“…Over the next 20 years, Skypark is predicted to create up to 6,500 new jobs as part of the wider Exeter and East Devon New Growth Point initiative.”
With only 147 jobs planned for the 24 hour parcel depot and with EDDC having about 500 employees and a few more at the 24 hour a day heating centre and the 24 hour a day ambulance call centre that leaves maybe another 5,000 people to be fitted on the site.
Enjoy Knowle and its parkland while you can EDDC staff!
As can be seen in other postings, EDDC’s representative is due to appear at Exeter Magistrate’s Court at 10 am on Thursday 28 August as the council has refused to make public information about its relocation even though the Information Commissioner has said that they should do so. It has been decided that this will be decided by a “First Tier Tribunal”. Here is the official explanation of what that means:
Tribunals are specialist judicial bodies which decide disputes in particular areas of law.
“Appeals to tribunals are generally against a decision made by a Government department or agency. The exception to this is the Employment Tribunal where cases are on a party v party basis (i.e. employee versus employer).
There are tribunals in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland covering a wide range of areas affecting day-to-day life. HM Courts & Tribunals administers many of them although some are the responsibility of the devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Appeals to the First-tier Tribunal are against the decisions from government departments and other public bodies. The Upper Tribunal hears appeals from the First-tier Tribunal on points of law i.e. an appeal made over the interpretation of a legal principle or statute. Further appeals may be made, with permission, to the Court of Appeal.
Tribunal judges are legally-qualified. Tribunal members are specialist non-legal members of the panel and include doctors, chartered surveyors, ex-service personnel or accountants. Tribunals often sit as a panel comprising a judge and non-legal members however in some jurisdictions cases may be heard by a judge or member sitting alone.
Tribunals adopt procedures that are less complicated and more informal than those typically associated with the courts.”
As EDDC’s majority party is known for toeing the national party line, when can we expect a pre-election reshuffle that gives us a younger cabinet with more women?
“A resident’s bid to make the district council disclose confidential details of its plans to leave Sidmouth has resulted in the authority having to argue its case at a tribunal in court.
Jeremy Woodward lodged a Freedom of Information request in November 2012 asking for the minutes of various relocation working parties to be made available to the public.
He also asked that full, unredacted reports from the project manager be released, but both requests were denied by council officials.
The Temple Street resident took the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office, which accepted the council’s decision to withhold the minutes.
However, it did not agree that the project manager’s reports were covered by the same exception under the Environmental Information Regulations.
The council was told to publish the reports, but has appealed against this decision. As a result, the matter has been referred for an oral hearing by the First Tier Tribunal at Exeter Magistrates’ Court on Thursday, August 28.
Mr Woodward welcomed the news.
A council spokesman said it would not be appropriate to comment on the matter with the hearing pending.”
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/news/court_to_hear_knowle_case_1_3680513
Developers want to build more than 300 houses on the outskirts of Honiton along the country lanes between Honiton and Gittisham. This planning application has gone like a ping-pong ball at DMC meetings.
See here for a summary of the latest omnishambles:
https://susiebond.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/decision-deferred-on-land-west-of-hayne-lane-gittisham/
So many, many questions!
Why was the warning of Councillor Claire Wright (which predicted exactly these problems in November 2013) not heeded? Surely not because she does not belong to the majority party because, of course, as we all know, planning is not a party issue:
Why was this originally recommended for approval when even the Secretary of State at the Department for Communities and Local Government has said it is so controversial it will need to go to him for determination?
Why, given that so many of our councillors have “two hats” and serve on local AONBs (and boast about it) did they not object earlier?
Why did officers not take into account the effect of this development on health service education and local infrastructure?
The Chief Executive NOW says:
“Further consideration and discussion needs to take place. As a result I would like to recommend that Members defer this application to enable this further work to be carried out. The matter to then be reported back to the committee at a future date when all of the necessary information and professional advice can be made available to Members in the officer’s report so that a fully informed decision can be made.”
so what has changed since this development was recommended for approval?
Who ARE Welbeck Strategic Land LLP – they seem to have appeared all over the country with their reductive compass and square logo, shoving in similar speculative applications just about everywhere? Why is its original planning application form so devoid of information (no information about the types of houses, parking, no waste storage or collection information, etc.? If people can put a planning application in with so little information how can a DMC make a decision about it?
Exeter Science Park romps ahead leaving Skypark as its poor relation.
The Strategic Housing Market Analysis can be contested. See http://saveoursidmouth.com/2014/07/15/shma-does-not-of-itself-set-the-housing-target/
There is an ongoing scandal in Carmarthenshire, where the question of unlawful payments to the Chief Executive of Carmarthen Council became a national scandal. For the background on this see:
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/police-launch-investigation-unlawful-payments-6701913
As a result it was decided that there would be a police investigation. However, it was decided that because council and police in the area had many joint undertakings, the investigation would be undertaken by an outside force. Gloucestershire and Avon police were chosen to do this investigation:
http://carmarthenplanning.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/gloucestershire-police-to-investigate.html
After three months, the police called off the investigation saying there was no case to answer:
http://carmarthenplanning.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/police-call-off-investigation.html
However, a local blogger was not satisfied with this and asked the police how they had come to this conclusion:
http://carmarthenplanning.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/unlawful-payments-police-foi-response.html
Here is what she says:
Following the conclusion of the police investigation I made a freedom of Information request to Gloucestershire police. The response came today and there is a link at the end of this post.
I asked for;
1. A list of any persons interviewed, and /or job titles, and whether any of these were
interviewed under caution
2. Correspondence between Gloucestershire Constabulary and Carmarthenshire County
Council
3. Whether or not the Crown Prosecution Service were involved and if so, any relevant correspondence.
The responses were that;
….nobody was interviewed,
….there was no correspondence between the council and the police and
….the CPS weren’t involved.
This was, you recall, a three month long criminal investigation….
I also asked for;
4. The final report following the conclusion of the investigation
5. A list, or summary, of all documents in either paper or electronic form which formed part
of the investigation.
These were refused under the Section 30 exemption in that the release of this information may jeopardise police tactics in the future…presumably they’re expecting a flurry of similar local authority unlawfulness.
A thorough investigation? We’ll have to take their word for it. I remain of the view that in both instances there was, amongst other matters, the deliberate prevention of proper scrutiny as documented in the two Wales Audit Office reports.The full FOI response can be read here.
I am now considering whether to request an internal review of their response.
Firstly, it is a missing 6,300 voters in East Devon and the worse council of all (Taunton Deane, see below) managed to lose 8,800 voters.
This comes from a very interesting table on page 10 of the Electoral Commission’s report of June 2014
which identifies East Devon District Council as one of the worse 17 councils in the country for not dealing with the transition from the old system of voter registration to the new one.
The table shows the 10 local authorities with the largest decrease in elecorate. Taunton Deane was worst – they managed to lose 8.8% of the electorate between 2012 and 2014 followed by Allerdale (7.9%), Maidstone (7.7%), Northampton (7.4%), Isles of Scilly UA (6.5%), Newham (6.4%), East Devon (6.3%), Wellingborough (6.0%), Tonbridge and Malling (5.9%) and Hastings( 5.8%).
See this interesting exchange of correspondence between Paul Arnott and Devon and Cornwall Constabulary, via a Freedom of Information request about the procedure followed by EDDC and the police after the front-page expose of Councillor Brown in the Daily Telegraph last year (“if I can’t get you planning permission no-one can, but I don’t come cheap”):
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/police_protocol_d22_and_east_dev#incoming-538562
including this cracker:
“The Crime Department have asked if you can clarify what you mean by ‘joint statement’ to assist us with our searches. Are you referring to press statements? If you are unsure on the nature of the statement then we recommend you contact East Devon District Council to clarify what was stated in their minutes.
Therefore could you please provide further detail on the type of statement required or, if you wish, withdraw that question from the request so that the other questions can be progressed.
After receiving your reply, your request will then be considered.”
Er, sorry, they don’t understand what “joint statements” means and this is holding up the entire response from them?
Fortunately, with members of the EDDC Executive being ex-police officers, no doubt they can explain to their current and former colleagues what the phrase “joint statement” means!
Oh, and we haven’t forgotten the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Task and Finish Forum into the relationship between East Devon District Council’s first Local Development Framework Panel (Chairman, Graham Brown) and its relationship with the East Devon Business Forum (Chairman, Graham Brown) … EDDC may have attempted to kick it into the long grass, but we will keep mowing it!
Community Rights: Parish Pulse Survey 2014 Launched
Published 14th July 2014
The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) is conducting a short informal survey – ‘Parish Pulse 2014’.
“Last spring DCLG conducted a survey to learn more about how town and parish councils were embracing Community Rights to empower their neighbourhoods to take action and to influence local services. Over 870 councils completed the survey, which provided Government with a valuable insight into the take-up of Community Rights and an understanding of how it could support more town and parish councils to encourage them to make better use of the rights.
The aim of the ‘Parish Pulse Survey 2014’ is to find out what the picture looks like now for town and parish councils with Community Rights.
DCLG wants you to tell them about what activity your town or parish council is taking forward to support Neighbourhood Planning, Community Right to Challenge and Community Right to Bid & Asset Support. The outcomes will help to inform the continuing development of Government’s work with town and parishes and shape the type of support we provide to respond to the issues highlighted in the survey.
The survey includes a short series of questions and will only take 10 – 15 minutes to complete. The survey is open until 11 August 2014.”
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/parishpulse2014
One would imagine that residents of most of our towns and parishes would have a lot to say!
Source:
http://www.slcc.co.uk/news-item/community-rights-parish-pulse-survey-2014-launched/799/
Just in time!
From the blog of Councillor Claire Wright:
“Doubt has been cast over whether a police investigation is still ongoing into a former East Devon councillor, who made the front page of the Daily Telegraph in March 2013 in an undercover sting operation last March (2013).
At the EDDC audit and governance meeting of 26 June, a councillor can be heard on its audio recording, enquiring about the status of the investigation as he understands that Mr Brown went to see the police with his solicitor and was informed that the investigation had concluded.
He adds that several other councillors were also reporting this.
A senior EDDC officer replies that the council believes that the investigation was still live.
But the councillor is insistent that he has heard differently and asks the officer for clarification, appearing to refer to next year’s council elections.
The officer agrees to double check the status of the police investigation.
Here’s the recording – the question comes at about 1:01 – http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/webasp/recordings/auditgovernance/ag260614recording.mp3
Mr Brown resigned as an EDDC conservative councillor last March, following the publication of the Telegraph undercover sting operation, which has him on camera boasting to journalists posing as developers that if he couldn’t get planning consent nobody could. He added that he wouldn’t do it for peanuts.”
So, who do we believe – and why? And why do some councillors and officers seem to know far more than others about what may or not be happening?
Have all witnesses been interviewed? …
Watch this space …..
23 July 2014 (agenda not yet published so time not yet available – hmmm)
Oh, look, just after we’ve mentioned it the agenda appeared here:
Click to access 230714_council_agenda.pdf
Knowle, 6.30 p.m.
EDDC full Council to vote on curtailment of public right to speak at EDDC meetings –
EDDC’s Executive Board has already voted for the curtailment of the rights of the public to speak at its meeting but it needs the rubber stamp of the full Council which will meet on 23 July 2014.
It is not too late to get this decision reversed. Write to your local councillor asking how he or she is planning to vote and why, and turn up on the day to show your support in preventing the erosion of democracy in East Devon.
(Contact details for your local Councillor can be found here, Wards and Councillors. Simply scroll down the list to find the Councillor for your ward and click on the orange highlighted name to bring up the details.)
A motion challenging what the Independent Councillors see as a clampdown on free speech, is proposed by Cllr Claire Wright and seconded by Cllr Ben Ingham. Cllrs Roger Giles, Trevor Cope and Susie Bond have also signed up to it. Below is an extract from Cllr Wright’s blog on the issue:
“The motion will be debated at the full council meeting of Wednesday 23 July, which starts at 6.30 pm. It reads: “This council believes wholeheartedly in democracy and the fundamental right of its citizens to be fully represented by their elected members. This council also believes in the democratic process and commits to do everything within its power to enhance the role of the elected member.””
EDDC has recently sought to place a number of restrictions on the freedom of speech including: – 1) Recommendations to dramatically reduce public speaking at planning committee meetings. (Also to be decided on the 23rd). 2) Restrictions on public speaking at all committees. 3) An agreement that, “any motion not immediately relevant to the business of the council will be referred to a council committee first.”
Whilst everyone agrees the meetings can be long, especially when issues of public local concern are being discussed, if these restrictions are passed they will betray the key principles of Localism, designed to improve and encourage local authority engagement with the community. If EDDC wants to make meetings more time efficient, they could instead refrain from so much self-congratulation, nor raise issues of national policy over which they have no control; e.g. the recent half hour presentation and subsequent debate on the evils of illegal highs.
We very much hope you will take the time to contact your EDDC Councillor and urge them to vote against this reduction in the level of transparency, accountability and democracy at East Devon District Council. We also hope you will be able to show your support for those objecting by attending the meeting at the Knowle in Sidmouth on Wednesday, 23rd July.
Please feel free to pass this invitation onto your family, friends and neighbours, since this vote directly affects the rights of everyone living in the East Devon area.
Look forward to seeing you there!
Warmest regards,
Nicky King – (Hon) Secretary – East Devon Alliance.
Today’s Opinion page in the Sidmouth Herald has this letter from an EDA member:
Sir,
The “democratic deficit”
The present Leader of East Devon District Council, when he was returned (unopposed) at the last district election, coined the above phrase, vowing to introduce greater democracy and transparency into local government.
So what has happened since?
Well, among countless other examples of secrecy and undemocratic procedures, the Council helped set up a business forum to promote the interests of their “customers” – no, not tax-payers but building developers. Then, after the Daily Telegraph’s exposure of “Councillor-for-hire”, Graham Brown, head of this Business Forum, the Council’s Chief Officer gagged the scrutiny committtee whose task it should have been to investigate the forum’s influence on planning.
Soon, too, on 23 July, Full Council is to vote on a motion to curb public speaking at planning meetings.
It is to be hoped that there will be a recorded vote at this meeting so that electors may know exactly which councillors voted to restrict the public’s fundamental right to freedom of speech.
Michael Temple,
Sidmouth
Further relevant information is on the Save Our Sidmouth website: http://saveoursidmouth.com/2014/07/07/eddc-decision-to-curb-public-speaking-is-imminent/
Here is a summary from COVOP of the debate:
A debate on planning policy and the effects of the NPPF took place on 9th July 2014 in Westminster Hall.
The debate was chaired by Clive Betts ( L. Sheffield SE) and was answered by Planning Minister Nick Boles (C. Grantham). The following MPs took part:
Steven Baker (C. Wycombe), Guy Opperman (C. Hexham), Caroline Nokes (C.Romsey) Bob Russell (LD Colchester), Damien Hinds (C. East Hampshire)
Julian Sturdy (C. York Outer), Neil Carmichael (C. Stroud), Mark Menzies (C.Fylde), Andrew Bingham (C. High Peak), Laurence Robertson (C. Tewkesbury), Martin Horwood (LD Cheltenham), Anne-Marie Morris (C. Newton Abbot), Chris White (C. Warwick and Leamington Spa), Rebecca Harris (C. Castle Point), Andrew Turner (C. Isle of Wight), Jason McCartney (C. Colne Valley), Nick Herbert (C. Arundel & South Downs), William McCrea (DUP Antrim) and Roberta Blackman-Woods (L. Durham).
Although MP after MP presented a case for some reform of the current system and made it clear that they and their constituents felt that the NPPF was not working properly or as intended by the Localism Act, the Minister made it clear that he was not prepared to amend or reduce the power of the Inspectorate or the Developer Lobby. Those MPs who spoke, principally but not wholly from rural districts, made it clear that the effects in their constituencies were often perverse.
Mrs Blackman-Woods summarised the comments very fairly. Mr Boles believes that matters will be worse under a Labour Government and feels that he is representing all those people who aspire to live in a district but don’t do so. He intends to vote Conservative at the next election!
The debate makes interesting reading and many of the complaints made by this assortment of MPs, who are to be congratulated for the persistence with which they are attacking this issue, will be familiar to our members. Those of us whose members didn’t participate might wish to ask why?
For the full debate, see:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm140709/halltext/140709h0001.htm
EDDC now calls developers “Customers” and in many cases puts these “customer” interests ahead of those of the local electorate that they are supposed to be working for.
Now the EU is considering something similar, putting corporations ahead of citizens in a proposed law to provide compensation to corporations whenever a law has an adverse affect on them (called ISDS in TTIP). See
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/m/74c0440d/2d720dbc/4ab73af9/464437c5/2117595504/VEsD/
if you want to find out about this particular proposal.
However the point here is that democracy is under attack at all levels, including in our local councils.
Cllr Roger Giles has recently spoken out on Cllr Claire Wright’s blog about how the EDDC Monitoring officer has overturned a motion agreed by majority vote by Ottery St. Mary Town Council to publish the full details of one of her rulings in favour of a request from two minority dissenters on OSMTC to keep it secret.
EDDC and its Leadership needs to recognise that their role is to serve us, the citizens of East Devon, and that we have the right to know what is going on. That, after all, is presumably what Leader Diviani meant when he promised transparency in his nomination speech in 2011.
“East Devon is an outstanding place which deserves an outstanding council. To achieve that, we need the very best people.”
Sounds somewhat aspirational as if they know haven’ t got there yet … but it will take only 2 new planners to reach that goal.
AND If they can hire two extra hands, then they can run two session of the Development Management Committee as required and leave the speaking arrangements unaltered ..
No sooner had the Inspector rejected the appeal for development in Badger Close than another developer has tossed his hat into the ring (application 14/1303/FUL for Downs Close).
This application involves a site opposite Badger Close, outside the built up area boundary of the village, inside the AONB and even closer to the Pebblebed Heaths. As explained in previous blogs EDDC has a legal duty to protect this European designated site of environmental significance from the impact of future development. In fact the site lies only 100 metres outside the 400 metre total exclusion zone that surrounds the heaths.
Not only that but it involves the destruction of an old mature orchard. This Orchard because of its importance is recognised and recorded via a survey on the Peoples Trust for Endangered Species website. http://www.ptes.org.
The planning inspector rejected the Badger Close appeal largely on the grounds of its impact on the AONB and on sustainability grounds. He concluded that the appeal site did NOT represent a sustainable location for the proposed development. The crunch argument turned on access to the village centre. The Inspector noted that the poor quality of the pedestrian linkages between the appeal site and the village’s main services and facilities represented a serious failing.
The Parish Council and EDDC ward Councillor, Ken Potter, have both made submissions saying they cannot support this application and there are many very eloquent objections from the public. At least one of these is illustrated with site images and EDDC has ensured that these can be viewed online. The question is just how much weight will be given to these objections.
We all know the priority given within the NPPF to favouring sustainable development and the lack of clarity surrounding just what is meant by this woolly term. In this application great emphasis is placed on its sustainable credentials by the incorporation of low flush toilet cisterns, plastic plumbing requiring no solvent based adhesives or solder, low energy light bulbs throughout, high levels of insulation, and locally sourced materials etc.
In order to qualify as a Town or Village Green, land has to have been used by the public “as of right” ie. without any form of permission. Much of the land that the Knowle Residents’ Association applied to register had been appropriated by Sidmouth Urban District Council (UDC) as public open space and EDDC have made byelaws to control its use. The Inspector therefore concluded that the public have used this land “by right” ie with the implied permission of EDDC rather than “as of right” and he rejected the application on this technicality.
The interesting thing to have come out of this is that the Inspector concluded that the rest of the land included in the Town and Green application (which Sidmouth UDC had not appropriated) is also public open space by implication because the byelaws make no distinction between appropriated and unappropriated land.
BEFORE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE CAN BE DISPOSED OF, THE COUNCIL HAVE TO ADVERTISE TWICE AND CONSIDER OBJECTIONS.
(For Inspector’s full report, see http://saveoursidmouth.com/2014/07/08/more-on-the-town-and-village-application-for-knowle/)
East Devon Watch 