http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/NHS-services-devolved-Cornwall/story-26833007-detail/story.html
The incentives for large unitary councils get bigger and bigger.
Daily Archives: 4 Jul 2015
Street trading “consent streets”: whose consent?
From a correspondent:
One of the interesting facts in the report to this week’s EDDC Overview Committee about street trading is the proposal that all currently Prohibited Streets in Sidmouth are proposed to be changed to be Consent streets as far as street trading is concerned.
Any applicant for a License to trade on one of these Consent streets must submit, as part of the application, the written consent of “the owner”.
In Sidmouth the beach is having its status changed from Prohibited to Consent for street trading from the mouth of the Sid westwards as far as Clifton cottage.
Now the Queen owns the beach up to the high tide mark for much of the UK – does she own East Devon’s beaches? And is she likely to give her signed approval for street trading on Those beaches? She owns up to the high tide mark and, for example, in Sidmouth that is pretty well at the sea wall.
It is not up to the applicant to identify who the owner is since the owner’s name is not required on the application form. So it will just be down to an EDDC Licensing Officer to check who owns a street or any place to which the public has access without paying and ensure that the consent in writing is given?
Why aren’t the beaches in Seaton and Exmouth included as Consent beaches – is Sidmouth being marked out for bad treatment here or good treatment? The Sidmouth Chamber of Commerce is against this proposal. It was approved by the Overview Committee and so will begin its progress to full approval.
I’ll bet EDDC have no idea who owns each part of various areas involved. If an area becomes a Consent Street under this proposal. I may know who owns what, indeed, I may even own it, but does East Devon? I wouldn’t mind betting that some street traders in Folk Week will apply to set up stalls along various streets not previously allowed and which might have very high passing footfall during Folk Week.
Interestingly on pages 41 and 42 of the Overview papers, where the process about dealing with objections to an application for street trading is detailed, there is an implication that even if the owner of a site objects, then the Licensing and Enforcement Committee may still approve the application. This seems to imply that if someone applies to put a market stall on my part of a private street, then whether or not someone is allowed to trade there is not in my determination but in the determination of and EDDC Committee of Conservative Councillors.
So what is the point of demanding the owner’s consent in writing as part of the application? Di I count at all in this process?
EDDC’s Transparency Code
But HAVING a Transparency Code doesn’t make you transparent – BEING transparent makes you transparent!
Secret meetings are not transparent and secret reports are not transparent, fighting the Information Commissioner when she says you must be transparent isn’t being transparent either!
Parish council fights affordable housing allocation
Old Hunstanton Parish Council claims that the government should not have given the green light to a development of 15 affordable homes on a field on the edge of the village.
The council says there is not a local need for them and has asked the judge to reverse the decision made by the former communities secretary Eric Pickles last year.
Luke Wilcox, for the parish council, told the court that planning rules allow rural greenfield development if there is a “local identified need.”
In this situation that must mean “local rural need,” he said. He claimed that the planning inspector who recommended the go-ahead for the project to the secretary of state did not appreciate that and wrongly considered the needs of the nearby town of Hunstanton as well.
Old Hunstanton has around 600 inhabitants while nearby Hunstanton has around 5,000 inhabitants. According to the housing register there are only two households in housing need in Old Hunstanton, compared with 22 in Hunstanton itself, said Mr Wilcox.
He added that the statistics showed that there was no need for 15 affordable homes in Old Hunstanton.
John Dobson, the chairman of Old Hunstanton Parish Council, attended the hearing. Speaking outside of court he said that the dispute, which has gone on for around two years, was “multifaceted and very complex.”
However, he said that he was the leader of the borough council that wrote the rules allowing development on green field sites if there was a “local need.”
He said that the borough council brought in the rule because the number of people buying holiday homes in the area had made houses in the villages too expensive for local people.
But he said greenfield development should only be allowed to let the people in the village who need housing build houses.
He added that the policy was not intended to allow people from the nearby town to be housed in the village.
However, Richard Honey, the counsel for the secretary of state who is opposing the challenge, told the court that the parish council was wrong.
He said that in reaching his decision the planning inspector had applied a “clear and natural” interpretation of the rules in a way that was in line with “local planning authorities up and down the country.”
Mrs Justice Lang has reserved judgment in the case and will give it in writing later. No date has yet been fixed.
Old Hunstanton Parish Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Case Number: CO/79/2015
East Devon Watch 