Save Our Sidmouth


Leave a comment

EDDC’s Consultants advise refurbishment, for “a desirable, vibrant, efficient and profitable asset”

Another question put to Full Council (17 December), in an ironically stiflingly overheated Chamber (No on/off control installed?), is copied here, for the information of the many who were not able to attend. Disappointingly, not a single comment on this, or other questions from the floor, was made by any of the seven Sidmouth Councillors present, although representatives of other East Devon Wards did so, illustrating that relocation is about costs to be shouldered by the whole district.


‘Let’s consider first a report which came out in June 2012:

“A carefully thought-through refurbishment can transform a tired, uneconomical, inefficient building into a desirable, vibrant, efficient and profitable asset that supports new ways of working and incorporates modern sustainable technology.”

The authors of the report?

None other than consultants Davis Langdon, who are also advising this council on its relocation project.

Let’s look at another report, from last year:

“Energy prices are expected to continue on an upward trend over time, as a result of rising wholesale energy and network costs. In real terms, household electricity prices are estimated to rise around 38% between 2013 and 2030.”

This report was put together by the Department of Energy.

And yet a report given to this council’s cabinet this month presents a completely different formula, namely that there will be a 10% annual increase in energy prices – which amounts, over 20 years, to a total rise of 650%.

Back in 2008, a Display Energy Certificate was issued giving Knowle the “more energy efficient” band C.

This was accompanied by an Advisory Report from the Energy Assessor, who set out several recommendations such as more insulation, more double-glazing and a comprehensive heating strategy.

In 2012, another such Certificate was produced [and this can be seen on Savills website] – but it showed no improvement.

Why have the vast majority of the Energy Assessor’s efficiencies not been considered and modern sustainable technologies introduced?

Well, if we look at the Knowle Energy Use and Maintenance Cost Analysis Report presented to council in June last year, it states that should such minimum energy efficiencies be introduced then this would give savings of only £22,000 in the first year –which would provide “poor value”.

However, if we apply the same formula as presented to cabinet this month and imagine an increase of 10% every year for 20 years, this figure would represent total savings of £1.8 million.

Let’s now take another key statistic:

If the proposed 250 staff needing desks were housed in the 1980s building at Knowle, which occupies about 40% of the office floor space at Knowle – then, still using the official figures, this would give energy savings of 70%, which would amount to almost £60,000 a year.

And again, using the 10% annual increase formula, this would amount to savings over 20 years of over £4 million.

To finish: [where I was interrupted!]

I don’t really want to be playing such games over figures like this – what is really needed is independent auditing and verification of the numbers.

Tonight, though, all I ask of you is to consider the extent to which such figures are being used to justify this relocation project – and that these figures are highly questionable.

Thank you.

Jeremy Woodward’


1 Comment

Relocation has alarming “weaknesses in assumptions,planning and estimating” , says SOS

Richard Thurlow, Chair of Save Our Sidmouth, spelled out the most serious examples of perceived “poor management and high risk”, in this speech to Full Council last night (17th December 2014, at Knowle):

Chairman and Councillors,

A Cabinet report of 14th July 2012, entitled the Knowle Office Review stated, “In 2008 Alder King undertook a review of the Council Offices at the Knowle… Initial findings found the cost of relocation to be prohibitive”…. The Report said that further work was carried out and also stated ” The feasibility study still showed a net cost to the council.. However it is anticipated that with a “more creative approach to planning, assessment of running cost savings etc the project COULD be made feasible.”

And here we are 4 years later, £500,000 the poorer.

I worked for and helped manage a major international building consultancy for 40 years and was involved in the design and management of many projects both for private companies and Public Authorities.; My experience suggests that this project is amongst those which rank high in poor management and high risk.

The whole management process has been fragmented and drawn out, not because of careful analysis and thought, but because of weaknesses in assumptions, planning and estimating. No REAL depth of investigation has been undertaken into possible options.

Facts and figures are produced to support a preconceived idea rather than to provide a basis for rational analysis. Figures are produced which always reflect the worst case; rather than allow for a range of possibilities and probabilities

There seems to be no rationale behind the relocation, except “ambition ”and the costed benefits comprise a very questionable set of figures which purport to show savings in the future.

As an example, look at the figures for energy savings over the next 20 years, which appear to be the fundamental basis for making the move “Cost neutral” The cost of energy at the Knowle is compared against the predicted energy cost in your two new buildings; there is a quoted difference of about £30,000 pa in 2016. But then you have plucked 10% inflation pa figures for 20 years out of the air, resulting in a supposed energy cost saving total of £3.3m in 2036. But these inflation figures are spurious and derived from no official publications. Whilst recognising that predictions of energy prices are very uncertain, the DECC actually gives a range of energy costs in 2030 of about 1.25-1.5 times the current cost, not nearly seven times as much as your “guess”.

Thus the “savings” accrued from reduced energy costs are much less than you believe; in the order of £2-3M; and yet you intend to take out a loan whose interest payments will be covered by the “savings”

Your financial case does not stack up.

We are very alarmed.

Will you please now decide to commission, as is common in the public sector, from either a Local Government or Central Government Body, a totally independent audit of ALL estimates, costs and savings so that you, and we the taxpayers, can be re-assured that all decisions are at least based on correct figures?