As Councillor Matt Booth pointed out: you can’t say something is required in Ottery St Mary but not in Newton Poppleford!
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/decision_on_40_homes_deferred_1_4388394
Category Archives: Development Management Committee
Sidford Fields employment land
Interesting that one reason the Inspector gave for inclusion of the site was that “no new evidence had been submitted to support the request for its removal” had been offered to change his mind.
This implies that if he HAD received further evidence, he would have taken it into account in making his decision.
Didn’t the Development Management Committed imply that they would contact the Inspector about removing the site after much evidence had been submitted to it as to why it was unsuitable?
Did they contact him with this new evidence as they had appeared to suggest they would do?
And what actions (as opposed to words and supported by clear evidence) did Councillor Hughes and ex-Councillor Troman take at that point? A point so close to local elections that words and actions were particularly important?
Newton Poppleford: 26 home development refused by Inspector
” … In his decision report, published on December 23, planning inspector Jon Hockley said the appeal centred on whether the site was suitable for housing. He said positive aspects of the scheme were that it would generate economic and social benefits through the construction of the new houses.
And the proposed 10 ‘affordable’ homes, Mr Hockley said, would be a real benefit to the village, which suffers from a lack of such properties.
But he said national planning policy is clear that major developments can only take place on AONB land in ‘exceptional circumstances’ and where it can be demonstrated that they are in the public interest.
In conclusion, the inspector said: “I do not consider that the benefits of the scheme would reach the high bar required to constitute exceptional circumstances.”
Can we get it through to the Development Management Committee that AONB is precious … really precious … and even Planning Inspectors understand that.
Gardens: greenfield or brownfield – depends where you live
“The Planning Court has today begun hearing a case over whether some private residential gardens can be considered brownfield land.
The case of Dartford Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (CO/4129/2015) has implications for owners of residential gardens, and could potentially signal a return to so-called “garden grabbing”.
Dartford is seeking to quash a decision by a planning inspector, who found that only residential gardens “in built up areas” are greenfield land, whereas others, in the countryside, are previously developed land (also known as “brownfield”).
The Communities Secretary is resisting the challenge, relying on the same reasoning as the inspector.
Ashley Bowes of Cornerstone Barrristers who is representing Dartford BC, said ahead of the hearing that the Department for Communities and Local Government’s position was “surprising” given that the present Secretary of State, Greg Clark, in his role as Planning Minister in 2010, amended PPS3 “Housing” to exclude residential gardens from the definition of brownfield land.
Bowes added that the amendment was accompanied by a written ministerial statement to the House of Commons and a letter to all chief planning officers, explaining that local communities now had the power to stop “garden grabbing”.
He said: “This case has the potential to radically alter the status of private residential gardens in the countryside, from greenfield to brownfield, increasing their prospects for development. A good many people will be watching the outcome with interest.”
Newton Poppleford King Alfred’s Way development recommended for approval
Hats off to EDDC!
Yes, Owl does occasionally compliment EDDC!
Today, it is for the well-reasoned and well-explained response to proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework here (pages 17-30):
Click to access 190116-combined-dmc-agenda-compressed.pdf
Its responses on so-called starter homes and the unrealities of them being affordable, land supply in the case of under delivery where developers drag their heels, and the use of brownfield sites which are not always the most appropriate sites to bring forward is well thought out.
If only EDDC practised what it preaches!
Nine housebuilding companies are sitting on at least 615,000 agreed planning permissions
“Britain’s biggest housebuilders possess enough land to create more than 600,000 new homes, an analysis by the Guardian has found, raising questions about whether they are doing enough to solve the housing crisis facing Britain.
The nine housebuilders in the FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 hold 615,152 housing plots in their landbank, according to financial disclosures. This is four times the total number of homes built in Britain in the past year.
Berkeley, Barratt, Persimmon and Taylor Wimpey – the four biggest companies in the industry – account for more than 450,000 of the plots. They are also sitting on £947m of cash and declared or issued more than £1.5bn in payouts to shareholders in 2015.
Shelter said the figures showed how dysfunctional the housing market has become. Toby Lloyd, head of policy for the housing charity, said: “Developers do need a pipeline of future sites – but when housebuilding is still stubbornly low and landbanks are this large it is a signal of how dysfunctional our housebuilding system is….
… The land held by housebuilders includes sites they own and sites that they have an contractual option to build on. Some housebuilders do not publicly disclose all the land they control, meaning their total landbank could be even bigger. For example, Bellway does not report land that has not got planning permission for house construction, while Persimmon says it controls 18,000 acres of “strategic land” on top of more than 90,000 plots that already have planning permission.
Development Management Committee under the legal microscope
“In the full risk register there was one risk currently scored as high:
Failure of correct procedures and practices causing challenges to decisions – Impact: Serious, Likelihood: Very likely, Good scope for improvement.
An aggrieved party had recently been given leave by the High Court to pursue a judicial review against a decision of the Council to grant permission for a dwelling on land adjoining their property. The case revolved around whether Members of Development Management Committee in making the decision were consistent in their approach with prior decisions on the same site for a similar form of development. Members of DMC had been briefed on this case and these issues would be picked up through future Members training sessions.”
Click to access 161215-combined-council-agenda-and-minute-book.pdf
Price of land cannot be used as excuse to cut down on affordable housing
Alas this comes too late for several sites in East Devon, and in any case we have no Local Plan – a state of affairs that is therefore costing us affordeable housing as developers escape their responsibilities.
“The government has confirmed that developers cannot use site purchase price to argue that local affordability requirements would make a housing scheme unviable.
Responding to a London borough’s move to seek a judicial review of a planning inspector’s decision to accept a reduced affordable housing contribution, a letter from the Government Legal Department says it is the Secretary of State’s ‘unambiguous policy position’ that ‘land or site value… should reflect policy requirements’.
In other words, developers should have regard to local affordable housing requirements when agreeing a site purchase price and cannot then turn around and use viability arguments to challenge existing local policy.
The government’s statement was sent to Islington Council after a recent planning appeal decision on the Parkhurst Road ‘Territorial Army’ site.
The inspector had refused planning permission on amenity grounds, but had accepted the developer’s argument that only 14% affordable housing was viable because of factors including the price paid for the land, even though the developer could not demonstrate that it had taken Islington’s affordable housing policies into account when bidding for the site.
Unhappy with the inspector’s decision and the signal it sent on viability negotiations, Islington set out on the first step towards a judicial review by issuing a ‘letter before claim’ to the Secretary of State.
Islington said it received support for its stance from Brent, Hackney, Merton, Southwark and Tower Hamlets as well as a public statement of support from London Mayor Boris Johnson.
In the event, the government said it was not appropriate for Islington to pursue a judicial review in the light of the inspector’s refusal, directing it instead to argue its government-confirmed position on viability in future applications.
“Londoners desperately need more affordable housing, and we need to make sure developers are making a fair contribution. However we, and many other councils across London, are concerned that developers are using the viability process to argue they can’t afford to provide much or any affordable housing because they paid too much for land,” says James Murray, Islington’s executive member for housing.
“We are therefore pleased to have a clear confirmation from the Government’s legal department that the value of land should reflect policy requirements, which of course includes affordable housing.”
Islington says it is making copies of its legal advice, the appeal decision, its letter before claim and the government’s response available.”
Is a £20,000 fine enough for this East Devon listed building hack?
Talewater Farm, numerous breaches of listed building regulations. No mention in the article of the builder/owner having to re-instate,
and
“Mr Wright pleaded guilty to a further offence, regarding his failure to comply with an enforcement notice (contrary to section 179(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990), which the council issued on 29 March 2010, which required him to cease living in a holiday cottage, known as The Cellar, at Talewater Farm.”
Enforcement notice in 2010 and he’s still living there – will he get retrospective consent if he remains there long enough?
Fortunately, Cabinet member Philip Skinner represents and lives in this area so he will be able to ensure that the law is followed.
How developers should smooch local authorities
A couple of solicitors writing on the “Local Government Lawyer” website give advice to developers on how to get the best out of their dealings with local authorities. Here are a couple of paragraphs of their article:
“… Huge cuts in public sector funding means that councils are looking to engage ever more in property development to generate place-shaping, capital receipts or longer term income streams. If developers know how to engage properly with councils, understand what makes them tick and talk the right language then great (and profitable) things can be achieved. Conversely, far too many developers shoot themselves in the foot both reputationally and financially and miss out on deals with the public sector because they just don’t know how to put it together. …
… Councils are a lot more innovative and willing to explore collaborative arrangements with developers than developers often realise. Not every council is going to have the right approach and, indeed, councils need to improve and continue to develop their own commerciality and freedom of thought. For the most part, however, in our experience they are open to listening to and engaging with developers who have something different say and an attitude which chimes with that of the council. Whether it is at the soft market testing stage or during the procurement it is worth exploring the options. …”
Seaton/Colyford Green wedge planning application – information for objectors
Planning Application 15/2188/MOUT
Objections need to be in to EDDC Planning by 27th October 2015. This is the date which you should look to if you want your email or letter displayed on the EDDC website and to be considered by the Development Management Committee.
The planning application will probably be discussed by the Development Management Committee on 8 December 2015 at The Knowle, Seaton.
Unfortunately the EDDC New Local Plan will not be approved by the inspector until early 2016 – one possible reason why this planning application has been made at this time.
Below is a link to points that you may wish to consider when making your objection:
What is EDDC’s “Members Advisory Panel”? We had to go to Torbay to find out!
Reference is made in the post on Exmouth below to a “Members Advisory Panel”. Efforts to find this on East Devon District Council’s website came to nought, but Owl didn’t stop there – Owl traced a copy to Torbay Council’s website where it appears it may have been used as an illustrative document.
The whole 4 page document is actually titled “EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING SERVICE – PRE APPLICATION ADVICE
CUSTOMER CHARTER” and gives very helpful advice to developers (the customers, of course) about how much help the council can give them (and charge for in some cases).
Page 4 gives details of how helpful the “Members advisory Panel” can be. Here is what they say:
“The Council also offers a Members Advisory Panel for major applications. This is a group of senior officers and Councillors and other interested parties who can listen to a presentation from the agent and then through its officers respond in writing. The Council has a protocol for dealing with requests from agents to put a proposal before the MAP. Officers can advise if a particular scheme warrants a submission to the MAP.
The Member’s Planning Advisory Group is comprised of:-
The Chairman of the Development Management Committee.
The Chairman of a possible Policy sub-committee or Policy Champion.
Strategic Planning Portfolio Holder.
Environment Portfolio Holder.
Economy Portfolio Holder – as appropriate
Communities Portfolio Holder as appropriate.
Ward Members.
The system for running this group would be as follows:
(i) Developers to make presentation to Member’s Planning Advisory Group with Officers present.
(ii) Members to have previously acquainted themselves with the site in question by a site visit with Officers.
(iii) Members to ask questions of the Developers, seek clarification, test arguments but not to give any form of view in support or against the proposals.
(iv) Advice on the way forward or changes to be made to the proposal would be provided by the Officers to the Developers in writing following advice from Members in a debate once the developers have left the meeting.
(v) Any Member of the Planning Advisory Group who has a personal or prejudicial interesting the proposal should not form part of the group for that particular site.
E Freeman Development Manager January 2011
Click to access Generating%20Income%20from%20Planning%20Pre-Application%20Advice%20final%20App2.pdf
Seems like a good time for some Freedom of Information requests here – perhaps going back several years …..
The crowded diary of an East Devon councillor
Oh dear, the scent of desperation pervades East Devon District Council this week. It seems that councillors are in dire need some training (aka brainwashing?) about exactly how wonderful East Devon really is and how wonderful officers of East Devon are.
To that end, councillors are being bussed around the area, here, there and everywhere (as long as it is close to Exeter) where, no doubt, various developers and consultants will attempt to sell them snake oil. They are also being encouraged to attend meetings (or perhaps rallies?) to make them to understand just what the district is all about and to have some sympathy for the poor officers who have to deal with the snake oil salesmen on a daily basis.
Here is the crowded schedule:
30th September – all councillors requested to visit the “Growth Point” (you know, the one that doesn’t seem to be growing very much – if at all).
2nd October – all councillors again requested to join the “Exmouth and Cranbrook Countryside Service tour”, with the added perk of a free lunch AND a coach trip from Knowle!
6th October – a Development Management Committee training session open to all councillors on Highways (though lunch will be provided ONLY for committee members).
8th October – “Meet the Building Control Team” (the one having such a problem in Feniton and Cranbrook where developers are just not interested in talking to them).
9th October – WWorking together for the future of East Devon” “event”. The word “event” conjouring up to Owl the spectre of Powerpoint presentations and flip charts …
Click to access 250915-knowledge-issue-20.pdf
When do councillors get any time to WORK!
“A travesty of a development management committee meeting” –
“The battle for Pendeen, the modest but attractive seafront bungalow on Castle Hill which its owner wants to replace by a block of 3 flats, was lost at East Devon’s Development Management Committee yesterday. The DMC had refused a very similar application in April (by 7-6), but the same committee has now approved the replacement (6-4, with three Independent members unfortunately absent).
Seaton’s voice was once more unanimous: Marcus Hartnell for the town council, his fellow district councillor Jim Knight, Pendeen neighbour Jean Hoskin, and myself for the many individual objectors, backed up by Peter Burrows on the committee, all opposed the application, but we were overridden by Tory councillors from other areas.
Planning officers’ distortions
How could local opinion be so ignored, and the committee’s own recent decision be set aside? The simple answer is that planning officers, who supported the original application but were overruled by the majority of members, provided ammunition for councillors supporting the bid to overturn the first decision.
Two disturbing distortions in the officers’ case were highlighted by councillors who opposed the application. First, they quoted the National Planning Policy Framework’s paragraph 60 to the effect that we ‘should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative’. However Councillor Mike Allen (Conservative, Honiton) objected that they had omitted the conclusion to the NPPF paragraph: ‘It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness.’ Allen said that he did not appreciate officers quoting selectively to buttress a particular case.
Secondly, the officer in charge repeatedly displayed a photo, originally produced by the applicant, labelled to show the proposed flat-roofed block together with two other flat roofs in the view from Seafield Gardens. Peter Burrows twice pointed out that there were no photos provided at all from the public viewpoints (Coastal Path, Cliff Gardens) that would be damaged by the building. (Moreover the photo that was highlighted by the officer had cut out the row of red-roofed houses on Castle Hill of which Pendeen forms part.)
Councillors’ failure to carefully consider the objections
How did the committee come to its decision despite these failings in the pro-application case being pointed out? The majority of members simply did not respond to either Allen’s or Burrows’ points, they did not respond to most of the objections made by the Seaton representatives, and they did not address point by point the 3 good reasons for refusal that their own committee had given as recently as April.
Mostly these councillors thought it sufficient to give their opinions: Councillor Alan Dent, the former Design and Heritage Champion, ‘liked’ the proposed building, his successor, Christopher Pepper, agreed with him without expanding his own view, and other members chipped in briefly before voting the proposal through.
The bias of the planning system
Why do councillors act like this? They are not simply biased against Seaton, as the same thing happens to applications from other areas. They are not necessarily corrupt (in the sense highlighted by the Graham Brown case). The key, probably, is that they don’t want the trouble of appeals, highlighted as a danger by the officers in this case. Group-think does the rest: the Tories are happy to let individual councillors like Jim and Marcus speak for their constituents, and more independent minds like Mike Allen have their say, as long as the rest of them can vote us down.
We have no real redress against the Committee’s failure to consider the matter carefully or fairly. The applicant, if he had lost, could have appealed. Objectors can only seek judicial review – a right the Tory Government is trying to curtail – which would cost probably tens of thousands of pounds if EDDC spent taxpayers’ money to cover their own failings.
http://seatonmatters.org/2015/09/09/pendeen-doomed-in-dmc-travesty/
What if the boot was on the other foot and councillors criticised officers in public?
Regarding our earlier post about derogatory remarks made by a senior EDDC officer about councillors defending the East Devon countryside, imagine the same comment turned 180 degrees and being about officers – this is what it would say:
“Where in the past some Officers have sought to drive up housing numbers to damage the environment and satisfy the expressed desires of the Conservative government to see only massive growth and inappropriate development, this has arguably been a short sighted and perhaps self defeating approach. In terms of following through on the Government’s objectives, we are required to have an objectively assessed housing need which meets the identified needs of the district and then to purposively meet that need.”
Might then “some officers” be extremely angry?
Senior EDDC officer roundly criticises un-named councillors in public papers
A rather extraordinary inclusion in the papers for tomorrow’s Development Management Committee has piqued the Owl’s interest:
Ed Freeman (Head of Planning) has written an extraordinary attack against previous (unnamed) councillors reproduced verbatim here:
“Where in the past some Members have sought to drive down housing numbers to protect the environment and satisfy the expressed desires of residents to see only limited growth and development this has arguably been a short sighted and perhaps self defeating approach. In terms of following through on the Government’s objectives, we are required to have an objectively assessed housing need which meets the identified needs of the district and then to purposively meet that need.”
Surely it is inappropriate for a senior officer to attack councillors in public for wanting “to protect the environment” and for standing in the way of “Government objectives”? And if EDDC exists ONLY to follow government objectives, what is the point of its existence, one might ask? And that of its officers, whose job is supposed to be to provide neutral and objective support, whatever party might be in power in the district at the time.
It’s particularly rich when it could be said that it is only thanks to EDDC’s self-confessed persistent failure to build enough houses over the past decade, and its inept performance when it comes to the Local Plan, that some councillors are trying to protect the countryside that EDDC itself has put at risk.
Owl wonders if councillors feel it worth a slapped wrist – an officer of the Council should not be criticising councillors for doing their job and who, if not named, can surely be identified .
“No place for councillors who are developers” – in Australia
In East Devon our majority Conservative council puts councillors who are also developers on our Development Management Committee …
Developers have no place on local councils [in Australia] and the Parliament must move to not only ban them from standing at the 2016 elections, but also legislate for a comprehensive audit of every time a developer has voted in their own self-interest as a result of the Coalition’s corruption-ready 2012 legal changes.
As the [Australian] Greens have said for well over a decade, there is an inherent conflict of interest in having councillors who are also local developers. The government is moving to repeal their legalised corruption laws of 2012, but any legislation must go much further to ban developers from being on council and undertake a full audit of every time this 2012 law change has been abused by developers in the past three years.
Greens MP and Local Government spokesperson David Shoebridge said:
“It was obvious to anyone with a brain that these changes were corruption ready when the NSW Coalition pushed these changes through Parliament in 2012.”
Can you be a gamekeeper and a poacher? Can you be “Independent” and not independent?
Given all the hoo-ha a couple of years ago when errant Councillor Graham Brown was forced into resigning as an EDDC Tory Councillor due to his extensive personal local development interests:
the government put out the following press release:
Response to a report in ‘The Telegraph’ that councillors are offering themselves for hire to property developers.
placeholder
Local Government Minister Brandon Lewis said:
“This government has increased accountability and transparency over councillors’ interests, to accompany greater power and freedoms for local councils.
“Councils should adopt a Code of Conduct that reflects the Nolan principles on conduct in public life, with councillors declaring any private interest that relate to their public duties, and councillors must take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
“In addition, it is now a criminal offence to fail to declare or register disclosable pecuniary interests – which includes any employment or trade carried out for profit or gain. The register of councillors’ interests must be published online by the council.
“Councillors should act in an open and transparent way, to avoid conflicts of interest on issues such as planning applications or benefiting financially from the issuing of council contracts.”
Given this advice, how do our new councillors with extensive property development interests plan to deal with the fact that two of them are on the Development Management Committee and one of them is the Chairman of the Asset Management Forum?
Councillors Colin Brown and Paul Carter are both on the Development Management Committee.
Councillor Brown’s Register of Interests is here:
Click to access roi-colin-brown.pdf
and includes local property development interests (as well as owning a hotel that is currently used as a polling station for local and national elections):
and Councillor Carter’s Register of Interests (recently updated) is here:
Click to access roi-paul-carter.pdf
and includes local property development interests:
In addition, Councillor Carter has submitted land that he owns for inclusion in the EDDC Local Plan.
Councillor Pook may be a more complex case. In HIS Register of Interests (also recently updated) he lists his local property development interests but also adds in Section 4:
“Litehomes purchase of land from and development house for EDDC (May 2015)” (sic)
Click to access roi-geoff-pook.pdf
What on earth does this mean? Perhaps he could enlighten us about Litehomes.
Additionally, he neglects to inform us that, as Chairman of the Asset Management Forum, he leases a site for beach hut in Beer from East Devon District Council and is currently heading meetings about EDDC giving notice to all lease holders so that huts can be auctioned off to the highest bidder – something being handled by … the Asset Management Forum.
In this case, he has sought to say that Beer, where he leases his hut, should be a “special case” because:
“I have suggested that the history of beach hut ownership and use in Beer is perhaps different from other towns and villages in East Devon – families have traditionally had tea on the beach in Beer and this is part of the historic character of the village”.
http://www.beerparishcouncil.org.uk/news.php?id=4604
As EVERYONE who leases a beach hut anywhere in East Devon also by default has “tea on the beach” we are not entirely convinced by this argument for making Beer a special case!
It should also be noted that on 11th May 2015, 4 days after the latest local election, Councillor Pook left the Independent Group. On 15th May he was identified as a cabinet member. At the beginning of June it was rumoured that he may have indicated that he might not continue as an “Independent” councillor for much longer.
Some Beer voters might feel a little miffed if that transpires.
It’s true: localism is dead – murdered!
“Automatic planning permission would be granted on many brownfield sites in England in an attempt to boost house-building, under government plans.
Ministers would also get powers to seize disused land, while major housing projects could be fast-tracked, and rules on extensions in London relaxed.
Chancellor George Osborne said reforms were needed because Britain had been “incapable of building enough homes”.
It follows a warning this week’s Budget would cut investment in new homes.
The proposed changes feature in a 90-page document to address Britain’s productivity record, to be released later.
It is aimed at boosting British workers’ output levels, which experts say lag behind other leading nations – an issue dubbed the “productivity puzzle”.
The chancellor’s Fixing the Foundations package has been billed by the Treasury as the second half of the Budget.
Upwards extensions
BBC political correspondent Ross Hawkins said Treasury sources argue house-building boosts productivity, as it is helpful to have workers living close to their workplaces.
Housing is just one part of a broad plan, they say.
The report also features proposals on higher education, transport, devolution of powers to cities and trade.
George Osborne says reforms are needed to planning laws so more homes are built.
Under the new proposals – which will need to be approved by MPs – automatic planning permission would be granted on all “suitable” brownfield sites under a new “zonal” system, the Treasury said.
The term brownfield refers to land that has previously been developed but is vacant or derelict.
Another change would see ministers seek to scrap the need for planning permission in London for developers who want to extend buildings to the height of neighbouring properties.
Planning powers will be devolved to mayors in London and Manchester, while enhanced compulsory purchase powers will allow more brownfield land to be made available for development.
There would also be new sanctions for councils that do not deal with planning applications quickly enough, and the government would be able to intervene in councils’ local development plans.
House prices
This week, the Office for Budget Responsibility warned government plans for rent reductions in social rented homes would hit housing investment.
The OBR said 14,000 fewer affordable homes would be built and cut its forecast for investment in private housing by 0.7%.
It also said house prices were expected to rise compared with both consumer prices and household incomes.
A Treasury source said the OBR assessment considered only the impact of the Budget and did not reflect the new policy.
In his Mansion House speech in June 2014, Mr Osborne said 200,000 permissions for new homes would be made possible by 2020 as councils put in place orders to provide sites with outline planning permission.
Housing ladder
The Treasury said the new plan went further – in effect stripping away the need for any planning permission in some brownfield locations.
The Conservative manifesto pledged to “ensure that 90% of suitable brownfield sites have planning permission for housing by 2020”.
In a statement released before the publication of the productivity plan, Mr Osborne said: “Britain has been incapable of building enough homes.
“The reforms we made to the planning system in the last Parliament have started to improve the situation: planning permissions and housing starts are at a seven-year high.
“But we need to go further and I am not prepared to stand by when people who want to get on the housing ladder can’t do so.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33472405
East Devon Watch 