In a confusing decision at Knowle today, Newton Poppleford councillor Graham Salter was found guilty of a breach of the councillors’ code of conduct.

After deliberating for over two and a half hours, a majority verdict of an EDDC Standards Sub-committee (Cllrs Godbeer (Chair),Bond and Newth) ruled that Cllr Salter should not have spoken and voted at two parish planning meetings (May 13th and June 24th 2013) concerning Clinton Devon Estates’ (CDE) controversial King Alfred Way (KAW) application .

The grounds were that a “reasonable member of the public with a knowledge of the facts” would conclude that the proximity of Cllr Salter’s house to the KAW site meant he had a personal interest that must “have prejudiced his judgement”.

But the ruling seemed strangely at odds with  the subcommittee’s acknowledgement that he had publicly declared a personal interest, and with their conclusion that he had acted “only in the public interest” (thereby apparently agreeing with his statement  that he was representing the many residents who oppose the building of 40 houses on prime agricultural land, in the AONB, outside the built-up perimeter of the village).

Does this mean that the supposed opinion of a theoretical man or woman “on the Clapham omnibus” weighs more heavily in code of conduct considerations than the support of informed locals?

Cllr Salter commented after the decision that it would not affect his view of his role as a councillor. He added that he saw the complaint against him as part of a concerted campaign to silence his opposition to the CDE project.

Two other complaints were made against Councillor Salter at the same time as this one, and are thought to be from a single source,. Both have already been dismissed. One alleged that he had an undeclared Pecuniary Interest, and was sent to the police, who discounted it; the other, sent to the Standards Committee, complained that he bullied fellow councillors, but was similarly found to be groundless.

When asked by Cllr Susie Bond, “Why did you become a councillor?”, Cllr Salter, replied that he had been to a Newton Poppleford parish meeting where SHLA (Strategic Housing Land Allocation) figures were mentioned, and he noticed the figures were incorrect. Soon afterwards, a vacancy occurred, and villagers encouraged him to apply. “I went on the council to represent villagers’ views”, he said.

Cllr Chris Cole, the complainant, who has strongly supported the KAW application, did not attend today’s hearing.

At the time of “going to press” no sanctions had been decided, though “councillor training” for Cllr Salter seems most likely.

For background to this case, see AREAS Newton Poppleford, or LINKS for Sidmouth Independent News archive.

Councillor Salter was reported to police for not declaring a pecuniary interest in a planning application in Newton Poppleford. Police (who were quickly called in by EDDC unlike when Councillor Brown was exposed in the Daily Telegraph) declined to take the matter further. However, EDDC’s Monitoring Officer has decided to pursue the case against him:

Click to access standards_hearing_sub_committee_agenda_150514.pdf

There are three environmental sites of European significance on either side of the Exe: Dawlish Warren; the Exe Estuary and the Pebblebed Heath. These sites are so special that local authorities have a legal duty to ensure no adverse effects occur from increased recreational demand as a result of new developments. Putting it crudely a way has to be found to stop members of the public visiting these site as frequently as they do as there will be a lot more people around. This concerns not just dog walkers, it includes recreational use of the Exe Estuary for activities like kite surfing!

A little known study called the South-east Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy was published in June 2013. It weighs in at 243 pages and can be found here:

http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/plg_sedevoneuropeansitemitigationstrategy.pdf

Our correspondent has extracted the following salient points but no doubt there is more to be gleaned.

It is thought that around 30,000 new homes (this is last year so is probably an underestimate by now) are likely to be built close enough to affect these sites. The study looks at the suite of mitigation measures that will be necessary ranging from “soft” measures and “proactive” work with local resident to enforcement. In other words things like fencing and car park charging cannot be ruled out. While mitigation measures might seek to control or limit access in some areas, the overall aim is to enhance the existing recreation experience and provide opportunities such that access and nature conservation interests are not in conflict.

One of the main measures suggested in the report is the creation of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) to divert visitors to somewhere less sensitive. The current guidance provided by Natural England is that SANGs may be created from:

• existing open space of SANGs quality with no existing public access or limited public access, which for the purposes of mitigation could be made fully accessible to the public
• existing open space which is already accessible but which could be changed in character so that it is more attractive to the specific group of visitors
• land in other uses which could be converted into a SANGs

EDDC have already put forward initial plans for expansion and enhancement of the Clyst Valley and in the “Valley Parks” around Exmouth. Two areas within the “Valley Parks” are considered which follow the Littleham and Withycombe Brooks but they also include links to the South West Coast Path and the surrounding countryside (including East Devon Way and proposed cycle way routes towards Budleigh Salterton).

However EDDC have now shot themselves in the foot as reported on page 121 of the report:

“At the time of finalising this report, it has transpired that planning permission for residential development has been given by East Devon District Council on land that forms part of the Exmouth Valley Parks. This matter requires urgent resolution with the identification of alternative SANGs provision for the Exmouth area to replace that now being lost to development. The alternative provision will need to be identified and costed in order to finalise the overall calculations for SANGs provision and the resultant tariff placed on new development.”

The Clyst Valley Park proposal remains but we are fast running out of greenspace in East Devon. So EDDC may have difficulty in fulfilling their legal obligations.

Indicative costs for mitigation, including what Teignbridge and Exeter will have to do, come to £20M. The suggestion is that this will in part have to be funded by a levy on all development within some 7km to 8km of each of these sites.

So maybe EDDC should not have dismissed out of hand last year’s proposal from Dorset to create a new National Park – see article for 5 June on SIN:

http://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com/?s=national+park&submit=Search

See http://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com/2014/04/16/dmc-decision-on-newton-poppleford-planning-application-fell-foul-of-regulations/

Latest communication from EDDC below.  How many more cock-ups do we have to suffer?

Dear Sir/Madam

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
PROPOSAL: Outline application for the development of up to 40 houses, doctors’ surgeryand associated infrastructure, open space and landscaping (all matters except access reserved)

LOCATION: Land South Of King Alfred Way Newton Poppleford Sidmouth

I refer to the above-mentioned planning application which was recently approved by the
Council. Unfortunately the decision of the Council was recently subject to a legal challenge
in relation to a perceived procedural error in the processing of the application which the
Council has chosen not to contest. As a result of this action the decision has been
quashed and the matter will now be redetermined. All of the comments that you and other
residents made on this application will be reconsidered and therefore there is no need for
you to re-send us comments that you have already made.

You should however note that a new screening opinion has been made to determine
whether the application should be the subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment and
this opinion is available at the Council Offices, Knowle, Sidmouth and on the Council’s
website. If you wish to comment on the revised screening opinion please ensure that your
comments are made in writing to us by the 28th April.

Whilst writing I can also inform you that it is our intention to put the application on the
agenda for consideration by the Council’s Development Management Committee at their
meeting on the 8th May 2014.

The meeting will take place at The Council Chamber, Council Offices, The Knowle,
Sidmouth. The start time of the meeting and the agenda will be published on the Council’s
website at least 7 days before the meeting.

Members of the public are welcome to attend and speak at this meeting for up to 3 mins.
You are not permitted to distribute handouts at the meeting. If you wish to speak on a
particular application, simply enter your name on the sheets located near the entrance to

East Devon District Council
Knowle
Sidmouth
Devon
EX10 8HL
DX48705 Sidmouth
Tel: 01395 516551
http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk

the Council Chamber, in the corresponding section which indicates whether you are a
supporter or objector.

You should, however, note that any correspondence submitted in response to the
application will have been summarised in the Committee report. Where there is a group of
objectors or supporters, a spokesperson should be appointed to speak on behalf of the
group.

If you have any queries regarding this application, please contact the Central Team on
01395 571596.
Yours faithfully
Central Team
For Head of Economy-