Daily Archives: 17 Jun 2014
Matters of financial high risk
In response to our recent post* on the difficulties surrounding the Honiton Beehive project, an EDA member has provided the following information, and some comments.
‘http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/combined_agenda_141113.pdf (page 72)
An extract from the Audit & Governance Committee agenda of 14th November 2013 summarizes progress on The Beehive community centre at Honiton[1]. The advice was that, “surface water drainage provision would be needed to a higher standard than originally anticipated to reflect potential flooding issues, especially to neighbouring residential properties.”
“Honiton Town Council had not envisaged such costs in its original budgeting. EDDC officers from Property, Planning and Building Control met with HTC to assess the issue and determine a workable resolution. The various drainage scenarios and history of the issue were considered. The outcome was that, for the project build to proceed to a point where it could be signed off, a drainage infrastructure investment would be needed over and above the capacity of the existing fund. Therefore to cover the necessary works EDDC agreed by urgent verbal report to 12 June 2013 Cabinet (Part B) to fund a sum of up to 90% of a ceiling of £130,000. HTC will be expected to meet 10% of costs.”
“The reason for this urgency was that works would have to stop on the site construction and additional costs would be incurred by delay to contract. Without agreement to the provision of suitable drainage the building would not be signed off by Building Control and the planning condition not discharged. The building would therefore be uninsurable.”
_____________________________________________________________________________
Note: 90% of the £130,000 bill was picked up by EDDC ratepayers, only 10% by Honiton Town Council. If the Beehive project is deemed high risk, surely Skypark must be off the scale?
Does this inspire you with confidence for the future? For example, EDDC Councillors want the public to trust them with sale of The Knowle; plus sale of Manstone Depot; plus sale of East Devon Business Centre; plus sale of the SITA site at Honiton; ALL of these properties plus borrowing up to £4.8million, in order to construct one building, namely their new premises at Skypark? They have already spent or committed over £700,000 of OUR MONEY. To coin a phrase from the successful Feniton campaigners, “When is enough, enough?”
*http://eastdevonalliance.org/2014/06/16/if-honiton-town-council-is-deemed-a-financial-high-risk-for-beehive-what-will-skypark-do-to-eddc/
Skypark Parcel Depot: amazing how EDDC can get its act together when it tries!
Go to the Planning tab on the EDDC website (eastdevon.gov.uk) and type 14/0197 in the search box.
When that comes up, click on the Documents tab.
Then click on the Associated Comments link and then to the tab marked Consultees Comments.
It is AMAZING how EDDC can jump to it when it tries: erudite comments from lical councillors, many comments from the Contaminated Land Officer ( we have one?), the tree officer, environmental health – reams of comments.
And Exeter airport suddenly finds itself worried about night-time floodlighting for the building …..
Wonder how this might have panned out if EDDC were not planning to move there.
And have a look what Highways says: confirming no chance of diverting the number 4 bus but mentioning that it will only be a 24 minute walk each way from the new railway station.
Get those walking boots and hiking sticks ready on cold winter days!
A reader writes …
Eric Pickles has said that large solar farms and wind farms are not to his liking but has said nothing about the “small” ones referred to below:
Threat looms over everyone’s back yard – a cri de coeur fromCrediton.
Letter to the Editor, The Independent, 16 June:
We live under the shadow of a massive wind turbine application, overlooking rural hamlets that have been there for 1,000 years, with more than 50 listed buildings.
I can understand why some people would consider these things unimportant; that is a matter of opinion. However, when one looks at how the Government has established the planning rules for these constructions, the principle is very clear. These turbines can be put up anywhere unless “there is a very good reason not to”. Usually local people object, and in some cases the local councils refuse permission. The turbine developer then appeals to the Government, which usually agrees that there is no very good reason not to and permission is granted.
My belief is that when the question of forcing through wind turbine applications was first suggested, some bright politician said: “If we force this through, how many people will it really upset?” The answer came back “Well, they are all out in the country, spread out, probably throughout the UK about 50,000 very unhappy people”. So the bright politician responded: “Oh is that all? Well, if they all vote against us in a general election, it will make no difference to the result. Those people do not matter.”
Julian Pratt Crediton, Devon
Our reader responds:
The problem, Julian, is that most of us live in a safe constituency (Crediton is in the Central Devon constituency with a Conservative majority of 9230 or 52% of the vote). In safe constituencies, of whatever political colour, the voters are taken for granted. If the majority stay blindly loyal (as they tend to), their views on “minor” things such as building wind turbines in sensitive places, or development in AONB’s etc., can be safely ignored. (Other voters’ views can be disregarded anyway). The only way to be heard is to turn safe constituencies into unsafe ones or find a candidate who will put the interests of his or her electorate above those of career advancement within the party.As you say: “Those people do not matter”.
“More pain for struggling planning authorities”
http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/more-pain-for-struggling-planning.html
If this well-respected planning lawyer thinks we are in a mess, we probably are!
And the post gives a definitive answer to how long the maximum time is to process planning applucations and it isn’t eight weeks – the reason the EDDC DMC has used several times recently (including some for former EDBF members with big developments).
Newton Poppleford: appeal to develop Badger Close – dismissed with EDDC’s appeal for costs refused
The appeal document is here
http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?caseid=2211701&coid=41024
Royal Town Planning Institute mentions East Devon in its submission to Parliamentary review of NPPF
Development in Sustainable Locations?
The NPPF has emphasised the need for meeting a five-year housing supply. However the RTPI considers that a single-minded focus on one short-term criterion may be at risk of placing the country in difficulty over the long-term horizon and in the context of the sustainable planning for places the NPPF aspires to. To give one example the district of East Devon has promoted, along with government support (both past and present) the construction of a new town at Cranbrook east of Exeter. This settlement attracted thousands of objections but nevertheless the council pushed ahead in the knowledge that a planned new town close to road and rail communications and with its own infrastructure is a preferable planning outcome to the proliferation of small scale village extensions. Nevertheless any housing built after 5 years cannot count towards the 5-year supply despite the fact that the settlement will take longer than that to be completed. By contrast our housing policy paper [6]argues that in cases where large-scale housing is being promoted demonstrably and effectively, exceptions to the 5-year land supply rule should be allowed.
East Devon Watch 