Daily Archives: 10 Sep 2015

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Sep 2015

Posted under

Cranbrook, EDDC

Comments

1 Comment

Cranbrook: the result of 40 (yes, forty) years of planning!

“Cranbrook is the first new stand alone settlement in Devon since the Middle Ages. The result of over 40 years of planning, it is now coming to fruition with development having started on site in June 2011 and the first new homes being completed in May 2012.”

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/evidence-and-research/cranbrook/what-is-cranbrook-all-about/

40 YEARS!!! Anyone remember Cranbrook being discussed in the 1970’s and 1980’s? Or were all the discussions in secret?

And is anyone proud of what we have ended up with after 40 years of planning?

Here is a different view of this 40 year-in-the-making town:

“The Government’s Eco Towns Prospectus, released in July, states: “Cranbrook will be designed to high environmental standards above current building regulations. The first phase includes providing 16.7 percent of energy from renewable sources, with its use of biomass boilers to heat schools, commercial buildings and community facilities. The steps they are taking will provide many useful lessons for eco-towns.”

The town – which will be near Exeter Airport and a planned new “Skypark” business estate – is expected to consist of around 5,000 new homes by 2016.

Environmental campaigners, however, are unimpressed by the proposed eco-town and dismiss it as a “greenwash”. They are concerned about the potential for increased carbon emissions from residents commuting to work and the fact that Cranbrook will be built near a flood plain.

“I find this eco-town claim utterly amazing,” says Maurice Spurway, a spokesperson for Friends of the Earth. “Cranbrook will create a paved area close to a flood plain and its waste will probably be burned in an incinerator in Exeter, so carbon emissions would be maximised. The town is following all the wrong rules of development. This eco-town name is a marketing ploy without substance and I’m shocked the Government has fallen for it.”

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/cranbrook-wheres-good-design.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Sep 2015

Posted under

Development Management Committee, EDDC, Seaton/ Colyford / Colyton

“A travesty of a development management committee meeting” –

“The battle for Pendeen, the modest but attractive seafront bungalow on Castle Hill which its owner wants to replace by a block of 3 flats, was lost at East Devon’s Development Management Committee yesterday. The DMC had refused a very similar application in April (by 7-6), but the same committee has now approved the replacement (6-4, with three Independent members unfortunately absent).

Seaton’s voice was once more unanimous: Marcus Hartnell for the town council, his fellow district councillor Jim Knight, Pendeen neighbour Jean Hoskin, and myself for the many individual objectors, backed up by Peter Burrows on the committee, all opposed the application, but we were overridden by Tory councillors from other areas.

Planning officers’ distortions

How could local opinion be so ignored, and the committee’s own recent decision be set aside? The simple answer is that planning officers, who supported the original application but were overruled by the majority of members, provided ammunition for councillors supporting the bid to overturn the first decision.

Two disturbing distortions in the officers’ case were highlighted by councillors who opposed the application. First, they quoted the National Planning Policy Framework’s paragraph 60 to the effect that we ‘should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative’. However Councillor Mike Allen (Conservative, Honiton) objected that they had omitted the conclusion to the NPPF paragraph: ‘It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness.’ Allen said that he did not appreciate officers quoting selectively to buttress a particular case.

Secondly, the officer in charge repeatedly displayed a photo, originally produced by the applicant, labelled to show the proposed flat-roofed block together with two other flat roofs in the view from Seafield Gardens. Peter Burrows twice pointed out that there were no photos provided at all from the public viewpoints (Coastal Path, Cliff Gardens) that would be damaged by the building. (Moreover the photo that was highlighted by the officer had cut out the row of red-roofed houses on Castle Hill of which Pendeen forms part.)

Councillors’ failure to carefully consider the objections

How did the committee come to its decision despite these failings in the pro-application case being pointed out? The majority of members simply did not respond to either Allen’s or Burrows’ points, they did not respond to most of the objections made by the Seaton representatives, and they did not address point by point the 3 good reasons for refusal that their own committee had given as recently as April.

Mostly these councillors thought it sufficient to give their opinions: Councillor Alan Dent, the former Design and Heritage Champion, ‘liked’ the proposed building, his successor, Christopher Pepper, agreed with him without expanding his own view, and other members chipped in briefly before voting the proposal through.

The bias of the planning system

Why do councillors act like this? They are not simply biased against Seaton, as the same thing happens to applications from other areas. They are not necessarily corrupt (in the sense highlighted by the Graham Brown case). The key, probably, is that they don’t want the trouble of appeals, highlighted as a danger by the officers in this case. Group-think does the rest: the Tories are happy to let individual councillors like Jim and Marcus speak for their constituents, and more independent minds like Mike Allen have their say, as long as the rest of them can vote us down.

We have no real redress against the Committee’s failure to consider the matter carefully or fairly. The applicant, if he had lost, could have appealed. Objectors can only seek judicial review – a right the Tory Government is trying to curtail – which would cost probably tens of thousands of pounds if EDDC spent taxpayers’ money to cover their own failings.

http://seatonmatters.org/2015/09/09/pendeen-doomed-in-dmc-travesty/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Sep 2015

Posted under

DCC, Rural communications, Transparency

DCC wants “more transparency” about broadband not-spots

“Devon County Council scrutiny committee conducted an investigation in the Connecting Devon and Somerset (CDS) superfast scheme. …

… The meeting saw councillors issue a number of recommendations for CDS, including for an open market tender for phase two of the roll out, the publication of frequent progress reports and an ethos “greater openness and transparency”.

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Ministers-confirm-plans-universal-service/story-27774783-detail/story.html

Good luck with that!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Sep 2015

Posted under

Austerity cuts, Police (local)

PCSO’s and police volunteers to get extra powers as police numbers fall:

So, we get policing on the cheap – the new order.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11854513/Police-Community-Support-Officers-could-be-replaced-with-unpaid-volunteers.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Sep 2015

Posted under

Claire Wright, Exmouth

Claire Wright writes about Exmouth seafront plans in new Express and Echo column

Devon County Councillor and recent Independent candidate at the general election, Claire Wright, is not impressed with EDDC’s plans for Exmouth seafront:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/letter-Claire-Wright-Exmouth-seafront-plans-right/story-27772921-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Sep 2015

Posted under

EDDC, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Richard Cohen

Comments

1 Comment

“You won’t stop sale of Knowle” says Cohen

According to last week’s Sidmouth Herald, Mr Cohen (he of the says that even if the bid ends up in court it will not hinder his relocation plans. Oh, and by YOU he means us, those residents of East Devon who have the temerity to challenge him.

image

This is the man of whom the Information Commissioner wrote on 5 May 2015 verbatim):

“This Tribunal takes the unusual and unfortunate step of commenting on the conduct of the appeal itself. We are unanimous in our view that this appeal has taken much longer than it should have done and the reason for this seems to be
the failure on the part of the public authority, the appellant, to address itself with sufficient attention to the details of what information and documents it was supplying to the Commissioner and ultimately also to the Tribunal. It was not until March 2015 that a fully legible copy of the disputed information was supplied and seemed to be complete. This is, in our collective experience, wholly exceptional and the time spent dealing with what we believe to be five different sets of disputed information is simply not a good use of the Tribunal’s time nor fair, in terms
of delay, to the requester. Correspondence on behalf of the Council, rather than ensuring the Tribunal was assisted in its function, was at times discourteous and unhelpful including the statement that we had the most legible copies possible. A statement, which was clearly inaccurate as subsequently, we have been provided with perfectly legible documents. We believe this appeal could and should have been dealt with completely at the hearing in August 2014 and the
decision promulgated six months ago had the Council discharged its responsibilities properly.”

Now he appears to imply that he is above the law and that he can influence things in many ways if he feels like it. Hhmmm.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Sep 2015

Posted under

NHS (local)

“Middle-class people missing out on 8 years of full and active life”

Middle class people in the UK are missing out on an average of eight years of full and active life because of deep-seated inequality extending far beyond the gap between the richest and poorest, one of the world’s leading experts on the issue has warned.

Sir Michael Marmot, the incoming president of the World Medical Association and former BMA president, calculated that 200,000 people a year – or 550 people a day – die prematurely in the UK because of a health gap between a small elite and the rest.

Figures are regularly published showing a difference of between 17 and 20 years in so-called healthy life expectancy between people born in the richest and the poorest neighbourhoods in Britain – a divide widely attributed to a combination of lifestyle factors such as smoking and drinking, social issues such as drugs and unemployment, diet, working conditions and the effects of education.
But Sir Michael, director of the Institute of Health Equity at University College London, warned that the focus on the gap between the rich and poor is effectively obscuring a more widespread inequality, affecting millions of middle class people.

He calculated that a typical British person, who would never be classed as deprived is missing out on eight full years of “disability free life expectancy” – the length of time they could expect to live before the onset of a chronic or life limiting illness or other condition.

There is, he said “no good biological reason” why everyone in the UK does not enjoy the same chance of a long and healthy life as those at the top.

The gap cannot, he said, be blamed on a postcode lottery in health provision because, despite problems with the NHS, Britain enjoys one of the most equitable systems of access to health care in the world.

Sir Michael also said the gap could not simply be blamed on people being “irresponsible” because there is a clear social gradient linking levels of conditions such obesity and people’s position in the overall hierarchy.

He said: “When we think about health inequalities commonly we think about health of the worst-off compared to everybody else – and I’ve contributed to that, I’ve spoken about a 28 year gap in male life expectancy in Glasgow, a 20 year gap in the London borough of Westminster, comparing the poor with the best off.

“But I want to change the conversation based in the best evidence: people in the middle have worse health than people at the top.

“Instead of focusing on the bottom let’s focus on the top.
“People at the top have the best health and there is no good biological reason why everybody, wherever they are, should not enjoy the same good health as people at the top.
“Let’s make common cause between people wherever they are in the social hierarchy because the evidence suggests that we can make a difference and we know what to do to make a difference.”

He said that inequality amounted to the greatest health challenge of our time.

“If these 200,000 deaths were caused by a pollutant people would be on the streets marching to have it banned,” he said.

“The irony is the actual cause is just as pin-pointable as a toxin.

“The cause of inequalities are the conditions in which we were born, grow, live work and age and it’s damaging the health of us all.

“It is not simply about money and it is not just the poor who suffer – it is unfair we don’t all live in the best possible good health.

“We know what to do to make it better and save 550 lives a day in the UK alone.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10699077/Rich-will-live-life-to-the-full-20-years-longer-than-poor-official-figures-show.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Sep 2015

Posted under

Austerity cuts, Democracy

MPs gravy train, trough – call it what you will, it is costing us more and more

…”Ipsa said the overall bill for MPs’ expenses and costs rose to almost £106m in 2014-15. This was an increase of £1.7m on the previous financial year. It includes money claimed for staffing and office costs, travel and accommodation – but not MPs’ salaries.

…”Of the total amount spent by MPs during 2014-15, £82.7m went on staffing – which was up £2.2m compared with the previous year. Travel and subsistence costs rose slightly, too – from almost £4.8m to £4.9m.

Office costs stood at £10.7m, which was lower than the £11.2m spent in 2013-14. Meanwhile, spending on accommodation fell from almost £7m to £6.7m.”

Interesting that either (a) office staff are getting big salary increases and/or (b) MPs are employing more staff.

Our own, inimitable, Hugo Swire MP, of course keeps it in the family by employing his wife.

No austerity cuts for our MPs then.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Sep 2015

Posted under

NPPF

Offices-into-homes conversion concerns

“London Councils has raised fears that the rules which mean developers can turn office space into new homes without planning permission could put economic centres at serious risk. Local authorities in central London, including Westminster, Camden, the City and Southwark, have secured opt-outs for parts of their areas but are concerned that the Government may create a “planning free-for-all” by removing the exemptions next year. England lost more than 6m sq ft of office space last year, according to the research, by CBRE for the British Council for Offices.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Sep 2015

Posted under

Austerity cuts

Auditors raise Government debt concerns

“Ministers have failed to impose proper controls on the government’s £222bn collection of financial-sector assets, which will add to public-sector debt, official auditors have found.

Despite £62.6bn worth of sell-offs, including shares in Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland, the National Audit Office (NAO) has expressed concern over an expected shortfall of financial assets worth £200m.

Student loan debt is expected to hit £1tn by 2047, which has become a major factor in the government’s failure to control the sector’s finances, the report indicated.

It means that while the total received from selling assets plus loan repayments will be £94.6bn over the next five years, this will be exceeded by the £94.8bn cost of issuing new loans and other initiatives, leaving a shortfall of £200m.

The findings are contained in a report issued on Thursday by the NAO into 54 financial institutions controlled by the government. These include four large banks and the help-to-buy scheme designed to support mortgage lending, as well as the British Business Bank and Green Investment Bank.” …

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/10/government-must-face-up-to-200m-shortfall-of-financial-assets

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Sep 2015

Posted under

Asset Management Group

Comments

1 Comment

Just a little reminder, Chairman Pook

Local authority land

30.Local authorities must publish details of all land and building assets including:

 all service and office properties occupied or controlled by user bodies, both freehold and leasehold

 any properties occupied or run under Private Finance Initiative contracts

 all other properties they own or use, for example, hostels, laboratories,

investment properties and depots

 garages unless rented as part of a housing tenancy agreement

 surplus, sublet or vacant properties

 undeveloped land

 serviced or temporary offices where contractual or actual occupation exceeds three months, and

 all future commitments, for example under an agreement for lease, from when the contractual commitment is made.

For each land or building asset, the following information must be published together in one place:

 Unique Property Reference Number

 Unique asset identity – the local reference identifier used by the local body, sometimes known as local name or building block. There should be one entry per asset or user/owner (eg. on one site there could be several buildings or in one building there could be several users floors/rooms etc – where this is the case, each of these will have a separate asset identity). This must include the original reference number from the data source plus authority code

 name of the building/land or both

 street number or numbers – any sets of 2 or more numbers should be separated

with the ‘-‘ symbol (eg. 10-15 London Road)

 street name – this is the postal road address21

 post town

 United Kingdom postcode

 map reference – local authorities may use either Ordnance Survey or ISO 6709 systems to identify the location of an asset, but must make clear which is being used. Where an Ordnance Survey mapping system is used (the grid system) then assets will be identified using Eastings before Northings. Where geocoding in accordance with ISO 6709 is being used to identify the centre point of the asset location then that reference must indicate its ISO coordinates.

whether the local authority owns the freehold or a lease for the asset and for whichever category applies, the local authority must list all the characteristics that apply from the options given below:

for freehold assets:

o occupied by the local authority
o ground leasehold
o leasehold
o licence
o vacant (for vacant properties, local authorities should not publish the full address details and should only publish the first part of the postcode22).
for leasehold assets:
o occupied by the local authority o ground leasehold
o sub leasehold
o licence.

for other assets:

o free text description eg. rights of way, access etc23.

 whether or not the asset is land only (i.e. without permanent buildings) or it is land with a permanent building.

Click to access Local_Government_Transparency_Code_2014.pdf