Council scraps enhancement scheme for Seaton seafront

Seaton Town Council has scrapped its seafront enhancement scheme despite having already spent more than £50,000 on the project.

At their last meeting of the year, councillors agreed not to take the enhancement scheme any further, after a number of procedural and financial concerns were raised.

Planning permission for the enhancement scheme was granted in 2017 and it would have included pedestrianisation of sections of the seafront, demolition of the existing public toilets and moridunum and construction of a new building, alterations to the highway layout and a new pedestrian crossing, to allow formation of new public space with raised seating and siting of seasonal huts for commercial use.

A Freedom of Information request dated in 2018 showed that more than £50,000, including VAT, had already been spent on the project in professional fees for architects, engineers, chartered surveyors and other fees/charges.

A further £64,834 had been earmarked for the scheme, and this will now be ringfenced for alternative and "more achievable" improvements to the seafront.

A report from the Seafront Enhancement Working Group presented to council this month outlined concerns over the project.

It said the project was "beyond the scope and resources of the town council", and would have been better led by either Devon County Council or East Devon District Council.

While it was acknowledged that the initial idea "was a good one", the report said it had not been well managed in places, and even members of the Seafront Enhancement Working Group had not been invited to meetings or kept fully informed of the project's progress.

The report added: "It was acknowledged that money had been spent in scoping out the project and on professional fees but, when considered objectively, this was a small amount when compared against what could be lost of a project that was unlikely to ever be completed.

"Members accepted that there would be some in the town who were disappointed if the scheme did not progress but felt that if the reasons were properly explained - most pertinently the financial position - then any repetitional risk could be managed.

"Concerns were raised that the material benefit of what the first phase would achieve would be minimal when set against the costs.

"The financial impact of the pandemic, and also possibly the financial implications of the leaving the EU, would clearly affect public finances across all sectors and were a factor in whether or not the scheme could realistically be taken forward."