To the reader who has just commented on untaxed cars with Tory poster on them …

Would the person who recently sent a comment (presumably for publication) which appears to be supportive of Tories parking untaxed and un-MOT’d cars near polling stations (or at least not in favour of Owl drawing attention to it, hard to say the comment does not make it clear) in Woodbury and Lympstone please resend it without the rider that says:

“CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email is confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender IMMEDIATELY. You should not copy the email or use it for any purpose or disclose its contents to any other person. GENERAL STATEMENT: Any statements made or intentions expressed in this communication may not necessarily reflect the views of [cannot print name]. Be advised that no content herein may be held upon [cannot print name] unless confirmed by issuance of a formal contractual document.”

after which Owl will be happy to print it (unless you want Owl to enter a formal contract before printing – it will do no such thing).

Given the rider, Owl is really not sure it IS the intended recipient and would like to be 100% sure the sender wants it printing. It may be just a private message to Owl. Or maybe meant for someone else, in which case it will be trashed.

FOUR untaxed and uninsured cars with Tory placards in Woodbury and Lympstone

KE03ZWU Skoda in Woodbury Salterton No Tax No Mot
MD04KVV Toyota in Exton No Tax
X63EDT Ford Ka in Lympstone No Tax No MOT
WD54FZZ Citroen in Woodbury No Tax.
Checked with the DVLA website. If they are not MOT or Taxed they are therefore uninsured!
To have them removed as abandoned cars it needs people to contact the local authority who will use their preferred contractor to remove them.
However in this case this would be Woodbury Car breakers and the co  owner is one of the Tory Candidates

“Power plant plans for [Carter family?] land on outskirts of Exmouth”

A planning application has been submitted to provide 20 self-contained generators on land south of Woodbury Business Park.

Enquiries seem to point to Woodbury Business Park being the instigators. Woodbury Business Park is owned by Zoe House and her husband. Zoe is the sister to Robin and Rowan Carter and therefore an an aunt to William Carter, who is a Conservative candidate for Woodbury and Lympstone at the coming district council election on 2 May 2019.

“A new power plant could be built on the outskirts of Exmouth, new plans have revealed.

A planning application has been submitted on behalf of Plutus Energy Group for 20 self-contained natural gas engine-driven electricity generators on land South of Woodbury Business Park.

The application has already drawn two objections with one saying it contravenes both the National Planning Policy Framework and the other calling it ‘totally inappropriate’ for this part of East Devon.

However, East Devon District Council’s environmental health department has said the power plant would have a ‘low impact’ on the nearest residential properties.

Woodbury Parish Council is set to be consulted and the deadline for consultation is Friday, May 10.

East Devon District Council will make the final decision.

https://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/power-plant-plans-for-woodbury-1-6004231

What happens when what’s good for your community isn’t necessarily good for your businesses?

Info from correspondents coming thick and fast in this last couple of weeks before voting – here’s one from Woodbury and Lympstone (NOT Lympstone and Woodbury, as it appears on Tory party leaflets!).

“Interesting to read the glossy brochure submitted by the 2 young “Tory Hopefuls” standing against the hard-working Independent Councillors in the Woodbury and Lympstone Ward. Shame they don’t get the ward title right as they seem to think its Lympstone and Woodbury!

Cheryl Mcgauley the present chair of Woodbury Parish Council has joined up with William Carter to challenge for the 2 seats available in the ward.
Cheryl needs no introduction to most of the ward electors as she has chaired the Parish Council in Woodbury for the last 4 years.

William is less known, but his family are well-known in East Devon! His father Rowen Carter runs the family business that includes Exmouth Docks, and Greendale Business Park. His uncle and aunt Robin Carter and Zoe House run Ladram Bay Holiday Park, and his brother Matt runs Greendale Farm shop.
In their leaflet Will says he is eager to represent the electorate and make a positive impact locally.

However, judging by the family’s history of development at Exmouth docks, Woodbury Park Golf Club, before selling on, and the continuing issues at Ladram Bay and Greendale Business Park most local people would say the family have already made an impression!

The whole idea of representing constituents is you need to voice the electorates’ concerns. How can that be done, when they are required to declare an interest and leave the debate on matters that concern the many issues relating to these local businesses?

According to the brochure Will and Cheryl love their ward which they say is a great place to live and work.

They believe there is a need to achieve a balance between the environment (in particular, places like the Exe estuary and Woodbury Common) and promoting sustainable development, affordable housing, and employment opportunities.

Many residents would argue that with more work places than there are working people living in the ward already, with Greendale and Woodbury Business parks alone, providing 1700 jobs, the balance if anything is too far leaning the wrong way!

The brochure reports that Conservative led East Devon delivers. However, it doesn’t mention the massive debt the new Honiton headquarters has cost (£16M) , nor next years “black hole” of a £1M in the Council’s Budget. Nor the £70M shortfall in infrastructure requirements over the next 12 years!!

The brochure makes many bland promises, which, if the new administration dared to follow, will lead the Council to more spending, but the brochure also promises to remain a “low tax council”

Where is the money coming from to cover our existing black holes never mind these new extravagant promises!”

Is YOUR village on the EDDC list for expansion? And another east/west divide

East Devon District Council Strategic Planning Committee are going to discuss:

“Principles for accommodating the future growth needs of East Devon”

on 4 September 2018.

The Committee are being asked to endorse

“The proposed principles for growth” as the basis for future discussion and consultation on accommodating extra growth in the district.”

The document is described as the “start of the debate” for future East Devon growth points for both the GESP (The Greater Exeter Strategic Plan) and the East Devon Local Plan review, which is required to be updated within the next two years.

For the last few years East Devon District Council have achieved their own Local Plan agreed target of 950 dwellings per year. (EDDC Target is 17,100 dwellings between the years of 2013 to 2031).

Recently Central Government decided to calculate each District`s housing requirement targets on a set matrix. East Devon’s build out figure has been set to be 844 homes per year. However, the report suggests that rather than achieve the Government target of 844 new houses per year there is a proposal to build out much higher levels of growth.

The report explains that the objective of higher growth could be achieved by what is called a “Growth Deal” with Central Government where a group of Councils agree to build more housing in return for infrastructure investment from central funds.

This proposed “Growth Deal” is being prepared by the Councils of East Devon, Exeter, Teignbridge and Mid Devon through the “GESP” Greater Exeter Strategic Plan.

It is recognised that Exeter is unable to provide the housing land required to sustain the expected growth of the city, and the rural areas and towns in the rest of the combined area will be required to increase their housing requirements in exchange for the infrastructure improvements for access to and from the city of Exeter.

Improvements to the motorway junctions, new roads, extra park and rides, rail improvements, new stations and an integrated transport system are all identified as priority improvements to overcome the already chronic delays on Exeter`s transport network. There are also aspirations for a “sports hub and concert venue” for Greater Exeter to be included in the GESP infrastructure needs.

The report gives a brief synopsis of the towns in East Devon and concludes that other than the new town of Cranbrook there is limited scope for growth due to the various towns’ proximity to the AONB designated areas, or they are bordering on the coast or close to flood plains.

The conclusion from the report is that the existing towns will only accommodate minimal growth, and with two-thirds of East Devon being included in the AONB of the Pebblebed Heaths or the Blackdown Hills the only area that can accommodate substantial growth is within the North West part of the district.

The report describes this area as the Western most quadrant of this district to the North of Exmouth and West of Ottery St Mary. The land is described to benefit from being relatively flat with no landscape designations. It is also well served by main roads with good vehicle access via the M5, A30, A3052 and A376 and has good existing public transport links with the railway line and existing bus routes.

There are 3 possible ways described as to how development could be achieved in this area.

1. Establish a further new town. Basically, create another Cranbrook. However, the report considers that the creation of another new town in the area could harm the delivery of Cranbrook.

2. Establish a number of new villages. Create a series of modern Devon villages but the report considers that this option would be most damaging in landscape terms.

3. Centre Growth around Existing Villages.

Growth would be required to be substantial with around 400 to 500 extra homes to be added to a number of existing villages (The report does not state how many villages will be required within this area). However, this could harm the character of the village and the existing community.

The new NPPF acknowledges that:

“The supply of a large number of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided they are well located and designed, and supported by necessary infrastructure and facilities.”

A list of the Parishes within the expansion area for extra housing area

By referring to a map of the area these are the Parishes(villages) which are within the West of the district which could have development of between 400 to 500 extra dwellings, parishes identified could be:

Nether Exe
Rewe
Brampford Speke
Upton Pyne.
Stoke Canon ​

All these Villages are North of Exeter and access is by way of the A377 – which is not listed as one of the featured roads, so it is unlikely these will be included.

Broadclyst
Clyst Honiton
Sowton
Rockbeare
Wimple.​

These Villages are close to Cranbrook and therefore unlikely to be selected to avoid the villages and town merging.

Clyst Hydon
Clyst St Lawrence
Aylesbeare
Marsh Green

These Parishes are remote from a main road or railway station which probably eliminates them because of their unsustainable location.

Lympstone

This Village is already designated in the report to provide growth for Exmouth.

This leaves the following Parishes most likely to be included for further expansion in the proposals:

Poltimore
Huxham
Clyst St Mary
Clyst St George (includes the village of Ebford)
West Hill
Woodbury​ (includes the village of Woodbury Salterton and Exton)
Farringdon.

The “Principles for Growth” which the committee are being asked to agree to:

• A significant proportion of growth to be in the Western part of the district by either a new town or extending a number of villages or building new villages.

• Plus, modest growth in existing towns with strategic growth around Axminster, Exmouth (including Lympstone), Honiton and Ottery St Mary.

• All other Villages to be encouraged to provide modest growth through their Neighbourhood Plans.

• Focus development on main transport corridors if possible.

Conclusion:

For the last few years, East Devon has successfully complied with the government`s Housing Strategy, with their current Local Plan and at present build out rates, this will over subscribe the Government Building Target until the year 2031.

The Government is not forcing East Devon to co-operate with Exeter to provide some of their housing needs. This decision is totally at the discretion of the District Council and their leaders.

Yes, Exeter is a thriving growth city, and it is recognised that the road and rail connections are dire, but why destroy the character of a part of East Devon for these improvements?

The very reason people choose to relocate to Exeter, its surrounding towns and villages is the beautiful Devon countryside; the building of a mass of new housing will simply make the area a mirror image of the existing areas the people are wanting to move away from!

So, to satisfy the aspirations and needs of the City of Exeter, the rural west area of East Devon will be required to build many more houses with either another new town or new villages or building an extra 500 houses to a number of existing village communities.

Will the Strategic Planning Committee endorse this proposal or not?

Swire says developers “gamed” Cranbrook to its detriment and Neighbourhood Plans aren’t working!

He says developers refused to create a town centre because there weren’t enough people living there! He says the council is now having to step in to rectify this!

Owl thinks that perhaps there are not enough people living there (question: how many is enough?) because there is no town centre!