Category Archives: Exmouth

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Coastal communities, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Exmouth, Grenadier, Regeneration

Exmouth seafront: reserved matters planning application WILL result in full planning permission

“Residents attending a meeting about East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) reserved matters application for the seafront said members did not debate relevant planning points.

They called for the vote to support the plan be declared invalid. Residents also said Councillor Lynne Elson should apologise to district councillor Megan Armstrong for interrupting her.

An EDDC spokesperson said: “EDDC’s monitoring officer has considered this letter of complaint, but, in a case such as this, neither he nor the council are in a position to interfere with the legitimate decision-making of Exmouth Town Council.”

The spokesperson said concern about the decision would be a legal matter for the courts, and added that even if a councillor had been found in breach of the code of conduct, this would not legally affect the decision.

They added that the monitoring officer had heard a recording of the meeting and ruled there was nothing ‘untoward’ in the exchange between Cllr Elson and Cllr Armstrong.

The spokesperson added that although the application would produce a ‘valid and implementable’ planning permission, only the district council could carry out the development if approved.

However, EDDC has confirmed it only intends to realign the road and carry out the car park works. Therefore, any developers would have to apply for permission for the watersports centre and remainder of the site.

In response, Ron Metcalfe, one of the complainants, said: “We thank EDDC for finally confirming that if the reserved matters application is approved it will result in a valid and implementable planning permission to build.

“The basis of our complaint was an EDDC and town councillor repeatedly claimed this was not the case.

“We remain concerned that the town council decision was made based on misleading and inaccurate information and lack of relevant discussion.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/complaint_against_exmouth_town_council_vote_dismissed_1_4903311

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Exmouth

Exmouth: grab your Warren View sports ground before it goes for development

If no suitable tenants are found EDDC could use that as an excuse to sell it. Maybe consider village green status asap too?

http://www.devonlive.com/sports-clubs-wanted-to-take-over-lease-of-exmouth-sports-ground/story-30166070-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Exmouth, Grenadier, Infrastructure, Philip Skinner, Regeneration, Transparency

“Council questioned about Exmouth seafront application”

“District bosses say they will not begin building on Exmouth seafront if an application is approved, despite saying it would permit them to ‘take forward development’.

East Devon District Council (EDDC) has put in a reserved matters application for Queen’s Drive, seeking detailed permission for facilities. EDDC says this will extend outline permission, and allow consultation, but opponents say it would allow building to begin.

Seeking clarification, the Journal approached EDDC, citing the Government’s Planning Portal website, which says: “When all of the reserved matters have been approved, work may begin.”

In response, a spokesman said: “A planning permission that can be implemented is very important. Therefore, the council has applied for approval of matters which were reserved under the outline planning permission. In other words, reserved matters is permission to take forward development, but the council’s development role is limited in budget and authority to build the new road and car park only. The rest of the site will be delivered later and in full consultation with the public.”

When the Journal asked why the application was needed for the road and car park when reserved matters for these had already been approved, the spokesman said: “Yes, the council has a reserved matters approval already for the road and car park but it is necessary for the council to secure reserved matters for the entire site (phases two and three as well as phase one) before the road and car park can be built. In any event, the council will only start works on moving them when it is sure that [developer] Grenadier has secured planning permission for its watersports centre.

“Reserved matters on the rest of the site also enables Grenadier to take forward their plans to consultation, design and planning.”

In response, Independent EDA district councillor Megan Armstrong, who has previously criticised the plans, said: “Why don’t EDDC simply acknowledge the fact that approval of a reserved matters application is a full permission to build without further planning applications or consultation?

“The Government says ‘When all of the reserved matters have been approved, work may begin on the site’. So why doesn’t the council come clean instead of using back door tactics and obscure wording?

“I also find it most bizarre that the district council should apply for this when it seems that it has no intention of using it. What other planning applicant would do this, and at such huge cost to the council tax payer?”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Feb 2017

Posted under

Consultation, EDDC, Exmouth

EDDC asks for public views on alcohol-related anti-social behaviour

“East Devon District Council is asking the public to have their say on plans to introduce new rules to crackdown on alcohol related anti-social behaviour in Exmouth.

The council recently revealed plans for a new Public Space Order Protection (PSPO) in the town centre. …”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/council-asks-for-public-8217-s-view-on-how-to-tackle-antisocial-behaviour-in-exmouth/story-30137722-detail/story.html

Will they take any more notice of this than the “consultation” on the seafront development? Only if it agrees with what they have already decided!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Exmouth, Moirai Exmouth project, Philip Skinner, Regeneration

Moirai Capital sacked in Swindon

“Ambitious plans to build a ski slope, an arena and hotel on the North Star site have been given a last minute reprieve with the involvement of Seven Capital Investments. In December [2016], development firm Moirai Capital was served with notice that Swindon Borough Council intended to call time on the project after repeated delays and unfulfilled commitments.

Seven Capital Investments Ltd, which is also one of the UK’s leading private capital funders, has agreed in principle to acquire control of Moirai Capital Investments in order to take forward plans to transform North Star with more than £100m of investment.

Currently managing a development portfolio of more than £800 million, Seven Capital has been responsible for major property investments across the country and has identified the North Star development as an ideal opportunity for it to invest in the leisure market.

Seven Capital’s interest in the regeneration project comes after the Council served Moirai notice of its intention to terminate the development agreement covering the former Clares site, which had been earmarked for an indoor ski slope, water park, hotel and other leisure and sports-related retail.

Moirai was given until 12 January 2017 to fulfil the terms of the notice or see the development agreement terminated. But following the proposal by Seven Capital, the Council has today (11 Jan 2017) withdrawn the notice of termination.

The plans for the North Star development include a cinema, 5,000-seat entertainment arena, ski centre, range of leisure activities, restaurants and cafes, retail space and a hotel.

A period of due diligence will now be carried out by both the Council and Seven Capital which, if successful, will see the Council’s Cabinet consider whether to approve the proposal.

Seven Capital has indicated it would also work with Moirai on the Oasis site.

If Seven Capital’s proposals are supported by Cabinet, detailed planning proposals could be submitted later this year.”

http://www.ozseeker.net/2017/01/22/seven-captial-resucues-swindons-north-star/?doing_wp_cron=1487023081.3896689414978027343750

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Feb 2017

Posted under

Democracy, Exmouth

“Lack of interest sees Exmouth Mayor’s Ball cancelled”

“The Mayor of Exmouth, Councillor Brian Cole, said: “Due to a lack of support, I regretfully have to announce that the 2017 Mayor’s Ball has been cancelled. Despite receiving support from local businesses, there has not been enough interest to enable me to ensure that I could hold the ball without running at a loss.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/lack_of_interest_sees_exmouth_mayor_s_ball_cancelled_1_4883355

Might it also be that many people in Exmouth are none too happy with the council and the Mayor’s recent decisions and therefore feel unable to support their extra-curricular activities?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Feb 2017

Posted under

Art and Culture, EDDC, Exmouth

Exmouth: Dinan Way extension paused by government

Yet another example of problems with the planning process in East Devon:

“In a statement issued by the National Trust this week, a spokesperson said: “We have no objection to the principle of the road, but we are concerned that the planning process designed to protect our historic environment has not been followed thoroughly.

“Conservation issues raised during the consultation period have not been addressed in the current plans.

“The National Trust’s concerns centre around the impact of the proposed route on A la Ronde, a Grade I listed building, but also on how the road might harm the wider A la Ronde setting in the longer term.

“The concerns of the National Trust are such that we felt that our only option was to submit a request to the Department for Communities and Local Government for the planning application to be considered at national level.

“Historic England, the Government’s advisory body on heritage matters, corroborates the view that the application has the ‘potential for very long-term harmful consequences to a heritage asset of the highest significance.’…”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/government-blocks-exmouth-s-dinan-way-scheme-after-national-trust-objection/story-30123973-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Feb 2017

Posted under

Developers/ Development, Exmouth, Transport (local)

Exmouth: Will Dinan Way planning application be called in?

“The saga of the proposed completion of Dinan Way has taken another twist, after Whitehall chiefs stepped in to stop it being approved.

It had seemed the long wait for the new road was over, after Devon County Council’s development management committee voted to approve the scheme, for an 830m stretch of road linking Hulham Road and the A376, last week.
But the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has now issued a holding notice, while it considers if the Secretary of State should intervene to make the final decision.

This is understood to be due to a protest by the National Trust, which has opposed the scheme due to concerns about the effect on Grade One listed A la Ronde, in nearby Summer Lane.

A DCLG spokesman said: “We have received some representation, and the decision we have made is to put in a holding direction, which means we now have the time to consider whether to call it in or not. If it was called in it would be for the Secretary of State to decide.”

Development management committee member Councillor Eileen Wragg said she understood the National Trust had made the application.

The National Trust had not responded to a request for a comment at the time of going to press.

Exmouth councillors had told last week’s meeting the new road was long overdue.

Councillor Bernard Hughes, whose Halsdon and Woodbury ward includes the site of the new road, told the committee: “Much traffic [currently] passes Exmouth Community College, and a hospital and a very busy health centre. I have no doubt that, given the chance, an estimated 40 per cent of traffic would use this [proposed] road.”

Cllr Wragg said: “I have no hesitation in supporting this. “It would not redirect traffic from the A376, but it would reduce pressure on other roads running through residential areas.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/plan_for_exmouth_s_dinan_way_hits_further_delay_1_4875160

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Exmouth, Planning System, Regeneration, Transparency

“Queen’s Drive. Is it a full planning application or not?”

Press Release 31.1.17

“A most heated debate took place at Exmouth Town Council’s Planning Committee meeting last night.

Cllr Megan Armstrong, an EDA Independent District Councillor for Exmouth explained at some length that the “Reserved Matters Application” they were about to debate was in effect a “Full Planning Application” for phases 2 and 3 for the Queen’s Drive development.

The Chairman however interjected half way through her 3 minute allocated time and stated she wished to make a point clear. She then explained that East Devon District Council (the Applicant) has not allocated funding for the project, and therefore was not in a position to proceed.

NOTE (The consideration that an applicant has funds to deliver a project is not a consideration for a planning committee to debate).

Cllr Megan Armstrong was then allowed to proceed and stated she hoped the committee would consider the planning application without reference to the press releases and documents sent to each councillor by the applicant.
“Forget the promise of further consultations and further promises of more planning applications, don’t be confused by the press releases and further information sent to you, they are inadmissible.”

“You have to consider this application on its own merits from the documents and plans presented and anything else you have been told is irrelevant and should not be a consideration.”

NOTE (Planning regulations state that an applicant can apply in one of two ways. To submit a “Full Planning Application”, or if the application is substantial or problematic the applicant can submit an “Outline Planning Application” reserving all the detailed drawings and details to be submitted if the outline application is approved within a 3 year time period. This is known as a “Reserved Matters Application”).

Following the representations from a number of local residents and Cllr Armstrong the Chairman opened the debate to the planning committee.
Cllr Bill Nash (Conservative) started the proceedings explaining to the committee that Cllr Armstrong was incorrect and referring to the press release and documents sent by the applicant, explained that the application was merely an extension to the outline, and that there will be further planning applications and consultations for Phases 2 and 3.

At no time during the whole debate were the plans explained or shown on the large screen. The only document shown throughout the debate on the overhead projector was a flowchart of the possible suggested consultations and planning applications that may be brought forward at a later date.

In fact one councillor stated he looked forward to the plans for the “Watersports Centre” in phase 2 and another councillor was most interested in seeing the proposals for the hotel plans in phase 3.

This simply demonstrated that some of the planning committee members had not seen the full list of documents that they were now discussing.

The local authority planning portal has all the detailed plans for the application, and it is standard practice for major planning applications for the local authority to provide paper copies as well as providing the information online to assist councillors to understand the proposal that they were required to debate and on which they should agree a proposal.
Within the documents provided were very detailed drawings of both the proposed hotel and full details of the watersports centre, showing every aspect including the positions of the tables and chairs and the cycle store layout!

The public who are not allowed to comment or interject during the debate were at times most vocal to the discussion and content of the debate, demonstrating their displeasure as much as they were able.

The whole debate centred on the issue that it was a “mere exercise” in extending an outline application (this is not permitted in National Planning Policy). The other issues debated were the further consultations and further planning applications.

NOTE. (A planning application should be considered in its entirety with only the planning documents presented by the applicant and separate from any other planning application).

Without a single explanation of the design and layout and without a single illustration of the proposal the chair asked for a vote and the decision was carried 6 votes to 3.

The decision demonstrates the change in opinion as the previous outline application was not supported by the Town Council and in fact Cllr Bill Nash wrote a very strong letter of objection regarding the outline proposal in 2013 on behalf of his constituents living on Trefusis Terrace overlooking the proposed development.

Cllr Megan Armstrong when asked about the decision said:

“I was not surprised by the inconsistencies and change in opinion. It is unfortunate that such an important decision seems to have been turned into a party political game which is so sad. Party politics should not be an issue for such a momentous decision for the people of Exmouth.”

“However the town council planning committee is simply a consultee and the final decision will be made at East Devon’s Development Management Committee meeting at Sidmouth in a few months’ time.”

“Let us all hope that the facts will be explained without any spin and the decision is agreed democratically by the members on the district council committee.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, EDDC, Exmouth, Freedom of Information Act, Honiton/ Gittisham, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Transparency

Knowle relocation costs: it’s up to us to check as councillors don’t get the information

And this is how we do it (whilst we have a Freedom of information Act):

“Dear East Devon District Council,

I would like to make a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I am also making this Request under the Environmental Impact Regulations 2004 which require disclosure on the part of Local Authorities.

Please let me have the costs to date of the Knowle relocation project, to include all preliminary pre “moving decision” costs, and subsequent costs of all work associated with the intended reallocation, including those at The Knowle, Manstone, the intended Honiton site and Exmouth Town Hall

I should also like to know the current projected costs of the Exmouth Town Hall move, (including all associated costs such as moving, staff compensation and travel costs and fitting out costs), and for Honiton and costs associated with the “mothballing” of various parts of the Knowle contingent upon the intended relocation of 90 staff to Exmouth.”

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/costs_to_date_of_knowle_bhonito?nocache=outgoing-618160#outgoing-618160

And if they say they can’t tell us how much it has cost so far …..

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Coastal communities, Consultation, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Exmouth, Freedom of Information Act, Philip Skinner, Regeneration, Spin, Transparency

Exmouth Visitor Survey

“Last year nearly 5000 people in Exmouth voted in favour of further “INDEPENDENT consultation before any further action (including submission of planning applications) was taken on The Queen’s Drive.

While this has been roundly ignored by EDDC. they did at least seek the opinion of visitors. When independent Cllr Megan Armstrong carried out the Seafront Survey with support from SES we found visitors hold similar values around the seafront as residents, and that it was Exmouth’s unique charm that kept them coming back. Alarmingly many said they would no longer visit Exmouth if The Queen’s Drive development went ahead. I would have thought EDDC would be concerned about this yet it is just another piece of evidence that has been ignored.

Here is the EDDC website announcing the visitor survey, note the last paragraph states the results will be reported to ‘the team’ (Coastal Communities) at the end of the year (2016) …”

https://saveexmouthseafront.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/exmouth-visitors-survey-an-update-of-sorts/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Consultation, Democracy, EDDC, Exmouth, Philip Skinner, Regeneration, Transparency

Save Exmouth Seafront response to Councillor Skinner and EDDC

“Representatives from SES were invited to attend the presentation from Cllr Skinner and EDDC Officers Richard Cohen and Alison Hayward at Ocean on 18th January, and SES would like to thank EDDC for this invitation.

While the event provided some information for those businesses and associations perhaps not so aware of the plans, the SES representatives found they left with many questions still remaining.

For example there was no answer given on whether the watersport’s centre will be run as a members only club and who is to manage this facility.

Unfortunately Cllr Skinner also fended off some of the questions with evasive answers, such as when asked how ‘phase three’ of the development is even to be funded.

SES would welcome the opportunity for an open public event so that all members of the public can hear what is planned for the seafront now and in the future, and ask questions, yet EDDC seem reluctant to do this.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Coastal communities, Consultation, Democracy, EDDC, Exmouth, Philip Skinner, Regeneration

“Positive and passionate discussions for future regeneration of Queen’s Drive” says EDDC

Somehow, Owl thinks ” the community” might see things somewhat differently to EDDC – and Councillor Skinner’s remark that it “just wants EDDC to get on with it” when the fact that EDDC just getting on with it has been the problem, not the solution.

Not to mention that EDDC “just got on with” appointing Moirai Capital as their preferred bidder – and just see where that led!

This press release seems designed to pre-empt a judicial review on lack of consultation. BUT a press release does not constitute evidence … pudding … proof …

EDDC press release:

“Regular meetings between council and community to discuss improvement plans for Exmouth’s Queen’s Drive will be an ongoing feature of the project

East Devon District Council, local businesses and community organisations of Exmouth came together at The Ocean last week for a lively discussion about Exmouth’s regeneration and, in particular, the vision for its seafront development.

This meeting marked an important opportunity for dialogue and discussion, which will be an ongoing feature of the next phases for the improvement plans for Queen’s Drive.

There were presentations by the council detailing how Exmouth is growing and moving forward, the challenges it faces and the vision for this much-loved seaside town as it evolves into a 21st century destination with attractions for everyone to enjoy.

Council officers set out in as much detail as is currently known the journey and timelines for Queens Drive, emphasising the need to move forward with the reserved matters planning application process and, most importantly, setting out clearly opportunities for public consultation, which will continue to underpin each phase.

Officers also underlined the need to take a measured approach in terms of timescales to ensure that Grenadier, the provider of the watersports centre, secures the necessary planning permissions before the council commits financially to the necessary works to the road and car park.

Councillor Philip Skinner, chairman of the Exmouth Regeneration Board, said: “These discussions demonstrated a shared and very deep affection for the town. Most people there were overwhelmingly optimistic, passionate and positive and the message coming through loud and clear was get on with it!”

The reserved matters planning application to extend planning permission will go before the council’s development management committee in the next few months.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Consultation, EDDC, Exmouth, Freedom of Information Act, Mark Williams CEO EDDC, Philip Skinner, Regeneration

Thoughts on Exmouth regeneration …

The recent report in The Exeter Express and Echo (13 January 2016) on the treatment by EDDC of one its tenants, Chris Wright whose family run Exmouth Fun Park, raises serious concerns about the veracity of the Council’s version of events, as well as its competence.

Alison Hayward, EDDC’s Regeneration and Economy Manager sent a document to all councillors on 25 April 2016 which gave the clear impression that Mr Wright had refused to accept a generous offer to extend his family’s lease as part of the EDDC’s Queen’s Drive Regeneration. She says his refusal provoked an expensive legal process which caused delays and threatened to “blight the seafront”.

This version was later repeated by Cllr Phil Twiss in an email to councillors in which he added that Mr Wright had also failed to reach an agreement with Moirai Capital Investments, the council’s “preferred developer” for the regeneration of the seafront.

But, as the Express and Echo reports, it seems from EDDC’s answers to a Freedom of Information request, that Mr Wright did NOT refuse the council’s offer, but that the council withdrew it unilaterally while negotiations were still continuing.

This is serious because it suggests allegations that Mr Wright, by his obduracy, involved the council in expense and delay are inaccurate and damaging to his reputation. They could verge on the defamatory.

The reference by Cllr Twiss to Mr Wright’s failure to do a deal with Moirai raises another question. Did the Council, Ms Hayward in particular, perform due diligence on this company before signing an agreement with it?

Many observers warned that Moirai was unsuitable, a verdict the Council finally seems to have accepted in July last year when it ended its relationship, plunging the whole Queen’s Drive project into confusion.

The decision may have been made – in whole or in part – following a detailed analysis of the company’s record drawn up by members of the public and sent to Mark Williams CEO of EDDC. It was the sort of in-depth investigation which the council appears not to have bothered to conduct since the information could be obtained – with a little research – in the public domain.

In all, a not very flattering picture of a council appearing to traduce a tenant for not agreeing quickly enough to an offer which he thought he was still negotiating and appearing to criticise him for not cooperating with a “preferred developer” whose suitability was in doubt.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Councillor Megan Armstrong EDA, EDDC, Exmouth, Philip Skinner, Richard Cohen

“Exmouth Fun Park regeneration row continues”

“The chairman of Exmouth’s regeneration committee has refused to comment on the clash of “opinions” between the owner of Exmouth Fun Park and the district council. …

… The Echo previously requested details about how Mr Wright rejected the offer in a Freedom of Information request (FOI) to the council, and a subsequent request for clarification after the response was only partially answered: the council responded: “The offer was not accepted and was then withdrawn by EDDC.”

Independent ward member for Exmouth, Cllr Megan Armstrong, added: “I am shocked by this revelation and surprised at the way the negotiations came to an end. It is very puzzling for the council to say Mr Wright did not accept the offer of a lease, when according to him, this was not the case.

“I am glad that a journalist has been able to follow-up these discrepancies, but find it concerning that the FOI request was initially not fully answered, and only by the persistence of the journalist, was clarity provided.”

She added: “Cllr Skinner doesn’t seem to be taking what Mr Wright has said seriously and seems to have dismissed his position.

“Members of the council shouldn’t have been informed that Mr Wright rejected an offer made if this wasn’t the case.”

Leader of the opposition, Independent Cllr Ben Ingham [this is incorrect: the leader of Independent opposition is now Councillor Cathy Gardner] added:

“This is a most unusual story: the Wright family has a long history of commitment to Exmouth, which includes their business interests over the last 40 years on the seafront. As Exmouth moves into the future, we are all looking forward to positive changes for the better. As we do this, we must be inclusive, listening to our local community, taking on board their hopes and aspirations and trying to deliver a wonderful place for us all to live.

“We should be deciding our future together. Instead we are told what’s going to happen. That stinks, and badly.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/exmouth-fun-park-regeneration-row-continues/story-30073984-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Councillor Megan Armstrong EDA, Developers/ Development, East Devon Alliance, EDDC Monitoring Officer, Exmouth, Independent Councillors, Regeneration

Comments

1 Comment

Exmouth seafront extended planning documents – EDA Independent Councillor Megan Armstrong responds

Below is the response of Independent Exmouth councillor Megan Armstrong to the extended planning permission submission for Exmouth seafront by EDDC:

queens-drive-comment-to-press-release-5r

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Developers/ Development, EDDC Monitoring Officer, Exmouth, Freedom of Information Act, Philip Skinner, Regeneration, Spin, Transparency

“Creative group” or “group of creatives” – what’s the difference!

Recall that Councillor Skinner has said that he has never met “The Ecmouth Creative Group”, then read this Freedom of Information response:

“Thank you for your request for information. Please find the response to your query below.

What criteria does the Exmouth Regeneration Board (ERB) use when selecting potential community groups to communicate with?
The ERB does not formally communicate with community groups and does not therefore apply any specific criteria. The notes of ERB meetings are published and the various members of the ERB including both District and Town Councils communicate with a wide range of Exmouth community groups as required.

[BUT THIS IS CONTRADICTED FURTHER IN THIS RESPONSE!]

Why was the Exmouth Creative Group assigned a brief to design a vision for Exmouth?
Cllr Skinner met in December with some Exmouth local businesses in his capacity as Chair of the Exmouth Regeneration Board and Portfolio Holder for Economy. It was an informal meeting to talk about Exmouth matters and to share views with a group of local businesses who would describe themselves as ‘creative’.

When was the decision made to as the Exmouth Creative Group to design a vision for Exmouth, who was involved in making this decision and whose idea was it in the first instance?
This decision was not taken by the ERB or by any representative of EDDC and no information is held in relation to this question.

How did EDDC and the Exmouth Regeneration Board in particular approach the Exmouth Community Group and who did this?
As above, Cllr Skinner met with some local businesses.

Given that the Exmouth Creative Group is unknown within Exmouth, please explain why the many well known community groups have been overlooked in favour of the Exmouth Creative Group for this task?
The Council engages with all manner of local groups in Exmouth and elsewhere in a variety of ways.

Please provide the names of those in attendance and dates of any meetings between any officers or councillors of EDDC with the Exmouth Creative Group or any representative of the Exmouth Creative Group.
The meeting was an informal one and the Council does not have an attendance list.

I hope this information is helpful but if you feel dissatisfied with the way we have responded, please contact our Monitoring Officer, Henry Gordon Lennox, to request an internal review at [email address]

You may also approach the Information Commissioner for advice at http://www.ico.org.uk”

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/east_devon_district_council_and?nocache=incoming-922717#incoming-922717

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Exmouth, Exmouth Creative Group, Grenadier

Grenadier and the Exmouth Creative Group – is there a connection?

Grenadier have launched new website:

http://grenadierestates.co.uk/

Interesting that the Watersports Centre no longer listed as one of their community projects. It has been moved to a Commercial project.

Was it therefore Grenadier and its hangers-on that was involved with the “Exmouth Creative Group” that Councillor Skinner seems to have forgotten he may have spoken to?

It says of “community projects”:

“We assess any impacts we believe we make as a business on the environment and community and pro-actively become involved with projects that do not necessarily provide an immediate financial benefit to the company, but instead promote positive social and environmental change.”

http://grenadierestates.co.uk/community/

which would fit the brief of the secretive “Exmouth Creative Group” perfectly:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/01/06/exmouth-creative-group-and-eddc-curioser-and-curioser/

Now, Owl is NOT saying that there is a connection – Owl is not even sure that such a group ever existed, only that, if it did indeed exist, there might be such a connection – indeed it would be surprising if there were not as such a group would surely want to influence all the “movers and shakers” in Exmouth. And the group’s members were said to include ” developers”.

It says of its commercial developments:

“Our work includes building new commercial developments from the ground up, converting existing buildings or sites and their use, and investing in new property that has the scope for additional development or income.”

Big difference isn’t it.

Owl will be happy to publish a response from Grenadier and/or EDDC and/or Councillor Skinner on this topic:

eastdevonwatch@gmail.com

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Jan 2017

Posted under

Coastal communities, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Exmouth, Philip Skinner, Regeneration, Richard Cohen

Exmouth seafront- another sorry tale involving EDDC

“An embittered disagreement has arisen between the owner of an Exmouth seafront attraction and the district council over whether he rejected an offer to be involved in its £18m redevelopment of the area.

East Devon District Council is pressing ahead with its ambitious but controversial redevelopment of a 3.6 hectare swathe of Queen’s Drive which has already resulted in the closure and demolition of several long-standing businesses including DJ’s Diner, the Arnold Palmer/Jungle Fun site, and the model railway.

Chris Wright and his family have been running Exmouth Fun Park for four decades. After months of negotiations, Mr Wright said the council made an offer to him involving a lease to run a golf operation, but this was subsequently withdrawn within weeks, without warning.

However, the council claims that Mr Wright rejected the offer before they withdrew it. Members were instructed of his rejection last April in a document entitled ‘Communicating about Queen’s Drive’. The spokesperson added that the council would have liked to reach a settlement with Mr Wright, “but he would not agree terms”.

This claim is vehemently refuted by Mr Wright who is adamant that he did not reject the offer made in September 2015.

A “costly” court battle then ensued regarding his tenancy, in which the council won the right to terminate the Mr Wright’s lease, “devastating” the family “financially and emotionally”.

In a Freedom of Information request (FOI) to the council, and a subsequent request for clarification after the response was only partially answered, the Echo asked for details about how Mr Wright rejected the offer, including the date and the means of rejection, such as verbally or in writing.

The council responded: “The offer was not accepted and was then withdrawn by EDDC on the 12th October 2015 prior to the trial commencing on the 2nd November 2015…there was no acceptance from Mr Wright and accordingly on the basis of legal principles relating to offer and acceptance, an offer that has not been accepted can be withdrawn by the party which made the offer,” the response continued: “There had been extensive negotiation between the parties’ legal representatives during the period between the offer and the date of withdrawal…”

In response to the Echo’s probing into whether the council took an absence of a reply as non-acceptance of the offer, and whether any effort was made to chase up the offer made, it responded: “…the offer was not accepted. There had been extensive negotiation between the parties’ legal representatives during the period between the offer and the date of withdrawal…”

Mr Wright, said: “On September 7, 2015, the council offered us a new 25 year lease on a subject to contract basis. We were happy with the terms of the offer and on the advice of our solicitors, we arranged to meet with council officials to clarify the details of the lease.

“On October 5, we met with an official to discuss the details. After the meeting the council’s solicitor wrote to our solicitors to confirm that an “understanding” had been reached. Our solicitors responded to confirm that if the concerns we raised were addressed, there was no reason an agreement couldn’t be reached imminently, as an understanding had been reached on other issues.

But the draft leases were not provided as the council had indicated they would be, and we received a letter from the council three days later saying they were taking further professional advice.”

Mr Wright said that he heard nothing further until the council wrote to his solicitors on October 12, saying: “It has now become apparent that there can be no agreement reached between the parties to settle the issues…The Council is unable to accommodate your client in the development at this time and therefore the Council is, as of today’s date, withdrawing from any further negotiations”.

As a result, Mr Wright took the council to court because under the Landlord and Tenant Act, he had the right to ask the court to grant a new tenancy, or a tenancy of a part of the new development. However, the council was entitled to oppose the grant of new tenancies on the grounds they intended to develop the land and that it would not be reasonable to carry out the development with us remaining in occupation. The court ruled in the council’s favour.

Mr Wright, said: “We spent a significant amount of time negotiating the terms for a new lease of a part of the development to avoid court proceedings. We were committed to being a part of the future of the seafront.”

He added: “Having traded on Exmouth Seafront as a family for some 40 years, far from being against investment, for over a decade we sought to do just that and submitted countless proposals to be part of the future. As a family this has been emotionally and financially devastating.”

A council spokesperson, added: “The council made a number of attempts, both formal/informal and in writing/face to face, to reach agreement with Mr Wright. This included an offer made in August 2015 by the council to Mr Wright for him to have a new and longer lease directly with the council and to stay on part of the site rather than leave. This offer was increased formally in a letter dated September 7, 2015 and remained on the table while further negotiations continued.

“By October 5, 2015, when a further meeting took place with Mr Wright, there was still no confirmed acceptance by him. During this period of negotiation his financial compensation expectations continued to increase as the trial date approached.

“Clearly negotiation was not working and the council needed to address the imminent court hearing. The council would have liked to reach a settlement with Mr Wright, but he would not agree terms, so the matter went to court and the council’s offer was withdrawn.”

Exmouth Fun Park will continue operating until August 31, 2017.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/east-devon-district-council-and-exmouth-fun-park-owners-in-dispute-over-seafront-development-offer/story-30055875-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Consultation, EDDC, Exmouth, Exmouth Creative Group, Independent Councillors, Regeneration

Comments

2 Comments

“No ‘independent consultation’ to be held on Exmouth seafront plans”

READ PARTICULARLY THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE ARTICLE BELOW!

SPIN! SPIN! SPIN! Councillor Skinner must be dizzy!

Perhaps the “group of like-minded individuals” who are not the Exmouth Creative Group ( including any creative developers) would like to identify itself ….!

There will not be an ‘independent consultation’ on redeveloping Exmouth seafront, the man leading the project has said.

Councillor Philip Skinner made the comments at the most recent full East Devon District Council (EDDC) meeting, when asked by Councillor Megan Armstrong about the result of a town poll held last April.

The poll produced a 94.9 per cent vote for Exmouth Town Council writing to EDDC, which it subsequently did, asking that before any further planning applications were approved for Queen’s Drive, additional independent consultation should take place.

Cllr Armstrong said: “It seems as if you are going to ignore the poll and continue regardless. How are you going to explain to all the residents who voted that their views have been totally ignored?”

Responding, Cllr Skinner said: “What we are going to do is, the phase two [developer] is going to put their application in, there will be a consultation process for that, there will then be another consultation process which will take place through the planning process. Phase three is going to be absolutely a full consultation with the public, that’s what’s going to take place, that is quite clear.

“To answer the question about an independent consultation – no, that’s not going to take place. I’m sorry about that, but that’s the reality.”

Cllr Skinner has also been criticised by campaign group Save Exmouth Seafront, which said he had talked to an unknown Exmouth Creative Group in lieu of other consultation, though EDDC denied Cllr Skinner had spoken to a group of that name.

SES spokesperson Louise MacAllister said: “There are many established community groups in Exmouth with an interest in the seafront who have not been asked for their opinion. This is concerning as the public made themselves very clear through the poll that they want to be consulted, and yet the public are now being ignored in favour of this unknown group.”

An EDDC spokesperson said: “Cllr Skinner has met several groups and individuals about rejuvenating the town, including the seafront.

“He recently met a group of like-minded individuals who have some great ideas for the town and they were enthused by what the council is doing. We are unaware of a specifically named group called Exmouth Creative Group.”