Letter to Sidmouth Herald edited – do you agree?

The writer of this letter had one crucial sentence (the last one, in bold) taken out by Sidmouth Herald where it was recently published:

In last Friday’s Sidmouth Herald a short letter I had submitted for the Opinion page was printed – but minus its final sentence, thus taking away its punch line.

The letter submitted said:- ”

The Chairman of the Sidmouth Town Council Planning Committee is reported as telling the Planning meeting considering the Sidford Business Park that “It’s in the Local Plan. We have to fight the details”.

It only remains in the Local Plan because the EDDC voted, on 26 March 2015, to remove it – but in apparent ignorance of the fact that, the plan having already been submitted to the Inspector, they needed to send him evidence to support their decision. None was sent!

It is now up to us to overcome this incompetence. We have to challenge not just the details but the whole principle of building a Business Park ( a fancy name for an Industrial Estate!) on this site and on this scale.”

THIS IS THE MISSING SENTENCE CUT BY SIDMOUTH HERALD:

The proposal is yet another toxic legacy of the late, but unlamented, East Devon Business Forum.

Do you agree with this censorship?

Fords Sidford Business Park: “massive unrest”

image

“There is massive unrest in Sid Valley over plans top build an industrial estate at Sidford

Fords of Sidmouth wants to build industrial, storage and distribution units totalling 22,800 square metres on agricultural land to the east of Two Bridges Road.

The fourth generation business employs around 70 people, carrying out plumbing and electrical engineering work across the district.

However, various groups East Devon are strongly concerned about the project with regards to a possible risk of flooding, traffic congestion, pollution and the impact on a designated area of outstanding natural beauty.

Sidford Social Hall saw a massive gathering of objectors on Monday.

Among the speakers at the Public Meeting, organised by Sid Valley Residents and chaired by Cathy Debenham, was Alan Green, the Director of the Norman Lockyer Observatory

He said the light pollution from the development would be “a total disaster” for the observatory and will “destroy us after 104 years.”

Marianne Rixson, East Devon District Councillor for Sidmouth and Sidford, added that Exeter and Honiton currently have 1.6 million square feet of available employment units, and that meant the area “did not any more.”

Pam Ward, a governor of Sidbury School, said that the increased traffic, including HGV’s, would become a serious safety issue for local children.

As a result of the meeting many said they were likely to ‘boycott’ Fords, and even calls for an eventual public enquiry.

They will also urge planners to impose restrictions on how big the industrial units can be over worries they will dwarf their surroundings.

There are already over 150 objections filed on the council website.

A planning document submitted earlier this year by agents Context Logic, of Colaton Raleigh, said Fords & Sons plans to make a “substantial capital investment in delivering an employment site for Sidmouth.”

They added: “The proposal would generate jobs and opportunities for new and expanding businesses in Sidmouth. In total, the business park could create as many as 300 jobs over both phases throughout the local plan period.

“The park would offer business support facilities for the wider business community and it is hoped that the Business Support Centre would become a popular and well used asset.

“The future detailed applications will seek to create a business park with the highest regard given to design, energy efficiency, safety and security and will look to support a vibrant economy for Sidford and Sidmouth.”

The application will be decided in the coming weeks.

We have approached Fords of Sidmouth for comment.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/fury-at-sidford-business-park-plan-which-could-destroy-observatory/story-29719231-detail/story.html

 

EDDC and its Section 106 Black hole

What makes the response below so puzzling is that for at least the last decade, EDDC has had a dedicated S106 officer. Time for some scrutiny …

Freedom of Information request
Section 106 planning agreements

Date submitted: 25 August 2016

Summary of request

Please provide the following details for all developer contributions agreed (not received) under Section 106 planning agreements including affordable housing contributions:

– Value of contribution
– Purpose of contribution
– Planning application reference number

Please provide these details for the following 10x financial years:

– 01/04/2004 – 31/03/2005
– 01/04/2005 – 31/03/2006
– 01/04/2006 – 31/03/2007
– 01/04/2007 – 31/03/2008
– 01/04/2008 – 31/03/2009
– 01/04/2009 – 31/03/2010
– 01/04/2010 – 31/03/2011
– 01/04/2011 – 31/03/2012
– 01/04/2012 – 31/03/2013
– 01/04/2013 – 31/03/2014

Summary of response

We do not hold this information in a format which enables us to easily identify the financial contributions that were due to EDDC arising from s106 agreements in each financial year, or identify the purpose of a contribution. To find this detail we would need to check through each agreement during the stated time period.

We know that it has taken an experienced officer some 6 hours to search through 200 of these documents and we estimate that to search through each of the agreements per year over a ten year span to locate the ones specifically relevant to your request, will exceed the 18 hours permitted. This information is therefore exempt from disclosure under s12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Date responded: 1 September 2016

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/access-to-information/freedom-of-information/freedom-of-information-published-requests/

38 Degrees petition: Say No to Sidford Business Park

“Please reject the application to build a three hectare Industrial Business Park on AONB land in the village of Sidford in East Devon.

Why is this important?

This is prime agricultural land in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, situated on a known flood risk plain, and home to much wild life, including several protected bat species.

The typically narrow Devon access roads to this area are woefully inadequate to cope with the existing traffic and more expected large vehicles, would add to this problem. The lack of pavements in Sidbury village already put school children at risk and there is still no cycle path to link the two villages.

The sheer size and height of the development would dominate the landscape, devalue adjacent existing properties and cause noise and light pollution (hugely affecting the nearby 100 year old Norman Lockyer Observatory).

Flooding of roads and properties occurred 4 times in 2012.

Finally there is far more suitable employment land available on existing Industrial sites, in Sidmouth, Honiton and Cranbrook to better serve those who are seeking employment. Please sign this petition to preserve the quality of life for many people and to stop this heartless, uncaring proposal going ahead.”

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/say-no-to-east-devon-business-park?bucket&source=facebook-share-button&time=1473757444

Angry cries of “Boycott Fords” at Sidford meeting

BOYCOTT FORDS!’ CALL AT ANGRY SIDFORD MEETING

There was standing room only at Sidford Social Hall last night at a meeting called by local residents to “Say No to Sidford Business Park”.

Feelings ran high as speaker after speaker condemned this “monstrosity of a project” on road safety, environmental, and flooding grounds.

Notable comments included:

a plea from a Director of the Norman Lockyer Observatory “not to kill” astronomy in Sidmouth with the bright lights of a Business Park.

a warning from a governor of Sidbury primary school that increases in heavy vehicles would place schoolchildren in greater danger on the village’s narrow roads which often lacked pavements.

claims from an environmentalist that rare, protected horseshoe bats were likely to be present in larger numbers than estimated in the planning application.

Among many suggestions to mobilise opposition was a mass boycott of Fords of Sidmouth, the applicant.

This was enthusiastically supported, and will be actively considered by the organising committee.

“Sidford business park: call to ‘fight the details’ “

Just the sort of thing our constituency MP shoyld be fighting for …

“A raft of fresh objections have been lodged by residents and civic leaders against plans for a 9.3-acre business park – with warnings a single building could ‘dwarf everything’ in the Sid Valley.

Town councillors were told they have to ‘fight the details’ as they debated Fords of Sidmouth’s amended plans for the site between Sidford and Sidbury.

Members will urge district chiefs to impose restrictions on the scale of the buildings and call for a cycle path linking Sidbury and Sidford to be built before any other construction work goes ahead.

Planning committee chairman Cllr Ian Barlow told Wednesday’s packed meeting in Sidford: “I’m not defeatist – I’m a realist. We’ve fought this for years and years and years but now it’s in the Local Plan. Now we need to fight the details. If we have to have it, we don’t want buildings more than seven metres high, and we don’t want any bigger than 500 squares metres – we don’t need a huge distribution centre.”

He urged objectors to get their partners and children to write in, too, and send letters to East Devon District Council (EDDC), Fords and landowner Sir John Cave. There are already 153 objections online.

The town council originally opposed the application due to the impact on roads, flooding and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and the lack of demand for the 300 jobs forecast to be created by the business park.

Fords’ amendments include relocating the proposed cycle path further from the A375, and redesigning the flood attenuation ponds to better fit in the environment. It also submitted ‘design codes’ – revealing that buildings would have a maximum height of 15 metres, and no one building would cover more than a quarter of the 5.8-acre southern field or the 3.5-acre northern site.

Critics at Wednesday’s meeting said such a building would ‘dwarf everything’ in the Sid Valley.

Cllr Michael Earthey said: “I said before, it will be a carbuncle on the landscape. Now we know the scale of it.”

Resident Ian Scott, who worked as an architect for 30 years, suggested hope was not lost. He said: “The Department for Transport can overrule the fact it’s in the Local Plan.

“I don’t think we should give up and say it’s inevitable.”

Town clerk Christopher Holland said if councillors did not object to specific details at this stage, the developer was being handed a ‘blank sheet’.

“This is your chance to put some red lines down on what you wish to see and what you wish not to see,” he added.

Members agreed to write to EDDC saying, if the business park does go ahead, the following conditions should be imposed:

● The maximum ridge height of the properties should be seven metres and the eaves should be no higher than five metres. There should also be no flat roofs.

● The cycle track should be built before any development goes ahead.

● The bat habitat should not be disturbed; specifically an ‘ancient’ hedgerow in Laundry Lane.

● Light and noise pollution should be restricted.

● There should be no retail under any circumstances on the site.

● A new traffic management report should be drawn up, and a traffic assessment will be requested.

● No one building should be more than 500 square metres in area.

For advice on commenting on the application, contact the town council on 01395 512424.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/sidford_business_park_call_to_fight_the_details_1_4689850

“East Devon car parking machines have taken more than £32,000 as a result of not giving change”

“Statistics released by a Freedom of Information request showed East Devon District Council introduced a new system which meant drivers overpaid an extra £16,946 in 2014/15 and £15,066 in 2015/16.

While, in 2013/14, there were no overpayments as ticket machines were programmed to give the appropriate time for the money inserted.

In the last three financial years, the council has made more than £3,100,000 per year in car parking revenue in Exmouth, Sidmouth, Honiton, Axminster, Budleigh Salterton, Beer, Seaton, Colyton, Lympstone and Ottery St Mary. …

… council spokeswoman said introducing the parking permits had meant customers could not buy parking time in 10p increments because there was not enough memory available in the current machines, so they introduced 50p increments.

This was because the number of ticket prices, which would be a new price point for every six minutes, to allow 10p increments, would be too much to continue alongside the new permit options.

To compromise, they introduced 50p increments on the same tariff, meaning customers would need to purchase parking in 30-minute periods rather than the previous six-minute increments – the minimum payment of 50p did not change. …”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/east_devon_parking_machines_take_32k_in_change_1_4689391

Well, maybe that will pay for a CEO’s platinum tea service and a Leader’s Gold ipad case.

More rural broadband – for Dorset

DOZENS more communities in Dorset are to benefit from the roll-out of superfast broadband.

More than 26 per cent of customers in the Superfast Dorset area have already chosen to take-up the service, triggering a “Gainshare” award under the terms of the contract with BT to be used to further extend the fibre roll-out.

More than 800 premises in 31 areas have just been added to the Superfast Dorset roll-out plans for next year as a result of the high take up and efficiencies in delivery, which together are worth more than £1million. …”

Rural locations to benefit from superfast broadband

East Devon chose not to join a consortium to bring broadband to its rural areas, preferring to go it alone. It was turned down for grants because its bid duplicated the consortium bid.

If you are unhappy about this state of affairs, contact EDDC councillor Phil Twiss, the council’s rural broadband champion, who is the non-mover and non-shaker of this particular non-project:

ptwiss@eastdevon.gov.uk

In the past, Councillor Twiss has been quick to comment on this blog, we look forward to his comments on this topic.

‘Say NO to Sidford Business Park’, PUBLIC MEETING on Monday 12th Sept September 10, 2016

A public meeting organised by Sidford & Sidbury residents, with the support of East Devon Alliance, will be held at Sidford Social Hall, Byes Lane, on Monday 12 September. Doors open at 6.30 pm for 7.15pm start. Coffee and teas available on arrival. Information displays to browse.

Sidmouth Town Council have already expressed serious objections to the height of buildings ‘up to 15 metres tall’ in Fords’ planning application.

image

Imagine a London bus of equivalent height, to get some idea of the scale.
There’s more information on http://www.facebook.com/saynotosidfordbusinesspark

‘Say NO to Sidford Business Park’, PUBLIC MEETING on Monday 12th Sept

“Counties and districts demand funding top up when business rates fall short”

East Devon will, of course be losing ALL the business rates raised by the East Devon Growth Point which will go directly to our Local Enterprise Partnership. We haven’t heard our council complaining- quite the opposite.

“County and district councils have called on the government to commit to providing additional funding for local services where demand outstrips business rate growth following the forthcoming localisation of the levy.

In a joint statement of shared principles on the government’s business rate retention proposals, the County Councils Network, District Councils’ Network and Rural Services Network warned services could be hit without funding guarantees.

The government plans to devolve business rates to authorities by 2019-20. A funding baseline is likely to be set for town halls using local business rates as well as either a top up or tariff payment to reflect a new assessment of local need. Authorities will then retain all local growth – up from the 50% share currently allotted to the sector – and will be financially self-sufficient. Together with other locally raised revenue, mainly council tax, business rates growth will be used to provide council services.

However, the groups said today that the system would need to be monitored to ensure funding matches local demand over time.

“If core statutory demand-led service pressures, such as social care, are set to outstrip resources over time, central government should work with local government to agree additional funding sources,” the document stated.

“Local and central government should consider and agree a way of managing additional risks to local authorities of full retention and find a way of compensating against sharp changes in income or need.”

The groups also called for all areas to have the ability to both lower and raise the rates multiplier. Under the current proposals, authorities will only be able to cut the levy, although city region combined authorities will be able to increase the rate to pay for specific infrastructure projects.

A consultation on the basis for the devolved system is open until 26 September. Views are also being sought on areas where local authorities could take on the funding of services in order to make the plan initially fiscally neutral. Areas suggested by government include public health, early years, youth justice and the attendance allowance paid to help meet care costs.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/09/counties-and-districts-demand-funding-top-when-business-rates-fall-short

EDDC’s Section 106 records appear to be a shambles:

Does EDDC know how much S106 money it has and how much is owed?

Could this happen here?

Reading Borough Council officer has been jailed over a £42,000 fraud involving money raised from developers through section 106 planning gain contributions.

The council said that a review of its Section 106 system in April had uncovered an anomaly that on further investigation proved to involve fraud.
Peter Owusu-Ansah pleaded guilty on 1 August at Reading Crown Court to one charge under section 4 of the Fraud Act, and has now been sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.

A council statement said the review found no other problems but a detailed audit had been undertaken and recommendations were made to improve processes.

Mr Owusu-Ansah’s fraud involved £42,425.84 and the council will use the Proceeds of Crime Act to try to recover money from him.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28295%3Aofficer-jailed-for-section-106-planning-gain-fraud&catid=63&Itemid=31

Why has EDDC done a special press release for a private venue?

Even under the guise of “Heritage Week” why has EDDC put out this council press release for a privately owned and run venue?

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/news/2016/09/heritage-day-sees-historic-home-open-to-the-public-for-the-first-time/

Does EDDC own the building? It appears not. Why did they choose it to put on some ” outdoor activities” for children there when they have coastal towns and wetlands available?

Councillor Ian Chubb says:

Our heritage and planning staff worked closely with Rockbeare Manor to deliver a refurbishment of the highest quality, advising on local apple varieties for the new orchard, for example. Our Growth Point and Countryside teams have partnered with the new owner to run this event, because the historic manor and landscaped parkland is such an important asset to the growing East Devon community.”

Were the heritage and planning staff paid for this consultancy advice? If it was free is it available to owners of other private properties in East Devon? If it was paid for – can other people access these busy EDDC employees for a fee?

EDDC now has a good number of current and former members of the hospitality industry as serving councillors, at least three of whom are currently on the EDDC Licensing Committee.

They must be careful who they sup with.

Public parks face decline and neglect says Heritage Lottery Fund

The UK’s hugely popular public parks face falling into decline and neglect as a result of budget cuts, a new report warns.

Park use is rising, with 57% of adults now visiting their park once a month or more, while 90% of families with children under five head to their local green space at least monthly, the State of UK Public Parks 2016 study reveals.

But the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) study warns a decline in the condition of parks predicted in a first report in 2014 is set to continue, with almost all park managers experiencing ongoing cuts as austerity squeezes local authority budgets.

Some 92% of park managers had seen budgets cut and 95% were facing more reductions, a worsening of the situation since 2014, according to a survey of 193 councils as part of the report.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/07/uks-public-parks-face-decline-and-neglect-heritage-lottery-fund-report

Unfortunately, you won’t find the funds for flogging off part of the Knowle parkland for luxury pensioner apartments making its way to the remaining parkland. That’s all on its way to the new council HQ in Honiton.

Estate agent or developer?

Interesting advertisement in a recent Midweek Herald. Estate agent Greenslade Taylor Hunt is seeking assist in to influencing the draft East Devon Villages Plan by persuading landowners in turn to “to influence planning policy in the villages of East Devon”.

And if landowners don’t want to ‘influence’ planning by turning land into housing estates themselves, GTH will facilitate interaction with a house builder to help to get planning permission.

Seems that it is no longer enough to be an estate agent you have to be a “land and planning specialist” too.

And begs the question: what if an estate agent (or land and planning agent) is assisting with selling a house that he or she knows is next to a possible development site being handled by the same firm? Will they declare an interest?

EDDC Cabinet Meeting – 14 September 2016: highlights

Agenda here:

Click to access combined-cab-agenda140916final.pdf

Highlights:

Forward plans: discussion on public toilets at Cabinet in November 2016. Closing them or charging for them?

Next relocation update: 21 December 2016 Cabinet meeting
in line with burying bad news at the start of a long holiday.

Business Support and Thelma Hulbert Gallery reviews – no dates set.
Obviously a new grouping to take the place of the East Devon Business Forum and giving the Gallery longer to lose its (subsidised by us) money. Perhaps it will be relocated to the new HQ (wonder how much costs are increasing on that?)

Agenda Item 12 – Port Royal, Sidmouth – Scoping Study and Project Brief.
Whose scope, whose project?

Sidmouth Town Council – change of venue for Sidfotd Business Park discussion on Wednesday 8 September 2016

“Sidmouth Town Council is set to consider Fords of Sidmouth’s revised application, which it submitted to offer ‘additional reassurance’.

More than 100 people attended the last meeting on the plans, when concerns included the impact on the roads, flooding and a lack of demand locally for employment land.

Wednesday’s meeting will be held in St Peter’s Church Hall from 6.30pm.

Fords’ revised documents have triggered a second consultation, so it means residents can have their say on the proposals until Friday, September 16, by visiting the district council website.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/second_meeting_to_discuss_sidford_business_park_plans_1_4680606

“Law Commission consults on reform to law on misconduct in public office”

Consultation is from

5 September 2016 to 28 November 2016

Owl guesses that many comments will emanate from East Devon!

“… The Law Commission has issued a consultation paper

Click to access cp229_misconduct_in_public_office.pdf

on a new statutory offence aimed at tackling the problems with the existing law.

It has put forward two forms that the offence would take and invites consultees to say whether either or both should be taken forward into legislation.

Option 1 is described as a ‘breach of duty model’ and would involve the creation of a new offence of breach of duty by a public office holder with a particular duty concerned with the prevention of harm. …

… Option 2 is meanwhile described as a ‘corruption based model’. The consultation proposes the creation of a new offence that borrows some elements from the existing offence of police corruption under section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, but applies to all public office holders and improves, the Law Commission said, upon the section 26 offence in a number of ways.

The offence under Option 2 would be committed when:

a public office holder (as defined in statute);

abuses his or her position or a power or authority held by virtue of that position;
by exercising that position, power or authority with the purpose of achieving an advantage for the office holder or another or causing detriment to another; and
the exercise of that position, power or authority for that purpose is seriously improper.

A third option discussed in the consultation paper is that the current law should be abolished without replacement. However, the Law Commission’s provisional proposal is that this step should not be taken.

Law Commissioner Professor David Ormerod QC said: “It is vital that the public have confidence in their public officials and in the legal framework that sets the boundaries of their conduct. The offence of misconduct in public office is increasingly being used to bring public officials to account but recent high-profile investigations and prosecutions have brought the problems with this offence into sharp focus.

“The existing law relating to misconduct in public office is unclear in a number of fundamental respects. There is urgent need for reform to bring clarity and certainty and ensure that public officials are appropriately held to account for misconduct committed in connection with their official duties.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28243%3Alaw-commission-consults-on-reform-to-law-on-misconduct-in-public-office&catid=59&Itemid=27