Story here – you have until 20 February:
Monthly Archives: February 2015
New road through the Blackdown Hills?
Now, won’t the developers just love that, Councillor Diviani!
EDDC refuses to discuss a motion on expediting the Local Plan brought by Independent Councillors as “not immediately relevant to this council”!
The motion:
This council strongly recommends a future district council (after 7th May 2015) to create a new committee to deal with development strategy for East Devon. Its primary ongoing role will be to ensure East Devon has an adopted local plan in place at all times and which will ensure that housing development takes account of local need, the desires of local people, and environmental and other constraints. The new strategic planning committee should as a matter of the utmost urgency address the previous administration`s failure to deliver an adopted local plan, which has placed East Devon under threat from rapacious developers, and has resulted in inappropriate development in many parts of East Devon.
Proposed by Councillor Ben Ingham Councillor, Seconded by Roger Giles and supported by Susie Bond, Trevor Cope and Claire Wright.
At the annual meeting of the Council, it was agreed that the Council’s constitution be amended to clarify motions on notice at Council and regularise good practice and current ways of working (New procedural Standing Order 10.3)
“Where a motion on notice has been submitted in accordance with this standing order, and prior to the despatch of the agenda, the Chief Executive may seek to clarify the purpose and/or wording of such a motion (such action may include recommending its rewording) so as to ensure that any such motion, if approved, is compliant with the Council’s legal and administrative powers.
Where the wording of the motion is not immediately relevant to the business of the Council, the presumption is that it will be referred to the relevant committee or Overview and Scrutiny Committee in the first instance to enable research to be properly carried out into the issue to facilitate a relevant and informed debate.
The Leader, at his discretion, may invite a Portfolio Holder to respond to a motion or a question (under Procedural Rule 9.2).”
In the light of the above and similar work currently being undertaken by the Corporate Business Think Tank and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, this motion will be referred directly to that Committee for consideration.
Click to access 250215-council-agenda-with-report-and-schedules-and-minute-book.pdf
EDDC councillors kept in dark about planning proposals
Would that be ALL councillors or just some councillors?
Catch Swire on planning at Clyst St Mary and Woodbury this week – four-and-three-quarter years too late to be of any use
Swire (finally, after four-and-three-quarter years of avoiding the issue) meets parishioners of Clyst St Mary at the Village School o
Meet Hugo Swire and quiz him on local planning matters:
Thurs 19th Feb 6.30pm
Clyst St Mary Village School
and on
Friday, 20th February from 6.30 till 8.0 p.m.
Woodbury Village Hall
Lots to ask him, such as:
Why has he only just expressed an interest in planning matters?
Why did he vote for the National Planning Policy Framework and its definition of sustainable?
Why has he not voiced his opposition to the developer-led planning free-for-all in East Devon encouraged and stimulated by East Devon District Council?
Why has he not stood up for areas in his constituency under threat the way Neil Parish did at Feniton?
How can he keep his eye on the East Devon ball if he is always away on Foreign Office business?
Affordable housing: why is EDDC allowing developers to drop affordable housing on their developments?
Why has the right for the public to speak at Development Management Committee meetings been vastly reduced?
What input has he had into getting EDDC’s Local Plan into being?
What effect will the “co-operation” between East Devon, Exeter and Teignbridge have on East Devon?
What is his view on “green wedges”?
I’m sure you can think of MANY more questions for him!
Then ask the same questions of the Independent Parliamentary candidate Claire Wright – his major challenger!
“Free Vote and Recall Pledge”
The Free Vote and Recall Pledge
http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/the-free-vote-and-voluntary-recall-alliance-pledge
At present, an MP can change parties, vote against everything he or she said that they stood for before election – they can’t even be removed if they have done something criminal and been jailed for more than 12 months!
“Why are our MPs told how to vote by the party whips on most bills that go through the House of Commons????
David Cameron MP gave us the answer: “[A Bill] gets sent to the House of Commons where it’s debated without diligence–because automatic guillotines cut time short. It’s passed without proper scrutiny–because standing committees for Public Bills are stuffed with puppets of the Government. And it’s voted through without much of a whisper–because MPs have been whipped to follow the party line”.
The above quotation from a party leader whilst in opposition, shows that political parties are stern critics of the whipping system in parliament when in opposition, but then use exactly the same methods themselves when elected to government.”
This Party Whips system which is used to enforce party decisions on our elected MPs, combined with the fact that the membership of all major parties has been reduced to very small numbers, has left our democracy locked into a situation where a very small elite of party activists have control over our political parties, our government and our country.
This is the Pledge that ALL candidates of ALL parties are being asked to sign:
The Free Vote Voluntary Recall Alliance Pledge (FVVRA)
As a prospective Parliamentary candidate for the [your] constituency in the Westminster Parliament General election, I herby give this pledge on my word of honour to the voters of the aforesaid constituency.
I pledge that if elected to be your Member of Parliament in the election on 7th May 2015, I will pursue the aims and policies presented to the voters in my manifesto. I will maintain a continuous review of these policies in light of any change of circumstances that will affect the viability or desirability of these policies during the Parliamentary term and inform my constituents of any change in my support for any of these policies. I will work diligently to advance the interests of the people of my constituency, my region and my country and I affirm and promise that all of my voting decisions in the Westminster Parliament will be cast as a Free Vote (not on the instruction or direction from my party or party whips) and I will not abstain from voting in any parliamentary division.
I confirm that as your Member of Parliament, I will be guided by the Seven Principles of Public Life “selflessness, accountability, objectivity, integrity, honesty, openness and leadership”. as drawn up by the Nolan Committee and endorsed by parliament. I also confirm that I will always represent the interests of my constituents and my country above the interests of my party, the Executive or any self interest groups of Lobbyists or Special Advisers who may exist inside or outside of parliament.
If elected, I will expect to be personally judged as your Member of Parliament on my voting decisions in Parliament, my service to my constituency, region and country and my adherence to the “Seven Principals of Public Life”. If at any time, I am presented with verifiable evidence through the FVVRA Standards Committee that I have broken this pledge to my constituents. I will resign my post as your Member of Parliament and initiate a new constituency election.
Having signed this the FVVRA Pledge myself, I will support the right of any other prospective Member of Parliament or present Member of Parliament to adopt and make this pledge to the people of our United Kingdom.
Signed __________________
Date
Witnessed ________________
Date
Video of George Osborne advocating tax dodging
“Mr Osborne said: ‘There are some pretty clever financial products which enable you to – in effect – pass on your home, or the value of your home, to your son or daughter and then get personal care paid for by the state.
‘I probably shouldn’t be advocating this on television.'”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2955919/I-probably-shouldn-t-advocating-Video-young-George-Osborne-advising-voters-dodge-taxes-unearthed.html
Clyst St Mary: a challenge for Hugo Swire when he comes to your planning meeting later this week
Cynical smiles of the day
Came across this gem today from July 2013:
and the EDDC “Ribbon Fairy” staking out its land grab in November 2013:
https://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/ribbon-fairy-at-knowle/
Call for watchdog on SW broadband
From a correspondent:
May I suggest you give some publicity to these two reports from today’s Western Morning News:
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Calls-market-watchdog-investigate-broadband/story-26032197-detail/story.html
Do we need a District Council?
Subject brought up today on this local blog:
Claire Wright (Independent) General Election meetings
STOP PRESS: CONSULTANTS HOUSING REPORTS ALREADY OUT OF DATE!
Is this another reason that EDDC would have egg on its face if it published the two consultants reports on housing?
On the website of one of the consultation companies is this:
“22/01/2015
The 2012-based Household Projection Model for Local Authorities in England, from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), is due for release in February 2015.
These household projections are based on the 2012-based sub-national population projections (SNPP) for Local Authorities from ONS.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that these official household projections should provide the starting-point for the assessment of future housing needs.
http://www.edgeanalytics.co.uk/article/2012_based_DCLG_Household_Projection_Model/
So, already their reports are out of date and would probably not be accepted by the Inspector for this reason!
Had EDDC knuckled down in March last year and got these reports ready by, say, September 2014, our Local Plan could now be in place!
WHY are the consultants reports on housing to remain secret until after district elections?
We know what the Leader of East Devon District Council gives as his “reason”
We are very much aware of the need to finalise our Local Plan, but at the same time we have to take the reports with proposed changes to the Plan to our members for consideration and consultation. We had envisaged that the earliest we would have been able to take the reports to our members would be March or early April 2015. The process of consultation would then take around six-weeks.
“However, because of the forthcoming local and national elections this would not appear to be a viable route to follow, as there is concern that the process could be seen as politically motivated, which would overshadow the soundness of the plan.
“While mindful of the need to progress quickly, the significance to the process of members consideration and consultation should not be overlooked, and consequently it is unlikely that we will take the report to our members until shortly after the May election.”
but let us look at this forensically.
The Planning Inspector, when he looked at the Draft Local Plan, threw it out. A main reason was that the number of houses to be built had no evidence to support the figure. What slight evidence given was very old, based on out of date information and therefore not to be trusted. He basically told EDDC to go back to the drawing board and give him hard evidence for his figures.
Under the National Planning Policy Framework, EDDC had a “duty to co-operate” with adjoining local authorities in case those authorities had housing needs that could not be met within their areas and must therefore be shared. For reasons never explained, although this meant in practice liaising with Exeter City Council and West Dorset, EDDC took the decision (where? when?) to extend the area to include Teignbridge, Mid Devon and Dartmoor National Park. This meant that consultants had more information to gather and more situations to take into account. It should be noted that the “duty to co-operate” is NOT a duty to agree – only to be seen to be consulting with neighbouring authorities on their needs.
So, two sets of consultants were employed. Edge Analytics were employed to look at the link between housing and employment, Ash Futures Limited were employed to look at future job growth levels in East Devon only. It appears now that both companies have produced their reports.
Usually, when consultants have produced reports, they are circulated to councillors who then have the opportunity to comment on them. Unfortunately, in East Devon, this has often been misinterpreted as an opportunity to rewrite them almost in their entirety. When EDDC doesn’t like numbers, it likes to have them changed, rather than accepting that they might be right! Take the employment land figures that were produced by two consultants for the Draft Local Plan. EDDC (or rather the East Devon Business Forum under its Chairman, disgraced ex-councillor Graham Brown) decided the figure was too low, gave their own much higher figure and this was the one which EDDC chose to go with.
Now, here we are with two reports and the Leader has decided that their contents are too politically sensitive for the public (and councillors not in the “need to know” group?) to have sight of.
What is politically sensitive about consultants reporting hard facts and evidence?
As we noted earlier, there are only two possible explanations:
1. The number of houses is below that which EDDC put in its Draft Local Plan. In this case, EDDC has egg on its face. Not only does it have egg on its face, all the current developments rushed through because we have no Local Plan would be surplus to requirements.
2. The number of houses is higher than that which EDDC put in its Draft Local Plan, either because:
(a) they just got the number wrong or
and this is more likely
(b) now that they are having to take the housing needs of not only Exeter and West Dorset into account but also Teignbridge, Mid Devon and Dartmoor National Park, EDDC will have to commit itself to taking overload from all these areas into its own area (for example, by making Cranbrook even larger than planned).
THIS IS NOT POLITICALLY SENSITIVE IT IS PARTY POLITICAL SENSITIVE AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LOCAL PLAN PROCESS
AND THE DELAY IN PUBLISHING CAN ONLY BE SEEN AS A WAY OF ENSURING THAT BAD NEWS DOES NOT COST THE CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY MORE VOTES AT THE FORTHCOMING DISTRICT ELECTION
South Somerset now has a Local Plan in place
Thanks to the correspondent who sent in two related pieces of news: firstly, that South Somerset’s Local Plan has just been declared sound: and secondly, that the Conservative parliamentary candidate has adopted a stance that would get him elected here!
‘SOMERSET: District reaches ‘major milestone’ in Local Plan process
BUT CONSERVATIVE PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATE QUESTIONS WHETHER HIGH HOUSING FIGURES ARE NEEDED
SOUTH Somerset District Council’s Local Plan, which will act as a guideline for development up until 2028, has been deemed “sound” by a government inspector, subject to a series of modifications.
The council’s received the inspector David Hogger’s report on the Local Plan (2006-2028) on January 8th, marking a “significant point” in the process of formally adopting the plan.
The necessary modifications listed in the report are the same as those consulted upon by the council in March and November 2014, and the document can be read in full online at http://bit.ly/17GNjCz
The report ratifies the council’s objectives to deliver 15,950 homes and 11,250 jobs by 2028, and confirms the council’s ambition for how towns, villages and rural areas will grow and change. It also endorses the policies against which the council will judge planning applications for homes, businesses, community facilities and infrastructure provision across the district.
The next step is for the council to make the proposed changes and present the final Local Plan to a meeting of full council on March 5th. Councillors will be asked to approve and adopt the plan and allow the policies to come into full effect.
Councillor Tim Carroll, deputy leader and portfolio holder for Finance and Spatial Planning, whose responsibilities include the Local Plan, emphasised the importance of the conclusions in the Inspector’s Report.
He commented: “This is a major milestone for the council. The overall conclusion of the inspector is that the SSDC Local Plan and the 12 modifications that were incorporated during the process are sound and therefore the plan itself is capable of adoption without any further change.
“It has been a lengthy process and I would pay tribute to everyone’s hard work over the last few years. We have reacted positively to the inspector’s requests to make changes and it is pleasing that these have now been confirmed. These changes have been fully debated and subject to extensive consultation.
“The plan focuses on bringing much needed homes and jobs to the district in the right number and place and having the formal sign-off by the Inspector puts the council in a stronger position to make better decisions about the future of South Somerset and to resist inappropriate or speculative applications. We will now move quickly to formally adopt the plan and that date has now been set for March 5th for a meeting of all councillors”.
Despite the inspector finding the Local Plan “sound”, Conservative parliamentary candidate for the Yeovil constituency, Marcus Fysh, has questioned the process the council has followed over the past eight years to reach this point.
He said he has “mixed feelings” about the report, as many good things are at risk from the bad, and claimed the proposed housing figure was too high, which he fears will “do a huge disservice to our district”.
‘Not as simple as it seems’
Mr Fysh commented: “It’s now about eight years and over £2.8million of public money which have been spent by South Somerset District Council attempting to make and adopt a Local Plan, a document with power in law to direct how much housing should be built and where it will go in our area.
“Having found the initial plan submitted in 2013 unsound, the planning inspector sent to our area by the Planning Inspectorate to assess the proposals has now issued his decision on a plan revised and resubmitted by South Somerset District Council last year.
“In that decision he has found the amended plan sound, although the decision has some peculiar reasoning and assertions that suggest he may not have properly applied his mind, which may tempt opponents of the plan to challenge it, and it is not as simple a matter as it seems.
“A lot appears to have been left to the concept of ‘early review’, in which the housing figures will be looked at bi-annually.
“And that gets to the nub of the problem with this plan and the process the council has followed to get to this stage: sadly, it may not be the last we hear about controversial planning decisions in our area.
“It is true that an adopted plan should give certainty to residents and developers alike, and on the face of it we should welcome that the inspector has not sent the district council right back to the drawing board.
“But the housing figure is a key problem. The council has been obsessed with keeping the overall housing requirement high, despite good evidence that it is too high, to the extent that many aspects of the plan have changed over the years, but the one thing that strangely has not, has been the 15,950 house building figure they have ‘aspired’ to over 20 years. Some say it is because they get extra revenue as a ‘New Homes Bonus’, which allows them to avoid cutting their spending cloth to suit in other areas (this amounted to £3million last year).
“Somehow they seem to have persuaded the inspector, against the evidence and legal precedent, to keep this number, which I fear will do a huge disservice to our district in the medium term.
“The problem is that the housing figure means that over 1,000 new houses per annum will need to be built in the district in each of the next five years if the district is not to be adjudged at planning appeals as not having met its target. Were the target not met, in planning law the Local Plan would be regarded as not up to date and would not apply at appeal hearings, therefore it would be ‘open season’ for developers again.
“There is only one year in the last 20 in which more than 1,000 houses were built, when the district grabbed money on offer from Gordon Brown and fast tracked developments with a mixed record at at Wyndham Park and Wincanton. The rest of the time the district has built around 500 houses per year, which gives an idea just how far short we could fall behind.
“So, it is with mixed feelings that I look at the inspector’s report. A lot of the good things in the plan are sadly at risk from the bad things. I am not against all development, but it has to be in the right place and have the right infrastructure and facilities.
“In Chard, for example, we want to get the regeneration scheme in place and not overload the roads through the town, and the plan looks to do that, but this will not apply if the district’s housing target is missed.
“In Ilminster we want development to complement the existing town, not turn the town into an over-built dormitory. Over-development is a risk if the housing target is missed, a recipe for even more unhappiness on all sides of the town’s development issues.
“Crewkerne and Wincanton have been told they may get more housing, depending on early review by the council, and would lose control if the housing target is missed.
“And Yeovil, which needs to get more people living downtown to regenerate and support its businesses, shops and restaurants, but doesn’t on the real numbers require yet more big urban extensions, faces yet more bolt-on green field developments that do little to upgrade the town’s infrastructure. That process would just accelerate and be even less controlled if the house build target is not met, with consequent problems for school places, traffic and health care availability.
“South Petherton faces similar pressures that could get even worse.
“One thing is clear to me; the old thinking about development in our area is stale. A huge opportunity has been missed locally to plan for development in many areas that will solve problems rather than create them.
“I do hope later this year local Conservative councillors may be in a position to review these matters and put proper solutions in place, in control of the district council. To do that we need to vote for them though. I will certainly give them my full support.” ‘
Alan B’stard and the NHS
A fleeting reference to the Late Rick Mayall’s political comedy “The New Statesman” where he played a depraved and corrupt MP, reminded us of one of his best jokes – better than Hugo Swire’s joke about flogging Greece for £5,000 at the £15,000 per head Tory fundraising dinner last week.
Alan B’Stard:
We hear an awful lot of leftie whingeing about NHS waiting lists. Well the answer’s simple. Shut down the health service. Result? No more waiting lists. You see, in the good old days, you were poor, you got ill and you died. And yet these days people seem to think they’ve got some sort of God-given right to be cured. And what is the result of this sloppy socialist thinking? More poor people. In contrast, my policies would eradicate poor people, thereby eliminating poverty. And they say that we Conservatives have no heart.
Those missing 6,000 voters – still some missing and the implications for development!
Voter Registration Exeter Style
Recall that before 2013, EDDC’s voters had stabilised at around 104,000. The latest Freedom of Information request has gleaned the information that current registration stands at 102,843.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/electoral_registration_canvassin#outgoing-421131
This means that, if few more registrations are gathered before the General Election, EDDC’s voting population has dropped by at least 1,000 people at a time when at least 800 houses are occupied at Cranbrook and many more housing developments (e.g. Wainhomes at Feniton) have been occupied.
If the secret Strategic Housing Assessment says we need more houses (including Phase 2 at Cranbrook) why then do we seem to show a net OUTWARD migration FROM East Devon rather than a net INWARD migration – the latter being used as the reason for building more and more houses?
Could it be that for every 100 new people arriving in East Devon 102 are leaving and that we should be building fewer houses not more? And that we need to STOP building as we have more houses than people?
Of course, we don’t have enough affordable housing of any kind but maybe, just maybe, we now have a surplus of non-affordable housing!
The excuse that this is happening everywhere won’t wash: it isn’t.
Betting on a hung Parliament
William Hill confirmed that a customer in Devon has placed 23 bets totalling £23,400 on a hung parliament and will win £51,000 if he’s right.
Now, wouldn’t that make an Independent East Devon MP a powerful figure!
Independent councillor Susie Bond (Feniton) slams EDDC for keeping housing numbers secret
“Working in the dark” she calls it. Absolutely spot on.
https://susiebond.wordpress.com/2015/02/14/working-in-the-dark-the-shma-report-is-out/
Two possible reasons for the secrecy:
1. The number suggested is low and would put a complete stop to current inappropriate development.
2. The number suggested is high and would lose the Tories thousands of votes at the forthcoming district council elections in May 2015.
Take your choice.
Hugo Swire says a poor electoral system is better than no system at all
“Great Britain is shirking its historic duty to speak up for the freedom of Hong Kong. Foreign Office chief Hugo Swire claimed last week that the former colony is “on a journey to greater democracy and accountability.” It would be interesting to know exactly how Mr. Swire defines his terms.
In testimony to Parliament, Mr. Swire explained that while the rigged electoral system imposed by Beijing on Hong Kong “may not be perfect,” it nonetheless is “better than nothing.” His Foreign Office colleague Stephen Lillie said Beijing’s system could offer “genuine choice.” More honest diplomats would call the system, which allows Hong Kongers to vote only for candidates nominated by a committee stacked with Beijing loyalists, an Iran-style sham.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/london-kowtow-on-hong-kong-1421706765
Sounds rather like having an Executive Board appointed by the Leader at EDDC!
East Devon Watch 
