“Irwin Mitchell solicitor Alex Peebles, who acted for the claimant, said: ““The quashing of planning permission for these homes is a fantastic result for those members of the community who feel very strongly that the area would have been negatively impacted by their construction. They want to protect the site of special scientific interest and the local listed buildings.”
http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24685:high-court-judge-quashes-planning-permission-over-appearance-of-bias&catid=63&Itemid=31
Category Archives: Environment (local)
Jurassic Coast Environmental Survey – views requested
“The Jurassic Coast’s Environmental Economy: your help needed
We are currently working with our partners at East Devon District Council and in Dorset to find out the economic Impact of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site designation.
Results are looking good so far, but now we need your help,
If you are an East Devon resident we would be grateful if you can spend 5 minutes to answer our residents survey:
https://www.snapsurveys.com/wh/s.asp?k=144463952637
We will be publishing the outcomes of the study in November, so watch this space.
Many thanks
Sam Rose
Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site Manager
s.rose@jurassiccoast.org
01305 228656”
EDDC, Natural England and the Local Plan: it appears the room wasn’t dark enough
The list of responses to the latest iteration of the Local Plan can be found below – many from developers, of course.
Amongst them is this one from Natural England
Those who attended the last set of hearings before the Planning Inspector may recall the slightly worrying image when Mr Thickett suggested that Laura Horner (Natural England) and Ed Freeman (EDDC) should shut themselves in a darkened room until they arrived at a solution on the Habitat Regulation issue, without which the Local Plan cannot be signed off.
The letter from Natural England makes interesting reading – the complain of confusion over the drafting of the EDDC version of what should be in the Local Plan calling it “over-detailed and potentially unclear and requiring substantive rewriting”. They point out that words such as “endorsed by the council” imply greater status for the Masterplan than was intended and point out that they need to clarify their intentions towards Exmouth.
They further point out that the Beer Neighbourhood Plan cannot be progressed until EDDC makes its intentions more clear.
It appears from the letter than EDDC had only one meeting with Natural England on 23 July 2015 and that little appears to have been resolved at that meeting.
Clearly, the room wasn’t dark enough!
Sustainable Transport Checklist
Those (and there are many) battling inappropriate developments in our district might find this publication useful:
Bats don’t matter if there is a plan …
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”:
Anyone else ever heard of that before? And where are its agendas and minutes?
Fracking licenses threaten hundreds of our most important wildlife sites
“Hundreds more of England’s most important wildlife sites are now at risk from fracking after the government opened up 1,000 sq miles of land to the controversial technology, a new analysis has found.
Among the 159 licences issued last month to explore for oil and gas onshore in the UK – likely to include fracking for shale oil or gas – are 293 sites of special scientific interest (SSSI), the definition given to an area protecting rare species or habitats.
According to the RSPB, which compiled the list of SSSIs, the result could be significant damage to the UK’s remaining habitats for rare wildlife and plants.
Martin Harper, director of conservation at the charity, said the government had backtracked on its pledges to protect important habitats. “In February, Amber Rudd [energy and climate change secretary] specifically promised to ban fracking within all sites of special scientific interest, but this promise seems to have been forgotten,” he said.”
Talk: Literature and Landscape of East Devon 19 September, 10 am Budleigh Salterton
TALK by local author, Peter Nasmyth
Saturday 19th September at 10.00 am,
Public Hall, Budleigh Salterton
based on his book
‘Literature and Landscape in East Devon’
PRESS RELEASE
Peter’s stunning photographs and original research were compiled in support of the East Devon Alliance http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk
Tickets (£9) can be booked online at http://www.budlitfest.org.uk, or from Festival Box Office, tel. 01395 445 275, 10am-4pm, Mon-Sat.
Note: EDA was formed as an umbrella organisation for the many campaign groups who believe that East Devon’s exceptional landscape is under threat from overdevelopment. Since the May 2015 elections, 10 East Devon Alliance Independents (from various areas, including Sidmouth and Sidford) now serve as East Devon District Councillors.
Further evidence for the Local Plan and EDDC tries to pass the buck to the National Trust and Woodland Trust for required open spaces
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.
The significance of Dawlish Warren, Exe Estuary and Pebblebed Heaths to Planning in East Devon
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?
Ottery fights up to 30% increase in housing
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
Lack of cohesive coastal climate change policies leave people and infrastructure vulnerable
… “The team conclude that the mixture of decentralised and privatised management of services like rail is “not geared towards” addressing the impact of climate change. They add this will only be made worse if the Conservative Government continues to pay too little attention to the threat posed by climate change.
“Given the fact that the current UK government policy is not oriented towards prioritising climate change adaption and providing local authorities with more resources, this lack of action is not likely to change in the future,” continues Dr den Uyl.
“And given that this decentralised, privatised setting around infrastructure and coastal management applies to other areas in the UK, these areas may face similar challenges.”
Become an Iphone scientist and measure pollution
Cranbrook to become a “health town” to cut NHS burden?
The head of the NHS has had this bright idea and Cranbrook is mentioned as a possible pilot town.
The chosen towns will emphasise active travel, parks, table tennis, more sheltered housing for elderly people, mobile and accessible health services, no fast food restaurants close to schools, GP monitored technology in homes, no kerbs, non- slip pavements and symbolic signs to help dementia sufferers.
Good luck with that one, with a fish and chip shop opening near the school and a row already going on about the school playing fields having no floodlighting making it inaccessible at night and cars parked half-on kerbs because there isn’t enough parking. Not to mention – so far – zero provision for specialist housing for the elderly.
The article mentions that Cranbrook is expected to have 20,000 new homes which seems to imply that all the 17,100 homes claimed as being required in the Local Plan will be sited there along with another 3,000 for good measure.
Source: Sunday Times 30/8/15, page 15
Straittgate Farm Quarry – DCC consultation
Under the latest draft set out by Devon County Council (DCC), Straitgate Farm near Ottery St Mary is one of just two proposed new areas for quarrying.
This site is the subject of a controversial application submitted by Aggregate Industries to extract sand and gravel, which has been met with opposition from Ottery residents and civic leaders.
Now DCC is consulting the public about this for a new Minerals Lical Plan.
The document will eventually replace the existing Minerals Local Plan of 2004 and covers the period up to 2033. Following this process, the plan will be submitted to the Secretary of State, together with all responses. DCC anticipates it will be adopted by the end of 2016.
The consultation runs until Monday, November 16. Visit https://new.devon.gov.uk/haveyoursay/. Residents can also call 01392 383510 or email minerals@devon.gov.uk
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/have_your_say_on_quarrying_plan_1_4210680
Talaton planning refusal will affect many other communities in East Devon
Two planning applications for 10 and 25 houses in Talaton have been refused on appeal. It is best to read the full document (see link below) for how it might affect YOUR community.
Basically, although the Inspector had a LOT to say about how he did not trust EDDC’s figures on 5 year land supply or its planning abilities in general particularly with regard to Cranbrook, the unsuitability of the suggested S106 option of village hall extra parking, the lack of sustainability AND Talaton’s nearness (within 10 km) of the Pebblebed Heath weighed heavily in his decision:
30. From the information in front of me, the Council has not demonstrated that previous under delivery has been accounted for within its five-year supply calculations. Even if the previous under-delivery has been accounted for within the estimated need of 17,100 identified within the SHMA, which is not certain, the way in which the Council have addressed the previous under-supply is not consistent with the aim of addressing it within the first five years, where possible. In the Council’s projection the 17,100 has been split evenly over the plan period, ‘the ‘Liverpool’ method. Whilst the PPG is not prescriptive in stating that any under-deliver must be recovered within the first five years it sets a clear preference for this approach, ‘where possible’. No evidence was presented by the Council to suggest that it would not be possible to recover any previous under-supply over the next five years and the Local Plan Inspector has previously written to the Council to advocate the ‘Sedgefield’ approach with the aim of boosting housing supply.
31. Moreover, I have concerns that the projected delivery rates for the new settlement at Cranbrook are not supported by clear evidence. The predicted completion rate for the two phases of the development over each of the following five years is 467 dwellings per annum. However, the March 2015 HMU identifies that there had been 757 completions between ‘summer’ 2012 and August 2014. It is not clear when development commenced but the published completion rate suggests a figure in the region of 350 to 375 dwellings per year over the two year period. The Council suggested orally at the Hearing that there is evidence to suggest that delivery rates are likely to increase but no firm evidence was submitted to show how the predicted delivery rates had been derived. In effect, those predictions show an increase of approximately 100 dwellings a year at the site, over and above the published rate of completion to date. That rate of delivery is not supported by the evidence presented to me.
…I conclude that the location of the site is such that the proposed developments would result in unsustainable travel patterns resulting in an increase in the use of the private car. The harm resulting from those unsustainable travel patterns would be comparatively greater for the proposed development in Appeal B due to the greater number of dwellings in that scheme. Both proposals would be contrary to the requirements of policy TA1 of the LP and policy TC2 of the ELP, which state that new development should be located so as to be accessible by pedestrians, cyclists and public transport and well related to compatible uses to as to minimise the need to travel by car.
…the proposed car park [for the village hall] is not directly, or even indirectly, related to the impact of the proposed scheme and is not necessary because of it. Thus, the offer to provide the car park is not a matter that I can take into account in reaching my decision, having regard to paragraph 204 of the Framework and regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010). Whether an individual landowner or developer chooses to offer the car park to the Parish Council is a matter for their consideration. It is not a factor that can be taken into account in reaching my decision.
…The appeal sites are within a 10km radius of the Pebblebed Heaths SAC/SPA. The Council have referred to the South East Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy10 (the Mitigation Strategy) which identifies that planned residential and tourist accommodation development within that radius would, in combination, have a detrimental effect on the integrity of the SAC/SPA, as a result of increased recreational pressure within the designated SAC/SPA boundaries. Both main parties agree that mitigation is necessary in order to off-set the harm caused by the proposed developments and clause 3.3 of the s.106 agreements in relation to both proposals indicates that planning permission should be refused in the absence of the proposed mitigation11. Based upon the findings of the Mitigation Strategy I concur with that view.
…Paragraph 7 of the Framework identifies three dimensions of sustainable development, based on economic, social and environmental factors. The Framework identifies that these strands are mutually dependent and should not be considered in isolation. In this case, the village is not in a sustainable location in terms of its proximity to shops, services and employment opportunities. Future residents would be largely reliant upon the private car. That reliance would not foster a move towards a low carbon economy and would be contrary to the environmental dimension of sustainable development.
The full document is HERE13.1832 & 1833.mout
George Osborne’s “rural solutions”
Our summary: more houses and trying to persuade internet providers to connect mote rural areas.
Does it cut the mustard for rural communities: hhhmmm.
Skypark developers not happy about more employment land at Cranbrook – and they are none too keen on Gypsies and Travellers
Some snippets from their objection:
“Build out Rate
The Skypark site was granted outline consent in 2010 for a mix of B1 and B2 uses (06/3300/MOUT) with a significant number of conditions and major package of Section 106 obligations. The reality therefore is that it has taken 5 years to secure the first B1/2 occupier on the site suggesting the site will take at least 25 years to complete
Over Supply and Viability:
Should EDDC propose further employment land this will lead to an overprovision of space in the market. In simple terms, occupiers will go to alternative new greenfield sites instead of locating to Skypark. A key message that SDP wishes to deliver is the fundamental risk that over supply has on the market. Quite simply an over provision of sites will suppress values which in turn renders sites unviable and therefore undeliverable. This will stagnate the delivery of employment floorspace and lead to the loss of occupiers from the
District as sites will not be prepared, or speculative accommodation built. The addition of further land at Cranbrook will therefore further undermine delivery potential and the quality and sustainability of buildings. There is already significant employment land immediately available within the Cranbrook area. It has been demonstrated in several studies commissioned by EDDC that there is a substantial supply of employment land available during the plan period and beyond and therefore there is absolutely no need for further employment land for demand that could be met in a sustainable environment at Skypark.
Gypsy and Traveller Provision:
We note reference is made to provision of Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation within the DPD list of issues. SDP is concerned that if allocation of such provision within Cranbrook is explored then this would need to be considered carefully in terms gva.co.uk of impact on the commercial attractiveness of Skypark given the Council’s own objective of it being a high quality employment development.
.
Who ya gonna call? Pot-hole Buster DCC councillor Stuart Hughes!
According to the “Driving” section of today’s Sunday Times page 7), DCC Councillor Stuart Hughes (Highways portfolio) has trained to act as a Road Warden in Sidmouth.
“If there’s a pothole that people are concerned about then they can give me a call and I can do a temporary fill … “.
he is quoted as saying in the article.
Now, that should come in VERY useful if Sidford Fields is developed into an industrial estate, though he may not have time for the day job!
Planning permission or planning completions: which is most important
Local authorities ( particularly East Devon District Council) are rushing through planning applications and consenting to them at high speed. But what is the point if developers can then drip-feed and cherry-pick which of those houses they build and when? Doing this allows for house prices to be kept artificially high and to ensure that only those houses that make the most profit get built, as this article points out:
Even though there is some evidence that public attitudes to housebuilding are shifting, it is a major achievement to secure approval for a quarter of a million homes through a system that is still largely in the control of local politicians.
As Department for Communities & Local Government minister Brandon Lewis acknowledged earlier this year, the planning system can no longer fairly be accused of stifling necessary development. He told Planning’s national summit at the end of March that “the planning system is delivering and land supply is coming forward”.
Nonetheless, the housebuilding industry is urging the government not to take its foot off the planning system’s accelerator pedal. The Home Builders Federation (HBF) said many of the units identified in the report still had to navigate the remainder of the planning system, a process that “continues to take far too long, delaying work starting on many of the sites”.
Clearly, from the evidence of the Summer Budget and the Productivity Plan, the government is minded to agree. Amongst other measures, it is aiming to introduce automatic permission in principle for housing on brownfield sites identified as suitable, a tougher development management performance regime for councils and new sanctions for councils that fail to produce local plans.
Some of these steps, notably the focus on local plan-making, are welcome. But there is a danger that ministers are focusing too much on permissions, and not enough on completions. The statistics for last year show just over 125,000 completions. While there will clearly be a time lag between an increase in consents and a rise in completions, the statistics suggest that the latter are not growing nearly as fast as the former. Ministers need to take steps to ensure that developers make more use, more quickly, of the good work done by planning authorities.
Richard Garlick, editor, Planning richard.garlick@haymarket.com
http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1358321/ministers-focus-completions-permissions-richard-garlick
East Devon Watch 