Category Archives: EDDC
Notable Sidmouth Residents outside Exeter Magistrates Court this morning (Information Commissioner v East Devon District Council)
Anyone want to provide a caption for this?
First report on Information Commissioner v East Devon District Council
More reports to follow. 24 members of the public attended the meeting in the morning, 4 members of the public in late afternoon:
Today’s Tribunal : EDDC vs Information Commissioner & Jeremy Woodward
The decision of the Hearing at Exeter Magistrates’ court, which took the whole day, is anticipated in two or three weeks’ time.
Here is where interviews, and some of today’s reports on the case, can be found:
BBC Radio Devon. Good Morning Devon interview with Jeremy Woodward 04:15-08:05 ; Jenny Kumah interviews Jeremy Woodward and Richard Thurlow 34:40-38:13; and later, discussion of how Local Authorities usually deal with Freedom of Information requests 01:35-01:40.24
http://www.saveoursidmouth.com
East Devon Alliance response to EDDC Deputy Director Richard Cohen’s press release and some background information
The EDDC Press Release is linked in the post below.
EDA Response:
“The East Devon Alliance notes with disappointment that the recent Briefing for Editors by EDDC does nothing at all to address the issues that really matter. EDDC is still unable to give a date for delivery of the Local Plan and the SHMA, relying instead on patronising assurances that all will be well. The crucial Local Plan, promised for two years ago, now seems unlikely to be agreed before next summer. How much more vulnerable East Devon countryside will be lost while the Council dithers?”
And if anyone wishes to reassure themselves that these are not new problems, please read pages 10 to 21 of the document below: a damning report by the Planning Advisory Service in 2009, commissioned by EDDC when they realised that their first Local Plan project was not going to plan:
PAS report 2009
Also refer to a post on the Sidmouth Independent News of 31 January 2013 which identified many of the issues brought up by Mr Thickett, the Planning Inspector, when he threw out the latest Local Plan in March 2014:
Interesting that the potential problems with the 5 year land supply were all highlighted HERE [Note this reference has since been removed from the EDDC website] in July 2009 in the report of a Task and Finish Forum on 5 year land supply and that everything negative that was predicted in this document has come to pass. Here are a few extracts:
1. Our assessment of our District wide figures shows that we have only just over five years availability. An Inspector at a planning application appeal could take the view that this is close enough to the five year threshold to side with an applicant/dismiss our arguments.
2. The District wide five year figure is based on our assessment and assumptions we have made. A developer might challenge these and come to a different conclusion (i.e. that land supply falls under five years) and persuade an Inspector that his/her evaluation is the more accurate.
3. Circumstances change and assessment/s done at the present time (and initially in 2008) can and will be out of date in the future.
4. In the past we had intentionally split the District in to two, 1. the West End and 2. the Rest of East Devon. ….. It is now considered, however, that it is more appropriate to have a single 5 year housing figure for ACROSS THE WHOLE DISTRICT. This will give the Council the ability to deliver housing outside the West End which will encompass not only the Towns but villages too.
Back in the EDDC ….
The latest outbreak of foot in mouth disease to hit the EDDC – turmoil surrounding the absence of a Local Plan and Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) – has seemingly roused from his slumbers Deputy Chief Executive Richard Cohen. In a Press Release – er, sorry,
SHMA briefing for editors and members 27 Aug final
he provides a guide to recent events that might just as well have been subtitled ‘Everything is Under Control – Honest!”.
Readers will be fascinated to learn that, while the draft Local Plan envisaged 15,000 more homes for East Devon and recent independent research estimates a figure closer to 11,358 …. this is not enough for the economic powerhouse that is East Devon. In keeping with Cllr Paul Diviani’s interview on Radio Devon the other day – a contribution composed chiefly of stumbling ineptitude, the only incontrovertible fact being that he refused twice to answer the question when the Local Plan might be ready – the implication would appear to be that EDDC is hellbent on allowing as many houses on the East Devon countryside as it can get away with. Hence the ‘Briefing for Editors’ writing evangelically about the “explosion of activity .. at the Growth Point” where “new businesses can be expected to move into sites like SkyPark and Exeter Science Park”. That’d be the same Growth Point where Sainsburys was going to build a distribution centre creating hundreds of jobs, only to pull out earlier this month, right?
Consultants should have been putting together data to enable the SHMA to have been all but finished by this stage. But doubting Thomases will be reassured by Mr Cohen’s assurance that “our consultants will now continue with the work required to fully evidence housing need into the future.” Um, “now continue”? So what have they been doing previously? Knitting? And just when will the SHMA finally see the light of day?
The document ‘Briefing for Editors’ belongs more to the days of Pravda than the Knowle. Next up, expect a statement from Mr Cohen that EDDC can look forward to record tractor production and grain harvest in 2015.
“Right to Contest” use of Government property
It’s a bit odd, but below is a toolkit which lists various types of public property where, if you think that is is redundant or could be put to better use and the government agrees, it will go up for sale.
The scale and type of property in our area is astonishing from, for example, a single-office room in Honiton to its (redundant surely) Magistrates Court, to a house in Exmouth and everything inbetween!
https://www.gov.uk/find-government-property
“The ‘Right to Contest’ guidance says that anyone – including businesses, local authorities or members of the public – can issue a challenge.
This is as long as they believe that all the following apply:
Where the land is owned by a central government department or one of their arms’ length bodies, the site: is potentially surplus or redundant; could be put to better economic use, “eg for housing or to help businesses develop or expand”.
The right can be used to challenge central government sites which are in use, as long as the challenger thinks that operations could be moved to a different location.
Where land is owned by a local authority or certain other public bodies: the site is empty or under-used; there are no plans to bring it back into use.”
Hmmmm …..!
An interesting First Tier Tribunal (Information) case with “public interest” requirements
Not quite the same as EDDC but with some interesting similarities:
and the decision:
http://35percent.org/blog/2014/05/10/foi-appeal-decision/
The full official decision notice is here:
http://ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2013/fer_0461281.ashx
and includes the following pertinent paragraphs:
“In relation to the disposal of the council’s land, land which would previously have been a public resource which provided council housing for significant numbers of residents, there is a public interest in knowing that the decision to sell this resource to a private company was based on a sound evaluation of relevant factors and represented good value and an effective use of a public resource. Disclosure of the requested information would provide the public with the same level of detail available to the council in its decision making which, in turn, would facilitate public engagement with the scheme and provide reassurance that the council gave due consideration to the relevant factors.
The Commissioner accepts that it is in the public interest for authorities to secure best value when disposing of assets and that, in the current economic climate, this presents particular difficulties. It is arguable, therefore, that the council should be allowed to progress the regeneration without this process being jeopardised. However, the Commissioner is also mindful that, given the fact that the asset in question is a public resource and that Lend Lease is a private company which stands to profit from the regeneration, there is a compelling, countervailing argument in favour of making this process as transparent as possible. Whilst it may be that the regeneration will free council resources which were previously tied up with maintaining the Heygate Estate, the Commissioner considers that size of the redevelopment and the number of residents affected should provide a trigger for transparency and engagement with council tax payers.
The Commissioner further considers that, as the planning authority responsible for adjudicating on Lend Lease’s planning application (which the viability assessment was created to accompany) and the authority responsible for the significant land disposal associated with the scheme, there is a further argument for a high level of scrutiny to be directed to the council’s actions. Whilst the Commissioner is not suggesting that there is a conflict of interests in play, the public perception that a public authority might be subject to such a conflict and the potential damage to an authority’s reputation which might ensue provides an argument in favour of transparency and disclosure. The Commissioner considers that disclosure in this case would address the general mismatch between the resources of the developer and those of residents directly affected by the scheme and council tax payers within the borough.
The Commissioner notes that an independent report published by Spinwatch alleges that the council’s consultation with the local community was deficient and raises concerns about the relationship between the council and Lend Lease26. Whilst the Commissioner does not endorse the veracity of these conclusions, he considers that the reputation of public institutions and their legitimacy and effectiveness in carrying out their role can be damaged by public perceptions. As it is not in the public interest for public authorities’ actions to be perceived or potentially constrained by such perceptions, disclosure would provide reassurance about the council’s conduct and would serve the interest in transparency and accountability.
The Commissioner considers that the significant expenditure of public funds, the need for public reassurance, confidence and engagement with the council’s decision making in relation to the scheme, the disquiet about the levels of affordable housing which will be delivered and concerns about the value for money provided by the disposal of public land combine to produce a heavy public interest weighting in favour of disclosing the information.
Gushing praise from EDDC leader for developer
From a commentator below:
Surely no-one would dare to suggest Cllr Diviani would put the interests of property developers before the interests of his constituents?! Oh, hang on…
http://www.cgfry.co.uk/news/27/Withycombe+House+Officially+Opened
In all seriousness, it is, I suppose, legitimate for a local dignitary to open a new housing development. However, in the current circumstances, is it really appropriate for the leader of EDDC to be quite so gushing in his praise for developers?
“It was a pleasure to be part of the ribbon cutting ceremony and see first-hand the quality of workmanship undertaken to restore Withycombe House. Family owned independent developer C G Fry has shown us once again how they use their extensive experience in listed buildings by taking a landmark building and restoring it to its former glory to create high quality and bespoke homes with the surrounding area. We have worked with C G Fry in the past, most recently they developed the Devon and Cornwall scheme at Holmdale, Sidmouth, a site that was owned by the council.”
DMC meeting: a member of the public reports – CEO Mark Williams told to “get a grip”
“EDDC Chief Executive Mark Williams was bluntly told by a Tory councillor to get a grip on his planning department’s “unacceptable level of performance”.
The barb came from Cllr Mike Allen at today’s Development Management Committee which was given a “progress” report on the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) which Planning Inspector Anthony Thickett ordered the Council to conduct following his rejection of the Local Plan earlier this year. Originally it was supposed to be completed in June
Several other councillors were angry that the assessment of how many houses the district needs was proceeding at snail’s pace, and will not be ready until next year, implying that the Local Plan cannot be re-submitted until after the 2015 Local Elections.
Independent councillor Ben Ingham said EDDC “lacked a coherent strategy and a timetable for completion” of this crucial research. As a result with no Local Plan in place, it was “open season in the Devon countryside” for developers. He concluded, “It’s a shame that this work was not tackled three years ago.”
The obedient, loyal majority of DMC members were acutely embarrassed by all this, and rapidly passed Sidmouth councillor Peter Sullivan’s motion to “move on”!
PS. Mike Allen has been unflattering before about Mark Williams who was his boss when Allen was a senior officer at South Somerset District Council. At last Summer’s full Council Meeting which discussed the Local Plan, the councillor for Honiton said Williams didn’t understand the National Planning Policy Framework! As a former chair of the Local Plan Panel he speaks with some authority.
Miscellany
From a correspondent:
Two other costs of relocation: the officer time expended on the move is not being costed – £2 million? Richard Cohen doesn’t come cheap. And more importantly, the location of Skypark will mean that the make-up of the workforce will chance dramatically, and is likely in the future to be drawn from outside the District. Exeter mainly, but also Taunton and Newton Abbot/Torbay. This will mean that between £5 and £7 million per annum in wages will be sent outside the District.
Re the Bucks proposition (see post below) and DCC’s proposal 4 (?) years ago. The big problem with the DCC proposal was that they wanted parish councils to be only part elected, with several members being appointed. This would mean the local police officer, nurse and fire officer, unelected, determining planning applications in your street. No thanks. This was a big flaw and lost the confidence of a lot of people. A genuine fresh attempt by DCC and passing power down to local Parish councils in the spirit of localism would be very popular right now. If the Parish councils had power people would stand for them.
And finally, this quote from the blog of Councillor Susie Bond on this afternoon’s DMC meeting we can’t wait for the audio tape of this precis:
“Chair, Cllr Helen Parr, pointed out that the Local Plan was ready as far as EDDC was concerned at the Examination in Public earlier this year, but that it was the Planning Inspector who had asked for more evidence on housing numbers.”
Work that one out!
Today’s DMC meeting described by one councillor as “tetchy”
See this report by Feniton Councillor Susie Bond about this afternoon’s DMC where it seems only councillors NOT in the AONB were upset about the Local Plan delay.
They voted to “note” the report which basically means throwing up their hands and saying ” there’s nothing we can do but wait and see”.
EDA Chairman 1 – Leader of East Devon District Council own goal – and a STUNNING revelation!!!!
This morning the Chairman of East Devon Alliance, Paul Arnott, once again went head-to-head with a top EDDC councillor – this time EDDC Council Leader Paul Diviani on the lack of a Local Plan. The EDA Chairman said that he was not surprised but still disappointed that, having been dealing with this project since 2007, EDDC still is not in a position to put a (third) draft Local Plan forward to the Planning Inspectorate and leaving the district vulnerable to speculative development. And he comes up with a STUNNING REVELATION why he thinks current research for the Local Plan is wrong and the reason why it is being held up. Read on …
Councillor Diviani trod the well-worn track of saying that there really is nothing to worry about – EDDC has so far won more than 70% of its appeals and (occasionally) says no to developers. The EDA Chairman noted that it is NOT EDDC alone that champions these appeals – particularly in the case of Feniton and Seaton, where it was local people who raised funds and made their case to inspectors, so implying that EDDC alone does this is somewhat disingenuous.
However, then came the total shock. You may recall that two sets of consultants employed by EDDC before the last iteration of the Local Plan said that they thought that around 12,000 homes should be built in the district. EDDC (and, it has to be said members of the East Devon Business Forum and developers, sometimes the same thing) said, no, no – this could not be right and at least 15,000 homes were needed – which is what got put in the draft put before the Inspector.
The Inspector threw out the plan, specifically saying that he could see no back-up research that confirmed the 15,000 number that EDDC came up with.
And what does Leader Diviani say to this – if we take his interview at face value believing that he is being topical we could read it as THREE sets of consultants coming to around the same figure but we must assume he is talking about the two reports? He says, no no – they CANNOT be right. The government wants us to build more houses, we NEED more houses so we are going to “look at the figures again” because they must be “realistic”.
HOW MORE REALISTIC CAN YOU GET THAT TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF CONSULTANTS COMING TO THE SAME CONCLUSION THAT WE NEED 11,000 – 12,000 NEW HOMES AND NOT 15,000?
So, here we have it – Councillor Diviani thinks he is more expert than consultants and will not give up until – presumably – another set of consultants comes up with the figure that he and the government want. A figure not based on evidence. As usual – fire the arrow, then draw the bulls-eye around it.
So, we ask ourselves: where did the figure of 15,000 that Councillor Diviani so desperately wants come from? Developers? Out of thin air? from the Government which has told us (via the NPPF) to come up with LOCAL figures backed up with LOCAL evidence?
Some very, very, trenchant questions need to be asked. Not least by our councillors and, particularly, by Councillor Diviani
Source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p024pn5v
(THE INTERVIEW IS 2 HOURS 6 MIN AT 8.38 AM)
“Informed, considered, proportionate, fair and necessary” …
Under a heading “Making decisions that are lawful and fair for East Devon’s communities” in this week’s Knowledge e-newspaper the following information appears.
Notwithstanding that it reads as if the publication is implying that the PUBLIC might find itself in trouble here when it is actually the local authority, read this in the context of the move from easily accessible Sidmouth to almost totally inaccessible Skypark and see if you see a problem for EDDC. Particularly with regard to one of the last paragraphs where it says that actions can be taken by councils only if they are: informed, considered, proportionate, fair and necessary.
As a council it is important that we represent the wide-ranging needs, views and aspirations of our communities. We have a higher than average older population with over 28% of the population being aged 65 and over and with many people living in rural isolation.
In the 2011 Census 10.3% of people in East Devon said they were carers, with 21% of people
Reported as having a disability/long-term health problem . Women make up 52% of East Devon’s population.
65 .6% said they were Christian, 25.1% had no religion, and many other religions/beliefs made up 1.1%.
Ethnic minority communities reported a slight increase to 1.6% since the last Census.
When making decisions, it’s not only important to consider how different people will be affected but it is a legal requirement under the Equality Act 2010 Public Sector Equality Duty.
This is because people have diverse needs and may be disadvantaged by something we do.
A disadvantage could result in them having poor access to services and information which could affect their health, wellbeing and opportunities to achieve their own potential.
Therefore, there is an economic and cost benefit to considering the effects of decisions on diverse communities.
East Devon has a good track record for promoting equality and supporting diverse communities.
To reduce the risk of court challenges and the associated legal costs , need to be aware of the following:
When making decisions, the Equality Act 2010 Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) requires you to give due regard to the need to:
Eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation.
Advance equality by encouraging participation, removing disadvantage, taking account of disabilities and meeting people’s needs.
Foster good relations between people by tackling prejudice and promoting understanding.
Questions to ask when making decisions:
Taking into account people’s ages, disabilities, race/ethnicity (includes Gypsies and Travellers), gender/gender identity, religions and beliefs (includes people who have ‘no belief’ and atheists) or sexual orientation, pregnant women/new mothers, marriage/civil partnership status and any other factor you consider relevant such as caring responsibilities, rural isolation or socio-economic disadvantage…
Who might be affected by the proposal or issue?
Have stakeholders been consulted adequately and what was their feedback?
Have diverse needs and community impacts been considered fully?
For example, is an appropriate impact assessment provided?
What supporting information (needs assessment/profiles etc.) is provided by officers and is this sufficient and robust?
In what way could the proposal or issue under consideration benefit certain groups of people?
Are there any opportunities for further improvement , particularly for disabled people?
In what way could the proposal or issue under consideration disadvantage certain groups of
people? For example, could it result in discrimination, poor or worse access, outcomes or community relations?
Are any negative impacts/disadvantages necessary, reasonable and proportionate?
What are the risks of going ahead/not going ahead with the proposal and how can these risks be managed?
Is there an alternative, less disadvantageous option?
Are there mitigations in place to address negative impacts?
Can we make a decision on the basis of the information given to us?
Chairpersons should make sure there is a record (minute) of the attention given to the PSED when making decisions or carrying out a scrutiny Function.
One final point, equality is not about …
Favouring particular groups above others, although there are provisions in the Equality Act to allow organisations to advance equality by taking ‘positive action’ to achieve more equal outcomes for groups which are disadvantaged and a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people.
Preventing councils from making difficult decisions which may result in the closure or reduction of a service, provided such decisions are informed, considered, proportionate, fair and necessary.
Banning words like “blackboard” “because it’s racist” (it isn’t).
Source: http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/220814_the_knowledge_issue_15.pdf
Important issues being debated this week: today (Tuesday) and Thursday
See above for details of the DMC meeting this afternoon where the lack of a 5 (and 6) year land supply will be “debated”
note that you can video, record, photograph, tweet or email about this meeting in real time, provided that you do not upset the participants …
and
check out the First Tier tribunal case:
Information Commissioner v East Devon District Council,
Thursdy 28 August 2014 at 10 am in Court 3 of Exeter Magistrates Court
(taking notes at this meeting is allowed but no other form of recording)
where the important decision on how much information EDDC can keep secret about its relocation to Skypark will be (eventually) decided
A public authority, the requester or both can appeal against the Information Commissioner’s decision notice. [This is what EDDC has done].
If the Tribunal decides that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong in law, or that he exercised his discretion wrongly, it can overturn the decision and issue a substitute decision notice. This decision notice has the same legal status as the first one. Like the Commissioner, the Tribunal can only consider questions relevant to the Act, not any wider dispute that may arise from the request.
Appeals may be by oral hearing, where witnesses give evidence in person. If the evidence can be presented entirely in writing, the appeal will be decided on the basis of those documents.
Cost of selling Knowle: a useful graphic
So, you want to be a councillor … PLEASE!
… if so, EDDC is right behind you. Advertised in this week’s Knowledge e-newspaper produced by EDDC is a link to a handy guide produced by the Local Gocernment Association.
And, just in case you thought that all councillors do is promote costly vanity projects or increase parking fees for local residents by 330%, the Guide has this to say about a councillor’s role:
“A councillor’s primary role is to represent their ward or division and the people who live in it. Councillors provide a bridge between the community and the council.
As well as being an advocate for your local residents and signposting them to the right people at the council, you will need to keep them informed about the issues that affect them.
In order to understand and represent local views and priorities you will need to build strong relationships and encourage local people to make their views known and engage with you and the council.”
So, if you think our council should get back to basics and you are a do-er rather than a can’t do-er, you CAN bring about change.
Local Plan : The ” duty to co-operate” – easy peasy!
EDDC has said that our Local Plan is held up because they have to co-operate with other councils and authorities in the “greater Exeter” area, naming Exeter City Council, Mid Devon District Council, Teignbridge District Council and Dartmoor National Park Authority.
This should be made easier by the fact that former EDDC Deputy Director and Head of Regeneration, Kareem Hassan is now Chief Executive of Exeter City Council.
Stephen Belli, a former Senior Planning Officer at EDDC, is now Director of Planning at Dartmoor National Park Local Plan adopted in July 2013, so all its figures available:
That should help to get things off to a quick start, EDDC, Exeter and Dartmoor senior planners having worked together for several years.
Oh, and the Teignbridge Local Plan was adopted in May 2014 so their up-to-date figures are there for everyone to see, which also makes things easier:
http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/planteignbridge
Oh, and lookee- here: Mid Devon’s Local Plan was also found sound with some modifications in May 2014
http://www.middevon.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=20157&p=0
Hold up, what hold up?
Local Plan delay … some perspectives
An excellent article in this week’s Sidmouth Herald which does not just regurgitate the EDDC apology-for-a-press-release on the latest delay to the draft local plan, now not expected until at least summer 2015.
It points out that the delay means a total of at least 4 years without any locally-set building limits, instead relying on a “one size fits all national policy”.
And noting that the delay (and the developer free-for-all) could influence how residents vote in the next local elections in May 2015.
Recall that EDDC wasted at least three years between 2008 and 2011 on its initial Local Plan meetings (held in secret and with secret agendas and minutes) chaired by disgraced ex-councillor Graham Brown* (who also chaired the developer-heavy and 100% funded by EDDC East Devon Business Forum at the same time).
The council “Panel” of 2008-2011 spent a large amount of its time visiting sites owned by EDBF members whilst EDBF spent most of its time rubbishing council-funded research by 2 sets of consultants on “employment land” and successfully managing to persuade the council to accept their much higher figures when many members stood to gain from the said increase.
The current council had to convene yet another panel in 2011 and had to start from scratch again. The Planning Inspector threw out their report in March 2014, citing out of date figures and lack of vital information.
* Disgraced ex-councillor Brown also ran a planning consultancy in the are and was exposed in a Daily Telegraph front-page headline article in March 2013 article saying that if he could not get planning permission in the area then no-one could but that he did not come cheap. He resigned soon after the story was published. He had been EDDC Conservative councillor for Feniton, a by-election then subsequently won by Independent Councillor Susie Bond.
EDDC: working for us …. er, perhaps not ….
Residents parking fees to rise 330% at Sidmouth’s York Street Residents Car Park (an area of small, terraced houses and many double yellow lines). Parking permit costs will rise to £1,800 per year or buy a three year permit for £5,400 and protect yourself against increased prices in years 2 and 3. The 58 bays will net EDDC a cool £100,000 a year. 58 lost votes there then!
And EDDC’s response? “[Our] assets need to be managed to the best possible effect. These spaces are in high demand and it therefore follows that the council should be acheiving a market rate”.
No such achievement of the market rate at the Knowle car park, where officers and councillors continue to enjoy free parking. And let us not forget they are similarly absolved of parking fees when out and about on “council business”.
Well, someone has to pay for the Skypark shag pile ….
East Devon Watch 