Sad day for Clyst St. Mary

Message from Gaeron Kayley:

A number of residents and the Parish Council spoke fantastically well at today’s planning committee meeting in opposition to the building of 40 apartments at the rear of Clyst Valley Road. We fought this planning application long and hard over the previous fourteen months. There are a number of significant controversial things regarding the development on the car park at Winslade Manor, least of all where the people will now park their cars! 

Following a site visit by 11 Councillors this morning from the Planning Committee they eventually voted 6-5 in favour of the proposals.

I would personally like to thank each and every one of the speakers together with everyone that has contributed to the campaign that we set up back in December 2014. It’s a really disappointing result, I don’t know any more that anyone could possibly have done. 

I thank you for all your support, we have made some fantastic friendships along the way.

Very Best Wishes,

Gaeron Kayley

Owl wants to extend thanks on behalf of the community to Gaeron and his committee for their dedication and commitment in their efforts to hold developers to account.

Developers need to stop running roughshod over the community once they have gained outline planning permission.

We will need more efforts like this in the formulation of the new Local Plan. 

3 thoughts on “Sad day for Clyst St. Mary

  1. Since 2020, I have watched with interest the progression of both the outline and reserved matters applications for Burrington’s masterplan for Winslade Park, including the four YouTube Planning Committee Meeting debates.

    However, I am rather confused as to how East Devon Planners cannot remember what they approved in the past at outline, when it is so important to the final reserved matters decision, especially as they can all make reference to the YouTube recordings for clarification, as I have done. Perhaps everyone concerned in planning decision-making would pay better attention, if it was in their back yard?

    How can I see that the outline 20/1001/MOUT approved a quantum of up to 54 homes on Zone A (they actually only got 38 on that site at reserved matters) and up to 40 residential apartments in the Zone D car park, totalling 94 units . . . but East Devon Planners cannot?

    In 2020 the Lead Planner at outline gave continual assurances to Planning Committee that all the details on quantum, height, design etc would be decided at the subsequent reserved matters stage. However, this week on Tuesday 15th November, during the 21/2217/MRES final decision-making meeting, suddenly this outline approval for a number of apartments up to 40 had transformed into exactly 40 apartments and not a single one less – leaving the Committee believing they were unable to reduce that number 40, which had been an option for them that was meticulously explained by the Lead Planner at the outline stage?

    Perhaps the confusion began when the Planning Officer made reference to 40 and not up to 40 – but Members were certainly led to believe that 40 had been approved at outline and therefore they could not possibly reduce either that number or the height of the four-storey apartments to accommodate any less, because the car park site was restricted, so the choice to stack 40 flats skyward at around four- and-half storeys, overlooking residents’ homes would have to either be approved or refused – but that surely was not the case? Could not the Councillors have reduced both the number of apartments and the height because outline had not stipulated either? Many Councillors wanted to do both but kept being told that was not a possibility!

    Misleading – yes – confusing – definitely – wrong -well I believe so? Do the residents who campaigned so hard for the best design in their village have any recourse to an independent government body or planning inspectorate now that this flawed decision has been made – or is this a fait accompli?

    Do East Devon Planners need to attend refresher courses to glean a better understanding of the planning processes so that other communities do not have to suffer injustices? Can someone answer these questions please – perhaps EDDC’s CEO or Lead Planning Solicitor or Lead Planner or Monitoring Officer….or is this just going to be ignored? If misrepresentation has occurred here – surely someone needs to do something about it, before the construction works commence, or are they also going to tell the residents that some people will benefit and others will have to suffer, which was stated last Tuesday by a Committee Member?

    Like

  2. I have been following this development via the EDDC planning portal and I watched the meeting on Youtube. I echo the sentiments of the original post, the public speakers were superb in their well considered and presented objections, but to no avail , as, after hundreds of objections and thousands of man hours spent over the last few years, this application was just quickly “rubber stamped” through in next to no time at all. It was almost as if the committee was in a rush, had already made up their mind and were determined to approve this project, come what may right from the start.

    It was strange to see, there was lots of sympathy for the poor people of CSM, lots of wringing of hands etc and when it came to the vote one councillor actually said that they “Reluctantly approved” the application. What does that mean precisely? I would have hoped that councillors on the planning committee would have done their reseach, and voted “wihout fear or favour” in the best interests of the community. If still undecided, they could have absteined? Is some dark force leaning on the members of the EDDC planning committee?

    These 40 luxury apartment will add nothing to the community of CSM, the new residents cant even walk into the village, – as there is no footpath planned. It now looks like the committee chair and a small select number of councillors will now go into a private huddle and decide precisely what conditions they wish to place on the aproval?
    How on earth can a planning committee vote to approve an application Before they have discussed all the conditions? How can a planning committee discuss and aprove conditions in secret without putting them to the whole committee for a public vote? This is not an open and tranparent process and can hardly be called democratic or balanced. Shame on EDDC planning, this all leaves quite a bad taste in ones mouth.

    Like

  3. I have been following this development via the EDDC planning portal and I watched the meeting on Youtube. I echo the sentiments of the original post, the public speakers were superb in their well considered and presented objections, but to no avail , as, after hundreds of objections and thousands of man hours spent over the last few years, this application was just quickly “rubber stamped” through in next to no time at all. It was almost as if the committee was in a rush, had already made up their mind and were determined to approve this project, come what may right from the start.

    It was strange to see, there was lots of sympathy for the poor people of CSM, lots of wringing of hands etc and when it came to the vote one councillor actually said that they “Reluctantly approved” the application. What does that mean precisely? I would have hoped that councillors on the planning committee would have done their reseach, and voted “wihout fear or favour” in the best interests of the community. If still undecided, they could have absteined?

    These 40 luxury apartment will add nothing to the community of CSM, the new residents cant even walk into the village, – as there is no footpath planned. It now looks like the committee chair and a select number of councillors will now go into a private huddle and decide precisely what conditions they wish to place on the aproval? Hardly a balanced or democratic process is it? Shame on EDDC planning, it all leaves quite a bad taste in ones mouth.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.