CoVoP (whose day of action locally takes place in Sidmouth on Sunday – see above) has organised a 38 Degrees petition on planning changes it wants to see urgently implemented. The petition is here:
http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/listen-to-the-peoples-voice-on-planning
….is a complicated business.
Latest aerial views keep us up to date with what’s happening, with EDDC planners’ approval:
http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/comparing-visions-for-development-of.html
And bodies such as the Environment Agency alert us to some of the problems..Has this one been solved?? : https://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/east-devon-beaches-at-seaton-ladram-bay-and-budleigh-salterton-too-polluted-to-swim-at/
” ... Throughout the country, they become prisoners of bad design, and so do adults. Without safe and engaging places in which they can come together, no tribe forms. So parents must play the games that children would otherwise play among themselves, and everyone is bored to tears.
The exclusion of children arises from the same pathology that denies us decent housing. In the name of market freedom, the volume housebuilders, sitting on their land banks, are free to preside over speculative chaos, while we are free to buy dog kennels priced like palaces in placeless estates so badly designed that community is dead on arrival. Many want to design and build their own homes, but almost no plots are available, as the big builders have seized them. …”
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/06/children-towns-and-cities-robbed-spaces-play
CoVoP invite you to a meeting in the park at Knowle, Sidmouth on 12 April at 3pm
to hear speeches on the National Planning Set-up from parliamentary candidates and others.
Free parking at Knowle (at least for now)
Details here: April 21 National Day of Action CoVoP Poster
The Knowle event is being organised by two East Devon Alliance members, Ian McKintosh and Mike Temple, who have joined the National Community Voice On Planning (CoVoP) as trustees.
CoVoP is constantly working for reforms in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), as this latest message shows:
‘Two letters from our members have appeared in the Telegraph this week – both were edited to remove references to CoVoP National Day of Action (12 April), but both expressed the key message that the Government is not listening to communities on planning. References to the 5 year plan supply have also been removed. The full text for both letters is here: letters to the Telegraph
Another member has written to Messers Betts, Pickles and Lewis expressing similar frustration.
“Dear Honourable Members
The NPPF is NOT working for local communities!
Further to the recent press release by the Communities & Local Government Select Committee on the operation of the NPPF I would like to draw your attention to further evidence that the NPPF is not protecting important local landscapes from inappropriate development and that Planning Officers appear to be ignoring sustainable planning principles outlined in the NPPF.
South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) planning officers regularly emphasise the ‘presumption in favour of development’ to their Planning Committee while failing to mention that all planning applications (even those for allocated sites in a Local Plan), must comply with core planning principles in the NPPF. These are outlined the NPPF (219 paragraphs) which also states (several times) that these sustainable planning principles are ‘material considerations’ when assessing planning applications.
At an SLDC Planning Committee meeting last December (attended by six out of 17 members), a planning application for a prime green field site, in the middle of Grange-over-Sands’ Conservation Areas, was granted. Committee members did not bother to discuss major infrastructure problems (drainage and roads), or the likely adverse impact on the town’s tourist economy. These problems had been raised at the meeting by local residents and Town Council representatives who also drew attention to the relevant paragraphs in the NPPF. No wonder people are losing faith in local planning procedures. This feels like a District Council dictatorship; not a local democracy.
We believe that District Councils are being ‘threatened’ with appeal cases by developers that they claim will be resolved in favour of granting planning permission. Also, we have evidence that our planning officers are also being pressurised into putting planning applications before the Planning Committee, due to perceived time constraints, even when the developer has not provided all the evidence needed to support their application such as an adequate flood risk assessment that considers the potential for flooding elsewhere.
We need more homes in areas where there are good employment prospects and good public transport links. We do not need them in areas with poor employment prospects, poor public transport links and inadequate infrastructure or where they will become second homes and have an adverse impact on Conservation Areas that are important to the local tourist economy.
I realise that you cannot do anything about specific issues raised above but I hope that the next Parliament will rectify some of the problems highlighted as a matter of urgency!
At the moment many of us do not know who to vote for at the next election because none of the main political parties have robust proposals for dealing with these serious planning inadequacies.
Yours sincerely”
We need to shout more loudly! Please demonstrate your frustration on 12 April.
Best wishes
Julie
Chairman of CoVoP
admin@covop.org
Community Voice on Planning
A National Alliance to provide communities with an effective voice on planning
http://www.covop.org’
Community Voice on Planning (CoVoP) groups seem to have started a craze on youtube. Bradford have adapted it for themselves, after FRAGOFF (www.fragoff.co.uk) set the ball rolling.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijhAwpoQHvM And here’s Bradford’s version https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw-UOPLsIIw
Mmm, wonder if fellow CoVoP members, East Devon Alliance, will appear on youtube sometime soon? We’ll keep you informed..
Thanks to the correspondent who sent in two related pieces of news: firstly, that South Somerset’s Local Plan has just been declared sound: and secondly, that the Conservative parliamentary candidate has adopted a stance that would get him elected here!
‘SOMERSET: District reaches ‘major milestone’ in Local Plan process
BUT CONSERVATIVE PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATE QUESTIONS WHETHER HIGH HOUSING FIGURES ARE NEEDED
SOUTH Somerset District Council’s Local Plan, which will act as a guideline for development up until 2028, has been deemed “sound” by a government inspector, subject to a series of modifications.
The council’s received the inspector David Hogger’s report on the Local Plan (2006-2028) on January 8th, marking a “significant point” in the process of formally adopting the plan.
The necessary modifications listed in the report are the same as those consulted upon by the council in March and November 2014, and the document can be read in full online at http://bit.ly/17GNjCz
The report ratifies the council’s objectives to deliver 15,950 homes and 11,250 jobs by 2028, and confirms the council’s ambition for how towns, villages and rural areas will grow and change. It also endorses the policies against which the council will judge planning applications for homes, businesses, community facilities and infrastructure provision across the district.
The next step is for the council to make the proposed changes and present the final Local Plan to a meeting of full council on March 5th. Councillors will be asked to approve and adopt the plan and allow the policies to come into full effect.
Councillor Tim Carroll, deputy leader and portfolio holder for Finance and Spatial Planning, whose responsibilities include the Local Plan, emphasised the importance of the conclusions in the Inspector’s Report.
He commented: “This is a major milestone for the council. The overall conclusion of the inspector is that the SSDC Local Plan and the 12 modifications that were incorporated during the process are sound and therefore the plan itself is capable of adoption without any further change.
“It has been a lengthy process and I would pay tribute to everyone’s hard work over the last few years. We have reacted positively to the inspector’s requests to make changes and it is pleasing that these have now been confirmed. These changes have been fully debated and subject to extensive consultation.
“The plan focuses on bringing much needed homes and jobs to the district in the right number and place and having the formal sign-off by the Inspector puts the council in a stronger position to make better decisions about the future of South Somerset and to resist inappropriate or speculative applications. We will now move quickly to formally adopt the plan and that date has now been set for March 5th for a meeting of all councillors”.
Despite the inspector finding the Local Plan “sound”, Conservative parliamentary candidate for the Yeovil constituency, Marcus Fysh, has questioned the process the council has followed over the past eight years to reach this point.
He said he has “mixed feelings” about the report, as many good things are at risk from the bad, and claimed the proposed housing figure was too high, which he fears will “do a huge disservice to our district”.
‘Not as simple as it seems’
Mr Fysh commented: “It’s now about eight years and over £2.8million of public money which have been spent by South Somerset District Council attempting to make and adopt a Local Plan, a document with power in law to direct how much housing should be built and where it will go in our area.
“Having found the initial plan submitted in 2013 unsound, the planning inspector sent to our area by the Planning Inspectorate to assess the proposals has now issued his decision on a plan revised and resubmitted by South Somerset District Council last year.
“In that decision he has found the amended plan sound, although the decision has some peculiar reasoning and assertions that suggest he may not have properly applied his mind, which may tempt opponents of the plan to challenge it, and it is not as simple a matter as it seems.
“A lot appears to have been left to the concept of ‘early review’, in which the housing figures will be looked at bi-annually.
“And that gets to the nub of the problem with this plan and the process the council has followed to get to this stage: sadly, it may not be the last we hear about controversial planning decisions in our area.
“It is true that an adopted plan should give certainty to residents and developers alike, and on the face of it we should welcome that the inspector has not sent the district council right back to the drawing board.
“But the housing figure is a key problem. The council has been obsessed with keeping the overall housing requirement high, despite good evidence that it is too high, to the extent that many aspects of the plan have changed over the years, but the one thing that strangely has not, has been the 15,950 house building figure they have ‘aspired’ to over 20 years. Some say it is because they get extra revenue as a ‘New Homes Bonus’, which allows them to avoid cutting their spending cloth to suit in other areas (this amounted to £3million last year).
“Somehow they seem to have persuaded the inspector, against the evidence and legal precedent, to keep this number, which I fear will do a huge disservice to our district in the medium term.
“The problem is that the housing figure means that over 1,000 new houses per annum will need to be built in the district in each of the next five years if the district is not to be adjudged at planning appeals as not having met its target. Were the target not met, in planning law the Local Plan would be regarded as not up to date and would not apply at appeal hearings, therefore it would be ‘open season’ for developers again.
“There is only one year in the last 20 in which more than 1,000 houses were built, when the district grabbed money on offer from Gordon Brown and fast tracked developments with a mixed record at at Wyndham Park and Wincanton. The rest of the time the district has built around 500 houses per year, which gives an idea just how far short we could fall behind.
“So, it is with mixed feelings that I look at the inspector’s report. A lot of the good things in the plan are sadly at risk from the bad things. I am not against all development, but it has to be in the right place and have the right infrastructure and facilities.
“In Chard, for example, we want to get the regeneration scheme in place and not overload the roads through the town, and the plan looks to do that, but this will not apply if the district’s housing target is missed.
“In Ilminster we want development to complement the existing town, not turn the town into an over-built dormitory. Over-development is a risk if the housing target is missed, a recipe for even more unhappiness on all sides of the town’s development issues.
“Crewkerne and Wincanton have been told they may get more housing, depending on early review by the council, and would lose control if the housing target is missed.
“And Yeovil, which needs to get more people living downtown to regenerate and support its businesses, shops and restaurants, but doesn’t on the real numbers require yet more big urban extensions, faces yet more bolt-on green field developments that do little to upgrade the town’s infrastructure. That process would just accelerate and be even less controlled if the house build target is not met, with consequent problems for school places, traffic and health care availability.
“South Petherton faces similar pressures that could get even worse.
“One thing is clear to me; the old thinking about development in our area is stale. A huge opportunity has been missed locally to plan for development in many areas that will solve problems rather than create them.
“I do hope later this year local Conservative councillors may be in a position to review these matters and put proper solutions in place, in control of the district council. To do that we need to vote for them though. I will certainly give them my full support.” ‘
As you will have noticed, the East Devon Alliance has grabbed the headlines, and been prominently featured in the local press and radio over the past week or so.
Now this invitation has come from EDA, for any EDWatchers who might like to follow EDA news for themselves:
There are 4 options:
a. Subscribe to emails on the site – http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk
b. Subscribe to RSS on the site – http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk
c. Like EDA on Facebook – EastDevonAlliance
d. Follow on Twitter – EDevonAlliance
And if anything specially grabs EDWatchers’ attention, it can be shared with neighbours and local friends by:
a. Forwarding the email
b. Clicking the share buttons on the EDA website
c. Sharing EDA posts with friends on facebook.
d. Re-tweeting.
……There seems to be lots going on!!
Lots of good stuff (including EDDC) on our sister site Community Voice on Planning.
Atrocity stories galore from all over the country …
Is the present National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) based on correct targets?
The latest comments on the Parliamentary Enquiry into the NPPF are now visible on the national Community Voice on Planning website, so please see the home page for a link. http://covop.org/ .
East Devon Alliance is of course an active participant in CoVoP.
As confirmation,please find below a link to the latest Government proposals for changes to the planning regulations:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cutting-red-tape-to-breathe-new-life-into-local-communities
Also, here’s a link to the “Government’s Open and accountable local government” information released in August 2014. This is a guide for the press and public on attending and reporting meetings of local government:
Click to access 140805_Openness_Guide.pdf
Many thanks to our Community Voice on Planning (CoVoP) colleagues for keeping EDA updated. More information here http://www.covop.org/
Two pieces of news from the Government this week:
1. A new planning reform package has been unveiled for consultation. Local residents will have a greater say over the future development of their area, under plans announced by Housing and Planning Minister Brandon Lewis (according to the press release) – what do you think?
2. Wide ranging new government guidance on public access to local authority decision making. Worth reading for planning! According to this, Councils and other local government bodies are required to allow any member of the public to take photographs, film and audio-record the proceedings, and report on all public meetings.
Links to both are available on the home page of Community Voice on Planning (CoVoP), of which EDA is an active member http://www.covop.org/
An update from the secretary of Community Voice on Planning (CoVoP), has been received by EDA:
‘Dear All
Four things to update you on at the moment:
1. Many people have been invited to participate in a discussion forum on 1st
September as part of the
Parliamentary enquiry into the NPPF. There must be at least 50 people going
and most are members of
groups associated with CoVoP. We all have local issues to discuss but the
following list of topics from
our discussion with Greg Mulholland and his colleagues does suggest a common
thread which we could
all use.
2. As a result of our discussions with MP’s and other interested groups, we
believe that the following are
the main areas where change to the planning system would be helpful now or
early in the life of the new
government:
1. The calculation methods used for determination of housing needs are
based on long term economic
forecasts of dubious accuracy but Local Plans must be based on them; they
should be based on historic
trends and include a range of figures (minimum based on pure historic trends
and maximum based on
projected economic growth).
2. The calculation of the five-year housing land supply should be based
on the minimum figure of
housing need and should include all permissions not just those which
developers chose not to land-bank.
The five year land supply target does encourage house building but the
current calculation methodology
has the appearance of allowing inappropriate land-grabbing by developers.
The inclusion of permissions
in the calculation would ensure that sufficient land was allocated but would
then encourage building on
those sites. Allocation of land for housing is essentially a one-way
process; once included in a
development plan, there is no going back – only under-provision can be
corrected later, by making further
allocations if the projection turned out to be too low. If there was
over-provision, either because the
projection was too high, or because land came forward more quickly than
expected, no corrective action
is possible.
3. An increased emphasis to be put on affordable housing. Evidence shows that many
developers prefer to build
executive homes and that they actively attempt to reduce the number of
affordable homes included in
developments. The main need is for affordable homes for individuals and
young families and for older
people to downsize to. The policy should encourage councils to prioritise
affordable homes and
bungalows for elderly people who want to downsize but still want a garden
for themselves and their
grandchildren.
4. The role of planning inspectors should be reviewed to ensure
independence and to reduce their
quasi-judicial status.
5. The constitution of planning committees and role of LPA planning
officers should be clarified (should
be supporting the planning authority and the electorate not promoting
developers).
6. The elimination of “costs” in planning appeals – if developers chose
to field numerous barristers, they
should pay for them win or lose.
7. Prioritisation of brownfield developments over green spaces.
8. Importance of infrastructure planning and funding early in the life of
developments.
9. The need to allow time for local plans to be agreed (perhaps a
moratorium on new applications for
anything other than brownfield sites until plans are in place).
3. Please take the opportunity to look at our website and see the
advertisement on the front page from
Cheshire East (click on the title for a pdf). Also see our link to the oral
evidence session to the NPPF
Review committee on July 9th. David Gladman (planning-broker and Partner,
Gladman Developments)
was giving evidence. By his own evidence, he has interests in 200 planning
applications in 70 LPAs. He
thinks that all decisions should be taken by planning officers as planning
committees are old people who
are set in their ways and who refuse to accept his assessments of housing
needs.
His evidence has its funny side. At the start of the session, the MPs had
declared connections to local
councillors (wives, fathers, party workers, etc). Mr Gladman did not appear
to be aware that he was
attacking people they value or indeed the values of democracy. He is very
cross that Cheshire East
refused his offers to let his team of planners work on the Local Plan and
draw it up for them!
It has to be said that, judging from the reaction of the MPs to Mr G.’s
sparkling personality, he has
probably done more for our cause then anybody else who gave evidence to the
Committee. At least they
might now understand why there are at least 70 LAs where a lot of people are
not very happy with the
NPPF!
4. Finally we congratulate Mr Boles on his new appointment and welcome the
new Housing and Planning
Minister Brandon Lewis. I’m sure that you know that he was already
under-secretary of state within the
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and held a wide range
of responsibilities
including local government, fire services, high streets, town centres,
markets, travellers and pubs. We
hope that he will take the opportunity of his new appointment to make the
changes to the planning system
outlined above.’
See also http://covop.org/
Dear [Daily Telegraph] Editor,
This morning’s headline story (Minister: Nimbys have had their day – 26 July) in the Daily Telegraph beggars belief!
What on earth will it take to get the current government, and Brandon Lewis in particular, to wake up and smell the abject disbelief amongst the rural community in particular that “people now have a greater say in where housing goes”. A survey of only 3000 people in 2010 compared with a similar one of only 1000 in 2013 certainly does NOT compare with the responses registered with Community Voice on Planning (www.covop.org) and is remarkably thin evidence upon which to trumpet the progress of national government policy. If ministers quote from such a small sample it only serves to reinforce what the community has been saying for years – our ministers’ dogmatic presumptions hold sway in spite of the real world situation they are attempting to govern.
Those of us who have raised the uncontrolled inappropriate development rush issue – for in practice that is EXACTLY what it is at present, are NOT against development per se. What we are infuriated over is the repeated examples of poor strategic planning by local authorities. This is exacerbated by blatant exploitation of land-banking by developers – invariably on the easiest of development land, ie green spaces, who then make all sorts of promises of affordable home provision to gain outline planning permission only to renege subsequently by pleading non-viability once permission is gained and requisite infrastructure costs imposed; local authorities then invariably buckle under threat of legal costs of appeal and the developers get their way.
Construction of the open market houses doesn’t begin until the developer feels like it and the 5 year housing supply doesn’t get updated until they do. This leads to more applications while the going is good and infrastructure improvements to support any of this cannot be funded until the houses are built.
The community has NO say in this process yet it gives our blinkered politicians a warm and cuddly feeling that everything is going well! Oh really?
Paul S G Adams MBE
Vice-Chairman
DefeND North Devon
COVOP is a national grouping of local initiatives where people are unhappy about how the National Planning Policy framework is working (or rather not working). Their latest news update is below:
1. Many people have been invited to participate in a discussion forum on 1st September as part of the Parliamentary enquiry into the NPPF. There must be at least 50 people going and most are members of groups associated with CoVoP. We all have local issues to discuss but the following list of topics from our discussion with Greg Mulholland and his colleagues does suggest a common thread which we could all use.
2. As a result of our discussions with MP’s and other interested groups, we
believe that the following are the main areas where change to the planning system would be helpful now or early in the life of the new government:
1. The calculation methods used for determination of housing needs are
based on long term economic forecasts of dubious accuracy but Local Plans must be based on them; they should be based on historic trends and include a range of figures (minimum based on pure historic trends and maximum based on projected economic growth).
2. The calculation of the five-year housing land supply should be based
on the minimum figure of housing need and should include all permissions not just those which developers chose not to land-bank. The five year land supply target does encourage house building but the current calculation methodology has the appearance of allowing inappropriate land-grabbing by developers. The inclusion of permissions in the calculation would ensure that sufficient land was allocated but would then encourage building on
those sites. Allocation of land for housing is essentially a one-way
process; once included in a development plan, there is no going back – only under-provision can be corrected later, by making further allocations if the projection turned out to be too low. If there was over-provision, either because the projection was too high, or because land came forward more quickly than expected, no corrective action is possible.
3. An increased emphasis to be put on affordable housing. Evidence shows that many developers prefer to build executive homes and that they actively attempt to reduce the number of affordable homes included in developments. The main need is for affordable homes for individuals and young families and for older people to downsize to. The policy should encourage councils to prioritise affordable homes and bungalows for elderly people who want to downsize but still want a garden for themselves and their grandchildren.
4. The role of planning inspectors should be reviewed to ensure
independence and to reduce their quasi-judicial status.
5. The constitution of planning committees and role of LPA planning
officers should be clarified (should be supporting the planning authority and the electorate not promoting developers).
6. The elimination of “costs” in planning appeals – if developers chose
to field numerous barristers, they should pay for them win or lose.
7. Prioritisation of brownfield developments over green spaces.
8. Importance of infrastructure planning and funding early in the life of developments.
9. The need to allow time for local plans to be agreed (perhaps a
moratorium on new applications for anything other than brownfield sites until plans are in place).
3. Please take the opportunity to look at our website and see the
advertisement on the front page from Cheshire East (click on the title for a pdf). Also see our link to the oral evidence session to the NPPF
Review committee on July 9th. David Gladman (planning-broker and Partner,
Gladman Developments) was giving evidence. By his own evidence, he has interests in 200 planning applications in 70 LPAs. He thinks that all decisions should be taken by planning officers as planning committees are old people who are set in their ways and who refuse to accept his assessments of housing needs. His evidence has its funny side. At the start of the session, the MPs had declared connections to local councillors (wives, fathers, party workers, etc). Mr Gladman did not appear to be aware that he was attacking people they value or indeed the values of democracy. He is very cross that Cheshire East refused his offers to let his team of planners work on the Local Plan and draw it up for them!
It has to be said that, judging from the reaction of the MPs to Mr G.’s sparkling personality, he has probably done more for our cause then anybody else who gave evidence to the Committee. At least they might now understand why there are at least 70 LAs where a lot of people are not very happy with the NPPF!
4. Finally we congratulate Mr Boles on his new appointment and welcome the
new Housing and Planning Minister Brandon Lewis. I’m sure that you know that he was already under-secretary of state within the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and held a wide range of responsibilities including local government, fire services, high streets, town centres, markets, travellers and pubs. We hope that he will take the opportunity of his new appointment to make the changes to the planning system outlined above.
Here is a summary from COVOP of the debate:
A debate on planning policy and the effects of the NPPF took place on 9th July 2014 in Westminster Hall.
The debate was chaired by Clive Betts ( L. Sheffield SE) and was answered by Planning Minister Nick Boles (C. Grantham). The following MPs took part:
Steven Baker (C. Wycombe), Guy Opperman (C. Hexham), Caroline Nokes (C.Romsey) Bob Russell (LD Colchester), Damien Hinds (C. East Hampshire)
Julian Sturdy (C. York Outer), Neil Carmichael (C. Stroud), Mark Menzies (C.Fylde), Andrew Bingham (C. High Peak), Laurence Robertson (C. Tewkesbury), Martin Horwood (LD Cheltenham), Anne-Marie Morris (C. Newton Abbot), Chris White (C. Warwick and Leamington Spa), Rebecca Harris (C. Castle Point), Andrew Turner (C. Isle of Wight), Jason McCartney (C. Colne Valley), Nick Herbert (C. Arundel & South Downs), William McCrea (DUP Antrim) and Roberta Blackman-Woods (L. Durham).
Although MP after MP presented a case for some reform of the current system and made it clear that they and their constituents felt that the NPPF was not working properly or as intended by the Localism Act, the Minister made it clear that he was not prepared to amend or reduce the power of the Inspectorate or the Developer Lobby. Those MPs who spoke, principally but not wholly from rural districts, made it clear that the effects in their constituencies were often perverse.
Mrs Blackman-Woods summarised the comments very fairly. Mr Boles believes that matters will be worse under a Labour Government and feels that he is representing all those people who aspire to live in a district but don’t do so. He intends to vote Conservative at the next election!
The debate makes interesting reading and many of the complaints made by this assortment of MPs, who are to be congratulated for the persistence with which they are attacking this issue, will be familiar to our members. Those of us whose members didn’t participate might wish to ask why?
For the full debate, see:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm140709/halltext/140709h0001.htm
East Devon Watch 