The theme for this quarter is developmental creep …
Category Archives: AONB
Alternative East Devon calendar April – June concentrates on our Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
April – AONB counts for nothing so don’t believe everything in your EDDC AONB calendar – it may not be there this time next year!
May – AONB countryside – who cares …well, not EDDC who slipped this one into the Local Plan at the last minutes without consultation.
June – what attracts tourists to East Devon? The countryside. RIP tourists and countryside.
Owl’s alternative East Devon countryside calendar Part 1: January – March
East Devon District Council has announced the 12 photographs that will make up its Countryside Calendar. Owl had a competition for an alternative East Devon Countryside Calendar. Here are the first three winning entries.
Our first three months – January, February and March are devoted to Cranbrook for which we received many entries. Originally called an eco-town, the eco part of it was dropped last year for some reason.
January – Cranbrook takes shape
February – Cranbrook “shaped”
March – Quite a few things went wrong …
April – December to follow
CPRE Court challenge to AONB development
The Court of Appeal has granted permission to appeal to campaigners seeking to challenge the grant of planning permission for a major development in an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB).
Lord Justice Lewison gave the go-ahead to CPRE Kent to challenge the decision of Mr Justice Mitting in the High Court in R (CPRE Kent) v Dover DC [2015] EWHC 3808.
The Court of Appeal judge gave permission for the appellant to pursue its argument that Dover District Council did not properly apply national policy protecting the Kent Downs AONB when it granted planning permission for up to 521 residential units and a 90-apartment retirement village in the Farthingloe valley.
Dover’s planning committee resolved to grant permission for the development despite criticisms in the officers’ report of its density and layout.
CPRE’s case is that on the facts of the case this failed to afford adequate protection to the AONB and/or that inadequate reasons were given for departing from officers’ recommendation.
CPRE Kent Chairman Christine Drury said: “This is great news – we have been determined to save this beautiful area of countryside. The harm to the AONB cannot be justified and we are heartened that the judge has agreed to our appeal on this important point.”
The appellant had sought permission on a second ground, relating to the lawfulness of a substantial payment for heritage improvements closer to Dover town centre at the Western Heights.
CPRE Kent has decided to renew its application for permission on that ground for oral reconsideration.
A Dover District Council spokesman said: “We are aware the Court of Appeal has granted permission to appeal on one of the two grounds CPRE sought leave to appeal on, and we will continue to defend our decision through the Court process.”
Francis Taylor Building’s Ned Westaway, instructed by Richard Buxton, is acting for the appellant.
“Sadiq Khan warns ‘greedy’ developers as he outlines housing plan”
So easy when you have the will. Alas, our councils and our Local Enterprise Partnership put developers well before local people and pay lip-service to affordable housing, mostly letting developers off-the-hook to build the most expensive homes in the most expensive (green) places.
“… At the start of his second week in office, the Labour mayor told the Guardian he wanted more than 50% of homes on some new housing developments to be affordable. He said that did not mean 80% of market rent, as affordable is defined by the government, but far lower social rents or “London living rent”, which is pitched at a third of average incomes.
Khan also announced he was considering making it a condition of planning permission that new homes were marketed locally for at least six months before they could go on sale to foreign investors.”
Sidbury Business Park plans – a test of sustainability
Possibly the most unsustainable development plans ever mooted for Sidford/Sidbury – and some very half hearted excuses about why it cannot be in Sidmouth (where, oddly, it was thought possible when Asda were interested).
“… Despite an eleventh-hour bid to remove it, the Sid Valley was allocated 12 acres of employment land north of the A3052.
Fords has its sights set on some 14 acres of agricultural land east of the A375, but the proposed ‘net development’ area is 9.3 acres. Its application argues that having no development of an employment site in Sidmouth over the Local Plan period is an ‘unacceptable conclusion’.
The company claims that developments that provide new employment opportunities are ‘well overdue’ in the area, as the disparity between wages and the cost of living is widening, particularly for young people.
According to the plans, the greenfield site is the ‘only available and deliverable’ option close to the urban edge of Sidmouth and there were no ‘realistic alternatives’.
This is despite the ‘adverse and direct, long-term effect of severe significance’ on the landscape character, according to the application. The impact will be mitigated by the planting of 3.7 acres of woodland, 400 metres of hedgerow and a ‘substantial buffer’ of trees around much of the site, say the plans.
The application states that the town centre cannot meet the demand because of the lack of parking and disabled access.
It also says it is unviable to create a new £1million access so the Alexandria Industrial Estate – home to Fords’ current HQ – can reach capacity as an employment site. The estate has been allocated Sidmouth’s remaining 1.2 acres of employment land in the Local Plan.
Fords’ application allocates 9,120 sqm for business use, 6,840 sqm for ‘general industrial’ use and 6,840 sqm for storage and distribution – a total area equivalent to three football pitches. …”
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/business_park_plans_for_sidmouth_revealed_1_4533344
Let’s see where Councillor Stuart Hughes stands on this, having done the hokey-kokey so far.
Newton Poppleford: Will developer’s new plans avoid affordable homes ” ghetto”.
Cavanna Homes controversial full planning permission for 40 homes on AONB land in Newton Poppleford was agreed in principle by EDDC but held up because affordable homes were clustered together instead of being ” pepper potted” throughout the development.
New plans appear to show two homes on the western edge of the site, four to the north and nine in a cul-de-sac facing north towards the end of the estate road.
Is this “pepper potting”? The officers think so. Hhhmmmm … quite a lot of pepper in the remotest and possibly least attractive corner of the plate.
Beer: officers recommend refusal of Clinton Devon estates development in AONB
So, Councillor Pook and Clinton Devon Estates v. a very persuasive argument from Officers then … which way will the DMC fall?
“The proposals will go before East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) development management committee on Tuesday. Planning officers have told members that the development could be ‘harmful’ to the village’s landscape, due to its location in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). They also say the proposal does not meet EDDC’s criteria for ‘exception’ sites outside the built-up area boundaries of villages, as it is too large. In a report to the committee, an officer said: “Given the harm to the character of Beer and harm to the AONB from further development, and given the difficulty in finding suitable development sites to meet the housing need, consideration has to be given to whether the affordable housing needs for Beer need to be met elsewhere, for example within Seaton, that is in close proximity.”
The application has received backing from the parish council and Beer’s district council ward member to help secure ‘affordable’ housing for people with a connection to Beer. Councillor Geoff Pook, ward member for Beer and Branscombe, said: “The one common issue has been the need to secure affordable housing for people with connections to Beer. More local children going to the school, less than 100 metres from the houses, will eliminate the ‘school drop-off’ car use required for children outside the local area. Beer has a good community spirit and the increase in full-time residents contributing to the shops, clubs, and general village life can only be positive.”
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/proposals_for_30_homes_recommended_for_refusal_1_4525183
National Trust on AONBs and planning policy
The last hundred years:
The National Trust and planning. Part One: the last hundred years
and why they are worried now:
The National Trust and planning. Part Two: Why we’re worried
The second article concludes:
“The country needs more homes and there’s no reason why the planning system shouldn’t change to help deliver those homes. But fiddling with the system without a coherent approach threatens more sprawl rather than ensuring delivery of new communities where they are needed. The result is the careless loss of countryside and of the distinctiveness of England’s towns and villages.
“We need a planning system for that delivers the homes we need, and works for the economy, society and our environment. Instead, we’re in danger of ending up with a service for big developers to get housing past local communities. No one is ever going to love planning but there are good reasons why it was invented over a hundred years ago, and those reasons haven’t fundamentally changed.”
“Anywhere but Westminster” newspaper column want to hear from us
Worried about the ever-widening democratic deficit in East Devon? Enraged by the secrecy and vagueness of our devolution deal? Fed up with an MP who will not speak about his constituency in Parliament and won’t even live in it? Celebrating the rise of independents at every level of local government in the district? Here is how you get it to a wider audience:
““Anywhere but Westminster is travelling the country to get a sense of British politics away from the Westminster bubble. During this period old fashioned two-party politics has been diminished and a palpable sense of unrest with the status quo has emerged.
For their new series, the pair are back on the road, hunting out radical new politics in some unlikely place. We would like you to tell us where you think they should go?
Share your views in the form linked on the webpage below or get in contact with John Harris (@johnharris1969) and John Domokos (@JohnDomokos) via Twitter.””
Green light for further desecration of the Green Belt
… and by extension, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
This case was a 92,000 sq m glasshouse on Green Belt land. The Court of Appeal decided that:
“The glasshouse was appropriate, since it was a “building for agriculture” under the first bullet of paragraph 89 of the NPPF. The Regional Park Authority contended that an appropriate proposal caused no “definitional harm” but that it could cause “actual harm” to the openness of the Green Belt, or to the purposes of including land in it, and that any such actual harm should be given “substantial weight” under paragraph 88 of the NPPF.
In the Court of Appeal Lord Justice Lindblom rejected the Regional Park Authority’s argument. He said it would have marked an “important but unheralded change” from previous Green Belt policy under PPG2 and that it would negate the purpose of categorising agricultural buildings as appropriate.
Lord Justice Lindblom added: “Development that is not, in principle, ‘inappropriate’ in the Green Belt is, as Dove J. said….., development ‘appropriate to the Green Belt’.”
“New homes eroding green belt ‘at fastest rate for 20 years’
In East Devon, substitute “Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty” for Green Belt. And we go one better, we build industrial sheds there (Sidbury) and in a flood zone, too!
“Campaign to Protect Rural England accuses councils of altering boundaries and the government of facilitating the process …
… The total number of planned green belt houses is 274,792, based on draft and adopted local plans the CPRE complied , although it says the figure could be much higher as it may not know about all proposed developments, including ones granted contrary to national and local planning policy. In August 2012, the number of planned green belt houses was 81,000. …”
Test of new Local Plan: Clinton Devon Estates planning application for unallocated building on green field outside built-up boundary on AONB in Beer
And the original application mentions protected species on the la nd!
Owl commented on the original planning application from Clinton Devon Estates (CDE) for “up to 30” houses at Short Furlong in Beer, querying (amongst other things) why it needed 70 parking spaces. It was described in the planning documents as:
“Planning Application 14/2621/MOUT – Clinton Devon Estates – land at Short Furlong, Beer for development of “up to” 30 houses with “up to” 40% affordable homes. The current application seeks to get planning permission for access only.”
It can be accessed online at:
eastdevon.gov.uk/planning and searching on the planning application number.
CDE asked for an extension before a Development Management Committee meeting in December 2015 and in February 2016 asked for a further extension until April 2016. This has since been extended – again – to the end of May 2016. New documents have been added, particularly a report on drainage of the site:
The latest email is:
“Iestyn
Thanks for confirmation, I shall instruct the DV [District Valuer?] accordingly. Given the earliest committee date is 10th May and that were members to approve the application that there would inevitably be a further period of time involved in the negotiation of a s.106 agreement would it be sensible at this stage to agree a further Extension of Time for the determination of the application until say 31st May 2016 in the first instance?
Regards
Charlie McCullough
Senior Planning Officer”
As above, this suggestion by the Senior Planning Officer was taken up by Iestyn … it’s good to see our developers being helped by our planners. Letters between CDE and EDDC are very cheerful and informal – Charlie this and Amy that, Iestyn the other ….
It seems that attenuation tanks may be needed as there are properties downhill of the site that have to be accommodated with the run off situation (shades of Feniton here?) and this has required detailed information about run off and general drainage though, of course, the report is optimistic about solutions.
Also, it appears that, following advice from EDDC, it has been revised down to 18 homes so that it comes beneath the threshold for strategy 35 of the new Local Plan so that, by building only 18 houses (at this current time) they can be constructed outside the built-up area boundary, if there is need. Mention is made of “affordable houses” but, in the correspondence there is also mention of sorting out exactly what “affordable” will mean in terms of these houses at some later stage (24 February from Nigel Barratt, though for some reason the email starts off about Frogmore Road, Budleigh, rather than Beer, though it has the Beer planning application reference number).
As stated above, and confirmed by EDDC’s Landscape Architect’s consultee report, this is currently a green field site totally within the AONB and not allocated for housing (Consultee, March 2016 document 2215165 online).
She notes that some roads are not shown in plans, and asks why this is. She has concerns that visual relationships of the site are not adequately clear and that the visual “influence” of the site from other significant vantage points in Beer has been underestimated. She is worried about sustainable urban drainage and notes that many of the AONBs requirements are unfulfilled. She believes that EDDC’s own Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and D4 (Landscape requirements) have not been met nor D5 (Trees on site).
It is obvious from the drawings that there could be extensions to this site in coming years, should ways be found in future for such an extension.
Roll on the Development Management Committee meeting.
There appears to be little interest in the application from Beer residents on the EDDC planning application site, with, so far, not one letter of support or objection on file.
has been reactivated
Jurassic Coast: councils can’t make it pay so say public should take over!
“People in East Devon are being asked for their views to influence the future of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site.
The spectacular coastline stretching across Exmouth, Sidmouth and Seaton is currently looked after and funded by a partnership of Devon County Council (DCC), Dorset County Council, and the Jurassic Coast Trust charity.
But pressure on local authority budgets is forcing a rethink on the management of the World Heritage Site and there could be a move towards greater community involvement.
[HONESTLY, is Owl reading this right? NOW we can’t afford it, you are asking the public to get involved!! All these years you excluded us and told us you knew what was best for us and now it hasn’t worked out and the chips are down it’s suddenly OUR problem?]
Before any final decisions are made, residents are being asked to comment on the options available.
DDC cabinet members for environment councillor Roger Croad said: “As a World Heritage Site, the Jurassic Coast is an important asset for East Devon, and Devon as a whole, so its future requires delicate consideration.
“We need communities to be part of this process which is why we’re asking for their views. I hope people take this opportunity to have their say and let us know how they’d like to see this beautiful stretch of coastline managed in future.”
The closing date for the consultation is April 28. Read more about the options and have your say by completing the online survey on: http://jurassiccoast.org/consultation.
Does anyone recall that when Dorset suggested that the World Heritage Coast should become a National Park, EDDC said, no, not on your life, we are keeping our bit to ourselves ‘cos we like doing the planning and stuff on it:
“... East Devon District Council has recommended councillors oppose the plans, saying they would result in a loss of planning powers and could restrict growth.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-22894089
Well, now maybe time to put that suggestion back on the table.
Judge overturns Planning Inspector’s decision challenged by council – on grounds of landcape quality and sustainability
“A district council has won a High Court appeal after an inspector granted a developer planning permission for 85 dwellings and associated works, in a key ruling on the operation of the National Planning Policy Framework.
In August last year Gladman Developments won permission on appeal for the scheme on land north of Ross Road in Newent.
Forest of Dean District Council, which had in February 2015 refused permission, appealed under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
In its challenge to the inspector’s decision the local authority advanced four grounds of appeal. They were that the inspector:
Failed to consider and give reasons as to whether the site was a ‘valued landscape’;
Incorrectly applied the NPPF at paragraph 134 and the test on harm to heritage assets;
Failed to consider the interaction between paragraph 134 and paragraph 14 [the presumption in favour of sustainable development] of the NPPF and therefore applying the wrong test;
Gave inadequate reasoning.
The Communities Secretary accepted that Ground 3 had been made out and joined Forest of Dean in asking the judge, Mr Justice Coulson, to quash the decision.
Gladman Developments did not accept Ground 3.
In Forest of Dean District Council v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor [2016] EWHC 421 (Admin), Mr Justice Coulson ruled that Forest of Dean’s application on Ground 3 had been successful.
The judge also concluded that it could not be said that, if the inspector had applied the right test, he would necessarily have reached the same answer.
Mr Justice Coulson therefore allowed the application to quash.”
Yet another battle to fight: more, many more, sneaky changes to planning
The devil is in the detail here – so many “minor” changes, never seen before – all gearing up to give our LEP total control of the planning system:
“This consultation seeks views on the proposed approach to implementing the planning provisions in the Housing and Planning Bill, and some other planning measures. It covers the following areas:
Changes to planning application fees
Permission in principle
Brownfield register
Small sites register
Neighbourhood planning
Local plans
Expanding the planning performance regime
Testing competition in the processing of planning applications
Information about financial benefits
Section 106 dispute resolution
Permitted development rights for state-funded schools
Changes to statutory consultation on planning applications”
Click to access Planning_consultation.pdf
WE HAVE UNTIL 15 APRIL 2016 TO RESPOND
Kerp those pictures of “the other East Devon” rolling in
Entries already in for our alternative “destruction of East Devon” photo competition – and what a tale they tell.
Keep them coming:
send to
eastdevonwatch@gmail.com
They can be anonymous, just let us know where and when taken
Entries close on 30 April 2016.
Alternative photographic competition.
For those of you who never read the “sticky” section at the top of the page and rush to see the latest post, this is duplicated for your benefit:
NEWS- PHOTOGRAPHIC COMPETITION
The alternative East Devon Photographic Competition
EDDC, in its infinite wisdom, has decided to run a photographic competition. The intention is to offer a prize and to use the 12 best shots to make up an EDDC Countryside calendar:
http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/get_snapping_for_district_photo_contest_1_4422625
Entries by 30 April 2016.
Owl, in its flights over East Devon has been struck by an increasing absence of “countryside” – catching the vermin it needs to survive has become increasingly difficult!
So, Owl is running an Alternative East Devon Calendar Photo Competition:
THE EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNTRYSIDE DESTRUCTION CALENDAR
PHOTOGRAPHIC COMPETITION
All entries will be considered and entries will close on 30 April 2016.
The twelve winning entries will be published (that’s the prize) and, if you want to make a calendar from them, feel free!
Anonymous contributions will be allowed but please let us know when and where your entry was photographed.
District council wins appeal at Planning court which overules Inspector’s decision
“A district council has won a Planning Court appeal after an inspector granted outline permission for a 103-dwelling development.
Wealden District Council had refused to grant Knight Developments permission for the site at Steel Cross, north of Crowborough in East Sussex.
However on 16 July 2015 a planning inspector upheld the company’s appeal.
The council then applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for that decision to be quashed.
In Wealden District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2016] EWHC 247 (Admin) the council advanced three grounds in the Planning Court. These related to:
i) Nitrogen deposition (through the additional traffic generated). The Inspector had erred in law when concluding that the proposals would have no significant effect on the Ashdown Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC), pursuant to section 61 of the Habitats Regulations, in particular:
a) in finding that contributions to SAMMS (Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy) would mitigate any such effect; or
b) by failing to have regard to evidence that proposed contributions to heathland management could not effectively mitigate any such effect.
ii) NPPF 116 & alternative sites. The Inspector had erred in his consideration of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 116 when concluding that there were no alternative sites to meet the need for the proposed development, by failing to take into account relevant evidence or acting unreasonably.
iii) Inadequate reasons. The Inspector’s reasons for his findings on grounds (i) and (ii) above had fallen below the required standard.
Both defendants – the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Knight Developments – submitted that the inspector’s decision did not disclose any error of law.” …
For remainder of summary see:
http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26035:district-council-wins-planning-court-appeal-over-permission-for-103-dwelling-scheme&catid=63&Itemid=31
The “Budleigh Boys” and the history of AONB incursion – part 2
Following our earlier on how the “Budleigh Boys” councillors view their local AONB:
Owl has been surprised to receive quite a bit of correspondence on the subject and particularly about the AONB planning application that they so enthusiastically supported – at the caravan and camping site known as Pooh Cottage.
The site started life as a small cottage (2 bedrooms) on what was then called the Shortwood estate – in a very quiet and secluded rural setting which was purchased by a Ms Carter.
“Pooh Cottage”, as the house and site is now known, then began an expansion, some of it (see below) without benefit of any planning permission. It now comprises a large house, another building now split into two residential properties, a building erected as a horse’s stable and now a large bungalow, and three permanent “mobile homes”. A history of over 40 planning applications, retrospective application and enforcement orders, illustrate how the expansion continues.
The caravan site sprang up in the early 1990s. It started as a certificated site, with permission for 5 caravans on a stipulated number of days, but rapidly grew and grew in scope until in 2006, Ms Carter applied for a “Certificate of Lawfulness” for 47 caravans between 1st April until 31st October of each year, on the grounds that she had done so for 10 years, completely unhindered by any action from EDDC. This certificate was granted by EDDC – for a site considered by many to be entirely unsuitable and unsustainable to a large commercial enterprise.
Neighbours of the site, very concerned about how the site had grown and continued to grow, went to the Local Government Ombudsman, who found in their favour, and awarded them a large cash sum (from the pockets of the taxpayers of East Devon, of course) as “compensation” – though this was, of course, no help after the event. Unfortunately, the certificate cannot be rescinded without an Act of Parliament, which is obviously unfeasible.
The Ombudsman judged that EDDC had erroneously granted the Certificate of Lawfulness, and strongly censured their actions throughout the whole way in which they had handled the growth and expansion of Pooh Cottage “Holiday Park” and recommended that a very tight rein be kept on any planning excursions from Ms Carter in the future. This has not apparently happened, and the expansion continues, with repeated battles every season to limit the use of the site to the permitted terms. Councillors have supported expansion even after the Ombudsman’s remarks and when their officers have recommended refusal (see link above)
Throughout all these battles, the former “East Devon Business Forum” supported the owners of Pooh Cottage at every turn, saying that it brought jobs and prosperity to the area (though there seems to be little evidence of these jobs far).
A campaign was instituted some years ago by residents in the area to oust their then councillors, who both supported the business interests of the owners of the site throughout. Former councillors Florey and Franklin are no longer representives of the people of Budleigh Salterton.
However, the current councillors have continued to enthusiastically support expansion of the site with the exact same reasons former councillors used and which the Local Government Ombudsman criticised.
East Devon Watch 