Thanks to Matt Cobley for illustrating the point!
More sketches needed for EDA website, on our hot topics (see blogpost headlines..e.g. from Aug 6th 2014, public can film & record all open Council meetings).
Please send your cartoons, pics, etc, to EDA via Contact Us.
Wonder if he knows the unkind things happening to the village?
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/local_authority_monitoring_offic
The comments on the correspondence make interesting reading.
Warehouses to houses, nightclubs to houses, click and collect extensions – can we keep up!
Anyone who wants a lesson in the triumph of hype over reality should see this “fly over the Exeter and East Devon Growth Point” video here:
http://www.iviewer3d.co.uk/eed/flythrough.htm
and note:
how many times the commentary includes the word “sustainable”
and
how many times the benefits of the area mention Exeter rather than East Devon.
Oh, and someone needs to edit out the section on the ” inter modal freight terminal” as that has just been ditched by Sainsbury’s.
And maybe tone down the bit about how improvements to junctions 29 and 30 of the M5 will “improve traffic flow”!
Would that EDDC AONB sites in other areas (within our own district) received such support.
Letter in the Driving section of today’s Sunday Times:
“Drivers suffering from parking fatigue or road rage should make a beeline for Northampton town centre … In four of its main car parks the first two hours are free on weekdays, and weekends are free all day. The effect is nothing short of dramatic: the town is buzzing with activity and businesses are booming, quite unlike in much of the country. Parking authorities take not.”
Indeed.
As confirmation,please find below a link to the latest Government proposals for changes to the planning regulations:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cutting-red-tape-to-breathe-new-life-into-local-communities
Also, here’s a link to the “Government’s Open and accountable local government” information released in August 2014. This is a guide for the press and public on attending and reporting meetings of local government:
Click to access 140805_Openness_Guide.pdf
Many thanks to our Community Voice on Planning (CoVoP) colleagues for keeping EDA updated. More information here http://www.covop.org/
And it’s Grade 2 listed.
Surprising what you can do with old buildings …
No, we haven’t forgotten that missing 6,000 voters in the East Devon area.
Last week, in answer to a question from a member of the public about how EDDC had failed to follow legal requirements to canvass homes where there had been no registration for the last three years, Chief Executive and Electoral Registration Officer Mark Williams said that we should not worry about it as we (i.e. he) will get there in the end. No mention of his failing to follow legal requirements, no mention of whether or not the 10 canvasssers have been appointed to try to catch up, no mention of how many of the (more than) 6,000 missing voters are now registered, no mention of the effect that the missing voters had on the recent European elections – just the statement that the end justifies the means. And we all know where that has got politicians in the past (though, of course, Mr Williams is not meant to be a politician he is meant to be a neutral civil servant).
Anyway, for Mr Williams and anyone else out there who wants to know how it SHOULD be done, the Electoral Commission has produced a handy guide as to when and how registration should be undertaken. Any chance anyone at EDDC will read it?
Here it is, so no excuses
Note: “The end justifies the means” was appropriately coined by the in(famous) Niccolo Machiavelli. Perhaps a few of his other sayings might be topical here:
“When you disarm the people, you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred.”
“Men rise from one ambition to another: first, they seek to secure themselves against attack, and then they attack others.”
“The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him.”
THIS ARTICLE appears in this week’s EDDC e-edition of the Knowledge weekly newspaper sent out to all councillors and many others.
Anyone want to take bets that there will be some councillor or officer who will try to fudge this issue!
Two pieces of news from the Government this week:
1. A new planning reform package has been unveiled for consultation. Local residents will have a greater say over the future development of their area, under plans announced by Housing and Planning Minister Brandon Lewis (according to the press release) – what do you think?
2. Wide ranging new government guidance on public access to local authority decision making. Worth reading for planning! According to this, Councils and other local government bodies are required to allow any member of the public to take photographs, film and audio-record the proceedings, and report on all public meetings.
Links to both are available on the home page of Community Voice on Planning (CoVoP), of which EDA is an active member http://www.covop.org/
Recently we reported on a case where the London Borough of Southwark was forced to disclose contract information in a planning matter. Below is a lawyer’s summary of the points raised by the judgment.
Of great interest is the section where it states clearly that a viability forecast comes under Environmental Information Regulations and not Freedom of Information. This may have implications for the case of EDDC v Information Commissioner where EDDC is refusing to disclose information about Knowle relication. EIR requires far more disclosure than FOI. Note also the remarks about transparency
The ICO heard the challenge to LB Southwark’s decision to refuse disclosure last year:
It accepted that disclosure of redacted elements of the reports would be commercially harmful. Nonetheless, applying the public interest test under the EIR regime, it decided that the interest in disclosure outweighed the harm. LB Southwark appealed the decision to the First Tier Tribunal, which has now held that:
The viability assessment is “environmental information” under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
The EIR regime operates with a presumption of disclosure, unlike the Freedom of Information Act 2000 regime.
Publication of viability forecast data relating to deals to be done with other businesses should not be disclosed, because the commercial harm was not in the public interest, but private sales and registered provider deals should be.
The ICO was wrong to refuse to treat Lend Lease’s development model as a “trade secret” and there was no need to show monetary loss arising from disclosure.
The Council’s suggestion of absolute confidentiality in relation to the activities of its staff was wrong. Likewise, there is not always a public interest in maintaining secrecy around public private partnership negotiations – the law on information disclosure is drawn to ensure transparency where it matters.
Disclosure of the starting point in negotiations (i.e. the initial viability reports) is not the same as the disclosure of the full continuum of those negotiations – the likelihood of a chilling effect on other deals should be viewed in that light. The public interest warranted disclosure of much of the information – given “the importance, in this particular project, of local people having access to information to allow them to participate in the planning process”. That factor was held to outweigh the public interest in maintaining the remaining rights of Lend Lease and those subcontractors who contributed to the document. –
See more at: http://www.planninglawblog.com/#sthash.UeaDHxAP.dpuf
The Overview and Scrutiny agenda for 14 August 2014 at 6.30 pm is published here:
Click to access 140814_combined_os_agenda.pdf
and, of course, yet again the fate of the Task and Finish group looking into the influence of the East Devon Business Forum has not been included – nor is it given a scheduled date to be reconvened in the committee’s Forward Plan.
There is an interesting research paper on how meetings should be conducted. Summary: allow the CEO to re-word motions or kick them into the long grass of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, make it harder for anyone to speak out about anything but make it easier for “partners” to make presentations.
Also of interest is that, what IS in the Forward Plan, is that Knowle relocation is scheduled for discussion on 18 December 2014 in the confidential section of its meeting (Part B).
Question: how can you know in August 2014 if something scheduled for discussion in December 2014 will be confidential? Or is confidential the default for this subject?
If so, the judge in EDDC v Information Commissioner at Exeter Magistrates Court on 28 August 2014 may be interested!
Good to see Honiton and Tiverton MP Neil Parish giving the same support to Gittisham that he gave to Feniton but also raises some questions:
… “Neil Parish MP wrote to the Minister on behalf of Gittisham Parish Council and the local residents on the 10th June to ask that the Department for Communities and Local Government review how the decision was made to grant planning permission and whether the correct procedures were carried out.”
Given the worryingly strange behaviour of the Development Management Committee in Newton Poppleford recently one wonders if a review should be much wider and more far-reaching. And definitely one for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
http://www.neilparish.co.uk/news/neil-parish-mp-calls-minister-gittisham-development
…
But the local authority says reporting is a breach of its Standing Orders?
It is a legal duty for the local government body to follow the new provisions. If a local government body’s existing Standing Orders are not fully in line with the new legislation, in the short-term, we recommend they simply waive the relevant provisions of those old Standing Orders which could be taken to inhibit the new reporting rules, and then take steps to update formally its Standing Orders.
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
A widely-reported press release from Hugo Swire has met with some scepticism from at least one local newspaper:
Hard-working people in Sidmouth and across East Devon have helped to get the national economy growing again, local MP Hugo Swire has said.
Mr Swire claimed the latest figures show the British economy is now above its pre-crisis peak and is moving in the right direction again.
And welcoming the statistics, the East Devon MP paid tribute to those in Sidmouth and around his constituency in helping to boost growth.
Mr Swire heralded a “major milestone” in the long-term economic plan and pledged to deliver a prosperous future for local people.
He said: “Thanks to the hard work of people in East Devon and across Britain, the economy is now above its pre-crisis peak – a major milestone in the Conservatives’ long-term economic plan.
“It means more businesses creating more jobs so families can look forward to a brighter, more secure future.”
The MP said people in East Devon had suffered particularly during the financial crisis.
But claimed the latest figures showed that Sidmouth families could now look forward to the security of a regular pay packet and peace of mind for the future.
He added: “There is still a long way to go. The recession was one of the deepest of any major economy and cost Britain six years, hitting people in East Devon hard.
“Now we owe it to hardworking taxpayers not to repeat the mistakes of the past and instead to stick with the plan that is delivering economic security and a brighter future for all.”
Source: http://www.viewfrompublishing.co.uk/news_view/33167/12/1/sidmouth-local-people-are-boosting-national
With only nine months to go to next year’s General Election, the government’s appetite for messing about with the planning system seems to be unabated. De-CLoG has recently published a miscellaneous rag-bag of quite far-reaching proposals for further changes to the planning system aimed (they say) at furthering their objective of streamlining planning.
The government is proposing to tinker with the procedures for neighbourhood plans. They propose to introduce a 10-week time limit for LPAs to respond to applications for a neighbourhood area to be designated (or for a community right-to-build proposal), as well as modifying pre-submission, consultation and publicity requirements for neighbourhood plans. The requirement for a six-week consultation period on a proposal for a neighbourhood plan would be removed, but affected landowners would have to be consulted. The changes will also address the need to comply with the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive. The general aim is to speed up the Neighbourhood Plan-making process, and to reduce the ability of reluctant LPAs and opposing developers to disrupt or delay Neighbourhood Plans.
These proposals are most probably prompted by the limited take-up of neighbourhood plans so far, and the difficulties and delays that have been encountered by those who have embarked on the neighbourhood planning process. The government’s aim seems to be to beef up Neighbourhood Plans in an effort to demonstrate in their next election manifesto that they have put ‘localism’ into action, whereas these much-vaunted initiatives have proved up to now to be a rather damp squib, and are unlikely to counter the impression that the government effectively strangled localism at birth by imposing a requirement on LPAs to approve significantly more development in their areas, whether their councillors or voters like it or not.
This is the one area of change among those proposed in this consultation paper that would appear to require primary legislation. The government says that it intends to introduce new legislation to implement any changes at the earliest opportunity, subject to the parliamentary process. It may in practice prove difficult to introduce and pass such legislation in the time left in this parliament, in which case these ideas about neighbourhood plans could end up being no more than Tory manifesto commitments – a convenient fig-leaf to cover the nakedness of their originally much-trumpeted notions of Localism.
More changes to the General Permitted Development Order are proposed to enable further changes of use in addition to those previously introduced within the past two years. These will include the change of use of light industrial units (B1(c)), warehouses and storage units (B8) and some sui generis uses (launderettes, amusement arcades/centres, casinos and nightclubs) to residential use (C3), and changes of some sui generis uses to restaurants (C3) and leisure uses (D2).
In addition to these changes, the government is also considering making permanent those permitted development rights which currently expire in May 2016. This flies in the face of the growing opposition among some LPAs to office-to-residential conversions, so this proposal can be expected to cause quite an outcry.
First, the existing time limit for completing office-to-residential conversions that have obtained prior approval will be extended from 30 May 2016 to 30 May 2019. But a revised PD right for change of use from office to residential use is intended to be introduced from May 2016 (so it is entirely dependent on the rather doubtful prospect of the Tories securing a majority at the next General Election). It will replace the existing PD right, and the exemptions which apply to the current PD right will not be extended to apply to the new PD right. The amended Class J will still be subject to prior approval in relation to highways and transport, flooding and contamination risk, but in future (i.e. after May 2016) it will also be subject to a consideration of the potential impact of the significant loss of the most strategically important office accommodation (although this criterion will be tightly defined).
The right to build larger domestic extensions (under Part 1), currently expiring in May 2016, is also to be made permanent. A single storey rear extension or conservatory that extends beyond the rear wall by between four metres and eight metres for a detached house, and by between three metres and six metres for any other type of house, will be PD, subject to neighbour consultation for these larger householder extensions, which will continue to require prior approval by the LPA.
The right to make alterations to commercial premises has not so far been extended to shops, and so it is now proposed that the GPDO should be extended to allow retailers to alter their premises. PD rights are also proposed to facilitate commercial filming, the installation of larger solar panels on commercial buildings, minor alterations within waste management facilities and for sewerage undertakers, and further extensions (in addition to those already allowed) to houses and business premises.
There is also a proposal to limit the compensation payable where an Article 4 Direction is made to remove permitted development rights. (Any planning lawyer’s hackles will rises at that.)
It is also proposed to amend the Fees Regulations for prior approval applications. Where the permitted development is for change of use only, and a prior approval is required, a fee of £80 will apply. Where the permitted development is for change of use and allows for some physical development and prior approval is required a fee of £172 will apply, including change of use from sui generi to residential. Where a prior approval is required to carry out physical development it is intended to introduce a fee of £80, including for the erection of a structure in a retail car park or the installation of solar panels on a non-domestic building.
While mucking about with the GPDO, the government has decided that it is high time to consolidate this much-amended Order. But consolidation is no more than window-dressing; what the GPDO really needs is thorough re-drafting, to remove the numerous anomalies and ambiguities that have plagued us all for far too long.
Turning to the Use Classes Order, contrary to the general trend, but unsurprisingly, there is a proposal to restrict Class A2, so that betting offices and pay-day loan shops (both currently falling within this Use Class) would become sui generis uses. Planning permission will be required in future for a change of use to either of those uses.
Other changes include the possible merger of Use Classes A1 and A2 (perhaps with other ‘town centre’ uses), so as to create a much more flexible range of uses in our High Streets. [Somebody in De-CLoG seems to have been reading old posts in this blog again!] This will be accompanied by a further amendment of the GPDO to allow change of use to the widened retail (A1) class from betting shops and pay day loan shops (A2), restaurants and cafés (A3), drinking establishments (A4), and hot food takeaways (A5). The existing PD right to allow the change of use from A1 and A2 to a flexible use for a period of two years will remain, as will the right to allow for up to two flats above, and the change of use to residential (C3). On the other hand, the Government proposes to remove the existing PD rights applying to the A2 use class, so as to allow LPAs to control these developments.
With effect from 10 May 2006, any internal increase in floorspace of 200 square metres or more (including the introduction of mezzanine floors) in a building in non-food retail use has been included within the definition of development under section 55, and requires planning permission. As previously announced, the government intends to increase the limit to allow retailers to build a mezzanine floor (but they have not yet settled on a maximum floorspace limit).
East Devon Watch 