Agenda for Scrutiny Committee Thursday, 17 September 2015; 6.00pm
Click to access 170915-scrutiny-agenda-combined.pdf
The “analysis” of the questionnaires should be used for university first year econometrics students as a model study in how NOT to do and report a “consultation”!
Well, with almost zero affordable housing in East Devon, where else is there? Cranbrook, perhaps?
This is what Leader Diviani has said (our translation: we won’t do a damned thing unless simeone forces us):
“EDDC leader councillor Paul Diviani said: “During the past 48 hours EDDC has received a number of enquiries from concerned local residents as well as the media regarding the Syrian Refugee Crisis, asking how they and the council will be able to help. “While we are awaiting more detailed advice from the Government, we would like to express our deep concern about the refugee situation and to confirm that we are keen to assist in any way we can as part of a practical local support network to help refugees resettle successfully.”
Regarding our earlier post about derogatory remarks made by a senior EDDC officer about councillors defending the East Devon countryside, imagine the same comment turned 180 degrees and being about officers – this is what it would say:
“Where in the past some Officers have sought to drive up housing numbers to damage the environment and satisfy the expressed desires of the Conservative government to see only massive growth and inappropriate development, this has arguably been a short sighted and perhaps self defeating approach. In terms of following through on the Government’s objectives, we are required to have an objectively assessed housing need which meets the identified needs of the district and then to purposively meet that need.”
Might then “some officers” be extremely angry?
A rather extraordinary inclusion in the papers for tomorrow’s Development Management Committee has piqued the Owl’s interest:
Ed Freeman (Head of Planning) has written an extraordinary attack against previous (unnamed) councillors reproduced verbatim here:
“Where in the past some Members have sought to drive down housing numbers to protect the environment and satisfy the expressed desires of residents to see only limited growth and development this has arguably been a short sighted and perhaps self defeating approach. In terms of following through on the Government’s objectives, we are required to have an objectively assessed housing need which meets the identified needs of the district and then to purposively meet that need.”
Surely it is inappropriate for a senior officer to attack councillors in public for wanting “to protect the environment” and for standing in the way of “Government objectives”? And if EDDC exists ONLY to follow government objectives, what is the point of its existence, one might ask? And that of its officers, whose job is supposed to be to provide neutral and objective support, whatever party might be in power in the district at the time.
It’s particularly rich when it could be said that it is only thanks to EDDC’s self-confessed persistent failure to build enough houses over the past decade, and its inept performance when it comes to the Local Plan, that some councillors are trying to protect the countryside that EDDC itself has put at risk.
Owl wonders if councillors feel it worth a slapped wrist – an officer of the Council should not be criticising councillors for doing their job and who, if not named, can surely be identified .
Style over substance or the real thing? You decide:
https://new.devon.gov.uk/democracy/how-the-council-works/devolution/
So, about that EDDC new HQ ……
Mr Thickett said he would allow the participants at the housing session an opportunity to see and comment on the Council’s further submissions.
The further submissions can be accessed here:
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/emerging-plans-and-policies/the-new-local-plan/examination-and-hearing-sessions-and-further-consultation-at-april-2015/august-2015-evidence/#article-content
If you wish to make any comments on the new evidence and submissions only; on other matters will not be accepted, please submit these comments to me the Programme Officer by 30 September 2015.”
Our comment:
The EDDC “evidence” does not inspire us with enough confidence that sufficient robust evidence has been supplied by EDDC, particularly in respect of Habitat Mitigation obligations.
Many aspects have been left for the Inspector to decide because Natural England and EDDC cannot agree that enough has been done to safeguard special sites.
It also says that the Exmouth Splash Masterplan as it stood at the last hearing, may well not be the one that Exmouth ends up with but they don’t see why this should hold up the Local Plan.
Yesterday, 3rd September, EDDC updated its page about Exmouth Queen’s Drive Development. (http://eastdevon.gov.uk/regeneration-projects/regeneration-projects-in-exmouth/queens-drive-leisure-area/)
There were a number of striking, and confusing statements within the update. In relation to the current tenants, it listed the dates when there had been communication between the parties. It listed the latest as January 2015. This comes as rather confusing given EDDC’s public claims of keeping the existing tenants fully informed.
This confusion may be explained by a later paragraph which is worth quoting verbatim here.
“Existing tenants
Businesses currently operating at Queen’s Drive will continue to trade beyond 30 September 2015 until the necessary legal procedures have been followed and concluded regarding their future. We would like to apologise to our tenants and their customers for any confusion or misleading statements that have been in the press. Residents and visitors to Exmouth will be able to continue to use the facilities for the foreseeable future.”
end quote
Explained by EDDC’s confusion and misleading statements that have been in the press perhaps, and news to the tenants?
As recently as the 2nd September, at least one of the existing tenants considered themselves potentially forced out of business according to EDDC and their 30th September deadline.
Not only that, in the Express and Echo story of the 3rd September, EDDC are quoted “EDDC said that the existing tenants on the Queen’s Drive site have been informed of the news and can trade until September 30, when work will begin shortly afterwards.
Another notable omission from EDDC’s page is the absence of any mention of the developers who had put forward the most recent plans – though their June debut still features on EDDC’s website ( http://eastdevon.gov.uk/news/2015/06/18-m-waterfront-transformation-beckons-for-exmouth/)
It was this company’s proposals that added significant residential elements to the plans, at, it would appear, the expense of children’s play areas and water play elements. There have been concerns about the favoured developer and some of their past projects.
Elsewhere EDDC have been challenged to provide the evidence for their claims that they have consulted widely, and the inference that their projects are supported by residents and visitors. Their response is eagerly awaited.
One of our correspondents writes again:
Another thing the Talaton appeal has thrown a spotlight on is the lack of progress EDDC has made turning a strategy into an action plan. In this case it concerns EDDC’s failure in the draft Local Plan to meet obligatory requirements to demonstrate that it has a plan to mitigate the pressure increased population will place on three very sensitive wildlife habitats: Dawlish Warren; the Exe estuary and the Pebblebed Heaths.
This is something that EDDC, Teignbridge and Exeter have been working on since around 2012/2013 when they commissioned the “South-east Devon European Mitigation Strategy” report. This study concluded that, without appropriate mitigation measures, further development within 10Km of these sites would have adverse effects.
One of the central mitigation measures is the identification and creation of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) to replace specialised habitat and to provide additional recreation space to draw people away from these sites. Unfortunately, having identified one particular SANG, EDDC promptly granted planning permission for it, even before the report was published (see para 7.19 of the report)!
Since the beginning of August 2014, EDDC have been trousering between £749 and £626 per dwelling from developers to “make it easier for developers to ‘deliver’ such mitigation” but in the words of Natural England (submission to the Local Plan examination dated 11 June 2015):
“We are becoming increasingly concerned regarding the lack of progress on the delivery of mitigation measures which have not yet been implemented. We are aware that the Authority has been collecting funds for mitigation but delivery of such measures has not kept pace with its collection….. We are also concerned that recent planning applications and permissions may inhibit the delivery of proposed mitigation and that that mitigation may require modification to be delivered.”
Furthermore this letter from Natural England makes it clear that EDDC failed, prior to submitting the revised local plan for inspection, to update or consult further on the Habitat Regulation assessment section which Natural England, the statutory consultee, had stated in 2013: “does not meet the legal requirements as set out in Section 102 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) nor National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 166.”
The Talaton appeal gives us an up to date view of Planning Inspectorate thinking on this which looks unequivocal to me:
“60. No clear mechanism has been put forward that would ensure the delivery of the SANGs that form an essential element in the Council’s Mitigation Strategy. In the absence of appropriate mitigation, in line with the Mitigation Strategy, the effect of the proposed residential development, in combination with other planned development, is likely to give rise to adverse effects on the integrity of the SAC/SPA as a result of additional recreational pressure.
61. Regulation 61(5) of the Habitats Regulations identifies that the competent authority may only agree to a plan or project after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of a European site, subject to regulation 62, regarding considerations of over-riding public interest. That approach is reflected in paragraph 118 of the Framework which advises that planning permission should be refused where significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or compensated for.
62. In this case, there is little information before me to determine whether the proposed level of residential accommodation could be provided in another location, outside of the 10km zone surrounding the SPA. However, even if no alternative solution exists, the proposals are not put forward on the basis of any imperative reasons of over-riding public interest, of a social or economic nature, that would outweigh the harm to the SAC/SPA, having regard to Regulation 62 of the Habitat Regulations. As such, to grant planning permission for the proposed developments would be contrary to the aims of The Habitats Regulations and paragraph 118 of the Framework, both of which dictate that planning permission should be refused.”
Without resolution this matter looks like a showstopper for the Local Plan. But how easy is it going to be to agree a mitigation plan with a local authority that sets aside “Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace” one day then grants planning permission on it the next?
But don’t worry – East Devon is going to be a little spot of very high growth, according to our draft Local Plan put together by our Tory councillors and their officers, who are much better informed than the European Central Bank … aren’t they?
We must hope so.
Will the Planning Inspector agree, we wonder?
Pretty soon, the Exeter suburbs will stretch in one long ribbon development from Pinhoe and Cranbrook to Ottery and Honiton and fron Clyst St Mary to Newton Poppleford – without the infrastructure to support it. And, if there is another major economic turndown or an increase in interest rates, without the jobs to support the mortgages. And little or no truly affordable housing, of course.
A new outline planning application, submitted to East Devon District Council (EDDC) for the construction of up to 53 homes on a greenfield site next to Sidmouth Road, has been met with anger and dismay from many.
If accepted, the development – which includes open market homes and provision for 40 per cent ‘affordable housing’ – could push the total number of new houses in the pipeline to more than 600.
Concerned householders say this represents a 30 per cent population growth that Ottery’s infrastructure cannot cope with.
Councillor Roger Giles called the application from Gerway Landowners Consortium ‘unnecessary, unwanted and damaging’.
He said: “The East Devon Local Plan, reflecting the views of local people, said that Ottery should have an additional 300 homes. Already, more than 500 have been approved.”
Katie Corbin, who lives near Sidmouth Road, is one of the residents joining forces to fight the proposed development. She said: “Five hundred homes have been agreed, but only around 100 have been built. What’s going to happen when the rest are built? They have no idea of the repercussions of the affect of 500 houses. Why risk more?”
Gerway Lane resident Rachel Kirk said: “This is the third proposed development within sight of Gerway Lane and it is soul-destroying for all existing residents.”
In a letter of objection submitted to EDDC’s planning department, Martin Kirby said: “The local facilities are way behind this general house building frenzy.”
Dr Margaret Hall confirmed she will be objecting on behalf of the East Devon branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England.
She told the Herald: “It is more houses than we need and it is outside of the built-up area boundary. The infrastructure in Ottery cannot cope with it.”
Nigel Machin, of Knightstone Lane, is putting the onus on EDDC to ‘see through the spin, understand the strain the town is already going through and protect Ottery from this continuing onslaught’.
Agents of the application, Ian Jewson Planning Ltd, said: “The proposals will provide much-needed market and affordable housing in a sustainable location adjacent to existing development and close to local facilities.”
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/ottery_residents_to_fight_building_frenzy_1_4211229
The London Evening Standard published this article today. Of course, we know all about this in East Devon, as our Electoral Returning Officer (EDDC CEO Mark Williams) “lost” around 6,000 local voters before the last elections in May 2015. Coincidentally, these were exactly the kind of voters referred to below – ” …young people, private sector tenants, ethnic minorities and those from more socially deprived communities — who traditionally are less likely to vote Conservative — are most likely to be affected.”
The full text of the article:
Tens of thousands of Londoners could disappear from the electoral roll and lose their right to vote in next year’s mayoral and London Assembly elections, it was claimed today.
Ministers were accused of a “shameful abuse of power” after they brought forwards changes to the electoral registration system which critics claim could undermine the democratic outcome of key elections in the capital.
The Liberal Democrats said that up to two million voters across the country could be effectively disenfranchised with Londoners particularly at risk since the capital has such a large and transient population. Young people, private sector tenants, ethnic minorities and those from more socially deprived communities — who traditionally are less likely to vote Conservative — are most likely to be affected.
The Government, however, has insisted it is focusing on cleaning up the register which under the old system included many “ghost” voters who should no longer be included.
Lib-Dem MP Tom Brake, who has tabled a rejection motion in the House of Commons, said: “This is clearly going to lead to a very large number of people being disenfranchised and it’s very hard not to believe that there’s some political motivation behind it because the people most likely to be affected are probably not Conservative supporters.”
Lib-Dem London Assembly member Caroline Pidgeon added: “The Government is blatantly ignoring the independent electoral commission in pursuit of narrow party advantage. It is a shameful abuse of power.
“Removing nearly two million UK voters will leave gaping holes in the electoral register, especially in many parts of London. It will undermine the democratic outcome of next year’s Mayor and London Assembly elections.”
The Government brought forward the new system by a year to December 2015, even though the electoral commission advised ministers to spend another year transferring voters on the old household-based register to the new individual register.
Critics have warned that as the cleaned-up register will form the basis of the boundary review of parliamentary seats due to begin next year it will also result in fewer inner-city seats, which would favour the Conservatives.
A Cabinet Office spokesman said: “The transition to Individual Electoral Registration has been a huge success. Now we need to remove up to two million entries on the electoral registers which are inaccurate or out of date.”
In a letter to The Guardian, Cabinet Office minister John Penrose said: “It is absolutely untrue that anyone will accidentally find themselves unable to vote because of the change to individual electoral registration. Completing the transition this December will mean that all boundaries are based on the most accurate registers.”
“I’m afraid that people who oppose this will make the voting registers less accurate, and elections less fair with higher risk of fraud. People will conclude that they’re trying try to hang on to the existing system simply because it gives them an inbuilt party-political advantage, and that they’re putting this ahead of what’s right and fair.”
Click to access combinedcabinetagenda90915public-version.pdf
A must read for information on effects on Sidmouth, Exmouth and Honiton
According to the front page of today’s Midweek Herald:
Although Honiton Chamber of Commerce is ecstatic, the missed opportunity to have a Waitrose must get up some people’s noses.
Not to mention that even the lowest bid would probably have been enough (when one includes the £750,000 plus already spent on pre-location costs) to refurbish the current HQ at true zero cost.
Surely our Honiton- centric Cabinet didn’t let the Chamber of Commerce sway their decision?
The Government has revised its special planning policy for Travellers to state that it will only apply to those “who lead a genuine travelling lifestyle”.
Ministers said this would mean that any application for a permanent site, including caravan sites, by someone who does not travel will be considered in the same way as an application from the settled population.
The new policy, published by the Department for Communities and Local Government, is also intended to shore up Green Belt and other protections.
It states that if a local planning authority cannot demonstrate an up–to-date 5-year supply of deliverable sites, this should be a significant material consideration in any subsequent planning decision when considering applications for the grant of temporary planning permission.
An exception is where the proposal is on land designated as:
Green Belt;
sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives;
sites designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest;
Local Green Space;
an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty;
within a National Park (or the Broads).
The policy states that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved, except in very special circumstances.
“Traveller sites (temporary or permanent) in the Green Belt are inappropriate development,” it says. “Subject to the best interests of the child, personal circumstances and unmet need are unlikely to clearly outweigh harm to the Green Belt and any other harm so as to establish very special circumstances.”
The revised policy also says: “In exceptional cases, where a local planning authority is burdened by a large-scale unauthorised site that has significantly increased their need, and their area is subject to strict and special planning constraints, then there is no assumption that the local planning authority is required to plan to meet their traveller site needs in full.”
The DCLG claimed the new policy made clear the need to ensure fairness in the system, with planning policy reflecting the requirement that caravan sites should be made available for those who travel permanently.
Communities Secretary Greg Clark said: “I’m determined to ensure fairness in the planning system, so everyone abides by the same rules.
“Today’s new policy strengthens the hand of councils to tackle unauthorised development in their area, ensures all communities are treated equally and that the protection of the Green Belt is enforceable.”
Housing and Planning Minister Brandon Lewis said: “Unauthorised traveller sites can blight communities, causing misery for their neighbours and creating resentment that planning rules don’t seem to be applied fairly.
“Today’s revised planning policy clearly sets out the protection against unauthorised occupation and that the rules apply fairly to every community equally – no ifs, no buts.”
Garden Court Chambers’ Marc Willers QC, who advises Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, warned on Twitter that the new planning policy was “short-sighted” and bound to result in more unauthorised camping. “To what end?” he said.
Whither now EDDC’s “high growth strategy”?
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/01/uk-manufacturing-jobs-data-chinese-slowdown
In East Devon our majority Conservative council puts councillors who are also developers on our Development Management Committee …
Developers have no place on local councils [in Australia] and the Parliament must move to not only ban them from standing at the 2016 elections, but also legislate for a comprehensive audit of every time a developer has voted in their own self-interest as a result of the Coalition’s corruption-ready 2012 legal changes.
As the [Australian] Greens have said for well over a decade, there is an inherent conflict of interest in having councillors who are also local developers. The government is moving to repeal their legalised corruption laws of 2012, but any legislation must go much further to ban developers from being on council and undertake a full audit of every time this 2012 law change has been abused by developers in the past three years.
Greens MP and Local Government spokesperson David Shoebridge said:
“It was obvious to anyone with a brain that these changes were corruption ready when the NSW Coalition pushed these changes through Parliament in 2012.”
“A new action group has been launched to ‘save’ Exmouth seafront from developers who plan an £18m redevelopment that will see some of the town’s oldest most popular businesses close.
‘Save Exmouth Seafront’, has been formed by concerned residents from Exmouth and the surrounding area to oppose East Devon District Council’s regeneration proposals for the seafront.
In place of the Railway Carriage Café, the Harbour View Café, the Fun Park, DJ’s Café, Jungle Fun and the Crazy Golf Course there is set to be a multi-screen cinema, an outdoor water splash zone and an adventure golf park along with a seafront restaurant, ground floor cafes with outside seating in the open space areas and a ground floor retail area.
East Devon District Council (EDDC) are behind the development which will see Moirai Capital Investments of Bournemouth putting forward proposals to “breathe new life into the nine–acre council-owned seafront site at Queen’s Drive with a range of exciting leisure facilities.”
Some of Exmouth’s town councillors have expressed reservations when the plans were originally put forward and the traders whose businesses would be demolished are equally concerned. The town council refused to back the scheme in 2013 when it first came up, while earlier this year Dawn Hirst of the Harbour View Café and Chris Wright of the Fun Park both demanded answers to the question mark hanging over their businesses.
Other residents have hit out at the plans with the ‘Save Exmouth Seafront’ group gathering public opinion during the last few weeks through its Seafront Survey, which will be analysed after the closing date of 5 September, with results presented to the Town and District Councils.
Chairperson Roger Thomas says “The change from a well known and much used leisure area, loved both by residents and holiday makers to one of a commercial and residential nature is not an appropriate development for this part of Exmouth seafront, which is a unique asset and should be preserved as such.”
Adding: “We are determined to oppose any such development to protect the seafront.”
The new group will hold a public meeting in the near future to open up the discussion and to consider future actions.
A planning application for the developmentwill be submitted later this year. EDDC said that the existing tenants on the Queen’s Drive site have been informed of the news and can trade until September 30 when work will commence shortly afterwards
The post below, with its mention of Skypark, got the Owl thinking… never a good thing.
Is it time someone asked for the information about WHY EDDC chose Skypark as the site for its new HQ and then returned to its original decision? It won’t come voluntarily though, Owl thinks.
There can’t be much “commercial sensitivity” now that it has fallen through and what little there is (if any) should be easily redacted.
A few questions spring to mind – maybe you have more.
Who suggested Skypark?
When?
Why?
What was the financial thinking behind it?
What interventions did other partners (DCC, St Modwyn) institute?
What correspondence did EDDC enter into and with whom about its decision to change to Skypark?
Why did they pull out so suddenly?
Why did the plans fall foul of EU directives, who noticed that and when?
How much was spent on the abortive project?
Owl thinks we should be told.
Compare and contrast with EDDC where big business is favoured and encouraged – remember the East Devon Business Forum consisted mostly of large or very large developers and landowners and favours partnerships with large building companies and developers such as St Modwyn (Skypark).
According to the Federation of Master Builders there should be an increase in spend with small and micro firms across the board and by every public sector body and not just for firms with government contracts. Sarah McMonagle, head of external affairs at the FMB, said: “The Government’s announcement that every £1 in £3 is spent with small businesses is welcome but only applies to central government contracts. “In many parts of the country, it is still the case that small firms are all too often squeezed out by larger competitors when bidding for public sector work.”
Mrs McMonagle added: “There are lots of good reasons why the wider public sector to spend as much as possible with small firms. In particular, using construction SMEs has been proven to provide real local economic and environmental benefits.
“SMEs employ local people, meaning that the money spent is likely to go to local suppliers and remain within the local economy. Furthermore, in the construction sector, two thirds of apprentices are trained by micro firms, meaning that spending more with these businesses could help towards the Government’s target of creating three million new apprenticeships by 2020. An even more ambitious target could go further towards the governments stated aim of 3 million apprenticeships by 2020.”
The FMB said while some local authorities and housing associations are better at engaging with SMEs all public sector clients should to set a target for increasing the proportion they spend with SMEs.
Mrs McMonagle said: “Some may already be spending £1 in every £3 but then they should be working towards spending £2 in every £3. One way the wider public sector can boost engagement in public procurement by small firms is to ensure they are implementing the EU Public Procurement Directive which was brought in earlier this year.
“The directive states that public sector clients must break down their contracts into small lots and this makes public contracts much more appealing to small businesses – especially in construction where forming part of the supply chain can be particularly problematic due to late payment.”
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Local-authorities-set-targets-increase-spend-SMEs/story-27708511-detail/story.html
Councils come bottom for transparency
Small business owners reportedly see local councils as the least transparent organisation that they deal with, according to a study by Axa. In a survey of 400 directors of SMEs only 59% of respondents said their local council was transparent in its dealings. By contrast accountants and lawyers were deemed transparent by 90% and 84% of respondents respectively. Banks and insurance firms won approval from around three quarters of respondents.
The Times, Page: 42-43
East Devon Watch 