Monthly Archives: May 2014
Devon Waste Plan affects East Devon: have your say
Following the public consultation undertaken in December 2013-February 2014, the Devon Waste Plan has been submitted to the Secretary of State for examination. An Inspector has been appointed to consider the soundness of the Plan, together with the objections made in response to the consultation, and he has issued a draft programme for the public hearings. This programme, available through the link below, outlines the main issues that the Inspector wishes to discuss, and indicates that the hearings will run from Tuesday 15th July to Wednesday 23rd July.
Click to access id01_inspector_s_hearings_programme_v1.pdf
The most contentious session is expected to be on Tuesday 22nd July, when the Inspector will discuss the strategic energy recovery locations identified in the Plan for Barnstaple, Tiverton, EAST OF EXETER (HILL BARTON AND GREENDALE BARTON and Kingsteignton.
A draft neighbourhood plan can stall developers
MP introduces bill to amend National Planning Policy Framework
This was a Private Members Bill introduced under the 10 minute rule. Normally, these bills do not get past first reading but this one has made it to second reading. It would need cross-party support to become law, which is very unlikely to happen. However, Greg Mulholland deserves praise for the attempt. This is what he said, with a link to the debate below it:
National Planning Policy Framework (Community Involvement)
Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)
1.35 pm
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring a Bill to make further provision for the National Planning Policy Framework; and for connected purposes.
The planning community involvement Bill seeks to build on the initiatives in the Localism Act 2011 to give communities more of a say in planning decisions, and to amend the national planning policy framework. Despite having much to commend it and despite it being a much-needed simplification of planning law, that framework has still not got the balance right between the rights of developers and those of local communities. It is also not being properly implemented by some local authorities.
In a June 2011 guide to the Localism Bill, the then planning Minister stated that the purpose of the Government’s localism agenda—one I warmly welcomed —was
“to help people and their locally elected representatives achieve their own ambitions”.
Although I am delighted that the coalition Government have taken many steps in the right direction, including the assets of community value scheme, neighbourhood development plans and a number of measures, in reality many of our constituents—including those of Members from both coalition parties, and around the House—know that unwanted development is still being imposed on them, often with little chance to do anything about it.
Developers are still cherry-picking greenfield sites and building expensive multi-bedroom houses in areas that do not want and cannot support significant development. That is not what the country needs; we need more affordable homes in key areas and more social housing. Reform is needed to ensure that building happens where it is wanted and needed by communities and regions, and on brownfield sites first, not simply where developers will make money building homes that are out of the reach of the pockets of ordinary people.
These are sensible measures; they are not radical and this is not nimbyism. I do not propose to try to stop development everywhere, and I am certainly not trying to discourage the housing we need.
The measures in my Bill are supported by organisations such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England, which has suggested a number of measures, the Campaign for Real Ale, Civic Voice, and also by the Local Government Association and local councils. I hope that the Bill will start a debate about how we can reform the planning system to get it right as we approach the general election, which is now just a year away. In Leeds, many communities such as Cookridge, Bramhope, Pool-in-Wharfedale and Adel, are already facing huge increases in housing, including on green-belt land. That is at a time when many parts of the city and region are crying out for housing of the sort that we need, yet those sites are simply being land-banked and ignored.
There are also issues with housing targets. For example, Leeds city council is proposing to build 70,000 homes by 2028. That is the highest figure among all major UK
cities, despite it having the lowest population increase of any major city since the 2001 census. It does not make sense. A local campaign group, Wharfedale and Airedale Review Development, has pointed out that if figures are calculated on the 2011 census, the figure should be only 48,000, yet a higher target is being imposed on local people. That is the situation in Leeds, but it is reflected around the country.
We also have permitted development rights for assets and local facilities that clearly involve a fundamental change of use, and the loss of that community facility. That can apply to community centres, local shops, post offices and pubs. It is great news that the Government have now responded on betting shops. It was clearly an absurdity to allow betting shops to go through without planning permission, and it is also absurd—and I speak in this regard as the chairman of the all-party save the pub group—that pubs can become supermarkets, solicitors’ offices or payday loan shops without having to go through the planning process and without any opportunity for the community to have a say.
The Department for Communities and Local Government says that that problem is solved by the assets of community value scheme and article 4 directions, but it is not. The ACV initiative is being undermined by the inadequacy of the planning system, and in many areas the Localism Act 2011 is being ignored. For example, recently in my constituency an application was made to build houses and a supermarket on a playing field, in an area where local schools do not have their own playing fields. Despite a campaign by the local Hyde Park Olympic legacy group and a pending asset of community value application, the application went through. That is scandalous, and my Bill would address that.
Some 350 pubs have been listed as ACVs, but how many have actually been saved? The answer is only a few. In London, the Campaign for Real Ale has pointed to several pubs—the Castle in Battersea is a heap of rubble, the George IV in Brixton is a Tesco store, and the Chesham Arms is an office with an unauthorised flat. The initiative is being undermined.
My Bill would abolish the right of developers to appeal. There has been an inequity between communities and developers for too long. A report by Savills estate agents shows that 75% of all planning appeals for large housing developments are allowed after local councils have originally voted them down. My Bill proposes the simplest and cheapest solution, which is to abolish the right to override local authority decisions by appealing to a distant planning inspector. That would be good news for the Treasury, because we could abolish the Planning Inspectorate, saving £50 million a year.
I acknowledge that we need new homes, but paragraph 49 of the national planning policy framework should be amended to demand that developers must still meet local policy objectives, such as where a local authority seeks to prioritise development on brownfield sites before greenfield sites, and sweep away the nonsense of councils being unable to demonstrate a five-year land supply.
My Bill would also drop the requirement in the NPPF that local authorities should allocate an additional 20% buffer of deliverable housing sites. Developers can cause a 20% buffer to be required, rather than a 5% buffer, by under-delivering housing, so they are manipulating the system.
Debate:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm140430/debtext/140430-0001.htm
East Devon in top 10 local authorities for over 65’s
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27066299
but interestingly, that demographic has received very little attention in the draft Local Plan with much more emphasis on attracting or keeping young families in the area. Over 65’s are going to become the majority everywhere soon but very little adjustment seems to be being made, unlike in Germany.
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs028/1102142477435/archive/1103280952367.html
Newton Poppleford councillor to face EDDC Standards Committee on 15 May 2014
Councillor Salter was reported to police for not declaring a pecuniary interest in a planning application in Newton Poppleford. Police (who were quickly called in by EDDC unlike when Councillor Brown was exposed in the Daily Telegraph) declined to take the matter further. However, EDDC’s Monitoring Officer has decided to pursue the case against him:
Click to access standards_hearing_sub_committee_agenda_150514.pdf
One person’s “small” – up too 400 houses for Uplyme
Today there was a reference to a “small” development anticipated at the eastern boundary of East Devon.
Hallam Estate has put in a proposal to build up to 400 properties on green fields in AONB area in Uplyme, adjoining the A3052, near the Park & Ride parking area. This is in East Devon, but it is to allow expansion of Lyme Regis which is in Dorset.
Small? Wonder if Uplyme would agree? We shall see.
The Pebblebed Heath: who cares?
There are three environmental sites of European significance on either side of the Exe: Dawlish Warren; the Exe Estuary and the Pebblebed Heath. These sites are so special that local authorities have a legal duty to ensure no adverse effects occur from increased recreational demand as a result of new developments. Putting it crudely a way has to be found to stop members of the public visiting these site as frequently as they do as there will be a lot more people around. This concerns not just dog walkers, it includes recreational use of the Exe Estuary for activities like kite surfing!
A little known study called the South-east Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy was published in June 2013. It weighs in at 243 pages and can be found here:
http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/plg_sedevoneuropeansitemitigationstrategy.pdf
Our correspondent has extracted the following salient points but no doubt there is more to be gleaned.
It is thought that around 30,000 new homes (this is last year so is probably an underestimate by now) are likely to be built close enough to affect these sites. The study looks at the suite of mitigation measures that will be necessary ranging from “soft” measures and “proactive” work with local resident to enforcement. In other words things like fencing and car park charging cannot be ruled out. While mitigation measures might seek to control or limit access in some areas, the overall aim is to enhance the existing recreation experience and provide opportunities such that access and nature conservation interests are not in conflict.
One of the main measures suggested in the report is the creation of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) to divert visitors to somewhere less sensitive. The current guidance provided by Natural England is that SANGs may be created from:
• existing open space of SANGs quality with no existing public access or limited public access, which for the purposes of mitigation could be made fully accessible to the public
• existing open space which is already accessible but which could be changed in character so that it is more attractive to the specific group of visitors
• land in other uses which could be converted into a SANGs
EDDC have already put forward initial plans for expansion and enhancement of the Clyst Valley and in the “Valley Parks” around Exmouth. Two areas within the “Valley Parks” are considered which follow the Littleham and Withycombe Brooks but they also include links to the South West Coast Path and the surrounding countryside (including East Devon Way and proposed cycle way routes towards Budleigh Salterton).
However EDDC have now shot themselves in the foot as reported on page 121 of the report:
“At the time of finalising this report, it has transpired that planning permission for residential development has been given by East Devon District Council on land that forms part of the Exmouth Valley Parks. This matter requires urgent resolution with the identification of alternative SANGs provision for the Exmouth area to replace that now being lost to development. The alternative provision will need to be identified and costed in order to finalise the overall calculations for SANGs provision and the resultant tariff placed on new development.”
The Clyst Valley Park proposal remains but we are fast running out of greenspace in East Devon. So EDDC may have difficulty in fulfilling their legal obligations.
Indicative costs for mitigation, including what Teignbridge and Exeter will have to do, come to £20M. The suggestion is that this will in part have to be funded by a levy on all development within some 7km to 8km of each of these sites.
So maybe EDDC should not have dismissed out of hand last year’s proposal from Dorset to create a new National Park – see article for 5 June on SIN:
http://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com/?s=national+park&submit=Search
At what stage are all Local Plans?
The excellent Mr Freeman assked an interesting question of the Planning Inspectorate and received an admirably concise response on the whatdotheyknow website recently:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/local_plans_status#incoming-509480
OK, EDDC, let’s see you talk your way out of this one!
NEW TRANSPARENCY CODE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT JUST PUBLISHED
The link to the document is here
Click to access Local_Government_Transparency_Code_2014_Final.pdf
Local authorities must publish all information they hold unless there is a compelling reason not to, the Government has suggested.
That principle has been laid down by the Department for Communities and Local Government in its new Local Government Transparency Code, which said local authorities should see data as a valuable resource not only to themselves, but also their partners and local people.
“In principle all data held and managed by local authorities should be made available to local people unless there are specific sensitivities (eg. protecting vulnerable people or commercial and operational considerations) to doing so,” the code says.
The DCLG said three principles had guided the development of the code (which applies in England only):
Demand led: “there are growing expectations that new technologies and publication of data should support transparency and accountability. It is vital that public bodies recognise the value to the public of the data they hold, understand what they hold, what their communities want and then release it in a way that allows the public, developers and the media to use it”;
Open: “provision of public data should become integral to local authority engagement with local people so that it drives accountability to them. Its availability should be promoted and publicised so that residents know how to access it and how it can be used. Presentation should be helpful and accessible to local people and other interested persons”; and
Timely: “the timeliness of making public data available is often of vital importance. It should be made published as soon as possible following production even if it is not accompanied with detailed analysis.”
Part 2 of the code sets out information which must be published (and is “recommended practice for parish councils whose gross annual income or expenditure – whichever is the higher – does not exceed £6.5m”).
Quarterly publication is required for expenditure exceeding £500, for Government Procurement Card transactions and details of every invitation to tender for contracts to provide goods and/or services with a value that exceeds £5,000, together with any contract, commissioned activity, purchase order, framework agreement and any other legally enforceable agreement, also with a value that exceeds £5,000.
Annual publication is required for certain information in nine data sets, including local authority land, grants to voluntary bodies and senior salaries.
Part 3 of the code meanwhile sets out areas where the DCLG suggests local authorities should go beyond the minimum compulsory requirements set out and are recommended to make information public.
These cover data in relation to: expenditure, procurement, land, parking, grants, fraud and organisation chart.
The code includes an annex summarising, in a table, all information to be published.
EDDC’s “sort of” plan to “sort of” end up with a Local Plan and EDA response
As a defence for its incompetent handling of the draft Local Plan, EDDC’s explanation begs more questions than it answers.
“Vice chairman of the East Devon Alliance campaign group, John Witherington, said: “East Devon is caught between the hammer of Exeter city and the anvil of West Dorset and should be fighting for every bit of countryside it has rather than allow it to be nibbled away by neighbouring authorities.
“It is disappointing not to see a date by which the council will have laboured day and night to complete it by so it can be returned to the inspector – given that until a plan is approved the countryside is vulnerable.”
Councillors on the council’s Development Management Committee are due to approve the action plan on Thursday, May 8.
Read more: http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/East-Devon/story-21063209-detail/story.html#ixzz310fD7WJx
Boles told to apologise to Tory MP who says he will lose his seat because of his planning policies
And he’s only worried about 150 houses! Here in East Devon we are already in the thousands.
Hugo Swire should be VERY worried – though he has hardly been in the UK recently because of his Foreign Office trips so maybe he hasn’t noticed much.
Boles says “Sue your council if they don’t give you a plot of land to build on”
Whose tail wags which dog and why?
On. planning lawyer’s blog there is a rant about how difficult local authorities make it to have planning applications validated – with rigid checklists that do not always suit the type of application being made.
Be that as it may, one of the comments says it all for us poor proles trying to ensure that dodgy developers don’t shirk their responsibilities:
Dr Anton Lang MRTPI said…
Hear, hear. As the someone who actually stood up to this nonsense and ended up at a judicial review leading to the revised Guidance on Validation having to be issued, I applaud you for keeping this matter alive. The guidance has not gone far enough and local authorities still ask for a gamut of unnecessary supporting information they do not really need, nor understand. Roll back the actual legislation and make everything simpler and at the applicant’s discretion. The tail has been wagging the dog for too long. The lpas [local planning authorities] are there to serve the applicants and NOT the other way round.
So now we know!
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8170718846507476773&postID=7411782539593349100&isPopup=true
And now developers could control land disputes
And guess which councils head the list for large planning applications
Using the map, take a look at East Devon and South Somerset compared to surrounding areas.
Now, what do East Devon and South Somerset have in common? That’s right, they share a Chief Executive and do not have agreed Local Plans – though one is Lib Dem controlled (South Somerset) and one is Tory controlled (East Devon) and each blames the opposition and NIMBYs for the messes they are in!
Mr Thickett replies about Cranbrook Community Infrastructure Levy
The letter is here:
Click to access cilletterno2.pdf
Whilst it is somewhat technical it would appear that the shopping centre planned for Cranbrook will be affected by this basic disagreement about calculations that will need to be paid by developers.
Good job Hugo Swire doesn’t live in Feniton
Though perhaps if he did things might move more quickly:
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/news/sewage_shock_for_parading_sidmouth_scouts_1_3583348
The plot Thicketts
So what has been EDDC’s response to Mr Thickett’damning criticism of a Local Plan that has been years in the making, and yet is still found to be “unsound”?
The answer lies in the papers for the Development Management Committee (DMC) meeting to be held on 8 May. It’s a disappointing read, studiously avoiding commitment to a target date for the delivery of a revised Local Plan.
The paper acknowledges the need to work closer with West Dorset, to ensure that housing needs are met cross-border. (Too bad it took Mr Thickett to point out that the draft Local Plan seemed to have forgotten to do this.) The paper also volunteers that East Devon will have to help solve the housing needs of Exeter City as well.
However, rather than defend its turf, the turf of a district of which about two-thirds is to be found in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the paper makes no attempt to avoid being caught between the hammer of Exeter and the anvil of West Dorset.
Why is EDDC not fighting its corner? “There is some, though maybe limited scope, to question the appropriateness of continuation of accommodating part of Exeter generated development needs in East Devon and indeed to consider capacity constraints and limitations in the District overall”. Damn right, etc.
The paper continues, “it is not clear how such capacity limits could be modelled and established”. Has anyone tried? A Duty to Co-operate should not mean rolling over and giving away countryside to our neighbours.
Elsewhere there is more to worry about. The villages Development Plan Document is to be put on the back burner, and the methodology used to calculate growth in villages – a blanket 5%, dismissed as too crude a tool by Thickett – is to be re-evaluated. Villages of East Devon beware!
One might have thought that EDDC would be anxious to have monthly updates, a transparent assessment of how close it was hitting housing numbers. Not a bit of it – the best the paper can do is generously offer to review the position not annually, but twice a year. Why not for each meeting of the DMC? Given that EDDC recently approved c.750 houses in Pinhoe and 300 for Gittisham, how much further do we have to go before East Devon can breathe a sigh of relief?
There is one final issue which should give East Devon cause for concern, and that is Thickett’s observation that the Council did not have a Gypsy and Traveller plan in place. Nine sites will have to be found, and none have been put forward by landowners or agents. (Now there’s a surprise!)
While the DMC paper seemingly believes that reconvened hearing sessions for a revised draft could be complete by October – but this is only if significant changes are not required – the vagueness elsewhere in the paper, and the job of work to on the Gypsy and Traveller plan makes this aspiration look very optimistic indeed.
Police Commissioners “on probation”
And some pertinent comments that might also apply to local government:
East Devon Watch 