The housing minister, Brandon Lewis, made a whistlestop (i.e. quick and under the public radar) visit to Lympstone and Cranbrook yesterday.
He DIDN’T visit Feniton, Gittisham or Clyst St Mary or anywhere else blighted by over-development and Council Leader Paul Diviani is conspicuous by his absence in rhe photograph. Not many people at all in the photograph, actually!
Only “good news” visits between now and the May elections!
‘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.
Of interest is that, if we had Community Infrastructure Levy, parishes would receive 15% of it directly (25% if a neighbourhood plan is in force). Our CIL was thrown out bt the Planning Inspector as having a poor evidence base so our developers are absolved from paying this charge.
East Devon: The Developers’ Dream! No wonder it is Development Wild West here!
Click to access Plain_English_guide_to_the_planning_system.pdf
“The research found that in eight of the targeted rural authorities local plans which set out where homes can be built for five years were challenged after house building rates fell in the recession. It cited examples in Devon, Norfolk and South Cambridgeshire.”
…And there’ll be live (!) performances by current East Devon writers, too, at tomorrow evening’s Book Launch (6-8pm, All Saints’ Hall, All Saints’ Rd, Sidmouth)
‘East Devon’s Literature and Landscape’ by Peter Nasmyth, has stunning original photographs and lots of new insights about East Devon’s links to writing by such diverse authors as H.G.Wells, Beatrix Potter, Jane Austen, and all-of-the-above, to name but a few! PLEASE NOTE: Performance starts at 6.30pm precisely.
More info here: https://eastdevonwatch.wordpress.com/2014/11/06/the-perfect-christmas-present-for-lovers-of-east-devons-literature-and-landscape/
For SEE INSIDE page, scroll down to Literature and Landscape in East Devon /strong> on HOME, at http://www.mtapublications.co.uk
SEE INSIDE pages at http://www.mtapublications.co.uk/dev.html
The date for your diary is Friday 12th December: Details here: Lit and Land Sid event
Martin Hesp, writing in the Western Morning News yesterday, gives a clear case for choosing brownfield sites. See http://www.facebook.com/eastdevonalliance
Is the present National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) based on correct targets?
The latest comments on the Parliamentary Enquiry into the NPPF are now visible on the national Community Voice on Planning website, so please see the home page for a link. http://covop.org/ .
East Devon Alliance is of course an active participant in CoVoP.
A report, by the IPPR North think-tank, calls for a ‘metro mayors’ for city regions, and would give greater powers to vary taxes to local councils.
Eric Pickles said:
“The Coalition government has delivered significant devolution of power and finance to local communities and there is real scope to go further in England.
“However, localism in England should be about devolving power to the lowest appropriate level – down to councils, to neighbourhoods and to individuals. There may be some role for combined authorities on a strategic level to promote economic development and transport, but there is a real risk they will suck power upwards away from local councils and local taxpayers.
“Nor should localism be a fig leaf for hitting hard-working people with a new range of municipal stealth taxes. Creating new taxes, more politicians and new tiers of local administration is not the answer – the starting point should be increasing local democracy and local accountability.”
Er, what about localism not actually working in any way, shape or form – where do we go then?
An EDA correspondent has tracked down the elusive “attachment” to the agenda of the Development Management Committee regarding the delay to the Local Plan (see post below)
DM260814-Emerging Housing Numbers
and a critique of this document is given below by the same correspondent:
What the Dickins?
A paper by Matt Dickins, EDDC’s Planning Policy Manager, to be presented to Development Mgmt Committee on 26 August (see link above) makes for depressing reading. Residents of East Devon hoping that EDDC will finally be getting its act together on housing land provision will be deeply disappointed.
As many will know, EDDC is obliged to prove that it has an objective evaluation of housing land provision. The absence of such an evaluation, and EDDC’s failure to prove both a five-year land supply and have a Local Plan in place, means that it remains open season for developers. An objective evaluation of housing land need is achieved through the production of a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). In his scathing review of EDDC’s draft Local Plan earlier this year Planning Inspector Anthony Thickett called the absence of an up to date SHMA a “serious failing” on the part of the Council. (He also found that EDDC’s argument for 4,000 ‘overspill’ migration numbers, mostly from Exeter, had “no empirical basis”.)
Does Mr Dickins come bearing good news for EDDC and the people of East Devon that the day of the SHMA is at hand? Not at all. His paper comprises six pages of complacent waffle. Notwithstanding that some research should have already been done, “unfortunately there have been delays”. There may need to be discussions with adjacent authorities. (We know that, Mr Dickins. Exeter CC is looking to appropriate East Devon countryside.) While Mr Dickins’ paper points out that demographically East Devon is likely to see a major increase in population from the over 65s – surely implying a need for more sheltered accommodation in towns with services than new build on greenfield sites – his paper concludes lamely that “at this stage it is not possible to provide a timetable for completion of the full SHMA work”! The consequence? “We can only conclude that we do not have a 5 year housing land supply and continue to consider application [sic] accordingly”.
To translate: EDDC has no idea when the SHMA will be finished, it won’t even venture a guess, and in the meantime the lack of a five-year housing land supply [and Local Plan] means that developers will consider to maintain the upper hand in a district where two-thirds of the land is AONB. This is a woeful paper: DMC should send Mr Dickins to the Naughty Step and require him to try again. Time someone got a grip while there is any countryside left in East Devon.
Recap: our draft Local Plan was thrown out by the Planning Inspector, Mr Thickett, because – oh, so many reasons – mainly because pretty much all of the figures in it were either too old or too unreliable. We were told to go back to the drawing board.
A crucial aspect of a local plan is that there must be a “5 year land supply” – i.e. enough available land to meet the district’s agreed needs for the next 5 years to enable building to start quickly and to keep up with demand. Those local authorities which had persistently underperformed in this area over the previous period were told that they would have to have a 6 year land supply – EDDC was one of those authorities.
Whichever way EDDC seemed to cut it, we never reached that magic 5 or 6 year level. As a result, developers are pretty much given free rein to build anywhere in East Devon unless EDDC can provide very strong reasons that they cannot – this as a result of the Coalition government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which ripped up all previous rules and gave the green light to building just about anywhere.
EDDC thereafter took this to heart and passed pretty much anything and everything that came its way (and is still coming its way) from developers. It was left to local communities (Feniton, Seaton, Newton Poppleford) to argue their own corners and find their own money to fight developers. In Feniton and Seaton the communities rallied and defeated them (only to find that, in both places, it seems the developers are coming back to fight again). In Newton Poppleford there was a perverse decision from the DMC – yes to a Clinton Devon Estates development but no to another developer at Badger Close using the same reasoning, but turned on its head for the latter.
EDDC promised the Planning Inspector that there would be a fast review (which had to include dealing with other local authorities in the area where they said that they had run out of space for their developments and needed us to build to take up their shortfall). The Inspector told EDDC that he would be ready to re-examine the draft local plan in October or November 2014.
Bear in mind that the new draft local plan once again had to go out for public consultation – a project that lasts at least 6 weeks and then demands officer time to collate the results. It became pretty obvious that EDDC was not going to meet this target.
Now we have confirmation that this is the case. At the next
Development Management Committee on Tuesday 26 August 2014 at 2 pm
a report is tabled on the agenda entitled “Objectively Assessed Housing Numbers for East Devon – Emerging Work.
On that agenda, currently (21/8/2014 10.40 am) there is supposed to be a link to that report but the link is missing so anyone attempting to read the report will not be able to find it. However, an eagle-eyed correspondent on Councillor Claire Wright’s blog has traced it (unfortunately the link given does not work) and no amount of searching on the EDDC website brings it up. However, this is what the document says:
“At this stage it is not possible to provide a timetable for completion of the full SHMA (strategic housing market assessment) work. There are complexities to the task that will need working through. However, officers of all the authorities involved in the commission are working together to come to a final set of recommendations on the objectively assessed housing numbers for the SHMA as a whole and for the individual authorities”.
It adds “In the meantime based on the available information we can only conclude that we do not have a 5 year housing land supply and continue to consider applications accordingly”.
It then suggests that the growth point area near Skypark will cause many businesses to set up and as a result housing should be factored in to address the extra jobs (see below for a post on those extra jobs which are mostly self-employment and particularly self-employment in the construction industry – ephemeral jobs).
So, the status quo continues. No land supply, happy developers, very, very unhappy residents.
Two pieces of news from the Government this week:
1. A new planning reform package has been unveiled for consultation. Local residents will have a greater say over the future development of their area, under plans announced by Housing and Planning Minister Brandon Lewis (according to the press release) – what do you think?
2. Wide ranging new government guidance on public access to local authority decision making. Worth reading for planning! According to this, Councils and other local government bodies are required to allow any member of the public to take photographs, film and audio-record the proceedings, and report on all public meetings.
Links to both are available on the home page of Community Voice on Planning (CoVoP), of which EDA is an active member http://www.covop.org/
With only nine months to go to next year’s General Election, the government’s appetite for messing about with the planning system seems to be unabated. De-CLoG has recently published a miscellaneous rag-bag of quite far-reaching proposals for further changes to the planning system aimed (they say) at furthering their objective of streamlining planning.
The government is proposing to tinker with the procedures for neighbourhood plans. They propose to introduce a 10-week time limit for LPAs to respond to applications for a neighbourhood area to be designated (or for a community right-to-build proposal), as well as modifying pre-submission, consultation and publicity requirements for neighbourhood plans. The requirement for a six-week consultation period on a proposal for a neighbourhood plan would be removed, but affected landowners would have to be consulted. The changes will also address the need to comply with the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive. The general aim is to speed up the Neighbourhood Plan-making process, and to reduce the ability of reluctant LPAs and opposing developers to disrupt or delay Neighbourhood Plans.
These proposals are most probably prompted by the limited take-up of neighbourhood plans so far, and the difficulties and delays that have been encountered by those who have embarked on the neighbourhood planning process. The government’s aim seems to be to beef up Neighbourhood Plans in an effort to demonstrate in their next election manifesto that they have put ‘localism’ into action, whereas these much-vaunted initiatives have proved up to now to be a rather damp squib, and are unlikely to counter the impression that the government effectively strangled localism at birth by imposing a requirement on LPAs to approve significantly more development in their areas, whether their councillors or voters like it or not.
This is the one area of change among those proposed in this consultation paper that would appear to require primary legislation. The government says that it intends to introduce new legislation to implement any changes at the earliest opportunity, subject to the parliamentary process. It may in practice prove difficult to introduce and pass such legislation in the time left in this parliament, in which case these ideas about neighbourhood plans could end up being no more than Tory manifesto commitments – a convenient fig-leaf to cover the nakedness of their originally much-trumpeted notions of Localism.
More changes to the General Permitted Development Order are proposed to enable further changes of use in addition to those previously introduced within the past two years. These will include the change of use of light industrial units (B1(c)), warehouses and storage units (B8) and some sui generis uses (launderettes, amusement arcades/centres, casinos and nightclubs) to residential use (C3), and changes of some sui generis uses to restaurants (C3) and leisure uses (D2).
In addition to these changes, the government is also considering making permanent those permitted development rights which currently expire in May 2016. This flies in the face of the growing opposition among some LPAs to office-to-residential conversions, so this proposal can be expected to cause quite an outcry.
First, the existing time limit for completing office-to-residential conversions that have obtained prior approval will be extended from 30 May 2016 to 30 May 2019. But a revised PD right for change of use from office to residential use is intended to be introduced from May 2016 (so it is entirely dependent on the rather doubtful prospect of the Tories securing a majority at the next General Election). It will replace the existing PD right, and the exemptions which apply to the current PD right will not be extended to apply to the new PD right. The amended Class J will still be subject to prior approval in relation to highways and transport, flooding and contamination risk, but in future (i.e. after May 2016) it will also be subject to a consideration of the potential impact of the significant loss of the most strategically important office accommodation (although this criterion will be tightly defined).
The right to build larger domestic extensions (under Part 1), currently expiring in May 2016, is also to be made permanent. A single storey rear extension or conservatory that extends beyond the rear wall by between four metres and eight metres for a detached house, and by between three metres and six metres for any other type of house, will be PD, subject to neighbour consultation for these larger householder extensions, which will continue to require prior approval by the LPA.
The right to make alterations to commercial premises has not so far been extended to shops, and so it is now proposed that the GPDO should be extended to allow retailers to alter their premises. PD rights are also proposed to facilitate commercial filming, the installation of larger solar panels on commercial buildings, minor alterations within waste management facilities and for sewerage undertakers, and further extensions (in addition to those already allowed) to houses and business premises.
There is also a proposal to limit the compensation payable where an Article 4 Direction is made to remove permitted development rights. (Any planning lawyer’s hackles will rises at that.)
It is also proposed to amend the Fees Regulations for prior approval applications. Where the permitted development is for change of use only, and a prior approval is required, a fee of £80 will apply. Where the permitted development is for change of use and allows for some physical development and prior approval is required a fee of £172 will apply, including change of use from sui generi to residential. Where a prior approval is required to carry out physical development it is intended to introduce a fee of £80, including for the erection of a structure in a retail car park or the installation of solar panels on a non-domestic building.
While mucking about with the GPDO, the government has decided that it is high time to consolidate this much-amended Order. But consolidation is no more than window-dressing; what the GPDO really needs is thorough re-drafting, to remove the numerous anomalies and ambiguities that have plagued us all for far too long.
Turning to the Use Classes Order, contrary to the general trend, but unsurprisingly, there is a proposal to restrict Class A2, so that betting offices and pay-day loan shops (both currently falling within this Use Class) would become sui generis uses. Planning permission will be required in future for a change of use to either of those uses.
Other changes include the possible merger of Use Classes A1 and A2 (perhaps with other ‘town centre’ uses), so as to create a much more flexible range of uses in our High Streets. [Somebody in De-CLoG seems to have been reading old posts in this blog again!] This will be accompanied by a further amendment of the GPDO to allow change of use to the widened retail (A1) class from betting shops and pay day loan shops (A2), restaurants and cafés (A3), drinking establishments (A4), and hot food takeaways (A5). The existing PD right to allow the change of use from A1 and A2 to a flexible use for a period of two years will remain, as will the right to allow for up to two flats above, and the change of use to residential (C3). On the other hand, the Government proposes to remove the existing PD rights applying to the A2 use class, so as to allow LPAs to control these developments.
With effect from 10 May 2006, any internal increase in floorspace of 200 square metres or more (including the introduction of mezzanine floors) in a building in non-food retail use has been included within the definition of development under section 55, and requires planning permission. As previously announced, the government intends to increase the limit to allow retailers to build a mezzanine floor (but they have not yet settled on a maximum floorspace limit).
A housebuilder has launched a judicial review challenge to a neighbourhood plan with the Planning Court.
In a statement Larkfleet Homes claimed that the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan was “flawed in several areas and therefore not legally valid”.
The company added: “In particular, we feel that it is not appropriate that the process of deciding where housing should be located – known as ‘site allocation’ – should be delegated to the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan instead of being part of the Site Allocation Policies prepared by the county council [Rutland]. Site allocations in Uppingham currently form part of the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan prepared by Uppingham Town Council.
“We do not believe that this is an appropriate way of delivering the county council’s Core Strategy – which sets out how Rutland will meet future housing need – as the Core Strategy expressly states that the location and details of future housing development should be determined through the Site Allocation Policies.”
Larkfleet said that when it became aware that Rutland planned to hold a referendum on the neighbourhood plan, it asked the council to give an assurance that, following the referendum, it would not take any further steps to formally adopt the plan before the company’s legal challenge had been considered by the Court.
“As a result of that assurance, the council will take no further action towards adopting the neighbourhood plan pending the final determination of the legal proceedings,” the company revealed.
Community Rights: Parish Pulse Survey 2014 Launched
Published 14th July 2014
The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) is conducting a short informal survey – ‘Parish Pulse 2014’.
“Last spring DCLG conducted a survey to learn more about how town and parish councils were embracing Community Rights to empower their neighbourhoods to take action and to influence local services. Over 870 councils completed the survey, which provided Government with a valuable insight into the take-up of Community Rights and an understanding of how it could support more town and parish councils to encourage them to make better use of the rights.
The aim of the ‘Parish Pulse Survey 2014’ is to find out what the picture looks like now for town and parish councils with Community Rights.
DCLG wants you to tell them about what activity your town or parish council is taking forward to support Neighbourhood Planning, Community Right to Challenge and Community Right to Bid & Asset Support. The outcomes will help to inform the continuing development of Government’s work with town and parishes and shape the type of support we provide to respond to the issues highlighted in the survey.
The survey includes a short series of questions and will only take 10 – 15 minutes to complete. The survey is open until 11 August 2014.”
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/parishpulse2014
One would imagine that residents of most of our towns and parishes would have a lot to say!
Source:
http://www.slcc.co.uk/news-item/community-rights-parish-pulse-survey-2014-launched/799/
“It emerged an internal email from Mr Pickles’ office in Whitehall to his regional department in Bristol was missed because its receiver was on holiday – and that ultimately allowed a controversial development in north Wiltshire to go ahead.
The Appeal Court ruled the missed email ‘calling-in’ the controversial development meant building work had to go ahead – and now local politicians are saying the decision to allow the development undermines all communities trying to control development with Neighbourhood Plans.”
Asks one commentator.
Well, there are several reasons and maybe you can think of others.
One is that our Local Plan relies on current data to set its targets. EDDC constantly tells us we need more houses. This data says that almost every part of East Devon may be losing population. The numbers dropping in each area is not explained by them moving to other parts of the district – so where are they going and why?
Another is that if it reflects people unwilling to join the electoral roll – what is the reason? Those who do not vote, when encouraged to do so often seem to vote for minority parties, si it might mean results are skewed towards the majority party if they are not encouraged to register. In a district where majority could be decided by a handful of votes this becomes important.
Finally, these could be people attempting to avoid council tax or second home owners – we need to be able to trace such people both for income and statistical purposes.
A 6% drop in one year is a big drop – it needs explanation. Maybe there is a simple one – either way we need to know.
Sir Andrew Motion points out the irreparable damage resulting from the current National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), in an article published today: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/26/fields-england-postwar-countryside-englishness
East Devon Watch 