Protesters say a separate West Hill parish council would be “snobbish”

The Herald revealed last year how the West Hill Parish Campaign Group (WHPCG) revealed its intention to split away from the Ottery parish and form its own authority. Campaigners say this would enable better provision of services for people in the woodland village and give residents greater influence over issues that affect them.

But the plans have been met with criticism on social media from some residents of Ottery and surrounding areas, who feel the plans are ‘snobbish’ and unnecessary – accusations that are refuted by campaigners. Ray Bagwell, 35, of Longdogs Lane, Ottery, said: “The plans are pointless and a waste of money.” His views were echoed by Sidmouth resident Matthew Baker, 37, who believes that West Hill is a more affluent area and feels that is why people there want to disassociate from Ottery. He said: “It is snobbish.”

Others said they would be interested to see how the changes – if they go ahead – would affect services for people in Ottery. Town councillor Jessica Bailey is one of the campaigners and has hit back at critics. “West Hill has its own identity and it needs to have its own voice,” she said. “Parish councils have wide ranging powers. A parish council in our village is the best way of identifying needs and providing services to the people who live here.”

She encouraged people to attend a public meeting on Friday, March 6, at 7.30pm in West Hill Village Hall, to voice any concerns and find out more. If successful, the bid for an independent West Hill council would mean drawing up new ward boundaries for Ottery St Mary Town Council.

Before an application can formally be put to East Devon District Council, the WHPCG needs to gather at least 250 signatures from West Hill residents. The campaign group is holding a drop-in session for anyone interested in getting more information on Saturday, January 31, from 9am to noon, outside McColls in West Hill Road.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/west_hill_council_campaign_comes_under_fire_1_3935848

Radio Devon interview with EDA Chair, Paul Arnott, broadcast throughout yesterday.

Intense media interest in the new East Devon Alliance of Independent Candidates for the 2015 elections, has begun with reports of yesterday’s press launch.

Radio Devon was the first to pick up the story on its news bulletins on Monday, and prominent coverage was given in today’s editions of Pullman’s ‘View from..’ in Axminster, Colyton & Colyford, Honiton, Ottery St Mary, Seaton & Beer and Sidmouth. Here’s a sample:  AxminsterViewLaunch

Independent Councillors, Susie Bond and Claire Wright, wrote enthusiastic accounts on their respective blogs:   https://susiebond.wordpress.com/2015/02/03/eda-offers-assistance-to-independent-hopefuls/

And needless to say, the Real Zorro, too, gave rave reviews, and has this especially  useful post  http://realzorro1.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/eddc-its-time-for-change-its-time-for.html

EDWatch will keep you updated on any further reporting this week….and up to and beyond the May 2015 elections…

And so, we’re sure, will http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk

 

 

‘Shake up at the polls’ predicted as East Devon Alliance of Independents is launched.

See http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk/ ,  report from Editor’s Chair of Pullman’s ‘View from..’

Public accountability charity urges national review of scrutiny mechanism

… “Ultimately in my view, it is weak leaders who seek to control and limit scrutiny; confident leaders can face effective challenge and recognise the value it adds to their decision-making and efforts to improve services.”

The Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS) has called for a full national review of the effectiveness of local governance and scrutiny mechanisms.

The call was made after the CfPS published the results of a survey it carried out into the effectiveness of local scrutiny following the findings of the Alexis Jay report into governance weaknesses at Rotherham.

The Centre said this research found that “in a small but worrying minority of councils, local leaders and senior officers appeared to be seeking to control and limit the effectiveness of local overview and scrutiny inquiries”.
Examples included leaders choosing the chairs of scrutiny committees, requests for information being obstructed or refused by senior officers and leading members, and the role of the statutory scrutiny officer being low profile and misunderstood.

However, the CfPS also noted evidence that Monitoring Officers were valued as providing support for effective scrutiny.

“In the vast majority of councils information is provided as requested and as required by law and councillors are providing robust, effective challenge,” it added.

The survey drew responses from 95 local scrutiny functions.
The Centre made six recommendations in addition to its call for a full national review.

These were that:

Local leaders – both members and officers – “should recognise and support the value of effective challenge in helping them improve what they do”;

Councils should review their own member governance in the light of the Francis and Jay reports, if they have not already done so;

Councils should seriously consider how chairs of scrutiny are chosen “and whether they always get the most effective people for this important role, in terms of skills, independence and credibility”;

Regulators and auditors should work with CfPS and others to raise their profile with scrutiny members “to ensure members know how to raise concerns about governance and service performance with the right regulatory bodies”;

Scrutiny and challenge to decision-makers should be informed by the views and experiences of service-users and members of the public, “and members should ensure that when considering performance they are not solely relying on the views of officers to inform their judgments”;

The impact of resource reductions must be included in any national review of the effectiveness of scrutiny and governance at local level.

Jessica Crowe, outgoing Executive Director of the Centre for Public Scrutiny, said: “CfPS’s work over the years has highlighted the value of effective scrutiny in improving local services and giving local people a voice in shaping service plans and decisions.

“However, what we are now seeing is a twin threat to that effectiveness from resource reductions – with resources for scrutiny down to their lowest level in a decade – and a political culture in a small minority of councils which seeks to control and limit its effectiveness.”

She added: “When making difficult and controversial decisions as councils are now faced with doing, strong scrutiny is needed more than ever before. Decisions that have been robustly challenged and passed muster can be seen to be more solidly based, and open, transparent scrutiny is a way of building consensus and engaging communities in those decisions.

“Ultimately in my view, it is weak leaders who seek to control and limit scrutiny; confident leaders can face effective challenge and recognise the value it adds to their decision-making and efforts to improve services.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21609:public-accountability-charity-urges-national-review-of-scrutiny-mechanisms&catid=59&Itemid=27

 

Knowle alert!

Another public consultation, EDDC-style, is underway. Can anyone find the plans online?  Unlike planning proposals, comments ‘must be made IN WRITING’  (no mention of website option).

Details here   http://saveoursidmouth.com/2015/02/02/three-weeks-notice-of-change-of-use-of-open-space-at-knowle-deadline-for-objections-20th-february-2015/

Your friends and neighbours might like to know.

 

Planning reminder from Save Clyst St Mary

Urgent reminder from Save Clyst St Mary Campaign:

‘Thank you to everyone who has paid their money that was previously pledged. Every penny is gratefully appreciated. Anyone can donate – you simply need to pay your money into the SaveClyst ST Mary account via the village Post Office or if you prefer to do it electronically, into Natwest Bank account: 56-00-49 32633181

Please be aware that there are only forty six letters of objection on the East Devon Council website. We desperately need to get that number over one hundred (at least – the Winslade Park proposal had over two hundred) so please do post or email your objections as soon as possible (remember, the closing date is now only three days away).

If you decide to input your comments directly on to EDDC’s site, do check that the comments actually appear! A number seem to have vanished into cyber world. EDDC is aware of the issue and has requested that anyone who has problems contacts them immediately.

Finally, don’t forget the meeting in the village hall Thursday 5th February at 7.30pm. Charlie Hopkins(Expert planning consultant) will be attending. This meeting will be focusing specifically on the proposal to demolish a house in Clyst Valley Road and build forty houses on the field, currently owned by the Plymouth Brethren, situated adjacent to Clyst Valley Football Club’s grounds.

A big thank you to you all for your continued support. As we have said previously, it’s a big challenge ahead of us – but together, we can do it!’

South Somerset District Councillor lives in America, claims allowances

And there is nothing anyone can do about it as the rules say a councillor only has to attend one full council meeting every six months. And even if you never attend a meeting, as long as the Chairman accepts apologies they don’t actually need to do anything at all.

Some councils publish statistics about how many meetings their councillors attend – but not South Somerset or East Devon.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/county-councillor-continues-claim-expenses-5067515

Problems with East Devon District Council On line Planning

From Gaeron Kayley of Save Clyst St Mary campaign group:
‘Please be aware that a number of people are having difficulties logging their comments onto the EDDC website. The website suggests your comments have been successfully submitted, yet they never appear. If this has happened to you too, please notify: icthelpdesk@eastdevon.gov.ukIt will help if you can include the application on which you were commenting, along with the approximate time and date you submitted your comments.’

National Audit Office report on conflicts of interest

Particularly recommended reading to all those majority party councillors at EDDC who think that there is no such thing as a conflict of interest just meddling Independent councillors making a mountain out of a molehill. And the Standards Committee which continues to drag its heels on this issue.

Well, the National Audit Office appears to side with the Independents – surprise, surprise.

Click to access Conflicts-of-interest.pdf

*** Save Clyst St Mary Village from Inappropriate Development ***

East Devon Watch has been sent this update on what’s happening at Clyst St Mary:

‘A massive thank you to everyone who has supported our campaign to unite Clyst St Mary in opposing inappropriate development within our village. Our aim is to ensure any future building is sustainable and in accordance with the emerging Neighbourhood Plan so that the village’s unique identity can be maintained and its green sites preserved. We are incredibly grateful to the hundreds of residents who turned up at the Village Hall last Tuesday to voice their concerns regarding proposals for developments at Cat’s Copse, Winslade Park and Oil Mill Lane. Thanks in part to the generosity of residents, the Parish Council has now been able to hire a specialist planning consultant to help us fight these proposals. The next crucial meeting is on 5th February at 7.30pm in the Village Hall.

As you may already be aware, yet another planning application has now been received which, once again, threatens to destroy the character of our village with the development of not only 40 houses (which is in addition to the 93 village homes for which planning permission has already been granted) but also the demolition of an existing family home in the heart of Clyst Valley Road to provide road access into the existing well established, incredibly quiet residential estate. The proposed site, currently owned by the Plymouth Brethren, is the large field adjacent to our football ground.Although it has been labeled ‘Land off Clyst Valley Road, this is in fact misleading since there is no existing access from this road. Nor, at the time of writing, is there any sign of the plans on display in close proximity to the home the developers want to demolish; the only references are situated on the boundary fence between Winslade Park Avenue/A376 and our village football ground.

With the deadline for letters of objection only weeks away (4th February 2015) please can we strongly urge you to continue supporting the village by emailing/writing to East Devon District Council to voice your objections to this most recent proposal. Issues you may wish to consider with regard to this specific development include: an increase in population for which the village does not have the infra-structure; the loss of the existing residential estate’s unique, tranquil character; substantial loss of light and privacy to residents whose bungalows back onto the site (the proposed homes are 2 or 3 storeys in height); an enormous (and potentially dangerous) increase in traffic travelling through the estate – very few public facilities are available within walking distance; a potential increase in congestion both through the main village and onto the Exmouth and Sidmouth roads (the Church Lane entrance to the estate, the site of 21 road traffic incidents in recent years – one of which was fatal – will be particularly affected); an increase in already high levels of pollution, especially at the Clyst St Mary roundabout ; concerns regarding potential flooding which would be exacerbated by the loss of further green spaces; existing wildlife habitats would be destroyed; it would be setting a precedent – which village field, park or site, on either side of the A3052, would become the next target for destruction?

When drafting your objections, the planning reference you should quote is ‘Land Off Clyst Valley Road: 15/0072/MOUT’. A selection of sample letters are given below * and will be available to download from our website http://www.saveclsytstmary.org.uk within the next few days – please feel free to adapt these as required. They can be sent by post or email (planningwest@eastdevon.gov.uk)

Please do note the aforementioned meeting regarding this planning application on 5th February 2015 at 7.30pm in the Village Hall where, once again, your support is essential.

Finally, please can we remind local residents that they are still able to contribute towards the on-going costs of employing Charlie Hopkins, our planning consultant. Payment can be made via the website or at Clyst St Mary Post Office. Please be assured that money will be used for no other purpose than to help pay Mr Hopkins; anyone assisting this campaign is doing so voluntarily and all costs such as printing and banners have been paid for by those volunteers. Do visit our website regularly as we are endeavouring to keep it as up to date as possible. A series of rare historical maps of our area are one of the most recent features which may be of interest.Feel free to suggest any further features you would like to see added.

– As we have stated previously, the challenge ahead of us is not easy – but together, we really can do it!’

*15 0072 MOUT ( Land off Clyst Valley Road, Clyst St Mary
*Land off CVR letter

*** STOP PRESS: new planning application for another solar farm in the area – *** please see website for further details

Save our Sidmouth: grave reservations on costings and the lack of understanding councillors have of decisions taken in their names

http://saveoursidmouth.com/2015/01/22/i-can-only-assume-that-you-have-something-to-hide-sos-chair-tells-eddc/

http://saveoursidmouth.com/2015/01/22/sos-dismisses-emotional-vague-and-unsubstantiated-views-in-cllr-tom-wrights-letter/

Cabinet Office finds government woefully inadequate on public consultation

A few choice paragraphs the tot is top down AND bottom up:

“Our conclusions appear in Chapter 4. In brief, a number of our concerns about the Government’s approach to consultation are not allayed: and we are most troubled by an apparent absence within Government, in the Cabinet Office and in individual Departments, of a commitment to monitor consultation practice and to draw lessons of general application. …

… The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) laid the Local Government (Transparency Requirements) (England) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/2680) which served to update the Local Government Transparency Code and make it mandatory through regulations. The Department had received 219 responses to its consultation on the changes: 91 opposed the use of regulations, and only 15 explicitly supported it. In our 11th Report,20 we noted a statement by DCLG that many of the 91 opposing respondents would have been local authorities “who would naturally tend to be against regulation”; and that it was “perfectly reasonable to assume that if the 113 respondents who did not explicitly express a view were sufficiently concerned about Regulation then they would have said so in their response.” We commented that this interpretation nicely supported a pre-determined intention, but did not indicate a Department open to differing views. …

… Finally, in our 18th Report,22 we pointed out that it was bad practice if Government Departments arranged formal consultation exercises which largely coincided with holiday periods, such as the month of August, since this made it difficult for interested parties to prepare and submit responses. Yet this was the course that had been followed over the summer by two Departments: DECC, for the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/3125), and Defra, for the Non- Commercial Movement of Pet Animals (Amendment) Order 2014 (SI 2014/3158). While both Departments had explained that they took other steps to alert stakeholders, we reiterated our concern that the timing of the formal consultation process might have served to disadvantage interested parties. ..

… Information subsequently received from the Cabinet Office states that there were over 300 Government consultations in the first six months of 2014, by contrast with 179 consultations in the first six months of 2012; and that the time spent consulting on a measure dropped from an average of 10.5 weeks in the first half of 2012, to 7.6 weeks in the first half of 2014. These are striking figures: the number of consultations has risen by two thirds, while the average time allowed for responses has fallen by almost one third. We recognise that these figures lend themselves to different interpretations: but one that we see as entirely possible is that, by shortening consultation deadlines, Government Departments can carry out more exercises over the same period of time, irrespective of the capacity of third parties to respond.

… We pressed Mr Letwin on the issue of responsibility for the Government’s approach to consultation, and for tackling bad practice by individual Departments. He said that the consultation principles were the property of the Cabinet as a whole; the Cabinet Office had considerable influence over the principles; but “not even the Prime Minister, let alone the mere Cabinet Office, is in charge of the entire operations of every Department. Those fall to the relevant Secretaries of State in our system, so I cannot command.”45 We found this answer unsatisfactory, and troubling. If neither the Prime Minister nor the Cabinet Office is able to intervene where Departmental consultation is falling short, and if they lack either the information or the commitment to do so, something is badly wrong”.

Click to access 98.pdf

“New and relevant information” – no, says Monitoring Officer

A follow-up email from Sandra Semple see post yesterday):

“Thank you, East Devon Watch for achieving what I could not do alone. This morning an email came from the Monitoring Officer: no, my information was neither new (which it was) nor relevant (which I still believe it was).

My response: we shall see!

What it DOES reveal is that the Monitoring Officer appears to be not just toothless, but gumless, jawless and possibly headless, as, it seems, he can do nothing about anything except where it concerns a councillor of a minority party, in which case a Monitoring Officer (the previous one so far) goes in with all guns blazing. Hmmm.”

“Quite honestly, we have fallen flat on our face” with the relocation project, warns Honiton Councillor, Peter Halse

At last night’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee senior Tory councillor Peter Halse lashed EDDC’s Relocation Project. He said it risked the Council’s reputation for financial prudence. “At the time (the relocation project) looked OK, but now, with hindsight, it looks pretty bad….Quite honestly we have fallen flat on our face!” He was sceptical about Deputy CEO Richard Cohen’s claimed energy savings, and said employees based in the newer 1970/1980s building, “can’t see any reason why they’d want to move”. He concluded “It’s not just the leadership who are responsible. We need to look this thing full in the face. We can get out of this”.

Sidmouth resident Richard Eley, had already mauled Richard Cohen’s assumptions on future energy cost savings which were “way out of line” with those predicted by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). Mr Cohen in response welcomed the fact that auditors would now be taking “a useful look under the bonnet, as it were”. In the meantime a preferred developer had now been selected for a mix of care home and residential properties at Knowle. The planning process would have to be gone through by the developer and further attempts to delay the Knowle sale have been factored in to the costs, he added.

When Independent Cllr Claire Wright expressed concern that EDDC’s planning committee would be under extreme pressure to grant permission to develop the Knowle because the whole relocation project depended on it, she was accused of casting doubt on the integrity of councillors.

Independent Councillor Roger Giles didn’t get a clear answer from Mr Cohen about where his 10% annual energy inflation figures came from, only that they were “conservative”! And there was no answer to Cllr Giles’ second question about how much extra the renovation of Exmouth Town Hall would cost.

Tory Cllr Graham Troman (Vice Chair of the OSC) said the Knowle site was an appreciating asset while refurbished offices or new-build on an industrial estate (e.g. Heathpark) would not recoup the money spent on them.

Tory Cllr Sheila Kerridge urged her colleagues to show transparency and “not to be seen to be doing things underhand….Put the matter on hold until we know the figures”. (echoing Cllr Claire Wright’s proposal voted down a few weeks earlier.

Chair Tim Wood concluded that all would be examined in great detail by the auditors so there was no cause for alarm.

The second burning issue was the suggested reform of Task and Finish Forums.

A proposal from a Democratic Services Officer (advised by CEO Mark Williams?) that the scope of TAFFs should be proposed by officers, seemed pretty well acceptable to the obedient majority – though it is going to be thought about first by one of Cllr Bloxham’s Think Tanks.

The controversial Business TAFF will continue with the same members as before, but without too much embarrassing looking back at relations with the East Devon Business Forum whose demise seemed to be lamented by Deputy Leader Andrew Moulding. He assured everyone that the TAFF will now have perfectly respectable relations with the new East Devon Business Group which genuinely represented the District’s entrepreneurs.It was time to turn the page, he said, and stop attacking the perceived influence of the EDBF on crucial planning decisions. The representative from Axminster concluded,fittingly, that he was not “trying to sweep anything under the carpet!”

OSC draft minutes: “remaining inaccuracies”, and “a little more for the record” from EDA.

Councillor Tim Wood, Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC), has been copied in to this e-mail just sent to EDDC from EDA Chair, Paul Arnott. (This evening’s OSC meeting begins at 6.30pm at Knowle.)

‘ I note that Tim (Wood) as Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in question, has removed the falsehood that Mr Williams had been “accused” by me of “meddling” with the police investigation. It is regrettable that EDDC published this in draft form online, and an apology from the council would be usual in the circumstances.

As you have already sent out the amendment, there is little point in my further commenting on its remaining inaccuracies. I will take the Chairman’s thanks for my taking time in transcribing the recording and pointing out the errors in the minutes as read.

However, it seems worth saying just a little more for the record, for Tim to consider in his role as Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny. As a former MP his experience in these matters carries much weight in the district.

Mr Mark Williams’ own published account and recorded statements in November disclose that very early in the timeline of the investigation – in the Spring of 2013 – he offered prejudicial opinions to the police in relation to the motivations of those who may have wished to give evidence in this matter.

Then, on the conclusion of the matter in November 2014, he repeated this course, and attempted to heap more blame on these same people, to their material disadvantage. It was an open effort by him to discredit councillors and public alike.

In summary, Mr Williams sought to do reputational damage both before and after the investigation. He then interfered with the course of any further internal investigation by attempting to eliminate a named councillor from the process.

In his November 2014 statement, sent to every councillor before your last meeting, he then falsely smeared the East Devon Alliance, of which I am chairman.

For your information, the EDA was not even constituted until some months after Mr Williams’ own colleague, Ms Denise Lyon, freely decided to report Mr Brown to the police, presumably with his knowledge and tacit approval.

If Mr Williams was keeping a cooler head he would understand that the East Devon Alliance was constituted after the event, and well after his own council had decided it must involve the police.

Many independent-minded, experienced council tax payers considered at the time that from that point on the whole process would require strong independent scrutiny. This is a function which the East Devon Alliance, amongst others, has performed valiantly, I’d suggest, on this and a range of other key district issues. They deserve greater respect than inaccurate and arrogant assertions from the man whose wage they pay.

On a personal note, just to be very clear indeed, I have never had any knowledge of Mr Brown, and had only ever heard his name mentioned, prior to the Telegraph report in March 2013, when local councillors, particularly my ward member Cllr Helen Parr, stated privately that they believed him to be one of a small number who had brought the planning system into disrepute over many years. Who could disagree with her?

These opinions were being freely offered years before Cllr Claire Wright, for example, was even a councillor. Perhaps they never came to Mr Williams’ ear.

I and many others consider that Mr William’s attack on Cllr Wright (and others) – both through the document he published before the November O&S, and indeed his disgraceful attack on Cllr Roger Giles during that meeting (which does not seem to have been seen as noteworthy enough to make the minutes) – were astonishingly ill-judged for one in his position. A matter for scrutiny, perhaps?

As to the police investigation into this matter, let it be recorded that it accomplished nothing other than to provide six hundred days political cover for EDDC to refuse to openly debate and make amends for its mistakes in Planning policy.

Any sincere and rigorous internal investigation carried out by councillors supposedly keen to get to the facts in Spring 2013 would have ranged from the inappropriate influence of the EDBF to the real narrative behind the catastrophic failure to implement a Local Plan in a timely fashion. This failure, predicted by many, leaves us without any protection for our district from opportunistic and unsustainable development. There is no gain in this for the residents of East Devon; the gain is plainly elsewhere.

With hindsight, it appears that the public interest in this matter would have been for Ms Lyon not to have made a report – not an allegation, it should be noted – to the police, but instead to have put extra impetus and urgency into the TAFF set up to look at matters in this area. Instead, this TAFF was put on ice. Tonight we shall learn of its refreshed remit, and precisely who the Chairman of O&S, and the officers he has consulted, deem helpful to sit on it.

As a layman, it would not be difficult to reach the conclusion that the police role as this story played allowed the council to keep this whole matter in the long grass. It can also be fairly commented that the police did not seem in any great haste to retrieve it.

all best wishes

Paul

Allegedly misleading draft minutes of OSC amended…in part.

From EDDC to EDA Chair, Paul Arnott, this afternoon:

The Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny Committee has provided the following words for proposed amendment to the minutes of the 13 November 2014 meeting.

Minute 47 (page 4) second paragraph be replaced with:

‘Mr Paul Arnott spoke from the floor putting some critical questions regarding the work both of the police and the Council in the investigation of a former councillor. He claimed that “the chief executive of the compromised authority did what he could to meddle with the internal investigations​” and also asked the police and crime commissioner, Mr Hogg, if he found it coincidental that something like six hundred days after a report was made from this authority to the police about the conduct of a former councillor, five hundred and ninety-nine days later, and one day before he appeared before the committee, the police finally announced that there would be no further action. Mr Hogg did not comment at the time but later, in response to questions to Mr Hogg and senior police officers, it was made clear by Superintendent Perkin that the police investigation had been long and complex and that they did not think the senior investigating officer would have been aware of this meeting.’

Minute 54 (page 12) 8th paragraph from the start of the minute be replaced with:

‘Councillor Claire Wright commented on the recent circulation of a letter of the East Devon Alliance. She went on to state that any attempt to eject her from the membership of the Business TaFF would send a message to the public that the Council had something to hide.’

These proposed amendments have been circulated to the Overview & Scrutiny Committee, for their meeting this evening (6.30pm, Knowle).

For EDA’s response, see next blogpost….

‘Saving the identity’ of a unique East Devon village… Clyst St Mary residents out in force at last night’s meeting.

It appeared that the entire population of the village of Clyst St Mary had turned out to listen and voice their objections at another Extraordinary Meeting that had been called by the Bishops Clyst Parish Council on Tuesday night, 20th January 2015, to discuss the inappropriate number of planning applications that have recently been submitted to East Devon District Council for development in their village (including 304 residential units plus employment use at Winslade Park by Friends Provident, 93 dwellings on land near the Cat and Fiddle by Turnstone Group, a solar farm in Oil Mill Lane by Solstice Renewables and 40 houses on land off Clyst Valley Road (with the demolition of a residential estate house in Clyst Valley Road to gain access) by developers acting for Plymouth Brethren).

Clyst St Mary has also already agreed two planning applications totalling 93 dwellings for social, affordable and private needs, which is felt to be sustainable for a small village of this size and the current additional proposals would increase the size of the village by around 120%, which, the villagers felt, was certainly not sustainable.

The normal venue for Council meetings is the local School Hall but the previous Extraordinary Meeting had attracted such huge numbers of residents wishing to object, that it was assessed that a larger venue was necessary and the Village Hall was chosen, which was equally packed to capacity.

At the previous meeting the Parish Council had unanimously agreed to employ Charlie Hopkins, an experienced planning consultant, who had successfully assisted other local campaigns with their objections. With the support of the newly formed Save Clyst St Mary Campaign Group, financial pledges from the villagers were offered together with existing funds from the Parish Council to enable the employment of a consultant.

Charlie Hopkins was attending this latest meeting to explain to the villagers the very complex planning issues involved and he recommended to them their best course of action in objecting to such inappropriate proposals.

Many locals spoke with great passion about their views on saving the identity of their unique East Devon village by ensuring that only sustainable development is acceptable and the solidarity of the residents was expressed by them voting against every one of the ten current proposed planning applications.

To date The Save Clyst St Mary Group have received many financial pledges from the villagers and a Post Office account is now available for anyone to submit donations in support (Nat West Bank PLC 56-00-49 A/C 32633181 ). They would urge anyone who has not yet become involved in their campaign to contact Gaeron Kayley by e-mail at saveclyststmary@gmail.com or visit http://www.saveclyststmary.org.uk

Please support us in protecting our unique very special village because

‘Alone we can do so little but together we can do so much.’

‘Democracy Day’ today, 20th Jan 2015.

‘Why Democracy?’ was discussed in a wide-ranging and perceptive debate led by Professor Michael Sandel, on Radio 4’s ‘Public Philosopher’ programme this morning.
The current changing mood of the electorate was one of the main topics that arose. Among possible reasons given for this change, were the failure of government to react to public views; a feeling of disempowerment; and the erosion of public spaces (in all senses). Here’s the link to what was said: http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/r4sandel

The importance of proper scrutiny was implied. When EDDC’s Overview & Scrutiny Committee next meet this Thursday (6.30pm at Knowle) they will no doubt bear this in mind.