Posted by

Posted on

19 Jan 2016

Posted under

Development Management Committee, EDDC, Newton Poppleford

Newton Poppleford: 26 home development refused by Inspector

” … In his decision report, published on December 23, planning inspector Jon Hockley said the appeal centred on whether the site was suitable for housing. He said positive aspects of the scheme were that it would generate economic and social benefits through the construction of the new houses.

And the proposed 10 ‘affordable’ homes, Mr Hockley said, would be a real benefit to the village, which suffers from a lack of such properties.

But he said national planning policy is clear that major developments can only take place on AONB land in ‘exceptional circumstances’ and where it can be demonstrated that they are in the public interest.

In conclusion, the inspector said: “I do not consider that the benefits of the scheme would reach the high bar required to constitute exceptional circumstances.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/26_home_scheme_on_aonb_land_is_refused_by_planning_inspector_1_4379784

Can we get it through to the Development Management Committee that AONB is precious … really precious … and even Planning Inspectors understand that.

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

19 Jan 2016

Posted under

Hugo Swire

Swire – Gagged Minister: Reality or Myth?

From a correspondent”

“I have been keeping a watch on what my own MP, Hugo Swire, says in
parliament for the last 2 years using the “They Work for You” web site.
In that time, I have not seen Hugo say even one word about East Devon,
not a single, solitary word. He has frequently said things about Burma
and other far-flung parts of the world in his role as one of the Foreign
Office Ministers, but nothing at all in support the needs of his
constituency of East Devon.

I have heard it said fairly frequently that ministers cannot say
anything in parliament about their constituencies, and I thought I would
take a look and see what I could find to see whether this as true or
simply used by such MPs as a justification for them not saying anything.

It is the Ministerial Code:
that
governs the behaviour of ministers like Hugo Swire. This code says
things like:

“Ministers in the House of Commons must keep separate their roles as
Minister and constituency Member”, and “Ministers are provided with
facilities at Government expense to enable them to carry out their
official duties. These facilities should not generally be used for Party
or constituency activities.”

But nowhere does it say that ministers should abstain from speaking in
parliament about their constituency. This is (as far as I can tell) just
Urban Myth, apparently used by MPs who are also government ministers as
an excuse to spend all their time on ministerial duties and not have to
spend any time doing their day-job as a constituency MP.

Unless, of course, you can point to evidence to the contrary. ….

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

19 Jan 2016

Posted under

AONB, Axminster, COVOP, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Environment (local), Exmouth, Local Plan, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Masterplans: EDDC’s new Achilles heels

Exmouth, Axminster and Cranbrook – all needing new Masterplans in our new Local Plan, according to the Inspector. And Sidmouth needing one at its eastern end according to EDDC.

Given the omnishambles EDDC has made of the new local plan – at least 8 years in the making, one false start wasting more than two years, and two rejected drafts plus the interference of the East Devon Business Forum – what are the odds of our current councillors and officers getting these new Masterplans right?

Below are the challenges they face. It will take more than crossed fingers to see these through … especially as, with so many of them, the councillors and officers are at odds with the electorate about what is acceptable and appropriate.

A new commuter town, a rural town massively expanding , and two seaside towns fighting to retain their identities … and all with AONBs, important wildlife sites and the World Heritage Coast to accommodate, not to mention thousands of homes and industries and their infrastructure to create under an “asset sweating” ruling party.

CRANBROOK

On Cranbrook, Diviani says this in a press release today:

“The Cranbrook masterplan, which is currently in production, will put some meat on the bones of these policies and will provide a strong vision and guide to future development at Cranbrook to ensure that it becomes an attractive, vibrant and sustainable modern town.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/inspector_recognises_importance_of_further_development_at_cranbrook_1_4385501

Remember that the first plan of Cranbrook neglected to plan for appropriate health facilities, it did not include enough shops, not enough green spaces and a football pitch that could not be used in the evenings because it was no-one’s responsibility to pay for or maintain floodlights and where roads are still unadopted.

The highly critical DCC report is here:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/09/14/what-mainstream-media-isnt-telling-you-about-that-dcc-cranbrook-report/

AXMINSTER

On Axminster, he says:

“a North South relief road for the town will be delivered as part of this development linking Chard Road (A358) to Lyme Road (B261). A Masterplan will be required for this site and development will be subject to improved public transport provision.”

and

“Prior to the granting of planning permission for any major residential schemes at Axminster, the Council will agree, with the Environment Agency and Natural England, a timetable for the review or development of a Nutrient Management Plan for the River Axe.

This plan will set out detailed actions that allow for new growth at Axminster to progress with adequate mitigation in place to negate the additional phosphate load that would be caused. The Nutrient Management Plan will work in collaboration with the diffuse Water Pollution Plan, and will seek to restore water quality for the River Axe SAC to enable it to meet its conservation objectives within a specified timescale, and in accordance with commitments to European Directives.

Depending on the findings of the plan, growth will only proceed in accordance with the mitigation delivery set out within that plan. Growth at Axminster will also be informed by the current status of the relevant discharge consents for waste water treatment works, and any upgrade required to support new growth will be the subject of Habitats Regulations Assessment prior to planning permission being given. The determination of such development applications will be informed by Habitat Regulations Assessment that takes account of the consent requirements.”

EXMOUTH

Oh, where to start with Exmouth. Suffice to say the Inspector says:

“The Exmouth Seafront is recognised as a key asset for the town and the Council is a key driver in its further enhancement. To this end, along with Devon County Council, the District Council appointed LDA Design to undertake a town centre and waterfront design study to identify opportunities for renewal and improvement in the physical, economic and environmental quality of the town.

The Final LDA study5 and recommendations and conclusion have been endorsed by the Council. The implementation of some projects in the Masterplan is underway but the Council also recognises that it is time to re-evaluate the Masterplan. The future intention is that a new or refreshed Masterplan will be produced with this becoming a Supplementary planning Document (SPD).”

Hard to see how this can be worked into what seems now to be a fait accompli with the developer (though the Inspector fired several warning shots about protecting the environs of the Exe Estuary.

SIDMOUTH

Mr Thickett says:

“Land at Port Royal Site – Land for residential use is allocated for 30 homes (site ED03 (this site will incorporate mixed use redevelopment to include housing and community, commercial, recreation and other uses).”

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

19 Jan 2016

Posted under

Developers/ Development, Development Management Committee, Rural communities

Gardens: greenfield or brownfield – depends where you live

“The Planning Court has today begun hearing a case over whether some private residential gardens can be considered brownfield land.
The case of Dartford Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (CO/4129/2015) has implications for owners of residential gardens, and could potentially signal a return to so-called “garden grabbing”.

Dartford is seeking to quash a decision by a planning inspector, who found that only residential gardens “in built up areas” are greenfield land, whereas others, in the countryside, are previously developed land (also known as “brownfield”).

The Communities Secretary is resisting the challenge, relying on the same reasoning as the inspector.

Ashley Bowes of Cornerstone Barrristers who is representing Dartford BC, said ahead of the hearing that the Department for Communities and Local Government’s position was “surprising” given that the present Secretary of State, Greg Clark, in his role as Planning Minister in 2010, amended PPS3 “Housing” to exclude residential gardens from the definition of brownfield land.

Bowes added that the amendment was accompanied by a written ministerial statement to the House of Commons and a letter to all chief planning officers, explaining that local communities now had the power to stop “garden grabbing”.

He said: “This case has the potential to radically alter the status of private residential gardens in the countryside, from greenfield to brownfield, increasing their prospects for development. A good many people will be watching the outcome with interest.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25704:planning-court-to-hear-key-case-on-residential-gardens-and-brownfield-land&catid=63&Itemid=31

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

19 Jan 2016

Posted under

East Devon Tories, EDDC, Local Plan, Mark Williams CEO EDDC, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Sidford Fields employment land: who knew what and when?

Leading up to the district council elections Councillor Stuart Hughes and (now ex) Councillor Troman made much of what they considered a successful effort to remove the Sidford Fields employment site from the Local Plan.

It was covered initially on this blog and here:

25 March 2015:

“The Development Management Committee (DMC) rejected the amendment, but agreed to send a note to the Inspector advising him of the of the unprecedented number of representations that had been received about the Sidford Fields site, and pointing out the lack of need and environmental concerns, particularly flooding and traffic issues.”

DMC refuses to amend Local Plan proposal for Sidford.

One day later, we read this:

“By a narrow margin of, we are told, 18 votes to 13, District Councillors at today’s Extra Ordinary meeting at Knowle, have decided to drop the controversial proposal for a 12 acre employment site at Sidford Fields.
Congratulations and thanks to Sidmouth Councillors Stuart Hughes and Graham Troman for proposing the amendment. As a recent commentator on this blog noted recently, Cllr Troman had already argued strongly at the Development Management Committee, that the Sidford site was not justified by the council’s own formulae.”

Proposed Sidford Business Park removed from Local Plan

However, CEO Mark Williams made his position clear here:

“The inspector has already heard everything we have said and is yet to tell us what his view is on that part of the application. He may recommend that this site is not suitable and should be removed. It’s his decision now, not yours.

“It’s your funeral if you want to take it out.”

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/04/11/sidford-business-park/

Hughes made this comment in his Devon Conservatives blog for 16 April 2015:

“There appears to be some excellent news for Sidmouth and Sidford in that the Sidford Business/Retail Park that Graham Troman and I were successful in getting removed from the draft plan on the 26th March isn’t included …”

http://www.devonconservative.org.uk/hughesreport.htm

On this basis – choosing to ignore the warning of Williams – people might have been prepared to vote for them on these comments alone.

QUESTIONS:

Did EDDC officers send (on behalf of the Development Management Committee) the extra information about the Sidford Fields site, pointing out the lack of need and environmental concerns, and flooding and traffic issue at the relevant time or at all?

As this is cited as a “main modification” can it still be challenged by EDDC before adoption of the Local Plan?

What would have been the outcome of elections if electors had realised that it was extremely unlikely that the site would actually be withdrawn, with or without additional information, in spite of the strong assurances put out by councillors Hughes and Troman?

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

19 Jan 2016

Posted under

Chardstock, Dunkeswell, Sustainability

What is ” countryside”? What is “sustainability”.

Is this the definitive list of “sustainable” villages in East Devon?

“Replace Strategy 27 with the following:

The following settlements vary in size and character but all offer a range of accessible services and facilities to meet many of the everyday needs of local residents and they have reasonable public transport. They will have a Built-up Area Boundary that will be designated in the East Devon Village DPD though they will not have land specifically allocated for development.

 Beer
 Broadclyst
 Clyst St Mary
 Colyton
 East Budleigh
 Feniton
 Kilmington
 Lympstone
 Musbury
 Newton Poppleford
 Sidbury
 Uplyme
 West Hill
 Whimple
 Woodbury”

Click to access appendix-1-main-modifications-2.pdf

page 48

Does this mean that highly controversial plans to extend Chardstock and Dunkeswell hits the buffers? This paragraph (page 13) suggests that places other than those listed above come under this policy:

“The countryside is defined as all those parts of the plan area that are outside the Built-up Area Boundaries and outside of site specific allocations shown on the Proposals Map. Development in the countryside will only be permitted where it is in accordance with a specific Local or Neighbourhood Plan policy that explicitly permits such development and where it would not harm the distinctive landscape, amenity and environmental qualities within which it is located, including:

1. Land form and patterns of settlement.
2. Important natural and manmade features which contribute to the local landscape character, including topography, traditional field boundaries, areas of importance for nature conservation and rural buildings.
3. The adverse disruption of a view from a public place which forms part of the distinctive character of the area or otherwise causes significant visual intrusions.”

Or is there a loophole elsewhere that the unscrupulous could exploit?

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

19 Jan 2016

Posted under

EDDC, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Another push-me pull-you situation: Sidford Fields Industrial Estate

So, at the last minute, EDDC pulled the Sidford industrial estate from its local plan. The inspector refused to take it out saying that no alternative site was available in Sidmouth.

Yet does anyone recall that not long ago, the Alexandria estate was being mooted for an Asda with many solutions being mooted for access problems to make it viable. Much more viable than heavy industrial use of the minor Sidford/Sidbury road.

Oh, how the world changes when pound signs appear in people’s eyes!

Sidmouth Herald publishes Diviani’s attempt to explain the unexplainable.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/inspector_includes_sidford_business_park_in_local_plan_1_4384071