Interestingly, one point not mentioned by the National Farmers Union is the amount of Grade 1 agricultural land lost to speculative building which leads to the land being worth up to £1 million per acre when planning permission is received – especially in areas such as ours where we have no Local Plan and no 6-year land supply. And where quite a few farmers are parish, town and/or district councillors (and even, in the past, running a plannung consultancy) and are sometimes developers themselves.
Category Archives: Affordable and Social Housing
Hugo Swire (Con) blames EDDC (Con) for Local Plan (Con) development free-for-all due to NPPF (Con!)
South Hams Council berates government for planning changes leading to even less affordable housing
Catch Swire on planning at Clyst St Mary and Woodbury this week – four-and-three-quarter years too late to be of any use
Swire (finally, after four-and-three-quarter years of avoiding the issue) meets parishioners of Clyst St Mary at the Village School o
Meet Hugo Swire and quiz him on local planning matters:
Thurs 19th Feb 6.30pm
Clyst St Mary Village School
and on
Friday, 20th February from 6.30 till 8.0 p.m.
Woodbury Village Hall
Lots to ask him, such as:
Why has he only just expressed an interest in planning matters?
Why did he vote for the National Planning Policy Framework and its definition of sustainable?
Why has he not voiced his opposition to the developer-led planning free-for-all in East Devon encouraged and stimulated by East Devon District Council?
Why has he not stood up for areas in his constituency under threat the way Neil Parish did at Feniton?
How can he keep his eye on the East Devon ball if he is always away on Foreign Office business?
Affordable housing: why is EDDC allowing developers to drop affordable housing on their developments?
Why has the right for the public to speak at Development Management Committee meetings been vastly reduced?
What input has he had into getting EDDC’s Local Plan into being?
What effect will the “co-operation” between East Devon, Exeter and Teignbridge have on East Devon?
What is his view on “green wedges”?
I’m sure you can think of MANY more questions for him!
Then ask the same questions of the Independent Parliamentary candidate Claire Wright – his major challenger!
WHY are the consultants reports on housing to remain secret until after district elections?
We know what the Leader of East Devon District Council gives as his “reason”
We are very much aware of the need to finalise our Local Plan, but at the same time we have to take the reports with proposed changes to the Plan to our members for consideration and consultation. We had envisaged that the earliest we would have been able to take the reports to our members would be March or early April 2015. The process of consultation would then take around six-weeks.
“However, because of the forthcoming local and national elections this would not appear to be a viable route to follow, as there is concern that the process could be seen as politically motivated, which would overshadow the soundness of the plan.
“While mindful of the need to progress quickly, the significance to the process of members consideration and consultation should not be overlooked, and consequently it is unlikely that we will take the report to our members until shortly after the May election.”
but let us look at this forensically.
The Planning Inspector, when he looked at the Draft Local Plan, threw it out. A main reason was that the number of houses to be built had no evidence to support the figure. What slight evidence given was very old, based on out of date information and therefore not to be trusted. He basically told EDDC to go back to the drawing board and give him hard evidence for his figures.
Under the National Planning Policy Framework, EDDC had a “duty to co-operate” with adjoining local authorities in case those authorities had housing needs that could not be met within their areas and must therefore be shared. For reasons never explained, although this meant in practice liaising with Exeter City Council and West Dorset, EDDC took the decision (where? when?) to extend the area to include Teignbridge, Mid Devon and Dartmoor National Park. This meant that consultants had more information to gather and more situations to take into account. It should be noted that the “duty to co-operate” is NOT a duty to agree – only to be seen to be consulting with neighbouring authorities on their needs.
So, two sets of consultants were employed. Edge Analytics were employed to look at the link between housing and employment, Ash Futures Limited were employed to look at future job growth levels in East Devon only. It appears now that both companies have produced their reports.
Usually, when consultants have produced reports, they are circulated to councillors who then have the opportunity to comment on them. Unfortunately, in East Devon, this has often been misinterpreted as an opportunity to rewrite them almost in their entirety. When EDDC doesn’t like numbers, it likes to have them changed, rather than accepting that they might be right! Take the employment land figures that were produced by two consultants for the Draft Local Plan. EDDC (or rather the East Devon Business Forum under its Chairman, disgraced ex-councillor Graham Brown) decided the figure was too low, gave their own much higher figure and this was the one which EDDC chose to go with.
Now, here we are with two reports and the Leader has decided that their contents are too politically sensitive for the public (and councillors not in the “need to know” group?) to have sight of.
What is politically sensitive about consultants reporting hard facts and evidence?
As we noted earlier, there are only two possible explanations:
1. The number of houses is below that which EDDC put in its Draft Local Plan. In this case, EDDC has egg on its face. Not only does it have egg on its face, all the current developments rushed through because we have no Local Plan would be surplus to requirements.
2. The number of houses is higher than that which EDDC put in its Draft Local Plan, either because:
(a) they just got the number wrong or
and this is more likely
(b) now that they are having to take the housing needs of not only Exeter and West Dorset into account but also Teignbridge, Mid Devon and Dartmoor National Park, EDDC will have to commit itself to taking overload from all these areas into its own area (for example, by making Cranbrook even larger than planned).
THIS IS NOT POLITICALLY SENSITIVE IT IS PARTY POLITICAL SENSITIVE AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LOCAL PLAN PROCESS
AND THE DELAY IN PUBLISHING CAN ONLY BE SEEN AS A WAY OF ENSURING THAT BAD NEWS DOES NOT COST THE CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY MORE VOTES AT THE FORTHCOMING DISTRICT ELECTION
Important paragraph omitted from Local Plan letter below
“However, because of the forthcoming local and national elections this would not appear to be a viable route to follow, as there is concern that the process could be seen as politically motivated, which would overshadow the soundness of the plan. While mindful of the need to progress quickly, the significance to the process of members’ consideration and consultation should not be overlooked, and consequently it is unlikely that we will take the report to our members until shortly after the May election.”
Quite. Perhaps, also, the news will be too much for us to bear and might affect our voting choices …..
Following EDA
As you will have noticed, the East Devon Alliance has grabbed the headlines, and been prominently featured in the local press and radio over the past week or so.
Now this invitation has come from EDA, for any EDWatchers who might like to follow EDA news for themselves:
There are 4 options:
a. Subscribe to emails on the site – http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk
b. Subscribe to RSS on the site – http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk
c. Like EDA on Facebook – EastDevonAlliance
d. Follow on Twitter – EDevonAlliance
And if anything specially grabs EDWatchers’ attention, it can be shared with neighbours and local friends by:
a. Forwarding the email
b. Clicking the share buttons on the EDA website
c. Sharing EDA posts with friends on facebook.
d. Re-tweeting.
……There seems to be lots going on!!
Council forced to un-redact redacted information on housing viability assessment
No, not EDDC, though no doubt if we had any numbers available they would automatically want to redact them! But if any figures WERE redacted from developers affordable housing changes (Tesco, Seaton?) this probably means that they must now be revealed and may have major implications for all other “commercial confidentiality” excuses made by EDDC – past, present and future:
“The First-tier Tribunal has ordered a London council to disclose redacted information in a viability assessment that led to the authority allowing a developer to vary the amount of affordable housing on a major site.
The background to the case of Royal Borough of Greenwich v IC and Shane Brownie EA/2014/0122 was a deed of planning obligation dated 23 February 2004 concerning the development of the Greenwich Peninsula.
The commitments entered into by the developers included one that 38% of the more than 10,000 homes to be built would be ‘affordable’.
Following the 2008 financial crisis work on the development stalled. In 2012 there was a risk of a £50m housing grant being lost.
The developers approached the Royal Borough of Greenwich asking to be released from some of their promises to build affordable homes. The revised proposal – affecting 11 plots – moved some of the affordable homes from the more attractive areas of the site which have river views; the number of affordable homes was also reduced by about 500.
One of the developers, Quintain (whose interest has since been bought out by Knight Dragon), commissioned an ‘economic viability report’ from BNP Paribas.
Dated 23 January 2013, it stated on the cover “FOIA exemption Sections 41 and 43(2) Private and Confidential”. Paragraph 1.4 of the report said the report was being provided to the council on a confidential basis. It also requested that the report not be disclosed to third parties under FOIA.
The FTT noted that companies could ask for exemptions or exceptions to be considered, but they were not decision makers in relation to freedom of information. “That task falls to the public authority, the ICO and, sometimes, the Tribunal,” it said.
Greenwich asked another firm, Christopher Marsh & Co, to review the BNP Paribas report. Then, on 28 February 2013 the council’s planning board approved the proposed variation to the deed of planning obligation.
Two months later Knight Dragon approached the council again for the variation itself to be varied. This was approved by the planning board on 25 June 2013.
On 12 June a local resident, Shane Brownie, submitted an FOI request to obtain a copy of the financial viability report.
The council disclosed both the BNP Paribas report and a letter from Christopher Marsh & Co. However, both documents were subject to redactions under regulation 12(5)(e) governing confidential commercial information.
It was these redactions that were at the heart of the dispute. The Information Commissioner overturned the council’s decision to redact the documents. Greenwich appealed to the First-Tier Tribunal.
The FTT conducted a public interest balancing exercise as the exception under regulation 12(5)(e) only applies if in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining it outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The presumption is in favour of disclosure.
The Tribunal said two factors told particularly in favour of disclosure:
The number of affordable homes to be provided on what was an enormous development, as well as their location, was an important local issue on which reasonable views were held strongly on both sides;
This was a case where a company, robust enough to take on the development of a huge site over a period of 20 years, acquiring its interest in 2012 and increasing its share in 2013, immediately asked to be relieved of a planning obligation freely negotiated by its predecessor. “It justifies this change on the basis of a downturn in house prices it knew about at the time of purchase, using a valuation model that looks at current values only and does not allow for change in the many factors that may affect a valuation over time. It seems to us that in those circumstances the public interest in openness about the figures is very strong.”
The Tribunal said: “Having weighed all the evidence and arguments, in our judgement the admittedly important public interests in maintaining the regulation 12(5)(e) exception in this case do not outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information.”
The residents were represented by Michael Armitage, having also been advised during the proceedings by Julianne Kerr Morrison (both on a pro bono basis). Gerry Facenna acted for the Information Commissioner. All three are barristers at Monckton Chambers.
Farmland hits £1m per acre for housing
Labour would end “right to buy” in Wales if in government
Two councils challenge changes to Section 106 provisions
Councillors reject officer advice on large village development
Citing lack of sustainability:
“Ask Pickles” – videos of questions and answers from a parallel universe!
Polished spin by Mr Pickles on a number of important topics in videos produced from “Question Time” events held last year.
Topics given the Pickles treatment include:
What help is there for villages under threat of over-development? Yes, he REALLY thinks there are things we can do!
Fracking (live with it)
Are councils doing enough to engage voters? (Well, he thinks so – our missing 6,000 voters might not have agreed and the Parliamentary Committee pointed the finger at EDDC for not doing enough)
Why have new unitary councils bedn blocked? (Because we can, and some of them might be too powerful and the wrong party)
What are the solutions to unaffordable affordable housing? Yes, Pickles thinks we can solve this problem!
Tourism growth outstrips other sectors
So why does East Devon District Council airbrush it out of their targets?
Soon, with our concreted countryside we will have nothing for tourists to visit us for.
But we will have plenty of industrial sheds and (non-affordable) houses made of ticky-tacky.
And can anyone track down anything meaningful (or indeed anything meaningful at all on any subject) by our “tourism champion” Mrs Kerridge?
Rural Services Network Manifesto
So many words, so little action
“The Government’s flagship planning policy is leading to “inappropriate and unwanted housing development”, MPs have warned.
The cross-party Communities and Local Government Committee also raised concerns that town centres were not being given proper protection against the threat from large out-of-town retail developments.
They called for the Government to scrap rules allowing small shops and offices to be converted to housing without the need for planning permission, arguing that the changes could lead to town centres becoming “an unattractive place to visit or, indeed, live”. …
…The committee said: “Our report has identified a number of issues with the operation of the NPPF: that it is not preventing unsustainable development; that it is leading to communities being subject to inappropriate and unwanted housing development; and that it is giving insufficient protection to England’s town centres.”
But there was no need to “tear up or withdraw” the controversial document, but insisted ministers should ” reinforce its provisions and ensure it does the job it was intended to do”. …
…They said: “Councils that fail to produce a plan surrender their ability to influence the future development of their local areas.”
The committee’s Labour chairman Clive Betts said: “Councils must do more to protect their communities against the threat of undesirable development by by moving quickly to get an adopted local plan in place.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2875415/Warning-planning-policy.html
and reviewed in more detail here:
Government admits National Planning Policy Framework not working
The government has produced its long-awaited report on the National Planning Policy Framework. It reveals that even they now belive it is dysfunctional.
Summary:
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has now been in operation for two and a half years. The simplification it has brought to the planning system is welcome and was acknowledged by many witnesses, but it needs more time to bed in, and the Government needs to collect more data, before a full assessment can be made of its strengths and weaknesses.
Nevertheless, the evidence to this inquiry has highlighted a number of emerging concerns: that the NPPF is not preventing unsustainable development in some places; that inappropriate housing is being imposed upon some communities as a result of speculative planning applications; and that town centres are being given insufficient protection against the threat of out of town development.
These concerns point to the need to strengthen, rather than withdraw, the NPPF. We have suggested a number of changes that should be made both to the NPPF itself and to the way it is applied.
First, we must take steps to ensure that the planning system delivers the sustainable development promised in the NPPF. We should ensure that the same weight is given to the environmental and social as to the economic dimension; that permission is only given to development if accompanied by the infrastructure necessary to support it; and that the planning system places due emphasis on the natural environment.
Second, all councils must move much more quickly to get an adopted plan in place: this will give communities increased protection against the threat of undesirable development. We call for a statutory requirement for councils to get local plans adopted within three years of legislation being enacted.
Third, we must address the complex issue of land supply. Provisions in the NPPF relating to the viability of housing land are leading to inappropriate development: these loopholes must be closed. There also needs to be clearer guidance about how housing need should be assessed. In addition, local authorities should be encouraged to review their green belts as part of the local planning process.
Finally, changes should be made to ensure the NPPF gives greater protection to town centres. The internet has changed the way we shop; town centre planning policy must therefore evolve too. We call for an end to permitted development that allows shops and buildings used for financial and professional services to become homes without planning permission, a policy which is undermining the local planning process.
The NPPF makes clear that importance of a plan-led system that delivers sustainable development. We trust that the Government will make the changes we propose to ensure that this principle is met and the NPPF becomes a document in which everyone can have greater confidence.
How some councils have cut their housing waiting lists by up to 50%
“Tories tearing apart the future of rural villages”
Article by Martin Hesp:
“…This, surely, is stark proof that this Government is only interested in lining the pockets of the already wealthy folk who help line the Tory campaign coffers. By which I mean the “flog-off-anything-and-everything-as-long-as-I-get-rich” brigade who care nothing for this country, its people or its landscapes. …”
“… Creating South Sea Bubbles to proclaim quick-fix economic recoveries might suit politicians thinking about forthcoming elections, but it does nothing to safeguard the nation’s growth or sustainability.
Lining the pockets of the few at the cost of communities and landscapes can only do lasting harm.”
Developers can’t stop Neighbourhood Plans being Plans!
No doubt the developers will appeal – they wanted a situation where Neighbourhood Plans could NOT specify where development should and should not take place in that neighbourhood. Rather laughable when you think about it – they want Neighbourhood Plans with no plans!
East Devon Watch 