http://www.devon24.co.uk/news/local_plan_delayed_until_next_year_1_3601887
No burning the midnight oil, then – just a nice, slow amble.
“The delay in finishing the Local Plan is expected to cost taxpayers a further £12,000 in consultants’ fees in addition to an ‘inspection budget’ for 2013/14 of £110,000.”
But still they must move to Skypark: bet the midnight oil IS burning for that one!
The National Planning Policy Statement requires councils to alert other councils around them when it seems that they cannot build enough houses in their own district and to ask those councils to take some or all of their overspill.
Exeter, of course, now has not only Cranbrook to take its overspill in East Devon but also the thousands of extra houses agreed by EDDC’s Development
Management Committee in the EDDC area adjoining Pinhoe.
Now we have an application for (initially?) 300 houses at Uplyme to accommodate the “needs” of Lyme Regis (perhaps for more second homes?) on the A3052 at Uplyme in East Devon.
It might seem now, that having accommodated Lyme and Exeter we have run out of space for our own houses.
So, what about South Somerset which conveniently shares a Chief Executive with us and is also coincidentally in similar trouble with its Local Plan.
There are plenty of green fields between Axminster and Chard (particularly around Yarcombe in the Blackdown Hills near the border) and so convenient for commuting to Exeter, Taunton and beyond, especially if the A303 is widened.
Why hasn’t the Chief Executive been talking to himself?
We welcome Cllr Ian Thomas’s contribution to the early discussions about the prospective planning application near Uplyme in the AONB (see post and comment below). Open discussion through forums such as this (or by the soon to be restricted contributions at East Devon Development Management Committee meetings) is essential at this vulnerable time. Thank you, Ian.
We applaud Ian’s stated support for AONBs and the natural environment, but he may perhaps concede that the actions of his party in this district have spoken more loudly than his words: EDDC’s tardiness in getting its act together on the Local Plan and a five-year land supply have surely put greenfield sites, including those designated AONB, at risk”.
It was clear, too, from a recent Development Management Committee meeting to discuss an action plan for the revised Local Plan that there is likely to be much more development near Exeter as well as around selected villages and in the area near Lyme Regis. Coupled with the Planning Inspectorate’s observation that EDDC had failed to co-operate with West Dorset on the Local PLan, it seems to a number of us that the Uplyme proposal could be the first cuckoo in this unwelcome spring.
Is EDDC out to make sure that Seaton has more retirement housing than current leader Christchurch?
Pretty soon you won’t get accommodation in Seaton unless you show a bus pass!
McCarthy & Stone will share its proposals with local residents at a public exhibition on Thursday, May 29, between 3.30pm and 7pm at Seaton Primary School on Valley View.
Anyone who is unable to attend the public exhibition or would like more information can call a freephone information line on 0800 298 7040 or view the proposals online at http://www.mccarthyandstone-consultation.co.uk/seaton
How does your vote work on Thursday’s European Elections?
The EDA research team has found that most of the people they talk to haven’t a clue as to how the European Election works. When you read this you may not be entirely surprised. But it is important for the democratic process that you do understand before you get to the ballot box.
The voting system used is a form of proportional representation called the – “closed list”.
Who am I voting for?
Between three and ten Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to represent your region. The UK is divided into regions, one for each of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and nine covering England. Each region is allocated a number of MEPs according to its population. Our region is the South West and we are represented by six MEPs.
How do I vote?
Well, always read the instructions for filling in the ballot paper carefully, even if you have voted before. The ballot paper lists political parties and independent candidates. Under each party name is a list of candidates who wish to represent that party. Simply put an X (a cross) next to the party or independent candidate that you wish to vote for. If you make a mistake then you can ask the polling staff to give you another ballot paper. You may also be voting in other elections on the same day. In our region (super constituency) we have no independent candidates but we have eight parties to choose from. Remember with no independents we cannot vote for a candidate, only a party. We have one vote although we are electing six MEPs.
So who is elected? (Take this slowly- it is not quite a complicated as it sounds).
In a given region the allocated seats are awarded using a quota system in successive rounds of counting, until all MEPs are elected. For each round the quota for that round is the total number of votes received by a party (or independent candidate) divided by the number of seats already gained in that region +1. So, for a party with no seats (and for the first round) the number of votes received is divided by one, and so stays the same. If the party already has one seat then its number of votes is divided by two, if it has two seats it is divided by three, and so on. This means that the more seats you have already won, the harder it is to gain extra seats, so the overall allocation of seats is more proportional to the number of votes received. The first seat that a party wins goes to the first person on its list, the second seat to the second person, and so on, until the party has either not won any more seats or has run out of names on its list. An independent candidate is treated as though he or she were a party with only one name on its list. –
See more at:
http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/how_do_i_vote/voting_systems/european_parliament_elections.aspx#sthash.dR8dQIRf.dpuf
What are the Eight Parties standing and who are their candidates?
A pdf of the list of candidates can be found at:
http://www.europarl.org.uk/en/european_elections/candidates2014.html
Story in today’s Sunday Times that the best way to get more women into local politics would be to set up a body that would examine reports of misconduct in local government.
The report says “sexism and sexual harrassment, which is being increasingly scrutinised in Westminster, is equally prevalent in the corridors of our local town halls” and goes on to say that some female councillors end up resigning because of sexist or inflexible behaviours that are hard to combine with family life.
It suggests that any aspiring female politicians, for whom local government could be a stepping stone to Westminster, are turned away by sexism. In England 32% of councillors and 12.3% of council leaders are women.
The society’s head of policy says, “Sexism in local government is both a cause and effect of the lack of women councillors. We have found numerous examples of male councillors making sexist, offensive and derogatory remarks”.
Lucky for us then that councillors such as Eileen Wragg, Claire Wright and Susie Bond continue to do their sterling work.
But how long before the situation changes?
EDA AGM – Chairman’s Report:
Councillors and officers..and all of us… are busy people. But there are signs that the Standards’ sub-committee were having their own time wasted, as well as Cllr Graham Salter’s valuable worktime (he’s self-employed) at this week’s hearing called by EDDC’s Monitoring Officer. It went on and on…..and after only a majority vote (2 to 1) , he was found to have breached the councillors’ code of conduct on one count. But it was clearly not a serious issue, as it was then decided no sanctions were warranted.
Consultants (paid) council officers (paid), Cllr Salter (unpaid ) and members of the public (unpaid) were obliged to wait for hours, while the sub-committee deliberated.
Had this been a serious case, the expense and length of the hearing could be seen to be justified…. and not perceived as part of a District-wide pattern of apparent attempts to gag dissenters.
Our earlier report on the same hearing is here: https://eastdevonwatch.org/2014/05/15/why-did-you-become-a-councillor/
A developer has put in an application for 300 houses on the land currently used for Lyme Regis’s summer park and ride scheme. The land is in East Devon but is adjacent to Lyme Regis. This was not in the last Local Plan and did not figure in the Current Local Plan.
The developer (Hallam Homes) had a poorly -advertised “consultation” exhibition in Lyme Regis recently but nowhere in East Devon. This is contrary to the requirement that a development in East Devon must be advertised “appropriately” within the district.
It may be that the villages of Uplyme and Rousdon do not think that this development will affect them. Think again. Today, it is one field on the A3052 but it is only a matter of time in this development-led era in East Devon that the current developers (or new ones) will decide to link up the parishes of Uplyme and Rousdon with the development now being planned. Before long this could be a new town the size of Cranbrook.
As an extension to Lyme Regis, this would totally be in East Devon and the Dorset economy would be stretched for doctors, dentists, schools, etc just as the East Devon economy would be stretched.
Is this “sustainable”? Who in their right mind would think so? Where are the jobs? How will people commute? Where is the necessary infrastructure?
This is the Jurassic Coast tourist route – already developers have their eye on the Exeter end of this road – how long before we have the road completely covered in a ribbon development of houses from Lyme to Exeter and from the A3o52 to Raymonds Hill?
At EDA’s well-attended AGM last night, some new officers were elected to posts.
Our new Chairman is Paul Arnott of Colyton, Vice-Chairman remains John Witherington of Feniton
More to follow.
Pattern? What pattern? (see post below)
http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/axminster_town_council_code_of_conduct_finding.pdf:
Code of Conduct Finding
An investigation into a complaint by District Councillor Twiss (Conservative Council and Whip) about Axminster Town Councillor Cllr Hayward (known for his independent views) has concluded that Cllr Hayward breached the councillor Code of Conduct.
In paragraph 4(a) of the Code of Conduct, it says: ‘You must treat others with courtesy and respect’. The Investigator found that, in an email to a group of councillors, Cllr Hayward was disrespectful towards a member of staff at the District Council.
His report states:
‘Treating people with courtesy and respect involves having regard for them and their feelings and showing politeness towards them. The requirement to treat a person with respect applies even if they are not present.
I found that three of Councillor Hayward’s emails were written in his capacity as a councillor. Having examined the content of these, I have found that…Councillor Hayward was disrespectful…He therefore failed to follow paragraph 4(a) of the Code of Conduct.’
In the Complaints Procedure, where there has been a finding of a breach of the Code of Conduct, it is possible to resolve the com
plaint to both the complainant and councillor’s satisfaction. In this instance, Cllr Hayward has withdrawn his disrespectful comments and
accepted that the officer was not as he described. Cllr Twiss has accepted this, although he would also have preferred Cllr Hayward to apologise for his disrespectful and inappropriate behaviour.
During the course of this complaint, Cllr Hayward stated his wish to make a counter complaint against Cllr Twiss, however there was not sufficient evidence to warrant further action.
This Finding will be posted on the Council’s website on the Standards Committee page under public notices.
Denise Lyon
Deputy Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer
7 May 2014
Note from EDA: For the record, here are some possibly disrespectful comments made publicly by Councillor Twiss. The second example comes from his letter to a local newspaper, in his official capacity as Tory Party Whip.
… (about a councillor who used to be a Conservative but is now an Independent) “This is a bit rich coming from someone who now flies under a white flag having previously been a Conservative party Councillor and Whip who paraphrasing his wording presumably chanced his arm to get elected having jumped ship from one political group to another.”
….(about all Independent Councillors) ”Invariably a single issue with ancillary directly related ones is the overriding reason for Independents standing, holding back progress and directly disadvantaging their communities by paying little attention to other matters as a result.”
EDA would be interested to know if there have been any formal complaints against Cllr Twiss, and if so, how they have been dealt with.
For the full version of Cllr Twiss’s letter, and more comment, go to http://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com/2013/11/29/have-whip-but-dont-ever-use-it/
Decisions this week, likely to be rubber-stamped by Cabinet and Full Council, mean that now the public must make written representations in advance before being (possibly) allowed to speak at the Development Management Committee (only 5 objectors will be allowed 3 minutes each on a first come, first served basis).
Councillors are now to be banned from putting motions that are not appropriate to the business of the council – the final arbiter probably being the Chief Executive (or perhaps one of his Deputies – see post below). The Council’s Constitution will be so amended – even though the introduction of the amendment has not followed the procedure laid down in the current Constitution!
Proposed by Councillor Bloxham who recently put forward a motion to ban the use of Legal Highs and who spoke so eloquently for 27 minutes recently, emphasising that restricting public questions should be an essential part of saving time for committees.
So Councillor Bloxham, which councillor is that is using Legal Highs – I think we should be told!
Councillor Salter, Independent parish Councillor, Newton Poppleford Parish Council. Spoke out against a develop near to him which majority of councillors seemed to be in favour of, majority of parishoners appeared not to favour. Reported to police because “anonymous” complainant said he should have declared a pecuniary interest.
Police found no case to answer. “Anonymously” reported to EDDC for declaring a personal interest but then staying in the room and voting. Monitoring Officer decided he had a case to answer. Hearing yesterday, most of the day.
Conclusion: Yes, he did break the rules. Three councillors then met in private to decide his punishment (1 Independent, 2 Tories). Majority decision: no punishment as he was deemed to have been speaking for the people of Newton Poppleford not just for himself!
Truly, it is a mad world, my masters – with shades of the situation in which which (Independent) Councillor Giles had to face at Ottery St Mary where he was found guilty by his parish councillors when he reported some of them to his (Independent) district councillor because they had not told her about a secret meeting they were having with developers – suggested punishment by majority vote: ban him from the Planning Committee but they voted again and decided not to punish him.
Ottery Town Council and Councillor Giles were then investigated by the Monitoring Officer: town council found deficient, no charges against Councillor Giles but no apology for his treatment. And between Independent Councillor Giles and Independent Councillor Salter, Lib Dem Councillor Eileen Wragg (Lib Dem) dragged before the Monitoring Officer (again) for failing to respect another (Tory) Councillor at Exmouth town council and forced to apologise and be named in the press.
Can anyone see a glimmer of a pattern here?
Our Monitoring Officer is one of the two Deputy Chief Executives and each time these hearings take place an independent consultant is brought in to investigate.
Is this the best (or the most appropriate) use of this officer’s time? How many man and woman hours are being wasted in this way, lost income for the councillors being investigated and all the council’s costs being paid for in the end by US and our council tax?
It isn’t just Lord Salisbury and his Cabinet who would be proud of Norman Tebbit – he is almost certainly a hero to some at EDDC:
…. Finally, to the problem that bedevils coalition ministers: the feeling that after just one term in government, quite a few of them have been around too long. Francis Maude, Cabinet Office supremo and cutter-in-chief, is one such, and a peek at his parliamentary biog explains why: “Member for Horsham 1997–; Member for North Warwickshire, 1983-92; Contested North Warwickshire byelection 1900.” He didn’t win, of course. That’s a shame. Lord Salisbury and his cabinet would have thought the world of him.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/15/hugh-muir-diary-paxo-permutations
What would you say was the average number of public speakers at planning meetings over the past year? 10? 15 perhaps? It’s actually 1.5.
Councillor Graham Troman presented his research on this to last night’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC), in the debate on how to shorten the length of the currently unwieldy planning meetings. Reducing the number of public speakers was one suggestion in Cllr Bloxham’s proposals for resolving the problem.
Cllr Troman found that between May 2013 and April 2014 (i.e. the latest twelve-month period), there were 165 applications heard by the Development Management, with 249 contributors (including parish councillors) to public question time (maximum of 3 minutes allowed per speaker)…so an average of 1.5 public speakers per planning application.
But these complicated calculations seemed all too much for Cllr Key to take on board. He remarked that Cllr Troman had “overestimated himself” , and that an average of 2 people was more accurate.
Which left more than one of his fellow councillors wondering, “If he doesn’t understand 1.5, does he understand 4.5 minutes (= the time limit for 1.5 public speakers)?
After a rather rambling discussion, which jumped from one agenda item to another, and saw a marked division in voting between the majority party (not all of whom spoke), and the other councillors, the motion to have new rules on speaking was passed., with some amendments. Amongst these were: listing and publishing in advance, the precise material planning applications to be addressed; introducing a buzzer system for time limits to speaking; insisting on pre-application for public questions; and stronger powers for the DMC Chair.
Cllr Bloxham’s report will now go to Cabinet, and then back to Full Council for approval.
See above for information on the meeting at Colyford – all welcome
Cllr Key made clear his view of the public, in this comment he made at tonight’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee. He left the Knowle Chamber smiling broadly, after he and his like-minded colleagues had voted in favour of restrictions to public speaking, as a solution to overlong Development Management Committee meetings.
More details to follow.
In a confusing decision at Knowle today, Newton Poppleford councillor Graham Salter was found guilty of a breach of the councillors’ code of conduct.
After deliberating for over two and a half hours, a majority verdict of an EDDC Standards Sub-committee (Cllrs Godbeer (Chair),Bond and Newth) ruled that Cllr Salter should not have spoken and voted at two parish planning meetings (May 13th and June 24th 2013) concerning Clinton Devon Estates’ (CDE) controversial King Alfred Way (KAW) application .
The grounds were that a “reasonable member of the public with a knowledge of the facts” would conclude that the proximity of Cllr Salter’s house to the KAW site meant he had a personal interest that must “have prejudiced his judgement”.
But the ruling seemed strangely at odds with the subcommittee’s acknowledgement that he had publicly declared a personal interest, and with their conclusion that he had acted “only in the public interest” (thereby apparently agreeing with his statement that he was representing the many residents who oppose the building of 40 houses on prime agricultural land, in the AONB, outside the built-up perimeter of the village).
Does this mean that the supposed opinion of a theoretical man or woman “on the Clapham omnibus” weighs more heavily in code of conduct considerations than the support of informed locals?
Cllr Salter commented after the decision that it would not affect his view of his role as a councillor. He added that he saw the complaint against him as part of a concerted campaign to silence his opposition to the CDE project.
Two other complaints were made against Councillor Salter at the same time as this one, and are thought to be from a single source,. Both have already been dismissed. One alleged that he had an undeclared Pecuniary Interest, and was sent to the police, who discounted it; the other, sent to the Standards Committee, complained that he bullied fellow councillors, but was similarly found to be groundless.
When asked by Cllr Susie Bond, “Why did you become a councillor?”, Cllr Salter, replied that he had been to a Newton Poppleford parish meeting where SHLA (Strategic Housing Land Allocation) figures were mentioned, and he noticed the figures were incorrect. Soon afterwards, a vacancy occurred, and villagers encouraged him to apply. “I went on the council to represent villagers’ views”, he said.
Cllr Chris Cole, the complainant, who has strongly supported the KAW application, did not attend today’s hearing.
At the time of “going to press” no sanctions had been decided, though “councillor training” for Cllr Salter seems most likely.
For background to this case, see AREAS Newton Poppleford, or LINKS for Sidmouth Independent News archive.
East Devon Watch 