http://www.devon24.co.uk/news/resident_s_bid_to_safeguard_knowle_faces_rejection_1_3650214
Category Archives: EDDC
Innovation and risk in planning!
Kate Little, erstwhile Head of Planning, made no secret of her wish to encourage developers to ignore town design statements and conservation areas in order to increase the stock of iconic contemporary buildings in East Devon. It was a manifestation of the extraordinary power that unelected officials have to change our landscape.
But this policy is not without dangers. There is always the risk that the aesthetics of contrasting styles won’t work when juxtaposed in a real setting rather than on the drawing board, though by the time you discover this it’s too late. There is also the risk that revolutionary, unconventional, structures won’t stand up to the elements as well as those which incorporate evolutionary development of tried and tested techniques. The Basil Spence tower at Exeter University is a local example of a problem iconic building and more recently Lloyds of London have let it be known that they are looking to vacate the Richard Rogers iconic building sometimes known as the “inside out building”, grade I listed in 2011, because the maintenance costs are too high. The Exmouth Bowling Alley has not been without structural problems either.
Spare a thought then for this domestic example, as described in a design and access statement recently posted on the EDDC planning portal (14/1494/FUL).
“……………An inherent feature of the design as an appropriate response to the site and context is extensive glazing to the seaward south facing elevation. Whilst this has proved highly successful in delivering both the intended visual impact of the design and internal experiential qualities, our clients were shocked to experience during the exceptional weather conditions which occurred over the past winter an unanticipated phenomenon which resulted in relatively significant damage to the glazing.
This concerns an action whereby small pebble-like material bedded within the adjacent cliff top becomes exposed by persistent heavy rain and is then transported by strong winds directly towards the seaward face of the building. The relatively flat open area between the cliff-top and the house allows considerable wind driven acceleration of such stone particles which then impact upon the glazing with significant force, sufficient to shatter the toughened glass panes of double glazed units. In one instance, a piece of material actually became embedded within the cavity of a double glazed unit.
The first instance of this action occurred over night and, our clients recount, was actually quite terrifying to experience, the impression being of the glazing apparently imploding. This phenomenon had certainly not been foreseen at design stage and neither had any immediately neighboring owners anecdotally drawn our clients’ attention to such a problem existing in this location although it now seems other property owners have previously experienced similar instances of damage.
Although this past winter’s weather may still currently be deemed exceptional, it is increasingly likely that such conditions will occur more frequently in the future. To date, damage has been caused to several different areas of the glazing on the affected elevation inflicted during several separate episodes of the action occurring and our clients have incurred relatively significant expense in repairing the damage.
It is against this background that a potential solution to permanently protect the building has been sought given it is beyond doubt the same circumstances will occur under future storm conditions……”
The proposed solution involves adding solid glass wind screens for winter storms (maybe it was a mistake to clear the vegetative shelter belt to improve the view) and brise-soleil devices to offset another problem: solar heating in summer.
Large panes of glass, high speed, corrosive (salt), wind vortices and pebbles from the cliff edge site, strong sunshine – What could possibly go wrong?
Remedies sound expensive – let’s hope they work.
5 year land supply: always here to help EDDC
Just in case you haven’t seen it, officers and councillors here is the latest government paper on how to calculate 5 year land supply. We wouldn’t want to get it wrong again would we?
http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=sn03741
Sidmouth notice board – to which EDDC objected – “enhances the area” and will be allowed to stay!
Many organisations, including EDA, Save our Sidmouth and Sidmouth Independent News, have availed themselves of the free notice board positioned outside Pure Indulgence in Sidmouth’s pedestrianised shopping area.
East Devon District Council objected to this notice board. Many people wrote in supporting its position and use and, at the time of the closing date for objections there had been only one objection, but, for some reason, the consultation period was extended. It seems that other notice boards (including one belonging to EDDC), A-boards and other materials were acceptable to EDDC but not this particular notice board.
In a very short judgment (2 pages) the Planning Inspector decided to allow the appeal details of which can be found HERE.
The last two paragraphs of his judgment are below:
7. Concern has been expressed about the untidiness and proliferation of different notices on the board itself. It has been remarked that the appearance of it has improved recently. Notices can come in a range of sizes and be placed upon one another in a haphazard fashion but there is no evidence that this has occurred here to make it unsightly. The submitted details show the board with notices placed in a neat and tidy manner. Indeed, the board has been designed with wooden rims which would encourage the placing of notices within the confines of the board itself. Moreover, the notice board would enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area because it would improve the look of this wall for the reasons referred to.
8. In conclusion, the proposal would enhance the character and appearance of the Sidmouth Conservation Area for the reasons referred to. The proposal would comply with Policy EN11 of the East Devon Local Plan, which amongst other matters, permits development affecting setting or views where it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The Council have suggested a condition confirming the retrospective nature of the development. In accordance with the tests specified within the PPG, this would be unnecessary and therefore has not been imposed. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
Although many would consider this a minor matter it throws into question one thing: if EDDC can get it SO wrong about whether something will enhance or degrade the appearance of a Conservation Area can we trust THEIR judgment?
Nuggets from Audit and Governance Committee agenda
A couple of snippets to make you grimace, laugh or cry – or possible all three:
The mechanisms for maintaining and reviewing the effectiveness of the system of internal control throughout the year include.
Cabinet is responsible for considering overall financial and performance management and receives comprehensive budget monitoring reports on a monthly basis and council service performance reports.
Overview & Scrutiny Committee holds the Cabinet Committee to account.
Overview and Scrutiny hold the Cabinet to account – pull the other one. Anyone remember the East Devon Business Forum Business Task and Finish Group … Overview and Scrutiny? Happily toothless tiger.
Page 68
Risk: [That] Council services are not delivered where and how customers need them . Services do not consult effectively to ensure service delivery meets customer demand and the expectations of all our communities that we will deliver services in line with the Equality Act 2010.
This risk has been removed as it falls under other risks within the register and forms part of our Open for Business and flexible working projects.
Anyone been consulted about the move to Skypark and its effect on those people who will not be able to get there. Hubs? What happens if you can’t get to a “hub” on the day or time that it comes to your nearest town or village (and nearest towns and villages are NOT the same as accessible personally or by public transport).
“Ethical standards for providers of public services”: a report
Don’t know whether to laugh or cry here:
Click to access CSPL_EthicalStandards_web.pdf
On balance, cry. How little this means to EDDC.
A few choice bits:
Ethics matter. The public are right to expect high ethical standards and the government must ensure that this is achieved regardless of who is providing public services. This is increasingly recognised by the business community as a necessary part of winning trust and building confidence in the public service markets. Ethical standards should not be taken for granted and they have not been taken seriously enough to date. These risks are recognised by some commissioners and providers but they are rarely addressed explicitly. Where implicit, ethical expectations are articulated in different ways.
We recommend that:
■■ accounting officers actively seek assurance that public money is being spent in accordance with the high ethical standards expected of all providers of public services and annually certify (as part of managing public money duties) that they have satisfied themselves about the adequacy of their organisation’s arrangements;
….. the behaviours that members of the public expect of public office holders are:
■■ to be committed to public rather than private ends (selflessness and integrity);
■■ to be honest and open in decision-making;
■■ to make decisions in the light of the best evidence (objectivity);
■■ to be held accountable (particularly senior public figures); and
■■ to lead exemplary lives in public office (leadership)
The organisation needs a culture where everyone is encouraged to question and challenge and report unethical behaviour, where complaints are respected and concerns addressed, feedback is encouraged and acted upon in order to continuously improve and whistle-blowing is seen as last resort.
..
It’s official: Planning officers DO make mistakes and should ‘fess up says EDDC CEO
Cabinet Minutes 4 June 2014:
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/cabinet_
….. In response to an issue raised, the Chief Executive advised that the planning team would be advised to consider complaints made more impartially (rather than defensively) and to recognise that approved plans could include inaccuracies that generated complaints.
Pot … kettle?
EDDC officer shake-up
Cabinet Minutes 4 June 2014:
Click to access cabinet_mins_040614.pdf
Disclosable Pecuniary Interest
Richard Cohen, Denise Lyon, Simon Davey, John Golding, Karen Jenkins, Rachel Pocock
these officers left the room when item 25 was discussed:
…..The proposed management restructure would achieve a flatter and leaner structure with 4 strategic leads assisting the Chief Executive and clearer accountability for service delivery being supported by its service leads. The savings that would be achieved from the restructure were included within the report.
RECOMMENDED that the proposed management structure be agreed and that delegated authority be given to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader to fully implement the proposals (this delegation to include the conclusion of consultations, any minor changes and consequential revisions).
REASON This proposal is designed to present a clear management structure which addresses current gaps and recognises the broader remits that staff have already taken on.
Rumours of shake-up of officers at EDDC continue
Will some jump or will they be pushed – and why? Is Skypark needing (more) top-up funds? Will there be any (secret?) golden goodbyes? Any pension top-ups?
Do we expect transparency? Er …
Sarah Woolaston elected Chairman of Health Select Committee
The success of the Conservative MP for Totnes is said to be a “nightmare” for David Cameron as she has shown an independence that has made Whips very unhappy.
Whips, always unhapoy …
Newton Poppleford: Badger Close – a layman’s summary
In a seven page decision paper dated 11 June, the Planning Inspector dismissed the Badger Close appeal against planning refusal for an indicative 46 houses in Newton Poppleford. This is welcome news coming hard on the heels of our report that Newton Poppleford faces yet another new planning application.
The Inspector’s decision paper presents important, and in places complicated, arguments which EDA experts have tried to simplify.
The main issues were: (a) whether the appeal site represented a sustainable location for the proposed development; and (b) the effect of the proposal on the area’s character and appearance, bearing in mind the site’s location in the East Devon AONB and, more specifically, have the exceptional circumstances for granting permission for major developments in AONBs been demonstrated?
Does the appeal site represent a sustainable location?
The Inspector 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.
Character and Appearance – Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
Since the proposed development would be approximately 5% of the size of the existing settlement, the Inspector concluded that in the context of the village, and in the light of the scheme’s visibility from a main approach road, it would be a significant addition. Under these circumstances (NPPF para 116) major development should only be granted in AONBs in exceptional circumstances.
The Inspector considered that the appeal scheme would result in a substantial adverse impact in the short, medium and long term in respect of a number of viewpoints. The first of these viewpoints is of particular significance, as it relates to an important approach into the village. As such, he concluded that the area’s character and appearance would be unacceptably harmed, to the detriment of the natural beauty of the AONB.
Nature Conservation
The appeal site lies within 700m of the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths. EDA has already drawn attention to the fact that these sites are so special that EDDC has a legal duty to ensure no adverse effects occur from increased recreational demand as a result of new developments.
http://eastdevonalliance.org/2014/05/08/the-pebblebed-heath-who-cares/
Natural England continued to object to the proposal on the grounds of uncertainty about the likely delivery of a mechanism to avoid adverse effects on the integrity of these sites.
EDDC, however, claimed that progress had been made in one important mitigation strategy: the identification of suitable alternative natural greenspaces for public access. EDDC claimed that specific sites had now been identified and a delivery officer would be appointed. Provision for a contribution to the estimated £20M total cost of mitigation [something akin to a 106 agreement] had also been agreed by the developer. [In EDA’s report referenced above we pointed out that in 2013 EDDC had granted planning permission on a site previously identified as a suitable alternative greenspace – so when are we going to be told where these sites are?].
Overall Conclusion
The appeal scheme represents a major development in an AONB and within the NPPF planning permission should therefore be refused except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that the scheme is in the public interest. The Inspector noted the development’s contributions to meeting general and affordable housing needs would represent positive benefits. However, the AONB does not extend over the whole of East Devon District and, as such, there are likely to be opportunities to meet District-wide needs in locations that do not adversely affect the AONB.
A strategy broadly along these lines is proposed in the replacement Local Plan (the New East Devon Local Plan), which has recently been subject to examination. However, given the interim findings of the [Local Plan] Inspector, little weight can be attached to the housing targets contained in that document. Furthermore, concerns were raised by the [Local Plan] Inspector regarding the Council’s assessment of the ability of small towns and villages to accommodate growth.
Nevertheless, bearing in mind, first, that it is an underlying principle of the NPPF that patterns of growth should be actively managed to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable and, second, that the NPPF attaches great weight to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs, the Inspector considered that his conclusions on the two main issues in this appeal were sufficient to overcome the advantages that would result in respect of the provision of general and affordable housing. The exceptional circumstances that are required by the NPPF for granting permission within an AONB have not therefore been demonstrated.
This is an all too rare example of AONB protection being upheld.
Footnote
Along the line EDDC, in defending its decision to refuse permission for Badger Close, had argued that Newton Poppleford lacks employment opportunities, giving rise to the necessity to commute to work. It considered that the village should only accommodate a limited scale of development, as defined by its built-up area boundary, on economic sustainability grounds.
Previously, in recommending granting outline planning permission to Clinton Devon Estates for the King Alfred Way development, which involves a similar number of houses, EDDC had argued differently. In this case EDDC noted the potential for new jobs to be created, both through construction work and through the increased numbers of residents in Newton Poppleford supporting local businesses! [At this point EDA feel it appropriate to point out that this argument could be used to claim all developments of this scale were economically sustainable].
Matters of financial high risk
In response to our recent post* on the difficulties surrounding the Honiton Beehive project, an EDA member has provided the following information, and some comments.
‘http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/combined_agenda_141113.pdf (page 72)
An extract from the Audit & Governance Committee agenda of 14th November 2013 summarizes progress on The Beehive community centre at Honiton[1]. The advice was that, “surface water drainage provision would be needed to a higher standard than originally anticipated to reflect potential flooding issues, especially to neighbouring residential properties.”
“Honiton Town Council had not envisaged such costs in its original budgeting. EDDC officers from Property, Planning and Building Control met with HTC to assess the issue and determine a workable resolution. The various drainage scenarios and history of the issue were considered. The outcome was that, for the project build to proceed to a point where it could be signed off, a drainage infrastructure investment would be needed over and above the capacity of the existing fund. Therefore to cover the necessary works EDDC agreed by urgent verbal report to 12 June 2013 Cabinet (Part B) to fund a sum of up to 90% of a ceiling of £130,000. HTC will be expected to meet 10% of costs.”
“The reason for this urgency was that works would have to stop on the site construction and additional costs would be incurred by delay to contract. Without agreement to the provision of suitable drainage the building would not be signed off by Building Control and the planning condition not discharged. The building would therefore be uninsurable.”
_____________________________________________________________________________
Note: 90% of the £130,000 bill was picked up by EDDC ratepayers, only 10% by Honiton Town Council. If the Beehive project is deemed high risk, surely Skypark must be off the scale?
Does this inspire you with confidence for the future? For example, EDDC Councillors want the public to trust them with sale of The Knowle; plus sale of Manstone Depot; plus sale of East Devon Business Centre; plus sale of the SITA site at Honiton; ALL of these properties plus borrowing up to £4.8million, in order to construct one building, namely their new premises at Skypark? They have already spent or committed over £700,000 of OUR MONEY. To coin a phrase from the successful Feniton campaigners, “When is enough, enough?”
*http://eastdevonalliance.org/2014/06/16/if-honiton-town-council-is-deemed-a-financial-high-risk-for-beehive-what-will-skypark-do-to-eddc/
Skypark Parcel Depot: amazing how EDDC can get its act together when it tries!
Go to the Planning tab on the EDDC website (eastdevon.gov.uk) and type 14/0197 in the search box.
When that comes up, click on the Documents tab.
Then click on the Associated Comments link and then to the tab marked Consultees Comments.
It is AMAZING how EDDC can jump to it when it tries: erudite comments from lical councillors, many comments from the Contaminated Land Officer ( we have one?), the tree officer, environmental health – reams of comments.
And Exeter airport suddenly finds itself worried about night-time floodlighting for the building …..
Wonder how this might have panned out if EDDC were not planning to move there.
And have a look what Highways says: confirming no chance of diverting the number 4 bus but mentioning that it will only be a 24 minute walk each way from the new railway station.
Get those walking boots and hiking sticks ready on cold winter days!
A reader writes …
Eric Pickles has said that large solar farms and wind farms are not to his liking but has said nothing about the “small” ones referred to below:
Threat looms over everyone’s back yard – a cri de coeur fromCrediton.
Letter to the Editor, The Independent, 16 June:
We live under the shadow of a massive wind turbine application, overlooking rural hamlets that have been there for 1,000 years, with more than 50 listed buildings.
I can understand why some people would consider these things unimportant; that is a matter of opinion. However, when one looks at how the Government has established the planning rules for these constructions, the principle is very clear. These turbines can be put up anywhere unless “there is a very good reason not to”. Usually local people object, and in some cases the local councils refuse permission. The turbine developer then appeals to the Government, which usually agrees that there is no very good reason not to and permission is granted.
My belief is that when the question of forcing through wind turbine applications was first suggested, some bright politician said: “If we force this through, how many people will it really upset?” The answer came back “Well, they are all out in the country, spread out, probably throughout the UK about 50,000 very unhappy people”. So the bright politician responded: “Oh is that all? Well, if they all vote against us in a general election, it will make no difference to the result. Those people do not matter.”
Julian Pratt Crediton, Devon
Our reader responds:
The problem, Julian, is that most of us live in a safe constituency (Crediton is in the Central Devon constituency with a Conservative majority of 9230 or 52% of the vote). In safe constituencies, of whatever political colour, the voters are taken for granted. If the majority stay blindly loyal (as they tend to), their views on “minor” things such as building wind turbines in sensitive places, or development in AONB’s etc., can be safely ignored. (Other voters’ views can be disregarded anyway). The only way to be heard is to turn safe constituencies into unsafe ones or find a candidate who will put the interests of his or her electorate above those of career advancement within the party.As you say: “Those people do not matter”.
“More pain for struggling planning authorities”
http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/more-pain-for-struggling-planning.html
If this well-respected planning lawyer thinks we are in a mess, we probably are!
And the post gives a definitive answer to how long the maximum time is to process planning applucations and it isn’t eight weeks – the reason the EDDC DMC has used several times recently (including some for former EDBF members with big developments).
Royal Town Planning Institute mentions East Devon in its submission to Parliamentary review of NPPF
Development in Sustainable Locations?
The NPPF has emphasised the need for meeting a five-year housing supply. However the RTPI considers that a single-minded focus on one short-term criterion may be at risk of placing the country in difficulty over the long-term horizon and in the context of the sustainable planning for places the NPPF aspires to. To give one example the district of East Devon has promoted, along with government support (both past and present) the construction of a new town at Cranbrook east of Exeter. This settlement attracted thousands of objections but nevertheless the council pushed ahead in the knowledge that a planned new town close to road and rail communications and with its own infrastructure is a preferable planning outcome to the proliferation of small scale village extensions. Nevertheless any housing built after 5 years cannot count towards the 5-year supply despite the fact that the settlement will take longer than that to be completed. By contrast our housing policy paper [6]argues that in cases where large-scale housing is being promoted demonstrably and effectively, exceptions to the 5-year land supply rule should be allowed.
The cost of “satellite” hubs if EDDC relocates?
It seems no-one thought to cost how much will be spent on maintaining satellite hubs if EDDC relocates.
Back of an envelope:
One half day, 50 weeks a year renting space in the 8 towns of East Devon – say to keep visits to a minimum 2 hours per week. A low cost for renting would be about £15 per hour. Cost £78,000
2 people visiting each time (1 officer cannot do everything surely) and each officer claims £10 per trip petrol, subsistence, etc. £2,000
Total minimum £80,000 per year.
Anyone like to put their own costings forward – councillors?
“Feudal” landlord loses battle to build in picturesque village
A warning to all Estates who think they can build wherever they want:
“Mr Rees, who has lived in Penshurst for 22 years, said: “There is a subtext to this which is not only about the way that things were done in private as much as possible by the council: they have spent huge amounts of public money on fighting this, and they spent a huge amount of money, and our time, protecting the first planning application, which they didn’t even bother to defend.”
He said that the community who hoped to save their rural landscape were not the only people affected by the wrangling: “Had they sat down with the community in Penshurst and discussed where to put these houses it would have helped. By now because Forge Field has been held up as the only possible place, people have been waiting for housing for four years.
Company appointed to market Knowle – and more money to be spent
http://www.devon24.co.uk/news/firm_appointed_to_market_knowle_1_3640336
”
Cllr Ray Bloxham said a piece of work is underway ‘to see what service delivery we can produce in each of our towns and what kind of facilities would be needed to do that’.
He added: “The important thing is members of the public who want to engage with the district council in some way can do it in the towns where they live rather than coming to our offices.”
Cllr Andrew Moulding questioned how many residents in East Devon visit Knowle, adding: “Unless there’s a major planning application people are concerned about, people would not necessarily need to communicate by actually going along and visiting the headquarters of the council.”
He said that an ambition of ‘transforming the council’ could be fulfilled ‘as long as we can have an office that’s modern, used better by our staff and indeed we can communicate better from those premises with the people that we serve’.
Members agreed a further £203,000 for 2014/15 – bringing the total pre-contract cost to £705,000.”
East Devon Watch 