The “Budleigh Boys” and the history of AONB incursion – part 2

Following our earlier on how the “Budleigh Boys” councillors view their local AONB:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2016/02/07/the-budleigh-boys-and-their-take-on-aonb-changes-fine-if-it-benefits-the-lical-economy/

Owl has been surprised to receive quite a bit of correspondence on the subject and particularly about the AONB planning application that they so enthusiastically supported – at the caravan and camping site known as Pooh Cottage.

The site started life as a small cottage (2 bedrooms) on what was then called the Shortwood estate – in a very quiet and secluded rural setting which was purchased by a Ms Carter.

“Pooh Cottage”, as the house and site is now known, then began an expansion, some of it (see below) without benefit of any planning permission. It now comprises a large house, another building now split into two residential properties, a building erected as a horse’s stable and now a large bungalow, and three permanent “mobile homes”. A history of over 40 planning applications, retrospective application and enforcement orders, illustrate how the expansion continues.

The caravan site sprang up in the early 1990s. It started as a certificated site, with permission for 5 caravans on a stipulated number of days, but rapidly grew and grew in scope until in 2006, Ms Carter applied for a “Certificate of Lawfulness” for 47 caravans between 1st April until 31st October of each year, on the grounds that she had done so for 10 years, completely unhindered by any action from EDDC. This certificate was granted by EDDC – for a site considered by many to be entirely unsuitable and unsustainable to a large commercial enterprise.

Neighbours of the site, very concerned about how the site had grown and continued to grow, went to the Local Government Ombudsman, who found in their favour, and awarded them a large cash sum (from the pockets of the taxpayers of East Devon, of course) as “compensation” – though this was, of course, no help after the event. Unfortunately, the certificate cannot be rescinded without an Act of Parliament, which is obviously unfeasible.

The Ombudsman judged that EDDC had erroneously granted the Certificate of Lawfulness, and strongly censured their actions throughout the whole way in which they had handled the growth and expansion of Pooh Cottage “Holiday Park” and recommended that a very tight rein be kept on any planning excursions from Ms Carter in the future. This has not apparently happened, and the expansion continues, with repeated battles every season to limit the use of the site to the permitted terms. Councillors have supported expansion even after the Ombudsman’s remarks and when their officers have recommended refusal (see link above)

Throughout all these battles, the former “East Devon Business Forum” supported the owners of Pooh Cottage at every turn, saying that it brought jobs and prosperity to the area (though there seems to be little evidence of these jobs far).

A campaign was instituted some years ago by residents in the area to oust their then councillors, who both supported the business interests of the owners of the site throughout. Former councillors Florey and Franklin are no longer representives of the people of Budleigh Salterton.

However, the current councillors have continued to enthusiastically support expansion of the site with the exact same reasons former councillors used and which the Local Government Ombudsman criticised.

An unfortunate lapse of memory? And yet another instance of Councillors Hughes and Troman not following through

One reason that the Local Plan Inspector kept the Sidford Business park in the Local Plan was that he deemed the Alexandria Industrial Estate “not suitable”.

Although we are told that he did visit the site, he plainly put much emphasis on the very out-of-date evidence about it in the Employment Land Review 2014 sent by EDDC as evidence.

But at a full council meeting on 25 July 2012 it was “resolved” to undertake an exploration into the capacity for the expansion of the Alexandria Industrial Estate.

Our correspondent asked the council where the outcome of this exploration ordered by full council could be found:

Today, our correspondent received a reply:

“With regard to the exploration into the capacity for the expansion of the Alexandria Industrial Estate, I have found the recommendation in the Council Committee minutes dated 25th July 2012. Having spoken to the Planning Team there appears to be no information held on the outcome of this proposal.”

Well there’s a surprise! A full council meeting (not a Council Committee meeting as cited in the reply!) resolves to investigate better usage of Alexandria industrial Estate …. and nothing happens!

Here is the minute and resolution from that meeting:

Minutes of Cabinet and Committees Arising from consideration of the minutes:-

Planning Policy – New East Devon Local Plan 2006 – 2026
Special Meeting of Development Management Committee (Minute 11) Proposed amendments (continued)

The amendment was seconded by Councillor Graham Troman who emphasised the need for an audit trail of decision making in respect of the Plan. He was concerned about some misinterpretation of what the towns had said in consultation.

Sidmouth Ward Members, Councillors Christine Drew and Stuart Hughes would welcome an opportunity to raise their concerns about the proposed allocation of employment land at Sidford and its potential impact.

Discussion included concern over the Local Plan process. Members were again reminded that there would be a further period of 6 weeks for consultation.

The proposal to hold an Extraordinary Council meeting to discuss the full Local Plan without delaying the Local Plan process was put to the vote and lost.

Councillor Hughes proposed that the capacity for expansion of the Alexandria Industrial Estate should be explored.

This amendment was seconded by Councillor Wale. The proposal was put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED that the capacity for expansion of the Alexandria Industrial Estate be explored.”

Click to access council-mins-250712.pdf

Exmouth: Queen’s Drive closed due to strong winds – and sand!

Can you imagine those coming second-home/holiday let potential owners getting hot-under-the-collar at not being able to reach their new, expensive homes – or being trapped in them.

Some great photos here:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Exmouth-8217-s-Queens-Drive-closed-strong-winds/story-28693407-detail/story.html

and video here:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/feb/05/storms-exmouth-coast-video

When and how does £265,000 of savings become £400,000 of savings?

What does one make of this, on the agenda of the Joint Overview and Scrutiny meeting to be held on Tuesday 9 February 2016 at 6 pm from the agenda papers and talking of the potential savings to be made on a new refuse and recycling contract:

“The recommended Lot being proposed in the report does give a saving to the Council in the order of £0.265m along with providing an enhanced recycling service. The draft budget however assumed a saving of £0.400m in line with our Transformation Strategy thereby giving us a shortfall of £0.135m in our budget proposals should members wish to adopt the recommended option. This issue is dealt with the Revenue and Capital Estimates Report 2016/17 contained on this agenda on the assumption that members adopt
the recommendation”

Click to access 090216-joint-overview-and-scrutiny-agenda-combined-public.pdf

It seems to say: This contract will save us £265,000 but the draft budget assumed that it would save us £400,000 and we have found a way to make it come to £400,000 …. by some sort of wizardly accounting?

How many committee members will take the time and trouble to look at the Revenue and Capital Estimates Report 2016/17 to see exactly how this wonderful accounting is dealt with and reassure themselves that 265 really does mean 400?

Beach hut site increased rents = £521,631 per acre per year!

On a Facebook site, a Seaton beach hut renter has plotted a graph of price increases against cost-of-living increases. Here is a comment on that post:

“£574.80 per year for 48 sq ft [of beach pebbles] = £521,631 per year per acre. To put this in context, the price for an acre of prime agricultural land is c. £5,000-£6,000, so the price for wasteland would be substantially lower and for pebbled beach lower still. So for what EDDC are charging in rent for wasteland, you can buy 100 times that area and keep it forever.

I would presume that EDDC’s justification is “market rates”, and so long as people keep paying these exorbitant amounts, then they can quite reasonably claim that these are “market rates”.

The real answer is that the council leadership, prompted by their pals in government, see themselves more as a capitalistic organisation that needs to be market driven and take local residents for every penny they can rather than a body elected by local residents to serve local residents to provide public services for their benefit.

The only ways I can see to get EDDC to change will be to:

a) Vote with your feet on Beach Huts – stop renting and show the council that their rates are much higher than the market will support; and

b) Use your vote at the next county and district local government elections to elect councillors who see their role as benefiting local residents rather than supporting central government policy.”

Beer to take over beach management, tourist area. open spaces and car park announces Councillor Pook

“Councillor Geoff Pook (pictured) unveiled proposals to take over the management of the beach, Charlie’s Yard, Jubilee Gardens, the cliff-top car park and a number of open spaces around the village at a parish council meeting on Tuesday.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/if_we_own_it_we_can_shape_our_future_1_4406343

No doubt the news that Exmouth, Budleigh Salterton, Branscombe and Seaton will be taking over beach management, tourist spots, car parks and open spaces will soon follow, as Beer seems to have no unique or special qualifications to take over such lucrative assets.

“Independent” Councillor Pook is Chairman of EDDC’s Asset Management Forum – a currently secretive EDDC group which has only recently been forced to publish its agendas and minutes but does not allow public scrutiny by open meeting.

It was responsible for the initial idea to sell short-term leases on beach huts (which got thrown out after massive public outcry) and for the recommendation on new huge price increases that followed.

In his capacity as a member of Beer Parish Council, Councillor Pook stated that Beer was uniquely placed to take over management of EDDC-owned sites.

Watch this space.

What you say you said can be very different from what you did say!

“Sid Valley representatives raised concerns that further evidence to support the removal of the site had not been submitted by EDDC to the inspector.

Councillor Marianne Rixson, a ward member for Sidmouth/Sidford, said: “I would like to describe the whole shambolic process of the inclusion of the Sidford employment land as the hokey-cokey. First it was in, then it was out, then it was in because it was never really out at all.”

Mark Williams, chief executive of EDDC, said: “The inspector had already heard all the arguments for and against the inclusion or deletion of Sidford. My advice was it wasn’t actually legally permissible to take the site out at that time.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/anger_over_hokey_cokey_employment_land_saga_1_4406347

What he actually said at that meeting according to the audio report was:

The inspector has already heard everything we have said and is yet to tell us what his view is on that part of the application. He may recommend that this site is not suitable and should be removed. It’s his decision now, not yours.

“It’s your funeral if you want to take it out.”

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/04/11/sidford-business-park/

No mention of illegality, no obvious advice that it was already too late – indeed “if you want to take it out” sounds like there is a choice, so the DMC decided to attempt to get it removed.

Advice? Hmmm.

Tax rebels! Today Councillor Claire Wright – yesterday Councillor Stuart Hughes!

Oh, how times change! Doubt as current Chair he will be toppling the party whip any time soon or dumping scrap metal in the council chamber in protest at taxes!

” … … Hughes and others formed the Raving Loony Green Giant Party. The party was much more organised and the inclusion of “Green” in the title also pointed to a party with at least some priorities. The Green Giants focused much more on local priorities and “serious” politics and were more democratic than the party they had left behind.

Hughes was a fierce local campaigner and in 1991 he did the unthinkable by taking on the local Tories who had a total monopoly in local government in Devon. He took a safe Tory seat on East Devon District Council and a seat on Sidmouth Town Council. Hughes refused to pay the Poll Tax and was hounded by local Tories for it.

Although technically he sat on the District Council and not the County Council (who actually collected the tax) they consistently goaded the unrepentant councillor. When legal action was threatened, Hughes responded by marching in to the council chambers and dumping scrap metal to the value of the unpaid tax. The voters clearly approved as Hughes was elected to the County Council himself toppling the Tory Whip in the process.

Loonies, Splitters & Monster Ravers

Thank goodness we have the calm and measured opposition of East Devon Alliance these days!

Could Councillor Stuart Hughes have done more for Sidford Fields?

A correspondent writes (views expressed are their own):

STUART HUGHES AND THE SIDFORD BUSINESS PARK

Councillor Stuart Hughes rightly describes the inclusion of a 12-acre business park in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty at Sidford in East Devon’s Local Plan as “a kick in the teeth” to the people of the Sid Valley. But he seems indignant at suggestions that he could have done more to prevent this disaster. (See his comment on this site, 1st February).

It’s true that Councillor Hughes has consistently criticised the business park proposal but some major questions remain about his record in this whole sorry scandal.

1. Why does he insist that the Sidford site was deleted from the Local Plan when it wasn’t?

In March 2015 he helped to persuade Conservative colleagues on EDDC to vote to remove the business park from the Local Plan, after they had strongly supported its inclusion in 2014. But then, incredibly, he didn’t seem to realise that this change of mind needed to be justified to the Inspector. Indeed, Mr Thickett, himself, in his 2016 Report expressed surprise that “no new evidence was submitted (to him) by the council to explain its volte face”.

Without such evidence there was no chance of its being removed, making the vote appear a mere pre-election ploy to save local Tory District councillors, whose seats were threatened by Independents. If the vote WAS genuine, it suggests a massive case of naivety and incompetence by councillors who thought they could obtain the Inspector’s approval for their change of mind without giving any reasons!

2. Should he have revealed what he knew about the background to the Sidford Business Park proposal?

This appears to have originated in a confidential understanding between council officers, a Sidford landowner, and a prominent local businessman. In 2012 a national supermarket, was in negotiations with the businessman to purchase this site which would enable a move to the greenfield site at Sidford.

The businessman in question was a member of the East Devon Business Forum, (EDBF) a lobby group of landowners and developers which had rubbished the findings of independent consultants, and proposed inflated employment land targets. These were later accepted by the Council leadership and used to justify the Sidford proposal – indeed EDBF later boasted about its influence in this decision.

As chair of the Scrutiny Committee Councillor Hughes supported the setting up in 2012 of a sub-committee, under Councillor Graham Troman, to investigate the influence of the EDBF, but he remained publicly silent when this investigation was blocked and then later suspended by the Chief Executive who ordered an officer not to attend, with minutes on these meetings being scant on detail and open to interpretation.

3. Could he have done more do to clarify the role of the Council Leader?

In the summer of 2012 Councillor Hughes attended a site meeting at Alexandria Road with Council Leader Paul Diviani and an others. A County official apparently advised that it was quite practical to create a new access to the site from the B3176 and it is said there was up to £40000 available for a feasibility study.

But the day after this meeting the funding was apparently “pulled” because, Councillor Hughes was told, EDDC were in negotiation with a major supermarket chain.

In October 2012 the Leader told the Sidmouth Herald that constructing a new access to Alexandria Road was “too problematic.” Councillor Hughes was apparently “flabbergasted” by this statement and challenged Cllr Diviani at a Scrutiny meeting, but never followed up what seemed to be the Leader’s ambiguity towards the improvement and modernisation of the Sidmouth site.

4. Why didn’t he argue against the proposal at the Public Examination of the Local Plan in February 2014?

Neither Councillor Hughes nor any other Sidmouth District councillors spoke at the Public Examination before the Inspector. It was left to the Town Council, members of the public, and a Honiton councillor to put the case against building an unnecessary business park on a flood plain in an AONB. Councillor Hughes, as County councillor responsible for Highways, might have effectively challenged the “experts” who testified that narrow local roads were capable of absorbing the heavy traffic that would be created. Indeed he has since said that this may form one of the objections to any future planning application.

5. Why has he now thrown in his lot with the leadership he called “spineless and arrogant” for the Sidford business park project?

After the elections of May 2014 Stuart was summarily sacked from his committee positions by the Council leadership which claimed he was “too busy”, though other councillors who had dual roles and busy lives were not similarly sacked. This excuse was widely derided, and Councillor Hughes clearly felt he had been punished for not completely toeing the party line. He furiously publicly condemned the Council leadership as “spineless and arrogant”.

Astonishingly, in 2015 he agreed to serve as Chair of the Council, working in close collaboration with the very people he had so recently railed against.

This may be the way our local politics works, and but to many of his electors it might well smack of opportunism and lack of principle.

Not that this would be a first: his transition from Monster Raving Loony Party in the 1990s to EDDC Conservative Party Chair has been one that many fail to comprehend:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hughes_(politician)

Devolution: Trust Diviani says Moulding

“Deputy leader Cllr Andrew Moulding added: “I think we have to trust our leader, supported by the chief executive, to work in our interest to get the best possible negotiated deal we can for devolution and localism in our area.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/devolution_deal_moves_closer_despite_concern_1_4406297

Well, that’s us sorted then …

And which councillor has most power and influence to gain from the devolution deal? Councillor Diviani, who is currently slated to be responsible for housing expenditure in the whole of Devon and Somerset – along with his old pal Exeter CEO Karim Hassan (ex-EDDC).

Happy days.

Devolution and public consultation: talk is cheap

” … MPs, who held a public evidence session in Greater Manchester as part of their inquiry, also said many people had complained about a lack of consultation.

“The vast majority of contributions, often made in angry tones, arose from the perceived lack of efforts by the combined authority to engage the public about the deal relating to their local area,” the committee said.

“For devolution to take root and fulfil its aims, it needs to involve and engage the people it is designed to benefit. There has been a consistent very significant lack of public consultation, engagement and communication at all stages of the deal-making process.”

Council leaders from other parts of the country told the committee the public had not been consulted before their deals were agreed.

‘Rapid pace’

It is particularly important to engage the public where health powers are being devolved, the MPs said, because “the public’s response is likely to be more emotional”.

The committee said the government had driven the first wave of devolution deals through “at rapid pace”, which meant “no opportunity for engagement with residents”, but said council leaders should still have communicated the deal to residents and told them how they would be affected.

The Department for Communities and Local Government said it welcomed the committee’s support for its “devolution revolution” and said there was “no one-size-fits-all approach” for different areas.

Local Government Association chairman Lord Porter said: “While it is right that devolution deals are not imposed, but negotiated and secured by local places, we recognise the need for greater public engagement throughout the deal-making process and are working with councils to support them in this.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35479059

Current cost of new EDDC HQ at Honiton/Exmouth – nearly £10m and all meetings assuming Pegasus gets its planning permission are already scheduled

Relocation cost so far:

£9,726,455

Click to access 6-project-report-20-300915.pdf

page 5

Further on in the report:

The project has
7 “red risks”
32 “orange risks” and
8 “blue risks”

They already have a pretty good idea of when the planning meeting for Pegasus will be and have scheduled it

12 July 2016 (page 12)

and have already fixed an Extraordinary Cabinet Meeting
on 27 July 2016
and a similar Full Council meeting for
3 August 2016
with works in Exmouth to start on 4 August 2016.

Of course, all these meetings take place in the major summer holiday period.

Relocation to Exmouth Town Hall will take place on
20 June 2017
and full relocation to both sites will be achieved by
25 September 2017.

Thereafter the report consists of various cost breakdowns.

It appears that, for some reason, Appendix C is missing

EDDC: where unanimous means – not at all unanimous!

“Trust” is key, suggested Deputy Leader, Andrew Moulding (quoting from a conversation between Leader, Paul Diviani, and a government Minister visiting Cranbrook). Cllr Moulding was advising Members who were about to vote at last week’s Extra Ordinary Meeting, on approving delegated powers for the Leader regarding the multimillion pound devolution bid.

Just a few hours later, we understand, EDDC issued a press release that began with an essentially misleading, statement, claiming that “. . councillors have unanimously signed off the devolution prospectus” . The vote in fact was not unanimous, with 7 against and 1 abstention.

The inaccurate press release was corrected, after immediate complaints by Independent councillors.

Independent councillor sounds alarm bells on devolution

Here’s the gist of a warning from Cllr Roger Giles (Ind, Ottery St Mary), to fellow EDDC councillors before they voted on Item 7 HEART OF SOUTH WEST DEVOLUTION, at last Thursday’s Extra Ordinary Meeting at Knowle. (28 Jan) :

Governments regularly tell councils that they are keen to devolve powers to local government. The reality is that there is more and more interference from Whitehall in the affairs of councils. In spite of being 200 miles away, Whitehall thinks it knows best how local councils should meet the needs of their residents.

The latest Government claim to “devolution” is no such thing. It is a cynical misuse of words.

The Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership proposal contains no additional money.

And there is a considerable democratic deficit. HoSW meetings are in private – the press and public are not entitled to attend. Neither are the press and public allowed to see agenda papers or minutes of meetings. It is a totally alien concept to councillors who rightly conduct their business in an open and transparent way.

At the moment EDDC provides services to the people of East Devon based on decisions made by 59 elected councillors. If the public does not like what its councillors have been doing it can vote for someone else.

If the HoSW proposal becomes a reality, major spending decisions will be taken by unelected and unaccountable business people. There is also the fear that most of the money available will be spent on major projects in Exeter, rather than in communities such as Ottery St. Mary.’

Without proper debate of these alarm bells clearly signalled by Cllr Giles, the devolution process was approved, though not “unanimously”, as EDDC’s initial press release said.

Borough vows to publish pre-application advice from planning officers routinely

Chances of this happening here? …

“The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea will – from March this year – routinely publish any advice that planning officers, or its Architectural Appraisal Panel, have given to an applicant about a development proposal before the application was made.
The council believes it will be the first authority in the country to open its files in this way.

The Royal Borough said: “The council offers a popular advice service (www.rbkc.gov.uk/advice) to those who are considering making a planning application. The advice is generally confidential between the council and the customer, but can be published following a request under the Freedom of Information Act or Environmental Information Regulations once a related planning application is made.
“The advice will now be published automatically once a planning application is made without someone having to make a request under that legislation.”

Cllr Tim Coleridge, Kensington & Chelsea’s Cabinet Member for Planning Policy, said: “The Royal Borough is already streets ahead of many other councils in the way it publishes planning application information on its website and this is another step in our commitment to being transparent.

“Everyone will be able to see the advice our officers have provided, how they have fought to get improvements to development proposals and how they have encouraged applicants to engage with those who might be affected.”

http://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25839%3Aborough-vows-to-publish-pre-application-advice-from-planning-officers-routinely&catid=63&Itemid=31

Vote-catching? You decide

Sidmouth Ward Member, Cllr Cathy Gardner (EDA Ind) made the following speech, at last Thursday’s Extra Ordinary General Meeting:
Adoption of Local Plan, Item 6:

“The responsibility for putting the Sidford site into the LP lies squarely with the leaders at EDDC and has done since 2007.
They chose to include the site, based on arguments put forward several years ago by a variety of interested parties. There was no real desire to remove this site from the LP last year, otherwise why was the Planning Officer not instructed to provide evidence for an alternative? Can the Leader explain the purpose of the vote to ‘remove’ the site if it was not purely a vote winning exercise?”
[The so-called “decision” to remove the site was made just before last year’s district council elections].

Although the question was specifically addressed to the Leader (Paul Diviani) who was in the room, it was Chief Executive(Mark Williams) who attempted an answer. He said that councillors “in their wisdom” had gone ahead with a late-in-the-day vote to delete Sidford employment land from the Local Plan, despite his own warnings that their action could derail the Inspector’s approval of the whole Plan. There was a strong hint that Councillors should have known that, as the completed Draft Local Plan was already with the Inspector, it was anyway too late for them to make changes.

Who bears the responsibility for putting the Sidford employment site into the Local Plan? Hardly the Inspector, says Councillor.

The enduring influence of the East Devon Business Forum on the Local Plan

A speech given to councillors last week by Jeremy Woodward of Save our Sidmouth is reproduced below. Owl notes that, hoping that memories are short, EDDC is already planning to discuss its replacement (see earlier post). Preliminary work on the review of the just-adopted Local Plan will take place fairly soon. Will its replacement – and the handful of people who run our Local Enterprise Partnership – be the ones to decide what goes in that one?

“Mr Chairman,

Would you not agree that the Local Plan which you and your colleagues are being asked to adopt is in fact a deeply flawed document?

As an illustration, if I might quote from the submission made by the Vision Group for Sidmouth to the Local Plan on 8th June 2012.

I begin:

“The influence of the East Devon Business Forum on proposals for employment land and housing in the draft Local Plan should be considered. In January 2007, a Sub-Committee was established by the Forum to consider ‘amending the Atkins report’:

To refer to the

“Minutes of the Annual General Meeting of the East Devon Business Forum on 25 January 2007

“Atkins Report:

“Graham Brown reported that he had attended a meeting with the Corporate Director – Environment to discuss the preliminary findings of the Atkins Report. The findings included the conclusion that East Devon did not need as much employment land as [the] East Devon Business Forum had recommended. Forum members discussed how the findings of the Atkins Report would be amended as they were not in step with East Devon’s needs.

“A Sub Committee of the Business Forum would need to investigate employment land availability, where there was potential for growth and where the business community would like to see development take place.”

End of minutes.

It appears that a group of business people comprising this Forum reviewed the publicly-funded [independent] Atkins Report and then determined that the employment land provisions were insufficient; they subsequently proceeded to derive their own projections, which the District Council then adopted as “evidence” for the increased employment land figure which ensued:

To refer to the

“Minutes of the Annual General Meeting of the East Devon Business Forum on 31 January 2008 [a year later]

“Update on Employment Land Issues:

“Members noted that the work the Business Forum had done on the Atkins Report had made an enormous difference to the final report prepared by the Employment Land Issues Task and Finish Forum. This had been accepted by the Executive Board. The report was now being used by the Development Control Committee as a base when considering planning applications for employment land.”

End of quote.

Again, Mr Chairman, would you not acknowledge that the Local Plan is a deeply flawed document?

Because, if we chose to take the Council’s own calculations of one new home to one new job, this deliberate inflation of employment land undermines fundamentally the housing figures proposed in the Local Plan.

Thank you”.

“Are you registered to vote?”

Press release from EDDC (though we heard of this from a newsfeed, not EDDC itself):

“Council urges East Devon residents to join the National Voter Registration Drive – February 1 to 7 – and register to vote”

East Devon District Council wants to encourage anyone not yet registered to vote, to take advantage of National Voter Registration Drive #NVRD this week and go online now to register.

On Thursday 5 May 2016 voters in East Devon will go to the polls to elect a Police and Crime Commissioner for Devon and Cornwall. Anyone who isn’t registered to vote won’t be able to take part and have their say.

The deadline to register to vote in these elections is Monday 18 April 2016. While there is still time, it’s running out quickly. The good news is that it only takes a few minutes to register online at http://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote . It’s a chance to join the thousands of people across the UK being encouraged to register this week.

Mark Williams, Electoral Registration Officer for East Devon said:

Anyone not yet registered to vote should do so as soon as possible, so they can have their say on issues that affect their day-to-day lives. I would urge people living in East Devon to use National Voter Registration Drive to spread the message among family and friends, that it only takes a few minutes to complete the form and register to vote online.

Ben Brook, Head of Performance and English Regional Teams at the Electoral Commission, said:

National Voter Registration Drive exists because it’s important that anyone who’s eligible, but has not yet registered to vote, does so. It’s easy and quick to do online at http://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote. Young people, students and people who move frequently are much less likely to be registered to vote so #NVRD is as important as ever.

Local residents can get a paper copy of the registration form by contacting the electoral registration office on 01395 517402.

Latest Cabinet agenda

Here:

Click to access combined-cabinet-agenda-100216-public-vers-sm.pdf

Analysis to follow but quick glance shows that a future item for confidential discussion is “Business Support – options for the future”.

The East Devon Business Forum is dead, long live the East Devon Business Forum?