“Greater Exeter Strategic Plan”: are we already shafted?

Time is running out to comment on the “Greater Exeter Strategic Plan” initial consultation on “Issues”. Comments must be in by

10 April 2017

and the document is here:

https://www.gesp.org.uk/consultations/issues/

and the full (12 page) document is here:

Click to access Greater-Exeter-Strategic-Plan-proof-v14.pdf

Owl thinks that there is precious little in the document that points either to a strategy or a plan! There are, however, many issues not covered such as:

– inequality ( how are the “just managing”, the “barely managing” and the “not managing at all going to access Greater Exeter’s resources (housing, transport, infrastructure, environment, health care, education) none of which is geared to them – only to the “managing very nicely thank you and ready to trade up to a bigger property or luxury retirement village” group

– the effect of Brexit, labour and skills shortages on the much-vaunted “economic growth”

– landbanking and housing supply – how they undermine all strategic planning projects

Owl also thinks this “plan” is shutting the door well after several horses have bolted, as already in the pipeline are massive developments planned to circle the city:

– west of Exeter: the 5,000-plus houses planned for “Culm Village” (Mid Devon)
– north/east of Exeter: the more than doubling in size of Cranbrook (East Devon) and the connected developments at Tithebarn Green, Pinn Brook Pinhoe and Monkerton (East Devon and Exeter City)
– south of Exeter: the massive development of Alphington and similar plans for doubling the size of Newton Abbott
– not to mention city developments such as St James’s Park and the thousands of student units in the city centre
– Local Enterprise Partnership plans to build extra houses just about everywhere else

Can anyone tell Owl which bits of “Greater Exeter” are left to consult on?

How you explain snout in trough when you are a Tory MP

A Conservative MP advocated in favour of subsidies for the biomass industry after accepting more than £50,000 in political donations and hospitality from companies in the sector.

Nigel Adams, who has accepted tens of thousands of pounds in hospitality and political donations from biomass firms both in and outside his constituency, has called parliamentary debates, tabled questions, written opinion pieces, and written to the prime minister in support of subsidies for the industry.

But records compiled by Energydesk, the journalistic arm of Greenpeace, and shared with BuzzFeed News, show that on a number of occasions he did not mention the donations when he advocated for biomass – a sustainable form of energy generation based on burning wood pellets or other materials instead of coal and gas – over other forms of renewable energy such as onshore wind.

Parliamentary rules allow MPs to accept donations and hospitalities from businesses and others provided they are declared on official registers, as Adams’ contributions were. The rules also require MPs to “open and frank in drawing attention to any relevant interest in any proceeding of the House or its Committees”.

Adams told BuzzFeed News he referred to his hospitality and donations from biomass companies in parliamentary proceedings when his interventions were “substantively” about the industry.

Hospitality he accepted includes an £8,578 three-night trip to the Ritz-Carlton hotel in New Orleans to speak at a biomass conference. Adams accepted a further four trips to the same conference in following years, held at the five-star Fontainebleau on Miami Beach, a holiday spot beloved of America’s elite.

Adams’ trips to the resort from 2013 to 2016, worth £5,460, £7,177, £4,210, and £4,950 respectively, were funded by Eggborough Power Limited and Draw Power Limited, both of which operate biomass plants in Adams’ Selby and Ainsty constituency.

Adams also accepted auction prizes worth a total of £17,800 from another biomass producer from outside his constituency, Simec, as well as a trip to Dubai worth £2,850 to attend a pro-Brexit event in the city for UK expats.

In 2015, Adams held a debate on scrapping subsidies for onshore wind, during which he described it as being “about as much use as a chocolate fireguard”, claiming it was inferior to biomass in handling spikes in demand – naming Drax and Eggborough in his speech – and stating that cutting wind subsidies would “allow other, more efficient technologies to benefit from government support”. He made no mention of his contributions from the sector in that debate.

Similarly, in March 2016 Adams urged Andrea Leadsom, then an energy minister, to increase deployment of biomass, without making any mention of his contributions from Drax, Simec, or Eggborough.

Adams heads parliament’s all-party group on biomass, which is funded by the industry, and in 2012 urged then prime minister David Cameron to prioritise biomass subsidies over onshore wind. He also held a further debate on biomass, in which he declared he had received contributions from the sector.

Adams has declared all of these donations on the official registers of MPs’ interests as required and said he believes he has not breached any parliamentary rules because he has declared his interests in parliamentary proceedings. However, his failure to declare these interests on some occasions has drawn criticism.

Tamasin Cave of the lobbying transparency group Spinwatch told BuzzFeed News Adams risked the appearance of conflicts of interest – likening his situation to that of recently appointed Evening Standard editor George Osborne.

“Who does Mr Adams think he is working for?” she said. “A few transatlantic trips and fine dining could leave someone a bit muddled.

“And as George Osborne has just demonstrated, it’s clear that some in parliament don’t take their public role that seriously. With all eyes on Brexit, we also arguably have less scrutiny of what our MPs are up to.”

Greenpeace told BuzzFeed News that Adams raised concerns about conflicts of interest.

“As an MP, he has some serious questions to answer about whose interests he’s been looking after – the common good or the biomass industry funding his trips to Miami Beach,” said Greenpeace campaigner Hannah Martin.

Martin added that Greenpeace had concerns about biomass because in its view it has question marks over sustainability not shared by other energy sources.

“Ministers have spent millions of taxpayers’ money on controversial biomass when they could have invested it in far cleaner and more mature technologies like onshore and offshore wind. As a staunch advocate of biomass and a fierce critic of onshore wind, Nigel Adams bears at least some responsibility for a policy whose environmental and economic benefits remain in doubt.”

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/a-conservative-mp-has-been-criticised-after-accepting?utm_term=.ymgj7VPY#.ro7rGP9l

Unfortunately, it’s an EU report, so our government will probably give it short shrift!

“Access to nature reduces depression and obesity, finds European study
Trees and green spaces are unrecognised healers offering benefits from increases in mental wellbeing to allergy reductions, says report. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/21/access-nature-reduces-depression-obesity-european-report

Core strategy partly rescinded due to effect on forest – watch out Greater Exeter!

LOTS of forests, national parks and SSSI’s around Greater Exeter!

“A judge has resolved a dispute between two district councils and the South Downs National Park Authority by quashing parts of a joint core strategy.
Jay J, in the High Court, quashed parts of the joint core strategy of Lewes District Council and the park authority because of their effect on neighbouring Wealden District Council.

His judgment explained that Wealden had brought the case because of the status of the Ashdown Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC), a 2,729 hectares area within Wealden of lowland heath vulnerable to nitrogen dioxide pollution from motor vehicles.

The judge said: “The principal point raised by this application…is whether [Lewes] and [the park authority] acted unlawfully in concluding, on advice, that the joint core strategy would not likely have a significant effect on the SAC in combination with the Wealden Core Strategy.”

He added: “The essential contention made is that if relevant data and findings are properly amalgamated, as they should be, the effects of increased traffic flows near the SAC would not have been ignored at the first screening or scoping stage of the process.”

The judge ruled that Wealden was out-of-time to challenge Lewes’s adoption of the joint core strategy, but not the park authority’s adoption of it. He said development plan documents were flawed because of a Habitats Regulations Assessment that relied on “advice from Natural England that was plainly incorrect”.

Jay J ordered that the secretary of state for communities and local government – whose inspector had found the disputed core strategy sound – and the park authority should each pay 50% of Wealden’s costs, while Wealden should pay Lewes’ costs. All applications for permission to appeal were refused.

Wealden has since the judgment revised its planned housing numbers such that after taking into account of the latest nitrogen deposition monitoring in Ashdown Forest the total number of home to be built by the end of 2028 will be 11,456 instead of the 14,101 originally proposed.

Ann Newton, cabinet member for planning and development, said: “The majority of housing will be distributed away from Ashdown Forest to the south of the district. “

New housing in the north of Wealden would be sited away from main roads that skirt the SAC. Wealden said three years of monitoring showed the amount of nitrogen deposition from motor vehicles in the forest already exceeded levels that can cause ecological damage to the heathland.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30512%3Ajudge-partially-quashes-core-strategy-after-appeal-by-neighbouring-authority&catid=63&Itemid=31

Building new roads makes traffic worse, say campaigners and don ‘t boost economy”

New roads in England not only fail to ease congestion and benefit local economies but worsen traffic, countryside campaigners warn.

Road-building also “obliterates” rural views and harms nature, the Campaign to Protect Rural England says.

Its study of 86 road schemes completed between 2002 and 2012 says the majority damaged the surrounding environment.

But Sir John Armitt, of the National Infrastructure Commission, said it was essential to increase road capacity.

The government will spend £1.2bn on building and maintaining roads in the next year, which it says will cut congestion and improve journey times while boosting businesses and jobs.

‘Depressing cycle’

Ralph Smyth, head of infrastructure at the CPRE, said road-building projects led to a “depressing, self-perpetuating cycle of more and more roads”.
Roads were not delivering the congestion relief promised, he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “They improve it for the first year or so, then traffic rapidly increases.”

The CPRE’s research drew on official evaluations of 86 road schemes, which Highways England carries out for road projects costing more than £10m.

It said 69 of these road schemes had had an “adverse impact” on the landscape, including obliterating views and destroying ancient woodland and mature hedgerows.

And each road project it looked at, excepting one, saw traffic grow “significantly faster” than other regional roads.

In addition, the CPRE examined 25 road schemes which the government promised would boost the local economy.

The CPRE said that in 15 of these cases there was only “thin and circumstantial to non-existent” evidence that this had happened. …”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39328643

United Nations asks UK to pause Hinkley C for assessment

“A United Nations committee asked the U.K. to suspend work on the Hinkley Point nuclear power plant pending assessment of the environmental impact.

The UN Economic Commission for Europe requested the pause, it said in a document on its website. Electricite de France SA, the French state-controlled utility, won approval to build an 18 billion-pound ($22.3 billion) nuclear plant on England’s western coast in September. To help shoulder the construction costs, EDF convinced China General Nuclear Power Corp. to take 33.5 percent of the project.

The UN committee recommended the halt until it established whether “a notification under the Espoo Convention” was useful, according to the statement. The Espoo Convention sets out the obligations of countries to “assess the environmental impact of certain activities,” according to the commission’s website.

Bouygues SA and Areva SA have received contracts for work at the plant.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-18/un-asks-u-k-to-pause-hinkley-nuclear-plant-work-for-assessment

New website to promote south devon National Park

https://southdevonnationalpark.wordpress.com/

Imagine if you could link it with these two other areas:

https://dorsetandeastdevonnationalpark.wordpress.com
http://www.dartmoor.gov.uk

A wonderful tourist draw!

Will it ever happen? Not while the current Tories are in charge at East Devon as their Leader, Paul Diviani, was aghast at the idea of losing their control over planning along the East Devon part of the Jurassic coast.

No such worries in Dorset where it is supported. Odd that.

Lecture: Natural Capital and Sustainable Growth

Natural Devon’s 2017 Lecture

Professor Dieter Helm CBE – Natural Capital and Sustainable Growth

Thursday 6th April 2017, 6pm
Newman Blue Lecture Theatre, Exeter University, Streatham Campus, EX4 4ST

Professor Dieter Helm is an economist specialising in utilities, infrastructure, regulation and the environment. He is a Professor of Energy policy at the University of Oxford, a member of the Economics Advisory Group to the UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and Chairman of Defra’s Natural Capital Committee, as well as being Honorary Vice President of the Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust.

In the face of growing environmental pressures Professor Dieter Helm is looking to offer a set of strategies for establishing natural capital policy that is balanced, economically sustainable, and politically viable. He believes that the commonly held view that environmental protection poses obstacles to economic progress is false, and that the environment must be at the very core of economic planning.

Professor Helm’s lecture is particularly relevant this year given opportunities presented by Brexit, the development of Devon Local Plans and the development of the Heart of the South West Productivity Plan.

In partnership with The University of Exeter

Directions: http://www.exeter.ac.uk/visit/directions/streatham/
The Newman Blue Lecture Theatre is number 18 on this link – htttp://www.exeter.ac.uk/visit/directions/streathammap/

If you would like to book a place please email – tom.whitlock@devon.gov.uk

Greater Exeter Strategic Plan consultation – only one public meeting to discuss implications for East Devon

NOTE THAT, UNLIKE THE EMAIL TO EDDC COUNCILLORS (see earlier post) WE ARE NOT BEING ASKED IF WE WANT TO PUT FORWARD SECRET LAND HOLDINGS – THOUGH NO DOUBT THE TAXMAN WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IF YOU DID!

THE BIGGEST PLANNING ISSUE TO HIT EAST DEVON SINCE THE LOCAL PLAN AND YOU MUST TREK TO HONITON ON 8 MARCH IF YOU WANT TO HAVE YOUR SAY. THAT’S IT – ONE MEETING IN ONE PLACE.

DO YOU RECALL BEING ASKED IF YOU WANTED TO BE PART OF GREATER EXETER? OWL NEITHER!

Greater Exeter Strategic Plan Consultation: Issues

The local authorities of East Devon, Exeter, Mid Devon and Teignbridge in partnership with Devon County Council are working together to prepare a Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP). This formal statutory document will provide the overall spatial strategy and level of housing and employment land to be provided up to 2040. Please visit http://www.gesp.org.uk for more information.

Engagement with stakeholders and communities will be critical to the success of the Plan. At this first stage, the authorities are consulting on an initial ‘issues document’ which, after setting out some background information, looks to explain the scope and content of the plan as well as describing the key issues facing the Greater Exeter area. This early stage of consultation is designed to stimulate debate and the local planning authorities are seeking your views on the scope and content of the plan as well as the key issues facing your area.

A number of other associated documents are also being consulted on:

Draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report:

· The Draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report is the first stage of work in undertaking the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) for the plan. This process is used to assess the sustainability of the plan content as it develops.

Statement of Community Involvement:

· The joint Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) sets out the approach for consultation in the GESP. The SCI sets out the way in which we will be engaging with communities and other interested parties throughout the process.

The consultation will run from 27 February 2017 until 10 April 2017. To view the consultation material and to make your comments please visit http://www.gesp.org.uk/consultations/issues/.

Alternatively, paper copies of the consultation document are available to view at your local library and Council Office.

A series of exhibitions are being held during the consultation period in the following locations:

Honiton: Mackarness Hall, High Street, EX14 1PG – Wednesday 8 March 2017, 2pm-8pm

Tiverton: Mid Devon District Council Office, Phoenix House, Phoenix Lane, EX16 6PP – Wednesday 15 March 2017, 2-8pm
Exeter: The Guildhall, High Street, EX4 3EB – Thursday 16 March 2017, 2-8pm
Newton Abbot: Old Forde House, Brunel Road, TQ12 4XX – Thursday 23 March 2017, 2- 8pm

A ‘call for sites’ has also been arranged to run alongside the consultation. This is a technical exercise which allows interested parties to submit potential sites for development to the Local Authorities. The sites are then assessed to consider whether they are suitable for possible inclusion in the plan. Further information is http://gesp.org.uk/call-for-sites/.

If you need further information please visit the website, email GESP@devon.gov.uk or contact your Local Council using the phone numbers below:

East Devon: 01395 571533
Exeter: 01392 265615
Mid Devon: 01884 234221
Teignbridge: 01626 215735

As there are four Councils contacting their stakeholders for the consultation and call for sites, you may receive duplicate letters/emails. Please accept my apologies if this is the case.”

Beach management: a timely warning from Dawlish Warren?

Is it good to go for cheap, short-term beach management plans?

“Storm Doris has caused beach levels at Dawlish Warren to drop. The recent stormy conditions have increased the vulnerability of the dunes, and have led to erosion of the dunes in some areas.

As a result, the schedule of works as part of the £14million scheme to raise the beach level at Dawlish Warren by two metres, as well as removing gabions along the sand spit, upgrading the revetments, dredging and recharging the beach and reinforcing the neck of the sand spit has changed.

A Teignbridge Council spokesman said: “To allow the dunes at Dawlish Warren to behave naturally, a key element of the Beach Management Scheme involves removing the existing stone filled gabion baskets installed along the Warren. Works started on this activity in early February.

“However, following recent stormy conditions the beach levels at Dawlish Warren have dropped dramatically, increasing the vulnerability of the dunes, and leading to erosion of the dunes in some areas. …

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/storm-doris-causes-dawlish-warren-beach-levels-to-drop/story-30158793-detail/story.html

Cranbrook-another broken promise, this time allotment provision

An FAQ produced by the town council.

Summary: We were supposed to have them, developers won’t give up any land so we have no idea if we will ever get them even though we have a statutory duty to provide them.

Developers 1, Town Council 0

Take particular note of the answer to Question 2. Cynical Owl wonders if other Section 106 community benefits are triggered at this point and developers are dragging their feet about effective counting.

EDW-watchers will recall that almost £700,000 of such benefits was not triggered due to poor record-keeping on the part of EDDC and the need to rely on developers to tell EDDC when trigger points are reached. And most of that figure related to Cranbrook.

“1) When I moved in two years ago, the salesperson said there would be allotments in Phase 1?

We are afraid that was incorrect but we can see how the confusion arose. To set the record straight, although Cranbrook was always going to have allotments, the land originally set aside for them was not in Phase 1 but was part of the Sports Pitch land on Phase 2. This location was subsequently challenged as it was thought that adjacent to sports pitches was an unsuitable place for them. It was therefore decided to try to find an alternative location. This prompted a renegotiation of the original legal agreement. The revised agreement will still make provision for allotments in Cranbrook but a new location needs to be found (see also 2 below).

2) The Town Council’s website says one of its responsibilities is providing allotments, so why haven’t we got any yet and when are they coming?

Not only do they require a suitable location (see 1 above) a numerical trigger also needs to be reached before the work can begin. There are two stages to this process. Firstly, when approaching 1500 homes are occupied (i.e. not just built), the Owners (in this case the Consortium) are required to identify and gain planning permission for a location. Secondly, the Owners must, “use reasonable endeavours to complete the Allotments by the First Occupation of the 2000th Dwelling in accordance with the Allotments Specification and Delivery Programme and make them available for use as soon as practicable thereafter.” (extract from Section 106 agreement). Surprisingly, although there are many more new houses being built on Phase 2, we have been informed by East Devon District Council that Cranbrook still hasn’t quite reached the 1500 homes occupied figure.

3) So, where will the Cranbrook allotments actually go?

We regret we don’t have any information as yet about where they will be located but we are keeping a watching brief and will inform residents as soon as we have any new information.

4) I’ve heard the Town Council has a list of people who are interested in having an allotment, so can I join that?

Yes, we are keeping a list, so that when the allotments do become available they can be allocated fairly to people who have declared an interest. We currently have 13 names on the list. Please feel free to contact us on office@cranbrooktowncouncil.gov.uk or 01404 514552 if you would like to be added.”

Click to access FAQ-Allotments-Green-Spaces.pdf

“Offshore wind “could be cheaper than nuclear power” (And doesn’t require untold billions in decommissioning costs)

Nuclear power station on your doorstep or wind turbines on the horizon? Easy-peasy for our LEP – with its vested nuclear-interest businessmen on its board!

“Offshore windfarms could provide cheaper power than Britain’s new wave of nuclear power stations, a leading figure in the wind industry has claimed.

Speaking to the the Guardian, Hugh McNeal, the chief executive of trade body RenewableUK, said he expected that offshore windfarms would secure a deal with the government lower than the £92.50 per megawatt hour agreed with EDF for £18bn Hinkley Point C.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if it [offshore wind] cleared Hinkley prices,” he said of the bidding for a £290m-a-year government subsidy pot in April. The auction is under a scheme known as contracts for difference, which offer generators a guaranteed price for their electricity above the wholesale price. A 35-year deal with EDF was agreed last year.

McNeal, a career civil servant who joined RenewableUK from the now abolished Department of Energy and Climate Change last year, was upbeat about the future of offshore wind.

“I don’t think there’s any doubt about the political commitment of any party, apart from perhaps Ukip, to offshore wind. I think it’s got an incredibly healthy future,” he said.

Construction of offshore and onshore windfarms in the UK was responsible for €12.7bn (£11bn) of investment in 2016, or nearly half the year’s financial activity for new wind power in the EU.

The industry has also been buoyed by recent figures showing the price of offshore wind power had fallen by nearly one-third since 2012 to £100/MWh, a crucial milestone as the government will only continue to subsidise the technology if costs go down.

But McNeal said the decision by ministers to end onshore windfarm subsidies had been hard for the industry. The building of new turbines on land is expected to largely grind to a halt after next year.

Green energy subsidies are paid through energy bills, but MPs said last week that government efforts to communicate the impact on consumers had been “shambolic.” McNeal said he found the focus solely on the cost of new low-carbon power “a little bit odd” given the other factors driving energy price rises.

Three of the UK’s big six energy suppliers have announced price increases as their costs have risen, the bulk of which are higher wholesale prices. “We are perhaps a little bit overexposed to global markets over which we have no control, which fluctuate over time,” McNeal said.

Government officials should do more to spell out all the costs of energy to consumers, he added. The impact of renewable energy subsidies on bills has previously been broken down, but the effect on bills from subsidies to coal power stations for providing backup power, for example, are not.
However, McNeal defended the Conservative party, arguing it was unfairly derided as anti-renewables. “We have to actually just look at what’s been achieved,” he said.

“I’m not saying to you that there isn’t a challenge around the [Conservative] onshore wind manifesto commitment; of course there is. But the record is still a pretty remarkable one.”

Renewable energy supplies one-quarter of Britain’s electricity, he said, compared with a marginal amount before the 2010 general election, when the first of three Conservative-led governments came to power.

McNeal would not be drawn on whether Labour’s energy policy, which is pro-renewables and pro-nuclear, but would ban fracking for shale gas, was credible. But he said questions of energy supply should be depoliticised.
“I don’t think it’s my job to tell any party what its energy policy should be. Let’s just take the heat out of all this,” he said. “I just don’t think it does anyone any good to be in public fighting between different forms of technologies.”

Despite saying last year that new onshore windfarms in England were “very unlikely”, McNeal suggested the technology would come back because it was so cheap. “I don’t think onshore is done at all. I think onshore wind has a terrific future in our country,” he said.

McNeal said he was confident that wind power in the UK would thrive after Brexit, even though the industry’s growth had so far been driven in part by binding EU renewable targets for 2020.

“The idea that we need a separate European package [of support] – that would be the crucial thing that would drive our industry – we don’t need that now,” he said, adding that the sector would win on market terms.
© 2017 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/12/uk-offshore-wind-will-lower-energy-bills-more-than-nuclear?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

“Brexit ‘zombie legislation’ could damage wildlife and farming, MPs warn”

“Brexit could harm the UK’s wildlife and farming, according to a cross-party committee of MPs, with key protections left as ineffective “zombie legislation” and farmers facing a “triple jeopardy” of lost subsidies, export tariffs and increased competition.

A new report from the environmental audit select committee warns that many of the rules governing food production and the environment in the UK come from EU law and that weakening of these rules would damage the countryside and reduce the viability of farms, food security and safety.

The MPs said that for the government to meet its manifesto commitment to “be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than it found it”, ministers must commit to passing a new Environmental Protection Act before it triggers article 50 and starts the formal process of leaving the EU.

The MPs said it was concerning that the environment secretary, Andrea Leadsom, gave no reassurance that farmers would receive subsidies after 2020. But the report also recommended that if a new subsidy regime was put in place, it should focus less on direct income support to farmers and more on delivering public goods, such as preventing flooding, tackling climate change and boosting wildlife.

Attenborough urges UK to use Brexit to improve wildlife protections
“Changes from Brexit could put our countryside, farming and wildlife at risk,” said Mary Creagh, chair of the environmental audit committee (EAC). “Protections for Britain’s wildlife and special places currently guaranteed under European law could end up as ‘zombie legislation’, even with the great repeal bill.”

Creagh said food, animal welfare and environmental standards had to be maintained as the UK seeks new trade deals with other countries. “The government must not trade away these key protections [and] it should also give clarity over any future farm subsidies.”

There are about 800 pieces of EU environmental legislation, covering wildlife and habitats, water quality, farming, food and fisheries. The government’s great repeal bill intends to transpose all those rules into UK law, but Leadsom told the EAC that about a third would be difficult to transpose.

The EAC said that, without pre-emptive action, these rules would end up as “zombie legislation”, with no body to enforce them, no updates and easily eroded by ministers via parliamentary statutory instruments, which receive minimal scrutiny from MPs.

The EU’s common agricultural policy provides £3.5bn a year in subsidies to UK farmers, making up more than half of their income, and the MPs said Brexit posed a “triple jeopardy” for farmers. Firstly the loss of subsidies would threaten the viability of some farms. Secondly, new export tariffs would cut farm incomes and, thirdly, new trading relationships could lead to competition with nations with lower animal welfare, food safety and environmental standards.

If the UK chooses not to be part of the EU single market, Tim Breitmeyer of the Country, Land and Business Association told the EAC that lamb exports to Europe would face tariffs of 30% and that beef export tariffs could be above 50%.

Even if the UK remained in the single market, the MPs said crucial EU directives such as those protecting habitats, birds and beaches, would have to be replaced as they are excluded from that agreement. “The government should safeguard protections for Britain’s wildlife and special places in a new Environmental Protection Act,” said Creagh.

A government spokeswoman said: “The UK has a long history of wildlife and environmental protection and we are committed to safeguarding and improving these, securing the best deal for Britain as we leave the EU.”

Vicki Hird, from Sustain, an alliance for better food and farming, said: “MPs have correctly identified a huge risk to the UK farming system and environment from Brexit and new trade agreements. Without environmental safeguards in place, [this] would mean major damage to the natural environment – the soils, pollinators and water – on which farming and everyone depends.”

Sam Hall, at the liberal conservative thinktank Bright Blue, said: “Brexit is an opportunity to improve the UK’s environment. The MPs rightly suggest new legislation could be needed to guarantee existing protections post-Brexit. But a new bill could go further and increase the level of ambition for the natural environment”, for example with tougher pollution controls.

Sam Lowe, at Friends of the Earth, said any changes to environmental protection must be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny and not made via statutory instruments: “No one voted to ‘take back control’ for the UK parliament, only to hand it straight over to a minister, brandishing a red pen, with the power to delete vital nature protections on a whim.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/04/brexit-zombie-legislation-damage-wildlife-farming-mps-warn

Budleigh Salterton cable link – compulsory purchase orders published even though final route choice has not!

Owl has been informed that the FABlink consultation results are still yet to be released (due this month), and so the route in Budleigh that was under consultation should (you would think) not be ready for public announcement. However the compulsory purchase orders have been issued:

http://www.fablink.net/cpo/

Pages 105 to 115 of the first link describes the details of the locations of relevance to Budleigh. It seems to suggest I *tentatively think* that they want to lay the cable along the footpath by the brook (slightly to the West of the Otter, behind the houses on Granary Lane), as opposed to the ‘road route’ along East Budleigh.

And, as a commentator writes:

Hundreds of pages of maps, schedules and legal words to plough through. Does this mean FAB, for example, can compulsorily purchase the Lime Kiln car park in Budleigh, play hard ball, and lease it back to EDDC at “market rates” or are they only seeking access rights? Owl will need to consult the Legal Eagles.

Owl, unfortunately has no eagle friends, legal or otherwise, but it might be sensible for Budleigh Salterton town council to do some (expeditious) research.

Save Clyst St Mary update – November 2016

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

A big thank you for all the emails of support that we have received in the last few days regarding the latest planning application for development proposals for the Friends Provident site. We are currently working our way through this latest planning application. Although we remain open minded to the eventual solution to the site, we currently have grave reservations regarding these proposals for Winslade Manor and the Stables because the developer hasn’t offered any solution to a number of key National Planning policies such as :

-The loss of the leisure facilities (Stables Club) that were closed down at the end of 2015

-The flooding that has continued to occur at the site and the proposals to build houses and industrial buildings in the areas that frequently flood. (As I am writing this email I have just been advised of the closure of the A376 due to flooding!)

-The fact that our village remains unsustainable for such a significant population increase, having only one shop and a pub

-Lack of public transport links and the scale of congestion that already occurs on a daily basis (set to be exacerbated by the poorly considered location to the entrance by our Village Hall)

-The proposed site sits outside of the current approved Built Up Area Boundary

These are just a few of the examples and valid reasons why the proposals won’t enhance our village; worryingly, the proposed scheme has many other areas where we have serious concerns.

We have started writing some template letters of objection which you may want to use. We hope to be able to email them to you within the next week. Moreover, we understand that the Parish Council may be arranging a Public Meeting at the beginning of December to further discuss the planning application. As soon as we get a date and time, you will be informed.

FOUL ODOUR

East Devon District Council’s Environment Department is currently conducting a survey of households within our neighbourhood regarding the odours that were omitted from Enfield Farm and the anaerobic digester. Hopefully, since the last major problem five weeks ago, things have considerably improved. We have been told that this should finally solve the ‘odour issue’ that has annoyed residents for so long.

Exmouth Save our Seafront rally

Campaigners in Exmouth staged a protest march calling for further consultation on controversial seafront redevelopment plans.

The Save Exmouth Seafront group organised the rally on Saturday morning.

It said the peaceful event was held “to express the public’s feelings that their Town Poll request for an independent consultation about the seafront is being ignored by East Devon District Council”. …

… Save Exmouth Seafront recently raised concerns about the escalating costs of the redevelopment, which the council argues will bring long term economic benefits.

Campaign spokeswoman Louise MacAllister said: “SES have been calling for over a year for an independent consultation on the future of the seafront, and have been previously told that it would be too costly.

“Now we hear that EDDC officers are asking cabinet to accept a more than doubling of projected costs for this contentious project from £1.5m, to over £3m. We call on the cabinet to represent the public as they were democratically elected to do so, and ensure that the assumptions and claims made in this report are scrutinised, and that this flawed project is considered in light of evidence rather than an officer’s report based on countless assumptions.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/save-exmouth-seafront-campaigners-stage-protest-march-over-redevelopment-plans/story-29889839-detail/story.html

Very rare grey long-eared bat confirmed in East Devon

Owl wonders where these fellow creatures are roosting and if there are any developments planned nearby. How will we know if ecologists won’t say where they are? It would be very awkward if they forage on the Seaton Wetlands, flying over the green wedge, which developers are still trying to build on.

“Exeter-based company Acorn Ecology shared photographs of a grey long-eared bat, of which there are less than 3,000 in the country. Staff carried out biometric tests on droppings below the roosting mammals to confirm it was the rare species and not the more common brown long-eared bat.

Colin Bonfield, senior ecologist, said: “The bat appears to be using the building as an occasional day roost and a regular night roost and is probably associated with a larger colony somewhere in the locality.

“The South West is a stronghold for bat species and 17 species have been recorded in Devon. In my opinion, the presence of grey long-eared bats in Devon is highly linked to lower levels of light pollution as long-eared bats are one of several light averse species present in Devon.

“Other very important factors include currently favourable agricultural practises, suitably diverse foraging habitat and the presence of suitably managed woodlands and the presence of old buildings and structures that provide suitable roosts.”

The company carries out ecological surveys and impact assessments in support of planning applications. It could not disclose the exact location of the bats.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/rare_bat_discovered_roosting_in_east_devon_1_4772609

Chalk cliffs disappearing at high speed compared to past

East Devon’s chalk cliffs are between Seaton and Beer – perhaps time to look at a different kind of beach management plan.

Study reveals huge acceleration in erosion of England’s white cliffs

“Researchers analysed rocks from Beachy Head and Seaford Head in East Sussex and discovered that the cliff erosion rate over most of the past 7,000 years was just two-six centimetres a year. But the erosion rate over the past 150 years has been much higher at 22-32cm a year. …

Hurst and his colleagues now aim to apply the technique to other parts of the UK coastline, including the stretch at Hinkley Point, the site of a large new nuclear power station.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/07/study-reveals-huge-acceleration-in-erosion-of-englands-white-cliffs

Don’ breathe in if you live near an industrial estate or on a busy road

“The government’s plan for tackling the UK’s air pollution crisis has been judged illegally poor at the high court, marking the second time in 18 months that ministers have lost in court on the issue.

The defeat is a humiliation for ministers who by law must cut the illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide suffered by dozens of towns and cities in the “shortest possible time”.

Legal NGO ClientEarth, which brought the case, argued that current plans ignore many measures that could help achieve this, placing too much weight on costs. On Wednesday Mr Justice Garnham agreed. He also said ministers knew that over-optimistic pollution modelling was being used, based on flawed lab tests of diesel vehicles rather than actual emissions on the road.

The government said it would not appeal against the decision and agreed in court to discuss with ClientEarth a new timetable for more realistic pollution modelling and the steps needed to bring pollution levels down to legal levels. The parties will return to court in a week but if agreement cannot be reached, the judge could impose a timetable upon the government.

Air pollution causes 50,000 early deaths and £27.5bn in costs every year, according to the government’s own estimates, and was called a “public health emergency” by MPs in April.

James Thornton, CEO of ClientEarth, said: “The time for legal action is over. I challenge Theresa May to take immediate action now to deal with illegal levels of pollution and prevent tens of thousands of additional early deaths in the UK. The high court has ruled that more urgent action must be taken. Britain is watching and waiting, prime minister.”

He said the increased action required would very likely include bigger and tougher clean air zones in more cities and other measure such as scrappage schemes for the dirtiest vehicles: “The government will have to be tougher on diesel.”…

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/02/high-court-rules-uk-government-plans-to-tackle-air-pollution-are-illegal?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

EDDC: Can’t tell us what they did – because someone else did it for them and they have no paperwork!

THIS IS HOW EDDC DEALS WITH MANY OF OUR FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS – A MASTERPIECE OF LAME EXCUSES, AVOIDANCE AND POSSIBLY WORSE.

The implication in the correspondence below raises serious questions.

1. EDDC does not appear to check what a third-party has done on its behalf.
2. It does not seem to ask for proof that the third party has done the work.
3. It seems to allow work that needs legal clearance to go ahead on the basis of 1 and 2 above with seemingly no proof that it IS legal.

FIRST YOU MAKE A CLEAR REQUEST:

Dear East Devon District Council,

“Following Cllr Moulding’s statement of today’s date (28.09.16) on BBC Radio Devon, that EDDC had ‘used a badger expert, and applied for the relevant license from Natural England’, in respect of the badgers identified as living on the site of the Jungle Fun and Crazy Golf, on The Queen’s Drive, Exmouth, I would like to request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Environmental Information Regulations 2004, the following additional information:

1. When were badgers first identified as living on the Jungle Fun and crazy golf site?
2. On what date was the ‘badger expert’, Dr. Brown, enlisted by EDDC in respect of the badgers on the Jungle fun and crazy golf site, and what was his brief?
3 – Please provide Dr. Brown’s report pertaining to the badgers on the Jungle Fun and crazy golf site in full.
4. On what date was a license to interfere with a sett applied for with Natural England?
5. Please provide full details of the application made (the original application form and all attached material, and any relevant communications).
6. On what date, if at all, was this license granted?
7. Following the Radio Devon report in which it was stated permission had been given to move the badgers to a new site, please confirm that date on which that has, or will, happen, and any related documentation.

Yours faithfully,”

THEN EDDC GIVES YOU A REPLY ON SOME POINTS – WITH CRUCIAL INFORMATION MISSING ON THE REST – THIS TIME SAYING IT IS BECAUSE ANOTHER ORGANISATION MADE THE APPLICATION ON THEIR BEHALF AND THEY HAVEN’T SEEN WHAT THAT ORGANISATION ASKED FOR OR THE LICENCE THAT ORGANISATION SAYS IT GOT FOR THEM:

[Points 1-3 are answered]

… In respect of parts (4-7) of your request, the application was made on behalf of the council and we do not hold a copy of the application or
licence itself
.”

SO YOU ASK AGAIN – ANOTHER DELAY FOR UP TO 20 DAYS TILL THEY REPLY

“I would like to further request under the FOI act 200 and Environmental Regulations Act 2004:

1 – Who made the application of behalf of the Council.
2 – On what date did they make this application.
3 – As the requested application was made on behalf of the Council I would like to re-request a copy of the original application, as I believe this is ‘information held by another person on behalf of the authority’, which as stated in the ICO report (https://ico.org.uk/media/1148/informatio… ) , is held for the purposes of the FOI act.”

A smell of badger poo somewhere?