Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Devolution, East Devon Growth Point, Greater Exeter, Housing (local), Infrastructure, Land Supply, Local Enterprise Partnership, Local Plan, Transparency

“Greater Exeter” and its impact on housing and infrastructure in East Devon

We learned recently that the current Stagecoach depot opposite the bus station in Exeter is going to be turned into a massive block of student housing – 557 units.

Now we hear that there are plans for the site of the Honiton Inn, on the roundabout opposite the bus station to be another student block of 101 flats with their own private gym and cinema – opposite a public gym and cinema!

http://m.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/plans-in-for-huge-exeter-city-centre-student-block-on-honiton-inn-site/story-29794670-detail/story.html

What effect will this have on East Devon?

Well, “Greater Exeter” – whose “Visioning Board” like all such development and regeneration boards in “Greater Exeter” meets in secret – is making arrangements to do the next revision to its 3 Local Plans (Exeter, East Devon and Teignbridge) together.

It will be totally evident (in fact it is already) that Exeter’s main growth in housing will remain student housing. So, where will housing for other people go? Obviously East Devon and Teignbridge.

Cranbrook has natural boundaries beyond which it will soon make its further expansion much more difficult than heretofore. Therefore, it will be towns such as Exmouth, Honiton and Sidmouth – and the green fields in-between – that must be expanded to take in the commuters into Exeter, with a possible massive impact.

None of this is being put before the general public in any of the three areas nor is adequate infrastructure being planned for this big change (or at least we cannot be allowed know of any). And, of course, our Local Enterprise Partnership will “own” the business rates of the Exeter “Growth Area” and will have its fingers in the many development pies.

Time to start talking about the NEXT revision of the Local Plan which may well see even more massive development in East Devon on a much bigger scale than we could ever have imagined and could dwarf the extra numbers already agreed..

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

EDDC, Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plans

Comments

“East Devon continues to be one of most active districts in UK with 40 Neighbourhood Plans in production”

EDDC produced the above press release headline as spin:

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/news/2016/09/east-budleigh-with-bicton-neighbourhood-plan-undergoing-consultation/

Unfortunately, the truth is more likely that EDDC is so keen on its developers and developing anything and everything, that neighbourhoods are scrambling as fast as they can to protect what few green and pleasant places they still have left after the Local Plan hoovered most of them up, before developers get their sticky mitts on them!

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

EDDC, Local Plan, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Further consultation on new documents submitted by Sidford Business Park developer

New documents to “provide further reassurance”. Er, further implies there was reassurance in the first place! More than a touch of spin speak PR there!

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/new_consultation_on_sidford_business_park_plans_1_4673518

Consultation extended to 16 September 2016.

Owl wonders who told Ford’s “further reassurance” would be a good move …

Such a fraught and confusing road so far …

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, AONB, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Local Plan, Rural communities

East Devon villages must feed back on EDDC’s plans for their boundaries by 28 September 2016

The expansion of some of East Devon’s most recognisable villages is at the forefront of a new public consultation.

East Devon District Council has begun the eight-week process for its major draft Villages Plan.b The idea is to guide where new developments will go at 14 of the district’s larger villages, as well as the town of Colyton.

Responses will be looked over by the council’s Strategic Planning Committee, before a final version of the plan is produced for yet another consultation.

Locations earmarked for expansion include Beer, Broadclyst, Clyst St. Mary, East Budleigh, Feniton, Kilmington, Musbury, Newton Poppleford, Sidbury, Uplyme, West Hill, Whimple, Woodbury and the town of Colyton.

The Villages Plan will show a black line – the technical term being a Built-up Area Boundary – around the villages.

Within the black line, new houses will generally be acceptable, but outside they will only be acceptable in special circumstances.

The consultation gives the public an opportunity to comment on where the lines should be drawn.

The aim of the council’s planning policy team is to ensure that the main existing built-up areas are included, together with areas that have already been agreed for development – either through planning permission or planning allocations.

A number of alternatives have already been considered, including not having boundaries, drawing boundaries more tightly or drawing them more loosely.

However, none of these options have been progressed, as they differ from the approach set out in the Local Plan which was adopted in January 2016.

Further research has been undertaken to determine whether the boundaries drawn using the council’s existing criteria should be reduced in areas where it is difficult to access local services and facilities on foot.

This approach is being proposed for Beer, Newton Poppleford, Uplyme and West Hill.

Planning permission is less likely to be granted for new housing and industry that fall into areas outside the black line, but this does not mean that these homes and businesses are not part of a village in any other way.

The Villages Plan does not affect any changes that residents could make to their homes without planning permission.

Councillor Andrew Moulding, who is Chairman of the Strategic Planning Committee, said: “We will consider all the comments that are made before producing an East Devon Villages Plan for further public consultation.

“It will then be formally submitted for consideration by an independent Inspector who will decide whether the plan is sound. It is important that we seek the views of the local communities on this plan, which will help in the determination of planning applications.”

Communities and residents have until Wednesday, September 28 to put forward any comments they wish to make on the draft plan. The Villages Plan will then be submitted for examination by a Planning Inspector.

The draft consultation Villages Plan and supporting documents are available at the council offices at Station Road, Sidmouth, in local libraries, with the relevant parish councils or online here:

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/villages-plan/villages-plan-2016-consultation/

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/here-s-how-these-14-east-devon-could-expand-and-how-to-have-your-say-on-it/story-29601801-detail/story.html

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

EDDC, Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plans

Hill Barton and Greendale business parks to be treated as villages with built-up area boundaries

Agenda pages 95 and 99 provide indicative maps of the suggested boundaries.

“3.8 Hill Barton and Greendale Business Parks – The adopted Local Plan advises that these two business parks will feature in the Villages Plan.

3.9 Therecommendedpolicyapproachsetoutintheconsultationdocumentisforthese business parks to have what is termed a ‘Business Park Development Boundary’. Within this boundary infill development and redevelopment of existing buildings, for employment/job generating uses, will be permitted. Land beyond the Business Park Development Boundary is be classified as countryside and further employment or other development will not typically be permitted as adopted Local Plan Countryside policies will apply.

3.10 The policy approach for these two business parks is one of placing clear constraining boundaries in respect of scope for outward expansion. Whilst there could be economic benefits associated with further employment growth at these business parks the potential benefits need to be weighed against environmental consideration which specifically include potential for adverse landscape impact and poor accessibility to these places of employment for cyclists and pedestrians. There is also potential for adverse social impacts from further development on nearby residential communities, including at Woodbury Salterton in respect of Greendale and Farrington in respect of Hill Barton.”

Click to access 210716-combined-strategic-planning-committee-agenda.pdf

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Developers/ Development, EDDC, Local Plan, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Judge quashes out-of-town planning permission for discount store

Wonder how this applies to out-of-town industrial developments?

Mr Justice Ouseley has quashed planning permission for an Aldi store in Mansfield after finding a series of errors in the way in which the planning authority processed the application.

Mansfield District Council had given permission to developer Regal Sherwood Oaks for a food store of 1,925 square metres at Sherwood Oaks Business Park, for which the intended occupier was Aldi.

Developer Aldergate Properties challenged this citing an adverse impact on its development in the town centre contrary to the sequential test in planning policy designed to protect town centre retailing from out-of-town rivals.

Aldergate argued that the council erred in its approach to the sequential test, imposed a condition personal to Aldi without considering relevant planning policy objections to this and failed to consider whether the proposal accorded with the development plan.

In his judgment, Ouseley J said Mansfield had misinterpreted the National Planing Policy Framework as the necessary sequential test has not been carried out and a material factor has not been taken into account.

He also did not accept that the planning committee would have been aware of guidance on personal conditions “in the absence of specific evidence to that effect.

“This is not just because this is not a very common point, but also because the evidence produced by the district council did not show that their training had covered this particular aspect of conditions, and nothing more was forthcoming despite requests.”

He also found the council had misinterpreted its development plan.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27743%3Ajudge-quashes-planning-permission-over-interpretation-errors-&catid=63&Itemid=31

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Local Plan, Rural communities

EDDC draft villages plan – broken link in Cabinet agenda

Note that in the agenda for the next cabinet the draft plan for villages, which must be added to the Local Plan cannot be accessed from the link provided.

Nor can the pdf link be accessed from the page which takes you straight back to the agenda in a circular link.

There are some details about the results of consultations here:

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/villages-plan/villages-plan-2016-consultation/

but it is suggested that each village checks what is being put before the Cabinet as it is not clear if each document is a summary of consultations or a recommendation – it simply labels documents “analysis”.

The villages involved are:

Beer
Broadclyst
Clyst St Mary
Colyton
East Budleigh
Feniton
Kilmington
Musbury
Newton Poppleford
Sidbury
Uplyme
West Hill
Whimple
Woodbury

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Austerity cuts, Developers/ Development, East Devon Growth Point, EDDC, EU Referendum, Hinkley C, Housing (local), Land Supply, Local Plan, Post-Brexit Adjustments

Comments

Brexit, developers, local plans and devolution

So, we voted out – and suddenly housebuilders (developers) shares plunged by 40%.

There does not seem to be an immediate link with voting out, but there is. We are in for an unstable time. There will be a recession and pundits differ only on whether it will be short (around 2 years) or long (anywhere from 5-20 years depending on who you listen to). House prices will reflect this by falling and mortgage rates may well rise, pushing some into negative equity and others wary of buying in case they fall into negative equity.

Housebuilders will also need to factor in higher import costs coming in the near future when EU trade reduces and new trade agreements have not begun, along with a local skills gap as workers from the EU dry up. Plus likely (possibly temporary)increases in income tax to cover lost government income from (again possibly temporary) shrinking markets. Not to mention higher unemployment benefits to those whose jobs currently depend directly and indirectly on those employers who would normally benefit from being in the EU.

To compound this, many developers have recently taken their huge profits out of their businesses by giving their directors massive bonuses.

All these factors cause a “perfect storm” for Local Plans and the general East Devon economy. Our Local Plan is predicated on continuous growth and increasing employment, fuelling a constant demand for new housing. And, more worryingly, there are penalties if this does not happen. If we (and all other councils) do not maintain a 5-year land supply, we are penalised by having our housing numbers INCREASED by 20%.

Another complication is that, currently, our council (and others) depend for income on the government’s “New Homes Bonus” – the more new homes it gets a developer to build, the more income it gets.

All this conspires to suddenly make our local plans hardly worth the paper they were written on.

Then there is devolution – which in Devon and Somerset also highly depends on housebuilding – having “promised” an extra 176,000 houses over and above Local Plans, and also dependent on continuous growth and constantly increasing employment. It is no coincidence that the Chairman of our Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP: the lead in the devolution bid) is Chairman of big developer, Midas.

Our LEP was also promised “jam tomorrow” funds (over 30 years) from the government AND anticipated masses of EU funding, all riding on the back of a new Hinkley C nuclear power station. All other devolved areas were given similar promises.

Our new government will now have its hands full attempting to negotiate its way out of the EU, rewriting or scrapping those EU laws we have (including those on environmental protection and workers rights) and trying desperately to work out where this notional extra £350 million a week is eventually going to be spent. It has already been promised to the health service, areas currently in receipt of EU regeneration funding and academic research programmes currently supported by EU grants. That is simply an arithmetical nightmare and almost certainly an impossibility.

This leaves East Devon in a precarious position: heavily dependant on new housebuilding and continuous year on year economic growth with constant employment growth and receipt of funds from a distracted government which has also promised to stem immigration – many having voted for this as its first priority. These two priorities will mean little time for other things. Not to mention having to deal at the same time with the implications of Scotland and Northern Ireland’s differing position on their future in the UK and EU.

The Local Plan and devolution deals are now almost certainly of much lower priority to this beleaguered government and this may well lead to unintended consequences the like of which our council and our LEP can only imagine and for which they have no plan B.

Many warned that economic growth and increasing employment between now and 2030, when our local plan ends, was unattainable and that at least one event would intervene for which there was no contingency. Few expected it to happen quite so quickly.

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

EDDC, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Local Plan, Mark Williams CEO EDDC, Phil Twiss, Stuart Hughes

How did business-park on-a-Sidford -floodplain come to be in the Local Plan?

From the good old days of the much-lamented Sidmouth Independent News on 25 July 2015:

“Cllr Graham Troman (Sidmouth) claimed there was “no justification” for an out-of-town business park which would damage the vibrancy of Sidmouth town centre. He was shocked by the dubious way in which this proposal had been inserted in the Local Plan without any proper discussion.

Cllr Christine Drew (Sidmouth) said that EDDC had ignored overwhelming public opposition to the site, and she was very suspicious of the recent “minor amendment” to add retail to the type of businesses proposed.

Stuart Hughes argued that adequate employment land could be provided for Sidmouth by realising the potential of the Alexandria Road site, and new access could be provided for half the cost of the £1 million pounds estimated by EDDC planners. And funding might be available for this from a variety of sources.

He also highlighted the acute flood risk at the Sidford site which was on a flood plain. The Council’s argument that the problem could be solved by a SUDS system was weak: a similar system at Woolbrook failed during recent flooding. He feared the impact that building at Sidford would have on flooding downstream.

As county councillor responsible for roads, he stressed the inadequacy of the main road which would serve the site which was subject to regular flooding.

Cllr Mike Allen (Honiton), former chair of the Local Plan Panel made a swingeing attack on the Sidford allocation.

It was “not compliant” with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which gave “great weight” to the protection of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

There was no evidence that it was needed by Sidmouth. It would require people to commute into the town to work. It was “against the public interest”.

He was also suspicious of how the Built Up Area Boundary had been extended to the north of Sidford by officers without consultation.

It would be straightforward to remove the Sidford allocation from the Local Plan: failure to do so would risk the rejection of the whole plan by the Inspector. He seconded Cllr Troman’s motion that it should be deleted.

Chief Executive Mark Williams then advised that this would not be possible legally as it was not a minor amendment.

This provoked an extraordinary attack on Mr Williams by Cllr Allen. His advice was a “biased” view which showed ignorance of the NPPF. He did not have a “grip” on the legal situation, and had not taken account of all the legal considerations.

Tory Whip, Phil Twiss, jumped up to defend the CEO who must be right “because he is a solicitor” and Cllr Allen wasn’t!

Allen, who, in his day job is the Officer Responsible for Regeneration at South Somerset District Council, calmly replied that he had a considerable legal authority on his side – the NPPF.

A rather shell-shocked Council then proceeded to vote on the motion to delete Sidford. It was rejected.

The Tory majority – immune to argument- went on to approve all the “minor amendments” to the Local Plan which approves the Knowle and Sidford proposals.”

https://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/knowle-housing-and-sidford-site-stay-in-local-plan-as-ceo-savaged/

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Local Plan, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Stuart Hughes, Sustainability, Transparency

Radio Devon to air Sidmouth Business Park issue tomorrow approx 7.20 am

Radio Devon breakfast show interview tomorrow with SOS Chair, about Planning Application for Sidford business park.

Richard Thurlow will be interviewed by Radio Devon’s Simon Bates, at 7.20 a.m. on Friday 3rd June. To phone in comments, tel. 0345 301 1034

Here’s a reminder of some of the issues:

URGENT! Sidford Business Park Planning Application now in. “The more people who write in, the better”. DEADLINE for comments, WEDS 8th JUNE.

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Local Plan

Short inquiry into Local Plans Expert Group recommendations

The Communities and Local Government Committee has launched a short inquiry into the recommendations put forward by the Local Plans Expert Group (LPEG) to improve the local plan-making process:

Accepting written submissions; the deadline is 27 June 2016

The Committee invites written evidence on the following areas:

The Local Plans Expert Group’s recommendations
The next steps for the local plan-making process
The deadline for written submissions is Monday 27 June 2016.

Send a written submission via the Local Plans Expert Group recommendations inquiry page

Chair’s comments

Clive Betts, Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, said:

“The Local Plans Expert Group concluded that substantial reform of the local plan-making process was required and made detailed recommendations for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of local plan making.

The Committee will consider these recommendations and look at how DCLG plans to act on them.”

Background to the inquiry
The LPEG report highlighted difficulties assessing and meeting housing needs through local plans as a central issue, the dominance of which was sometimes to the detriment of other local plan elements. Other issues raised by the report included insufficient engagement with local communities.

In April 2016, the Committee reported on DCLG’s consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). In the previous parliament the Committee held an inquiry into the NPPF and an inquiry into the operation of the NPPF.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/communities-and-local-government-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/local-plans-expert-group-recommendations-16-17/

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Cornwall, Developers/ Development, Local Plan, Local Plan Inspector

Cornwall Local Plan Inquiry starts in chaos

Police and security guards were in evidence on the first day of the Cornwall Local Plan inquiry yesterday with vocal protesters inside and outside the meeting room giving vent to their anger.

PA systems were turned odd when the chairman of “Kernow Matters to Us” made a very long public speech ( where he said the Inspector was running the inquiry like it was in old East Germany. The only non-developer allowed at the table at the meeting when it finally kicked off had this to say about the experience”

“INSULT IS BEING PILED UPON INJURY BY THE MINUTE.

A mail from Armorel Carlyon today.

Dear All, I have been relegated to the bottom of the table. On the right hand side, 14 developers, and 7 more on my left. I did have Mr David Pollard sitting next to me, and he was allowed to speak on two occasions. I have NOT BEEN ALLOWED TO SPEAK ALL DAY!! I felt the Inspector was extremely disparaging towards me in front of all these people – I feel totally humilated – probably due to my outspoken contributions yesterday.

The housing figures for Truro were 3900 and the developers were trying to increase this figure. The Inspector said that I must find something in my responses to justify my speaking. I protested that I was the only person around the table that had any knowledge of Truro, but I was roundly refused.

I am the ONLY obvious Cornish person around the table. They are sitting here just carving up Cornwall in front of my eyes. I have just found a response I made in March 2013 on Policy 3 which stated that the allocations for Truro had been allocated and agreed to in the Neighbourhood Plan. I have written a note to the Inspector referring to my original response. I am feeling very sad and very angry.”

With best wishes
Armorel C.

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Local Plan, Rural communities

“Gentrification of the countryside”

A court decision to uphold controversial Government reforms to affordable housing laws will result in further “gentrification” of the countryside, rural campaigners have warned.

Anita Grice, director of the Campaign to Protect Rural England in Cornwall, said the ruling on changes to Section 106 agreements will hit communities in the South West “hard”.

While North Devon councillor Brian Greenslade has warned it will push younger families out of the countryside, putting the future of rural schools at risk.

Ministers confirmed on Wednesday that plans to exempt small-scale developments from section 106 affordable housing obligations had been restored by the Court of Appeal.

The decision followed a lengthy court battle, which initially saw the Government policy overturned.

This latest move has been welcomed by construction firms, who claim the changes will make smaller, more sustainable housing projects financially viable.

Brian Berry, chief executive of the Federation of Master Builders, said the new system will lift “serious barriers” for small and medium sized firms to deliver much needed housing.

campaigners argue that these small-scale projects – defined as five or less properties in rural areas – are a crucial source of affordable housing in the countryside.

Ms Grice said the availability of affordable stock in areas like Devon and Cornwall is already “dire” and the new ruling “will make it even worse”.

“It means that local authorities will have less say on the type of housing that gets built and affordable housing provision in our market towns and villages will become even more squeezed,” she said.

“Less provision means that many local people will find it difficult, if not impossible, to remain in areas where they have community ties.

“Instead we will see more housing built for the open market – and this will contribute to the ever-increasing gentrification of our countryside.”

Shadow Lib Dem leader cllr Greenslade added: “If local planning authorities cannot condition for some affordable housing in rural communities then younger families will decamp to larger urban areas. Such depopulation of younger families will threaten the future of small schools for example.

Taking this together with the Tories voting down the wholly sensible amendments put forward in the Lords in respect of the Housing and Planning Bill… the Government has dealt a hammer blow to the housing aspirations of many local young people.”

The Department for Communities and Local Government said the ruling “restores common sense to the system” and will encourage new developments.

Housing minister Brandon Lewis said: “This will now mean that builders developing sites of fewer than 10 homes will no longer have to make an affordable homes contribution that should instead fall to those building much larger developments.”

How the Section 106 row developed:

March 2014: The Government published a consultation proposing to scrap section 106 obligations on the provision of affordable homes for developments of 10 properties or less (5 or less in rural areas)

Rural campaigners quickly responded with warnings about the impact on affordable housing supply in rural communities

November 2014: the policy is adopted

May 2015: West Berkshire Council and Reading Borough Council launch a legal challenge against the reforms, arguing that the consultation process had been unlawful

July 2015: Justice Holgate quashes the Government policy, describing it as “unlawful” and “unfair”

The Government announces it will appeal the ruling

May 11 2016: The Court of Appeal rules in favour of the Government, restoring its changes to the section 106 regulations.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Court-ruling-housing-reforms-means-gentrification/story-29265763-detail/story.html

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plans

“Campaigners challenge Government to fulfil its pledge to strengthen neighbourhood planning”

“Campaigners are urging Government to back up its pledge to give added strength to neighbourhood planning, following a debate on the Housing and Planning Bill on Monday (9 May)

Planning minister Brandon Lewis once again rejected a Lords amendment tabled by Baroness Parminter to enable communities with a complete or emerging neighbourhood plan to appeal against decisions that conflicted with that plan. Citing his opposition to extending third party rights in the planning system, Mr Lewis achieved parliamentary support to reinstate the Government’s own amendment to support neighbourhood planning: a clause to ensure complete plans are referred to in decisions.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), Civic Voice and the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) are disappointed that the Government has established a clause that adds nothing to standard practice, but are heartened by Mr Lewis’s pledge to ‘work with colleagues to ensure that neighbourhood plans enjoy the primacy that we intend them to have in planning law’.

The groups believe that ministers can and should work with supportive Conservative MPs, such as Nick Herbert, and supportive peers to give greater weight to neighbourhood planning [1]. The groups argue that the secretary of state should incorporate the principles of a ‘neighbourhood right to be heard’, as also tabled (and subsequently withdrawn) by Baroness Parminter on Tuesday (10 May), into secondary legislation or existing planning policy. These principles could include:

a duty to have special regard to made or emerging neighbourhood development plans;
a duty to meaningfully consult the neighbourhood planning body and take account of that body’s recommendations; and
guidance on and power to call-in decisions that do not accord with the plan [2]
Neighbourhood plans represent local aspirations and have been shown to increase the number of homes planned locally [3]. The House of Lords twice voted to introduce Baroness Parminter’s amendment establishing a neighbourhood right of appeal, and the Government twice rejected it.

It has been argued by many, including some MPs, that the Government’s amendment in lieu ‘does not go far enough’ beyond existing good practice in supporting neighbourhood planning.

Sarah James, head of policy, Civic Voice, said:

“Neighbourhood plans are undermined by speculative developments, so we need a mechanism to ensure that those neighbourhood plans, once agreed or when close to agreement, are not subverted.

“Civic Voice wants to see a plan-led system, but where an application departs from a plan, the community should have the right to challenge. We will continue to campaign on this important civic movement issue”.

Matt Thomson, head of planning at CPRE, said:

“While the Government’s amendment will reduce the scope of neighbourhood plans, and thereby the confidence of communities in them, we are pleased that the minister will explore further ways to empower local people.

“Lords and MPs have done a vital job in bringing attention to this issue. It is now up to Government to prove their commitment to neighbourhood plans and afford them more weight when crucial decisions are made.”

Councillor Ken Browse, chairman, National Association of Local Councils (NALC), said:

“Neighbourhood planning is undoubtedly a positive step forward in placing more power over development in the hands of local people, but it is imperative the hard work of parish and town councils, working with their communities, and the integrity of neighbourhood plans, are not undermined.

“I look forward to working with the government and others to strengthen neighbourhood planning to ensure communities really are in the driving seat of how their places grow and develop.”

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plans

Planning applications can be squashed if there is an emerging neighbourhood plan

“Communities Secretary Greg Clark has dismissed an appeal by developer Sunley Estates over a 120-home development at Hambrook, Chichester partly because of its impact on an emerging neighbourhood plan.

The scheme included both affordable and market price homes, retail floor space, a pavilion/community building, sports facilities, children’s play area and public open space. It had been refused by Chichester District Council. The inspector who held the recovered inquiry recommended that the scheme should not go-ahead.

Clark’s decision letter said the scheme was not in accordance with the development plan as a whole and “would also conflict with the emerging Chidham and Hambrook Neighbourhood Plan when read as a whole”. The NP has now passed its examination stage.

Clark acknowledged that the proposals would deliver housing and contribute to a more robust five year housing land supply and assist in meeting affordable housing needs at the district level.

However, he concluded that granting planning permission for the scheme “would be at odds with the shared neighbourhood planning vision that is referred to in paragraph 183 of the National Planning Policy Framework and would also fundamentally undermine confidence in the neighbourhood planning process that has taken place to date in Chidham and Hambrook”.

View more information on the recovered appeal: land east of Broad Road, Hambrook, Chichester.”

https://www.planningportal.co.uk/news/article/275/chichester_housing_scheme_torpedoed_by_neighbourhood_plan_issues

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Local Plan, Rural communications, Sustainability

“Housing Bill: 16 Defeats And U-Turns Inflicted On Government’s Flagship Reforms”

“The Government’s flagship housing legislation is having a miserable time of it in the House of Lords. Three defeats last week followed by five this mean the Housing and Planning Bill will look significantly different by the time it returns to MPs a week on Monday.

And peers have another day at it.

From ending council houses for life to selling off expensive social housing to subsidise home-buyers, the Housing and Planning Bill is the Government’s answer to the housing crisis.

But it has critics. And with an “anti-Tory” Labour-Lib Dem majority in the House of Lords, plus disgruntled Tory peers, the Bill is being slowly demolished.

MPs may ignore the will of the Lords, but there has already been a series of concessions. Here are 16 defeats and U-turns it’s suffering from.

1. The Treasury has been blocked from keeping the proceeds of the forced sale of high-value council houses – to fund Right-to-But discounts – without parliamentary approval.

2. A flagship scheme to hand well-off first-time buyers a taxpayer-funded 20% discount on a Starter Home has been moderated.

3. English councils can decide how many starter homes are built-in their area.

4. Peers voted in support of a Labour-led amendment to give local councils the discretion over whether to implement “pay to stay”, a market rate charge for better-off tenants.

5. Peers to back an amendment to lower the “pay to stay” taper rate from 20p to 10p in every pound, so lower-paid families would not be hit as hard.

6. The Lords voted 266 to 175 to increase the “pay to stay” threshold by £10,000.

7. Wide open “planning permission in principle” powers are to be limited to housing development.

8. Parish councils and local forums right to appeal against developments they think go against a “local plan”.

9. The Government will consider a proposal to ensure a one-for-one – and like-for-like – replacement of council homes sold under the forced sale.

10. The Government is to look at backing down on the forced sale of council homes in national parks and areas of national beauty.

11. Ministers have accepted a proposal to make it harder for landlords to evict vulnerable people that have abandoned their homes.

12. The Government has been forced to consider giving councils discretion to exclude building homes in rural areas.

13. Ministers backed down on replacing lifelong secure tenancies with contracts lasting up to five years, and agreed to extend maximum to 10 years.

14. Ministers will insist letting agents have to put money in to a Client Money Protection account to stop “rogues” running off with deposit.

15. Ministers agreed to review planning laws relating to basement developments amid fears councils cannot control the growth of “subterranean development”.

16. The Government will look again at private landlords being able to reclaim properties when the become vacant after concern that it was open to being used as a “back-door” way to evict tenants.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/housing-bill-defeats-u-turns_uk_571a0368e4b077f671e7bb8e

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Land Supply, Local Plan, National Planning Policy Framework

Councils appeal decision on interpretation of 5-year land supply

“The disputes relate to an important provision in the National Planning Policy Framework. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF requires all decision makers across the country who are determining planning applications and appeals to treat “[r]elevant policies for the supply of housing as not up to date if the local planning authority (LPA) cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.”

There were a number of High Court rulings on the phrase ‘relevant policies for the supply of housing’ before the Court of Appeal judgment.
The Court of Appeal ruled that Paragraph 49 should be interpreted widely and that it applies to all policies which are restrictive of where housing development can go.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26660%3Acouncils-to-take-battle-over-planning-policies-and-housing-to-supreme-court&catid=63&Itemid=31