Councillor Hughes responds on Sidford Fields criticism

“Perhaps you should like to tell me and other readers what further evidence I and Graham Troman provided at the Council meeting where we were successful in getting the Business Park removed?

According to the Inspector he had received all the evidence he required…… We now have to wait and see if a planning application is forthcoming because at that stage we can ensure that in depth traffic studies and evidence are forthcoming which will have to satisfy the County Council and its safety audits also that a flood alleviation scheme is implemented that the Environment Agency have already stated can be applied that will ensure that any development won’t have impact on Sidford or further down the Sid……This scheme would be very expensive to provide.”

Er, anyone understand this response?

Sidmouth Herald letter re Sidford Fields

Letter in Sidmouth Herald below. Yes, Carol, LOTS of people, including your new, local Independent councillors have been and are trying desperately hard to get this ridiculous decision reversed. Unfortunately, the district council majority party councillors did not share this view. EDDC was supposed to offer the Inspector evidence to support the decision to remove it from the Local Plan. EDDC chose not to supply that evidence, which had been given to them in vast amounts. Perhaps you should ask Councillor Stuart Hughes why and how this happened as he was there at the time and seems to be unable to supply a satisfactory answer as to why this happened.

I live in Sidbury. Anyone who lives in this area knows how fast non-local traffic travels through this area.

A business park will attract even more traffic. I feel the plan to use the land for a business park is appalling. Does this [planning inspector] Anthony Thickett live any where in this part of Devon? Does [EDDC leader] Paul Diviani live here? No, of course not. Neither of these people seem to care that they are about to spoil the jewel that is Sidmouth or the ancient village of Sidbury. Is nobody able to fight this disgusting decision?

It makes me sad that these people can make choices that do not affect them, but are, in my view, happy to spoil the lives of hundreds of local people and the thousands of visitors that visit our towns and villages because they remain relatively unspoilt.
Carol Ireton
Sidbury

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/opinion_don_t_spoil_jewel_that_is_sidmouth_or_ancient_village_sidbury_1_4398994?utm_medium=email&utm_source=eshot&utm_campaign=newsletterlink

Sidford Fields – questions, questions, questions

From a correspondent – views expressed are those of the correspondent:

Sidmouth Employment Land

Dspite a vote by full Council on 26 March to exclude the proposed new industrial site north of Sidford from the local plan, it remained listed in the Review as O41 at 5.97ha. The wording in the draft plan was for a site of “up to 5ha”. The table on page 154 showed 5.97ha as the area of the intended site.

It is now known that the Inspector was left to decide whether the Sidford site should stand. The case presented was that there is no proven need for it as there is ample scope on the Alexandria Road Industrial Estate.

The inclusion in the Local Plan of a “need to promote a new employment site on the northern edge of Sidmouth” is not, in my opinion, supported by any evidence of need over and above that available at far less cost and more suitable location at the Alexandria Road site which is not in the AONB. It should be rejected.

Recent history of Alexandria Road and Sidford Fields:

The Employment Land Review 2014 was sent to the planning inspector as supporting evidence for the revised Local Plan. On page 65 is the appraisal of the Alexandria Road Industrial Estate in Sidmouth. This appraisal is based solely on the Tyms Study(2011) with passing reference to the Atkins Report (2006). This evidence is years out of date and not a reflection of the current state of the area, particularly its description of the northern area presently accessed only via Pathworlands. But even the remark that “the southern area is occupied by builders merchants in an old railway premises” is couched in language designed to imply its unsuitability! In fact the yard is on the land of the former railway sidings so is flat and well suited to its use, as is the substantial old building now equipped as a store and a purpose built new brick building for stock and offices. The use of this appraisal will be very much criticised during the Public examination process.

The two most inaccurate comments are: “The northern area is being used for self storage shipping containers” and “The estate is made up of a number of plateaus and is quite densely developed. The majority of accommodation provided is relatively poor”.
Since those 2006/2011 reports the containers have been re-sited to a higher level secured area in a glen well out of sight from the rest of the estate (05/2722/FUL approved January 2006) so there is now also available a large empty area, part used just for the casual parking of assorted private vehicles and the dumping of rubbish.

In addition, the area formerly occupied by a gas holder is now available for use after the ground has been de-toxified and was purchased in 2013 by the majority owner of the rest of the site – a large mainly empty area presently being part used for a log business, storage of palletts and parking for Voluntary Service vehicles. An application is currently awaiting decision for a Certificate of Lawfulness for change of use to Business uses (14/1866/CPE).

Since Tyms, one of the site businesses, Sidmouth Tyres and Exhausts who own the freehold of their part of the site, has invested heavily in two large new buildings fully equipped with vehicle lifts (6!) and a rolling road for MoT testing after demolishing an old office and one of the old workshops. EDDC are fully aware of these developments as it was they who granted two separate planning applications (09/1377/FUL & 12/1978/FUL) for their construction. Yet they continue to present outdated information.

Many of the older buildings in the northern section are “relatively poor” as stated. But that is largely because the current owners have not invested in them in the same way, probably in anticipation of being the sponsors of a proposed new industrial estate at Sidford and a recent (2012) approach by a major retailer to buy part of the site which has subsequently been discontinued.

The site as it is today is far from being “densely developed” – it has masses of underused space which with suitable modest investment could meet the needs of growing or start-up businesses for Sidmouth for many years to come, especially now that there is a commitment to provide improved access directly from the main road.

It is surprising that EDDC officers appear not to have not troubled to check the validity of evidence they present to the Inspector but continued to rely on outdated reports – especially as they had a record of discarding these two particular reports in the past because they did not accord with the wishes of certain Councillors involved in the inordinately long period of preparation of the Local Plan.

Questions about Sidford Business Park

1. Did Mr Thickett actually visit Alexandria Ind estate or did he rely solely on the evidence submitted by EDDC in the Employment Land Review 2014 page 65? The evidence above shows that this was outdated and inaccurate. Was it considered?

2. On what criteria did Mr Thickett rule that Alexandria Industrial Estate was “unsuitable”?

3. EDDC has said that Mr Thickett “considered all the options and concludes Sidford is the best of a bad bunch.” The 5 additional options listed in the ELR 2014 in addition to Sidford were all remote from Sidmouth and totalled 7.29ha. But these are all existing sites already in use for employment so would not have figured in Mr Thickett’s consideration of “all the options” for additional employment land to serve the needs of the Sidmouth area. The only new site he was offered was Sidford.
Many many questions, no answers.

LGA fights further government attack on council finances

From a correspondent:

The Local Government Association is taking a strong stand against very damaging parts of Housing and Planning Bill currently in the Lords. Fundamentally, the proposal is to tax councils for a third of their most expensive council homes, expecting them to have been sold at a discount whenever vacant. Ministers Lewis, Clarke and presumably Osbourne are very intransigent on this issue, saying it was in the manifesto which 36.9 per cent of people voted for. They are dead set on a smaller public sector.

Under new legislation, councils will have to hand over the estimated equivalent sum for the sale of a third of their housing, whether they have sold them or not. Housing Associations will be expected to use that money towards building more housing somewhere in the country. It is hard to make it add up when substantial discounts are taken out along the way. It is also very discouraging for councils to build, knowing they will have to sell cheap. That pushes more people into the private rented sector. That is accompanied by an increase in the cost of welfare benefits and a greater risk of homelessness. Meanwhile the councils’ ability to assist is reduced.

Working with the Lords, the LGA has been clear that this legislation as it stands is very damaging. Crossbench Peers who have a great deal of expertise on this field and are working very hard on this, this week. They are proposing improvements in the legislation and hopefully some amendments will survive the course through the Lords and when it goes back to the Commons.

Next week, the Minister is considering our responses on the Finance Settlement 2016/17. The LGA submission is hefty and wide-ranging at nearly 30 pages long. It follows a series of direct meetings by leading members and officers to clarify each point. The Independent group members have played a substantial role in this. The reductions of 40 per cent in real terms is enough for some councils to be unable to set a budget at all, even with raising their council tax by 2 per cent. The additional 2 per cent care tax on top is a big help but will not cover the rising costs. Effectively there is a replacement of the income tax, in the government grants that comes to Councils in RSG, with council tax. This is less and being a property tax is a blunter tool.

The new business rates that are due to arrive are to be allocated to particular responsibilities of councils. For example, public health, capital development for transport in London, housing benefit administration and attendance allowance. This means the cuts we face now are long term. The effect of this is very harsh in some councils. For example, in one County Council it is currently proposed in this one year to use pretty well the remains of irs reserves to make the budget balance (£38m) and make cuts/savings of £42m, all on a budget of £476m. The council has also been selling off property as fast as possible, not looking for longer term gains, to help cover next year’s shortfall. However, it is now evident that the shortfall is not likely to be temporary.”

Beach hut price rises hit the headlines

“To help us decide how much to increase our rents by, we compared our hire charges for beach huts sites in East Devon with those made by other local authorities (Torbay, Teignbridge, Torridge, Brighton & Hove, Adur & Worthing and Poole).”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/news

Interesting that they use 3 local areas and then 3 of the richest areas in the south of England to make their decision!

Whose fault is it the Local Plan took so long? Sidmouth says EDDC’s Mark Williams!!!

Not the false start made by the first Local Development Framework group, which spent 2-plus years visiting sites of favoured developers.

Not the East Devon Business Forum and its Chairman disgraced ex-councillor Graham Brown which attempted to get an iron grip on it.

Not the officers and councillors who employed consultant after consultant until they found one they agreed with.

Not the same officers and councillors who had their drafts thrown out twice by the Planning Inspector.

NO! NO! NO! IT IS ALL THE FAULT OF – SIDMOUTH!!!

Sidmouth delayed the Local Plan! and Mark William’s loses it!

At a heated meeting of EDDC councillors tonight to approve the Local Plan, CEO Mark Williams lost control of himself in a big way.

In response to a fairly conciliatory speech from resident Richard Eley, on behalf of Save our Sidmouth, a furious Williams lambasted Sidmouth for delaying the Local Plan and increasing the number of houses in it!

“But for Sidmouth we would have had a local plan three years ago,” he ranted, adding that “the end result of all your objections is that we’ve ended up in the local plan with more houses than originally proposed.” (Gasps of astonishment from the public and cries of “rubbish” and “nonsense”.)

A few minutes later he rounded on Richard Eley again accusing him of “churlishly” calling the Inspector “idiotic”. Eley sprang to his feet and angrily denied he had used that word about the inspector, and demanded an apology – supported by more cries of “scandal” and “apologise” from the public.

He insisted on reading the offending part of his speech again which proved his point that the i-word was never used. In fact, he described the decision to include land at Sidford for a business park as “stupid”.

After more moments of mayhem and shouting from the public, a reluctant apology was extracted from the CEO.

Many observers were left wondering if Mr Williams might not need a long rest –as in retirement on a generous pension………

Implications of Hinkley delay

Our Local Enterprise Partnership would take a pasting:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4b3c1d9e-c506-11e5-808f-8231cd71622e.html

(FT does not allow quotation from its articles, only links to them)

Devolution: major decision due to be made by EDDC tomorrow

From the Save our Sidmouth blog:

“Key decisions about this region’s future, at EDDC special meeting at Knowle (Thursday, 28th January, 6.30pm).

Decisions made at tomorrow’s Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) are key to the future of East Devon, and the wider (‘Heart of the South West’) region.
Everyone living, working or visiting here, will be impacted by the District Council’s Local Plan, and by EDDC’s involvement in Devolution.

The Heart of the South West, HotSW, (Devolution) strategy is powered by the not-yet-built Hinckley Point nuclear power station, part-funded (one third) by China (Please see link to breaking news, on blog link below*.) The Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) of big businesses will be working in tandem with local authorities. Thursday’s meeting may approve delegated powers for Leader Paul Diviani, to represent EDDC for the Devolution bid to Government.
The meeting begins with public question time (maximum of 3 minutes per question).”

http://saveoursidmouth.com/2016/01/27/key-decisions-about-this-regions-future-at-eddc-special-meeting-at-knowle-thursday-28th-january-6-30pm/

The blog has links to background papers.

Is EDDC confident enough to take a ” peer challenge”?

“Mayor, Gordon Oliver, [Torbay]invited the Local Government Association to carry out the review talking to councillors, officers and other organisations. This took place over four days in November and December last year. …”

http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/experts-say-way-Torbay-Council-run/story-28616024-detail/story.html

Newton Poppleford homes deferred to consider ” pepper potting”

As Councillor Matt Booth pointed out: you can’t say something is required in Ottery St Mary but not in Newton Poppleford!

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/decision_on_40_homes_deferred_1_4388394

Sidford Fields employment land

Interesting that one reason the Inspector gave for inclusion of the site was that “no new evidence had been submitted to support the request for its removal” had been offered to change his mind.

This implies that if he HAD received further evidence, he would have taken it into account in making his decision.

Didn’t the Development Management Committed imply that they would contact the Inspector about removing the site after much evidence had been submitted to it as to why it was unsuitable?

Did they contact him with this new evidence as they had appeared to suggest they would do?

And what actions (as opposed to words and supported by clear evidence) did Councillor Hughes and ex-Councillor Troman take at that point? A point so close to local elections that words and actions were particularly important?

Can a devolved Devon deal with inequality?

In a recent article, Plymouth is cited as being one of the ten most deprived cities in England and described as “low wage, high welfare”; Exeter – the only other local city on the accompanying map – is described as “low wage, low welfare”:

http://gu.com/p/4g2gk

When power is in the hands of our Local Enterprise Partnership will their funds be targeted at Plymouth? It seems unlikely, as currently the LEP is most excited about, and most involved in, the commissioning of the Hinkley Point nuclear power plant.

How will the LEP ensure that funds are shared out equitably? It’s only criterion in promoting “economic growth” which is most easily done in those places already growing. How can it square its need to invest in areas primed for growth where returns will be quicker and higher (so that it can be seen to tick its own boxes) and those areas blighted by lack of growth, which will be slower and lower and so drag its performance targets down even if they do invest?

Add to this the fact that, in future, much more revenue will need to be raised by local authorities directly in their own areas (e.g. reliance on local business rate income rather than government funds) and low income, low growth areas will be even more worse off than affluent areas.

Perhaps a councillor or member of the local LEP can enlighten us? Oh no, wait, all devolution matters are being handled in secret and our LEP members are remarkably shy of making public appearances with their LEP hats on, so we can’t ask them face to face.

Cash cows

Furore over beach hut and chalet site rental increases of 200% over the next two years:

Click to access the-knowledge-22-january-2016-issue-35.pdf

So, is it now time to revisit charging councillors and officers for parking at Knowle? This comes up most years but is always voted down.

Oh, and Owl hears they also get free parking in the district when out and about on ” council business”.

Let’s say, for the sake of easy maths, there are 60 councillors and 240 of the 400-plus officers parking there each week = 300 cars. If each car was charged £10 per week for 50 weeks of the year (let’s be generous and give them free weeks at Christmas and Easter) that would be an income of £150,000 per year. Then, when in council business, they could pay for their parking and claim it on expenses – where they would have to explain what business they were on.

Imagine the good things a council could do with £150,000 …

Are we likely to see this being discussed at an Asset Management Group – no – not least because we are not allowed to see the Asset Management Group at work.

Pegasus Life new Knowle exhibition TODAY

Noon – 7.30 p.m.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/see_how_knowle_plans_have_evolved_at_exhibition_1_4388404

Maybe ask how they plan to have 100+ units on a site that is now in the Local Plan for 50?

Local Plan: Save our Sidmouth press release

“The following press release has been issued (20/01/2016), on behalf of Save Our Sidmouth:

‘Response to East Devon District Council’s update on the LOCAL PLAN
The Inspector’s recommendation that the Local Plan should include both the Employment site at Sidford and a Housing site at the Knowle for 50 dwellings is a huge disappointment. It ignores the clear wishes of a large proportion of Sidmouth residents, Sidmouth Town Council and all the Sidmouth EDDC councillors.

At the Knowle, the decision to allow 50 houses on the site instead of continuing local employment for 400 professional staff will in economic terms, severely affect the town, as well as have a detrimental effect on the Parkland. In view of his decision, it will be interesting to hear how EDDC will reconcile this with the potential developer’s desire to build over 120 dwellings on the site.

At Sidford, we know that the decision to include the site is flawed, and is based on fallacious data. There is evidence to suggest that EDDC and their now disgraced Business Forum, canvassed developers for potential sites, and then manufactured the rationale and analysis to support their internally chosen site. EDDC let the proponents of that site produce “evidence” to support it, and never questioned the data. This included flawed traffic figures, no real visual analysis, and unsupported flood analysis, amongst other deficiencies. The Employment allocation arises solely because of the commercial pressures of one landowner and a business in the town.

Later, EDDC, under pressure from Sidmouth Councillors, saw sense and accepted that the site should not have been included. They decided to omit the Employment allocation from the third and final submission. Unfortunately the Inspector had ruled that no revisions were allowed at that late stage.
Thus the town may well end up with having an obtrusive, flood-prone, traffic- congesting group of sheds on its doorstep. Or the possibility of a large retail park, which will destroy the nature of the town forever. Moreover, the residents of Sidford will now have blight on their homes because of the impending development and a continuing worry about traffic and flooding.

Sidmouth does not need a further Employment site; the town already has one at Alexandria Road, which with a modicum of attention could accommodate all the minor employment opportunities that is needed.

We are extremely grateful for all the support that Sid Valley residents have given in time and money over the last few years, and they may rest assured that although we are naturally disappointed with the outcome, we have not given up.

R J Thurlow. Chair, Save Our Sidmouth’

http://saveoursidmouth.com/2016/01/21/inspectors-recommendations-for-sidmouth-a-huge-disappointment/

This is followed on the website by illustrative photographs.

East Devon could solve more than 50% of Devon’s housing need …

… if every one of the new houses in the Local Plan was social or affordable housing.

According to a report on Spotlight tonight, Devon has 32,546 on its waiting lists.

EDDC is planning to build more than 18,000 houses here.

How many will be social or affordable? Depends on who you believe – but somewhere between almost none and hardly any is the best guess!

What happens when your Local Enterprise Partnership sets housing targets

Extract from article published in G2 20 Jan by Patrick Barkham concerning the development of Bicester, Britain’s only “Garden Town” entitled “Dog’s breakfast springs to mind”.

“In Bicester, as across the rest of England, high housing targets are driven by genuine need but also by the priorities set by unelected, unaccountable groups of businesspeople: Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs).

Bicester must take so many homes because the Oxfordshire Growth Board, a joint committee of the six councils of Oxfordshire, commissioned a strategic housing market assessment to determine the county’s housing needs.

This assessment is strongly influenced by the LEPs, according to the Campaign to Protect Rural England. “Housing targets are very much informed by the LEPs’ growth aspirations and these growth aspirations aren’t informed by a county’s capacity to take that growth,” says Matt Thomson, head of planning at the CPRE. “LEPs do all their work on aspirations for economic growth without considering the environment or social impacts but also without any public input. There’s no consultation, there’s no accountability’.

The housing target for Oxfordshire is particularly ambitious: 100,000 new homes by 2030 – increasing the county’s population by a third. Thomson doesn’t think it will be possible to build homes at double the highest-ever previous rate.

If those targets are unrealistic, what’s the problem? “By setting very high targets you have to identify lots of sites. Once those sites are identified, builders will choose the ones that are cheapest to buy and most profitable to build on – greenfield sites,” says Thomson. Cherry-picking the best sites will create unnecessary sprawl, a lack of affordable homes and half-built estates badly served by infrastructure.

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/jan/19/bicester-britains-only-garden-town

Also, if this ambitious target is not met, there is a very strong chance that the government will allow reversion to a developer free-for all.

Built-in failure for Local Plans – hmmm.

Sidmouth beach management steering group – update

EDDC Press Release about last Friday’s Sidmouth Beach management Steering Group:
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/news/2016/01/bmp-steering-group-discuss-long-list-options/

For feedback to the members of the Vision Group for Sidmouth ( a more detailed explanation) see:
https://www.visionforsidmouth.org/news/2016/january/sidmouth-beach-management-plan-considering-the-consultants-proposals-full-report.aspx

“Independent Person” needed for EDDC Standards Committee

Fancy dealing with what EDDC decides are its naughtiest parish, town and district councillors and being involved in the process of ever-so-lightly rapping their knuckles and/or sending them on rehabilitative training (since no other sanctions exist)?

EDDC is seeking to recruit what they call an “Independent Person” to join its Standards Committee. However, not so independent that they can over-ride the Monitoring Officer or even vote about the outcome of cases – just be there as an “independent” observer.

Advertisements appear in this week’s local press and the closing date for applications is 19 February 2016.

The process for dealing with recruitment of this very, very special person was shrouded in mystery – however, a Freedom of information request in 2011 threw light on the process:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/independent_person_appointment

Unfortunately, the vacancy does not appear in EDDC’s online list of current vacancies. Interested parties are told they can contact Monitoring Officer Henry Gordon-Lennox 01395 517408 for more information.

You must not be a relative or close friend of an officer or member of EDDC and you must not have served as an officer of any local authority in the last 5 years. Previous applicants are told they cannot apply.

Owl has been thinking of filling in an application form …

One thought: it says that the person must not be a close relative or friend of any officer or member of EDDC. However, there is now so much close working with Exeter City Council, Teignbridge and the like, could there not be conflicts of interest from even wider circles these days.

What if a member of the Local Enterprise Partnership were to apply, for example!