Category Archives: Local Plan

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Apr 2016

Posted under

Clyst St Mary, Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plans

Save Clyst St Mary – April update

Save Clyst St Mary update***SAVE CLYST ST MARY ~ APRIL UPDATE ***

Friends Life site

It’s now approximately two months since our last update and we were hoping following the Parish Council Meeting on 11th April, which was attended by members of the Save Clyst St Mary Campaign, that we would have some more news for you on the redevelopment of the Friends Life site.

However, nothing came out of the meeting about any new planning applications or forecasts of when these might appear. You will recall from our previous newsletter that a representative from Friends Life briefed the Parish Council on a revised plan for the entire site. This would involve building a substantial number of houses on the existing green sports field areas in a line parallel to the rear gardens of the houses that back on to the Friends Life sports pitches.

A key element of this outline proposal is to swap the existing Clyst Valley football pitch for pitches on the Friends Life site, allowing houses to be built on the existing Brethren field, with a Brethren Meeting Hall proposed on the current Clyst Valley football ground. We have heard nothing more on these proposals, so can only assume that the developers are working on this behind the scenes.

One substantial element discussed at the latest Parish Council meeting was that, at the request of the Parish Council Chairman, the trustees of the Clyst Valley Football Club will show the trust documents to the Parish councillors at a meeting on 25th April. At the football club’s request, this meeting will be held in private, between the trustees of the football club and Parish Council members only, with no members of the public permitted in order to maintain strict confidentiality. This will enable the Parish Council to try to establish the ownership of the football club land and the legal powers of the football club trustees to negotiate swapping and any disposal of the land, should that decision be taken in the future. It must be noted that at present the football club trustees have assured us that they have not reached any agreement with Friends Life or the Plymouth Brethren regarding the swapping of the football field and have only agreed to enter into discussions on future proposals.

Recently, our own District Councillor, Mike Howe, resigned as a long-standing trustee of the football club, recognising a possible conflict of interest in connection with his role as both Parish Councillor and also Deputy Chair of the Development Management Committee at East Devon District Council with responsibilities for planning decisions.

On a more positive note, the Adopted East Devon Local Plan to 2031 is now fully operational and Councillor Howe informs us that it is being used ‘robustly and routinely’ to successfully oppose planning applications that do not conform to the Plan. We can only hope that this will be the case when the revised planning proposals are submitted for the Friends Life site.

The planning limit has been allocated by EDDC at around 150 houses on the brown field areas only with the Planning Inspector agreeing with this allocation to safeguard the future of the historic Manor House but also recognising the significance of the high quality parkland contributing to the setting of the Grade II House.

On 15th January 2016 the Inspector stated: “The promoters of the site seek to incorporate more of the large green space to the North West of the buildings in the allocation. The Council’s vision is for development to enable the sensitive conversion of the listed building within the high quality parkland which is a significant contributor to its setting. Having seen the site, I consider that the allocation boundary will enable this setting to be maintained.”

Obviously, if the land swap proposed by Friends Life were to go ahead, this agreed District Council allocation would be exceeded substantially, with the numerous detrimental consequences to our village that we have previously outlined.

Although only speculation at present, we suspect that Friends Life are hoping that by offering sports facilities (to be used by groups such as the football and cricket club) in return for significant extra housing on our green field sites (despite the fact that they have already withdrawn substantial sports facilities available to residents in this village); we suspect that an exception to the Adopted District Local Plan, the agreed Built-Up Area Boundaries and the Emerging Neighbourhood Plan could be made.

However, it must be stressed that our views on this are merely a hypothesis at present.

The Emerging Neighbourhood Plan is now at a very advanced stage and should give us an important extra level of protection against any inappropriate level of development on the Friends Life site and throughout the village. Though, as yet, not formally adopted, it is at such an advanced stage that the EDDC Planners must take it into consideration and credit it with substantial weight.

The Save Clyst St Mary Campaign was set up to voice the views of the majority of parishioners on future development in the village. Over the past 18 months we have volunteered tirelessly to ensure our village does not simply become another anonymous suburb of Exeter. We are not opposed to new development, but are committed to ensuring any new housing remains both sustainable and proportionate.

Currently, in excess of 400 objections have been submitted to EDDC objecting to the planning application for residential development on the sports fields of Friends Life, with 254 objections submitted to the residential development of the Plymouth Brethren field (prior to its withdrawal).

On the basis of continued positive feedback from residents, it is our belief that the majority of parishioners continue to be opposed to residential development on our open green areas and we intend continuing to campaign for their protection against development. However, an anonymous claim has been brought to our attention alleging that opposition to residential development on the green field areas has become “diluted” and that some local residents may now favour additional residential development on our green, open spaces as a “trade-off” for facilities for outside sporting groups.

Our assumption is that this information is incorrect, and as such, we would be most grateful if you could continue to voice your support.

The anaerobic digester

This continues frequently to emit strong unpleasant odours which the Environment Agency are keen to monitor on an individual complaints basis (a group complaint is invalid). Their free telephone number is 0800 80 70 60 should anyone wish to make comments.

Fund raising

Thanks to the support of local people, the Tesco Bags of Help Funding Scheme has awarded the Parish Council the £10,000 second prize for funding the levelling of the QEII field behind the Village Hall which will provide field sports for the community.

Police training exercise On 21/4/16 there will be a Police simulation taking place around the Winslade Park area. Do not be alarmed if you hear or see anything unusual such as helicopters, mock gunfire or ‘casualties’.

Communication
Please continue to visit our website:
http://www.saveclyststmary.org.uk

If you would also like to receive emailed Campaign updates, want to offer assistance to the group or simply want to voice a comment, we always welcome residents’ feedback. You can either email us at saveclyststmary@gmail.com or write to 11 Clyst Valley Road. We will continue to forward comments to the Parish Council as appropriate.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Apr 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Andrew Moulding, Chardstock, Developers/ Development, Development Management Committee, Dunkeswell, East Devon Tories, EDDC, Local Plan, Scrutiny

Comments

1 Comment

EDDC councillors slammed for voting like sheep

“A district watchdog has called for evidence-based decision-making after the conduct of some council members was called into question.

Councillors admitted being swayed by ‘powerful speakers’ when they agreed on last-minute changes to the draft East Devon Local Plan against the advice of officers and on the basis of claims that later proved unfounded.

Votes taken in the final stages of developing the document – which sets out a planning blueprint for the region – saw Dunkeswell and Chardstock added to a list of villages classed as ‘sustainable’ and thus suitable for further development.

Both decisions have now been overruled by the Planning Inspectorate, but members of East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) scrutiny committee have criticised the process that allowed the controversial votes to be taken without any evidence being checked.

Speaking before the committee on Thursday, March 17, Chardstock parish councillor David Everett said: “Chardstock is now – as far as the East Devon Local Plan is concerned
 – unsustainable.

“But the damage has been done because we now have five houses we should never have had.”

The meeting heard how Councillor Andrew Moulding had spoken out in support of a developer and proposed Chardstock be classed as ‘sustainable’.

An extraordinary meeting of the full council days later saw Dunkeswell added to the list with voters swayed by claims that a school was due to be built in the village – information that was later found to be erroneous.

Scrutiny chairman Councillor Roger Giles asked if members should have been debating and making major changes to the Local Plan at such a late stage without any evidence and against the recommendations of the chief executive.

Committee members argued that this should not have been allowed, but officers at the meeting said it is down to elected councillors to make decisions and, if there is not enough evidence, they should have declined to vote.

It was recommended that all councillors in future should beware of taking claims at face value and make decisions on the basis of factual evidence.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/make_decisions_on_basis_of_factual_evidence_1_4483591

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Apr 2016

Posted under

Devolution, Local Plan, NPPF

Expert Group recommends all Local Plans are signed off before devolution begins

Devolved Powers

Report to the Communities Secretary and to the Minister of Housing and Planning – Local Plans Expert Group

This is a 56 page report with a lot of detail on the problems of drawing up a Local Plan.

One paragraph makes an interesting point: how can a devolved area set extra housing targets if one or more of the subsidiary councils have not completed their Local Plans?

In many cases Inspectors add thousands of houses to suggested totals – which completely skews LEP extra numbers.

“S21. From the outset of our appointment, LPEG has been interested in the potential for voluntary joint planning provided by the current round of bids for devolved powers, which cover a large majority of the country.

Devolution provides the best opportunity for bottom-up joint planning but bids tend to focus on economic growth rather than housing and we have strongly recommended to Government that it attatches precise conditions to any successful devolution bid, requiring a commitment to plan positively to meet objectively assessed housing needs and a commitment to produce a plan for the combined area.

We further recommend that individual authorities within a combined authority area should receive sign off from the combined authority that their emerging plan addresses the Duty to Cooperate before their plan can progress.”

Click to access Local-plans-report-to-governement.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Mar 2016

Posted under

Local Plan

Five-week consultation announced on local plan reforms sneaked out with the budget

“The government has announced it will consult on the recommendations in the report of the Local Plans Expert Group until 27 April.

The report was published at the same time as the Budget last week. The Group reported an almost unanimous consensus about the problems facing local plan preparation.

These centre on agreeing housing need; difficulties with the duty to cooperate (including the distribution of unmet housing needs); a lack of political will and commitment; a lack of clarity on key issues, particularly SHMAs, strategic planning, green belt and environmental constraints; too many changes of policy, advice and factual changes in forecasts; and a lack of guidance, support and resources.

Developers and professional planners have given a broad welcome to the group’s proposals for shorter and faster plans which are more effective on growth and ensure proper community engagement.

President of the Royal Town Planning Institute Phil Williams said: “We want to see shorter, more proportionate and responsive, local plans and a greater focus on planning collaboratively across boundaries.

“Overall, the conclusions of the report will provide planners with greater certainty, for example, by allowing for judgments to be made on simpler evidence bases, and being subject to more flexible tests of soundness by the Inspectorate.

“We are also very pleased that the group has acknowledged the role that central government can play by taking steps to incentivise the development of growth points to ensure that housing needs are met”.

Ministers have made it clear that they want to see the planning system move towards a more zonal and ‘red lining’ approach where local authorities use their local plans to signal their development strategy from the outset and make maximum use of permissions in principle to give early certainty and reduce the number of stage developers must go through to get planning permission.”

Five-week consultation announced on local plan reforms

THE REPORT CAN BE FOUND HERE:

Click to access Local-plans-report-to-governement.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Mar 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Chardstock, Developers/ Development, Dunkeswell, EDDC, Local Plan, Rural communities, Scrutiny, Sustainability

Chardstock and Dunkeswell: Scrutiny Committee report throws up worrying matters

How sensible it was of Councillor Gardner to make her own recording of this meeting, as it appears the Council’s own audio equipment broke down for this section of the meeting.

What follows is Councillor Gardner’s report.

Scrutiny of late amendments to the Local Plan: what did we learn?
Written by Cathy Gardner on 22-Mar-2016. Posted in Cathy Gardner EDA web site:

“On Thursday 17 March 2016, EDDCs Scrutiny Committee finally examined what went on in March last year when, at the 11th hour, two changes to the draft Local Plan (LP) were voted through. Using clear criteria, Officers had compiled a list of ‘sustainable’ villages, which excluded Dunkeswell and Chardstock. However, at the final Development Management Committee (DMC) meeting for the LP, Dunkeswell was added to the list and at the extra-ordinary Council meeting to finalise the LP, Chardstock was added in. These actions were taken without any request for Officers to verify the evidence supporting the changes.

The decision to include Dunkeswell was made on the suggestion by the then-ward member that a school was going to be built. This was not the case. Arguments made in support of Chardstock by the Deputy Leader Andrew Moulding, on behalf of the ward member, the Leader of the Council Paul Diviani, were also erroneous.

It seems that Planning Officers did not think it was necessary (or even appropriate) to check the information stated by the then ward member for Dunkeswell, despite there being time to do this before the Council meeting. Even more interesting was the assertion by the Councils’ Legal Advisor that it is not the role of any officer (including the CEO Mark Williams) to “…withhold decision-making powers from Councillors” (1). This may be true but surely Officers must give clear advice to Councillors, especially if a proposed decision might be unsound. In this case the CEO did not provide clear advice (2) to full Council that they were being asked to vote on amendments which were both against Planning Officer advice and based on information that had not been verified. He did not suggest that Members might prefer to ask for the information to be confirmed before voting or that making a decision under these circumstances was inadvisable.

The urge to get the draft LP signed off seems to have overridden any caution that making last minute changes might be unsound. Fortunately, in these cases, the Inspector did not uphold the changes and neither village is now in the ‘sustainable’ list. Unfortunately there have been consequences for Chardstock and development was approved on the understanding that the village was to be classified as ‘sustainable’.

So, apparently, Members can make unfounded and unconfirmed assertions and if other Members accept what they are told, they can vote through changes to a document as vital as the LP, contrary to the result of proper process and Officer advice without any difficulty. In the end the Council is accountable for its decisions and they should be evidence-based, but the only recourse for communities affected by an error is a Judicial Review (JR). If someone can afford to bring a JR and wins, the result will be a cost to the Council – which is our money. There are no sanctions for any Members who may present incorrect information to bring such a result about.

Can this happen again?

Yes, almost certainly. In the short term the Villages Development Plan is being finalised. In the medium term the LP will be up for review. So there will always be opportunities for incorrect information to be used to sway the content of development plans.

So what can we do?

I suppose the only thing we can do is to be alert to events like this and make efforts to call them out as they happen; to request that Officers confirm what is being suggested and to ask for any vote to be deferred until this has happened. We have to insist that all decisions are based on sound evidence.

The lesson for Members has to be to not take anything at face value, no matter who says it. Put the interests of residents first, follow evidence-based advice and do not be swayed by persuasive speakers. And perhaps wonder about the motives behind such actions.

Personal audio recording of Scrutiny Committee meeting, March 17 2016 (Council system broke down during this part of the meeting), C Gardner
2. Audio recording of extra-ordinary Council Meeting, March 26 2015, EDDC website (2:42:44) http://eastdevon.gov.uk/recordings/council/eocouncil260315recording

Source: Scrutiny of late amendments to the Local Plan: what did we learn?
Written by Cathy Gardner on 22-Mar-2016. Posted in Cathy Gardner

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Mar 2016

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Local Plan, Transparency

One company does at least 250 Housing estimates for local plans – councils refuse to disclose data

One botched arithmetical calculation could change housing figures all over the country – but councils refuse to allow scrutiny of the data.

“Councils have a public duty to estimate housing need. Guildford has delegated this calculation to a property consultancy called GL Hearn. It has not disclosed the detailed arithmetic and assumptions to show how the housing need for the borough was calculated. It even professes not to hold a copy of the model.

Guildford’s Code of Conduct pays lip-service to ‘Openness’, ‘Transparency’, and ‘Honesty’. Failure to oblige contractors and consultants to disclose their calculations to the public is not consistent with these values. Nor is it an acceptable method of conducting public affairs. It is not consistent with the principles of good public procurement contracting. Failure to explain in detail the assumptions and arithmetic behind the housing need estimates which underpin the Local Plan is a dereliction of public duty.

GL Hearn apparently subcontracted the work to Justin Gardner Consulting:

http://www.justingardnerconsulting.co.uk/index.php?page=test-page

It claims to have worked for some 250 planning authorities across England. Failure to disclose may therefore be widespread.

Please see the Information Commissioner’s decision on the link below:

Click to access fer_0558599.pdf

http://www.guildford-dragon.com/2015/11/07/letter-the-way-our-housing-numbers-have-been-calculated-should-be-revealed/”

https://www.change.org/p/mr-paul-spooner-leader-of-guildford-borough-council-councils-must-publicly-disclose-housing-need-calculations-in-guildford-and-across-england

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Feb 2016

Posted under

Developers/ Development, Local Plan, National Planning Policy Framework

109% of all required housing already agreed in local plans

” 6.4 Local plans adopted since the National Planning Policy Framework was published in March 2012 allocate substantially more housing than those adopted before the Framework was published. The average post- National Planning Policy Framework plan makes provision for 109% of household projections (footnote 40) compared to only 86% for pre-Framework plans.”

Footnote 40 reads:

Household projections are from census data indicating future household formations

Click to access Planning_consultation.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Feb 2016

Posted under

Consultation, Local Plan, NPPF, Planning System

Comments

2 Comments

Consultation – you’re having a laugh, surely?

Just one paragraph from the consultation document below in a section on “planning in principle”:

“2.35 Before an application for technical details consent is determined, we do not propose to require by secondary legislation that local planning authorities consult with the community and others before making a decision.

We would welcome views about giving local planning authorities the option to carry out further consultation with such interested persons as they consider appropriate. This would be based on their judgement and would be informed by the engagement that took place when permission in principle was granted.

While we think that it is important for appropriate further engagement to take place at the technical details consent stage, we consider that centrally mandating what should be done risks unnecessarily repeating engagement and takes away an important local flexibility. We do propose that it should be mandatory for applicants to notify landowners and agricultural tenants of the application (as is currently the case with a planning application).”

Click to access Planning_consultation.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Feb 2016

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, AONB, Developers/ Development, Devolution, EDDC, Environment (local), Infrastructure, Local Enterprise Partnership, Local Plan, National Planning Policy Framework, Neighbourhood Plans, Planning System, Sustainability

Comments

1 Comment

Yet another battle to fight: more, many more, sneaky changes to planning

The devil is in the detail here – so many “minor” changes, never seen before – all gearing up to give our LEP total control of the planning system:

“This consultation seeks views on the proposed approach to implementing the planning provisions in the Housing and Planning Bill, and some other planning measures. It covers the following areas:

Changes to planning application fees
 Permission in principle
 Brownfield register
 Small sites register
 Neighbourhood planning
 Local plans
 Expanding the planning performance regime
 Testing competition in the processing of planning applications
 Information about financial benefits
 Section 106 dispute resolution
 Permitted development rights for state-funded schools
 Changes to statutory consultation on planning applications”

Click to access Planning_consultation.pdf

WE HAVE UNTIL 15 APRIL 2016 TO RESPOND

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Feb 2016

Posted under

Clyst St Mary, EDDC HQ, Environment (local), Flooding, Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plans

SAVE CLYST ST MARY – FEBRUARY UPDATE

“Apologies for the length of this update. There have recently been a number of significant developments with regard to planning applications of which we feel you should be aware. You are therefore strongly urged to read the whole document.

As always, thank you for your continued support; we remain committed to protecting Clyst St Mary from inappropriate developments.

1. Local Plan

The most significant event since the last update has been the formal adoption of the Local Plan by EDDC. In theory this should protect the village from further large scale development other than the 150 houses on the brown field areas of the former Friends Provident site.

At the meeting of the Parish Council on 8th February, which was attended by members of our Campaign Group, Councillor Howe gave a very warm and upbeat welcome to the Plan and emphasised that it would give EDDC the clout it needed to prevent inappropriate development of green field sites. He also said that the Planning Committee had already refused several planning applications in East Devon on the basis they were not in accordance with the Plan.

We hope that this robust approach will be sustained when the planning applications for the Friends Provident site are eventually scrutinised by the Planning Committee. We are very fortunate that our District Councillor lives in the village and has been such a strong supporter of our Campaign against inappropriate development over the past 12 months. We are particularly grateful for his input to the draft of the Local Plan last March which resulted in the house numbers for the Friends Provident site being reduced from some around 300 to 150.

Within the Plan we have our own map! This clearly shows the playing fields of the Friends Provident site and the Plymouth Brethren field as remaining green and where building will not be permitted.

Interestingly it also shows the areas that become flooded when Grindle Brook bursts the banks, as it has several times this winter. You can view the map in the online version of this update on our website http://www.saveclyststmary.org.uk

2. Future of the Friends Provident Playing Fields

The Save Clyst St Mary Campaign Group has consistently taken a robust line that the green areas in and around Clyst House should remain green and, as already mentioned, we have been successful by having this included in the Local Plan.

We do not see it as being in our remit to get involved in deciding what these green spaces would be used for in future or how they should be administered. We feel this is a matter for the Parish Council. Our assumption and hope has always been that the existing sports pitches would remain and continue to be used by local sports teams to the benefit of the village and wider community.

At the Public Meeting held at the Village Hall on 16th November we listened with interest as Mr Peter Cain, who has a role in the administration of Clyst Valley Football Club, outlined his vision for the future of the sports fields. Our understanding that he has consulted with various sports related bodies and the agents for the Friends Provident Site.

We are also aware that the Parish Council has formed a Sport and Recreation Committee which will eventually be responsible for the administration of the sports fields and hold the land in some form of trusteeship.

Mr Cain also made some suggestions regards agreeing the release of some parts of the green field for house building in order to give something back to Friends Provident for allowing the sports pitches to remain as such. This is something we would strongly oppose because it would be against the Local Plan.

At the Parish Council Meeting on 8th February further details of these plans came to light and these are now causing us concern.

The Parish Council have been briefed by a representative of the agents, JLL, about a plan to build around 100-150 extra houses on the Plymouth Brethren field and in a line running from the Brethren field eastwards towards Clyst House.

The Parish Council has been sounded out by JLL about the possibility of a three way land swap. This would involve swapping the current Clyst Valley Football field for a new pitch on the Friends Site. The Plymouth Brethren land would swopped be for the Clyst Valley Football Pitch. An application would then be made to build a Plymouth Brethren meeting hall and large car park on the pitch.

These are proposals in principle and until a formal application is submitted the Parish Council cannot comment.

At this time we do not know the exact status of the football field land beyond that it is held in some sort of trust and from hearsay that it may have been given to the football club and/or village many years ago. If you can help us in any way with more information please get in touch.

It was confirmed at the Parish Council meeting by Councillor Howe that the trustees of the Football Club had agreed in principle with JLL to a land swap.

Obviously this is very disturbing news because it runs contrary to the aims of our Campaign Group, the Local Plan and the soon to adopted Neighbourhood Plan. We must now await the submission of fresh planning applications by JLL and the Plymouth Brethren. In the meantime we will keep you updated on further developments by email and on the website at http://www.saveclyststmary.org.uk.

When and if appropriate we will ask the Parish Council to call another Public Meeting in the Village Hall.

Over the past 12 months we have, with your invaluable support, achieved a great deal. Providing we stick together as residents and remain strong we will succeed in blocking further appropriate development from whatever quarter. As a village we are now in a far stronger position with the full backing of a Local Plan and very soon the Neighbourhood Plan.

3. Neighbourhood Plan

This is currently in the final consultation phase and is expected to be published in May. Once in place this will provide a further level of protection against the onslaught of the property developers. It can be seen at http://www.planning.bishopsclyst.co.uk/

For those that would prefer to look at a printed copy, it can be seen, until 1st March, at the following locations:

Cat & Fiddle Inn
Clyst St Mary Church
Clyst St Mary Post Office (Mills)
Clyst St Mary School
Clyst St Mary Village Hall
Half Moon Inn
Sowton Church
Sowton Village.

4. Foul smell coming from the Digester (pink ‘bubble’ situated in Oil Mill Lane)

Should you smell a strong odour which you believe is coming from the digester, remember that this needs to be reported to the Environmental Agency on an individual basis (they will not accept a group complaint). It is simple to do this: telephone (free) 0800 80 70 60.

5. Traffic Action Group
(distributed on behalf of the Parish Council)
As a member of our Parish Council, I am aware that there are any number of concerns relating to traffic, speeding, and general pedestrian and driver safety within the village and around the Parish.

One thing has become very apparent when pursuing any traffic related issue. Because Devon Highways are so cash strapped, and from experience difficult to communicate with, it has been suggested that a Traffic Action Group be formed.

If you have an issue you wish to raise, then so far as Devon Highways go, they require documented evidence of any problems. Therefore we are looking to local residents to write in to the Parish Council together with any photographic evidence highlighting their concerns.

It is no good grumbling to neighbours, or in the pub or shop, or even to your PC. Written documentation is what is needed, sent to your PC, so it can be collated and prioritised before approaching Devon Highways. As with so many local government departments, the more letters and pieces of evidence presented to them, the more likely they will take notice.
This is especially so if a safety issue plays an important role in any given concern. But it must be supported by as many individual missives as can be got together.

Therefore your Parish Council is encouraging you all to put pen to paper, or fingers to E-mail: bishopsclyst@gmail.com .If any of you wish to participate in helping to run an Action group you would be most welcome. You would not have to be a Parish Councillor as the group would gather information to present to the PC.

It seems that in the present climate of local and central government austerity, local lobbying as I have described is becoming an essential way of getting things done within a community like ours.

6. Flood insurance survey
(letter distributed on behalf of the Parish Council)
Dear Supporter

Please help Flood Re with research about the cost of flood insurance

The cost of flood insurance is high on the news agenda again following the flood damage caused by Storms Desmond, Eva and Frank. It is only two years since the previous significant flood event in the UK and experts predict that the risk of flooding is set to increase even further.

A new scheme called Flood Re has been set up by the insurance industry with the support of the Government to help those struggling to find affordable home insurance and will launch in April 2016.

In order to better understand what impact the new scheme will have, it is important for Flood Re to measure the availability and cost of home insurance now and then compare this with data collected after the launch in April.

National Flood Forum would like you to contribute to this research by taking part in an online survey. This study is being carried out by Consumer Intelligence http://www.consumerintelligence.com on behalf of Flood Re http://www.floodre.co.uk . It should take less than 10 minutes of your time to complete and as a thank you for helping Flood Re with this vital work, Consumer Intelligence will send you £5 via email to a registered PayPal account or if you prefer, they will donate £5 on your behalf to the National Flood Forum.

What do you need to do?

Simply complete the online response via the link below. Flood Re will use this information to obtain home insurance quotations at four points during 2016 and 2017. Your details will not be used for any other purpose without prior consent. https://consumerintelligence.fluidsurveys.com/s/flood_research/

National Flood Forum hopes that enough people will participate in the research to demonstrate how effective Flood Re is at making household insurance available to households in flood risk areas and that this can be used to shape and develop the scheme in the future.

N.B. There are still a few places left on the FloodRe roundtable discussions notably Reading (18th Feb), Wrexham (22nd Feb), York (25th Feb) and Gloucester (3rd March) for further details please contact Laura Furman on laura.furman@floodre.co.uk.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Feb 2016

Posted under

Chardstock, Developers/ Development, Development Management Committee, Dunkeswell, EDDC, Local Plan

How did Chardstock and Dunkeswell get introduced into the local plan at the last millisecond?

The timeline of how the decisions were taken make VERY, VERY interesting reading – in documents accompanying the Scrutiny Committee agenda for

18 February 2016, 6.00pm

here:

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1531428/180215-scrutiny-agenda-combined.pdf

particularly page 13 onwards:

DUNKESWELL

“Councillor B Buxton asked for inclusion of Dunkeswell on the BUAB list, on grounds of size of settlements, 160 firms many on industrial site and felt that the village met most of the criteria. In response, the committee were informed there was no school- Cllr Buxton responded that a school was expected as consultation was underway with the County Council and a site had been designated.
Recommendation from DMC to add Dunkeswell to the list with build up area boundary.
What evidence supported that statement by Cllr Buxton?
Follow up by officers and Clerk of Dunkeswell confirmed that no plans by Devon County Council for a school. Clerk also checked if a ny plans for a free school, again no plans. When produced the sustainability assessment was undertaken (which determines which villages should retain BUABs) DCC confirmed no plans for a school.”
CHARDSTOCK
Council 26 March 2015
David Mortimer (public) spoke to as k to add Chardstock to list of sustainable villages on the Local Plan having build up boundary, in light of DMC recommendation to include Dunkeswell.   He stated that he agreed
with the DMC recommendation to add Dunkeswell;
transport as a measure of sustain ability is too simplistic. Why not add other villages with similar; in terms of Chardstock, stated that it had an undersubscribed new primary school with 66% of pupils coming from
outside the parish village school, and a number of other facilities and services available in the village.
Councillor Andrew Moulding proposed to add Chardstock; Including stating reasons of school of 150 pupils in place, community services and transport available at one end of location which could be reached by the community. The proposal was debated with councillors speaking both for and against inclusion; in response on request of the Chairman, the CX reminded the Council of the officer advice that the village did not meet the criteria but there were clearly opposing views an d the proposal should be voted on.
Carried on vote to include Chardstock in the BUAB list. DMC recommendations agreed, therefore also including Dunkeswell.
Email from Cllr Giles to Chief Executive
27 March 2015
“I am writing to express my great unease about the way a decision was made about Chardstock at yesterday`s Extra Ordinary meeting of EDDC to make submissions to the Local Plan Inspector. I was unaware, and I suspect the vast majority of councillors were unaware, that a decision about the status of Chardstock was to be made at the meeting. Certainly there was no specific documentation supplied for the meeting to suggest this.
At the beginning of the meeting, under the public speaking arrangements, a Mr David Mortimer spoke in support of Chardstock being a sustainable community and seeking its designation to be changed. As I recall Mr Mortimer gave no details of himself, of where he lived, of whether he was a landowner in Chardstock, or whether he was acting for a landowner in Chardstock. Of course if he fitted into either of the last two categories that  ould not have stopped him speaking – but it would have been relevant to know.
There was no further mention of Chardstock until much later in the meeting when the Council Deputy Leader, Council lor Andrew Moulding (who is not the ward member) spoke in favour of Chardstock`s status being changed because it is a sustainable location. As I recall (but I apologise if I am wrong), Councillor Moulding said that Mr Mortimer was speaking on behalf of Chardstock Parish Council. There seemed to be considerable doubt about whether Mr Mortimer was actually speaking on behalf of Chardstock Parish Council. My recollection is that he did not say he was.
My particular concerns are that a decision was taken without any  information to justify it, in spite of the Inspector making very clear that he wanted an evidence-based Local Plan submission from EDDC.
Specific questions that I would like answered please are:
What is the Chardstock Parish Council view on the redesignation of Chardstock, as far as we are aware?
Did Chardstock Parish Council make a recent submission to EDDC relevant to the Extra Ordinary meeting of yesterday?
When and what was the nature of the most recent Chardstock PC submission to EDDC about its situation in the EDLP?
What evidence does EDDC have of consultation exercises undertaken within the Parish of Chardstock about the EDLP? If EDDC has such evidence, what does it show of the view of Chardstock residents?
What discussions specifically about Chardstock took place at or following the EDDC LDF/LP Panel hearings?
I look forward to early answers to the above questions.
Meanwhile I am greatly concerned that a fundamental change of policy was agreed at a meeting yesterday without any supporting documentation, purely on the basis of arguments made at the meeting by just two people–one a councillor and the other a member of the public, on a matter that (unlike the Sidford 5ha of employment land) had not previously been discussed, and on which the view of the Parish Council was uncertain.”
 
1 April 2015
Approved 15/0217/FUL in YARTY ward (Chardstock) for five dwellings against officer advice on unsustainable location.
17 June 2015
Representation from one Chardstock Parish Councillor that decision taken by Council was not evidence based.
25 June 2015
Representations from two Chardstock Parish Councillors that the decision taken by Council to include Chardstock was not evidence based.
4 July 2015
Application 15/1007
South View, Chardstock decision was refused:
“Whilst in other respects the application is considered to be acceptable and despite the site’s location within the village and the builtup area boundary, defined under the Adopted East Devon Local Plan, this is not considered to be a sustainable site to accommodate new development. Chardstock has only a limited range of services and access to a wider range of services and employment opportunities, necessary for day to day living, is only available via private transport due to the lack of public transport service to the village.   Despite the site being included with the draft New Local Plan Strategy 27 as a sustainable village, this policy can only be afforded limited weight as the Strategy has been out to public consultation and has not been endorsed by the Local Plan Inspector and as such the application falls to be considered on the basis of its sustainability.  As such, the limited social and economic benefits that would arise from the delivery of a single dwelling are considered to be outweighed by the environmental impact of the development resulting from its unsustainable location served by a limited range of services and lack of public transport.
The application is therefore recommended for refusal on this basis.
January 2016:
Inspector report on Local PlanParagraph 31–
“Chardstock and Dunkeswell have limited facilities and do not benefit from access to public transport. Their addition to Strategy 27 is not supported by the Council’s Small Towns and Villages Development
Suitability Assessment 2014 and I have removed them from Strategy 27”.
”.
Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Feb 2016

Posted under

Democracy, EDDC, Local Plan, Mark Williams CEO EDDC, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

EDDC ” public servant” should consider his position

Just in case anyone doesn’t realise who the “public servant” is – it is Mark Williams, CEO of East Devon District Council. And maybe here, we should see what his “union” [aptly called SOLACE – Society of Local Authority Chief Executives] says about the role and contrast this with what is reported later on:

“At its most simple, the role has four principle aspects:
 Managerial leadership of the organisation;

 Providing and securing advice to the Council on strategy and policy;

 Acting in an executive capacity by making decisions or ensuring a system is in place for other officers to make decisions, as authorised by the Council; and

 Delivering probity, value for money and continuous improvement.”

Click to access SOLACE_response_CO_Pay_Inquiry_140130.pdf

Nowhere does it mention insulting members of the public or whole TOWNS!

THE LETTER TO THE PRESS:

“The conduct and comments of EDDC’s most senior officer at last week’s Extra Ordinary Council Meeting, continue to cause shock waves in the press.
The letter copied below, from Save Our Sidmouth member, Robert Crick, appears in Pullman’s View from Sidmouth (9th February, 2016).

‘On behalf of the Save Our Sidmouth campaign our widely respected neighbour Richard Eley read a short statement during public questions before last Thursday’s District Council meeting. The statement expressed regret at the problems the Local Plan process had caused over the past few years, and reminded members that residents regarded the proposal to build an industrial estate on the Sidford Flood Plain as an act of folly.

Mr Eley then stated that since this process has now come to an end, Save Our Sidmouth recommends a fresh start to rebuild trust between the authority and the town of Sidmouth.

After putting their questions, members of the public then witnessed a remarkable event.

A non-elected public servant appropriated elected councillors’ speaking privileges by rounding on the people of Sidmouth. He angrily blamed us for having delayed the process by daring to question the Council’s original proposals. He then denounced Mr Eley personally, claiming he had called Inspector Thickett “an idiot”.

Challenged by the meeting, he refused to acknowledge that he had misrepresented Mr Eley’s words. When forced to admit his error, he absolutely refused to apologise.

Councillor Stuart Hughes, Chair of the Council, finally gave a dignified apology, which allowed the elected members to proceed and adopt the Local Plan.

It was evident to all that the paid official has a deep-rooted and obsessive personal animosity to the town and people of the Sid valley, which must surely disqualify him from a continuing role as a servant of East Devon. Perhaps it is time for him to consider his position.‘

Public servant at centre of ‘remarkable event’ should ‘consider his position’

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Feb 2016

Posted under

EDDC, Local Plan, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Vote-catching? You decide

Sidmouth Ward Member, Cllr Cathy Gardner (EDA Ind) made the following speech, at last Thursday’s Extra Ordinary General Meeting:
Adoption of Local Plan, Item 6:

“The responsibility for putting the Sidford site into the LP lies squarely with the leaders at EDDC and has done since 2007.
They chose to include the site, based on arguments put forward several years ago by a variety of interested parties. There was no real desire to remove this site from the LP last year, otherwise why was the Planning Officer not instructed to provide evidence for an alternative? Can the Leader explain the purpose of the vote to ‘remove’ the site if it was not purely a vote winning exercise?”
[The so-called “decision” to remove the site was made just before last year’s district council elections].

Although the question was specifically addressed to the Leader (Paul Diviani) who was in the room, it was Chief Executive(Mark Williams) who attempted an answer. He said that councillors “in their wisdom” had gone ahead with a late-in-the-day vote to delete Sidford employment land from the Local Plan, despite his own warnings that their action could derail the Inspector’s approval of the whole Plan. There was a strong hint that Councillors should have known that, as the completed Draft Local Plan was already with the Inspector, it was anyway too late for them to make changes.

Who bears the responsibility for putting the Sidford employment site into the Local Plan? Hardly the Inspector, says Councillor.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Feb 2016

Posted under

EDBF, EDDC, Local Enterprise Partnership, Local Plan

The enduring influence of the East Devon Business Forum on the Local Plan

A speech given to councillors last week by Jeremy Woodward of Save our Sidmouth is reproduced below. Owl notes that, hoping that memories are short, EDDC is already planning to discuss its replacement (see earlier post). Preliminary work on the review of the just-adopted Local Plan will take place fairly soon. Will its replacement – and the handful of people who run our Local Enterprise Partnership – be the ones to decide what goes in that one?

“Mr Chairman,

Would you not agree that the Local Plan which you and your colleagues are being asked to adopt is in fact a deeply flawed document?

As an illustration, if I might quote from the submission made by the Vision Group for Sidmouth to the Local Plan on 8th June 2012.

I begin:

“The influence of the East Devon Business Forum on proposals for employment land and housing in the draft Local Plan should be considered. In January 2007, a Sub-Committee was established by the Forum to consider ‘amending the Atkins report’:

To refer to the

“Minutes of the Annual General Meeting of the East Devon Business Forum on 25 January 2007

“Atkins Report:

“Graham Brown reported that he had attended a meeting with the Corporate Director – Environment to discuss the preliminary findings of the Atkins Report. The findings included the conclusion that East Devon did not need as much employment land as [the] East Devon Business Forum had recommended. Forum members discussed how the findings of the Atkins Report would be amended as they were not in step with East Devon’s needs.

“A Sub Committee of the Business Forum would need to investigate employment land availability, where there was potential for growth and where the business community would like to see development take place.”

End of minutes.

It appears that a group of business people comprising this Forum reviewed the publicly-funded [independent] Atkins Report and then determined that the employment land provisions were insufficient; they subsequently proceeded to derive their own projections, which the District Council then adopted as “evidence” for the increased employment land figure which ensued:

To refer to the

“Minutes of the Annual General Meeting of the East Devon Business Forum on 31 January 2008 [a year later]

“Update on Employment Land Issues:

“Members noted that the work the Business Forum had done on the Atkins Report had made an enormous difference to the final report prepared by the Employment Land Issues Task and Finish Forum. This had been accepted by the Executive Board. The report was now being used by the Development Control Committee as a base when considering planning applications for employment land.”

End of quote.

Again, Mr Chairman, would you not acknowledge that the Local Plan is a deeply flawed document?

Because, if we chose to take the Council’s own calculations of one new home to one new job, this deliberate inflation of employment land undermines fundamentally the housing figures proposed in the Local Plan.

Thank you”.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Feb 2016

Posted under

EDDC, Local Plan, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Comments

1 Comment

Sidmouth Herald letter re Sidford Fields

Letter in Sidmouth Herald below. Yes, Carol, LOTS of people, including your new, local Independent councillors have been and are trying desperately hard to get this ridiculous decision reversed. Unfortunately, the district council majority party councillors did not share this view. EDDC was supposed to offer the Inspector evidence to support the decision to remove it from the Local Plan. EDDC chose not to supply that evidence, which had been given to them in vast amounts. Perhaps you should ask Councillor Stuart Hughes why and how this happened as he was there at the time and seems to be unable to supply a satisfactory answer as to why this happened.

I live in Sidbury. Anyone who lives in this area knows how fast non-local traffic travels through this area.

A business park will attract even more traffic. I feel the plan to use the land for a business park is appalling. Does this [planning inspector] Anthony Thickett live any where in this part of Devon? Does [EDDC leader] Paul Diviani live here? No, of course not. Neither of these people seem to care that they are about to spoil the jewel that is Sidmouth or the ancient village of Sidbury. Is nobody able to fight this disgusting decision?

It makes me sad that these people can make choices that do not affect them, but are, in my view, happy to spoil the lives of hundreds of local people and the thousands of visitors that visit our towns and villages because they remain relatively unspoilt.
Carol Ireton
Sidbury

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/opinion_don_t_spoil_jewel_that_is_sidmouth_or_ancient_village_sidbury_1_4398994?utm_medium=email&utm_source=eshot&utm_campaign=newsletterlink

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 Jan 2016

Posted under

EDDC, Local Plan, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Sidford Fields – questions, questions, questions

From a correspondent – views expressed are those of the correspondent:

Sidmouth Employment Land

Dspite a vote by full Council on 26 March to exclude the proposed new industrial site north of Sidford from the local plan, it remained listed in the Review as O41 at 5.97ha. The wording in the draft plan was for a site of “up to 5ha”. The table on page 154 showed 5.97ha as the area of the intended site.

It is now known that the Inspector was left to decide whether the Sidford site should stand. The case presented was that there is no proven need for it as there is ample scope on the Alexandria Road Industrial Estate.

The inclusion in the Local Plan of a “need to promote a new employment site on the northern edge of Sidmouth” is not, in my opinion, supported by any evidence of need over and above that available at far less cost and more suitable location at the Alexandria Road site which is not in the AONB. It should be rejected.

Recent history of Alexandria Road and Sidford Fields:

The Employment Land Review 2014 was sent to the planning inspector as supporting evidence for the revised Local Plan. On page 65 is the appraisal of the Alexandria Road Industrial Estate in Sidmouth. This appraisal is based solely on the Tyms Study(2011) with passing reference to the Atkins Report (2006). This evidence is years out of date and not a reflection of the current state of the area, particularly its description of the northern area presently accessed only via Pathworlands. But even the remark that “the southern area is occupied by builders merchants in an old railway premises” is couched in language designed to imply its unsuitability! In fact the yard is on the land of the former railway sidings so is flat and well suited to its use, as is the substantial old building now equipped as a store and a purpose built new brick building for stock and offices. The use of this appraisal will be very much criticised during the Public examination process.

The two most inaccurate comments are: “The northern area is being used for self storage shipping containers” and “The estate is made up of a number of plateaus and is quite densely developed. The majority of accommodation provided is relatively poor”.
Since those 2006/2011 reports the containers have been re-sited to a higher level secured area in a glen well out of sight from the rest of the estate (05/2722/FUL approved January 2006) so there is now also available a large empty area, part used just for the casual parking of assorted private vehicles and the dumping of rubbish.

In addition, the area formerly occupied by a gas holder is now available for use after the ground has been de-toxified and was purchased in 2013 by the majority owner of the rest of the site – a large mainly empty area presently being part used for a log business, storage of palletts and parking for Voluntary Service vehicles. An application is currently awaiting decision for a Certificate of Lawfulness for change of use to Business uses (14/1866/CPE).

Since Tyms, one of the site businesses, Sidmouth Tyres and Exhausts who own the freehold of their part of the site, has invested heavily in two large new buildings fully equipped with vehicle lifts (6!) and a rolling road for MoT testing after demolishing an old office and one of the old workshops. EDDC are fully aware of these developments as it was they who granted two separate planning applications (09/1377/FUL & 12/1978/FUL) for their construction. Yet they continue to present outdated information.

Many of the older buildings in the northern section are “relatively poor” as stated. But that is largely because the current owners have not invested in them in the same way, probably in anticipation of being the sponsors of a proposed new industrial estate at Sidford and a recent (2012) approach by a major retailer to buy part of the site which has subsequently been discontinued.

The site as it is today is far from being “densely developed” – it has masses of underused space which with suitable modest investment could meet the needs of growing or start-up businesses for Sidmouth for many years to come, especially now that there is a commitment to provide improved access directly from the main road.

It is surprising that EDDC officers appear not to have not troubled to check the validity of evidence they present to the Inspector but continued to rely on outdated reports – especially as they had a record of discarding these two particular reports in the past because they did not accord with the wishes of certain Councillors involved in the inordinately long period of preparation of the Local Plan.

Questions about Sidford Business Park

1. Did Mr Thickett actually visit Alexandria Ind estate or did he rely solely on the evidence submitted by EDDC in the Employment Land Review 2014 page 65? The evidence above shows that this was outdated and inaccurate. Was it considered?

2. On what criteria did Mr Thickett rule that Alexandria Industrial Estate was “unsuitable”?

3. EDDC has said that Mr Thickett “considered all the options and concludes Sidford is the best of a bad bunch.” The 5 additional options listed in the ELR 2014 in addition to Sidford were all remote from Sidmouth and totalled 7.29ha. But these are all existing sites already in use for employment so would not have figured in Mr Thickett’s consideration of “all the options” for additional employment land to serve the needs of the Sidmouth area. The only new site he was offered was Sidford.
Many many questions, no answers.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Jan 2016

Posted under

EDBF, EDDC, Graham Brown, Local Plan, Local Plan Inspector, Mark Williams CEO EDDC

Comments

1 Comment

Whose fault is it the Local Plan took so long? Sidmouth says EDDC’s Mark Williams!!!

Not the false start made by the first Local Development Framework group, which spent 2-plus years visiting sites of favoured developers.

Not the East Devon Business Forum and its Chairman disgraced ex-councillor Graham Brown which attempted to get an iron grip on it.

Not the officers and councillors who employed consultant after consultant until they found one they agreed with.

Not the same officers and councillors who had their drafts thrown out twice by the Planning Inspector.

NO! NO! NO! IT IS ALL THE FAULT OF – SIDMOUTH!!!

Sidmouth delayed the Local Plan! and Mark William’s loses it!

At a heated meeting of EDDC councillors tonight to approve the Local Plan, CEO Mark Williams lost control of himself in a big way.

In response to a fairly conciliatory speech from resident Richard Eley, on behalf of Save our Sidmouth, a furious Williams lambasted Sidmouth for delaying the Local Plan and increasing the number of houses in it!

“But for Sidmouth we would have had a local plan three years ago,” he ranted, adding that “the end result of all your objections is that we’ve ended up in the local plan with more houses than originally proposed.” (Gasps of astonishment from the public and cries of “rubbish” and “nonsense”.)

A few minutes later he rounded on Richard Eley again accusing him of “churlishly” calling the Inspector “idiotic”. Eley sprang to his feet and angrily denied he had used that word about the inspector, and demanded an apology – supported by more cries of “scandal” and “apologise” from the public.

He insisted on reading the offending part of his speech again which proved his point that the i-word was never used. In fact, he described the decision to include land at Sidford for a business park as “stupid”.

After more moments of mayhem and shouting from the public, a reluctant apology was extracted from the CEO.

Many observers were left wondering if Mr Williams might not need a long rest –as in retirement on a generous pension………

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Jan 2016

Posted under

Development Management Committee, EDDC, Local Plan, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Sidford Fields employment land

Interesting that one reason the Inspector gave for inclusion of the site was that “no new evidence had been submitted to support the request for its removal” had been offered to change his mind.

This implies that if he HAD received further evidence, he would have taken it into account in making his decision.

Didn’t the Development Management Committed imply that they would contact the Inspector about removing the site after much evidence had been submitted to it as to why it was unsuitable?

Did they contact him with this new evidence as they had appeared to suggest they would do?

And what actions (as opposed to words and supported by clear evidence) did Councillor Hughes and ex-Councillor Troman take at that point? A point so close to local elections that words and actions were particularly important?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Jan 2016

Posted under

Developers/ Development, Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plans

Important case law on relationship of developers, local plans and neighbourhood plans

Chichester District Council has successfully defended a judicial review challenge to a neighbourhood plan.

The claimant in Crownhall Estates Ltd, R (on the application of) v Chichester District Council & Ors [2016] EWHC 73 had been promoting the development of 25 dwellings on a site in Loxwood, West Sussex. However, its application for planning permission for the site had been refused.
A referendum on the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan (LNP), which did not include Crownhall’s site for potential housing, was held on 24 July 2014 and 97.7% of those voting, voted in favour.

The district council (CDC) therefore became obliged under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to make the LNP.

In July 2014 Crownhall brought its first claim for judicial review. The following October the High Court made a consent order quashing CDC’s decision to hold the referendum and also the subsequent referendum on the grounds that the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 had not been complied with.

In particular the district council accepted that the process for making a screening decision that Strategic Environmental Assessment (“SEA”) was not required for the LNP had been unlawful.

Subsequently, a lawful screening process was carried out by CDC which determined that SEA was not required for the neighbourhood plan. Crownhall did not raise any legal challenge to that decision.

Between 23 October and 4 December 2014 a fresh round of public consultation took a place on a resubmitted draft of the neighbourhood plan. Twenty representations were made, some supporting the LNP in its entirety. Crownhall made representations objecting that the LNP had not identified its site for housing.

On 25 February 2015 an examiner sent her report on the examination of the re-submitted LNP to the district council. She recommended that, subject to modifications set out in the report, the LNP satisfied the “basic conditions” and should proceed to a referendum. CDC agreed and therefore came under a duty once again to hold a local referendum.

Crownhall issued a second application for judicial review on 20 April 2015. On 5 June 2015 Mr Justice Dove granted Crownhall permission to apply for judicial review on all grounds save for a challenge to the earlier reliance upon delegated authority.

On 25 June 2015 the local referendum on the re-submitted LNP was held. On this occasion 98.5% of those voting, voted in favour of the making of the neighbourhood plan.

In the meantime on 8 June 2015 Crownhall had issued its third proceedings for judicial review challenging the decision in April 2015 to hold the referendum and seeking an order to quash that decision.

On 14 July 2015, the same day as it adopted the local plan, CDC also made the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan under section 38(4) of the PCPA 2004.
Crownhall sought to have the legal proceedings stayed until March 2016, by which time it was expected that the Communities Secretary’s decision on the developer’s appeal against refusal of planning permission would be known.
Both Chichester and Loxwood Parish Council objected to the company’s application. A deputy master refused the application and so Mr Justice Holgate heard the case over two days in November 2015.

Crownhall, which wanted its site to be allocated as an additional housing site in the neighbourhood plan, raised the following grounds of challenge:


The examiner and Chichester District Council failed to consider whether, in accordance with the basic condition in paragraph 8(2)(a) of schedule 4B to Town & Country Planning Act 1990, it was appropriate to make the LNP, having regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by SSCLG. In particular the examiner and the CDC failed to consider whether it was appropriate for the LNP to allocate land for more than 60 new dwellings in Loxwood;

The examiner and CDC gave no adequate or intelligible reasons for concluding that the LNP should allocate land for only 60 new dwellings;

The examiner and CDC erred in law: (a) by considering that the local Plan treats small windfalls (i.e. non-allocated sites for less than 6 dwellings) as being included within the indicative figure of 60 dwellings for Loxwood; 
(b) by failing to deal with the claimant’s representation that the LNP fails to allow windfalls for 6 or more dwellings to be approved on non-allocated sites;


The scoring system used to select sites for allocation in the LNP was legally flawed, because (a) it had regard to an immaterial consideration, namely whether a site fell inside or outside the proposed revision of the settlement boundary for Loxwood, and (b) the treatment of the Nursery site as “previously developed land” involved a misreading of the definition of such land contained in the NPPF.

But Mr Justice Holgate concluded that all the grounds of challenge failed and that Crownhall’s applications for judicial review must be dismissed.
On grounds 1 and 2, the judge found that:

Reviewing the examiner’s reasoning fairly and as a whole it was self-evident why she considered it appropriate for the LNP to be made without increasing the plan’s allocation of housing beyond a minimum of 60 dwellings in aggregate at the Farm Place and Nursery sites under polices 4 and 5. She had accepted the district council’s case as to why there was no need for any additional allocation to be made in Loxwood at the time of considering the LNP.

There was nothing unlawful in the examiner or CDC proceeding on the basis that (i) the LNP allocated sufficient land to satisfy the draft local plan provision for Loxwood, (ii) criticisms of that provision were a matter for the local plan process, (iii) in any event the OAN (objectively assessed housing requirement) figures were not disaggregated to Loxwood Parish or to any other sub-area of the district and (iv) the claimant did not put forward any need figures for the parish in the examination.

The examiner (and hence CDC) discharged their respective obligations to give reasons.

Mr Justice Holgate rejected Crownhall’s third ground. “Even if there were to be a tension between the LNP and the local plan as regards larger windfall sites, contrary to the conclusion I have reached, that would not cause the LNP to fail to meet the requirement for general conformity with the strategic policies of the local plan,” he added.

On the fourth ground of challenge, in relation to the scoring system, Mr Justice Holgate said he saw “some force” in the criticisms made.
“For the purposes of this challenge I will assume that the corrections should have been made so as to result in the revised scores set out……,” he said.

“Nonetheless, the real question is whether this line of argument provides a basis for vitiating the conclusions drawn in the Examiner’s report and the decisions taken by CDC to put the LNP to a local referendum and to make the plan. I have reached the firm conclusion that it does not.”

The High Court judge added that ground 4 must fail, given that (a) the claimant’s sole objective had been to secure the modification of the LNP by adding the Crownhall site as a third housing allocation and (b) that case was rejected by the examiner and CDC for reasons which were freestanding and could not be impugned.

“The criticisms of the URS scoring exercise did not give rise to any material legal error in the process leading to the making of the LNP,” he said.

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25766:district-council-defeats-judicial-review-challenge-over-neighbourhood-plan&catid=63&Itemid=31

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Jan 2016

Posted under

EDDC, Local Plan, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Local Plan: Save our Sidmouth press release

“The following press release has been issued (20/01/2016), on behalf of Save Our Sidmouth:

‘Response to East Devon District Council’s update on the LOCAL PLAN
The Inspector’s recommendation that the Local Plan should include both the Employment site at Sidford and a Housing site at the Knowle for 50 dwellings is a huge disappointment. It ignores the clear wishes of a large proportion of Sidmouth residents, Sidmouth Town Council and all the Sidmouth EDDC councillors.

At the Knowle, the decision to allow 50 houses on the site instead of continuing local employment for 400 professional staff will in economic terms, severely affect the town, as well as have a detrimental effect on the Parkland. In view of his decision, it will be interesting to hear how EDDC will reconcile this with the potential developer’s desire to build over 120 dwellings on the site.

At Sidford, we know that the decision to include the site is flawed, and is based on fallacious data. There is evidence to suggest that EDDC and their now disgraced Business Forum, canvassed developers for potential sites, and then manufactured the rationale and analysis to support their internally chosen site. EDDC let the proponents of that site produce “evidence” to support it, and never questioned the data. This included flawed traffic figures, no real visual analysis, and unsupported flood analysis, amongst other deficiencies. The Employment allocation arises solely because of the commercial pressures of one landowner and a business in the town.

Later, EDDC, under pressure from Sidmouth Councillors, saw sense and accepted that the site should not have been included. They decided to omit the Employment allocation from the third and final submission. Unfortunately the Inspector had ruled that no revisions were allowed at that late stage.
Thus the town may well end up with having an obtrusive, flood-prone, traffic- congesting group of sheds on its doorstep. Or the possibility of a large retail park, which will destroy the nature of the town forever. Moreover, the residents of Sidford will now have blight on their homes because of the impending development and a continuing worry about traffic and flooding.

Sidmouth does not need a further Employment site; the town already has one at Alexandria Road, which with a modicum of attention could accommodate all the minor employment opportunities that is needed.

We are extremely grateful for all the support that Sid Valley residents have given in time and money over the last few years, and they may rest assured that although we are naturally disappointed with the outcome, we have not given up.

R J Thurlow. Chair, Save Our Sidmouth’

http://saveoursidmouth.com/2016/01/21/inspectors-recommendations-for-sidmouth-a-huge-disappointment/

This is followed on the website by illustrative photographs.