And in other news …

Whilst we await our Chief Executive’s appearance at tonight’s council meeting, here is some other news that has been happening over the last few days:

.

Supermarkets – the new charity shops?

EDDC’s flagship regeneration policy of putting a supermarket in all seaside towns as close to the seaside as possible already looks to be a busted flush.

Tesco has just announced it will abandon its plan to build a superstore on the seafront in Margate to which Pickles had given a green light!

In an article in the business section of the Guardian we read:

“Pickles was criticised for backing the Tesco Margate scheme by the self-styled Queen of Shops Mary Portas, who said it showed the government was only paying “lip service” to the idea of reviving Britain’s high streets as the store would have a “catastrophic” impact on the town.

Margate was among the “Portas Pilot” towns which won £100,000 in funding to back new ideas to boost trade and refill empty shops on some of the UK’s most battered high streets.

Louise Oldfield, a local hotel owner who pushed for the judicial review, said she was shocked that Tesco had pulled out but it was good news for Margate. “We hope we can now move forward towards a more sustainable proposal for Margate. This proposal would have had a massive impact on the seafront,” she said.”

But what irrevocable damage has now been done to our seaside towns in East Devon? Certainly too late for Seaton.

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/09/tesco-ditches-plans-build-superstore-margate-seafront

 

Cranbrook to double in size

In addition to the 6,000 homes already planned, developers are to submit plans for a further 1,500 homes. They also say they will build infrastructure but with still no Community Infrastructure Levy in place there is almost nothing in place to ensure that it happens.

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Cranbrook-set-double-size-new-proposals/story-23165420-detail/story.html

 

DIY repairs to Devon roads

Brush up those tarmacking skills – you are going to need them. Can’t wait to see DCC Councillor for Highways, Stuart Hughes, in a blue boiler suit:

At a time when the news tells us that Devon has some of the most dangerous country roads which have ten times more fatalities than motorways comes a call for local people to voluntarily maintain their own bits of road and fill in their own potholes.

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Campaign-launched-West-s-rural-roads-revealed/story-23063234-detail/story.html

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Road-wardens-pot-holes-cash-strapped-Devon-County/story-23089269-detail/story.html

 

Feniton developers issued with breach of conditions notice by EDDC

Finally developers Wain Homes are put under pressure to do what they were supposed to do:  build attenuation tanks for surface water run off which should have been done BEFORE homes were occupied.  At least six are now in occupation with no sign of the tanks

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/East-Devon-serves-Breach-Condition-Notice/story-23155904-detail/story.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Feniton: another test of EDDC enforcement

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Feniton-faces-8220-real-threat-8221-flooding/story-23025763-detail/story.html

Wain Homes appears not to care.

A life on the ocean wave? Not in Seaton! EDDC screws up another of its own planning applications!

EDDC suddenly sprang a planning application for an “artwork” in a very prominent position in Seaton – an area known as Fisherman’s Gap in the middle of the town’s seafront. It was accompanied by much trumpeting of its beauty, its form, its desirability! Several town councillors were not enamoured, saying thar the view itself already had beauty, form and desirability but that did not stop the town council from supporting EDDC’s planning application.

However, the Environment Agency slapped everyone’s wrists:

A letter, dated September 18th, to EDDC from the Environment Agency said: “We object to this proposal for the following reasons.

“The proposed sculptures are located on land that forms part of the Seaton Coastal Defence Scheme; a flood alleviation scheme that is operated and maintained by the Environment Agency.

“The proposed sculptures and interpretation pillar appear to be located in a manner that would: a) prevent the closure of the main flood gates that facilitate vehicular access through the sea wall, and, b) would restrict our access to the flood wall for necessary inspection, repair and maintenance purposes.

“It is also important that the applicant notes that any structures such as those proposed within seven metres of such coastal flood defences will require our Flood Defence consent under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991.

“We will withhold our consent for any structures that would restrict our ability to safely access, operate, maintain and rebuild such a structure.”

An EDDC spokesperson said: “We are working with the Environment Agency to address their concerns about the exact location of the hot spot.

“Of course public safety with regards to flood defence is always our priority and we will therefore be considering how we can overcome any such concerns. We are committed to the hot spots as a way of extending the reach of Seaton Jurassic to the seafront and encouraging visitors to see for themselves our amazing beach and coastline.”

Full details of the proposal and how to comment are available on EDDC’s website at http://www.eastdevon. gov.uk via the planning portal (planning ref 14/1897).
http://www.viewfrompublishing.co.uk/news_view/33708/20/1/seaton-environment-agency-to-block-sculptures

Community Infrastructure Levy – what’s bigger than an omnishambles?

Megashambles? Nuclearshambles? Whatever it is, we have it.

Take a look at this letter from EDDC to the Planning Inspector:

Click to access lettertoinspector290814cil.pdf

The Planning Inspector, when he threw out the draft Local Plan also threw out EDDC’s attempt at setting a Community Infrastructure Levy. Useless figures in the draft Local Plan meant no confidence could be placed in the figures for CIL.

If you are a councillor, how can you hold your head up in public and admit that this has been allowed to happen on your watch – bearing in mind that the Act that brought in the need to set a Levy came into being in 2008:

“The Planning Act 2008 provides a wide definition of the infrastructure which can be funded by the levy, including transport, flood defences, schools, hospitals, and other health and social care facilities. This definition allows the levy to be used to fund a very broad range of facilities such as play areas, parks and green spaces, cultural and sports facilities, district heating schemes and police stations and other community safety facilities. This gives local communities flexibility to choose what infrastructure they need to deliver their development plan.”

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6313/1897278.pdf

So, now S106 payments have been tightened up to exclude those payments that should be covered by CIL, our developers get a double bonus: build anywhere and don’t pay for the infrastructure that the development should have – such as flood defences, for example. No levy, no obligation.

And what does ” further assessment in respect of Cranbrook and its future development” mean?

Do local people really grasp what a terrible mess we are in?

Sidmouth beach management plan delay to amass more historical information

http://www.middevonstar.co.uk/news/devon_news/11405533.Beach_Management_project_delayed_to_ensure_vital_information_from_25_years_ago_is_tracked_down/?ref=rss

Matters of financial high risk

In response to our recent post* on the difficulties surrounding the Honiton Beehive project, an EDA member has provided the following information, and some comments.

http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/combined_agenda_141113.pdf (page 72)

An extract from the Audit & Governance Committee agenda of 14th November 2013 summarizes progress on The Beehive community centre at Honiton[1]. The advice was that, “surface water drainage provision would be needed to a higher standard than originally anticipated to reflect potential flooding issues, especially to neighbouring residential properties.”

“Honiton Town Council had not envisaged such costs in its original budgeting. EDDC officers from Property, Planning and Building Control met with HTC to assess the issue and determine a workable resolution. The various drainage scenarios and history of the issue were considered. The outcome was that, for the project build to proceed to a point where it could be signed off, a drainage infrastructure investment would be needed over and above the capacity of the existing fund. Therefore to cover the necessary works EDDC agreed by urgent verbal report to 12 June 2013 Cabinet (Part B) to fund a sum of up to 90% of a ceiling of £130,000. HTC will be expected to meet 10% of costs.”

“The reason for this urgency was that works would have to stop on the site construction and additional costs would be incurred by delay to contract. Without agreement to the provision of suitable drainage the building would not be signed off by Building Control and the planning condition not discharged. The building would therefore be uninsurable.”
_____________________________________________________________________________

Note: 90% of the £130,000 bill was picked up by EDDC ratepayers, only 10% by Honiton Town Council. If the Beehive project is deemed high risk, surely Skypark must be off the scale?

Does this inspire you with confidence for the future? For example, EDDC Councillors want the public to trust them with sale of The Knowle; plus sale of Manstone Depot; plus sale of East Devon Business Centre; plus sale of the SITA site at Honiton; ALL of these properties plus borrowing up to £4.8million, in order to construct one building, namely their new premises at Skypark? They have already spent or committed over £700,000 of OUR MONEY. To coin a phrase from the successful Feniton campaigners, “When is enough, enough?”

*http://eastdevonalliance.org/2014/06/16/if-honiton-town-council-is-deemed-a-financial-high-risk-for-beehive-what-will-skypark-do-to-eddc/

Flooding to become more common in Devon

Following on from the post below:

 

http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Boscastles-future-Met-Office-admit-underestimated/story-21175814-detail/story.html

“Flood schemes a disaster for South West Communities

“Councillor Stuart Hughes, Devon County Council cabinet member for flood prevention, said the council has not been successful in securing funding through the “partnership” model.

He said: “We have submitted further bids for more than £2.5 million to be considered for the next six year programme. We reported to Defra during the consultation process that there is a difficulty in obtaining funding for rural communities where there are low numbers of properties and little opportunity for large-scale contributions. This is a real issue for Devon which we feel needs to be addressed.”

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Flood-scheme-disaster-South-West-communities/story-21172775-detail/story.html

Environment Agency picks up the tab for EDDC blunder

 

Granary small

Our EDA Environmental Editor reports that a couple of months ago the Environment Agency (EA) put the finishing touches to a £85K flood alleviation scheme by the entrance to Budleigh Salterton cricket field in Granary lane. This is not to protect the cricket field but the handful of houses that have been built in recent years in an area that habitually floods.

It is very welcome news to the residents who have been flooded out four times in in the last couple of years. They had feared they were too few in number to reach the top of EA’s priority list, especially since the coalition cut real expenditure on flood defences. Their urgent needs for protection were also in danger of being deferred as part of longer term studies in how to restore fully functioning tidal flow to the lower reaches of Otter Estuary.

So this is good news, and as an added bonus, the scheme fits unobtrusively into the landscape. Congratulations all round!

However, this £85K expenditure (it’s your money and mine) was entirely avoidable and is the consequence of irresponsible historic planning decisions. Could EDDC make the same mistake again?