Remaining Knowle parkland to be sold to Sidmouth Town Council for £1

All well and good talking about restrictive covenants but they were not much use in Exmouth when East Devon District Council bought out restrictive covenants which were owned by Clinton Devon Estates which would have held up developments.

And if some parkland is used for parking as mentioned in the article, what is to stop Pegasus using it as an overflow car park for their luxury retirement complex?

Many questions still to be answered.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/covenant_to_protect_future_of_knowle_park_1_4238238

How many “partners” does East Devon District Council have?

East Devon, Teignbridge and Exeter have a “Greater Exeter” partnership:
http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Greater-Exeter-created-council-link/story-24643530-detail/story.html

East Devon, Plymouth, Teignbridge and Exeter have a shared IT partnership:
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Cross-council-merger-puts-170-Devon-jobs-risk/story-18143536-detail/story.html

East Devon is one of the districts signing up to a devolutionary Somerset and Devon:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34155536

East Devon has bid for a debt recovery service with
North Devon District Council, Teignbridge District Council and Torbay Council:
http://www.sell2wales.gov.uk/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=SEP103432

It’s getting a bit like a polygamous marriage!

Clyst St Mary: very large retirement community planning application

From a correspondent:

Outline application for a continuing care retirement community comprising a 60 bed care home, 54 extra care apartments, visitor accommodation, up to 16 age-restricted dwellings and a range of community facilities
Land to the North of A3052 between the Cat and Fiddle and Devon County Showground, Sidmouth Road, Clyst St Mary

East Devon District Council has recently refused permission twice in February 2015 and July 2015 (Applications No. 14/2237/ MOUT and 15/0693/MOUT) for the development of 93 dwellings on this land by reason of the number of units and its unsustainable location in the countryside being remote from local services, infrastructure and employment opportunities.

This new application for a proposed retirement community seeks to counteract the refusal decision on the unsustainable grounds with the provision of GP and health care services, an on-site shop, restaurant, cafe, library, hair/beauty salon and community facilities, providing substantial employment opportunities within a continuing care retirement community in a formal campus design set in landscaped surroundings.

Ostensibly the concept of such a development in East Devon appears sound considering the projected number of elderly residents living in the area by providing care home facilities, extra care apartments and independent accommodation including affordable housing on one site. Under the Care Act 2014 local authorities must be mindful of the provision of living accommodation for older populations, giving them adequate choices and ranges of facilities for their wellbeing. This type of development ultimately frees up future housing stock for families, addressing the housing crisis and providing more suitable and safe living accommodation for the elderly. In recent years, large numbers of residential care homes have closed locally caused by financial problems and the inability to address government guidelines for future improved care for the elderly in suitable accommodation, leaving the remaining care homes mostly oversubscribed.

However, EDDC planners must now consider the size, location and quality of this proposed continuing care retirement community provision in this rural locality, assessing any local need and ultimately deciding whether this site is the correct one for such development by weighing up all the advantages and disadvantages to ultimately achieve a balanced decision.

Significantly this site is outside the BUAB for development in the current East Devon Adopted Local Plan and is not identified in either the EDDC Emerging New Local Plan to 2031 or the Emerging Neighbourhood Plan for Clyst St Mary, being located in the countryside. Developers continue to try to prove that existing or emerging local authority Local Plans are unsound to gain substantial developments in rural areas but there must be a need identified for such development to benefit the community without unbalanced detrimental aspects weighing heavily on the local vicinity.

It is considered that the scale of a 60 bed care facility, plus 54 extra care apartments and 16 age restricted dwellings, plus visitor accommodation and community facilities designed principally at a 2 storey height is an overdevelopment of the site and would prove overpowering on the rural setting, particularly on the low level homes of the adjoining Cat and Fiddle Retirement Park.

Traffic movements on such a development will be significant, adding to an already busy arterial route, with Hill Barton and Greendale Industrial Estates continuing to increase in size, significantly affecting traffic congestion on the A3052. At peak times when approaching the Clyst St Mary roundabout, daily traffic queues back up for miles, causing motorists to rat-run through the quiet residential areas of Winslade Park and the old Village Road to avoid the congestion. The road safety issues of this are obvious and residents’ lives are being seriously compromised, especially those families with young children, the elderly and disabled.

Moreover, the speed of the rat-running traffic is often dangerous and these additional large scale proposals will definitely exacerbate the traffic problems in the whole area. Devon County Council cannot continue to state that these roads are coping and a robust traffic improvement around this area is necessary and overdue.

The proposed right turn lane will only benefit vehicular access into the proposed development. It will be very difficult for vehicles to turn right when leaving the site towards Clyst St Mary without the benefit of some traffic control.

An improved cycle path and pedestrian walkway from the site towards Westpoint (plus the local bus stop) are indeed sustainable and will be accessed by some. However, it is considered, given the outlying location, that the main transport choices will prove to be cars, vans and lorries to support deliveries, medical facilities, employment, residents and visitors. It is unlikely that large numbers of elderly people will use the more sustainable cycle and pedestrian routes provided, even with the encouragement and distribution of leaflets from a Travel Plan Co-ordinator! The percentage of people using public transport in Clyst St Mary is far lower than the national average because most economic, social and environmental areas are not easily accessible by foot, cycle or public transport.

Clyst St Mary has a history of flooding and planning policy must ensure that there is no increased risk to existing properties from these proposals. Even with the provision of attenuation ponds to aid drainage run-off from this development, flooding issues remain a great concern to existing residents. Drainage flows are already defective leaving surface water unable to dissipate satisfactorily in peak conditions with inevitable flooding and the village being regularly at risk and listed on flood alerts by the Environment Agency. The loss of the existing permeable green open space, which at present aids drainage run-off, could exacerbate the flooding problems in the village. It is also feared that the existing village foul water systems are inadequate and cannot cope with any substantial additional load without the provision of major drainage improvement systems to alleviate risks of flooding. It is also hoped that the Environmental Land Quality Investigation undertaken has been thorough, with any future recommendations regarding proposed building, air quality and drainage being stringently followed, as there are still continuing concerns from locals over the land contamination by the burial of a cow with anthrax in the 1960s.

The environmental impact on a site in the countryside is obvious and all recommendations for the protection of quality trees, wildlife, both flora and fauna, must be observed. There are also areas of potential archaeological interest within this site and the correct procedures must be followed for their protection and investigation.

Historically, this site was granted planning approval for a hotel from 1989 to 2001 but this approval has now lapsed. In more recent years development companies have favoured large scale development including hotels in the expanding business locality of the West End around Skypark, the Science Park and Cranbrook as being more sustainable but leaving the developmental opportunities for this site in the countryside limited and restrictive and it would appear that the disadvantages of this rural site for such large scale development clearly outweigh the advantages.

Beach huts, the sorry tale continues

Listed below are the RECOMMENDATIONS Scrutiny Committee made, It must be stressed they are NOT DECISIONS – the decision will be made at full council next month.

•Consider the requirements of all the community in line with equalities legislation in considering any proposals relating to beach huts
• Consider the validity of waiting lists for beach huts and sites and to review their management
• Confirm to tenants of beach huts and sites that the current arrangements will remain in place for 2016
• Ensure an annual review of hire charges for beach huts and sites be put in place
• Review its decision to establish an annual £19k sinking fund
• Give consideration to the difference between town and parish locations in relation to equality and best value requirements
• Give consideration to further discussions with town and parish councils on the options of undertaking the management of beach huts
• Give consideration to increasing the number of available beach hut sites and to review more diverse letting arrangements;
• Give consideration to wider environment and economic issues when bringing forward any proposals.”

There was also controversy as to whether beach hut users are already paying rates: some users maintain that rates have been included since 2006, EDDC maintaining that this has not been the case.

Hut users also point out that, if East Devon sells off all its huts to its current renters as it has said it will do, costs to the council will be minimal from 2016, with only sites to be allocated.

So why the £19,000 per year sinking fund – what would it be for? Or was that just added in to inflate future costs?

Will common sense prevail? Hard to say.

Web-based council services

EDDC tells us that they will not need as much space or as many office staff when they relocate as many services will be web-based.

So, what do you do when you need information urgently and this happens:

image

which says:

“Due to an essential upgrade, all online benefits claim, setting up a direct debit on-line, change of address and search for Council Tax/Business Rates bands services will be offline from Friday 25 September 2015 at 2.45pm until Monday 28 September 2015 at 8.30am.”

In fact, it appears the whole EDDC site is offline, not just the services mentioned. Will planning application comments and public consultations, etc be extended to take account of this?

The perils of a developer-led district: EDDC v Wainhomes in Feniton

Full details of Wainhomes total arrogance here:

https://susiebond.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/eddc-takes-a-firm-stand-against-wainhomes/

EDDC’s last paragraph in their letter to Wainhomes states:

“Both myself and colleagues have in recent weeks offered to meet with representatives from Wainhomes either in the offices here or on site and I am disappointed that none of these offers have been taken up. In an attempt to resolve this situation I can confirm that those offers still remain and I would strongly encourage an early dialogue in respect of the matters identified.”

You see, that’s what happens when you have a developer-led district.

Did Claire Wright have a crystal ball when speaking about Cranbrook and the ‘Growth Point’ in 2012?

Here are a few comments she made at that time when she and other councillors visited the Growth Point on 11 May 2012l:

“I asked how many companies had bought space at Skypark.

Answer: None.

And Skypark has been marketed for well over a year.

I remembered the stark warning given by consultants, Roger Tym, who state on page 75 of their Housing and Employment Study 2011, that marketing for a 1.4m sq ft scheme at Langage Business Park in Plymouth has progressed over the last five years without success of obtaining a single occupier.

It is the challenge of dealing with large strategic allocations, they say.

Hopefully, Skypark will achieve full occupation in time. But it does rather put the challenge of filling the many and large industrial allocations for the rest of East Devon, into perspective.

If Skypark, in a hugely convenient location is not proving a goer (so far), what hope is there for almost 50 acres of industrial land allocated for Honiton?”

Recall that Asda pulled out of Heathpark and now EDDC is plugging the gap by moving there itself at enormous cost. Skypark is still mostly empty with its owners having gone on record to say it could take many, many years to rent it all out.

And, having just returned from a visit to Cranbrook on the same day, she wrote:

When I got home I couldn’t help wondering whether:

– the Skypark would ever get off the ground, or instead would mirror the non-progress of Langage Business Park in Plymouth

– the Science Park would ever consist of any more than Exeter University’s Innovation Centre

– If the inhabitants of Rockbeare would be swallowed up by Cranbrook, following a highly dubious decision, backed by the majority of the Local Plan Panel (not me) and Development Management Committee, to allocate south of the A30 for future expansion, despite a promise that this would not happen

– the public would ever consider the millions of pounds of public money ploughed into ‘growth point’ and Cranbrook, as money well spent.

– What sort of town Cranbrook would become. How big would it grow? Would I enjoy visiting it?

I have no answers to these questions yet. No one does. Only time will tell.

I have to say I am already rather tired of the pictures in local papers of grinning councillor and developer faces at turf cuts, of the continual talk of ‘great excitement’ and the oft heard promises of thousands of jobs and creation of wealth, none of which has materialised yet… and may not ever do so.

That said, I genuinely hope that ‘growth point’ and Cranbrook are huge successes.

Mainly because any other outcome would be a staggering waste of public funding, not to mention an irreplaceable loss of beautiful countryside.”

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/an_honest_look_at_cranbrook_and_growth_point

More on that “East Devon Design Panel”

A correspondent writes:

“According to an Exmouth Conservation Area Management Plan presented to DMC on 1 June 2010, “The Design Review Panel has been set up to scrutinise design within the district on a quarterly basis and conclusions are reported to Members and officers.” Ditto on similar documents on 6 Dec 2011.

However a special Local Plan DMC on 17 July 2012 said “A Design Review Panel meets once every six months to assess built developments and comment on design issues.” So your guess is as good as mine about how often it meets.

DMC meetings on: 22 Sep 2009, 12 Jan 2010, 27 July 2010, 5 April 2011, 6 Mar 2012, 17 July 2012, 21 Aug 2012, 2 April 2013 and 7 Jan 2014 included formal documents from the Design Review Panel for DMC to note.

However, despite ICO requirements to publish agendas, reports and minutes of all standing Forums and Panels on their web site, this is one which is not published.”

Relocation problems start to emerge …

… and probably the first of many.

image

Rumours abound, too, that costs are already spiralling out of control.

Is that why assets are being disposed of – a fire sale to cover a funding black hole?

And all our CEO can offer is a trite “Where there’s a will there’s a way”!

Parking: raise the price, lower the use, plonk houses on it

It only underperforms because people have been priced out of it £1,500 per year.

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Council-s-home-plan-underperforming-Sidmouth-car/story-27818052-detail/story.html

ICO tells Olympic legacy body to disclose details of deal with West Ham

Yet another decision that strengthens the public’s right to see information about deals that are kept secret due to “commercial confidentiality”. This decision makes it clear that, in just about all circumstances, this excuse will not wash. ALL details must be disclosed that do not reveal a particular business model.

Oh, oh Pegasus … looks like your deal might be one of those that has to be published in the public domain …

“The Commissioner noted that the arguments underpinning both the LLDC’s and the football club’s position were that disclosure would reveal elements of a business strategy which could be exploited by competitors.
The Commissioner said he acknowledged that the agreement included specific details of the terms on which West Ham used the Olympic Stadium and the obligations placed on the club based on its performance. He also accepted that at the time of the request contracts relating to some of the services provided by the stadium had still to be negotiated.
However, the Commissioner said the LLDC and West Ham had failed to demonstrate the specific way that the information at issue could be exploited by a competitor and, or how disclosure would place either party at a commercial disadvantage.
“In coming to this view, the Commissioner does not dispute that WHUFC operates in a highly competitive field. Yet, the Commissioner also considers that the terms of the Agreement that have been requested do not drill down to the specific business model adopted by WHUFC,” he said.

http://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24419:ico-tells-olympic-legacy-body-to-disclose-details-of-deal-with-west-ham&catid=53&Itemid=21

That report on Cranbrook again: design – or rather lack of it

“The quality of the architecture does not reflect the distinctive characteristics of the built environment in Devon. Cranbrook looks like it could be anywhere in the country. A more detailed and robust design guide should be created and enforced in future phases of the development.”

http://www.devon.gov.uk/cma_report.htm?cmadoc=report_cs1519.html

Er, didn’t East Devon District Council have a “Design Champion” during all this time? In 2014 the “Planning design and heritage champion” was Councillor Alen Dent and we seem to recall that Mrs Helen Parr also once held the job. Did they not notice this?

There also appears to be an “East Devon Design Review Panel”:

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/planning-services/planning-development-management/design-review-panel/

Anyone else ever heard of that before? And where are its agendas and minutes?

East Devon council housing – 260 plus homes will have to be sold off

Can anyone explain why East Devon has to sell off more than twice as many council houses as the whole of Cornwall, four times as many as Bournemouth, Wiltshire, Cheltenham and Stroud and Exeter and seven times as many as Mid Devon, not to mention thirteen or fourteen times as many as Swindon, Gloucester and Sedgemoor? It can’t be explained by relative general house prices surely?  And why in order for housing association tenants to get up to £100,000 to buy THEIR homes?

To put it into another context – you would have to add up all the council housing to be sold in Sedgemoor, Gloucester, Swindon, Mid-Devon, Stroud, Cheltenham, Taunton Deane AND Exeter (286) to overtake just East Devon (262)!

TOTAL (South West) 1440 1.4%

Bristol, City of 374 1.3%

East Devon 262 6.1%

Poole 259 5.7%

Cornwall 111 1.1%

Bournemouth 71 1.4%

Wiltshire 71 1.3%

Exeter 70 1.4%

Taunton Deane 62 1.1%

Cheltenham 59 1.3%

Stroud 57 1.1%

Mid Devon 31 1.0%

Swindon 6 0.1%

Gloucester 5 0.1%

Sedgemoor 2 0.0%

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/East-Devon-areas-worst-hit-new-government-plans/story-27808795-detail/story.html

And still we don’t build age-appropriate housing …

Cranbrook was criticised for having no plans to deal with older people’s housing needs. You can see why:

Devon is facing an “unprecedented” challenge due to a “disproportionate” increase in the number of over-65s, according to a report.

The numbers are expected to increase by 20% within the next 10 years, a report to Devon County Council said.

The cost to the county’s health and social care system could rise by more than £275m over the next five years. The council said investment in disease prevention was needed “to reduce the financial burden”.

‘Downward spiral’

The number of over-85s is expected to grow by 37% over the next 10 years, according to the report. Andrea Davis, the councillor responsible for improving health and wellbeing, said: “We should celebrate that we are living longer. “But there’s no point in living longer if we are not very well.
“It’s when you are in your 40s, 50s, 60s or 70s that you can make a difference to those very late years of your life.”
Councillors will discuss the report at the corporate services scrutiny meeting on Thursday.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-34260197

What mainstream media isn’t telling you about that DCC Cranbrook Report!

What the Express and Echo article on Cranbrook DIDN’T report:

Firstly, that along with Councillor Moulding, other EDDC (or former EDDC) councillors were part of the DCC task group which were closely involved with the development of Cranbrook: councillors Bowden and former EDDC Leader Sarah Randall-Johnson.

and bits of the report that didn’t make the mainstream media have been extracted here:

Developers are house builders, not town builders. The planning of e.g. the town centre and open spaces is the responsibility of the district council as the local planning authority whose responsibility it is to ensure that developing land commercially is coordinated with building a new community with social as well as physical facilities and infrastructure. It took five years to negotiate the original Section 106 Agreement.

Numerous concerns were shared with the task group in relation to the developers’ activities, among them a large number of incidents relating to the quality of the completed homes, including compliance with plans and residents struggling to encourage developers to address any shortcomings. Landscaping of community space has followed rather than preceded development and the management and maintenance of future community space and development land is lacking. The number of complaints regarding the quality of the built environment resulted in some community representatives being concerned about Cranbrook’s future reputation and the success of future phases.

Despite numerous invitations it was disappointing that none of the four house builders were available to comment on the concerns which participants shared with the task group.

Community Infrastructure

There is no standard model for planning community infrastructure and negotiating with developers, service commissioners and providers, but what is critical in creating a new town is upfront funding to support delivery the development of roads, community infrastructure and affordable housing from the public purse. Some of those facilities, e.g. the primary and secondary schools, Clyst Honiton bypass and Younghayes Community Centre, have been finalised ahead of schedule in Cranbrook. For others, notably the train station, there is a strong public perception that facilities are substantially behind schedule. Building and operating facilities without residents to use them is not viable but equally, residents expect facilities as soon as they move in. Participants repeatedly called for a multi-disciplinary team to plan and shape the future provision of services in Cranbrook.

In the absence of alternative public transport provision other than a limited but expanding bus service, car parking facilities were described as inadequate, including insufficient car parking allocation per bedroom, no visitors’ car parking, allocated parking bays being situated away from homes and garages being physically too small for cars to fit in them. Concern was expressed that habits formed in the early days would be hard to unlearn and that transport infrastructure should be delivered in line with residential development. Residents criticised “blue sky” bicycle thinking ignoring the reality that today’s Society had a two car per dwelling dependency which should be catered for in new development.

The roads in the town are not yet adopted, and as they are carrying significant volumes of construction traffic, the County Council does not currently have timescales for when responsibility will be transferred. The maintenance for the roads remains the responsibility of the developers, including gritting in the winter. The task group understands that the developers have an agreement with Devon County Council to finance gritting by the highway authority in severe weather. Several participants expressed concerns about dangerous car parking by residents and developers on pavements, corners and junctions but Devon County Council cannot extend its civil parking enforcement service until the roads are adopted.

Safe access routes to the Cranbrook Education Campus (primary and secondary schools) were due to be completed by the end of August 2015, including secure footpaths. An Infrastructure Site Manager employed by the Developer Consortium was overseeing their completion.

The task group remains concerned about the secondary school being located next to the railway line. Network Rail has committed to delivering awareness training for the children once per year in the school. The school was also planning to operate manned gates.

The main road through Cranbrook is not finished which might cause problems for parents whose children attend both the Cranbrook Education Campus. They would have to drop children off at both sites at similar times with no direct access route to both.

A pre-school facility would have assisted at an early stage.

When the first residents moved into Cranbrook in the summer of 2012, there was no social or community infrastructure or service provision beyond the completion of their homes. The task group repeatedly heard how this was a problem especially for the more vulnerable residents, including single parent families and residents without access to private transport. Social housing occupants were housed in Cranbrook and thereby removed from established communities, with shops, public transport and public services, and lived in Cranbrook in isolation. The complete lack of healthcare, social care or other professional support during the first 18-24 months meant that some residents were left to struggle on their own, exacerbating existing problems, including (post-natal/long-term) depression and drug/alcohol dependency.

Participants repeatedly expressed how there was provision for young children under the age of five in the form of open spaces and safe play areas, and some surrounded by unsafe fencing, but still no facilities exist for older children and teenagers. This resulted in problems, e.g. older children using the park and making it an unpleasant environment for younger children to play. Although funding had been available in the Section 106 Agreement from the beginning, the youth bus had only commenced at a later date. The task group understands that this provision was temporally withdrawn following an alleged antisocial behaviour incident at the end of July 2015. Participants commented that the provision should increase in order to combat antisocial behaviour issues, rather than be withdrawn.

The Cranbrook Medical Centre opened on 20 April 2015, nearly three years after the first residents moved in. An unsuccessful tender for new services and premises had been issued by the then Devon Primary Care NHS Trust in the past. The reorganisation of the NHS saw the responsibility for the commissioning of primary care services transfer to NHS England which awarded the contract to Devon Doctors. A funding challenge remains: Core services delivered in GP surgeries are funded per capita based on the number of formal registrations with a surgery. Although the current practice in Cranbrook has a capacity for approximately 3,500 patients, only 514 patients were formally registered at the end of July 2015. NHS England has provided some core minimum funding to the practice whilst the list size remains low and this will be paid until the registered population reaches a certain size, at which point capitation-based funding will be applied; another example of upfront funding required in the initial period. Two GPs, who are building their work load up to full time, and one nurse are currently practicing.

A backlog of patients who still need to be registered remains. When moving to Cranbrook, residents had to register with the Pinhoe & Broadclyst Medical Practice in cases where their old surgeries would not keep them registered. The Pinhoe & Broadclyst Medical Practice was difficult to access with public transport from Cranbrook which had proved a challenge for the more vulnerable members of the community.

Cranbrook is forecast to have approximately 20,000 residents by 2031 and the GP surgery will have to slowly evolve in order to grow in conjunction with the growth in residents and their future healthcare needs. The surgery will need a new building in the future with sufficient capacity to expand in a modular way to grow with the population. It would therefore be important for the NHS to be able to access Section 106 funding as appropriate to enable such premises to be facilitated, although there are concerns around State Aid which will need to be addresses as GP practices are effectively private businesses. NHS England is currently working with other health partners to develop a joint response to planning applications being received.

Pharmacy

The independent pharmacy is being accommodated in temporary premises at present and the task group heard from participants how its provision might have been better coordinated and co-located with the GP surgery with improved forward planning.

One of the objectives in the development of Cranbrook is to develop the employment infrastructure, i.e. create one job per residential dwelling. Employment opportunities exist in nearby Exeter, the SkyPark and the Science Park and eventually in the town itself, with the intention that Cranbrook develops as a small enterprise town. The development of small-scale employment spaces is currently being pursued with the conversion of two residential dwellings into offices. Commercial properties in the town centre have not yet sold. The task group questioned where spaces are in the town for small- and medium-sized enterprises to establish their businesses. An Economic Development Strategy has been developed for Cranbrook.

Well, duh, We knew it wasn’t right! Can you BELIEVE the developers, officers and councillors didn’t see any of these major flaws? Or was it just a rush for maximum profits as fast as possible to take advantage of government sweeteners? AND Councillor Moulding (with his EDDC councillor hat on) was around the whole time but now criticises the project with his DCC hat on? You could not make it up! AND it seems Mr Cohen may have been too busy on the Knowle project to notice, too!

A NEW report has found that Cranbrook is not yet “future proof”, as there is no provision of bungalows, retirement homes, extra care housing and nursing homes for older residents.

The problem was highlighted in findings from a review by a county council task force. The task group’s report states that “a huge amount has been achieved” since building work began at Cranbrook in June 2011.

Cranbrook held its first elections in May and it now has its own Town Council to serve its estimated current population of around 2,500 people living in just over 1,000 homes.

The reports states that although the Cranbrook Medical Centre opened in April 2015, there was a “complete lack of healthcare, social care or other professional support during the first 18-24 months”.

The GP surgery will need a larger premises in future to have sufficient capacity for the town’s expanding population. The task group also found that the pharmacy, which is in a temporary premises, would be better served if it was located with the GP surgery.

The first residents moved to the town in summer 2012 and St Martin’s Primary School opened its doors shortly after, when less than 50 homes were occupied.

The school opened with just 32 children, but over 400 were attending by the end of the Summer Term. The Cranbrook Education Campus opened its doors to primary and secondary school children for the first time this month.

Cranbrook is served by a half-hourly bcus service and it has a network of cycle and walking routes which link to Exeter. The railway station is due to open this autumn, but its delivery is later than initially planned.

Residents in the town benefit from reduced energy prices, thanks to the district heating system which supplies Cranbrook and SkyPark. The system, which is the first low-density district heating system in the country, was hailed a success.

The report highlights some problems which need addressing as well as some areas where things could have been done differently.

It states that “Cranbrook is not yet future proof”, as there is currently no provision of bungalows, retirement homes, extra care housing and nursing homes for older residents.

It also highlights that the planning process for “crucial community infrastructure”, such as a leisure centre, library, children’s centre and town council offices, is only just starting despite the first residents moving in more than three years ago. However, the Younghayes Community Centre was completed ahead of schedule.

Councillor Andrew Moulding, who chaired the task group and is Chairman of the Place Scrutiny Committee, said: “Although the development of the town is a huge success, this task group uncovered many issues which need resolving, such as planning future development in a co-ordinated manner, accelerate provision for older children and young people, and identify the healthcare, social care and general wellbeing needs of the residents in order to plan future services.

“The task group commenced at a time when the development at Cranbrook reached a milestone with the near-completion of Phase 1 and with the imminent development of Sherford, a new town of similar size and scope in the South Hams close to the border with Plymouth.”

The task group’s final report contains a number of recommendations and lessons learnt. These include:

– The establishment of a multi-disciplinary team across Devon County Council to plan and implement the provision of future services in Cranbrook, Sherford, and large extensions to existing settlements. This team would cover everything from waste management to public health.

– Provision of services for older children and young people should be enhanced until permanent services are established.

– The establishment of a strategic health and wellbeing group to oversee the development of a health and wellbeing strategy for the town.

The report is available here

http://www.devon.gov.uk/cma_report.htm?cmadoc=report_cs1519.html

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Report-finds-Cranbrook-8216-future-proof-8217/story-27794930-detail/story.html

Exmouth seafront: the latest (but not last) omnishambles!

“PRESS RELEASE

Seafront Survey initial findings conflict with District Council’s claim

Following East Devon District Council’s claim last week that it’s development proposals for Exmouth seafront had clear public support, the Save Exmouth Seafront (SES) campaign has seriously challenged this statbement.

SES is now analysing the Exmouth Seafront Survey which has had more than 1200 respondents. This far exceeds the number of respondents to the District Council’s two consultations in 2011(Masterplan) and 2013 (The Splash) upon which the seafront proposals are based.

Preliminary findings from the SES survey point to a large majority of respondents opposing the current plans for redevelopment.

Many respondents suggest that improving existing facilities is the best way to revitalise Exmouth seafront. This could be best achieved by supporting current traders and maintaining its highly valued and unique character for residents and visitors alike.

As survey coordinator for SES Louise MacAllister said:

“Preliminary findings clearly suggest that residents feel ignored by East Devon District Council. That the council continues to press ahead with the proposals only serves to support the argument that they do not listen to residents; for as these preliminary survey results strongly suggest, the respondents do not support the current plans for a number of reasons.”

The Save Exmouth Seafront group will be holding a public meeting to discuss and act on these concerns at 14:00 on Saturday 26 September 2015, to be held at All Saints Church Hall, Exeter Road, Exmouth.”

Cranbrook: the result of 40 (yes, forty) years of planning!

“Cranbrook is the first new stand alone settlement in Devon since the Middle Ages. The result of over 40 years of planning, it is now coming to fruition with development having started on site in June 2011 and the first new homes being completed in May 2012.”

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/evidence-and-research/cranbrook/what-is-cranbrook-all-about/

40 YEARS!!! Anyone remember Cranbrook being discussed in the 1970’s and 1980’s? Or were all the discussions in secret?

And is anyone proud of what we have ended up with after 40 years of planning?

Here is a different view of this 40 year-in-the-making town:

“The Government’s Eco Towns Prospectus, released in July, states: “Cranbrook will be designed to high environmental standards above current building regulations. The first phase includes providing 16.7 percent of energy from renewable sources, with its use of biomass boilers to heat schools, commercial buildings and community facilities. The steps they are taking will provide many useful lessons for eco-towns.”

The town – which will be near Exeter Airport and a planned new “Skypark” business estate – is expected to consist of around 5,000 new homes by 2016.

Environmental campaigners, however, are unimpressed by the proposed eco-town and dismiss it as a “greenwash”. They are concerned about the potential for increased carbon emissions from residents commuting to work and the fact that Cranbrook will be built near a flood plain.

“I find this eco-town claim utterly amazing,” says Maurice Spurway, a spokesperson for Friends of the Earth. “Cranbrook will create a paved area close to a flood plain and its waste will probably be burned in an incinerator in Exeter, so carbon emissions would be maximised. The town is following all the wrong rules of development. This eco-town name is a marketing ploy without substance and I’m shocked the Government has fallen for it.”

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/cranbrook-wheres-good-design.html

“A travesty of a development management committee meeting” –

“The battle for Pendeen, the modest but attractive seafront bungalow on Castle Hill which its owner wants to replace by a block of 3 flats, was lost at East Devon’s Development Management Committee yesterday. The DMC had refused a very similar application in April (by 7-6), but the same committee has now approved the replacement (6-4, with three Independent members unfortunately absent).

Seaton’s voice was once more unanimous: Marcus Hartnell for the town council, his fellow district councillor Jim Knight, Pendeen neighbour Jean Hoskin, and myself for the many individual objectors, backed up by Peter Burrows on the committee, all opposed the application, but we were overridden by Tory councillors from other areas.

Planning officers’ distortions

How could local opinion be so ignored, and the committee’s own recent decision be set aside? The simple answer is that planning officers, who supported the original application but were overruled by the majority of members, provided ammunition for councillors supporting the bid to overturn the first decision.

Two disturbing distortions in the officers’ case were highlighted by councillors who opposed the application. First, they quoted the National Planning Policy Framework’s paragraph 60 to the effect that we ‘should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative’. However Councillor Mike Allen (Conservative, Honiton) objected that they had omitted the conclusion to the NPPF paragraph: ‘It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness.’ Allen said that he did not appreciate officers quoting selectively to buttress a particular case.

Secondly, the officer in charge repeatedly displayed a photo, originally produced by the applicant, labelled to show the proposed flat-roofed block together with two other flat roofs in the view from Seafield Gardens. Peter Burrows twice pointed out that there were no photos provided at all from the public viewpoints (Coastal Path, Cliff Gardens) that would be damaged by the building. (Moreover the photo that was highlighted by the officer had cut out the row of red-roofed houses on Castle Hill of which Pendeen forms part.)

Councillors’ failure to carefully consider the objections

How did the committee come to its decision despite these failings in the pro-application case being pointed out? The majority of members simply did not respond to either Allen’s or Burrows’ points, they did not respond to most of the objections made by the Seaton representatives, and they did not address point by point the 3 good reasons for refusal that their own committee had given as recently as April.

Mostly these councillors thought it sufficient to give their opinions: Councillor Alan Dent, the former Design and Heritage Champion, ‘liked’ the proposed building, his successor, Christopher Pepper, agreed with him without expanding his own view, and other members chipped in briefly before voting the proposal through.

The bias of the planning system

Why do councillors act like this? They are not simply biased against Seaton, as the same thing happens to applications from other areas. They are not necessarily corrupt (in the sense highlighted by the Graham Brown case). The key, probably, is that they don’t want the trouble of appeals, highlighted as a danger by the officers in this case. Group-think does the rest: the Tories are happy to let individual councillors like Jim and Marcus speak for their constituents, and more independent minds like Mike Allen have their say, as long as the rest of them can vote us down.

We have no real redress against the Committee’s failure to consider the matter carefully or fairly. The applicant, if he had lost, could have appealed. Objectors can only seek judicial review – a right the Tory Government is trying to curtail – which would cost probably tens of thousands of pounds if EDDC spent taxpayers’ money to cover their own failings.

http://seatonmatters.org/2015/09/09/pendeen-doomed-in-dmc-travesty/

“You won’t stop sale of Knowle” says Cohen

According to last week’s Sidmouth Herald, Mr Cohen (he of the says that even if the bid ends up in court it will not hinder his relocation plans. Oh, and by YOU he means us, those residents of East Devon who have the temerity to challenge him.

image

This is the man of whom the Information Commissioner wrote on 5 May 2015 verbatim):

This Tribunal takes the unusual and unfortunate step of commenting on the conduct of the appeal itself. We are unanimous in our view that this appeal has taken much longer than it should have done and the reason for this seems to be
the failure on the part of the public authority, the appellant, to address itself with sufficient attention to the details of what information and documents it was supplying to the Commissioner and ultimately also to the Tribunal. It was not until March 2015 that a fully legible copy of the disputed information was supplied and seemed to be complete. This is, in our collective experience, wholly exceptional and the time spent dealing with what we believe to be five different sets of disputed information is simply not a good use of the Tribunal’s time nor fair, in terms
of delay, to the requester. Correspondence on behalf of the Council, rather than ensuring the Tribunal was assisted in its function, was at times discourteous and unhelpful including the statement that we had the most legible copies possible. A statement, which was clearly inaccurate as subsequently, we have been provided with perfectly legible documents. We believe this appeal could and should have been dealt with completely at the hearing in August 2014 and the
decision promulgated six months ago had the Council discharged its responsibilities properly.”

Now he appears to imply that he is above the law and that he can influence things in many ways if he feels like it. Hhmmm.