Short inquiry into Local Plans Expert Group recommendations

The Communities and Local Government Committee has launched a short inquiry into the recommendations put forward by the Local Plans Expert Group (LPEG) to improve the local plan-making process:

Accepting written submissions; the deadline is 27 June 2016

The Committee invites written evidence on the following areas:

The Local Plans Expert Group’s recommendations
The next steps for the local plan-making process
The deadline for written submissions is Monday 27 June 2016.

Send a written submission via the Local Plans Expert Group recommendations inquiry page

Chair’s comments

Clive Betts, Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, said:

“The Local Plans Expert Group concluded that substantial reform of the local plan-making process was required and made detailed recommendations for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of local plan making.

The Committee will consider these recommendations and look at how DCLG plans to act on them.”

Background to the inquiry
The LPEG report highlighted difficulties assessing and meeting housing needs through local plans as a central issue, the dominance of which was sometimes to the detriment of other local plan elements. Other issues raised by the report included insufficient engagement with local communities.

In April 2016, the Committee reported on DCLG’s consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). In the previous parliament the Committee held an inquiry into the NPPF and an inquiry into the operation of the NPPF.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/communities-and-local-government-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/local-plans-expert-group-recommendations-16-17/

Land Registry privatisation – all interested companies involved in tax avoidance

“Breaking: our people-powered investigation shows all four companies hoping to bid on the Land Registry have links to offshore tax havens. [1] The revelations are splashed all over The Times today – this kind of publicity is the last thing the government will want as they consult on plans to sell off the profitable public service. [2]

The Times is a paper the government takes seriously – our investigation will have sounded alarm bells.

The government’s already under fire from hundreds of thousands of us, and even from their own experts. If we contact our MPs about the tax havens revelation, we can make sure the ministers responsible for the sell-off are being dogged with questions from their fellow MPs too. [3] This could be the thing that tips them to back down.

Can you email your MP now and ask them to read the news story and speak out against the government’s plans to sell-off the Land Registry? It takes a few minutes, and there’s some suggestions of what to say.”

38 Degrees

Sidford Industrial Estate Planning Considerations

“Dear Residents

Planning ref:​16/0669/MOUT

I hope these notes will help you to make comments about the above planning application. The more people who write in, the better. Please send your observations and ask your friends to do likewise to:

​planning@eastdevon.gov.uk or
​Write to Planning Dept, EDDC, Knowle, Sidmouth, EX10 8HL

Please remember the following:

​Closing date: 8th June 2016
​Quote ref:​16/0669/MOUT

Note you can ONLY make comments relating to ‘planning considerations’. These, for example, include matters such as:

​The impact of a proposal on your property;
​The proposed design and materials;
​Issues relating to vehicular access and parking;
​Impact on trees;
​Noise issues,
​Concerns about flooding.

Matters which are not classed as ‘planning considerations’ include:

​Loss of value to your property; Loss of a view; Boundary and neighbour disputes, or ​The impact of a proposal on private drainage systems.

Planning policies which relate to this development can be found at:

east devon.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/local-plan-2013-2031/
(Click on The Local Plan 2013-2031 to access this document)

Strategy 46 p.144
Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs:

‘Development will only be permitted where it:
1. Conserves and enhances the landscape character of the area;
2. Does not undermine landscape quality; and
3. Is appropriate to the economic, social and well being of the area’

Non-compliance with the NPPF
The National Planning Policy Framework puts an emphasis on protecting AONB land, such as at Sidford. Para 116 of the NPPF states that planning permission should be refused for major developments on AONB land except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest.

Comments could include the fact that this is a tourist area, plus unemployment is low and the proposed development would require in-commuting to fill any jobs created.

ENVIRONMENT p.182

EN13 – development on high quality agricultural land
Development proposes warehousing which could be a 24/7 operation – noise, lighting, impact of pollution from artificial light on local amenity

EN14 – control of pollution – to residents or the wider environment
Pollution of the atmosphere – School St and pinch points in Sidbury – stationery traffic (especially as volumes will increase)
Noise and/or vibration
Light intrusion
Pollution of sites of wildlife value, especially European designated sites or species (eg otters and horseshoe bats)

EN21 – river and coastal flooding
‘Flood risk assessment demonstrates that the development will be safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.’
NB any increased flood risk would impact Sidbury, Sidford and Sidmouth – remember there were four flood warnings from The Environment Agency in 2012.

EMPLOYMENT p.199

E9 – town centre vitality and shopping areas – THIS NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED
NB. ‘Ancillary retail’ is part of Fords application
Planning application uses include B1 (office), B2 (general), B8 (distribution / warehousing)
…will be permitted provided:
1. ‘Use would not undermine the shopping character, visual amenity, vitality or viability of town centre
4. Amenity interest of occupiers of adjoining properties is not adversely affected by reason of noise, smell or litter
5. Would not cause traffic problems !!! (NB. Lorries already drive on the pavement in School St because they cannot pass oncoming traffic and there are traffic tailbacks during the tourism season)’

TRAFFIC p.221

TC3 – traffic management schemes
,,,’when considering development proposals in town centre, will seek the introduction of traffic management schemes when one or more of the following objectives can be achieved:
1. Safe and efficient movement of mobility impaired, pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles
6. Alleviation of congestion (see E9, 3. And EN14/pollution above)
7. Reduction of traffic conflict and accident potential
8. Reduction of delays to public transport
9. Reduction of environmental damage by traffic’

Please could you also write or email local papers:

Sidmouth Herald:​​stefan.gordon@archant.co.uk
Pulman’s (View from):​​pemedia@pemedia.co.uk​​
Express & Echo:​​letters@expressandecho.co.uk
Western Morning News:​wmn@westernmorningnews.co.uk

Yours sincerely

Kim Scratchley
Two Bridges Road, Sidford”

DCC Leader has second (and third) thoughts about devolution

A report by Totnes (Green) DCC councillor Robert Vine

“Here’s the webcast of the County Council Annual Meeting where the Leader, John Hart, has a serious rethink about whether to keep supporting the Devolution Bid. Watch from 01:04:00 to 01:12:45 or click “13: Cabinet Member Reports” in the right margin.

In the Minutes it says “Councillor Hart commented, as requested by Councillor Greenslade, on progress with the HOSW devolution bid and advised that a response to repeated requests for a meeting with the Minister to discuss the HOSW bid was still awaited. He recognised the increasing concerns expressed over the imposition of a Mayoral system about which as yet there was no clarification and reiterated his view that any final proposal must be beneficial to Devon.”

In the webcast he is a lot more outspoken…

Council – Thu, 12th May 2016 – 2:15 pm – Devon County Council Webcasting
http://www.devoncc.public-i.tv/core/share/open/webcast/0/0/0/222091/222091/webcast/0/0/0

Indeed Councillor Hart is scathing about current devolution deals – he calls them “an absolute shambles”, says he can see nothing good in current deals that ALL require a Mayor to release money (around £30 million) which is guaranteed only for 5 years [though documents are drafted for 30 years].

He said he had three times asked for a meeting with the Minister and only after doing TV interviews about his concerns, was he telephoned by one of the Minister’s Special Advisers ( who was, he said, probably about 25 and with two degrees and nothing else) offered a 15 minute meeting in London. He refused it and said he would not make the journey for less than a 30 minute meeting.

He did a good resume of devolution deal fiascos from Derbyshire to Bristol via East Anglia, all of them falling at hurdles that Owl, and many others, had seen coming as soon as we learned what was going on.

He mentioned business rates – the raising of which was another carrot being dangled at LEPs, but pointed out they could only be raised by a maximum 2p in the pound and only if the business community agreed.

It seems Councillor Hart will proceed no further without much more assurance about what’s in it for Devon.

One glaring omission from his statement was public engagement, which he did not mention at all.

Let’s hope he cannot be bought off by “weasel words”.

Unlike our own council leader who, given responsibility for housing (i.e developers) couldn’t sign us away quick enough.

Indie-town – coming to a town near you

Good feedback from Totnes – more to follow. In the meantime:

“WWW.INDIE-TOWN.UK
Based in the People’s Republic of Frome, we have been developing a website for independent politics – gathering ideas, videos and stories about independent politics at a local level, so all contributions are welcome.
Do check it out!
Good luck to you all.
Rupert Kirkham
Co-ordinator”

and

‘No Party will Free Parliament’
The No Party
Global Political Movement for Independents
There is No Party worth Voting for!
Taking the party out of politics
http://www.noparty.co
danny@noparty.co

“Housing crisis: affordable homes vanish as developers outmanoeuvre councils”

“Private property developers are outmanoeuvring councils in housing negotiations and routinely delivering fewer affordable homes than town halls want, an industry analysis has revealed.

Amid growing anger at the sale to foreign buyers of almost two-thirds of London’s tallest residential skyscraper, which includes no affordable housing, it has emerged that not one London borough that set targets has met them in the last six years.

Councils sometimes secured as little as 13% affordable housing when their stated targets were as high as 50%, according to analysis commissioned by BNP Paribas Real Estate, which advises local authorities and housebuilders in negotiations. On average, the 34 boroughs achieved 22% affordable housing, on targets ranging from 30% to 50%.

A key factor has been the rising value of land for commercial use, which has made developers more willing to abandon housing schemes and turn sites over to more profitable office buildings, the research suggests.

The difficulty that councils have faced in persuading developers to meet their needs illustrates the scale of the challenge facing the new London mayor, Sadiq Khan, who has pledged to dramatically boost affordable housing. Khan revealed on Wednesday that only 13% of the homes given planning consent in London last year were affordable. He has said his “long-term strategic target” is half.

If Khan moves too fast to reintroduce that 50% target, he risks stalling housing development completely, experts have warned. Move too slowly and he will face anger from his electorate, who voted him in with a mandate to tackle the housing crisis.

“Planners are mindful of the need to avoid squeezing the pips so hard that developments stall,” said Dr Anthony Lee, a BNP Paribas adviser who has represented London boroughs in negotiations with developers. “They need to strike a balance between pushing too hard in their negotiations on the affordable housing level on schemes and the impact this could have on overall housing land supply.”

Councils and developers have long been engaged in what amounts to a grand haggle. Developers examine a council’s affordable housing target and then make an opening offer, which is likely to be much lower. It is up to the planning authority to determine whether the basis for the calculations is fair and correct and a battle of the experts often ensues.

Frequently, the developer has not yet bought the site from the landowner, which gives them a significant negotiating advantage because there is a constant threat that if the negotiation doesn’t go their way, they could back out of the deal and the landowner could sell the site for commercial use instead. The local council risks losing not only the affordable homes, but all the homes.

Furthermore, said Lee, council leaders “need developers to deliver their vision for their areas, including town centre regeneration schemes. Councils can’t do it themselves. Marrying the two competing objectives can be quite tough.” …

… So for Professor Danny Dorling, an Oxford University housing expert, haggling with developers to build cheap homes is “nasty planning” and should be abandoned. “We are losing social housing through right to buy at a far faster rate than section 106 agreements could ever replace it,” he said. “There is no reason a strong government can’t do this properly by raising money through tax and develop social housing itself with compulsory purchases if needed.” …


http://gu.com/p/4jhqz

Devon Police and Crime Commissioner alleged fraud investigation to continue

Police investigating the alleged false accounting of Conservative Party election expenses have been given more time to carry out their inquiries.

Chippenham magistrates have approved an application from Devon and Cornwall police to investigate four South West MPs, and their own boss – Police and Crime Commissioner Alison Hernandez, who had been a Tory general election agent in May last year.

The MPs include North Cornwall’s Scott Mann and Camborne and Redruth’s George Eustice. Election law says that any allegation relating to campaign expenses must normally be investigated within 12 months. But police did not receive any formal complaints until a few weeks ago, following national media coverage of the issue. Detectives now have a further year to decide what to do.

A police statement said: “Representatives from Devon and Cornwall Police have attended Chippenham Magistrates Court on Thursday 19th May. This was to seek an extension to allow further time to investigate allegations relating to improper electoral campaign spending returns in Devon and Cornwall, during the 2015 general election. These extensions have been granted and police investigations are now underway.”

http://www.cornishguardian.co.uk/Devon-Cornwall-police-given-time-investigate-Tory/story-29316992-detail/story.html …

As the Panel is made up of a majority of Conservative councillors they are unlikely to make her stand down during her investigation (which is what would happen to a police officer in a similar position).

A petition for her to stand down can be found here:
https://www.change.org/p/opcc-devonandcornwall-pnn-police-uk-alison-hernandez-police-and-crime-commissioner-for-devon-and-cornwall-should-stand-down/u/16706783

Lords Select Committee: Piecemeal approach to devolution has put Union under threat

“The Constitution Committee today publishes a major report on the Union and devolution. It warns that successive UK Governments have taken the Union between England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales for granted, without giving proper consideration to the cumulative impact of devolution on the UK as a whole. The time has come to change that.”

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/constitution-committee/news-parliament-2015/union-devolution-report/

If we can’t get this right, how can we get English devolution deals sorted?

Independents and minority parties grow stronger in Devon and the south-west

Good luck to our sister Facebook group “South Devon Watch” with their meeting of many, many local minority and independent people and groups, who meet in Totnes this evening, to build on the East Devon Alliance conference (“Who Cares What You Think?) last month.

“Democracy” today

“Not only are we already a divided country. We have less confidence in our democracy than we have had in living memory. There is a growing feeling that the decisions that shape our lives are no longer being taken with us but imposed on us, by people who do not know how we live and who care more about their own narrow interests than about the public interest.”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/24/fracking-is-futile-betrayal-of-national-interest

How to spin the fact that poorer EDDC residents can’t afford beach huts

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/East-Devon-beach-huts-demand-despite-rent-hikes/story-29311598-detail/story.html

Fracking is go

“… Planners had recommended the Kirby Misperton plan was approved, but acknowledged the majority of representations received in consultation were objections.

Vicky Perkin, a council planning officer, told the committee that of 4,420 individual representations, just 36 were in support of the application.

But her report also said it should be noted there was a “national policy support for the development of a shale gas industry in this country and this is an important material consideration”.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-36356245

Localism? Remember that? Now, even as a landowner, you cannot stop fracking below your land.

Coming soon to a national park, an AONB or just a local beauty spot near you ….

Austerity or selling off the family silver … and gold?

“… Privatisation is the multibillion-pound centrepiece of Osborne’s austerity – yet it rarely gets a mention from either politicians or press. The Queen mentioned it in her speech last week, but the headline writers ignored it. And if you don’t know that this Thursday is the closing date for consultation on the sale of the Land Registry, our public record of who owns what property, that’s hardly your fault – I haven’t spotted it in the papers, either.

But without getting rid of prize assets, Osborne’s austerity programme falls apart. At a time when tax revenues are more weak stream than healthy flood, those sales bring much-needed cash into the Treasury and make his sums add up. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility has ruled that the only reason the chancellor met his debts target last year was because he flogged off our public assets. And what a fire sale that was, with everything from our last remaining stake in the Royal Mail to shares in Eurostar shoved out the door in the biggest wave of privatisations of any year in British history.

And more, much more, is to come. The all new and mostly grotesque housing bill will force local authorities to sell “high-value” council houses once a family moves out – which will basically hand over whatever remains of social housing in central London to investors. Osborne also wants local authorities “to dispose of potentially surplus assets”, of which he calculates they have £60bn “in property not used for schools or housing”. That would be property such as our public libraries and swimming pools – but to a government hellbent on asset-stripping such communal necessities are merely unsold inventory.

At Whitehall, ministers plan to sell a big chunk of Channel 4, and the public stake in the national air traffic control. And that’s just the start, because here’s something else you probably won’t have read about: Osborne has bundled up all of our public holdings – in every company from the collapsed banks to the Royal Mint – and put them under the control of a government organisation called UK Government Investments. Its CEO (what else?) is a former doyen of the City called Mark Russell. In a rare interview in 2013, Russell declared: “We don’t believe government makes for a particularly good shareholder. Our belief is that unless there is a good policy reason for government to have a shareholding then really we should be seeking to divest those shareholdings.” Everything must go is no longer the cry of distressed shopkeepers – it is now public policy. …

… At best, privatisation is a short-term gain for a long-term loss. The public sells one of its prize assets in order to enable the chancellor to bank some cash immediately. In a report published on Monday, the campaign group We Own It calculates that if Osborne sells the Land Registry, National Air Traffic Services, Channel 4 and the Ordnance Survey the public will kiss goodbye to control over £7.7bn in dividends and profits in the next 50 years. Sure, we pocket a couple of billion now – but we lose far more in the long run.

These are services that have taken many decades, even centuries, of public investment and management to build up. The Land Registry dates back to Victorian times; the Ordnance Survey’s aerial photographs of enemy territory helped Britain win the first world war.

All that accumulated effort and ingenuity will be handed over to a small group of investors – and for what? Better management? A recent study of the evidence by the University of Greenwich concludes there is “no significant difference in efficiency between public and privately owned companies in public services”. For more investment? Ministers selling off everything from railways to water have promised privatisation will bring greater investment. It comes – but it’s always the public that ends up paying for it.

Thatcher claimed that selling off BT, British Gas and the rest would turn Britain into a shareholder democracy. Official figures show that Britons now own less than half as much of the UK stock market as they did before Thatcher’s first privatisation.

Osborne’s privatisation, like the rest of his austerity programme, will enable him to transfer wealth from the public to a far smaller group of private investors. The employees can look forward to cuts in jobs, pay and conditions – as we have seen across the privatised utilities. The rest of us, the customers, will endure higher bills and paying for hidden subsidies. And the chancellor? He will have brought in enough cash to enable him to make some pre-election tax cuts – to literally buy himself votes.

Osborne calls this privatisation. I treat it as part and parcel of austerity. But there is another term you and I might use. Because this making off with our public property is nothing more than legalised larceny.”

http://gu.com/p/4jg2n

“Just a normal bloke …”

David Cameron buys £1,500 used car for wife Samantha

… “[The second-hand car dealer] explained that when he turned up for the appointment, Mr Cameron asked his security detail to stand behind the car to make sure the back brake lights worked.

Mr Harris said he could not resist quipping that it was lucky the car was not red – the colour of the Labour Party.
“Fortunately, it was just the right colour,” he said.
Mr Harris added: “It was a bit surreal, but likewise he was just a normal chap buying a car for his wife, a normal conversation, normal sort of deal and that was it.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-36359921

Yeah, normal – but he just happened to have a photographer there who just happened to send the photo to all the newspapers.

Do let Owl know if you see Sam Cam in her second-hand Nissan Micra AFTER the EU referendum.

Cranbrook: Unicorn poop?

Further to our earlier posts about Sustainable Utopian Cranbrook:

“Children of St Martin’s Primary School have been creating a new poster design to encourage Cranbrook residents to clean up after their dogs.

Children at the school recently heard from Cranbrook Councillor Karen Jennings at an assembly about the dog fouling around the town. Children were asked if they could help teach adults to be responsible pet owners, to help make Cranbrook a great place to live.”

http://www.exeterandeastdevon.gov.uk/pick-up-the-poop-say-cranbrook-schoolchildren/News-Article/

Political purdah starts on 27 May

“The flurry of officially backed statements warning about the dangers of Brexit will come to an end on Friday, when Treasury officials enter a four-week “purdah” that prevents any activity that could be perceived as an attempt to sway the outcome of the 23 June vote.

Civil servants will no longer be able to publish reports such as the Treasury analysis on Monday that stated that in the event of a vote to leave the EU, output would fall up to 6%, house prices would tumble and half a million jobs would be lost. …

…

Election law and business

The Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000 covers activities by companies and individuals that are purposefully promoting a particular outcome from an election or referendum. The rules have been in place for every general election since 2001 although are being subject to greater scrutiny in the City as the referendum on EU membership is such a rare event. A breach of the law could lead to fines and even imprisonment.”

http://gu.com/p/4jfpa

Flytipping in Utopia (aka Cranbrook)

Cranbrook Town Council Facebook page – not quite Councillor Diviani’s perfect sustainable town (see earlier post)

“LET’S WORK TOGETHER TO STAMP OUT FLY TIPPING

Fly tipping is beginning to be a problem in the Cranbrook area. In a number of recent cases, however, East Devon District Council has been successful in catching the offenders and serving fixed penalties (to cover the clear up costs) which were an average of £150 in each case. Obviously it is in everybody’s interests that we avoid unsightly and potentially hazardous views like this one, so please click for information about what to do if you see incidents of fly tipping or need advice on how to dispose of your rubbish responsibly.”

Why aren’ women running for mega-mayor jobs?

Could it be that jobs-for-the-boys really IS jobs for the boys?

“Although Manchester city council now has more female councillors than men for the first time in its history, nine out of 10 leaders in Greater Manchester’s constituent councils are men. The lonely woman is Jean Stretton, who took over Oldham in January. She is the first Labour leader of a Greater Manchester council since Baroness Bev Hughes ran Trafford for two years in the 90s.

“I think it does matter that no women seem to want to be mayor,” she said, while ruling herself out on the grounds that she has only just got her dream job. “I suppose we still might get someone putting herself forward, but it’s very late in the day [nominations for Labour in Greater Manchester close on 10 June]. I think that, while we do have some very good women MPs in Greater Manchester, they are mostly quite new to their seats and perhaps feel their futures lie in Westminster.”

In the 2015 general election, 191 women MPs were elected, 29% of all MPs and a record high. As of 2013, 32% of local authority councillors in England were women.

Stretton is optimistic that change is afoot. “When I first became a councillor in 2003, frequently the only other woman at a meeting would be taking the minutes. Now, my cabinet is fairly evenly split on gender. I’ve actually been criticised in the local paper for relying on an ‘old girls’ network’. Things are definitely changing for the better. It will just take time for those changes to filter up to the top.”

http://gu.com/p/4jfp5