East Devon Alliance response to EDDC Deputy Director Richard Cohen’s press release and some background information

The EDDC Press Release is linked in the post below.

EDA Response:

“The East Devon Alliance notes with disappointment that the recent Briefing for Editors by EDDC does nothing at all to address the issues that really matter. EDDC is still unable to give a date for delivery of the Local Plan and the SHMA, relying instead on patronising assurances that all will be well. The crucial Local Plan, promised for two years ago, now seems unlikely to be agreed before next summer. How much more vulnerable East Devon countryside will be lost while the Council dithers?”

And if anyone wishes to reassure themselves that these are not new problems, please read pages 10 to 21 of the document below:  a damning report by the Planning Advisory Service in 2009, commissioned by EDDC when they realised that their first Local Plan project was not going to plan:

PAS report 2009

Also refer to a post on the Sidmouth Independent News of 31 January 2013 which identified many of the issues brought up by Mr Thickett, the Planning Inspector, when he threw out the latest Local Plan in March 2014:

Interesting that the potential problems with the 5 year land supply were all highlighted HERE [Note this reference has since been removed from the EDDC website] in July 2009 in the report of a Task and Finish Forum on 5 year land supply and that everything negative that was predicted in this document has come to pass.  Here are a few extracts:

1. Our assessment of our District wide figures shows that we have only just over five years availability. An Inspector at a planning application appeal could take the view that this is close enough to the five year threshold to side with an applicant/dismiss our arguments.
2. The District wide five year figure is based on our assessment and assumptions we have made. A developer might challenge these and come to a different conclusion (i.e. that land supply falls under five years) and persuade an Inspector that his/her evaluation is the more accurate.
3. Circumstances change and assessment/s done at the present time (and initially in 2008) can and will be out of date in the future.

4.  In the past we had intentionally split the District in to two, 1. the West End and 2. the Rest of East Devon. ….. It is now considered, however, that it is more appropriate to have a single 5 year housing figure for ACROSS THE WHOLE DISTRICT. This will give the Council the ability to deliver housing outside the West End which will encompass not only the Towns but villages too.

 

 

 

Back in the EDDC ….

The latest outbreak of foot in mouth disease to hit the EDDC – turmoil surrounding the absence of a Local Plan and Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) – has seemingly roused from his slumbers Deputy Chief Executive Richard Cohen. In a Press Release – er, sorry,

SHMA briefing for editors and members 27 Aug final

he provides a guide to recent events that might just as well have been subtitled ‘Everything is Under Control – Honest!”.

Readers will be fascinated to learn that, while the draft Local Plan envisaged 15,000 more homes for East Devon and recent independent research estimates a figure closer to 11,358 …. this is not enough for the economic powerhouse that is East Devon. In keeping with Cllr Paul Diviani’s interview on Radio Devon the other day – a contribution composed chiefly of stumbling ineptitude, the only incontrovertible fact being that he refused twice to answer the question when the Local Plan might be ready – the implication would appear to be that EDDC is hellbent on allowing as many houses on the East Devon countryside as it can get away with. Hence the ‘Briefing for Editors’ writing evangelically about the “explosion of activity .. at the Growth Point” where “new businesses can be expected to move into sites like SkyPark and Exeter Science Park”. That’d be the same Growth Point where Sainsburys was going to build a distribution centre creating hundreds of jobs, only to pull out earlier this month, right?

Consultants should have been putting together data to enable the SHMA to have been all but finished by this stage. But doubting Thomases will be reassured by Mr Cohen’s assurance that “our consultants will now continue with the work required to fully evidence housing need into the future.” Um, “now continue”? So what have they been doing previously? Knitting? And just when will the SHMA finally see the light of day?

The document ‘Briefing for Editors’ belongs more to the days of Pravda than the Knowle. Next up, expect a statement from Mr Cohen that EDDC can look forward to record tractor production and grain harvest in 2015.

“Right to Contest” use of Government property

It’s a bit odd, but below is a toolkit which lists various types of public property where, if you think that is is redundant or could be put to better use and the government agrees, it will go up for sale.

The scale and type of property in our area is astonishing from, for example, a single-office room in Honiton to its (redundant surely) Magistrates Court, to a house in Exmouth and everything inbetween!

https://www.gov.uk/find-government-property

“The ‘Right to Contest’ guidance says that anyone – including businesses, local authorities or members of the public – can issue a challenge.
This is as long as they believe that all the following apply:

Where the land is owned by a central government department or one of their arms’ length bodies, the site: is potentially surplus or redundant; could be put to better economic use, “eg for housing or to help businesses develop or expand”.

The right can be used to challenge central government sites which are in use, as long as the challenger thinks that operations could be moved to a different location.

Where land is owned by a local authority or certain other public bodies: the site is empty or under-used; there are no plans to bring it back into use.”

Hmmmm …..!

Source: http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19745:government-property-finder-tool-launched-in-bid-to-increase-use-of-right-to-contest&catid=58&Itemid=26

An interesting First Tier Tribunal (Information) case with “public interest” requirements

Not quite the same as EDDC but with some interesting similarities:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/when-councils-shroud-their-deals-with-private-developers-in-secrecy-you-get-the-feeling-somethings-up-9161072.html

and the decision:

http://35percent.org/blog/2014/05/10/foi-appeal-decision/

The full official decision notice is here:

http://ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2013/fer_0461281.ashx

and includes the following pertinent paragraphs:

“In relation to the disposal of the council’s land, land which would previously have been a public resource which provided council housing for significant numbers of residents, there is a public interest in knowing that the decision to sell this resource to a private company was based on a sound evaluation of relevant factors and represented good value and an effective use of a public resource. Disclosure of the requested information would provide the public with the same level of detail available to the council in its decision making which, in turn, would facilitate public engagement with the scheme and provide reassurance that the council gave due consideration to the relevant factors.

The Commissioner accepts that it is in the public interest for authorities to secure best value when disposing of assets and that, in the current economic climate, this presents particular difficulties. It is arguable, therefore, that the council should be allowed to progress the regeneration without this process being jeopardised. However, the Commissioner is also mindful that, given the fact that the asset in question is a public resource and that Lend Lease is a private company which stands to profit from the regeneration, there is a compelling, countervailing argument in favour of making this process as transparent as possible. Whilst it may be that the regeneration will free council resources which were previously tied up with maintaining the Heygate Estate, the Commissioner considers that size of the redevelopment and the number of residents affected should provide a trigger for transparency and engagement with council tax payers.

The Commissioner further considers that, as the planning authority responsible for adjudicating on Lend Lease’s planning application (which the viability assessment was created to accompany) and the authority responsible for the significant land disposal associated with the scheme, there is a further argument for a high level of scrutiny to be directed to the council’s actions. Whilst the Commissioner is not suggesting that there is a conflict of interests in play, the public perception that a public authority might be subject to such a conflict and the potential damage to an authority’s reputation which might ensue provides an argument in favour of transparency and disclosure. The Commissioner considers that disclosure in this case would address the general mismatch between the resources of the developer and those of residents directly affected by the scheme and council tax payers within the borough.

The Commissioner notes that an independent report published by Spinwatch alleges that the council’s consultation with the local community was deficient and raises concerns about the relationship between the council and Lend Lease26. Whilst the Commissioner does not endorse the veracity of these conclusions, he considers that the reputation of public institutions and their legitimacy and effectiveness in carrying out their role can be damaged by public perceptions. As it is not in the public interest for public authorities’ actions to be perceived or potentially constrained by such perceptions, disclosure would provide reassurance about the council’s conduct and would serve the interest in transparency and accountability.

The Commissioner considers that the significant expenditure of public funds, the need for public reassurance, confidence and engagement with the council’s decision making in relation to the scheme, the disquiet about the levels of affordable housing which will be delivered and concerns about the value for money provided by the disposal of public land combine to produce a heavy public interest weighting in favour of disclosing the information.

Gushing praise from EDDC leader for developer

From a commentator below:

Surely no-one would dare to suggest Cllr Diviani would put the interests of property developers before the interests of his constituents?! Oh, hang on…

http://www.cgfry.co.uk/news/27/Withycombe+House+Officially+Opened

In all seriousness, it is, I suppose, legitimate for a local dignitary to open a new housing development. However, in the current circumstances, is it really appropriate for the leader of EDDC to be quite so gushing in his praise for developers?

“It was a pleasure to be part of the ribbon cutting ceremony and see first-hand the quality of workmanship undertaken to restore Withycombe House. Family owned independent developer C G Fry has shown us once again how they use their extensive experience in listed buildings by taking a landmark building and restoring it to its former glory to create high quality and bespoke homes with the surrounding area. We have worked with C G Fry in the past, most recently they developed the Devon and Cornwall scheme at Holmdale, Sidmouth, a site that was owned by the council.”