SOLD OUT BUT THE FIGHT GOES ON
Well, that’s it then – SELL OUT confirmed with some major and minor concessions – which, believe me, would not have happened had we not made such a fuss! More than a hundred Seatonians packed the EDDC Council Chamber (thank you ALL for turning up on such a wet and windy night) to hear the Executive Board agree to sell the land to the developer should they get planning permission (anyone want to hazard a guess about whether that will happen?). So, roll on enormous supermarket (six times bigger than the proposed visitors centre) and roll on 500 – 600 new homes and demolition of the holiday village.
The plan now is to cast us as all as Baddies, holding up the development (note I use this word, not the word regeneration) of our town because we don’t want a wonderful Wetlands Centre. BAD BAD Seatonians for doing such an evil thing.
THIS IS NOT TRUE. What is happening is that EDDC are deliberately muddying the water.
We probably would like a Wetlands Centre but, as there has been no public consultation on this project, we will never know. But, should there ever be one, we feel that money for this can come from MANY different sources such as Wetlands Trust and RSPB. We do NOT think it needs developer money to ensure its success.
WHAT WE DO NOT WANT IS A WETLANDS CENTRE INSTEAD OF FACILITIES FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN AND WE DO NOT THINK THIS HAS TO BE THE CASE. We think it will be relatively easy to get funding for a Wetlands Centre, but it will be impossible to get funding for what we want for the residents of the town without Section 106 money from the developer. Once this land is built on there will be no chance at all of our ever getting community facilities in the town.
Kate Little has said in a letter to me (more later) that she thinks that the Town Hall and its rooms are sufficient for us – all 8,500+ of us when the new homes are occupied and 11,000+ if you take in the surrounding area. One large room unsuitable for many functions and one room so small that it can hold no more than ten people. (Let’s not count the Council Chamber – the plan is for that room to be sold off as a commercial office for rent!).
So, Seaton, that’s all you deserve and that’s all you are going to get. – day trippers, shopping, car parking on a massive scale and homes mostly so expensive that only older people or second homers will be able to afford them. Just as well, as the only new employer will be the supermarket (and I think we all know which supermarket that will be).
EDDC sees the future for Seaton as a place for day trippers and people who see shopping as leisure (yes, I have that in writing from EDDC – shopping is a leisure activity). Try telling that to the pensioners and the mothers with a toddler and a pram!).
It is now even more important that you STAND UP FOR SEATON. We will continue to work on objection to the plans when they go in. We have lots going on in that area but as a lot of people from East Devon District Council now read this blog - and people even try to post my private mail to the blog before I've read it (see below) – perhaps we won’t say too much about that for the time being!
posted by Fighting for East Devon's future @ 10:26 am
4 Comments:
at the EDDC meeting several councils told us they knew what Seaton wanted beacuse they had attended the meeting in the Town Hall which heard about the megamarsh, the visitor's centre and the youth project. As one of the people present at both meetings I can say that there were just as many in the Council chamber as were in the Hall - and quite a few of them the same people. Yes we'd love to see the megamarsh - but NOT funded from the destruction of Seaton. We live here, have family here, use the facilities and the shops EDDC want to close. And we really don't appreciate having visitors who spent a mere couple of hours here one evening telling us what we want instead of letting US tell THEM.
I see from EDDC's press release following Wednesday's meeting in Sidmouth, that point 7 in the full recommendations, notes "the developer's intention to make a significant financial contribution to deliver the extended wetland marshes as part of the section 106 agreement."
Where has this come from? There has been no consultation on this issue, as far as I know. Only a presentation in the Town Hall putting it forward as an idea.
No mention of where the money was to come from. No mention of it being connected to any other proposed development in the town.
No mention that it might be paid for at the expense of Seaton's largest tourist accommodation, and the community facilties that it provides.
Yet, suddenly it appears as an integral part of EDDC's recommendations!
Are we being sold down the river? Literally!
All and particularly EDDC Exec,
1. As a resident of Seaton i do not feel I have been sufficiently informed
or consulted on the issues and discussions leading to the EDDC Executive
decisions this week. For various reasons, some technical, the decisions
made should have been postponed to allow more time for proper
consideration. But that is water under the bridge now.
2. From the documents I have seen I do not think the EDDC Exec have
demonstrated anything more than a shallow knowledge of the local issues.
Not only have local people been working on these issues for several years,
and with various consultants, we have fed our thoughts into EDDC. It is one
thing to bring local consultation into the planning process but it is
another to listen to what is said. There is very little evidence that
well-informed local opinion has been listened to so far.
3. Because I believe the developers proposals bring very little to Seaton
and risk losing plenty I am opposed to it. Even the supposed support for a
supermarket has completely changed over the past five years as we are now
very clear how detrimental these can be to existing businesses. EDDC is not
"in touch" over this.
4. I am certainly in favour of regeneration plans for the town but that is
very different from so-called "development"
5. I strongly believe that the positives like the excellent Marshes Nature
proposals, the coming of the Sustrans paths, the World Heritage Visitor
Centre and Gateway plans are sufficiently important in their own right to
completely de-couple them from other "developments" and for us not to have
to pay for them in any way out of any normal community dividend
arrangements. Reluctantly I would have to decide not to support these if it
were to be at the expense of losing many other community aspirations.
6. The crucial issue not mentioned in the information is how to deal with
the important issue of flood protection for the site. I have spent much
time looking into and understanding the threats we face from global warming
and sea level rise. These are very real and critical threats facing all of
us. In a sense humanity is at a cross-roads now on the issue of continued
release of carbon into the atmosphere. It must stop but it isn't going to.
Therefore it is madness to build on a flood plain at all. The
Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (whose Fourth Assessment
will be out soon)predict a 6 metre rise in sea-level over the next 70 years
based on a global temperature rise of only 2 degrees C. The Al Gore film An
Inevitable Truth, and the science behind it, come to the same conclusion.
To build anywhere within lets say 40 feet of current mean sea level is
simply inviting disaster within the next 100 years. Whilst public awareness
of this issue is increasing, national leadership on this is still very
weak. However, there is now agreement in scientific areas that we are
locked into the repurcussions of climate chaos, whatever they may turn out
to be. It is far and away the most serious issue we all face. Even the
great mega marsh proposal will have to think carefully what it means for
that. Any new buildings on a flood plain area could soon become inundated
and ruined. We would have a legacy of destruction and uninhabitable swamps.
Katrina was a warning. Do we wish to invite that sort of devastation ? Did
you know that a fully formed hurricane affected the south coast of Portugal
last year - the furthest north one has ever been seen. Global warming means
a ten-fold increase in storm events too - but far stronger than the one
that affected Seaton a few weeks ago, when the flood protection gates were
left open !. There is a strong suspicion that developers will make their
last cut and run profits from building on flood plains and at ridiculously
low energy standards, before national legislation soon cuts in anyway to
stop them. This is how these things work - leaving the rest of us to clear
up the mess in the long term. We are speaking here about vast numbers
environmental refugees in relation to this issue. Why make it worse ?
7. There is still time to back off from the proposed building in Seaton
altogether but at the same time make real progress with all the positive,
environmentally friendly regeneration proposals that befit an area with a
World Heritage designation.
Thank you,
So - EDDC propose to throw several more thousands of pounds (£70,000?) at 'consultants' to conduct a survey of bed-space provision in Seaton. South West Tourism, Devon County Council, EDDC, Seaton Tourist Information Centre and Seaton Town Council already hold between them virtually all the statistics and information required. A single meeting of all the above parties could collate the information and suggest ways forward at minimal cost. The money saved would pay for a dedicated Tourism Officer at EDDC to the benefit of Seaton and the whole of East Devon.
Incidentally, does anyone know just how much has already gone into the pockets of Locum Destinations consultancy in connection with regeneration? In the light of their unaccountability and vast consumption of public money is it not time for the consultancy culture to come to a timely end?
Post a Comment
<< Home