Letter to Kate Little, Head of Planning, East Devon District Council

In late September 2006 I had a meeting with Kate Little, Head of Planning at East Devon District Council, as part of the Town Design Group. After that meeting I wrote her a letter on 2 October 2006 setting out what I believe to be the main points discussed there. I said in the letter that if I had not had a reply from her by the end of October 2006 I would assume that these points were agreed. On 25 October 2006 I sent her a letter reminding her that I had not had a reply from her and that I intended to make the letter public on 1 November 2006. Yesterday I sent her an email reminding her again that I had not had a reply and the letter would go into the public domain today. Below I give the full text of this letter which I have also sent to View from Seaton:

To: Ms Kate Little

2 October 2006

Dear Ms Little:

Our meeting on Wednesday 27 September 2006 –

Seaton Town Design and the Seaton Regeneration Area

Further to our meeting last week, I thought it best to confirm with you what my understanding is of the salient points about the regeneration area which we discussed at the meeting.

1. It is EDDC’s view that the developer should be supported in his desire to make as much money from the site as possible. The bigger the developer’s profit, the larger the slice that EDDC will get for Section 106 projects.
2. When/if Section 106 money is available, EDDC’s priorities are: first – affordable housing; second and third: the marshes project and the visitors centre.
3. There is no plan on the part of EDDC to either insist on or encourage tourism operators on to the site. If a tourism operator wants to build on the site it is their responsibility to contact the developers and put in a planning application.
4. There is no plan on the part of EDDC to insist on community or community leisure facilities on the site. You suggested that if the community wants a facility on the site it should find the money to purchase a plot of land and money to build and run a community centre.
   

I pointed out that currently people in Seaton use the holiday camp as a community facility. I also pointed out that the holiday camp employs 147 people and runs at an average 80% occupancy on 450 beds. Current local users of the holiday camp facility include:

Gym members – many of whom use it for medical needs

Pool members – aquarobics, swimming lessons, hydrotherapy for people who have had it advised by their GPs or physiotherapists but not prescribed

Meeting facilities: Baptist Church (in 2007 3 more churches will use the site),

Film Club events,

Local disability charities because the site is wheelchair accessible unlike parts of the Town Hall

Fire fighters who use it as a training ground

In addition many current users of the former Youth Club (which is closed as a youth centre but is used by other groups until 22 December 2006) are in negotiation to use holiday camp facilities. These include ballroom dancing and short mat bowls club.

I also noted that the holiday camp is used as a regional and national conference centre – Lions, Rotary etc and hosts the Grizzly Run. You were unaware of what the Grizzly Run is – this was recently voted the third most popular road race (after the London Marathon and Great North Run) by a national running magazine. It is a marathon length endurance run which attracts a full complement of 2,200 runners (it cannot take any more for health and safety reasons) for which the holiday camp is the administrative and hotel centre. See http://www.seatonbay.com/grizzly/grizzly2006.htm for details of this year’s run).

You will perhaps then understand why a meeting held recently about the future of the holiday camp facilities, which received very little publicity, attracted more than 300 people from Seaton, Axmouth, Beer, Musbury, Colyford, Colyton and Axminster.

You stated that a gym to replace the one at the holiday camp would be expected to be the responsibility of a private operator. (This, unfortunately, would mean that it would not be a socially inclusive facility since many people on low incomes or benefits could not afford the £200 plus subscription.)

I am particularly concerned at the lack of tourist, leisure and community facilities in the regeneration area. Since it seems that EDDC does not see its role as attracting tourist operators to the site and since it is unlikely that the developers will feel inclined to do it, it is up to the community to publicise the site to potential tourist operators. Also since EDDC also seems to feel it has no role in the provision of community facilities, the sooner we mobilise the community for these tasks the better. Therefore it is essential that the community has the correct information about this – as there have been a lot of misunderstandings so far.

If the above does not represent your views from the meeting, I should be most grateful if you would let me know what you believe is the correct record of our meeting. If I have not heard from you by the end of this month, I will assume that what I have written above is a true reflection of it.

Yours sincerely,
Sandra Semple