Re the Premier Inn planning application:
“District councillor Phil Twiss echoed concerns over the impact on major ‘gateway’ in and out of the town and that the Turks Head junction was already ‘over capacity’.
Would that be with or without the extra 300 houses just agreed at DMC where it seemed to be of little concern to those DMC members who passed it?
Interesting to read what was planned for Skypark in 1987:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1662000
So far we have a gas-fired power station for district heating, and an ambulance service HQ … oh, and an EDDC HQ.
Lovely.
East Devon Alliance’s Submission to the Communities and Local Government Inquiry into the Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework
A. Executive Summary
The East Devon Alliance, its aims and its concerns about the application of the NPPF in the district.
Members’ views on the Cambridge report.
The actions we believe Parliament should take to redress the bias and the damaging effects of the current NPPF.
B. East Devon Alliance
1. The East Devon Alliance is a voluntary, non-party-political, not-for-profit organisation, bringing together communities from across the district of East Devon. Its purpose is to conserve, for future generations, our priceless environmental assets. At the same time it supports appropriate development for housing and employment, especially for local people, so that East Devon remains a flourishing and vibrant place.
We are deeply concerned at the excessive growth projections threatening our towns, villages, countryside, heritage and tourist industry. Many green spaces – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, “green wedges”, high-grade agricultural land, public parkland, and allotments – are being turned into housing estates that are out of character and scale with the surrounding location. Speculative building on green spaces is not delivering low-cost homes for local people. All too oftensuch building is not accompanied by the infrastructure necessary to produce the vibrant, sustainable environments called for by the NPPF.
The failure of East Devon District Council to set a Local Plan and to meet a 5 or 6-year land supply is a case in point. The NPPF’s presumption in favour of ill-defined “sustainable development” has inevitably tipped the balance in favour of developers, keen to build on open – and cheap – local countryside, causing widespread anger across local communities, and amongst Council-Tax payers whose voice has generally been ignored: material objections are being overridden in favour of housing numbers that have been described by many as “fanciful”.
Deficiencies and a perceived lack of transparency by East Devon District Council has led to a situation where many believe inappropriate development to be an inevitable consequence. These faults – and the influence upon the Local Plan by a former developer Councillor, who had direct influence on the genesis of the draft Local Plan, and was exposed seemingly as a “Councillor-for-hire” by the Daily Telegraph”(March 11, 2013) – has contributed to a suspicion on the part of the public that planning in the district is “developer-led”. In such an environment, the pro-development stance of the NPPF affords the public no comfort.
In light of this, planning officers have recommended, and in almost all cases councillors have approved, massive housing applications across the west of the district in ribbon, green-wedge and green-belt developments on top-grade agricultural land of special landscape value and on flood plains. Elsewhere, across the whole district, numerous housing estates on Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty have been recommended by officers and approved by Council. Officers’ reasons for recommendation have routinely been the lack of a 5 or 6 year housing supply in the context of No Local Plan. As a result, we fear that the baleful influence of the NPPF will continue to encourage further destruction of the East Devon countryside.
The Localism Bill of 2011 has clearly not worked in East Devon, having failed to “give members of the public enough influence over decisions that make a big difference to their lives”. What happened to the promise that “local communities should have genuine opportunities to influence the future of the places where they live”(Localism Bill 2011)?
C. Comments on the Cambridge Report
1. Our members felt the Cambridge Report was biased towards planners and developers, with little or no account taken of the views of local communities and tax-payers who are not regarded as stakeholders. Localism is not working and Government Policy is dictating to Local Government.
2.The report is based on a presumption in favour of building and encourages Chief Executives, planning officers and elected members to be “pro-development” and therefore disregard material considerations such as the preservation of the green environment. The green environment includes flood plains, AONBs, high-grade agricultural land – and objections on these grounds are seen by the report merely as a “source of delay”.
3. Since, like many other umbrella organisations, we represent the views of and are concerned about the whole district and its future, we should not be labelled nimbys. We are in favour of appropriate development especially of genuinely affordable, low-cost housing and wish expenditure on infrastructure to be prioritised in favour of building on brownfield and windfall sites. We also maintain that the countryside has a value that is not properly recognised in the NPPF.
D. What we want the Government to do
recognise that the NPPF is flawed, biased in favour of developers and causing widespread resentment among local communities
recognise that the term “sustainable development” is highly ambiguous and can and has been used to support inappropriatedevelopment. Much greater weight should be given to the conservation of our heritage, ecology, carbon footprint and transport.
give much stronger protection to green areas of special value to local areas
give priority to developments on brownfield sites, offering incentives and bringing in legislation to enforce this
allow planning permissions for developments to be counted as part of the 5-year supply
recognise that housing numbers are “guesstimates”, not proven fact
recognise that in many areas localism is not working, local communities being denied a voice
recognise that the right-to-buy scheme and NPPF’s encouragement of building-for-building’s sake are contributing to a housing bubble
This is what the Parliamentary Standards Committee said about disgraced ex-MP Patrick Mercer who took cash for questions as published in the Daily Telegraph:
The investigation found Mr Mercer was ‘willing to use his parliamentary position for his own gain’ and readily signed an agreement for consultancy services but failed to register it or declare his interest when tabling relevant parliamentary questions
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2617840/Ex-Tory-MP-Patrick-Mercer-tried-abuse-hie-position-gain-worst-case-seen-Commons-watchdog.html#ixzz30aIX9098
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
and in The Guardian:
They reached this conclusion after finding he allowed payment to influence his actions in parliamentary proceedings, failed to declare his interests on appropriate occasions, failed to recognise that his actions were not in accordance with his expressed views on acceptable behaviour, repeatedly denigrated fellow MPs both individually and collectively, and used racially offensive language.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/01/patrick-mercer-tory-mp-worst-ever-breaches-rules
Localism a broken promise?
“The time has come to disperse power more widely in Britain today.”
Do you remember the Localism Bill of 2011 launched with a great fanfare as a key part of the coalition agreement in 2011 with the blessing of the PM and deputy PM? Here are extracts from the introduction to the Governments Guide to Localism published by Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, Minister of State for Decentralisation in June 2011.
“There are, however, some significant flaws in the planning system as it stands. Planning does not give members of the public enough influence over decisions that make a big difference to their lives. Too often, power is exercised by people who are not directly affected by the decisions they are taking. This means, understandably, that people often resent what they see as decisions and plans being foisted on them. The result is a confrontational and adversarial system where many applications end up being fought over.
The Localism Bill contains proposals to make the planning system clearer, more democratic, and more effective.”
“I also hope to see a debate in the wider country – among councils, community groups, volunteers, social activists and many more people – about how they can seize the opportunities this historic Bill represents, and use the rights and freedoms it offers to make a difference in their community.”
These proposals included the following.
Neighbourhood planning
“Instead of local people being told what to do, the Government thinks that local communities should have genuine opportunities to influence the future of the places where they live.”
“Neighbourhood planning will allow communities to come together through a local parish council or neighbourhood forum and say where they think new houses, businesses and shops should go – and what they should look like.”
“These neighbourhood development plans could be very simple, or go into considerable detail where people want.”
Requirement to consult communities before submitting very large planning applications
“To further strengthen the role of local communities in planning, the [Localism] Bill will introduce a new requirement for developers to consult local communities before submitting planning applications for very large developments. This will give local people a chance to comment when there is still genuine scope to make changes to proposals.”
Strengthening enforcement rules
“For people to have a real sense that the planning system is working for them, they need to know that the rules they draw up will be respected. The Localism Bill will strengthen planning authorities’ powers to tackle abuses of the planning system, such as making deliberately misleading planning applications.”
Reform the way local plans are made
“Local planning authorities play a crucial role in local life, setting a vision, in consultation with local people, about what their area should look like in the future. The plans local authorities draw up set out where new buildings, shops, businesses and infrastructure need to go, and what they should look like.”
“The Government thinks it is important to give local planning authorities greater freedom to get on with this important job without undue interference from central government. The Localism Bill will limit the discretion of planning inspectors to insert their own wording into local plans. It will also ensure that rather than focussing on reporting progress in making plans to central government, authorities focus on reporting progress to local communities.”
Is it now a footnote in history?
If you conduct a word search for “localism” in the NPPF you will find it nowhere in the main text only in footnotes 4 and 41, and once each in Annexes 1, 2 and 3!
Member of the public: what have you done in the last year for East Devon?
Candidate’s answer: Nothing
Being non-party-political we are unfortunately unable to identify him!
On the subject of councillors making rude remarks to other councillors (see Blue Murder below) which (long-serving) councillor used a totally disgusting racist phrase which has been excised from the audio recording of a recent public meeting but where you can still hear (if this is not also excised after this post) the audible gasps of horror from the public as he said it?
Alas, without the missing seconds, we cannot prove the existence of the words, which were far, far, worse than those made by Mrs Wragg.
Is excision appropriate in such a case?
Left hand and right hand not working in unison?
East Devon Watch 