As the General Election approaches, Hugo Swire MP will be holding a meeting in Woodbury Village Hall on Friday, 20th February from 6.30 till 8.0 p.m. to discuss planning issues. Is this a first? There could be a full house!
Category Archives: Local Plan
Planning meeting this evening… 05/02/15..reminder
Just a reminder that this evening there is a meeting in the village hall at 7.30pm to discuss the planning proposal to demolish no 16 Clyst Valley Road and build 40 new houses on the land sandwiched between the football ground and the back gardens of houses on Clyst Valley Road. Charlie Hopkins (Expert planning consultant) will be there.
Should anyone need transport please ask. We have several willing volunteers that have offered to ferry residents to and from the meeting.
Hope to see you all later on.
Best wishes
Planning reminder from Save Clyst St Mary
Urgent reminder from Save Clyst St Mary Campaign:
‘Thank you to everyone who has paid their money that was previously pledged. Every penny is gratefully appreciated. Anyone can donate – you simply need to pay your money into the SaveClyst ST Mary account via the village Post Office or if you prefer to do it electronically, into Natwest Bank account: 56-00-49 32633181
Please be aware that there are only forty six letters of objection on the East Devon Council website. We desperately need to get that number over one hundred (at least – the Winslade Park proposal had over two hundred) so please do post or email your objections as soon as possible (remember, the closing date is now only three days away).
If you decide to input your comments directly on to EDDC’s site, do check that the comments actually appear! A number seem to have vanished into cyber world. EDDC is aware of the issue and has requested that anyone who has problems contacts them immediately.
Finally, don’t forget the meeting in the village hall Thursday 5th February at 7.30pm. Charlie Hopkins(Expert planning consultant) will be attending. This meeting will be focusing specifically on the proposal to demolish a house in Clyst Valley Road and build forty houses on the field, currently owned by the Plymouth Brethren, situated adjacent to Clyst Valley Football Club’s grounds.
A big thank you to you all for your continued support. As we have said previously, it’s a big challenge ahead of us – but together, we can do it!’
Councils must speed up adoption of Neighbourhood Plans
This is not a great deal of help in East Devon at present as a Local Plan trumps a Neighbourhood Plan and we have no idea what will be in a final Local Plan and how anomalies will be dealt with:
Government introduces legislation aimed at speeding up the time it takes to designate a neighbourhood plan area
The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Amendments Regulations 2015 amends the existing regulations in particular by ‘prescribing’ the date by which a local planning authority must determine applications for designation of a neighbourhood plan area.
It has been introduced in part in response to the considerable variation in the time local planning authorities take to designate neighbourhood plan areas. While some authorities have taken 45 days to reach a decision, some communities (including parish councils) have had to wait over six months for a decision, with some waiting over a year.
It also adds to the list of documents that a qualifying body must submit to a local planning authority with a proposal for a neighbourhood plan.
A copy of the regulations can be found at
Click to access uksi_20150020_en.pdf
originally blogged at
Task and Finish Forum Budget Scrutiny – suspicion about inadequate resources and Local Plan
Highlights:
(4) that there should be greater transparency in the Council financial information (including the Budget and Outturn report) in detailing the use and costs in obtaining external legal services and external consultancy services;
(5) that consideration be given to increasing the resources, possibly in conjunction with neighbouring authorities, for the further development of a coherent strategy and plan for the maintenance and improvement of the economic well-being of the district. (There was a suspicion that inadequate resources devoted to this activity had, amongst other things actually contributed to extra costs and delay in the production of a convincing local plan)
(7) That an annual audit review of the cost and effectiveness of external consultants is undertaken.
…As regards the wider matters of economic development, the budget has clearly been reduced considerably over the years, particularly on tourism promotion, which is now confined purely to the premises costs of some tourist information centres.
Which committee will scrutinise the fiasco of the Draft Local Plan?
Seems Overview and Scrutiny are loathe to overview and scrutinise anything, especially now the elections are looming. Audit and Governance don’t seem too concerned. about it, now they have been panicked into dealing with the relocation scandal. The Development Management Committee seems content to spend all its time dogging their hats to developers large and small and so has no time or interest, relying in “updates” that update nothing.
No guards and therefore no-one guarding the guards.
Lamentable AND shocking.
“Quite honestly, we have fallen flat on our face” with the relocation project, warns Honiton Councillor, Peter Halse
At last night’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee senior Tory councillor Peter Halse lashed EDDC’s Relocation Project. He said it risked the Council’s reputation for financial prudence. “At the time (the relocation project) looked OK, but now, with hindsight, it looks pretty bad….Quite honestly we have fallen flat on our face!” He was sceptical about Deputy CEO Richard Cohen’s claimed energy savings, and said employees based in the newer 1970/1980s building, “can’t see any reason why they’d want to move”. He concluded “It’s not just the leadership who are responsible. We need to look this thing full in the face. We can get out of this”.
Sidmouth resident Richard Eley, had already mauled Richard Cohen’s assumptions on future energy cost savings which were “way out of line” with those predicted by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). Mr Cohen in response welcomed the fact that auditors would now be taking “a useful look under the bonnet, as it were”. In the meantime a preferred developer had now been selected for a mix of care home and residential properties at Knowle. The planning process would have to be gone through by the developer and further attempts to delay the Knowle sale have been factored in to the costs, he added.
When Independent Cllr Claire Wright expressed concern that EDDC’s planning committee would be under extreme pressure to grant permission to develop the Knowle because the whole relocation project depended on it, she was accused of casting doubt on the integrity of councillors.
Independent Councillor Roger Giles didn’t get a clear answer from Mr Cohen about where his 10% annual energy inflation figures came from, only that they were “conservative”! And there was no answer to Cllr Giles’ second question about how much extra the renovation of Exmouth Town Hall would cost.
Tory Cllr Graham Troman (Vice Chair of the OSC) said the Knowle site was an appreciating asset while refurbished offices or new-build on an industrial estate (e.g. Heathpark) would not recoup the money spent on them.
Tory Cllr Sheila Kerridge urged her colleagues to show transparency and “not to be seen to be doing things underhand….Put the matter on hold until we know the figures”. (echoing Cllr Claire Wright’s proposal voted down a few weeks earlier.
Chair Tim Wood concluded that all would be examined in great detail by the auditors so there was no cause for alarm.
The second burning issue was the suggested reform of Task and Finish Forums.
A proposal from a Democratic Services Officer (advised by CEO Mark Williams?) that the scope of TAFFs should be proposed by officers, seemed pretty well acceptable to the obedient majority – though it is going to be thought about first by one of Cllr Bloxham’s Think Tanks.
The controversial Business TAFF will continue with the same members as before, but without too much embarrassing looking back at relations with the East Devon Business Forum whose demise seemed to be lamented by Deputy Leader Andrew Moulding. He assured everyone that the TAFF will now have perfectly respectable relations with the new East Devon Business Group which genuinely represented the District’s entrepreneurs.It was time to turn the page, he said, and stop attacking the perceived influence of the EDBF on crucial planning decisions. The representative from Axminster concluded,fittingly, that he was not “trying to sweep anything under the carpet!”
EDDC’s “new” website seems to have lost a lot of information
Anyone else finding that EDDC’s “new” website is very thin on content and almost impossible to navigate and search, particularly in the Planning section?
For example, can anyone tell us where the Local Plan Programme Officer’s web page (with all the Documents scrutinised by the Planning Inspector and all the correspondence before and after the examination) has gone to, its former link no longer seeming to work?
Draft Local Plan – update (and not good news)
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.
‘Democracy Day’ today, 20th Jan 2015.
‘Why Democracy?’ was discussed in a wide-ranging and perceptive debate led by Professor Michael Sandel, on Radio 4’s ‘Public Philosopher’ programme this morning.
The current changing mood of the electorate was one of the main topics that arose. Among possible reasons given for this change, were the failure of government to react to public views; a feeling of disempowerment; and the erosion of public spaces (in all senses). Here’s the link to what was said: http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/r4sandel
The importance of proper scrutiny was implied. When EDDC’s Overview & Scrutiny Committee next meet this Thursday (6.30pm at Knowle) they will no doubt bear this in mind.
May election leaves Pennington Point, Sidmouth, hanging in the air – literally
http://www.devon24.co.uk/news/delays_cost_beach_its_political_punch_1_3919489
Beach Management Plan, Local Plan: both sacrificed to relocation plans. Priorities, priorities ….
Clyst St Mary: Swire said to be attending meeting TONIGHT
6.30 this evening (Friday) at Clyst St George and Ebford Village Hall.
Job description for Development Manager
Only one passing reference to the Local Plan!
Plain English Guide to the Planning System
Of interest is that, if we had Community Infrastructure Levy, parishes would receive 15% of it directly (25% if a neighbourhood plan is in force). Our CIL was thrown out bt the Planning Inspector as having a poor evidence base so our developers are absolved from paying this charge.
East Devon: The Developers’ Dream! No wonder it is Development Wild West here!
Click to access Plain_English_guide_to_the_planning_system.pdf
You have £700,000 to spend …
Do you:
(a) put more resources into delivering your local plan as quickly as possible?
or
(b) spend it all on the pre-planning of an abortive HQ move to Skypark (then hurriedly change your mind, needing even more money for your vanity project)?
Had it been (a) the district would have been safeguarded from inappropriate development such as the 900 houses planned for Clyst St Mary (see below).
It is coming up for a year since the Local Plan was inspected. At that time the Inspector envisaged a re-hearing in October 2014. The last time EDDC communicated with him was in that month when they told him they had no idea how long their re- working would take.
In meetings since then we have had the same message: now that EDDC has decided to join forces with Exeter and Teignbridge (which was not a requirement from the Inspector) it will all take so much longer. Until at least after local elections in May 2015. Convenient for developers.
Well, fancy that: South Somerset District Council has similar problems to ours
We share a Chief Executive and now, of course, we share a Monitoring Officer:
Local Plan – officers make decisions? No, no, no!
Does anyone recall seeing this letter, issued before the Local Plan inspection? Officers said they did not have the authority to make amendments to the plan – the Inspector disagreed VERY strongly.
Click to access letterinsp-eddc-insp5.pdf
What are we to make of this?
Leader bombarded with questions from Opposition, at Full Council last night.
The Council’s inefficiency in producing an urgently-needed Local Plan, was targeted in many of the questions. Here is a sample, with the answers received (More to come in following posts) :
Question 2: Procedure Rule 9.2 to the Leader of the Council from Councillor Ben Ingham
Development Management Committee (DMC) Members were told in October to expect an update on the SHMA report, revised housing numbers, and the 5 year supply of housing land at a separate DMC meeting in December 2014. Calculation of the five year housing land supply was reported as “work in progress” to the 21st October DMC. However, none of these three items are on the DMC agenda for December.
It is essential this information is made available before the DMC meeting in January 2015. Six weeks consultation are required before it can be brought back to the DMC and our Full Council. All of this must be finalised and approved before the end of March. I suggest it is highly likely that everything will slow down in March in the run-up to the EDDC elections.
As each week goes by, we are not able to make sound, rational decisions on planning applications without this data. Can I have the Leader’s assurance that we will have comprehensive feedback on the SHMA report, revised housing numbers, and the 5 year supply of housing land at the January 2015 meeting of DMC?
Answer:
The minutes of Development Management Committee in October state that Members were advised that a report setting out proposed changes to the Local Plan and Community Infrastructure Levy would be considered at a special meeting of the committee in December 2014/January 2015. The items that Cllr Ingham refers to are all elements of this report which was never timetabled to be considered on the scheduled December DMC meeting.
Officers are acutely aware of the need to progress the Local Plan and are doing all they can to achieve this. The continuing delays with the SHMA are however outside of our direct control as it is a joint commission with several other authorities and reliant on the work of consultants. Furthermore recent changes to government guidance affecting the Council’s ability to secure planning obligations from small scale developments have created a need to review our affordable housing policies and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) calculations which may lead to further delay but are completely outside of our control. The Special DMC meeting to consider revisions to the Local Plan will be held as soon as humanly possible but may not now be until February.
Whilst this is far from ideal, our Officers and Members of the DM Committee have an excellent track record on appeals as the reality is that none of this prevents sound, rational decisions being made on planning applications as the adopted East Devon Local Plan coupled with the National Planning Policy Framework and its associated guidance provide the necessary policy support to prevent developments that are harmful from being approved.
Question 3: Procedure Rule 9.2 to the Leader of the Council from Councillor Ben Ingham
The emerging East Devon Local Plan.
In two recent Inspectors’ letters it is said that a Local Plan Examination cannot or should not be suspended for more than six months:
Eastleigh Local Plan Examination paras 83-86: “I would be concerned if this timetable required a suspension of more than 6 months. In my experience, longer suspensions make effective resumption of the Examination very difficult for all parties, as evidence becomes out of date.”
Uttlesford Local Plan page 3: “My normal strong inclination would be to ‘keep the Development Plan process on the road” wherever possible in order to keep the planning process moving along with as little disruption as possible. However, the scale of work which the Council would need to undertake to propose and consult upon changes to deal with these matters would be greater than could be completed within the normal maximum six month period of a suspended examination.”
Question: Bearing in mind that it is now ten months since East Devon’s Examination hearings and it will be well over twelve months until the revised Plan is submitted, what is the process going to be?
Answer:
Every Local Plan is different. For every example quoted by Cllr Ingham where inspectors have expressed concern about suspending a plan for more than 6 months there are plans that have been further delayed than our own including some that were submitted for examination as far back as 2012 such as Swindon Borough Council who have only recently completed examination of their plan which was submitted in August 2012 and Wiltshire Council whose Core Strategy was only found sound earlier this month having been submitted for examination in July 2012. It is however best to focus on our own plan and with that in mind we are working on technical evidence gathering with a number of neighbouring authorities and expect to receive conclusions soon. The expectation is that we will report findings and recommended changes to the plan to Council in early 2015. The intent will be that consultation will follow and we would hope to reconvene oral hearing sessions as soon as practically possible after consultation.
3
Question 5: Procedure Rule 9.2 to the Leader of the Council from Councillor Susie Bond
Given recent developments regarding the police investigation into former Cllr Brown, could the Council confirm its commitment to its own whistleblowing policy?
Answer:
Yes – a copy of the policy is attached to this set of questions and answers.
Government admits National Planning Policy Framework not working
The government has produced its long-awaited report on the National Planning Policy Framework. It reveals that even they now belive it is dysfunctional.
Summary:
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has now been in operation for two and a half years. The simplification it has brought to the planning system is welcome and was acknowledged by many witnesses, but it needs more time to bed in, and the Government needs to collect more data, before a full assessment can be made of its strengths and weaknesses.
Nevertheless, the evidence to this inquiry has highlighted a number of emerging concerns: that the NPPF is not preventing unsustainable development in some places; that inappropriate housing is being imposed upon some communities as a result of speculative planning applications; and that town centres are being given insufficient protection against the threat of out of town development.
These concerns point to the need to strengthen, rather than withdraw, the NPPF. We have suggested a number of changes that should be made both to the NPPF itself and to the way it is applied.
First, we must take steps to ensure that the planning system delivers the sustainable development promised in the NPPF. We should ensure that the same weight is given to the environmental and social as to the economic dimension; that permission is only given to development if accompanied by the infrastructure necessary to support it; and that the planning system places due emphasis on the natural environment.
Second, all councils must move much more quickly to get an adopted plan in place: this will give communities increased protection against the threat of undesirable development. We call for a statutory requirement for councils to get local plans adopted within three years of legislation being enacted.
Third, we must address the complex issue of land supply. Provisions in the NPPF relating to the viability of housing land are leading to inappropriate development: these loopholes must be closed. There also needs to be clearer guidance about how housing need should be assessed. In addition, local authorities should be encouraged to review their green belts as part of the local planning process.
Finally, changes should be made to ensure the NPPF gives greater protection to town centres. The internet has changed the way we shop; town centre planning policy must therefore evolve too. We call for an end to permitted development that allows shops and buildings used for financial and professional services to become homes without planning permission, a policy which is undermining the local planning process.
The NPPF makes clear that importance of a plan-led system that delivers sustainable development. We trust that the Government will make the changes we propose to ensure that this principle is met and the NPPF becomes a document in which everyone can have greater confidence.
Christmas rush for ‘East Devon Literature and Landscape’ !
Peter Nasmyth’s book, written in association with East Devon Alliance, is predictably appearing around the Christmas tree in homes around East Devon, and further afield! For those who missed the book launch, but might like a copy, the growing list of places where the book can be found locally, is currently:
The Curious Otter – Ottery St Mary
Otter Nurseries – Ottery St Mary
Paragon Books – Sidmouth
Winstones – Sidmouth
The Card Shop – Budleigh Salterton
Best Books – Exmouth
More about the book here, with SEE INSIDE link, here: https://eastdevonwatch.org/2014/12/14/east-devons-literature-and-landscape-celebrated-in-new-book-created-for-eda/
East Devon Watch 