EDA Chairman 1 – Leader of East Devon District Council own goal – and a STUNNING revelation!!!!

This morning the Chairman of East Devon Alliance, Paul Arnott, once again went head-to-head with a top EDDC councillor – this time EDDC Council Leader Paul Diviani on the lack of a Local Plan.  The EDA Chairman said that he was not surprised but still disappointed that, having been dealing with this project since 2007, EDDC still is not in a position to put a (third) draft Local Plan forward to the Planning Inspectorate and leaving the district vulnerable to speculative development.  And he comes up with a STUNNING REVELATION why he thinks current research for the Local Plan is wrong and the reason why it is being held up.  Read on …

Councillor Diviani trod the well-worn track of saying that there really is nothing to worry about – EDDC has so far won more than 70% of its appeals and (occasionally) says no to developers.  The EDA Chairman noted that it is NOT EDDC alone that champions these appeals – particularly in the case of Feniton and Seaton, where it was local people who raised funds and made their case to inspectors, so implying that EDDC alone does this is somewhat disingenuous.

However, then came the total shock.  You may recall that two sets of consultants employed by EDDC before the last iteration of the Local Plan said that they thought that around 12,000 homes should be built in the district.   EDDC (and, it has to be said members of the East Devon Business Forum and developers, sometimes the same thing) said, no, no – this could not be right and at least 15,000 homes were needed – which is what got put in the draft put before the Inspector.

The Inspector threw out the plan, specifically saying that he could see no back-up research that confirmed the 15,000 number that EDDC came up with.

And what does Leader Diviani say to this – if we take his interview at face value believing that he is being topical  we could read it as THREE sets of consultants coming to around the same figure but we must assume he is talking about the two reports?  He says, no no – they CANNOT be right.  The government wants us to build more houses, we NEED more houses so we are going to “look at the figures again” because they must be “realistic”.

HOW MORE REALISTIC CAN YOU GET THAT TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF CONSULTANTS COMING TO THE SAME CONCLUSION THAT WE NEED 11,000 – 12,000 NEW HOMES AND NOT 15,000?

So, here we have it – Councillor Diviani thinks he is more expert than consultants and will not give up until – presumably – another set of consultants comes up with the figure that he and the government want.  A figure not based on evidence.  As usual – fire the arrow, then draw the bulls-eye around it.

So, we ask ourselves:  where did the figure of 15,000 that Councillor Diviani so desperately wants come from?  Developers?  Out of thin air?  from the Government which has told us (via the NPPF) to come up with LOCAL figures backed up with LOCAL evidence?

Some very, very, trenchant questions need to be asked.  Not least by our councillors and, particularly, by Councillor Diviani

Source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p024pn5v

(THE INTERVIEW IS 2 HOURS 6 MIN AT 8.38 AM)

 

Planning rules? What planning rules?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2733160/School-s-new-classrooms-tower-homeowner-s-garden-despite-planning-permission-says-90ft-away.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

Nick Boles has a “new” job

his new job is “Minister for Construction”.  But surely, that’s what he has beeb all along?

Still, at least now he won’t have to pretend that he’s  also interested in proper – community-based – planning!

http://www.infrastructure-intelligence.com/article/aug-2014/government-confirms-nick-boles-new-minister-construction

Local Plan : The ” duty to co-operate” – easy peasy!

EDDC has said that our Local Plan is held up because they have to co-operate with other councils and authorities in the “greater Exeter” area, naming Exeter City Council, Mid Devon District Council, Teignbridge District Council and Dartmoor National Park Authority.

This should be made easier by the fact that former EDDC Deputy Director and Head of Regeneration, Kareem Hassan is now Chief Executive of Exeter City Council.

Stephen Belli, a former Senior Planning Officer at EDDC, is now Director of Planning at Dartmoor National Park Local Plan adopted in July 2013, so all its figures available:

http://www.dartmoor.gov.uk/planning/pl-forwardplanning/pl-localdevframework/pl-development_management_and_delivery_development_plan_document

That should help to get things off to a quick start, EDDC, Exeter and Dartmoor senior planners having worked together for several years.

Oh, and the Teignbridge Local Plan was adopted in May 2014 so their up-to-date figures are there for everyone to see, which also makes things easier:

http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/planteignbridge

Oh, and lookee- here: Mid Devon’s Local Plan was also found sound with some modifications in May 2014

http://www.middevon.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=20157&p=0

Hold up, what hold up?

Local Plan delay … some perspectives

An excellent article in this week’s Sidmouth Herald which does not just regurgitate the EDDC apology-for-a-press-release on the latest delay to the draft local plan, now not expected until at least summer 2015.

It points out that the delay means a total of at least 4 years without any locally-set building limits, instead relying on a “one size fits all national policy”.

And noting that the delay (and the developer free-for-all) could influence how residents vote in the next local elections in May 2015.

Recall that EDDC wasted at least three years between 2008 and 2011 on its initial Local Plan meetings (held in secret and with secret agendas and minutes) chaired by disgraced ex-councillor Graham Brown* (who also chaired the developer-heavy and 100% funded by EDDC East Devon Business Forum at the same time).

The council “Panel” of 2008-2011 spent a large amount of its time visiting sites owned by EDBF members whilst EDBF spent most of its time rubbishing council-funded research by 2 sets of consultants on “employment land” and successfully managing to persuade the council to accept their much higher figures when many members stood to gain from the said increase.

The current council had to convene yet another panel in 2011 and had to start from scratch again. The Planning Inspector threw out their report in March 2014, citing out of date figures and lack of vital information.

* Disgraced ex-councillor Brown also ran a planning consultancy in the are and was exposed in a Daily Telegraph front-page headline article in March 2013 article saying that if he could not get planning permission in the area then no-one could but that he did not come cheap. He resigned soon after the story was published. He had been EDDC Conservative councillor for Feniton, a by-election then subsequently won by Independent Councillor Susie Bond.

Local Plan: do your research, agree the numbers – and then let developers change them!

From EDDC’s latest press release on the very, very delayed Local Plan:

The report to DMC explains that once consultants have provided a full SHMA report that addresses all the issues,

an industry workshop should be held to consult with housebuilders before a final report can be produced and agreed with all of the commissioning authorities.”

i.e. AFTER the numbers have been decided (presumably taking necessary growth into account) developers will be allowed to change them! Can you honestly see any developer saying “Yeah, that looks about right” or “Oh, no, that’s far too much”!

It’s like a Bank Manager giving a burglar the keys to the vault and asking him to count the money!

A correspondent points out this is a central government initiative not a local one – which doesn’t improve matters one bit!

Source:
http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/communications_and_consultation.htm?newsid=1174

The current situation with the Local Plan: worse than omnishambles

Below is a comment, left on a previous post, which is repeated here as it contains much useful information:

I have now had time to fully digest the report and do some further research and it looks like the LP resubmission is extremely unlikely to be this year, and possibly (if not probably) after the elections in May 2015.

A good starting point for documentation about the activities relating to fixing the Local Plan can be found at http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/lpsubmission which has a chronology and links to all the major documents.

My analysis of the situation is as follows:

1. The SHMA consultancy contract seems to me to be in a shambles.

However, Section 3 of this recent report gives the breakdown of this Best Practice into 6 stages, and paragraph 3.2 states that the work on the SHMA has only reached the first of the 6 stages in the PAS guidance.

Moreover, in a both letter to the Planning Inspector in mid-April 2014 http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/lettersinspector12.pdf and the draft action plan of 8 May http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/actionplan02.pdf attached to a letter to the Planning Inspector on 22 May 2014 http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/lettertomrthickett220514.pdf Mr Dickens was saying that the SHMA would be available in June 2014.

I have no reason to doubt that Mr Dickens was reporting these dates because that was what he was being told by DCA, but I cannot see how DCA could be reporting in May 2014 that they would finish in June 2014, and yet in August 2014 we have only completed the first of 6 stages to complete the SHMA.

The current report says NOTHING about the state of the SHMA contract with DCA. My experience in public sector outsourcing (having worked on both sides of the fence – though admittedly in IT rather than Planning Policy), this is likely now to be a major issue. DCA is certainly running late (and in consultancy, time is literally money) and so very likely to be running over budget and likely to make a loss on this piece of work, and it seems to me that there is a very high probability that there will need to be major contract renegotiations (DCA will likely claim a “change in scope”, EDDC will deny most of it, arguments will go back and forth – all of which will delay things further), and possibly eventually an agreement for EDDC to spend a lot more money spent to get this work completed by DCA – or worse still the contract being re-let and re-awarded to someone else to start again at the beginning.

So questions I want to know about the DCA contract:

A. Why has the SHMA not been delivered by DCA? Why were they still predicting they would deliver in in June as late as early May, and why were we surprised by its non-delivery with only 1 of 6 stages currently completed?

B. Is DCA still committed to deliver the SHMA within the current contract & existing costs?

If so, what is DCA’s revised schedule, and what happens if they miss it again?

If not, what are the EDDC plans to get the contract back on the rails so that the SHMA can be delivered, and what are the likely timescales and additional costs for revised or new contracts?

2. Timescales

The special DMC meeting on 8 May 2014 http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/combined_dmc_agenda_080514.pdf page 5 onwards, discusses the draft Action Plan response to the Planning Inspector, and on page 19 there is a timetable which suggests that by now they would be providing “Feedback report on comments received [from the Consultation on the new SHMA] to Development Management Committee” for approval so that “Feedback sent to Inspector” by the end of August.

However if you look at the draft Action Plan, it is clear that there are several other pieces of work to do before Feedback to the Inspector, so this seemed unrealistic even then.

As far as I can see, the following still need to be done:

A. The remaining 5 stages of the SHMA as documented in Section 3 of the current report.

B. The activities described in the draft Action Plan.

C. The activities in the timetable from 8 May.

Personally I cannot see these being completed this year, and I would guess that it might take considerably longer than that.

SUMMARY

The DMC needs to get a grip and take both control and responsibility for the completion of the Local Plan.

They need to find out the state of the contract with DCA and get it back on the rails.

They need to create a robust plan for redelivery of the revised Local Plan to the Inspector, providing additional resources to the Planning Policy unit if that is required to speed things up.

The delayed Local Plan – the missing document tracked down and a commentary on it (“What the Dickins”)

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.

Local Plan delayed again – unlikely to be approved for many months

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.

 

Fighting for Feniton – yet again; Wain Homes continues its onslaught

Rumours that Wainhomes is applying to extend its existing site by a further 31 houses are true: plans for these new houses have been on display at the sales office on site. Wainhomes claims that, as a ‘responsible developer’ it’s just to show prospective buyers what might happen, although it’s hard to read this as anything other than marketing houses for which permission has not even been granted. Fight for Feniton understands that one buyer who purchased one of the 50 houses to be built at Winchester Park, and who was assured solemnly that their countryside view would be protected, only discovered otherwise when Wainhomes cheerfully handed them the keys to their new property and said they’d be building 31 more houses, some of which would be blocking their view!

The history of this site is one of development by stealth. Wainhomes’ initial application in 2011 was for a staggering 170 properties stretching from Station Road across to Green Lane. Wainhomes then supposedly ‘listened’ to local opposition, and reduced its proposal to ‘just’ 50 houses, which were eventually allowed at appeal in 2012, despite massive opposition from the village, Parish and District Councils, owing to Feniton’s inadequate infrastructure, narrow roads, minimal employment opportunities and considerable flooding problems.

Wainhomes’ next attack on the village was for an application for 83 units, which was comprehensively thrown out at a ‘Super Inquiry’ of the Planning Inspectorate in January this year: roughly four months after that result was announced, Wainhomes has now come back with its proposal for 31 houses. Let there be no doubt that Wainhomes has no intention of stopping at 31, 83 or anything else until it has concreted over the entire site and built (at least) the 170 it always intended.

It’s the Wainhomes way: the village of Dobwalls, in Cornwall, is faced with a proposal by the same developer to build 62 houses, the local Parish Council being up in arms since their roads are narrow, the infrastructure can’t cope, and it’d increase the size of the village by 20%. Sound familiar? – see

http://www.cornishguardian.co.uk/Wainhomes-puts-forward-plans-62-new-houses/story-21741742-detail/story.html

As of writing Wainhomes has only announced its intention to build these extra houses: a formal application is likely to be made in September. Fight for Feniton will continue the battle against inappropriate development in the village. Keep up to date with the latest news by attending Feniton Parish Council meetings, and checking the following websites:

Fight for Feniton
http://theffff.wordpress.com/

blogs for District Councillor Susie Bond
http://www.susiebond.co.uk) and
County Councillor Claire Wright
http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/site/blog

the East Devon Alliance (http://eastdevonalliance.org/
and of course Feniton Parish Council http://fenitonparishcouncil.wordpress.com/

Manufacturers call for national infrastructure authority

“Chris Leslie, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said: “The EEF is right to say we need a new approach to address Britain’s long-term infrastructure needs.

“Labour will establish an independent national infrastructure commission. This would help to end the dither and delay we have seen on the big decisions Britain needs to take to secure its future.

“With business support growing for a new body to identify Britain’s infrastructure needs and hold governments to account for meeting them, it’s now time other political parties backed the idea too.”

Unfortunately, one manufacturer’s essential infrastructure is inevitably also someone else’s land. It would be interesting if we saw the rise of NIMFYs – Not In My Factory Yard!

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/smes/call-for-infrastructure-authority-7630634

Rural housing – smoke and mirrors

… “But we’re back to smoke-and-mirrors because it is simply not a fact that, once more new houses are built, they mean more new jobs.

Add this to the constant watering-down of agreements concocted in things called “pre-applications” (known as pre-apps for short) and what we see are housing developments, originally given planning permission IF they included a healthy percentage of affordable homes, being built with just one or two per 100.

I do not know many people in the Westcountry who would welcome a politician saying: “We are going to build all these new houses – and just building them is going to create so many new jobs we will have to bring workers in from Eastern Europe to help – then they can live in some of the few affordable homes that have gone up and look for new jobs once the last slate has been put on the last bijou, unaffordable, home.”

But it is exactly the kind of crazy scenario we are looking at when we smash through the smoke-and-mirrors surrounding magic catchphrases like “cut-red-tape” and “seeding economic opportunity”.

Careful development aimed at the region’s many brown-field sites is what is needed first and foremost – not the killing of the beautiful rural goose that lays our golden tourism egg. That seems to be the result of the New Planning Policy Framework which many see as a government induced land-grab or developer’s charter.”

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Smoke-mirrors-way-rural-housing-debate/story-22714064-detail/story.html

Green field housing estates in the South West – CPRE notes dismay

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Minister-want-fields-houses/story-22300866-detail/story.html

Green belt planning approvals double under coalition

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11022911/PIC-PLEASE-Doubling-in-new-homes-built-on-the-Greenbelt-since-Coalition-was-formed.html

However, Brandon Lewis, new planning minister says: …n“Local Plans are now at the heart of the planning system, so councils decide where development should go.

“There is enough brownfield land to deliver up to 200,000 new homes, and councils should be using their powers and the support that’s available from the Government to prioritise development on these sites, and defend our valuable countryside against urban sprawl.”

Er, perhaps he hasn’t yet been briefed on what happens when you haven’t got a Local Plan or a 5 or 6 year land supply.

More on those proposed planning changes

Warehouses to houses, nightclubs to houses, click and collect extensions – can we keep up!

http://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19550:warehouse-to-new-house-further-planning-reforms&catid=63&Itemid=31

New government guidance on planning reform and on public access to decision making.

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/

More changes to planning rules …

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).

Source: http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/

Developers’ offer of a surgery ‘not so sweet’

That’s how the Sidmouth Herald summed up Gill Cameron-Webb’s letter (Opinion, 1st August, 2014) about EDDC planning procedure at Newton Poppleford.
Thank you to Gill for sending the text of her letter, as follows:

‘Developers make such massive profits from housing developments that they’re often willing to sacrifice some profit to provide ‘sweeteners’ to persuade councils to look favourably on their application. This can result in corruption, so planning laws prevent developers from ‘buying planning permission’. These demand that any ‘sweeteners’ provided by developers must be in proportion to their development. As the Doctors Surgery promised as part of the KAW development could service a population of 5300 (3 times the population of Newton Pop) it’s massively disproportionate to the KAW development.
When EDDC councillors first demanded that the doctors surgery be made a condition of the KAW development, Planning Officers failed to advise them that this was unlawful and that the developers can never be forced to deliver it. Although residents repeatedly warned EDDC of this illegality over 5 months, EDDC persistently refused to acknowledge it until a Judicial Review forced them to quash the planning permission.
The key benefit of the Judicial Review was to ensure councillors were properly advised of planning law next time they considered the KAW application in May 2014. At this stage EDDC officers and councillors should have treated KAW as a major development of 40 houses in an AONB which had received 382 formal objections from the public. They should have dealt with it exactly the same as the Badger Close development and rejected it for the same reasons they rejected Badger Close. Instead they chose to authorise KAW in the hope that the developers might keep their ‘promise’ to deliver a Doctors Surgery that they can never legally enforce.
If Newton Poppleford ends up with 40 houses and no Doctors Surgery, the blame will lie entirely with EDDC planning officers and Councillors for accepting the word of a developer on a hope and a prayer.’

EDDC’s double standards at Newton Poppleford?

Local residents continue to expose serious flaws in EDDC’s conduct regarding plans for Newton Poppleford. For the record, one is described in this letter from Lorna Dalton, recently published in the Sidmouth Herald (July, 2014).

‘In Sept 2013, EDDC authorised a major development at King Alfred Way in Newton Poppleford without considering whether the environmental impact should be assessed, despite being legally obliged to do so. For five months they ignored residents who pointed out their error until a Judicial Review at last forced them to reconsider their approach.
In May 2014 EDDC wrote a report which acknowledged:
– “The site lies within the East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
– on best and most versatile agricultural land
– the Pebblebed Heaths SAC/SPA and SSSI are located within 700m.
– this environment constitutes a highly sensitive receptor to impacts arising from pollution and recreation
– it has the potential to be viewed from across the village and from a wider area given the natural topography the proposed development rising beyond the
boundary of the existing built form.”

Having listed numerous reasons which should’ve demanded an Environmental Impact Assessment, EDDC instead came to the conclusion that none was required! So when EDDC told last weeks Herald that they had ‘corrected their error, what they actually did was to abandon a highly sensitive environment to a major development without any assessment of the destruction.

Although EDDC decided not to assess the environmental impact of KAW, one of their reasons for rejecting the Badger Close proposal was because it had not carried out an assessment. I have to question why EDDC dealt with these two developments so differently when the two sites are within 200 yards of each other and share the same environmental attributes?

EDDC stated that they would defend their approach and they believe they’ve corrected their error. As another 2 hectares of beautiful countryside looks set for destruction, I suspect that the majority of Newton Pop residents would not agree with them.’