Monthly Archives: October 2015

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Oct 2015

Posted under

EDDC, Local Plan, Misc

CPRE again challenges EDDC housing figures

“The most reasonable jobs-led (policy-on) scenario is therefore CR2 & EA2, using the DCLG 2012 headship rates. This leads to a dwellings requirement of 723 per year (13,014 over the plan period).

There is a further element which has not been sensitivity-tested, which is the 549 jobs number calculated in the Ash Futures paper in Feb 2015 (psd2015e). This relies on an over-optimistic calculation of job creation at the Exeter & East Devon Growth Point, particularly the major sites at the Science Park, Skypark and Intermodal facility. I raised queries about this at the hearing in July.

The Skypark Development Partnership (Representor 7169) stated in their representations that job development has been slow: “the reality therefore is that it has taken 5 years to secure the first B1/2 occupier on the site suggesting the site will take at least 20 years to complete”.

We also heard at the July hearing that development of the Intermodal facility has stalled and is unlikely to come forward in the near future, and alternative uses may need to be found.

Therefore the job creation at the Growth Point is very likely to be lower than that predicted in the Ash Futures paper, and the total number of jobs is likely to be less than 549/year which has been used in all the Edge Analytics scenarios.

The number of 723 dwellings / year should therefore be regarded as an upper limit, and a realistic figure would be lower than that.

I therefore disagree with the Council’s continued use of the housing requirement figure of 950/year, which is not supported by the evidence.”

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1330903/hh2015a-cpre-comments-sep-2015_redacted.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Oct 2015

Posted under

EDDC, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation

Comments

2 Comments

EDDC opens consultation on implications of HQ location – after the decision to move!

“13 October 2015
Council asks residents for their views on delivery of services

Moving and Improving consultation will give households across East Devon the chance to have their say on how and where council services will be delivered

Having made the decision to relocate its offices from Sidmouth to Honiton and Exmouth, East Devon District Council has launched its Moving and Improving public consultation, as part of its ongoing commitment to providing excellent services to the local community.

The council is carrying out the consultation to help inform decision making about how and where services should be provided so it is keen to hear back from as many East Devon residents as possible. This consultation will help inform decision making regarding where and how council services are delivered following the move to Honiton and Exmouth.

As part of the consultation process, 3,000 households throughout East Devon were recently selected to receive a copy of the Moving and Improving consultation questionnaire in the post.

However, the consultation is also open to all other East Devon residents, who can have their say by going online and completing the questionnaire at:

http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/consultation-and-surveys/moving-and-improving

Residents participating in the consultation can enter a prize draw for vouchers worth £100 and can also sign up to receive the results.

A separate consultation questionnaire is also being sent to town and parish councillors, representatives of voluntary and community groups, and representatives of local businesses, as their opinion is also valued and will help inform the way council services are delivered.

The closing date for the Moving and Improving consultation is Thursday 12 November 2015.

Commenting on the consultation, Councillor Paul Diviani, Leader of East Devon District Council, said: “As a public authority, it is our duty to make sure that everyone can access the services they need and that our services represent great value.

“The council offices are old, expensive to run and need ongoing repairs. The public spaces are not very welcoming and the offices are not fit for purpose for a modern 21st century organisation such as ours. Quite simply, moving is a cheaper option for East Devon than staying put.

“Our vision for service delivery is that you will be able to do business with the council when, where and how you want to. This means that not only will we operate from offices in Honiton and Exmouth, but we will continue to have a presence in main towns through surgeries and we will continue to develop better online self service options for you.

“It’s really important that you have your say about how and where you want our services to be delivered in the future, as this will help us decide how to provide our services when we move.”

Contact details below are for media only and not for publication
For more information, contact:
Richenda Oldham, Communications Officer 01395 517559, ROldham@eastdevon.gov.uk”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Oct 2015

Posted under

Environment (local), Planning System

Judge quashes Wiltshire planning application due to councillor bias

“Irwin Mitchell solicitor Alex Peebles, who acted for the claimant, said: ““The quashing of planning permission for these homes is a fantastic result for those members of the community who feel very strongly that the area would have been negatively impacted by their construction. They want to protect the site of special scientific interest and the local listed buildings.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24685:high-court-judge-quashes-planning-permission-over-appearance-of-bias&catid=63&Itemid=31

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Oct 2015

Posted under

Seaton/ Colyford / Colyton

Seaton Heights – further delay

Anyone else not entirely convinced by the information from the latest set of owners of this site as reported in this week’s View from Seaton?

“Lyme Bay Leisure stresses that the Seaton Heights holiday and leisure project is moving forward despite a delay in getting on site.

It was in early June that company bosses said they hoped to start work on site in September, which didn’t happen.
A number of concerned residents have contacted Pulman’s View, asking if the project is going ahead.

One resident, Roy Newman, said: “The most recent news was that in September, after many setbacks, work would commence. Now we are one day away from October with no news being imminent.”

Lyme Bay Leisure Ltd MD James Hetherington responded by telling Pulman’s View: “We are continuing to make progress towards developing the site at Seaton. There have been delays in planning and ecology, in particular protecting the bat flightpath.

“The matter has been further delayed by the difficulty and complexity of funding the site as a majority of funders are very reluctant to even part-fund projects with a significant leisure element.

“Lyme Bay Leisure have always recognised the need and importance of the leisure facilities to the local people and have as such decided to take the necessary time required to put in place a facility that will deliver the leisure facilities to the residents of Seaton and the surrounding area at the same time as the properties come to market.
“The delays so far have caused Lyme Bay Leisure to delay a start on site this summer, but they are still hoping to make a start this year, ideally before Christmas, by addressing ecology matters and addressing the pre-conditions set by East Devon District Council before getting in to full scale development early next year.”

The complex will comprise a two-storey 12-bedroom hotel, 38 holiday accommodation units, a central amenities building to house a restaurant and leisure club, plus parking and access.

It is to be called The Seaton Gatehouse Hotel, Spa and Leisure Resort.

Mr Hetherington added: “Individuals who would like more information about the project including the revised layout of the leisure facilities or who would like to show their support for the project are encouraged to contact Lyme Bay Leisure direct by emailing info@lymebayleisure. co.uk where they can receive a regular monthly update.”

Perhaps Seatonians might wish to take up this offer, though they might possibly wait to show support until things are much clearer.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Oct 2015

Posted under

Environment (local)

Jurassic Coast Environmental Survey – views requested

“The Jurassic Coast’s Environmental Economy: your help needed

We are currently working with our partners at East Devon District Council and in Dorset to find out the economic Impact of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site designation.

Results are looking good so far, but now we need your help,

If you are an East Devon resident we would be grateful if you can spend 5 minutes to answer our residents survey:

https://www.snapsurveys.com/wh/s.asp?k=144463952637

We will be publishing the outcomes of the study in November, so watch this space.

Many thanks

Sam Rose
Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site Manager
s.rose@jurassiccoast.org
01305 228656”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Oct 2015

Posted under

EDDC, Hugo Swire

Comments

1 Comment

Working Together

EDDC recently held an event to publicise the many ways it “works together” with local organisations:

elson

 

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/news/2015/10/local-mps-hugo-swire-and-neil-parish-support-east-devon-working-together-event/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Oct 2015

Posted under

EDDC, Local Plan, Teignbridge

Why did David Cameron choose Teignbridge to talk about housing numbers?

David Cameron chose Newton Abbot over the weekend to launch his policy on more housebuilding and the threat to impose numbers on Local Authorities which do not have a Local Plan.

This seems a strange venue. Teignbridge adopted its Local Plan in 2014. In it, it choose not to adopt the “supporting high economic growth” target that EDDC prefers.

Based on the lower demographic, Teignbridge had a target of 620 houses a year. If EDDC had gone down this route, its equivalent would be 584 houses a year (10,512 over 18 years).

Teignbridge with its lower target gets the PM’s praise, EDDC gets nothing.

Strange that …

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Oct 2015

Posted under

AONB, EDDC, Environment (local), Local Plan, Natural England

Comments

1 Comment

EDDC, Natural England and the Local Plan: it appears the room wasn’t dark enough

The list of responses to the latest iteration of the Local Plan can be found below – many from developers, of course.

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/emerging-plans-and-policies/inspector-and-programme-officer/inspector-and-council-correspondence-since-2014-examination-hearings/

Amongst them is this one from Natural England

Natural England 30 Sept 2015

Those who attended the last set of hearings before the Planning Inspector may recall the slightly worrying image when Mr Thickett suggested that Laura Horner (Natural England) and Ed Freeman (EDDC) should shut themselves in a darkened room until they arrived at a solution on the Habitat Regulation issue, without which the Local Plan cannot be signed off.

The letter from Natural England makes interesting reading – the complain of confusion over the drafting of the EDDC version of what should be in the Local Plan calling it “over-detailed and potentially unclear and requiring substantive rewriting”. They point out that words such as “endorsed by the council” imply greater status for the Masterplan than was intended and point out that they need to clarify their intentions towards Exmouth.

They further point out that the Beer Neighbourhood Plan cannot be progressed until EDDC makes its intentions more clear.

It appears from the letter than EDDC had only one meeting with Natural England on 23 July 2015 and that little appears to have been resolved at that meeting.

Clearly, the room wasn’t dark enough!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Oct 2015

Posted under

Ottery St Mary

New parish council for West Hill? If so, it will take until 2017 to get one!

“East Devon District Council is to begin asking local residents for their views on whether West Hill should have its own parish council separate from Ottery St Mary Town Council. A first period of public consultation – part of a ‘Community Governance Review’- is due to start 12 October 2015 and will conclude on 12 January 2016. A leaflet and questionnaire, together with a map showing the possible West Hill Parish Council boundary, will be sent out to all households and interested parties in the Ottery St Mary area.

If supported, a second period of consultation will run from March to June in 2016 and a decision on the consultations will take place within 12 months.”

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/news/2015/10/should-west-hill-have-its-own-parish-council/

“Within 12 months” and TWO consultations, taking two years in all?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Oct 2015

Posted under

EDDC, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Development at Mill Street Car Park Sidmouth

A correspondent writes:

Councillor Twiss fires off another patronising fusillade at the newly elected Independent councillors who represent Sidmouth at EDDC as reported in last week’s Herald. “These new boys and girls just don’t understand the way things are done around here” seems to be the tenor of his comments. Cllr Gardner is accused of “Making political capital out of the vital issue of providing homes for Sidmouth’s young families”.

“The proposal to build social housing on the Mill Street car park at the cost of the existing residents around it losing vital car parking spaces is another case of using pious words to cover up previous mistakes.

We remind Cllr Twiss that in February 2011 the ruling Tory group approved a planning application for a site less than two hundred yards away which was for 12 homes at market rates exclusively for 55 year olds and upwards which have only very recently been completed! Then known as Parsons Yard it is now called Mill Gardens. Where are the homes for Sidmouth’s young families there? Perhaps they don’t generate the Council Tax revenue that these new ones do!”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Oct 2015

Posted under

Exmouth

Higher Marley Road Exmouth planning group news

From the Higher Marley Road action group:

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON HIGHER MARLEY ROAD

Dear Supporter,

This is just a brief note to update you on what is happening with regard to the planning application to build 98 houses on Higher Marley Road.

First and foremost we’re sorry to say that it has not gone away! Despite the fact that the application has not yet been considered by the EDDC Development Committee the developers are clearly still pushing it forward and we anticipate that if may well go to committee either on the meeting scheduled for 2nd November or 8th December.

What’s happening with the EDDC Local Plan?
The EDDC Local Plan is the overall planning document that guides the development of housing in the district. The latest version of this plan sets out the number of houses that are needed in the next 5 years and the sites that will be used to meet this need and the good news is that the site at Higher Marley Road is not among them. The bad news is that the Local Plan as submitted by EDDC needs to be approved by a central government inspector and he is yet to give his view (it is expected this will happen in the next 2-3 weeks). If he approves the plan then this will be very helpful and will make it much more likely that the site on Higher Marley Road will be refused permission. If not then it’s still possible to block the development but it will be tougher.

What have the developers been doing?
We cannot see everything that goes on but they have clearly had discussions with Devon County Highways Authority (CHA) and EDDC’s Tree officer in an attempt to have these bodies withdraw/reduce their earlier objections. As a result Devon CHA have now said that in principle they will not object to access being granted although we disagree with much of their logic (see below). The developers have also written to the government inspector who is reviewing the EDDC Local Plan saying they believe the area needs more sites to be made available and that Higher Marley Road should be one of them!

What are we doing?
We have been monitoring what has been happening and keeping our local councillors informed (who continue to be very supportive).

A number of our group met with a representative of Devon CHA and Devon Constabulary during a site visit in September to discuss the safety issues resulting from the Traffic on Higher Marley Road. Given the comments that were made during the visit we were very disappointed by the eventual submission that was made by Devon Highways and have written a response pointing out inconsistencies in the submission and suggesting other work that needs to be carried out before any access for the new development is granted
.

Whether the application goes before the November or December EDDC Development Committee we are geared up and ready to submit our final objection letter in the run up to the meeting and to speak on the day. We believe we have a very strong case why the Higher Marley Road site should not be developed (even if the Inspector says that more sites are needed) and we will make sure it is heard.

Due to the cost of printing and the lack of any dramatic news we will not be producing a “letter box drop” version on this occasion so do please pass on the contents of this email to anyone else you believe maybe interested.

We’ll continue to keep you posted of any developments but if you have any questions or comments in the meantime then please let us know.

The Marley Planning Group

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Oct 2015

Posted under

Transparency

Why transparency works

Campaign4Change has previously quoted the late Lord Chief Justice Lord Bingham on openness but it’s worth requoting:

“… Modern democratic government means government of the people by the people for the people.

“But there can be no government by the people if they are ignorant of the issues to be resolved, the arguments for and against different solutions and the facts underlying those arguments.

“The business of government is not an activity about which only those professionally engaged are entitled to receive information and express opinions.

“It is, or should be, a participatory process. But there can be no assurance that government is carried out for the people unless the facts are made known, the issues publicly ventilated.

“Sometimes, inevitably, those involved in the conduct of government, as in any other walk of life, are guilty of error, incompetence, misbehaviour, dereliction of duty, even dishonesty and malpractice.

“Those concerned may very strongly wish that the facts relating to such matters are not made public.

“Publicity may reflect discredit on them or their predecessors. It may embarrass the authorities. It may impede the process of administration. Experience however shows, in this country and elsewhere, that publicity is a powerful disinfectant.

“Where abuses are exposed, they can be remedied. Even where abuses have already been remedied, the public may be entitled to know that they occurred.”

… Leaving officers to decide what to tell councillors, hiding away discussions behind locked doors, forcing some councillors to sign confidentiality agreements, and trusting supplier assurances that outsourcing deals don’t really go wrong – it’s all made up by the media – are factors that make outsourcing failure almost inevitable.

And it’s undemocratic for a cabal of officers and councillors to treat one of the council’s most important decisions as a private matter.

Any councillor whose authority is considering a major outsourcing deal may, perhaps, wish to think about all the councillors and officers who have waved enthusiastically from the open window of their train carriage as they headed unknowingly on a track ending at a precipice – councillors and officers from:

– Bedfordshire County Council which paid £7.7m to terminate an unsatisfactory £250m 12-year outsourcing deal prematurely. The then leader of the council, said the decision to end the partnership was to “improve quality and performance”.

– Suffolk County Council which looked to become a “light” organisation and outsource a lot of its duties but found it “simply did not work” according to then leader Mark Bee.

– Sandwell Council which left its planned 15-year partnership with BT, called Transform Sandwell, nine years early. Councillors were unhappy with the service.

– Liverpool Council which said last year it would save £30m over 3 years by ending its outsourcing/joint venture Liverpool Direct with BT.

– Birmingham City Council which plans to end its £1bn outsourcing deal with Capita early and has taken a 500-strong contact centre back in-house.

– Cornwall Council, which is only 2 years into a 10-year outsourcing contract with BT, and says the supplier has not met key performance indicators, and not delivered on jobs promises.


http://ukcampaign4change.com/2015/06/16/sensible-advice-on-plans-to-end-to-10-year-outsourcing-deal/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Oct 2015

Posted under

Development Management Committee, EDDC, Planning System, Regeneration, Transparency

What is EDDC’s “Members Advisory Panel”? We had to go to Torbay to find out!

Reference is made in the post on Exmouth below to a “Members Advisory Panel”. Efforts to find this on East Devon District Council’s website came to nought, but Owl didn’t stop there – Owl traced a copy to Torbay Council’s website where it appears it may have been used as an illustrative document.

The whole 4 page document is actually titled “EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICE – PRE APPLICATION ADVICE
CUSTOMER CHARTER” and gives very helpful advice to developers (the customers, of course) about how much help the council can give them (and charge for in some cases).

Page 4 gives details of how helpful the “Members advisory Panel” can be. Here is what they say:

“The Council also offers a Members Advisory Panel for major applications. This is a group of senior officers and Councillors and other interested parties who can listen to a presentation from the agent and then through its officers respond in writing. The Council has a protocol for dealing with requests from agents to put a proposal before the MAP. Officers can advise if a particular scheme warrants a submission to the MAP.

The Member’s Planning Advisory Group is comprised of:-

The Chairman of the Development Management Committee.
The Chairman of a possible Policy sub-committee or Policy Champion.
Strategic Planning Portfolio Holder.
Environment Portfolio Holder.
Economy Portfolio Holder – as appropriate
Communities Portfolio Holder as appropriate.
Ward Members.

The system for running this group would be as follows:

(i) Developers to make presentation to Member’s Planning Advisory Group with Officers present.

(ii) Members to have previously acquainted themselves with the site in question by a site visit with Officers.

(iii) Members to ask questions of the Developers, seek clarification, test arguments but not to give any form of view in support or against the proposals.

(iv) Advice on the way forward or changes to be made to the proposal would be provided by the Officers to the Developers in writing following advice from Members in a debate once the developers have left the meeting.

(v) Any Member of the Planning Advisory Group who has a personal or prejudicial interesting the proposal should not form part of the group for that particular site.


E Freeman Development Manager January 2011

Click to access Generating%20Income%20from%20Planning%20Pre-Application%20Advice%20final%20App2.pdf

Seems like a good time for some Freedom of Information requests here – perhaps going back several years …..

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Oct 2015

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing

The ” affordable homes” scandal that just got worse

Campbell Robb, Chief Executive of Shelter:

… “The Prime Minister proposes to change the law to include Starter Homes in the definition of affordable housing, which would mean counting homes which can cost as much as £450,000 as ‘affordable’. This will mean that developers who are currently compelled to build social rent and shared ownership properties will now be able to build more profitable Starter Homes instead. Section 106 arrangements currently account for about 37% of all new social rented properties, so a sizeable proportion of much needed supply is about to be lost.

To compound the problem, local authorities will not be able to insist that developers in their area continue to build for the widest range of incomes. They will be forced to accept Starter Homes as part of Section 106 negotiations. Even if they have homeless families stuck in temporary accommodation; even if local businesses complain that they can’t recruit employees to low paid positions; even if they know market prices are completely out of step with local wages; and even if they know they have no chance of meeting the need for social housing from their own dwindling stock.

This isn’t about the devil in the detail. This now has to be seen as the intention.

It follows the Right to Buy agreement with the National Housing Federation that will sell off social rented homes at a discount, and replace them with shared ownership or Starter Homes.

It follows the plan to forcibly sell council houses to the highest bidder, to fund those Right to Buy discounts.

It follows the forced reduction in social rents which the OBR predicts could mean 14,000 fewer social homes are built over this parliament.

It follows the introduction of Affordable Rent, which at up to 80% of market rents wasn’t even affordable for those on the lowest incomes.

It follows the repeated refusal to let councils that want to build council homes borrow to be able to do so.

And given the full-throated endorsement of homeownership as the only game in town, it’s a fair bet that it precedes the announcement in the Comprehensive Spending Review that any grant funding should be directed to low cost homeownership rather than a genuinely affordable rental product.

All of which leaves very little for those who realistically can’t buy anytime soon. There’s nothing wrong with home-ownership obviously, but even at its 2003 peak ownership topped out at 71%. As KPMG point out, there will always remain a sizeable proportion of households who need an alternative, either temporarily or for the long-term. But with existing supply sold off and little if anything being built, social housing will no longer be able to perform that role. This will leave those on the lowest incomes at the mercy of the private rented sector.

This is of course the deliberate if unstated policy intent, which makes it cruelly perverse that the government is at the same time squeezing the support available for low income private renters. The breezy 1980s assertion that “housing benefit could take the strain” of cutting investment in affordable housing has been much mocked and rued in light of the resultant cost of housing benefit. But there was at least an honesty in admitting that if the state won’t invest in supply then it will have to subsidise individuals. As we’ve previously highlighted, refusing to do either is simply to accept a great many more people living with poor conditions, insecurity and struggling to make ends meet.”

Source: Huffington Post online UK today

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Oct 2015

Posted under

EDDC, Exmouth

Comments

3 Comments

Independent EDA Exmouth Councillor’s speech to Cabinet

Cabinet meeting statement – 7 October 2015 by Independent Councillor Megan Armstrong, Exmouth Haldon Ward, Independent East Devon Alliance:

“Thank you, Chair and Members

I wonder if any of you saw the local Westcountry TV news last night? I mean particularly the distraught young woman who, last week, saw the sudden overnight collapse of her father’s Exmouth seafront business, DJ’s Diner.

As some of you may know, the closure raid, which was undertaken by Senior Council Officers, started at 6am on 1st October, without the prior knowledge of the tenant or his family.

Without going into detail now, I believe there are some serious questions to be asked about the methods and the process used, that is prior to, during and since these actions.

I was there later that morning and therefore witnessed much of it at first hand. Apart from the legal process and implications of this situation, I am particularly concerned about the human and moral response, which should be addressed in such circumstances. Surely decency, honesty and respect should be the watchwords of this Council at all times, whether from members or employees and especially towards members of the public, whom we are elected to serve.

Only two days earlier (last Tuesday) the seafront Carriage Cafe closed down and moved to Cornwall, where no doubt it will be a great success, as it has been in Exmouth for many years. The owner, a lifelong Exmouthian, moved out because he had had enough of the constant, ongoing pressure over several years for him to move, from this Council. People are devastated by this loss of a much-valued community facility and are already saying “Exmouth’s loss is Cornwall’s gain.” And they are right to say so.

So what future for the owner of DJ’s Diner and his family? At the moment it is extremely bleak with his business closed and no income.

Do we care that these small independent businesses are being pushed out? If we don’t then I suggest that we as a council should, because it is such small businesses that are the lifeblood of our communities and we should be supporting and encouraging them to be as successful as possible for all our sakes, and not hounding them out.

I question this relentless drive to ‘regenerate’ (not only in Exmouth but also in other parts of East Devon) and at what cost to people’s livelihoods? Is this something of which we as a council, should be proud? And can we as councillors honestly defend the kind of behaviour which makes successful, small businesses feel unwelcome and unwanted?

I leave these questions for you to ponder.
Thank you.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Oct 2015

Posted under

EDDC, Exmouth, Regeneration

Comments

2 Comments

EDDC Exmouth Regeneration Board interferes in choice of bus depot site by M and S and wants it on EDDC land outside main town centre

Exmouth Town Council this week voted to support the principle of an M and S food store on the site of the bus depot on Royal Avenue.

But town councillors were then concerned to hear that a letter from a ‘members’ advisory panel’ at East Devon District Council – which has long-intended for a supermarket to be built on the nearby Exmouth Rugby Club site, which it owns – had criticised the M and S proposal, which is for a site owned by Devon County Council.

Councillor Bill Nash told the town council’s regeneration and general purposes committee: “The panel has written to the [district] councillors of town ward and it is a little disturbing.

“The report at the moment is saying that they don’t think it’s the right site, and they’d prefer to see Marks and Spencer on the rugby ground or the London Inn site. Well, that ain’t on – M&S don’t want that.”

Cllr Nash said EDDC had also criticised the building’s design, and a lack of electric car charging points in the proposed car park, and said it may be off-putting for people arriving by train to catch buses.

In response, town mayor Councillor Maddie Chapman said: “I think they’ve got a damn cheek, because it’s county council land that they’ve [M and S] put forward, and the county council want to build on it.

“It’s not up to East Devon saying ‘You can’t build on county council land, you can build on ours’, without saying anything to the town council.

“They need to be told ‘push off’ – so they will be.”

Town councillors were also concerned that no Exmouth councillors were at the EDDC advisory panel meeting, with Councillor Pat Graham saying she and other town ward district councillors had been invited, but at very short notice.

An EDDC spokesman said: “East Devon District Council very much welcomes Marks and Spencer’s interest in Exmouth.

“The comments of the council’s members’ advisory panel that were raised at the town council meeting were draft comments sent to the ward members who, though invited to the panel meeting, were unable to attend.

“We look forward to receiving their views so that these can inform the final comments of the panel that will then be sent to the developer. In any event, these comments will not tie the council to any decision on this matter in future.

“It’s unhelpful to suggest that the district council is promoting its own land. The council has done a lot of work in consultation with the community on plans to develop key sites in the town, including developing a supermarket and improved transport facilities.

“The council is simply seeking to implement these plans and enable the best development possible that accords with planning policy and meets the needs of the town.”

The spokesman also said town ward councillors had been given six weeks’ notice of the meeting date.

M and S will hold a public consultation event about its plans at the town hall on October 16, between 11am and 7pm.

http://www.devon24.co.uk/news/m_s_store_eddc_told_to_push_off_1_4262916

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Oct 2015

Posted under

Local Plan

Cameron gives councils 2 years to adopt Local Plans or have them forced on them

“… Some 82 per cent of councils have published local plans, but only 65 per cent have fully adopted them – and almost 20 per cent of councils still do not have an up-to-date plan at all, a figure that Downing Street considers to be unacceptable.

Mr Cameron has now put councils on watch – saying that unless they have plans in place by 2017, they will be imposed.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3268776/David-Cameron-s-threat-housing-reluctant-town-halls.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Oct 2015

Posted under

Exmouth, Local Plan

Comments

5 Comments

Exmouth Community College principal slams Plymouth University over Rolle site

….. “A consultation on the masterplan for the 2.8 hectare site last weekend was attended by almost 500 people.

Now, in an open letter, A K Alexander, the principal of Exmouth Community College, has attacked the university and its interim Vice Chancellor, Professor David Coslett, over the plans.

The WMN on Sunday asked the university to respond but neither its spokesman nor Prof Coslett was able to provide an answer.

The fate of Rolle:
An edited version of the open letter from A K Alexander

After seven years sitting empty, it would appear that things are now finally moving forward to define the future of Rolle College …. When it closed there was a loss of £5 million a year to Exmouth’s economy. But Exmouth and the area also lost an incredibly important higher education facility that brought a wonderful vibrancy to the town, whilst young people lost an opportunity to move into higher education locally.

So, I was appalled to learn that Professor David Coslett, Plymouth University Vice-Chancellor, in his speech at the consultation event, stated that it was acceptable to take pain in one area (Exmouth) if there were benefits elsewhere (Plymouth) and that there is greater value for the region overall in focusing on Plymouth.

On behalf of every student and every parent in Exmouth and East Devon, this is completely unacceptable. David Coslett also justified the delay in disposal on the economic downturn. The economic downturn has hit everyone and all public institutions hard. The fact that the site with gymnasium, meeting rooms, performance theatre and lecture theatre has remained unused and unavailable to the community for seven years in a time of economic strife is also unacceptable.

Plymouth University has used the argument of centralisation and yet its reach and footprint continues to grow in Cornwall …. What does David Coslett say in his welcome letter as Vice-Chancellor? – ‘a university that is easy to do business with; one that works alongside local communities and industry to create jobs, develop the economy, and raise the profile of the South West.’

I urge all young people and the community of Exmouth and beyond to have your say in the ongoing consultation process and join the debate on what Exmouth (not Plymouth University) needs on the site.

The online consultation is at http://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ExmouthRolle

Plymouth University should see sense and reconsider its position; Exmouth must be given first option to purchase the site …. this should not be purely seen in narrow cash terms. David Coslett talks about ‘a legacy’. So let’s start talking about the right legacy for people in Exmouth and East Devon.

Plymouth University should work closely with the community and ensure there is true lasting legacy that creates jobs and improves the education and career opportunities. The intensive housing development of the site is a short-term financially driven quick fix.

We need a considered debate and discussion on how we can secure a longer term perspective and truly invest in people. The clock is ticking. I urge the Exmouth community to act now and resist the proposed plans for the site. We can do so much better.

Mr A K Alexander
Principal
Exmouth Community College”

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/University-attacked-future-college/story-27958552-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Oct 2015

Posted under

EDDC, Local Plan, Local Plan Inspector

Comments

3 Comments

Hello, Mr Thickett, hello, anybody there …?

Our Local Plan Inspector, Mr Anthony Thickett, was efficient and to-the-point when he held his two examinations into our draft Local Plan. He eventually decided that, such was our council’s poor drafting, he would have to make many of its major decisions himself. He asked for more information and got a further 1,000 plus pages of evidence (some of it duplicated) in September 2015. He also got a promotion to Chief Planning Inspector for Wales – more work for him.

Our Local Plan examination is now itself dragging on, and well on its way to mirroring how long the Current draft Local Plan took (at least 7 years). The inspection process started way before in August 2013, when Mr Thickett threw out the first draft submitted by EDDC because Mr Thickett decided it contained 53 major amendments agreed by councillors on the Development Management Committee and Cabinet and ratified by full council AFTER public consultation that then required the public to be consulted yet again.

It was thrown out again in March 2014 for still having major flaws and being considered unsound by Mr Thickett. The 2015 hearing was also inconclusive.

Is it going to be thrown out again? Is it so controversial it will be a major headliner? Is it lost down the back of a sofa?

EDDC appears to be in no hurry to see it arrive. Developers continue to benefit from its unavailability. What’s the problem?

We appreciate that Mr Thickett is a very busy man (not least because of all the extra work EDDC has forced him to do) but surely this sorry saga has to end somehow and somewhere – even if it is (heaven forfend) back to its on-its-last-legs drawing board.

And, if it were to fail again, would this constitute misfeasance or malfeasance in office on the part of officers and councillors involved – a criminal offence?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Oct 2015

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Cranbrook, EDDC

Cranbrook: anti-social behaviour issues continue

Cllrs Karen Jennings and Kevin Blakey met with Cranbrook Police on Thursday 8th October, to discuss residents’ concerns about perceived increasing levels of antisocial behaviour. The methods and processes for dealing with this were discussed in detail, and it was agreed that the Police would post a description of the potential consequences of such behaviour on their Facebook page, which is shared below:

“This week the parents of several young people in the local area have been issued with letters informing them of their child’s anti-social behaviour and warning …the children that the behaviour must cease before Police are forced to take more serious action against them.

These letters are the first step in the Anti-Social Behaviour Escalation Process, which can eventually culminate in a Criminal Behaviour Order (or CBO, which has recently replaced the ASBO) for those that continue to act anti-socially, although the aim is to try and put an end to the behaviour long before the need to issue a CBO.

For those that live in Social Housing, anti-social behaviour of any type is a breach of the tenancy agreement made with the housing provider and can therefore lead to eviction if it continues.

If you witness anti-social behaviour please report it to the police straight away via 101 (or 999 if it is an emergency) and provide as much information as possible to help us deal with the incident and identify the offenders.

https://www.facebook.com/cranbrooktowncouncil

Is it just Owl, or do remarks about those in social housing sound somewhat (pre)judgmental. And is it possible that the town’s lack of facilities for young people (e.g. no evening sports because there are no floodlights on the school playing fields) contributing to the town’s problems?