How the Old Politics sowed discord where there should have been harmony
In my previous post I set out an explanation for the failure of the “old politics” in Exeter’s local government. I noted: a combination of working behind closed doors, letting the political party system inhibit new thinking, and failing to show leadership on behalf of the community. In this post I outline how Exeter City Council managed to turn what could have been a positive and uncontroversial project into a winter of discontent – and create a political issue in the full Council elections on May 5.
To detail every twist and turn of the story would undoubtedly try any reader’s patience (as well as my own), so here is the simplified narrative of the Exeter bus and coach station site redevelopment plans.
The background (yes, it’s a bit dull)
The present bus station occupies what property people would call “a prime site” in the centre of Exeter. It’s a dismal place, serving the country buses and long-distance coaches. Half of the site is given over to a bus park for overnight stabling, and the bus maintenance depot is on an adjacent site. The City Council has long held an ambition to produce a better “gateway to Exeter”, a view shared by most residents.
A proposed redevelopment in the previous decade foundered with the financial crash. The council’s key planning document, the Core Strategy  adopted in 2012, continued to earmark the site for redevelopment – mixed use, including retail. In the same year the council produced a set of “Development Principles” for the site . This set out clearly the council’s view that the redevelopment would be led by the private sector, to include a “new and enhanced” bus station to be paid for by the development plus any available public funding, and “a landmark building” next to the roundabout at the south end of the site. The site would cover not only the existing bus station and overnight stabling area but also the bus maintenance depot. Diagrams in the booklet gave no hint that there would be any impact on Paris Street – a main northwest-southeast route across the city.
There’s much more, but that’s enough detail for now.
Roll forward to late 2014. The developers bowl into town with some outline plans and set up a consultation in an empty shop. Well, calling it a consultation is perhaps stretching the meaning of the word. They produced some coloured drawings and a tick-box form of loaded questions which were either fatuous, obvious or impossible to answer intelligently . Since about three-quarters of those commenting thought the plans were a good idea, it was no surprise to see an application for outline planning permission arrive on the council’s desk in July 2015. It proposed a mixed-use development of shops (hang on, isn’t High Street retail in decline thanks to online shopping?), restaurants (gosh, another Pizza Hut), a new cinema (a few yards from an existing one), a bus station, and a leisure centre. The bombshell was a proposal to close Paris Street to traffic, accompanied by reams of transport consultants’ documentation incomprehensible to the non-expert.
The story now breaks down into three discrete elements: the leisure centre; the closure of Paris Street; and the new bus station.
The Leisure Centre
Behind closed doors, the council had been working on a plan for the “landmark building”. As information dribbled out, it became clear that this building was to be a leisure centre, consisting largely of a swimming pool, funded wholly by the council at a cost of £26m. This led to objections from swimming clubs who wanted an Olympic-size pool (“Tell them to go to Plymouth” was one response from the Civic Centre), from the substantial lobby that wanted the site used for a theatre, and from people who could think of better uses for £26m (for example on public services). The business case for the leisure centre was – and still is – secret, so there has been no independent scrutiny of the assumptions underlying the council’s claim that it would be run at a profit .
As criticism mounted, the Leader of the Council started making statements that the rest of the redevelopment could not go ahead without the leisure centre, though no explanation was forthcoming as to why this should be the case (secret deals with the developers spring unworthily to mind). A consultation of 400 responses, in which 81.5% supported the leisure centre, was held up by the Leader as proof that the council was right and the people were behind him. Well, about 0.3% of the people were behind him.
The Tories have stated that if they win next month’s election, they will scrap the plans for the leisure centre.
The closure of Paris Street
There is much to be said on environmental grounds for excluding traffic from a city centre through route. Unfortunately the developers’ traffic management plans involved rerouting much of the traffic through residential areas and past a school. The well-informed residents of St James – who produced the second-ever statutory neighbourhood plan in England – quickly spotted that their area would be most affected. The developers’ traffic assumptions were challenged, not only by the residents, but also by Devon County Council, the highway authority, which awoke in time to send the plans back for reworking.
At one point there seemed a real possibility that Devon County Council would be St James’ saviour because of its concerns over the impact on the city’s traffic network. Sadly, a supine meeting of the county’s Development Management Committee green-lighted the revised proposals, despite an officer’s report which did not offer any evidence to support a recommendation to approve the plans .
The developers offered no life-line, making it clear that if Paris Street was not closed, they would not proceed with the development. The council put up no fight about this.
The bus station
The first (and the revised) outline planning application showed a bus station with 12 bays, down from the present 16. The result of this is that the National Express long-distance coaches are likely to have to park on adjacent streets, which will be a really welcoming experience when arriving from London at ten past one in the morning. It could be worse – a leading city councillor has suggested that the coaches need not come into Exeter at all, and pick people up at the Park and Ride by the M5 motorway. Since the P&R services do not run at night, it’s not clear what happens to city passengers wanting to catch the 4.25 am to London.
Worse is to come. Because the bus station is crammed into a corner of the site (and incidentally further from the High Street than it is now), getting buses in and out will be tricky. So much so that the bus company will have to employ a banksman – someone who guides drivers in and out – which will be unwelcome news to cost-conscious Stagecoach management.
Although the Development Principles envisaged the site would include the bus maintenance depot, the planning application excluded it. Instead, in a side deal, the site has been offered for a 600-bed student accommodation block.
And finally. Despite the commitment in the Development Principles about the development paying for the new bus station, the council tax-payers of Exeter received as a Christmas 2015 present the news that they, not the developers, would be paying for the bus station. £6.25m as a first estimate, and doubtless rising along with construction costs.
And what happened next?
Guess. On 20 January 2016, the full City Council met and approved the outline planning permission, including giving itself permission to build the leisure centre . The number of people wanting to attend the meeting was so great that the Guildhall could not accommodate them all. Despite the volume of well-argued objections received, the council leadership pressed on with its plans, having given no sign over the previous 2 years that it was interested in listening to any other views.
A subsequent consultation exhibition on the detailed plans led to 63% of respondents objecting to the whole development. This brought forth a scolding from the council’s Chief Executive and Growth Director (no prizes for guessing his agenda) to the effect that the 63% were all rather silly people because the principle of the development had already been settled, on 20 February. The Chief Executive and Growth Director told the local paper that he was kept awake at night thinking about the redevelopment. A letter in the next issue suggested that the CE&GD’s sleeplessness was because the plans were flawed.
We now await the outcome of the May 5 election.
So what went wrong?
To pick up the question posed at the beginning: why did Exeter City Council fail to unite the communities in support of what had the potential to be a worthwhile major project? How did things go sour?
My own answers are these.
First, the council and the developers came up with the plans, presumably in conjunction with each other behind closed doors, and then defended it against all comers, despite the volume of evidence that the development would create as many problems for Exeter’s residents as it might solve.
Second, this die-in-the-ditch approach led to the leisure centre in particular being labelled a council leadership vanity project, to be delivered at any cost. At no stage was there any willingness to accommodate reasoned objections. The party system imposed discipline on Labour councillors who were forced to defend the project and vote it through (though one had the strength of mind to vote against it in support of his constituents).
Third, the so-called consultations were a joke. They were designed to get the answers the council and the developers wanted, and they usually succeeded. None of the questionnaires gave people the opportunity to say what sort of retail mix they wanted, nor to put forward alternative uses for £26m of public money. The option of giving the existing bus station a makeover has never figured in the council’s public thinking. There was no engagement with people.
Fourth, when the planning application was open for consultation, the result was a welter of well-argued objections, freed from the constraints of tick-box questionnaires. Had the council allowed a more open approach to the earlier consultations, issues might have been identified earlier
Fifth, the council displayed remarkable weakness in failing to challenge the developers, on behalf of its residents, about the proposal to close Paris Street. The developers demanded and the council agreed, and hard luck on the residents of St James (and indeed the rest of us when the city gridlocks in the run up to Christmas).
It would be good to think that the council has learned from this, and that those who practise the “old politics” are chastened by it. It would be good to think it.
 For those with stamina, the Core Strategy is at www.exeter.gov.uk/media/1636/adopted-core-strategy.pdf
 See www.exeter.gov.uk/media/2037/bus_and_coach_station_development_principles_nov_2012.pdf
 The questions, with commentary, are set out the first part of a post on my other blog at www.petercleasby.com/2014/12/11/how-to-fix-a-consultation/
 The Information Commissioner has accepted for investigation a complaint from me that Exeter City Council is in breach of the Freedom of Information Act by not publishing the business case on request.
 The offending paper is at http://democracy.devon.gov.uk/Data/Development%20Management%20Committee/20151125/Agenda/pdf-PTE-15-66.pdf
 The paper put to the Council summarising the proposal and the extensive objections received is at http://committees.exeter.gov.uk/documents/s49543/150791%20Report%20HS%20Final.pdf