Council 2018-2019 budget – many elephants in the room!

Recent comment on “pay to pee” article (below):

“Notice the contradiction here: one councillor says the idea is not being looked at, another group of councillors say town and … [quote from original article]

Might I suggest that there is fake news (or misdirection).

Instead of concentrating on the big savings – the biggest costs/budgets under management, we are being misdirected to something we actually understand (don’t forget the seaside towns are over endowed with the elderly, whose needs include lavatories) so that we can gain a small ‘win’ by demanding the facilities, so that we forget the elephants in the room. And there are several of them.

A gallery that only Councillor’s want.
A move of headquarters that only Councillors want.
A drastic reduction in healthcare services, that only Councillors want.
Seafront developments that only Councillors want.

William of Occam would say I have over-made the point.

Do you suppose there is a picture developing here?

I could add the absolutely fantastic budget demand coming from a Police body that has a management cost out of all proportion to its actual size. You could make significant savings by firing the bosses and not lose any quality of service?

And what about getting rid of the LLP [LEP] which, in my view, has achieved precisely nothing since it was created (except increase the salaries of the leaders although they have yet to achieve any results). That would make some tidy savings.

Maybe we can afford a health service after all!”

Greendale Business Park lose legal case for Planning Approval

Press release from Councillor Geoff Jung, East Devon Alliance Independent, Raleigh Ward:

”In a recent Planning Application, the owners of Greendale Business Park claimed that because an agricultural field has been used for open industrial storage for more than ten years they were entitled to continue that use under a little used clause in the Town and Country Planning Act, known as a “Certificate of Lawfulness”.

However, the Act stipulates it is not the length of use, but the length of a “breach in planning control”. As Laing Utilities occupied this area in association with the laying of the gas pipeline between 2006 and July 2009 and Utility companies are permitted to occupy and use locations as depots for the construction of pipelines or cables the use up to July 2009 could not be claimed to be a breach in planning control.

East Devon District Council as the (LPA) Local Planning Authority had to take legal advice and concluded that the company had not been able to demonstrate that there has been a “Breach of Planning Control for 10 years” and therefore the Application 17/2441/CPE has been refused.
Company can Appeal

The applicant however is entitled to appeal to the Secretary of State within six months of the notification of the refusal.

Enforcement Notice

The Report by East Devon District Council recommends that an Enforcement Notice is served requiring the owners to:

1. Permanently cease the use of the area shown on the plan for the storage of items not connected with agriculture and remove any such items
2. Permanently remove the perimeter and internal fencing and all hardstanding
3. Permanently remove the concrete, hardcore and drainage used to construct the
entrances.
4. Permanently remove all debris and paraphernalia from the area outlined in Red and return this site to an agricultural field clear of such items.

Location of are to be returned to agricultural use outlined in red above.

Greendale Extension East

This Planning Refusal comes only a month after another case at Greendale Business Park had an Enforcement Appeal upheld by the Secretary of State. This was after a Planning Appeal Inspector agreed with the Local Authority and again required the site to be removed of all industrial activities and returned to agricultural use. (Planning Application 15/2592/MOUT).

The Owners of Greendale have now appealed to the High Court for a Judicial Review on this Enforcement Appeal.

Retrospective Planning Applications.

Both cases were the result of the owners of Greendale constructing concrete roads and yards together with security fencing, drainage, lighting and industrial buildings prior to planning permission being obtained. This is known as Retrospective Planning Permission

Village Plan

The Woodbury Salterton Residents Association, a group of residents in the small rural village next to the business park have campaigned for more clarity and a clear understanding on a defined area where Industrial use and employment is permitted and what is classed as “open countryside.”

For 5 years the team of local people have worked tirelessly, working with local Parish Councils, District Councillors and the Planning Authorities to put a halt on the unplanned unlawful development at the Business Park.

The Local Development Plan approved in January 2016 gave some guidance and clarity and the recent unsuccessful application on Hogsbrook Hill and the extension East of the main Business Park are the result of following the guidance and principles laid down in the Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

However, the local plan stated that a further planning document will follow on from the Local Plan known as the “Villages Plan” giving further guidance and clarity to the 14 largest villages in East Devon and the business parks of Greendale and Hill Barton.

This document is very nearly to the stage of adoption, with 2 public consultations and a public hearing by the Planning Inspectorate.

The final draft was submitted in December for a final public consultation with the final date for people to have a say the 2nd February.

East Devon Alliance Independent Councillor Geoff Jung, who is the Councillor for Raleigh Ward which includes the village of Woodbury Salterton and Greendale Business Park says:

“I have worked with the Planning Policy Department officers and all other Councillors at East Devon District Council and attended every Council meeting when the Village Plan has been debated and attended the public hearings. This has been to ensure that the Village Plan and especially the guidance and controls on these 2 Business Parks went through correctly and democratically.

The Planning Inspector’s proposals for the Business Parks will provide the owners of the business parks, residents and the planning authority absolute certainty of where development will be permitted and where planning will be refused.

However, at the very last Council meeting in December an amendment to remove all mention of the business parks in the Villages Plan was proposed – this was rejected but is still supported by some District Councillors. Any changes to the Inspector’s recommendation would add ambiguity and loopholes to the planning process. I would encourage all interested parties to contact the local planning with their views by the 2nd Feb.

Email: planningpolicy@eastdevon.gov.uk
These views will be sent on to the inspector.

The following Hyperlink takes you to the EDDC Villages Plan Page
EDDC Villages Plan Consultation:

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/villages-plan/villages-plan-2017/villages-plan-examination/

I would like to thank the Planning Inspector Mrs Beverley Doward BSc BTP MRTPI and the East Devon team in the Planning Policy Department for a Villages Plan that will help many communities in East Devon.”

EDDC councillor desperately tries to justify expansion of Greendale and Hill Barton – going against Village Built Up Area requirements

Owl says: what a lot of help Greendale and Hill Barton are getting from (some) EDDC councillors! Hurriedly arranged meetings, a desperate race to find loopholes to allow expansion and now this. Is it a personal comment? Well, an awful lot of “we” in there!!! And quoting 2012 consultant’s views in 2018 – astonishing! AND playing down their own industrial sites (too big for small businesses) – REALLY!

“Mike Allen comment to Inspector on Hill Barton and Greendale issues

(The Lead Councillor for Business and Employment in East Devon District Council (EDDC) and past Chair of the Local Plan Forum which developed the current EDDC Local Plan)

EDDC welcomes proposals for business investment and the creation of units for small and medium sized enterprises across the East Devon area subject to NPPF and Local Plan criteria.

We appreciate that cumulative development along the A3052 road corridor has the potential to negatively impact upon existing communities and infrastructure and the operations of existing businesses. The lack of objection from Highways England on a recent nearby planning application is significant Hill Barton (HB) and Greendale Business Park (GBP) are situated near recently approved (on appeal) Yeo Business Park. This determination is of direct material significance in considering further proposed development.

I will examine four main areas of consideration for Economic development in respect of this SPD for Business Parks:

1) It could be reasonably assumed that the Planning Inspector’s view that employment space proposals of a ‘relatively small-scale development that would provide jobs for local people’ would be applicable to the current plans for Business Parks in the area. It is similarly likely that this location would also be deemed a suitable location for small scale business units at appeal.

2) Greendale and Hill Barton Business Parks are larger scale and vitally important to the economic expansion of East Devon outside of the Science Park and Skypark areas.

3) The lack of residential neighbours means no loss of amenity.

4) There is clear demand for the facilities at Hill Barton and Greendale, without which business expansion would not be accommodated elsewhere. The medium quality, flexibility and appeal of the industrial storage space and units for larger growing businesses in the district is essential.

To be clear, we have no economic basis on which to challenge further development within the perimeters set in the Villages DPD.

5) EDDC’s Economic Development team have reviewed the Draft Villages Plan as well as the Sustainability Appraisal. Having also reviewed Strategy 27 and Policy E7 of the adopted Local Plan, in addition to material evidence in respect of employment land delivery below, I recommend that the Greendale (GD) and Hill Barton (HB) employment sites be removed from this Villages Development Plan.
Approval of this draft Villages DPD with GD and HB included will exacerbate the undersupply of employment premises we are already experiencing through non-delivery of our employment allocations in the adopted Local Plan.

The Council’s strategic drive is to prioritise the development of employment land in the west of the district. Any applicants are advised to examine the potential suitability of our Enterprise Zone sites (Inc. the Exeter Airport Business Park Expansion site; Cranbrook Town Centre; Skypark & Science Park), all of which benefit from infrastructure investment in excess of £25 million and include enhanced transport corridor infrastructure, rail stations and employment site infrastructure as well as being immediately adjacent to Exeter Airport and A30 and M5 junctions.

However, we are aware of some businesses feeding back a view that sites, such those examined above are aimed predominantly at the medium to large scale employers with scientific and professional or transport accommodation requirements in excess of 5,000 sq. ft. This can fail to meet the needs of many new and growing local medium sized manufacturing / B2 class businesses many of which would not be welcome in proximity to residential areas or on Science Parks.

In 2012 East Devon District Council Commissioned Professor Nigel Jump of Strategic Economics Ltd to carry out an independent assessment of the economic impact of the two strategic employment sites in East Devon. His conclusions were clear in that investment in these locations has unlocked valuable employment and economic growth in the district.

Moreover, these sites have the potential to make further economic net benefits (job creation, added GVA and inward investment) throughout challenging economic periods
to come. The report concludes that when social and environmental factors are considered, there remains a net positive impact of extended capacity at these sites which are yet to run their full course.

In light of this EDDC commissioned evidence, inclusion of Greendale and Hill Barton within the Villages DPD is unwarranted, contrary to the specialist advice we have commissioned and would cause demonstrable harm to the district.

These findings are echoed in 3 subsequent studies of demand for industrial and commercial space in East Devon which formed the overall economic element of the EDDC Local Plan which placed great weight on the sustainable balance of social, economic and environmental issues as the “Golden thread” which ran through the Local Plan and the NPPF

The proposals for the development of medium sized businesses of B2/B8 category fit well with a large number of B use premises enquires received by Economic Development in the last 2 years,

The filling out and redevelopment of Greendale and Hill Barton will complement the demand for larger B use provision and remain a welcome addition to the diverse mix of commercial accommodation required to facilitate indigenous business growth as well as the district’s ability to meet the needs of potential inward investors seeking to become established or grow their operations in East Devon.

Having recently reviewed B use premises demand across the district, the following updates can be cited: –

In Exmouth, B use accommodation at Liverton Business Park is in high demand. We have seen speculative build in this location with all but their final unit now let. They are unable to accommodate further demand

Across Clinton Devon Estate’s whole East Devon portfolio of commercial property; they have no other vacant B use premises available, representing a significant shortage of supply.

The Exeter and Heart of Devon Commercial Premises Register has received 43 separate enquiries for B1 Office accommodation in the District in the last 3 months

Greendale have received more than 80 B use premises enquiries in the last 12 months totalling more than 850,000 sq. ft.

Also, west of the Enterprise Zone, land is being brought forward for speculative development of small, flexible B use units.

Recently, as part of their Business Plan for the use of the Owen Building, Rolle Exmouth Ltd provided details of 59 separate businesses, social enterprises, individuals, groups/classes, education & training providers who have declared an interest in finding small SME commercial premises in Exmouth
Lastly, to curtail the provision of good jobs at Hill Barton and Greendale would be to consciously, selectively and actively undermine our stated (and adopted) Local Plan ambition of delivering one job per new dwelling. This target has not yet been realised, resulting in an unsustainable imbalance between the provision of new homes and new, quality jobs in East Devon.

We cannot continue to overlook this imbalance as our young teens and twenties leave to pursue careers elsewhere and the economically inactive grow as a proportion of our aging population.

We continue to receive inward investment enquires of differing scales and different employment use classes, including from the Dept. for International Trade (DIT, formerly UKTI).

These request a diverse mix of investment formats and much needed employment opportunities from outside the district. However, it is often difficult to identify suitable available employment premises.

Maintaining a diverse mix of development land and premises is key to securing these investments and associated local economic benefit.

The increased density of employment possible on Greendale and Hill Barton sites for B1/B2/B8 use is a clear benefit to our established local supply chains and producers/providers served by these developments.

Finally – I am concerned about an issue of prejudice: I believe that it would be prejudicial to the economic development of East Devon to consider the imposition of Strategy 7 (Greenfield) on Hill Barton on Greendale since the sites are clearly well used industrial sites which are in the right location for the type of businesses they serve.

The two sites have been afforded a specific exception in Policy E7 – ‘Extensions to
Existing Employment Sites’ of our adopted Local Plan (See Pg. 196 “This policy will not apply at Hill Barton and Greendale business Parks”). While for landscape and other reasons we might wish to limit the further expansion of the sites, I believe it would be prejudicial to single out these two sites rather than the 50 other smaller industrial sites for special treatment.

The criteria already laid down within the Local Plan are fully sufficient to control and promote the appropriate development on these sites.

Recommendation

I recommend that the Greendale (GBP) and Hill Barton (HB) employment sites be removed from this Villages Development Plan. I recommend that any application of strategy 7 within the perimeters already agreed should not occur but that other Planning Policies on Industrial Land development should be applied on the basis of equity and equality with other industrial sites in East Devon.

Approval of this draft Villages DPD with GD and HB included and subject to strategy 7 will exacerbate the undersupply of employment premises we are already experiencing through non-delivery of our employment allocations in the adopted Local Plan.”

Tomorrow last day for comments on EDDC’s “planning application” for Exmouth seafront

The words “planning application” appear in quotes because it barely meets the requirement for an outline planning application, let alone a full one!

More haste … more money?

The planning application reference is 17/2944/FUL and must be quoted at all times.

You may write, email or login to the planning portal

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/view-planning-applications-enforcements-and-planning-appeals/

to place your objections. If you wish to speak to someone in planning the number is 01395 516551.

Please note that your objections must be to EDDC by 17th January so it is too late to write.

“Exmouth Town Council opposes plan for temporary attractions on seafront – again”

Owl says: Amazing how some district councillors can change their attitudes when EDDC development is in THEIR town’s back yard!

“Town councillors have again refused to support an application for temporary attractions on Exmouth seafront.

Planning committee members decided not to support the proposal to install pop-up food outlets and a large to screen to show live sport, such as World Cup football matches, at the former fun park site in Queen’s Drive.

If given the go-ahead, East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) plan could also see the former boating lake filled in for a hard or soft seating area and a fenced-off children’s play zone created.

The current proposal is a full application and town councillors have suggested that it should be reverted to an outline plan. They say it could progress to a full proposal, with more detail, later.

The amended plans now include a letter intended to dispel previous objections over the lack of information in the application and the permanent infilling of the boating lake.

EDDC says the lack of detail was due to a ‘tight timescale’ and there is no ‘specific engineering solution’ for how the infilling will take place.

Objecting to the installation of the big screen, Nick Hookway, chairman of campaign group Save Exmouth Seafront, pointed out that an extensive environmental monitoring programme had previously been recommended for the site.

He said: “I think that the presence of a large number of people on that site will be highly damaging to that site itself.

“Will this present application prevent damage to the site or merely get the public to do the council’s work?

“Will this application have the same environmental mitigation conditions that the reserve matters application had?”

Exmouth Town Council Planning Committee members voted to oppose the amended proposals, saying the blueprint has not answered their original concerns and the plan should come back as an outline application.

In the additional information, EDDC says it wants the application to be decided on by its development management committee in March.

Councillor Bill Nash said: “March is plenty of time for this application to come back in to this committee as an outline application, which I think would be considered properly and probably be acceptable.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/exmouth-town-council-opposes-seafront-temporary-attraction-plan-1-5351548

A new East Devon Business Forum?

And just how will EDDC decide who are the top 50 employers? Turnover, number of employees, closeness to Woodbury or Otterton? Or big developers? Businesses submitting the most planning applications or biggest landholders? Or might it be social responsibility – lol? Environmental credentials – lol? Employee stakeholders – lol?

And how will they treat these “top 50 compared to the bottom several thousand?

Shades of the discredited, run by disgraced ex-councillor Graham Brown, East Devon Business Forum? And, here it comes again – scrutiny … conflicts of interest …

Owl ruffles its feathers …

“For the many or the few” to quote someone-or-other!

“Develop more effective business engagement though:

1) Publishing quarterly business bulletins and increasing SME readership;

2) Identifying and establishing communication with up to 6 Key Ambassador businesses in East Devon

3) developing and maintaining a contact list of our top 50 employers;

4) Identifying and making contact with businesses comprising our 4 GESP priority sectors (Smart Logistics, Data Analytics, Knowledge Based Industries and Environmental Futures).

Click to access 170118-joint-overview-scrutiny-agenda-combined.pdf

Businesses can now pay EDDC for “consultancy” for fast-track food hygeine certificates

Another conflict of interest? Gamekeeper AND poacher?

“Our commercial premises team will explore the feasibility of offering a range of business advice and support services to local businesses. We will offer an enhanced food hygiene registration scheme to those businesses who would like consultancy time specifically dedicated to helping them improve their regulatory compliance generally and their food hygiene rating score in particular. We will market support package options (to include training, coaching and auditing) to newly registered businesses this year.”

Click to access 170118-joint-overview-scrutiny-agenda-combined.pdf

Green spaces – use them or possibly see them flogged off

Owl says: health benefits of public open spaces? Pah! Flog ‘em, flog ‘em!

“ Corporate Green Space policy 1 –

Survey, plot and categorise all council managed green/open space across the district (including housing land, and allotment sites)
assess sites based on a range of criteria including;

strategic importance,
accessibility,
alternative or additional use,
levels of use, amenity value,
ability to protect our outstanding environment and cost.

Identify which sites are suitable for retention, community transfer or disposal taking into account our corporate policies, our Local Plan and open space study.

Click to access 170118-joint-overview-scrutiny-agenda-combined.pdf

Do our council officers have enough to do?

Owl says: And if EDDC pitches for these services and does not get them , who foots the bill and what work will the officers NOT have done that we are paying for? And what about that dang conflict of interest?

“We will explore the potential benefits that might arise from working with other local authorities including Exeter City Council, Teignbridge District Council and Mid Devon District Council to deliver advice, support, training and auditing services to businesses across the region.”

Click to access 170118-joint-overview-scrutiny-agenda-combined.pdf

EDDC: “More open spaces to be closed for private events, say council”

And all for £35,000 … our PUBLIC open spaces paying for their new HQ?

Or planning a money-spinner for Grenadier?

“East Devon District Council agenda papers say the authority is planning to close public spaces like Manor Gardens and Exmouth beach for privately-rented events.

Exmouth’s beach, parks and gardens could be closed to the public for privately-rented events such as weddings and festivals, under new proposals.

According to East Devon District Council (EDDC) agenda papers, the authority is considering hiring an events officer to ‘actively market’ its open spaces.

Previously, Exmouth’s Manor Gardens has been closed to the public for private occasions such as weddings and an open-air cinema. An area on the seafront was also used for the observation wheel last summer.

Proposals in the joint overview and scrutiny committee agenda say that these sites could be used for a big screen to show sports and music events.

There could also be Christmas markets, food fairs, and beach volleyball or surf lifesaving championships.

The agenda, for the meeting taking place on Wednesday, January 17, also says £100,000 could be set aside from EDDC’s capital reserve and that charges would be ‘in line with the private sector’.

EDDC says all parks, gardens and beaches are being considered as host venues and that town and parish councils will be consulted.

An EDDC spokeswoman said: “As part of the council’s objective to develop an outstanding economy through being more commercial, we have been making steady progress in improving our events offer and rentals of our assets such as parks and gardens.

“Last year we increased events income from £10,000 to £35,000.

“This has already included a wedding in Manor Gardens, Exmouth, the Exmouth Observation Wheel and other ticketed events such as open-air cinema, where the park or area was closed to the public.

“We consult with the local town or parish council and elected members before such events go ahead.

“Any East Devon District Council parks, gardens, beaches or open spaces will be considered by the council for events bookings or private functions.

“Charges will be in line with the private sector and anyone interested in making a booking, should contact the council on 01395 517528 or visit http://eastdevon.gov.uk/events.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/exmouth-beaches-parks-rented-out-privately-1-5351545

Cranbrook Herald reports on estate rent charges

Owl broke this story on 2January:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2018/01/02/cranbrook-residents-very-unhappy-about-estate-rent-charge-bills/

Now Cranbrook Herald has taken it up:

“The unexpected demand for payment caused uproar on social media, distressing many during the festive break.

One resident said the company which sent the letter was using ‘scare-mongering tactics’.

Another said the matter was a ‘disgrace’.

The estate and asset management company Blenheims sent the bill on behalf of the Cranbrook Consortium and FPCR (which provides the town’s landscape and horicultural services).

In the letter – delivered to all Cranbrook households on Friday, December 22 – Blenheims explained that the annual Estate Rent Charge (ERC), which meets the cost of maintaining the public open spaces and amenity areas had been reviewed.

Previously set at £150 per annum – based on an ‘historic and initial assessment of the annual costs’ – the Consortium had increased the ERC to £231.76, to reflect actual accounting figures. These suggested that the total costs of the 2017-18 ERC were £370,816. Split between 1,600 properties, this came to £231.76 per household.

In many cases, the £231.76 demand was reduced to £194.26, taking into account an initial quarterly ERC instalment paid by residents of £37.50.

The letter implied that the £194.26 needed to be paid in one sum. There was also confusion about when the money needed to be paid, with some residents believing it had to be within 10 working days.

There was no suggestion of being able to pay in instalments (although Blenheims has since said that there are three payment dates – January 22, February 1 and March 1).

Having received their bills, Cranbrook residents found Blenheims had shut for Christmas, and initially there was no one available to discuss the issue.

At the request of Cranbrook Town Council (CTC), the Reverend Lythan Nevard – Cranbrook’s minister and a Belonging to Cranbrook Facebook moderator – offered advice for residents, posting her thoughts on social media.

On January 2, CTC posted its own advice on its website, describing the timing of the letter as ‘unfortunate’, and Blenheims has since issued a ‘frequently asked questions’ (FAQ) document.

“I think the timing of the Blenheims’ letter was poor at best,” said a Cranbrook resident, who did not wish to be named. “Some people were concerned that if they just cancelled their direct debits, they would end up with bailiffs at their door after Christmas.”

“It was a disgrace to receive a letter demanding payment of £231.76 within ten days, and especially at this time of the year,” said another resident.

In its FAQ to residents, Blenheims said the payment demand was issued on December 22 in advance of the next collection date, December 25, and was ‘in accordance’ with residents’ ERC deed.

It also issued advice for those that had cancelled their direct debit or hadn’t returned their mandate and explained why the ERC was being increased and why residents – who are already paying council tax – were being charged for ERC.

Neither Blenheims nor the Consortium have provided the Herald with further comment on this matter.

CTC is currently finalising details of taking over the town’s ERC. If draft agreements are approved, from April 6, 2018, the ERC will be paid as part of EDDC’s council tax, with any increase in the element of the council tax payable to CTC.”

http://www.cranbrookherald.com/news/cranbrook-estate-rent-charge-1-5349929

Infrastructure: Shortfall of £270m over period of Local Plan says external auditor

“Appendix A page 39

Click to access 180118bpauditgovernaceoperationalrisk.pdf

“Current estimates show that there will be a £270 million shortfall in infrastructure over the period of the Local Plan. Changes in legislation are needed to address this albeit a CIL charging schedule review is underway and may improve the situation. Fundamentally the current system relies on funding from other sources and infrastructure providers and so pressure needs to be put in bodies such as DCC, NHS etc to help fund infrastructure projects in the district.”

External auditor reports on risks of combined authorities

“In July, the NAO published its report on Progress in setting up combined authorities which concludes that for combined authorities to deliver real progress they will need to demonstrate that they can drive economic growth and contribute public sector reform.

These authorities have inherently complex structures and are not uniform.

They vary in the extent of the devolution deals they have struck with government. The combined authority with the greatest degree of devolution, Greater Manchester, has now absorbed control over the office of the police and crime commissioner and fire and rescue services.

Others are currently primarily focused on transport issues, as well as housing and regeneration.

The report highlights a number of risks including:

— local councillors will have limited capacity for the overview and scrutiny of combined authorities. Furthermore, in May 2017, six mayors were elected to combined authorities in England, with candidates having campaigned on manifestos which frequently made policy commitments beyond the current remits of these organisations. This raises the question of whether mayors can be credible local advocates if they only deal with the limited issues under the remit;

— a number of authorities have been unable to bring local authorities together to establish combined authorities, while areas with a long history of working together have often found it most straightforward to establish combined authorities;

— the capacity of most combined authorities is currently limited and the lack of geographical coherence between most combined authorities and other providers of public services could make it more problematic to devolve more public services in the future;
and

— if the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union (EU) results in reductions in regional funding, the economic regeneration role of combined authorities would become more pressing. Combined authorities are generally in areas which receive the most EU funding. The North West, for example, is scheduled to receive in excess of 1 billion euros in European Regional Development Funds, European Social Fund, and Youth Employment allocations between 2014 and 2020.”

The report is available on the NAO website at:
http://www.nao.org.uk/report/progress-in-setting-up-combined-authorities/

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2018/01/01/conflict-of-interest-at-hinkley-c-oddly-not-at-our-lep/

page 41

Clinton Devon Estates and Blackhill Quarry: a critical test of the company’s environmental credentials and standards

A correspondent writes:

Sites of Environmental Significance:

We have three very special environmental sites in, or on the edge of, East Devon protected by stringent European and UK Habitat Regulations: the Exe Estuary, Dawlish Warren and the Pebblebed Heaths.

Clinton Devon Estate (CDE) is the owner of 80% of the the Pebblebed Heaths, including the land of Blackhill Quarry.

CDE web site proclaims “Responsible stewardship and sustainable development are at the heart of everything we do”.

So it seems extraordinary that CDE, instead of promoting the reinstatement of the Blackhill Quarry site as part of the Pebblebed Heaths, should, instead, be seeking to turn it into an industrial site with all the accompanying pollution (noise, light, traffic etc).

Recently Aggregate Industries withdrew an application to continue quarrying on the site and has been restoring the site to encourage wildlife. Indeed, Aggregate Industries was awarded runner up and highly commended at the Mineral Product Association’s Biodiversity Awards 2017 for its restoration of the sand and gravel quarry.

“This is an unique wildlife habitat situated close to Exeter. Designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a Special Area of Conservation and a Special Protection Area, this area represents one of the most important conservation sites in Europe.”

http://www.pebblebedheaths.org.uk/

Also, studies have shown these are popular local sites, and access to them is vital to the local economy and highly valued by local people.

Access has widespread benefits including health, education, inspiration, spiritual and general well-being. While much of the access takes place regardless of the wildlife interest, that wildlife interest is also a part of the specific draw for many people. New development in the area is putting this under pressure not only by destroying green space but by increasing the footfall on what is left from an ever larger population. Local authorities have a legal duty to ensure no adverse effects occur as a result of their strategic plans.

Legally, there can be no building within 400m of these sites and also any development within 10Km requires a formal Habitats Protection Assessment with favourable conclusions. EDDC, however, accepts a funding levy from developers to get around having to do this individually, effectively taking on the responsibility for mitigation delivery themselves.

Though money might do a lot of things, it can’t create more land.

Your correspondent recalls a time when CDE were talking of using the old industrial site to enhance the existing recreation experience of the Heath. And now it wishes to develop an industrial site.

Do they think the prohibition on building within 400m doesn’t apply to them?

East Devon in bottom ten percent for electric vehicle charging points

“East Devon

Has 202 electric vehicles, and 0 public charging points.

This equates to <0.01 public charging points per electric vehicle, ranking it 328/380 in the country.

Electric vehicles make up 0.22% of all cars and vans in East Devon.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5258129/Interactive-map-reveals-best-places-electric-cars.html

“More than 3,000 families on East Devon council housing list”

“In the last three years, the list has grown by around 46 per cent, a Freedom of Information (FoI) request submitted by the Herald has revealed.

Council bosses have said one of the reasons for the rise is that many applicants cannot afford to rent privately or purchase a home in the district, so turn to the authority and housing associations for assistance.

The statistics, released by East Devon District Council (EDDC), revealed there were more than 620 people on the waiting list in Sidmouth, including 171 children.

Compared to the rest of the district, Sidmouth had the third highest number of families on the list. This included around 41 single parents, 229 households of one or two people, 31 families of three, 32 families of four, 12 families of five, 11 families of six and one family of seven.

In Ottery St Mary, there are 375 people on this list and, of this, 251 are adults. This mean that 33 per cent of those waiting were children, leaving Ottery with the highest percentage of children waiting on the list compared with anywhere else in East Devon.

Overall there are 156 families waiting in Ottery – this includes 95 households with one or two people, 25 families of the three, 24 families of four, six families of five, four families of six and two families of seven.

Across East Devon, as of November 30, 2017, there were 3,143 families on the waiting list.

When looking at the numbers for the last three years, the statistics showed that the amount of people on the list had slowly been increasing.

In 2014/15, there were 2,297 households waiting and by March 2017 there were 3,361.

Although, as of November 30, the number of households on the waiting list had dropped by around 6.9 per cent.

An EDDC spokeswoman said the authority’s housing register was one of its barometers of housing need in the district.

She added: “We are constantly monitoring movements in the housing register 
and trying to secure new affordable housing where 
needs arise.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/more-than-3-000-families-on-east-devon-council-housing-list-1-5342898

Housing completions for private housing (ie those ready to move into, not those with planning permission) are woeful, as developers drip-feed their expensive houses to keep prices high:

Click to access combined-hmu-30-sept-2016.pdf

“Grenfell fire: KPMG quits inquiry amid conflict of interest furore”

“… The accountancy firm audits the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, where the tower is located.

It also audits Rydon Construction, which refurbished the tower in 2015, and Celotex, which manufactured insulation material used in the tower. …”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42598976

Owl says: if conflicts of interest were taken as seriously in Devon, we would have many fewer councillors, almost no quangos and DEFINITELY no Local Enterprise Partnership!

EDDC’s justification for Exmouth seafront “planning lite” application

Would you or I get away with this?

Exmouth Town Council arranging hurried meeting on 6 January 2018.

Let’s see what they think (Tory dominated, don’t build up you expectations!)

From EDDC to Town Councillors – how to justify the unjustifiable!

One for the Scrutiny Committee? Oh no, wait – not allowed to discuss individual planning applications! But maybe CAN investigate how there are double standards in planning – one for their own officers and one for everyone else.

No – even that’s not right! One for EDDC and its developers and one for the rest of us.

“Queen’s Drive Temporary Uses Planning Application Response to Concerns Raised by Exmouth Town Council

1. CONCERN ABOUT TOO LITTLE DETAIL IN THE APPLICATION.
The lack of detail in the planning application is a result of the tight timescale that we are faced with in delivering the temporary uses.
Time is a key driver for the delivery of the Temporary Uses project. We aim to have new facilities available by early spring 2018.
In order to achieve this, we have to secure a planning permission first, before starting work on the installation of the new facilities.
We also have to go through the research and then procurement process to find the suppliers (and operators where appropriate) for the new facilities.
We realised that if we are to achieve this tight timetable, we would need to undertake tasks concurrently. So we would need to submit a planning application without necessarily knowing the detail of exactly what the facilities would be and who would be supplying them.
We discussed this with our planning advisor and the Local Planning Authority and identified that we could submit a planning application that provided a general description of what we propose to do (and was therefore without too much detail), where (if approved at committee), the planning authority could put conditions on the permission and request the detail at a later time.
We agreed on a strategy for the planning application that would show the three zones for the three different “themes” of what will be on offer. Namely: children’s play, food and drink, and a range of one-off events.

2. CONCERNS ABOUT RESIDENTIAL AREA AND NOISE.
The District Council will have to apply for necessary licences to cover the hours of opening for the operation of the events on site. Again, as yet we do not know the detail of what the events will be as we are still in the research and planning stages. We would not expect that any event would be later than midnight. But note that this will only be on odd occasions – not every night. This application will be heard by the Licensing Committee in due course.

3. CONCERNS ABOUT THE FILLING IN OF THE PONDS.
We do not yet know the specific engineering solution for how the ponds will be filled in. It is thought that this will be loose material topped with sand. Whatever is used to fill the ponds could be removed in the future if required.
4. CONCERNS ABOUT THE TIMING OF SUBMISSION.
We are aiming for the application to be heard at DMC on 6 March 2018.
To meet this date and allow for the lead in period for the application to be processed, we therefore had to submit the application before Christmas (early December). It was not until early December that we had finalised the application ready for submission.

Alison Hayward
EDDC 3 January 2018”