Save Our Sidmouth


1 Comment

Questions for the Leader of EDDC

SOS prepared the following questions to ask Councillor Diviani today, but when the “sheer weight of numbers” made him and his staff a bit reluctant to deal with specific issues, we were told these were not on the agenda.

Here they are, for another time.

QUESTIONS FOR THE LEADER

1.Why did he tell the Scrutiny Committee that the revised OPA for the Knowle was submitted by an independent consultant when it was the EDDC Deputy CEO Richard Cohen who submitted the form?
2.Why did he tell the Scrutiny Committee that he had no recollection of telling the Chief Reporter of the Sidmouth Herald that access to the Alexandria Estate was “too problematic”?
3.Can he clarify his claim that David Cameron has endorsed EDDC’s plans to build on the AONB. The PM’s office has been unable to confirm this claim. EDDC can provide no reference.
4.Can he clarify whether he really said that “the jobs of the future” in the Sid Valley are “office jobs”? If so, where is his evidence? Sidmouth citizens have presented anecdotal and statistical evidence that Sidmouth residents who work for major companies based in Exeter or other cities tend increasingly to work at home for much of the week in the (currently) pleasant environment of the Sid Valley whenever they are not networking at their central office or with clients outside the region. Why would they wish to relocate to the Sidbury flood plain? The only office work located in an office block in a rural area is a call centre, surely? Can he clarify if this is his vision for the valley?
5.Can he clarify previous claims about future jobs in the valley? Were we not told that the Fords plan for jobs is for a renewable energy industry? Could this not be located in an existing employment site, such as Chalky White’s now closing garage complex in Sidbury? If jobs are so important, can the Leader clarify why EDDC persistently agrees change of use from employment land to luxury housing all over the valley? Can he clarify how this helps the young working people of the valley? And who benefits?
6.We have also been told that future employment will be provided by EDDC in a giant care home to be built on the parkland and arboretum at the Knowle. Can he clarify why the N.E.W. Devon Clinical Commissioning Group has not apparently been warned of this extra demand on the care services they have to provide?
7.Can Cllr Diviani clarify whether he has considered the evidence that the “jobs of the future” needed for our local food security are jobs in agriculture rather than, say, more than 400 car park spaces and a container park in the AONB near the A3052?
8.Can he clarify whether his statement that he has certainly had “no knowledge of a supermarket in relation to Alexandria” indicates that he knows the supermarket is actually destined for Sidford?
9.Is Cllr Diviani annoyed by Stuart Hughes’s creative work with DCC Traffic managers which appears to wreck the plan to demonstrate that Alexandria Road is inaccessible so we can move all the Fords containers to the Sidford flood plain, whichwill allow us to move Bradfords from Sidmouth and Honiton to a super-site in the AONB so that EDDC can move to the Bradfords site at Honiton station so that we can flog off the Knowle to pay for these moves and then Morrrisons can move into the AONB on the A3052 with 500 car parking spaces, rescuing Sir John Cave from the deprivations caused by the recession. After which we can, finally, secure easy access to the Alexadnria site in order to put in a load of second homes and investment properties for EDBF members to ensure their comfort in retirement
10.Can Paul Diviani clarify why he “listens to” but does not hear what he regards as unsound arguments from the people he represents and yet will not let the public or his fellow councillors listen to, let alone hear, his words of apology for his persistent failure to declare his interest in the East Devon Business Forum? This apology was on the agenda of the last meeting of the full Council. Can he clarify whether his silence on that occasion was evidence of shame or of shamelessness?
11.Can he clarify why EDDC “listens to” but ignores the evidence and the advice of  the two independent consultants it has instructed, but “hears” only the voice of the East Devon Business Forum on planning policy and priorities?
12.Finally, can he clarify why the draft minutes of the previous Scrutiny committee misrepresented the concerns of councillors and citizens so significantly that Cllr Graham Troman had to propose an amendment restoring the thrust of the previous meeting and correcting the remit of the investigation he is charged with undertaking, namely a thorough investigation of the East Devon Business Forum, which was founded by one of its leading members… erm, Paul Diviani?


Leave a comment

Sid Vale Association – Letter to the Secretary of State

October 2012

Dear Secretary of State,

EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL

Reasons why the Secretary of State should call in planning application 12/1847/MOUT

Further to my letter of 20 September, accompanying a petition, I now request that you take the further points set out below into consideration.

1. As you are already aware, the above-mentioned application has been submitted by East Devon District Council to themselves as the Planning Authority. The application is to grant Outline Planning consent for the construction of 50 dwellings and a 60 bed care Home on council owned land in the centre of Sidmouth. The land consists of mainly parkland, plus the Council’s offices. The application has been submitted as a prelude to selling parts of the parkland, (about 30%) and the buildings to Developers in order to finance the construction of new Council offices elsewhere in the District. The extent of the land sold off is solely determined by EDDC’s wish to make the move cost neutral.

2.The Development Management (Planning) Committee which will determine the application (unless it is called in) is exactly the same Committee that has allocated the site for residential development in the emerging Local Plan. The Council has sought to include the site of the proposed development in the emerging Local Plan which will be subject in due course to Examination in Public by a Planning Inspector and is therefore still many months from adoption). The Council are effectively pre-empting that process by submitting this major application at the present time.

3. There is consequently a very real risk that it will appear to the public that the Committee is predisposed to approve the application irrespective of planning policy and valid planning objections. (See Magill v Porter [2001] UKHL 67).

4. This perception is reinforced by the fact that a number of the Members of the Council’s Planning Committee would also appear to have fettered their discretion in respect of determining this application by virtue of their membership of either: The Cabinet (which supports the Council’s planning application); or The Council’s Relocation Panel (which is overseeing the proposed relocation).

5. A number of the Council’s key documents supporting the application are at the present time either inaccurate or missing, including a Business Case setting out whether the proposed development is viable, a Heritage Statement and a Car Parking Statement both of which the Council promised to issue during the Objection period. Several documents, including the Planning Support Statement, and the Economic Impact Assessment contain major errors, The standard of documentation clearly demonstrates the lack of care in their preparation.

6. The Council propose not to release details of the Business Case until after the determination of the planning application, which, in itself, will render any resolution to grant outline permission susceptible to subsequent challenge.

7. The application includes the demolition of the Council’s existing offices. No alternative uses for the buildings have been explored. The Council’s reasons for wishing to move are strongly disputed and the cost of moving can be demonstrably avoided.

8. As a consequence of the matters set out above there is now a widespread lack of public confidence in the Council’s ability to objectively, and, as importantly, fairly, determine this planning application.

9. There are strong policy objections to the application which includes a significant area of public open space. These are clearly set out in the letter of objection from the Sid Vale Association (Britain’s first Civic Society) which is attached.

10.Finally, we would also draw your attention to an interview with the Leader of the Council, Paul Diviani, in the Sidmouth Herald on 5th October 2012 (enclosed). Councillor Diviani is reported as saying that Mr Cameron and the Secretary of State know what is happening and that: “They are not going to interfere with the planning authority in this area and we are expected to get on with it”. As you will fully appreciate, this is a particular cause for concern. Whilst we fully understand that there is the possibility of events being misreported or Councillor Diviani seeking to use his attendance at a function at Downing Street to further his own agenda, we would be grateful to receive your reassurance that such “behind the scenes” lobbying has not served to influence your decision as to whether to call-in this application or not.

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely,

 

Alan Darrant

Chairman, Sid Vale Association