Some possible clues are in the recording of last week’s Development Management Committee (DMC) meetings. Cllr Ray Bloxham (who recently led the move to restrict public speaking) exceeds his (5 minutes?) speaking time, and when Chair Helen Parr tries to intervene he does not stop straight away.
It is item number 11 starting at 9m10s. Helen Parr intervenes at 14.50 and he carries on until 15.12. Here is the link http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/dev_man_290714recording.htm
East Devon Watch 
When Cllr Ray Bloxham quoted a comment on Claire Wright’s blog that called him Ray “gasbag” Bloxham, he was quoting me. So you might expect me to support what has been said on this blog, only on this occasion I don’t!!!
According to the timings, it appears that he spoke for a couple of seconds over 6 minutes – instead of the 5 minutes allotted. Whilst it is certainly regrettable that Cllr Bloxham doesn’t have the self-discipline to stick to the rules – especially given his strongly held beliefs that the time given to public speaking needs to be tightly restricted – I don’t think that 6 minutes instead of 5 is sufficient to justify the “gasbag” tag again.
What I think is more important is whether Cllr. Bloxham spent the 6 minutes expounding a carefully thought through and insightful argument that moved the debate forward, or whether he wasted it repeating what he or others had already said or, worse, repeating or even reading from the written material already supplied.
So here is my summary of what he said and how long he took to say it and what he could have said instead. I apologise in advance for the length of this (which is in proportion to the amount of words spoken by Cllr Bloxham), however the transcript is needed to illustrate the analysis and summary at the end, but you can of course scroll past the transcript to the analysis at the end if you wish:
=======================================
9:12s – 9:44s – “To mention firstly, that the photograph that was shown of the lane … erm … I have the same photograph and I think that members do as well. It was rather narrowed in that picture … er … and that’s really not a true representation of the width of the lane. It’s actually in some way, the way the picture was put on the screen its narrowed the actual frame of the picture and the lane is actually wider than it appears in that. And certainly if you look at the picture I’ve got, which is the same photograph that was sent out to all of us, it is a much more accurate representation of the picture.”
I think he could have said
“The picture just shown makes the lane look narrower than it is and the hardcopy version we all have is more realistic.”
9:44s – 10:26s – “I just want to talk about the point that … erm … that the planning manager made about … er … the use of the lane in terms of would people walk along it and … er … the impact of that on policy. Erm. I just want to read one sentence from .. erm … a planning inspector’s decision that came out yesterday overturning a refusal in my ward about access to a site. And he said, ‘Despite the fact that lanes are narrow and unlit, I do not find that this relatively short route would be a deterrent to pedestrians and cyclists.’ That was a comment made by the planning inspector overturning a decision yesterday made in East Devon in my ward.”
(Fortunately he was not a panelist on Just a Minute because that was definitely repetition!!)
I think he could have said
“We need to be mindful that the planning inspector just overturned a refusal made by us on the grounds that access lanes were narrow and unlit.”
10:26s – 13:01s – “The other issues here … erm … that … er … Mr Freeman has outlined … erm … in relation to this application which is … er … an application for a site which is along a lane in sporadic development just on the edge of and outside the village boundary … erm … but there are other houses along this lane which you will have seen on the plan. But again, I want to quote a couple of points to you: … erm … this is a quote … erm … from another application which I will come back to in a minute. It says ‘This boundary cannot carry significant weight’ – it is talking about the (something) boundary. It says that ‘the council does not have a 5-year housing land supply and such housing restraint policies cannot carry significant weight. However the boundary is indicative, at this stage, of a settlement that is reasonably sustainable and where further development is permitted.’ But the main point here ‘The location of the development just outside the boundary does not in this case mean that the site is any less sustainable than sites within the boundary and thus the principle is that development of this site is considered to be acceptable.’ And … er … a little bit more on that application because it relates to … er … an appeal … erm … which is very relevant to this application. ‘It would be appear….’ … er … this is a planning inspector speaking. ‘It would appear to be illogical and inconsistent to take a view that small scale developments of no more than a few houses cannot be supported in principle where they have the same or similar levels of access to the available services and facilities as those within the built-up-area boundary.’ In the particular application he is talking about, he said ‘There are no existing facilities in the village.’ (and I’ll talk about Woodbury Salterton in a minute), ‘however in a recent appeal decision relating to proposals for the development of a single dwelling on the NE side of the settlement the inspector considered that the site which was located at its closest point about 70m from the built-up area boundary did not occupy an isolated position, and considered that the proposal would amount to an infilling a gap within already developed frontage despite the sporadic nature of the existing development along the road.’ Those 3 quotes that I’ve given you, are 70-odd pages further on in your papers, relating to an application in Ebford, that has no facilities whatsoever, and that application is recommended for approval. Erm. So I just want to draw that distinction in terms of the way that we approach these applications.”
I think he could have said
“We need to be mindful, yet again, that without a 5-year housing land supply, any development that is sustainable may need to be approved even if it is outside the existing built-up area boundary. We also need to be mindful to remain consistent with the application in Ebford that we will be reviewing later today and which is recommended for approval, and may want to bear in mind some of the comments in that application.”
13:02s – 13:19s – “In terms of the doormice and the visibility display, I think Mr Freeman is exactly right, these are matters for later if this matter is approved as a matter of principle in terms of development, those matters will come forward under the reserved matters application and should be considered there. I don’t think they’re grounds for refusal on their own here.”
I think he could have said
“On the doormice and visibility, I agree with Mr Freeman that we should leave these as reserved matters.”
13:20s – 13:57s – “But lets look at the sustainability of this site. In terms of the social sustainability, the application, although it’s in outline, its been made very clear by the applicant that this is for a whole lifetime house. Erm. The application, if approved, would allow this family to remain in a village, a village that they have lived in for a long time, a village that they contribute to as part of the social scene, and its socially sustainable that they be allowed to remain in the village by actually being able to move into a house that they can exist in into their older age.”
I think he could have said:
“I support this application as socially sustainable, allowing a long-time village family to remain the the village into their old age.”
13:58s – 14:28s – “In terms of the … erm … economic and … erm … environmental sustainability, this site is within walking distance of the village and it is actually correct that people walk along this lane, Stoney Lane. The site is across the other side of the lane from 18 new houses that were built recently, and is the site again across the other side of that lane where we expect a substantial planning application to come in which has already been consulted publicly so that is a matter of public record.”
I think he could have said:
“18 new houses were recently built opposite so this will not be isolated development, and it is within walking distance of the village so it is environmentally sustainable.”
14:28s – 14:52s – “The village has a village hall, a school, a pub which has got an excellent restaurant, its got playing fields which have just had a £26,000 upgrade approved, erm, its on a bus route through the village, which you can walk to the bus route which serves Exeter, Exmouth, Exeter International Airport, one can walk or cycle to the Greendale Farm Shop where you can get pretty much anything to sustain one’s life these days…”
If the village wanted formal advertising, then Ray is clearly your man for the script writing. Either that or he is ready for a job as a local bus driver.
Oh – and Ray’s definition of the key planning term “sustainability” is based on what you can or cannot get at the Greendale Farm Shop. We need to get this definition into the NPPF immediately.
I think he could have said:
“The local facilities are also reasonably rounded and sustainable.”
(At this point the Chairman interrupted to point out how long he had been speaking.)
14:54s – “Two more points if I may Chairman…” – we’ll count them shall we?
14:56s – “This is important.” We shall see.
15:00s – 15:12s – “There was a cycleway going into Greendale Farm Shop which will have access, and you can also walk to Greendale Business Park with over a thousand jobs. So I think that this is a sustainable location, and that is the point that I really wanted to make to you which is the main point of this application,”
I think he could have said:
“Whilst this application is only for one house, the location is economically sustainable because it is also within walking or cycling distance of Greendale Business Park which supports over 1000 jobs.”
And it was one more point not two. And his point probably was important – in which case he would have got it across much, much more succinctly and with considerably more impact if he hadn’t waffled.
========================================================
I think my version makes the same points more succinctly, and in perhaps 1m 30s (or a quarter the time Ray actually took). If this was typical of the oft quoted 11hr DMC meeting, it would have taken perhaps 3 hrs instead, and they could all have been back home in time for lunch.
So perhaps the “gasbag” tag is indeed justified again. And what does this analysis really say about the necessity of Cllr Bloxham’s public speaking restrictions?
LikeLike