See this report by Feniton Councillor Susie Bond about this afternoon’s DMC where it seems only councillors NOT in the AONB were upset about the Local Plan delay.
They voted to “note” the report which basically means throwing up their hands and saying ” there’s nothing we can do but wait and see”.
This morning the Chairman of East Devon Alliance, Paul Arnott, once again went head-to-head with a top EDDC councillor – this time EDDC Council Leader Paul Diviani on the lack of a Local Plan. The EDA Chairman said that he was not surprised but still disappointed that, having been dealing with this project since 2007, EDDC still is not in a position to put a (third) draft Local Plan forward to the Planning Inspectorate and leaving the district vulnerable to speculative development. And he comes up with a STUNNING REVELATION why he thinks current research for the Local Plan is wrong and the reason why it is being held up. Read on …
Councillor Diviani trod the well-worn track of saying that there really is nothing to worry about – EDDC has so far won more than 70% of its appeals and (occasionally) says no to developers. The EDA Chairman noted that it is NOT EDDC alone that champions these appeals – particularly in the case of Feniton and Seaton, where it was local people who raised funds and made their case to inspectors, so implying that EDDC alone does this is somewhat disingenuous.
However, then came the total shock. You may recall that two sets of consultants employed by EDDC before the last iteration of the Local Plan said that they thought that around 12,000 homes should be built in the district. EDDC (and, it has to be said members of the East Devon Business Forum and developers, sometimes the same thing) said, no, no – this could not be right and at least 15,000 homes were needed – which is what got put in the draft put before the Inspector.
The Inspector threw out the plan, specifically saying that he could see no back-up research that confirmed the 15,000 number that EDDC came up with.
And what does Leader Diviani say to this – if we take his interview at face value believing that he is being topical we could read it as THREE sets of consultants coming to around the same figure but we must assume he is talking about the two reports? He says, no no – they CANNOT be right. The government wants us to build more houses, we NEED more houses so we are going to “look at the figures again” because they must be “realistic”.
So, here we have it – Councillor Diviani thinks he is more expert than consultants and will not give up until – presumably – another set of consultants comes up with the figure that he and the government want. A figure not based on evidence. As usual – fire the arrow, then draw the bulls-eye around it.
So, we ask ourselves: where did the figure of 15,000 that Councillor Diviani so desperately wants come from? Developers? Out of thin air? from the Government which has told us (via the NPPF) to come up with LOCAL figures backed up with LOCAL evidence?
Some very, very, trenchant questions need to be asked. Not least by our councillors and, particularly, by Councillor Diviani
Source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p024pn5v
(THE INTERVIEW IS 2 HOURS 6 MIN AT 8.38 AM)
Under a heading “Making decisions that are lawful and fair for East Devon’s communities” in this week’s Knowledge e-newspaper the following information appears.
Notwithstanding that it reads as if the publication is implying that the PUBLIC might find itself in trouble here when it is actually the local authority, read this in the context of the move from easily accessible Sidmouth to almost totally inaccessible Skypark and see if you see a problem for EDDC. Particularly with regard to one of the last paragraphs where it says that actions can be taken by councils only if they are: informed, considered, proportionate, fair and necessary.
As a council it is important that we represent the wide-ranging needs, views and aspirations of our communities. We have a higher than average older population with over 28% of the population being aged 65 and over and with many people living in rural isolation.
In the 2011 Census 10.3% of people in East Devon said they were carers, with 21% of people
Reported as having a disability/long-term health problem . Women make up 52% of East Devon’s population.
65 .6% said they were Christian, 25.1% had no religion, and many other religions/beliefs made up 1.1%.
Ethnic minority communities reported a slight increase to 1.6% since the last Census.
When making decisions, it’s not only important to consider how different people will be affected but it is a legal requirement under the Equality Act 2010 Public Sector Equality Duty.
This is because people have diverse needs and may be disadvantaged by something we do.
A disadvantage could result in them having poor access to services and information which could affect their health, wellbeing and opportunities to achieve their own potential.
Therefore, there is an economic and cost benefit to considering the effects of decisions on diverse communities.
East Devon has a good track record for promoting equality and supporting diverse communities.
To reduce the risk of court challenges and the associated legal costs , need to be aware of the following:
When making decisions, the Equality Act 2010 Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) requires you to give due regard to the need to:
Eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation.
Advance equality by encouraging participation, removing disadvantage, taking account of disabilities and meeting people’s needs.
Foster good relations between people by tackling prejudice and promoting understanding.
Questions to ask when making decisions:
Taking into account people’s ages, disabilities, race/ethnicity (includes Gypsies and Travellers), gender/gender identity, religions and beliefs (includes people who have ‘no belief’ and atheists) or sexual orientation, pregnant women/new mothers, marriage/civil partnership status and any other factor you consider relevant such as caring responsibilities, rural isolation or socio-economic disadvantage…
Who might be affected by the proposal or issue?
Have stakeholders been consulted adequately and what was their feedback?
Have diverse needs and community impacts been considered fully?
For example, is an appropriate impact assessment provided?
What supporting information (needs assessment/profiles etc.) is provided by officers and is this sufficient and robust?
In what way could the proposal or issue under consideration benefit certain groups of people?
Are there any opportunities for further improvement , particularly for disabled people?
In what way could the proposal or issue under consideration disadvantage certain groups of
people? For example, could it result in discrimination, poor or worse access, outcomes or community relations?
Are any negative impacts/disadvantages necessary, reasonable and proportionate?
What are the risks of going ahead/not going ahead with the proposal and how can these risks be managed?
Is there an alternative, less disadvantageous option?
Are there mitigations in place to address negative impacts?
Can we make a decision on the basis of the information given to us?
Chairpersons should make sure there is a record (minute) of the attention given to the PSED when making decisions or carrying out a scrutiny Function.
One final point, equality is not about …
Favouring particular groups above others, although there are provisions in the Equality Act to allow organisations to advance equality by taking ‘positive action’ to achieve more equal outcomes for groups which are disadvantaged and a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people.
Preventing councils from making difficult decisions which may result in the closure or reduction of a service, provided such decisions are informed, considered, proportionate, fair and necessary.
Banning words like “blackboard” “because it’s racist” (it isn’t).
Source: http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/220814_the_knowledge_issue_15.pdf
See above for details of the DMC meeting this afternoon where the lack of a 5 (and 6) year land supply will be “debated”
note that you can video, record, photograph, tweet or email about this meeting in real time, provided that you do not upset the participants …
and
check out the First Tier tribunal case:
Information Commissioner v East Devon District Council,
Thursdy 28 August 2014 at 10 am in Court 3 of Exeter Magistrates Court
(taking notes at this meeting is allowed but no other form of recording)
where the important decision on how much information EDDC can keep secret about its relocation to Skypark will be (eventually) decided
A public authority, the requester or both can appeal against the Information Commissioner’s decision notice. [This is what EDDC has done].
If the Tribunal decides that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong in law, or that he exercised his discretion wrongly, it can overturn the decision and issue a substitute decision notice. This decision notice has the same legal status as the first one. Like the Commissioner, the Tribunal can only consider questions relevant to the Act, not any wider dispute that may arise from the request.
Appeals may be by oral hearing, where witnesses give evidence in person. If the evidence can be presented entirely in writing, the appeal will be decided on the basis of those documents.
Aren’t we lucky they are coming now before areas around these venues are surrounded by housing estates.
In addition to seeing profits jump more than 50% (see previous post) Persimmon’s MD notes:
“To meet the ever-increasing demand for new homes, the company is also continuing to invest heavily in strategic land.
Mr Perks added: “During the first six months of the year, the business acquired 14,251 plots of land. These outlets will ensure the group is able to deliver new homes that local communities are keen to acquire.”
Wonder how many will be “affordable”?
… if so, EDDC is right behind you. Advertised in this week’s Knowledge e-newspaper produced by EDDC is a link to a handy guide produced by the Local Gocernment Association.
And, just in case you thought that all councillors do is promote costly vanity projects or increase parking fees for local residents by 330%, the Guide has this to say about a councillor’s role:
“A councillor’s primary role is to represent their ward or division and the people who live in it. Councillors provide a bridge between the community and the council.
As well as being an advocate for your local residents and signposting them to the right people at the council, you will need to keep them informed about the issues that affect them.
In order to understand and represent local views and priorities you will need to build strong relationships and encourage local people to make their views known and engage with you and the council.”
So, if you think our council should get back to basics and you are a do-er rather than a can’t do-er, you CAN bring about change.
his new job is “Minister for Construction”. But surely, that’s what he has beeb all along?
Still, at least now he won’t have to pretend that he’s also interested in proper – community-based – planning!
EDDC has said that our Local Plan is held up because they have to co-operate with other councils and authorities in the “greater Exeter” area, naming Exeter City Council, Mid Devon District Council, Teignbridge District Council and Dartmoor National Park Authority.
This should be made easier by the fact that former EDDC Deputy Director and Head of Regeneration, Kareem Hassan is now Chief Executive of Exeter City Council.
Stephen Belli, a former Senior Planning Officer at EDDC, is now Director of Planning at Dartmoor National Park Local Plan adopted in July 2013, so all its figures available:
That should help to get things off to a quick start, EDDC, Exeter and Dartmoor senior planners having worked together for several years.
Oh, and the Teignbridge Local Plan was adopted in May 2014 so their up-to-date figures are there for everyone to see, which also makes things easier:
http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/planteignbridge
Oh, and lookee- here: Mid Devon’s Local Plan was also found sound with some modifications in May 2014
http://www.middevon.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=20157&p=0
Hold up, what hold up?
An excellent article in this week’s Sidmouth Herald which does not just regurgitate the EDDC apology-for-a-press-release on the latest delay to the draft local plan, now not expected until at least summer 2015.
It points out that the delay means a total of at least 4 years without any locally-set building limits, instead relying on a “one size fits all national policy”.
And noting that the delay (and the developer free-for-all) could influence how residents vote in the next local elections in May 2015.
Recall that EDDC wasted at least three years between 2008 and 2011 on its initial Local Plan meetings (held in secret and with secret agendas and minutes) chaired by disgraced ex-councillor Graham Brown* (who also chaired the developer-heavy and 100% funded by EDDC East Devon Business Forum at the same time).
The council “Panel” of 2008-2011 spent a large amount of its time visiting sites owned by EDBF members whilst EDBF spent most of its time rubbishing council-funded research by 2 sets of consultants on “employment land” and successfully managing to persuade the council to accept their much higher figures when many members stood to gain from the said increase.
The current council had to convene yet another panel in 2011 and had to start from scratch again. The Planning Inspector threw out their report in March 2014, citing out of date figures and lack of vital information.
* Disgraced ex-councillor Brown also ran a planning consultancy in the are and was exposed in a Daily Telegraph front-page headline article in March 2013 article saying that if he could not get planning permission in the area then no-one could but that he did not come cheap. He resigned soon after the story was published. He had been EDDC Conservative councillor for Feniton, a by-election then subsequently won by Independent Councillor Susie Bond.
Residents parking fees to rise 330% at Sidmouth’s York Street Residents Car Park (an area of small, terraced houses and many double yellow lines). Parking permit costs will rise to £1,800 per year or buy a three year permit for £5,400 and protect yourself against increased prices in years 2 and 3. The 58 bays will net EDDC a cool £100,000 a year. 58 lost votes there then!
And EDDC’s response? “[Our] assets need to be managed to the best possible effect. These spaces are in high demand and it therefore follows that the council should be acheiving a market rate”.
No such achievement of the market rate at the Knowle car park, where officers and councillors continue to enjoy free parking. And let us not forget they are similarly absolved of parking fees when out and about on “council business”.
Well, someone has to pay for the Skypark shag pile ….
Not for some time….see the paragraph copied below from http://susiebond.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/one-step-forward-and-two-steps-back/:
‘Following my email to the Planning Policy Manager on the likely date for the adoption of the Local Plan, he responded “At this stage I would not be able to give an adoption date but if things do go along at a decent pace, as I trust they will now do, I would still consider that Summer 2015 could be a reasonable adoption date.”’
Foreign tourism up 49% in the southwest compared to 29% in London. Our biggest industry. EDDC tourism initiatives – nil. Unless you count the majority party refusing to consider supporting a decrease in VAT to stimulate it even more, even though many MPs from all parties support the move.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28886583
European VAT rates:
“The values of any well governed Council include openness and transparency, honesty and integrity, tolerance and respect, and equality and fairness. “In recent years these values have evidently not been applied or followed”.
Sir David believes that this is not the fault of the general body of councillors but that responsibility lies in the hands of the Executive Board and the Chief Executive. “There needs to be a change in culture”.
It is not that the rules are procedures are not adequate, more a case that they are not applied in practice because of “the internal culture in County Hall”.
Basic rules and values concerning conflicts of interest which should be obvious to all have not been applied by some members of the Executive Board and senior management. “They are not mere technicalities as some have suggested”
As for ‘recent events’, he says they “will not happen if there is a proper professional relationship between the Chief Executive, the Executive Board and the Council generally and if the Scrutiny Committees are given the full facts.”
As for the notoriously brief Minutes of meetings, he states that “there is a culture of hiding difficult or troublesome items” and goes on to say, “It is unclear to me whether or not the committee clerks are instructed to adopt this unhelpful approach and if so by whom.”
Relax, councillors this is a comment on the situation at a council in Wales – but today Wales, tomorrow …..
From EDDC’s latest press release on the very, very delayed Local Plan:
The report to DMC explains that once consultants have provided a full SHMA report that addresses all the issues,
“an industry workshop should be held to consult with housebuilders before a final report can be produced and agreed with all of the commissioning authorities.”
i.e. AFTER the numbers have been decided (presumably taking necessary growth into account) developers will be allowed to change them! Can you honestly see any developer saying “Yeah, that looks about right” or “Oh, no, that’s far too much”!
It’s like a Bank Manager giving a burglar the keys to the vault and asking him to count the money!
A correspondent points out this is a central government initiative not a local one – which doesn’t improve matters one bit!
Source:
http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/communications_and_consultation.htm?newsid=1174
This comment was recieved to the last entry about the car park at Budleigh Salterton. Recall that EDDC has told the town council that they should either pay massively more rent for this asset or it EDDC will take it back under its control. The car park originally belonged to the earlier urban district council and Budleigh Salterton Town Council has maintained it so that parking in it can be without charge to motorists parking there:
The comment is from Angela Yarwood, a local resident and businesswoman:
“As far as we are aware, the points in the attached excerpt (and others in the deed) from title no DN349560 pertaining to the land including the Station Road ‘FREE’ carpark are as follows. This doesn’t appear to bear any resemblance to that sited from EDDC in response to the FOI request from Mr Freeman regarding the same…(section (c) below)
Could we hope that somebody informed, unbiased and in authority from EDDC would explain here to the posts above, rather than us having to pick up pieces from the press, blogs, uninformed councillors, rumour etc..
…and bear in mind that although ‘owned’ by EDDC, the vast majority of the upkeep of the Station Road carpark has been paid for by the Town, and not from EDDC funds.
Schedule of restrictive covenants
1 The following are details of the covenants contained in the Conveyance dated 22 April 1947 referred to in the Charges Register:-
“The Council on behalf of itself and its successors in title owner or owners for the time being of the land hereby conveyed hereby covenants with the Grantor his successors in title owner or owners for the time being of the adjoining lands of the Grantor and as a separate covenant with the Grantor henceforth to observe and perform the covenants and conditions particulars whereof are set forth in the Second and Third Schedules hereto respectively.
THE SECOND SCHEDULE
COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE LAND FIRSTLY DESCRIBED IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE
(a) The Council shall keep the hereditaments hereby in the First part of the First Schedule hereto described save such part thereof as shall be laid out and kept for the playing of bowls tennis croquet putting or any other game for which space shall be provided by the Council requiring the provision of a special court lawn or green in good order as public playing fields or open space park and pleasure ground for the free use and enjoyment of the public and to keep in good repair and condition all fences stiles and gates upon or about the land and to keep all such courts lawns or greens as aforesaid in good order and to permit members of the public to have access thereto for the purpose of playing games upon payment of a reasonable charge to be fixed from time to time by the Council.
(b) The Council shall keep the grass land and the paths in good order and condition and shall keep all trees now or hereafter grown upon any part of the land affected hereby protected against injury.
(c) The said land or any part thereof shall not at any time be used for any trade or business whatsoever or otherwise than as a properly ordered Public Recreation Ground for the use of inhabitants of and visitors to Budleigh Salterton only without the consent in writing of the Company first obtained and that the said land shall be daily open to the public on such conditions and subject to such Byelaws and Regulations as shall from time to time be laid down by the Council but this clause shall not preclude the Council from charging a fee for the playing of games as in Condition (a) hereof.
(d) School children shall not be permitted to resort to the land in such numbers as to be or become a nuisance or annoyance to the General Public and the Council shall if necessary and practicable make byelaws to prevent such occurence but this condition shall not render it incumbent on the Council to provide a full time attendant to exclude children should other means prove ineffective to this end.
(e) The Council will not do or permit to be done anything upon the land which may be a nuisance or annoyance to the Grantor or the Company or any of his or its lessees or tenant.
Below is a comment, left on a previous post, which is repeated here as it contains much useful information:
‘I have now had time to fully digest the report and do some further research and it looks like the LP resubmission is extremely unlikely to be this year, and possibly (if not probably) after the elections in May 2015.
A good starting point for documentation about the activities relating to fixing the Local Plan can be found at http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/lpsubmission which has a chronology and links to all the major documents.
My analysis of the situation is as follows:
1. The SHMA consultancy contract seems to me to be in a shambles.
However, Section 3 of this recent report gives the breakdown of this Best Practice into 6 stages, and paragraph 3.2 states that the work on the SHMA has only reached the first of the 6 stages in the PAS guidance.
Moreover, in a both letter to the Planning Inspector in mid-April 2014 http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/lettersinspector12.pdf and the draft action plan of 8 May http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/actionplan02.pdf attached to a letter to the Planning Inspector on 22 May 2014 http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/lettertomrthickett220514.pdf Mr Dickens was saying that the SHMA would be available in June 2014.
I have no reason to doubt that Mr Dickens was reporting these dates because that was what he was being told by DCA, but I cannot see how DCA could be reporting in May 2014 that they would finish in June 2014, and yet in August 2014 we have only completed the first of 6 stages to complete the SHMA.
The current report says NOTHING about the state of the SHMA contract with DCA. My experience in public sector outsourcing (having worked on both sides of the fence – though admittedly in IT rather than Planning Policy), this is likely now to be a major issue. DCA is certainly running late (and in consultancy, time is literally money) and so very likely to be running over budget and likely to make a loss on this piece of work, and it seems to me that there is a very high probability that there will need to be major contract renegotiations (DCA will likely claim a “change in scope”, EDDC will deny most of it, arguments will go back and forth – all of which will delay things further), and possibly eventually an agreement for EDDC to spend a lot more money spent to get this work completed by DCA – or worse still the contract being re-let and re-awarded to someone else to start again at the beginning.
So questions I want to know about the DCA contract:
A. Why has the SHMA not been delivered by DCA? Why were they still predicting they would deliver in in June as late as early May, and why were we surprised by its non-delivery with only 1 of 6 stages currently completed?
B. Is DCA still committed to deliver the SHMA within the current contract & existing costs?
If so, what is DCA’s revised schedule, and what happens if they miss it again?
If not, what are the EDDC plans to get the contract back on the rails so that the SHMA can be delivered, and what are the likely timescales and additional costs for revised or new contracts?
2. Timescales
The special DMC meeting on 8 May 2014 http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/combined_dmc_agenda_080514.pdf page 5 onwards, discusses the draft Action Plan response to the Planning Inspector, and on page 19 there is a timetable which suggests that by now they would be providing “Feedback report on comments received [from the Consultation on the new SHMA] to Development Management Committee” for approval so that “Feedback sent to Inspector” by the end of August.
However if you look at the draft Action Plan, it is clear that there are several other pieces of work to do before Feedback to the Inspector, so this seemed unrealistic even then.
As far as I can see, the following still need to be done:
A. The remaining 5 stages of the SHMA as documented in Section 3 of the current report.
B. The activities described in the draft Action Plan.
C. The activities in the timetable from 8 May.
Personally I cannot see these being completed this year, and I would guess that it might take considerably longer than that.
SUMMARY
The DMC needs to get a grip and take both control and responsibility for the completion of the Local Plan.
They need to find out the state of the contract with DCA and get it back on the rails.
They need to create a robust plan for redelivery of the revised Local Plan to the Inspector, providing additional resources to the Planning Policy unit if that is required to speed things up.‘
Press release from Jeremy Woodward, Sidmouth resident, whose Freedom of Information request led to this case, and who will be allowed full representation at the Magistrate’s Court on 28 August 2014 at 10 am, Court 3:
“This Tribunal is the first of its kind for East Devon District Council.
The Council has acted as both executive and policeman, making key decisions in private and then determining which information it deems fit to be made public. And yet the default position is to make information available – but the Council refuses to abide by the spirit of Freedom of Information legislation.
The fact that the Council has appealed against the Information Commissioner’s decision shows how determined it is to keep these key reports on relocation from the public gaze: one wonders, therefore, what is hidden within.
This case is fundamentally about transparency of process. Research I have carried out strongly suggests that the political leadership at the Council has been making decisions about its relocation project in private without adequately informing Members. Moreover, it is clear from reports in the press and other documentation that the decision to relocate from Knowle was made well before 2012 – and yet the Council insists that there can be no disclosure of sensitive information because the project is still ‘live’.
This has had the effect of preventing any proper debate of the issues. There has been virtually no open discussion, hampered by the political leadership controlling the flow of information. I have argued that key documents which have guided decision-making on relocation should be published in full (apart from any company or private names, of course) to enable an informed debate to take place.
The fact that the reports were produced by external consultants Davis Langdon, who employs the author of the reports Mr Steve Pratten, simply consolidates the argument that these documents should be published.
The East Devon Alliance blog is following the case closely – with helpful directions to the Court for members of the public:
http://eastdevonalliance.org/
I will not be able to attend, due to professional commitments. However, I will be represented by Mr Richard Thurlow; he is also the Chair of the Save Our Sidmouth campaign, as well as the Chair of the Sid Vale Association’s planning committee. I am copying him into this correspondence as he will be taking any questions from the press next Thursday.”
East Devon Watch 