Under the Community Right to Build, people with a local connection to an area can reqiure a council to identify suitable plots (public or private owned) and the council will have to provide the necessary services such as water, etc. The warning is that self-builders can still be outbid for identified plots by developers.
Sounds like a recipe for disaster … council finds plot, tells self-builder about it, developer snaps it up.
Today there was a reference to a “small” development anticipated at the eastern boundary of East Devon.
Hallam Estate has put in a proposal to build up to 400 properties on green fields in AONB area in Uplyme, adjoining the A3052, near the Park & Ride parking area. This is in East Devon, but it is to allow expansion of Lyme Regis which is in Dorset.
Small? Wonder if Uplyme would agree? We shall see.
The excellent Mr Freeman assked an interesting question of the Planning Inspectorate and received an admirably concise response on the whatdotheyknow website recently:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/local_plans_status#incoming-509480
As a defence for its incompetent handling of the draft Local Plan, EDDC’s explanation begs more questions than it answers.
“Vice chairman of the East Devon Alliance campaign group, John Witherington, said: “East Devon is caught between the hammer of Exeter city and the anvil of West Dorset and should be fighting for every bit of countryside it has rather than allow it to be nibbled away by neighbouring authorities.
“It is disappointing not to see a date by which the council will have laboured day and night to complete it by so it can be returned to the inspector – given that until a plan is approved the countryside is vulnerable.”
Councillors on the council’s Development Management Committee are due to approve the action plan on Thursday, May 8.
Read more: http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/East-Devon/story-21063209-detail/story.html#ixzz310fD7WJx
And he’s only worried about 150 houses! Here in East Devon we are already in the thousands.
Hugo Swire should be VERY worried – though he has hardly been in the UK recently because of his Foreign Office trips so maybe he hasn’t noticed much.
The letter is here:
Click to access cilletterno2.pdf
Whilst it is somewhat technical it would appear that the shopping centre planned for Cranbrook will be affected by this basic disagreement about calculations that will need to be paid by developers.
So what has been EDDC’s response to Mr Thickett’damning criticism of a Local Plan that has been years in the making, and yet is still found to be “unsound”?
The answer lies in the papers for the Development Management Committee (DMC) meeting to be held on 8 May. It’s a disappointing read, studiously avoiding commitment to a target date for the delivery of a revised Local Plan.
The paper acknowledges the need to work closer with West Dorset, to ensure that housing needs are met cross-border. (Too bad it took Mr Thickett to point out that the draft Local Plan seemed to have forgotten to do this.) The paper also volunteers that East Devon will have to help solve the housing needs of Exeter City as well.
However, rather than defend its turf, the turf of a district of which about two-thirds is to be found in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the paper makes no attempt to avoid being caught between the hammer of Exeter and the anvil of West Dorset.
Why is EDDC not fighting its corner? “There is some, though maybe limited scope, to question the appropriateness of continuation of accommodating part of Exeter generated development needs in East Devon and indeed to consider capacity constraints and limitations in the District overall”. Damn right, etc.
The paper continues, “it is not clear how such capacity limits could be modelled and established”. Has anyone tried? A Duty to Co-operate should not mean rolling over and giving away countryside to our neighbours.
Elsewhere there is more to worry about. The villages Development Plan Document is to be put on the back burner, and the methodology used to calculate growth in villages – a blanket 5%, dismissed as too crude a tool by Thickett – is to be re-evaluated. Villages of East Devon beware!
One might have thought that EDDC would be anxious to have monthly updates, a transparent assessment of how close it was hitting housing numbers. Not a bit of it – the best the paper can do is generously offer to review the position not annually, but twice a year. Why not for each meeting of the DMC? Given that EDDC recently approved c.750 houses in Pinhoe and 300 for Gittisham, how much further do we have to go before East Devon can breathe a sigh of relief?
There is one final issue which should give East Devon cause for concern, and that is Thickett’s observation that the Council did not have a Gypsy and Traveller plan in place. Nine sites will have to be found, and none have been put forward by landowners or agents. (Now there’s a surprise!)
While the DMC paper seemingly believes that reconvened hearing sessions for a revised draft could be complete by October – but this is only if significant changes are not required – the vagueness elsewhere in the paper, and the job of work to on the Gypsy and Traveller plan makes this aspiration look very optimistic indeed.
Localism a broken promise?
“The time has come to disperse power more widely in Britain today.”
Do you remember the Localism Bill of 2011 launched with a great fanfare as a key part of the coalition agreement in 2011 with the blessing of the PM and deputy PM? Here are extracts from the introduction to the Governments Guide to Localism published by Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, Minister of State for Decentralisation in June 2011.
“There are, however, some significant flaws in the planning system as it stands. Planning does not give members of the public enough influence over decisions that make a big difference to their lives. Too often, power is exercised by people who are not directly affected by the decisions they are taking. This means, understandably, that people often resent what they see as decisions and plans being foisted on them. The result is a confrontational and adversarial system where many applications end up being fought over.
The Localism Bill contains proposals to make the planning system clearer, more democratic, and more effective.”
“I also hope to see a debate in the wider country – among councils, community groups, volunteers, social activists and many more people – about how they can seize the opportunities this historic Bill represents, and use the rights and freedoms it offers to make a difference in their community.”
These proposals included the following.
Neighbourhood planning
“Instead of local people being told what to do, the Government thinks that local communities should have genuine opportunities to influence the future of the places where they live.”
“Neighbourhood planning will allow communities to come together through a local parish council or neighbourhood forum and say where they think new houses, businesses and shops should go – and what they should look like.”
“These neighbourhood development plans could be very simple, or go into considerable detail where people want.”
Requirement to consult communities before submitting very large planning applications
“To further strengthen the role of local communities in planning, the [Localism] Bill will introduce a new requirement for developers to consult local communities before submitting planning applications for very large developments. This will give local people a chance to comment when there is still genuine scope to make changes to proposals.”
Strengthening enforcement rules
“For people to have a real sense that the planning system is working for them, they need to know that the rules they draw up will be respected. The Localism Bill will strengthen planning authorities’ powers to tackle abuses of the planning system, such as making deliberately misleading planning applications.”
Reform the way local plans are made
“Local planning authorities play a crucial role in local life, setting a vision, in consultation with local people, about what their area should look like in the future. The plans local authorities draw up set out where new buildings, shops, businesses and infrastructure need to go, and what they should look like.”
“The Government thinks it is important to give local planning authorities greater freedom to get on with this important job without undue interference from central government. The Localism Bill will limit the discretion of planning inspectors to insert their own wording into local plans. It will also ensure that rather than focussing on reporting progress in making plans to central government, authorities focus on reporting progress to local communities.”
Is it now a footnote in history?
If you conduct a word search for “localism” in the NPPF you will find it nowhere in the main text only in footnotes 4 and 41, and once each in Annexes 1, 2 and 3!
Left hand and right hand not working in unison?
There has been a concerted effort recently at EDDC meetings to blame us, the public, for failure of the draft Local plan because we are all NIMBYs and forced EDDC (we know not how) to reduce housing numbers against their collective will.
Let us then revisit this statement, made in December 2010, by EDDC’s then Leader, Sara Randall Johnson:
29 December 2010
Ms Randall Johnson said with support from partners including the Exeter Civic Centre and Devon County Council, EDDC is “bucking the national trend” and forging ahead with a reputation for delivering growth.
“I do understand the concerns of some that expansion must not jeopardise our delightful East Devon environment,” she continued. “And I couldn’t agree more. We now believe some of our housing and employment building estimates may have been too high and I have ordered a complete review of this strategy with a report due in the summer.”
District council bosses have refuted claims their Local Plan was not ready to be submitted last August – or the continuing delay in confirming the blueprint means East Devon is set for a developers’ free-for-all
Campaigners last week branded the authority ‘shambolic’ and called for a ‘root and branch reform’.
Councillor Andrew Moulding, East Devon District Council (EDDC) cabinet member for strategic development and partnerships, said: “The inspector’s response to our plan was one that has been replicated across the country.
“A paper produced last month by consultancy Nathaniel Litchfield & Partners (NLP) found that local plans are taking longer to get through the examination process and more are being delayed because of problems over housing assessment.
“Their review of 109 local plans that had been examined since the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) came into force two years ago found that many have effectively stalled because of the NPPF’s requirement for authorities to meet ‘objectively assessed needs’ for housing. The consultancy reported that just 40 of the 109 plans have been found sound, while a quarter of these are subject to immediate or early review, chiefly because of housing issues. Some 15 plans have been withdrawn, with the main reason being the provision of housing. The consultancy also noted that more plans were in difficulty after failing to meet the ‘duty to cooperate’ requirement.
“More than 50 per cent of English local planning authorities outside London have yet to formally publish local plans since the introduction of the NPPF. Inspectors want to avoid future challenges and potential judicial reviews and therefore look for objectively assessed information contained in local plans.”
Cllr Moulding said warnings of a developers’ free-for-all were ‘scaremongering by those who have an agenda of belittling the council’s efforts’. He claimed the council has an ‘enviable record’ when it comes to defending and winning planning appeals.
“Experience shows that our policy of saying ‘yes’ to sustainable development and ‘no’ to over-development is standing us in good stead,” he added. “We remain confident that the latest version of the plan is not too far off being a document that finds favour with the planning inspector, once we have completed the extra work he has requested. In this, we are in the company of a good number of other English local authorities that are working hard to find the right balance between housing demand and quality of life.”
l What do you think?
Email us your thoughts at sidmouth.letters@archant.co.uk.
EDDC refutes campaigners’ Local Plan criticism – News – Sidmouth Herald
And once again, he points to figures apparently having no evidence behind them:
Click to access cilletterno1.pdf
Reminds me of an old saying: “I’m always in the excrement, it’s only the depth that varies”.
A WATCHDOG has criticised City of York Council for failing to make background papers available for public inspection before it launched its draft Local Plan last summer.
The Local Government Ombudsman, giving its provisional view on a complaint about the authority, also said that by not finalising some papers before a meeting, the council had left itself open to allegations of intentionally withholding information from the public.
It has also recommended that the council should finalise background papers before public meetings and make them available for inspection before such meetings in accordance with regulations, and that the council should provide training to relevant staff to ensure they are fully aware of the requirements of regulations.
The complaint was made by local economic development adviser Gwen Swinburn, who on May 14 last year asked to see a report which she considered was a background paper to the Local Plan preferred options.
The Ombudsman said the council told her it was not yet able to share the report but all the supporting documents and studies would be made available on June 5, when the public consultation on the Plan would start.
“It explained that it was finalising and checking some of the studies to ensure the information was organised and presented in a co-ordinated and coherent way,” said the Ombudsman. “The report was then made available on June 5.”
Th Ombudsman said Ms Swinburn claimed that when the background papers were made available in June, it was clear from the dates that some of them had been finalised before April and the council failed to comply with regulation requirements by not making all the background papers available before a cabinet meeting on April 30.
“I consider that, on the balance of probabilities, at least one of the background documents had been finalised before the Cabinet meeting on April 30 and therefore should have been made available for inspection by members of the public,” it said.
“This was administrative fault. I will reconsider this view if the council is able to provide evidence to show that each of the background documents had not been finalised before April 30.”
Ms Swinburn said she had complained to the Ombudsman because she believed there was a growing disregard for democracy at the authority and she was pleased by the provisional view.
Council director Darren Richardson said: “We are looking at the Ombudsman’s provisional comments and will be preparing a response to this soon. Until this has been carried out, we’re unable to add any further comment at this stage.”
The Communities and Local Government Committee has launched a Parliamentary Inquiry into the effectiveness of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and is inviting comment. This is an opportunity to state, however briefly, your views on the planning system and whether it is working properly.
Submissions should be no more than 3,000 words and must be submitted by 5pm on Thursday 8th May 2014. Your comments should be provided in a Word document and submitted online.
The link is here:
It is not appropriate to send comments about specific planning applications or appeals, see guidance on written submissions. We strongly urge you to take this opportunity to comment.
We will be providing our comments to the inquiry and we will publish these on our website in due course.
Sunday Times, Matt Rudd, page 27:
Freedom of Information requests have revealed that Pickles (who must by law decide whether allotments can be sold, has agreed to the sale of 81 out of 83 requests that they be sold for housing development between 2010 and 2013.
Can we really trust EDDC to sort out our 6 year land supply? It isn’t just a case of making a list as seen here:
If so, it should be on the Local Plan Inspector’s correspondence page.
Surely, some acknowledgment and an outline of EDDC’s intentions should have been sent to him by now. Can anyone point us to any correspondence after the initial response from Mr Thickett – who seemed very keen to hear from EDDC as quickly as possible?
East Devon Watch 