So, we build more homes – who then buys them?

According to a report from the National Housing Federation, only an “exclusive members club” will be able to afford houses:

http://www.housing.org.uk/media/press-releases/homeownership-is-becoming-an-exclusive-members-club/

As for “affordable” homes, they should be no more than 80% of the cost of owning or renting a home on the open market.

If a home costs £200,000 and rents for £800 a nonth that would be £160,000 and £660 a month. But if a home costs £400,000 and rents for £2000 a month then that’s £ £320,000 and £1,600 a month. It is not based on what people can afford, just a simple mathematical formula.

So, why are we building more and more expensive properties in East Devon?

More weasel words?

A report, by the IPPR North think-tank, calls for a ‘metro mayors’ for city regions, and would give greater powers to vary taxes to local councils.

Eric Pickles said:

“The Coalition government has delivered significant devolution of power and finance to local communities and there is real scope to go further in England.

“However, localism in England should be about devolving power to the lowest appropriate level – down to councils, to neighbourhoods and to individuals. There may be some role for combined authorities on a strategic level to promote economic development and transport, but there is a real risk they will suck power upwards away from local councils and local taxpayers.

“Nor should localism be a fig leaf for hitting hard-working people with a new range of municipal stealth taxes. Creating new taxes, more politicians and new tiers of local administration is not the answer – the starting point should be increasing local democracy and local accountability.”

Er, what about localism not actually working in any way, shape or form – where do we go then?

Surrey group starts new political party in response to planning issues

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/guildford-green-belt-group-plans-7352422

RIP East Devon Business Forum Task and Finish Forum

The Forward Plan for the EDDC Overview and Scrutiny Committee no longer mentions the reconvening of the TAFF which was to have investigated the influence of EDBF on the (non) delivery of the Local Plan.

The CEO squashed it, delaying it until after submission of the draft Local Plan (though this was never discussed or agreed at any public meeting).

Now it has been airbrushed out of history.

Why?

If not agriculture: what?

“A disgraced former councillor is seeking a ‘certificate of lawfulness’ for his Ottery St Mary farm house – after breaching a planning condition for more than a decade.

Graham Brown, who is also a past chairman of the controversial East Devon Business Forum, is applying on the basis he has not been using the house to conduct agriculture from – a condition of the original planning permission.

In March last year, former Feniton and Buckerell councillor Mr Brown resigned his seat after he was caught on camera boasting that he could secure planning permission as part of his professional work as a planning consultant.”

Which begs the question, given that his planning consultancy Grey Green Planning Ltd (incorporated coincidentally 10 years ago in 2004) isn’t big enough to merit full public accounts – what exactly hAS he been doing all these years?

If he wasn’t engaged ” in agriculture” why was he the National Farmers Union representative on the East Devon Business Forum?

This source implies that he may have had a holiday cottage business or businesses:

http://companycheck.co.uk/director/901546332

If so, why did he not declare these interests, particularly when he chaired the EDDC Local Development Framework (aka Local Plan) panel – especially as it visited many tourism venues such as Crealy and Sandy Bay ( in secret) to discuss their inclusion in the Local Plan – both for employment land and housing development?

Initial source: http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Disgraced-councillor-seeks-make-Ottery-St-Mary/story-22898229-detail/story.html

Campaign for the Protection of Rural England and the 5-year land supply fiasco

…..“We believe our first target should be to mobilise public opinion to persuade the government to allow sites with planning permission to be included unconditionally in the estimate of the five year housing land supply.

Currently, if at any stage it can be shown that a residential site with planning permission has not been, or could not be, developed within the five year time limit, the site will immediately be removed from the estimate of the five year housing land supply. Local authorities are finding that, as they continue to grant planning permissions which then are stalled, their supply of housing land gets ever smaller. This contributes to their eventually falling victim to the five year housing land supply rule, thereby losing the ability to prevent housing development on sites which under the Local Plan were never intended for housing development.

The real problem is the five year housing land supply rule, but, as a first step, let us get a fairer way of estimating the housing land supply itself, viz. have sites with planning permission qualify for unconditional inclusion in the estimate of the housing land supply. That is politically achievable in the short term – it would require merely a change to Note 11 which qualifies par. 47 of the NPPF in which the rule is specified. So please, everyone start campaigning for that!

http://www.cprelancashire.org.uk/campaigns/housing-and-planning/housing/the-issues/item/2144-five-year-housing-land-supply

Rural England? Pull the other one

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2747279/New-home-surge-catastrophic-Face-rural-England-change-forever-27-000-houses-ahead-built-greenfield-sites-despite-ferocious-local-opposition.html

On message or not?

The Western Morning News has recently carried the story that Westcountry cities of Exeter and Taunton were among 40 identified for massive expansion by David Rudlin, an urban designer who scooped the Wolfson prize, the second-biggest economics prize after the Nobel.

His award-winning proposals, which earned him £250,000, included circular developments, with parks and allotments, of up to 150,000 people per town.

Mr Rudlin argued models pioneered in Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Germany should be adopted by Britain which could “take a confident bite out of the greenbelt”.

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Garden-City-plan-double-size-Exeter-Taunton/story-22883683-detail/story.html

But here is Housing Minister Brandon Lewis’ response to Wolfson Prize:

“We are committed to protecting the green belt from development as an important protection against urban sprawl – today’s proposal from Lord Wolfson’s competition is not government policy and will not be taken up.

Instead, we stand ready to work with communities across the country who have ideas for a new generation of garden cities and we have offered support to areas with locally-supported plans that come forward. But we do not intend to follow the failed example of top-down eco-towns from the last administration. Picking housing numbers out of thin air and imposing them on local communities builds nothing but resentment. This government has abolished regional quangos’ role in planning – instead, we have empowered elected local councils to determine where new homes should and shouldn’t go.”

Picking housing numbers out of thin air and imposing them on local communities builds nothing but resentment. Hmmm!

Are our local Conservatives “on message” with their Conservative Minister?

Gittisham – the less bad news, though it’s bad enough

Local MP Neil Parish, bewildered by the Gittisham planning application in its earlier stages, had already arranged for it to be called in for decision by Secretary of State Eric Pickles even before the EDDC latest decision.

This will be a real test of so-called “sustainability in the National Planning Policy Framework: a reserve site if there had ever been a local plan, access by one narrow country road constrained by a bridge, reliance on cars to get to shops and other facilities, real worries that doctors and education establishments cannot cope, on the direct boundary of an AONB. The pill sugared by the “promise” of social housing which, as we know, disappears from successful planning applications like morning mist in high summer in East Devon.

And all totally avoidable if we had in place the Local Plan (and Community Infrastructure Levy) that EDDC has been “working on” since 2007.

Another planning application that is left to the local community (and its concerned MP) to fight thanks to EDDC’s officers and councillors.

Now you see it, now you don’t …

EDA member Paul comments on the nonsensical and contradictory EDDC double-think…. this is his personal reflection.

“Is it just me or do others find the contradictory messages sent out by EDDC completely nonsensical (or perhaps from cloud-cuckoo-land)?

In this week’s Pullman’s View From Honiton

http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/launch.aspx?pbid=03a901df-0b77-4e35-90e6-93ca8d117094

we have:

* Two similar articles about the lack of a Local Plan (pages 3 “Council criticised for delays to plan” and page 4 “Council leaders must ‘get a grip’ on local plan”);

* An article about the 300 homes between Honiton and Gittisham (page 6 “Decision on new homes expected”)

From the first of the two articles about the Local Plan, “an EDDC spokesperson said that the council still had the power to prevent development of unsuitable sites. … ‘The lack of a five-year housing land supply in effect means that we cannot refuse housing developments simply because they are outside the built-up area boundaries that define the extent of our settlements. The majority of our settlements are adjacent to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Green Wedges and other designations that restrict development anyway and these designations still apply anyway with equal strength regardless of whether we have a five-year land supply or not.”

Yet the 300 homes proposed in Honiton are EXACTLY THAT – adjacent to an AONB – and the development was initially approved despite this (and despite access issues and a illogical report from the county council’s Highways officer) and has been called back for review because of the strength and pressure of local opposition.

So the statement from the EDDC spokesperson (should we think this was written or approved by council leader Paul Diviani or Chief Executive Mark Williams?) is not backed up by the facts – and this is not the first time as their annual report is a masterpiece of spin and economies with the truth.

It seems to me that when these sorts of obviously contradictory statement get published in the same newspaper, it just makes EDDC look stupid / incompetent / poorly led / two-faced / full of **** / lying / away with the fairies / one sandwich short of a picnic (but judge for yourself and select the adjectives you like or add your own).”

Community Infrastructure Levy – what’s bigger than an omnishambles?

Megashambles? Nuclearshambles? Whatever it is, we have it.

Take a look at this letter from EDDC to the Planning Inspector:

Click to access lettertoinspector290814cil.pdf

The Planning Inspector, when he threw out the draft Local Plan also threw out EDDC’s attempt at setting a Community Infrastructure Levy. Useless figures in the draft Local Plan meant no confidence could be placed in the figures for CIL.

If you are a councillor, how can you hold your head up in public and admit that this has been allowed to happen on your watch – bearing in mind that the Act that brought in the need to set a Levy came into being in 2008:

“The Planning Act 2008 provides a wide definition of the infrastructure which can be funded by the levy, including transport, flood defences, schools, hospitals, and other health and social care facilities. This definition allows the levy to be used to fund a very broad range of facilities such as play areas, parks and green spaces, cultural and sports facilities, district heating schemes and police stations and other community safety facilities. This gives local communities flexibility to choose what infrastructure they need to deliver their development plan.”

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6313/1897278.pdf

So, now S106 payments have been tightened up to exclude those payments that should be covered by CIL, our developers get a double bonus: build anywhere and don’t pay for the infrastructure that the development should have – such as flood defences, for example. No levy, no obligation.

And what does ” further assessment in respect of Cranbrook and its future development” mean?

Do local people really grasp what a terrible mess we are in?

Officer “naked amidst the rubble” of EDDC’s Local Plan?

Some thoughts sent to EDA from a local correspondent:

‘Information gradually drips from EDDC regarding the Local Plan and the details of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment ( SHMA ). It seems that the SHMA is recommending a more modest housing allocation for East Devon. Many commentators at the time of the Local Plan Panel advocated lower housing numbers, as did EDDC’s consultants. Those commentators appear to have been vindicated by the draft recommendations of the SHMA.

Whilst, everyone told EDDC at the Local Plan Panel that their housing provision was excessive, particular opprobrium was directed at the employment land allocation, which all agreed was absurdly high. And, of course, based in part upon hopelessly miscalculated commuting numbers, and the inexplicable exclusion from the employment numbers of the Inter Modal Freight Facility, since purchased by Sainsburys.

We are now told, bizarrely, that EDDC is arguing for an increase in the SHMA housing allocation to reflect the huge employment land allocations that they have made. Workers will have to be housed. Previously they argued the reverse: that a huge employment allocation was necessary to employ the workforce generated by their housing numbers! An absurdly spiralling argument that will only serve to devastate the countryside of East Devon, and place enormous strain upon our infrastructure and services.

Clearly, the whole edifice of the Plan has collapsed, and Matt Dickins is standing naked amidst the rubble.

The solution is obvious: the employment allocation within the Plan has to be substantially reduced. This can be easily achieved by incorporating the Sainsburys site into the calculations, and by correcting the commuting errors. Such a move would transform the Plan, making sense of the housing numbers, and providing a way forward that would be acceptable to all sides.

In particular, this would ensure the removal of the highly controversial Sidford allocation, which has attracted more opposition than any other component of the Plan.

The need to remove Sidford from the Plan is greater than ever, given the warped logic with which EDDC has responded to the SHMA. If more housing is needed to ‘feed’ the District’s employment sites, then Sidmouth is threatened with a big increase in its housing allocation. After all, we have only 70 unemployed, and Sidford is intended to accommodate 1400 jobs. Where are the workers to be housed? ‘

EDCC finally updates the Planning Inspector on draft Local Plan “progress”

…. a delay in production. This is principally due to the collective belief of the five SHMA authorities that the full objective assessment of need isn’t yet fully evidenced. Officers of the commissioning authorities have agreed what needs to be done and are in the process of quickly confirming this with the consultants.”

So there you are – 3 months after the last letter where Mr Thickett said he anticipated reconvening his examination in October/November 2014 they have “agreed what needs to be done” and will, eventually, talk to (that dreaded word) consultants. But summer 2015 (after the next local elections) is now the contemplated date for adoption IF ALL GOES WELL – hmm.

Let’s just pray that the cinsultant isn’t in bed with (sorry, embedded) at EDDC!

And, meantime, development just about everywhere continues …. no change there.

Click to access lettertomrthickett-220814.pdf

East Devon Alliance response to EDDC Deputy Director Richard Cohen’s press release and some background information

The EDDC Press Release is linked in the post below.

EDA Response:

“The East Devon Alliance notes with disappointment that the recent Briefing for Editors by EDDC does nothing at all to address the issues that really matter. EDDC is still unable to give a date for delivery of the Local Plan and the SHMA, relying instead on patronising assurances that all will be well. The crucial Local Plan, promised for two years ago, now seems unlikely to be agreed before next summer. How much more vulnerable East Devon countryside will be lost while the Council dithers?”

And if anyone wishes to reassure themselves that these are not new problems, please read pages 10 to 21 of the document below:  a damning report by the Planning Advisory Service in 2009, commissioned by EDDC when they realised that their first Local Plan project was not going to plan:

PAS report 2009

Also refer to a post on the Sidmouth Independent News of 31 January 2013 which identified many of the issues brought up by Mr Thickett, the Planning Inspector, when he threw out the latest Local Plan in March 2014:

Interesting that the potential problems with the 5 year land supply were all highlighted HERE [Note this reference has since been removed from the EDDC website] in July 2009 in the report of a Task and Finish Forum on 5 year land supply and that everything negative that was predicted in this document has come to pass.  Here are a few extracts:

1. Our assessment of our District wide figures shows that we have only just over five years availability. An Inspector at a planning application appeal could take the view that this is close enough to the five year threshold to side with an applicant/dismiss our arguments.
2. The District wide five year figure is based on our assessment and assumptions we have made. A developer might challenge these and come to a different conclusion (i.e. that land supply falls under five years) and persuade an Inspector that his/her evaluation is the more accurate.
3. Circumstances change and assessment/s done at the present time (and initially in 2008) can and will be out of date in the future.

4.  In the past we had intentionally split the District in to two, 1. the West End and 2. the Rest of East Devon. ….. It is now considered, however, that it is more appropriate to have a single 5 year housing figure for ACROSS THE WHOLE DISTRICT. This will give the Council the ability to deliver housing outside the West End which will encompass not only the Towns but villages too.

 

 

 

Back in the EDDC ….

The latest outbreak of foot in mouth disease to hit the EDDC – turmoil surrounding the absence of a Local Plan and Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) – has seemingly roused from his slumbers Deputy Chief Executive Richard Cohen. In a Press Release – er, sorry,

SHMA briefing for editors and members 27 Aug final

he provides a guide to recent events that might just as well have been subtitled ‘Everything is Under Control – Honest!”.

Readers will be fascinated to learn that, while the draft Local Plan envisaged 15,000 more homes for East Devon and recent independent research estimates a figure closer to 11,358 …. this is not enough for the economic powerhouse that is East Devon. In keeping with Cllr Paul Diviani’s interview on Radio Devon the other day – a contribution composed chiefly of stumbling ineptitude, the only incontrovertible fact being that he refused twice to answer the question when the Local Plan might be ready – the implication would appear to be that EDDC is hellbent on allowing as many houses on the East Devon countryside as it can get away with. Hence the ‘Briefing for Editors’ writing evangelically about the “explosion of activity .. at the Growth Point” where “new businesses can be expected to move into sites like SkyPark and Exeter Science Park”. That’d be the same Growth Point where Sainsburys was going to build a distribution centre creating hundreds of jobs, only to pull out earlier this month, right?

Consultants should have been putting together data to enable the SHMA to have been all but finished by this stage. But doubting Thomases will be reassured by Mr Cohen’s assurance that “our consultants will now continue with the work required to fully evidence housing need into the future.” Um, “now continue”? So what have they been doing previously? Knitting? And just when will the SHMA finally see the light of day?

The document ‘Briefing for Editors’ belongs more to the days of Pravda than the Knowle. Next up, expect a statement from Mr Cohen that EDDC can look forward to record tractor production and grain harvest in 2015.

DMC meeting: a member of the public reports – CEO Mark Williams told to “get a grip”

“EDDC Chief Executive Mark Williams was bluntly told by a Tory councillor to get a grip on his planning department’s “unacceptable level of performance”.

The barb came from Cllr Mike Allen at today’s Development Management Committee which was given a “progress” report on the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) which Planning Inspector Anthony Thickett ordered the Council to conduct following his rejection of the Local Plan earlier this year. Originally it was supposed to be completed in June

Several other councillors were angry that the assessment of how many houses the district needs was proceeding at snail’s pace, and will not be ready until next year, implying that the Local Plan cannot be re-submitted until after the 2015 Local Elections.

Independent councillor Ben Ingham said EDDC “lacked a coherent strategy and a timetable for completion” of this crucial research. As a result with no Local Plan in place, it was “open season in the Devon countryside” for developers. He concluded, “It’s a shame that this work was not tackled three years ago.”

The obedient, loyal majority of DMC members were acutely embarrassed by all this, and rapidly passed Sidmouth councillor Peter Sullivan’s motion to “move on”!

PS. Mike Allen has been unflattering before about Mark Williams who was his boss when Allen was a senior officer at South Somerset District Council. At last Summer’s full Council Meeting which discussed the Local Plan, the councillor for Honiton said Williams didn’t understand the National Planning Policy Framework! As a former chair of the Local Plan Panel he speaks with some authority.

Miscellany

From a correspondent:

Two other costs of relocation: the officer time expended on the move is not being costed – £2 million? Richard Cohen doesn’t come cheap. And more importantly, the location of Skypark will mean that the make-up of the workforce will chance dramatically, and is likely in the future to be drawn from outside the District. Exeter mainly, but also Taunton and Newton Abbot/Torbay. This will mean that between £5 and £7 million per annum in wages will be sent outside the District.

Re the Bucks proposition (see post below) and DCC’s proposal 4 (?) years ago. The big problem with the DCC proposal was that they wanted parish councils to be only part elected, with several members being appointed. This would mean the local police officer, nurse and fire officer, unelected, determining planning applications in your street. No thanks. This was a big flaw and lost the confidence of a lot of people. A genuine fresh attempt by DCC and passing power down to local Parish councils in the spirit of localism would be very popular right now. If the Parish councils had power people would stand for them.

And finally, this quote from the blog of Councillor Susie Bond on this afternoon’s DMC meeting we can’t wait for the audio tape of this precis:

“Chair, Cllr Helen Parr, pointed out that the Local Plan was ready as far as EDDC was concerned at the Examination in Public earlier this year, but that it was the Planning Inspector who had asked for more evidence on housing numbers.”

Work that one out!

Today’s DMC meeting described by one councillor as “tetchy”

See this report by Feniton Councillor Susie Bond about this afternoon’s DMC where it seems only councillors NOT in the AONB were upset about the Local Plan delay.

They voted to “note” the report which basically means throwing up their hands and saying ” there’s nothing we can do but wait and see”.

http://susiebond.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/tetchy-meeting-to-receive-report-on-delay-in-housing-numbers/

Local Plan : The ” duty to co-operate” – easy peasy!

EDDC has said that our Local Plan is held up because they have to co-operate with other councils and authorities in the “greater Exeter” area, naming Exeter City Council, Mid Devon District Council, Teignbridge District Council and Dartmoor National Park Authority.

This should be made easier by the fact that former EDDC Deputy Director and Head of Regeneration, Kareem Hassan is now Chief Executive of Exeter City Council.

Stephen Belli, a former Senior Planning Officer at EDDC, is now Director of Planning at Dartmoor National Park Local Plan adopted in July 2013, so all its figures available:

http://www.dartmoor.gov.uk/planning/pl-forwardplanning/pl-localdevframework/pl-development_management_and_delivery_development_plan_document

That should help to get things off to a quick start, EDDC, Exeter and Dartmoor senior planners having worked together for several years.

Oh, and the Teignbridge Local Plan was adopted in May 2014 so their up-to-date figures are there for everyone to see, which also makes things easier:

http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/planteignbridge

Oh, and lookee- here: Mid Devon’s Local Plan was also found sound with some modifications in May 2014

http://www.middevon.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=20157&p=0

Hold up, what hold up?

Local Plan delay … some perspectives

An excellent article in this week’s Sidmouth Herald which does not just regurgitate the EDDC apology-for-a-press-release on the latest delay to the draft local plan, now not expected until at least summer 2015.

It points out that the delay means a total of at least 4 years without any locally-set building limits, instead relying on a “one size fits all national policy”.

And noting that the delay (and the developer free-for-all) could influence how residents vote in the next local elections in May 2015.

Recall that EDDC wasted at least three years between 2008 and 2011 on its initial Local Plan meetings (held in secret and with secret agendas and minutes) chaired by disgraced ex-councillor Graham Brown* (who also chaired the developer-heavy and 100% funded by EDDC East Devon Business Forum at the same time).

The council “Panel” of 2008-2011 spent a large amount of its time visiting sites owned by EDBF members whilst EDBF spent most of its time rubbishing council-funded research by 2 sets of consultants on “employment land” and successfully managing to persuade the council to accept their much higher figures when many members stood to gain from the said increase.

The current council had to convene yet another panel in 2011 and had to start from scratch again. The Planning Inspector threw out their report in March 2014, citing out of date figures and lack of vital information.

* Disgraced ex-councillor Brown also ran a planning consultancy in the are and was exposed in a Daily Telegraph front-page headline article in March 2013 article saying that if he could not get planning permission in the area then no-one could but that he did not come cheap. He resigned soon after the story was published. He had been EDDC Conservative councillor for Feniton, a by-election then subsequently won by Independent Councillor Susie Bond.