Listen Live

Exmouth seafront decisions delayed

Tuesday, 10 March 2020 06:38

By Daniel Clark, Local Democracy Reporting Service

Councillors angry residents aren't being listened to.

But the council’s scrutiny committee unanimously agreed that the purpose of agreeing the selection criteria for the commercial development was not properly balanced, and expressed their anger at how they felt Exmouth residents were not being listened to.

The cabinet had agreed the leader of the council, the Portfolio Holders for Asset Management, Finance and Economy and the Service Lead (Place, Assets and Commercialisation) and Project Manager – Place & Prosperity, should be on the selection panel, as well as one Exmouth councillor.

But the scrutiny committee stated that it should consist of one councillor from each of the five Exmouth wards, and that officers should not have voting right, and they sent their recommendation to full council.

The next full council meeting will not take place until Wednesday, April 22, with the council then making a recommendation back to the Cabinet at their meeting on Wednesday, May 6.

The decision delays any attempt to begin the marketing exercise as the panel to agree the criteria will now not be set up until at least mid-May.

Initially it had been hoped that bids would be received and reviewed by May, with a report on a recommendation on preferred developer/operator in July 2020, but that timescale will now be delayed by at least three months as a result of the scrutiny decision.

Leader of the council, Cllr Ben Ingham, had previously said he wanted any eventual proposal to be in place by the end of 2021, while the attractions for the Queen’s Drive space – the replacement for the former Fun Park – only have permission to stay on the site until March 2022, with no further extension allowed under planning law unless they were made permanent.

Cllr Paul Arnott, leader of the East Devon Alliance, had called the decision in, arguing that the panel the purpose of agreeing the selection criteria for the commercial development was not properly balanced, and said: “The number of elected members taking part in the Selection Panel is too few and has insufficient Exmouth democratic representatives.”

Cllr Cathy Gardner added: “There is a lot of concern in Exmouth and the aspects of the regeneration and about too few Exmouth members being represented.”

She proposed that in addition to the leader of the council, the Portfolio Holders for Asset Management, Finance and Economy, there should be one Exmouth member per ward, agreed by political balance and chosen by the Queen’s Drive Delivery Group, and that if no suitable external bidder is found, the phase 3 concept gets referred back to cabinet for further consideration.

She said: “This makes it a local decision and if there is no commercial interest in the site, it must go back to cabinet to review the plan.”

Cllr Vicky Johns said: “What is the point of having local councillors and not using them? We should be asking the Exmouth councillors what their residents want. We have been voted in to do what they want, not to tell them what they want.”

Cllr Joe Whibley said that while he was an advocate of moving the process us and getting the seafront done, the idea of only a small representation from Exmouth goes against the wishes of those in the town and that it was ludicrous that officers should have voting rights as they are not democratic representatives.

Cllr Eileen Wragg added that there is a lot of anger and resentment in the town about the proposals. She said: “We are being told what we should be having there, but the people want a proper say and you are not listening.”

Fellow Exmouth councillor Nick Hookway said that the theme seemed to be people meddling in Exmouth who have no link or understanding about what is going on. He urged the committee to reject the cabinet decision as the selection panel was unworkable and that it should require the involvement of all Exmouth members.

Cllr Chris Wright, who ran the former Fun Park on the seafront, said that in the past there was a selection panel of four people and ‘the council ended up with a bankrupt developer’. He added: “This panel should be widened to find a clear and robust process to move the development forward.”

Cllr Maddy Chapman added: “This is not what the public signed up to. There needs to be more involvement with the local people. We don’t want a developer – we want what we were told we would get, and it is about time people pulled their socks up.

“I don’t see any hotel worth its salt building on Queen’s Drive with a play area infront of it. It is not what was promised, which was a futuristic play area for the children. We were promised something exciting and this is not exciting. I am damn well fed up of it.”

Portfolio holder for asset management, Cllr Geoff Pook, said that the proposals were about trying to help develop Exmouth, discussions will be held with the Queen’s Drive Delivery Group, and that the selection panel will make a recommendation to cabinet anyway. He called for the panel to be increased by an additional Exmouth town councillor than was initially agreed, saying: “I think that fulfils a lot of the demands and give more Exmouth input into it.”

But the scrutiny committee rejected with suggestion and unanimously agreed that the selection panel should consist of the leader of the council, the Portfolio Holders for Asset Management, Finance and Economy, and one member from each of the five Exmouth wards.

The panel should select the criteria and evaluate the bids and then make a recommendation to cabinet in relation to preferred bidder, and if no external bidder is identified then it should be sent back to cabinet to review the phase 3 plan with full public engagement.

A recommendation that if the council was minded to invest in hotel or other business, the decision be advised by auditors was also added.

Full council on April 22 will now discuss and make a recommendation to cabinet, who when they meet on May 6, will make a final decision.

Any decision over the future of the Queen’s Drive site is under the constitution of the council one for the cabinet to make. They will have the option of accepting the recommendation of scrutiny and full council, or if they chose, are entitled to stick with their original decision.

More from Local News

Listen Live
On Air Now Through The Evening Playing Spinning Around Kylie Minogue