A communication was received by Chair of Save Our Sidmouth on 6th February 2015, as follows:
‘Dear Mr Thurlow,
I am responding to your call to the legal team of 5th February in respect of the above. I set out below the process for dealing with the appropriation and disposal of land.
The deadline for receipt of comments is 20th February. Once that date passes the responses will firstly be read by the legal team and then reviewed by officers working on the relocation project. Those comments will then be considered as part of a report to be presented to Cabinet and then Council on the appropriation of land and disposal of the Knowle. Depending on the number of comments we receive they will either be appended to the committee papers or summarised within. The decision whether to appropriate and dispose of land (including the identified open space) will be made by Members.
I can’t say what weight will be attached to the comments from the public, as that is a matter for the decision maker. However the comments will be taken into account in formulating any recommendation and when Members make their decision.
I hope that this is of assistance.
HENRY GORDON LENNOX
East Devon District Council’
Pingback: Disposal / Appropriation of Open Space at the Knowle..who decides? | East Devon Watch
February 8, 2015 at 4:20 pm
Surely “officers working on the relocation project” have a vested interest in appropriating this p.o.s.
February 8, 2015 at 4:22 pm
Where’s the transparency? Who has decided on this land grab attempt? Who will decide the outcome? Who on the council (elected members and paid employees) gives a toss for the electorate? Why is there no explanation at all why this land grab has been attempted? Why is there no communication from the leader of the council? Why has there been no progress on the local plan? Why has there been a stunning silence from the Sidmouth EDDC councillors during most of the relocation debacle? Why has there been no scrutiny of the money spent and paid officials’ time employed on the relocation project? Why is it extremely difficult to obtain the details of this matter on line? What is the definition of “cost neutral” in the context of the move? Why has the term “cost neutral” now been dropped in favour of a more vague mention of the move not costing us more over a vast number of years as long as energy costs rocket to unexpected (that is unexpected by everyone except the EDDC officer employed to produce these figures) levels? Why do we elect them? Will we continue to elect them?