Update on Winslade Park (Clyst St Mary) planning application

PRESS RELEASE

“I have been advised that the planning application for Winslade Park, Clyst St Mary has been removed from the agenda for 31st October. This request was made by the owners of the site to East Devon District Council and came about as a result of the concerns made by the residents of Clyst St Mary.

At this stage, we don’t yet know if or when the application will go back on the agenda.

The Save Clyst St Mary group remains committed to ensuring East Devon District Council and the Applicant reach the right decision for our village with regard to this application. Any proposal should be both safe and sustainable.

On a different note, the planning application for Enfield Farm is still on the agenda and should be heard by the Devolopment Management Committee in the afternoon of 31st October. We have two residents speaking for us on Tuesday; should you wish to support them please feel free to do so.

On behalf of the SCSM team, please can I thank you all for your ongoing support over these past three years.”

Exmouth “has too many retirement flats” – what, only Exmouth!

“The number of elderly people moving into new retirement developments in Exmouth is becoming unsustainable, town councillors have warned

Developer McCarthy and Stone is proposing 59 retirement flats on land to the south of Redgate, next to Tesco in Salterton Road.

Members of Exmouth Town Council’s planning committee were asked this week to reconsider plans for the scheme, which they had previously opposed, after additional information was submitted by the developer about why permission should be granted, on subjects including flood risk and land use policy.

However, councillors voted to continue their previous objections, which were on the grounds that site had been allocated as employment land in the East Devon Local Plan, and they felt Exmouth had reached ‘saturation point’ with developments of this type.

Councillor Brenda Taylor said: “All of that land up from Tesco is allocated as employment land.

“We need jobs here. I think we should again refuse it on those grounds.

“Years of work went into the local plan, and for what?

“They have got five or six properties in Exmouth already, and it’s a huge overload on our services.

“We can’t sustain these older people.”

Councillor Maddy Chapman said that an argument by McCarthy and Stone that employment would be provided by the development was not satisfactory.

She said: “When they say they are supplying jobs, and it’s going to be a care home sort of thing, the qualifications of people they employ, you cannot say it is a care home.

“For those number of flats, to say they are going to employ 15 people, you put them on a rota basis, and it’s absolute rubbish.

“Also we’ve got the other retirement flats being built up Drakes Avenue, so we’ve got two lots of flats going up. Who is going to look after all these people?”

Councillor Fred Caygill said: “If it’s not going to be employment land I would rather see affordable housing on the site, rather than I think probably the fifth McCarthy and Stone development in the town, which we cannot sustain.”

EDDC will rule on planning permission.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/exmouth-can-t-sustain-more-retirement-flats-1-5235760

The demise of the bungalow

“The death of the bungalow could be less than a decade away, new figures reveal.

Despite an ageing population, around one in 70 homes being built is a bungalow compared with one in seven in the 1980s.

At the current rate of decline, the last bungalow could be built within nine years, according to analysis of data from the National House Building Council. …”

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-4958682/Fears-bungalow-level.html

“Supreme Court to consider legal standard on adequacy of reasons in planning”

A rather technical article but basically the Supreme Court is to rule on how much information and how much detail y must be provided when an applicant wants to build in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty:

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php

“New homes for edge of Exeter approved despite concerns they would overlook neighbouring properties”

Plans for 34 new homes on the edge of a 1,500 home development on the edge of Exeter has been given outline approval.

Councillors unanimously backed the outline plans for the housing scheme on land adjacent to Honiton Road in Clyst Honiton.

East Devon District Council’s development management committee were told that 50 per cent of the homes would be affordable housing and that it would join onto the 1,500 homes that will be delivered as part of the Tithebarn development.

But they raised concerns about some of the details of the plans and requested that when the application returns to them for reserved matters approval, some of the houses would become bungalows as there were concerns about residents of Blackhouse Lane being overlooked by new homes. …”

http://www.devonlive.com/news/property/new-homes-edge-exeter-approved-429104

How did TV companies get to Knowle so quickly?

How were BBC Devon and Westcountry News able to get to Knowle so quickly when the Exmouth “regeneration” Development Management Committee didn’t start its meeting till 10 am yet Mark Williams was able to give an interview for the 1.30 pm edition of Spotlight and one that appeared on West Country News at 6 pm? And TV cameras were inside the meeting too.

Somehow they never seemed to be interested in the public’s protests about the same issues ….. though West Country News did at least balance the news today with local campaigners who were in disagreement with the decision.

And should Mark Williams have said he favours Grenadier’s watersports centre – after specifically naming them in his interview – isn’t he supposed to be neutral?

“Councillors allow buildings to go ahead because they are dazzled by attractive computer-generated images created by developers, a heritage charity has warned.

The images look like photographs and are used to seduce planning committees into giving developments the green light, Marcus Binney of Save Britain’s Heritage said.

He said that in most cases, planning officers use developers’ own imagery with no input from opponents to the plans.

“They lavish large amounts of money on producing these images, and they’re very persuasive.

“People have got to be suspicious of images of people drinking espressos under nice awnings,” he said.

Previously planners often used hand-drawn artists’ impressions to show what the development would look like when completed, but CGI images are increasingly used.

Campaigners highlighted tricks such as using images which show the development in summer to make it look more attractive.

Mr Binney highlighted one image, of Paddington’s £775 million ‘Cube’ development, which received assent from Westminster City Council last week.
The computer-generated image shows sunlight streaming through the building – in areas which Mr Binney says will be not be transparent, because of lifts and a fire escape. Other promotional images show the building looking more opaque.

The development, designed by Italian architect Renzo Piano, is controversial. Campaigners say that the 72-metre high building is out of step with the rest of the area.

Westminster City Council’s cabinet member for planning and public realm, Cllr Daniel Astaire, said: “Council planning decisions are judged on each development’s individual merits, taking account of all the benefits a proposal brings to the city, its people and economy.

“We do not grant permission based on computer generated concepts.”
Pictures tend to show buildings in summer, opponents said.

Henrietta Billings, director of Save Britain’s Heritage, pointed to two other examples where CGI images had been used in promotional material for new buildings which were then criticised for being unattractive.

The Saffron Tower, in Croydon, and Lincoln Plaza, on the Isle of Dogs, east London, were both shortlisted for the Carbuncle Cup, an award for the UK’s ugliest building, last year.

Both had been promoted with attractive-looking CGI images.
Neutral images, known as “verified views”, are occasionally requested, especially where there is a public enquiry about the plans.

These are commissioned to an independent artist and represent an unbiased representation of what a proposed development will look like.

London-based architect Barbara Weiss said that her firm has begun using 3D imagery instead of static shots to make the images more representative.
“The 3D model is much more reliable. The problem with the CGI images is that they are taken from a fixed point, and if you step five metres away, you get a completely different view,” she said.”

http://newscdn.newsrep.net/h5/nrshare.html?r=3&lan=en_GB&pid=14&id=Lda64f89bDg_uk&app_lan=&mcc=234&declared_lan=en_GB&pubaccount=ocms_0&referrer=200620&showall=1&mcc=234

“Council applies for judicial review of one of its own planning decisions”

Would never happen here … though Owl does recall something not dissimilar … a while back.

“A local authority has applied for a judicial review of one of its planning decisions, after a councillor voted in favour of an application brought by her brother-in-law.

Applicant Nick Barrett, owner of a restaurant in Long Melford, had applied to Babergh District Council for permission to build an annexe.

His application was approved at a meeting in November 2016. The minutes of the meeting note that Melanie Barrett, Mr Barrett’s sister-in-law, had stated that she had a family association with the applicant.

The minutes of the meeting also said that another councillor had stated that he was employed by a family member of the applicant.

The minutes continued: “Following clarification from Phil Devonald, Interim Deputy Monitoring Officer -Programme Delivery, the legal advisor to the Committee, the Councillors asserted that the statements by Councillors Barrett and Holt did not constitute a disclosable interest by reason of close family relationship or employment as provided for under the Suffolk Local Code of Conduct adopted by the Council.

“He advised however that this was a matter of public perception and confidence in the transparency and fairness of the system and that Members should consider whether they should take part in the proceedings given the nature of their relationship to the Applicant. This advice was not accepted by the Councillors concerned.”

A spokesman for Babergh told Local Government Lawyer that the council had not received any complaints but the authority considered it necessary to take the issue to judicial review.

“On the one hand it is not a good thing that we are having to do this,” he added. “However, it shows that the mechanisms are there to review our actions.”

Mr Barrett told the Suffolk Free Press that the annexe was being built for his 87-year-old father.

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30304%3Acouncil-applies-for-judicial-review-of-one-of-its-own-planning-decisions&catid=63&Itemid=31

Tell the truth and be fired …

“A veteran councillor in Theresa May’s constituency has been sacked after questioning plans for thousands of homes in the green belt.

Leo Walters, a former Conservative mayor of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, was removed as chairman of the council’s housing scrutiny panel after expressing concern that the public had not been fully informed about the threat to the green belt.

He said that he had been removed by Simon Dudley, the council’s leader, after “simply handing out facts”.

Mr Walters had sent an email to his fellow panel members informing them of a Freedom of Information response from the council revealing that 86 per cent of the land that it was proposing for development was in the green belt. …”

Source: The Times (paywall)

Save Our Sidmouth press release on PegasusLife contract

PRESS STATEMENT

EA/2016/0279-0280 East Devon District Council v Information Commissioner

It is well over a year since Freedom of Information requests were made to have key EDDC documents published – the contract with developer Pegasus to buy the Knowle site and the agent’s report on the bidding process and sale.

EDDC refused to publish these, even after being told to by the Information Commissioner. But, now that the case has gone to Tribunal, it has decided to release the documents.

But why now?

What is very clear is that the release of the contract and agent’s report is happening only now that Pegasus’ planning application for Knowle has been considered.

As the EDDC press release makes clear: “With the PegasusLife planning application having been refused, it is considered that this sensitivity has now been reduced and that publication of the information is acceptable.”

And this is very much the point.

Not only was the leadership at EDDC keeping this ‘sensitive’ information from the public – it did not want its own Councillors to know what was in the contract and the bidding process. What is particularly alarming is that the leadership at EDDC hid these details from the planning committee (the DMC) before it made its decision over Knowle.

Looking at the details, the documents reveal the following:

> The agent warned that the development might be perceived by the planning committee as ‘over development’. As they said: “If this is the case, then the application may lead to refusal, delay or in the worst case prevent the relocation of the Council’s offices.”

> The agent also said that “Pegasus is not making any allowance for affordable housing or 106 contributions, as they are classing it as C2”. In other words, the plans were always about classifying the development as C2 (a care home) and not C3, which would mean paying for affordable housing.

> Finally, Pegasus were not prepared to offer significant ‘overage’ – meaning that EDDC would not be able to ‘claw back’ any excess profits Pegasus might make.

But what is particularly disturbing is what these documents reveal about how EDDC operates:

> From the outset, Planning Officers challenged the C2 designation and the scale of development and clearly wanted to give the site C3 status – but later they changed their mind and recommended approval of the Pegasus plans.

> In which case, the DMC have been totally vindicated in their decision to reject the planning application. But we only know this now that the contract and bidding process have been revealed.

> Had the Full Council been aware of the terms of the deal with Pegasus – for example, no significant overage – then then their approval of Pegasus as the ‘preferred developer’ might not have been forthcoming.

> The Information Commissioner insisted that EDDC reveal the contract and negotiations to the public. But what is particularly reprehensible is that the leadership at EDDC refused to reveal these crucial details to their own Councillors.

We now have to ask how the Council will respond – in particular, whether they will want some answers as to how the whole process was mismanaged.

And we have to ask why once again the leadership at EDDC continue to be so secretive in their dealings over the Knowle relocation project – and whether they are going to act on their promise to be truly open and transparent – with both the public and their own Councillors.”

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/knowle-relocation-project-full-pegasus_26.html

“Knowle relocation project: full Pegasus contract published”

Some VERY VERY interesting information!

It seems that PegasusLife had no plans to pay any Section 106 contributions, or Community Infrastructure Levy.

The PegasusLife contract that would have been signed had the DMC not refused planning permission and the Savill’s report on how the company got it is detailed in full here:

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/knowle-relocation-project-full-pegasus.html

Where further revelations are promised.

Sidmouth – indeed the whole district – should thank Jeremy Woodward, who worked tirelessly to get this information.

The Information Commissioner had to threaten EDDC with the possibility of being in contempt of court when they issued their Decision Notice forcing publication, after an appeal from EDDC that they should not be made to issue it or at least not without without so much redaction it would likely be pointless. EDDC had been planning to appeal the Information Commissioner’s Decision Notice but suddenly withdrew this action – presumably knowing it would not succeed.

EDDC then issued a press release saying that all the hours and hours they must have spent opposing publication “cost nothing” as it was only officer time.

Owl wonders which senior officers work for nothing!

This sorry tale should be examined by EDDC’s Scrutiny Committee forthwith.

Lost at Knowle … are there bodies buried in the “old” building?

Word reaches Owl that at December 21’s meeting of EDDC, Sidmouth resident Tony Green quizzed Chief Executive Mark Williams about comments made by a member of the crucial planning committee on December 6th which narrowly refused permission for Pegasus Life’s application for 113 apartments on the Knowle site.

Mr Green said impartiality was essential when councillors considered planning applications, especially ones in which the council had a vested interest.

This was clearly the case on December 6th, as the progress of the Council’s relocation project depended on planning permission being granted. But the council’s wishes should not have been a material consideration at this meeting, argued Mr Green, and so should not have been mentioned.

He said he was “surprised” that a veteran member of the DMC (the finger of suspicion points at Tory Cllr Mark Williamson) had commented that the existing Knowle offices were “not fit for purpose” and had gone on to tell a joke about people getting lost for years in the old hotel building.

The comments, and the fact that the councillor went on to vote against refusal, created the impression of bias said Mr Green.

He then asked the CEO:

1. Did he agree that the relocation project was not a material planning consideration on December 6th?
2. Would Mr Williams agree to caution planning committee members not to refer to it at any future meeting to determine an application to develop the Knowle site?

Neither question was answered. The reply was that, in Mr Williams’ experience, councillors said many things in planning meetings, some of which were “germane”! This, of course, implies that some are not – in which case, why make such comments.

Surprise! Surprise!

P.S. Avid followers of the long and winding road of the relocation project may remember that Cllr Williamson was Chair of the planning committee of March 1 2013 which refused the Council’s own application to develop the Knowle with 50 luxury houses.

He was criticised at the time for making disobliging comments about Sidmouth’s “dependence” on Council jobs, and other hints that he was biased in favour of the application. He voted for it.

Is Mr Cohen up to his job?

Richard Cohen has not had a good year (well, actually he has, as he remains Deputy CEO and Relocation Manager for EDDC).

He came under fire last week for saying (twice) that the DMC had “stymied” relocation plans – though actually if anyone stymied anything it was PegasusLife putting in a planning application that was unfit for purpose.

Just so show this wasn’t a one-off, let us remind ourselves of this is transcript of part of a speech by a well-known Sidmouth businessman with experience of property development, made at a Sid Vale Association Meeting at the Unitarian Church, Sidmouth, 9th December 2014.

The speech begins with a discussion of Cohen’s estimate of total relocation costs at about £10 million.

“The numbers are completely, hopelessly and scandalously wrong. They are useless, they are terrible and have to be challenged vigorously and strenuously. These numbers are rubbish. They don’t include the green travel plan, they don’t include compensation for the staff, they don’t include the cost of the move itself, they don’t include the costs of hubs the other towns and, most importantly, they don’t include the cost of officer time and members time that is involved in all of this.

The expert, Mr Steve Pratten from Davis Langdon, he is going to cost £1million or more on his own. It doesn’t include the legal costs in all this. I say to the District Council that I have estimated the real costs to be £20million. That figure was not disputed – Richard Cohen did not say it was exaggerated – he said he didn’t recognize the number. What that means is that I was bang on the money.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are trusting Richard Cohen to mastermind this whole process and we are assuming that he’s accurate in the mathematical calculations. This is the same man who measured the Knowle 40% smaller than it turned out to be! He got it wrong by 40%. Robin Fuller had to write a paper, he was rubbished in the press and it turned out that he was correct. The Knowle is 40% bigger than Richard Cohen thought it was.

This is the same man who was responsible for four attempts to compose the economic impact assessments rejected by his own planning committee. He can’t get simple mathematics right. This same man tells us that energy prices are going to go ahead for the next 20 years at 10% over inflation. He is alone in the entire world in thinking this. Nobody else believes that including your energy companies who will fix your energy costs for the next four years. That instantly takes £1.5million out of all the savings that are supposed to be made by moving, so he hasn’t even bothered to explore that possibility.

He is also the man who shifted the southern boundary of the Knowle to include the second tier of parkland without telling anybody and in contradiction to the specific instructions of the Development Management Committee. I was told this would not be investigated because the Inspector would look at it, which he would not do because it was not in his remit. So that has never been investigated by anybody at the Knowle.

He did it without managing to record that process; without managing to record any conversation with any individual, without writing a single email, or keeping a single note or sending any kind of correspondence to any third party. Because I made a freedom of information request, and there was nothing there.

He did it unilaterally, on his own, secretly, and he didn’t tell a single soul, and I only found out by accident.

This is not the kind of person I would trust to do these calculations. Now when he says it is going to cost £15.9million to refurbish the Knowle, I would tell him that that’s a load of bunkum. This relates to the entire building, which nobody advocates retaining. Why is anybody working in a bathroom when the Knowle is two and a half times the size of the building EDDC says it needs? How can that be possible? Mr Cohen in his calculations also asserts that there is nil chance, not 1% chance of local government reform in the next 20 years.”

Cabinet and Full Council to overthrow DMC Knowle decision?

EDDC has updated its ‘Moving and Improving’ website after the decision by the Development Management Committee to REFUSE the PegasusLife planning application.

Owl always thought that planning decisions were taken by the DMC. It appears not. Which begs the question: why have committees at all?

It seems East Devon is turning into Trumpland.

This is what it now says:

December 2016

Development Management Committee refuse the planning application by Pegasus Life Ltd for Knowle.

Cabinet and Council (separately) will take the opportunity to review the Project. This is known as Gateway 7 which is to note satisfaction of the financial requirements and restrictions of the Final Design, confirmation of Contractors Project Costs, advice regarding Planning Application for EDDC at Heathpark and for Pegasus Life Ltd at Knowle.

December 2017
Relocation to refurbished Exmouth Town Hall.

April 2018
Relocation to Honiton complete.”

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/moving-and-improving/moving-and-improving-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-office-relocation/project-timeline-key-dates/

Well done those EDDC Tory councillors! But watch your backs now

Unconfirmed reports suggest that Tory councillors Grundy (Exe Valley) and Pepper (Broadclyst) were the two sensible councillors who voted against the PegasusLife Knowle planning application.

So, no-one can accuse anyone of a “Sidmouth stitch up”.

It seems unlikely that the two councillors will be getting any gifts from under the Tory Christmas tree from Santa Phil Twiss – the official EDDC Tory Whip – who denies ever having used it but who is said to be less than chuffed at the result.

Of course, not being whipped, no-one will expect them to be removed from the DMC for not following non-whipped orders ….

Today truly IS a day for miracles! Pegasus Knowle planning application REFUSED by DMC

????????????????????????????????????

Refused by 7 votes to 6. Express and Echo article here, more to follow:

Controversial plans to build 113 apartments for older people on the site of East Devon District Council’s offices at Knowle in Sidmouth have been dramatically rejected by the authority’s Development Management Committee.

The decision could throw into jeopardy the council’s planned relocation to new offices in Honiton and Exmouth Town Hall.

To finance the move, East Devon District Council had agreed to sell its Knowle headquarters to Pegasus Life Ltd, which specialises in providing living and care facilities for older people. The sale was subject to a successful planning application.

The council decided to relocate its headquarters in March last year.

It plans to move out of its current premises in Sidmouth to purpose built offices in Honiton and to Exmouth Town Hall, which will be refurbished.

The relocation to Exmouth is due to take place during the latter part of next year, with relocation to the new purpose built offices in Honiton to follow by spring 2018.

But it is not yet clear how the planning committee’s decision will affect these plans.

The planning application by PegasusLife for a 113-apartment assisted living community for older people was refused by the committee by seven votes to six at a meeting on Tuesday, December 6.

Local campaigners and Save Britain’s Heritage had objected to plans to demolish the 19th-century council offices and build on the Knowle Park.

Liz Fuller, buildings at risk officer for Save Britain’s Heritage, said: “The Knowle is an important local landmark building in Sidmouth standing in attractive landscaped grounds.

In our view, the loss of the Knowle and the additional development of the park’s upper lawns and car park as proposed represent a devastating blow to the history and character of Sidmouth, a remarkably well-preserved Regency town in a beautiful setting on the Jurassic coast.

“The long-term benefits of retaining this building should be properly considered as it would serve to secure an important local landmark.

She argued that the proposed development would result in “clear over-development of the site”.

Pegasus Life said its plans would help to meet Sidmouth’s housing need. The company had reduced the amount of proposed accommodation in response to comments from local residents.

The application was refused on the grounds that it was an overdevelopment of the site which would impact on neighbours and the character of the area; that the proposed development should be a C3 use and include affordable housing and not a C2 use, and that it impacts on the setting of an historic building.

PegasusLife now has the option to appeal.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/retirement-village-plan-for-east-devon-council-s-knowle-hq-rejected/story-29961485-detail/story.html

EDDC lack of transparency challenged – again

“EDDC’s transparency challenged over relocation from Sidmouth

06:30 05 December 2016 Stephen Sumner
Jeremy Woodward (front right) with campaigners from Save Our Sidmouth at Knowle in 2014
Jeremy Woodward (front right) with campaigners from Save Our Sidmouth at Knowle in 2014
A transparency campaigner is questioning what district chiefs are ‘so desperate to hide’ after they refused to release correspondence on how a developer for Knowle was selected.

Jeremy Woodward’s Freedom of Information (FoI) requests to East Devon District Council (EDDC) about the decision to sell the site of its headquarters to PegasusLife, and the deal between them, were denied.

He appealed to the Information Commissioner to force the disclosure of two key documents – but the authority again refused as it argues the papers are commercially sensitive. The matter will now go to a tribunal.

Mr Woodward said: “What are they so desperate to hide? Why is the council so determined to avoid being held properly accountable, let alone transparent to its rate-paying electorate?”

The tribunal will not be resolved before PegasusLife’s planning application for a 113-apartment retirement community comes before EDDC’s development management committee (DMC) on Tuesday (December 6).

Mr Woodward added: “This timing seriously puts into question the extent to which the DMC’s decision-making is being compromised. Any information touching on the planning application should be made available to DMC members – and the developer’s contract clearly refers to the planning application.”

He said EDDC would rather incur ‘further embarrassment and potential damage’ to its reputation, as this is the second time it has appealed against a ruling from the Information Commissioner.

Last year, the authority refused to release progress reports Mr Woodward submitted FoI requests for on its relocation project. The eight-month legal battle saw EDDC blasted as ‘discourteous and unhelpful’ and cost taxpayers £11,000 in lawyers’ fees.

After Mr Woodward’s latest challenge, EDDC complied with one of three rulings from the Information Commissioner and revealed that PegasusLife will pay £7,505,000 for the site, subject to planning permission.

A spokesman said EDDC is challenging the ruling on the other two documents on legal and procedural grounds as it believes the Information Commissioner has not applied her own guidance consistently or correctly. It argues that the documents are commercially sensitive – but the spokesman said it has always promised to publish them when this is no longer the case.

The spokesman noted the concerns about the DMC meeting but said contractual terms agreed between two parties is ‘legally an immaterial consideration’ to any planning decision.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/eddc_s_transparency_challenged_over_relocation_from_sidmouth_1_4801011

Knowle relocation: EDDC defies Information Commissioner AGAIN and heads for court AGAIN

“EDDC TO DEFY INFORMATION COMMISSIONER – AND TO TAKE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS ON KNOWLE TO TRIBUNAL

East Devon District Council have formally announced that they will only be complying with one of three Decision Notices issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office on 25th October.

They have formally released the already widely-known information that the price for the Knowle site to developers PegasusLife is £7.5 million – on condition that they receive planning permission. (Decision Notice on Case: FER0608237).

However, the Council do not wish to divulge the “minutes of meetings and correspondence on the subject the decision to award the contract to PegasusLife” (Decision Notice on Case: FER0623403) or give “a copy of an agreement between East Devon District Council and a developer, Pegasus Life, in relation to a site at Knowle” (Decision Notice on Case: FER0626901)

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/knowle-relocation-project-breaking-news.html
http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/knowle-relocation-project-information.html

It is clear that the Council do not want any information to be revealed about the contractual arrangements it has with the developer. And in particular, they do not want this to happen before a crucial vote by their planning committee on 6th December – when the Development Management Committee will consider the controversial planning application 16/0872/MFUL from PegasusLife.

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/knowle-relocation-project-planning_24.html

This timing seriously puts into question the extent to which the DMC’s decision-making is thereby being compromised, in that any information touching on the planning application should be made available to DMC Members – and the developer’s contract clearly refers to the planning application.

It is now obvious, therefore, that the Council would rather incur further embarrassment and potential damage to their reputation by appearing at the Information Tribunal – as this is the second time it will be appealing against the Information Commissioner.

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/knowle-relocation-project-foi-request_27.html

The obvious question which has to be asked is: What are they so desperate to hide?

Moreover, the Council is clearly prepared to spend yet further on defending itself, no doubt with the use of expensive legal representation – and yet it complains regularly about the expense of having to deal with FOI requests.
Why, then, is the Council so determined to avoid being held properly accountable, let alone transparent to its rate-paying electorate?

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/knowle-relocation-project-continuing.html

It will be interesting to see how the Council deals with the legal process which will now ensue. Will it drag matters out as it did two years ago, during the first time it appeared at the Tribunal?

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/knowle-relocation-project-we-believe.html

And how will the Council’s representatives conduct themselves on this occasion?

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/knowle-relocation-project-information.html

END

PegasusLife jumps the gun …

There was a full page advertisement on the back page of yesterdays Property section of Telegraph for Pegasus with a list of “Developments coming soon” which includes Sidmouth!!

Owl in its innocence thought the DMC meeting this coming Tuesday would
make the decision.

But it seems PegasusLife knows things we don’t. … Nothing new there then.

It will be interesting to see how the DMC talks itself out of a decision very similar to the company’s development in Bath – which was very recently refused, in part because the way the company presented the development, it did not feel that it needed to make provision for affordable housing.

“Further 28 documents on Knowle submitted by Pegasus Life. Deadline for comments 11th November 2016”

Someone is in a hurry …. could an EDDC/PegasusLife deadline be nearing? And are these major or minor amendments? Major amendments need to go through the planninf process and DMC. Putting through major amendments as minor ones coyld give grounds for a judicial review …

The District Council has received more amendments to the Planning Application (ref 16/0872/MFUL) for Knowle. They consist of Pegasus Life’s revised drainage and bat mitigation reports, together with amendments to the design and footprint of building E and the associated landscaping.

DEADLINE for COMMENTS is FRIDAY 11th NOVEMBER, 2016.

The plans and Design Access Statement show (a) that Building E is moved very slightly north with planting around it (not a major change) and (b) Pegasus are arguing that the summerhouse is already shrouded in vegetation (how has this occurred?) and that views from the south will remain largely unaffected. The revised Drainage and Bat statements are lengthy, requiring close attention.

Please note that the 28 new documents are proving slow to download from the EDDC website http://planning.eastdevon.gov.uk/online- applications/.

Alternatives,and instructions for commenting, are given in this extract from the notification e-mail circulated by EDDC on 28 October 2016.(NB.Highlighting in bold added by SOS):

‘Alternatively, they can be seen at the Council Offices, Knowle, Sidmouth between 8.30am and 5.00pm Monday to Friday. If you wish to make any representations about the proposal, you can do so on the website or write to us at East Devon District Council Offices, Knowle, Sidmouth quoting the application no. 16/0872/MFUL by 11 November 2016. Please mark the letter for the attention of the Central Team and copy your letter to the relevant Parish or Town Council. You should be aware that any comments raised will become public knowledge.’

Contact for the planning team : planningcentral@eastdevon.gov.uk Tel: 01395 516551

Further 28 documents on Knowle submitted by Pegasus Life. Deadline for comments 11th November 2016