Notes on our meeting with Hugo Swire 1 December 2006

I sent a copy of this blog entry to Mr Swire a week ago and asked him if he had any comments. I have not received a reply. However, I did promise Mr Swire that if he does want to comment on anything below I will publish his entire reply.

The meeting with Hugo Swire on 1 December 2006 – SU4S meeting notes

Mr Swire began by giving us his idea of the situation so far. It was apparent that he was not fully up to date on some of the issues, so we briefed him as follows:

▪ Mr Swire appeared to think we had had only one meeting – we told him there had been two of ours and a third: 300 plus at the first Stand Up For Seaton meeting and 150 supporters who turned up at EDDC. We also told him of the Seaton Development Trust meeting in the Town Hall which attracted 500 – 600 people.

▪ He mentioned that the illustrative master plan had a boulevard – we pointed out that it did not. There had been a boulevard in the Development Brief but this had not been taken up in the developer’s plans and did not appear in their master plan. (The only street with direct sight to a viewpoint to the river is behind the supermarket delivery area and, if viewing from the tramway, you cannot walk from there as the tramway itself forms a barrier).

▪ He said that the marshes project was part of the regeneration package. We told him that it is not part of the regeneration area and was first mentioned to a small audience of 150 people on 1 November 2006. There has been no public consultation about the project and, at the presentation on 1 November 2006, no mention was made that part of the funding (the only part currently available) is coming from Section 106 money from the regeneration area. (We have since learned that EDDC is prepared to match funds offered to the Marshes project but it cannot afford a purpose built community building on the regeneration site).

▪ He had not realised that 90% of Seaton’s overnight tourist beds (and 50% of the tourist beds in the area between Branscombe and Axmouth and north to Colyton) would disappear if the holiday village closes.

▪ He said that the idea of a supermarket had been supported. We pointed out that this supermarket had been about one-third the size of the current supermarket with only 176 parking spaces whilst the current plan has a supermarket with 555 parking places and a petrol station. (Information has now been obtained that the original plan for a supermarket on the site is no longer valid, even though it says in the Development Brief that it is. It was for a supermarket half the size of the current one). There has been no recent consultation about whether a very large supermarket is acceptable to the town.

▪ He thought that the plan had 450 homes. We pointed out that in the Local Plan Seaton was scheduled for only 300 homes and since then at least 100 (and possibly many more) had already been built. The plan has at least 625 homes (around 450 on the developer’s site, possibly 150 on the Axe Riverside site and 25 on the EDDC site, although it could be more).

▪ He said that tourists would still spend in the town. We pointed out that government surveys show that for every overnight tourist bed that is lost at least three days tourists must take their place.

▪ He mentioned that Seaton had been considered for a marina. We said that we had heard nothing about such a plan.

▪ He mentioned how much the Jurassic Coast Visitors Centre would contribute to the town. We pointed out that already EDDC is talking not only of scaling down the size of the centre but also trying to jam into it a SUSTRANS terminus, a youth centre and a gym or crèche along with the Tourist Information Centre. [Mr Swire is a member of the All-Party World Heritage Sites Group in the Houses of Parliament].

▪ He mentioned the waterside area. We pointed out that no planning application for this area has gone in so it is not something that we could comment on.

▪ He seemed to think we were a political group – we told him that we are apolitical and simply concerned for the future of the town in which we all live.

We then went on to put our own points, which were (briefly):

▪ Lack of public consultation since the O’Rourke report;

▪ The lack of community facilities in the town, what we would lose when the holiday village closes and the diversion of funds from this to the marshes project and;

▪ The economic effect of the planning application in terms of the destruction of the tourist base, the decline of current town centre shops, the effect on pubs and restaurants, the inability of the area to support jobs for the 600 plus homes; where was the evidence that what is on offer would give the town what it needs.

We told him that we realise that he cannot influence these things alone but pointed out that as an MP and Shadow Minister he has access to people and networks that we cannot access. We expect him to use his influence in such situations to represent the views of the majority of his constituents and to persuade others of the need for action on the above points.