Not sure that I understand the reference to “Scorched Earth”, but what a damning indictment of the current EDDC leadership.
I have raised a FoI request asking for information relating to this, but of course I doubt that EDDC will release any claiming confidentiality or other trite and pathetic excuses.
P.S. I guess it answers the question posed by the previous article “What happens to ‘section 106′ money?” the answer being that EDDC mid-administer it and end up having to return it to the developers. What a farce!!
Item 8 of the latest DMC meeting (3rd June; http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/combined_dmc_agenda_030614items1-8.pdf) shows that EDDC are trying to prevent similar controversy in future by proposing that changes to s.106 agreements (deeds of variation) can be delegated to officers to deal with. Quite how the people of Ottery would react to the suggestion that loss of 50% of their open space money is ‘minor’ or ‘inconsequential’, I do not know, and the fact this was proposed in June’s meeting suggests that in Ottery’s case the changes were approved without delegated authority – surely maladministration? The summary of decisions from that meeting does not tell us whether this proposal was voted through or not. Does anyone know how this relates to/differs from the previous proposal to allow officers to amend s.106 agreements, which was discussed at a recent DMC meeting? Sounds very similar to me, but it seems they have spotted a loophole that they are now desperately trying to close.
If EDDC really wanted to help communities rather than developers, they could cite the precedent of Millgate vs. Wokingham, where it was adjudged that if a developer happily signs up to an obligation associated with a particular development, it is enforceable even of it later comes to light that they could have got away with less. Yes, as they state, the developer could simply resubmit the application to try to gain more favourable terms, but this would have an associated cost and delay, which might make some think twice. Instead, EDDC as always prefer the option of rolling over and pandering to the developers at every opportunity.
East Devon Watch 
Not sure that I understand the reference to “Scorched Earth”, but what a damning indictment of the current EDDC leadership.
I have raised a FoI request asking for information relating to this, but of course I doubt that EDDC will release any claiming confidentiality or other trite and pathetic excuses.
LikeLike
Scorched earth is when a retreating army destroys everything on its way out.
LikeLike
P.S. I guess it answers the question posed by the previous article “What happens to ‘section 106′ money?” the answer being that EDDC mid-administer it and end up having to return it to the developers. What a farce!!
LikeLike
Item 8 of the latest DMC meeting (3rd June; http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/combined_dmc_agenda_030614items1-8.pdf) shows that EDDC are trying to prevent similar controversy in future by proposing that changes to s.106 agreements (deeds of variation) can be delegated to officers to deal with. Quite how the people of Ottery would react to the suggestion that loss of 50% of their open space money is ‘minor’ or ‘inconsequential’, I do not know, and the fact this was proposed in June’s meeting suggests that in Ottery’s case the changes were approved without delegated authority – surely maladministration? The summary of decisions from that meeting does not tell us whether this proposal was voted through or not. Does anyone know how this relates to/differs from the previous proposal to allow officers to amend s.106 agreements, which was discussed at a recent DMC meeting? Sounds very similar to me, but it seems they have spotted a loophole that they are now desperately trying to close.
If EDDC really wanted to help communities rather than developers, they could cite the precedent of Millgate vs. Wokingham, where it was adjudged that if a developer happily signs up to an obligation associated with a particular development, it is enforceable even of it later comes to light that they could have got away with less. Yes, as they state, the developer could simply resubmit the application to try to gain more favourable terms, but this would have an associated cost and delay, which might make some think twice. Instead, EDDC as always prefer the option of rolling over and pandering to the developers at every opportunity.
LikeLike