Yeah, right … and then somehow the houses don’t get sold (maybe because people don’t know where the affordable houses will go if ever they are built) and then the affordables disapear … and then all high-cost housing gets built … and then suddenly they all sell …
From a correspondent – as positive as it is, Plutus Energy will almost certainly appeal so we must await a final outcome.
“East Devon District Council has rejected plans for the construction of 20 gas-fired electricity generators on grounds including that the scheme would be “inappropriate development in the open countryside”.
Acting against the recommendation of Planning officer EDDC`s Development Management committee, refused permission for the construction of “20 self-contained natural gas engine driven electricity generators”.
The scheme, proposed by applicant Plutus Energy, would have been built on land close to Woodbury Business Park, Woodbury.
The Key to the decision was Strategy 39 of the council’s local plan, which states the authority’s commitment to promoting the use of renewables and low carbon energy, as grounds for refusing the plans.
The planning report said that the proposed development “would be powered by natural gas and therefore it is important to recognise that this technology is a “facilitator of renewable energy” rather than a renewable technology or low carbon energy project itself and therefore there is little direct policy support within Strategy 39 for this proposal.”
However, it added that “whilst Strategy 39 of the local plan promotes renewable and low carbon energy, it does not in itself provide an “in principle” reason to refuse proposals for fossil fuel energy development.
Therefore, on balance, the Planning Officer considered that the adverse impacts from the scheme would “not significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits that would be derived from the scheme which would support the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy by providing back-up generation to help achieve the transition to a sustainable, low carbon future.”
However a team of local residents including an expert from commercial finance, a Professor who is recognised as a world expert of climate change, a solicitor, local councillors, planning experts spoke at the planning meeting with a very detailed forensic exposé of the proposed development that exposed that the far from “facilitating renewable energy it was would block any renewable energy being added to the National Grid, and rather than running at “only a few hours a day in winter time it would actually run over 3000 Hours a year, having a devastating effect on the area.
After a short debate, where the Legal Officer of the council recommended a referral because of the further information the committee voted against the proposal and the Legal Officers recommendation.
A statement from the council said the application had “proved controversial with the local community who raised a number of concerns regarding noise and pollution from the facility, as well as fears that a low carbon energy generation and storage facility was not being proposed, which would be consistent with addressing the climate change emergency declared by the council only a few weeks earlier.”
It added that the committee resolved to refuse the application on the basis that “it would be inappropriate development in the open countryside, with local plan policies only supporting renewable and low carbon energy projects in the open countryside” and a further reason for “related to concerns about the impact of the proposal on air quality in the locality.”
The planning application for the conversion of the South West Coast Path WW2 observation post into a holiday dwelling, covered by Owl here:
has been agreed. The roof will be “reconstructed and roof lights, doors, windows and solar panels will be added, thus destroying its original function as a historical building.
The owners of the land are, of course, Clinton Devon Estates.
Greendale – two applications:
Mr Terence Adams.
Greendale Farm, Greendale Lane, Clyst St Mary, EX5 1AW.
Development Management Committee 6 August 2019
Demolition of existing farmhouse and replacement with 3 cottages and associated car parking, landscaping, bin store and ancillary works.
Approved as per officer recommendation.
WOODBURY AND LYMPSTONE Applicant:
FWS Carter and Sons Ltd.
10 Hogsbrook Units, Woodbury Salterton, EX5 1PY.
Retention of extension to industrial unit (including change of use from agricultural to Class B8 (storage)).
Approved as per officer recommendation.
And this one, where the applicant appears to be a senior member of Stags Estate Agency (Head of Residential Lettings and Property Management)
and the application was approved contrary to officer recommendation:
DUNKESWELL AND OTTERHEAD Applicant:
Mr A Luxton.
Emmetts Farm, Beacon, Yarcombe, Honiton, EX14 9LU.
General purpose agricultural building.
Approved contrary to officer recommendation with delegated authority to officers to impose appropriate conditions.
Members considered that the proposal was of an appropriate scale and materials such that it would conserve and enhance the AONB. In addition, it was considered that the proposed building was a sufficient distance from the nearby listed building to not cause any harm to its setting.
Clinton Devon Estates: “‘Deceit and lies’ – Councillors speak out Newton Poppleford GP campaign looks to be over”
Wonder if EDDC’s CEO had any private advice for CDE?
“This has gone into the most spectacular orbit of deceit and betrayal in the planning system.”
Those are the words of one councillor as the district authority agreed at a meeting on Tuesday (August 6) not to fight a developer’s appeal over a Newton Poppleford site.
Clinton Devon Estates (CDE) lodged an appeal after East Devon District Council (EDDC) delayed a decision on an application to build two homes on land originally earmarked for a GP surgery.
A wider plan for a 40-home development at King Alfred Way, including a doctors’ surgery, was approved in 2013. CDE was unable to find a tenant, so instead applied to build two more homes.
At that stage the parish council expressed an interest in running the surgery.
EDDC twice delayed a decision – the second to allow the parish council to meet with the developer to find a solution.
The developer lodged an appeal with the planning inspector, who will now also decide whether the council should pay costs.
Planning officers recommended the authority should not fight the appeal arguing the surgery was not ‘legally justifiable’. Councillors voted by seven votes to five not to fight it.
Councillor Mike Howe, chairman of the development management committee, told the meeting CDE had acted ‘atrociously’ and could not be considered an ‘ethical or nice developer’.
Cllr Olly Davey said, unless ‘legally enforceable’, ‘any promise that a developer makes is not worth the paper it is written on’.
Councillor Paul Arnott put forward a motion to reject the application, on the grounds the developer had failed in its ‘commitment’ to deliver the surgery – but it was thrown out by seven votes to four.
Councillor Paul Arnott said the application was the most ‘spectacular orbit of deceit and betrayal’ and the council should mount a challenge despite the costs. He said: “It’s so mired in lies and deceit going back years, betrayal, treachery, accusations of wording.
“We cannot afford, as a rule, to be spending council taxpayers’ money on appeals we may not win, but on this occasion we have to. It is a notorious case and we have to draw a line.”
Cllr Eileen Wragg said the committee needed a ‘damn good reason’ not to agree with the officers’ report.
Council officer Henry Gordon-Lennox, strategic lead, said nothing in planning law could stop the developer applying for a different use of them land, despite the original plan for a surgery.
He said: “I do absolutely understand the frustration and the annoyance and the disappointment, but from our point of view as officers there is nothing to defend precluding them from doing this, unpalatable as that may be.”
CDE was represented at the meeting Amy Roberts, who said there has never been a planning justification for the surgery, within the original plan. She said CDE did not want to appeal, but that the developer’s ‘hands were somewhat forced’ by the non-determination, despite planners’ recommendations.”
Owl sees no “misunderstanding”.
Another “TiggerTory” policy?
And what does Mr Marchant, the person accused of being “misunderstood” – and Ford’s QC who perpetuated the “misunderstanding” several times at the public inquiry – think about this?
And where’s Councillor Hughes’s explanation for not sharing information about the meeting with other councillors, particularly those on the Development Management Committee – or did he share it with only a select few of his colleagues?
Remember, the Development Management Committee is a STATUTORY committee with rules and regulations … and it must NOT be subjected to party whipping or interference, nor must they “avoid undue contact with interested parties”.
From the blog of DCC EDA Independent Councillor Martin Shaw:
Oh dear – and now “The Independent Group” led by EDDC Leader Ben Ingham has chosen to cosy up to Tories, rather than East Devon Alliance independents, whom he has frozen out.
With current Councillor Ingham having the been a member of all 3 groups and Leader of 2 of them (former Tory, former Leader of East Devon Alliance and current leader of ‘The Independent Group’) he really has to decide which side of the fence and his cohort are on!
Or maybe he has already decided – given that he appointed a Tory as Chairman of the Development Management Committee, who then used his casting vote to push through a controversial planning applucation in Axminster, opposed by Axminster EDA councillors on safety and pollution grounds:
Reality check needed for some of his colleagues, perhaps?