The plans for Knowle have been published:
With helpful input from the Save Or Sidmouth campaign:
The reference, to be quoted in any correspondence, is 16/0872/MFUL.
The return date for comments and objections at the moment is 15th June.
Mary W-T in Sidmouth
The inpression created, for me at least, was that the well-being facilities and restaurant would be open to non-residents. It is not quite as open as all that.
Visitors can use the restaurant, and I assume that means people who are visiting those living there as it clearly defines another category of people who can use the well-being facilities as Non-Residents.
Non-Residents are people living in Sidmouth and who are over 60 years of age, with priority give to those whose property borders the Knowle.
This only runs for 3 years from the time they achieve 50% occupation of the site.
Don't be misled into thinking that they will be providing some sort of resource for the town.
Oh, and they say they expect to employ 14.5 people in total. If that covers the restaurant, well-being facilities, cleaners, gardeners and care assistant/nurses as well as management it doesn't bode well for high standards in anything.
Comments on the Streetlife social networking site note the discrepancies between the PR blurb and the details of the application:
Knowle and Pegasus plans
Mary W-T in Sidmouth
The inpression created, for me at least, was that the well-being facilities and restaurant would be open to non-residents. It is not quite as open as all that.
Visitors can use the restaurant, and I assume that means people who are visiting those living there as it clearly defines another category of people who can use the well-being facilities as Non-Residents.
Non-Residents are people living in Sidmouth and who are over 60 years of age, with priority give to those whose property borders the Knowle.
This only runs for 3 years from the time they achieve 50% occupation of the site.
Don't be misled into thinking that they will be providing some sort of resource for the town.
Oh, and they say they expect to employ 14.5 people in total. If that covers the restaurant, well-being facilities, cleaners, gardeners and care assistant/nurses as well as management it doesn't bode well for high standards in anything.
.
.
.
Is there really a clause stating an age restriction? Why is that not considered age discrimination?
It says that the decision of membership of the wellbeing facilities after 3 years, will be for the management committee (Residents)
The restaurant and wellbeing will have to be provided on a non profit case run by the Management Committee, so it would be in there best interests to have it continue to be open for other Sidmouth Residents.
On the Jobs the way I read it was that the 14.5 will be directly employed, but there is the provision by an outside company (jobs) to provide care packages for the residents, there will be others including tradesmen / women, so at the moment until we know more, it will be guess work to provide an exact number.
PP
Yes you can have an age restriction where you are providing housing, and it is including in the application.
The public have all ready influenced the plans this is there second application submitted after public meetings showed that very few liked the original.
The spelling police are on the "ball" today.
I have not read that the management will be residents, it doesn't specify so far as I have read.
The jobs/employment provided is quite clear, I suppose they can't cover things like people employing mobile hairdressers but what they intend to provide themselves is 14.5.
How can being non-profit make it in their best interest to attract extra business?
Although you can have a clause limiting the age of those residing there I don't believe it is legal to discriminate on the grounds of age about who can use facilities or paths.
How are we to know what each resident requires, whether it is social, medical or individual needs, like hairdressing, podiatry, some may require grocery, cooked meals etc.
You do not need to know exactly how many but anyone could manage to approximate the figure.
If they are running a restaurant for 115 residents + visitors then that alone will need a fair number of staff if they are covering all three meals per day. Or perhaps they don't expect it to be used much?
Peter you say ' anyone could manage to approximate the figure' so could you give me your estimate please? I find myself at a loss to do so as I can't work out what percentage of able-bodied and needing-care they are aiming for. Thank you.
Residents in these types of developments are responsible for sorting all that side of things out for themselves - or relatives doing it. They will have to buy in private care from local private agencies (or they may get NHS or Social Services free non-means-tested help - even though most of them will have very deep pockets after shelling out £300-400,000 plus for a 1 bed apartment and minimum £3,000-5,000 plus service charges).
It may lead to an increase in agency care firms in Sidmouth, so more low-level, low-paid caring jobs. That won't replace the better jobs lost by council relocation and where are these low-paid workers going to live?
They WILL be an extra burden on local GPs for sure.
And the definition of non-residents is indeed remarkable: You have to be over 60.
For those who want read more: The planning application can be found under 16/0872/MFUL
One pic,anyway, now enlarged on the original SOS blogpostwww.saveoursidmouth.com