Style over substance or the real thing? You decide:
https://new.devon.gov.uk/democracy/how-the-council-works/devolution/
So, about that EDDC new HQ ……
Monthly Archives: September 2015
Does this decision about a public green in Exeter affect Knowle Parkland
Judge upholds challenge over town green and local authority land
Friday, 04 September 2015 09:43
A High Court judge has recently upheld a judicial review challenge by a campaigner over an inspector’s refusal of an application to register land in Exeter as a town green, it has been reported.
The case of R (Goodman) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs related to Exhibition Fields in Pinhoe. The application to register the land as a town green had been referred by Devon County Council to the Planning Inspectorate for determination (as Devon is a ‘pilot’ registration authority.
The planning inspector rejected the application for the following reasons:
He concluded that Exeter City Council, as landowner, had impliedly appropriated Exhibition Fields from employment use such that the land thereafter became held as recreational open space and any recreational use was “by right”; and (and in the alternative)
as the city council had held fairs and a circus on part of the Fields, any recreational use of the land for sports and pastimes had been impliedly permitted, following the decision in R (Mann) v Somerset County Council [2012] EWHC B14.
The claimant took the case to the High Court, with Mr Justice Dove ruled in their favour on 30 July.
According to Francis Taylor Building, the judge held – in relation to the inspector’s first conclusion – that, for an implied appropriation to have occurred, there must be evidence that the local authority directed its mind to, and answered, the statutory test for appropriation set out in s.123 of the Local Government Act 1972. Simply managing land as recreational open space was not of itself sufficient to give rise to an implication that an appropriation had occurred.
In relation to the second of the inspector’s reasons, the High Court judge held that for an implied permission to arise there must be evidence that the landowner intended to grant permission and also that, in the case of local authorities, the nature of the landowner’s action was relevant including, in the Goodman case, that the intervening acts of the landowner were of themselves for the purposes of public recreation.
FTB’s Douglas Edwards QC acted for the claimant, leading Simon Lane of Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. They were instructed by Susan Ring and Harry Campbell of Richard Buxton, solicitors.
Commenting on the case, FTB said: “The case helpfully clarifies some elements of the law relating to town and village greens as it applies to local authority land and reduces the scope for local authorities to rely on ‘implied’ appropriation and implied permission for recreational use so as to defeat a town green application.”
Further evidence for the Local Plan and EDDC tries to pass the buck to the National Trust and Woodland Trust for required open spaces
Mr Thickett said he would allow the participants at the housing session an opportunity to see and comment on the Council’s further submissions.
The further submissions can be accessed here:
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/emerging-plans-and-policies/the-new-local-plan/examination-and-hearing-sessions-and-further-consultation-at-april-2015/august-2015-evidence/#article-content
If you wish to make any comments on the new evidence and submissions only; on other matters will not be accepted, please submit these comments to me the Programme Officer by 30 September 2015.”
Our comment:
The EDDC “evidence” does not inspire us with enough confidence that sufficient robust evidence has been supplied by EDDC, particularly in respect of Habitat Mitigation obligations.
Many aspects have been left for the Inspector to decide because Natural England and EDDC cannot agree that enough has been done to safeguard special sites.
It also says that the Exmouth Splash Masterplan as it stood at the last hearing, may well not be the one that Exmouth ends up with but they don’t see why this should hold up the Local Plan.
Exmouth Splash: EDDC implies: don’t take any notice of what we say!
Yesterday, 3rd September, EDDC updated its page about Exmouth Queen’s Drive Development. (http://eastdevon.gov.uk/regeneration-projects/regeneration-projects-in-exmouth/queens-drive-leisure-area/)
There were a number of striking, and confusing statements within the update. In relation to the current tenants, it listed the dates when there had been communication between the parties. It listed the latest as January 2015. This comes as rather confusing given EDDC’s public claims of keeping the existing tenants fully informed.
This confusion may be explained by a later paragraph which is worth quoting verbatim here.
“Existing tenants
Businesses currently operating at Queen’s Drive will continue to trade beyond 30 September 2015 until the necessary legal procedures have been followed and concluded regarding their future. We would like to apologise to our tenants and their customers for any confusion or misleading statements that have been in the press. Residents and visitors to Exmouth will be able to continue to use the facilities for the foreseeable future.”
end quote
Explained by EDDC’s confusion and misleading statements that have been in the press perhaps, and news to the tenants?
As recently as the 2nd September, at least one of the existing tenants considered themselves potentially forced out of business according to EDDC and their 30th September deadline.
Not only that, in the Express and Echo story of the 3rd September, EDDC are quoted “EDDC said that the existing tenants on the Queen’s Drive site have been informed of the news and can trade until September 30, when work will begin shortly afterwards.
Another notable omission from EDDC’s page is the absence of any mention of the developers who had put forward the most recent plans – though their June debut still features on EDDC’s website ( http://eastdevon.gov.uk/news/2015/06/18-m-waterfront-transformation-beckons-for-exmouth/)
It was this company’s proposals that added significant residential elements to the plans, at, it would appear, the expense of children’s play areas and water play elements. There have been concerns about the favoured developer and some of their past projects.
Elsewhere EDDC have been challenged to provide the evidence for their claims that they have consulted widely, and the inference that their projects are supported by residents and visitors. Their response is eagerly awaited.
Civilian staff have ” blue light” company cars in Devon and Cornwall police
“COMPANY cars with blue lights and sirens have been given to seven police forces in England for civilian staff who are not trained to use them – including Devon and Cornwall, the BBC has reported.
Among those were nine senior staff including finance, HR and IT directors. The main recipients were finance directors.
The BBC reported that one tax expert said the recipients could save thousands of pounds each year as emergency vehicles are treated differently by HM Revenue and Customs.”
However, the forces said the vehicles were part of their wider fleet, and denied they were provided for tax reasons.
Surely, the point should not be WHICH company car they get but WHY they get them at all.
Maybe, in a Corbyn world, it may be the poorer workers who get the cars and the richer ones who don’t – but no blue lights for civilians!
The significance of Dawlish Warren, Exe Estuary and Pebblebed Heaths to Planning in East Devon
One of our correspondents writes again:
Another thing the Talaton appeal has thrown a spotlight on is the lack of progress EDDC has made turning a strategy into an action plan. In this case it concerns EDDC’s failure in the draft Local Plan to meet obligatory requirements to demonstrate that it has a plan to mitigate the pressure increased population will place on three very sensitive wildlife habitats: Dawlish Warren; the Exe estuary and the Pebblebed Heaths.
This is something that EDDC, Teignbridge and Exeter have been working on since around 2012/2013 when they commissioned the “South-east Devon European Mitigation Strategy” report. This study concluded that, without appropriate mitigation measures, further development within 10Km of these sites would have adverse effects.
One of the central mitigation measures is the identification and creation of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) to replace specialised habitat and to provide additional recreation space to draw people away from these sites. Unfortunately, having identified one particular SANG, EDDC promptly granted planning permission for it, even before the report was published (see para 7.19 of the report)!
Since the beginning of August 2014, EDDC have been trousering between £749 and £626 per dwelling from developers to “make it easier for developers to ‘deliver’ such mitigation” but in the words of Natural England (submission to the Local Plan examination dated 11 June 2015):
“We are becoming increasingly concerned regarding the lack of progress on the delivery of mitigation measures which have not yet been implemented. We are aware that the Authority has been collecting funds for mitigation but delivery of such measures has not kept pace with its collection….. We are also concerned that recent planning applications and permissions may inhibit the delivery of proposed mitigation and that that mitigation may require modification to be delivered.”
Furthermore this letter from Natural England makes it clear that EDDC failed, prior to submitting the revised local plan for inspection, to update or consult further on the Habitat Regulation assessment section which Natural England, the statutory consultee, had stated in 2013: “does not meet the legal requirements as set out in Section 102 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) nor National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 166.”
The Talaton appeal gives us an up to date view of Planning Inspectorate thinking on this which looks unequivocal to me:
“60. No clear mechanism has been put forward that would ensure the delivery of the SANGs that form an essential element in the Council’s Mitigation Strategy. In the absence of appropriate mitigation, in line with the Mitigation Strategy, the effect of the proposed residential development, in combination with other planned development, is likely to give rise to adverse effects on the integrity of the SAC/SPA as a result of additional recreational pressure.
61. Regulation 61(5) of the Habitats Regulations identifies that the competent authority may only agree to a plan or project after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of a European site, subject to regulation 62, regarding considerations of over-riding public interest. That approach is reflected in paragraph 118 of the Framework which advises that planning permission should be refused where significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or compensated for.
62. In this case, there is little information before me to determine whether the proposed level of residential accommodation could be provided in another location, outside of the 10km zone surrounding the SPA. However, even if no alternative solution exists, the proposals are not put forward on the basis of any imperative reasons of over-riding public interest, of a social or economic nature, that would outweigh the harm to the SAC/SPA, having regard to Regulation 62 of the Habitat Regulations. As such, to grant planning permission for the proposed developments would be contrary to the aims of The Habitats Regulations and paragraph 118 of the Framework, both of which dictate that planning permission should be refused.”
Without resolution this matter looks like a showstopper for the Local Plan. But how easy is it going to be to agree a mitigation plan with a local authority that sets aside “Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace” one day then grants planning permission on it the next?
EU growth targets cut
But don’t worry – East Devon is going to be a little spot of very high growth, according to our draft Local Plan put together by our Tory councillors and their officers, who are much better informed than the European Central Bank … aren’t they?
We must hope so.
Will the Planning Inspector agree, we wonder?
Retired and redundant civil servants could be offered zero-hours contracts to mask under-staffing
“Paul Flynn, the MP and member of the public administration and constitutional affairs committee, said the plans are a “cheap, mean ploy” for the government to disguise under-staffing in permanent jobs.
“It’s an odd, surreal document offering zero-hours contracts plus an exploitative one-sided deal to individual pensioners devoid of trade union protection.” he said. ”
Community Voice on Planning (CoVoP) announces regional meeting – 10 October 2015
Community Voice on Planning (CoVoP), a nationwide network of groups concerned with planning issues, we should like to invite you to a workshop in the South West (Cornwall to Avon) to be held at
The Cat & Fiddle
just a mile from Junction 30 of the M5 (near Exeter), towards Sidmouth on the A3052
(Lunches/snacks available from 12pm).
The meeting will take place from
1.30pm till 4.30pm on
Saturday 10 October 2015.
The theme of the workshop will be:
How to Make the Planning System Work for Local Communities, Environment and Sustainability,
and they are keen to focus on practical solutions.
Details here:
Crowd funding plea to get judicial review of fast-track fracking licenses
£300,000 new phone mast for David Cameron’s Cornish hideaway
The rural business people attempting to get better broadband coverage might well be advised to buy David Cameron a Devon hideaway – broadband might follow VERY quickly!
“DAVID Cameron is splashing £300,000 of taxpayers’ cash on a mast so that he can get better mobile coverage at his favourite holiday resort. The Prime Minister is reportedly annoyed at the lack of signal at the remote Polzeath in Cornwall where he and his wife Sam regularly go surfing.
… Outraged locals have slammed the “appalling” proposals, that will benefit just 74 homes. The mast can provide reception for up to five miles around. Local resident Mark Crowdy branded the replacement an “eyesore” and said it “is a terrible idea”.
Shadow Culture Secretary Chris Bryan blasted the Conservatives over the proposals, accusing them of double standards because they are falling short of their £150million pledge to get nationwide coverage.
He said: “Every day thousands of people have to live and work without phone signal because this Government can’t get its act together to sort it. Instead they’re spending taxpayers’ money so the PM can get phone signal on holiday.”
Ottery fights up to 30% increase in housing
Pretty soon, the Exeter suburbs will stretch in one long ribbon development from Pinhoe and Cranbrook to Ottery and Honiton and fron Clyst St Mary to Newton Poppleford – without the infrastructure to support it. And, if there is another major economic turndown or an increase in interest rates, without the jobs to support the mortgages. And little or no truly affordable housing, of course.
A new outline planning application, submitted to East Devon District Council (EDDC) for the construction of up to 53 homes on a greenfield site next to Sidmouth Road, has been met with anger and dismay from many.
If accepted, the development – which includes open market homes and provision for 40 per cent ‘affordable housing’ – could push the total number of new houses in the pipeline to more than 600.
Concerned householders say this represents a 30 per cent population growth that Ottery’s infrastructure cannot cope with.
Councillor Roger Giles called the application from Gerway Landowners Consortium ‘unnecessary, unwanted and damaging’.
He said: “The East Devon Local Plan, reflecting the views of local people, said that Ottery should have an additional 300 homes. Already, more than 500 have been approved.”
Katie Corbin, who lives near Sidmouth Road, is one of the residents joining forces to fight the proposed development. She said: “Five hundred homes have been agreed, but only around 100 have been built. What’s going to happen when the rest are built? They have no idea of the repercussions of the affect of 500 houses. Why risk more?”
Gerway Lane resident Rachel Kirk said: “This is the third proposed development within sight of Gerway Lane and it is soul-destroying for all existing residents.”
In a letter of objection submitted to EDDC’s planning department, Martin Kirby said: “The local facilities are way behind this general house building frenzy.”
Dr Margaret Hall confirmed she will be objecting on behalf of the East Devon branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England.
She told the Herald: “It is more houses than we need and it is outside of the built-up area boundary. The infrastructure in Ottery cannot cope with it.”
Nigel Machin, of Knightstone Lane, is putting the onus on EDDC to ‘see through the spin, understand the strain the town is already going through and protect Ottery from this continuing onslaught’.
Agents of the application, Ian Jewson Planning Ltd, said: “The proposals will provide much-needed market and affordable housing in a sustainable location adjacent to existing development and close to local facilities.”
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/ottery_residents_to_fight_building_frenzy_1_4211229
Crealy Cornwall site sold, expansion of Devon site planned
Crealy Devon owners said:
“The sale of Cornwall’s Crealy will mean that we can concentrate our efforts and investments at our multi award winning Devon’s Crealy Great Adventure Park and its adjoining luxury caravan and camping park Crealy Meadows. We have had a good season so far this year in Devon and we are looking forward to progressing with some very exciting plans for the future.”
So nothing to do with financing for a big housing development on the A3052 (as presented to the Local Plan hearings) then?
“Tories accused of ‘shameful abuse of power’ over electoral roll changes”
The London Evening Standard published this article today. Of course, we know all about this in East Devon, as our Electoral Returning Officer (EDDC CEO Mark Williams) “lost” around 6,000 local voters before the last elections in May 2015. Coincidentally, these were exactly the kind of voters referred to below – ” …young people, private sector tenants, ethnic minorities and those from more socially deprived communities — who traditionally are less likely to vote Conservative — are most likely to be affected.”
The full text of the article:
Tens of thousands of Londoners could disappear from the electoral roll and lose their right to vote in next year’s mayoral and London Assembly elections, it was claimed today.
Ministers were accused of a “shameful abuse of power” after they brought forwards changes to the electoral registration system which critics claim could undermine the democratic outcome of key elections in the capital.
The Liberal Democrats said that up to two million voters across the country could be effectively disenfranchised with Londoners particularly at risk since the capital has such a large and transient population. Young people, private sector tenants, ethnic minorities and those from more socially deprived communities — who traditionally are less likely to vote Conservative — are most likely to be affected.
The Government, however, has insisted it is focusing on cleaning up the register which under the old system included many “ghost” voters who should no longer be included.
Lib-Dem MP Tom Brake, who has tabled a rejection motion in the House of Commons, said: “This is clearly going to lead to a very large number of people being disenfranchised and it’s very hard not to believe that there’s some political motivation behind it because the people most likely to be affected are probably not Conservative supporters.”
Lib-Dem London Assembly member Caroline Pidgeon added: “The Government is blatantly ignoring the independent electoral commission in pursuit of narrow party advantage. It is a shameful abuse of power.
“Removing nearly two million UK voters will leave gaping holes in the electoral register, especially in many parts of London. It will undermine the democratic outcome of next year’s Mayor and London Assembly elections.”
The Government brought forward the new system by a year to December 2015, even though the electoral commission advised ministers to spend another year transferring voters on the old household-based register to the new individual register.
Critics have warned that as the cleaned-up register will form the basis of the boundary review of parliamentary seats due to begin next year it will also result in fewer inner-city seats, which would favour the Conservatives.
A Cabinet Office spokesman said: “The transition to Individual Electoral Registration has been a huge success. Now we need to remove up to two million entries on the electoral registers which are inaccurate or out of date.”
In a letter to The Guardian, Cabinet Office minister John Penrose said: “It is absolutely untrue that anyone will accidentally find themselves unable to vote because of the change to individual electoral registration. Completing the transition this December will mean that all boundaries are based on the most accurate registers.”
“I’m afraid that people who oppose this will make the voting registers less accurate, and elections less fair with higher risk of fraud. People will conclude that they’re trying try to hang on to the existing system simply because it gives them an inbuilt party-political advantage, and that they’re putting this ahead of what’s right and fair.”
Cabinet agenda 9 September: informationon on relocation arrangements
Click to access combinedcabinetagenda90915public-version.pdf
A must read for information on effects on Sidmouth, Exmouth and Honiton
Rural broadband campaigners will be allowed to speak at DCC scrutiny meeting but transparency is a gift not a right according to Councillor Moulding
Amazing what a little adverse publicity and pointing out of hypocrisy can do:
The Owl takes some credit for this change of mind after pointing out that Councillor Moulding did not practise what he preached:
But we still have to point out that the right for the public to speak is being touted as a special and generous gift from said Councillor when, in fact, he, and DCC should be highly embarrassed by the fact that normally the public can’t address a SCRUTINY committee!
Anyone see the problem here – that the only people allowed to scrutinise the council are the councillors themselves and that the Scrutiny Committee is chaired by a majority party councillor, against accepted guidelines that the Chair should be from a minority party! It was touted thus by Councillor Moulding:
“It is not common practice for the public to give evidence at council scrutiny meetings, so the decision by chairman councillor Andrew Moulding marks a break from tradition.”
and thus by the Vice-Chair:
“I have always favoured public involvement and very much welcome this change of heart,” he said. “Openness and transparency are vital ingredients of any democratic process”.
The moral of this story? If you want transparency, you have to fight for it, it isn’t your right it is their privilege to grant it to you.
Four supermarkets were competing for EDDC’s new HQ site in Honiton
According to the front page of today’s Midweek Herald:
Although Honiton Chamber of Commerce is ecstatic, the missed opportunity to have a Waitrose must get up some people’s noses.
Not to mention that even the lowest bid would probably have been enough (when one includes the £750,000 plus already spent on pre-location costs) to refurbish the current HQ at true zero cost.
Surely our Honiton- centric Cabinet didn’t let the Chamber of Commerce sway their decision?
Lack of cohesive coastal climate change policies leave people and infrastructure vulnerable
… “The team conclude that the mixture of decentralised and privatised management of services like rail is “not geared towards” addressing the impact of climate change. They add this will only be made worse if the Conservative Government continues to pay too little attention to the threat posed by climate change.
“Given the fact that the current UK government policy is not oriented towards prioritising climate change adaption and providing local authorities with more resources, this lack of action is not likely to change in the future,” continues Dr den Uyl.
“And given that this decentralised, privatised setting around infrastructure and coastal management applies to other areas in the UK, these areas may face similar challenges.”
Gypsy and Traveller Policy modified
The Government has revised its special planning policy for Travellers to state that it will only apply to those “who lead a genuine travelling lifestyle”.
Ministers said this would mean that any application for a permanent site, including caravan sites, by someone who does not travel will be considered in the same way as an application from the settled population.
The new policy, published by the Department for Communities and Local Government, is also intended to shore up Green Belt and other protections.
It states that if a local planning authority cannot demonstrate an up–to-date 5-year supply of deliverable sites, this should be a significant material consideration in any subsequent planning decision when considering applications for the grant of temporary planning permission.
An exception is where the proposal is on land designated as:
Green Belt;
sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives;
sites designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest;
Local Green Space;
an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty;
within a National Park (or the Broads).
The policy states that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved, except in very special circumstances.
“Traveller sites (temporary or permanent) in the Green Belt are inappropriate development,” it says. “Subject to the best interests of the child, personal circumstances and unmet need are unlikely to clearly outweigh harm to the Green Belt and any other harm so as to establish very special circumstances.”
The revised policy also says: “In exceptional cases, where a local planning authority is burdened by a large-scale unauthorised site that has significantly increased their need, and their area is subject to strict and special planning constraints, then there is no assumption that the local planning authority is required to plan to meet their traveller site needs in full.”
The DCLG claimed the new policy made clear the need to ensure fairness in the system, with planning policy reflecting the requirement that caravan sites should be made available for those who travel permanently.
Communities Secretary Greg Clark said: “I’m determined to ensure fairness in the planning system, so everyone abides by the same rules.
“Today’s new policy strengthens the hand of councils to tackle unauthorised development in their area, ensures all communities are treated equally and that the protection of the Green Belt is enforceable.”
Housing and Planning Minister Brandon Lewis said: “Unauthorised traveller sites can blight communities, causing misery for their neighbours and creating resentment that planning rules don’t seem to be applied fairly.
“Today’s revised planning policy clearly sets out the protection against unauthorised occupation and that the rules apply fairly to every community equally – no ifs, no buts.”
Garden Court Chambers’ Marc Willers QC, who advises Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, warned on Twitter that the new planning policy was “short-sighted” and bound to result in more unauthorised camping. “To what end?” he said.
China slowdown affecting British firms
Whither now EDDC’s “high growth strategy”?
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/01/uk-manufacturing-jobs-data-chinese-slowdown
East Devon Watch 