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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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, 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 =
96m2 in 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 63m2 shortfall –
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
..
.
No comments:
Post a Comment