EDDC, Natural England and the Local Plan: it appears the room wasn’t dark enough

The list of responses to the latest iteration of the Local Plan can be found below – many from developers, of course.

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/emerging-plans-and-policies/inspector-and-programme-officer/inspector-and-council-correspondence-since-2014-examination-hearings/

Amongst them is this one from Natural England

Natural England 30 Sept 2015

Those who attended the last set of hearings before the Planning Inspector may recall the slightly worrying image when Mr Thickett suggested that Laura Horner (Natural England) and Ed Freeman (EDDC) should shut themselves in a darkened room until they arrived at a solution on the Habitat Regulation issue, without which the Local Plan cannot be signed off.

The letter from Natural England makes interesting reading – the complain of confusion over the drafting of the EDDC version of what should be in the Local Plan calling it “over-detailed and potentially unclear and requiring substantive rewriting”. They point out that words such as “endorsed by the council” imply greater status for the Masterplan than was intended and point out that they need to clarify their intentions towards Exmouth.

They further point out that the Beer Neighbourhood Plan cannot be progressed until EDDC makes its intentions more clear.

It appears from the letter than EDDC had only one meeting with Natural England on 23 July 2015 and that little appears to have been resolved at that meeting.

Clearly, the room wasn’t dark enough!

Cameron gives councils 2 years to adopt Local Plans or have them forced on them

“… Some 82 per cent of councils have published local plans, but only 65 per cent have fully adopted them – and almost 20 per cent of councils still do not have an up-to-date plan at all, a figure that Downing Street considers to be unacceptable.

Mr Cameron has now put councils on watch – saying that unless they have plans in place by 2017, they will be imposed.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3268776/David-Cameron-s-threat-housing-reluctant-town-halls.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

Exmouth Community College principal slams Plymouth University over Rolle site

….. “A consultation on the masterplan for the 2.8 hectare site last weekend was attended by almost 500 people.

Now, in an open letter, A K Alexander, the principal of Exmouth Community College, has attacked the university and its interim Vice Chancellor, Professor David Coslett, over the plans.

The WMN on Sunday asked the university to respond but neither its spokesman nor Prof Coslett was able to provide an answer.

The fate of Rolle:
An edited version of the open letter from A K Alexander

After seven years sitting empty, it would appear that things are now finally moving forward to define the future of Rolle College …. When it closed there was a loss of £5 million a year to Exmouth’s economy. But Exmouth and the area also lost an incredibly important higher education facility that brought a wonderful vibrancy to the town, whilst young people lost an opportunity to move into higher education locally.

So, I was appalled to learn that Professor David Coslett, Plymouth University Vice-Chancellor, in his speech at the consultation event, stated that it was acceptable to take pain in one area (Exmouth) if there were benefits elsewhere (Plymouth) and that there is greater value for the region overall in focusing on Plymouth.

On behalf of every student and every parent in Exmouth and East Devon, this is completely unacceptable. David Coslett also justified the delay in disposal on the economic downturn. The economic downturn has hit everyone and all public institutions hard. The fact that the site with gymnasium, meeting rooms, performance theatre and lecture theatre has remained unused and unavailable to the community for seven years in a time of economic strife is also unacceptable.

Plymouth University has used the argument of centralisation and yet its reach and footprint continues to grow in Cornwall …. What does David Coslett say in his welcome letter as Vice-Chancellor? – ‘a university that is easy to do business with; one that works alongside local communities and industry to create jobs, develop the economy, and raise the profile of the South West.’

I urge all young people and the community of Exmouth and beyond to have your say in the ongoing consultation process and join the debate on what Exmouth (not Plymouth University) needs on the site.

The online consultation is at http://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ExmouthRolle

Plymouth University should see sense and reconsider its position; Exmouth must be given first option to purchase the site …. this should not be purely seen in narrow cash terms. David Coslett talks about ‘a legacy’. So let’s start talking about the right legacy for people in Exmouth and East Devon.

Plymouth University should work closely with the community and ensure there is true lasting legacy that creates jobs and improves the education and career opportunities. The intensive housing development of the site is a short-term financially driven quick fix.

We need a considered debate and discussion on how we can secure a longer term perspective and truly invest in people. The clock is ticking. I urge the Exmouth community to act now and resist the proposed plans for the site. We can do so much better.

Mr A K Alexander
Principal
Exmouth Community College”

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/University-attacked-future-college/story-27958552-detail/story.html

Hello, Mr Thickett, hello, anybody there …?

Our Local Plan Inspector, Mr Anthony Thickett, was efficient and to-the-point when he held his two examinations into our draft Local Plan. He eventually decided that, such was our council’s poor drafting, he would have to make many of its major decisions himself. He asked for more information and got a further 1,000 plus pages of evidence (some of it duplicated) in September 2015. He also got a promotion to Chief Planning Inspector for Wales – more work for him.

Our Local Plan examination is now itself dragging on, and well on its way to mirroring how long the Current draft Local Plan took (at least 7 years). The inspection process started way before in August 2013, when Mr Thickett threw out the first draft submitted by EDDC because Mr Thickett decided it contained 53 major amendments agreed by councillors on the Development Management Committee and Cabinet and ratified by full council AFTER public consultation that then required the public to be consulted yet again.

It was thrown out again in March 2014 for still having major flaws and being considered unsound by Mr Thickett. The 2015 hearing was also inconclusive.

Is it going to be thrown out again? Is it so controversial it will be a major headliner? Is it lost down the back of a sofa?

EDDC appears to be in no hurry to see it arrive. Developers continue to benefit from its unavailability. What’s the problem?

We appreciate that Mr Thickett is a very busy man (not least because of all the extra work EDDC has forced him to do) but surely this sorry saga has to end somehow and somewhere – even if it is (heaven forfend) back to its on-its-last-legs drawing board.

And, if it were to fail again, would this constitute misfeasance or malfeasance in office on the part of officers and councillors involved – a criminal offence?

Housing targets like “Alice in Wonderland”

By the chair of “Community Voice on Planning” and echoes a very similar situation in her district to ours – all you would need to do is change the names.

by Julie Mabberley
Wantage and Grove Campaign Group campaign manager

This week is the first week of the examination for the Vale of the White Horse District Council Local Plan.

Planning Inspector Malcolm Rivett is hearing views from the great and good, answering the question: “Is the identified objectively assessed need for housing of 20,560 new dwellings (an average of 1,028 per year), for the Vale of the White Horse, soundly based and supported by robust and credible evidence?”

There are many people across the Vale who say it is not.b The logic is very simple. The number of jobs which theoretically could be created between now and 2031 was calculated. They then used these figures to estimate how many houses would be needed if these jobs materialised.

The problem is that if the jobs projection is fantasy, as many people think it is, then the “objectively assessed” housing number is also fantasy.

The employment forecasts were pulled together by Cambridge Econometrics to justify bids for Government money for the Oxfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership (OxLEP). These employment forecasts were optimistic figures based on how many jobs might be created across Oxfordshire with lots of investment by the Government, European Union and other organisations by 2031.

A company called GL Hearn was then commissioned by our district councils to estimate housing need, assuming that all of these forecast jobs will actually exist. This is the Oxfordshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, or SHMA. There are many who believe that this is a story worthy of LewisCarroll himself.

Take the agricultural industry, for example. In the Vale of the White Horse, the Government statistics show that in 2011 there were about 600 people working in agriculture. Cambridge Econometrics says that by 2031 there will be about 1,500 people working in agriculture.

Even the National Farmers’ Union says that agricultural employment is actually declining. So that’s about 750 new homes which supposedly will be needed for additional agricultural workers by 2031.

A more realistic assessment might be that there may be agricultural workers looking for new jobs. Actual employment figures across the Vale of the White Horse haven’t changed much since 2000.

In 2000, according to Government statistics, there were 63,000 jobs and by 2014 there were 62,700 jobs. So overall employment is static, but Cambridge Econometrics thinks that over the next 15 years employment will grow by 22,982 jobs. Based on figures for the last 15 years, employment may not grow at all.

This forecast of 22,982 new jobs translates into 20,560 houses across the Vale by 2031, in among the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Oxford Green Belt, the flood plains and, of course, the land earmarked for the new Thames Valley reservoir.

This means building more than 1,000 houses a year every year. We haven’t achieved that at any time in recent history. In fact, during the past 20 years, there have been an average of 392 houses built every year in the Vale.

Now we all know we need more houses, particularly houses that our children can afford to buy or rent, but the identified objectively assessed need for housing of 20,560 new dwellings (an average of 1,028 per year) for the Vale of the White Horse is totally unrealistic.

The law states that the district council must approve enough new planning applications to meet the ‘objectively assessed need for housing’ for the next five years, plus a 20 per cent margin. If they don’t, then the developers can appeal to a planning inspector who will approve them, because the local plan says we need them.

Developers won’t start building houses unless they will make enough profit to satisfy their shareholders. That means keeping prices high.

Great Western Park in Didcot is years behind the planned development schedule, because not enough people want to buy the houses. Yet people working at Harwell, on public sector salaries, can’t afford them.

The problem is that approving a housing development like Grove Airfield – with 2,500 new homes, a new commercial centre for the village, a secondary school and two primary schools – isn’t working. This was recommended for approval in 2013, yet the legal agreements with the developers and landowners still aren’t signed and detailed plans haven’t been submitted.

Something is wrong with the planning system. Silly housing targets let developers get permission to build executive homes in rural villages where little, if any, expensive infrastructure, like new roads and schools, has to be paid for. Few existing residents can afford them and it isn’t going to create homes for our children.

The Oxfordshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment is fantasy and not soundly-based or supported by robust and credible evidence.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/13779434.Politics__Housing_targets_is_fantasy_worthy_of_Carroll___s_stories/

Gypsies? Not in our backyard says Cranbrook – send ’em to Ottery!

” …The development around Cranbrook is placing considerable pressure on surrounding villages and it is felt that these villages should not be the location for any new sites.

“We note that commentary on and around the plan process seems to assume that a new traveller site will be at or near Cranbrook. We feel that this commentary is prejudicial to an objective assessment.”

Mr Randle [Cranbrook Town Clerk] suggested further exploration of the current showmen stopping site at Clyst St Mary and land at Daisymount near to the M5 corridor.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Cranbrook-says-gypsies-travellers/story-27861646-detail/story.html

Never mind the quality- feel the (weight of) the pages!

In response to my recent plea for Watch Readers to submit articles (to eastdevonwatch@gmail.com ), Owl has just received this:

The latest round of consultation on the local plan ends on 30 September, see previous Watch article:

Further evidence for the Local Plan and EDDC tries to pass the buck to the National Trust and Woodland Trust for required open spaces

Readers may not have had time, or indeed may never have the time, to look at the paper deluge Ed Freeman has sent to Inspector Thickett this time around. It comprises a covering letter from Ed; a summary report and 13 supporting papers all of which amount to over 1,000 pages!

It’s the latest attempt by EDDC to try to convince Mr Thickett that 17,100 (minimum) is the right housing target over the next 18 years; that we have a 5+ year land supply in East Devon, despite what the Developers’ say; that none of this building will have an adverse effect on our rare landscape and habitats (all we need is collective membership of the National Trust (see above); and to carry out some belated consultations and box ticking exercises.

There are:

6 papers on housing delivery;
2 papers on housing numbers;
an overdue Habitat Assessment

plus the republishing of

2 supporting papers,
one commissioned by the National Trust
the other for Cranbrook;

and, finally,

2 papers on a sustainability box ticking exercise.

There are also two public consultations in progress: one on Gypsy sites the other on village Built Up Area Boundaries (BUABs).

All this should have been done in preparation of the Draft Plan years ago [at least in 2011 and possibly earlier when “The Local Development Framework Panel” was spending its time, under ex-Councillor Brown, mostly visiting sites of interest to the East Devon Business Forum – ed].

So is this the action of a Local Planning Authority confident in what it is doing – or does it have the feel someone desperately trying to play catch-up?

Four consultancy contractors have been employed to write these papers during August 2015.

Hard cases are hard to sell.

Dear Reader, it is all being done in your name, guess who is footing the bill!

Welcome to Elysium …

“Elysium: a place or state of perfect happiness”

EDDC’s Annual Report for 2014/15 is now out:

(http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1316010/annual-report-2014-15-website.pdf)

and those reading it might be forgiven for thinking that the opening letter of the acronym stands for Elysium as opposed to East. Because everything in East Devon is, if the report is to be believed, Absolutely Fabulous.

One doesn’t expect reports of this kind to be brutally truthful. But one is entitled to expect some degree of modesty and acknowledgement that life is not all a bed of roses. Not however if you are Cllr Diviani: “this annual report is an opportunity to pause and reflect on our successes over the past 12 months before we look forward … to … the next four years”. It’s an opportunity also, of course, to reflect on abject failures. To have seen some references to ‘challenges’ might have been a bit more honest, Cllr Diviani.

The report reveals that more than half of respondents don’t think EDDC is doing a good job delivering jobs in the west of the district or making towns better places to live. Still, never mind, notwithstanding the grumpy 12,000 people who signed a petition against the demolition of Elizabeth Hall in Exmouth – no fewer than 44 jobs were created when Premier Inn bulldozed the site and put up a hotel! (In fact the creation of these 44 jobs is such an achievement that a photo of the opening of the Premier Inn takes up half of page 12 of the Report.)

But the best spin of all is to read that in 2014/15 EDDC received a record number of planning applications (1,221), and the record number of appeals received (74) constituted a 77% success rate. Good news? Only up to a point. Had EDDC got its act together and a Local Plan in place, taxpayers’ money wouldn’t have been wasted receiving so many applications, and defending so many appeals, in the first place.

As it is, the only mention of the Local Plan in the report is confined to a single sentence, conveying the impression that its progression to a “second round of hearing sessions” is perfectly normal, and that its likely adoption in late 2015/early 2016 and is not years and years behind schedule, as the savvier voters know only too well.

Fantasy v. reality and localism v. centralism in housing supply

    And not a mention of the bigger problems – land banking, lack of infrastructure and no incentives to build affordable properties – in either article!

    Report calls for local authorities to be cut out of housing projects

    With just 117,720 homes built last year, a new report from planning consultancy Quod [and coincidentally appointed by Brandon Lewis below, to speed up planning permissions] and lawyers Bond Dickinson suggests that the housing shortage has become so severe that building projects should be considered by central government rather than by local authorities. It argues that housebuilding should be brought into the nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIP) regime, thus allowing developers to apply directly to the government for planning permission, bypassing local authority planning regulations.

    “Local housing plans are being held up either because it’s a difficult decision for local authorities to take, or two or three local authorities can’t agree between themselves, or the local inspectorate is pushing back. So it’s taking a long time for those local plans to come through, and there’s no guarantee that will change. There are no perfect solutions to delivering large-scale housing development, but the NSIP regime looks to be an attractive option, and we urge the government to consult on its usage as a matter of urgency,”

    Kevin Gibbs a partner at Bond Dickinson explains.
    The Times, Page: 45

    and

    “Lewis hopes for 1m new homes by end of Parliament

    Brandon Lewis, the housing minister, has said in a BBC documentary that he hopes to see 1m new homes built by the end of this Parliament. Gavin Smart, deputy chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Housing, said: “Matching the ambition with successful delivery would be a great achievement.”

    However, Professor Tony Crook, of the University of Sheffield, commented: “It would certainly be a significant target, but a lot of people would argue it’s not enough.” He added that private sector builders would only be able to deliver 150,000 a year by themselves, and said the Government must do more to support building by other sectors if it is to meet the target.

    The BBC Inside Out documentary was aired last night on BBC1 at 7.30pm and is available on BBC

NPPF to be “simplified” by group of developers, consultants, the Tory MP for Henley, a Tory Councillor and a Planner from a Tory Council!…

“Planning Minister Brandon Lewis  (15 September 2015) launched a new group of experts to help streamline the local plan-making process.  The 8-strong panel will consider how it can be simplified [yet again!] with the aim of slashing the amount of time it takes for local authorities to get them in place.

This will provide greater certainty to communities regarding plans for new homes and infrastructure in their area, while speeding up the planning process so developers can get on site quicker.

Members include:

  • Chair John Rhodes of planning consultants Quod
  • Adrian Penfold from developers British Land
  • Richard Harwood QC from legal firm 39 Essex Chambers
  • Councillor Toby Elliott from Swindon Borough Council
  • Keith Holland, a retired Senior Planning Inspector
  • Liz Peace, formerly of the British Property Federation
  • John Howell MP, member for Henley
  • Derek Stebbing, Local Authority Plans Manager for Chelmsford City Council”

Quote from the Planning Minister:

“Our planning reforms have caught the imagination of communities across the country, allowing them to bring forward developments that are a real benefit to local people.

However, while many have seized this opportunity, it’s fair to say the process of getting Local Plans in place can sometimes be lengthy and complicated.

That’s why we’ve brought together this panel of experts to help look at ways to streamline the process. Their first-class advice will help councils push on and deliver the homes and infrastructure that their communities need.”

https://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2015/09/16/its-pag-ii-they-are-the-main-cause-of-slow-local-plans-so-why-let-them-wreck-them-further/

“Group of experts, eh”.  Same old ……

Senior EDDC officer roundly criticises un-named councillors in public papers

A rather extraordinary inclusion in the papers for tomorrow’s Development Management Committee has piqued the Owl’s interest:

Ed Freeman (Head of Planning) has written an extraordinary attack against previous (unnamed) councillors reproduced verbatim here:

“Where in the past some Members have sought to drive down housing numbers to protect the environment and satisfy the expressed desires of residents to see only limited growth and development this has arguably been a short sighted and perhaps self defeating approach. In terms of following through on the Government’s objectives, we are required to have an objectively assessed housing need which meets the identified needs of the district and then to purposively meet that need.”

Surely it is inappropriate for a senior officer to attack councillors in public for wanting “to protect the environment” and for standing in the way of “Government objectives”? And if EDDC exists ONLY to follow government objectives, what is the point of its existence, one might ask? And that of its officers, whose job is supposed to be to provide neutral and objective support, whatever party might be in power in the district at the time.

It’s particularly rich when it could be said that it is only thanks to EDDC’s self-confessed persistent failure to build enough houses over the past decade, and its inept performance when it comes to the Local Plan, that some councillors are trying to protect the countryside that EDDC itself has put at risk.

Owl wonders if councillors feel it worth a slapped wrist – an officer of the Council should not be criticising councillors for doing their job and who, if not named, can surely be identified .

Click to access 080915-combined-dmc-agenda-compressed.pdf

Further evidence for the Local Plan and EDDC tries to pass the buck to the National Trust and Woodland Trust for required open spaces

Mr Thickett said he would allow the participants at the housing session an opportunity to see and comment on the Council’s further submissions.

The further submissions can be accessed here:
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/emerging-plans-and-policies/the-new-local-plan/examination-and-hearing-sessions-and-further-consultation-at-april-2015/august-2015-evidence/#article-content

If you wish to make any comments on the new evidence and submissions only; on other matters will not be accepted, please submit these comments to me the Programme Officer by 30 September 2015.”

Our comment:

The EDDC “evidence” does not inspire us with enough confidence that sufficient robust evidence has been supplied by EDDC, particularly in respect of Habitat Mitigation obligations.

Many aspects have been left for the Inspector to decide because Natural England and EDDC cannot agree that enough has been done to safeguard special sites.

It also says that the Exmouth Splash Masterplan as it stood at the last hearing, may well not be the one that Exmouth ends up with but they don’t see why this should hold up the Local Plan.

The significance of Dawlish Warren, Exe Estuary and Pebblebed Heaths to Planning in East Devon

One of our correspondents writes again:

Another thing the Talaton appeal has thrown a spotlight on is the lack of progress EDDC has made turning a strategy into an action plan. In this case it concerns EDDC’s failure in the draft Local Plan to meet obligatory requirements to demonstrate that it has a plan to mitigate the pressure increased population will place on three very sensitive wildlife habitats: Dawlish Warren; the Exe estuary and the Pebblebed Heaths.

This is something that EDDC, Teignbridge and Exeter have been working on since around 2012/2013 when they commissioned the “South-east Devon European Mitigation Strategy” report. This study concluded that, without appropriate mitigation measures, further development within 10Km of these sites would have adverse effects.

One of the central mitigation measures is the identification and creation of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) to replace specialised habitat and to provide additional recreation space to draw people away from these sites. Unfortunately, having identified one particular SANG, EDDC promptly granted planning permission for it, even before the report was published (see para 7.19 of the report)!

Since the beginning of August 2014, EDDC have been trousering between £749 and £626 per dwelling from developers to “make it easier for developers to ‘deliver’ such mitigation” but in the words of Natural England (submission to the Local Plan examination dated 11 June 2015):

“We are becoming increasingly concerned regarding the lack of progress on the delivery of mitigation measures which have not yet been implemented. We are aware that the Authority has been collecting funds for mitigation but delivery of such measures has not kept pace with its collection….. We are also concerned that recent planning applications and permissions may inhibit the delivery of proposed mitigation and that that mitigation may require modification to be delivered.”

Furthermore this letter from Natural England makes it clear that EDDC failed, prior to submitting the revised local plan for inspection, to update or consult further on the Habitat Regulation assessment section which Natural England, the statutory consultee, had stated in 2013: “does not meet the legal requirements as set out in Section 102 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) nor National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 166.”

The Talaton appeal gives us an up to date view of Planning Inspectorate thinking on this which looks unequivocal to me:

“60. No clear mechanism has been put forward that would ensure the delivery of the SANGs that form an essential element in the Council’s Mitigation Strategy. In the absence of appropriate mitigation, in line with the Mitigation Strategy, the effect of the proposed residential development, in combination with other planned development, is likely to give rise to adverse effects on the integrity of the SAC/SPA as a result of additional recreational pressure.
61. Regulation 61(5) of the Habitats Regulations identifies that the competent authority may only agree to a plan or project after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of a European site, subject to regulation 62, regarding considerations of over-riding public interest. That approach is reflected in paragraph 118 of the Framework which advises that planning permission should be refused where significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or compensated for.
62. In this case, there is little information before me to determine whether the proposed level of residential accommodation could be provided in another location, outside of the 10km zone surrounding the SPA. However, even if no alternative solution exists, the proposals are not put forward on the basis of any imperative reasons of over-riding public interest, of a social or economic nature, that would outweigh the harm to the SAC/SPA, having regard to Regulation 62 of the Habitat Regulations. As such, to grant planning permission for the proposed developments would be contrary to the aims of The Habitats Regulations and paragraph 118 of the Framework, both of which dictate that planning permission should be refused.”

Without resolution this matter looks like a showstopper for the Local Plan. But how easy is it going to be to agree a mitigation plan with a local authority that sets aside “Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace” one day then grants planning permission on it the next?

EU growth targets cut

But don’t worry – East Devon is going to be a little spot of very high growth, according to our draft Local Plan put together by our Tory councillors and their officers, who are much better informed than the European Central Bank … aren’t they?

We must hope so.

Will the Planning Inspector agree, we wonder?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34139583

Gypsy and Traveller Policy modified

The Government has revised its special planning policy for Travellers to state that it will only apply to those “who lead a genuine travelling lifestyle”.

Ministers said this would mean that any application for a permanent site, including caravan sites, by someone who does not travel will be considered in the same way as an application from the settled population.

The new policy, published by the Department for Communities and Local Government, is also intended to shore up Green Belt and other protections.

It states that if a local planning authority cannot demonstrate an up–to-date 5-year supply of deliverable sites, this should be a significant material consideration in any subsequent planning decision when considering applications for the grant of temporary planning permission.
An exception is where the proposal is on land designated as:

Green Belt;

sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives;
sites designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest;
Local Green Space;

an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty;

within a National Park (or the Broads).

The policy states that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved, except in very special circumstances.

“Traveller sites (temporary or permanent) in the Green Belt are inappropriate development,” it says. “Subject to the best interests of the child, personal circumstances and unmet need are unlikely to clearly outweigh harm to the Green Belt and any other harm so as to establish very special circumstances.”

The revised policy also says: “In exceptional cases, where a local planning authority is burdened by a large-scale unauthorised site that has significantly increased their need, and their area is subject to strict and special planning constraints, then there is no assumption that the local planning authority is required to plan to meet their traveller site needs in full.”

The DCLG claimed the new policy made clear the need to ensure fairness in the system, with planning policy reflecting the requirement that caravan sites should be made available for those who travel permanently.

Communities Secretary Greg Clark said: “I’m determined to ensure fairness in the planning system, so everyone abides by the same rules.

“Today’s new policy strengthens the hand of councils to tackle unauthorised development in their area, ensures all communities are treated equally and that the protection of the Green Belt is enforceable.”

Housing and Planning Minister Brandon Lewis said: “Unauthorised traveller sites can blight communities, causing misery for their neighbours and creating resentment that planning rules don’t seem to be applied fairly.
“Today’s revised planning policy clearly sets out the protection against unauthorised occupation and that the rules apply fairly to every community equally – no ifs, no buts.”

Garden Court Chambers’ Marc Willers QC, who advises Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, warned on Twitter that the new planning policy was “short-sighted” and bound to result in more unauthorised camping. “To what end?” he said.

http://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24204:dclg-restricts-planning-policy-for-travellers-to-those-qwho-genuinely-travelq&catid=63&Itemid=31

All singing from the same hymn sheet?

A correspondent writes:

The Talaton appeal decision summarised on “the Watch” recently, intrigued me. It brought to mind another recent appeal, Down Close, Newton Poppleford, dated 29 May 2015, in which the Inspector similarly upheld EDDC’s decision to reject the application but also threw doubt on whether EDDC can demonstrate a 5 year land supply. Something crucial to adoption of the Local Plan.

Two different Inspectors are involved and they are clearly singing from the same hymn sheet. Inspector Thickett is due to produce his report on the Examination in Public of EDDC’s Local Plan fairly soon. If he comes from the same broad church as the Appeal Inspectors then we might expect EDDC to get a rough ride on its housing needs and numbers. Could they be so unconvincing as to return us to a developers’ free for all?

Here is an extract of what Inspector Ball wrote about Newton Poppleford at the end of March:

“Just before my site visit the Council submitted a housing monitoring update purporting to show that it can now demonstrate a 5.45 year supply, including a 20% buffer due to previous under-supply.

I have reservations about this. Following significant objections by the Local Plan Inspector, proposed modifications to the NEDLP are currently out to consultation; the new objective assessment of housing need has not been fully tested; and the appellants raise serious concerns about the development timescales of several major sites relied on by the Council, throwing doubt on their deliverability within the 5 year period. These are matters to be tested and resolved by the Local Plan Inspector. For this appeal, as things stand, I do not consider that it is possible to conclude with any confidence that the Council can demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites.”

And here is an extract of what Inspector Preston said at on 24 August:

From the information in front of me, the Council has not demonstrated that previous under delivery has been accounted for within its five-year supply calculations. Even if the previous under-delivery has been accounted for within the estimated need of 17,100 identified within the SHMA, which is not certain, the way in which the Council have addressed the previous under-supply is not consistent with the aim of addressing it within the first five years, where possible. In the Council’s projection the 17,100 has been split evenly over the plan period, ‘the ‘Liverpool’ method. Whilst the PPG is not prescriptive in stating that any under-deliver must be recovered within the first five years it sets a clear preference for this approach, ‘where possible’. No evidence was presented by the Council to suggest that it would not be possible to recover any previous under-supply over the next five years and the Local Plan Inspector has previously written to the Council to advocate the ‘Sedgefield’ approach with the aim of boosting housing supply.

“Moreover, I have concerns that the projected delivery rates for the new settlement at Cranbrook are not supported by clear evidence. The predicted completion rate for the two phases of the development over each of the following five years is 467 dwellings per annum. However, the March 2015 HMU identifies that there had been 757 completions between ‘summer’ 2012 and August 2014. It is not clear when development commenced but the published completion rate suggests a figure in the region of 350 to 375 dwellings per year over the two year period.

The Council suggested orally at the Hearing that there is evidence to suggest that delivery rates are likely to increase but no firm evidence was submitted to show how the predicted delivery rates had been derived. In effect, those predictions show an increase of approximately 100 dwellings a year at the site, over and above the published rate of completion to date. That rate of delivery is not supported by the evidence presented to me.”

Cranbrook to become a “health town” to cut NHS burden?

The head of the NHS has had this bright idea and Cranbrook is mentioned as a possible pilot town.

The chosen towns will emphasise active travel, parks, table tennis, more sheltered housing for elderly people, mobile and accessible health services, no fast food restaurants close to schools, GP monitored technology in homes, no kerbs, non- slip pavements and symbolic signs to help dementia sufferers.

Good luck with that one, with a fish and chip shop opening near the school and a row already going on about the school playing fields having no floodlighting making it inaccessible at night and cars parked half-on kerbs because there isn’t enough parking. Not to mention – so far – zero provision for specialist housing for the elderly.

The article mentions that Cranbrook is expected to have 20,000 new homes which seems to imply that all the 17,100 homes claimed as being required in the Local Plan will be sited there along with another 3,000 for good measure.

Source: Sunday Times 30/8/15, page 15

“UK housebuilding held back by shortfall”


“The Federation of Master Builders says 66% of construction firms have been forced to turn down work because of a shortage of skilled workers. This follows the Local Government Association’s declaration that the UK is training “too many hairdressers and not enough bricklayers”.

Housebuilders including Persimmon and Barratt Developments have warned that a shortage of skilled construction workers is hitting the housing market by holding back the building of new property.”

The Daily Telegraph, Page: 31 Daily Mail, Page: 73 Independent I, Page: 2

So how will this affect the number of houses in EDDC’s Local Plan?

And what impact will the labour shortage have on Govt Inspectors’ decisions nationwide?

Another nail in EDDC’s “high growth” coffin

Shares and oil prices around the world have seen further falls, sparked by renewed fears over the health of the global economy.

In China, the authorities intervened again on the stock market to little effect. Shares in Shanghai fell 1.5%.
And in Washington, expectations of a US interest rate rise dimmed after Federal Reserve policymakers said the economy was not ready yet.

European markets in Paris and Frankfurt were down 1% in morning trade.

London’s benchmark FTSE 100 index shed 0.5%, while the price of Brent crude oil was down 1.1% at $46.66 a barrel. US crude was down 0.4% at $40.95. …”

The trouble is we residents who get buried, not our misguided (to put it VERY kindly) officers and councillors:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34003197

Mid-Devon opted for “sustainable growth”. Oh, how they must be chuckling now.

Plus, the policy of asset-stripping will look remarkably like a fire sale in a pound shop.