Reminder: National Day of Action event at Knowle (12 April)

Details here: April 21 National Day of Action CoVoP Poster

The Knowle event is being organised by two East Devon Alliance members, Ian McKintosh and Mike Temple, who have joined the National Community Voice On Planning (CoVoP) as trustees.

CoVoP is constantly working for reforms in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), as this latest message shows:

‘Two letters from our members have appeared in the Telegraph this week – both were edited to remove references to CoVoP National Day of Action (12 April), but both expressed the key message that the Government is not listening to communities on planning. References to the 5 year plan supply have also been removed. The full text for both letters is here: letters to the Telegraph

Another member has written to Messers Betts, Pickles and Lewis expressing similar frustration.
“Dear Honourable Members
The NPPF is NOT working for local communities!
Further to the recent press release by the Communities & Local Government Select Committee on the operation of the NPPF I would like to draw your attention to further evidence that the NPPF is not protecting important local landscapes from inappropriate development and that Planning Officers appear to be ignoring sustainable planning principles outlined in the NPPF.
South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) planning officers regularly emphasise the ‘presumption in favour of development’ to their Planning Committee while failing to mention that all planning applications (even those for allocated sites in a Local Plan), must comply with core planning principles in the NPPF. These are outlined the NPPF (219 paragraphs) which also states (several times) that these sustainable planning principles are ‘material considerations’ when assessing planning applications.
At an SLDC Planning Committee meeting last December (attended by six out of 17 members), a planning application for a prime green field site, in the middle of Grange-over-Sands’ Conservation Areas, was granted. Committee members did not bother to discuss major infrastructure problems (drainage and roads), or the likely adverse impact on the town’s tourist economy. These problems had been raised at the meeting by local residents and Town Council representatives who also drew attention to the relevant paragraphs in the NPPF. No wonder people are losing faith in local planning procedures. This feels like a District Council dictatorship; not a local democracy.
We believe that District Councils are being ‘threatened’ with appeal cases by developers that they claim will be resolved in favour of granting planning permission. Also, we have evidence that our planning officers are also being pressurised into putting planning applications before the Planning Committee, due to perceived time constraints, even when the developer has not provided all the evidence needed to support their application such as an adequate flood risk assessment that considers the potential for flooding elsewhere.
We need more homes in areas where there are good employment prospects and good public transport links. We do not need them in areas with poor employment prospects, poor public transport links and inadequate infrastructure or where they will become second homes and have an adverse impact on Conservation Areas that are important to the local tourist economy.
I realise that you cannot do anything about specific issues raised above but I hope that the next Parliament will rectify some of the problems highlighted as a matter of urgency!
At the moment many of us do not know who to vote for at the next election because none of the main political parties have robust proposals for dealing with these serious planning inadequacies.
Yours sincerely”

We need to shout more loudly! Please demonstrate your frustration on 12 April.

Best wishes
Julie

Chairman of CoVoP
admin@covop.org

Community Voice on Planning
A National Alliance to provide communities with an effective voice on planning
http://www.covop.org’

Relocation…the key question

..was asked tonight by Sidmouth Cllr Graham Troman. Speaking at the special combined meeting two Committees ( Overview & Scrutiny, and Audit & Governance), he was bold enough to put the essential question “Could the contract (for sale of the Knowle) be signed before the election?” . “Yes”, said Chair-for-the-occasion, Cllr Tim Wood.

Later in the meeting, it was also confirmed that the sale contract could be signed within the so-called ‘purdah’ pre-election period.

Further report on tonight’s session, which became rather heated at times, to follow soon.

Two questions to Cabinet last night

One was asked by Dr Cathy Gardner, a member of East Devon Alliance, who found a discrepancy in figures in the external auditors’ report. Her question to Head of the Relocation Project, Richard Cohen, was: “In paragraph 2 of the report from Grant Thornton and GLEES, the annual maintenance cost allowance is £145,000 per annum, but the maximum spend over the past five years was around £65, 000. How do you explain this?
The answer, from Mr Cohen and three of his colleagues, seemed to confirm there had been managed deterioration of the Knowle buildings (a familiar practice, some might say).

The next question came from possibly the youngest person ever to speak at an EDDC meeting, and who received a round of applause from the public present:
Here’s what she confidently said:
“Good Evening,
My name is Gemma Manley, I’m a Sidmothian, I am 16 and I am currently studying for my A-levels.
When it comes to the relocation project, like many others I am completely against it. However my question tonight is not why East Devon District Council think it is appropriate to refuse to prove to the public why this building is not fit for purpose. Nor why East Devon District Council feel it is appropriate to borrow millions to fund their absurd move. Nor even how they can sell one of East Devon’s greatest assets. But I want to simply ask, “Can the Leader of the council justify making the final decision on the project just weeks before the general and district elections? Does he honestly believe that this is the most democratic timing, especially when councillors will be asked to vote just BEFORE a Tribunal ruling on whether more documents, which EDDC wants to keep secret, should be revealed.
Thank you.

In case you missed our earlier post on the Cabinet meeting, you’ll find it here: https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/03/12/a-very-noisy-group-of-people-in-sidmouth-have-irritated-cllr-tim-wood/

“A very noisy group of people in Sidmouth” have irritated Cllr Tim Wood

True to form, East Devon District Council’s all-Conservative Cabinet tonight voted unanimously to press on with relocation from the Knowle.

There were two questions from the public, from Dr Cathy Gardner of East Devon Alliance, and from 16-year-old Gemma Manley. (We’ll post details later)

Five Sidmouth Ward members were present (no sign of Cllr Hughes).

Graham Troman spoke out against the loss of Sidmouth jobs; the rising asset value of the Knowle site; and of the potential better use of the 1980s purpose-built offices.

Peter Sullivan asked if the Town Council would get a pay-out from EDDC to help maintain the gardens. Richard Cohen replied that a deal would probably be struck with them.

Frances Newth wondered how much the local ‘hubs’ would cost ( Cohen  said “Hubs” (his own term!) “is a bit of a misnomer” . EDDC would provide services, using existing sites where possible, but this would become clearer “when we know what the needs are”.

Cllrs Drew and Kerridge didn’t have any questions, as “Everything’s been asked”.

Ward member for Exmouth, Cllr Tim Wood congratulated the Sidmouth members “for fighting so well on behalf of Sidmouth”, and said they had got “an extraordinarily good deal. “I get annoyed”, he said,”When we are told we are abusing Sidmouth’s heritage”.  (Was he referring to the SVA publication, ‘A Stately Pleasure Dome’ ?).

But Cllr Pook reminded his colleagues that the relocation build costs “were going over our  budget”, and that he would rather have a “break even situation” . (EDWatch note: Yes, whatever happened to “Cost neutral”?)  “I take on board your challenge to keep costs down”, promised Richard Cohen.

Cllr Ian Thomas seemed to have overstepped the mark with his long list of concerns. The Leader impatiently chided him, saying  “How many questions are you going to ask?”  One of those questions was about risk, and what the consequences would be  “in the event that no planning permission was given”.

Rounding up the debate, Cllr Diviani acknowledged that £7-8million for Knowle “was not the best deal I thought we might have got” . There was “a blight on it from the planning application that got turned down”, he claimed, putting the blame for the low price entirely on Save Our Sidmouth!!!

 

 

 

Unseemly haste leads to confusion at EDDC

Frantic rearrangement of EDDC’s schedule (“Nothing to do with the election” , said Cllr Paul Diviani at  this evening’s Cabinet meeting) has prompted a correspondent to send us this:

‘I trust that when the next set of EDDC councillors control the army of Knowledge communications officers, the EDDC website will continue to provide as much amusement (and possibly a bit more information) for local residents. See eddc-press-release-manageable-growth

‘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!”

East Devon Alliance announces its first district council contenders

A full house of 7 Independents for Sidmouth including 4 EDA members standing as EDA candidates:

http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk/news/20150227/electoral-registration-first-set-of-candidates/

Independents day, not just for Sid Valley. Watch this movement spread!!

Full text of the Sidmouth Herald report is here: http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk/in-the-press/20150227/sidmouth-herald-independents-day-for-valley/ and here: http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sidmouth_herald_20150227_page_5_charter.jpg?56fb72

And/ or/ click on the pics below to zoom in:

EPSON MFP image

EPSON MFP image

EPSON MFP image

EPSON MFP image

Progress update on Village Plan and EDDC Plan

From Save Clyst St Mary organiser, Gaeron Kayley:

‘A big thank you to everyone that attended the meeting with Hugo Swire last week. A number of questions came up regarding our neighbourhood plan and our local plan.

Please See the update from Mike Howe regarding our local Plan below*.

Please also see our poster advertising the neighbourhood plan, where you can view and have your say on our Parish. Click here to open Exhibition poster (1) . (Saturday 7th March at Clyst St Mary School 10am- 4pm, 10th March Cat and Fiddle Inn 10am-Noon & Sowton Village Hall 6pm-9pm)’

*email fromMike Howe:

The production of the SHMA has unfortunately been a long and drawn out process. There are 6 key stages to the production of the SHMA. These are:

Definition of the housingmarket area

Understanding household projections

Addressing Market Signals

Addressing Housing Backlog

Measuring Affordable Housing Need

Future Employment and Economic Growth Assumptions and Aspirations

A so-called draft SHMA was sent through from the consultants in August 2014 after they had completed only the first two stages of the process. This information was communicated to Members via a report to Development Management Committee on the 26th August 2014 and an all Members briefing note on the 27th August 2014. This report and briefing note made it clear that the information available so far simply

modelled housing numbers based on historic trends and that without taking account of factors such as the backlog of affordable housing need and projecting future employment and economic growth the information was largely meaningless. No further draft SHMA information has been made available to any Members since that time indeed until the SHMA process is complete and all factors have been taken into account any data would have been misleading. I appreciate that this delay has been highly frustrating for all of us but we have been entirely dependent on consultants to carry out this work. Given the expertise required and the need to consider data from all of the authorities within the housing area there was no other option than to use external consultants on this work. Unfortunately, it has taken them much longer than envisaged.

In advance of receipt of the final SHMA Mid-Devon District Council have proceeded with production and consultation on their Local Plan. It is understood that their work is based on the draft SHMA data that all of the participating authorities received in August 2014 and some subsequent employment projections. Mid-Devon do not have any additional data than we do, however their position is slightly more straight forward as they do not have a growth point and therefore it is easier to predict factors such as future job growth in Mid-Devon than it is here in East Devon. Clearly there are risks associated with Mid-Devon’s approach however this is not our concern as we must focus on delivering our own Local Plan.

I am pleased to say that the SHMA work is now complete and only yesterday a draft report was provided by the consultants to officers of the commissioning authorities. The work now needs to be considered by officers and any queries raised with the consultants before the report can be finalized and published. This will happen in the next week to 10 days. We envisage publishing the SHMA in a co-ordinated way between the authorities and their respective Members with the report being sent to Members slightly in advance of wider publication.

The SHMA was the remaining key piece of evidence that enables us to produce an objectively assessed housing need for the district and move forward with the Local Plan. We had previously envisaged that the upcoming election would prevent progress being made until May however the Inspector has made it clear that he expects to see the proposed changes to the Local Plan by mid-April and we must adhere to the timescale that he has set as the process moving forward is led by the inspector.

Our time line now looks like this:

 Early March – Publication of the SHMA

 By end of March (pre-purdah) – DMC and full council meeting to consider

revisions to the Local Plan including proposed housing numbers

 Submission of revisions to Inspector immediately following incorporation of

any changes following full council

 Inspector provides questions upon which to seek views through consultation

 Consultation commences (mid-April)

 Consultation ends (end May)

 Oral examination sessions reconvene (August/September)

 Local Plan adoption by end of year

‘East Devon District Council accused of “forcing” a vote on controversial relocation project’ , reports Exeter Express and Echo

By Exeter Express and Echo | Posted: February 25, 2015
The Knowle in Sidmouth

A LEADING East Devon District Councillor has accused the council of “forcing” a vote on its controversial relocation project ahead of the local elections in May.

The council’s relocation project is set to be decided upon next month, because of the looming local elections.

Ward member for Ottery St Mary Councillor Claire Wright, criticised council officials for prematurely “forcing” a vote on the project “just days “ before the pre-election period known as purdah which prevents council’s from making any major decisions so as not avoid the risk of prejudice.

The council was pursuing plans to relocate to a purpose built office at SkyPark. However, at the end of November, the local authority announced a U-turn on its plans and instead the council backed the revised plan for the council to retain the council-owned East Devon Business Centre at Heathpark in Honiton where a new build will also be constructed – formerly earmarked for a supermarket – and to use existing space at Exmouth Town Hall.

Councillors have been informed that a meeting of the Cabinet has been brought forward a week to March 11, and will include a report on the office relocation.

A joint meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny and Audit and Governance committees is being held the day later to make recommendations on the relocation report.

And, at an additional meeting of the full council on March 25, a decision will be made on the relocation.

Cllr Wright, said: “It is a shocking indictment of the way that the Conservative leadership operates at the Knowle.

“This is the most controversial and costly project, apart from the local plan, which incidentally has been deliberately delayed until after the election, in years.

“There has been stacks of concern about the facts and figures, as well as the enormous cost and the millions that would need to be borrowed.

“So, instead of waiting to allow a new council to make up its own mind on the plans, the Conservatives force through a vote, just days before the election period starts.

“What a disrespectful way to run a council.”

A council spokesperson, said: “The special council meeting to decide on the proposed office move needs to take place before the end of March so that the proceedings do not fall inside the purdah period leading up to the local election on May 7, during which time no major decisions can be taken.

“The scheduled date for Cabinet was March 18, but there would not have been sufficient time for the council to receive the paperwork from Cabinet so as to discuss it on March 25.

“It was therefore agreed that the cabinet meeting would take place on March 11, to allow more time.

“It also followed that the cabinet reports and recommendation would need to be referred to Overview & Scrutiny and Audit & Governance Committees before full council.

“The chairs of those committees have therefore agreed to meet in a single session on March 12, with one item on the agenda – office relocation.

“That will allow time for all the documentation to be processed and available for councillors to make an informed decision at their meeting on March 25.”

he added: “At full council in December, members rejected a proposal that the decision should be postponed until after the election and tasked the deputy chief executive with continuing to progress the project.

“In the interests of transparency, the cabinet deliberations must be scrutinised by both committees.”

We have identified most of those 6,000 missing voters – just in time for the coming elections

Our long- running campaign (Sidmouth Independent News, EDA former blog, then this blog) has – with little thanks to EDDC – ensured that our district has at last caught up with most of the 6,000 voters missing from the electoral register in 2014 – a misfortune that got our CEO and Electoral Returning Officer, Mark Williams, hauled before the Parliamentary Commission on Voter Engagement to explain. Rather unsatisfactorily.

In its most recent report: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/182375/Analysis-of-the-December-2014-electoral-registers-in-England-and-Wales.pdf

the Electoral Commission has this to say about East Devon, key paragraph:

“In contrast, in East Devon, where the challenges are different, there hjas been an increase in the number of entries on the register. The ERO has attributed this to the success of making visits to non-responding properties and individuals, which were carried out across the area in 2014 for the first time since 2010.”

In other words, Mark Williams has effectively admitted that, had he carried our doorstep canvassing as he was required to do between 2010 and 2014, rather than trying to cut corners (for whatever reason) then most of the missing voters would have almost certainly been registered in that period.

This could well have affected the outcome of European elections in East Devon and, had these voters not made it on to the register, the outcome of district and Parliamentary Elections in May 2015. An election where results may hinge on only scores or hundreds of votes.

Next on the agenda to fix – Households of Multiple Occupation.

Local Plan delay “quite incredible”,says planning expert

See today’s post on http://www.saveoursidmouth.com

Do we need a District Council?

Subject brought up today on this local blog:

https://www.streetlife.com/conversation/cvsuowbds7d0/

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.” ‘

More re EDDC’s attempt at Knowle ‘landgrab’

See http://saveoursidmouth.com/2015/02/13/sidmouth-town-council-adamantly-opposed-to-eddc-appropriating-extra-land-to-develop-at-knowle/

REMINDER: ‘Knowle landgrab’ objections DEADLINE NEXT FRIDAY 20 FEB

What is widely considered the secretive saga of EDDC’s bungled relocation plans, is reaching a costly crescendo…and not just in monetary terms. If the District Council’s plans go-ahead, this unique landmark parkland will have restricted access, and the Public Open Space will be much reduced.
P1030079

To have your say, see http://saveoursidmouth.com/2015/02/12/where-how-to-send-comments-on-appropriation-disposal-of-land-at-knowle/

Following EDA

As you will have noticed, the East Devon Alliance has grabbed the headlines, and been prominently featured in the local press and radio over the past week or so.
Now this invitation has come from EDA, for any EDWatchers who might like to follow EDA news for themselves:

There are 4 options:
a. Subscribe to emails on the site – http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk
b. Subscribe to RSS on the site – http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk
c. Like EDA on Facebook – EastDevonAlliance
d. Follow on Twitter – EDevonAlliance

And if anything specially grabs EDWatchers’ attention, it can be shared with neighbours and local friends by:

a. Forwarding the email
b. Clicking the share buttons on the EDA website
c. Sharing EDA posts with friends on facebook.
d. Re-tweeting.

……There seems to be lots going on!!

Three cheers for Save Clyst St Mary campaigners!

Congratulations to Gaeron Kayley of the Save Clyst St Mary campaign, who tells us, “I have been advised that the development at the Cat and Fiddle has been refused! This shows that a collaborative, fair and open approach does give us a true voice. Lets hope events continue to go this way and our village’s character preserved.” Full story, with reasons for refusal,  here: http://saveclyststmary.org.uk/2015/02/12/cat-and-fiddle-planning-application-refused/

‘Candidates meet at HQ’: Express and Echo report on EDA news

ExpressandEchoEDA12thFeb15 001