Newton Poppleford resident Mark Coppell is one of many who wonders where the blame lies. Below is his letter to the Sidmouth Herald (23 July 2014).

Sir
I write in response to EDDC’s recent statement that the judicial review relating to the planning permission granted at King Alfred Way, Newton Poppleford, was conceded despite no fault being apportioned to the Council itself. Having first-hand experience of EDDC’s internal investigative procedures I am not in the least bit surprised they have reached this conclusion.
However, it would be interesting to know precisely whose fault do EDDC consider it to be that an extraneous and unlawful planning inducement was included in the draft Section 106 agreement before the application was heard at committee? Whose fault was it that, during the planning meeting, the council accepted the offer of a unilateral undertaking of the surgery, a form of planning obligation governed by the same regulations that made provision via section 106 unlawful?
The committee and legal team were recorded discussing making approval “subject to demonstration of a mechanism” to secure something, in full knowledge that it could not legally be secured. It was resolved to word the approval vaguely such that “everybody knows what needs to be done (provision of the surgery) but without making that issue (it being unlawful) raise its head”. If that was not the council’s fault, then who is to blame?
Even more curiously, if the council truly believed they had not erred and their position was defensible, who authorised the decision not to contest the judicial review, thereby costing £11k of taxpayers’ money?
Once again, in their statement, EDDC have adopted a defensive attitude towards the electorate, and are trying to absolve themselves of blame for their planning advice and decision-making being legally unsound. This whole episode suggests that the council are not sufficiently familiar with the regulations that govern planning matters and made a genuine but extraordinary mistake. The alternative explanation is that they have a flagrant disregard for such things when they interfere with awarding planning permission to a major landowner in whose thrall they appear to exist. I am not sure which option worries me to a greater extent.
District council planning and legal departments appear to be regulated either within house, or by those who once were in the profession. As a result they are effectively self-regulatory. Little wonder then, that they find it difficult to admit any wrong doing on their part as they are seldom held to account. It would appear the only regulation they are subject to is when legally challenged by members of the public, and this is only feasible for those with access to large funds of money. The loss of £11k to the taxpayer is highly regrettable and was utterly avoidable on EDDCs part. However, the risks taken by the public when challenging unlawful decisions are far greater proportionately and as such are not taken lightly. It was hoped that at the very least EDDC might offer some contrition and resolve to amend their practices in future. Alas not.
All in all this represents yet another shameful episode in EDDC’s recent history.
Matt Coppell