Category Archives: Local Plan

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Mar 2017

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Cavanna Homes, Clinton Devon Estates, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Independent Councillors, Local Plan, Newton Poppleford, Planning System

EDDC Local Plan not fit for purpose as developer (and Clinton Devon Estates) challenge succeeds at Newton Poppleford

“Cavanna Homes already has outline permission for the site off King Alfred Way, but East Devon District Council (EDDC) refused its reserved matters proposals due to a lack of ‘pepper-potting’.

The Planning Inspectorate has overturned the decision, arguing the authority’s Local Plan policy – intended to encourage integration between market-rate and ‘affordable’ homes – lacks ‘substantive evidence’ on its specific requirements.

In his report, inspector Andrew Dawe said Cavanna Homes, in a joint application with Pencleave 2, had modified the distribution of the 16 ‘affordable’ homes in a way that was materially different from a previous application.

He said two sheltered housing providers were opposed to ‘pepper-potting’ and supported clustering to cut costs.

As a result, Mr Dawe said he was satisfied that an acceptable level of integration could be achieved and moved to approve the reserved matters application.

District councillor Val Ranger previously argued the importance of getting this ‘major development right’.

Responding to the decision, she said: “This just shows the Local Plan is not worth the paper it’s written on. The social housing is not dispersed throughout the site. This will only encourage [landowner] Clinton Devon Estates to continue to lobby the Government that they should be able to build anywhere in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.”

An EDDC spokeswoman said: “It is unfortunate that the inspector has overturned the council’s decision on this matter, however, the extent to which affordable homes should be mixed in with market housing within a site is a grey area in planning. While the decision does not lead to the level of integration that we had hoped to achieve on this site, it is good that the inspector accepted the principle of what we were trying to achieve, and it does at least provide some clarity over what inspectors consider acceptable to guide consideration of other schemes in the district.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/official_overrules_decision_on_40_homes_in_newton_poppleford_1_4929184

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Consultation, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Greater Exeter, Land banking, Land Supply, Local Enterprise Partnership, Local Plan, NPPF, Planning System, Spin

Government response to petition – “Give communities back the right to decide where houses are built.”.

OWL SAYS: if you believe this, you will believe anything. Have we been consulted about where our Local Enterprise Partnership is going to build extra houses? No. What say do we have about extra houses for Greater Exeter? Almost none. Do (favoured) developers get just about anything and everything they ask for in East Devon? Yes, they do.

Truly we live in a parallel universe to the government!


“Local communities are not forced to accept large housing developments. Communities are consulted throughout the Local Plan process and on individual planning applications.

Read the response in full

The National Planning Policy Framework strongly encourages all local planning authorities to get up-to-date Local Plans in place as soon as possible, in consultation with the local community. Up-to-date Local Plans ensure that communities get the right development, in the right place, at the right time, reflecting the principles of sustainable development. Through the White Paper we are ensuring that every part of the country produces, maintains and implements an up-to-date plan, yet with the flexibility for local areas to decide how to plan in a way that best meets their needs.

A wide section of the community should be proactively engaged so that Local Plans, as far as possible, reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable development of the area, including those contained in any neighbourhood plans that have been made.

The Framework recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. That is why our proposals are focussed on development in built up areas.
We are also absolutely clear that Green Belt must be protected and that there are other areas that local authorities must pursue first, such as brownfield land and taking steps to increase density on urban sites. The Government is committed to maximising the use of brownfield land and has already embarked on an ambitious programme to bring brownfield land back into use.

We believe that developers should mitigate the impacts of development. This is vital to make it acceptable to the local community and to addresses the cumulative impact of development in an area. Both the Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 agreements can be used by local planning authorities to help fund supporting infrastructure and address the cumulative demand that development places on infrastructure. Through the White Paper, the Government announced that it will examine the options for reforming the existing system of developer contributions to see how this can be simplified, with further announcements at Autumn Budget 2017.

The £2.3billion Housing Infrastructure Fund will deliver up to 100,000 new homes by putting in the right infrastructure, in the right place, at the right time. We expect the fund to be able to deliver a variety of types of infrastructure necessary to unlock housing growth in high demand areas.

There is nothing automatic about grants of planning permission where there is not yet an up-to-date Local Plan. It is still up to local decision-makers to interpret and apply national policy to local circumstances, alongside the views of the local community. Applications should not be approved if the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits; or if specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted.

Communities are also able to make representations on individual planning applications and in response to most appeals by the applicant against a local authority decision. Interested parties can raise all the issues that concern them during the planning process, in the knowledge that the decision maker will take their views into account, along with other material considerations, in reaching a decision.

We therefore do not believe a right of appeal against the grant of planning permission for communities is necessary. It is considered that communities already have plenty of opportunity to have their say on local planning issues, and it would be wrong for them to be able to delay a development at the last minute, through a community right of appeal, when any issues they would raise at that point could have been raised and should have been considered during the earlier planning application process.

Department for Communities and Local Government”

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/177333

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Feb 2017

Posted under

Developers/ Development, Land Supply, Local Plan

5 year land supply test case in Supreme Court

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30149%3Athe-nppf-heads-to-the-supreme-court&catid=63&Itemid=31

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Consultation, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Environment (local), Greater Exeter, Infrastructure, Land Supply, Local Plan, Planning System, Sustainability, Transparency, Transport (local)

Greater Exeter Strategic Plan consultation – only one public meeting to discuss implications for East Devon

NOTE THAT, UNLIKE THE EMAIL TO EDDC COUNCILLORS (see earlier post) WE ARE NOT BEING ASKED IF WE WANT TO PUT FORWARD SECRET LAND HOLDINGS – THOUGH NO DOUBT THE TAXMAN WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IF YOU DID!

THE BIGGEST PLANNING ISSUE TO HIT EAST DEVON SINCE THE LOCAL PLAN AND YOU MUST TREK TO HONITON ON 8 MARCH IF YOU WANT TO HAVE YOUR SAY. THAT’S IT – ONE MEETING IN ONE PLACE.

DO YOU RECALL BEING ASKED IF YOU WANTED TO BE PART OF GREATER EXETER? OWL NEITHER!

“Greater Exeter Strategic Plan Consultation: Issues

The local authorities of East Devon, Exeter, Mid Devon and Teignbridge in partnership with Devon County Council are working together to prepare a Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP). This formal statutory document will provide the overall spatial strategy and level of housing and employment land to be provided up to 2040. Please visit http://www.gesp.org.uk for more information.

Engagement with stakeholders and communities will be critical to the success of the Plan. At this first stage, the authorities are consulting on an initial ‘issues document’ which, after setting out some background information, looks to explain the scope and content of the plan as well as describing the key issues facing the Greater Exeter area. This early stage of consultation is designed to stimulate debate and the local planning authorities are seeking your views on the scope and content of the plan as well as the key issues facing your area.

A number of other associated documents are also being consulted on:

Draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report:

· The Draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report is the first stage of work in undertaking the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) for the plan. This process is used to assess the sustainability of the plan content as it develops.

Statement of Community Involvement:

· The joint Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) sets out the approach for consultation in the GESP. The SCI sets out the way in which we will be engaging with communities and other interested parties throughout the process.

The consultation will run from 27 February 2017 until 10 April 2017. To view the consultation material and to make your comments please visit http://www.gesp.org.uk/consultations/issues/.

Alternatively, paper copies of the consultation document are available to view at your local library and Council Office.

A series of exhibitions are being held during the consultation period in the following locations:

Honiton: Mackarness Hall, High Street, EX14 1PG – Wednesday 8 March 2017, 2pm-8pm

Tiverton: Mid Devon District Council Office, Phoenix House, Phoenix Lane, EX16 6PP – Wednesday 15 March 2017, 2-8pm
Exeter: The Guildhall, High Street, EX4 3EB – Thursday 16 March 2017, 2-8pm
Newton Abbot: Old Forde House, Brunel Road, TQ12 4XX – Thursday 23 March 2017, 2- 8pm

A ‘call for sites’ has also been arranged to run alongside the consultation. This is a technical exercise which allows interested parties to submit potential sites for development to the Local Authorities. The sites are then assessed to consider whether they are suitable for possible inclusion in the plan. Further information is http://gesp.org.uk/call-for-sites/.

If you need further information please visit the website, email GESP@devon.gov.uk or contact your Local Council using the phone numbers below:

East Devon: 01395 571533
Exeter: 01392 265615
Mid Devon: 01884 234221
Teignbridge: 01626 215735

As there are four Councils contacting their stakeholders for the consultation and call for sites, you may receive duplicate letters/emails. Please accept my apologies if this is the case.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Feb 2017

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Greater Exeter, Local Enterprise Partnership, Local Plan

2+ 2 equals … er … run that past me again … a tale of big fleas and little fleas

“Big fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite ’em,
And little fleas have smaller fleas, and so ad infinitum”

53d3e220-4137-4fcb-8841-05890f257f35-11495-00000a458476e1de_tmp

EDDC sets its housing targets in its Local Plan, paying consultants to come up with numbers they like, and the government agrees them (though note these are MINIMUM targets).

“Greater Exeter” is created (with no public consultation) and says: “Ah, but WE need even more houses for this bigger area to service the city, so you, East Devon will have to find more places to put them”.

The Local Enterprise Partnership says: “Ah, but we need even more houses for our (unsustainable)”economic growth” targets so Greater Exeter and East Devon – you will have to find even more space for even more houses.

The Government says: “It still isn’t enough – all of you will have to find MUCH more space or we won’t give you any money.

Developers say: “Stuff you all, we are laughing all the way to the bank as we dribble out new builds, get massive prices for them and create a market shortage. And if you meddle with us we will stop donating to Tory party funds.

And they all lived happily ever after:

– the district councillors drawing their allowances and officers drawing good salaries and hob-nobbing with developers keen to influence them;

– the Greater Exeter elite group of councillors and officers who are even more influential with the developers;

– the LEP who ARE the developers;

– the government whose coffers swell with donations from developers

– all except the hundreds of thousands of poor beggars who couldn’t afford to buy their own homes and who now can’t afford to rent them either.

Proper job!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plans, Rural communications, Sustainability, Villages BUAB

Villages – check if your built-up boundaries have been changed

From Strategic Planning Committee agenda (meeting on 20 February at 2pm – when most people will be at work:

“That it is recommended to Council:

1. That approval is given for the attached East Devon Villages Plan (and documentation that underpins the Plan) to be ‘published’ for a period of six weeks to allow formal comments to be made,

2. Following the six week period the East Devon Villages Plan be submitted for examination together with any comments received during that period,

3. That the Built-up Area Boundaries defined in the Publication Villages Plan, from the 23 February 2017, be used as primary policy for development management purposes instead of the boundaries on the inset plans included in the previously adopted Local Plan.”

Click to access combined-agenda-spc-200217-compressed.pdf

page 9 plus appendix maps

“4.6 Main Changes from Consultation Draft Plan August 2016

The draft plan of August 2016 included justification for the approach of using BUAB’s and discussion of alternative approaches and details of how BUAB’s had been defined that is not necessary in the final plan. In terms of individual settlements the main differences between the two plans are highlighted below and full details of how individual sites were assessed against the criteria set and the refinement of this approach for Newton Poppleford and West Hill are included in the ‘Site by Site’ assessments for individual settlements.

Beer – the majority of the western part of the village and the new
housing at Little Hemphay and Bluff Terrace are now included in the BUAB. The wording of policy Beer 01 – Village Centre Vitality now reflects that of Policy E9 of the adopted Local Plan.

Broadclyst – the community orchard and car park in front of the primary school are now excluded and the new buildings at the secondary school included.

Clyst St. Mary – no change to the preferred approach boundary.

Colyton – part of the former Ceramtec site is now included together with
part of a former garage site. Policy 01 has been changed to reflect the
wording of Policy E9 of the adopted Local Plan.

East Budleigh – minor change to exclude parts of three gardens.

Feniton – the ‘Ackland Park’ site and is included but the land adjoining
the railway on the ‘nursery’ site is excluded.

Kilmington – additional land to south west of village is now included.

Musbury – both the ‘Mountfield’ land and ‘Baxter’s Farm’ site (including
village hall) are now included.

Newton Poppleford – minor change to reflect size of King Alfred Way
planning permission and preferred approach boundary followed, which excludes western part of village that was included in previously adopted local plan.

Sidbury – no changes to preferred approach boundary.

Uplyme – boundary now follows that proposed in the Uplyme Neighbourhood Plan.

West Hill – preferred approach boundary largely followed, but with some
limited expansion.

Whimple – no change to preferred approach boundary.

Woodbury – no change to preferred approach boundary.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Feb 2017

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Local Plan, National Planning Policy Framework, Planning System

Housing White Paper: “damp squib”

“The Government has finally unveiled its plans to fix the ‘broken housing market’ in a white paper spanning 104 pages.

Among lengthy reiterations of existing housing policy schemes including Help to Buy were proposals to stop developers land banking, try to speed up planning approvals and support the delivery of more homes to rent.

But some experts have already dubbed the plans a ‘damp squib’ with little hope of fixing anything.

Secretary of State Sajid Javid told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme before revealing the bill: ‘People want a decent home to buy or a decent home to rent, it’s a choice for them, we should be helping both types of tenancies.’

But Shadow Secretary of State for Housing John Healey called the paper ‘feeble’ and added: ‘We were promised a white paper; we’ve got a white flag.’

He was not alone in his disappointment. Simon Gerrard, past president of the National Association of Estate Agents, summed up how most pundits in the industry felt about this long-awaited paper.

“Today’s announcement shows that the Government is good at producing soundbites, but not realistic solutions. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of the market and what is required to fix it.

‘The schemes outlined will be discussed and debated for longer than they are implemented, with nothing new being offered. We need to simplify the system and make it easier to build homes that people want, quickly, and I am disappointed this has not yet been achieved.”

… Jonathan Manns, head of regeneration and director of planning at Colliers International, said: ‘Dig into the (*cough*) detail and, beyond the hollow and misguiding rhetoric, there are odd tweaks to the status quo.
‘Councils, we’re told, should continue to review the targets in their local plans and ensure they’re up-to-date. Hardly ground-breaking but reassuringly familiar.’

The Government is also proposing to cut the time local authorities have to approve planning applications from three years to two.

Will it help? Gerrard doesn’t think so: ‘The introduction of capping the time between obtaining planning permission and starting construction to two years is misguided. It is not the timescale that hinders building across the UK, but the planning system itself.

‘All too often, permission is granted that is simply impossible to implement because local government departments do not communicate effectively with each other.’

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-4196264/How-Housing-White-Paper-plans-affect-you.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Feb 2017

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Local Plan, Misc, National Planning Policy Framework, Planning System

Yet another consultation on our “broken” housing market (yet another opportunity for developers to shaft us?)

Here is the White Paper”:

Click to access Fixing_our_broken_housing_market_-_housing_white_paper.pdf

Here is the consultation document on it:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/fixing-our-broken-housing-market-consultation

This consultation closes at

11:45pm on

2 May 2017

[just before local elections …]

You can respond online here:
https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/QLLWWSS

Another opportunity for the public not to be listened to, another chance for the government and developers to create loopholes.

A first thought: if “small builders” are going to be encouraged to build the cheapest houses, how do they get the economies of scale the big builders get? Well, we could charge no VAT at all on smaller, affordable house building on small sites of say 10 homes or less and LOTS OF VAT on luxury houses on big sites.

What’s that? It’s the sound of the big developer choking on their pate de foie gras whilst trying to phone the Tory party chairman? Surprise, surprise!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Consultation, Democracy, EDDC, Greater Exeter, Local Enterprise Partnership, Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plans, NPPF, Planning System, Sustainability, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Greater Exeter: only 5 EDDC councillors get decision-making powers -and its another forum!

“A joint informal advisory reference forum is set up consisting of 5 councillors each from Devon, East Devon, Exeter, Mid Devon and Teignbridge to consider and make comments on draft plan proposals before they are formally considered by each council.”

AND it links seamlessly into Local Enterprise Partnership plans … none of which have been put out for public consultation:

“Role of the joint plan and relationship with other plans

o Setting out the overall scope of the plan and how it can support other related strategies such as the Local Enterprise Partnership’s policies and the results of the devolution discussions. How it relates to the existing and proposed new local plans prepared by each council and with Neighbourhood Plans. Duty to cooperate discussions.”

AND it is all-encompassing:

‘Plan Strategy
o Description of the overall strategy which best meets vision and the challenges facing the area. Covering the big ticket themes of where and how many homes and jobs are needed, how key environmental assets will be protected and enhanced and the need for new and improved infrastructure.

Strategic Settlements and area strategy and functions

o The implications of the vision and strategy for each of the main settlements and the
plan area as a whole. Setting out the key planning functions and role of these.  Strategic Development Proposals
o The strategic development sites allocated in this plan to meet the strategy and other area’s needs. Implications for the remaining district/city level local plans’ allocations.

Strategic Policies

o Homes – setting the strategic targets for the objectively assessed need for housing,
and considering the need for specific types of housing (including affordable, student,
custom build and accessible homes).
o Economy – considering forecast economic performance and how the plan can
guide/improve. This is likely to include consideration of particular economic sectors (and in particular the evolving role of the knowledge economy and innovation), the protection of key economic assets across the whole plan area.
o City and Town Centres – giving the overall approach to the need and best locations for retail, leisure and other “main town centre uses” taking account of the existing “hierarchy” of town and city centres in the area.
o Environment – policies concerning issues including climate change, air quality, flooding, protection of European sites, other strategic landscape and biodiversity matters and heritage protection.
o Community infrastructure – policies and proposals for the provision of community facilities and infrastructure, including information, smart systems and broadband.
o Quality of development – improving the design of new development, including consideration of density and space standards.
 Implementation, delivery and monitoring – proposals to ensure that policies and proposals happen on the ground and how their success will be measured.”

AND ordinary councillors (including Tories) will be frozen out of decision-making:

“It is recognised that it might be difficult for the wider council membership to input into a joint plan through the normal committee/council channels.

It is therefore proposed that member input is provided for in two additional ways.

Firstly, it is proposed that a joint informal advisory reference forum is set up, consisting of 5 councillors from each of the five authorities (total 25 members). There would be an expectation that the councillors from each authority would be politically balanced. This joint forum would consider plan drafts and comment upon them before they are finalised and presented to the meetings of the individual councils. Secondly, officers will run member briefings before each formal committee cycle to allow all councillors to review and comment upon draft plan contents and proposals. This would help to ensure that councillors’ views can be considered before proposals are finalised.

Members should note that there is a separate proposal to set up a Greater Exeter Growth and Development Board as a formal joint committee to consider economic and other related matters across the area. This has been agreed in principle by Exeter and Teignbridge and will be considered by East Devon and Mid Devon (note that Devon County have confirmed their wish not to be involved in such a joint committee at this stage, although this does not undermine their commitment to the GESP). It is envisaged that the member steering group referred to above would have a role reporting on plan progress and strategy to the joint committee. This does not affect the recommendation referred to above to prepare the GESP under Section 28.”

Click to access 170117-combined-strategic-planning-agenda-compressed.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Jan 2017

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Local Plan, Planning System

Petition – take back local control of housing development

Petition to Government

Give communities back the right to decide where houses are built.

This petition calls for a parliamentary debate on government Housing and Planning policy over building on greenfield land and seeks community right of appeal on planning decisions and the removal of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Too many communities are now forced to accept large housing developments seeing the irreversible loss of valuable greenfields without the right of appeal. The failure of government planning policy has resulted in the loss of valued countryside and agricultural land and leaves communities forced to grow too fast without appropriate infrastructure. Major changes to planning legislation are required to protect established communities across the UK and deliver the right housing in the right places.”

Sign at:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/177333

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Local Plan, National Planning Policy Framework, Planning System

“Planning systems favour developers over communities” survey finds

“Almost three-quarters of local councils believe that the planning system is weighted too heavily in favour of developers at the expense of local democracy, according to a survey.

Commissioned by the National Trust and carried out by the Local Government Information Unit, the survey canvassed 1,200 ward councilors in England on aspects of the planning system.

The results, published today, show that 72% of councillors feel the existing system puts the interests of developers over and above those of councils and communities. Also, half of councillors said planning departments are inadequately funded, and the same amount claimed sites that are not in line with their council’s local plans are being approved for new housing.

The government has pushed for the adoption of local plans throughout England. In a statement to the Commons in 2015, then housing and planning minister Brandon Lewis described local plans as the “cornerstone” of the government’s planning reforms. Produced in consultation with communities, they are designed to offer “certainty on where new homes are to be built”.

The survey findings come as the government puts the final touches to its housing white paper, which is expected to be published later this month. The National Trust and LGIU urged Whitehall to revise the paper to boost confidence in the way the system works.

In a joint statement, the organisations argued that the views of councillors were often ignored in debates around the future of the planning system. “Yet, as local decision-makers, and an important link with local communities, they have an essential role to play in ensuring development is sensitive to the needs of the area,” they said.

Theresa May’s government has responded to pressure over a lack of new housebuilding in the country by announcing a raft of new measures and significant funding to boost construction.

As such, communities secretary Sajid Javid last week invited housing providers to bid for a share of a £7bn fund in what was described as a “dramatic expansion” of the affordable house programme.

The survey also revealed anxieties about loosened planning restrictions, with 58% of councillors believing their council would allocate green belt land for housing in the next five years. There are also concerns about the introduction of permitted development rights for home extensions, office-to-residential use conversions and other changes of use.

Moreover, the National Planning Policy Framework does not appear to be having the positive impact it was intended to have on design quality. Only 18% of councillors say designs have improved, and only 12% believe that loosening planning restrictions has had any positive impact.

Jonathan Carr-West, chief executive of the LGiU, said that five years on from the adoption of the government’s planning reforms, it was worrying that councillors felt it hadn’t delivered the localism that was promised.

He said: “If ministers are serious about local plans being at the heart of the planning system, then they should invest in council planning teams and use the housing white paper to give them the tools to deliver good quality housing in the right places.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/01/planning-systems-favour-developers-over-communities-lgiu-survey-finds

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, AONB, Audit (EDDC), Developers/ Development, EDDC, Graham Brown, Land Supply, Local Plan, Philip Skinner

AONB – pah, build, build, build!

“A loophole in planning rules is allowing developers to build housing estates in England’s finest countryside.

Ministers are waving through applications for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) despite promising to protect them.

The High Weald in Sussex, the North Wessex Downs and the Cotswolds are among the protected areas being built on.

Six hundred homes, a hospice and a school were approved last month near Pease Pottage in the High Weald despite objections from Natural England, the government’s advisory body on protecting the natural environment.

Campaigners said that the rules were being swept aside in the rush to meet housing targets. Ministers are threatening councils with a “presumption” in favour of development unless they allocate enough land.”

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/protected-beauty-spots-are-sacrificed-to-build-houses-tw2jjrk5r

Recall that, when EDDC dragged out its Local Plan process for years and years (abandoning the first secret attempts run by Councillors Brown and Skinner and starting again) developers had a free run in East Devon.

Should we find that we do NOT have a 5 year land supply when the Local Plan comes up for review (due every 5 years so we should be starting now) then, presumably, that will happen all over again.

Recently (November 2016) EDDC brought up the idea of external auditors being consultants for the review, but the auditors themselves quickly pointed out that they had no experience in such projects and it should be led by an organisation with proper expertise:

“Problem (page 134 of agenda papers):
“Undertake a Review of the process for writing the Local Plan in future”

The solution
“A meeting has been held with our external auditors to scope out this review but it was quickly determined that they are not the right people to undertake this review due to their lack of knowledge of the plan making process. Other options including using the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) are now being pursued.”

Click to access 241116-scrutiny-agenda-combined.pdf

Things seem to have gone quiet again since then, with no public announcement of a new consulting organisation.

Questions: Shouldn’t external auditors anyway be at “arms length” from council business? Which bright spark thought of offering them the job?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Local Plan, NPPF

Comments

1 Comment

Telegraph: “The rise of Generation Rent: number of young homeowners halved in the last 20 years”

And what is the government’s answer? Build nore expensive homes to buy!

“The number of 25-year-olds who own their own home has more than halved in the last 20 years as soaring prices and a generational shift have knocked young people off the housing ladder.

Research by Savills for the Local Government Association found that 46pc of all 25-year-olds owned their home 20 years ago, compared to 20pc now. It is not just young people who have been left out of home ownership, which has fallen among people of all ages 6.8pc since the peak in October 2004, and it now stands at 64.1pc.

This fall has been caused by the high cost of living, which has grown at a faster rate than wages. While renters pay an average 34pc of their total household income on rent, and social renters pay 29pc; the average homeowner pays just 18pc their income on a mortgage.

Average house prices are now at 7.9 times average earnings, with the need for a high deposit creating an impassable barrier for some young aspiring homeowners. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/house-prices/rise-generation-rent-number-young-homeowners-halved-last-20/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Dec 2016

Posted under

AONB, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plans, Villages BUAB

Important case law on village development and exception sites

Parish council wins High Court planning battle over village needs

East Bergholt Parish Council has won a case against Babergh District Council that it said would affect two more planning applications in the district and potentially other rural areas.

The parish argued in a judicial review at the High Court that Babergh’s decision to allow 10 homes to be built was flawed as it did not take account of the village’s needs as set out in the local plan.

David Bowman, a senior associate at law firm Royds Withy King, which acted for East Bergholt, said: “The judge decided that Babergh had made a number of material legal errors, including misrepresenting to councillors what ‘local housing needs’ means in the context of the local plan.”

Bowman said the court also agreed with East Bergholt’s interpretation that the needs of the local area differed from those of the wider district, and that Babergh had incorrectly conducted an exercise to decide whether development on land within the Dedham Vale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty had an exceptional reason to overrule the ordinary prohibition on development.

The area is associated with the work of the artist John Constable.

A separate decision by Babergh to allow 144 homes on another site in East Bergholt is being reconsidered and a further development of 75 homes on a third site is also affected by the ruling, Bowman said.

He said the ruling was “a major setback” for what the parish believes is Babergh’s financial dependence on the New Homes Bonus.

A Babergh statement said the council would “consider the judgment of the High Court carefully before making any further comment about the consequences of the court’s decision, or the future consideration of this planning application”.

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29419%3Aparish-council-wins-high-court-planning-battle-over-village-needs&catid=63&Itemid=31

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Budleigh Salterton, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Local Plan

Comments

2 Comments

The Local Plan is now ready to depart from Sidmouth …

The agenda for the December 6th DMC meeting makes an interesting read. Two very contentious applications are being considered.

First: The Pegasus Life, Sidmouth scheme is, to quote a planning officer-

“A DEPARTURE FROM THE LOCAL PLAN, providing apartments with extra care in excess of the allocation or requirements of the plan, it therefore makes a meaningful contribution to housing delivery on a largely brownfield site.”

Second: The Syon House, Frogmore Road, East Budleigh scheme is, to quote again-

“The application represents A DEPARTURE FROM ADOPTED POLICY as the proposal does not fully accord with Strategy 35 in that a lower than 66% affordable housing provision is proposed.”

It makes Owl think that council tax payers should wonder why East Devon District Council spent a lot of time, money, tears and effort to finally get a local plan adopted just to DEPART from it less than a year from adoption.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Nov 2016

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Housing (local), Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Local Plan, PegasusLife

EDDC and Knowle – reasons for refusal of PegasusLife planning application – but will a new HQ sway councillors?

A letter from Michael Temple, Sidmouth

“Compare and Contrast

The highly controversial PegasusLife application for Knowle is to be decided at 10.30 am on Tuesday 6 December in the Council Chamber at Knowle, Sidmouth.

Readers might like to compare it with other recent PegasusLife applications:
1. Bath (assisted living): refused: “excessive and incongruous height”, “harmful impact upon surrounding heritage assets”, “nearby listed buildings undermined”, “the excessive tall building fails to respect its context”, “harmful impact on character and appearance of surrounding conservation area”.

Bristol (Nuffield Hospital site) – officers can’t support due to “excessive bulk and massing”, “doesn’t relate to surrounding context”, would “dominate the townscape”.

Wilmslow: refused: “too large, too high, no affordables”.

Harpenden (retirement flats) – refused due to “height (20.7 metres)”, “lack of privacy for neighbours”, “footprint 28 degrees greater than existing buildings”, “visually intrusive”, “residents’ parking would spill onto neighbouring roads”.

Knowle, Sidmouth (assisted living – or second homes?) – officers approve.

The East Devon District Council’s planning officer, departing from the Local Plan and its planning strategies, claims the the “benefits” to Sidmouth outweigh the harm to an English-Heritage listed building.

“Benefits”? Could he mean

the overbearing, intrusive impact on the park and neighbourhood of an excessively high, out-of-scale massed development?

the loss of heritage buildings and public assets like the Council Chamber where so many people met recently over the proposed hospital bed cuts?

the loss of weekend parking to this tourist town?

the loss of about 100 jobs?

the blot on Sidmouth’s skyline?

the loss to the public of the park’s fine lawn prospect?

the lack of a contribution towards affordable housing?

possible downtown drainage overflow during flash floods?”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Nov 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Clyst St Mary, Consultation, EDDC, Environment (local), Flooding, Local Plan, Sustainability, Transport (local)

Save Clyst St Mary update – November 2016

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

A big thank you for all the emails of support that we have received in the last few days regarding the latest planning application for development proposals for the Friends Provident site. We are currently working our way through this latest planning application. Although we remain open minded to the eventual solution to the site, we currently have grave reservations regarding these proposals for Winslade Manor and the Stables because the developer hasn’t offered any solution to a number of key National Planning policies such as :

-The loss of the leisure facilities (Stables Club) that were closed down at the end of 2015

-The flooding that has continued to occur at the site and the proposals to build houses and industrial buildings in the areas that frequently flood. (As I am writing this email I have just been advised of the closure of the A376 due to flooding!)

-The fact that our village remains unsustainable for such a significant population increase, having only one shop and a pub

-Lack of public transport links and the scale of congestion that already occurs on a daily basis (set to be exacerbated by the poorly considered location to the entrance by our Village Hall)

-The proposed site sits outside of the current approved Built Up Area Boundary

These are just a few of the examples and valid reasons why the proposals won’t enhance our village; worryingly, the proposed scheme has many other areas where we have serious concerns.

We have started writing some template letters of objection which you may want to use. We hope to be able to email them to you within the next week. Moreover, we understand that the Parish Council may be arranging a Public Meeting at the beginning of December to further discuss the planning application. As soon as we get a date and time, you will be informed.

FOUL ODOUR

East Devon District Council’s Environment Department is currently conducting a survey of households within our neighbourhood regarding the odours that were omitted from Enfield Farm and the anaerobic digester. Hopefully, since the last major problem five weeks ago, things have considerably improved. We have been told that this should finally solve the ‘odour issue’ that has annoyed residents for so long.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Nov 2016

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Local Plan, Scrutiny

Comments

1 Comment

External auditors not best placed to review Local Plan – Duh!

Honestly, you could not make it up. Independent councillors recently flagged that the NEXT review of the existing Local Plan needs to be sorted out NOW and not (as in the past) faffed-about with at the last minute.

So, some bright spark came up with the idea of asking EDDC’s FINANCIAL external auditor (KPMG) to get it going. Here is what happened next.

Problem (page 134 of agenda papers):
“Undertake a Review of the process for writing the Local Plan in future”

The solution
“A meeting has been held with our external auditors to scope out this review but it was quickly determined that they are not the right people to undertake this review due to their lack of knowledge of the plan making process. Other options including using the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) are now being pursued.”

Click to access 241116-scrutiny-agenda-combined.pdf

Duh, duh and more duh!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Nov 2016

Posted under

AONB, Budleigh Salterton, Clinton Devon Estates, Developers/ Development, Local Plan, Newton Poppleford

Clinton Devon Estates wants to make it easier to build in AONB – Part 2

A correspondent writes:

“Also relevant to CDE’s approach to development in Newton Poppleford is their latest attempt to get planning permission on Frogmore Road in nearby East Budleigh. This is in the prominent field that slopes up towards Syon House (CDE’s old HQ) on the south side of Oak Hill along the road between Budleigh Salterton and Newton Poppleford. The site is outside the built up area boundary, subject to recurrent flooding problems, and, as with Newton Poppleford, within the AONB. It is also Grade 1 agricultural land, of which there is very little in East Devon.

The East Budleigh emerging neighbourhood plan, now in its final phase and just about to be submitted to the Inspector, has identified suitable sites for future development in the village but the Frogmore Road site is not one of them. It was comprehensively rejected in place of other sites during the statutory democratic Community Consultation conducted by EDDC in 2012 as part of the process of formulating the East Devon Village Plan.

Despite this, CDE made an outline planning application in 2014 (14/2959) for 18 dwellings covering approximately half the field. This was eventually withdrawn. Now a new outline planning application (16/1673) has been lodged for only 5 dwellings. This obviously covers a smaller part of the field, but, curiously, the application includes 14 car parking spaces on roads that appear to lead nowhere. Flooding, however, is a reserve matter (as it has been with Newton Poppleford).”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Nov 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Councillor Marianne Rixon EDA, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Independent Councillors, Local Plan, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Spin, Transparency

Sidford employment land victim of “electioneering”

District council chiefs who voted to remove Sidford’s controversial 12-acre employment site from a strategic plan were in fact powerless to enforce the decision, a campaigner has been told.

Councillor Marianne Rixson last week questioned why – after the decision was made unanimously in March 2015 – officers were never instructed to submit a ‘flood of new evidence’ to put it into action. Despite the last-ditch vote to have it removed, a Government planning inspector later ruled the allocation must remain in East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) Local Plan.

The answer to Cllr Rixson’s question, given at last Wednesday’s full EDDC meeting, confirmed the instruction was never given to remove the allocation from the plan – because a public inquiry was already under way.

Members heard that officer advice would have been to allow the planning inspector, who led the inquiry, to ‘reach his own conclusions’.

Last week’s meeting heard: “Members’ resolution to remove the allocation from the plan was, and could only ever have been, a suggestion to the inspector as, following its submission for examination, the council no longer had the power to make changes to it.

“There was, therefore, no opportunity to submit evidence to support this change, however, even if there had been, the evidence produced up to that point had supported its allocation and it is likely that any future evidence would have reached the same conclusion.”

Cllr Rixson, a long-time campaigner against the allocation who was elected last May, said the Conservative-majority council only took the vote because it felt threatened by her and her East Devon Alliance colleagues.

She said: “The final comment [above] confirms our suspicions that EDDC never changed its mind about the Sidford site being in the Local Plan.

“Voting to ‘remove it’ was purely an electioneering stunt just before the district council elections in 2015.”

An application to develop the employment site into a 9.3-acre business park was refused in September, although EDDC bosses said they remain committed to its development.

Cllr Rixson added: “The recent refusal of the application to develop the site exposed significant planning policies that should have been considered when the Local Plan was being drawn up.

“The outstanding question is why they did not come to the fore when they could have made an impact on the Local Plan?”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/vote_to_remove_sidford_employment_site_electioneering_1_4761216