Do YOU live in this la-la land? Do your current councillors live in it? Is Newton Poppleford and its developments in it?
Remember, we are all in it …!
Use your votes wisely: Claire Wright and East Devon Alliance or other Independent candidate
Independent of everyone …..
Just heard from an EDWatcher, who says: “Did you know that Clinton Devon Estates are applying for 22 houses in East Budleigh AONB…? 14/2959/MOUT ”
“The UK is currently 68% self-sufficient in foods which can be produced here. There has been a steady decline in this level over the last 20 years. While there is no optimal level of self-sufficiency, and a diversity of supply is important for spreading risks, the Government should monitor this level. Levels of self-sufficiency in fruit and vegetables have fallen the most, and farmers should seek to extend the seasonal production of fresh fruit and vegetables in coordination with the Agricultural and Horticultural Development Board.”
If you look at the summary and conclusions, There is NO mention of the loss of high grade agricultural land to development of such land and solar farms.
Perhaps our Government thinks that the NPPF protects such land (snort!).
The Clinton Devon Estates’ Liverton Solar Park, was mentioned in a comment (copied below) recently left on the East Devon Watch blog. An observer has subsequently sent in these photos of the solar farm in question (which lies just outside the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) taken from the AONB, south of the B3178. The pictures may shed more light on the issue.
‘By coincidence, having driven past the solar farm at Liverton Farm and seen just what an impact on the ‘Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ the solar park has, I have been looking again at the application (13/2202/MFUL) https://planning.eastdevon.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=MU6J9QGH3A000 made by the agents of Clinton Devon Estates.
It takes an enormous amount of plodding through, something still in progress, but it seems clear that , let’s say ‘ much of what was claimed is open to serious challenge’. Start with looking at what the CPRE had to say about some of Clinton Devon’s agent’s claims.
Not far away is Liverton Park 2, and industrial and business park complex adjacent to Liverton Park (1). It struck me that the massive sheds on Liverton Park 2 might well have had solar panels built into their roofs if CDE were really green for greens sake- but it seems not. But you do get a view of the solar panels from LP2!
The message seems clear, you cannot take a developer’s word. Check, check and check again. Oh, and see what subsidies the development attracts and wonder if that might be what makes solar panels the preferred choice when other more appropriate schemes may be better suited.’
Source: https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/01/15/save-clyst-st-mary-campaign-new-proposals-and-important-meeting/comment-page-1/#comment-9681
Planning application 14/2959 on behalf of Clinton Devon Estate was validated on 16 December but was first spotted on the new EDDC planning web site yesterday. It is an outline application for the construction of 21 dwellings (including 40 % affordable housing) with all matters reserved other than access, on Frogmore Road (aka the Syon House site). This site is on agricultural grade I land within the AONB and to the east of the main road which by-passes the village.
Readers of this blog may recall that earlier in 2014, at the public hearing into the local plan, the EDDC Planning Officer read out paragraph 1 of the NPPF to the Planning Inspector. This is all about encouraging communities to get involved in the planning process. The Planning Officer then went on to say that communities were the best judge of where developments should go.
The people of East Budleigh did have their say in a consultation process during January to March 2014. In considering three potential sites, the people overwhelmingly preferred a brown field site at the village entry to the South by a majority of 68.5%. This is very much in line with NPPF paragraph 111 which says “planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land).”
This is not the site now being put forward. The reason given in the planning statement (5.9) is that compared to other sites originally put forward [this site] is less visually sensitive and better connected to the village centre. Residents may disagree, especially with regard to pedestrian access across the main road to all the village amenities. In other words questioning the site’s sustainability.
NPPF para 116 states that planning permission should be refused for major developments in designated areas [eg AONBs] except in exceptional circumstances. A paragraph that was upheld by the Planning Inspector when he rejected an appeal for development at Badger Close, Newton Poppleford in a decision dated 11 June 2014.
So the planning statement tries to get around this by arguing (5.2) that there is an acute housing land supply problem in East Devon. (Some readers might find this hard to believe). This argument is then used to plead (5.13) that there are clear exceptional circumstances as to why the proposed development is needed, would be in the public interest and should therefore be supported.
Timeo Danaos et donna ferentes – “Beware Greeks bearing gifts”
Odysseus had the idea of a Trojan Horse. When the massive wooden statue was left at the gates of Troy, the Trojans thought the Greeks had left it as a parting gift because they had given up and sailed home. The Trojans welcomed the gift, not knowing that the belly of the horse was filled with armed soldiers who would soon destroy their city.
Think of this when reading this article whilst similarly bearing in mind that it is election year:
http://www.devon24.co.uk/news/free_car_park_wins_stay_of_execution_1_3850160
Recall our story here on 10 November 2012 that, for Draft Local Plan purposes, Beer has been declared “a small town” and that we predicted that higher levels of development would be set for the “small town”.
Here it is: 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.
However, it is hard to understand why “up to” 30 homes required 70 parking spaces. Oh, and the planning application says that there are protected species on the land.
Yes, most of us have realised that. Why was it ok for one developer and not for another?
Of course, a re-convening of the EDDC wokring group that was supposed to look into the relationship between the council and the East Devon Business Forum might well have answered such questions ….. yet another reason why it remains in the long grass …
This frequently-asked question comes up yet again, in one of the latest raft of letters sent to the Sidmouth Herald (1st August 2014), this time concerning the planned King Alfred Way development.
‘Newton Poppleford is well known for its traffic problems especially near the exit to King Alfred Way (KAW) where the pinch point restricts the movement of traffic on a busy road. Residents of KAW have to park in the road and children play in the area but EDDC in their wisdom are planning for Clinton Devon Estates to build a new estate of 40 houses and the supposed doctors surgery and to have entry right through this road. At the top of KAW is a footpath (Farthings Lane) which gives people from the west of the village a safe passage into the village but especially the children who now have a safe walk to school, missing the pinch point of the busy A3052. When 40 houses and the supposed Doctors surgery are built, a road will be put across this footpath taking away the only safe way for the children to get to school. There are safer places to build the much needed affordable houses in the village. Why don’t EDDC listen to the 400 people who say no more traffic for the High Street in Newton Poppleford?’
Judith Cullip
See also http://eastdevonalliance.org/2014/08/04/developers-offer-of-a-surgery-not-so-sweet/
http://eastdevonalliance.org/2014/08/04/eddcs-double-standards-at-newton-poppleford/
http://eastdevonalliance.org/2014/07/28/so-eddc-didnt-spot-extraneous-and-unlawful-planning-inducement-in-planning-app/
The King Alfred Way (KAW) controversy has been mired by other serious issues. A parish councillor (who had spoken out against the development) was reported to the police apparently by an unnamed person. The police dismissed the allegations against the councillor as totally groundless.
Many will recall that a charge of breach of Code of Conduct against the same parish councillor, brought to the attention of a special Standards Sub-Committee by the Monitoring Officer (now replaced), resulted in considerable time and public money being spent, only for the charge to be found so weak as not to warrant any action. http://eastdevonalliance.org/2014/05/17/no-sanctions-to-be-taken-against-cllr-graham-salter/
N.B. The SIN blog http://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com has a considerable archive on the relevant Parish Council meetings e.g. http://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/another-month-another-chaotic-planning-meeting-at-newton-poppleford/
That’s how the Sidmouth Herald summed up Gill Cameron-Webb’s letter (Opinion, 1st August, 2014) about EDDC planning procedure at Newton Poppleford.
Thank you to Gill for sending the text of her letter, as follows:
‘Developers make such massive profits from housing developments that they’re often willing to sacrifice some profit to provide ‘sweeteners’ to persuade councils to look favourably on their application. This can result in corruption, so planning laws prevent developers from ‘buying planning permission’. These demand that any ‘sweeteners’ provided by developers must be in proportion to their development. As the Doctors Surgery promised as part of the KAW development could service a population of 5300 (3 times the population of Newton Pop) it’s massively disproportionate to the KAW development.
When EDDC councillors first demanded that the doctors surgery be made a condition of the KAW development, Planning Officers failed to advise them that this was unlawful and that the developers can never be forced to deliver it. Although residents repeatedly warned EDDC of this illegality over 5 months, EDDC persistently refused to acknowledge it until a Judicial Review forced them to quash the planning permission.
The key benefit of the Judicial Review was to ensure councillors were properly advised of planning law next time they considered the KAW application in May 2014. At this stage EDDC officers and councillors should have treated KAW as a major development of 40 houses in an AONB which had received 382 formal objections from the public. They should have dealt with it exactly the same as the Badger Close development and rejected it for the same reasons they rejected Badger Close. Instead they chose to authorise KAW in the hope that the developers might keep their ‘promise’ to deliver a Doctors Surgery that they can never legally enforce.
If Newton Poppleford ends up with 40 houses and no Doctors Surgery, the blame will lie entirely with EDDC planning officers and Councillors for accepting the word of a developer on a hope and a prayer.’
Local residents continue to expose serious flaws in EDDC’s conduct regarding plans for Newton Poppleford. For the record, one is described in this letter from Lorna Dalton, recently published in the Sidmouth Herald (July, 2014).
‘In Sept 2013, EDDC authorised a major development at King Alfred Way in Newton Poppleford without considering whether the environmental impact should be assessed, despite being legally obliged to do so. For five months they ignored residents who pointed out their error until a Judicial Review at last forced them to reconsider their approach.
In May 2014 EDDC wrote a report which acknowledged:
– “The site lies within the East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
– on best and most versatile agricultural land
– the Pebblebed Heaths SAC/SPA and SSSI are located within 700m.
– this environment constitutes a highly sensitive receptor to impacts arising from pollution and recreation
– it has the potential to be viewed from across the village and from a wider area given the natural topography the proposed development rising beyond the
boundary of the existing built form.”
Having listed numerous reasons which should’ve demanded an Environmental Impact Assessment, EDDC instead came to the conclusion that none was required! So when EDDC told last weeks Herald that they had ‘corrected their error, what they actually did was to abandon a highly sensitive environment to a major development without any assessment of the destruction.
Although EDDC decided not to assess the environmental impact of KAW, one of their reasons for rejecting the Badger Close proposal was because it had not carried out an assessment. I have to question why EDDC dealt with these two developments so differently when the two sites are within 200 yards of each other and share the same environmental attributes?
EDDC stated that they would defend their approach and they believe they’ve corrected their error. As another 2 hectares of beautiful countryside looks set for destruction, I suspect that the majority of Newton Pop residents would not agree with them.’
Evidence of this can be heard in the recording of the Full Council meeting (23rd July), available on the EDDC website.
There is more in the letter below, which has just been published in the Exmouth Journal.
‘Dear Sir,
I refer to Cllr Tim Wood’s letter (Investing in town- Journal 24th July) in which he bemoans the inaccuracies, amongst local political opponents, in matters relating to the town’s so-called ‘development’.
Having listened to Cllr Wood’s comments, at an EDDC meeting on 23rd July, about local people backing the likes of the Premier Inn development on the Elizabeth Hall site, it is clear that he is not above putting political spin before fact himself.
What was breathtaking is that whilst he mentioned a few people supporting the development, he made not a single reference to the 12,000 who signed a petition against it. He, and others, portrayed the developments as something that was broadly welcomed by the town. Journal letters are testament to the contrary.
When he and his colleagues are seeking votes they will tell you that they will represent all electors. A single visit to any council meeting, and especially one to EDDC, is likely to demonstrate very quickly how cheap such words are and how little representation, with very few notable exceptions, is given to views that do not match those of a ruling party councillor.
Cllr Wood’s opponents are not against development, they simply want development to be appropriate and arrived at through genuine and democratic means and not involving biased, unscientific and unreliable ‘consultations’ or secretive deals (seafront covenants) and the like. Many of we non-party-political residents would wish to see local level politics free from party politics.
The mindset at EDDC was betrayed at the above meeting, by a comment from a very senior officer who suggested in answer to an unrelated matter, that the journey is not as important as the destination. I would suggest that, in a democracy, a philosophy of ‘the end justifies the means’ is utterly out of place.
Yours sincerely
Tim Todd’
Today’s Sidmouth Herald has this letter on the subject, from Newton Poppleford resident, Emma Coppell
‘I note that EDDC state that they can “only hope” that the proposed doctors’ surgery at Newton Poppleford will be built following the recent judicial review of the King Alfred Way planning approval. In fact, relying on hope is all they could ever have done, as that is all the law allows.
To be clear, a planning obligation offering such a blatant inducement is not simply against the wishes of a group of troublemakers or NIMBYs, as EDDC would have people believe, but against the law. Developers’ offerings can only offset the direct impact of the development, otherwise the council is powerless to force the developer to provide them. This was always the case, it has not arisen from judicial review. Such a basic premise ought to have been known by planners, yet they told the committee otherwise.
Second time around, following judicial review, councillors were expressly told that the doctors’ surgery could not be enforced. The planning committee chose to trust in nothing more than a verbal promise to build a surgery, and therefore voluntarily submitted themselves to the ‘hope’ about which they now complain, putting themselves at the mercy of the developer’s whims. This is no way to conduct planning decisions; common sense dictates that a community benefit should only influence the decision if the developer is guaranteed to provide it.
Instead of blaming residents for ‘causing’ this outcome, it is about time that EDDC recognised both the spirit and the letter of the law, and acknowledged their own shortcomings in dealing with this application. The most tragic aspect of this whole sorry episode is that it represented an opportunity for the council to hold their hands up, acknowledge their mistake and learn from it. It is now clear that they intend to continue to do whatever suits them, even if this contravenes the law. Their dogged determination to apportion blame elsewhere at all costs would be laughable were it not such an affront to the idea of integrity in public service. ‘
Newton Poppleford resident Mark Coppell is one of many who wonders where the blame lies. Below is his letter to the Sidmouth Herald (23 July 2014).
Sir
I write in response to EDDC’s recent statement that the judicial review relating to the planning permission granted at King Alfred Way, Newton Poppleford, was conceded despite no fault being apportioned to the Council itself. Having first-hand experience of EDDC’s internal investigative procedures I am not in the least bit surprised they have reached this conclusion.
However, it would be interesting to know precisely whose fault do EDDC consider it to be that an extraneous and unlawful planning inducement was included in the draft Section 106 agreement before the application was heard at committee? Whose fault was it that, during the planning meeting, the council accepted the offer of a unilateral undertaking of the surgery, a form of planning obligation governed by the same regulations that made provision via section 106 unlawful?
The committee and legal team were recorded discussing making approval “subject to demonstration of a mechanism” to secure something, in full knowledge that it could not legally be secured. It was resolved to word the approval vaguely such that “everybody knows what needs to be done (provision of the surgery) but without making that issue (it being unlawful) raise its head”. If that was not the council’s fault, then who is to blame?
Even more curiously, if the council truly believed they had not erred and their position was defensible, who authorised the decision not to contest the judicial review, thereby costing £11k of taxpayers’ money?
Once again, in their statement, EDDC have adopted a defensive attitude towards the electorate, and are trying to absolve themselves of blame for their planning advice and decision-making being legally unsound. This whole episode suggests that the council are not sufficiently familiar with the regulations that govern planning matters and made a genuine but extraordinary mistake. The alternative explanation is that they have a flagrant disregard for such things when they interfere with awarding planning permission to a major landowner in whose thrall they appear to exist. I am not sure which option worries me to a greater extent.
District council planning and legal departments appear to be regulated either within house, or by those who once were in the profession. As a result they are effectively self-regulatory. Little wonder then, that they find it difficult to admit any wrong doing on their part as they are seldom held to account. It would appear the only regulation they are subject to is when legally challenged by members of the public, and this is only feasible for those with access to large funds of money. The loss of £11k to the taxpayer is highly regrettable and was utterly avoidable on EDDCs part. However, the risks taken by the public when challenging unlawful decisions are far greater proportionately and as such are not taken lightly. It was hoped that at the very least EDDC might offer some contrition and resolve to amend their practices in future. Alas not.
All in all this represents yet another shameful episode in EDDC’s recent history.
Matt Coppell
A warning to all Estates who think they can build wherever they want:
“Mr Rees, who has lived in Penshurst for 22 years, said: “There is a subtext to this which is not only about the way that things were done in private as much as possible by the council: they have spent huge amounts of public money on fighting this, and they spent a huge amount of money, and our time, protecting the first planning application, which they didn’t even bother to defend.”
He said that the community who hoped to save their rural landscape were not the only people affected by the wrangling: “Had they sat down with the community in Penshurst and discussed where to put these houses it would have helped. By now because Forge Field has been held up as the only possible place, people have been waiting for housing for four years.
Localism a broken promise?
“The time has come to disperse power more widely in Britain today.”
Do you remember the Localism Bill of 2011 launched with a great fanfare as a key part of the coalition agreement in 2011 with the blessing of the PM and deputy PM? Here are extracts from the introduction to the Governments Guide to Localism published by Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, Minister of State for Decentralisation in June 2011.
“There are, however, some significant flaws in the planning system as it stands. Planning does not give members of the public enough influence over decisions that make a big difference to their lives. Too often, power is exercised by people who are not directly affected by the decisions they are taking. This means, understandably, that people often resent what they see as decisions and plans being foisted on them. The result is a confrontational and adversarial system where many applications end up being fought over.
The Localism Bill contains proposals to make the planning system clearer, more democratic, and more effective.”
“I also hope to see a debate in the wider country – among councils, community groups, volunteers, social activists and many more people – about how they can seize the opportunities this historic Bill represents, and use the rights and freedoms it offers to make a difference in their community.”
These proposals included the following.
Neighbourhood planning
“Instead of local people being told what to do, the Government thinks that local communities should have genuine opportunities to influence the future of the places where they live.”
“Neighbourhood planning will allow communities to come together through a local parish council or neighbourhood forum and say where they think new houses, businesses and shops should go – and what they should look like.”
“These neighbourhood development plans could be very simple, or go into considerable detail where people want.”
Requirement to consult communities before submitting very large planning applications
“To further strengthen the role of local communities in planning, the [Localism] Bill will introduce a new requirement for developers to consult local communities before submitting planning applications for very large developments. This will give local people a chance to comment when there is still genuine scope to make changes to proposals.”
Strengthening enforcement rules
“For people to have a real sense that the planning system is working for them, they need to know that the rules they draw up will be respected. The Localism Bill will strengthen planning authorities’ powers to tackle abuses of the planning system, such as making deliberately misleading planning applications.”
Reform the way local plans are made
“Local planning authorities play a crucial role in local life, setting a vision, in consultation with local people, about what their area should look like in the future. The plans local authorities draw up set out where new buildings, shops, businesses and infrastructure need to go, and what they should look like.”
“The Government thinks it is important to give local planning authorities greater freedom to get on with this important job without undue interference from central government. The Localism Bill will limit the discretion of planning inspectors to insert their own wording into local plans. It will also ensure that rather than focussing on reporting progress in making plans to central government, authorities focus on reporting progress to local communities.”
Is it now a footnote in history?
If you conduct a word search for “localism” in the NPPF you will find it nowhere in the main text only in footnotes 4 and 41, and once each in Annexes 1, 2 and 3!
The King Alfred’s Way application is back before the DMC and, as before, EDDC planners have given it a “free pass” dispensing with any need for an environmental impact assessment (EIA) despite it being in an AONB. A little known study of environmental sites of European Significance in South East Devon, which includes the Pebblebed Heaths and the Exe Valley, has confirmed the need to reduce the demands local population growth makes on these site for recreation.
Local authorities have a legal duty to ensure no adverse effects occur to these sites as a result of this growth. Surely the first step is an EIA for such a significant development right on the doorstep of the Pebblebed Heaths?
We can reasonably assume that John Varley, as Clinton Devon Estates Director, is delighted that he doesn’t have to spend money on carrying out an EIA. It is one less hurdle to jump.
More interesting would be to know what view John Varley takes of this, wearing one of his other hats, as a £21K pa Board Member of the Environment Agency (mission – working to protect our environment). Perhaps he could let us know?
East Devon Watch 