Tories of East Devon – You just don’t get it, do you?

Wednesday 3rd June

The motion to delay the Knowle Sale by 6 months was placed before Full Council by Cllr Cathy Gardner and Cllr Matt Booth.  They both presented very reasoned cases for the delay and were conciliatory in their approach.  They stressed Transparency to the residents of East Devon and in particular Sidmouth.  They did not oppose the move merely asked for more time to allow greater consultation to ensure that the Council made the right decision.

The reaction was set by Cllr Williamson who insisted that as the decision had already been validated by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (with a set of “independent” auditors) there was no need to delay – in fact he maintained that there was a need for greater speed.  Other speakers opposing the motion spoke of the need to move and how inappropriate the current building was.

Tories – you just don’t get it!  It is recognised that the current buildings are not fit for purpose AND SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE – but what that is and how due process is applied is the central issue in this motion.

Previous Committees and Councils sanctioned a move to Sky Park – not a mention of that! Then a sudden concept of two premises – why the change?

The appeal to the Freedom of Information request was scathing of the Council – no acceptance of that or any explanation of what was so important within the papers that they could not be released – I doubt most Tory members had even read (or been able to read) them.

Reference to election results and other “facts” but no concept of the Perception of the public – they rightly feel marginalised.

Tories – you seem to have forgotten that you serve your community – these assets are not yours – they are not even EDDC’s – they are owned by the Council Tax Payers of East Devon – you merely act as temporary custodians in the passage of time.  You MUST consult with your Community – you have failed to do this as on other occasions.  You were given the opportunity last night to make a fresh start with Openness and Transparency – you rejected that offer with your customary arrogance.

The motion was defeated by a recorded vote – this may come back to bite you!

Owl

 

Now that’s how you do enforcement!

No pussyfooting or being nice to developers here!

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/developer-told-to-rebuild-maida-vale-pub-brick-by-brick-after-site-torn-down-without-notice-10211892.html

Who shapes our future?

Anyone who’s been to the new town of Cranbrook lately, will be interested in this link: http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/where-we-live-now-new-town-home-town.html

Was it Churchill who once said, we shape our buildings and our buildings shape us…

Urgent: Save Clyst St Mary public meeting 15th April re. Westpoint planning application

Westpoint has applied for an exemption to its planning permission to allow timed car trials on its site. Obviously this is a concern as it is likely to be very noisy and could potentially cause additional pollution to the area too..

This is the link to the planning application (15/0139/VAR):
https://planning.eastdevon.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NIGLWSGHHHM00

Save Clyst St Mary spokesperson, Gaeron Kayley, says:
“Having spoken to The Parish Council, I can confirm there will be a public meeting in the School Hall on Wednesday 15th April Starting at 19.30″

Knowle Relocation …Will tonight’s ‘final decision’ leave poison chalice for East Devon?

Display 3What’s at stake tonight’s Extra Ordinary Council meeting? No less than our big money (a 20 year Council debt is proposed), and the re-shaping of one of East Devon’s loveliest towns.

So,once again, the public gallery will be full. Once again, Councillors may be seen to be pulled by the nose into making a huge decision, with possibly incomplete information at their disposal. EDDC may be obliged to release further ‘sensitive’ documents in just a few days’ time.

The meeting starts at 6.30pm this evening, at Knowle Council Chamber. Agenda on EDDC website, under ‘ Councillors and Democracy’.

Come early to get a seat..and enjoy a stroll in the whole park, while you still can!

P1030079

Claire Wright’s analysis of housing figures – curious, chilling and mysterious – and not in a good way

The disappearing houses

… And something sinister has happened to all the houses built between 2006 and 2013.

They have disappeared!

Before I get on to this I should explain that in the old draft local plan the plan period was between 2006 and 2026.

The new revisions propose a plan period of 2013 to 2031.

So what has happened to all the houses that were in the old draft local plan between 2006 and 2013?

Have they been erased from the towns and villages that they were built in?

No. They simply have not been counted! This means that the figure of 18,000 is a considerable underestimate. I am not sure how many houses are now unaccounted for but I think we can assume it is several thousand. Which does rather increase the true housing hike up to well over 20,000.

I gave the council quite a blast over all this (as did other councillors including Susie Bond and Ian Thomas and a more than a dozen residents) at this morning’s development management committee meeting, which was packed with around 100 members of the public.

I also asked whether the planning inspector had recommended a housing number for the district. The chief executive indicated that he had not.

Then why I asked, does it say on the press release dated 9 March, that the planning inspector had advised on housing growth of 950 a year? This gives a clear (and totally false) impression that the council was implementing the sort of development levels that the planning inspector had told them to. …”

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/eddc_proposes_highest_housing_levels_possible_for_district

Scorched earth – literally.

Bad day for EDDC’s Local Plan officers. Good day for Clyst St Mary.

A barrage of questions from the public (no less than 17 people had pre-registered to speak) were fired at the DMC who were today considering the revised Local Plan. Several councillors firmly added their own particular concerns.

Seven speakers were from the Save Clyst St Mary Group. Campaign leader Gaeron Kayley has just circulated the news copied below:

As you will be aware, today was the day the Development Management Committee met at EDDC to discuss the Local Plan.

This had great significance for Clyst St Mary, given that it had been proposed that both the Winslade Park area and the green field owned by the Plymouth Brethren would be used for the village’s allocation of an additional 200 houses.

22 members of our group met last Monday and discussed our key arguments against this which were to be delivered at today’s meeting.

We are thrilled to announce that, following today’s Committee meeting, it was unanimously agreed by the 15 councillors present to reject the green field proposal and reduce the housing allocation for Winslade Park to 150 in total.

A massive thank you to everyone who attended last Monday’s meeting, including the seven brave souls who spoke so passionately and articulately today, as well as all those local residents who turned up simply to offer moral support. It really was greatly appreciated.

Whilst this was only a hearing for the Local Plan – not a hearing for the specific applications to which we have all objected – it does give us hope for the future. Things certainly appear now to be less bleak than they did ten days ago!

Rest assured, with your support, we will continue to fight in a dignified, professional and open manner to unite and preserve our village community.

Give Cabinet control over major planning applications” proposal shocks councillors.

EDW hears that councillors are deeply uneasy about officer proposals to allow EDDC’s Cabinet to decide “strategic” planning applications of more than 50 dwellings and over 5000 square metres of industrial floor space.

Lead Planning Officer Ed Freeman and Deputy Chief Executive, Richard Cohen, made a verbal report to the Audit and Governance (A&G) Committee on March 5th on “improving Strategic Planning Policy”, especially on ensuring a five year housing land supply.

Incredibly, they explained that their first recommendation was to alter EDDC’s constitution to take “strategic” planning applications from the Development Management Committee, (DMC) and to give them to Cabinet for determination.

They admitted spending considerable time looking at this controversial option that would have further strengthened the power of, what many critics consider, an overweening and developer-friendly Executive.

They were forced to drop it, by legal advice pointing out the potential conflicts of interest inherent in the proposal. Their preferred option now is to create a “Strategic Planning Committee” consisting of both Cabinet and DMC members, possibly under the chairmanship of the current Strategic Planning Portfolio Holder Andrew Moulding, to look at strategic planning applications.

This was still too much for members of the A&G Committee. Cllr Geoff Pook said, “We don’t need a second DMC looking at planning applications”. Cllr Tony Howard agreed: what was needed was competent, well-resourced officers who could get a grip on the figures for housing land supply. Constitutional changes giving more power to the Cabinet, he said, “is a different matter”.

A big “Hear, Hear!” to that from East Devon Watch.

And who defines what is “strategic”? Our suggestion: anything that involves a developer and/or a former member of the East Devon Business Forum – leaving only conservatories and extensions to the current DMC!

Questions for DMC regarding Knowle site

You say the district’s desperate need is for much more affordable housing.

Will any of the retirement flats be affordable? If not, why not?

If the loss of parkland is only a Sidmouth issue, will all S106/ potential Community Infrastructure Levy income be applied solely to Sidmouth in mitigation?

Local Plan version 2: a layperson’s summary

The Development Management Committee meets this week to nod through the latest draft of our Local Plan, after which it will go out for consultation.

It’s just about a year since the first version was inspected and thrown out straight away – the Inspector saying he expected to re-hear it in October 2014.

That month came and went and the excuse was: we have LOTS more work to do, be patient.

Those dealing with the revised plan were given few extra resources (around £50,000 worth when costs last published), more resources being piled into headquarter PRE-relocation work (£750,000 plus at least £10,000 to keep consultants reports on the project secret after EDDC was taken to court by the Information Commissioner for refusing to publish them).

February 2015: and we are told consultants reports are “imminent” but must not be published before local elections (May 2015) as they are deemed to be “too politically sensitive”. However, Mid Devon (relying on the very same consultants reports) decided to put their Local Plan out for consultation, eventually publishing the reports for the public with no qualms about their sensitivity.

Our Inspector would have no truck with this “political sensitivity” excuse and said he expected our new draft Local Plan to be out for public consultation by April 2015, election or no election.

Out of the mist came the consultants report – short, based on widely available figures and with no explanation as to why they had taken so long and soon after what appears to be a new draft Local Plan hurridly changed to reflect the new numbers and with an extra addendum of vastly more housing for Cranbrook and Clyst St Mary.

The Local Plan still appears to be (possibly fatally) flawed. Whereas it fixes on a number (18,000 plus houses including windfalls) IT DOES NOT MAKE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR WHERE EXACTLY THEY WILL GO except for Cranbrook and Clyst St Mary.

The report says some towns will have their built-up boundary respected (e.g. Sidmouth) whereas no such promise is made in other places (e.g. Budleigh Salterton). Some towns and villages have little idea of what their allocations will be or where they are to go. That makes Neighbourhood Plans very difficult.

What are the chances of this draft Local Plan being passed by the Inspector? Layperson’s opinion: very slim.

Whatever happens it will be a THIRD council that carries the can – the previous two having failed to get to grips with an out-of-date plan. Let us hope the new council will do a better job than the first two (big Conservative majority) councils did.

A vote for Independents is a vote for a new Local Plan to protect the district from free-for-all development. Heaven knows what a vote for Conservatives would bring on past and present performance!

Questions for the Local Plan

When maximum, minimum and average figures were compiled why was maximum chosen, as maximums can be skewed.

Why was the final figure designated as the MINIMUM number to be built if maximum numbers were chosen?

Where are these houses to be built: sites for such numbers are not identified nor the number of houses per site. This will encourage very large initial developments with no ability to refuse (aaah). Only Clyst St Mary seems to have designated (large) numbers.

Where is the Community Infrastructure Levy document which specifies the cost per square metre of development to support local and district-wide infrastructure for these massive increases?

What is our current 5/6 year land supply?

With the future of the inter-modal freight terminal uncertain why is this not designated as extra employment land?

Good quality agricultural land CAN be protected where there is no 5 year land supply

Pickles Introduces Pre-Election Presumption Against Loss of Countryside Policy in Osborne’s LPA

Another Green Wedge for East Devon? Don’t miss DMC next Monday, 23 March.

See http://saveoursidmouth.com/2015/03/17/employment-land-for-sid-valley-should-eddcs-local-plan-be-amended-dmc-to-consider-next-monday-morning-23-march/

Some points DMC may keep in mind are pictured here:

:Slide15

and here (Sidford-Sidbury road):

Slide23

and more (as recently referred to on EDW) here: http://saveoursidmouth.com/2015/03/16/what-eddcs-revised-local-plan-specifies-for-the-sid-valley/

EDDC Revised Plan- directly affects CLYST ST MARY

Gaeron Kayley, leading the Save Clyst St Mary campaign, urges you to read his message:

There has been a significant development regarding the Clyst St Mary planning applications of which you need to be aware.

We have been advised that East Devon District Council, in its amended Local Plan, has now stated that our village is to take an additional 200 new homes (on top of the 95 that we have already agreed to.) Moreover, the Friends Provident and Plymouth Brethren sites are the proposed locations of these new homes.

It is important to note that this news concerns East Devon’s Local Plan – it is not a result of the specific hearings for which we have all battled so hard to object to (these planning applications are still to be heard). This announcement is part of a totally separate decision where, for reasons we are not party to, our village seems to have become the exception to the apparent aim of preserving East Devon villages’ identity; it is believed it is due to our ‘proximity to Exeter’.

As you can imagine, having devoted a large part of our spare time to this campaign for several months, we feel, as you probably do, utterly devastated to hear this shocking news. There remain many questions unanswered and we would, in the longer term, be keen to hear your views regarding the group’s response and possible actions. In the first instance, we desperately need speakers at the meeting at the Council’s headquarters on Monday 23rd March at 10am. It is crucial our voice is heard. Would you be prepared to speak? If so, please respond to this email – or call 01392 969100 – as soon as possible. Anyone that is prepared to speak must have a booking made by mid day with EDDC. We are hoping to arrange a short get together for anyone prepared to speak on Tuesday evening.

To say that we are shocked at this development is an understatement; now, more than ever, we have to stay strong and united as a group and really hope that, despite how recent events appear to have manifested themselves, ultimately justice, transparency and equality shall still prevail.

Gaeron

Relevant links:

The agenda for the Special Development Management Committee to be held on Monday, 23 March at 10amcan now be viewed at: http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/990985/230315-special-combined-dmc-agenda.pdf

The revised draft New East Devon Local Plan can be viewed here: http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/990979/230315-sp-dmc-local-plan-with-changes-for-post-hearing-consultation-ver-04-march-2015.pdf

The draft schedule of proposed changes to the East Devon Local Plan can be viewed here:http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/990982/230315-sp-dmc-table-of-changes-to-local-plan-v3-march-15.pdf

Paper copies of the agenda, revised draft Local Plan and schedule of proposed changes have been posted to those committee members that would normally receive a paper copy of the DMC agenda.

Cautions for Councillors voting on relocation

From SOS: http://saveoursidmouth.com/2015/03/13/auditors-reports-highly-dependent-on-quality-and-sufficiency-of-data-used/

Incursion into Knowle’s Public Open Space “has never been debated by councillors”

and from more than one senior Honiton Councillor, at various stages of EDDC’s ill-starred (jinxed?) ‘road to relocation’ project. Remember this SIN post, anyone? https://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/watchdog-kennelled/

‘Better use of facilities’ at Knowle than making it a retirement community!

Display 3

EDDC’s announcement in today’s Sidmouth Herald, of its preferred buyer for Knowle, could have massive repercussions, not least at the May District Council election.The plan is to change this prime employment site, and shrink the surrounding historic  parkland, to make a residential development exclusively not for young people. The purpose is to relocate the District Council offices, to a much older building (Exmouth Town Hall) requiring major refurbishment, and a not-yet-built office at Honiton.
Here’s just one local conversation on the topic https://www.streetlife.com/conversation/3h3lq15pbi7i/

Photo supplied by https://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com

Pity DMC’s concerns aren’t consistent

The agenda for today’s meeting of the Development Management Committee at EDDC includes an officer recommendation for a representation to the Mid Devon Local Plan consultation:

5. That potential commuting patterns, especially for work
purposes, of the future residents of Cullompton are
accurately assessed. This is especially significant noting the
ease of car travel from Cullompton to the strategic
employment sites in the West End of East Devon (e.g. a drive
time of 11 minutes from M5 Junction 28 to the Science Park).

There is quite a lot more including a reference to the A373 Cullompton to Honiton road being ‘narrow in places’.

An EDWatcher comments, “It’s intriguing that EDDC are so concerned about the traffic implications of commuting from Cullompton, and yet no similar concern was expressed for the impact of our 1400 job industrial estate between Sidford and Sidbury, where the road through the village is much narrower than the A373.”

EDWatch says, “We’d burst out laughing, if this were a laughing matter!”

Visions of East Devon

Great news for those who enjoyed the preview launch (Sidmouth, December 2014) of Peter Nasmyth’s  new book on ‘East Devon’s Literature and Landcape’, AND for those who missed it. A follow up performance will take place in May, in Coleridge’s home town, Ottery St Mary. Special dispensation has been given for pixies in the church! Here’s the poster, with another of Peter’s stunning photos (Click to enlarge).

Visions of Childhood poster rgb

Meanwhile, this poem, by co-organiser of the event, Mike Temple, has just been published in the Express and Echo. It’s called simply, ‘A Vision’.

(with apologies to Coleridge)

In Honiton E.D.D.C.
Says its new offices shall be –
Far from the town where, as we know,
The office workers like to go.
No longer all Knowle’s greenery
But superstore and factory.
An Exmouth office, too, a place
Where few will find a parking space –
The building looks like an old barn,
Not like the “dome” in “Kubla Khan”.

But, Oh, the waste of public money –
The ratepayers don’t think it funny:
To build a glass and concrete shed
And trash the park and Knowle instead,
For “Our Great Leader” and his crew
Have no care for the public’s view;
Nor badger-setts, nor many a tree;
Nor office blocks, built ’83;
Nor Chambers, used by you and me;
Nor weekend tourist-parking, free;
Nor jobs and trade Sidmouth will lose;
Nor all the lovely parkland views –
All sold to builders for a fee –
And all for what? For vanity?
This Council, with no Local Plan,
Lets builders build where’er they can.

Yet in my crystal ball I see
A new look for E.D.D.C.:
Independents there will be
As councillors for you and me,
Come from every town and shire
With the Wright One to remove Swire,
Who all will cry: Please be aware:
We will not relocate somewhere
Based on false claims that there will be
“Big”(?) savings made in energy.
We come to bring Democracy,
And Probity, Transparency.
You all know there’s a better way –
It’s signposted by E.D.A.* ,
So, all you readers, lend a hand
And save our green and pleasant land.

(*EDA is East Devon Alliance)

Tribute to Broadclyst Councillor who fought for years against inappropriate development

The Full Council meeting at Knowle this week, opened with a warm tribute to District and County Councillor Derek Button, who died last month. Representing the people of Broadclyst, he was strongly opposed to the massive development nearby at Cranbrook. And many Councillors listening to the acknowledgements of Derek Button’s dedication to his electors’ concerns, will have recalled his courage in standing up against what he saw as irregular planning matters. He was one of the three Liberal Democrat members of the Development Management Committee (DMC) who temporarily resigned in protest over alleged procedural irregularities in the Waldron’s Farm case. The Ombudsman found no evidence of anything untoward, however, and the controversy lingers on. More info here: https://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/waldrons-farm-application-stirs-bitter-memories/

And those following the Task and Finish Forum set up to do an “in-depth report” into EDDC’s relationship with the group then known as the East Devon Business Forum, would also remember Cllr Button’s part in trying to progress this so-called Business TAFF, which never pursued its original aim. See the voting recorded here: http://saveoursidmouth.com/2013/03/29/planning-issues-are-within-the-scope-of-the-business-taff/

As Council Leader Paul Diviani put it, in a tribute in the Midweek Herald (27 Jan 2015), Derek Button’s colleagues “will mourn the loss of a good man”. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDEQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.midweekherald.co.uk%2Fnews%2Ftributes_paid_to_respected_east_devon_district_councillor_1_3935704&ei=CGHwVOn3KML3UoWHgYgL&usg=AFQjCNESXXA6c5muF1a_V-2EscfoUkUD7w&bvm=bv.87269000,d.d24

South Somerset now has a Local Plan in place

Thanks to the correspondent who sent in two related pieces of news: firstly, that South Somerset’s Local Plan has just been declared sound:  and secondly, that the Conservative parliamentary candidate has adopted a stance that would get him elected here!

‘SOMERSET: District reaches ‘major milestone’ in Local Plan process
BUT CONSERVATIVE PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATE QUESTIONS WHETHER HIGH HOUSING FIGURES ARE NEEDED

SOUTH Somerset District Council’s Local Plan, which will act as a guideline for development up until 2028, has been deemed “sound” by a government inspector, subject to a series of modifications.

The council’s received the inspector David Hogger’s report on the Local Plan (2006-2028) on January 8th, marking a “significant point” in the process of formally adopting the plan.

The necessary modifications listed in the report are the same as those consulted upon by the council in March and November 2014, and the document can be read in full online at http://bit.ly/17GNjCz

The report ratifies the council’s objectives to deliver 15,950 homes and 11,250 jobs by 2028, and confirms the council’s ambition for how towns, villages and rural areas will grow and change. It also endorses the policies against which the council will judge planning applications for homes, businesses, community facilities and infrastructure provision across the district.

The next step is for the council to make the proposed changes and present the final Local Plan to a meeting of full council on March 5th. Councillors will be asked to approve and adopt the plan and allow the policies to come into full effect.

Councillor Tim Carroll, deputy leader and portfolio holder for Finance and Spatial Planning, whose responsibilities include the Local Plan, emphasised the importance of the conclusions in the Inspector’s Report.

He commented: “This is a major milestone for the council. The overall conclusion of the inspector is that the SSDC Local Plan and the 12 modifications that were incorporated during the process are sound and therefore the plan itself is capable of adoption without any further change.

“It has been a lengthy process and I would pay tribute to everyone’s hard work over the last few years. We have reacted positively to the inspector’s requests to make changes and it is pleasing that these have now been confirmed. These changes have been fully debated and subject to extensive consultation.

“The plan focuses on bringing much needed homes and jobs to the district in the right number and place and having the formal sign-off by the Inspector puts the council in a stronger position to make better decisions about the future of South Somerset and to resist inappropriate or speculative applications. We will now move quickly to formally adopt the plan and that date has now been set for March 5th for a meeting of all councillors”.

Despite the inspector finding the Local Plan “sound”, Conservative parliamentary candidate for the Yeovil constituency, Marcus Fysh, has questioned the process the council has followed over the past eight years to reach this point.

He said he has “mixed feelings” about the report, as many good things are at risk from the bad, and claimed the proposed housing figure was too high, which he fears will “do a huge disservice to our district”.

‘Not as simple as it seems’

Mr Fysh commented: “It’s now about eight years and over £2.8million of public money which have been spent by South Somerset District Council attempting to make and adopt a Local Plan, a document with power in law to direct how much housing should be built and where it will go in our area.

“Having found the initial plan submitted in 2013 unsound, the planning inspector sent to our area by the Planning Inspectorate to assess the proposals has now issued his decision on a plan revised and resubmitted by South Somerset District Council last year.

“In that decision he has found the amended plan sound, although the decision has some peculiar reasoning and assertions that suggest he may not have properly applied his mind, which may tempt opponents of the plan to challenge it, and it is not as simple a matter as it seems.

“A lot appears to have been left to the concept of ‘early review’, in which the housing figures will be looked at bi-annually.

“And that gets to the nub of the problem with this plan and the process the council has followed to get to this stage: sadly, it may not be the last we hear about controversial planning decisions in our area.

“It is true that an adopted plan should give certainty to residents and developers alike, and on the face of it we should welcome that the inspector has not sent the district council right back to the drawing board.

“But the housing figure is a key problem. The council has been obsessed with keeping the overall housing requirement high, despite good evidence that it is too high, to the extent that many aspects of the plan have changed over the years, but the one thing that strangely has not, has been the 15,950 house building figure they have ‘aspired’ to over 20 years. Some say it is because they get extra revenue as a ‘New Homes Bonus’, which allows them to avoid cutting their spending cloth to suit in other areas (this amounted to £3million last year).

“Somehow they seem to have persuaded the inspector, against the evidence and legal precedent, to keep this number, which I fear will do a huge disservice to our district in the medium term.

“The problem is that the housing figure means that over 1,000 new houses per annum will need to be built in the district in each of the next five years if the district is not to be adjudged at planning appeals as not having met its target. Were the target not met, in planning law the Local Plan would be regarded as not up to date and would not apply at appeal hearings, therefore it would be ‘open season’ for developers again.

“There is only one year in the last 20 in which more than 1,000 houses were built, when the district grabbed money on offer from Gordon Brown and fast tracked developments with a mixed record at at Wyndham Park and Wincanton. The rest of the time the district has built around 500 houses per year, which gives an idea just how far short we could fall behind.

“So, it is with mixed feelings that I look at the inspector’s report. A lot of the good things in the plan are sadly at risk from the bad things. I am not against all development, but it has to be in the right place and have the right infrastructure and facilities.

“In Chard, for example, we want to get the regeneration scheme in place and not overload the roads through the town, and the plan looks to do that, but this will not apply if the district’s housing target is missed.

“In Ilminster we want development to complement the existing town, not turn the town into an over-built dormitory. Over-development is a risk if the housing target is missed, a recipe for even more unhappiness on all sides of the town’s development issues.

“Crewkerne and Wincanton have been told they may get more housing, depending on early review by the council, and would lose control if the housing target is missed.

“And Yeovil, which needs to get more people living downtown to regenerate and support its businesses, shops and restaurants, but doesn’t on the real numbers require yet more big urban extensions, faces yet more bolt-on green field developments that do little to upgrade the town’s infrastructure. That process would just accelerate and be even less controlled if the house build target is not met, with consequent problems for school places, traffic and health care availability.

“South Petherton faces similar pressures that could get even worse.

“One thing is clear to me; the old thinking about development in our area is stale. A huge opportunity has been missed locally to plan for development in many areas that will solve problems rather than create them.

“I do hope later this year local Conservative councillors may be in a position to review these matters and put proper solutions in place, in control of the district council. To do that we need to vote for them though. I will certainly give them my full support.” ‘