EDDC Cabinet Meeting – 14 September 2016: highlights

Agenda here:

Click to access combined-cab-agenda140916final.pdf

Highlights:

Forward plans: discussion on public toilets at Cabinet in November 2016. Closing them or charging for them?

Next relocation update: 21 December 2016 Cabinet meeting
in line with burying bad news at the start of a long holiday.

Business Support and Thelma Hulbert Gallery reviews – no dates set.
Obviously a new grouping to take the place of the East Devon Business Forum and giving the Gallery longer to lose its (subsidised by us) money. Perhaps it will be relocated to the new HQ (wonder how much costs are increasing on that?)

Agenda Item 12 – Port Royal, Sidmouth – Scoping Study and Project Brief.
Whose scope, whose project?

(Re)location, (Re)location, (Re)location

Dorset has announced a decision to work towards mergers of its councils:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-37196316

It does rather beg the question: what is to happen to West Dorset Council’s brand new HQ, built at a cost of more than £10 million?

It was always going to be a risky venture, when mergers and reorganisation were even at the time of the planned move being spoken of as a possibility.

To be fair to WDDC, their existing premises were very poor, very old and haphazardly arranged on three sites. They expected to sell the sites for £2.5 million, but in the end only achieved £1 million.

We do hope that our district council – in its desire to move to a spanking new set of offices in Honiton – has taken note of Dorset’s (un)intended consequences.

If such talks are abroad in Devon (which is already pretty much merging with Somerset if our Local Enterprise Partnership has its way) then it surely would be a dereliction of duty or even a misfeasance in office to consider such a move when it could be almost immediately redundant.

But, as in all important decisions in East Devon, we the residents will be the last to know what is being decided behind those closed doors in our names.

EDDC: some assets not sweating?

Why didn’t EDDC get planning permission for the Knowle site BEFORE they offered it to PegasusLife? They might have got up to twice as much for the site?

Independent councillor saves the day (again) in Sidmouth

The way of the EDDC world – don’t choose the best long-term option – choose the cheapest short-term option – except when it comes to their own offices,

District chiefs have backed down in the face of united opposition from Sidmouth representatives on a project to shore up the seafront.

East Devon District Council (EDDC) looked set to choose the least expensive scheme, Option 1, but beach management plan (BMP) steering group members said this was putting economics ahead of finding a solution that could protect the town for 100 years.

The authority has agreed to look again to see if £11million can be secured for the ‘technically preferred’ Option 4B, to install breakwaters along the seafront. Option 1, to install one or two groynes at East Beach, would need £2.3million in partnership funding.

EDDC will also sound out key stakeholders on whether they would give their blessing to works that will dramatically change the seafront.

Speaking after Wednesday’s steering group meeting, district councillor Cathy Gardner said: “There was so much opposition in the room to EDDC’s attempts to railroad through Option 1. The BMP is about finding a solution to protect the seafront for the next 100 years, but it’s become about making it affordable. There are so many unknowns. If we find out in a couple of years [the chosen scheme] doesn’t work, we haven’t really achieved anything.”

A report to steering group members from EDDC’s consultants, CH2M, said Option 4B would be the most effective – but it had the ‘worst economic case’, so recommended Option 1.

An EDDC spokeswoman said the authority has done some initial work to look at external funding sources, but securing £11million for Option 4B is ‘unlikely’. To provide ‘further confidence’ in the level of availability, EDDC has formed a sub-group to look specifically at funding over the next six months – while the BMP progresses.

Unless partnership funding can be secured, an Environment Agency (EA) grant of between £5million and £6.75million towards the chosen BMP scheme will not be made available.

Sidmouth Town Council chairman Jeff Turner said: “We’re getting the message that the scheme everybody favours and seems would be most effective is extremely expensive. Funding Option 4B would need such a huge council tax increase across East Devon there would need to be a referendum. The chances of the rest of East Devon supporting that are pretty remote.

“We still back 4B – we haven’t given up on it yet.”

Steering group chairman Cllr Andrew Moulding said: “It is vital that we maintain momentum with this crucial project.

“We are delighted that the local community has committed to working with EDDC and the EA to look at funding, which is crucial to ensure the ongoing protection of Sidmouth.”

He said the BMP is due to be completed this autumn and EDDC is having ongoing discussions with various statutory bodies to ensure the chosen scheme ultimately gains the relevant permissions.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/eddc_to_look_again_at_funding_for_11million_sidmouth_seafront_option_1_4662917

Well, they could always cancel their plans for their plush offices which will coincidentally cost about £11 million!

And perhaps a joined-up plan for the whole coastline might be a good idea in case there are unintended consequences to other coastal communities?

PegasusLife – new and bigger plans for Knowle

Revised plans = new consultation?

“Pegasus Life’s latest revised plans for Knowle now submitted.

A string of Pegasus Life’s revised plans and statements for the Knowle, have just been uploaded (10th Aug) to the EDDC Planning portal.

To view, go to https://planning.eastdevon.gov.uk/online-applications/, type in reference 16/0872/MFUL, and search Documents.

Have all the many issues*, not least size, scale and suitability of design, now been addressed?

For two examples of the latter, submitted yesterday, see Document 239415, pages 11-14, showing impact from the south park, and Document 2391414, pages 20-22, impact on upper Knowle Drive.

See information in earlier posts:

*https://saveoursidmouth.com/2016/06/15/knowle-planning-application-breaks-a-raft-of-local-plan-rules-says-vgs/
*https://saveoursidmouth.com/2016/06/13/knowle-drive-after-pegasus-life-plans-a-question-of-perspective/
*https://saveoursidmouth.com/2016/05/30/throwing-away-our-heritage-london-based-save-vehemently-objects-to-plans-for-knowle/

https://saveoursidmouth.com/2016/08/11/pegasus-lifes-latest-revised-plans-for-knowle-now-submitted/

Now you can talk Hugo, remember what you wrote about Knowle planning application

image

EDDC should not grant itself planning permission … probity, accountability, transparency – remember?

EDDC: cost of officer time – selective monitoring and double standards for the Standards Committee

Isn’t it interesting that, in just about every area of EDDC’s work, the cost of officer time is not included. Take the Knowle relocation – officer time is NEVER costed. Take planning applications and the production of the Local Plan – officer time is NEVER costed.

Yet, when it comes to monitoring the behaviour of councillors, somehow officer time can be costed. Why? Because EDDC wants to subtly suggest that it costs an awful lot of money and really people should not be wasting their precious time as most complaints are dismissed by the Monitoring Officer anyway!

“The annual cost for assessing Monitoring Officer type complaints remains at approximately £40,000, which has been calculated based on an estimate of officers’ time spent assessing, investigating and administering complaints as part of their job role. Officers dealing with the Code of Conduct complaints process are:
Monitoring Officer; Deputy Monitoring Officer, PA to Monitoring Officer, Democratic Services Officer, statutory Independent Person role (of which EDDC has used two on an alternate basis) and Investigating Officer when required.”

Click to access 190716standardscttecombinedagenda.pdf

Do EDDC consultants know how long their piece of string is?

Freedom of Information request on “What Do They Know” website:

Dear Ms Symington,

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.

1) The Davis Langdon report to Cabinet of 17th July 2013 states the following:
“3.4.3 The current gross internal floor area totals some 7,722 m2, with the former Hotel providing 5,784 m2 and the Office Extensions 1,938m2.” http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1183866/ca…

This is also referred to in an earlier FOI Request, where you state:
“The floor space area was calculated by an independent consultant and cross-checked with the Display Energy Certificate (DEC).” https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c…

2) The Valuation Office website states the following:
“Address of property: KNOWLE THE, STATION ROAD, SIDMOUTH, DEVON, EX10 8HL
“Total area: 4871.85 [sqm]”
http://www.2010.voa.gov.uk/rli/en/basic/…

I would be grateful if you could provide an explanation for the apparent discrepancy and provide me with evidence as to how the actual floor space at Knowle is calculated.

Thank you.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Jeremy Woodward

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/total_floor_area_of_knowle

Blot on the landscape: Knowle retirement megalith

See link below for before and after pictures.

Residents on higher floors had better hope their lift never breaks down!

Pegasus Life planning application for Knowle. Deadline for YOUR comments this Wednesday 15 JUNE

How did business-park on-a-Sidford -floodplain come to be in the Local Plan?

From the good old days of the much-lamented Sidmouth Independent News on 25 July 2015:

Cllr Graham Troman (Sidmouth) claimed there was “no justification” for an out-of-town business park which would damage the vibrancy of Sidmouth town centre. He was shocked by the dubious way in which this proposal had been inserted in the Local Plan without any proper discussion.

Cllr Christine Drew (Sidmouth) said that EDDC had ignored overwhelming public opposition to the site, and she was very suspicious of the recent “minor amendment” to add retail to the type of businesses proposed.

Stuart Hughes argued that adequate employment land could be provided for Sidmouth by realising the potential of the Alexandria Road site, and new access could be provided for half the cost of the £1 million pounds estimated by EDDC planners. And funding might be available for this from a variety of sources.

He also highlighted the acute flood risk at the Sidford site which was on a flood plain. The Council’s argument that the problem could be solved by a SUDS system was weak: a similar system at Woolbrook failed during recent flooding. He feared the impact that building at Sidford would have on flooding downstream.

As county councillor responsible for roads, he stressed the inadequacy of the main road which would serve the site which was subject to regular flooding.

Cllr Mike Allen (Honiton), former chair of the Local Plan Panel made a swingeing attack on the Sidford allocation.

It was “not compliant” with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which gave “great weight” to the protection of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

There was no evidence that it was needed by Sidmouth. It would require people to commute into the town to work. It was “against the public interest”.

He was also suspicious of how the Built Up Area Boundary had been extended to the north of Sidford by officers without consultation.

It would be straightforward to remove the Sidford allocation from the Local Plan: failure to do so would risk the rejection of the whole plan by the Inspector. He seconded Cllr Troman’s motion that it should be deleted.

Chief Executive Mark Williams then advised that this would not be possible legally as it was not a minor amendment.

This provoked an extraordinary attack on Mr Williams by Cllr Allen. His advice was a “biased” view which showed ignorance of the NPPF. He did not have a “grip” on the legal situation, and had not taken account of all the legal considerations.

Tory Whip, Phil Twiss, jumped up to defend the CEO who must be right “because he is a solicitor” and Cllr Allen wasn’t!

Allen, who, in his day job is the Officer Responsible for Regeneration at South Somerset District Council, calmly replied that he had a considerable legal authority on his side – the NPPF.

A rather shell-shocked Council then proceeded to vote on the motion to delete Sidford. It was rejected.

The Tory majority – immune to argument- went on to approve all the “minor amendments” to the Local Plan which approves the Knowle and Sidford proposals.”

https://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/knowle-housing-and-sidford-site-stay-in-local-plan-as-ceo-savaged/

Quart into pint pot at new EDDC offices?

Owl see that the designs for the new offices at Honiton have been published in an EDDC agenda and wonders why there is no scale with the drawings.

Maybe the building may have been increased in size for two reasons: staff were apparently shocked at the lack of space and complained, plus the numbers of staff have increased a lot recently.

And Owl further sees they are taking money from the transformation fund, so the cost is rising further still …

Click to access 060416-combined-cabinet-agendasm.pdf

Knowle relocation: cost now approaching £10 million

Page 32 onwards.

Click to access 060416-combined-cabinet-agendasm.pdf

Sidmouth Town Council discuss PegasusLife tonight

Papers here:

Click to access PL._AGENDA_1.6.16.pdf

Meeting at St Theresa’s Hall, 6.30 pm.

Knowle plans on the agenda at Sidmouth Town Council Meeting this Wednesday (1st June, 6.30pm, St. Teresa’s Hall)

Save Britain’s Heritage objects to Knowle PegasusLife development

Click to access save-britains-heritage-objection-to-knowle-planning-application-may-2016.pdf

Original article:

Details of the Knowle Planning Application by Pegasus Life, May 2016, from the EDDC website:

EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL
Planning Application
16/0872/MFUL | The construction of an assisted living community for older people comprising extra care units, staff accommodation and communal facilities, including a kitchen, restaurant/bar/cafe, a well-being suite comprising gym, treatment rooms and pool, a communal lounge and storage facilities; car parking for residents, visitors and staff of the assisted living community; comprehensive landscaping
comprising communal and private spaces; and associated groundworks.

Council Offices Knowle Sidmouth EX10 8HL
Reminder of Save Our Sidmouth initial reaction here: https://saveoursidmouth.com/2016/05/18/visual-impact-of-developers-plans-for-knowle-raises-concerns/

Throwing away our heritage? London-based SAVE vehemently objects to plans for Knowle

PegasusLife: don’t believe everything you hear …

Remark on Sidmouth Herald Streetlife:

I’ve just started looking through the online plans and have already found some things that are not quite how they have been made public.

The inpression created, for me at least, was that the well-being facilities and restaurant would be open to non-residents. It is not quite as open as all that.

Visitors can use the restaurant, and I assume that means people who are visiting those living there as it clearly defines another category of people who can use the well-being facilities as Non-Residents.

Non-Residents are people living in Sidmouth and who are over 60 years of age, with priority give to those whose property borders the Knowle.

This only runs for 3 years from the time they achieve 50% occupation of the site.

Don’t be misled into thinking that they will be providing some sort of resource for the town.

Oh, and they say they expect to employ 14.5 people in total. If that covers the restaurant, well-being facilities, cleaners, gardeners and care assistant/nurses as well as management it doesn’t bode well for high standards in anything.”

Rush to avoid Community Infrastructure Levy?

According to Official Notices in the press, Community Infrastructure Levy will become payable to EDDC from 1 September 2016. This is charged per square metre and is in bands with Cranbrook being lowest and Sidmouth being highest.

Should we expect a rush to get planning permissions past the Development Management Committee before 31 August? Would this explain why Bovis is rushing through its application for phase 2 of its Seaton development where it wants zero affordable housing? Will we see the Pegasuslife Knowle application done and dusted before the end of August too?

It isn’t just Knowle where civil servants refuse to provide taxpayers information – MPs suffer too!

” The chairs of two parliamentary select committees have accused the top civil servant at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) of misleading MPs over the closure its biggest office outside London.

Iain Wright, chair of the business committee, and Meg Hillier, chair of the public accounts committee, have written to Martin Donnelly, the BIS permanent secretary, calling on him to release information on the department’s estimate of the costs of the closure of its St Paul’s Place office in Sheffield, which employs around 240 people. …

… this week the department was forced to admit that employing people in its Sheffield office costs less than a third of what it costs in London.

In an answer to a written question from the MP for Sheffield Central, Paul Blomfield, the universities and science minister, Jo Johnson, said the annual cost of rent, rates and maintenance for an employee at the office in Sheffield was £3,190, compared with £9,750 at the headquarters on Victoria Street in London. …

… In the letter, the two committee chairs said the information relating to the reorganisation of the department that the permanent secretary had provided was “wholly unsatisfactory” and his answers in oral evidence to their committees had been “obfuscatory, if not misleading”.

“Your refusal to disclose the information we have sought is unhelpful, unjustified and is impeding our ability to fulfil our scrutiny functions,” they said.

“[We] are asking for precise information about the work done to estimate the costs of different scenarios in relation to the closure of the Sheffield office and transfer of posts to London. Specifically, could you please provide us with a copy of the document entitled BIS 2020 Finance and Headcount Outline, and any other document which has informed decisions relating to the Sheffield office.”

The letter asked that the information be provided before Donnelly appears before the public accounts committee on 27 April. …

… “Taxpayers deserve better from those working on their behalf. We expect the permanent secretary to respond swiftly and with clarity on the points of concern raised by our committees, which includes releasing the information we have requested. Only then can the decision to close the BIS Sheffield office be properly scrutinised.”

Wright, the business, innovation and skills committee chair, said: “The permanent secretary is accountable for the use of public funds and needs to demonstrate the financial rationale and evidence-based business case for the decision to cut jobs in Sheffield and centralise policymaking in London. The permanent secretary has a responsibility to enable us to scrutinise the running of his department and disclose this information.” …

… Donnelly stressed that the department had not yet reached final decisions about the number of roles in the Sheffield office that would be made redundant and the number that would be moved to London. He said there had, therefore, been no formal cost-benefit analysis of the decision to close the Sheffield office.”

http://gu.com/p/4tgdh