Futures Forum: "A truly green alternative to EDDC's proposal"

Wednesday, 17 July 2013

"A truly green alternative to EDDC's proposal"

The Vision Group's submission to the planning application at Knowle in September 2012 concluded with this proposal:

ALTERNATIVE GREEN APPROACH:
Rather than demolishing the buildings at Knowle to finance the proposed relocation to Honiton, Robin Fuller in his open letter [to the Herald] of 3rd September (‘EDDC, flats, Councillors ’) suggests ‘A TRULY GREEN ALTERNATIVE TO EDDC’S PROPOSAL’, which should be considered seriously by Planning Officers:

1) Modernise the 1975 building at Knowle through the sale of the Honiton Heathpark site; the District Council has publicly stated that it needs half of the current 9200 square metres of floorspace and that the current building is ‘not fit for purpose’; halving energy use together with state-of the-art ecodesign would result in a truly ‘green’ office-space.

2) Sell the 1880/90s Knowle Hotel and caretaker’s lodge with outline planning permission to convert them into flats, which in turn would raise considerable sums for the District Council; this could well produce the 50 dwellings proposed in the draft LP and avoid the stated aim of building on greenfield land; the substantial gardens and parkland would not be eaten into; and the park-and-walk facility would continue to serve visitors.

As Mr Fuller states, the District Council ‘would be grossly irresponsible to move without properly costing this proposal first’.
Vision Group for Sidmouth - VGS submission to Knowle planning application sept12

The alternative ideas for Knowle posted on this blog
Futures Forum: Knowle: old bricks vs new build: embodied carbon
are based on these proposals, put forward over many months by Sidmouth resident Robin Fuller:

Following his open letter to the press, this was sent off to the Cabinet and CEO in January of this year:

To: paul@diviani.net; rbloxham@eastdevon.gov.uk; amoulding@eastdevon.gov.uk; ichubb@eastdevon.gov.uk; dcox@eastdevon.gov.uk; jelson@eastdevon.gov.uk; ggodbeer@eastdevon.gov.uk; scjjones@eastdevon.gov.uk; ithomas@eastdevon.gov.uk; ptwiss@eastdevon.gov.uk; mwilliams@eastdevon.gov.uk

Subject: Knowle - the alternative
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013

To: EDDC Cabinet

Copy: Mark Williams

The proposal to demolish Knowle and build houses in the parkland and gardens and thereby fund the building of new Council offices at Honiton has run into so many soundly based objections that the whole concept needs a radical rethink around some new ideas.

I attach a proposal (Knowle - a way forward.doc) which should satisfy most of EDDC’s needs – modern offices, in an energy efficient building, with up-to-date services and connectivity. It will also provide most if not all the homes planned for Knowle. Yet, it will retain all the parkland and gardens.

Furthermore, I suggest it will prove better than cost-neutral: it should provide a surplus of funds to transfer to the EDDC current account.

I believe it would be grossly negligent if the Council goes ahead with its current proposals for Knowle without looking – at least in outline – at the feasibility of what I suggest.

I would expect to hear a response which I hope will be positive. If it is negative, I ask that EDDC provides sound and objectively based reasons for rejection of the proposal.

Robin Fuller

Attachments: Knowle - an alternative

Annex A. Journey times and distances

Knowle – a positive and cost-effective way forward

I outline a proposal which offers a truly green alternative to EDDC’s plans to demolish perfectly sound buildings at Knowle and destroy public parks and gardens, trees in the arboretum and wildlife habitats, all in order to fund the provision of up to date offices.

· EDDC says it needs only half the present floorspace for its staff.

· The Design statement in the OPA for Knowle gives the current floor area as 7742m².

· About 2630m² of this is modern offices built around 1973.

· The Council Chamber building at 660m² also has a modern roof and has been partly refurbished.

· The modern offices plus the Chamber building together comprise about 3290m² of floorspace, of which about 3000m² is office space.

· EDDC employs 460 full time equivalent staff, of whom 365 work at Knowle.

· HSE stipulates a space allocation for office staff of 11 cubic metres which, allowing 2.4m ceiling heights, would equate broadly to 4.5m² per person, or 1642m² for 365 staff.

· 3000m² of office space would give 8.2m² per person – near double the HSE requirement.

· So, the 1973 offices plus the upper floor of the Chamber building could comfortably house all EDDC’s office staff, with ‘hot desking’ and home-working allowing part-timers and transient office users to be housed economically.

· Any remaining shortage of space could be made good by storing rarely accessed archive papers in a local warehouse, rather than in custom built offices.

· Thus there would be more than 4000m² of the old Knowle Hotel and cottage unoccupied and available to sell – enough for up to 50 one- or two-bedroom flats.

· The basic buildings should have a total market value of £3.5million-£4million; restored and refitted, the cottage and flats could sell for around £10million in total.

· The sale of the historic parts of Knowle would pay for an update of the 1973 buildings, in terms of layout, insulation and services; and the refurbishment could be done while EDDC still occupies the old Knowle, allowing builders unfettered access.

· EDDC would halve its floorspace, instantly halving energy use; insulation plus renewable energy installations could halve that again, giving savings equal to those planned for Honiton.

· Rewiring and new cabling will provide modern connectivity.

· Refurbishment of the existing building will save the huge carbon emissions associated with a new building (which would take 50 years to repay its carbon costs).

· Sidmouth is demonstrably more central to the people of East Devon, and will remain so, even once Cranbrook is completed j.

· The land earmarked for EDDC at Honiton could be sold to boost Council funds and thereby benefit all Council Tax payers.

· Sidmouth will not lose 365(-460) jobs, so easing pressures to develop employment land elsewhere in the Sid Vale.

· EDDC will also get most if not all of the 50 dwellings currently planned for the Knowle site, but without using any greenfield land whatsoever.

· The historic Knowle will be saved from demolition.

· Sidmouth and East Devon will retain all of the Knowle parkland and gardens as public open space.

· The weekend ‘park and walk’ will remain available for visitors to Sidmouth.

j See Annex A. Journey times and distances from across East Devon to Sidmouth and Honiton

Annex A. Journey times and distances from across East Devon to Sidmouth and Honiton

I looked at the numbers of people living in each East Devon ward and calculated the distance and travel time from the centre of each ward to Sidmouth or Honiton using a TomTom SatNav to give shortest route and time for that route. In doing this calculation, I allowed for 6500 homes and 26000 people in Cranbrook. I refer you to the Table below. On average, an East Devon resident might travel 9.2 miles to Sidmouth or 10.9 miles to Honiton. So an EDDC move to Honiton would add 18% to the typical journey. The time taken for travel averages 27 minutes to Sidmouth or 28.3 minutes to Honiton – a 5% increase if EDDC moves.

The CEO gave a short response:

From: MWilliams@eastdevon.gov.uk

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013

Subject: RE: Knowle - the alternative

Dear Mr Fuller,

Thank you for this proposal. I have taken the liberty of forwarding it on to relevant officers within the organisation for their information/assessment.

As I hope you appreciate no final decisions have yet been made as we are still in the process of assessing a range of options before any report is ready for the Councillors to consider.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Williams

CEO
EDDC

The majority party whip, Cllr Phil Twiss, gave his response:

From: PTwiss@eastdevon.gov.uk

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013
Subject: RE: Knowle - the alternative

Dear Mr Fuller,

Thank you for your E Mail and attachments together your previous correspondence of the 12th of August 2012, the 4th of September 2012, the 14th of September 2012 and the 31st of October 2012 with your views on how any relocation of EDDC might or might not be viable.

One thing does keep occurring to me with regard to your Annex A and journey times from various point in East Devon to Knowle. Why would this have any relevance to the move as your data assumes that the entire population of each ward would wish to visit EDDC at Knowle at least once, which is not the case now or ever likely to be in the future given the very large and increasing amount of EDDC transactions and business that can and are undertaken online, together with an increase in "remote" or home based working (use this exchange of correspondence as an example where in the past we might have exchanged letters or met in person). I therefore cannot see how the data you present should be considered as relevant as the assumptions are inevitably skewed by your data.

Purely in a business sense I am further puzzled as to how Sidmouth might be regarded as the centre of East Devon given its geographic proximity to the sea and distance from the extremities of the area, lack of relation (in physical journey times) to a major dualled trunk road and motorway, Honiton sits on the A30 and is 12 minutes from the M5 by this route and is served by a direct rail link to London and Exeter. It is a shorter journey time to Exeter International Airport and Exeter Sky Park when there be a need to visit these places or travel in the reverse direction.

Major development is taking place in the West End of our district at Cranbrook, Sky Park, Science Park, Tithebarn Lane and other adjacent areas and all of these are within 12/15 minutes drive of Honiton. Once Cranbrook railway Station is opened in the near future it will be 12 or 14 minutes train journey from Honiton.

Can I just take this opportunity to emphasise the point that no decision on a possible relocation has been made by EDDC and none will be until all the facts are known, at which time an informed decision on a move to Honiton (or anywhere else in East Devon) is viable or necessary. For the record I represent a Honiton ward but this is of no relevance in this issue as all members have a duty to represent the best interests of all EDDC residents and examine what provides best value for taxpayers money and this is what is happening with the relocation and every other aspect of the day to day operations of EDDC.

I welcome any thoughts you might have on the above.

Regards

Phil

Phil Twiss

EDDC Councillor

Honiton St Michael's ward, Deputy Portfolio holder, Environment

Telephone: 01404 891327

E Mail: PTwiss@eastdevon.gov.uk

Twitter: @philtwiss

To: ptwiss@eastdevon.gov.uk; paul@diviani.net; rbloxham@eastdevon.gov.uk; amoulding@eastdevon.gov.uk; ichubb@eastdevon.gov.uk; dcox@eastdevon.gov.uk; jelson@eastdevon.gov.uk; ggodbeer@eastdevon.gov.uk; scjjones@eastdevon.gov.uk; ithomas@eastdevon.gov.uk; mwilliams@eastdevon.gov.uk

Subject: RE: Knowle - the alternative
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:52:35 +0000

Dear Mr Twiss

Thank you for your prompt reply. Some answers to your questions:

1. Of course not all - indeed very few - East Devon people will want to go to the EDDC office, wherever it is. However, the EDDC rationale for moving to Honiton has always been that it would be more convenient for people in East Devon. So, in response, I have checked if the numbers add up - and they don't. I have calculated the distance to Honiton and Sidmouth for the average East Devon resident. We then find that Sidmouth is closer on average. The numbers cannot lie. I have a 37 year prefessional background in mapping and measuring landscapes and population patterns and, presupposing that the EDDC Ward population data are good, I am confident of my analysis. But pleae, put them before an EDDC staff member with appropriate expertise.

2. The reason why Sidmouth is closer is essentially that so many more people live along or near the coast. The population at Exmouth for example is large - and Sidmouth is closer for them than Honiton. The same principle applies to Buddleigh and Seaton. The centre of gravity of the population is therefore towards the south of the District. As an interesting comparison, the geographical centre of Britain is in Lancashire but, because most people live down south, Lancashire is not the best place for Britain's centre of government.

3. As regards the development at Cranbrook, and in response earlier comments from EDDC about the future size of Cranbrook, I have looked to that future and put in a number for the prospective population of Cranbrook as 6500 homes and 26000 people. Even then, because of the sheer numbers of people elsewhere in the District - 125,000 East Devon people will not be in Cranbrook - the centre of gravity is still nearer to Sidmouth.

4. I think the question of whether Sidmouth or Honiton is nearer for most people is a 'red herring'. But it is a 'red herring' of EDDC's choosing. In practice, neither destination is hugely better than the other. So, therefore, why destroy fine historic buildings, damage large areas of parks and gardens, threaten wildlife and magnificent trees, threaten greenfield sites elsewhere in the Sid Vale to make good the employment losses; and then spend £7million - £11million of public money supposedly (and misguidedly) to save an occasional visitor a few miles or minutes on their journey.

5. I supplied the analysis on time and distance as an ,for those Cabinet members who feel it is still an issue for them. The important part of my submission is the proposal itself, which offers substantial environmental and financial benefits without the damaging side effects of the Knowle demolition plan. I believe these are the priority issues which EDDC should consider.

With thanks,

Robin Fuller

There followed correspondence with Cllr Bloxham:

Sent: 11 January 2013 13:13
To: Cllr R Bloxham
Cc: Cllr Phillip Twiss; paul@diviani.net; Cllr Andrew Moulding; Cllr I R Chubb; Cllr David Cox; Cllr Miss Jill Elson; Cllr G S Godbeer; Cllr Mrs S C J Jones; Cllr I Thomas; Mark Williams
Subject: RE: Knowle - the alternative

Dear Mr Bloxham,

I thank you for your interest in my proposal.

The £3.5-£4million valuation of the historic Knowle buildings assumes they could be sold to a developer with outline planning permission to refurbish as flats. The valuation was given to me by Sidmouth estate agent of some 30 years standing.

As regards the valuation of the flats for sale once refurbished, I allowed a simple average of £200,000 per unit. That figure would be subject to a huge variation across the 50 units. Two-bedroom ‘penthouse’ flats on the south side, with extensive views over parkland, gardens, town and towards the sea would clearly fetch a premium price, perhaps approaching double the average. Ground floor flats on the south side with a veranda overlooking the garden would also be very valuable. An upstairs 1-bedroom flat overlooking the rear carpark would fetch very much less than the average. I believe £200,000 to be a fair figure to use as an average in this hypothetical proposal.

Again, the floorspace per flat is an estimate. Allow, say, 65m² for a small rear view flat, 75m² for a more substantial one-bedroom flat in a good position and 100m² for generous two-bedroom units in prime positions. The old Knowle could probably house 16-17 of each of these, 50 in total, or just over £10million worth.

I am not a developer and I have no experience in estate agency. Someone versed in the economics of such a development might well look at my figures and refine them to realise a better return. I would suggest that the planning permission should be outline permission for up to 50 flats, giving a developer full scope to get the best possible return from the floorspace provided.

As regards the up-front money needed by EDDC to undertake refurbishment of the offices in the newer parts of Knowle, I would suggest that the sale of the Honiton Fairpark land, which I understand to be owned by EDDC, would provide sufficient funding to prime the start of refurbishment. As newly refurbished offices become available, EDDC could start to move across, freeing up parts of the old Knowle for transfer to the developer, thereby bringing new income into the pot for refurbishment of more offices. I imagine too that a financial deal could be done with a developer to provide advance payments on the sale of the old Knowle, which EDDC could put towards the refurbishment of its offices. It may well be more economic for the same developer to do the refurbishment of the flats and offices, allowing a phased move by EDDC, with phased payments back and forth between EDDC and the builder. Income from sales and outgoings on refurbishment would match funds throughout much of the development process. It would 'concentrate the minds' of your builders if the rate at which they worked on office refurbishment determined the rate at which their property, the old Knowle, was handed over to them. The sale of the final parts of old Knowle would bring in the surplus of income at the end of the process. It could prove a valuable contingency fund if EDDC were to overun its budget.

All the above details are speculative. Someone far more qualified than me could, at this stage and with modest cost, look in more detail at my proposal and tighten things up, giving a much better basis for a provisional decision. Ultimately, if my proposal (or similar) looks feasible, there will have to be a full costing of the whole exercise. But I put it to you that the figures already seem to add up. So I would argue that EDDC cannot be seen to reject the proposal without giving it a fair consideration. I hope you agree.

Robin Fuller

Mr Fuller still sought answers:

Sent: 06 February 2013 11:33
To: paul@diviani.net; Cllr R Bloxham; Cllr Andrew Moulding; Cllr I R Chubb; Cllr David Cox; Cllr Miss Jill Elson; Cllr G S Godbeer; Cllr Mrs S C J Jones; Cllr I Thomas; Cllr Phillip Twiss; Mark Williams

Subject: Knowle - the alternative

On 10 January, I sent an outline proposal for EDDC to refurbish and move into the newer offices at Knowle and to sell for conversion to flats the historic Knowle buildings. It was argued to be better than cost-neutral with potential income to EDDC; and it preserved public open space, the weekend 'park and walk', the historic buildings of Knowle, trees in the arboretum and wildlife in the grounds.

My email concluded 'I would expect to hear a response which I hope will be positive. If it is negative, I ask that EDDC provides sound and objectively based reasons for rejection of the proposal.'

Apart from a few questions, which I have answered, I have been given no 'objectively based reasons for rejection of the proposal' and no indication whatsoever that the it is flawed in any way. I presume therefore that it represents a sensible way forward and that EDDC will be examining this in detail before putting in train any proposal to demolish Knowle and build houses there.

If this presumption is incorrect, please let me know the specific reasons why the proposal is not a feasible way forward.
Robin Fuller

From: PTwiss@eastdevon.gov.uk

To:; paul@diviani.net; RBloxham@eastdevon.gov.uk; AMoulding@eastdevon.gov.uk; IChubb@eastdevon.gov.uk; DCox@eastdevon.gov.uk; JElson@eastdevon.gov.uk; GGodbeer@eastdevon.gov.uk; scjjones@eastdevon.gov.uk; IThomas@eastdevon.gov.uk; MWilliams@eastdevon.gov.uk
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 13:38:13 +0000
Subject: RE: Knowle - the alternative

Dear Mr Fuller,

Following earlier correspondence in January of this year regarding your brief outline of the vision you had for the future of Knowle (as you can imagine there have been a number of similar assumptive, non-evidence-based alternatives proposed as well) and the reply you gave to Ray Bloxham on the 11th of January (see below) while interesting this is really only a guess of how the solution you put forward that may or may not be viable. To be clear as a council tax payer of East Devon I do not want valuable resources in terms of money and Officer time being spent on new viability studies considering this is already happening.

You would naturally want EDDC to be as accurate as possible and not take a "finger in the wind" approach to the sale values of homes might be at Knowle, how many there might be or even how "up front" money refurbish existing office with speculative development might be justified to tax payers of East Devon.

I will make my mind up on any move from Knowle once a definitive report with cost viability in respect of Knowle, relocation and building costs elsewhere are known using the advice of qualified experts in their relevant field that have either been commissioned or will be asked to do this work.

The next phase is clearly is the approval or not of the planning application which will be heard on the 1st of March and this will clearly dictate the subsequent course of action. Until that time anything else really is guesswork and a plot of land with outline approval is clearly worth more than one without before thta piece of work can be slotted in to the overall jigsaw.

I am guessing your Estate Agent of 30 years standing in Sidmouth is Richard Eley. I am meeting him in the next week or so to discuss car parking in the town and I am sure he will take the opportunity to mention Knowle as well, but to be clear my view to him will be much the same as the above in that there are just too many variables at this stage for anyone to be certain of the final outcome.

Kind regards

Phil

Phil Twiss

EDDC Councillor

Honiton St Michael's ward, Deputy Portfolio holder, Environment

Telephone: 01404 891327

E Mail: PTwiss@eastdevon.gov.uk

Twitter: @philtwiss

Subject: RE: Knowle - the alternative
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013

Dear Mr Twiss,

I am grateful for the opportunity to see where the criticisms lie against my proposal, so that I might have the opportunity to answer them. To describe the proposal as ‘non evidence based’ is not strictly correct.

The following are real figures:

1. The Design statement in the OPA for Knowle gives the current floor area as 7742m².

2. The estimate that about 2630m² of this is modern offices built around 1973 comes from my measurements of the footprints on large scale aerial photographs.

3. The estimate for the Council Chamber building at 660m² was made similarly.

4. The total area of 3290m² of floorspace in modern offices plus the Chamber building is therefore a figure which is evidence based.

5. Thus it is evident that there would be more than 4000m² of the old Knowle and cottage potentially unoccupied and available to sell – enough for up to 50 one- or two-bedroom flats.

I am sure that EDDC have more accurate values for these floor areas, so it would not be necessary to spend large amounts of money on new viability studies to refine this part of the proposal. As regards the 4000m² being enough for 50 flats, a simple bit of arithmetic is needed: allow for a modest 1-bedroom flat a 4x4m bedroom, a 5x4m sitting room, a 3x3m kitchen, a 3x3m bathroom = 54m². For a higher range luxury flat, add 1m to each floor dimension, add an en suite at 3x3m = 96m²in total. For 2-bedroom units, add a 4x4m bedroom to either configuration, i.e. 70m² for a modest 2-bedroom unit, 112m² for the higher range 2-bedroom flat. Twelve of each type, 48 flats all told, would fit into 4000m².

The following are also real figures from EDDC and/or the Health and Safety Executive:

6. EDDC employs 460 full time equivalent staff, of whom 365 work at Knowle.

7. HSE stipulates a space allocation for office staff of 11 cubic metres which, allowing 2.4m ceiling heights, would equate broadly to 4.5m² per person, or 1642m² for 365 staff.

8. 3000m² of office space would give 8.2m² per person – near double the HSE requirement.

As regards the costs of refurbishing the newer parts of Knowle, we can use EDDC’s own or its consultants' documents;

9. Davis Langdon’s indicative cost model says it will take £10.5m-£11.0m to redevelop just Knowle House for office use - http://planningapps.eastdevon.gov.uk/Planning/StreamDocPage/obj.pdf?DocNo=1068556&PageNo=1&content=obj.pdf.

10. Davis Langdon had already estimated £12,960,578 (say £13m) to redevelop Knowle House and the more recent office extensions.

11. A simple subtraction indicates that it should cost £2m-£2.5m to refurbish the newer offices at Knowle.

The following figures are speculative but based on the opinion of a local Estate Agent (not Richard Eley incidentally):

12. The basic buildings should have a total market value of £3.5m-£4.

There is such a large difference between the £2m-£2.5m needed by EDDC for refurbishment and my Estate Agent’s estimate of £3.5m-£4m that it seems worthwhile getting a true valuation. And bear in mind the value of the EDDC-owned Honiton site which would also be sold.

The following figures are speculative:

13. Restored and refitted, the cottage and flats could sell for around £10million in total.

Considering how many substantial flats there would be with parkland and sea views, this figure seems realistic. Any Sidmouth Estate Agent who thought they could be involved with the sale of Knowle to a developer and the subsequent sale of completed units to home-buyers would surely be willing to sit down with Council officials and discuss valuations at no cost to EDDC.

You also state that ‘the next phase is clearly the approval, or not, of the planning application ... and a plot of land with outline approval is clearly worth more than one without’. EDDC’s surveyors’ Devon Wildlife Consultants state clearly that further surveys are required:

As Building A is to be demolished which will incur destroying a bat roost within Building A and will disturb bat roosts within Building B, it will be necessary to obtain a European Protected Species License (EPSL) from Natural England. Full planning permission would be required prior to submission of an EPSL application and the EPSL is valid for two years. The EPSL can only be issued if the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable status. To ensure that the EPSL can be obtained it will be necessary to undertake further surveys which will enable appropriately scaled mitigation measures to be provided:

4.2 Bat Activity Surveys ...two 3 hour surveys undertaken twice a month from April to October with at least one consecutive dusk and pre-dawn survey carried out. [July, August, September, October surveys done in 2012 but not April, May, June]

4.3 Dawn Re-entry Surveys of bat species emerging or re-entering the potential tree roosts identified within Tree Assessment. The results of these surveys can then be used to target specific trees which are proposed for removal for Dawn Re-entry Surveys prior to felling. They.... should be undertaken during the optimal period for bat activity which is May to September (inclusive) [they were not done 2012].

4.4 Further Internal Inspection ...historic evidence of lesser horseshoe bats ... within the loft spaces of Building A... possible that lesser horseshoe bats may return to these loft spaces. Therefore a further inspection and subsequent remote detector surveys (summer and winter) should be undertaken within the year prior to the proposed demolition date.

EDDC can grant Outline Planning Permission and subsequently grant full Planning Permission, in advance of the submission of an EPSL application, but the builder will not know what if any mitigation action will be required. This could affect the value hugely, to the point where they would be unwilling to commit. So where does that leave EDDC’s intention to test whether a move to Honiton can be ‘cost-neutral’? It seems to me there will be such huge uncertainties even if Outline Planning Permission is granted, that the complete redevelopment of the Knowle site would still remain very uncertain. That would leave EDDC with difficulties of uncertainty over many years, which will all serve to raise the estimated costs of moving to the point where cost-neutrality could only be demonstrated by highly creative accounting. EDDC cannot achieve its prime objective in granting Outline Planning Permission for demolition and redevelopment of Knowle.

As I stated in my first email, I would welcome constructive criticism of my proposal. If I am wrong in my use of data or the calculations I make from the data, please let me know, with evidence to support the counter-argument.

Finally, I pose two crucial questions. Should not all reasonable alternatives also be the subject of planning applications, or will the forthcoming viability assessment involve an invalid comparison between the pet project favoured by the leadership (which may yet have, according to you, the added value of a consent) and the preferred options of most people in East Devon (which will not)? If so, why was the current option chosen and so favoured before alternatives had been evaluated? Surely, the various options should have been evaluated before all the money was spent.

I await a full reply from those at the EDDC in a position to evaluate fully the figures and arguments I have put forward.

With thanks

Robin Fuller

Finally, after many months awaiting 'a full reply', this week Mr Fuller has again written an open letter to the Herald:

To the editor:

The details published by EDDC on the advantages of moving over staying in Sidmouth are highly selective in the facts they present, ignoring inconvenient truths in order to help the Council leadership win its arguments.

They claim benefits in carbon release but they ignore the fact that it takes 50 years of energy saving to repay the huge amounts of energy put into the processes of construction: demolition, the manufacture of building materials and the on-site work of construction. EDDC have only been at Knowle about 40 years. If they occupy new offices for the same length of time, they will never repay the carbon costs of construction – there would have been more carbon released to the atmosphere than if they had adopted sound conservation policies in the existing buildings. Who would give EDDC 50 more years of existence in the present political climate? The carbon argument cannot stand up to any logical scrutiny.

EDDC claim to require 3353m² of floorspace for their new offices and Council Chamber. My estimates suggest the potential floorspace which could be provided by the 1970s offices at Knowle plus the Council Chamber in the older part of Knowle would amount to 3290m². This 63m²shortfall – the size of a large sitting room – would amount to just 2% less than they say is required.

EDDC want space for 250 desks. This would require 1125 m² of floorspace under Health and Safety Executive recommendations. But 2630m² of office space is already available within the 1970s office buildings – more than double what is required.

On the basis of a floorspace-shortfall of 2% overall, and ignoring the apparently very generous provision of office space for staff, EDDC suggest that the only solution at Knowle would be to refurbish the Victorian buildings rather than the newer 1970s offices. That is so blatantly a misuse of the statistics to suit their arguments that it is almost laughable in its bare-faced nerve. Instead, the argument should revert to a proper, unbiased assessment of what could realistically be done with the newer Knowle buildings, using the sale for redevelopment of the older Knowle to fund the process.

If EDDC – on the basis of the flimsy arguments of carbon and space and untested evaluation of genuine improvements to perfectly reusable offices – were to go ahead with the plan to move, it would not be the elected members who eventually suffer when the sums fail to add up. This is a proposed public-sector building programme costing maybe £7-9 million. We all know that costs rise significantly between inception and completion in almost all public-sector buildings.

It will not be those who are pushing for the move – the leaders of the elected members who run the Council – who take the blame for an embarrassing overshoot on spending in a new development. They will merely say that their job was to outline policy ambitions and it was the officers’ jobs to advise and, where appropriate, implement in a cost-effective manner. At a time when public servants at the centre of administrative scandals are losing their jobs and their index-linked pensions over maladministration, while the politicians cover their backs, it is a brave – some may say ‘foolhardy’ – Council official who would administratively underwrite this biased and ill-considered venture with such large amounts of public money.

Robin Fuller

.
.
.

Wednesday, 17 July 2013

"A truly green alternative to EDDC's proposal"

No comments: