Local Plan: do your research, agree the numbers – and then let developers change them!

From EDDC’s latest press release on the very, very delayed Local Plan:

The report to DMC explains that once consultants have provided a full SHMA report that addresses all the issues,

an industry workshop should be held to consult with housebuilders before a final report can be produced and agreed with all of the commissioning authorities.”

i.e. AFTER the numbers have been decided (presumably taking necessary growth into account) developers will be allowed to change them! Can you honestly see any developer saying “Yeah, that looks about right” or “Oh, no, that’s far too much”!

It’s like a Bank Manager giving a burglar the keys to the vault and asking him to count the money!

A correspondent points out this is a central government initiative not a local one – which doesn’t improve matters one bit!

Source:
http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/communications_and_consultation.htm?newsid=1174

Budleigh Salterton Car Park – questions needing answers

This comment was recieved to the last entry about the car park at Budleigh Salterton. Recall that EDDC has told the town council that they should either pay massively more rent for this asset or it EDDC will take it back under its control. The car park originally belonged to the earlier urban district council and Budleigh Salterton Town Council has maintained it so that parking in it can be without charge to motorists parking there:

The comment is from Angela Yarwood, a local resident and businesswoman:

“As far as we are aware, the points in the attached excerpt (and others in the deed) from title no DN349560 pertaining to the land including the Station Road ‘FREE’ carpark are as follows. This doesn’t appear to bear any resemblance to that sited from EDDC in response to the FOI request from Mr Freeman regarding the same…(section (c) below)

Could we hope that somebody informed, unbiased and in authority from EDDC would explain here to the posts above, rather than us having to pick up pieces from the press, blogs, uninformed councillors, rumour etc..

…and bear in mind that although ‘owned’ by EDDC, the vast majority of the upkeep of the Station Road carpark has been paid for by the Town, and not from EDDC funds.

Schedule of restrictive covenants

1 The following are details of the covenants contained in the Conveyance dated 22 April 1947 referred to in the Charges Register:-
“The Council on behalf of itself and its successors in title owner or owners for the time being of the land hereby conveyed hereby covenants with the Grantor his successors in title owner or owners for the time being of the adjoining lands of the Grantor and as a separate covenant with the Grantor henceforth to observe and perform the covenants and conditions particulars whereof are set forth in the Second and Third Schedules hereto respectively.

THE SECOND SCHEDULE
COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE LAND FIRSTLY DESCRIBED IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE

(a) The Council shall keep the hereditaments hereby in the First part of the First Schedule hereto described save such part thereof as shall be laid out and kept for the playing of bowls tennis croquet putting or any other game for which space shall be provided by the Council requiring the provision of a special court lawn or green in good order as public playing fields or open space park and pleasure ground for the free use and enjoyment of the public and to keep in good repair and condition all fences stiles and gates upon or about the land and to keep all such courts lawns or greens as aforesaid in good order and to permit members of the public to have access thereto for the purpose of playing games upon payment of a reasonable charge to be fixed from time to time by the Council.

(b) The Council shall keep the grass land and the paths in good order and condition and shall keep all trees now or hereafter grown upon any part of the land affected hereby protected against injury.

(c) The said land or any part thereof shall not at any time be used for any trade or business whatsoever or otherwise than as a properly ordered Public Recreation Ground for the use of inhabitants of and visitors to Budleigh Salterton only without the consent in writing of the Company first obtained and that the said land shall be daily open to the public on such conditions and subject to such Byelaws and Regulations as shall from time to time be laid down by the Council but this clause shall not preclude the Council from charging a fee for the playing of games as in Condition (a) hereof.

(d) School children shall not be permitted to resort to the land in such numbers as to be or become a nuisance or annoyance to the General Public and the Council shall if necessary and practicable make byelaws to prevent such occurence but this condition shall not render it incumbent on the Council to provide a full time attendant to exclude children should other means prove ineffective to this end.

(e) The Council will not do or permit to be done anything upon the land which may be a nuisance or annoyance to the Grantor or the Company or any of his or its lessees or tenant.

The current situation with the Local Plan: worse than omnishambles

Below is a comment, left on a previous post, which is repeated here as it contains much useful information:

I have now had time to fully digest the report and do some further research and it looks like the LP resubmission is extremely unlikely to be this year, and possibly (if not probably) after the elections in May 2015.

A good starting point for documentation about the activities relating to fixing the Local Plan can be found at http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/lpsubmission which has a chronology and links to all the major documents.

My analysis of the situation is as follows:

1. The SHMA consultancy contract seems to me to be in a shambles.

However, Section 3 of this recent report gives the breakdown of this Best Practice into 6 stages, and paragraph 3.2 states that the work on the SHMA has only reached the first of the 6 stages in the PAS guidance.

Moreover, in a both letter to the Planning Inspector in mid-April 2014 http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/lettersinspector12.pdf and the draft action plan of 8 May http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/actionplan02.pdf attached to a letter to the Planning Inspector on 22 May 2014 http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/lettertomrthickett220514.pdf Mr Dickens was saying that the SHMA would be available in June 2014.

I have no reason to doubt that Mr Dickens was reporting these dates because that was what he was being told by DCA, but I cannot see how DCA could be reporting in May 2014 that they would finish in June 2014, and yet in August 2014 we have only completed the first of 6 stages to complete the SHMA.

The current report says NOTHING about the state of the SHMA contract with DCA. My experience in public sector outsourcing (having worked on both sides of the fence – though admittedly in IT rather than Planning Policy), this is likely now to be a major issue. DCA is certainly running late (and in consultancy, time is literally money) and so very likely to be running over budget and likely to make a loss on this piece of work, and it seems to me that there is a very high probability that there will need to be major contract renegotiations (DCA will likely claim a “change in scope”, EDDC will deny most of it, arguments will go back and forth – all of which will delay things further), and possibly eventually an agreement for EDDC to spend a lot more money spent to get this work completed by DCA – or worse still the contract being re-let and re-awarded to someone else to start again at the beginning.

So questions I want to know about the DCA contract:

A. Why has the SHMA not been delivered by DCA? Why were they still predicting they would deliver in in June as late as early May, and why were we surprised by its non-delivery with only 1 of 6 stages currently completed?

B. Is DCA still committed to deliver the SHMA within the current contract & existing costs?

If so, what is DCA’s revised schedule, and what happens if they miss it again?

If not, what are the EDDC plans to get the contract back on the rails so that the SHMA can be delivered, and what are the likely timescales and additional costs for revised or new contracts?

2. Timescales

The special DMC meeting on 8 May 2014 http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/combined_dmc_agenda_080514.pdf page 5 onwards, discusses the draft Action Plan response to the Planning Inspector, and on page 19 there is a timetable which suggests that by now they would be providing “Feedback report on comments received [from the Consultation on the new SHMA] to Development Management Committee” for approval so that “Feedback sent to Inspector” by the end of August.

However if you look at the draft Action Plan, it is clear that there are several other pieces of work to do before Feedback to the Inspector, so this seemed unrealistic even then.

As far as I can see, the following still need to be done:

A. The remaining 5 stages of the SHMA as documented in Section 3 of the current report.

B. The activities described in the draft Action Plan.

C. The activities in the timetable from 8 May.

Personally I cannot see these being completed this year, and I would guess that it might take considerably longer than that.

SUMMARY

The DMC needs to get a grip and take both control and responsibility for the completion of the Local Plan.

They need to find out the state of the contract with DCA and get it back on the rails.

They need to create a robust plan for redelivery of the revised Local Plan to the Inspector, providing additional resources to the Planning Policy unit if that is required to speed things up.

EDDC v Information Commissioner – press release from J Woodward

Press release from Jeremy Woodward, Sidmouth resident, whose Freedom of Information request led to this case, and who will be allowed full representation at the Magistrate’s Court on 28 August 2014 at 10 am, Court 3:

“This Tribunal is the first of its kind for East Devon District Council.

The Council has acted as both executive and policeman, making key decisions in private and then determining which information it deems fit to be made public. And yet the default position is to make information available – but the Council refuses to abide by the spirit of Freedom of Information legislation.

The fact that the Council has appealed against the Information Commissioner’s decision shows how determined it is to keep these key reports on relocation from the public gaze: one wonders, therefore, what is hidden within.

This case is fundamentally about transparency of process. Research I have carried out strongly suggests that the political leadership at the Council has been making decisions about its relocation project in private without adequately informing Members. Moreover, it is clear from reports in the press and other documentation that the decision to relocate from Knowle was made well before 2012 – and yet the Council insists that there can be no disclosure of sensitive information because the project is still ‘live’.

This has had the effect of preventing any proper debate of the issues. There has been virtually no open discussion, hampered by the political leadership controlling the flow of information. I have argued that key documents which have guided decision-making on relocation should be published in full (apart from any company or private names, of course) to enable an informed debate to take place.

The fact that the reports were produced by external consultants Davis Langdon, who employs the author of the reports Mr Steve Pratten, simply consolidates the argument that these documents should be published.

The East Devon Alliance blog is following the case closely – with helpful directions to the Court for members of the public:
http://eastdevonalliance.org/

I will not be able to attend, due to professional commitments. However, I will be represented by Mr Richard Thurlow; he is also the Chair of the Save Our Sidmouth campaign, as well as the Chair of the Sid Vale Association’s planning committee. I am copying him into this correspondence as he will be taking any questions from the press next Thursday.”

The delayed Local Plan – the missing document tracked down and a commentary on it (“What the Dickins”)

An EDA correspondent has tracked down the elusive “attachment” to the agenda of the Development Management Committee regarding the delay to the Local Plan (see post below)

DM260814-Emerging Housing Numbers

and a critique of this document is given below by the same correspondent:

What the Dickins?

A paper by Matt Dickins, EDDC’s Planning Policy Manager, to be presented to Development Mgmt Committee on 26 August  (see link above) makes for depressing reading. Residents of East Devon hoping that EDDC will finally be getting its act together on housing land provision will be deeply disappointed.

As many will know, EDDC is obliged to prove that it has an objective evaluation of housing land provision. The absence of such an evaluation, and EDDC’s failure to prove both a five-year land supply and have a Local Plan in place, means that it remains open season for developers. An objective evaluation of housing land need is achieved through the production of a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). In his scathing review of EDDC’s draft Local Plan earlier this year Planning Inspector Anthony Thickett called the absence of an up to date SHMA a “serious failing” on the part of the Council. (He also found that EDDC’s argument for 4,000 ‘overspill’ migration numbers, mostly from Exeter, had “no empirical basis”.)

Does Mr Dickins come bearing good news for EDDC and the people of East Devon that the day of the SHMA is at hand? Not at all. His paper comprises six pages of complacent waffle. Notwithstanding that some research should have already been done, “unfortunately there have been delays”. There may need to be discussions with adjacent authorities. (We know that, Mr Dickins. Exeter CC is looking to appropriate East Devon countryside.) While Mr Dickins’ paper points out that demographically East Devon is likely to see a major increase in population from the over 65s – surely implying a need for more sheltered accommodation in towns with services than new build on greenfield sites – his paper concludes lamely that “at this stage it is not possible to provide a timetable for completion of the full SHMA work”! The consequence? “We can only conclude that we do not have a 5 year housing land supply and continue to consider application [sic] accordingly”.

To translate: EDDC has no idea when the SHMA will be finished, it won’t even venture a guess, and in the meantime the lack of a five-year housing land supply [and Local Plan] means that developers will consider to maintain the upper hand in a district where two-thirds of the land is AONB. This is a woeful paper: DMC should send Mr Dickins to the Naughty Step and require him to try again. Time someone got a grip while there is any countryside left in East Devon.

Local Plan delayed again – unlikely to be approved for many months

Recap: our draft Local Plan was thrown out by the Planning Inspector, Mr Thickett, because – oh, so many reasons – mainly because pretty much all of the figures in it were either too old or too unreliable. We were told to go back to the drawing board.

A crucial aspect of a local plan is that there must be a “5 year land supply” – i.e. enough available land to meet the district’s agreed needs for the next 5 years to enable building to start quickly and to keep up with demand. Those local authorities which had persistently underperformed in this area over the previous period were told that they would have to have a 6 year land supply – EDDC was one of those authorities.

Whichever way EDDC seemed to cut it, we never reached that magic 5 or 6 year level. As a result, developers are pretty much given free rein to build anywhere in East Devon unless EDDC can provide very strong reasons that they cannot – this as a result of the Coalition government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which ripped up all previous rules and gave the green light to building just about anywhere.

EDDC thereafter took this to heart and passed pretty much anything and everything that came its way (and is still coming its way) from developers. It was left to local communities (Feniton, Seaton, Newton Poppleford) to argue their own corners and find their own money to fight developers. In Feniton and Seaton the communities rallied and defeated them (only to find that, in both places, it seems the developers are coming back to fight again). In Newton Poppleford there was a perverse decision from the DMC – yes to a Clinton Devon Estates development but no to another developer at Badger Close using the same reasoning, but turned on its head for the latter.

EDDC promised the Planning Inspector that there would be a fast review (which had to include dealing with other local authorities in the area where they said that they had run out of space for their developments and needed us to build to take up their shortfall). The Inspector told EDDC that he would be ready to re-examine the draft local plan in October or November 2014.

Bear in mind that the new draft local plan once again had to go out for public consultation – a project that lasts at least 6 weeks and then demands officer time to collate the results. It became pretty obvious that EDDC was not going to meet this target.

Now we have confirmation that this is the case. At the next

Development Management Committee on Tuesday 26 August 2014 at 2 pm

a report is tabled on the agenda entitled “Objectively Assessed Housing Numbers for East Devon – Emerging Work.

On that agenda, currently (21/8/2014 10.40 am) there is supposed to be a link to that report but the link is missing so anyone attempting to read the report will not be able to find it. However, an eagle-eyed correspondent on Councillor Claire Wright’s blog has traced it (unfortunately the link given does not work) and no amount of searching on the EDDC website brings it up.  However, this is what the document says:

“At this stage it is not possible to provide a timetable for completion of the full SHMA (strategic housing market assessment) work.  There are complexities to the task that will need working through.  However, officers of all the authorities involved in the commission are working together to come to a final set of recommendations on the objectively assessed housing numbers for the SHMA as a whole and for the individual authorities”.

It adds “In the meantime based on the available information we can only conclude that we do not have a 5 year housing land supply and continue to consider applications accordingly”.

It then suggests that the growth point area near Skypark will cause many businesses to set up and as a result housing should be factored in to address the extra jobs (see below for a post on those extra jobs which are mostly self-employment and particularly self-employment in the construction industry – ephemeral jobs).

So, the status quo continues.  No land supply, happy developers, very, very unhappy residents.

 

“Honiton for Sale” part 2 – some questions but very little chance of answers

This week’s Midweek Herald adds some interesting information to the story carried yesterday that former Chairman of East Devon District Council and town councillor, Peter Halse, believes that Honiton is being asset-stripped to pay for the vanity project EDDC HQ office relocation.

The Midweek Herald adds more comments from Councillor Halse:

… “In my personal view, Honiton is being put up for sale. Assets are being raised in order for the council to move to the outskirts of Exeter, which is not in the public interest”.

Mr Halse told the meeting that he had made strong protests to the district council regarding the move and added that he thought the district council had now realised “the Knowle is not quite the jewel in East Devon’s crown as it thought it was and that it was having to find other assets elsewhere.

An EDDC spokesperson said in response to this:

… “The question of succession to East Devon Business Centre has given us an opportunity to look again at how we can help meet the needs of business into the future in a words of enterprise and entrepreneurism very different from what existed when Heathpark Business Centre first opened its doors.

Lead members for business and officers carried out a tender exercise and interviewed four different consultancies. The chosen company, Carter Jonas, are in the process of gathering evidence and are expected to report back with their findings and recommendations within the next month or so”.

This raises several interesting questions:

If a respected and long-serving majority party Councillor has no real idea what is going on – how on earth do councillors not privy to the thoughts of those in the “inner sanctum” understand what they are voting for with the Skypark project?

The press release speaks only of something going out to tender – it does not say exactly what the tender was for and we will never know because the Asset Management Forum at EDDC has always met in secret and provides no agendas or minutes of its meetings for the public.

Councillor Halse’s comments seem to imply that EDDC is not going to get as much as it had wanted for Knowle. They have long said that the move will be “cost neutral” but that was when only Knowle and Manston Depot were mentioned. Is it still cost neutral when you add in the loss of the Heathpark site and the East Devon Business Centre? Again we will never know because the Relocation Working Party meetings are also held in secret and no agendas or minutes are produced.

We have a situation now where ALL decisions are now made in secret. Instead of information going to committees for discussion and decision they are being referred to creatively-named “Forums” and “Groups” so that the decision-making can all take place behind closed doors where even majority party councillors have no idea what is going on.

Let us hope that when the next council is convened it votes for a Committee system of decision-making rather than an Executive Board system which allows a very small number of people – hand-picked by the Leader – to take decisions on behalf of the majority.

Remember Leader Diviani’s last election promise: Clean, Green and Seen. Not Unclean, Ungreen and Unseen.

Developer allowed to chop protected trees because local authority did not mention them in search documents

One to watch out for, councillors – and to alert our council Arboriculturalist about:

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19702:trial-over-uprooting-of-tree-subject-to-preservation-order-collapses&catid=58&Itemid=26

We don’t want EDDC getting sloppy with our developers do we.

Most new jobs are consultancy or self- employment

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said that 1.1 million jobs have been created since the start of 2008.

But of those, 732,000 are accounted for by the self-employed, a category of worker that tends to earn roughly half the wages of those in staff jobs.

Construction remains the single biggest sector for self employment.

Source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28866302

The mystery is that, if most are in construction (outdoors and not needing much office space)and many self-employed people work from home or at small business hubs (like the East Devon Business Centre that is being demolished to pay for Skypark relocation) why are we building smaller houses and more and more big industrial sheds in East Devon?

Tourism is our biggest industry and our biggest earner – where is the stimulus for it from our district council (apart from flogging the family silver in Exmouth).

EDDC “Tourism Champion” – hello, anyone out there?

East Devon homes cost more than 12 times average annual salaries

http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/West-Country-expensive-home-buyers-London/story-22767121-detail/story.html

Persimmon profits up 57%, average house price now £265,000

Persimmon has a large number of sites locally. It has reported pre-tax profits for the half year up to £212.9 million. The Evening Standard website article also mentions that the average UK house price rose by 10.2% in the 12 months to June and reached a record high of £265,000 for the average house. However, the good news is that the Office of National Statistics had expected prices to rise 11.2% so we must be thankful for small mercies!

“Who dares gets battered” at Colyton Council says editor of local newspaper.

Four out of 13 members of Colyton Town Council represent the nearby village of Colyford and those four are becoming increasingly annoyed as Colyton appears to be grabbing all the goodies for the town rather than sharing them with the smaller village.

Editor of the View newspapers, Philip Evans, criticised Colyton Town Council for trying to stop reporters writing

” … on matters that the council would prefer not to be publicised, despite such matters being discussed in open council, the inference being that we should onbly report on the positives and never the negatives. That view, of course, is contrary to the basic prinnciples of democracy and we have resisted any attempt to stop us doing our job responsibly.

We really upset the council recently when we had the audacity to record their deliberations at a particularly controversial meeting, to ensure we got it exactly right. To do was contrary sto the council’s standing orders (rules). We had never been sent a copy of tose standing orders and they are not listed on the council’s website, at the library, on the council notice board or any other place.

The council threatened to report us to the Press Complaints Commission for contravening their rules but common sense prevailed and if we want to record their meetings in future, we have to seek permission, which, from time to time, we will do.

[The Editor is wrong in this matter: since 6 August 2014 it has been illegal for ANY council to stop anyone recording, tweeting or videoing their meetings as long as they are not causing an obstruction].

He continues: ” … But it was his [The Mayor of Colyford’s] democratic right to riase the matter and he should not be unnecessarily castigated because he did not toe [not tow as appears in the editorial} the party line.

“Town Up for Sale” says Honiton Mayor, EDDC Councillor (and former Chairman of EDDC) as he criticises his own council on the Knowle relocation

Councillor Peter Halse, Honiton Town Councillor, East Devon District Councillor and former Chairman of EDDC is quoted in the “View from Honiton” newspaper today. He says the town is being “put up for sale” by district councillors to fund their costly relocation project. The article is quoted below”

“He [Councillor Halse] says decisions were being made that were not in the interests of Honiton residents. Land at the Heathpark estate had been identified as a possible location for EDDC’s new office complex. But in a controversial move earlier this year, councillors opted to reject the Honiton site and build new headquarters at SkyPark on the outskirts of the district. The land [at Honiton] now looks likely to be sold for the development of a new supermarket.

And in a further blow to the local economy, the district’s business hub – currently based at Heathpark – has also been lined up for closure.

At a town counbcil meeting last week, former mayor Councillor Vernon Whitlock raised the issue of businesses being forced to relocate. And Councillor Halse admitted that he shared the concerns of businesses, councillors and residents, who feel the town is being stripped of its assets.

“I am a loggerheads with the (district) council on the way this has been done. I am disappointed that they will be demolishing a building that is of great use to the town and is not costing anything. Initially they told us another facility would be provided, but it turns out that they were thinking the private sector could replace it. The fact of the matter is that Honiton is being put up for sale and its assets are being razed in order for the district council to move to the outskirts of Exeter”.

Fighting for Feniton – yet again; Wain Homes continues its onslaught

Rumours that Wainhomes is applying to extend its existing site by a further 31 houses are true: plans for these new houses have been on display at the sales office on site. Wainhomes claims that, as a ‘responsible developer’ it’s just to show prospective buyers what might happen, although it’s hard to read this as anything other than marketing houses for which permission has not even been granted. Fight for Feniton understands that one buyer who purchased one of the 50 houses to be built at Winchester Park, and who was assured solemnly that their countryside view would be protected, only discovered otherwise when Wainhomes cheerfully handed them the keys to their new property and said they’d be building 31 more houses, some of which would be blocking their view!

The history of this site is one of development by stealth. Wainhomes’ initial application in 2011 was for a staggering 170 properties stretching from Station Road across to Green Lane. Wainhomes then supposedly ‘listened’ to local opposition, and reduced its proposal to ‘just’ 50 houses, which were eventually allowed at appeal in 2012, despite massive opposition from the village, Parish and District Councils, owing to Feniton’s inadequate infrastructure, narrow roads, minimal employment opportunities and considerable flooding problems.

Wainhomes’ next attack on the village was for an application for 83 units, which was comprehensively thrown out at a ‘Super Inquiry’ of the Planning Inspectorate in January this year: roughly four months after that result was announced, Wainhomes has now come back with its proposal for 31 houses. Let there be no doubt that Wainhomes has no intention of stopping at 31, 83 or anything else until it has concreted over the entire site and built (at least) the 170 it always intended.

It’s the Wainhomes way: the village of Dobwalls, in Cornwall, is faced with a proposal by the same developer to build 62 houses, the local Parish Council being up in arms since their roads are narrow, the infrastructure can’t cope, and it’d increase the size of the village by 20%. Sound familiar? – see

http://www.cornishguardian.co.uk/Wainhomes-puts-forward-plans-62-new-houses/story-21741742-detail/story.html

As of writing Wainhomes has only announced its intention to build these extra houses: a formal application is likely to be made in September. Fight for Feniton will continue the battle against inappropriate development in the village. Keep up to date with the latest news by attending Feniton Parish Council meetings, and checking the following websites:

Fight for Feniton
http://theffff.wordpress.com/

blogs for District Councillor Susie Bond
http://www.susiebond.co.uk) and
County Councillor Claire Wright
http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/site/blog

the East Devon Alliance (http://eastdevonalliance.org/
and of course Feniton Parish Council http://fenitonparishcouncil.wordpress.com/

Exeter Airport gets busier and busier

Replace that triple glazing at EDDC vanity HQ with quadruple glazing perhaps:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Good-news-Exeter-Airport-growth-continues/story-22762540-detail/story.html

Manufacturers call for national infrastructure authority

“Chris Leslie, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said: “The EEF is right to say we need a new approach to address Britain’s long-term infrastructure needs.

“Labour will establish an independent national infrastructure commission. This would help to end the dither and delay we have seen on the big decisions Britain needs to take to secure its future.

“With business support growing for a new body to identify Britain’s infrastructure needs and hold governments to account for meeting them, it’s now time other political parties backed the idea too.”

Unfortunately, one manufacturer’s essential infrastructure is inevitably also someone else’s land. It would be interesting if we saw the rise of NIMFYs – Not In My Factory Yard!

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/smes/call-for-infrastructure-authority-7630634

Politics: “childish, superficial and rotten” – who says? An MP

… “With so many people in Government, you could replace them with laptop computers and it wouldn’t make the slightest bit of difference. You could just programme them to vote when you needed them to vote. But I couldn’t do that. I would rather not be in politics at all.”

Would he say that Parliament is rotten? “I would. It’s completely rotten. I’ve seen people deliver genuinely powerful speeches on particular issues, then the bell goes for the vote and they go straight to the government lobby.” Does David Cameron find him irritating? “I’m sure he does,” Goldsmith says with a wry smile. “And I don’t blame him.” …

… If Goldsmith could achieve one thing during his time in Parliament, then it would be implementing a proper recall system, giving constituents the right to get rid of their MP if he or she behaves badly. “At the moment, I could go on holiday for eight months or join the BNP. I could do almost anything, bar go to prison, and there would be nothing my constituents could do about it.”

Currently, Nick Clegg is overseeing the reform of the recall system – no laughing at the back about the decision to give the job to a man who backtracked on several key promises the moment he got a whiff of power – and though the Deputy PM claimed in June that he and Goldsmith were in agreement, this is clearly not the case at all. Goldsmith says that Clegg’s proposals are a “disgrace” in his view.

“For a long time, he argued against the whole principle of recall, saying that we would end up with kangaroo courts. So he has come up with an alternative, which really is the last word in con. It’s an attempt to make people feel that they have been empowered without actually empowering them. There is enough anger out there from the public towards me and all my colleagues in Parliament, and the moment the public realise they have been conned yet again, I think it will just boil over. I think there will be a massive backlash.”

“So Goldsmith has set up a cross-party group to come up with an alternative plan – Andrew Mitchell, Kate Hoey and David Davis are involved – and they are just about to sign it off. Whether or not it goes through is another matter entirely, though it is said that the new Chief Whip, Michael Gove, is very keen to show his support for it, and not just because it might be one in the eye for Clegg. Goldsmith, of course, couldn’t possibly comment on that.” …

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11037506/Zac-Goldsmith-Politics-Its-childish-superficial-and-rotten.html

Average British home now has one less bedroom and is almost half the size of homes in the 1920s

“The average home typically covered 1,647 sq ft and boasted four bedrooms in the 1920s, according to analysis by the Royal Institution of British Architects, but today’s versions have three bedrooms and are 925 sq ft.”

Wonder what the size of the average Cranbrook home is?

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/17/housebuilders-price-bubble-

Think tank suggests that people should pay more to live next to a park

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/aug/16/green-spaces-park-local-tax-householders-councils

Oddly, it doesn’t suggest you should pay LESS if you live next a factory!