Sidford Fields owner wastes no time putting in planning application

And DCC allows the owner to dictate where cycle and footpaths should go. Nicely done.

“A planning application for a 12-acre business park between Sidford and Sidbury is expected in the spring, according to the district council.

The Herald reported last week that a long-awaited cycle link between the villages had been put on hold to allow ‘further dialogue’ between Devon County Council and the park’s applicant.

County Hall’s decision came after a government inspector controversially ruled that the employment land allocation must be included in East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) Local Plan.

An EDDC spokeswoman told the Herald this week: “We anticipate receiving an application [for the business park] in spring 2016.

“However, even if an application were to be successful, we don’t know when work would commence on site.”

Designs for Devon County Council’s 900-metre cycle route and footpath showed it running from Sidford to Sidbury alongside the A375 – starting in an area allocated for development.

It agreed to withdraw its planning application to allow further dialogue with the business park applicant about what alignment changes might be needed.

The delay will not affect a scheme linking Byes Lane and Laundry Lane as this does not require planning permission. Funding is in place for work to start in the next financial year.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/sidford_business_park_plans_anticipate_in_spring_1_4425821

Exmouth seafront demo: Wednesday 24th February at 5.45pm,

Campaign group Save Exmouth Seafront will hold a demo outside The Knowle over development plans.

Louise MacAllister, spokesperson for the group highly critical of the £18m Queen’s Drive project, said many of their questions about “remain unanswered” by East Devon District Council.

It’s despite EDDC recently publishing information in the form of a Q&A on their website.

Louise will lead the demo outside the council offices in Sidmouth on Wednesday 24th February at 5.45pm, as district councillors arrive ahead of a full council meeting.

The group will then field some of the “unanswered” questions at the district authority during the public speaking section of the meeting.

“Previous questions asked by the campaign group have remained unanswered …”
http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Save-Exmouth-Seafront-hold-demo-ahead-council/story-28784552-detail/story.html

Budleigh Hospital to remain closed while two parts of the NHS wrangle about who owns it and who can charge the other for it!

“The wait to reopen Budleigh Salterton Hospital as a multi-purpose health facility is set to continue for the unforeseeable future.

A dispute over ownership of the site means it is already five months behind schedule for when it was due to open its doors to the community again.

Nearly a year ago, NHS Northern, Eastern and Western (NEW) Devon Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) approved an £800,000 transformation of the facility owned by the Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust.

The hospital closed last summer and was due to reopen in September. NEW Devon CCG is in discussions to hand over responsibility for East Devon’s community hospitals to the Royal Devon & Exeter hospital.

It would mean the ownership of Budleigh Hospital would be automatically transferred to NHS Property Services, which would need to generate a commercial rent from the hospital building.

As a result, the scheme for a wellbeing hub in Budleigh will have to be put on hold until issues surrounding the ownership of the site can be resolved. …”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Budleigh-Salterton-Hospital-remains-closed/story-28784586-detail/story.html

Planning decision quashed: council made decision while application was with Secretary of State for decision on EIA

“Whilst the local authority was not precluded from granting planning permission in such circumstances it ran the risk that if that direction was positive it would then have granted a planning consent which was infected with illegality, as was the case here. The judge also remarked that he would also have been minded to conclude that no reasonable planning authority, knowing when they formed a resolution to grant planning permission that there was an outstanding request of the Secretary of State to make a determination on a screening direction, would proceed to grant planning permission without knowing the outcome of that screening direction process. Accordingly, the permission was quashed.

While the facts are a little unusual it is now clear that where both a third party and the Secretary of State become involved prior to a planning determination, it is advisable always to allow EIA procedures to run their full course, however desirous it may be to secure an early planning permission. Given that the Secretary of State is under no timing restrictions, unlike a local authority, that could be many months. So, the Roskilly case now sits as another and telling reminder amongst EIA jurisprudence that screening considerations should never be treated lightly, and, that unreasonableness can still be a successful ground to challenge that process.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25999:eia-trumping&catid=63&Itemid=31

David versus Goliath in the planning process

The local people kicking up a storm against billion-pound developments.

A selection of comments from the article”

“One reason we are seeing more campaigns such as mine is that you don’t have the public interest being served by councils or government; instead, they act as an arbitrator between communities and business. The people whose job it is to work in the public interest don’t see that as their job anymore”

Turner says many developers are successfully lobbying government to tie the hands of campaigners like him – hence the measures in the housing bill.”

and

“To understand what was going on with the scheme I had to visit the council offices,” explains McHattie. “I couldn’t see the plans online. When I turned up I was put in a room and shown the plans, which were dragged up from a box in the archives. I was told I could not take photographs but I have no architecture expertise so I didn’t understand what I was looking at. How could people of the city understand what was going on if they all had to visit this room to get information?”

and

It’s in a developer’s interest to make the documents as difficult to comprehend as possible,” says Donoghue, who adds that it is “ridiculous” that the Goodsyard documents have more pages than the complete works of Shakespeare or the bible.”

and

Groups like ours do not oppose development per se,” says Hammerson, a local researcher and author. “We oppose bad development, and unfortunately we get too much of that.”

He says more developers now use the planning system as a “second throw of the dice” to overrule refusals made under local policies.”

http://gu.com/p/4gjxc

“Devon Tory MP ‘undecided’ on EU vote – because he is overseas”

A Devon MP is yet to make up his mind on whether Britain should leave the European Union – because he is overseas.

Conservative MP Hugo Swire, who represents East Devon, is yet to indicate where he stands on the vote – due to him being away from the UK.

A spokesman for Mr Swire, who is Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said: “Mr Swire is in support of the idea of a referendum. He has been in New Zealand and is now in Canada on ministerial business. So I can’t give a yes or no. Hopefully we will be able to say by the end of this week or early next week. … ”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Devon-Tory-MP-8216-undecided-8217-EU-vote-8211/story-28784122-detail/story.html

So they don’t have email or phones in New Zealand and Canada then?

Or is he waiting to see which side of the fence others take before choosing whether to sit on it, do as Dave says, or do as his constituency party wishes?

Big dilemma for such a busy, busy traveller.

Neil Parish (Con Tiverton and Honiton) and Ben Bradshaw (Lab Exeter) have both declared themselves for IN.

Beware developers (in this case Persimmon) bearing “gifts”

Would our council have stood its ground the way Plymouth did?

“A LEADING house builder has lost its appeal against councils chiefs who insisted the firm carry out the work it promised on the Plympton homes five years ago.

A planning inspector told Persimmon Homes it had to carry out the work it was initially agreed to – the installation of solar panels on 12 executive homes it had built in Cundy Close, Woodford.

In March last year the firm narrowly avoided being taken to court by Plymouth City Council after residents and the council complained that only three of the houses received the solar panels.

Residents also pointed out the company never installed footpath lighting as agreed with the planning chiefs.

As the council prepared to take Persimmon Homes to court for breach of conditions the hearing was vacated as on the day of trial the building firm submitted an application to vary the condition.

Persimmon Homes applied to amend the energy strategy for the site, claiming the panels were not needed as the homes were energy efficient.

One angry resident wrote to the council’s planning chiefs saying ““Persimmon should have fulfilled their obligation under the original planning permission when these houses were built.”

At the time the council’s joint planning chairs Cllr Bill Stevens and Cllr Patrick Nicholson refused the application as it “does not with the council’s policy on Renewable Energy or deliver the proposals outlined in the applicant’s own energy strategy, approved as part of the planning permission.

“The development should incorporate enough renewable energy equipment to offset at least 15 percent of predicted carbon emissions for the period up to 2016.”

Rather than carry out the work Persimmon Homes chose to appeal the decision.

After months of deliberation, the planning inspector agreed with the residents and Plymouth City Council, telling Persimmon Homes its new energy saving assessment did not mean it could avoid finishing the work it initially proposed to do.

The inspectors report notes how the photovoltaic PV cells “so far installed achieve 6 percent reductions in predicted carbon emissions through on-site renewable energy production”, which was not disputed by Persimmon Homes.

However, the inspector also noted how the council had “two relevant objectives; to reduce energy consumption and thereby carbon emissions, through the use of insulation and good design, and to require the production of on-site renewable energy”

As such, the firm’s proposed measures “would not comply” with the council’s policies.

The inspector said the firm’s proposal fell “considerably short of the 15 percent target for offsetting predicted carbon emissions through on-site energy production by renewable sources” and it would “unacceptably conflict” with the council’s policy.

The inspector also noted how the firm admitted how retrofitting the PV cells “would be technically feasible” and dismissed their appeal.

Cllr Bill Stevens said the planning inspector “quite rightly” backed the council’s planning decision which showed “the benefit of locally appointed people taking these decisions – we know our area better.”

He said the ball was now in Persimmon Homes’ court and he would be meeting with the council’s enforcement officers be updated on the firm’s response.

He said: “It’s the same for every application. The planning process is there to make sure that you can allow appropriate development and we take a robust stance with every applicant, whether they are a multi-million company or a small local builder.

“Everybody has to comply with the rules and to my mind there’s no exception to that.”

Cllr Patrick Nicholson also urged residents of Cundy Close to consult their solicitors, suggesting Persimmon Homes procrastination over the installing of the solar panels may have caused residents to lose out on cheaper energy bills since 2012.

A spokesman for Persimmon refused to rule out yet further action. Daniel Heathcote, director in charge at Persimmon Homes Cornwall said: “We are reviewing the inspector’s findings before making a decision on what action to take.”

In September 2011 the council’s planning committee granted Persimmon Homes permission to build a 1,684 home development at the former Plymstock Quarry site – now named Saltram Meadows – after a £26m package was agreed. The agreement saw the company promise contributions to the local infrastructure, including £1.5m towards sports provision, of which £420,000 will go towards a swimming pool in Plymstock.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Persimmon-Homes-told-finish-work-Plympton/story-28784041-detail/story.html

Public speaking at EDDC planning meetings – or public gagging?

A “success” for whom? Certainly not us. And transparency – of course not. But thank you for trying, Susie.

This is why we need independent councillors.

And how do we know that it REALLY is “first come, first served”?

From the blog of Independent Councillor Susie Bond:

“The year-long trial for public speaking at planning meetings (DMC) has come to an end and my pleas for the Council to return to the old system of allowing anyone to speak on a planning application have fallen on deaf ears.

Under the old system, all an interested resident had to do was to add their name to a list at the entrance of the council chamber on the day of the meeting.

It was as simple as that.

Now, in order to be able to speak, you have to jump through several cumbersome hoops. Instructions on EDDC’s website and DMC agendas read:

“To speak on an application at Development Management Committee you must have submitted written comments during the consultation stage of the application. Those who have commented on an application being considered by the Committee will receive a letter or email (approximately 9 working days before the meeting) detailing the date and time of the meeting and instructions on how to register to speak. The letter/email will have a reference number, which you will need to provide in order to register.

Those who are eligible to speak for up to 3 minutes on an application can register from 10am, 6 working days before the meeting up until 12 noon, 3 working days before the meeting, by leaving a message on 01395 517525 or e-mailing planningpublicspeaking@eastdevon.gov.uk.”

The trial was instigated because the length of meetings was becoming ridiculously long and (it was suggested) it was members of the public who spent too long putting their points across and, heaven forfend, repeating themselves, which made them so.

My view is that DMC meetings were becoming overlong because of the very many applications being submitted by landowners and developers keen to secure planning consent in inappropriate locations while EDDC had no Local Plan in place. Without a Local Plan and the required 5-year land supply, planning applications were determined on the sustainability of the site … and lengthy meetings were made even lengthier by DMC members trying to find reasons for refusal which would stand up at appeal.

But the hoops are even more complex. The instructions continue:

“The number of people who can speak on each application is limited to:

• Major applications – parish/town council representative, 5 supporters, 5 objectors and the applicant or agent

• Minor/Other applications – parish/town council representative, 2 supporters, 2 objectors and the applicant or agent

Whether an application is classified under the legislation as a major, minor or other will be noted on the agenda for the meeting.

An officer will only contact those whose request to speak has been successful. Speakers will be registered on a first come, first served basis. The contact details of registered speakers, unless advised otherwise, will be posted on the website to allow others, who may have wished to speak, to contact them.

The day before the meeting a revised running order for the applications being considered by the Committee will posted on the website. Applications with registered speakers will be taken first.”

A report on the public-speaking arrangements came before the Standards Committee in January and then to DMC on 16 February and it was resolved to continue with the trial for a further year with a view to making it permanent thereafter. Members of DMC were asked to acknowledge the success of the trial.

‘Success’

The ‘success’ of the trial is debatable.

It has certainly made planning meetings more efficient and less time-consuming, but the length of time they take is now the same as it was before the introduction of the Draconian planning laws (the NPPF), so the stringent rules on public speaking at DMC are no longer necessary.

Members of the public are outraged at their speaking rights being curtailed and are making their voices heard to their district councillors.

It’s through listening to the views of the communities who are affected by any planning application that pertinent planning questions have been raised at DMC and which planning officers have been required to clarify.

We have created a system which is unnecessarily complicated for the general public to navigate and places an extra burden on Democratic Services officers who run the meetings.

Some might consider that this policy of making it difficult for the people of East Devon to exercise their democratic right is a bad thing and indeed that it reflects poorly on EDDC.

https://susiebond.wordpress.com/2016/02/22/public-speaking-at-planning-meetings/

Devolution – the “Northern Powerhouse”: “pie-in-the sky” with our money

Isn’t it interesting that all devolution projects include at least one mega-billion pound project that comes off the government’s books and on to those of devolved areas – presumably allowing government to manipulate the national debt to show that the deficit is coming down … when costs have simply moved. And all of them include the word “regeneration” to make them look inviting. Not that the word is an inviting one in East Devon!

“There is no guarantee that investing billions in infrastructure will help the North of England, the man leading the “Northern Powerhouse” project says.

But former CBI chief John Cridland told the BBC that people should take a “leap of faith” on new roads and railways. He said he believed reducing journey times between northern cities would improve the economy.
But critics say the money might be better spent on training and skills – or on transport within cities.

Mr Cridland’s quango Transport for the North is due to publish its first report soon.

The chancellor’s advisory National Infrastructure Commission also will make recommendations on Northern transport.

‘Pie in the sky’

The bodies have been considering transport options such as a motorway running under the Peak District from Sheffield to Manchester, or an HS3 rail link between Leeds and Manchester.

But Anne Robinson, from Friends of the Peak District, told BBC News: “These are just pie-in-the-sky schemes. We haven’t been given the slightest shred of evidence that they will do any good.”

She warned that the motorway scheme – running more than 30 miles underground – would cost a fortune, as well as creating congestion in roads at either end of the tunnel and potentially disrupting the ecology of the Peaks National Park.

Mr Cridland said ambitious infrastructure should be on the agenda: “I’m not claiming there is perfect science here. “But I am convinced that after decades of under-investment, it’s now time to close that investment gap – and it will lead to better travelling experiences and economic growth.
“Transport economics can’t always prove this: sometimes, like the Victorian engineers, you have to take a leap of faith.”

Ms Robinson said it was foolish to take a leap of faith with billions of public money.

It is likely, though, that both quangos reporting on transport in the north will concentrate their efforts on solutions which bring quick improvement for travellers – like electrifying the Leeds-Manchester route and putting on extra carriages.

Regeneration

Another likely favourite option will be to introduce hard-shoulder running by making all of the M62 a “smart” motorway.

The two bodies may also be anxious to keep hope alive for heroic inter-city infrastructure in the north so people have faith in the regeneration of the region.

There is already a degree of cynicism about ambitious words from Westminster. One Manchester business leader disparaged the term “Northern Powerhouse”.

“It’s a bit embarrassing isn’t it? Frankly it looks like a brand in search of a product,” he told me.

Mr Cridland maintains that already the Powerhouse slogan itself has created a sense of excitement and purpose.

The team making key decisions on train operation in the north has been shifted from the south to Leeds, he says – and this is making planners more responsive to local needs.

The big cities of the north are talking to each other, making plans, dreaming they can really breathe new life into the region, Mr Cridland says.

Now, he confesses, some infrastructure has to follow.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35625738