Letter from Chief Executive of EDDC re consultation

I said that I would publish the reply from the Chief Executive of EDDC to my earlier letter about consultation procedures. Here it is in its entirety - with my comments in red.

Seaton Regeneration area: consultation

I am writing in response to your email of 23 January. This followed an earlier email from you to Mrs Kate Little. I apologise for any delay in responding to you. In your email to Mrs Little, you have raised a number of points, which I will deal with in turn but I would first of all like to reassure you that the correct procedures in terms of this consultation period, have been followed.

We have consulted with more than 4000 households in Seaton as well as printing the usual notices in the local newspaper and putting up site notices. We have also extended the consultation period from the Government requirement of 3 weeks to 8 weeks so this means we have far exceeded our legal obligations in this respect. (The 8 weeks started on 1 December 2006 and included: nearly 3 weeks when you could not get the planning application CD complete with Environmental Impact Assessment (sent out on 19 December 2007)and 10 days over Christmas and New Year when the documents were not available at the Town Hall or library i.e. one whole month of the two month consultation period. It is common with planning applications smaller than this to have 16 weeks if it is in the public interest).

1. You have correctly stated that the newspaper advert shows the 31 January as the deadline for consultation responses. This is because the newspaper ran the advert later and so we were obliged to extend the period to allow for this. (Of course, this email arrived only on 30 January 2007 so we could not take advantage of the extra 5 days as we had to get our objections in by 26 January 2007).

2. A member of my technical staff will be asked to go through each and every letter received and note down the points made as the letters come in. We will keep a running total of the numbers received in each category. (But surely, it isn't just quantity - it is quality - and who will decide on that?)

3. There is no revised transport assessment either requested by the County Council’s highways department or submitted by the applicant. It is my understanding that South West Water has misunderstood the number of houses involved in the application and will be submitting an amended response, over-riding their original objection. (I think there may well be a revised transport assessment requested - and if there isn't I for one will want a thorough investigation as there are MAJOR, MAJOR flaws in the one submitted which have been pointed out to DCC and EDDC - like no weekend statistics being calculated which makes a mockery of the report. South West Water did NOT misunderstand the number of houses - it has been misled because planning applications are being submitted in a piecemeal way so it was never informed of the TOTAL number of houses nor of the number of anticipated tourists for the entire site). This is what South West Water said to EDDC from EDDC's own website: "The scale of development within the application is considerably more than that agreed previously and therefore we cannot confirm the ability at this stage of the foul drainage infrastructure being able to deal with the additional flows. In order to establish whether the public foul sewerage system/pumping station and treatment works can accept the development, investigations need to be undertaken. Such investigations will have to be funded by the applicant, and until the results of this are known we cannot comment fully upon the application. In addition to the above, it is believed that the public rising main from our sewage pumping station runs across the site, its precise route will need to be established and appropriate measures taken to ensure its protection as a result of the development.". Not quite the same as Mr Williams.

4. Mrs Little has said that she will accept submissions up until the date that the application goes to Development Control Committee but she has made the point that the later the letters are received, the less likely they are to influence any potential negotiations that will commence once the timetable for the initial consultation closes at the end of January. Any new documents received in respect of the application will be “re-consulted” on in the usual way, allowing a further period for responses. (How will we know if "new" documents are received? How long will be be given to comment on them? Will the developer be treated in the same way as us? And see above and below about "consultation periods)

The major consultees are also expected to meet the timetable for submitting their responses and, if they are late and the application is moved on, this could cause a problem. However, there is no possibility of this application being dealt with in anything less than 4 months, given the technical difficulties in dealing with the site for development. I am satisfied that everybody will have sufficient time to submit their responses. (At least two consultees have asked for extensions - the Environment Agency and the World Heritage Coast Team. Local Government elections take place in May 2007 - in about 4 months time. The Development Control Committee will have new members (I wonder if Seaton will be represented this time?) and some of them may have little experience of their new roles. In such situations you tend to be guided by "experts" - in this case EDDC officers.)

5. The applicants will be asked to submit open book accounting in respect of the viability of the scheme in order that we can assess what capacity there is for community benefit to assist negotiations on the section 106 agreement. However, there is no requirement to know whether or not any of the businesses on the site are viable and we will not be seeking to examine their accounts. This is not a material planning consideration that we will take into account in the processing of this application. (So, we just Hollybush's word for it - in spite of their links to other companies associated with this particular developer. Martyn Harrison (chair of Hollybush) must be resting MUCH more easily in his bed, given his remarks about Hollybush Hotels and loans to Weymouth Football Club recently. Let's hope the EDDC lawyers doing their "due diligence" think otherwise)

I hope that I have answered all of your questions (no). However, I do feel that we are in danger of pursing something of a “red herring” in terms of focusing on the issue of the length of the consultation period. I feel that efforts should now be concentrated on the consultation response rather than continuing the debate over the time being allowed to respond. (Spot the "red herring" - it may not be where you think it is!).

This application has some considerable way to go and there will be plenty of time for all concerned to make any comment that they wish to (I have to recall here the meeting of the Executive Board in November 2006 when we got 48 hours notice that they were meeting to agree to sell EDDC's land to the developer "to facilitate development" - excuse me therefore if I do not find this reassuring). I am more than satisfied with the way this issue is being dealt with by my planning team. (Nice to know that he is "more than satisfied" with his planning team- but why should that make us satisfied too? It sounds rather complacent to me, but then, what do I know about local government).

Yours sincerely,
By email
M R Williams
Chief Executive