Daily Archives: 12 Jul 2014

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Jul 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Motion to curb public speaking at planning meetings, at next Full Council (23 July).

Today’s Opinion page in the Sidmouth Herald has this letter from an EDA member:

Sir,
The “democratic deficit”

The present Leader of East Devon District Council, when he was returned (unopposed) at the last district election, coined the above phrase, vowing to introduce greater democracy and transparency into local government.

So what has happened since?

Well, among countless other examples of secrecy and undemocratic procedures, the Council helped set up a business forum to promote the interests of their “customers” – no, not tax-payers but building developers. Then, after the Daily Telegraph’s exposure of “Councillor-for-hire”, Graham Brown, head of this Business Forum, the Council’s Chief Officer gagged the scrutiny committtee whose task it should have been to investigate the forum’s influence on planning.

Soon, too, on 23 July, Full Council is to vote on a motion to curb public speaking at planning meetings.

It is to be hoped that there will be a recorded vote at this meeting so that electors may know exactly which councillors voted to restrict the public’s fundamental right to freedom of speech.

Michael Temple,
Sidmouth

Further relevant information is on the Save Our Sidmouth website: http://saveoursidmouth.com/2014/07/07/eddc-decision-to-curb-public-speaking-is-imminent/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Jul 2014

Posted under

Neighbourhood Plans, NPPF

Civil servant’s holiday allows Neighbourhood Plan bungle allowing development without challenge

“It emerged an internal email from Mr Pickles’ office in Whitehall to his regional department in Bristol was missed because its receiver was on holiday – and that ultimately allowed a controversial development in north Wiltshire to go ahead.

The Appeal Court ruled the missed email ‘calling-in’ the controversial development meant building work had to go ahead – and now local politicians are saying the decision to allow the development undermines all communities trying to control development with Neighbourhood Plans.”

http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Eric-Pickles-resign-Wiltshire-planning-bungle/story-21452898-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Jul 2014

Posted under

COVOP, EDDC, Local Plan, NPPF

Comments

2 Comments

NPPF: it IS broke but they don’t i tend to fix it

Here is a summary from COVOP of the debate:

A debate on planning policy and the effects of the NPPF took place on 9th July 2014 in Westminster Hall.

The debate was chaired by Clive Betts ( L. Sheffield SE) and was answered by Planning Minister Nick Boles (C. Grantham). The following MPs took part:

Steven Baker (C. Wycombe), Guy Opperman (C. Hexham), Caroline Nokes (C.Romsey) Bob Russell (LD Colchester), Damien Hinds (C. East Hampshire)
Julian Sturdy (C. York Outer), Neil Carmichael (C. Stroud), Mark Menzies (C.Fylde), Andrew Bingham (C. High Peak), Laurence Robertson (C. Tewkesbury), Martin Horwood (LD Cheltenham), Anne-Marie Morris (C. Newton Abbot), Chris White (C. Warwick and Leamington Spa), Rebecca Harris (C. Castle Point), Andrew Turner (C. Isle of Wight), Jason McCartney (C. Colne Valley), Nick Herbert (C. Arundel & South Downs), William McCrea (DUP Antrim) and Roberta Blackman-Woods (L. Durham).

Although MP after MP presented a case for some reform of the current system and made it clear that they and their constituents felt that the NPPF was not working properly or as intended by the Localism Act, the Minister made it clear that he was not prepared to amend or reduce the power of the Inspectorate or the Developer Lobby. Those MPs who spoke, principally but not wholly from rural districts, made it clear that the effects in their constituencies were often perverse.

Mrs Blackman-Woods summarised the comments very fairly. Mr Boles believes that matters will be worse under a Labour Government and feels that he is representing all those people who aspire to live in a district but don’t do so. He intends to vote Conservative at the next election!

The debate makes interesting reading and many of the complaints made by this assortment of MPs, who are to be congratulated for the persistence with which they are attacking this issue, will be familiar to our members. Those of us whose members didn’t participate might wish to ask why?

For the full debate, see:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm140709/halltext/140709h0001.htm