Lots and lots of useful information including AONB boundaries, parliamentary constituencies, census statistics, etc.
Category Archives: AONB
New case law on density in AONBs
“RCJ portrait 146x219The Court of Appeal has handed down a significant decision on the standard of reasons required when granting planning permission. Caroline Daly explains the ruling.
The case of R (CPRE Kent) v. Dover District Council [2016] EWCA Civ 936 concerned the grant of planning permission for what Laws LJ described as development of an “unprecedented” scale (521 residential units, 90 apartment retirement village and hotel) in the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty at Farthingloe, close to Dover.
The Officer’s Report had recommended refusal of the scheme, making “trenchant criticisms” of the density, layout and design of the scheme. However, the Council’s Planning Team, having taken advice from a consultancy to the effect that a lower density scheme of some 375 dwellings would have a lesser effect on the AONB and continue to be viable, suggested in the Report that a revised proposal be put forward for consideration. The developer argued before the Planning Committee that a reduced density scheme would not be viable.
The Planning Committee approved the application. The reasons given for departing from the recommendation were summarized in brief terms in the Committee Minutes, which referred to the benefits of the scheme, a view that an alternative lower density scheme could jeopardise its viability, and the belief that effective screening could minimize the harm caused to the AONB. The Committee concluded that the advantages did outweigh the harm that would be caused to the AONB.
Laws and Simon LJJ allowed the appeal against Mitting J’s decision ([2015] EWHC 3808 (Admin)) on the basis that the Council’s Planning Committee had failed to give legally adequate reasons for granting permission.
The Court of Appeal summarised the applicable law in relation to the standard of reasons, setting out Lord Brown’s “mainstream” approach in South Bucks v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953, given in the context of an Inspector’s decision on appeal.
The “mainstream” approach is that the reasons for a decision must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the principal important controversial issues, that reasons need refer only to the main issues in the dispute and not to every material consideration, and that the reasons can be briefly stated, with the “degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision”.
Laws LJ referred to Lang J’s recent judgment in R (Hawksworth Securities PLC) v Peterborough City Council [2016] EWHC 1870 (Admin), in which she made a distinction between Inspectors’ decisions on appeal and the administrative decisions of local planning authorities. Lang J was of the view that where a local planning authority was granting planning permission, it would be unduly onerous to impose a duty to give detailed reasons “given the volume of applications to be processed”.
The Court considered that Lang J’s approach needed to be “treated with some care” and that “interested parties (and the public) are just as entitled to know why the decision is as it is when it is made by the authority as when it is made by the Secretary of State”. Laws LJ considered that three factors pointed away from Lang J’s approach in this case, namely:
The pressing nature of the AONB policy expressed in NPPF paragraphs 115 and 116;
The fact that the Committee was departing from the Officer’s recommendation, which meant that the Officer’s reasoning ought (if but briefly) to be engaged with; and
The fact that there was a statutory duty to give reasons by virtue of Regulation 24(1)(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, which had not been fulfilled by any document.
On the facts, the Court found that the reasons given were inadequate, particularly in relation to the treatment of the Officer’s assessment of the harm that would be inflicted on the AONB by the proposed development.
Laws LJ found that “a statutory statement of reasons made under the EIA Regulations would have been required to grapple with the issue of harm much more closely than what the minutes disclose; and the strictures of NPPF paragraph 116 demand no less.”
The Court of Appeal made it clear that this judgment is not to be seen as anything other than an application of Lord Brown’s statement to the effect that the degree of particularity required of reasons will depend on the circumstances of the case.
Laws LJ emphasised that this was an “unusual” case and said that the judgment should “not be read as imposing in general an onerous duty on local planning authorities to give reasons for the grant of permissions”.
The judgment does not throw open the doors to a stream of challenges based on reasons grounds. However, the Court of Appeal has sounded a cautionary note. From this decision, it is apparent that an extremely cautious approach will be required by a planning committee that chooses to depart from its officers’ recommendations.
In such circumstances, the reasons given for the grant of permission must be carefully drafted and must engage with the recommendations of the officer and explain the reasons for departure from those recommendations.”
EDDC hints at return of Sidford Business Park planning application in future
Owl NEVER knew that delegated decisions could be made this way! And so quickly!
The latest press release sounds like a hint that if the applicant can put in lots of trees to largely camouflage it, hide it and baffle some noise, dig into their pockets for a little bit of traffic management and change the use of some of the buildings to generate slightly less traffic, they will be able to push it through.
Bet their agent is finishing off plan B as Owl writes. Keep those barricades up, Sidford – you may need them sooner than you thought yesterday!
East Devon District Council (EDDC) has this morning shed light on why it refused an outline planning application for a 9.3-acre business park in Sidford.
The decision was made yesterday (Tuesday) at the authority’s weekly planning chairman’s meeting.
In accordance with EDDC’s constitution, as both Councillor David Barratt, the ward member for Sidmouth Rural, and Sidmouth Town Council were opposed to the proposal – and the officer recommendation was also for refusal – the application did not need to be determined by the development management committee (DMC).
“The application was therefore presented by officers at the DMC chairman’s delegation meeting, where the decision was made in consultation with the ward member and DMC vice-chairman Councillor Mike Howe (standing in for the Cllr David Key), an EDDC spokeswoman told the Herald.
“The reasons for the refusal were that the application failed to demonstrate how the developers would achieve the high standards of design and landscaping, which are a requirement for all developments taking place in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposal also did not sufficiently prove that traffic likely to be generated from the proposed mix of uses at the site would not be harmful to highway safety.
“Members attending the delegated session were also not satisfied that any noise impact would be acceptable and were concerned that the application did not show how a cycle route would be put in place. The proposal also failed to include possible junction improvements and did not show how the site would be landscaped to reduce its impact on the surrounding area.
“The applicant has a right to appeal the decision to the Planning Inspectorate within six months, or they may wish to attempt to address the reasons for refusal through the submission of a new planning application.
“It is important to note that the council remains committed to seeing the Sidford Two Bridges site developed for employment purposes – its allocation remains in place and is supported by the Local Plan. All future applications for the site’s development must fulfil the requirements of the Local Plan and should include specific details that justify the extent and mix of proposed employment uses.”
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/eddc_sidford_business_park_plan_was_unacceptable_1_4714620
The full refusal for Sidford Business Park
[Has Owl said Hip Hip Hurrah, Councillor Marianne Rixson? What the heck, here is another one for her!]
EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL
Council Offices, Knowle
Sidmouth, Devon EX10 8HL
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION
Applicant: Fords And Sons Application No: 16/0669/MOUT
Address: (Mr T Ford)
Alexandria Industrial Estate
Sidmouth
EX10 9HA
Date of Registration:
22 March 2016
Agent: Context Logic Ltd Date of Decision: 27 September 2016
Address: (Mr J Marchant)
Threshers Stone
Church Road
Colaton Raleigh
Sidmouth
EX10 0LH
Proposal: Outline application accompanied by an Environmental Statement (with all matters reserved except access) for the development of up to 22,800sqm of floor space for use classes B1 (Office Light Industry), B2 (General Industry) and B8 (Storage and Distribution) with details of, and associated strategic landscaping for, the access, linking cycleway and footway, and flood improvements/attenuation.
Location: Land Adjacent To Two Bridges
Two Bridges Road
Sidford
The Council hereby refuses permission to carry out the development described in the application and the plans attached thereto for the following reasons:
1. The application has failed to demonstrate how the quantum and mix of development and the parameters for its scale and massing could be incorporated into this rural location whilst reflecting both the local vernacular styles and reinforcing the existing landscape.
Without robust landscape mitigation and an associated design code with adequate detail, the development would:
o result in harm to the landscape;
o make inadequate provision for green infrastructure; and
o fails to work sensitively with local habitats resulting in an over engineered appearance to the regraded stream and proposed flood attenuation ponds.
It is considered that the proposal therefore fails to meet the requirement for the highest design and landscaping standards set out within the policy which allocates the site for employment development and fails to adequately respect the landscape which is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and which should therefore be afforded the highest level of landscape protection. As such the proposal is considered contrary to national guidance and to Strategies 5 (Environment), 26 (Development at Sidmouth), 46 (Landscape Conservation), 48 (Local Distinctiveness in the Built Environment) and Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) D2 (Landscape Requirements) EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Natural features), of the adopted East Devon
Local Plan 2013-2031.
2. The proposed development would use access routes that by reason of their inadequate road width (with unsuitable footway provision) and a potentially unsatisfactory junction, are unsuitable to accommodate the increase in traffic likely to be generated by the currently proposed quantum and split of employment uses. In addition the directional split of traffic generation has also not been justified. As such the proposed development is therefore considered contrary to paragraph 32 of the National Planning
Policy Framework and Strategies 26 (Development at Sidmouth), and Policies TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan
2013 – 2031.
3. Insufficient information has been submitted to justify the noise assessment and its findings that are contained within the Environmental Statement. As such it is not
considered possible to accurately understand or assess the likely amenity impact that the development would have on near neighbours or secure appropriate mitigation. As
such the proposal is currently considered contrary to Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan
2013 – 2031.
4. No mechanism has been submitted to secure necessary contributions towards or the management and maintenance of both the hedgerow bounding the proposed cycle route and the surface water attenuation and drainage scheme proposed. In addition there is no mechanism to secure the necessary junction assessment in respect of Sidford Cross which is likely to require an improved signal system and which falls
outside of the identified strategic infrastructure list associated with the adopted CIL charging scheme. As such the proposed development is therefore currently considered
contrary to Strategy 50 (Infrastructure Delivery) and Policies TC7 (Adequacy of Road network and site access), EN22 (Surface run off implications of new development) and
D2 (Landscape requirements) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013 – 2031.
NOTE FOR APPLICANT
Informative:
In accordance with the requirements of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 in determining this application, East Devon District Council has worked proactively and positively with the applicant to attempt to resolve the planning concerns the Council has with the application.
However, the applicant was unable to satisfy the key policy tests in the submission and as such the application has been refused.
The plans relating to this application are listed below:
CONTEXT LOGIC General
Correspondence
11.08.16
PETER BRETT General Correspondence
11.08.16
LANDSCAPE/VISUAL IMPACT STMT
General Correspondence
11.08.16
G416B Proposed Combined Plans
11.08.16
G417C Landscaping 11.08.16
H100K Other Plans 11.08.16
G415D Sections 11.08.16
H102A Proposed Site Plan 11.08.16
H103 REV P1 Location Plan 11.08.16
Other Plans 12.08.16
058-001A Landscaping 11.08.16
CIL Form – Additional Information
19.08.16
H101B Other Plans 31.05.16
General Correspondence
31.05.16
Arboriculturist Report 05.05.16
Design and Access Statement
05.05.16
LIGHTING STRATEGY
Additional Information 06.05.16
ENVIRONMENT
AL STM
Additional Information 22.03.16
ENVIRONMENT
AL STM
Additional Information 22.03.16
ENVIRONMENT
AL STM
Additional Information 22.03.16
ENVIRONMENT
AL STM
Additional Information 22.03.16
ENVIRONMENT Additional Information 22.03.16
AONB annual forum – places still available
“Spaces are still available for the East Devon Area of Natural Beauty Partnership annual forum
The evening will feature talks from Mike Ruiter of Seaton Jurassic and John Sheaves, chief executive of Taste of the West. The winner of the Ackland Award will also be announced.
The forum will begin at 6pm on
Wednesday, September 28, at Seaton Jurassic.
Guests who book quickly will be able to enjoy a pre-event tour around the attraction’s new interpretation centre at 5pm.
Numbers are limited. To book, email info@eastdevonaonb.org.uk or call 01404 46663. Book by Friday, September 23, to avoid disappointment.”
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/spaces_available_at_annual_aonb_forum_1_4698235
Hurry, hurry, hurry – while we still have an AONB to talk about.
“Sidford business park: call to ‘fight the details’ “
Just the sort of thing our constituency MP shoyld be fighting for …
“A raft of fresh objections have been lodged by residents and civic leaders against plans for a 9.3-acre business park – with warnings a single building could ‘dwarf everything’ in the Sid Valley.
Town councillors were told they have to ‘fight the details’ as they debated Fords of Sidmouth’s amended plans for the site between Sidford and Sidbury.
Members will urge district chiefs to impose restrictions on the scale of the buildings and call for a cycle path linking Sidbury and Sidford to be built before any other construction work goes ahead.
Planning committee chairman Cllr Ian Barlow told Wednesday’s packed meeting in Sidford: “I’m not defeatist – I’m a realist. We’ve fought this for years and years and years but now it’s in the Local Plan. Now we need to fight the details. If we have to have it, we don’t want buildings more than seven metres high, and we don’t want any bigger than 500 squares metres – we don’t need a huge distribution centre.”
He urged objectors to get their partners and children to write in, too, and send letters to East Devon District Council (EDDC), Fords and landowner Sir John Cave. There are already 153 objections online.
The town council originally opposed the application due to the impact on roads, flooding and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and the lack of demand for the 300 jobs forecast to be created by the business park.
Fords’ amendments include relocating the proposed cycle path further from the A375, and redesigning the flood attenuation ponds to better fit in the environment. It also submitted ‘design codes’ – revealing that buildings would have a maximum height of 15 metres, and no one building would cover more than a quarter of the 5.8-acre southern field or the 3.5-acre northern site.
Critics at Wednesday’s meeting said such a building would ‘dwarf everything’ in the Sid Valley.
Cllr Michael Earthey said: “I said before, it will be a carbuncle on the landscape. Now we know the scale of it.”
Resident Ian Scott, who worked as an architect for 30 years, suggested hope was not lost. He said: “The Department for Transport can overrule the fact it’s in the Local Plan.
“I don’t think we should give up and say it’s inevitable.”
Town clerk Christopher Holland said if councillors did not object to specific details at this stage, the developer was being handed a ‘blank sheet’.
“This is your chance to put some red lines down on what you wish to see and what you wish not to see,” he added.
Members agreed to write to EDDC saying, if the business park does go ahead, the following conditions should be imposed:
● The maximum ridge height of the properties should be seven metres and the eaves should be no higher than five metres. There should also be no flat roofs.
● The cycle track should be built before any development goes ahead.
● The bat habitat should not be disturbed; specifically an ‘ancient’ hedgerow in Laundry Lane.
● Light and noise pollution should be restricted.
● There should be no retail under any circumstances on the site.
● A new traffic management report should be drawn up, and a traffic assessment will be requested.
● No one building should be more than 500 square metres in area.
For advice on commenting on the application, contact the town council on 01395 512424.
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/sidford_business_park_call_to_fight_the_details_1_4689850
“Greater Exeter” protects the countryside – honestly, that’s what they say!
And it must be true, because Andrew Moulding says so! Now, about Exmouth Splat … And look who the money is coming from: developers!
Teignbridge, East Devon District Councils and Exeter City Council have form a cross-boundary partnership to safeguard three internationally important conservation sites.
The three councils have established the South East Devon Habitat Regulations Executive committee to off-set the effects of new developments and population growth on the protected sites.
They will work together to protect places such as the Exe Estuary, Dawlish Warren and the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths for future generations to enjoy.
The committee said protecting the sites was important for a number of reasons, including providing safe areas for all users to enjoy and caring for the bird populations they support.
Human activity on or close to the sites can cause disturbance or even death of protected bird species, it warned.
This new Committee is working with partners including Natural England, Clinton Devon Estates, National Trust, RSPB, Exe Estuary Management Partnership and Devon Wildlife Trust.
Funding will come from developer contributions on new residential housing across the three areas and within a 10km “zone of influence” from the protected sites.
Measures and initiatives planned include a patrol boat on the Exe Estuary, a dog project officer, a review of codes of conduct, new and updated visitor publicity and signage.
Two new wardens will educate and engage with the public and ensure byelaws are observed.
East Devon’s deputy leader Andrew Moulding said: “This joint working between our three Councils is a really important step in protecting our beautiful coast and countryside.
“By working together through collective financial decision-making, we can share resources to protect important areas of conservation and improve enjoyment for residents and visitors alike.” …
http://www.rsnonline.org.uk/environment/councils-join-forces-to-protect-countryside
AONB? It means nothing to developers
AONB – RIP NPPF – might as well rip it up.
And in David Cameron’s back yard.
Susie Bond’s blog:
“And now even the AONBs aren’t safe from grasping developers!
Appeal decision at Milton-under-Wychwood
An extraordinary decision following the planning appeal on land at Milton-under-Wychwood in West Oxfordshire has seen the Draconian planning rules turned completely on their head.
NPPF
Current planning policy, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) identifies that, in the absence of a Local Plan, houses should be built in locations which are sustainable from an environmental, social and economic perspective.
Paragraph 115 of the NPPF clearly stipulates that AONBs should have the ‘highest level of protection’ from development:
115. Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.
(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf)
West Oxfordshire’s Local Plan
The NPPF came into force in 2012 with councils given a year’s grace to March 2013 to get their Local Plans in place and identify that they had a 5-year supply of land for housing development. West Oxfordshire District Council seems to be woefully far behind in this process and, according to the planning decision, could only demonstrate a 2-year land supply. The figures, of course, did not take into consideration the number of houses in the pipeline.
The site is in David Cameron’s own constituency, at Milton-under-Wychwood in West Oxfordshire, where the appeal has allowed 62 houses in the very heart of the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
I gather that local residents are understandably livid and have major concerns that 100+ cars will exit the new development directly on to a single track road, through a village with impossible parking facilities. There are no places in the school, the surgery is full, and there is already another approved development for 40 houses in the village. The population of the village is under 1700 and the combined developments will swamp the village with over a hundred new houses. A massive development is currently being built in Chipping Norton, with another one going through the appeal process (and yet another in Burford and another in Charlbury).
Fears over surface water flooding
Worries about flooding from the site are very real, with concerns about houses downhill of the site at high risk of flooding. The planning inspector has recognised this and stipulated that flood mitigation measures must be put in place before a single house is occupied, and given our experience here in Feniton at Wainhomes’ Winchester Park site, I would strongly urge residents to keep a close eye on this one.
Campaigners in Milton-under-Wychwood now have to consider their position and there are very few options open to them. Judicial review is the only route left, but it requires money and a determination to carry on the fight.”
Brexit and the countryside
“Brexit has not yet happened; it is likely to be at least two years before we formally withdraw from the EU. But whilst these policy changes will take years for lawyers and policy makers to wrangle over, more immediate effects are already happening on the ground.
Fundamental to these changes is the element of uncertainty. Depending on which blogs you follow and which papers you read, you will see different degrees of doom mongering. But ultimately uncertainty is bad for business, particularly construction. Indeed in the days after the referendum UK house builders lost as much as 40% of their share value.
July data from the global financial services information company Markit shows that the average drop in house building over the past two months has been the most severe for seven years. Together with the International Monetary Fund reducing its UK 2017 predicted growth figures from 2.2% in April to 1.3% the ingredients seem to be coming together to create the perfect storm for another recession.
Sadly here at Link we know all too well the impact that economic downturns can have on the planning system. Since the last recession started in 2008 there has been a drastic policy shift away from sustainable development towards ‘sustainable economic growth’ –the word ‘sustainable’ seems like an afterthought rather than an integral part of the Government’s vision. This has been manifested in government policy such as the National Planning Policy Framework and also through the systematic stripping back of planning guidance, compounded by the continual drive to cut ‘red tape’. If another recession hits this direction of travel may continue – unless we show policy makers what the effects of these changes would be. We are already hearing, anecdotally, that developers are reconsidering the viability of schemes following the Brexit vote. It is our fear that ‘green infrastructure’, such as the provision of wildlife habitats, will be cut as a part of these re-evaluated deals, along with affordable housing and community facilities, and more and more unsuitable sites will be released for new development.
Whatever happens to the European Directives or the economy, over the next months and years the UK is signed up to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. The planning system has a central role in delivering on these goals, particularly goals 11 and 15 – ‘Sustainable cities and communities’ and ‘Life on land’.
So, in these uncertain times whilst continually pushing to maintain robust environmental legislation, we must also be continuing to make the case for nature and the countryside, and the value they add to everyone’s lives, including as part of development projects.
http://www.wcl.org.uk/brexit-promises-more-change-for-the-planning-system.asp
East Devon villages must feed back on EDDC’s plans for their boundaries by 28 September 2016
The expansion of some of East Devon’s most recognisable villages is at the forefront of a new public consultation.
East Devon District Council has begun the eight-week process for its major draft Villages Plan.b The idea is to guide where new developments will go at 14 of the district’s larger villages, as well as the town of Colyton.
Responses will be looked over by the council’s Strategic Planning Committee, before a final version of the plan is produced for yet another consultation.
Locations earmarked for expansion include Beer, Broadclyst, Clyst St. Mary, East Budleigh, Feniton, Kilmington, Musbury, Newton Poppleford, Sidbury, Uplyme, West Hill, Whimple, Woodbury and the town of Colyton.
The Villages Plan will show a black line – the technical term being a Built-up Area Boundary – around the villages.
Within the black line, new houses will generally be acceptable, but outside they will only be acceptable in special circumstances.
The consultation gives the public an opportunity to comment on where the lines should be drawn.
The aim of the council’s planning policy team is to ensure that the main existing built-up areas are included, together with areas that have already been agreed for development – either through planning permission or planning allocations.
A number of alternatives have already been considered, including not having boundaries, drawing boundaries more tightly or drawing them more loosely.
However, none of these options have been progressed, as they differ from the approach set out in the Local Plan which was adopted in January 2016.
Further research has been undertaken to determine whether the boundaries drawn using the council’s existing criteria should be reduced in areas where it is difficult to access local services and facilities on foot.
This approach is being proposed for Beer, Newton Poppleford, Uplyme and West Hill.
Planning permission is less likely to be granted for new housing and industry that fall into areas outside the black line, but this does not mean that these homes and businesses are not part of a village in any other way.
The Villages Plan does not affect any changes that residents could make to their homes without planning permission.
Councillor Andrew Moulding, who is Chairman of the Strategic Planning Committee, said: “We will consider all the comments that are made before producing an East Devon Villages Plan for further public consultation.
“It will then be formally submitted for consideration by an independent Inspector who will decide whether the plan is sound. It is important that we seek the views of the local communities on this plan, which will help in the determination of planning applications.”
Communities and residents have until Wednesday, September 28 to put forward any comments they wish to make on the draft plan. The Villages Plan will then be submitted for examination by a Planning Inspector.
The draft consultation Villages Plan and supporting documents are available at the council offices at Station Road, Sidmouth, in local libraries, with the relevant parish councils or online here:
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/villages-plan/villages-plan-2016-consultation/
East Budleigh: Clinton Devon – 5 houses with FOURTEEN parking spaces in AONB on grade 1 agricultural land
5 houses with no less than FOURTEEN parking spaces, on grade 1 agricultural land in an AONB. Clinton Devon Estates surely you are having a laugh …
“Plans for five new homes at East Budleigh have attracted opposition from the parish council.
Clinton Devon Estates is seeking outline planning permission for five new homes, including three affordable homes, on land at Frogmore Road, east of Oak Hill.
The landowner has previously proposed a larger residential development on the site but those plans were withdrawn in the face of local opposition.
f
A local housing needs survey report prepared for Clinton Devon Estates by chartered town planners Bell Cornwell identified a need for at least three to five units of affordable housing in the parish.
The site is on the edge of the village, to the north of Frogmore Road, within the East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Clinton Devon Estates wants to build two four-bedroom houses for sale on the open market along with two three-bedroom and one two-bedroom affordable homes. The proposals include 14 car parking spaces.
In a planning statement supporting the application, Bell Cornwell said discussions with the parish council about the potential development of the site had been going on for some time. …
… The application was debated by East Budleigh with Bicton Parish Council on Tuesday, July 26. Councillors resolved to object to the plans on the grounds that the application does not provide a sufficient proportion of affordable dwellings relative to open-market housing.
The parish council also objects to building on Grade 1 agricultural land when lower grade agricultural land is available, and to building on what it described as “an environmentally sensitive site, adjacent to a flood zone and inconvenient for access to village facilities”.
http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/east-budleigh-homes-plan-faces-parish-council-opposition/story-29565789-detail/story.html
Taxpayers Alliance wants most planning rules to be abolished
“The government should scrap stamp duty and ease planning restrictions to address the worsening housing crisis, the TaxPayers’ Alliance has said today.
In a new report, the group called for “real reform” to tackle the housing shortage accusing successive governments of merely tinkering around the edges instead of dealing with underlying issues facing the sector. …
… the fundamental problem with housing markets in Britain is overly tight planning restrictions, the group suggests. The alliance urges the government to declassify swathes of green-belt land to tackle the chronic lack of new house building. For example, it estimates that allowing just 5% of the greenbelt around London to be built on will enable the city to grow by one sixth.
Taller, denser housing construction should be also encouraged, as well as more infilling, despite the likely increased pressure on traffic systems and public services.
The alliance cites the work of groups such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Victorian Society, and the “thousands” of local groups who successfully protect the character of communities.
However, protecting land from development restricts the supply of new properties and inevitably raises the cost of housing, the alliance argues. It says: “The political fact is that housing cannot become more affordable unless it becomes cheaper and easier to build more of it in the places where … groups object.”
Jonathan Isaby, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “For decades politicians have failed to tackle the root causes of the housing crisis: a chronic lack of supply. What’s more, stamp duty is still punitively high and gimmicky tweaks to the tax system will ultimately end up penalising tenants and increasing rents.”
Isaby is urging new chancellor Phillip Hammond to seize the opportunity “to drastically simplify and reduce property taxes, while removing planning restrictions which prevent huge swathes of land from being built on for no good reason at all”.
Budleigh Salterton – onshore cable consultation to 5 September 2016 – questions to be answered
Here is the consultation letter and, below it, the maps showing the two possible routes that it might follow onshore. Also details of where and when representatives of the project will be available for questioning.
Several points spring to mind:
How wide will trenches be?
Will roads need to be closed and, if so, for how long?
How big is the converter station?
Why are some of the cables put in fields, yet others are embedded in roads? Roads particularly affected are the B3178 disrupting Budleigh Salterton, East Budleigh and Colaton Raleigh and the B3184 to the airport, Many other key strategic routes will also be cut across and possibly interrupted, including the A30 and also the railway line.
The two routes out of Budleigh Salterton are very sensitive environmental areas – moleing underground was originally mentioned but seems to have been dropped
The consultation letter (followed by maps of alternative routes included with the letter)
I am writing to invite you to take part a public consultation on proposals to build a 220 kilometre underground and subsea electricity interconnector and converter station which will see power flowing between France, the Channel Island of Alderney, and East Devon.
The FAB Project has the approval of the UK energy regulator Ofgem to build the interconnector, linking the British electricity grid from the existing National Grid substation at Broadclyst to the French grid to help ensure the security of supply to both the UK and the continent. Alderney Renewable Energy (ARE) and Transmission Investment LLP formed a joint venture company, FAB Link, and FAB Link is working with the French grid company RTE – Reseau de Transport d’Electricite – to develop the FAB Project.
The project also intends to take advantage of proposed tidal generators in Alderney to provide reliable, sustainable and low-carbon electricity for consumers on both sides of the Channel, hence the FAB name, which stands for France-Alderney-Britain. It is also our intention to increase competition in electricity markets, cutting prices for consumers.
As shown in the enclosed maps, the cables would come ashore in Britain at Budleigh Salterton and thereafter would run underground between the coast and a new above-ground converter station.
The interconnector cables would run completely underground between the coast and a new above-ground converter station to be built near Exeter International Airport. From the converter station the high-voltage DC electricity transmitted through the interconnector would be converted to or from high-voltage AC current used by the National Grid. Further underground cables would then link up with the grid at Broadclyst. There will be no pylons associated with the FAB Project, and our intention is that we will leave the environment along the route exactly as we found it.
We are holding three public consultation events in East Devon and one public consultation event in Alderney where we will be able to explain our project in more detail. Each of the events is open to the public from 2pm to 8pm. They are:
• Tuesday, 26th July, 2016: Temple Methodist Church Hall, Budleigh Salterton;
• Wednesday, 27th July, 2016: Younghayes Centre, Cranbrook;
• Thursday, 28th July 2016: Woodbury Park Hotel, Woodbury;
The events will provide you with opportunities to express your views on the project. The opinions of all stakeholders will help to inform our proposals for the route of the interconnector and the construction of the converter station before the relevant planning applications are submitted to the relevant authorities at the end of 2016.
If you are not able to attend one of the events, please visit our website to learn more. Copies of the detailed plans, technical reports and environmental appraisals of the onshore and offshore proposals available at the public consultation events will also be available online at http://www.fablink.net from 25th July, and there will be opportunities to express your opinions via the website, phone or by post. The consultation will run until 5th September 2016.
If you do not have access to the internet the information will also be available to view at Budleigh Salterton Library in Station Road, Budleigh Salterton, EX9 6RH, from 25th July to 5th September during normal library opening hours, which are currently 09.30-18.00 on Mondays, 09.30-13.00 on Wednesdays, 09.30-17.30 on Thursdays, and 09.30-13.00 on Fridays and Saturdays. Please note the library is not open on Tuesdays or Sundays.
Route 1
Route 2:
Pebblebed heath: 350 endangered species found
“He said: “It is wonderful that the Pebblebed Heaths are enjoyed for recreation and provide a place to experience nature. However, the intensity of use of the Pebblebed Heaths can cause significant disturbance to wildlife, with adverse impacts of people and pets including predation of ground nesting birds, trampling and erosion of paths and tracks, along with nutrient enrichment through dog mess.”
Owl worries that it sounds as if Clinton Devon Estates would really like to ban or restrict people and dogs in the area.
And what about the quarrying that is being expanded around the heath and its impact?
And what happens when Mrs Leadsom decides that they are not being ” productive”?
The price of nature or the value of nature: Leadsom to decide
“Ministers must deliver on a manifesto pledge for a 25-year plan to boost nature and cut the costs of environmental damage, it has been urged.
Harm caused by floods, air pollution, water pollution and chemicals in the atmosphere are adding billions of pounds a year to bills, insurance premiums and costs for businesses, farms and households, environmentalists warn.
But after the Brexit vote, there is uncertainty whether environmental protections provided by the European Union will be maintained.
And the promised 25-year plan for the environment has been delayed, the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT) said.
Air pollution costs the UK an estimated £15-20bn a year, flood damage £1.4bn, water pollution can add up to 17% on consumer bills, £129m is spent cleaning farm run-off from water supplies and farmers incur an extra £180m in growing costs a year due to chemicals in the air.
But efforts to protect nature would deliver significant economic and social benefits, a report by WWT said.
For example, creating 100,000 hectares of new wetlands from restoring upland peat and coastal salt marshes to creating “pocket ponds” in cities could reduce flooding, purify water, save money and improve mental health.
The report urges the government to deliver on the 25-year plan, and to make itself accountable to parliament by producing an annual budget statement on the value of nature alongside the value of the economy.
Ministers should also ensure UK environmental protection is as strong or stronger after Brexit and appoint “catchment commissioners” to co-ordinate a joined-up approach in each area and reward action across the landscape, it said.
WWT is also calling for ministers to establish guidance and accreditation for organisations providing “green prescriptions” which give access to nature to deliver affordable benefits to physical and mental health.
Opposition parties have backed the call for the government to keep its promise for a 25-year plan for the environment.
They urged ministers to commit to consulting on a plan which sets out strong policies, with long term legally-binding targets to improve the environment, maintains protection after Brexit, and ensures international co-operation on the issue.
In a joint statement, Lib Dem leader Tim Farron, shadow environment secretary Rachael Maskell and Green party MP Caroline Lucas warned “our environment must not be a victim of short-term political unrest”.
WWT chief executive, Martin Spray, said: “We all end up paying for environmental damage through higher prices and taxes, as well as the social and health costs of Britain being a less healthy place to live.
“Our recommendation is remarkably simple. Make the government accountable to parliament for the value of the environment as well as the economy. Transparency will drive improvement.
He added: “This is a key early test for the new prime minister.
“Will she deliver a manifesto commitment to value our environment? And in a post-Brexit Britain she has another question to answer: Will she commit to environmental protection improving on – or at least being equal to – that provided by the EU?”
A Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) spokeswoman said: “Developing a 25-year plan for the environment is a Conservative manifesto commitment and a priority for this department.
“While the precise nature of the plan may change now the UK has decided to leave the EU, we will seize this opportunity to consider our long-term vision for the environment and work with a range of interests to determine and deliver it.”
“Supreme Court to consider NPPF definitions for first time”
The Supreme Court has granted permission to Suffolk Coastal District Council and Cheshire East Council to appeal the landmark decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Suffolk Coastal D.C. v Hopkins Homes and Richborough Estates Partnership LLP v Cheshire East Borough Council.
The decision re-opens the controversy over the meaning of “relevant policies for the supply of housing” in paragraph 49 of the NPPF. A clear definition of the term has eluded decision makers and several conflicting decisions were hoped to be resolved by the Court of Appeal’s decision in April 2016.
In his judgement in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Lindblom had come down on a “wide” definition, which had included policies for the protection of Green Belt and AONB as “policies for the supply of housing” to be treated as “out of date” where a Council could not demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and triggering the presumption in favour of planning permission in paragraph 14 of the NPPF.
Suffolk Coastal D.C. had also sought permission to challenge a second ground in the judgment where the Court of Appeal had ruled on the approach to assessing the impact of development on the significance of heritage assets.
The grant of permission by the Supreme Court leaves the issues open to reconsideration in full.
This is the first time the Supreme Court has considered the NPPF. It also gives the Court the opportunity to reconsider the principle in Tesco v Dundee that holds that the meaning of planning policy is a matter of law.
Jonathan Clay and Ashley Bowes of Cornerstone Barristers instructed by Trevor Griffiths of Sharpe Pritchard solicitors appeared for Suffolk Coastal D.C in the Court of Appeal and prepared the grounds for the permission application for Suffolk Coastal in the Supreme Court.”
Remove rural tourism red tape = more holiday lets for farmers!
Isn’t it just predictable that the givernment would think that tourism can only be improved by more holiday lets!
What about removing VAT on ALL tourist accommodation – as is the case in most of – you would never believe it! – Europe! What about not concreting over our green fields? What about not building houses on our beauty spots and AONBs? No – just let farmers (and other developers) build more!
“Rural campaigners have called for the abolition of planning red tape to help turn round a decline in the number of visitors to Devon and Cornwall’s glorious countryside.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee has announced that it will examine the reasons behind a national wane in visitors to the countryside.
Sarah Lee, head of policy at the Countryside Alliance, said tourism was vital to the economy of rural areas in the region and the Government needed to take action.
“Tourism is of enormous financial importance to rural areas like the Westcountry and it is alarming to see the market decline in this way,” she said.
“We welcome the Efra Select Committee inquiry into the problem and urge parliament to do everything it can to boost and support rural tourism.”
Ms Lee said the Government could act to “remove the red tape” that surrounds planning permission to make it easier for redundant farm buildings to get a new lease of life as holiday lets…. ”
http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/remove-red-tape-call-to-boost-rural-tourism/story-29484249-detail/story.html
Hold your breath in Sidford, the HGVs are coming
Imagine the increase in particulate discharge, particularly its effect on the health of the children of the village.and the integrity of the structure of those beautiful old houses on the route, most built with shallow foundations. And in a flood-prone area of an AONB. Wouldn’t happen in the Blackdown Hills!
“Campaigners have branded Sidford and Sidbury’s ‘bottleneck’ roads ‘too narrow’ to handle the increased transit of lorries.
Councillor Marianne Rixson said traffic is predicted to increase by a third along ‘pinch point’ roads if plans for a business park in Sidford go ahead.
She said the roads are already congested – particularly School Street, near Sidbury Mill and through Sidbury – and branded claims that the site ‘is well served by highway access’ as misleading.
Cllr Rixson, who represents the Sidmouth-Sidford ward on East Devon District Council, said: “The roads are too narrow yet they are predicting a 32 per cent increase in traffic through School Street if the development is approved – Sidbury, too, has various ‘pinch points’ where two vehicles cannot pass.” She added that there needed to be a ‘duty of care’ to pedestrians on roads where there are no pavements.
And with HGVs nearly three metres wide, Cllr Rixson fears two lorries could not pass each other in School Street – which is just 4.8 metres wide.
She said: “The A375 is an upgraded B road and is essentially still a B road. Already lorries drive on the pavement in School Street and, in Sidbury, there are stretches where there are no pavements at all.”
Devon County Council’s highways team is being consulted on the application and said it is considering its response.”
“There’s more to life than the economy”
Speaking of an ” explosion” in best-selling books about the natural world, judge of a nature prize Fiona Reynolds (ex-National Trust) says:
“Even in these three years there has been an absolute flood of books in which writers are talking about nature and its meaning, and not just in a superficial sense. These are profound books, about a deep relationship and about the deeply spiritual questions which confront us in society.” “[They show us that] there’s more to life than the economy, or foreign policy – these writers are articulating beautifully the ways in which the human spirit needs to connect with the world around us, and to respect the world around us.”
Shame our district council hasn’t got the message.
Sidford Business Park: evidence and information for objectors
Sidford-Sidbury Rd, next to Sidford Fields site for proposed business park.
More details here:
Save Our Sidford—- Where to write
East Devon Watch 