I was advised over the weekend that the new plans for the bowling alley do not indeed include car parking, and the reason for that is because the inadequately piled building would not take the weight of the cars. I cannot vouch for the original source of this, but they were aware of the piling issue, which is supposed to be a secret. I am inclined to think it does make sense.
We do know that there is legal action surrounding this. Does this action include our leaders pursuing those responsible for the value of the land needed to provide adequate parking?
And why oh why are we not treated like adults?
Sunday, 30 October 2011
Tuesday, 25 October 2011
Bowling Alley to eat the Fun Park?
Although I was keen from the outset to contribute to this summer's public consultation on the future development of Exmouth, aka 'The Exmouth Masterplan', I must confess that procrastination and enjoyment of the summer meant that I remained conscious of the September 12th deadline, and didn't attempt to look at the ideas until August had passed.
Even when I heard rumours that the children's play park was to be turned into a car park for the Bowling Alley, I felt there was still plenty of time to mull things over and have my say.
By the time I did settle and attempt to access the documents, our community leaders were busy trying to boost the disappointing number of respondents.
There was an additional presentation in the Magnolia Centre on Sept 3rd. I noticed that the large display map showed a 'P' on the play park, though with no clarification in the accompanying text. The maps on the leaflets accompanying the consultation forms however did not indicate this idea for change.
That same evening I attempted to access the documents, but was unable to due to issues with my own computers. I was able to submit a comment to the appropriate section on the Masterplan website, amongst other things drawing attention to the links between the play park and the bowling alley.
My comment did not appear. I was advised that I should complain and approach the Journal about this.
I was also advised that I could get a copy of the proposals from the Town Hall. So I obtained one, and by the time I was ready to participate my computer also managed to access the detailed document on the website.
I was surprised that the linkage between the bowling alley and its neighbours was not conveyed in the document, particularly in the light of the rumours. I was also surprised that the families area was described as underperforming. I have queried this latter definition, but no one has been able to either provide me with an objective definition or to take responsibility for making it.
I was also surprised by the negative reference to the Harbour View Cafe/Coast Watch building, considering it personally to be a significant local feature in need of smartening up.
Having digested and prioritised my thoughts, I finally responded to the questionnaire on Sept 11th, the day before the deadline. I noticed my earlier comment had still not gone up and I added a further, much more informed comment to the website. Again this included linking the bowling alley to the plans for the surrounding areas. It was my assumption that the comments thread would provide an ongoing public facility for engagement with the process.
When this second comment did not go up I set about finding out who to complain to. This took some time, but by the fourth day my original comment was up. By coincidence this was the same day the Journal published an article saying Town Council planners had backed (not true) revised plans for the bowling alley and including a quote from one member stating that the number of lanes was to be reduced to four. This was also not true, but I still don't know if the mistake was made by the councillor or the Journal. The plans were in fact passed to the district (EDDC) planners with substantial objections from the town planners and the 'Exmouth Champion'.
Having read this article, I contacted the Masterplan consultants, asking why my second comment was still not up and making clear that I wished to make a further comment as a result of a recent development, once I had the chance to read my comments. The following day my second comment was up, but the thread had been closed. When I challenged this the correspondence was passed back to an EDDC officer who has still not responded either to the referral or two subsequent polite emails from me.
I also emailed all members of the EDDC planning committee urging them not to back the revised plans as they stood, and copied this to the 'Champion' and the town planners. There were inaccuracies in this because I took the Journal article at its word. I received two replies, one broadly supportive, the other recommending I get my facts right but not engaging with any of the substantial points.
The following Tuesday the plans were approved. There is no public record of any debate on the objections, particularly Cllr Cope's concerns about the car parking requirements, and no report of this planning decision in the Journal. Just a very positive plug for the bowling alley in the following week's edition which suggested they had been 'in the loop' for a while.
Now I am not one of those who think that all dodgy or apparently capricious decisions are influenced by back handers or funny handshakes. But it would be hard to think of a more effective way to fuel such suspicions, which do exist locally, than this.
The relationship of the bowling alley with its neighbours has been ignored in the Masterplan Consultation Document, either by incompetence or by design. Those neighbours are softened up by negative labelling in the document, though no one will take personal responsibility for those labels, or objectively justify them.
The revised planning application is rushed through with the legal minimum of public notice immediately the consultation is closed.
Comments on a public forum which highlight the relationships between the facilities are withheld without explanation. There is still no explanation, though this and the response to my queries are the subjects of a Freedom of Information request.
You may be surprised to learn that I am pro the bowling alley. But I understood that its parking facilities were to be part of the development. If this is no longer the case the issues and changes should be clearly aired rather than pushed through with some subterfuge, creating a situation where the bowling alley is seen as needing to eat up a much loved play area which has been used fully by local families and visitors alike for as long as I can remember.
The official line is that Queen's Drive is to be rerouted through the existing car park to allow for enhancement of the Esplanade at this point, and that the families facilities will be relocated within this area, along with the artistic enhancements and the 'Exmouth Splash' facilities etc. There seems to be an awful lot of competition for finite space, and the relative allocation of space and of car parking numbers 'has not yet been considered'.
As I have said, I don't believe that corruption is involved. However I do believe that arrogance and complacency are significant issues. The powers that be have closed the doors on our ability to publicly comment and maintain an ongoing, transparent dialogue.
This is reminiscent of what has happened in The Strand, where they appear to genuinely believe they held a comprehensive consultation process. In fact, they held a fragmented consultation. Initially one of the significant elements was a small performance stage. For this to have worked it would have been necessary to relocate the War Memorial, and this idea was indeed raised. But when the '3 options' leaflets were published all 3 maintained the existing position of the memorial. The idea had already been dismissed. The performance stage had now become a multi use site, still with a small footprint.
It was not until the work on The Strand had commenced, initially with the removal of the trees, then the drainage, that we were made aware that the building had metamorphosed into our very own mini-Shard, complete with dominating commercial premises, and causing uproar. Then it was announced that due to financial issues this icon would not now be built. This was dressed up as a 'cost overrun', which is something that applies when a project in progress has run over budget.
What actually happened is that somebody, presumably the architects, got their sums stratospherically wrong, and that these errors were not picked up promptly by anyone charged with their oversight. This has been confirmed to me by a local councillor. When I asked why we could not just be told the truth about this I was met with a resigned shrugging of shoulders.
Who do these people think they are that they feel it is acceptable to lie to us just to save the blushes of their pals? And to stone wall our legitimate queries? Do they think we are stupid, or just worthless? How much did these failures cost us, and who is picking up the tab?
Those last four paragraphs have been a digression, to be brought up again when they resurrect that project. But note with caution that the Masterplan document is littered with references to iconic buildings.
Regarding the principal topic of this post, permission has now been given for the changes to the bowling alley. This means in practice more retail units and less amenity in terms of function space and bowling lanes. It also permits further obstruction of the former panoramic views and increases the need for parking space, thus limiting the options available for the areas close by.
Why were these issues not heralded and linked in an open and transparent manner? Why were simple explanations not forthcoming to straightforward queries, and why are EDDC apparently needing the full 20 days to respond to a simple FoI request?
Why did the Journal not tell us more about what was happening? Also why are they not interested in correcting their article of 15th Sept. or in getting to the bottom of the withheld comments?
Even when I heard rumours that the children's play park was to be turned into a car park for the Bowling Alley, I felt there was still plenty of time to mull things over and have my say.
By the time I did settle and attempt to access the documents, our community leaders were busy trying to boost the disappointing number of respondents.
There was an additional presentation in the Magnolia Centre on Sept 3rd. I noticed that the large display map showed a 'P' on the play park, though with no clarification in the accompanying text. The maps on the leaflets accompanying the consultation forms however did not indicate this idea for change.
That same evening I attempted to access the documents, but was unable to due to issues with my own computers. I was able to submit a comment to the appropriate section on the Masterplan website, amongst other things drawing attention to the links between the play park and the bowling alley.
My comment did not appear. I was advised that I should complain and approach the Journal about this.
I was also advised that I could get a copy of the proposals from the Town Hall. So I obtained one, and by the time I was ready to participate my computer also managed to access the detailed document on the website.
I was surprised that the linkage between the bowling alley and its neighbours was not conveyed in the document, particularly in the light of the rumours. I was also surprised that the families area was described as underperforming. I have queried this latter definition, but no one has been able to either provide me with an objective definition or to take responsibility for making it.
I was also surprised by the negative reference to the Harbour View Cafe/Coast Watch building, considering it personally to be a significant local feature in need of smartening up.
Having digested and prioritised my thoughts, I finally responded to the questionnaire on Sept 11th, the day before the deadline. I noticed my earlier comment had still not gone up and I added a further, much more informed comment to the website. Again this included linking the bowling alley to the plans for the surrounding areas. It was my assumption that the comments thread would provide an ongoing public facility for engagement with the process.
When this second comment did not go up I set about finding out who to complain to. This took some time, but by the fourth day my original comment was up. By coincidence this was the same day the Journal published an article saying Town Council planners had backed (not true) revised plans for the bowling alley and including a quote from one member stating that the number of lanes was to be reduced to four. This was also not true, but I still don't know if the mistake was made by the councillor or the Journal. The plans were in fact passed to the district (EDDC) planners with substantial objections from the town planners and the 'Exmouth Champion'.
Having read this article, I contacted the Masterplan consultants, asking why my second comment was still not up and making clear that I wished to make a further comment as a result of a recent development, once I had the chance to read my comments. The following day my second comment was up, but the thread had been closed. When I challenged this the correspondence was passed back to an EDDC officer who has still not responded either to the referral or two subsequent polite emails from me.
I also emailed all members of the EDDC planning committee urging them not to back the revised plans as they stood, and copied this to the 'Champion' and the town planners. There were inaccuracies in this because I took the Journal article at its word. I received two replies, one broadly supportive, the other recommending I get my facts right but not engaging with any of the substantial points.
The following Tuesday the plans were approved. There is no public record of any debate on the objections, particularly Cllr Cope's concerns about the car parking requirements, and no report of this planning decision in the Journal. Just a very positive plug for the bowling alley in the following week's edition which suggested they had been 'in the loop' for a while.
Now I am not one of those who think that all dodgy or apparently capricious decisions are influenced by back handers or funny handshakes. But it would be hard to think of a more effective way to fuel such suspicions, which do exist locally, than this.
The relationship of the bowling alley with its neighbours has been ignored in the Masterplan Consultation Document, either by incompetence or by design. Those neighbours are softened up by negative labelling in the document, though no one will take personal responsibility for those labels, or objectively justify them.
The revised planning application is rushed through with the legal minimum of public notice immediately the consultation is closed.
Comments on a public forum which highlight the relationships between the facilities are withheld without explanation. There is still no explanation, though this and the response to my queries are the subjects of a Freedom of Information request.
You may be surprised to learn that I am pro the bowling alley. But I understood that its parking facilities were to be part of the development. If this is no longer the case the issues and changes should be clearly aired rather than pushed through with some subterfuge, creating a situation where the bowling alley is seen as needing to eat up a much loved play area which has been used fully by local families and visitors alike for as long as I can remember.
The official line is that Queen's Drive is to be rerouted through the existing car park to allow for enhancement of the Esplanade at this point, and that the families facilities will be relocated within this area, along with the artistic enhancements and the 'Exmouth Splash' facilities etc. There seems to be an awful lot of competition for finite space, and the relative allocation of space and of car parking numbers 'has not yet been considered'.
As I have said, I don't believe that corruption is involved. However I do believe that arrogance and complacency are significant issues. The powers that be have closed the doors on our ability to publicly comment and maintain an ongoing, transparent dialogue.
This is reminiscent of what has happened in The Strand, where they appear to genuinely believe they held a comprehensive consultation process. In fact, they held a fragmented consultation. Initially one of the significant elements was a small performance stage. For this to have worked it would have been necessary to relocate the War Memorial, and this idea was indeed raised. But when the '3 options' leaflets were published all 3 maintained the existing position of the memorial. The idea had already been dismissed. The performance stage had now become a multi use site, still with a small footprint.
It was not until the work on The Strand had commenced, initially with the removal of the trees, then the drainage, that we were made aware that the building had metamorphosed into our very own mini-Shard, complete with dominating commercial premises, and causing uproar. Then it was announced that due to financial issues this icon would not now be built. This was dressed up as a 'cost overrun', which is something that applies when a project in progress has run over budget.
What actually happened is that somebody, presumably the architects, got their sums stratospherically wrong, and that these errors were not picked up promptly by anyone charged with their oversight. This has been confirmed to me by a local councillor. When I asked why we could not just be told the truth about this I was met with a resigned shrugging of shoulders.
Who do these people think they are that they feel it is acceptable to lie to us just to save the blushes of their pals? And to stone wall our legitimate queries? Do they think we are stupid, or just worthless? How much did these failures cost us, and who is picking up the tab?
Those last four paragraphs have been a digression, to be brought up again when they resurrect that project. But note with caution that the Masterplan document is littered with references to iconic buildings.
Regarding the principal topic of this post, permission has now been given for the changes to the bowling alley. This means in practice more retail units and less amenity in terms of function space and bowling lanes. It also permits further obstruction of the former panoramic views and increases the need for parking space, thus limiting the options available for the areas close by.
Why were these issues not heralded and linked in an open and transparent manner? Why were simple explanations not forthcoming to straightforward queries, and why are EDDC apparently needing the full 20 days to respond to a simple FoI request?
Why did the Journal not tell us more about what was happening? Also why are they not interested in correcting their article of 15th Sept. or in getting to the bottom of the withheld comments?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)