Community Voice on Planning (CoVoP) groups seem to have started a craze on youtube. Bradford have adapted it for themselves, after FRAGOFF (www.fragoff.co.uk) set the ball rolling.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijhAwpoQHvM And here’s Bradford’s version https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw-UOPLsIIw
Mmm, wonder if fellow CoVoP members, East Devon Alliance, will appear on youtube sometime soon? We’ll keep you informed..
See today’s post on http://www.saveoursidmouth.com
We know what the Leader of East Devon District Council gives as his “reason”
We are very much aware of the need to finalise our Local Plan, but at the same time we have to take the reports with proposed changes to the Plan to our members for consideration and consultation. We had envisaged that the earliest we would have been able to take the reports to our members would be March or early April 2015. The process of consultation would then take around six-weeks.
“However, because of the forthcoming local and national elections this would not appear to be a viable route to follow, as there is concern that the process could be seen as politically motivated, which would overshadow the soundness of the plan.
“While mindful of the need to progress quickly, the significance to the process of members consideration and consultation should not be overlooked, and consequently it is unlikely that we will take the report to our members until shortly after the May election.”
but let us look at this forensically.
The Planning Inspector, when he looked at the Draft Local Plan, threw it out. A main reason was that the number of houses to be built had no evidence to support the figure. What slight evidence given was very old, based on out of date information and therefore not to be trusted. He basically told EDDC to go back to the drawing board and give him hard evidence for his figures.
Under the National Planning Policy Framework, EDDC had a “duty to co-operate” with adjoining local authorities in case those authorities had housing needs that could not be met within their areas and must therefore be shared. For reasons never explained, although this meant in practice liaising with Exeter City Council and West Dorset, EDDC took the decision (where? when?) to extend the area to include Teignbridge, Mid Devon and Dartmoor National Park. This meant that consultants had more information to gather and more situations to take into account. It should be noted that the “duty to co-operate” is NOT a duty to agree – only to be seen to be consulting with neighbouring authorities on their needs.
So, two sets of consultants were employed. Edge Analytics were employed to look at the link between housing and employment, Ash Futures Limited were employed to look at future job growth levels in East Devon only. It appears now that both companies have produced their reports.
Usually, when consultants have produced reports, they are circulated to councillors who then have the opportunity to comment on them. Unfortunately, in East Devon, this has often been misinterpreted as an opportunity to rewrite them almost in their entirety. When EDDC doesn’t like numbers, it likes to have them changed, rather than accepting that they might be right! Take the employment land figures that were produced by two consultants for the Draft Local Plan. EDDC (or rather the East Devon Business Forum under its Chairman, disgraced ex-councillor Graham Brown) decided the figure was too low, gave their own much higher figure and this was the one which EDDC chose to go with.
Now, here we are with two reports and the Leader has decided that their contents are too politically sensitive for the public (and councillors not in the “need to know” group?) to have sight of.
As we noted earlier, there are only two possible explanations:
1. The number of houses is below that which EDDC put in its Draft Local Plan. In this case, EDDC has egg on its face. Not only does it have egg on its face, all the current developments rushed through because we have no Local Plan would be surplus to requirements.
2. The number of houses is higher than that which EDDC put in its Draft Local Plan, either because:
(a) they just got the number wrong or
and this is more likely
(b) now that they are having to take the housing needs of not only Exeter and West Dorset into account but also Teignbridge, Mid Devon and Dartmoor National Park, EDDC will have to commit itself to taking overload from all these areas into its own area (for example, by making Cranbrook even larger than planned).
Thanks to the correspondent who sent in two related pieces of news: firstly, that South Somerset’s Local Plan has just been declared sound: and secondly, that the Conservative parliamentary candidate has adopted a stance that would get him elected here!
‘SOMERSET: District reaches ‘major milestone’ in Local Plan process
BUT CONSERVATIVE PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATE QUESTIONS WHETHER HIGH HOUSING FIGURES ARE NEEDED
SOUTH Somerset District Council’s Local Plan, which will act as a guideline for development up until 2028, has been deemed “sound” by a government inspector, subject to a series of modifications.
The council’s received the inspector David Hogger’s report on the Local Plan (2006-2028) on January 8th, marking a “significant point” in the process of formally adopting the plan.
The necessary modifications listed in the report are the same as those consulted upon by the council in March and November 2014, and the document can be read in full online at http://bit.ly/17GNjCz
The report ratifies the council’s objectives to deliver 15,950 homes and 11,250 jobs by 2028, and confirms the council’s ambition for how towns, villages and rural areas will grow and change. It also endorses the policies against which the council will judge planning applications for homes, businesses, community facilities and infrastructure provision across the district.
The next step is for the council to make the proposed changes and present the final Local Plan to a meeting of full council on March 5th. Councillors will be asked to approve and adopt the plan and allow the policies to come into full effect.
Councillor Tim Carroll, deputy leader and portfolio holder for Finance and Spatial Planning, whose responsibilities include the Local Plan, emphasised the importance of the conclusions in the Inspector’s Report.
He commented: “This is a major milestone for the council. The overall conclusion of the inspector is that the SSDC Local Plan and the 12 modifications that were incorporated during the process are sound and therefore the plan itself is capable of adoption without any further change.
“It has been a lengthy process and I would pay tribute to everyone’s hard work over the last few years. We have reacted positively to the inspector’s requests to make changes and it is pleasing that these have now been confirmed. These changes have been fully debated and subject to extensive consultation.
“The plan focuses on bringing much needed homes and jobs to the district in the right number and place and having the formal sign-off by the Inspector puts the council in a stronger position to make better decisions about the future of South Somerset and to resist inappropriate or speculative applications. We will now move quickly to formally adopt the plan and that date has now been set for March 5th for a meeting of all councillors”.
Despite the inspector finding the Local Plan “sound”, Conservative parliamentary candidate for the Yeovil constituency, Marcus Fysh, has questioned the process the council has followed over the past eight years to reach this point.
He said he has “mixed feelings” about the report, as many good things are at risk from the bad, and claimed the proposed housing figure was too high, which he fears will “do a huge disservice to our district”.
‘Not as simple as it seems’
Mr Fysh commented: “It’s now about eight years and over £2.8million of public money which have been spent by South Somerset District Council attempting to make and adopt a Local Plan, a document with power in law to direct how much housing should be built and where it will go in our area.
“Having found the initial plan submitted in 2013 unsound, the planning inspector sent to our area by the Planning Inspectorate to assess the proposals has now issued his decision on a plan revised and resubmitted by South Somerset District Council last year.
“In that decision he has found the amended plan sound, although the decision has some peculiar reasoning and assertions that suggest he may not have properly applied his mind, which may tempt opponents of the plan to challenge it, and it is not as simple a matter as it seems.
“A lot appears to have been left to the concept of ‘early review’, in which the housing figures will be looked at bi-annually.
“And that gets to the nub of the problem with this plan and the process the council has followed to get to this stage: sadly, it may not be the last we hear about controversial planning decisions in our area.
“It is true that an adopted plan should give certainty to residents and developers alike, and on the face of it we should welcome that the inspector has not sent the district council right back to the drawing board.
“But the housing figure is a key problem. The council has been obsessed with keeping the overall housing requirement high, despite good evidence that it is too high, to the extent that many aspects of the plan have changed over the years, but the one thing that strangely has not, has been the 15,950 house building figure they have ‘aspired’ to over 20 years. Some say it is because they get extra revenue as a ‘New Homes Bonus’, which allows them to avoid cutting their spending cloth to suit in other areas (this amounted to £3million last year).
“Somehow they seem to have persuaded the inspector, against the evidence and legal precedent, to keep this number, which I fear will do a huge disservice to our district in the medium term.
“The problem is that the housing figure means that over 1,000 new houses per annum will need to be built in the district in each of the next five years if the district is not to be adjudged at planning appeals as not having met its target. Were the target not met, in planning law the Local Plan would be regarded as not up to date and would not apply at appeal hearings, therefore it would be ‘open season’ for developers again.
“There is only one year in the last 20 in which more than 1,000 houses were built, when the district grabbed money on offer from Gordon Brown and fast tracked developments with a mixed record at at Wyndham Park and Wincanton. The rest of the time the district has built around 500 houses per year, which gives an idea just how far short we could fall behind.
“So, it is with mixed feelings that I look at the inspector’s report. A lot of the good things in the plan are sadly at risk from the bad things. I am not against all development, but it has to be in the right place and have the right infrastructure and facilities.
“In Chard, for example, we want to get the regeneration scheme in place and not overload the roads through the town, and the plan looks to do that, but this will not apply if the district’s housing target is missed.
“In Ilminster we want development to complement the existing town, not turn the town into an over-built dormitory. Over-development is a risk if the housing target is missed, a recipe for even more unhappiness on all sides of the town’s development issues.
“Crewkerne and Wincanton have been told they may get more housing, depending on early review by the council, and would lose control if the housing target is missed.
“And Yeovil, which needs to get more people living downtown to regenerate and support its businesses, shops and restaurants, but doesn’t on the real numbers require yet more big urban extensions, faces yet more bolt-on green field developments that do little to upgrade the town’s infrastructure. That process would just accelerate and be even less controlled if the house build target is not met, with consequent problems for school places, traffic and health care availability.
“South Petherton faces similar pressures that could get even worse.
“One thing is clear to me; the old thinking about development in our area is stale. A huge opportunity has been missed locally to plan for development in many areas that will solve problems rather than create them.
“I do hope later this year local Conservative councillors may be in a position to review these matters and put proper solutions in place, in control of the district council. To do that we need to vote for them though. I will certainly give them my full support.” ‘
As you will have noticed, the East Devon Alliance has grabbed the headlines, and been prominently featured in the local press and radio over the past week or so.
Now this invitation has come from EDA, for any EDWatchers who might like to follow EDA news for themselves:
There are 4 options:
a. Subscribe to emails on the site – http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk
b. Subscribe to RSS on the site – http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk
c. Like EDA on Facebook – EastDevonAlliance
d. Follow on Twitter – EDevonAlliance
And if anything specially grabs EDWatchers’ attention, it can be shared with neighbours and local friends by:
a. Forwarding the email
b. Clicking the share buttons on the EDA website
c. Sharing EDA posts with friends on facebook.
d. Re-tweeting.
……There seems to be lots going on!!
Congratulations to Gaeron Kayley of the Save Clyst St Mary campaign, who tells us, “I have been advised that the development at the Cat and Fiddle has been refused! This shows that a collaborative, fair and open approach does give us a true voice. Lets hope events continue to go this way and our village’s character preserved.” Full story, with reasons for refusal, here: http://saveclyststmary.org.uk/2015/02/12/cat-and-fiddle-planning-application-refused/
Two thorough articles in today’s Midweek Herald, on some burning East Devon issues, in case readers missed them in our earlier posts:
Planning Inspector says 1.91 year land supply, council says 7.51 year supply.
What can you do when even the so-called experts can’t agree! And by such a large amount.
As the General Election approaches, Hugo Swire MP will be holding a meeting in Woodbury Village Hall on Friday, 20th February from 6.30 till 8.0 p.m. to discuss planning issues. Is this a first? There could be a full house!
Urgent reminder from Save Clyst St Mary Campaign:
‘Thank you to everyone who has paid their money that was previously pledged. Every penny is gratefully appreciated. Anyone can donate – you simply need to pay your money into the SaveClyst ST Mary account via the village Post Office or if you prefer to do it electronically, into Natwest Bank account: 56-00-49 32633181
Please be aware that there are only forty six letters of objection on the East Devon Council website. We desperately need to get that number over one hundred (at least – the Winslade Park proposal had over two hundred) so please do post or email your objections as soon as possible (remember, the closing date is now only three days away).
If you decide to input your comments directly on to EDDC’s site, do check that the comments actually appear! A number seem to have vanished into cyber world. EDDC is aware of the issue and has requested that anyone who has problems contacts them immediately.
Finally, don’t forget the meeting in the village hall Thursday 5th February at 7.30pm. Charlie Hopkins(Expert planning consultant) will be attending. This meeting will be focusing specifically on the proposal to demolish a house in Clyst Valley Road and build forty houses on the field, currently owned by the Plymouth Brethren, situated adjacent to Clyst Valley Football Club’s grounds.
A big thank you to you all for your continued support. As we have said previously, it’s a big challenge ahead of us – but together, we can do it!’
East Devon Watch has received a circular from the Marley Planning group who are objecting to a plan for 150 houses (on top of 350 from another developer in adjacent land) off Marley Road, Exmouth. The plan appears to have the hallmarks of a speculative application recognised as being able to take advantage of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) situation. An attempt to have the land included last time around was thrown out.
The planning application is 14/3022/MOUT and objections must be in no later that 10th February. Copies of objections should go to Exmouth Town Council.
For anyone wishing to add their voice to the objections,the Marley Planning Group Campaigners have prepared a draft letter of objection which can be used as it is, or modified as required. Details at this link Proforma Letter Marley Planning Group . For further information please e-mail marleyleyplanning@yahoo.co.uk .
EDW footnotes:
-Readers may be aware that the developer cut down a sizeable ancient oak before the community consultation.
-The applicant’s submitted documents claim there would be no impact on the local surgery, based solely on the fact that the surgery (Raleigh Surgery) still takes new patients. However, we are told that one of the partners has said in the press they could not absorb such numbers without significant resources.
The value of trees was a major theme at last night’s Sidmouth Arboretum AGM (held in the Annie Leigh Browne Room, Old Unitarian Church).
Guest speaker AONB Manager Chris Woodruff, gave an informal but very informative presentation on the aesthetic, social, environmental, and economic benefits of trees.. He spoke of the value to the local economy of modifying the woodland environment ((for example, the profitable provision of family attractions at Haldon Hills). Wood for fuel is in increasing demand, and local woodburning stove company, Stovax, saw sales rise by 50% last year. But England has a surprisingly low percentage of sustainably managed woodland, (barely half) compared with the other UK countries. Another surprise Chris Woodruff mentioned, is that hedges, i.e. “vertical woodland”, are not included in such surveys.
Meanwhile, Sidmouth Arboretum now has a Transatlantic link! It is working in partnership with the American organisation, Treeconomics, on a tree survey being specifically adapted for our local environment. Following Sidmouth’s lead, two other towns (Crawley,and Lewis, in Sussex) are currently establishing a civic arboretum.
The value of trees is increasingly being recognised….!
More info here http://www.treeconomics.co.uk/
“The UK is currently 68% self-sufficient in foods which can be produced here. There has been a steady decline in this level over the last 20 years. While there is no optimal level of self-sufficiency, and a diversity of supply is important for spreading risks, the Government should monitor this level. Levels of self-sufficiency in fruit and vegetables have fallen the most, and farmers should seek to extend the seasonal production of fresh fruit and vegetables in coordination with the Agricultural and Horticultural Development Board.”
If you look at the summary and conclusions, There is NO mention of the loss of high grade agricultural land to development of such land and solar farms.
Perhaps our Government thinks that the NPPF protects such land (snort!).
‘Why Democracy?’ was discussed in a wide-ranging and perceptive debate led by Professor Michael Sandel, on Radio 4’s ‘Public Philosopher’ programme this morning.
The current changing mood of the electorate was one of the main topics that arose. Among possible reasons given for this change, were the failure of government to react to public views; a feeling of disempowerment; and the erosion of public spaces (in all senses). Here’s the link to what was said: http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/r4sandel
The importance of proper scrutiny was implied. When EDDC’s Overview & Scrutiny Committee next meet this Thursday (6.30pm at Knowle) they will no doubt bear this in mind.
The Clinton Devon Estates’ Liverton Solar Park, was mentioned in a comment (copied below) recently left on the East Devon Watch blog. An observer has subsequently sent in these photos of the solar farm in question (which lies just outside the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) taken from the AONB, south of the B3178. The pictures may shed more light on the issue.
‘By coincidence, having driven past the solar farm at Liverton Farm and seen just what an impact on the ‘Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ the solar park has, I have been looking again at the application (13/2202/MFUL) https://planning.eastdevon.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=MU6J9QGH3A000 made by the agents of Clinton Devon Estates.
It takes an enormous amount of plodding through, something still in progress, but it seems clear that , let’s say ‘ much of what was claimed is open to serious challenge’. Start with looking at what the CPRE had to say about some of Clinton Devon’s agent’s claims.
Not far away is Liverton Park 2, and industrial and business park complex adjacent to Liverton Park (1). It struck me that the massive sheds on Liverton Park 2 might well have had solar panels built into their roofs if CDE were really green for greens sake- but it seems not. But you do get a view of the solar panels from LP2!
The message seems clear, you cannot take a developer’s word. Check, check and check again. Oh, and see what subsidies the development attracts and wonder if that might be what makes solar panels the preferred choice when other more appropriate schemes may be better suited.’
Source: https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/01/15/save-clyst-st-mary-campaign-new-proposals-and-important-meeting/comment-page-1/#comment-9681
6.30 this evening (Friday) at Clyst St George and Ebford Village Hall.
This message has just been sent to supporters, including EDW:
‘Firstly, thank you to each and everyone of you for writing in letters objecting to the current planning proposals that we previously advertised. We are succeeding in making our voice known at Council level (and beyond!) and I have been told today that the number of objections is rapidly increasing. We managed to gain with the support of other like minded residents over the weekend another fifty five.
We have been approached by some residents concerned from the that one of the fields surrounding Walnut Cottages, off Oil Mill lane, Clyst St Mary is subject to a planning application for a solar farm. Objections close on Friday 16th January; however, we have been told that they will still count shortly after that date should you wish to object to this The Planning reference is 14/2952/MFUL. There are links from our website, together with a sample template letter that I have attached to this email. Should you wish to email your objection the correct email address is: planningwest@eastdevon.gov.uk
(Template letter shown here: Save Clst St Mary Campaign ObjectSolar )
Another important point to note is that we have been advised that there has now been a formal application submitted for forty houses directly behind the Clyst Valley Football Club, land which is presently owned by the Plymouth Brethren. This follows on from the consultation at Westpoint in December 2014 . Please be aware, on the plans available at the consultation, access to this development was to be gained from the demolition of a house in Clyst Valley Road, in order to create an access route through the estate. Unfortunately there is currently no reference to any point of access, nor the precise location of the proposed houses; should further details be obtained, obviously we will keep you informed. The reference for this proposed development is: 15/0072/MOUT. Again, there are currently no documents available on line to view, but.we will endeavour to keep you up to date as we find out more information.
As you are already aware, the outcome from The Parish Extraordinary last Wednesday resulted in Charlie Hopkins (expert planning consultant) being appointed to work for us. He is coming to talk with the Parish Council and the residents to agree representation for all of the major applications that are directly affecting us. The Parish Council has arranged a larger venue at the Village Hall, so hopefully no one will be left out in the cold this time! Please let’s try and once again fill the new venue – your support is all that’s required Tuesday 20th January at 7.30pm
Remember: Together, we can do this!’
Gaeron Kayley
http://saveclyststmary.org.uk/
Planning application 14/2959 on behalf of Clinton Devon Estate was validated on 16 December but was first spotted on the new EDDC planning web site yesterday. It is an outline application for the construction of 21 dwellings (including 40 % affordable housing) with all matters reserved other than access, on Frogmore Road (aka the Syon House site). This site is on agricultural grade I land within the AONB and to the east of the main road which by-passes the village.
Readers of this blog may recall that earlier in 2014, at the public hearing into the local plan, the EDDC Planning Officer read out paragraph 1 of the NPPF to the Planning Inspector. This is all about encouraging communities to get involved in the planning process. The Planning Officer then went on to say that communities were the best judge of where developments should go.
The people of East Budleigh did have their say in a consultation process during January to March 2014. In considering three potential sites, the people overwhelmingly preferred a brown field site at the village entry to the South by a majority of 68.5%. This is very much in line with NPPF paragraph 111 which says “planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land).”
This is not the site now being put forward. The reason given in the planning statement (5.9) is that compared to other sites originally put forward [this site] is less visually sensitive and better connected to the village centre. Residents may disagree, especially with regard to pedestrian access across the main road to all the village amenities. In other words questioning the site’s sustainability.
NPPF para 116 states that planning permission should be refused for major developments in designated areas [eg AONBs] except in exceptional circumstances. A paragraph that was upheld by the Planning Inspector when he rejected an appeal for development at Badger Close, Newton Poppleford in a decision dated 11 June 2014.
So the planning statement tries to get around this by arguing (5.2) that there is an acute housing land supply problem in East Devon. (Some readers might find this hard to believe). This argument is then used to plead (5.13) that there are clear exceptional circumstances as to why the proposed development is needed, would be in the public interest and should therefore be supported.
East Devon Watch 