Category Archives: Skypark

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Oct 2014

Posted under

Austerity cuts, EDDC, Exeter City Council, Skypark

Comments

1 Comment

More on those IT partnerships

After news that EDDC is spearheading an IT parthership with Exeter and Teignbridge,we reported on the fiasco in Somerset when an IT partnership went spectacularly wrong here:

http://eastdevonalliance.org/2014/10/01/what-happens-when-shared-and-partnership-it-services-go-wrong/

Following on from this is this critique which could equally be applied to the Skypark vanity project:

Mutual incentives?

The Somerset report says each side in an outsourcing relationship needs to be motivated by similar incentives. But can that ever happen? Councils exist to provide good public services as cheaply as possible. Suppliers exist to make as much money as possible.  There can only be similar incentives if a council is so inefficient that there’s enough spare cash to cover council savings and the supplier’s profits.  If there isn’t the spare cash, the council, in its enthusiasm to do something different by outsourcing, can simply fictionalise the figures for benefits and potential savings.

This creative (and legal) exercise is perfectly possible given the depth of the conjecture needed to project costs and savings over 6 years or more.  Part-time councillors who are considering a big outsourcing contract have the time only to glance at summary documents or the preferred supplier’s Powerpoint slides. They are unlikely to spot the assumptions that pervade the formalised legal language.

During such a pre-contract exercise, the most sceptical councillors are often excluded from internal scrutiny, and the disinterested ones who are admitted into the inner chamber can find their heads swimming in a supplier-inspired language that either swathes uncertainty in the business jargon of near certainty or obscures reality in opaque legalese.

How are these lay councillors to get at the truth? Do they have the time?

Big outsourcing deals between councils and suppliers are inherently flawed, as this Somerset report indicates. Too many such deals have ended badly for council taxpayers as Dexter Whitfield’s investigations have shown.

But still some councils sign huge outsourcing deals. Their leading officials and councillors say they took lessons from failed contracts around the country into account. But what does that mean? If a deal is inherently flawed, perhaps because of diverging incentives, it is inherently flawed.

The disaster that is Southwest One could be a priceless jewel in the public sector’s display case if it serves to deter councillors and officials signing further large-scale council outsourcing deals.

http://ukcampaign4change.com/

When you click on the link to Dexter Whitfield’s investigations, you get this interesting comment:

The number of PPP strategic partnerships has increased 35% in just two years with 18 additional contracts valued at £8bn. 60 contracts are currently operating, four were terminated and one completed the contract term, but was not renewed. A further two are being terminated in 2014. Strategic partnerships originated in ICT and corporate services, but have extended into planning, education, police, fire and rescue and property services. The failure rate is very high – nearly 1 in 4 contracts are either terminated, reduce scope as services are brought back in-house, and/or suffer major financial and operational problems. Savings, new business and new jobs targets continue to be illusive.


Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Oct 2014

Posted under

Austerity cuts, DCC, EDDC, Local Plan, Skypark

Comments

2 Comments

Today Manchester, tomorrow “Greater Exeter” or “Devon wide”? Maybe Councillor Potter is right and there will be no district councils soon

The Greater Manchester Combined Authority – made up of a consortium of 10 local authorities is going back to the drawing board and attempting to draw up a Regional Spatial Strategy – i.e. a Mega-Local-Plan. Those long in the tooth (i.e. who remember local government more than 4 years ago) will recall that this used to be the way things were done for infrastructure and investment wit the (not-much-missed-because-it-wasn’t-very-good) South West Regional Development Agency SWRDA with their Spatial Strategy for the whole of Devon. They were replaced by Local Enterprise Partnership – but they, too, seem to be fading away gradually as we hear less of them and their funding.

http://www.agma.gov.uk/what_we_do/manchester-family-centre-of-excellence/index.html

(what an odd URL!)

So, maybe this is the way things are going – fewer and fewer small authorities and more and more amalgamation as Councillor Potter predicted at Newton Poppleford earlier this week.

But where does that leave EDDC? They fought Devon-wide unitisation so, so hard a few years ago – spending at least a quarter of a million pounds of our council tax on persuading us not to go down that route and saying how bad it was for us. Then, as soon as the new government came in, they cancelled unitisation saying it was not a good idea. Now amalgamation seems to be the new theory and it’s all ok now.

There must be some really hard head-scratching going on at present at EDDC as they see the possibiity of losing control! Though there are many who think they lost control some time ago ….

… and wouldn’t the Skypark HQ make a lovely Devon HQ so that Exeter and DCC could sell off their current offices for housing ….. unless it goes to Plymouth, of course! Why not: it’s on the far edge of the area and only as far (relatively speaking) from Exeter in Devon-wide terms as Axminster is from Skypark in EDDC terms!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Sep 2014

Posted under

EDDC, Freedom of Information and EIA, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Skypark

Update on Knowle sale and Freedom of Information Tribunal

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.com/2014/09/knowle-relocation-project-latest-news.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Sep 2014

Posted under

EDDC, Exeter City Council, Skypark

Skypark “realising the full economic potential of Exeter” …

So says Alder King, the company marketing the site on Rightmove HERE

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-to-let/property-47604236.html/svr/1119;jsessionid=36322F4BFF5D15AED9C64DC02D3526D9?premiumA=true

“The vision for the site is to realise the full economic potential of Exeter as a major regional centre, providing a range of employment opportunities and highlighting the area as a self-sufficient new urban community. A community offering people the ability to live in a much sought-after part of the country in close proximity to where the majority of new jobs will be provided.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Sep 2014

Posted under

Austerity cuts, EDDC, Exeter City Council, Skypark

Comments

2 Comments

Three Dorset councils in merger talks

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-29205950

Skypark starts to make sense but only in strategic terms, not in terms of residents needs.

What is quite shocking is that, if mergers save so much money, why was the extra tier created in the first place.

One suspects the word “localism” would have been bandied about in the 70s when it was happening, but now the buzz phrase = “economic growth and efficiency” to explain why mergers are needed.

One might then conclude that you can’t have localism AND economic growth and efficiency!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Sep 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Skypark

Fettering discretion in the planning process

EDDC current constitution page 196

Do be aware that you are likely to have fettered your discretion where the Council is the landowner, developer or applicant and you have acted as, or could be perceived as being, a chief advocate for the proposal. (This is more than a matter of membership of both the proposing and planning determination committees, but that through your significant personal involvement in preparing or advocating the proposal you will be, or perceived by the public as being, no longer able to act impartially or to determine the proposal purely on its planning merits.)

and page 197:

Don’t speak and vote on a proposal where you have fettered your discretion. You do not also have to withdraw, but you may prefer to do so for the sake of appearances.

 Do explain that you do not intend to speak and vote because you have or you could reasonably be perceived as having judged (or reserve the right to judge) the matter elsewhere, so that this may be recorded in the minutes.

 Do take the opportunity to exercise your separate speaking rights as a Ward/Local Member where you have represented your views or those of local electors and fettered your discretion, provided you do not have a disclosable pecuniary interest.. Where you do exercise these speaking rights:
– advise the proper officer or Chairman that you wish to speak in this capacity before commencement of the item;
– remove yourself from the Member seating area for the duration of that item; and
– ensure that your actions are recorded.

…..
Be aware that you should not speak or vote on any matter which you have discussed at Cabinet unless you have demonstrated there and can do so at the relevant planning meeting that you have not predetermined the application. …

…Do not take part in any planning meeting on a matter in which you may have been seen as advocating a proposal as a Cabinet Member.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Sep 2014

Posted under

DCC, Democracy, EDDC, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Skypark

Comments

1 Comment

The Scottish referendum and Skypark: what links them?

The Scottish vote on Thursday has significant implications for the proposed move of EDDC to Skypark.

This follows the recent strong performance of the ‘Yes’ campaign, who may well win, but have in any event secured huge concessions from the Westminster establishment. The choice is now between full independence and ‘devo max’, a further massive transfer of powers to the Scottish Assembly.

All parties are now agreed that the existing constitutional arrangements are dead in the water, and that widespread reform is inevitable with a transfer of powers away from Westminster. In a sense, a logical extension of the popular policy of ‘localism’.

Regardless of Thursday’s vote, Wales and Northern Ireland will be given more powers, and there is likely to be an English Parliament. This may be located away from London, in Birmingham or the North, but is more likely to be housed at Westminster, with only English MPs sitting to determine English issues.

The English regions will be included in this anti-centrist, anti-Westminster process, but a repeat of the maligned and unsuccessful regional assemblies of the last Labour government is highly unlikely. Power is going to be devolved to lower tiers of government, and in our neck of the woods that means Devon County Council.

As part of this transfer of power and general constitutional and administrative upheaval, the number of tiers of government will be closely examined. The continuation of District Councils is highly questionable. Whilst County Councils will have the viability to administer more powers, there will be huge demands to counter their power with a transfer of local decision-making to Parish level. In particular, planning. This is the essence of localism, and government generally is well aware of the popular demand for people to have a greater say over what happens in their neighbourhood.

And of course, having three tiers of local government is widely seen as overly complicated and expensive. Hence the decision to make Cornwall a unitary authority. So District Councils are looking like they are heading for the chop.

Scottish voters have been promised constitutional reform in a great hurry, with legislation scheduled for just after the May 2015 elections. Reform to the English system will either be at the same time or very soon afterwards.

At the very moment when District Councils are likely to cease to exist, here in EDDC we will be committing to a £20 million new HQ. The ultimate white elephant.

And what will be the value of the new building, when it has to be sold? Surely no more than £2-3 million. We already know that there is no demand for offices at Skypark, or anywhere else in East Devon for that matter. And especially for a new building purpose designed to house our District Council.

In these circumstances will the residents elsewhere in Devon be prepared to stomach the losses incurred by East Devon politicians. Or will the £17 million loss be transferred to East Devon’s parish councils, saddling them with debt for a generation?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Sep 2014

Posted under

EDDC, Freedom of Information and EIA, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Skypark

“Embedded officers” types 1, 2 and 3

We have received the following on “embedded officers” from Sandra Semple, who attended the Information Commissioner v EDDC First Tier Tribunal.

“I have been giving further thought to the concept of “embedded officer” as described by Richard Cohen at the First Tier Tribunal Hearing last month.
I am only a layperson but it seems to be a very strange situation, without precedent.

A trawl of Google has found only two areas where “embedded officers” generally seem to operate: journalists with the military on operations and dedicated police officers in American schools.

1. In the case of journalists embedded with the military, the military attempts to influence their work by getting them to see the day-to-day work of soldiers on the front line but they CANNOT control what the journalist then says. The journalist is always employed by the newspaper or journal to which they are accredited and which pays them.

2. In the case if police officers, their beat is the school but the justice they dispense is that of the law and they are responsible to their police authority which pays them.

If Mr Pratten were employed as (1) his reports would not have been changed and censored by EDDC’s Mr Cohen (who admitted under oath that he “edited” a report which went to EDDC’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee about HQ relocation).

If Mr Pratten was employed in case (2) again, because he was paid via an outside agency then he would be considered as a representative of that agency (especially as Mr Pratten used cover sheets and back sheets of Davis Langdon). A “headmaster” would not influence his course of action.

But what if they were “embedded officers” a la EDDC? How would that affect the outcome of 1 and 2 above?

In case (1) it would mean a journalist submitting his or her report to a military commanding officer who would then change it to suit it to his or her requirements, circulate it and then expect it to be described as the work if the journalist but with (undocumented) bits missing. The journalist would have had no control over which bits were missing.

In case (2) the police officer would investigate a crime, find a particular. pupil allegedly committed it and then go to the headmaster and ask him if it was ok to charge the criminal on the. evidence that a crime had taken place. If the headmaster said no, the crime would go unreported and unpunished, with the police person’s bosses having no idea of this action.

EDDC seems to want to create a third category – where although the consultancy employs the worker, the client controls the worker’s output totally – neither 1 or 2 above.

This would create a dangerous precedent where a consultant would have to accept that his or her work could always be changed but the name in the report would always be theirs – no matter how much the report might be changed.

For example, a consultant might put in a report saying “Do not take this course of action, it is far too dangerous” but an embedded officer could put in the same report and have his report changed to say “Take this action, there is absolutely no danger at all”. Still with his name on it (and the cover and back page of a report that started out the opposite of what was originally written) but with a totally different conclusion. This happens to officers, they have no control over what course of action their boss decides to take.

A dangerous precedent and one that a consultant might think twice about if told that his or her status would be as an “embedded officer type 3”.

Though there was no evidence given at the tribunal that Mr Pratten was ever considered an “embedded officer” when he was taken on by EDDC via Davis Langdon – it only came up as their defence after EDDC refused to publish Mr Pratten’s reports – after the Information Commissioner’s decision that they should be published.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 Aug 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Skypark

Knowle sale and relocation – Equalities Act 2010 – Equality Impact Assessment

Knowle relocation – has EDDC shown that it has complied with its Public Equality Duty – Equalities Act 2010? Has anyone seen an impact assessment? if not, could it be the subject of judicial review (aling with lack of consultation)?

“Members’ attention was drawn to the Equality Impact Assessment and Decision Making report within the agenda papers. This report highlighted the key points of a recently published Devon County Council report, which had been the subject of a judicial review. The report also stressed the importance of the Public Equality Duty, how that duty should be exercised and how decisions might be challenged and the possible impact if they were. The Committee noted that the Council had put a number of measures in place to ensure that decisions were not subject to judicial review under the Equality Act 2010. When making decisions leading to changes to policy or services the Council needed to demonstrate that active consideration had been given to the impact assessment. Most of the judgements against councils were made where it was evident that the decision makers had not genuinely considered equalities’ impacts in their decision-making.”

Source: http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/osc_mins_270214.pdf
(Overview and Scrutiny Committee Minutes 27 February 2014)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Aug 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Freedom of Information and EIA, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Skypark

An interesting First Tier Tribunal (Information) case with “public interest” requirements

Not quite the same as EDDC but with some interesting similarities:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/when-councils-shroud-their-deals-with-private-developers-in-secrecy-you-get-the-feeling-somethings-up-9161072.html

and the decision:

http://35percent.org/blog/2014/05/10/foi-appeal-decision/

The full official decision notice is here:

http://ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2013/fer_0461281.ashx

and includes the following pertinent paragraphs:

“In relation to the disposal of the council’s land, land which would previously have been a public resource which provided council housing for significant numbers of residents, there is a public interest in knowing that the decision to sell this resource to a private company was based on a sound evaluation of relevant factors and represented good value and an effective use of a public resource. Disclosure of the requested information would provide the public with the same level of detail available to the council in its decision making which, in turn, would facilitate public engagement with the scheme and provide reassurance that the council gave due consideration to the relevant factors.

The Commissioner accepts that it is in the public interest for authorities to secure best value when disposing of assets and that, in the current economic climate, this presents particular difficulties. It is arguable, therefore, that the council should be allowed to progress the regeneration without this process being jeopardised. However, the Commissioner is also mindful that, given the fact that the asset in question is a public resource and that Lend Lease is a private company which stands to profit from the regeneration, there is a compelling, countervailing argument in favour of making this process as transparent as possible. Whilst it may be that the regeneration will free council resources which were previously tied up with maintaining the Heygate Estate, the Commissioner considers that size of the redevelopment and the number of residents affected should provide a trigger for transparency and engagement with council tax payers.

The Commissioner further considers that, as the planning authority responsible for adjudicating on Lend Lease’s planning application (which the viability assessment was created to accompany) and the authority responsible for the significant land disposal associated with the scheme, there is a further argument for a high level of scrutiny to be directed to the council’s actions. Whilst the Commissioner is not suggesting that there is a conflict of interests in play, the public perception that a public authority might be subject to such a conflict and the potential damage to an authority’s reputation which might ensue provides an argument in favour of transparency and disclosure. The Commissioner considers that disclosure in this case would address the general mismatch between the resources of the developer and those of residents directly affected by the scheme and council tax payers within the borough.

The Commissioner notes that an independent report published by Spinwatch alleges that the council’s consultation with the local community was deficient and raises concerns about the relationship between the council and Lend Lease26. Whilst the Commissioner does not endorse the veracity of these conclusions, he considers that the reputation of public institutions and their legitimacy and effectiveness in carrying out their role can be damaged by public perceptions. As it is not in the public interest for public authorities’ actions to be perceived or potentially constrained by such perceptions, disclosure would provide reassurance about the council’s conduct and would serve the interest in transparency and accountability.

The Commissioner considers that the significant expenditure of public funds, the need for public reassurance, confidence and engagement with the council’s decision making in relation to the scheme, the disquiet about the levels of affordable housing which will be delivered and concerns about the value for money provided by the disposal of public land combine to produce a heavy public interest weighting in favour of disclosing the information.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Aug 2014

Posted under

EDBF, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Skypark

Comments

1 Comment

Probity in Planning

A very useful reference tool – note it says that councils dealing with their own planning applications should be as transparent as when they deal with all other applications:

http://www.pas.gov.uk/documents/332612/1099271/Probity+in+planning+guide/c2463914-db11-4321-8d38-be54c188abbe

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Aug 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Skypark

“Informed, considered, proportionate, fair and necessary” …

Under a heading “Making decisions that are lawful and fair for East Devon’s communities” in this week’s Knowledge e-newspaper the following information appears.

Notwithstanding that it reads as if the publication is implying that the PUBLIC might find itself in trouble here when it is actually the local authority, read this in the context of the move from easily accessible Sidmouth to almost totally inaccessible Skypark and see if you see a problem for EDDC. Particularly with regard to one of the last paragraphs where it says that actions can be taken by councils only if they are: informed, considered, proportionate, fair and necessary.

As a council it is important that we represent the wide-ranging needs, views and aspirations of our communities. We have a higher than average older population with over 28% of the population being aged 65 and over and with many people living in rural isolation.

In the 2011 Census 10.3% of people in East Devon said they were carers, with 21% of people

Reported as having a disability/long-term health problem . Women make up 52% of East Devon’s population.

65 .6% said they were Christian, 25.1% had no religion, and many other religions/beliefs made up 1.1%.

Ethnic minority communities reported a slight increase to 1.6% since the last Census.

When making decisions, it’s not only important to consider how different people will be affected but it is a legal requirement under the Equality Act 2010 Public Sector Equality Duty.

This is because people have diverse needs and may be disadvantaged by something we do.

A disadvantage could result in them having poor access to services and information which could affect their health, wellbeing and opportunities to achieve their own potential.

Therefore, there is an economic and cost benefit to considering the effects of decisions on diverse communities.

East Devon has a good track record for promoting equality and supporting diverse communities.

To reduce the risk of court challenges and the associated legal costs , need to be aware of the following:

When making decisions, the Equality Act 2010 Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) requires you to give due regard to the need to:

Eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation.

Advance equality by encouraging participation, removing disadvantage, taking account of disabilities and meeting people’s needs.

Foster good relations between people by tackling prejudice and promoting understanding.

Questions to ask when making decisions:

Taking into account people’s ages, disabilities, race/ethnicity (includes Gypsies and Travellers), gender/gender identity, religions and beliefs (includes people who have ‘no belief’ and atheists) or sexual orientation, pregnant women/new mothers, marriage/civil partnership status and any other factor you consider relevant such as caring responsibilities, rural isolation or socio-economic disadvantage…

Who might be affected by the proposal or issue?

Have stakeholders been consulted adequately and what was their feedback?

Have diverse needs and community impacts been considered fully?

For example, is an appropriate impact assessment provided?

What supporting information (needs assessment/profiles etc.) is provided by officers and is this sufficient and robust?

In what way could the proposal or issue under consideration benefit certain groups of people?

Are there any opportunities for further improvement , particularly for disabled people?

In what way could the proposal or issue under consideration disadvantage certain groups of

people? For example, could it result in discrimination, poor or worse access, outcomes or community relations?

Are any negative impacts/disadvantages necessary, reasonable and proportionate?

What are the risks of going ahead/not going ahead with the proposal and how can these risks be managed?

Is there an alternative, less disadvantageous option?

Are there mitigations in place to address negative impacts?

Can we make a decision on the basis of the information given to us?

Chairpersons should make sure there is a record (minute) of the attention given to the PSED when making decisions or carrying out a scrutiny Function.

One final point, equality is not about …

Favouring particular groups above others, although there are provisions in the Equality Act to allow organisations to advance equality by taking ‘positive action’ to achieve more equal outcomes for groups which are disadvantaged and a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people.

Preventing councils from making difficult decisions which may result in the closure or reduction of a service, provided such decisions are informed, considered, proportionate, fair and necessary.

Banning words like “blackboard” “because it’s racist” (it isn’t).

Source: http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/220814_the_knowledge_issue_15.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Aug 2014

Posted under

Democracy, Duty to co-operate, EDDC, Freedom of Information and EIA, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Skypark

Important issues being debated this week: today (Tuesday) and Thursday

See above for details of the DMC meeting this afternoon where the lack of a 5 (and 6) year land supply will be “debated”

note that you can video, record, photograph, tweet or email about this meeting in real time, provided that you do not upset the participants …

and

check out the First Tier tribunal case:

Information Commissioner v East Devon District Council,

Thursdy 28 August 2014 at 10 am in Court 3 of Exeter Magistrates Court

(taking notes at this meeting is allowed but no other form of recording)

where the important decision on how much information EDDC can keep secret about its relocation to Skypark will be (eventually) decided

A public authority, the requester or both can appeal against the Information Commissioner’s decision notice. [This is what EDDC has done].

If the Tribunal decides that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong in law, or that he exercised his discretion wrongly, it can overturn the decision and issue a substitute decision notice. This decision notice has the same legal status as the first one. Like the Commissioner, the Tribunal can only consider questions relevant to the Act, not any wider dispute that may arise from the request.

Appeals may be by oral hearing, where witnesses give evidence in person. If the evidence can be presented entirely in writing, the appeal will be decided on the basis of those documents.

Source: http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/freedom_of_information/guide/complaints#what-happens-when-someone-complains-6

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Aug 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Freedom of Information and EIA, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Skypark

EDDC v Information Commissioner – press release from J Woodward

Press release from Jeremy Woodward, Sidmouth resident, whose Freedom of Information request led to this case, and who will be allowed full representation at the Magistrate’s Court on 28 August 2014 at 10 am, Court 3:

“This Tribunal is the first of its kind for East Devon District Council.

The Council has acted as both executive and policeman, making key decisions in private and then determining which information it deems fit to be made public. And yet the default position is to make information available – but the Council refuses to abide by the spirit of Freedom of Information legislation.

The fact that the Council has appealed against the Information Commissioner’s decision shows how determined it is to keep these key reports on relocation from the public gaze: one wonders, therefore, what is hidden within.

This case is fundamentally about transparency of process. Research I have carried out strongly suggests that the political leadership at the Council has been making decisions about its relocation project in private without adequately informing Members. Moreover, it is clear from reports in the press and other documentation that the decision to relocate from Knowle was made well before 2012 – and yet the Council insists that there can be no disclosure of sensitive information because the project is still ‘live’.

This has had the effect of preventing any proper debate of the issues. There has been virtually no open discussion, hampered by the political leadership controlling the flow of information. I have argued that key documents which have guided decision-making on relocation should be published in full (apart from any company or private names, of course) to enable an informed debate to take place.

The fact that the reports were produced by external consultants Davis Langdon, who employs the author of the reports Mr Steve Pratten, simply consolidates the argument that these documents should be published.

The East Devon Alliance blog is following the case closely – with helpful directions to the Court for members of the public:
http://eastdevonalliance.org/

I will not be able to attend, due to professional commitments. However, I will be represented by Mr Richard Thurlow; he is also the Chair of the Save Our Sidmouth campaign, as well as the Chair of the Sid Vale Association’s planning committee. I am copying him into this correspondence as he will be taking any questions from the press next Thursday.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Aug 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Environment (local), Honiton/ Gittisham, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Skypark

Comments

3 Comments

“Honiton for Sale” part 2 – some questions but very little chance of answers

This week’s Midweek Herald adds some interesting information to the story carried yesterday that former Chairman of East Devon District Council and town councillor, Peter Halse, believes that Honiton is being asset-stripped to pay for the vanity project EDDC HQ office relocation.

The Midweek Herald adds more comments from Councillor Halse:

… “In my personal view, Honiton is being put up for sale. Assets are being raised in order for the council to move to the outskirts of Exeter, which is not in the public interest”.

Mr Halse told the meeting that he had made strong protests to the district council regarding the move and added that he thought the district council had now realised “the Knowle is not quite the jewel in East Devon’s crown as it thought it was and that it was having to find other assets elsewhere.

An EDDC spokesperson said in response to this:

… “The question of succession to East Devon Business Centre has given us an opportunity to look again at how we can help meet the needs of business into the future in a words of enterprise and entrepreneurism very different from what existed when Heathpark Business Centre first opened its doors.

Lead members for business and officers carried out a tender exercise and interviewed four different consultancies. The chosen company, Carter Jonas, are in the process of gathering evidence and are expected to report back with their findings and recommendations within the next month or so”.

This raises several interesting questions:

If a respected and long-serving majority party Councillor has no real idea what is going on – how on earth do councillors not privy to the thoughts of those in the “inner sanctum” understand what they are voting for with the Skypark project?

The press release speaks only of something going out to tender – it does not say exactly what the tender was for and we will never know because the Asset Management Forum at EDDC has always met in secret and provides no agendas or minutes of its meetings for the public.

Councillor Halse’s comments seem to imply that EDDC is not going to get as much as it had wanted for Knowle. They have long said that the move will be “cost neutral” but that was when only Knowle and Manston Depot were mentioned. Is it still cost neutral when you add in the loss of the Heathpark site and the East Devon Business Centre? Again we will never know because the Relocation Working Party meetings are also held in secret and no agendas or minutes are produced.

We have a situation now where ALL decisions are now made in secret. Instead of information going to committees for discussion and decision they are being referred to creatively-named “Forums” and “Groups” so that the decision-making can all take place behind closed doors where even majority party councillors have no idea what is going on.

Let us hope that when the next council is convened it votes for a Committee system of decision-making rather than an Executive Board system which allows a very small number of people – hand-picked by the Leader – to take decisions on behalf of the majority.

Remember Leader Diviani’s last election promise: Clean, Green and Seen. Not Unclean, Ungreen and Unseen.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Aug 2014

Posted under

EDDC, Exmouth, Local Plan, Skypark, Tourism

Comments

1 Comment

Most new jobs are consultancy or self- employment

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said that 1.1 million jobs have been created since the start of 2008.

But of those, 732,000 are accounted for by the self-employed, a category of worker that tends to earn roughly half the wages of those in staff jobs.

Construction remains the single biggest sector for self employment.

Source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28866302

The mystery is that, if most are in construction (outdoors and not needing much office space)and many self-employed people work from home or at small business hubs (like the East Devon Business Centre that is being demolished to pay for Skypark relocation) why are we building smaller houses and more and more big industrial sheds in East Devon?

Tourism is our biggest industry and our biggest earner – where is the stimulus for it from our district council (apart from flogging the family silver in Exmouth).

EDDC “Tourism Champion” – hello, anyone out there?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Aug 2014

Posted under

EDDC, Honiton/ Gittisham, Skypark

Comments

3 Comments

“Town Up for Sale” says Honiton Mayor, EDDC Councillor (and former Chairman of EDDC) as he criticises his own council on the Knowle relocation

Councillor Peter Halse, Honiton Town Councillor, East Devon District Councillor and former Chairman of EDDC is quoted in the “View from Honiton” newspaper today. He says the town is being “put up for sale” by district councillors to fund their costly relocation project. The article is quoted below”

“He [Councillor Halse] says decisions were being made that were not in the interests of Honiton residents. Land at the Heathpark estate had been identified as a possible location for EDDC’s new office complex. But in a controversial move earlier this year, councillors opted to reject the Honiton site and build new headquarters at SkyPark on the outskirts of the district. The land [at Honiton] now looks likely to be sold for the development of a new supermarket.

And in a further blow to the local economy, the district’s business hub – currently based at Heathpark – has also been lined up for closure.

At a town counbcil meeting last week, former mayor Councillor Vernon Whitlock raised the issue of businesses being forced to relocate. And Councillor Halse admitted that he shared the concerns of businesses, councillors and residents, who feel the town is being stripped of its assets.

“I am a loggerheads with the (district) council on the way this has been done. I am disappointed that they will be demolishing a building that is of great use to the town and is not costing anything. Initially they told us another facility would be provided, but it turns out that they were thinking the private sector could replace it. The fact of the matter is that Honiton is being put up for sale and its assets are being razed in order for the district council to move to the outskirts of Exeter”.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Aug 2014

Posted under

Environment (local), Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Skypark

Comments

1 Comment

Exeter Airport gets busier and busier

Replace that triple glazing at EDDC vanity HQ with quadruple glazing perhaps:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Good-news-Exeter-Airport-growth-continues/story-22762540-detail/story.html