And can we nudge EDDC into behaving better? How?
The rise of nudge – the unit helping politicians to fathom human behaviour:
Category Archives: EDDC
Pegasus senior officer has colourful (and expensive) local authority past
A perfect fit for East Devon! Perhaps they could also recruit him to build Diviani Towers as the new HQ in Honiton!
Cart before horse and jumping the gun at Knowle with Pegasus Life ?
Mention is made in today’s Midweek Herald that contracts have been exchanged with Pegasus Life for a residential and assisted living complex at Knowle, with a spa and restaurant which will be open to the public.
Isn’t there just the little problem of putting in a planning application and getting it approved first?
Or is this not the way things are done in East Devon?
Their 16 storey high-rise development in Sutton Coldfield wasn’t popular:
http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/business/business-news/sutton-coldfield-care-village-plans-7872196
Network Rail is VERY unhappy with them in Dawlish and said they could be committing an “act of nuisance”:
http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2015/01/09-dawlish-plan-could-be-act.html
and their demolition of part of a Grade 2 listed mansion in Sevenoaks to provide a car park and kitchens wasn’t well received either:
A masterclass on how to turn bad news into no news into good news
To read this EDDC spin you would assume that the project on Sidmouth coastal defences has gone fantastically well. In reality it has dragged on, and on, and on. And reading between the lines, that is exactly how it will continue.
A particular masterpiece of spin that has us laughing out loud is this from Andrew Moulding:
“It is tremendously exciting to have reached the fourth stage of this long and technically challenging coastal defence project – we are now only a short step away from being in a position where we can actually start to produce the BMP itself and provide a detailed plan for the short, medium and long-term management of the beach and cliffs.”
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/progress_in_sidmouth_s_coastal_defence_project_1_4162256
A short step away from STARTING!
Oh, and they forget to mention that, with 25-40% cuts in government spending, the chances of anything happening are slim.
Contrast this with Lyme Regis where a £20m four-phase scheme was completed in one year in 2014 which consisted of a 390m (1,200ft) stretch of sea wall should last 50 years and will safeguard nearly 500 homes and access to the town.
Local Tory MPs agree with Claire Wright on tourism funding
We can recall not long ago Claire Wright being savaged by Leader Diviani and many of his cronies for daring to put forward a motion at EDDC for a cut in tourism VAT to bring it in line with other European countries:
As she wrote:
“I also asked for a recorded vote to take place. The conservatives voted against a recorded vote. … To much chuntering and heckling, the final vote was 23 votes against to 14 in favour. The conservatives voted largely as a block, with a few abstentions. Cllr Mike Howe DID vote in favour, however.”
Now it appears that South West Tory MPs agree with her:
Which just leaves East Devon District Council out of step … again.
Cranbrook: the numbers just don’t stack up
Following on from the post where Devon County Council foresees a town “as big as Barnstaple” at Cranbrook. we have received the following comment which is upscaled to a post here:
Here are some historical EDDC statements about the size of Cranbrook:
Cabinet 2 May 2012 – “The Local Plan anticipates the completion of 6,000 homes at Cranbrook in the period to 2026 representing a likely population in excess of 13,000 people.”
Cabinet 3 April 2013 – “More broadly this pace of delivery is fundamental to supporting the achievement of the Local Plan, with circa. 60% of the remaining strategic housing requirement due to be accommodated at Cranbrook with expansion up to circa 6,500 homes over the plan period.”
Cabinet 4 Sept 2013 – “It is anticipated that by 2026, 6,000 new homes and associated town centre and other facilities will have been built. Assuming an occupancy rate of 2.2 persons per dwelling this is likely to mean that Cranbrook’s population will reach approximately 13,000 people – similar to Honiton by 2026. These 6,000 new homes are anticipated to come forward as a consequence of the following: Outline planning application 03/P1900 granted in October 2010 for the first 2,900; A Full Planning application for 600 homes (submitted on 2 August 2013) and (at the time of writing, being checked for validation) the ‘East and West Expansion Areas’ – allocated for approximately 2,500 homes in the emerging Submission East Devon Local Plan 2006-2026.”
Cabinet 4 June 2014 – “The vision for Cranbrook clearly anticipates that it will be much more than a housing estate with it being seen instead as a “new East Devon ‘market town’” with a “fully functional town centre” that is “ideally placed to perform a role in serving tourism in East Devon”.”
Cabinet 5 Nov 2014 – “The new Local Plan identifies both east and west expansion areas for Cranbrook to bring the overall level of development to about 6,000 houses. The new local plan does also show an indicative location for about 1500 houses to the south of the old A30 Honiton Road after 2016. New Community Partners (NCP) have advised that they will be submitting an outline planning application for the east, west and southern expansion of Cranbrook comprising possibly 4,000 houses before the end of 2014. The NCP held a “Cranbrook to 2031’ public exhibition on 15 and 16 October and before the end of this calendar year we expect to receive an application or applications for the largest residential scheme East Devon DC has seen in many years.”
EDDC Web site today – What is Cranbrook all about? – “Currently, a total of 3,561 homes, two primary schools, a secondary school, town centre, local centre and associated infrastructure and green spaces have planning permission but there are plans for a further 4,000 homes and associated infrastructure set out in the New Local Plan meaning that the town is planned to grow to a total of around 6,000 homes by the year 2026 and to 7,500 homes beyond that. This equates to a town of approximately 15,500 people (slightly larger than Sidmouth or Honiton).”
So, EDDC’s official position is originally 6,000 houses / 13,000 people , and now targeted at 7,500 homes (which would be c. 16,250 people). So I am not sure where 30,000 people has come from – or why a second station is needed when the population is actually projected to be only half the size of Barnstaple.
Cranbrook to be “bigger than Barnstaple”?
The Cranbrook Herald is running a front page story which says that, according to Devon County Council, Cranbrook will need a second railway station because eventually “it could be bigger than Barnstaple” (pop: 30,000 plus).
http://www.cranbrookherald.com/home
This is an even bigger increase than that announced late last year (around 20,000):
The current population estimate of Cranbrook is around 2,500:
It’s 7 shops will open later this year: a cafe, fish and chip shop, a Chinese takeaway, a small Co-op, an estate agent, a pharmacy and a charity shop.
Talks about new roads into Cranbrook (which the new town council don’t like because they are “dull and not pretty” with insufficient access for the planned supermarket and a pub) seem to hint that there may also be a bigger supermarket in the offing.
Not much infrastructure for 30,000 people! Still at least they can eat, drink, be merry, sort out their hangovers and buy cheap clothes and then, when they are ready to move, they can use the estate agency! Though with many homes likely to be buy-to-let from cashed-in pensions and the like, the rental side may be busier.
Sidmouth Futures Forum: Freedom of Information update
How many missing voters now?
Voter registration leaflets are dropping through our doors. It is SO tempting not to return them to see if we get a visit from a nice lady or gentleman who will ensure that we do!
Mark Williams is not a great believer in those visits, not having not arranged any for several years – a fact that Members of Parliament heavily criticised when he was hauled before them last December to explain an alarming drop in voters – from around 102,000 to 96,000.
Now intriguingly we learn from this week’s Sidmouth Herald that he is talking of a current 110,000 voters who are registered – which would mean a whopping 14,000 people have only recently been registered.
Typo surely? Fortunately, he is appearing before a committee in September to explain why so many things have gone wrong with voter registration in the past few years, so we can all know what is really the correct number.
Councils urged to create free parking to boost town centres
Should East Devon District Council twin with Guildford Borough Council?
Letter: Guildford Borough Council –
Where Democracy Goes to Die
I attended for the first time on Tuesday evening (July 7) the monthly Guildford Borough Council meeting. I was expecting debate on Guildford’s key issues and I wanted to experience first-hand how the elected officials that hold Guildford’s future in their hands go about safeguarding it.
What I experienced was the worst kind of self-congratulatory, derogatory, tribal politics where power grab was pretty much the order of the day.
I was expecting to see the Conservatives, having won an unprecedented 35 out of 48 seats, through no effort of their own but because of the coincidence of the general election and the fact that local election results follow national trends, being magnanimous in their victory.
Instead I witnessed contempt for the other parties, especially for the Guildford Greenbelt Group (GGG), whose only fault was to challenge the status quo and win three seats from the Conservatives.
No wonder young people are switched off politics when a number of white, middle-aged men are only interested in their own opinion and congratulating each other for the fantastic job they believe they are doing without any regard for what would be best for the borough they represent.
During the pompous proceedings there was complete disregard for all opposition, ignoring the fact that the opposition are elected members representing thousands, the majority actually*, of the borough’s residents.
Request for transparency by the GGG was denied on the questionable grounds of data privacy.
But worst of all was the election of councillor representatives for a number of charities across Guildford.
A number of concerns were raised as to how or why candidates were put forward. In any fair selection, you would expect at least a small biography from each candidate explaining why they are best suited to the position in question as well as allow the candidates to state their case for nomination.
Not in Guildford Borough Council. There is no time for anything non-partisan in there. As long as a Conservative is chosen we can dispense with such niceties.
In a vote that can only be described as a farce, the council did not explain why these people were chosen as candidates nor allow the candidates to explain to the electorate, their fellow councillors, why they were best suited for the position and its requirements.
The explanation for this? There was not enough time and the councillors would stay there for a few more hours if such proceedings were allowed. Guildford’s citizens must be proud to know that their elected representatives, in their one monthly meeting do not have enough time for democracy to take its course.
Why waste time, when the outcome is predetermined and unless you are a Conservative, you won’t be voted in?
Two cases stand out: Cllr Angela Gunning’s removal from the Guildford Waterside Centre as well as Cllr Julia McShane’s removal from the Westborough and Park Barn Community Centre.
In a move that represents the nasty approach the Conservatives plan to follow for the next four years, prior to the meeting Cllr Iseult Roche [Con, Worplesdon] notified Cllr Gunning [Lab, Stoke], against whom she was standing, of her intention to withdraw her nomination.
Then, during the proceedings, Conservative Cllr Roche decided to withdraw her withdrawal whilst at the same time making a small speech as to why she was the most appropriate candidate for the position, the only speech allowed.
Lo and behold, she was voted in with Conservative councillors voting, as throughout, almost en bloc.
Similarly, Cllr McShane [Lib Dem, Westborough], a long-standing councillor for her ward was voted out of the Westborough and Park Barn community centre in favour of the two Conservative councillors in the ward, who had stood as “paper candidates”. One of them had not even turned up for the council meeting.
In a council where the leader proclaims the importance of re-building the council’s damaged reputation, yet sees no issues with remaining in business with a convicted forger and deceiver, we should only expect the council’s resources to be used in favour of the narrow-minded Conservatives’ political agenda instead of the well-being of all of Guildford borough’s citizens, to improve living standards right across the borough.
At the same time, the opposition can be ignored and held in contempt throughout.
As the elections held that night showed, there was no concern for the needs of the external organisations, only the needs of the Conservatives. The next four years will deteriorate Guildford’s standard of living for most residents unless they happen to support the Conservatives.
The council meeting clearly showed that in Guildford Borough, local politics do not transcend party politics and petty behaviours. No wonder it switches people off.
George Dokimakis is a member of the Labour Party.
*47%, of those that voted in the recent GBC elections, voted Conservative.
Being in charge of elections at EDDC means never having to say sorry and blaming your staff
Anyone else think this press release is another whitewash, hogwash, brainwash spin cycle.
Elections watchdog report confirms that complexity of polls contributed to errors
East Devon Returning Officer welcomes Electoral Commission comments and confirms improvements to service
The Electoral Commission has today (15 July) published its review of the multiple elections that took place on 7 May 2015 – an unusual occurrence, where for the first time since 1979 the General Election, District, Town and Parish Council elections all took place on the same day. To put this into context, in East Devon, election notices were published for a total of 119 elections covering four local authority boundaries (East Devon, Exeter, Mid Devon and West Devon).
The report – which includes the elections watchdog’s assessment of the performance of Returning Officers – highlights the many administrative issues that arose across the country, ranging from ballot papers issued in error to printing mistakes. But it also confirms that: ‘…the complexity of the polls was a contributing factor: errors were predominantly made in areas where more than one election was taking place…such complexity must be considered as an increased risk factor in the planning and delivery of the election(s).’
A lack of experienced staff was another problem that affected administration efficiency: ‘As most ROs rely on a small dedicated team of staff to organise elections, they rarely have additional experienced staff available to augment the core team to support the management of combined polls or where there are complex cross-boundary issues to resolve.’
However, overall satisfaction was good, as the Electoral Commission’s report found that:
• ‘Nine in ten people surveyed (91%) said the elections in May were well-run.’
• ‘Nearly all (94%) of those who voted in person at a polling station were satisfied with the process.’
• ‘Nearly all (97%) of those who voted by post were satisfied with voting this way. Just over 16% of electors chose to vote by post at the General Election, at the 2010 General Election, the figure was 15%.’
East Devon’s Returning Officer (RO), Mark Williams, is referenced in the report due to his failure to meet two of the Electoral Commission performance standards, as a result of two administrative errors, which may have had a detrimental impact on voters and those standing for election. These were:
1. Incorrect guidance on the back of the postal voting statement that potentially affected a number of postal voters in the district elections.
In response to this comment, Mark Williams said: “Fortunately this matter was identified very speedily and prompt corrective action was taken. I fully accept that the error shouldn’t have happened and I apologised at the time. Even though we issued in excess of 11,000 postal votes, only 14 postal votes needed to be re-issued as a result of the error. It was clear that postal voters used their common sense and followed the instructions on the ballot paper rather than the general guidance on the back of the postal voting statement.
“I know that comment has been made about the cost of the mail-out to those potentially affected by the mistake, but I can assure Council Tax payers that they have not been affected by this, as the cost was covered by ring fenced grants, which we received from HM Government.”
2. The second issue related to a temporary 24-hour arrangement that applied to district council postal votes as a result of concerns raised by a registered political party.
Commenting on this issue, Mark Williams said: “All ROs come under intense pressure during an election period and the Electoral Commission’s report is a timely reminder that we must comply with guidance and legislation despite the pressure of an election. In the case of this matter, it affected 12 postal votes for the district council, all of which were actually included in the count.”
Conclusion
Overall, Mark Williams feels that the 2015 elections were an intense, but successful experience, although he is at pains to point out that he and his team will be redoubling their efforts to ensure that the lessons learnt from these multiple elections are not repeated in the future. “I have a young team who did their very best to provide an excellent service to electors. I acknowledge that we fell short – as highlighted by the Electoral Commission – but when put in context, all 110,000 electors had the opportunity to cast their vote and the election results were robust and not challenged.
“We will be working with the Electoral Commission to identify and implement practical measures that will improve the voting process. Developing the resources of the elections and electoral registration teams is a key immediate priority and we are looking to recruit an additional officer for these services, who will be fully trained in the use of the specialist software that is used for electoral registration and elections. It is important that the high levels of trust that voters place in us are sustained.”
Scrutiny
A report on the issues that arose from the combined Parliamentary, District and Town & Parish Council elections will be presented to the Scrutiny Committee by the Returning Officer Mark Williams on 30 July 2015.
Mark Williams early exit from South Somerset
Wonder if there will be a gagging agreement between EDDC and SSDC re their discussions and decisions about Mr Williams sudden and unanticipated early exit as part-time CEO at South Somerset?
South Somerset will be losing over £100,000 on the deal and it seems EDDC is seamlessly doubling the CEO’s hours, costing us a fair old whack too as this will not have been included in this year’s budget.
We will probably never know.
Still, at least Mr Cohen should have much less to do with his boss back in the driving seat full time, which can only be a good thing. He will have time to reflect on the Information Commissioner’s comments that EDDC (under his lead for the relication project) was considered discourteous, unhelpful and misleading at the recent court case and he can think of ways to rehabilitate EDDC’s reputation – something that could take many hours.
EDDC Freedom of Information overload: it’s all the fault of heir hunters!
It’s Happy-Clappy Midweek Herald day again – all the local good news (apart from shed burglaries) until we get to page 25. There we find a story that EDDC wants to recruit an extra officer to deal with Freedom of Information requests.
Yes, you might think, they certainly need one after two high-profile run-ins with the Information Commissioner recently, one of which led to EDDC appearing in court (in a case which they lost) and one which criticised them for not offering basic guidance on what was needed for them to comply with a request. Both cases involved serious questions about relocation from the Knowle.
But no, it isn’t planning issues (which, from the whatdotheyknow website form a large part of their enquiries), it’s:
companies asking questions about council contracts
and
heir hunters asking about public burials and next of kin!
Now, this raises a fair few questions.
Why are there so many requests from companies asking about council contracts? We know from Information Commissioner v EDDC that the general public are certainly not allowed to see contracts – commercial confidentiality is always cited as the reason not to provide information. But it seems that companies may be getting information we don’t get.
And surely heir-hunters are seeking information already in the public domain.
Whitewash, hogwash and brainwash – with all the washes being given a fast spin by EDDC’s poorly-named “Communications” Department.
Mark Williams to leave South Somerset by the end of this month?
Oddly, discussions on alternative arrangement have taken place only with Conservative and Independent councillors and this is on the council’s agenda for this Thursday:
” …the Leader and Deputy Leader together with the Conservative Group and Independent Group Leaders met with the Leader of EDDC to discuss the current situation and the resolution of Council. As a result of those discussions it has been agreed with EDDC, subject to approval by Council, that the existing agreement be terminated by mutual consent and that to reflect the fact that EDDC could have insisted upon being served 12 months’ notice by this Council from 1st October 2015 that the Council pay 6 months’ worth of the fees due to EDDC. This equates to a one-off payment of £42,124.87. In addition it has been jointly agreed that if approved by Council, termination should take effect from 31st July 2015.”
Click to access 8%20Council%20Report%20July%202015%20FINAL.pdf
“Clean, green and seen” or still “Pale, male, stale”?
Eight meetings advertised in the current Knowledge e-newspaper from EDDC. 5 of the meetings are secret – just as well Diviani didn’t give a “clean, green, seen” speech:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2014/07/18/clean-green-seen-or-pale-male-stale-you-decide/
this time around!:
Manor Pavilion Steering Committee
Recycling and Refuse Board Partnership
Finance briefing for all councillors
Joint scrutiny event (East Devon, Exeter, Teignbridge)
Asset Management Forum
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1214693/the-knowledge-10-july-2015-issue-9.pdf
What is the legal status of the East Devon/Exeter/Teignbridge partnership?
It seems that the grouping of East Devon, Exeter and Teignbridge cannot call itself a combined authority, since this research briefing:
says:
Currently, a combined authority cannot include only part of a county council (or other council) area. The Government has consulted on a change to this requirement, and issued a draft Legislative Reform Order in March 2015. ”
It goes on to say:
“To establish a combined authority, a local authority or authorities must carry out a ‘governance review’ which may recommend the establishment of a combined authority for their area, or including their area. They must publish a “scheme” for the creation of a combined authority. Publication of the scheme requires the consent of the local authority areas included in the scheme.
The Secretary of State must consult the authorities that would be covered by the combined authority, and must be satisfied that the establishment of a combined authority will contribute to economic development and transport policy in the area in question.1 There is also a requirement that:
(4) In making the order, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need—
(a) to reflect the identities and interests of local communities, and (b) to secure effective and convenient local government.2
Authorities may also be removed from the combined authority, or the combined authority may be abolished, again by statutory instrument. There is no power for public bodies other than local authorities to join a combined authority. ”
and then says:
“The 2009 Act provides that combined authorities may not include only part of a local authority within their area. Thus, they cannot include part but not all of a county council area. This is a potential obstacle for some of the current combined authority areas, as the Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) associated with them cover wider ‘functional economic areas’. To circumvent this issue, the concept of ‘associate membership’ has been created. Hence the Sheffield City Region combined authority includes a number of district councils from north Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire as ‘associate members’.
…The Government issued a consultation in April 2014 on removing both these prohibitions on combined authorities via a Legislative Reform Order,6 and a subsequent consultation in December 2014. On 27 March 2015, a draft Order and explanatory note were published.7 The draft Order would remove both prohibitions noted above: on areas which are not geographically contiguous forming combined authorities, and on combined authorities including only part of a county council area. The Secretary of State would still have to be satisfied that the area of the proposed combined authority was a functional economic area, and s/he would be required to take into account the possible effects of establishing a combined authority on adjoining areas.8
Does anyone remember East Devon, Exeter and Teignbridge jumping through these hoops? If they did not are they allowed to combine and what is the legal status of such a combination? Especially its effect on adjoining authorities?
Local Plan hearings
We can do no better than reproduce the report of Susie Bond, Feniton’s hard- working Independent councillor, from her blog:
“This week has been an extraordinarily important week for the whole of East Devon.
EDDC’s headquarters in Sidmouth hosted the hearing sessions for the Examination in Public of the Local Plan before Planning Inspector, Anthony Thickett. His role is to listen to evidence from all parties as to whether East Devon’s Local Plan is worthy of being found sound.
The importance of the Plan should not be underestimated. For years, East Devon has found itself floundering in a planning vacuum, reliant on the vagaries of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to drive planning, so that development is currently happening right across the district in inappropriate locations that were not of the choosing of the electorate nor, on some occasions of the District Council itself.
In my own ward, three sites in Gittisham and Feniton (a total of 382 houses) are in the process of development.
Much has been written about the parlous state of planning under the previous and current Government which has allowed insufficient time for district councils to put a plan in place, but this week all that was put to one side as participants thrashed out the finer points of East Devon’s plan.
The Housing session focused on the very high levels of housing suggested … 950 houses per year proposed by EDDC (whose only masters are the electorate) against the ludicrous levels of housing proposed by the developers (whose only masters are their shareholders).
Part of the discussion in the Hearing session was on Strategy 27, which lists the most sustainable villages in East Devon (including Feniton) and proposes that development should happen only within their built-up area boundary (BUAB) and any development outside the BUAB should be decided according to a community-led Neighbourhood Plan (NP).
Feniton has been working on its NP for the best part of a year now, engaging in public consultation events and leafleting every household in the parish. Neighbourhood Plans are enshrined in the Localism Act of 2011 and are designed to allow communities to have their say about how they develop, not just in the matter of housing, but about every aspect of community life.
Groundhog Day
Discussions on housing numbers waged back and forth for an entire day and I had the distinct feeling of déjà vu. The same developers who argued for higher housing numbers in March 2014 at the first housing session for the Local Plan were back to exercise the same arguments.
It was all so predictable.
The session heard seemingly endless representations from developers who had options on various parcels of land to the effect that their site was in the most sustainable location in East Devon. We heard from the Crown Estates which has land in Axminster. Their representative expounded at length on four separate occasions that his site should go forward.
Land at Uplyme was put forward to help the good people in Lyme Regis on to the housing ladder.
Feniton was not named at all, but developers with interests in Feniton rounded on Strategy 27 saying villages where Neighbourhood Plans are being carried out will just “pull up the drawbridge” and refuse any further development.
The excellent Dr Margaret Hall of East Devon CPRE flew in at this point saying she knew of several Neighbourhood Plans where development was considered to be vital for the community.
Indeed, the whole point is that communities want to be in charge of where that development should happen and not have landowners and developers calling the shots.
Brickbats to Natural England
Woodbury common(2)Natural England took up an immense amount of time arguing at every turn about horseshoe bats, Pebblebed heaths and how they hadn’t been consulted on planning applications. Several of us sat there with our mouths agape and eyes agog at such a misrepresentation of the reality of planning in East Devon.
Trying to get Natural England to comment on the major planning application at Hayne Lane in Gittisham was something of a marathon. The site will have an effect on the setting of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and therefore merited comment from a consultee such as Natural England. After numerous phone calls, they finally agreed to comment last year having argued that they didn’t have time to comment on any applications unless they were actually within the AONB.
As one onlooker to proceedings pointed out they did not expect Natural England to be the stumbling block and nor, they thought, did the officers present. Meanwhile, one Government department is telling us to stop putting barriers up to planning and another is stopping us creating the blueprint for development because of bird protection and access for dog walkers!
The Planning Inspector was quite concerned that Natural England hadn’t been involved as a consultee in the entire process of drawing up the Local Plan. As he closed the hearing sessions, he suggested that Natural England’s representative, Laura Horner, shut herself in a darkened room with planners to resolve her concerns. He also asked for a detailed report from planners proving that EDDC has a 5-year land supply.
East Devon awaits his verdict with interest … and not a little trepidation.
Sidmouth beach huts meeting: Councillor Pook gets it in the neck – again
Futures Forum of the Vision Group for Sidmouth
PUBLIC MEETING TO CONSIDER EDDC PROPOSALS FOR BEACH HUTS
Kennaway House, Sidmouth: Tuesday 7th July 2015
Minutes/Report
Apologies from: Officer Donna Best (EDDC Property), Cllr Iain Chubb (EDDC StreetScene Portfolio), Cllr Stuart Hughes (EDDC Sidmouth/Sidford), Cllr Dawn Manley (EDDC Sidmouth/Sidford), Cllr Simon Pollentine (STC Tourism Portfolio), Cllr Ian Thomas (EDDC Finance Portfolio)
Attendance: approximately 45 members of the public.
Councillors at the meeting: Cllr David Barratt (EDDC Sidmouth Rural), Cllr Matthew Booth (EDDC Sidmouth Town), Cllr John Dyson (EDDC Sidmouth Town), Cllr Cathy Gardner (EDDC Sidmouth Town), Cllr Roger Giles (EDDC Chair, Scrutiny), Cllr Geoff Pook (EDDC Chair, Asset Management Forum), Cllr Marianne Rixson (EDDC Sidmouth Sidford)
The Chair’s notes/agenda can be found here:
https://www.visionforsidmouth.org/media/93781/vgs-futures-forum-7jul15-beach-huts-debate-chairs-notes.docx
Every attendee was invited to address the meeting. Comments included:
Cllr Roger Giles (EDDC Chair, Scrutiny) confirmed that the issue would be on the agenda of the Scrutiny Cttee of 17th September.
Cllr Geoff Pook (EDDC Chair, Asset Management Forum) clarified that the previous AMF had decided to consider ‘best value’ and ‘market price’. The new Cttee will review the situation, identify the way forward and make proposals.
The EDDC questionnaire was only one part of the current consultation; Cllr Pook has attended other meetings on the issue in the District. He understood the depth of feeling and that the document which had been sent out was flawed.
Cllr Pook would be willing to receive correspondence on the issue and will consider concerns by e-mail: gpook@eastdevon.gov.uk
Tom Griffiths, (former Sidmouth beach hut franchisee) pointed out that in 1962 proposals had been made for ‘double-decking’ of huts at Jacob’s Ladder.
Dr John Twibell (Chair, Devon Plant Heritage) outlined the value of the beach garden at Clifton beach, planted together with Sidmouth in Bloom.
To summarise the conclusions from the meeting:
> There was overwhelming opposition from all parties to ‘commercial development’ along Clifton walkway or the beach in general, in that this would devalue the resort, rather than enhance it. It was felt that Sidmouth’s beaches, including its huts, were family-friendly – and that any new arrangement could seriously compromise the welcoming feel of the resort.
> It was recognised that each seaside town in East Devon is different and that this diversity should be recognised in any proposals.
> It was felt that the long-term sustainability of Sidmouth’s seafront should be the priority. Any plans for beach huts should be included in the current Beach Management Plan.
> It was recognised that the waiting lists were long. Should extra huts be required, alternative sites could include:
– one of the terraces behind the existing Jacob Ladder huts;
– on the Esplanade below the Belmont Hotel.
> A design competition for any new huts would excite positive interest.
> A system of ‘lockers’ was suggested to supplement the provision of beach huts.
> There should be a return to a flexible tenure for the whole year, with approx. 10 huts hired out on a weekly basis during the peak summer season, allowing tourists to benefit. Local residents enjoying a long-term let have been more than prepared to accept this arrangement. This could ensure a doubling of current income – as well as a balance between different types of user.
> It was suggested that a lottery system for the out-of-season period might be a fair system of allocating beach huts in the future.
> The voluntary rotation and sharing of the use/tenure of huts between tenants should be recognised and encouraged – as should the value of the huts as a focal point for the local community and for ‘regular tourists’. A set of different rents/rates for huts would disrupt a sense of social cohesion.
> There were fears that a system of ‘highest bidder’ could bring about a similar situation to that in many parts of Cornwall where ‘wealthy outsiders’ have bought up huts at the expense of local people – who, it was felt, should be the priority. Whilst it was understood that EDDC were facing budget cuts, it was important that an equitable solution be found, that tenants not face eviction and that rents be affordable.
> It was generally felt that the consultation had been based on erroneous information, that it had not been fair and open, that proper responses to concerns had not been addressed and that, consequently, any auctioning process would lack legitimacy.
> The financial basis of the proposals was not clear, including the method for calculating the rates, and the final profit made on the huts.
> On the separate but related issue of street trading, there was also overwhelming opposition to relaxing regulations any further. Sidmouth’s retail and hospitality industry relies on the peak weeks during the tourist season – and any provision of commercial services on the beach could jeopardise Sidmouth as an all-year-round resort.
Devolution, Relocation – spanners in works
“Fixing the foundations: Creating a more prosperous nation”, published by the government today:
“15.3 To rebalance the economy, cities need effective governance. OECD research has shown that cities around the world with fragmented governance structures have up to 6% lower levels of productivity than those that do not.
15.4 England currently has 353 local authorities with over 18,000 elected members.5 This can lead to fragmented decision making and blurred accountability; even within the same city region, urban and suburban leaders do not always work together on shared objectives. The experience of London and other major international cities suggests that a directly elected mayor can cut through these difficulties. The government has therefore been clear that devolution of significant powers will rest on cities agreeing to rationalise governance and put in place a mayor to inspire confidence.”
East Devon Watch 