According to the front page of this month’s Cranbrook Herald, the lead story is that EDDC has dropped the words that it is built ton”eco-town standards” when describing Cranbrook in the draft Local Plan.
http://www.cranbrookherald.com
(e-edition)
The town council agrees, saying that the phrase cannot apply when EDDC is “downgrading future environmental requirements for the town”.
It is apparently now being described as a “modern market town”.
Hhhmmm …
According to Great Leader Diviani’s Christmas message, he expects the latest version of the draft Local Plan to be adopted early next year.
But how does he know this?
According to the EDDC web page where ALL correspondence with Mr Thickett is supposed to be published:
EDDC has not written to Mr Thickett since February 2015 and Mr Thickett has not replied since March 2015.
Special telepathy perhaps to which the public is not allowed access?
The village of Hook Norton is mentioned ( see earlier post) as well as this exchange:
Michelle Donelan Conservative, Chippenham
The Minister will be aware that the planning inspector has deferred a decision on Chippenham’s housing development plan and has asked Wiltshire council to come back after a few queries. During this time, what measures could be put in place to ensure we do not have a free-for-all of aggressive planning applications against the best interests of the strategy of the town?
Marcus Jones Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Communities and Local Government) (Local Government)
Having a five-year land supply in place puts local planning authorities in a strong position to resist unwanted development. Furthermore, national planning policy reiterates the importance of sustainable development, not development anywhere or at any cost, and I am sure my hon. Friend’s local authority is well aware of that when making decisions.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-12-14a.1270.2
What can you do when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Communities and Local Government) (Local Government) is si ignorant of real life?
Hook Norton, Oxfordshire, Cotswolds, 4.5 miles from PMs Chipping Norton home. population around 2,000.
Local plan – tick
Five year land supply – tick
Neighbourhood plan – tick
Local council gets a planning application for 54 houses over and above local plan and neighbourhood plan, next to a dairy. Council says NO – it’s not in our approved Local Plan, not in our approved Neighbourhood Plan and too close to the cows: smelly and insects.
End of development – right?
WRONG!
Developer goes to appeal – planning inspector finds in their favour. Sent to Secretary of State – he agrees.
“In the secretary of state’s view, development of the whole appeal site would not necessarily conflict with [the neighbourhood plan], providing construction were to proceed incrementally in the form of three or more separate phases, each of no more than 20 dwellings built at say five year intervals. In view of this, the secretary of state considers that the degree of conflict between the proposal and [the neighbourhood plan] is limited and he finds no evidence that any significant material harm would ensue if this”, the letter said.
Overall, the letter said that Clark considered that the benefits of the development “would clearly outweigh the harm in terms of the limited conflict with the [neighbourhood plan] and the slight adverse effect on future occupiers as a result of odours generated by the adjacent Redlands Dairy Farm. He therefore concludes that the material circumstances in this case indicate that the appeal should be allowed and outline planning permission granted.”
RESULT: forget your Local Plan, forget your Neighbourhood Plan, forget your 5 year land supply – if a developer wants to build 54 houses next to pong and insects, that’s fine.
So, NPPF, Local Plans, Neighbourhood Plans, five year land supply can ALL be over-ridden by a developer, planning inspector and the Secretary of State.
It is to be hoped that there will be a judicial review – otherwise we might as well all rip up all three documents and leave the developers to it – we will have no planning rights at all.
New improved ways of working will make us a leaner and more efficient modern council says the Leader of East Devon District Council, Councillor Paul Diviani in his Christmas message
(translation: we know we have always been a bloated and inefficient council but this is the sort of thing our public relations people tell us we have to say)
“A friend of mine recently told me that when she first moved to East Devon to take up a new job, she thought she had died and gone to heaven. Even now, having lived here for 12 years, she says she still wakes up every morning thinking how unbelievably lucky she is to live and work in such a wonderful place.
There is almost NO doubt that this “friend” will be living in the Blackdown Hills where our Leader protects his backyard like no other).
“East Devon inspires this level of passion in people and no more so than in myself, my fellow councillors and the officers of East Devon District Council. We are all passionate about the work that we do and, above all, we want to ensure that East Devon remains a fantastic place for people like us to live in, work, visit and enjoy.
Why wouldn’t you say you are passionate when “people like you” get a lot of money so that you can live, work and enjoy your status whilst people like “us” get a lot less so that we can find our daily commute a nightmare, our work seasonal and low-paid and our enjoyment of council provided services something we remember from the distant past.
“So over the next four years we will be rising to meet the many challenges that reduced funding and increased demands on our services brings. In order to make necessary savings of £2.6m, we will be using new ways of working, involving systems thinking principles and our ‘WorkSmart‘ approach, which together harness the latest technology and modern working practices. Our move from Knowle to new accommodation in Honiton and Exmouth is part of this plan and will help us become a modern day council in every sense of the word.
Over the next four years we are going to have to do the darnedest to make you think that things are getting better whilst we slash services, increase costs for those that are left and hope like hell that we can keep the REAL cost of the move from Knowle under wraps. And presumably, “we” didn’t WorkSmart before but we will gloss over that.
“All of this will make us leaner, more efficient and better placed to deliver the kind of service that we know you, the residents of East Devon want. We are keen to keep improving and to help us do so, we will be listening to what you have to say in consultations and through our viewpoint surveys.
WE may be getting leaner, but our fat cats (particularly our developers) will be getting fatter and fatter. We’ve covered “more efficient and better” above – the repetition is getting a bit tedious now!
“Great services and great service, first time and every time is the standard that we have set for ourselves. To do that we need to be bold, creative, open and innovative, but above all we must pull together as one council. These are values that set us apart and make the council a place where people want to work – in fact, over 93% of our staff said they would recommend the council as a place to work!
Well, yes, you will get great service and great services if you are a developer. But, frankly, for the rest of us, if you turn out to be timid, hidebound, closed and backwards we will never hear about it from you. And they are NOT “great values that set you apart” – it is how ALL councils are supposed to be! And can we see that survey of the staff please – in its entirety as, so often, your so-called surveys leave a lot to be desired in terms of design.
Focus on four priorities
“To help us deliver these aspirations, we have developed our new council plan, which provides a constant focus on four main priorities:
(ALL councils focus on four or more priorities – this seems to be a public relations rule – but hope that everyone forgets what they were before a local election. East Devon Watch will NOT forget on your behalf.
“We will be encouraging our communities to be outstanding, by helping them to solve their local problems. We also want to encourage people to live healthier, more active lifestyles through sport and exercise and to make the most of the wonderful countryside that surrounds us.
Don’t come to us when you want money or help – do it yourself – and when it all gets too much take a LONG walk in what countryside remains after we have concreted over most of it.
“We will continue to promote East Devon as an outstanding place in which to do business and we will strengthen the local economy by attracting inward investment and supporting businesses.
Developers – we are still your bestest friend. Businesses that we approve of – we are the council that gave you the East Devon Business Forum and its leader Graham Brown and now give you (or rather they give to you via us) the Local Enterprise Partnership. Businesses that we don’t approve of – fend for yourselves.
“It is so important that our natural and built environment is protected and we will be working to reduce levels of waste produced in the district, as well as controlling levels of pollution through education and enforcement of environmental legislation.
Have to say, this one almost renders Owl speechless (or rather hootless) – they are going to reduce pollution by educating US! And “enforcement of environmental legislation” – remember that this government is attempting to water down environmental legislation to almost homeopathic levels and our council is slavishly behind this government in every respect.
“We will be prioritising a culture of openness and transparency by keeping our residents fully informed and we are fully committed to innovative ways of working and commercial thinking, including an improved digital service to give our customers the chance to self serve.
Ah, the culture of openness and transparency where, unless you own a computer, you will be cut off from the majority of council services. The same culture that keeps so many committees and think tanks secret behind closed doors. The culture that allows the majority party to have talks about privatising our services out to the Local Enterprise Partnership and wants to delegate the decision-making and agreement signing to the CEO and Leader without ANY councillor knowing what exactly either or both may be signing. Hmmm.
Pride in our achievements
“But as we draw near to the end of the year, it is only right that I mention with great pride, a few of the many significant achievements that this council has made during 2014/2015.
Quick, someone, gloss over all our omnishambles – look for something, anything that we can boast about!
“Top of the list of our accomplishments is housing. We have delivered a grand total of 388 homes for local people, which is our highest number of new affordable local homes in one year. It is our continuing aim to provide more good quality, local homes for local people.
Those would be the good quality homes that, in Cranbrook, the town with almost no shops. Homes which, if you get your way, will now be built on much-needed car parks! And what about all those affordable homes that developers refused to build and you allowed them to strike out (for example, Seaton Tesco land, where Tesco and the developer were “too poor” to provide any affordable homes). And let’s see how many Pegasuslife can provide at the Knowle!!!
“Homelessness in East Devon is extremely low thanks to our homeless prevention initiatives and we are working hard through our Empty Homes Plan to help owners of neglected empty properties in East Devon to bring their properties back into residential use, which will relieve pressure on the private and public housing sectors.
Homelessness in East Devon is characterised by two homeless people dying in the street in Sidmouth very recently and food banks in all major towns. And just how many “owners of neglected property” will you be working with and how?
“Finally, it gives me enormous pleasure to say that the finalisation of our Local Plan is now within sight and we are anticipating being able to adopt it early next year. This detailed and robust document will help us deliver the aspirations and housing needs of local people, as well as land for employment. It will also help protect our beautiful countryside from unwanted and inappropriate development.
Ah, finally – the Local Plan. The plan that was orchestrated for years by ex-Councillor Graham Brown (he of the front page of the Daily Telegraph sting and where originally all meetings were held in secret and with no minutes until Claire Wright forced publication) and the East Devon Business Forum. Which then had to be started all over again from scratch, was thrown out by the planning inspector once, thrown out again a second time and which the said planning inspector has now decided to complete himself! The one that left the whole district open to a development free-for-all. Omnishambles Number One for the past 5-7 years. Best keep this one for last and hope no-one notices.
“Exciting times lie ahead for us and we are looking forward to working with you all to achieve the greater good for East Devon.
You bet exciting times lie ahead, but not perhaps, exciting happy times. More and more development, not a hint of where the money for the accompanying infrastructure will come from, a vastly increased Cranbrook, small villages being forced to take extra development as their built-up boundaries are being dismantled, developers continuing to build high cost homes in high cost areas
“May I now wish you all a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.”
Enjoy it while you can – it can only get worse but, don’t worry, I will be at the helm ….. with my trusty cabinet …. and officers …. and the Blackdown Hills will be just fine!
Councillor Paul Diviani
Summary: “Just give me 500 Christmassy words of milksop basic council jargon will you please, officers and then I will leave you alone till this time next year. And, whatever you do, DO NOT MENTION EXMOUTH SPLASH!
10 things you need to know about this week’s consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), including proposals to amend the planning policy definition of affordable housing, plans to require higher density development around commuter hubs, and a new presumption in favour of brownfield housing development.
1. Sanctions for under-delivering on housing targets mooted
Local planning authorities that fail to deliver the homes set out in their local plans could be required to identify ‘additional sustainable sites’, which could include new settlements, according to the consultation. It sets out further details on the operation of the housing delivery test announced in last month’s Spending Review. It says that the government proposes to amend planning policy to make clear that where significant under-delivery is identified over a sustained period, action needs to be taken to address this. “One approach could be to identify additional sustainable sites if the existing approach is demonstrably not delivering the housing required,” the consultation says. MORE.
2. Affordable housing definition broadened
The government proposes to amend the national planning policy definition of affordable housing “so that it encompasses a fuller range of products that can support people to access home ownership. We propose that the definition will continue to include a range of affordable products for rent and for ownership for households whose needs are not met by the market, but without being unnecessarily constrained by the parameters of products that have been used in the past which risk stifling innovation”. MORE.
3. Councils told to plan for needs of those who aspire to home ownership
The consultation says that the government proposes to make clearer in policy the requirement to plan for the housing needs of “those who aspire to home ownership alongside those whose needs are best met through rented homes, subject as now to the overall viability of individual sites”.
4. Push for higher densities around commuter hubs
The consultation proposes a change to national planning policy “that would expect local planning authorities, in both plan-making and in taking planning decisions, to require higher density development around commuter hubs wherever feasible”.
5. Fresh policy backing for new settlements
The government proposes to strengthen national planning policy to “provide a more supportive approach for new settlements, within locally-led plans. We consider that local planning authorities should take a proactive approach to planning for new settlements where they can meet the sustainable development objectives of national policy, including taking account of the need to provide an adequate supply of new homes”.
6. A presumption in favour of brownfield housing development
The consultation says that the government will “make clearer in national policy that substantial weight should be given to the benefits of using brownfield land for housing (in effective, a form of ‘presumption’ in favour of brownfield land). We propose to make it clear that development proposals for housing on brownfield sites should be supported, unless overriding conflicts with the local plan or the National Planning Policy Framework can be demonstrated and cannot be mitigated”. MORE.
7. Call for release of unviable employment land
The government intends to amend paragraph 22 of the NPPF “to make clear that unviable or underused employment land should be released unless there is significant and compelling evidence to justify why such land should be retained for employment use”.
8. Scope of Starter Homes initiative widened further
The scope of the current exception site policy for Starter Homes could be widened to incorporate other forms of unviable or underused brownfield land, “such as land which was previously in use for retail, leisure and non-residential institutional uses (such as former health and educational sites)”, according to the consultation document.
9. Neighbourhood planners to identify green belt Starter Home sites
The government proposes to amend national planning policy so that neighbourhood plans can allocate appropriate small-scale sites in the green belt specifically for Starter Homes, with neighbourhood areas having the discretion to determine the scope of a small-scale site.
10. Green belt brownfield policy test faces revision
The consultation says that the government proposes to amend the current policy test in paragraph 89 of the NPPF that prevents development of brownfield land where there is any additional impact on the openness of the green belt to “give more flexibility and enable suitable, sensitively designed redevelopment to come forward”
The consultation closes on 25 January 2016.
Consultation on proposed changes to national planning policy is available here.
http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1376060/nppf-consultation-10-things-need-know
“Boundaries preventing the spread of development across the South West countryside could be “destroyed” by proposed changes to national planning policy, campaigners have warned.
Members of the Campaign to protect Rural England (CPRE) claim the Government’s reforms would open up land around towns and villages to a “flood” of new planning applications.
They also argue they would make it harder for rural communities to push for the prioritisation of brownfield sites, while undermining local control over the wider planing process.
The criticisms from the campaign group come in response to a new Government consultation on plans to reform to the National Planning Policy Framework. The aim of the changes is to boost house building – thereby addressing the UK’s growing housing crisis – by simplifying and speeding up the planning process.
Policies outlined in the document include increasing development around so-called “commuter hubs”, creating up-to-date registers of brownfield sites for new housing, and freeing up “unviable” commercial land for discount starter homes. Ministers say these proposals will encourage the delivery of high quality new homes “that the country needs”.
However, some measures, including plans to loosen restrictions for development on Green Belt sites, have come under fire from conservation groups. And the CPRE has warned that even areas like Devon and Cornwall, which do not have Green Belts, will still be affected by reforms.
One policy in particular suggests that more consideration could be given to applications for small developments “adjacent” to settlement boundaries, which act as a dividing line between urban and non-urban areas. Matt Thomson, CPRE head of planning, said this could signal the end of clear cut barriers to the development of greenfield sites.
“Those boundaries have been drawn up with good intention, usually with the support of local people, to give them certainty about how development will or will not take place in their areas,” he said.
“While we recognise that there needs to be some development, this changes the established direction of planning policy…It would destroy those boundaries.
“It opens the floodgates to speculative developments because it’s raising the hope for people that they might be able to get a development on the edge of a village.
“We expect small towns and villages will be flooded with applications for these kinds of developments as a result.”
He added that while the charity supports the overall aim to tackle the lack of new housing in the UK, a focus on planning rather than the construction industry “never has the desired impact”. He also suggested that the Government should look to achieve some of its goals by empowering local communities, including through the use of neighbourhood plans.
This is a view shared by some councillors, who have expressed concern about the impact on local control of the planning process. North Devon District Council member Brian Greenslade said the reforms could see ministers “tighten the screws on local democratic decision taking”. This would be with a “very clear drive” to “open goalposts for developers” and render local planning authorities “impotent”, he added.
“With the economic recovery not making the progress the Government wants they will resort to the blunt instrument of housing development at any price to fuel growth,” he said. “They give no consideration whatever to the impact on established communities and the infrastructure provision needed to support large housing developments.
“There are unintended consequences for housing arising from what the Government seem to be proposing.”
Responding to some of the criticisms, a Department for Communities and Local Government spokesman said changes would give communities a bigger say in deciding where developments go.
He said: “No settlement will be imposed on local communities.
“These proposals are about delivering the homes local people have already agreed and have been tested through consultation and public examination.
“Local people now have a bigger say in deciding where developments should and shouldn’t go and what is needed in their area thanks to our planning reforms.”
Councils say the proposals still need “careful consideration” to fully understand their implications. East Devon District Council said it would seek members’ views before drawing up a response to the consultation, which closes on January 25.
The implications for affordable and starter homes
Government proposals to reclassify discount starter homes as affordable housing have been a growing source of concern in recent week, particularly among rural residents.
There are fears that the prioritisation of these properties over rented accommodation could see even more low income families priced out of the countryside.
These have been re-enforced by the Government’s new planning consultation, which suggests rural sites set aside for affordable housing should be used to deliver its home ownership strategy.
Critics have been quick to point out that with caps for starter homes set at £250,000, these properties will remain out of reach for many residents of rural Devon and Cornwall.
“The proposal for starter homes with a 20% discount is fool’s gold and will not assist many young local people to buy a home,” says North Devon councillor Brian Greenslade. “The very real need is for homes for rent because of the large gap between average incomes and average house prices.
“As a survey in the Western Morning News recently shows, people on average incomes in our area would need a pay increase of some 130% to get them to the point where they may get a mortgage.
“The Government’s ideas of selling off social housing just simply will make a difficult situation worse … Local young people are facing an appalling outlook for their housing needs.”
The consultation indicates that some councils could be granted powers to introduce a local connection test when allocating affordable homes in rural areas. This would allow local authorities to prioritise the needs of local residents in “exceptional” circumstances.
Matt Thomson of the Campaign to Protect Rural England is sceptical about whether this policy will make a significant difference.
“It’s a good idea in principle but they can be difficult to manage in practice,” he said. “These local connection tests are already used in other areas with patchy result – it is often difficult to prove local connection.
“Starter homes have a role where there is a large amount of young people who would like to own a home but can’t quite afford it,” he added. “But the problem is, once they’re bought and occupied, they’re no longer a starter home – there’s no affordability in perpetuity.”
“… Riba [Royal Institute of British Architects] singled out two of the leading housebuilders as the worst offenders. From a sample of new three-bedroom homes surveyed, it found Barratt homes were on average 6.7sq metres smaller than minimum space standards and Persimmon homes were on average 10.8sq m too small – about the size of a double bedroom.
“Tiny rabbit-hutch new-builds should be a thing of the past,” said Riba president Jane Duncan. “But, sadly, our research shows that, for many people, a new home means living somewhere that’s been built well below the minimum space standard needed for a comfortable home. The government must take action to ensure a fairer minimum space standard is applied to all new homes across the country. …
… It highlighted Persimmon’s Staynor Hall development in Selby, North Yorkshire, where it found the “Hanbury” three-bedroom two-storey house has a floor area of 70.7sq m when the government standard says a three-bedroom house for a family of five should be at least 93sq m. …
… Riba has identified another squeeze on housing space: the conversion of office buildings to homes allowed as a result of a 2013 relaxation in planning laws. Last year, 20,000 such homes were built, but the lack of regulations means they can be among the smallest available.
“Across the country, two-person ‘apartments’ of less than 14sq m (the size of a typical bedroom) are being delivered,” Riba’s report states. “Under the national space standard, the minimum floor area for any new home is 37sq m – almost three times the size.” … .”
Alas this comes too late for several sites in East Devon, and in any case we have no Local Plan – a state of affairs that is therefore costing us affordeable housing as developers escape their responsibilities.
“The government has confirmed that developers cannot use site purchase price to argue that local affordability requirements would make a housing scheme unviable.
Responding to a London borough’s move to seek a judicial review of a planning inspector’s decision to accept a reduced affordable housing contribution, a letter from the Government Legal Department says it is the Secretary of State’s ‘unambiguous policy position’ that ‘land or site value… should reflect policy requirements’.
In other words, developers should have regard to local affordable housing requirements when agreeing a site purchase price and cannot then turn around and use viability arguments to challenge existing local policy.
The government’s statement was sent to Islington Council after a recent planning appeal decision on the Parkhurst Road ‘Territorial Army’ site.
The inspector had refused planning permission on amenity grounds, but had accepted the developer’s argument that only 14% affordable housing was viable because of factors including the price paid for the land, even though the developer could not demonstrate that it had taken Islington’s affordable housing policies into account when bidding for the site.
Unhappy with the inspector’s decision and the signal it sent on viability negotiations, Islington set out on the first step towards a judicial review by issuing a ‘letter before claim’ to the Secretary of State.
Islington said it received support for its stance from Brent, Hackney, Merton, Southwark and Tower Hamlets as well as a public statement of support from London Mayor Boris Johnson.
In the event, the government said it was not appropriate for Islington to pursue a judicial review in the light of the inspector’s refusal, directing it instead to argue its government-confirmed position on viability in future applications.
“Londoners desperately need more affordable housing, and we need to make sure developers are making a fair contribution. However we, and many other councils across London, are concerned that developers are using the viability process to argue they can’t afford to provide much or any affordable housing because they paid too much for land,” says James Murray, Islington’s executive member for housing.
“We are therefore pleased to have a clear confirmation from the Government’s legal department that the value of land should reflect policy requirements, which of course includes affordable housing.”
Islington says it is making copies of its legal advice, the appeal decision, its letter before claim and the government’s response available.”
Just another pothole on the way to,a Local Plan for East Devon:
“Local plan examinations in their early stages now run the risk of being caught by this new legislation,” she said. “If just submitted it seems to me likely that these plans will have to be altered to accommodate the 200,000 Starter Homes.”
Speaking on the topic of ‘Delivering new homes’, Cook noted that a lack of clear guidance about whether Starter Homes were classified as ‘affordable housing’ would throw uncertainty on the affordable housing numbers already allocated in emerging local plans.
She continued: “The introduction of Starter Homes casts applications into some doubt. What’s the [section]106 going to look like? How are you going to be designating those Starter Homes?
“You read the Bill and you realise you won’t find the answers to those questions. Quite how the 20 per cent market discount is going to relate to affordable homes will be different in different areas.”
– See more at: http://www.theplanner.co.uk/news/starter-homes-threat-to-emerging-local-plans#sthash.gMmEZM15.dpuf
http://www.theplanner.co.uk/news/starter-homes-threat-to-emerging-local-plans
EDDC has got nowhere near introducing CIL – and now the government wants to review it! Heel-dragging on the Local Plan means it hasn’t happened here. It was supposed to fund infrastructure from developers.
Well, at least EDDC won’t need to write anything about it!
At the July Public Examination Inspector Thickett instructed EDDC to reach agreement with Natural England over outstanding issues regarding compliance with the European Habitat Directive. These are legally binding on EDDC and, therefore, potential show stoppers. (It is claimed the phrasing he used was “lock yourselves in a darkened room until you reach agreement” – but who would voluntarily do that with an EDDC planner?).
Not surprising then to find the amendments proposed to the Draft Plan by EDDC in August didn’t mention that agreement had been reached, only that there had been a “dialogue”. EDDC’s proposed solution is to duck the issue by removing any dependency between the Exmouth Master Plan and the Local Plan i.e. Exmouth regeneration is irrelevant to achieving the staggering economic growth assumed in the Local Plan.
So the Watch watchers were interested to read the following article by Becca Glidden in last Week’s Journal under the title “Setback for major regeneration sites”. Amongst all the nuanced phrasing we are left wondering when is a plan not a plan? Maybe our readers can enlighten us?
Here is the text of the article:
Major sites earmarked for regeneration have been struck out of a major new planning document – after objections from Natural England.
The sites include the seafront Splash Zone/ Queen’s Drive, the Imperial Road car park, the rugby ground, bus station, estuary car park, London Inn car park and town centre post office.
They have been removed from the proposed East Devon Local Plan, which is currently undergoing public consultation.
The regeneration works have been deleted from the proposed planning document because Natural England said the proposals were not `legally sound’.
Natural England, a group championing the preservation of the natural environment for future generations, said East Devon District Council (EDDC) had failed to carry out a full conservation assessment of the Exmouth sites earmarked for regeneration. [Comment from Owl: Natural England is the Government’s statutory advisory body on this – i.e. top dog].
In a letter to EDDC, Natural England said: “Because we advise that we are unable to agree that the Habitat Regulations Assessment is complete, we consider that the Local Plan is not legally sound, since the statutory requirements of the assessment process have not been followed.
This remains the case.”
The regeneration sites are contained in a document called the Exmouth Masterplan, a planning paper which forms part of the proposed East Devon Local Plan.
An EDDC spokesperson told the Journal: “The Exmouth Masterplan is one of a suite of planning documents that support the [proposed] Local Plan, however, the Exmouth Masterplan needs updating.
“The issue which Natural England has concerns about, is whether all of the Exmouth Masterplan can be acceptably delivered, bearing in mind the possibility of adverse impacts on the Exe Estuary wildlife site.
“Because of the concerns expressed by Natural England, the council has withdrawn the direct links/references between the Exmouth Masterplan and the Local Plan to enable the Local Plan to move forward.
“The sites in Exmouth can still come forward, but to show that they are acceptable, each site and the scheme on that site will need to be subject to its own detailed assessment under the habitat regulations – Natural England will take a keen interest in these assessments.”
The district council said the seafront Splash/ Queen’s Drive, the Imperial Road car park, the rugby ground, bus station, estuary car park, London Inn car park and town centre post office would be included in a refreshed Masterplan, a council document which sets out the future for Exmouth.
The council said its regeneration plans for Exmouth were ongoing and would be completed.
The spokesperson said plans would be submitted for the Splash/Queens Drive development before the end of the year.
“Projects in the Masterplan remain in place for delivery. The delivery of Masterplan projects will be aligned with the new Local Plan policies, as well as wider rules and regulations. In the mean-time, the existing Masterplan remains in force.
“The Queen’s Drive proposals are proceeding and a planning application for the enabling works – road and car park – has recently been submitted.
“An application for the second phase will be forthcoming before the end of the year.”
Our summary: Now you see it, now you don’t!
That could be EDDC’s new motto, perhaps!
“Tens of thousands of new homes in greenfield areas in England will be given automatic planning permission amid fears that communities will have inappropriate developments forced on them.
Ministers have quietly given developers the right to be granted “planning in principle” in areas that are earmarked for new housing schemes.
Rural campaigners said the new powers will restrict the rights of council planning officers to ensure that the design, density, size and location of homes is in keeping with local areas.
Shaun Spiers, chief executive of the Campaign to protect Rural England, said: ““The country needs more house building, but the way to achieve this is through well-planned developments that win public consent. Imposing development without local democratic oversight is a recipe for discord. …”
Fresh from his fine performance at the Houses of Parliament Dog Show, Hugo Swire has some harsh words for our local district council in this week’s Sidmouth Herald. What a pity that he didn’t make his views known before the local and national elections …..
Here is the article from today’s Sidmouth Herald:
His idea for a multi-storey car park-cum housing block over the Ham car park might raise more than a few eyebrows.
Amongst his comments are the following:
“… People are put off by multi-storey car parks, but we can do a clever design that incorporates multi-storey parking and residential homes with affordable housing – which is what we need to bring people into this part of the town. …”
Er, not sure the people in the apartments upstairs would welcome the intense vehicle particulate discharge of the multi-storey car park below them – or the noise …
“ … You are solving the parking issue and if we do it as one, we are really invigorating the whole of the town. I think the one thing we lack is a marina and I don’t see why we could not have one in Sidmouth – it would bring people into town. “Again, the whole redesign of Alma Bridge and also the Drill Hall area needs to be done as one .”..
Owl can visualise now the wonderful image of Hugo drawing into Sidmouth Marina for his annual visit ….. and, yes, Hugo, your constituents in Sidmouth have been saying this for years, only your fellow Conservative councillors have disagreed.
“ …Mr Swire admitted the Government’s commitment to building more houses created a problem in Sidmouth, where much of the land is within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). This, he says, is why there needs to be an established Local Plan, which would provide a blueprint to determine areas earmarked for future development for the next 15 years and beyond.
Speaking about the delays in drafting a plan, Mr Swire said: “It has been a nightmare.
Well, only a nightmare for your constituents, Hugo – a beautiful dream for our council and its developers.
“I have said this is an absolute priority and it has been extremely frustrating that we have not got here sooner. If you live in a place, you do not want the field next door to be covered in houses, but if everybody said ‘not here’, there would be no more new houses. “We are determined to get more people on the housing ladder. If we build houses in the right area, then people will not complain.
Yes, Mr Swire, we have all been saying this for the whole 7 -plus years that the Local Plan has been under discussion by your fellow Conservatives.
“I would favour putting more at Cranbrook, but then what is the knock-on effect on our services? “The sooner we come up with the Local Plan, the sooner we can have a more rational discussion about it.” …”
Er, no Hugo, that’s not how it works. Once the Local Plan is agreed the discussion is over. The time for rational discussion has already passed. It was done by many of your constituents in front of Planning Inspector, Mr Thickett – twice. But, unfortunately, you were not there to give him the benefit of your wise words.
A bit of closing the kennel door after the dog has bolted, perhaps …
Mary de Souza Chairman, Chardstock Parish Council and Neighbourhood Plan Team writes:
“I am writing in response to the article in Axminster’s Pulman’s Weekly News, dated March 31st 2015.
The article headline ” Amended Local Plan on its way to inspector” refers to the amendments to the plan that East Devon Councillors agreed to at a special meeting on Thursday 26th March, which included granting a “built-up-area Boundary ” for Chardstock, in order to facilitate sustainable development.
For the benefit of your readers, I would like to put this statement in context and point out how the agreement to include this amendment would appear to have been reached. But firstly a bit of background information.
Chardstock has always had a Built up Area Boundary ( BUAB) and the previous draft Local Plan allocated a quota of ten houses, which have subsequently been built. Since then planning permission has been granted for a further four dwellings. However, in December 2014 and February 2015, three planning applications, two of which went before the Development Management Committee ( DMC) were refused permission on the grounds that Chardstock was not considered to be sustainable.
This is the Planning Officers report : “The proposed development by reason of its location on the edge of a village in the countryside which has limited services to support growth, fails to accord with the definition of sustainable development, specifically the environmental role, found within the National Planning Policy Framework. In this case, the Local Planning Authority considers that the adverse impacts of this development in terms of unsustainable location with the occupiers of the dwellings having limited access to essential services and infrastructure (including public transport and access to it) significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of providing these dwellings to meet the shortfall of housing within the district (5 year land supply) when assessed against the policies within the Framework as a whole.”
During this period a DMC “Think-tank” along with planning officers were making a careful study of all the villages in East Devon, looking at their services and facilities as well as public transport and access to it.
Chardstock is fortunate that it has an excellent local shop and Post Office, as well as a church, pub and primary school, but access to other essential services only found in Chard or Axminster necessitate a journey by car and are not realistically accessible by public transport, as the nearest bus stop is best part of a mile down a single track lane, with no lighting or pavements from the centre of the village.
These facts therefore meant that under the latest draft of the Local Plan, Chardstock was one of the villages recommended to not have a BUAB. This recommendation was upheld by the DMC at their special meeting on Monday 23rd March.
But at the full Council meeting on 26th March, a member of the public, who isn’t actually a resident of East Devon, but happens to own a plot of land in Chardstock on which he has applied to build 5 houses, spoke and asked that Members also consider the inclusion of Chardstock in the list of sustainable villages.
Is it just coincidence, that what followed was a proposal from Cllr Andrew Moulding that Chardstock be added to the list of settlements to have a BUAB ? The minutes from this meeting also point out that,
• the village is not served by public transport,
• the views of the parish council had not been sought,
• it was more appropriate for the village to identify appropriate levels of development through a Neighbourhood Plan.
But the proposal was put to the vote and carried. This decision and the way in which it was reached also demonstrates the lack of support from the Council for the Parish Council, the local community agenda and an apparent lack of engagement with Chardstock’s emerging Neighbourhood Plan, failing to consult with the Parish Council or local community over a major policy change, rather being led by the wishes of a local developer.
The issue of sustainability is one that the Parish Council and Neighbourhood Plan Team have been looking at very closely, and is an issue that has generated a lot of interest from the residents of Chardstock, who have been consulted on this and other subjects as part of the production of our Neighbourhood Plan.
It’s not just about not having a realistic bus service in the parish – less than 12% of the population have any sort of relatively easy access to the service, and the majority are anything from 1 to 4 miles from the nearest bus stop, as well as the fact that this is also a bus service that as of 12th April will be reduced from an hourly service to a 90 minute service, making access to Chard and Axminster even more difficult. It is also about other aspects of our infrastructure, including poor roads, which with the cuts to services from Devon County Council will be receiving even less attention than they were before.
So what is it that has made the Council decide that all of a sudden we are sustainable. Are there measures that are being put in place that we are unaware of ? Or is this indeed an example of the influence that developers have over the Council ?
http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/council_s_decision_on_latest_draft_of_the_ed_local_plan_1_4024159
Two successes for EDA Independent councillors’ campaign for openness and democracy at last night’s EDDC Scrutiny Committee Meeting –and a thumping failure.
At the suggestion of EDA Independent councillor Ben Ingham, the committee unanimously recommended that the shadowy activities of the secretive Asset Management Forum should be dragged into the light. They agreed that Forum meetings from now should be minuted and open to press and public.
They also unanimously approved “best practice” recommendations from a recent Government training session for scrutiny committees.
In fact, EDA Independent councillor Marion Rixson was praised for having already pre-empted the recommendation that individual councillors should do detailed research into topics of concern. Her comparative study of different councils’ management of beach huts was crucial in influencing the EDDC’s recent decision to scrap its plan to auction the rental of its beach huts to the highest bidder.
Sadly the Committee was unable to shine a light on the scandalous Chardstock affair.
Two speakers expressed their frustration and disappointment that the Committee could not scrutinise the dubious way in which their small, isolated community had been declared suitable for large scale development in the Local Plan.
If any village in East Devon in “unsustainable” it’s Chardstock with its few facilities and poor access. The Parish Council thought so, EDDC’s planning officers thought so. But at an Extraordinary Council Meeting on March 25, called to finalise the Local Plan, Chardstock was designated “sustainable”!
Grave doubts have been expressed about the process that led to this astonishing decision. A member of the public, who many assumed was a Chardstock councillor, spoke strongly in favour of designation as sustainable. He was later identified as a developer, not resident in the village.
Deputy Leader Andrew Moulding spoke eloquently in his support – and a majority of the Council agreed to re-designate the unfortunate village.
To many observers, including Independent councillors, this appeared to be a shameful manipulation, and an earlier meeting of the Scrutiny Committee had agreed to investigate the process.
Last night it emerged that the Council’s Legal Officer had advised that the Scrutiny Committee should not discuss the matter until the Inspector had ruled on the Local Plan. By which time it would be impossible to change Chardstock’s designation!
The Legal Officer did not attend, and it was left to a deputy to try justify the decision.
In frustration, one of the Chardstock councillors accused the Committee of kicking the Chardstock scandal “into the long grass”. Chair Roger Giles denied it, and said it would be investigated whenever the Inspector had made his decision.
EDA Independent councillor Cathy Gardner said she was embarrassed to be a member of the Scrutiny Committee which had let down the public.
There’s obviously work to do before all the dark corners of EDDC are open to daylight!
Will this nightmare never end?
From EDDC:
“The East Devon Local Plan Inspector has asked that we consult on additional changes to the local plan. The consultation will run from Friday 16 October 2015 to 12.00 Noon on Monday 30 November 2015.
These changes and further information about the consultation can be viewed on the Council web site at:
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/emerging-plans-and-policies/the-new-local-plan/examination-and-hearing-sessions-and-further-consultation/work-programme-autumn-2015/#article-content
We will send copies of the paperwork to public libraries in East Devon and to Lyme Regis Library and Exeter Central Library and paper copies can be inspected at the council offices here in Sidmouth.
To save paper we have provided the web link, however, if you are unable to view or download documents via our web site please contact us directly and we can supply a paper copy of the proposed changes and a form for making comments.
Please ensure that we receive any response by 12.00 noon on Monday 30 November 2015 at the latest.”
Following on from the post below, here is an article from Simon Jenkins challenging myths about housing that appeared in the Guardian earlier this month:
“Here are the most damaging myths about the policy issue that’s on everyone’s lips – and a few brutal realities
Housing is Britain’s top policy issue. It is the “crisis” of our day. London’s mayoral elections, says Labour’s Sadiq Khan, should be a “referendum on the housing crisis”. The migration crisis, the NHS crisis and the poverty crisis all pale before its awesome might. So what is the “solution”?
There is no solution. As in all political crises, there are tribal myths and economic realities. When the myths win, policy degenerates into chaos and counterproductivity. First, let’s deal with the myths.
1 That there is a housing “crisis”. There is none. Too many people cannot find the house they want in London and the south-east, which is where most politicians and commentators live. This is inevitable where an economy is booming. Average prices in London may be £500,000, but in the north-west and north-east of England they are £150,000. You can get a decent home in Salford for £65,000.
2 That an average is a minimum. It is not. Housing hysteria is based on averages. When someone asks “How can I possibly afford £500,000?”, the answer is: you cannot, but somebody presumably can. But go on Zoopla and there are houses in parts of London for £180,000. Even the poorest newcomers seem to find somewhere (usually private) to rent.
3 That there is a national “need” for 250,000 new houses a year. For decades this has been Whitehall’s meaningless concept of “household formation”, taking no account of regional preference, propensity to move home, house prices or cost of finance. Housing need implies homelessness. It should refer to the 60,000 people currently in temporary accommodation, who ought to be the chief focus of policy attention. All else is “demand”.
4 That the solution to house prices lies in building more new houses. New houses are always worth building, where the infrastructure is in place. But new houses account for a mere 10th of housing transactions. The chief determinant of house prices is the state of the market in existing property and the cost of finance. During the sub-prime period, prices soared in America and Australia despite unrestricted new building. It was cheap money that did the damage. The house-builders lobby equates housing to “new build” because that is where their interest lies.
5 That the solution lies in the green belt. This is an anti-ruralist’s version of myth four. Even were the green belt obsolete, which few accept, or partly so (which I accept), it will not dent the pressure of overall demand. Nor is sprawl remotely “sustainable” development. It requires new infrastructure and puts more pressure on roads and commuting. It is bad planning.
6 That high buildings are the answer. They are inefficient as the higher you build the more is spent on servicing. London’s most popular and economic housing is “high density/low rise”. Towers have supplied mostly empty pads for the rich, housing no one.
7 That the answer lies in new social housing. Security of tenure and low turnover – not to mention right to buy – renders the fixed stock of public housing inflexible and immobile. Increasingly it has become a generous donation by the taxpayer to a fortunate few, for life. It is largely irrelevant to acute homelessness.
8 That people have a “right” to live where they or their parents lived before. Localities benefit from stable populations, but conferring and bequeathing such a right to discriminatory subsidy is in no book of rights.
9 That there is also a “right” to home ownership. The state has a housing obligation for those who need help. Home ownership is capital accumulation, developed out of the Tories’ mortgage tax relief as a form of saving for old age and to endow offspring. It promotes inequality and cannot be termed a right.
10 That renting is stupid. Renting is buying a service. About 60% of Germans rent. They do not think of buying until their 40s. Booming Berlin has 90% of its population renting. Renting aids labour mobility and channels savings into productive investment. As a result, Germany has little house price inflation and no “ladder” advantage to owning not renting.
11 That buy to let is evil. The poorest people rent from the private sector. The more houses are available to rent, the more flexible is the housing stock and the lower are rents for those who do not buy. Whether buyers-to-let should enjoy tax breaks and whether rents should be regulated are quite different matters.
Facing these myths stand a few realities.
1 There is no “need” to build on rural land outside cities. Jobs, leisure and infrastructure are available in cities. We should not aid hypermobility with sprawl. Every city, in de-industrialising, leaves empty sites stuck in planning arguments or delayed decontamination. The London agents Stirling Ackroyd have identified sites for 500,000 houses in London without touching the green belt. People may like houses in the countryside, but that is preference not need.
2 The one massive reservoir of vacant residential property in Britain is under-occupied property and underdeveloped city land. London is awash with small houses and empty rooms, its residential density the lowest of any big city in Europe. Detached houses, spare rooms and gardens are the nation’s luxury. Britons had 1.5 rooms per person in 1981 and have 2.5 today, even as new housebuilding is declining. Freeing up this capacity should be the overwhelming goal of policy.
3 Tax makes it worse, not better. VAT discriminates in favour of new building and against the conversion of existing properties. Stamp duty is a tax on transactions, and thus on downsizing and more efficient use of space. Council tax is wildly regressive, promoting wasted space. Inheritance tax relief rewards hoarding.
4 Planning control is too strict. Permitting an extra storey, apartment or back extension on every existing property would drastically increase density and capacity. London can grow higher without growing high.
5 The most effective way to relieve housing poverty is through housing benefit, at present chaotically administered. Cash payments are more flexible and fit for purpose. They should extend to a new “public sector Airbnb”, geared to bringing vacancies to market.
6 The only way to force down rents and house prices in the south is to strain every policy sinew to make London poorer and the regions richer. That seems too radical for anyone.”
Simon Jenkins
The Guardian, Thursday 1st October 2015
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/30/housing-crisis-policy-myth-realities
“The most reasonable jobs-led (policy-on) scenario is therefore CR2 & EA2, using the DCLG 2012 headship rates. This leads to a dwellings requirement of 723 per year (13,014 over the plan period).
There is a further element which has not been sensitivity-tested, which is the 549 jobs number calculated in the Ash Futures paper in Feb 2015 (psd2015e). This relies on an over-optimistic calculation of job creation at the Exeter & East Devon Growth Point, particularly the major sites at the Science Park, Skypark and Intermodal facility. I raised queries about this at the hearing in July.
The Skypark Development Partnership (Representor 7169) stated in their representations that job development has been slow: “the reality therefore is that it has taken 5 years to secure the first B1/2 occupier on the site suggesting the site will take at least 20 years to complete”.
We also heard at the July hearing that development of the Intermodal facility has stalled and is unlikely to come forward in the near future, and alternative uses may need to be found.
Therefore the job creation at the Growth Point is very likely to be lower than that predicted in the Ash Futures paper, and the total number of jobs is likely to be less than 549/year which has been used in all the Edge Analytics scenarios.
The number of 723 dwellings / year should therefore be regarded as an upper limit, and a realistic figure would be lower than that.
I therefore disagree with the Council’s continued use of the housing requirement figure of 950/year, which is not supported by the evidence.”
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1330903/hh2015a-cpre-comments-sep-2015_redacted.pdf
David Cameron chose Newton Abbot over the weekend to launch his policy on more housebuilding and the threat to impose numbers on Local Authorities which do not have a Local Plan.
This seems a strange venue. Teignbridge adopted its Local Plan in 2014. In it, it choose not to adopt the “supporting high economic growth” target that EDDC prefers.
Based on the lower demographic, Teignbridge had a target of 620 houses a year. If EDDC had gone down this route, its equivalent would be 584 houses a year (10,512 over 18 years).
Teignbridge with its lower target gets the PM’s praise, EDDC gets nothing.
Strange that …
East Devon Watch 