South Somerset is Lib Dem controlled but shares the same Chief Executive with East Devon District Council:
….; “Cllr Nick Colbert raised fears that the council had “not properly listened” to the inspector’s demands.
He said: “We can’t just say the inspector doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and I’ve got serious worries that this whole plan is going to go down.”
http://www.westerngazette.co.uk/Government-held-gun-heads-Local-Plan-south/story-20819075-detail/story.html
This is a somewhat technical article but one point made is that your Local Plan will fail if you have not documented and minuted things such as how you have dealt with the “Duty to Co-operate”.
Our council is very lax with its minutes: some meetings have no minutes at all, some have minutes that seem to bear little resemblance to the meetings that took place and some minutes are so secret that no-one except those in the meetings get to see them. Transparency pays off in the end.
And why, one asks, only Axminster?
Could this not be construed as political, especially as Councillor Chubb represents an Axminster ward and this is announced during the political “purdah” period before elections?
EDDC has listened to traders in Axminster and is proposing to launch a special car parking rate in all its pay and display car parks in the town – starting this month.
The move follows the success of an experimental Christmas parking promotion in December 2013, which proved successful in a number of East Devon towns.
Councillor Iain Chubb, EDDC’s Cabinet Member for Environment, said: “This scheme is an example of EDDC working smarter and engaging with communities. We have been working with town representatives to find a mutually acceptable way of supporting town centre economies. We remain open to innovative ideas to support other towns. We are continuing to have talks with the Association of East Devon Chambers of Commerce.”
At a meeting of Cabinet last Wednesday, EDDC Members backed a proposal to trial a promotional offer for up to six months.
During the trial period, running from the first available date in May until 31 October, and subject to certain conditions, there will be a tariff of £2 maximum charge for parking after 10am and for the rest of that day in any of EDDC’s pay and display car parks in Axminster.
Councillor Chubb added: “We are implementing this new car parks pricing initiative at the request of Axminster Chamber of Commerce. The trial has been designed to better serve the needs of the town.
EDDC will monitor usage and reserves the right to withdraw the offer before the closing date if car parks become unduly congested with cars parked by people abusing the spirit of the new system.
| Flood resilience support given approval |
| Measures designed to help home and business owners protect their properties from future flood events have been approved by the council. Last week, members agreed to give delegated authority to the chief executive to administer the East Devon elements of a scheme that forms part of a nationwide Government initiative prompted by the devastating storms and floods experienced during the past winter.The Government has launched a number of initiatives to assist householders and businesses recover from flooding and make their premises more resilient to future bad weather. Councils have been invited to administer several schemes to: The offers are available to owners of properties actually flooded between 1December 2013 and 31 March 2014 and for work designed to prevent future flooding as opposed to work that should be covered by insurance. Guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government working with Defra means councils can administer the scheme on behalf of the Coalition. EDDC’s local scheme is based on guidance issued in March and is mostly concerned with administration of the Repair and Renew Grant, which councils can award and then claim back from Westminster.
Measures designed to help home and business owners protect their properties from future flood events have been approved by the council. The Government has launched a number of initiatives to assist householders and businesses recover from flooding and make their premises more resilient to future bad weather. Councils have been invited to administer several schemes to: The offers are available to owners of properties actually flooded between 1December 2013 and 31 March 2014 and for work designed to prevent future flooding as opposed to work that should be covered by insurance. Guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government working with Defra means councils can administer the scheme on behalf of the Coalition. EDDC’s local scheme is based on guidance issued in March and is mostly concerned with administration of the Repair and Renew Grant, which councils can award and then claim back from Westminster. |
Typical EDDC: find a problem, blame other people and don’t even think of providing a solution:
And this at the time when East Devon is in the top 10 places for a majority of people being over 65 …
In our spirit of helping EDDC to do the right thing at the right time, we draw their attention to an update on Section 106 agreements:
A judge has ruled quite clearly that attempting to use figures that are pre-National Planning Policy Framework is NOT allowed:
http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1293181/local-plan-ruling-a-warning
… MPs sat for just 143 days last year prompting Margaret Hodge, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, to say: “We’re not spending enough time in Westminster. The public would be forgiven for thinking that MPs are lazy and Parliament is failing to provide value for money.”
In the council e-newsletter this week, the council mentions that they are repeating their “satisfaction survey” by asking 3,000 residents, randomly chosen, what they think.
They the mention last year’s survey and what they are doing about improving things.
Here is the extracy on planning.
Planning – residents said
49% of residents said the council doesn’t act on what residents say, mainly due to planning and development (stet – this doesn’t make any sense!)
16% said they were dissatisfied with planning services – the most common reason given was that the council doesn’t listen to what people say.
How the council has responded
They have:
Published an article in the summer edition of East Devon Connect setting out the planning process and use other communication channels to make residents aware
We are in the process of changing the letters sent out during the planning application process to help make them better understood and provide a better explanation why decisions are made
We have increased our communications about regeneration projects and developments particularly in Exmouth and Seaton.
So, there you are: EDDC is improving by: writing an article, simplifying paperwork for planning applications and, er, more press releases.
Anyone see the flaws in this? Do any if these things show that the council LISTENS?
Under the Community Right to Build, people with a local connection to an area can reqiure a council to identify suitable plots (public or private owned) and the council will have to provide the necessary services such as water, etc. The warning is that self-builders can still be outbid for identified plots by developers.
Sounds like a recipe for disaster … council finds plot, tells self-builder about it, developer snaps it up.
A couple of weeks ago the warm-up question for BBC’s Question Time was this: if Cornwall can now be afforded “European minority status”, why not the mighty province of York?
Yorkshire has a larger population than Scotland and an economy twice the size of Wales, but with the powers of neither.
EDA researchers have discovered that the Yorkshire Tykes took matters into their own hands ages ago prompted not by the change of status in Cornwall but by the Scottish vote on independence.
Frustrated by what they see is a political system oriented towards the South East they have created a political party called Yorkshire First of neither the right nor the left but with a regional agenda. Yorkshire First believe that it is important to
1. Engage folk as citizens to design, deliver and improve services
2. Seek new ways of connecting people with the decision making and policy development processes
3. Encourage new participation in the political process
4. Work to secure a regional growth strategy with any interested organisation
5. Work to equip the people of Yorkshire to succeed through a focus on skills development
6. Encourage recirculation of cash in the Yorkshire economy
. Encourage the use of local supply chains wherever possible
. Fight to ensure small business competes on a level playing field with large corporations
. We will focus on encouraging areas/sectors where Yorkshire has distinct economic challenges or advantages
. Shape legislation that will benefit the development of these sectors or areas of opportunity
Rather than independence, Yorkshire First are seeking greater devolution of powers through some sort of regional parliament. Candidates are standing in the European elections. They will do so operating as a collection of Independents, united by believing in the aims of Yorkshire First. The party will have no whips, and personal conscience will always trumps party consideration. Candidates will also endeavor to stick to the principles of governance formulated by the former independent MP, Martin Bell. You may recall in 1997 Martin Bell displaced Neil Hamilton, who was mired in sleaze allegations, from the “safe” seat of Tatton, overturning a conservative majority of 22,000.
The Bell Principles
• abide wholeheartedly by the spirit and letter of the Seven Principles of Public Life set out by Lord Nolan in 1995: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership
• be guided by considered evidence, our real world experience and expertise, our constituencies and our consciences
• be free from the control of any political party, pressure group or whip
• be ethical, non-discriminatory, and committed to pluralism
• make decisions transparently and openly at every stage and level of the political process, enabling people to see how decisions are made and the evidence on which they are based
• listen, consulting our communities constantly and innovatively
• treat political opponents with courtesy and respect, challenging them when we believe they are wrong, and agreeing with them when we believe they are right
• resist abuses of power and patronage and promote democracy at every level
• work with other elected independents as a Group with a chosen spokesperson
• claim expenses, salaries and compensation openly so the public can judge the value for money of our activities
http://www.yorkshirefirst.org.uk/
Is this the beginning of a new trend towards regional rather than national based politics, and personal integrity versus self-interest?
After the meeting where the DMC decided to ignore the effects of the planning application on the SSSI pebblebeds and hustle through planning permission, news reaches us that the fight is not yet over.
It is possible that a judicial review will be sought given that there seem to be numerous grounds for doing so. Should this happen, EDDC should be seriously worried as this application has been fraught with procedural ineptitude – to say the least.
The parish council has also not distinguished itself with its handling of a planning application from the biggest local landowner in the area and also faces greater scrutiny from local residents.
Following the public consultation undertaken in December 2013-February 2014, the Devon Waste Plan has been submitted to the Secretary of State for examination. An Inspector has been appointed to consider the soundness of the Plan, together with the objections made in response to the consultation, and he has issued a draft programme for the public hearings. This programme, available through the link below, outlines the main issues that the Inspector wishes to discuss, and indicates that the hearings will run from Tuesday 15th July to Wednesday 23rd July.
Click to access id01_inspector_s_hearings_programme_v1.pdf
The most contentious session is expected to be on Tuesday 22nd July, when the Inspector will discuss the strategic energy recovery locations identified in the Plan for Barnstaple, Tiverton, EAST OF EXETER (HILL BARTON AND GREENDALE BARTON and Kingsteignton.
This was a Private Members Bill introduced under the 10 minute rule. Normally, these bills do not get past first reading but this one has made it to second reading. It would need cross-party support to become law, which is very unlikely to happen. However, Greg Mulholland deserves praise for the attempt. This is what he said, with a link to the debate below it:
National Planning Policy Framework (Community Involvement)
Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)
1.35 pm
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring a Bill to make further provision for the National Planning Policy Framework; and for connected purposes.
The planning community involvement Bill seeks to build on the initiatives in the Localism Act 2011 to give communities more of a say in planning decisions, and to amend the national planning policy framework. Despite having much to commend it and despite it being a much-needed simplification of planning law, that framework has still not got the balance right between the rights of developers and those of local communities. It is also not being properly implemented by some local authorities.
In a June 2011 guide to the Localism Bill, the then planning Minister stated that the purpose of the Government’s localism agenda—one I warmly welcomed —was
“to help people and their locally elected representatives achieve their own ambitions”.
Although I am delighted that the coalition Government have taken many steps in the right direction, including the assets of community value scheme, neighbourhood development plans and a number of measures, in reality many of our constituents—including those of Members from both coalition parties, and around the House—know that unwanted development is still being imposed on them, often with little chance to do anything about it.
Developers are still cherry-picking greenfield sites and building expensive multi-bedroom houses in areas that do not want and cannot support significant development. That is not what the country needs; we need more affordable homes in key areas and more social housing. Reform is needed to ensure that building happens where it is wanted and needed by communities and regions, and on brownfield sites first, not simply where developers will make money building homes that are out of the reach of the pockets of ordinary people.
These are sensible measures; they are not radical and this is not nimbyism. I do not propose to try to stop development everywhere, and I am certainly not trying to discourage the housing we need.
The measures in my Bill are supported by organisations such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England, which has suggested a number of measures, the Campaign for Real Ale, Civic Voice, and also by the Local Government Association and local councils. I hope that the Bill will start a debate about how we can reform the planning system to get it right as we approach the general election, which is now just a year away. In Leeds, many communities such as Cookridge, Bramhope, Pool-in-Wharfedale and Adel, are already facing huge increases in housing, including on green-belt land. That is at a time when many parts of the city and region are crying out for housing of the sort that we need, yet those sites are simply being land-banked and ignored.
There are also issues with housing targets. For example, Leeds city council is proposing to build 70,000 homes by 2028. That is the highest figure among all major UK
cities, despite it having the lowest population increase of any major city since the 2001 census. It does not make sense. A local campaign group, Wharfedale and Airedale Review Development, has pointed out that if figures are calculated on the 2011 census, the figure should be only 48,000, yet a higher target is being imposed on local people. That is the situation in Leeds, but it is reflected around the country.
We also have permitted development rights for assets and local facilities that clearly involve a fundamental change of use, and the loss of that community facility. That can apply to community centres, local shops, post offices and pubs. It is great news that the Government have now responded on betting shops. It was clearly an absurdity to allow betting shops to go through without planning permission, and it is also absurd—and I speak in this regard as the chairman of the all-party save the pub group—that pubs can become supermarkets, solicitors’ offices or payday loan shops without having to go through the planning process and without any opportunity for the community to have a say.
The Department for Communities and Local Government says that that problem is solved by the assets of community value scheme and article 4 directions, but it is not. The ACV initiative is being undermined by the inadequacy of the planning system, and in many areas the Localism Act 2011 is being ignored. For example, recently in my constituency an application was made to build houses and a supermarket on a playing field, in an area where local schools do not have their own playing fields. Despite a campaign by the local Hyde Park Olympic legacy group and a pending asset of community value application, the application went through. That is scandalous, and my Bill would address that.
Some 350 pubs have been listed as ACVs, but how many have actually been saved? The answer is only a few. In London, the Campaign for Real Ale has pointed to several pubs—the Castle in Battersea is a heap of rubble, the George IV in Brixton is a Tesco store, and the Chesham Arms is an office with an unauthorised flat. The initiative is being undermined.
My Bill would abolish the right of developers to appeal. There has been an inequity between communities and developers for too long. A report by Savills estate agents shows that 75% of all planning appeals for large housing developments are allowed after local councils have originally voted them down. My Bill proposes the simplest and cheapest solution, which is to abolish the right to override local authority decisions by appealing to a distant planning inspector. That would be good news for the Treasury, because we could abolish the Planning Inspectorate, saving £50 million a year.
I acknowledge that we need new homes, but paragraph 49 of the national planning policy framework should be amended to demand that developers must still meet local policy objectives, such as where a local authority seeks to prioritise development on brownfield sites before greenfield sites, and sweep away the nonsense of councils being unable to demonstrate a five-year land supply.
My Bill would also drop the requirement in the NPPF that local authorities should allocate an additional 20% buffer of deliverable housing sites. Developers can cause a 20% buffer to be required, rather than a 5% buffer, by under-delivering housing, so they are manipulating the system.
Debate:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm140430/debtext/140430-0001.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27066299
but interestingly, that demographic has received very little attention in the draft Local Plan with much more emphasis on attracting or keeping young families in the area. Over 65’s are going to become the majority everywhere soon but very little adjustment seems to be being made, unlike in Germany.
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs028/1102142477435/archive/1103280952367.html
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
Today there was a reference to a “small” development anticipated at the eastern boundary of East Devon.
Hallam Estate has put in a proposal to build up to 400 properties on green fields in AONB area in Uplyme, adjoining the A3052, near the Park & Ride parking area. This is in East Devon, but it is to allow expansion of Lyme Regis which is in Dorset.
Small? Wonder if Uplyme would agree? We shall see.
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
