Save Our Sidmouth


by Leave a comment

EDDC Chief Executive blames Sidmouth for Local Plan delay!

Tempers flared at the (28 Jan 2016) Extra Ordinary Meeting at Knowle, culminating in a quite extraordinary accusation from Mark Williams,CEO. “People from outside Sidmouth say that, but for Sidmouth, we would have had a Local Plan a few years ago”, he said. To loud calls from the astonished public, of “Shame!” and “Not True!” he continued his vitriol, with even more bizarre logic, apparently aimed equally at the East Devon Alliance. “I’m sure I’m not the only one who sees the irony that the end result of all your objections is that we’ve ended up with a Local Plan with more houses than originally proposed”, he said.

And courtesy again went by the board, with Mr Williams infuriating Save Our Sidmouth spokesperson, Richard Eley by calling his comments about the Inspector’s decision on Sidford Fields “churlish”. The CEO even went as far as to say that Mr Eley had called the Inspector “idiotic”, and was steadfastly shielded by the Chair (Stuart Hughes), from making an apology. Mr Eley retorted angrily, “I did not use that word”.
The senior council officer’s outbursts, and what Mr Eley actually said (when referring to the “undemocratic” decision” to keep the Sidford Employment land), can be listened to on the EDDC website, where the officers’ Code of Conduct can also be found http://new.eastdevon.gov.uk .


by 2 Comments

Sidford employment land scandal will not go away, despite adoption of Local Plan

EDDC’s Local Plan was adopted last night, with acceptance that it has many flaws (the Inspector had demanded around 200 ‘main modifications’).
The seemingly irregular circumstances surrounding the insertion into the Local Plan of the 5 hectare employment land on an AONB part-floodplain at Sidford, will now pass to Scrutiny.
Before the vote last night on the adoption of EDDC’s Local Plan, Cllr Marianne Rixson (EDA Ind, Sidmouth/Sidford) asked the following questions, which remain unanswered:

‘I would describe the whole shambolic process leading to the inclusion of Sidford employment land as the Hokey Cokey.

First it was in, then it was out, then it was in because it was never really out at all, was it? Why do I say this? Because no mitigating evidence was submitted at the time the final draft was submitted, so the inspector had no option but to make his decision on the evidence before him. At last week’s DMC meeting, Ed Freeman admitted that he had NOT been instructed to submit further evidence.

Now what we all need to know is:

1. Who failed to instruct Ed Freeman to add mitigating evidence for the withdrawal of the Sidford site?
2. Why were Members not advised that supporting evidence was vital if the late stage vote to delete the Sidford site was to be even considered by the Inspector?
3. Did Cllr Hughes know that he had to submit additional evidence. If not, why not?

The Council changed their mind, and voted for the deletion of the Sidford site for good reason – not least, because this particular employment land contradicts their new Local Plan’s policy of reducing in-commuting.

My question to the Leader on his Hokey Cokey Sidford plan is ….

– Who failed to instruct officers?
– Who failed to inform Members (including Cllr Hughes) and
– WHY were they not informed?’


by Leave a comment

Delegated powers for Diviani voted through, just as Devolution power stalls.

Curiously, councillors voting last night to give the go-ahead to the Leader for a Devolution bid, did not seem aware that he might find the scheme power-less. There was certainly no mention from the Chair, nor from the Leadership, of the problem at Hinckley Point, in the news : Decision on new nuclear power plant ‘delayed’ – BBC News http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35415187

Only the speech read out on behalf of East Devon Alliance Chair, Paul Arnott, referred to the EDF difficulties, though they could seriously stall the Heart of the South West (HotSW) devolution strategy.

Can we assume EDDC Cabinet read the Financial Times? See http://eastdevonwatch.org/2016/01/28/implications-
of-hinkley-delay/