Posted by

Posted on

10 Sep 2014

Posted under

Comments

If not agriculture: what?

“A disgraced former councillor is seeking a ‘certificate of lawfulness’ for his Ottery St Mary farm house – after breaching a planning condition for more than a decade.

Graham Brown, who is also a past chairman of the controversial East Devon Business Forum, is applying on the basis he has not been using the house to conduct agriculture from – a condition of the original planning permission.

In March last year, former Feniton and Buckerell councillor Mr Brown resigned his seat after he was caught on camera boasting that he could secure planning permission as part of his professional work as a planning consultant.”

Which begs the question, given that his planning consultancy Grey Green Planning Ltd (incorporated coincidentally 10 years ago in 2004) isn’t big enough to merit full public accounts – what exactly hAS he been doing all these years?

If he wasn’t engaged ” in agriculture” why was he the National Farmers Union representative on the East Devon Business Forum?

This source implies that he may have had a holiday cottage business or businesses:

http://companycheck.co.uk/director/901546332

If so, why did he not declare these interests, particularly when he chaired the EDDC Local Development Framework (aka Local Plan) panel – especially as it visited many tourism venues such as Crealy and Sandy Bay ( in secret) to discuss their inclusion in the Local Plan – both for employment land and housing development?

Initial source: http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Disgraced-councillor-seeks-make-Ottery-St-Mary/story-22898229-detail/story.html

Posted by

transparencyforeastdevon

Posted on

10 Sep 2014

Posted under

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

“Embedded officers” types 1, 2 and 3

We have received the following on “embedded officers” from Sandra Semple, who attended the Information Commissioner v EDDC First Tier Tribunal.

“I have been giving further thought to the concept of “embedded officer” as described by Richard Cohen at the First Tier Tribunal Hearing last month.
I am only a layperson but it seems to be a very strange situation, without precedent.

A trawl of Google has found only two areas where “embedded officers” generally seem to operate: journalists with the military on operations and dedicated police officers in American schools.

1. In the case of journalists embedded with the military, the military attempts to influence their work by getting them to see the day-to-day work of soldiers on the front line but they CANNOT control what the journalist then says. The journalist is always employed by the newspaper or journal to which they are accredited and which pays them.

2. In the case if police officers, their beat is the school but the justice they dispense is that of the law and they are responsible to their police authority which pays them.

If Mr Pratten were employed as (1) his reports would not have been changed and censored by EDDC’s Mr Cohen (who admitted under oath that he “edited” a report which went to EDDC’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee about HQ relocation).

If Mr Pratten was employed in case (2) again, because he was paid via an outside agency then he would be considered as a representative of that agency (especially as Mr Pratten used cover sheets and back sheets of Davis Langdon). A “headmaster” would not influence his course of action.

But what if they were “embedded officers” a la EDDC? How would that affect the outcome of 1 and 2 above?

In case (1) it would mean a journalist submitting his or her report to a military commanding officer who would then change it to suit it to his or her requirements, circulate it and then expect it to be described as the work if the journalist but with (undocumented) bits missing. The journalist would have had no control over which bits were missing.

In case (2) the police officer would investigate a crime, find a particular. pupil allegedly committed it and then go to the headmaster and ask him if it was ok to charge the criminal on the. evidence that a crime had taken place. If the headmaster said no, the crime would go unreported and unpunished, with the police person’s bosses having no idea of this action.

EDDC seems to want to create a third category – where although the consultancy employs the worker, the client controls the worker’s output totally – neither 1 or 2 above.

This would create a dangerous precedent where a consultant would have to accept that his or her work could always be changed but the name in the report would always be theirs – no matter how much the report might be changed.

For example, a consultant might put in a report saying “Do not take this course of action, it is far too dangerous” but an embedded officer could put in the same report and have his report changed to say “Take this action, there is absolutely no danger at all”. Still with his name on it (and the cover and back page of a report that started out the opposite of what was originally written) but with a totally different conclusion. This happens to officers, they have no control over what course of action their boss decides to take.

A dangerous precedent and one that a consultant might think twice about if told that his or her status would be as an “embedded officer type 3”.

Though there was no evidence given at the tribunal that Mr Pratten was ever considered an “embedded officer” when he was taken on by EDDC via Davis Langdon – it only came up as their defence after EDDC refused to publish Mr Pratten’s reports – after the Information Commissioner’s decision that they should be published.

Posted by

transparencyforeastdevon

Posted on

10 Sep 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDBF, EDDC, Graham Brown

Comments

4 Comments

EDDC East Devon Business Forum Task and Finish group – even greater need for it to reconvene:

There is now even greater and more urgent need for the EDDC East Devon Business Forum Task and Finish group to reconvene, given recent revelations about the behaviour of its former Chairman – disgraced ex-councillor Graham Brown.

Below is the text of a comment by “councillor” on an article in the Express and Echo which lays out concerns expressed in 2012 and never allowed to see the lighr of day at EDDC:

Comments (0)
Despite a major influence on planning issues being the catalyst for establishing Tuesday night’s East Devon District Council (EDDC) scrutiny committee to investigate East Devon Business Forum, the subject has been vetoed on the advice of officers.

The meeting – possibly one of the most controversial ever staged at East Devon District Council – was quite bizarrely almost completely devoid of conservative councillors, save the three serving on the committee and a further three who were observing proceedings.

Not a single member of East Devon Business Forum (EDBF) appeared to be present either.

Around 50 members of the public attended but the absence of EDBF and almost all the 43 members of the ruling group, including the chairman, leader, deputy leader, and most of the cabinet, gave the distinct impression of a mass boycott.

Public speaking

Five members of the public spoke:

First was Sidmouth businessman, Barry Curwen, who said there was insufficient separation between EDDC and EDBF to allay fears and the reputation of both had been damaged as a result. There needed to be a replacement body which was entirely separate from EDDC and meetings needed to be open to the press and public. “Radical surgery”, was the only option, he said.

Alan Durrant from Save Our Sidmouth campaign group, said he had spoken to hundreds, if not thousands of people who were worried about the influence of EDBF. The council was not held in high regard and needs to do something to regain the trust of electors. The scope of the committee needed to be widened, he added.

Paul Newman from Westclyst near Pinhoe said the scope of the TAFF appeared to be in favour of East Devon Business Forum. He then made a number of references to an ombudsman investigation in 1990 into current EDBF vice-chair, Roy Stuart’s involvement in a planning decision on his own land, which was the creation of the Hill Barton Industrial Estate. At the time Mr Stuart was an EDDC councillor and vice-chair of the planning committee.

Mr Newman informed the meeting that the matter was so serious that the ombudsman had contacted the Director of Public Prosecutions. Cllrs Stuart and Brown resigned together over the incident.

He explained that at Westclyst in 2010, that Mr Stuart applied to build 450 houses on grade 1 agricultural land. The Local Development Framework Panel councillors (LDF Panel) asked for an early application to be brought forward, for a decision, ahead of finalising the LDF and the application at Westclyst was approved in December 2010. Cllr Brown was chairman of the LDF Panel at the time the committee agreed to bring the land forward.

He said he had raised this as a complaint with EDDC but it was denied. However, the minutes of the LDF Panel (previously secret) proved otherwise, once published in 2011.

Mr Stuart is vice chair and Cllr Brown, who runs a planning consultancy and a building firm, is chair, of EDBF, Mr Newman advised the meeting.

Sidmouth resident, Tony Green congratulated Cllr Graham Troman for pushing for an inquiry into EDBF and said that it may allay some suspicion about the forum.

He said the draft scope excluded two key concerns, including debating undue influence on planning policy and clarifying the confused legal status over the status of EDBF. Mr Green added that the set up risked compromising councillors and officers as there was a “minefield of conflicts of interests.”

It was painfully clear from the beginning, said Mr Green, that a key objective of EDBF was to lobby the council and the council had eased planning restrictions as a result. He gave two examples quoting from EDBF minutes, which he said backed up this statement.

He said EDBF has an ‘insatiable appetite’ for employment land, and made references to Cllr Brown’s claims that the forum was ‘completely independent’ when it receives funding from the council. Mr Green said he had two awkward questions.

Firstly if EDBF was independent why are councillors part of it. Secondly, if it is part of the council why does EDDC support spending so much time lobbying itself?

Sidmouth Chamber of Commerce member, Steven Kendall-Torry, said that he looked forward to the opportunity to look into the activities of the forum. He said that EDBF was trying to show it had a range of interests other than planning.”

Mr Kendall-Torry then made a number of remarks about the restrictions that applied to the membership of small businesses, such as the Federation of Small Businesses and businesses that had less than 10 employees were not even allowed to attend until recently.

The draft scope must be amended to be allowed to touch on planning issues, he said.

The first and most important, as well as controversial item on the agenda was ‘The Scope.”

The scope is basically the subjects that the committee are allowed to discuss … and not allowed to discuss.

The draft scope was, in my view, a nice try at trying to get EDBF off the hook and attempting instead to shoehorn the committee into discussing the nice airy fairy subject of business in general in East Devon, with EDBF only getting a passing glance.

The scope, apparently written by chief executive, Mark Williams, insisted that we weren’t allowed to talk about planning issues at all.

This was despite the fact that it is the public outcry over EDBF’s influence over planning issues that was the main driver in setting up the committee in the first place!

And the list of people the committee could interview read like a membership list of EDBF … but only the more respectable non-developer members, such as Bicton College – although they are, in fact, wishing to develop part of their land for housing near Woodbury.

Also, we were told, we couldn’t make recommendations because EDBF was a dual body, only ‘suggestions.’

I had come along to the meeting armed with an alternative version of the scope.

Before settling down to agree the scope, chairman of the scrutiny sub-committee, Cllr Graham Troman asked Mr Williams to outline his reasons on why planning issues were not allowed to be included.

Mr Williams spent a long time explaining why individual planning applications could not be included.

He then spent an even longer time outlining why it wasn’t appropriate to include the Local Plan in discussions. This, he said, was down to the planning inspector, as the document had already been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Mr Williams claimed that the proper route was for people to put their concerns to the inspector.

Mr Williams also claimed that it was not appropriate for the scrutiny committee to debate planning policy, because it wasn’t independent.

I said that the committee had already agreed that individual planning applications were not going to be discussed and the main reason the TAFF was set up was to discuss EDBF’s influence.

I added that, if the committee’s areas for discussion were going to be squashed from the outset then people would come to the conclusion that the exercise was a whitewash, before it had even started.

Cllr Mike Allen said that he and I had sat on the Local Development Framework Panel. He added: “Regarding Claire Wright, her statements and the way she has managed to stir things up is regrettable. She had every opportunity to make her view about EDBF clear while she was on the panel, but chose not to.”

The statement was such nonsense I didn’t bother to respond.

Mr Allen continued by saying that every business had the right during the LDF Panel, to influence the Local Plan and comment and the only part of the community that didn’t for some reason, were small businesses.

This was also complete rubbish as I remember reading and hearing many submissions from Sidmouth Chamber of Commerce during my time on the Local Development Framework (Local Plan) Panel. Also Honiton Chamber of Commerce, among others, responded and objected to the 15 hectares of industrial land proposed at Heathpark Industrial Estate.

Cllr Allen then told people who were concerned about EDBF’s influence on planning matters to go to the Standards Committee, if there were breaches of the code of conduct.

Cllr Allen claimed that there was a ‘legal defamation’ situation and if there was evidence of wrong-doing or maladministration it should be reported.

I said that despite what the chief executive had told us I could still see no logical reason to exclude planning policy from the committee’s remit and made a proposal. I said: “On the basis that this exercise will be regarded by local people as a whitewash if planning is removed from the agenda, I propose that we include it, regardless of the advice of the chief executive.”

But I could not get a seconder, so my proposal fell.

Cllr Troman, clearly in a tricky position, said that he could not go against the legal advice of the chief executive.

We then started debating the rest of the scope and I proposed a series of amendments. Most were agreed, including:

The ‘Broad topic area’ was amended from the woolly: How the council engages with business.”

To: “To produce an in-depth report on the East Devon Business Forum to include all business engagement and its relationship with the council.”(wording taken from revised minuted resolution to September 2012 overview and scrutiny committee)

Specific areas to explore within topic area changed from another woolly set of words about business, to four broad areas relating to EDBF (planning unfortunately deleted from my list):

1. EDBF membership and objectives

2. EDBF relationship with EDDC and other organisations

3. EDBF funding

4. The way forward

Areas NOT covered by review are: Individual planning applications, individual contracts between the council and its contractors or suppliers and (quite wrongly) planning policy.

Desired outcomes of the review – yet another wishy washy set of statements about how membership for EDBF can be increased and “suggesting topics for their agendas” (I ask you!) has been altered from wording similar (but not precisely) this: “Recommendations on a positive and transparent way forward for EDDC to engage with business, that has the confidence of East Devon businesses and residents.” (The chief executive said here that we were setting ourselves up for an unachievable objective because we may not come up with a proposal that residents like).

The list of who should be consulted to obtain evidence got changed from the suggested list, which were largely EDBF members (the non landowner-developers), to the following: (note this may not be the final list)

East Devon Business Forum chairman

East Devon Business Forum vice chairman

EDDC economic development manager/EDBF honorary secretary

Member services clerk and minute-taker to EDBF meetings

Chambers of Commerce representatives

Local enterprise partnership

Blackdown Hills Business Association

Federation of Small Businesses

EDDC monitoring officer

EDDC planning policy manager

EDDC leader

Representative from Mid Devon Business Forum

District auditor

Members of the public

Malcolm Sherry, local businessman (added by Cllr Troman)

What evidence already exists remained the same, ie Mid Devon Business Forum and other forums nationally.

I queried under experts needed to help with the review the appropriateness of including the economic development officer/honorary secretary. I asked whether it might be considered a conflict of interest, given that a sub-committee of the scrutiny committee was looking into EDBF and EDDC’s links.

But no one agreed with me on this and the view appeared to be that it was entirely appropriate for Mr Harrison to take this role.

Cllr Allen couldn’t resist another jibe. He said: “I am amazed that Claire Wright doesn’t want Nigel Harrison as part of the expert help, but I suppose that is in accord with her general views.”

Meetings will be more frequently than in the draft scope (why would five meetings take until July?) so the committee’s work will probably be complete by around April 2013.

Finally, but VERY importantly, the bizarre attempt to completely water down anything the scrutiny committee might come up with by claiming we can only make ‘suggestions’ and not recommendations, was clarified. The committee will be making recommendations.

Cllr Allen then asked a good question. “What was the current legal relationship between EDBF and EDDC?”

Mr Williams reply, after a few moments was: “A type of joint body.”

“Does it only have an influencing capacity?”

The chief executive said that EDBF “was one of the many bodies from which EDDC seeks intelligence.”

Cllr Allen asked another good question. “Do any of the other bodies have an EDDC officer working for them?”

Mark Williams gave the licensing committee as an answer. I could not see the relevance of this at all. Licensing was quite a different issue as it is a quasi-judicial committee which has to meet for legal reasons.

Cllr Allen asked a third good question. “Is it appropriate that an EDDC officer should be lobbying on its behalf?”

Mark Williams replied: “As a general principle, no.”

On the agenda item of Background information on EDBF, Cllr Troman said he was “very disappointed” with one page of A4 provided to the committee. He asked why there was no constitution included in the papers for EDBF either, despite one being included for Mid Devon Business Forum.

There was then a confusing discussion about who had written the background information paper included in both last night’s agenda papers, and in the papers for the EDBF item at the scrutiny committee in September.

Economic development officer, Nigel Harrison claimed that he hadn’t written them.

Cllr Troman asked why Mr Harrison’s name was at the bottom of the paper.

Mr Harrison said he wasn’t sure but the scrutiny officer (the name of Mrs Debbie Meakin was mentioned) had written the paper and then explained how EDBF had been set up.

He claimed that the constitution was on the website and that there “was no mystery about it.”

But the only reference to an EDBF constitution I can find online is three short bullet points on the EDBF minutes section of EDDC’s website.

I said that I had received a copy of the constitution from Chris Lane (member services officer) and queried whether it was the latest version. It was. I then asked why three bullet points taken from the constitution and included with the agenda papers were different.

The word ‘major’ had been inserted into the agenda papers version, in the following sentence: “To act as a forum in which business organisations, major employers and the district council can meet on a regular basis ….

The word ‘major’ did not appear in the adopted constitution.

Also, at the end of the bottom bullet point in the agenda papers version was a sentence about putting together a ‘community plan.’

This sentence did not appear in the constitution either, I pointed out. Why were the two versions different, I asked?

Mr Harrison stuck to his line about not being the author. I asked him whether Debbie Meakin, the scrutiny officer had spoken to him before writing it. He said she did.

He said that he had never been in any doubt about who his employer was.

Cllr Allen got back on his favourite subject about ‘innuendoes’ and ‘residual innuendoes’ how important it was that the committee dealt with them – and that of bias – and made a reference to Tony Green.

I asked why there were restrictions on membership, as outlined in the full constitution.

Mr Harrison replied that if the membership could be increased from the “20 or so souls” at the EDBF meeting on Thursday he would be very pleased.

Steven Kendall-Torry put up his hand. The chief executive was already shaking his head as speaking time was over, but Cllr Troman allowed him to speak.

Mr Kendall-Torry referred to the ‘reputations’ of certain people involved in EDBF and asked that if the planning history is not allowed to be debated, how the reputations will be able to be debated. This was important, he said, because public had a deep suspicion of EDBF and it was important that public perception and reputation issues were addressed.

Cllr Troman said that the committee needed to look forward not back, but agreed it was important.

Mr Kendall-Torry’s comments started Cllr Allen off (yet again) on “innuendoes” and evidence of wrong-doing, which should go to the standards committee, he said.

I suggested that reputation issues could be addressed under the meeting when the committee discusses the relationship between EDBF and EDDC.

I added that Mr Kendall-Torry had made a good point and members of the public had no control over whether a complaint went to the standards committee, all they could do was lodge a formal complaint and it was up to officers to decide what happened to it.

Public perception was very important and an issue that needs to be addressed. If we don’t address it we are not doing our job properly, I added.

But, how can we do our job properly when the chief executive, no doubt urged on by the all-conservative cabinet, has gagged the committee on the most important subject of all?

Residents are likely to be left wondering what EDDC has to hide.

For an observer’s perspective, visit http://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com/

Read about the background to this committee being set up here – http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/committee_to_investigate_east_devon_business_forum/

Source: http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Scrutiny-councillors-probing-East-Devon-Business/story-17576957-detail/story.html

Posted by

transparencyforeastdevon

Posted on

10 Sep 2014

Posted under

EDDC, Voting

Comments

1 Comment

The missing 6,000 voters, part 5,999 (a)

Advertised today in the lical press:

Electoral Registration Assistant 16,215 – 17,333

“This section is responsible for compiling the Electoral Register, which will include the new challenges presented by the transition to Individual Electoral Registration and also the delivery of elections held in East Devon”

Closing date: 19 September 2014

The “new challenges” are actually quite old, EDDC having known they needed to prepare for this for several years.

It asks for at least GCSE Grade 3 English, where one hopes that the successful candidate might avoid the phrase “delivery of elections held in East Devon” which makes it sound rather like a supermarket delivery of groceries!

Stable door … horses … bolting … let’s hope it’s not too late.

Posted by

transparencyforeastdevon

Posted on

9 Sep 2014

Posted under

Misc

Comments

3 Comments

National Farmers Union confirms disgraced ex-councillor Graham Brown was their rep on the East Devon Business Forum

In response to a comment on the previous article, here is a link that confirms that, up to his resignation in 2013, disgraced ex-councillor Graham Brown was a local National Farmers Union representative to the East Devon Business Forum:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/councillor-Graham-Brown-resigns-chairman-East/story-18424282-detail/story.html

Would one call that ” agricultural business”?

And here he describes himself in 2009 as “a farmer”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8273029.stm

and here

“East Devon Branch of the National Farmers Union
Graham Brown representing the NFU, reported that there was huge frustration amongst his members that single farm payments had not been made in England. Concern was expressed that there could be a huge change in the British landscape as farming was facing a financial crisis. He was keen to take members of the Business Forum on site visits, with up to 3 possible visits lined up.”

Click to access east_devon_business_forum_minutes-25-01-07.pdf

Posted by

transparencyforeastdevon

Posted on

9 Sep 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDBF, EDDC, Ottery St Mary

Comments

4 Comments

Disgraced ex- councillor Graham Brown breached planning conditions on his own home for more than 10 years!

Well done, Express and Echo for getting this story!

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Disgraced-councillor-seeks-make-Ottery-St-Mary/story-22898229-detail/story.htm

So, just to be clear, the man who dominated Planning in East Devon for many years, who indicated in the Telegraph that he was interested in receiving tens of thousands of pounds in exchange for winning planning approvals, was all along living in a new property he had promised his own Planning Department would always remain for someone working in agriculture. When in fact he was living there pursuing other commercial activities all along.

Did no fellow councillors, or planning officers – all fully aware that he was a planning “consultant” and builder – think this a bit odd. Did nobody pipe up?

Still, a splendid entertainment is promised at the district in the next few months. How will Planning Chairman Helen Parr deal with this when it comes – as it must – before the Development Management Committee? Will Mr Brown perhaps grace the chamber with his presence? And just how hard will EDDC strive to keep this one off any public agenda before next May?

Let us not forget that while he was illegally occupying this property, he was:

A district councillor

Chairman of the first Local Development Framework (Local Plan) panel (which met in secret)

Chairman of the East Devon Business Forum – a group fully-funded by East Devon District Council, and with one of its senior officers as its Secretary, and made up of local landowners and builders who persuaded EDDC to ignore two sets of consultants in order to favour their figures, particularly on employment land

Director of a local planning consultancy (Greygreen Planning Ltd) and building company

For part of the time EDDC Business Champion

AND

Councillor for Feniton and Bucketell when, by coincidence, that area was flooded by developers wanting to increase the size of the village by 40%

And all this time he was breaking planning rules …..

Posted by

transparencyforeastdevon

Posted on

9 Sep 2014

Posted under

Democracy

Comments

1 Comment

Monitoring Officers: toothless not-even tigers

What can you say when the sanction for this behaviour is: you cannot talk to female officers and having your phone taken away?

An independent councillor at a North West local authority has been banned from speaking to female officers and had a mobile phone provided by the council removed, after a panel decided he had used it to call premium rate sex chat lines and to send “inappropriate” text messages.

When conducting a review of its mobile phone contract, Wigan Council discovered that Cllr Robert Bleakley had run up a bill of £2,418.95.
Bleakley failed to attend a hearing on the matter last week. However, the cross-party panel, led by the chair of Wigan’s standards committee, decided there was enough information to proceed in his absence.

The panel found that Cllr Bleakley had broken Wigan’s ICT policy and breached paragraph 5 and 6 (b) (i) of the members’ Code of Conduct when he used his mobile phone inappropriately.

Sanctions imposed by the panel included the removal of his IT equipment, including his mobile phone, and removal of his internet access.
“He must also undergo equal opportunities training, and female officers will be instructed not to speak to him,” the council said.

It is the third time that the councillor has been subject to a standards hearing in 2014.

In February he was found guilty of “deliberately altering an email in an attempt to jeopardise a senior employee’s job”, Wigan said.
The next month he was found guilty of viewing pornographic material on his laptop, which had been issued by the council.

Cllr Bleakley had previously been disqualified and suspended twice by the Standards Board for England. He was also removed from the Liberal Democrat Party.

Wigan’s chief executive, Donna Hall, said: “I am appalled and sickened with the language used in these messages. It is quite clear, judging by the content of Cllr Bleakley’s text messages, that he has a problem with women.
“I will not tolerate this prejudice, nor will I allow him to come into contact with female officers until he has undertaken equal opportunities training.”

Source: http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19894:councillor-banned-from-speaking-to-female-officers-has-phone-taken-away&catid=59&Itemid=27

Posted by

transparencyforeastdevon

Posted on

8 Sep 2014

Posted under

Misc

5 year land supply (2)

The longer CPRE report here:

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19870:cpre-concern-at-council-decisions-on-greenfield-land-being-overturned-on-appeal&catid=63&Itemid=31

Posted by

transparencyforeastdevon

Posted on

8 Sep 2014

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Environment (local), Local Plan, NPPF

Campaign for the Protection of Rural England and the 5-year land supply fiasco

…..“We believe our first target should be to mobilise public opinion to persuade the government to allow sites with planning permission to be included unconditionally in the estimate of the five year housing land supply.

Currently, if at any stage it can be shown that a residential site with planning permission has not been, or could not be, developed within the five year time limit, the site will immediately be removed from the estimate of the five year housing land supply. Local authorities are finding that, as they continue to grant planning permissions which then are stalled, their supply of housing land gets ever smaller. This contributes to their eventually falling victim to the five year housing land supply rule, thereby losing the ability to prevent housing development on sites which under the Local Plan were never intended for housing development.

The real problem is the five year housing land supply rule, but, as a first step, let us get a fairer way of estimating the housing land supply itself, viz. have sites with planning permission qualify for unconditional inclusion in the estimate of the housing land supply. That is politically achievable in the short term – it would require merely a change to Note 11 which qualifies par. 47 of the NPPF in which the rule is specified. So please, everyone start campaigning for that!

http://www.cprelancashire.org.uk/campaigns/housing-and-planning/housing/the-issues/item/2144-five-year-housing-land-supply

Posted by

transparencyforeastdevon

Posted on

8 Sep 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Freedom of Information and EIA

27 Freedom of Information requests to EDDC on website since 1 August 2014

And that doesn’t include those sent in direct to EDDC, many not answered, some under review after initial refusal.

Remember the Diviani promise? “Clean, green, seen”. Well. …..

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/

Posted by

transparencyforeastdevon

Posted on

8 Sep 2014

Posted under

Democracy

Retired NHS worker to stand as Independent MP in Cornwall

Probably not the last Independent to declare:

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/West-hospital-director-stand-Parliament-behalf/story-22882597-detail/story.html

Posted by

transparencyforeastdevon

Posted on

7 Sep 2014

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, EDDC, Local Plan

Comments

1 Comment

On message or not?

The Western Morning News has recently carried the story that Westcountry cities of Exeter and Taunton were among 40 identified for massive expansion by David Rudlin, an urban designer who scooped the Wolfson prize, the second-biggest economics prize after the Nobel.

His award-winning proposals, which earned him £250,000, included circular developments, with parks and allotments, of up to 150,000 people per town.

Mr Rudlin argued models pioneered in Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Germany should be adopted by Britain which could “take a confident bite out of the greenbelt”.

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Garden-City-plan-double-size-Exeter-Taunton/story-22883683-detail/story.html

But here is Housing Minister Brandon Lewis’ response to Wolfson Prize:

“We are committed to protecting the green belt from development as an important protection against urban sprawl – today’s proposal from Lord Wolfson’s competition is not government policy and will not be taken up.

Instead, we stand ready to work with communities across the country who have ideas for a new generation of garden cities and we have offered support to areas with locally-supported plans that come forward. But we do not intend to follow the failed example of top-down eco-towns from the last administration. Picking housing numbers out of thin air and imposing them on local communities builds nothing but resentment. This government has abolished regional quangos’ role in planning – instead, we have empowered elected local councils to determine where new homes should and shouldn’t go.”

Picking housing numbers out of thin air and imposing them on local communities builds nothing but resentment. Hmmm!

Are our local Conservatives “on message” with their Conservative Minister?

Posted by

transparencyforeastdevon

Posted on

6 Sep 2014

Posted under

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

Sidmouth Herald “Streetlife” readers comments on Knowle secrecy

Extracts from the “Streetlife” section of this week’s Sidmouth Herald and is reported verbatim:

“What the heck?

In the Herald it states,on page 6, that EDDC are trying to keep a report secret because the man they brought in as an expert from a (presumably) independent firm is so deeply “embedded” that he can be considered as the same as an employee. And has the powers similar to a council officer.

Apparently the report, although appearing in the format and branding of the company who actually employs him is his personal work and therefore belongs to the council !! If this is accepted then it will set a dangerous legal precedent about work produced during employment which currently belongs (copyright) to the employer not employee.

Also, doesn’t this negate his position as an expert if he is, in fact, controlled by EDDC?”

To which one response from “Barnacle Bill” is:

“E(m)bedded or ‘in bed?’

They are so deep in the sh*t that they are going to stink to high heaven when the truth is out.”

Not your usual polite Sidmouth comments and a measure of their anger and frustration perhaps?

Posted by

transparencyforeastdevon

Posted on

6 Sep 2014

Posted under

EDDC, Environment (local), Honiton/ Gittisham, Local Plan, NPPF

Gittisham – the less bad news, though it’s bad enough

Local MP Neil Parish, bewildered by the Gittisham planning application in its earlier stages, had already arranged for it to be called in for decision by Secretary of State Eric Pickles even before the EDDC latest decision.

This will be a real test of so-called “sustainability in the National Planning Policy Framework: a reserve site if there had ever been a local plan, access by one narrow country road constrained by a bridge, reliance on cars to get to shops and other facilities, real worries that doctors and education establishments cannot cope, on the direct boundary of an AONB. The pill sugared by the “promise” of social housing which, as we know, disappears from successful planning applications like morning mist in high summer in East Devon.

And all totally avoidable if we had in place the Local Plan (and Community Infrastructure Levy) that EDDC has been “working on” since 2007.

Another planning application that is left to the local community (and its concerned MP) to fight thanks to EDDC’s officers and councillors.

Posted by

transparencyforeastdevon

Posted on

5 Sep 2014

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Environment (local), Honiton/ Gittisham, Local Plan, NPPF

Comments

1 Comment

Now you see it, now you don’t …

EDA member Paul comments on the nonsensical and contradictory EDDC double-think…. this is his personal reflection.

“Is it just me or do others find the contradictory messages sent out by EDDC completely nonsensical (or perhaps from cloud-cuckoo-land)?

In this week’s Pullman’s View From Honiton

http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/launch.aspx?pbid=03a901df-0b77-4e35-90e6-93ca8d117094

we have:

* Two similar articles about the lack of a Local Plan (pages 3 “Council criticised for delays to plan” and page 4 “Council leaders must ‘get a grip’ on local plan”);

* An article about the 300 homes between Honiton and Gittisham (page 6 “Decision on new homes expected”)

From the first of the two articles about the Local Plan, “an EDDC spokesperson said that the council still had the power to prevent development of unsuitable sites. … ‘The lack of a five-year housing land supply in effect means that we cannot refuse housing developments simply because they are outside the built-up area boundaries that define the extent of our settlements. The majority of our settlements are adjacent to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Green Wedges and other designations that restrict development anyway and these designations still apply anyway with equal strength regardless of whether we have a five-year land supply or not.”

Yet the 300 homes proposed in Honiton are EXACTLY THAT – adjacent to an AONB – and the development was initially approved despite this (and despite access issues and a illogical report from the county council’s Highways officer) and has been called back for review because of the strength and pressure of local opposition.

So the statement from the EDDC spokesperson (should we think this was written or approved by council leader Paul Diviani or Chief Executive Mark Williams?) is not backed up by the facts – and this is not the first time as their annual report is a masterpiece of spin and economies with the truth.

It seems to me that when these sorts of obviously contradictory statement get published in the same newspaper, it just makes EDDC look stupid / incompetent / poorly led / two-faced / full of **** / lying / away with the fairies / one sandwich short of a picnic (but judge for yourself and select the adjectives you like or add your own).”

Posted by

transparencyforeastdevon

Posted on

5 Sep 2014

Posted under

EDDC, Honiton/ Gittisham, NPPF

Comments

1 Comment

Gittisham gone to the EDDC dogs

4-3 in favour, Helen Parr (Chair, Colyton) seconding because no-one else had the guts to do it.

For: Councillors Parr, Williamson, Gammell and Sullivan and against: Councillors Pook, Key and Atkins (note to self: where were other members of the DMC – “otherwise engaged”?)

Scorched earth yet again …..

For full information see

https://susiebond.wordpress.com/2014/09/05/great-sadness-as-300-houses-are-approved-at-planning-inspections-committee/