Though perhaps if he did things might move more quickly:
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/news/sewage_shock_for_parading_sidmouth_scouts_1_3583348
Author Archives: transparencyforeastdevon
The plot Thicketts
So what has been EDDC’s response to Mr Thickett’damning criticism of a Local Plan that has been years in the making, and yet is still found to be “unsound”?
The answer lies in the papers for the Development Management Committee (DMC) meeting to be held on 8 May. It’s a disappointing read, studiously avoiding commitment to a target date for the delivery of a revised Local Plan.
The paper acknowledges the need to work closer with West Dorset, to ensure that housing needs are met cross-border. (Too bad it took Mr Thickett to point out that the draft Local Plan seemed to have forgotten to do this.) The paper also volunteers that East Devon will have to help solve the housing needs of Exeter City as well.
However, rather than defend its turf, the turf of a district of which about two-thirds is to be found in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the paper makes no attempt to avoid being caught between the hammer of Exeter and the anvil of West Dorset.
Why is EDDC not fighting its corner? “There is some, though maybe limited scope, to question the appropriateness of continuation of accommodating part of Exeter generated development needs in East Devon and indeed to consider capacity constraints and limitations in the District overall”. Damn right, etc.
The paper continues, “it is not clear how such capacity limits could be modelled and established”. Has anyone tried? A Duty to Co-operate should not mean rolling over and giving away countryside to our neighbours.
Elsewhere there is more to worry about. The villages Development Plan Document is to be put on the back burner, and the methodology used to calculate growth in villages – a blanket 5%, dismissed as too crude a tool by Thickett – is to be re-evaluated. Villages of East Devon beware!
One might have thought that EDDC would be anxious to have monthly updates, a transparent assessment of how close it was hitting housing numbers. Not a bit of it – the best the paper can do is generously offer to review the position not annually, but twice a year. Why not for each meeting of the DMC? Given that EDDC recently approved c.750 houses in Pinhoe and 300 for Gittisham, how much further do we have to go before East Devon can breathe a sigh of relief?
There is one final issue which should give East Devon cause for concern, and that is Thickett’s observation that the Council did not have a Gypsy and Traveller plan in place. Nine sites will have to be found, and none have been put forward by landowners or agents. (Now there’s a surprise!)
While the DMC paper seemingly believes that reconvened hearing sessions for a revised draft could be complete by October – but this is only if significant changes are not required – the vagueness elsewhere in the paper, and the job of work to on the Gypsy and Traveller plan makes this aspiration look very optimistic indeed.
Police Commissioners “on probation”
And some pertinent comments that might also apply to local government:
Traffic at Turks Head Honiton
Re the Premier Inn planning application:
“District councillor Phil Twiss echoed concerns over the impact on major ‘gateway’ in and out of the town and that the Turks Head junction was already ‘over capacity’.
Would that be with or without the extra 300 houses just agreed at DMC where it seemed to be of little concern to those DMC members who passed it?
Skypark 1987!
Interesting to read what was planned for Skypark in 1987:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1662000
So far we have a gas-fired power station for district heating, and an ambulance service HQ … oh, and an EDDC HQ.
Lovely.
East Devon Alliance’s Submission to the Communities and Local Government Inquiry into the Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework
East Devon Alliance’s Submission to the Communities and Local Government Inquiry into the Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework
A. Executive Summary
The East Devon Alliance, its aims and its concerns about the application of the NPPF in the district.
Members’ views on the Cambridge report.
The actions we believe Parliament should take to redress the bias and the damaging effects of the current NPPF.
B. East Devon Alliance
1. The East Devon Alliance is a voluntary, non-party-political, not-for-profit organisation, bringing together communities from across the district of East Devon. Its purpose is to conserve, for future generations, our priceless environmental assets. At the same time it supports appropriate development for housing and employment, especially for local people, so that East Devon remains a flourishing and vibrant place.
We are deeply concerned at the excessive growth projections threatening our towns, villages, countryside, heritage and tourist industry. Many green spaces – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, “green wedges”, high-grade agricultural land, public parkland, and allotments – are being turned into housing estates that are out of character and scale with the surrounding location. Speculative building on green spaces is not delivering low-cost homes for local people. All too oftensuch building is not accompanied by the infrastructure necessary to produce the vibrant, sustainable environments called for by the NPPF.
The failure of East Devon District Council to set a Local Plan and to meet a 5 or 6-year land supply is a case in point. The NPPF’s presumption in favour of ill-defined “sustainable development” has inevitably tipped the balance in favour of developers, keen to build on open – and cheap – local countryside, causing widespread anger across local communities, and amongst Council-Tax payers whose voice has generally been ignored: material objections are being overridden in favour of housing numbers that have been described by many as “fanciful”.
Deficiencies and a perceived lack of transparency by East Devon District Council has led to a situation where many believe inappropriate development to be an inevitable consequence. These faults – and the influence upon the Local Plan by a former developer Councillor, who had direct influence on the genesis of the draft Local Plan, and was exposed seemingly as a “Councillor-for-hire” by the Daily Telegraph”(March 11, 2013) – has contributed to a suspicion on the part of the public that planning in the district is “developer-led”. In such an environment, the pro-development stance of the NPPF affords the public no comfort.
In light of this, planning officers have recommended, and in almost all cases councillors have approved, massive housing applications across the west of the district in ribbon, green-wedge and green-belt developments on top-grade agricultural land of special landscape value and on flood plains. Elsewhere, across the whole district, numerous housing estates on Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty have been recommended by officers and approved by Council. Officers’ reasons for recommendation have routinely been the lack of a 5 or 6 year housing supply in the context of No Local Plan. As a result, we fear that the baleful influence of the NPPF will continue to encourage further destruction of the East Devon countryside.
The Localism Bill of 2011 has clearly not worked in East Devon, having failed to “give members of the public enough influence over decisions that make a big difference to their lives”. What happened to the promise that “local communities should have genuine opportunities to influence the future of the places where they live”(Localism Bill 2011)?
C. Comments on the Cambridge Report
1. Our members felt the Cambridge Report was biased towards planners and developers, with little or no account taken of the views of local communities and tax-payers who are not regarded as stakeholders. Localism is not working and Government Policy is dictating to Local Government.
2.The report is based on a presumption in favour of building and encourages Chief Executives, planning officers and elected members to be “pro-development” and therefore disregard material considerations such as the preservation of the green environment. The green environment includes flood plains, AONBs, high-grade agricultural land – and objections on these grounds are seen by the report merely as a “source of delay”.
3. Since, like many other umbrella organisations, we represent the views of and are concerned about the whole district and its future, we should not be labelled nimbys. We are in favour of appropriate development especially of genuinely affordable, low-cost housing and wish expenditure on infrastructure to be prioritised in favour of building on brownfield and windfall sites. We also maintain that the countryside has a value that is not properly recognised in the NPPF.
D. What we want the Government to do
recognise that the NPPF is flawed, biased in favour of developers and causing widespread resentment among local communities
recognise that the term “sustainable development” is highly ambiguous and can and has been used to support inappropriatedevelopment. Much greater weight should be given to the conservation of our heritage, ecology, carbon footprint and transport.
give much stronger protection to green areas of special value to local areas
give priority to developments on brownfield sites, offering incentives and bringing in legislation to enforce this
allow planning permissions for developments to be counted as part of the 5-year supply
recognise that housing numbers are “guesstimates”, not proven fact
recognise that in many areas localism is not working, local communities being denied a voice
recognise that the right-to-buy scheme and NPPF’s encouragement of building-for-building’s sake are contributing to a housing bubble
So this is why EDDC wants to move to Skypark!
Remind you of anyone?
This is what the Parliamentary Standards Committee said about disgraced ex-MP Patrick Mercer who took cash for questions as published in the Daily Telegraph:
The investigation found Mr Mercer was ‘willing to use his parliamentary position for his own gain’ and readily signed an agreement for consultancy services but failed to register it or declare his interest when tabling relevant parliamentary questions
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2617840/Ex-Tory-MP-Patrick-Mercer-tried-abuse-hie-position-gain-worst-case-seen-Commons-watchdog.html#ixzz30aIX9098
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
and in The Guardian:
They reached this conclusion after finding he allowed payment to influence his actions in parliamentary proceedings, failed to declare his interests on appropriate occasions, failed to recognise that his actions were not in accordance with his expressed views on acceptable behaviour, repeatedly denigrated fellow MPs both individually and collectively, and used racially offensive language.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/01/patrick-mercer-tory-mp-worst-ever-breaches-rules
Localism: the broken promises
Localism a broken promise?
“The time has come to disperse power more widely in Britain today.”
Do you remember the Localism Bill of 2011 launched with a great fanfare as a key part of the coalition agreement in 2011 with the blessing of the PM and deputy PM? Here are extracts from the introduction to the Governments Guide to Localism published by Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, Minister of State for Decentralisation in June 2011.
“There are, however, some significant flaws in the planning system as it stands. Planning does not give members of the public enough influence over decisions that make a big difference to their lives. Too often, power is exercised by people who are not directly affected by the decisions they are taking. This means, understandably, that people often resent what they see as decisions and plans being foisted on them. The result is a confrontational and adversarial system where many applications end up being fought over.
The Localism Bill contains proposals to make the planning system clearer, more democratic, and more effective.”
“I also hope to see a debate in the wider country – among councils, community groups, volunteers, social activists and many more people – about how they can seize the opportunities this historic Bill represents, and use the rights and freedoms it offers to make a difference in their community.”
These proposals included the following.
Neighbourhood planning
“Instead of local people being told what to do, the Government thinks that local communities should have genuine opportunities to influence the future of the places where they live.”
“Neighbourhood planning will allow communities to come together through a local parish council or neighbourhood forum and say where they think new houses, businesses and shops should go – and what they should look like.”
“These neighbourhood development plans could be very simple, or go into considerable detail where people want.”
Requirement to consult communities before submitting very large planning applications
“To further strengthen the role of local communities in planning, the [Localism] Bill will introduce a new requirement for developers to consult local communities before submitting planning applications for very large developments. This will give local people a chance to comment when there is still genuine scope to make changes to proposals.”
Strengthening enforcement rules
“For people to have a real sense that the planning system is working for them, they need to know that the rules they draw up will be respected. The Localism Bill will strengthen planning authorities’ powers to tackle abuses of the planning system, such as making deliberately misleading planning applications.”
Reform the way local plans are made
“Local planning authorities play a crucial role in local life, setting a vision, in consultation with local people, about what their area should look like in the future. The plans local authorities draw up set out where new buildings, shops, businesses and infrastructure need to go, and what they should look like.”
“The Government thinks it is important to give local planning authorities greater freedom to get on with this important job without undue interference from central government. The Localism Bill will limit the discretion of planning inspectors to insert their own wording into local plans. It will also ensure that rather than focussing on reporting progress in making plans to central government, authorities focus on reporting progress to local communities.”
Is it now a footnote in history?
If you conduct a word search for “localism” in the NPPF you will find it nowhere in the main text only in footnotes 4 and 41, and once each in Annexes 1, 2 and 3!
Heard at the MEP hustings
Member of the public: what have you done in the last year for East Devon?
Candidate’s answer: Nothing
Being non-party-political we are unfortunately unable to identify him!
What is worse than “not showing respect”?
On the subject of councillors making rude remarks to other councillors (see Blue Murder below) which (long-serving) councillor used a totally disgusting racist phrase which has been excised from the audio recording of a recent public meeting but where you can still hear (if this is not also excised after this post) the audible gasps of horror from the public as he said it?
Alas, without the missing seconds, we cannot prove the existence of the words, which were far, far, worse than those made by Mrs Wragg.
Is excision appropriate in such a case?
Community Infrastructure Levy – EDDC reply to Inspector
Left hand and right hand not working in unison?
Norfolk County Council to ditch Cabinet model in favour or politically representative Committee method
Cllr Paul Smyth, chair of the committee governance steering group, said: “I strongly believe the proposals agreed will offer better governance for Norfolk. It will bring greater democracy, transparency and accountability to the council by giving councillors from all parties a much larger role in decision making.
“The proposals we have developed over time will provide us with a strong council, well defined delegations of authority and clear divisions of responsibility that should promote good governance in Norfolk. Each committee will contain a politically balanced mix of councillors, giving them a much stronger voice in future decision making, which can only be good for democracy. All parties will have a part to play in the decision-making cauldron.”
Cllr Smyth said the November review would act as a “safety net” in terms of how the new system was working. “If needs be, we can amend how things are working then, but I believe this new system will give the 84 elected councillors a bigger voice on issues which were previously only the preserve of the nine or ten members of Cabinet.”
Norfolk’s Leader George Nobbs said: “I would like to pay tribute to the ordinary members of the council who have worked tirelessly to come up with a new system of working for the council. I can’t praise the huge amount of work they have put in highly enough and I wish it well.”
Newton Poppleford, King Alfred Way “free pass”: a view
The King Alfred’s Way application is back before the DMC and, as before, EDDC planners have given it a “free pass” dispensing with any need for an environmental impact assessment (EIA) despite it being in an AONB. A little known study of environmental sites of European Significance in South East Devon, which includes the Pebblebed Heaths and the Exe Valley, has confirmed the need to reduce the demands local population growth makes on these site for recreation.
Local authorities have a legal duty to ensure no adverse effects occur to these sites as a result of this growth. Surely the first step is an EIA for such a significant development right on the doorstep of the Pebblebed Heaths?
We can reasonably assume that John Varley, as Clinton Devon Estates Director, is delighted that he doesn’t have to spend money on carrying out an EIA. It is one less hurdle to jump.
More interesting would be to know what view John Varley takes of this, wearing one of his other hats, as a £21K pa Board Member of the Environment Agency (mission – working to protect our environment). Perhaps he could let us know?
Nort Devon council to spend £80,000 (yes eighty thousand pounds) on relocation
The equivalent, perhaps, to EDDC moving to the cash haemmoraging Thelma Hulbert Gallery … hhmmm
http://www.devon24.co.uk/news/museum_move_for_council_s_top_brass_1_3579621
Some councillors get away with blue murder, some don’t
This is the second time Councillor Wragg (Lib Dem) has been brought before EDDC’s Standards Board for comments that seem to be the sort of thing that councillors of another colour call “robust debate” when they make similar remarks and have no action taken against them
Click to access signed_decision_notice_240414_redacted_signature_pdf.pdf
and reported here
And recall that Eric Pickles himself has said that councillors should have broader shoulders than the general public.
One might see a pattern emerging here, in the year before EDDC elections are due. One hopes not.
East Devon Watch 