advantage of the town.”
We also note that several other Moirai companies have appeared in the London Gazette notices of being struck off. Sometimes this is because compulsory information required of companies has not been filed within proper time limits, sometimes it isn’t.
It is usually considered preferable for a company’s reputation and the reputation of its directors to (a) file accounts on time and/or (b) voluntarily wind up a company rather than have it struck off.
“The Budleigh Boys” part 3
The enthusiasm of the Budleigh Boys to dismiss the importance of the AONB and give greater weight to the economics of Pooh Cottage was not shared by Budleigh Salterton Town Council of which all three district councillors are members. The Town Council had recommended refusal.
At their January meeting the Town’s mayor expressed his surprise that the application was approved. But he was told it was alright as Councillor Dent felt the Highways Report was wrong and more traffic movements would not be created. This was endorsed by Councillor Tom Wright who thinks the result is a good solution.
This is a worrying trend by Budleigh Salterton District Councillors who know better than the planners and statutory bodies and also their Town Council.
An application to demolish a house which makes a “positive contribution to the conservation area” (Historic England) is awaiting decision. It was recommended for refusal by the Town Council.
The EDDC Conservation Officer writes that “Advice given at the pre-application stage concluded that the principle of demolition would be unacceptable on account of the contribution that the existing house makes to the character and appearance of the conservation area.” He concludes that “the proposed demolition should be considered unacceptable and the application refused.” The Environment Agency also has reservations due to the history of flooding in the area.
So what does a Budleigh Boy write?
“I am pleased to see the design of the new build is very similar to the existing and the increase in foot print, in my view, is not over development. I consider the plans to be acceptable and will provide 9 small dwellings, convenient to the town “
Word also has it that the two other boys feel the same.
RIP AONB, RIP special character of Budleigh? “Small dwellings” at any price?
Exmouth seafront: the battle continues – but who gagged whom and why?
“A gag on information regarding the Exmouth seafront development has been lifted.
East Devon District Council can now openly discuss the £18m project after winning a legal battle against two tenants.
Chris and Maureen Wright lost their court case against the district authority, as they fought to renew their expired leases. …”
… “The district authority refers to Exmouth’s under-performance and reliance on Exeter as reasons for carrying on with the project.
They hope it will attract families, couples on nights out, teenagers, water sports enthusiasts, rainy day and winter visitors and entice the ‘holiday park crowd’ into the town.
The redeveloped area would include eight eateries, including cafes, restaurants and bars.
There’s set to be three shops too, selling water sports clothes and equipment.
Councillor Andrew Moulding, deputy leader of the Council and Chairman of Exmouth Regeneration Board, said:
“This is an exciting time for the town and there are some great projects being brought forward by the council.
“We have an excellent track record of delivering good development for Exmouth and we are looking forward to re-energising the waterfront area with first rate leisure facilities for people of all ages to enjoy.”
East Devon Watch 