The quote from Cllr Susie Bond comes from this post on her blog: https://susiebond.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/local-plan-update-well-sort-of/
But strangely no mention of the Local Plan (nor of the precise costs of EDDC’s planned move from Knowle ) from Cllr Bond’s colleagues representing Sidmouth, in their current leaflet to residents (mentioned on our website yesterday) . EDWatchers can view the leaflet’s two pages here: In Touch Feb 2015 and here In Touch East Devon residents’ survey. Feb 2015
Planning Inspector says 1.91 year land supply, council says 7.51 year supply.
What can you do when even the so-called experts can’t agree! And by such a large amount.
Recall the Inspector suggested October 2014 as a suitable date for EDDC to deliver an amended Draft Local Plan to him for re-examination. Now even October 2015 is looking unlikely.
And contrast the figure of £172,000 spent so far on this project with the £700,000 spent on HQ relocation plans – much of it on the abortive attempt to relocate to Skypark.
Just half of the money spent on Skypark, if redirected to resources to finalise the Local Plan, could almost certainly have had us protected from rapacious developers. A hidden cost of relocation.
Conservative majority EDDC chose to prioritise relocation of its offices over the Local Plan. Remember this at the May 2015 district elections.
Planning application 14/2959 on behalf of Clinton Devon Estate was validated on 16 December but was first spotted on the new EDDC planning web site yesterday. It is an outline application for the construction of 21 dwellings (including 40 % affordable housing) with all matters reserved other than access, on Frogmore Road (aka the Syon House site). This site is on agricultural grade I land within the AONB and to the east of the main road which by-passes the village.
Readers of this blog may recall that earlier in 2014, at the public hearing into the local plan, the EDDC Planning Officer read out paragraph 1 of the NPPF to the Planning Inspector. This is all about encouraging communities to get involved in the planning process. The Planning Officer then went on to say that communities were the best judge of where developments should go.
The people of East Budleigh did have their say in a consultation process during January to March 2014. In considering three potential sites, the people overwhelmingly preferred a brown field site at the village entry to the South by a majority of 68.5%. This is very much in line with NPPF paragraph 111 which says “planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land).”
This is not the site now being put forward. The reason given in the planning statement (5.9) is that compared to other sites originally put forward [this site] is less visually sensitive and better connected to the village centre. Residents may disagree, especially with regard to pedestrian access across the main road to all the village amenities. In other words questioning the site’s sustainability.
NPPF para 116 states that planning permission should be refused for major developments in designated areas [eg AONBs] except in exceptional circumstances. A paragraph that was upheld by the Planning Inspector when he rejected an appeal for development at Badger Close, Newton Poppleford in a decision dated 11 June 2014.
So the planning statement tries to get around this by arguing (5.2) that there is an acute housing land supply problem in East Devon. (Some readers might find this hard to believe). This argument is then used to plead (5.13) that there are clear exceptional circumstances as to why the proposed development is needed, would be in the public interest and should therefore be supported.
East Devon Watch 