Grenadier is holding consultation events at Ocean in Queen’s Drive on October 21 and 25, between 9am and 5pm, and on November 1 between 5pm and 9pm.
It says the proposed scheme would provide training and changing facilities alongside an outdoor events space and eateries, and is expected to provide services throughout the year.
The initial plans have been called “uninspiring” and protestors note that the illustrations do not show the Queens Drive road diversion as described by EDDC.
First thoughts?
Owl’s – well, it doesn’t look like it will win any design awards! Personally, Owl preferred the boating lake and swan pedallos.
http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/watersports-centre-plans-exmouth-seafront-575281
OUR council has already spent nearly that much on its satellite HQ in Exmouth. The Honiton HQ was supposed to be cost neutral with the proceeds of the £7 Knowle sale to PegasusLife but latest estimates (some while ago and not adjusted for post-Brexit soaring costs) was around £10 million.
How come SWAP could do this in Herefordshire but not in East Devon. Or why KPMG – its new auditors – are not doing it now?
“A special investigation into how the costs of establishing a joint customer services hub in a refurbished building soared from £950,000 to more than £1.9m has found evidence that officers “knowingly disregarded council process and procedures”.
The investigation into the Blueschool House refurbishment was carried out by the South West Audit Partnership for Herefordshire Council. The local authority has been working with the Department of Work and Pensions on the project. Have we ever seen the (updated) business case for the new HQ?
The business case for the hub was approved by the council’s Director of Resources on 13 May 2016 and the key decision taken on 2 June 2016 was approved by the Cabinet Member Contracts and Assets.
The SWAP report said: “Overall the council’s normal governance processes have not been followed by key officers involved in the Blueschool House refurbishment.
The key decision did follow the correct governance process however the business case to support the key decision lacked clarity over what works would be included in the £950K agreed financial envelope.
“It would appear that key staff including senior officers at Director level were aware of the council processes and procedures but these have not been applied during this project and there is evidence that officers have knowingly disregarded council process and procedure.”
The investigation found that although there were early indications from the framework provider that the project could not be delivered within the financial envelope even with value engineering, key officers failed to report this to Cabinet.
The report also said:
The rationale for the selection of the contractor could not be demonstrated as there were no records to support this. The property services team had responded to client requests without providing robust challenge, and had not followed the council procedure rules in relation to procurement.
The relationship between the property services team and contractors appeared to be informal for a capital project of this value and throughout the project there was little evidence that value for money could be demonstrated.
In line with the capital guidance, major projects should be overseen by a project board. The Accommodation Programme Board had oversight of the overall accommodation strategy until November 2016 however, there was no project board for the Blueschool House refurbishment project.
The timescale of the project was identified as a major risk in the business case as the project was subject to a time constraint pressure due to the DWP serving notice on their current property. This was a key factor in ensuring the project was progressed and had contributed to the overall poor governance.
The SWAP report said it was “for management to consider and determine whether any further action such as disciplinary action, should be taken against individual officers as it is clear there has been disregard for processes and procedures which has resulted in a significant overspend on the project”.
The report was due to be considered by the council’s audit and governance committee at a meeting this week (20 September).”
Owl is intrigued by just how much oxygen there is in Oxygen House, Grenadier Road, Exeter Business Park, Exeter EX1 3LH
Click to access Exeter-Business-Park-brochure.pdf
and whether it will be enough to allow everyone working there to breathe it in.
The building is shown here as home to 16 companies:
https://www.companieshousedata.co.uk/a/18713
Of course, it is the headquarters of Grenadier, the preferred developer of the Exmouth watersports centre and Grenadier is shown as having, or having had, no less than eight companies there.
Grenadier Exmouth has five directors, who share 37 directorships of other companies also based at Oxygen House and more companies in different parts of the country (for example head honcho Mark Dixon has 17 of his 20 directorships based in the building and other directorships of other companies in nearby properties on the same business park).
The building’s blurb says:
“The Oxygen House group invests in environmental rebalance on which building a prosperous society depends. A dynamic mix of established companies and start-ups, our specialities include venture capital & private equity, impact investment, property, renewable energy & clean tech, education technology, city planning and data analytics.
Our business model mobilises financial, scientific, mathematical and engineering expertise to address the following urgent goals:
A carbon-neutral society. This will be based on MWs of both renewable energy produced and demand reduced by more prudent energy consumption.
An overhaul in educational standards through shrewd, patient investment in radical data technology.”
AND it is a friendly place for all based there:
“Oxygen House enables individuals and our partner companies to develop and flourish. Literally we’re a shared physical space. Conceptually we’re a mutually supportive value system. Emotionally we’re a family of likeminded companies and individuals. And our commitment to common goals is unshakeable.”
But less obvious is the “shared physical space” and individual connections with “Greater Exeter” and, through that link, to other interests pertinent to East Devon.
For example, “Exeter City Futures” is also shown as having its base there:
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09891138
and one of its directors is Exeter City Councillor, Rosie Denham.
“Exeter City Futures” describes itself laudably thus:
“Exeter City Futures goal is to make the Exeter region congestion free and energy independent by 2025.”
However, Councillor Denham is also an Exeter City Council signatory to one of the major “Greater Exeter” documents, “Exeter and Heart of Devon Economic Partnership Strategy 2017-2020”:
Click to access S0031_EHOD%20shared%20strategy_lowres.pdf
Exeter City, East Devon, Mid Devon and Teignbridge are the partners in that. (Quite how Councillor Denham will make Exeter energy independent without pushing its problems on to the other areas of the partnership, including East Devon, in which she is involved will be very challenging for her)!
Shown also as a director of “Exeter City Futures” is Glen Woodcock. He is a director of no less than NINE companies registered at Oxygen House (plus 5 others elsewhere). He shares several of these directorships with Grenadier boss Mark James Dixon – director of Grenadier Exmouth.
Mr Woodcock is also a director of “City Science Corporation” also based at Oxygen House which includes a description as “Management consultancy activities other than financial management”
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09801932
Owl feels it would be possible to go on and on almost infinitely with these “six degrees of separation” links that bind the individuals popping in and out of Oxygen House and the companies that exist, parallel and overlapping in the building.
But suffice to say, there must be an awful lot of oxygen (and possibly hot air) in the building!
“Peggy Browning bought a new retirement flat in Devon [Exmouth] priced at £206,450 nine years ago, at the age of 89. After her death last year, the property passed to her two daughters. It is now on the market for £125,000 and is proving difficult to sell. Until a buyer is found, Lyn Field and her sister have to pay the £190 a month (£2,282 a year) management charges on the flat, even though it is empty.
Their story highlights the potential burden of retirement properties for buyers’ descendants. A significant number have lost value in recent years and come with hefty charges that fall on those who inherit the homes.
Sebastian O’Kelly of the campaign group Better Retirement Housing said: “Newly built retirement flats have an appalling reputation for value on resale. This family’s example is by no means unusual.”
Almost two-thirds of new retirement homes bought at a similar time to Browning’s were resold at a loss, research by the charity Elderly Accommodation Counsel (EAC) suggests. By contrast, the average price of a UK home has risen by more than 40%, Land Registry figures show.
Adam Hillier of EAC acknowledged that buyers were prepared to pay extra for new properties, but described the number of such homes that had fallen in value as “surprising”.
IN NUMBERS
£206,450 The value of Peggy Browning’s flat when she bought it in 2008
£125,000 The price her home is on the market for today
£190 Monthly charges that must be covered by her daughters
Additional costs typically include ground rent, paid to the freeholder, and exit fees, calculated as a percentage of the value when the flat is resold. Hillier said exit fees could be as high as 30% in developments offering care in the home and facilities such as shops and subsidised restaurants.
Browning bought her flat in the seaside town of Exmouth from McCarthy & Stone, Britain’s leading retirement home developer. The company said: “We are sorry to hear about the fall in value [of Mrs Browning’s property]. We recognise there are a small number of cases, particularly with our older properties and those sold in the recession, where the resale values of some apartments have not performed as well as we would have wished. This can be down to many reasons, including the performance of some local property markets. … ”
Sunday Times, pay wall
“Knowle Council Chamber yet again rang with cries of “Shame” from the public gallery, as entrenched Party allegiance took precedence over East Devon’s wellbeing, and the Motion of No Confidence in the EDDC Leader was lost by 31 votes to 18.
Of the 32 Tory members present (there were some notable absences, including some who had distanced themselves from Diviani), one abstained and 31 voted against. The Motion, called by the Independent Group, was supported by strong and clear arguments condemning Diviani for his conduct at the Devon County Health Scrutiny Committee*. As Cllr Roger Giles (Ottery St Mary) spoke of it as “a day of shame and infamy”, adding, ”In 26 years on this Council, I cannot think of a single occasion where a Leader has gone against his Council”.
Condemnation came from Council representatives far and wide across the District, to frequent applause from the crammed-full public gallery. Cllr Ben Ingham (Lympstone), who had called the Motion, pointed out why Diviani’s conduct had failed “all of the 7 Nolan principles in one go”, indicating how “This council continues to fester under a pernicious Leader”. Cllr Val Ranger (Newton Poppleford and Harpford) reminded Members that “We relied on Paul Diviani”, and arguing that “He does not understand the role of his own Scrutiny Committee.”
Cllr Cathy Gardner (Sidmouth) sympathised with Tory Councillors now finding themselves “between a rock and a hard place” (as they’d voted unanimously for the decision that their Leader had then ignored), and asked them, “Are your principles with your Party or with the people of East Devon?”
Cllr Geoff Jung (Woodbury) put his support for the No Confidence Motion succinctly, “Cllr Diviani agreed to take our vote to the DCC meeting, but he voted the other way”. Cllr Cllr Marianne Rixson (Sidmouth-Sidford ) said, “He’s betrayed everyone. How can we trust a Leader who ignores us? When will he do it again?”. Cllr Susie Bond (Feniton & Buckerell) reported her own town council’s “unanimous and extreme dismay”. Cllr Steve Gazzard (Exmouth) reasoned that “The Leader has got it totally wrong” . Cllr Peter Burrows (Seaton) said, “Councillors should support Community first, Party second.” Cllr Peter Faithfull (Ottery St Mary) drew attention to the central issue that “The personal views of one councillor (Diviani) is not what this is about. It’s whether we can have confidence in him”.
In contrast, contributions from the Conservative Councillors supporting their Leader, seemed to be largely out of focus. Cllrs Mark Williamson , Geoff Pook, Ian Hall and others, spoke mainly about NHS difficulties, some citing personal stories at some length. There were frequent calls of “irrelevant” from the public.
The Chair made no attempt to remind them of the wording of the Motion they were there to debate, but cautioned the public on several occasions, that hecklers would be removed.
So many members of the public had registered to speak, but the time allocation of 15 minutes in total, meant that several questions could not be put. The Chair, Andrew Moulding (Axminster) did however ensure that one question to the Leader, from East Devon resident, Jane Ashton, was answered straightaway. Here it is, with the response.
Jane Ashton : “When members of the public stand up for democracy, honesty and representation, to accuse them of being politically motivated is disrespectful. Would you acknowledge that?”
Paul Diviani replied that he “doesn’t recall himself ever saying these words. I would not like to be seen to be disrespectful in any way.”
The Leader’s reply might perplex the public who were there last night for the second Extra Ordinary Meeting concerning the fate of the Exmouth Fun Park.
Full report on both Extra Ordinary Meetings on the Devonlive news:
http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/council-leader-survives-vote-no-473700”
A VOTE WILL BE HELD NOW ON THE MOTION TO GIVE THE FUN PARK THE SAME TERMS OF THE LEASE AS THE HARBOUR VIEW CAFE
KEY EVENT
For – 21
Against – 26
Abstain – 0
Notice of motion is not agreed – it is the end of the debate – the fun park will close.
For full summary of what residents and councillors said, see:
http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/vote-no-confidence-east-devon-470930
From a comment from Save Exmouth Seafront – these are views and claims that Owl cannot verify but which do come from a usually reliable source:
“Recently we reported that last minute efforts to keep the popular Fun Park trading beyond 31st August sadly collapsed late afternoon on the final day.
We understand from a very reliable source that an officer of EDDC council said during discussions that the Fun Park was not being granted a licence to remain open to the public and trade because the tenant did not ask for this type of licence.
However it emerges that the tenant did in fact request an extension of his lease explicitly referring to trading after August 31st. This explicit request was in an email sent a week before the closure – to that same EDDC officer.
This information is verifiable. It is shocking to contemplate that an EDDC officer would or could behave in this way.
It reveals what appears to be underhanded tactics in dealing with the closure of the Fun Park. Many Exmouth residents have said they believe the tenant and the Fun Park have been treated unfairly by EDDC. Many have expressed the opinion that he has been victimised because he challenged EDDC through the Courts.
On the surface it’s made to appear publicly everything is being carried out in a systematic and business like way. Behind the scenes, however, it looks like there is no intention of allowing the tenant a decent chance to keep the Fun Park open at this time. Nor is there any intention of giving any credence to the views and wishes of residents and visitors who value and want the amenities of the Fun Park to remain longer.
So, District Councillors – including those of you who also sit on the Town Council, it is time you read, and answer, the emails being sent to you about the closure of the Fun Park. It is time to have a close look on the Facebook pages where Exmouth residents and visitors are expressing their views and their frustration at not being listened to by you. It is time for you to demonstrate that you understand you were elected to serve, not to dictate, what the community wants. The voters in Exmouth for the most part do not have a very high opinion of you at this time. You were elected once but there is a ground swell of dissatisfaction with your performance. Exmouth voters are finding their voice.
It is also time, District Councillors, to question EDDC officers more closely and to expect to be given the evidence backing up their plans and statements. It is also time to stop accepting at face value what you are told in reports and to proactively support what your electorate wants in Exmouth.”
Not to mention re-routing roads in Exmouth so developers can make more money!
“No one in Westminster can say how local authorities will be funded after 2020
From struggling northern councils to seemingly prosperous counties, talk of a financial meltdown is getting louder. “It looks as though we’re approaching a cliff edge and no one has any idea how to stop us hurtling over it,” warns Nick Forbes, senior vice-chair of the Local Government Association (LGA) and Labour leader of Newcastle city council. It is a sentiment echoed across the political spectrum.
For once, it is not the dire prospect of failing to reach a Brexit trade deal which is exercising the minds of local politicians, but rather the consequences of an inconclusive general election. The resulting stasis in government has left English councils in financial limbo, staring into an abyss. Bluntly, no one in government can say how authorities will be funded after 2020 when they were all supposed to become self-financing.
Business rates plan raises fears of greater inequality among councils
Former chancellor George Osborne’s big idea was to set councils free of Whitehall – minus multibillion-pound grants – by handing them back business rate revenue raised locally, instead of redistributing it centrally. Since 2013, councils have kept 50%, which yields £26bn nationally. In his 2016 budget Osborne proclaimed that, compared with 2010 when 80% of council funding came through Whitehall, 100% of local government resources would come from councils themselves by 2020 – “raised locally, spent locally, invested locally”. An alluring prospect?
Some fell for it, foolishly believing this would mythically fill a looming £2.6bn social care funding gap, likely by 2020 on LGA calculations. In reality, the consequences were dire. Without a redistribution formula to compensate councils in poorer areas with boarded-up high streets and, consequently, small tax bases yielding low business rates, some authorities would struggle to balance their books – a legal requirement (unlike the NHS or Whitehall departments). Alongside this financial “devolution” came a sting in the tail: a multimillion pound central government revenue support grant, a mainstay of council funding, would be phased out.
But Osborne’s grand design crashed when a local government finance bill, the delivery mechanism, fell in the run-up to the June election. It has not been resurrected. The resulting Queen’s speech omitted to mention the proposed legislation.
Forbes highlights the dilemma. While Newcastle, ostensibly with the highest business tax base in the north-east, raises £154m a year from business rates, he estimates it would still be £16m a year worse off than under the current grant regime. By contrast, Westminster city council would be the ultimate winner – raising £1.8bn annually.
Such disparities were being addressed in a “fair funding review” involving senior civil servants and local government professionals earlier this year alongside discussions on the practicalities of devolving business rates to councils by 2020. But since June there has been a deafening silence in Whitehall. No meetings have taken place. “There was a relatively advanced debate about how the 100% retention [of business rates] would work – and a debate within local government about what kind of criteria is needed for some kind of redistribution mechanism,” says Forbes. “We were gearing up over the next few years to work with government. And all of what has collapsed.”
The result is one almighty mess. Professional bodies, such as the organisation representing senior council finance officers – the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (Cipfa) – are close to despair. English local government is facing the worst of all outcomes: the phasing out of a central revenue support grant without the compensation of a locally held business rate underpinned by a yet-to-be defined redistribution formula, in which rich councils would have to help compensate the poorest.
Having seen their budgets chopped by at least a third since 2010 in the name of austerity, councils are already facing their biggest financial crisis. This is compounded by funding for adult and children’s social care consuming two-thirds of their budgets, with other once-essential services slashed or axed.
Confusion reigns. Already three areas, Greater Manchester, Liverpool city region and London are piloting the full, local 100% business rate regime, buoyed by – presumably interim – government funding to ensure they do not lose out. Other pilots were promised. But there is doubt over whether the full devolution of business rates will ever happen.
If that’s the case, Forbes wonders what the pilot areas are meant to be piloting? For its part, the LGA has one concern: “Where’s the Plan B?” asks Forbes. No one can answer. The clock is ticking.”
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/05/how-will-councils-survive-funding-abyss
“The Exmouth Neighbourhood Plan consultation document follows nearly two years of preparation and consultation, both with community groups and members of the public.
Now, the public are being given the chance to have their say again, with the document to be published online on Friday, September 1. People will be able to comment online for one month, and also at an event at Ocean, Queen’s Drive, on Tuesday, September 19.” …
http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/draft-vision-for-exmouth-is-revealed-1-5175293
“Floral tributes were left inside the iconic swanboat and messages of thanks were left as a family run seafront Fun Park closed after more than 60 years tomorrow.
The Fun Park on Queen’s Drive, Exmouth, closed for the last time on Thursday ahead of major multi-million pound plans that East Devon District Council has to renovate the seafront.
Hundreds of people came out for one last ride on the pedalos and a round of crazy golf at the Fun Park.
A vigil was also held by Save Exmouth Seafront campaigners and floral tributes were presented to the Wright family who have run the Fun Park for more than four decades.
Unless a motion that an extraordinary meeting of East Devon District Council to be held on September 13 to discuss the closure of the businesses as part of the Queen’s Drive redevelopment is agreed to give the seafront businesses a chance of an eleventh-hour reprieve, the Exmouth Fun Park has now closed for good.
The Harbour View Café is set to follow the Fun Park in closing at the end of September while several long-standing businesses including DJ’s Diner, the Arnold Palmer/Jungle Fun site, and the model railway have already closed. … ”
http://www.devonlive.com/whats-on/family-kids/floral-tributes-laid-hundreds-say-408634
Today is the last day today for the Fun Park complex run by the local Wright family in Exmouth, who must make way for EDDC’s vision of the future – a no-doubt very expensive water sports centre and other coastal clone businesses.
If you will miss this attraction and the local family who run it, people are being asked to please turn up with thank you’s, mementoes etc for a Wright family tribute today.
Save Exmouth Seafront will be there from 11 to 8 pm tonight when the doors finally shut.
Its contents will be auctioned on Friday:
http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/exmouth-fun-park-contents-set-403954
And here is the spin, spin, spin:
“East Devon District Council has confirmed it has signed a deal with Grenadier Estates for new watersports centre in Exmouth.
The watersports centre will be community focused and a not for profit development, and forms an integral part of the council’s plans to regenerate the seafront area, the new centre will be built on a former car park on Queen’s Drive.
As well as offering watersports facilities, a new access ramp will be incorporated within the development allowing easier access to the beach, and will further confirm Exmouth’s place as a leading UK watersports destination, the council say.
Cllr Philip Skinner, the council’s portfolio holder for economy, and chairman of the Exmouth Regeneration Board, said: “I am delighted that we are entering into this agreement with Grenadier Estates. There has been a long-held commitment to have this watersports centre for Exmouth and we are now taking a huge step forward to achieving this ambition.
“The council, through the Exmouth Regeneration Board, has delivered significant improvements for Exmouth over recent years including the new Strand in the town centre, the new Premier Inn and more recently, the re-opening of a brand new Mamhead slipway. The delivery of the first phases of the Queen’s Drive regeneration is now the next step in this exciting journey for Devon’s largest town.” …
http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/deal-signed-developers-new-watersports-369821
There is more in the same vein, but Owl can’t bear to give them more oxygen of publicity.
Owl predicts it will indeed be extraordinary – if it happens!
“East Devon District Council says it is to hold an extraordinary meeting to discuss the future of two Exmouth seafront businesses which are set to close imminently.
The council confirmed its chief executive was considering a request for a meeting to discuss the future of Exmouth Fun Park, set to close next week, and the Harbour View Café, set to close at the end of September.
A spokesperson said: “We will announce shortly when that meeting will be held.”
The sites of those businesses are needed for phase three of EDDC’s proposed three-phase seafront redevelopment plans, but there is currently no developer in place for this phase, and it was revealed last week that the site has not yet been remarketed to developers.
EDDC said last week that sites would be boarded up ‘for a time’, but that temporary attractions could be provided.”
Stakeholders? Bet it isn’t us but developers he’s talking about! Exmouth’s Queen’s Drive access for Grenadier, “improved access” to Feniton, Gittisham and Cranbrook western extension here we come!
“Since September last year, EDDC has been charging Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on certain types of new development.
The council passes 15 per cent of this income, or 25 per cent if a neighbourhood plan has been completed, to town or parish councils, with the remainder to be spent by EDDC.
The council is now inviting stakeholders involved in the delivery of infrastructure to bid for this cash by September 22, with a final decision to be made in February 2018.
Councillor Phil Twiss, EDDC’s portfolio holder for strategic development and partnerships, said: “The CIL is a fairer, faster and more transparent way of funding infrastructure delivery.
“It provides more certainty than the current Section 106 system, which is negotiated on a site by site basis.
“However, unlike 106 money, CIL money can be spent anywhere in the district.
“Unfortunately, the projected income from CIL falls a long way short of the total infrastructure costs required to deliver the Local Plan.
“This is because the legislation requires the charges to be set based on what is viable for developments to pay rather than what is required to deliver the necessary infrastructure.
“CIL was designed to be matched with funds from other sources in order to deliver projects and so difficult decisions will need to be made in terms of prioritising projects and projects should demonstrate what other funding would be used in addition to CIL.
“The CIL pot is never going to be able to meet all demands made on it and we will have a robust and rigorous qualification process in place to ensure that the money is well spent and in the right places.”
“Sailors, kite surfers and other water users on the Exe Estuary want plans for two exclusion zones to protect wildlife scrapped, claiming they would cause conflict among them and could force them out the water.
Pete Hardy, from the Exe Powerboat and Ski Club, described the plans as “very frustrating” and claims water users concerns are not being listened to.
“Powerboating would be affected by the other sports being pushed into our area and it would lead to conflict between powerboaters, kite surfers and paddle boarders,” he said.
But Exe Estuary Management Partnership says in its eight months of consultation it has listened to “hundreds” of views and, as a direct result, has amended some proposals.
It says human activity directly influences the distribution and behaviour of wildlife on the Exe and with more people choosing to live, work and holiday in the area, the number of water users will continue to rise.
Wildlife charities have declined to comment before the consultation period finishes tomorrow.
Dear Dr MacAllister
Thank you for your request for information. Please find the response to your query below.
Please clarify who was awarded the contract to market the site for the second time and when the agent began the process of remarketing the site
The requested information is not held – we have not progressed the re-marketing of this site.
How many developers were contacted with brochures or other marketing materials in respect of the second marketing of the Queens Drive site?
The requested information is not held – we have not progressed the re-marketing of this site
What has been, or will be, the process for the selection of the preferred bidder?
The requested information is not held – this process has not commenced
How many organisations have, to date, submitted a bid to develop the site and what are there names?
No information held – we have not progressed the re-marketing of this site
What is the timeline with regards to choosing a preferred developer
Timescales are as published online http://eastdevon.gov.uk/regeneration-pro… although there has been some slippage.
Please provide minutes of meetings and correspondence between the council, the marketing agent and prospective and submitted bidders
The requested information is not held – we have not progressed the re-marketing of this site
Please provide evidence and explanation of the logic of pursuing vacant possession as a means ro entice a developer and please explain the process of decision making
The requested information is not held – we have not progressed the re-marketing of this site and so minutes, emails and other communications are not held. Please also note that we are not required to provide commentary or explanation in order to comply with our obligations under Freedom of Information legislation – our responsibility is to provide copies of information held only.
I hope this information is helpful but, if you feel dissatisfied with the way we have responded to your request, please contact our Monitoring Officer, Mr Henry Gordon Lennox, to request an internal review [email address]
You may also approach the Information Commissioner for advice at http://www.ico.org.uk
Regards
*They can’t be called minutes as it can only make recommendations not take decisions
** Assuming there is a plan
Click to access 130717-notes.pdf
Highlights
Catering contract marketed with no water or electricity but this will be “overcome” with containers!
“JL reported that a three year temporary catering provision had been marketed and received a lot of interest, with returns expected by 21 July 2017. It was unrealistic to expect anything to be operating on the site this summer season, but it could be a year round offer. The successful tender would be decided on the price/quality offer. The visitor survey had provided evidence for demand for the type of offer at Orcombe Point.
There was an issue with no direct water or electricity services on site, although it was possible that these could be overcome.
It was likely that the provision would be in the form of a containerised structure. The planning conditions were fairly light, including the need to clad any structure to be in keeping with the environment.”
EDDC might “invest” in the Magnolia Centre:
“Members noted that there was the need to look at the retail plan for the town centre. However, it was acknowledged that there was a problem with the disparate ownership of property throughout the town centre, and whether EDDC should consider investing some of its reserves in the purchase of land, such as Magnolia Centre.”
No lease agreed with Grenadier:
“The development agreement and lease had not yet been completed with Grenadier, although it was hoped that points could be finalised with the legal times the following week. It was hoped that an application would come in September.”
“Save Exmouth Seafront campaigners are urging both East Devon District Council and its preferred developer Grenadier Estates to re-consider the building of a Water Sports centre after concern that its location will ‘threaten the entire existence of a World Heritage Site’. …
Nick Hookway, Save Exmouth Seafront spokesman, said: “SES has recently been made aware of concerns raised within the management of the UNESCO world heritage site, “The Jurassic Coast” regarding the proposed “Water Sports” development on Queen’s Drive.
“Such concerns centre on any inappropriate developments that could be clearly seen from any vantage point within the world heritage centre, “The Jurassic Coast”.
“By standing at the Geoneedle on Orcombe Point, the proposed “Water Sports” centre would be clearly visible as it would be situated on a curve that juts out into the Estuary.”SES members posed the question: “Is this council prepared to deal with the hostile global criticism that any adverse impacts from this application may lead to?”
Read more Lyme Regis beach closed after hand grenade is discovered
Professor Malcolm Hart, Vice-Chair of the Science and Conservation Advisory Group of the World Heritage Site, “The Jurassic Coast” has recently stated: “In the case of Exmouth and the River Exe, the views to the west and north are spectacular and continue onwards the geology of the site… Clearly one does not want to nibble away at the ends (or the middle) of the site in any way and so what one can see from Orcombe point and Maer Rocks IS important.”
Mr Hookway added: “On the basis of this new information, SES now urges both EDDC and its preferred developer Grenadier Estates to re-consider the building of a Water Sports centre in such a prominent, environmentally sensitive location. For such a development risks destroying the vista from Orcombe Point and threatens the entire existence of the World Heritage Site “The Jurassic Coast”.
“No doubt South West businesses reliant upon Tourism and those whose jobs depend upon visiting tourists would also wish to raise their concerns with Cllr Skinner. Indeed in attempting “Regeneration”, Cllr Skinner through his cavalier and ill-considered actions may actually achieve “Degeneration” instead. What a legacy that would be.”
East Devon District Council’s response was … blah, blah, blah – best read it for yourself … predictable … developer led … etc
Councillor Richard Scott yesterday voted for closure of Honiton and Seaton hospitals. Yet on 26 March this is what he wrote about councillors from outside an area voting on matters that had “nothing to do with them”:
East Devon Watch 