Monthly Archives: August 2014

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Aug 2014

Posted under

Clinton Devon Estates, EDDC, Newton Poppleford

Comments

8 Comments

“Why don’t EDDC listen…?”

This frequently-asked question comes up yet again, in one of the latest raft of letters sent to the Sidmouth Herald (1st August 2014), this time concerning the planned King Alfred Way development.

‘Newton Poppleford is well known for its traffic problems especially near the exit to King Alfred Way (KAW) where the pinch point restricts the movement of traffic on a busy road. Residents of KAW have to park in the road and children play in the area but EDDC in their wisdom are planning for Clinton Devon Estates to build a new estate of 40 houses and the supposed doctors surgery and to have entry right through this road. At the top of KAW is a footpath (Farthings Lane) which gives people from the west of the village a safe passage into the village but especially the children who now have a safe walk to school, missing the pinch point of the busy A3052. When 40 houses and the supposed Doctors surgery are built, a road will be put across this footpath taking away the only safe way for the children to get to school. There are safer places to build the much needed affordable houses in the village. Why don’t EDDC listen to the 400 people who say no more traffic for the High Street in Newton Poppleford?’
Judith Cullip

See also http://eastdevonalliance.org/2014/08/04/developers-offer-of-a-surgery-not-so-sweet/
http://eastdevonalliance.org/2014/08/04/eddcs-double-standards-at-newton-poppleford/
http://eastdevonalliance.org/2014/07/28/so-eddc-didnt-spot-extraneous-and-unlawful-planning-inducement-in-planning-app/

The King Alfred Way (KAW) controversy has been mired by other serious issues. A parish councillor (who had spoken out against the development) was reported to the police apparently by an unnamed person. The police dismissed the allegations against the councillor as totally groundless.

Many will recall that a charge of breach of Code of Conduct against the same parish councillor, brought to the attention of a special Standards Sub-Committee by the Monitoring Officer (now replaced), resulted in considerable time and public money being spent, only for the charge to be found so weak as not to warrant any action. http://eastdevonalliance.org/2014/05/17/no-sanctions-to-be-taken-against-cllr-graham-salter/

N.B. The SIN blog http://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com has a considerable archive on the relevant Parish Council meetings e.g. http://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/another-month-another-chaotic-planning-meeting-at-newton-poppleford/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Aug 2014

Posted under

Cranbrook, EDDC, Local Plan, Skypark

Sainsbury’s confirm they will not be needing their massive M5 site in the EDDC district

Many will recall that there was considerable scepticism from many quarters at the time that this project would ever progress. And with it goes the so-called “inter-modal freight depot” which was also talked up too soon and too much. Eggs … baskets.

The site is included in the draft local plan – what now? Another developer for a depot or more housing (but no new jobs for anyone who might live in them)? Cranbrook had been developed with the idea of hundreds if not thousands of jobs on this site. Sainsbury’s currently retains ownership of the site so calls all the shots.

EDDC loses not only the project but also the promise of vital infrastructure which went with it – and see below re the lack of an agreed Community Infrastrructure Levy in the district and its implications.

Source: http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Sainsbury-s-confirms-progress-huge-distribution/story-22075683-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Aug 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Freedom of Information and EIA

The Times reports on new power for the public to record council meetings

Journalists and members of the public will be free to film, record or tweet during local authority meetings under new rules that take effect this week.

The Department for Communities and Local Government has made it illegal for councils to ban filming after concerns that some local bureaucrats had ignored calls to be more transparent.

Some councils had flouted guidance from the department urging them to open up their meetings to modern technology, by blocking filming or tweeting and in some cases even calling the police to evict people who tried to record proceedings, officials said.

From Wednesday, councils and other local government bodies, such as fire authorities and Transport for London, will have to allow members of the public and press to film, record, photograph or use social media to report on their meetings.

Eric Pickles, the local government secretary, said: “We live in a digital age, where people tweet, blog and share video clips on a daily basis. So it is fitting that these important changes will ensure local democracy can shine, as local journalists and taxpayers can report on the good work of their council in a modern way and in real time.”

The move has been welcomed by newspaper publishers, who have warned that local authorities are increasingly stifling their attempts to report on potentially contentious matters such as planning decisions. At a time when many regional newspapers have had to cut back on reporting staff because of financial pressures, that is undermining their ability to hold local government to account, they argue.

Lynne Anderson, a spokeswoman for the Newspaper Society, said: “We’ve been seeing a worrying trend of increased secrecy among public bodies, making it harder for local newspapers to perform their vital scrutinising role on behalf of their readers. We hope these new rules will help to open up councils and ensure greater transparency over how taxpayers’ money is spent.”

Jonathan Isaby, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “Most people, working nine to five, can’t give up their time to attend council hearings and procedures, so they must be given a chance to play their part in the democratic process.”

A ministerial aide said that all local authorities had been warned about the changes in recent weeks. The authorities are required to provide “reasonable facilities” for journalists, bloggers or members of the public to film, photograph and tweet, such as space to view and hear the meeting, seats and desks.

Some councils resisted allowing filming because of concerns that it would be disruptive or too expensive. Some even cited health and safety legislation or the risk of “reputational damage” as a reason.
Source: The Times, Media News, 4 August 2014

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Aug 2014

Posted under

Clinton Devon Estates, EDDC, Newton Poppleford, NPPF

Comments

1 Comment

Developers’ offer of a surgery ‘not so sweet’

That’s how the Sidmouth Herald summed up Gill Cameron-Webb’s letter (Opinion, 1st August, 2014) about EDDC planning procedure at Newton Poppleford.
Thank you to Gill for sending the text of her letter, as follows:

‘Developers make such massive profits from housing developments that they’re often willing to sacrifice some profit to provide ‘sweeteners’ to persuade councils to look favourably on their application. This can result in corruption, so planning laws prevent developers from ‘buying planning permission’. These demand that any ‘sweeteners’ provided by developers must be in proportion to their development. As the Doctors Surgery promised as part of the KAW development could service a population of 5300 (3 times the population of Newton Pop) it’s massively disproportionate to the KAW development.
When EDDC councillors first demanded that the doctors surgery be made a condition of the KAW development, Planning Officers failed to advise them that this was unlawful and that the developers can never be forced to deliver it. Although residents repeatedly warned EDDC of this illegality over 5 months, EDDC persistently refused to acknowledge it until a Judicial Review forced them to quash the planning permission.
The key benefit of the Judicial Review was to ensure councillors were properly advised of planning law next time they considered the KAW application in May 2014. At this stage EDDC officers and councillors should have treated KAW as a major development of 40 houses in an AONB which had received 382 formal objections from the public. They should have dealt with it exactly the same as the Badger Close development and rejected it for the same reasons they rejected Badger Close. Instead they chose to authorise KAW in the hope that the developers might keep their ‘promise’ to deliver a Doctors Surgery that they can never legally enforce.
If Newton Poppleford ends up with 40 houses and no Doctors Surgery, the blame will lie entirely with EDDC planning officers and Councillors for accepting the word of a developer on a hope and a prayer.’

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Aug 2014

Posted under

Clinton Devon Estates, EDDC, Newton Poppleford, NPPF

Comments

1 Comment

EDDC’s double standards at Newton Poppleford?

Local residents continue to expose serious flaws in EDDC’s conduct regarding plans for Newton Poppleford. For the record, one is described in this letter from Lorna Dalton, recently published in the Sidmouth Herald (July, 2014).

‘In Sept 2013, EDDC authorised a major development at King Alfred Way in Newton Poppleford without considering whether the environmental impact should be assessed, despite being legally obliged to do so. For five months they ignored residents who pointed out their error until a Judicial Review at last forced them to reconsider their approach.
In May 2014 EDDC wrote a report which acknowledged:
– “The site lies within the East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
– on best and most versatile agricultural land
– the Pebblebed Heaths SAC/SPA and SSSI are located within 700m.
– this environment constitutes a highly sensitive receptor to impacts arising from pollution and recreation
– it has the potential to be viewed from across the village and from a wider area given the natural topography the proposed development rising beyond the
boundary of the existing built form.”

Having listed numerous reasons which should’ve demanded an Environmental Impact Assessment, EDDC instead came to the conclusion that none was required! So when EDDC told last weeks Herald that they had ‘corrected their error, what they actually did was to abandon a highly sensitive environment to a major development without any assessment of the destruction.

Although EDDC decided not to assess the environmental impact of KAW, one of their reasons for rejecting the Badger Close proposal was because it had not carried out an assessment. I have to question why EDDC dealt with these two developments so differently when the two sites are within 200 yards of each other and share the same environmental attributes?

EDDC stated that they would defend their approach and they believe they’ve corrected their error. As another 2 hectares of beautiful countryside looks set for destruction, I suspect that the majority of Newton Pop residents would not agree with them.’

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Aug 2014

Posted under

EDDC, Local Plan

And now another possible consequence of our Local Plan omnishambles

As well as having no Local Plan EDDC also has no Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)as the Planning Inspector threw out EDDC’s plan for this at the sMe time.

Now, in a rather lawyerly article, is seems that this will cause major problems for infrastructure in East Devon if we do not have a charging schedule by April 2015.

… “These provisions [CIL] present a real and significant restriction on the use of s106 agreements to secure infrastructure payments or provision, and therefore a serious risk of funding gaps becoming an issue (if they are not already), particularly in relation to the pooling provisions, which may be a concern from ‘day one’ as authorities will need to look back to all planning obligations given since 2010.

If CIL is being charged, and a Reg 123 list has been published, then authorities may feel more in control of the situation but if not they may find themselves determining applications for development proposals which will have significant infrastructure demands and finding that they cannot rely on developer covenants in order to mitigate those impacts.” …

Source: http://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19349:cil–a-reminder-on-s106-and-s278-restrictions&catid=63&Itemid=31

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Aug 2014

Posted under

EDDC, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Skypark

Comments

3 Comments

EDDC Ministry of Magic

It seems that EDDC may have its own Minister of Magic (or maybe Dolores Umbridge) as two officers seem to have magically disappeared and one has magically appeared.

Deputy Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer Denise Lyon slipped away quietly after the last full council meeting.

Economic Development Officer and former Hon Sec of East Devon Business Forum Nigel Harrison seems to have been airbrushed out of all responsibilities (when he was such a busy officer commenting on all major planning applications (including those of EDBF members) now we hear nothing from him.

Just as magically we seem to have immediately conjured up a new Monitoring Officer – Ian Clarke – fresh from South Somerset where his boss is – EDDC’s shared Chief Executive Mark Williams.

Now all we need is to find out that Skypark is really Hogwarts. Well, they are doing their best to keep it a secret from us Muggles!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Aug 2014

Posted under

Misc

Argos director appointed new Chairman of Planning Inspectorate

2 days a month for £20,000 a year:

“Sara has considerable experience from her executive and non-executive career to date that is directly relevant to the Inspectorate and its strategic goals. She has an extensive background leading successful, customer focused, private sector organisations, culminating in 7 years as Managing Director of Argos, where she led the expansion of the company’s business on the high street and online. She now holds a number of directorships across the private and public sector, including being on the Board at Lloyds Banking Group and United Utilities.

Sara is also the Lead Non-Executive Director at the Department of Communities and Local Government. This gives her an excellent understanding of the context in which the Inspectorate operates.

The Planning Inspectorate’s Chief Executive, Simon Ridley, said: “I’m delighted that Sara Weller has agreed to join the Inspectorate as its first ever independent Chairman of the Board. Sara brings a wealth of relevant experience to our organization. Having an independent Chairman provides an important line of separation between my role as Chief Executive, in which I am accountable to DCLG, and independent support and challenge to our strategic direction.”

One has to wonder how independent she can be given that she also works for the Department of Communities and Local Government … and puts “economic growth” as her main priority.

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/planning-inspectorate-appoints-first-ever-independent-chairman-of-the-board

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Aug 2014

Posted under

EDDC, Local Plan

5 year land supply for dummies

Just in case some of our councillors or officers were “away” when this blew up or perhaps haven’t read their papers on the subject:

http://www.pas.gov.uk/local-planning/-/journal_content/56/332612/3757749/ARTICLE

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Aug 2014

Posted under

EDDC, Environment (local), Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plans, NPPF

Comments

1 Comment

Local Independent councillors share their views on “localism”

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Housing-minister-s-survey-spin-angers-campaigners/story-22066840-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Aug 2014

Posted under

EDDC, Freedom of Information and EIA, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Skypark

Background to EDDC v Information Commissioner, Exeter Magistrates Court, 28 August, 10 am

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/knowle-relocation-project-foi-request.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Aug 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Skypark

Comments

1 Comment

Listen to this very carefully, I shall say it only once …

Some majority party councillors, who profess to be unhappy at the curtailment of public speaking now in force, have said that they did not realise what was going on (either by not being around or not reading committee papers)and therefore found themselves painted into a corner come the vote at full council.

This matter had been debated at Overview and Scrutiny more than once, and at the Executive and the papers for full council appeared several days before the meeting. The topic had been given extensive coverage by this blog, the blog of Claire Wright and letters on the subject had appeared in the Midweek Herald, the View From papers and the Express and Echo.

This means either:

(a) councillors take no notice of their own committees and do not read local blogs and newspapers (although they appear very quick to write to them if they are being criticised) – which would be an appalling state of affairs or

(b) they do read them, choose to ignore them and use (a) as an excuse for saying they did not know what is going on – which would be an appalling state of affairs.

How come Lib Dems, Independents, journalists and the public knew but some of our councillors didn’t so, come the day, were unprepared to discuss alternatives?

Are they equally in the dark about Skypark too?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Aug 2014

Posted under

Clinton Devon Estates, Democracy, EDDC, Exmouth

Democratic deficit still rife at EDDC

Evidence of this can be heard in the recording of the Full Council meeting (23rd July), available on the EDDC website.

There is more in the letter below, which has just been published in the Exmouth Journal.

‘Dear Sir,

I refer to Cllr Tim Wood’s letter (Investing in town- Journal 24th July) in which he bemoans the inaccuracies, amongst local political opponents, in matters relating to the town’s so-called ‘development’.

Having listened to Cllr Wood’s comments, at an EDDC meeting on 23rd July, about local people backing the likes of the Premier Inn development on the Elizabeth Hall site, it is clear that he is not above putting political spin before fact himself.

What was breathtaking is that whilst he mentioned a few people supporting the development, he made not a single reference to the 12,000 who signed a petition against it. He, and others, portrayed the developments as something that was broadly welcomed by the town. Journal letters are testament to the contrary.

When he and his colleagues are seeking votes they will tell you that they will represent all electors. A single visit to any council meeting, and especially one to EDDC, is likely to demonstrate very quickly how cheap such words are and how little representation, with very few notable exceptions, is given to views that do not match those of a ruling party councillor.

Cllr Wood’s opponents are not against development, they simply want development to be appropriate and arrived at through genuine and democratic means and not involving biased, unscientific and unreliable ‘consultations’ or secretive deals (seafront covenants) and the like. Many of we non-party-political residents would wish to see local level politics free from party politics.

The mindset at EDDC was betrayed at the above meeting, by a comment from a very senior officer who suggested in answer to an unrelated matter, that the journey is not as important as the destination. I would suggest that, in a democracy, a philosophy of ‘the end justifies the means’ is utterly out of place.

Yours sincerely
Tim Todd’

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Aug 2014

Posted under

Clinton Devon Estates, EDDC, Newton Poppleford

Comments

1 Comment

EDDC shortcomings raise issue of “integrity in public service”

Today’s Sidmouth Herald has this letter on the subject, from Newton Poppleford resident, Emma Coppell

‘I note that EDDC state that they can “only hope” that the proposed doctors’ surgery at Newton Poppleford will be built following the recent judicial review of the King Alfred Way planning approval. In fact, relying on hope is all they could ever have done, as that is all the law allows.

To be clear, a planning obligation offering such a blatant inducement is not simply against the wishes of a group of troublemakers or NIMBYs, as EDDC would have people believe, but against the law. Developers’ offerings can only offset the direct impact of the development, otherwise the council is powerless to force the developer to provide them. This was always the case, it has not arisen from judicial review. Such a basic premise ought to have been known by planners, yet they told the committee otherwise.

Second time around, following judicial review, councillors were expressly told that the doctors’ surgery could not be enforced. The planning committee chose to trust in nothing more than a verbal promise to build a surgery, and therefore voluntarily submitted themselves to the ‘hope’ about which they now complain, putting themselves at the mercy of the developer’s whims. This is no way to conduct planning decisions; common sense dictates that a community benefit should only influence the decision if the developer is guaranteed to provide it.

Instead of blaming residents for ‘causing’ this outcome, it is about time that EDDC recognised both the spirit and the letter of the law, and acknowledged their own shortcomings in dealing with this application. The most tragic aspect of this whole sorry episode is that it represented an opportunity for the council to hold their hands up, acknowledge their mistake and learn from it. It is now clear that they intend to continue to do whatever suits them, even if this contravenes the law. Their dogged determination to apportion blame elsewhere at all costs would be laughable were it not such an affront to the idea of integrity in public service. ‘

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Aug 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Misc

Comments

5 Comments

If you want to return to freedom for the public to speak at council meetings …

… it may be that you should consider standing as an Independent or other minority group candidate as it seems highly unlikely that a new council made up of the same people (who were described as MPs as “pale, male and stale”) would ever agree to a return to people being given a full opportunity to speak without having to jump first through several red tape hoops and thereafter to take part in a lottery for the ability to make their views known.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Aug 2014

Posted under

Environment (local), NPPF

Eric Pickles seeks technical consultation on planning

Some of us may feel we know almost as much, or more, about the technical aspects of planning than do many of our officers and councillors!

It is worth reading just for the comments om town centre parking alone and is also useful about changes that could be made to Environmental Impact Assessments and improving the NPPF:

Click to access Technical_consultation_on_planning.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Aug 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Freedom of Information and EIA, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation

Another bid for secrecy bites the dust

… “Defra refused to disclose the Risk and Issue Logs (RILs), which demonstrate the project board’s hidden assessment of the risks associated with developing a farmer-led badger cull prior to the minister’s decision on introducing the policy.

In June 2013, the Information Commissioner ordered Defra to disclose the RILs, finding that the public interest test favoured disclosure.

The Government department first appealed to the First-tier Tribunal and the case was exceptionally transferred directly to the Upper Tribunal where it was vigorously defended by the Information Commissioner together with the Badger Trust as second respondent.

Following two days of evidence and submissions at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, the Tribunal indicated that it was unconvinced by any of Defra’s public interest arguments to justify withholding the RILs.

Full judgment is expected to be handed in due course and there will also be a further hearing around late October to address important wider issues to clarify the legal exceptions relied on by Defra to keep the Board’s assessment of the risks under wraps.”

Read more: http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Landmark-legal-decision-paves-way-publication/story-22050510-detail/story.html#ixzz3989mxb2f