EDDC Deputy CEO made redundant …

Well, well, well – Cohen, who came to EDDC with such glowing references is now surplus to requirements! How convenient – all the blame and all the questions about everything that has gone on under his watch can leave with him … and scrutiny is avoided because he won’t be there to answer any questions …

questions such as:

Queen’s Drive fiasco
Axminster Masterplan chaos
High Street decline inaction
Knowle sale
Blackdown House procurement issues …

add your own thoughts to this partial list …

Here’s the CEO’s “explanation” for the departure:

“Dear Cllrs,
As you are aware we are in the process of preparing the budget for 2020/21 and facing the difficult decisions that will be required.

As part of these preparations, I have had to give consideration to the reduction in workload for the Deputy Chief Executive Officer now that our office moves have taken place and the fact that this role is now effectively redundant.

For this reason, it has been agreed that Richard Cohen will leave the organisation on 31 March 2020. This has been the subject of consultation with the Leader and relevant portfolio holders.

We are currently also consulting with Richard’s direct reports [sic] and will soon be confirming details of changes to reporting lines and roles and responsibilities in the management team.

I am sure you will join me in thanking Richard for all he has achieved during his time at the Council and wishing him the very best for the future.

Yours sincerely,
Mark”

Just remember: a redundant role cannot usually be filled for between 1 and 2 years … so how long before Williams declares himself overworked and in need of better remuneration … but again remember that for a while we shared him 50/50 with South Somerset – till they paid us to take him back early!

“How ‘basic’ Cranbrook has gone from pioneering new town to almost unfit for purpose”

Anyone remember the “good old days” when the likes of Diviani, Twiss, Thomas and others extolled the virtues of the “new” town – and even got themselves not one but TWO awards for it? Many people wondered how that had come about at the time!
https://www.theexeterdaily.co.uk/news/uk-news/two-national-awards-cranbrook

Devon County Council pointed out its flaws FIVE ago in a 2014 in a damning reporht which identified ALL its current problems, but no-one at EDDC listened:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/09/14/what-mainstream-media-isnt-telling-you-about-that-dcc-cranbrook-report/

Now the price is being paid – this is what you get when your government and your council is developer-led.

And what does the current council leader suggest: ANOTHER talking shop!

Owl thinks a few heads should roll first for the mess the council finds itself in … starting with lead officers CEO Mark Williams and Deputy CEO Richard Cohen who have masterminded the omnishambles …

“… East Devon District Council’s cabinet on Wednesday night heard that the legal agreement that plays a critical role in establishing the trigger points for the delivery of facilities has become ‘an inflexible legal document which was negotiated in a different financial era’ and some of the facilities were ‘no longer fit for purpose’.

Among the current obligations is the Cranbrook Consortium must provide a children’s centre at 2,500 occupations. Devon County Council has now served notice on the consortium and requires them to design, construct and complete them by either June 10, 2021, or when 2,500 homes are occupied.

Andy Wood, projects director, told the meeting: “We are therefore in danger of defaulting to a scenario that may not be fit for purpose or affordable over the longer term. Given the looming trigger points we are rapidly approaching the point of no return. …”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/how-basic-cranbrook-gone-pioneering-3288218

“Knowlegate”: Del-Boy and the Trotters spring to mind – but just the fools (no horses that we know of)

“East Devon District Council’s senior management team have been rebuked by scrutiny councillors after failing to consider the public perception over the sell-off of assets from their former Knowle HQ.

The council this week completed its move from its former Sidmouth home at the Knowle, to Exmouth town hall and the new Honiton Heathpark HQ, and as part of the move, they had to find homes for various items that are unsuitable for its new building.

But a furore erupted just before Christmas when it was first revealed that council staff and members, but not the general public, were given the chance to bid on various items, and then when an email was leaked claiming a councillor managed to buy a large mahogany dining table and 20 chairs for £50 at the internal staff auction, instead of allowing it to be publicly auctioned for the best possible price.

A council spokesman had said that this leaked information was totally incorrect with the bid being for £400 and only including some of the chairs, and that the bid was withdrawn when Exmouth Town Council, who initially declined the offer of the table originally, changed their view just before Christmas and are now expected to take ownership of the table.

Cllr Ian Thomas, Leader of East Devon District Council, had previously said in a statement: “Our council relocation team has been working with professional auctioneers, Sidmouth Town Museum, charities and clearance specialists, to value and dispose of a wide range of items from our old East Devon District Council offices at The Knowle in Sidmouth.

“As part of this process, we offered our staff and elected members the chance to bid for items that may be of sentimental interest or practical use, but are of negligible commercial value.

“The value of items to be disposed were identified based on the view of experienced professionals. They included the large table from the Members area, which attracted little professional interest with one valuer estimate of just £50.

“All proceeds from this sale and those raised from other sales will go to the Chairman’s Civic Fund, to be donated to nominated charities.”

East Devon District Council’s scrutiny committee considered the disposal of the contents of the Knowle at their meeting last Thursday.

Richard Cohen, the Deputy Chief Executive, produced a report that outlined the process of disposal of items from the Knowle prior to handover to PegasusLife for demolition.

He said: “As part of that process and prior to the handover of the old office buildings to the developer, the council needs to clear the buildings. In total there are just over 2,600 separate items in the Knowle.

“The vast majority of these are office furniture: desks, chairs, cabinets etc of varying ages, condition and size. There are also a number of particular items of varying antiquity and value: these involve both furnishings and fixture and fittings. From a perspective of bulk disposal the estimated total weight of all these items is 45 metric tonnes.”

He outlined that Sidmouth Museum and Sidmouth Town Council were both interested in re-home various items, multiple local auction houses were invited in to look over items but that the majority of items were not of interest to them, and that for remaining items an opportunity was offered for council staff and members to bid for items whether for practical or aesthetic reasons.

He said: “These were items that had been attributed little or no sale value by the various professional auctioneers and ranged from standard office furniture items to cupboards, upholstered furnishings, tables, curtains for example. This element of the disposal process involves around seventy separate items and is likely to raise of the order of £2,000 for the Chairman’s chosen charities.”

Mr Cohen added that groups such as Action East Devon, Green Furniture Aid and Hospicare who are all either networked with voluntary groups or can sell furniture via charity outlets were asked whether they had an interest in some of the for the more generic items such desks, chairs and tables, but the response has been largely muted.

Town and parish councils will also be contacted asking them whether they have an interest in any items with the requirement that they transport said items away themselves, he added.

But councillors said that contrary to what Mr Cohen said, a full list of the items for disposal had not been circulated to them.

Scrutiny committee chairman Cllr Roger Giles said: “There has not been a list that we have seen so could someone produce a list that will be circulated very soon.” He also asked wat do town and parish councils know about the process, as the answer he had heard from them is nothing.

Cllr Cathy Gardner added: “Why was the full explanation of the process not circulated to members before we were given the chance to bid for items? The reason there was a furore around the subject as the offer of sale of items internally was offered in isolation and the lack of communication meant there was a lack of understanding of the wider process that this sat.”

Her recommendation, which the scrutiny committee backed unanimously, was that they remind the senior management team of the council to always consider the public perception of actions taken, particularly when it is involves public assets, and the disposal of public assets.

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/council-management-team-rebuked-over-2545040

“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

EDDC recreates the “Economic Development Manager” post

Last occupied by Nigel Harrison, who was controversially closely involved (with EDDC’s money and many, many blessings) with the equally controversial East Devon Business Forum, run by disgraced ex-councillor Graham Brown. Mr Harrison slipped quietly away during the ensuing fall-out.

So why do we need a new one?

“To ensure that the district has sufficient dedicated economy staffing resource in its team to promote local economic growth and productivity, increase the development of employment land and business premises (including EDDC owned and operated units), respond to local business support requests, improve the District’s investment profile and enable East Devon to maximise its return on the shared investment opportunities that Greater Exeter, Innovation Exeter, Growth Deal and the future Enterprise Zone offer.”

Click to access 180117-joint-overview-scrutiny-agenda-combined.pdf

“The King is dead, long live the king” as they say!

Perhaps CEO Williams, Deputy CEO Cohen and Leader Diviani will have learned some lessons … then again, perhaps not.

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

Save our Sidmouth report on council flagrant and reckless overspending on relocation

“Richard Thurlow, who Chaired Save Our Sidmouth from the beginning, and is currently Chair of the Sid Vale Association’s Environment and Planning Committee, gave this speech to Full Council last night. He received no response to the issues he raised. Along with those of other speakers, they were neatly brushed under the carpet by the Mark Williams. Although all wrapped up in time for Christmas, so to say, these issues will inevitably be reopened and on view throughout the New Year.

This is what Richard Thurlow said:

” The first cost estimate for Exmouth Town Hall (ETH) in March 2015 was £0.96m. The report to council said “The proposal to refurbish ETH has been tested and supported by independent analysis”!!

The second cost estimate was £ 1.261m

The latest cost is £1.669m.

Thus in 18 months the cost has risen by about £700k, a rise of 70% over the original estimate, and it is now more than the cost for the refurbishment of the Knowle which was £1.566m.

To the estimate of £1.669m must be added, fitting out, moving costs, staff reimbursement for travel and inconvenience, (for three years), etc, probably nearer £2m.

Your Deputy Chief Executive has persuaded Cabinet to underwrite a spend of £1.669m without adequate rationale; there are NO reasons given in his Report other than a wish to occupy ETH more quickly; no economic breakdown, no total cost, no assessments of the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal which would have enabled you to base your decision on facts.
The project is out of control.

I say this based on my experience over 40 years on projects worldwide in a major Building and Civil Engineering Consultancy. I have seen a few dodgy projects in that time and this is one of them!

If you support the proposal, I have to say that this will come back to haunt you!”

EDDC relocation has hallmarks of a “dodgy project”, Full Council is advised.

Is Mr Cohen up to his job?

Richard Cohen has not had a good year (well, actually he has, as he remains Deputy CEO and Relocation Manager for EDDC).

He came under fire last week for saying (twice) that the DMC had “stymied” relocation plans – though actually if anyone stymied anything it was PegasusLife putting in a planning application that was unfit for purpose.

Just so show this wasn’t a one-off, let us remind ourselves of this is transcript of part of a speech by a well-known Sidmouth businessman with experience of property development, made at a Sid Vale Association Meeting at the Unitarian Church, Sidmouth, 9th December 2014.

The speech begins with a discussion of Cohen’s estimate of total relocation costs at about £10 million.

“The numbers are completely, hopelessly and scandalously wrong. They are useless, they are terrible and have to be challenged vigorously and strenuously. These numbers are rubbish. They don’t include the green travel plan, they don’t include compensation for the staff, they don’t include the cost of the move itself, they don’t include the costs of hubs the other towns and, most importantly, they don’t include the cost of officer time and members time that is involved in all of this.

The expert, Mr Steve Pratten from Davis Langdon, he is going to cost £1million or more on his own. It doesn’t include the legal costs in all this. I say to the District Council that I have estimated the real costs to be £20million. That figure was not disputed – Richard Cohen did not say it was exaggerated – he said he didn’t recognize the number. What that means is that I was bang on the money.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are trusting Richard Cohen to mastermind this whole process and we are assuming that he’s accurate in the mathematical calculations. This is the same man who measured the Knowle 40% smaller than it turned out to be! He got it wrong by 40%. Robin Fuller had to write a paper, he was rubbished in the press and it turned out that he was correct. The Knowle is 40% bigger than Richard Cohen thought it was.

This is the same man who was responsible for four attempts to compose the economic impact assessments rejected by his own planning committee. He can’t get simple mathematics right. This same man tells us that energy prices are going to go ahead for the next 20 years at 10% over inflation. He is alone in the entire world in thinking this. Nobody else believes that including your energy companies who will fix your energy costs for the next four years. That instantly takes £1.5million out of all the savings that are supposed to be made by moving, so he hasn’t even bothered to explore that possibility.

He is also the man who shifted the southern boundary of the Knowle to include the second tier of parkland without telling anybody and in contradiction to the specific instructions of the Development Management Committee. I was told this would not be investigated because the Inspector would look at it, which he would not do because it was not in his remit. So that has never been investigated by anybody at the Knowle.

He did it without managing to record that process; without managing to record any conversation with any individual, without writing a single email, or keeping a single note or sending any kind of correspondence to any third party. Because I made a freedom of information request, and there was nothing there.

He did it unilaterally, on his own, secretly, and he didn’t tell a single soul, and I only found out by accident.

This is not the kind of person I would trust to do these calculations. Now when he says it is going to cost £15.9million to refurbish the Knowle, I would tell him that that’s a load of bunkum. This relates to the entire building, which nobody advocates retaining. Why is anybody working in a bathroom when the Knowle is two and a half times the size of the building EDDC says it needs? How can that be possible? Mr Cohen in his calculations also asserts that there is nil chance, not 1% chance of local government reform in the next 20 years.”

“Relocation update: “We have been stymied twice”, officer reports to EDDC Cabinet”

As reported by Save our Sidmouth website.

Owl says: isn’t it time to draw horns in and manage – with creative ideas – with Exmouth and Sidmouth? Wouldn’t that be the most sensible choice now?

The Relocation lead officer, Richard Cohen, reporting last night to EDDC’s Cabinet meeting at Knowle, found himself roundly rebuked by Cllr Cathy Gardner (East Devon Alliance, EDA) for his subjective stance. Cllr Gardner was “shocked to hear Mr Cohen being scathing about the Development Management Committee (DMC) decision”, as these comments were wholly inappropriate for an officer’s report. She was certainly not the only one to think so.

Referring to the DMC’s refusal of the PegasusLife planning application for Knowle (6th December 2016) , “We have been stymied twice” was the turn of phrase chosen by Mr Cohen, who is also EDDC’s Deputy Chief Executive Officer. “You languish in old buildings’, he told councillors. He appeared to belittle the DMC’s decision, describing the refusal as “purely about planning”, “because of a listed curiosity”, and “arguments about Care Provision”.

The outcome of yesterday’s Cabinet meeting was an agreement to “decouple’ the twin aspirations to relocate to Exmouth and to Honiton. In a unanimous vote, it was decided to fast-track the refurbishment of Exmouth Town Hall (despite estimated costs having already increased by almost 70% , and borrowing being necessary) to provide a new ‘hub’ , accomodating 90 new desks for staff.

The mood was more muted about Honiton. Uncertainty about PegasusLife’s future intentions regarding Knowle, could continue, according to Richard Cohen, for around 6 months. In any case, delay in obtaining finance for newbuild offices at Heathpark is inevitable.

So the Council has turned its focus on how best to manage its office space at Knowle, acknowledging the site’s “potential capital appreciation”. The intention is to identify areas that “can be mothballed”, although Richard Cohen’s comment that Knowle’s “more modern buildings are in a more decrepit state ” than the former hotel, was somewhat surprising.

Next week’s Full Council Meeting (21 December, 6.30pm, Knowle) has the DMC report on its agenda. There are sure to be more, probing, questions to answer on this emerging relocation rejig.”

Relocation update: “We have been stymied twice”, officer reports to EDDC Cabinet

Officers of the council are neutral – aren’t they?

Update: it seems that Mr Cohen does not think that the word “stymied” indicated a lack of neutrality on his part. We leave that to readers to decide. Owl only adds that Mr Cohen was appointed to lead regeneration AND relocation – so it is hardly surprising that any interference with either of those roles is difficult for him to handle.

However, fortunately, help is at hand for him in the shape of EDDC’s own Constitution, where, on page 212, it states:

“39. Officers have a contractual and legal duty to be impartial. They must not allow their professional judgment and advice to be influenced by their own personal views”

Click to access constitution-july-2016-web-version.pdf

Owl – always happy to help and advise.

As expected last night’s EDDC Cabinet meeting unanimously rubber stamped the decision to raise another half million or so of taxpayers’ money to fund the refurbishment of Exmouth Town Hall as part of their Relocation Plan.

But, in an extraordinary outburst, Deputy CEO Richard Cohen, in charge of relocation, made a scathing attack on last week’s Development Management Committee’s decision to refuse planning permission for Pegasus Life’s application to develop 113 “assisted living” apartments on the Knowle.

He said the Council’s “commitment” to sell its HQ had been “stymied by a decision of the committee, (taken) purely about planning” (sic!) It hadn’t considered “the future of the Council, nor the independently proven savings” of relocation but made its decision “only because of heights (of buildings), a listed curiosity and arguments about care provision.”

So much for the myth that EDDC leaders, pursuing the relocation agenda, will allow the planning committee to serenely make its decisions on planning grounds alone, and won’t try to pressure it!

East Devon Alliance councillor Cathy Gardner was shocked, and said it was “inappropriate” for a council officer to criticise a planning committee in such a way.

But then Richard Cohen has form when it comes to arrogance and a cavalier attitude to convention. He handled the Council’s appeal in 2014 against the Information Commissioner’s call to publish documents about secret aspects of relocation. The Tribunal described the Council’s failure to cooperate properly and its economies with the truth as “discourteous and unhelpful”.

Knowle relocation: more public statements come back to bite councillors on their …

This passage didn’t get much noticed at the time, in a report to Cabinet March 2015:

‘The market value of the Honiton new build is estimated to be £3.25m in 2017 and Exmouth Town Hall had a site value estimated in 2013 as £0.9m. The sites are determined primarily on the basis that they make better financial sense than the Knowle and are located for operational rather than investment purposes.’

This appears to confirm that the value of the new build is much less than the cost of its construction. Way less. Only £3.25 million, forward dated to 2017. So about £8 million less than the cost of build. Plus, don’t forget that the Honiton site, with or without the Business Centre, is worth at least £0.75 million, so the added value arising from construction, costing £11 million, is £3.25 – 0.75 million. Just £2.5 million. What a terrible investment.

Moreover, the sentence, presumably composed by Richard Cohen, seems to suggest that the Town Hall will not receive any benefit from the refurbishment, as it is deemed to have only ‘site value’ at £0.9 million.

Councillors … wool … eyes … pulled over?

Where are the main badger setts on Exmouth seafront?

Deputy CEO Cohen and Deputy …. whatever, something or other, waffle …. Councillor Moulding were both very, very vague about where the main badger setts (plural) are on Exmouth seafront.

Under the Premier Inn?
Under the Bowling Alley?
Under Exmouth Town Hall?

Owl thinks we should be told!

Brian May’s latest Save the Badger song:

img_1307

EDDC’s Cohen says they will “do the right thing by them” in Exmouth

Source: today’s BBC Spotlight Richard Cohen, Deputy CEO of EDDC and Regeneration supremo, interviewed on Exmouth seafront said that “EDDC will do right by them”.

Unfortunately for us (though fortunately for the badger set under the demolished Crazy Golf area) he meant only the badgers.

Badgers are a protected species whereas human beings are not. Though perhaps someone should check that they don’t come under the Devon gassing orders.

Looks like EDDC got him down there pretty fast after the Moulding omnishambles on Radio Devon earlier – see post below.

Exmouth seafront tenders – time for review?

In response to a Freedom of Information request (below) on 15 February 2016, EDDC refused to divulge any information about the Moirai tender bid for Exmouth seafront.

Owl thinks that now this process has been abandoned, EDDC must divulge this information and that other bidders have no right to keep their bids secret.

Anyone fancy another request?

“Q 1. What information do you hold about any/all organisation that made enquiries in response to JLL’s marketing exercise in respect of the proposals ?
I refer you back to our previous response dated 16th February and quote from this below:

You also asked for the names of the organisations who submitted a bid for this work having been provided already with the number of organisations involved. In considering your request we have contacted the other organisations who submitted a bid and they have confirmed our view that this detail, at this point in time, is commercially confidential to them. We are therefore withholding this detail under Regulation 12(5)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations.

I confirm that this response still stands and is directly relevant to this question and questions 2, 3, and 4 below.

Q 2. Who were the two applicants who were not chosen at the final interview ?
See above

Q 3.Did any of the two unsuccessful developers include ‘residential’ elements in their proposals? If so details please/
See above

Q 4. Please supply fullest details of the proposals that the two unsuccessful applicants offered.
See above

Q 5. Please provide details of all persons who comprised the selection panel that chose Moirai.
The selection panel was made up of Cllr John Humphreys, Cllr Tim Wood, Cllr Andrew Moulding, Richard Cohen and Alison Hayward

Q.6. Can you kindly confirm that the number of organisations, out of the 4,000 plus that were contacted by JLL, who chose to submit themselves to the final selection process was only three?

4 were initially interviewed and then, in March 2015, we considered 3.

Q 7. Taking into account EDDC’s promise to the public on the non-inclusion of ‘residential’ on the Queen’s Drive site, did any member, officer or advisor ever consider that EDDC’s ‘offer’ to developers had failed to attract a suitable candidate for preferred developer? If so full details please.
No information held”

Now Exmouth seafront is up for grabs again, what of Seaton Heights?

East Devon District Council really is having problems with regeneration in Exmouth and Seaton.

In Exmouth, the relationship with preferred developer Moirai Capital Investments (see many East Devon Watch posts) has spectacularly bitten the dust. And what of the development at the old motel site in Seaton – grandly marketed as Seaton Heights:

http://lymebayleisure.co.uk/

which continues to deteriorate badly, despite promises made (many times) to either finish or start construction in June 2016 (it varies a lot depending just which press release you read) having been broken (though the company website STILL touts the off-plan £1,000 deposits it has been marketing for years).

EDDC Deputy CEO Richard Cohen was brought in specially for his regeneration expertise in London but, alas, he seems to have spent the vast majority of his time spearheading the relocation of council offices to Honiton and mopping up development issues in Cranbrook.

Now we have no less than THREE of our major towns with regeneration committees, as Axminster has joined Exmouth and Seaton as being in need of major new investment. Perhaps to be followed by Sidmouth when it is deserted by EDDC and has its replacement influx of more pensioners and Ottery as it struggles with more housing without accompanying infrastructure.

Not really a very good track record, is it?

Still, perhaps our LocalEnterprise Partnership will pump funds into these deprived areas.

“As a young person of Exmouth, I feel misled and horrified …”

image

So said the Exmouth College student who questioned EDDC leaders last night (16 Dec,2015), about the process behind the seafront development proposals in her town. But Deputy CEO Richard Cohen’s answer skirted around her main point (“I feel misled”), in a Full Council meeting that showed EDDC manipulative management at its very worst.

Blind block-voting without debate; and a Chair who allowed 5 serious questions from Exmouth residents to be rolled into one by the responding officer, thus enabling central points made by the speakers to be glossed over or, (as with the offer by Louise McAllister, specialist in surveys, to meet EDDC), simply ignored.

Not a single question was asked by any Majority Party councillor: only one of the 9 questions put, all from Independents, had a satisfactory answer (given thoroughly by Environment Portfolio holder, Cllr Iain Chubb).

Corporate Services portfolio holder, Cllr Phil Twiss, was unavailable to answer embarrassing questions about broadband, leaving Cllr Ian Thomas apologetically unable to provide informed replies.

The meeting reached a crescendo of ‘confidentiality’, when the critical information needed by councillors before deciding whether to give Leader Paul Diviani ‘delegated powers’ regarding the multi-million pound Heart of the South West (HotSW) devolution bid, was declared (without debate) too sensitive for press and public. So the devolution item was dealt with in private, at the end of the session.

Just a few minutes into this part of the agenda, the Chair, Cllr Stuart Hughes, closed the meeting, somewhat prematurely perhaps. There had been no discussion by councillors, and the whole point of this session had been missed: there was no vote on delegated powers for the Leader.

Q. When is a Plan not a Plan? A. When it’s an EDDC fudge?

At the July Public Examination Inspector Thickett instructed EDDC to reach agreement with Natural England over outstanding issues regarding compliance with the European Habitat Directive. These are legally binding on EDDC and, therefore, potential show stoppers. (It is claimed the phrasing he used was “lock yourselves in a darkened room until you reach agreement” – but who would voluntarily do that with an EDDC planner?).

Not surprising then to find the amendments proposed to the Draft Plan by EDDC in August didn’t mention that agreement had been reached, only that there had been a “dialogue”. EDDC’s proposed solution is to duck the issue by removing any dependency between the Exmouth Master Plan and the Local Plan i.e. Exmouth regeneration is irrelevant to achieving the staggering economic growth assumed in the Local Plan.

So the Watch watchers were interested to read the following article by Becca Glidden in last Week’s Journal under the title “Setback for major regeneration sites”. Amongst all the nuanced phrasing we are left wondering when is a plan not a plan? Maybe our readers can enlighten us?

Here is the text of the article:

Major sites earmarked for regeneration have been struck out of a major new planning document – after objections from Natural England.

The sites include the seafront Splash Zone/ Queen’s Drive, the Imperial Road car park, the rugby ground, bus station, estuary car park, London Inn car park and town centre post office.

They have been removed from the proposed East Devon Local Plan, which is currently undergoing public consultation.
The regeneration works have been deleted from the proposed planning document because Natural England said the proposals were not `legally sound’.

Natural England, a group championing the preservation of the natural environment for future generations, said East Devon District Council (EDDC) had failed to carry out a full conservation assessment of the Exmouth sites earmarked for regeneration. [Comment from Owl: Natural England is the Government’s statutory advisory body on this – i.e. top dog].

In a letter to EDDC, Natural England said: “Because we advise that we are unable to agree that the Habitat Regulations Assessment is complete, we consider that the Local Plan is not legally sound, since the statutory requirements of the assessment process have not been followed.

This remains the case.”

The regeneration sites are contained in a document called the Exmouth Masterplan, a planning paper which forms part of the proposed East Devon Local Plan.

An EDDC spokesperson told the Journal: “The Exmouth Masterplan is one of a suite of planning documents that support the [proposed] Local Plan, however, the Exmouth Masterplan needs updating.

“The issue which Natural England has concerns about, is whether all of the Exmouth Masterplan can be acceptably delivered, bearing in mind the possibility of adverse impacts on the Exe Estuary wildlife site.

“Because of the concerns expressed by Natural England, the council has withdrawn the direct links/references between the Exmouth Masterplan and the Local Plan to enable the Local Plan to move forward.

“The sites in Exmouth can still come forward, but to show that they are acceptable, each site and the scheme on that site will need to be subject to its own detailed assessment under the habitat regulations – Natural England will take a keen interest in these assessments.”

The district council said the seafront Splash/ Queen’s Drive, the Imperial Road car park, the rugby ground, bus station, estuary car park, London Inn car park and town centre post office would be included in a refreshed Masterplan, a council document which sets out the future for Exmouth.

The council said its regeneration plans for Exmouth were ongoing and would be completed.

The spokesperson said plans would be submitted for the Splash/Queens Drive development before the end of the year.
“Projects in the Masterplan remain in place for delivery. The delivery of Masterplan projects will be aligned with the new Local Plan policies, as well as wider rules and regulations. In the mean-time, the existing Masterplan remains in force.

“The Queen’s Drive proposals are proceeding and a planning application for the enabling works – road and car park – has recently been submitted.

“An application for the second phase will be forthcoming before the end of the year.”

Our summary: Now you see it, now you don’t!

That could be EDDC’s new motto, perhaps!

Exmouth regeneration: a resident writes

I spent my youth living in Ramsgate, and saw the town councillor’s over several years close down businesses and dither about making idiotic plans they could never keep. Usually big investors pulling of projects. I have lived in Exmouth for 2 years and would not like to see the same thing happen here.

My message to Richard Cohen is simple enough. If you force a business to close, you need to have something there to replace it. Big ideas cost big money. Have the council got all the funding they need.

So we hear of plans for a supermarket in the rugby grounds apparently going back a few years ago. It should already have happened. Now we hear of Marks and Spencer planning on opening a store in the bus depot. Then we hear the council yet again dithering about where they should have a store.

I have seen it all before, and know the outcome. Mr Richard Cohen needs to get his act together. Before this fine town ends up a ghost town.

Paul Meyer

EDDC boards up legitimately trading cafe on Exmouth seafront without telling the owner

A seafront cafe owner was heading back to Exmouth today to find out just why his premises had been boarded up overnight.

Dean Gardner, owner of the popular DJ’s Cafe on Queen’s Drive, Exmouth, was in the Midlands looking after a sick relative, when he heard the bad news.

Mr Gardner, who has run the cafe for 11 years, said he had been told by East Devon District Council last month that the cafe could remain open for the “foreseeable future” in the run up to the redevelopment of the Exmouth seafront.

But in the early hours of October 1 a small number of contractors, went to the premises changed the locks and boarded up the premises up.

A notice, signed by Richard Cohen, Deputy Chief Executive EDDC, stated that council had taken possession of the premises.

The notice also indicates that: “as you have not made an application to the court before the expiry date (of the notice to terminate the lease) EDDc has exercised the right to take possession.”

Mr Gardner said: “It is a living nightmare. I restocked the cafe on the basis of being told that nothing was going to happen for the foreseeable future and now they have taken possession and boarded the place up without any notice.

“I have to say that when the Carriage Cafe was hauled away I wondered what was going on but I knew they had had enough and had a new site set up in Cornwall.

“I didn’t expect this to happen and I am now heading back to Exmouth straight away to find out what on earth is going on.”

Mr Gardner added that he had spent thousands of pounds on the cafe but was being offered “less than £15,000” in compensation.

According to campaigners opposed to the seafront development, EDDC said on its website that businesses operating in Queen’s Drive will be able to continue to trade beyond 30 September 2015

A Council spokesperson said previously: “East Devon District Council would like to make clear for the benefit of local residents, as well as its Queen’s Drive tenants and customers, that businesses currently operating at Queen’s Drive, who have formally notified the council that they wish to renew their tenancies, will continue to trade beyond 30 September 2015 until the necessary legal processes have been followed and concluded regarding their future.

“The council would like to apologise for any misunderstanding that has occurred.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Exmouth-seafront-caf-owner-shocked-premises/story-27904199-detail/story.html

What mainstream media isn’t telling you about that DCC Cranbrook Report!

What the Express and Echo article on Cranbrook DIDN’T report:

Firstly, that along with Councillor Moulding, other EDDC (or former EDDC) councillors were part of the DCC task group which were closely involved with the development of Cranbrook: councillors Bowden and former EDDC Leader Sarah Randall-Johnson.

and bits of the report that didn’t make the mainstream media have been extracted here:

Developers are house builders, not town builders. The planning of e.g. the town centre and open spaces is the responsibility of the district council as the local planning authority whose responsibility it is to ensure that developing land commercially is coordinated with building a new community with social as well as physical facilities and infrastructure. It took five years to negotiate the original Section 106 Agreement.

Numerous concerns were shared with the task group in relation to the developers’ activities, among them a large number of incidents relating to the quality of the completed homes, including compliance with plans and residents struggling to encourage developers to address any shortcomings. Landscaping of community space has followed rather than preceded development and the management and maintenance of future community space and development land is lacking. The number of complaints regarding the quality of the built environment resulted in some community representatives being concerned about Cranbrook’s future reputation and the success of future phases.

Despite numerous invitations it was disappointing that none of the four house builders were available to comment on the concerns which participants shared with the task group.

Community Infrastructure

There is no standard model for planning community infrastructure and negotiating with developers, service commissioners and providers, but what is critical in creating a new town is upfront funding to support delivery the development of roads, community infrastructure and affordable housing from the public purse. Some of those facilities, e.g. the primary and secondary schools, Clyst Honiton bypass and Younghayes Community Centre, have been finalised ahead of schedule in Cranbrook. For others, notably the train station, there is a strong public perception that facilities are substantially behind schedule. Building and operating facilities without residents to use them is not viable but equally, residents expect facilities as soon as they move in. Participants repeatedly called for a multi-disciplinary team to plan and shape the future provision of services in Cranbrook.

In the absence of alternative public transport provision other than a limited but expanding bus service, car parking facilities were described as inadequate, including insufficient car parking allocation per bedroom, no visitors’ car parking, allocated parking bays being situated away from homes and garages being physically too small for cars to fit in them. Concern was expressed that habits formed in the early days would be hard to unlearn and that transport infrastructure should be delivered in line with residential development. Residents criticised “blue sky” bicycle thinking ignoring the reality that today’s Society had a two car per dwelling dependency which should be catered for in new development.

The roads in the town are not yet adopted, and as they are carrying significant volumes of construction traffic, the County Council does not currently have timescales for when responsibility will be transferred. The maintenance for the roads remains the responsibility of the developers, including gritting in the winter. The task group understands that the developers have an agreement with Devon County Council to finance gritting by the highway authority in severe weather. Several participants expressed concerns about dangerous car parking by residents and developers on pavements, corners and junctions but Devon County Council cannot extend its civil parking enforcement service until the roads are adopted.

Safe access routes to the Cranbrook Education Campus (primary and secondary schools) were due to be completed by the end of August 2015, including secure footpaths. An Infrastructure Site Manager employed by the Developer Consortium was overseeing their completion.

The task group remains concerned about the secondary school being located next to the railway line. Network Rail has committed to delivering awareness training for the children once per year in the school. The school was also planning to operate manned gates.

The main road through Cranbrook is not finished which might cause problems for parents whose children attend both the Cranbrook Education Campus. They would have to drop children off at both sites at similar times with no direct access route to both.

A pre-school facility would have assisted at an early stage.

When the first residents moved into Cranbrook in the summer of 2012, there was no social or community infrastructure or service provision beyond the completion of their homes. The task group repeatedly heard how this was a problem especially for the more vulnerable residents, including single parent families and residents without access to private transport. Social housing occupants were housed in Cranbrook and thereby removed from established communities, with shops, public transport and public services, and lived in Cranbrook in isolation. The complete lack of healthcare, social care or other professional support during the first 18-24 months meant that some residents were left to struggle on their own, exacerbating existing problems, including (post-natal/long-term) depression and drug/alcohol dependency.

Participants repeatedly expressed how there was provision for young children under the age of five in the form of open spaces and safe play areas, and some surrounded by unsafe fencing, but still no facilities exist for older children and teenagers. This resulted in problems, e.g. older children using the park and making it an unpleasant environment for younger children to play. Although funding had been available in the Section 106 Agreement from the beginning, the youth bus had only commenced at a later date. The task group understands that this provision was temporally withdrawn following an alleged antisocial behaviour incident at the end of July 2015. Participants commented that the provision should increase in order to combat antisocial behaviour issues, rather than be withdrawn.

The Cranbrook Medical Centre opened on 20 April 2015, nearly three years after the first residents moved in. An unsuccessful tender for new services and premises had been issued by the then Devon Primary Care NHS Trust in the past. The reorganisation of the NHS saw the responsibility for the commissioning of primary care services transfer to NHS England which awarded the contract to Devon Doctors. A funding challenge remains: Core services delivered in GP surgeries are funded per capita based on the number of formal registrations with a surgery. Although the current practice in Cranbrook has a capacity for approximately 3,500 patients, only 514 patients were formally registered at the end of July 2015. NHS England has provided some core minimum funding to the practice whilst the list size remains low and this will be paid until the registered population reaches a certain size, at which point capitation-based funding will be applied; another example of upfront funding required in the initial period. Two GPs, who are building their work load up to full time, and one nurse are currently practicing.

A backlog of patients who still need to be registered remains. When moving to Cranbrook, residents had to register with the Pinhoe & Broadclyst Medical Practice in cases where their old surgeries would not keep them registered. The Pinhoe & Broadclyst Medical Practice was difficult to access with public transport from Cranbrook which had proved a challenge for the more vulnerable members of the community.

Cranbrook is forecast to have approximately 20,000 residents by 2031 and the GP surgery will have to slowly evolve in order to grow in conjunction with the growth in residents and their future healthcare needs. The surgery will need a new building in the future with sufficient capacity to expand in a modular way to grow with the population. It would therefore be important for the NHS to be able to access Section 106 funding as appropriate to enable such premises to be facilitated, although there are concerns around State Aid which will need to be addresses as GP practices are effectively private businesses. NHS England is currently working with other health partners to develop a joint response to planning applications being received.

Pharmacy

The independent pharmacy is being accommodated in temporary premises at present and the task group heard from participants how its provision might have been better coordinated and co-located with the GP surgery with improved forward planning.

One of the objectives in the development of Cranbrook is to develop the employment infrastructure, i.e. create one job per residential dwelling. Employment opportunities exist in nearby Exeter, the SkyPark and the Science Park and eventually in the town itself, with the intention that Cranbrook develops as a small enterprise town. The development of small-scale employment spaces is currently being pursued with the conversion of two residential dwellings into offices. Commercial properties in the town centre have not yet sold. The task group questioned where spaces are in the town for small- and medium-sized enterprises to establish their businesses. An Economic Development Strategy has been developed for Cranbrook.