District Council votes to allow habitat of 11 species of bat in East Budleigh to be demolished

We need to get real about protecting biodiversity:
Futures Forum: Countering mass extinction: we need a Green New Deal plus action on biodiversity

Indeed, local councillors have been keen to help wildlife in our own backyard:
Futures Forum: East Budleigh objects to application to demolish habitat of 11 species of bat
Futures Forum: District Council defers decision on application to demolish habitat of 11 species of bat >

However, last week, the planning committee of the District Council decided to allow the demolition of the bat habitat in East Budleigh:
Agenda for Development Management Committee on Tuesday, 30th April, 2019, 10.00 am - East Devon

The BBC reports: 

Barn to be knocked down despite bat concerns

Posted at 14:35 1 May14:35 1 May

Daniel Clark
Local Democracy Reporting Service

A "licence to kill" has been granted, it was claimed, after plans to knock down a barn known to be home to rare and protected bats were approved.

Councillors voted by eight votes to five on Tuesday morning to give the go-ahead to demolish a barn in East Budleigh, known as The Pound, and for it to be replaced with a house.

A new bat barn will be built in the garden as mitigation and Clinton Devon Estates have said the new building will provide conditions "more suitable" for bats, including a dedicated loft area and ground floor with free flight access for the animals.

But concerns have been raised by ecological campaigners about the risk it would pose to the rare bats, saying the demolition of the barn could see them lose their homes and die.

BBC Devon & Cornwall Live: 1 May - BBC News
Bats in East Budleigh: “licence to kill” say ecological campaigners | East Devon Watch

A local resident has written to “Thérèse Coffey, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - as reported in the East Devon Watch blog: 

EAST DEVON RESIDENT CALLS OUT TORY GOVERNMENT ON ENVIRONMENT AND BATS

2 MAY 2019

...

The document “A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment” contains enough positive ideology to satisfy most environmental campaigners. The document is elegantly designed and its content has been carefully thought out. It covers a huge range of subjects that I feel very strongly about: sustainable land use, enhancing the beauty and environmental worth of landscapes, and protection of wildlife.

The issue is the document is a vision and not legislation. It a collection of really good ideas but it is not law. When there is a conflict between potential industrial development, the provision of housing, and the environment, the ideals will get thrown into the river like toxic waste. If there is a chance for profit to be made councils will always find ways to get around even the most stringent protections. Sadly the “Green Future” is not seen as a moral compass for development it is just viewed as a bit of a nuisance. The proposed development on the pound in East Budleigh is a classic example. It clearly goes against the ideals expressed in the 25 year plan and the protection afforded to endangered species by The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as Amended)

The proposed development ( 18/1464/FUL. ) involves demolition of a barn (dating back to the 17th century) containing 11 species of bats (Including Grey Long eared bats, and Greater Horseshoe bats), Dormouse habitat destruction, and a Badger set relocation. It has caused a local outcry, the involvement of Sir David Attenborough, Devon Wildlife Trust, features on Radio Devon and BBC Spotlight.

When the development was put to the EDDC Development Management Committee the council chamber was packed with objectors. The plans were still passed paving the way for the a new entrance to be put through a well loved and iconic local amenity space and the destruction of habitat for several endangered species. Councillors were not only out of step with the electorate but also showed a total disregard for Michael Gove’s twenty five year Environmental Plan and environmental protection legislation. The whole community as well a host of endangered species in East Budleigh will lose out just so that one house can be developed. Yet another totally unbalanced decision that will only benefit a local wealthy landowner by the Conservative lead East Devon District Council.

If you would like to see the site in order to draw your own conclusions I would love to be your host. If you need more background information do not hesitate to contact me.

East Devon resident calls out Tory government on environment and bats | East Devon Watch
.
.
.

Pressures to expand the Greendale Business Park > yet another retrospective planning application approved

We need lots of industrial estates in the District:
Futures Forum: Pressures to expand business parks in East Devon >>> Greendale part two

And to help this along, one simply builds something first and then asks for planning permission after:
Futures Forum: Pressures to expand the Greendale and Hill Barton Business Parks > two retrospective planning applications approved

Because, once it's up, it's very difficult to say 'No' - as the District Council's planning committee warily decided last week:

Greendale Business Park extension approved

Saturday, May 4th, 2019 8:20am

By Daniel Clark

It's been given retrospective planning permission.

A storage compound that supports 38 jobs on land just outside Greendale Business Park has been granted retrospective planning permission.

Councillors narrowly voted in favour of allowing land at Compound East 6, at Hogsbrook Farm, to be used to storage and distribution, despite it being outside the authorised boundary of Greendale Business Park.

East Devon District Council’s development management committee agreed by six votes to five to allow the retrospective use of the land after agreeing that despite their concerns, an inspector would almost certainly allow any appeal against refusal.

But they also said they were fed up of yet another retrospective planning application for the site coming before them, with Cllr Susie Bond saying it was ‘disrespectful’ and Cllr Brian Bailey saying they had a track record that was ‘not to be admired’.

Tim Smith, speaking on behalf of applicants F W S Carter & Son, said that he fully endorsed the view by the council’s economic officer that the plans should be approved and pointed to the lack of objections. He added: “We have a high level of demand for our site that cannot be provided elsewhere in the district.”

Chris Rose, the council’s development manager, said that the area of land which is part of Hogsbrook Farm, adjacent to the Greendale Business Park. The land is currently used for B8 purposes, although without planning permission, and is bounded by a fence, with a hedge adjacent to the fence on the western boundary of the sites.

He added: “The application site lies within the open countryside, where development would not normally be permitted. Therefore, the proposals represent departures from the Local Plan and do not benefit from any local plan policy support. But there are however considered to be a number of other material considerations that weigh heavily in favour of the proposals and that justify the grant of planning permissions despite the lack of planning policy support.”

Mr Rose said that one of the sites benefits from consent for its hardstanding and fencing, there are economic benefits from retaining the businesses and jobs on the sites, the sites are the most logical area for the extension of Greendale given that it is almost at capacity and the limited visual impact from the proposals.

He added: “Given the lack of any technical objections to the applications, and subject to conditions to control the height of any storage on the site, noise, lighting and deliveries, it is considered that, on balance, both proposals are acceptable.”

But Simon Andrews, speaking on behalf of the Woodbury Salterton residents association said that permission should be refused as it is against the Villages Plan and Local Plan policy.

Anthony Arnold added that if this was approved, it would going back to the dark days of the uncontrolled expansion into the countryside. He said: “The area outside the boundary should remain open countryside. What is the point of having a Villages Plan and a Local Plan if you just ignore them? Allow this and you open the floodgates.”

Cllr Geoff Jung, who represents the Raleigh ward, said that he could not support this planning application as it is outside the current approved employment area. He added: “Authorising this will drive a bus through the Local Plan. It allows anyone to get a compound, put a tenant in, and then call for the same permission to be granted.” He said that the council were successful on defending an appeal on the eastern area of the site and that this should be refused as it doesn’t comply with the Local Plan nor the Villages Plan and is not compatible with the setting.

Cllr Ben Ingham added that it may be providing jobs, but as it is in the wrong area, it is not sustainable and allow the sites to be ‘joined up’ is against policy.

Cllr Mike Allen said that this was a difficult decision for the committee. He said it is already a brownfield site it has hard standing and is fenced, and asked people to think about what an inspector may say. He added: “I think if we refused this, it would probably be approved on appeal, but I cannot think of a reason why this should be approved.” He also said that he was continuing to explain to the Greendale Business Park on why they need to get planning permission for their developments before they start building them and that he hoped they had finally got the message.

But Cllr Helen Parr said that she felt the committee had to be realistic, adding: “Regardless of whether we want this and what is in the policy, it is developed land and all the considerations to me say that on appeal, it is allowable.”

Cllr Bailey added that Greendale’s track record with planning applications was ‘not to be admired’, but added: “I fail to see any advantages in demolishing a low level piece of hard standing with a bit of fencing.”

A proposal to reject the scheme was lost by six votes to five. Councillors then voted by six votes to five to approve the retrospective plans.

Greendale Business Park extension approved - Radio Exe
.
.
.

Climate change: and whole-life carbon in new-build

The construction/building/architects industries are getting serious about what they do:
Futures Forum: Climate change: and the built environment: "Why clients and law-makers need to wake up to climate emergency... and why they should ask architects what to do."
Futures Forum: What can be done to mitigate the huge impact of construction on climate change?
Futures Forum: Climate change > and getting buildings to 'net zero'

And one area is the 'whole-life carbon' impact of what they do:
Whole-life carbon: RIBA and RICS guidance | Features | Building
A bigger picture | Sustainability: whole life carbon | isurv

It can get quite technical:
Whole life carbon – a building case study

It's connected to the idea of 'embodied carbon':

Embodied Energy and Carbon | Institution of Civil Engineers

And 'net zero' buildings:

Advancing Net Zero - UKGBC - UK Green Building Council

Targeting Zero, Delivering a low carbon future

Here's an example: 

A whole life carbon approach identifies the overall best combined opportunities for reducing lifetime emissions, and also helps to avoid any unintended consequences of focusing on operational emissions alone, e.g. the embodied carbon burden of changing double glazing to triple can be greater than the operational benefit resulting from the additional pane. Therefore, whole life carbon needs to be effectively integrated in the sustainability agenda to achieve a lower carbon future. 

WLC_implementation_in_the_built_environment_PDF.pdf

The Architects' Journal looks at where we are now: 

The AJ asked experts in sustainable design why whole-life carbon is important for architects to think about in their day-to-day work

VIDEO: WHY DOES WHOLE-LIFE CARBON MATTER FOR ARCHITECTS?
Video: Why does whole-life carbon matter for architects? | News | Architects Journal

Featuring:
Duncan Baker-Brown, BBM Sustainable Design and senior lecturer, University of Brighton
Hero Bennett, sustainability consultant, Max Fordham
Michael Pawlyn, director, Exploration Architecture
Mina Hasman, SOM associate and member of RIBA commission on Ethics and Sustainable Development
Anthony Thistleton, founder and director, Waugh Thistleton Architects

Film by Edward Bishop of Stephenson/Bishop

VIDEO: WHY DOES WHOLE-LIFE CARBON MATTER FOR ARCHITECTS?

Video: What power do architects have to reduce whole-life carbon?

Video: What practical steps can architects take today to reduce whole-life carbon?


Video: Why does whole-life carbon matter for architects? | News | Architects Journal
.
.
.

From cul-de-sacs to retail parks > Why is Britain so bad at planning cities?

There have been some strong advocates of good design of towns and cities:
Futures Forum: Ben Hamilton-Baillie: architect and leading voice in the promotion of ‘shared space’
Futures Forum: 1819: John Ruskin on the built environment: "A structure’s beauty or ugliness is also a lens into the moral quality of the society in which and for which it was made."

Unfortunately, such voices have generally been ignored, as the chair of the Academy of Urbanism at Manchester University points out: 

Why is Britain so bad at planning cities?

From cul-de-sacs to retail parks, Britain’s planning rules cause environments that are bewildering, illogical and ugly. We have forgotten that urban areas are grown

David Rudlin
Thu 11 Apr 2019 06.00 BSTLast modified on Fri 12 Apr 2019 11.44 BST

Comments 441 

Bradley Stoke, Bristol, an example of the late 20th-century housing estates that followed rules set out in 1977’s Design Bulletin 32. Photograph: SWNS

Here is something you might try if you live in Britain. Go to your favourite urban place, whether it be the centre of a large city or a small market town. Close your eyes, turn around three times and walk in that direction for 15 minutes (or an hour if you’re in London). I can predict with a reasonable degree of confidence that the place where you end up will be crap.

You may be stuck in the no-man’s-land around the ring road, or in a brutally functional industrial estate, or among the endless rows of parked cars in a retail park, or lost in a tangle of suburban cul-de-sacs. Wherever you are, the environment will generally be bewildering, illogical and ugly.

It is likely that your favourite place, where you started, was built before 1947 – quite possibly long before – and the place you ended up has been created since. This is not an argument against modern architecture. I love modern architecture and, with the possible exception of the council estate, it can’t be blamed for the problems of the place where you are now standing.

Town planning is a different story. My reason for choosing 1947 is that it was the date our modern planning system was conceived, the result of the Town and Country Planning Act – part of a raft of postwar legislation to, among other things, establish the NHS, set up the welfare state and tackle the problems of our cities: chiefly congestion, slums and pollution. It is a sad indictment of this system that most of the places it has created have been a disappointment. They may be healthier, safer and more efficient – but they lack the character, diversity and human scale of a city street, market town or village.

Retail parks: the unwitting result of a set of planning rules that have led to a result no one foresaw. Photograph: Michael Heath/Alamy

We can’t blame designers for this, because the reality is that most of these suburban estates, retail parks and highways schemes were never really designed at all. They are the unwitting result of a set of planning rules that have led to a result no one foresaw.

Most of the rules were well-intentioned. They were designed to stop us getting killed by cars while allowing traffic to flow, to improve the quality of our environment and give us access to green space, to separate housing from polluting industry, to make business more efficient, to encourage light and healthy housing, and to give places for our children to play. All worthy aspirations, and all the responsibility of different professionals who have likely done a good job in their particular area of responsibility. It is just that no one has been looking at the bigger picture, at what sort of environment is created by the combined effect of all of these well-meaning rules.

Take the late 20th-century housing estates which encircle most of our towns and cities, and of which the sprawling Bradley Stoke district of Bristol is perhaps the most infamous example. These were largely the result of rules set out in the innocuous-sounding Design Bulletin 32 from 1977. Design Bulletin 32 stipulated, for example, that all new estates should have a hierarchy of roads, or that houses could only front on to the most minor roads. Mix in rules about every house having two off-street parking spaces, privacy distances between windows and the complex arrangements for ongoing maintenance, and hey presto: you get the cul-de-sac.

A cul-de-sac in suburban London. Cul-de-sacs became more prevalent in the UK as a result of 1977’s Design Bulletin 32. Photograph: Dan Chung/The Guardian

In the early 2000s, government did try to reform Design Bulletin 32, first publishing a companion guide called Places, Streets and Movement, and then a new version called Manual for Streets in 2007. But research last year by the Urban Design Group showed that fewer than 20% of highways authorities had updated their guidance.

I don’t deny that many people like suburbs. But it is undeniable that the UK suburb – a tree with cul-de-sacs branching off the stem, unconnected to each other – is confusing, makes walking inconvenient and unpleasant, suffocates local shops and makes public transport unviable.​

Contrast this to that favourite urban place of yours, where we started. Its spaces are likely to be human in scale, with walkable streets that connect to each other and make it easy to get around. It is probably quite busy, supporting all manner of shops, bars and restaurants. It is made up of lots of different buildings, many of which are not particularly interesting in themselves but frame streets and spaces that are a pleasure to be in. Some of this may have been “designed”, but there are many attractive urban places that never were. The Academy of Urbanism gives out awards for these good urban spaces each year: last year, the shortlist included places as diverse as Barnsley, Chelmsford, Paisley, Kelham Island in Sheffield and Hackney Wick in London. These are not pretty or quaint, but they have a satisfying, self-organised urbanity that we humans used to be pretty good at.

Kelham Island Quarter in Sheffield: not pretty or quaint, but with a satisfying, self-organised urbanity that we humans used to be pretty good at. Photograph: Alamy

In Britain, any piece of land left undisturbed will first be colonised by small plants, then shrubs and then trees. After a hundred or so years, it will become mature broadleaf woodland – and, having reached that steady state, will remain that way for ever – a state known as “climax vegetation”.

Do human societies go through a similar process when building cities? People come together to live in a particular place, negotiate their relationship to each other, build homes and businesses that combine to create streets and squares that are just the right size to accommodate urban life. We might call this climax urbanism.

In the 1960s the great urbanist Edmund Bacon, describing the Umbria hill town of Todi in Italy, wrote:

"The collective mind of the citizens … must have conceived the space volumes of the two squares as abstract entities, and then brought them into being by the construction of individual buildings over many years."

It is a process that can be seen at work in Syrian refugee camps in Jordan, as documented by Husam Alwaer at Dundee University. In the Zaatari camp, residents have invented a contraption with wheels that allows them to rearrange their UN-provided cabins. What started as regimented rows of cabins has gradually been reconfigured into family groupings, with those cabins on the “main street” turned into shops, so the result is not unlike a traditional Syrian town. The same process can be seen in Indian slums, which, despite their often dreadful living conditions, could be seen as a form of proto-urbanism: they may be built out of corrugated sheeting and tarpaulin, but their function and form is not so different from a historic Indian city such as Jodhpur.

Zaatari refugee camp, north Jordan, close to the border with Syria. Photograph: TASS/Barcroft Images

Did that beautiful English market town or city street where we started our journey go through a similar process before it reached its climax state? Is the problem with the modern planning system that it just doesn’t understand this process of city growth? Does it think new neighbourhoods can be designed on paper and wished into existence like the new towns of the 1960s, the council estates of the 1970s, the Docklands development of the 1980s or the clearance of terraced housing in the 1990s? Maybe planners need to understand that urban areas are grown, rather than wished into existence under their blue utopian skies.

There is an academic field that explores these ideas. Complexity theory was originally developed to explain the “design” of insect colonies or slime mould communities, but groundbreaking work in the 1970s by people like Lewis Thomas and Christopher Alexander sought to apply these ideas to cities. Ants live in hugely complex and beautifully regulated colonies without any form of leadership. A small number of pheromone signals by which ants communicate, combined with a millennia of natural selection, have fine-tuned these colonies to perfectly meet their needs. What if the interaction of humans over many years worked in a similar way to create settlements that are ideally suited to the needs of the community?

It is an appealing thought, though there are a few problems with the idea. The first is that humans no longer seem to be very good at optimising their settlements. Entirely unplanned development is more likely to create a slum, barrio or shantytown than an attractive neighbourhood. The journalist Peter Popham, in the book City of Darkness, summed it up well when he wrote about the Walled City settlement in Kowloon, Hong Kong:

"All this intensity of random human effort and activity, vice and sloth and industry, exempted from all of the controls we take for granted, resulted in an environment as richly varied and as sensual as the heart of the tropical rainforest."

Except, as he points out, “it was so obviously toxic, full of brothels and drug dens, pollution and poverty.”

The slums of the Walled City, Kowloon, Hong Kong. The settlement was demolished in 1992. Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo

Maybe the Walled City just needed more time to reach its idealised or “climax” state. But what is perhaps more likely is that humans are no longer very good at acting in society’s (or even their own) best interests. The terrible conditions in the unregulated city were the reason that planning was invented – and why it is still needed.

The second problem with the application of complexity theory to cities is the fact that humans fail one of the basic tests of a complex system. As Stephen Johnson, whose book Emergence is one of the best overviews of the field, writes: “The relative stupidity of the individual ant is, as the computer programmer says, a feature not a bug.” If a group of ants (let’s call them planners) were to become sentient and start trying to direct and shape the colony, they would cause havoc and probably destroy the system.

It may be true that planners do not understand the natural process by which traditional places were built. But that is not the lesson to be drawn here. There have always been authorities with an overview of human settlements. As my colleague Shruti Hemani shows in her research, even in slums there are “founder families” that exercise a degree of control. The point is that planners do not sit above the system, bending it to their will: cities are complex, emergent patterns that result from the interaction of a huge number of variables, including society’s norms and values, the working of markets and the impact of technology. Planning is just one of the inputs to the system, and probably not the most important one.

But planning has gone too far. In attempting to “create” cities by regulating every tiny facet of them, it has unwittingly caused what complexity science calls a “phase transition”: it has dissolved the pattern of the traditional town and turned it into the retail park, the suburban cul-de-sac and the industrial estate. These are not places that anyone designed, but a new, emergent climax state that the people drawing up the rules never even envisaged, let alone intended.

There is a place in Holland where an experiment is taking place to rewrite these rules. The Homeruskwartier district of Almere in the Netherlands has been divided into plots that are being sold to individuals and groups to build their own homes. The rules of the plot, like the pheromone signals of the ant, are very simple: they can be written on one side of A4 paper regulating the position, size, and use of what can be built on the plot. The neighbourhood is being built one house at a time and no one knows quite what the result will be. There is a masterplan that gives it structure, but provided they stay within the parameters of their “plot passport”, and are able to negotiate with their neighbours, residents can build what they want.

This is a neighbourhood that has been coded rather than planned, and ideally over time the programme parameters would be tweaked to create the neighbourhood residents want. It may seem radical, but actually it is the way that we used to do things, before 1947, when the well-meaning planning system planned away the art of building good places.

David Rudlin is currently director of URBED, chair of the Academy of Urbanism, honorary professor at Manchester University and co-author of Climax City: Masterplanning and the Complexity of Urban Growth

Follow Guardian Cities on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to join the discussion, catch up on our best stories or sign up for our weekly newsletter

Why is Britain so bad at planning cities? | Cities | The Guardian
.
.
.

Beach Management Plan: urgency for action after further cliff falls - but what action?

This evening's full District Council meeting considered asking utility companies to contribute to coastal defences: 

Motion - Government support requested for financial contributions from utility companies to flood and coastal protection schemes

‘This Council is leading and coordinating coastal protection schemes in Sidmouth, Exmouth and Seaton. There is an expectation, based on current funding models, for significant amounts of partnership funding to be raised. An example of this is the circa. £13 million project for Sidmouth which has identified £3 million of partnership funding to be raised before the scheme can progress.

This necessary work will protect not just homes and businesses but also important infrastructure and utilities. In Sidmouth, for example, the SWW infrastructure and other utilities will be protected from the incursion of the sea and erosion when the scheme is delivered.

It seems fair and reasonable that all utility companies contribute towards the cost of coastal and flood protection works.

Therefore, I ask Council to support the motion that ‘The Government ensures that where assets and infrastructure will be protected by a flood and coastal protection scheme all utility companies are required to make a proportionate and appropriate mandatory level of financial contribution towards that scheme. ‘

Proposed by; Cllr Stuart Hughes
Seconded by; Cllr David Barratt

Supported by Cllrs Phil Twiss, Ian Hall, Colin Brown, Jenny Brown, John Dyson and Iain Chubb.

Agenda for Council on Wednesday, 24th April, 2019, 6.00 pm - East Devon

This was reported on last week:
Futures Forum: Beach Management Plan: pressure on utility companies to contribute to costs

Meanwhile, there have been further cliff-falls which provide further urgency for some action to be taken to slow down the erosion.

The question is still whether that action should be the 'preferred option' being pushed by the District Council - against the wishes of the Sidmouth stakeholders on the Beach Management Plan steering group:
Futures Forum: Beach Management Plan: breakwaters rather than groins/groynes

Devon Live reports:

'Don't sit underneath cliffs' plea from council after more landslides at Sidmouth beaches over the Bank Holiday weekend 

"The cliffs pose a very real danger and caution must be exercised"

1COMMENT

Daniel Clark

Local Democracy Reporter
17:13, 23 APR 2019

Beachgoers are being warned not to sit under cliffs after a number of cliff falls and landslides at Sidmouth over the Bank Holiday weekend. Rubble crashed to the ground down at Jacob’s Ladder beach on Easter Sunday, in full view of hundreds of sun seekers.

At the other end of the seafront, on the precarious East Beach, there was a massive landslide that saw rubble crash down and block off a cave that was opened up following a previous cliff fall.

The landslides occurred just days before a motion calling for utility companies to help pay for coastal protection schemes is due to be discussed by councillors.

East Devon District Council are again warning members of the public that the cliffs pose a very real danger and caution must be exercised when visiting them and the beach, and not to ignore warning signs.

A spokesman said: “Jacobs Ladder beach, in common with many other beaches along our coast, sits below cliffs that are a key part of the scenery which attracts visitors to the area and the wider Jurassic Coast.

“However, the cliffs pose a very real danger and caution must be exercised when visiting them. Rockfalls and landslides are unpredictable events, occurring without warning, and can cause serious injury or death. Warning signs can often be found in areas managed by us (as there is at East Beach), but the absence of a sign does not indicate there is no risk and you should always take care around the cliffs of East Devon, as they are all made of soft rock and pose a cliff fall danger.

"We therefore recommend that where possible, you enjoy the cliffs from a distance and do not climb or sit directly beneath them. The Coastguard advises that beach users stay at least the height of the cliff away. For example, if a cliff is 20 metres high, a distance of 20 metres should be kept, a comprehensive guide to staying safe around beaches and cliffs is available from the Coastguard.”

Lifeboat Crew member Guy Russell, who also runs Jurassic Paddle Sports, added on Facebook: “It is the same message, whether it comes down to East Beach, Jacobs Ladder or down in Dorset people have to take a second to think. I cannot stress enough the dangers of going to East Beach, where people walk down and sit with their books or play with their kids.”

A proposed beach management scheme has been worked up that aims to reduce the risk of flooding to Sidmouth by maintaining the standard of defences along Sidmouth Beach, and to reduce the rate of erosion to the cliffs. The proposed scheme will see a groyne will help keep shingle from being moved eastwards away from the vulnerable cliffs and the higher splash wall will capture water coming over the sea wall to prevent flooding in the town centre, but is still around £2m short of being fully funded.

On Wednesday night, East Devon District Council will discuss a motion calling on the Government to request electric, gas, telephone and water companies to be mandated to contribute to coastal protection schemes, where they will benefit from them.

It has been put forward by Cllr Stuart Hughes as in Sidmouth, South West Water infrastructure will be protected if the scheme is built, but they have not contributed financially to the near £9m scheme. The scheme will cost £8.9m, with around £3m of funding needs to be provided locally. £500,000 of this will be provided by East Devon District Council, with £500,000 set to be committed by Devon County Council and £100,000 from Sidmouth town council, meaning a further £2.4m needs to be found.

Option 1 - The preferred option that the beach management plan for Sidmouth has identified is to construct one or two new rock groynes along East Beach over a distance of up to 200m east of the River Sid and to modify the length of the seaward end of the River Sid training wall and East Pier rock groyne to improve sediment transport between Sidmouth Town Beach and East Beach. This would be supported by importing new shingle and moving shingle along the beach as required.

Cllr Hughes said: “I have put forward a notice of motion re request to Government to put into place the requirement for all utility companies to contribute towards coastal protection flood defence schemes. The shortfall for a scheme at Sidmouth would be impossible to find locally.

“Utilities services will be protected by such works. However at present they don’t have to contribute and I don’t recall seeing any scheme that’s gone ahead receiving funding from either the electric, gas, or telephone companies. Water companies don’t always contribute and as far as Sidmouth is concerned. They haven’t come to the party with any promise of financial contribution.

“This necessary work will protect not just homes and businesses but also important infrastructure and utilities. In Sidmouth, for example, the South West Water infrastructure and other utilities will be protected from the incursion of the sea and erosion when the scheme is delivered. It seems fair and reasonable that all utility companies contribute towards the cost of coastal and flood protection works. Hopefully the council will support the motion.”

The Sidmouth Beach Management Scheme is currently being delayed until the funding becomes available. It had previously been hoped that work could have begun in 2019, subject to planning constraints being met.

Coastal protection schemes are also being worked up by East Devon in Exmouth and Seaton, as well as Sidmouth.

The motion will be discussed at the full council meeting on Wednesday night.

'Don't sit underneath cliffs' plea from council after more landslides at Sidmouth beaches over the Bank Holiday weekend - Devon Live
.
.
.

Sid Valley Neighbourhood Plan > Town Council to set up a Community Action Coordination Group

The Sid Valley Neighbourhood Plan has been formally submitted:
A NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN FOR THE SID VALLEY 2018-2032 - Submission Version

And is now with the Examiner:
Futures Forum: Sid Valley Neighbourhood Plan > unanimously endorsed by District Council > consultation ends 8th March > Examiner appointed

Looking ahead, hopefully once the Examiner is satisfied and the plan is voted through by the residents of the Sid Valley, the next stage would be to look at the Community Actions:
Futures Forum: Sid Valley Neighbourhood Plan: "the next phase of its contribution" >>> community actions

And the Town Council has just shown its commitment to the process of ensuring that the Community Actions happen:

SIDMOUTH TOWN COUNCIL 

Minutes of the Meeting of Sidmouth Town Council held at the Council Chamber, Woolcombe House, Sidmouth, on Monday 8 April 2019 at 6.30pm

Neighbourhood Plan Community Actions

Members were asked to consider the discussions and recommendations from an informal joint meeting of the Council and Sid Valley Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group regarding the Neighbourhood Plan Community Actions.

RESOLVED: that

1. following Local Government Elections in May 2019, the Council sets up a Community Action Coordination Group, to help facilitate the implementation of Neighbourhood Plan Community Actions;

2. the steering group to consist of Councillors alongside a number of volunteers (in a similar model to the NHP Steering Group) and report progress to full Council quarterly;

3. the Council’s Committees and Working Groups champion relevant Community Actions as appropriate.

Mins-STC-080419.pdf

The Vision Group hopes to help with that stage:
Futures Forum: Help shape the positive development of our community > get in touch with the Vision Group!
.
.
.

Sidford business park >> A PUBLIC Inquiry to be held >> further details

A week ago, we learnt that the appeal over the rejected plans for an industrial estate at Sidford will be heard as a public inquiry:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> A PUBLIC Inquiry to be held >> "The appeal will now proceed by means of an Inquiry and not a Hearing"

The campaign against the industrial estate provided more information:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> campaign group's latest update > Inquiry to start 16th July

And now Devon Live has more:

Date set for controversial Sidford business park planning inquiry

East Devon District Council planners in October rejected plans to build industrial, storage and non-residential institutions on agricultural land to the east of Two Bridges Road in Sidford.

Daniel Clark

Local Democracy Reporter
14:33, 20 APR 2019

.

CLICK TO PLAY

SIDFORD BUSINESS PARK PLANNED SITE

A date has been set for a planning inquiry into controversial plans to build a new business park on the edge of Sidford.

East Devon District Council planners in October rejected plans to build industrial, storage and non-residential institutions on agricultural land to the east of Two Bridges Road in Sidford.

The scheme, which could create up for 250 full-time jobs, was refused on the grounds of harm to highway safety, relating to increased heavy goods vehicle usage of the area’s narrow roads

Applicants Fords of Sidmouth have appealed the decision, and it has been confirmed that a planning inquiry in front of an inspector will be held to determine the decision.

It will begin on Tuesday, July 16, at 10am, at East Devon District Council’s HQ at Blackdown House in Honiton and is scheduled to last for three days.

Luke Fleming has been appointed as the inspector and anyone wishing to submit comments or evidence, either for or against the proposals, must do so by May 17.

The outline application is for a change of use of land from agricultural use to employment use. It aims to provide 8,445 sqm of new floorspace, new highway access, cycle and foot paths, improvements to flood attenuation, building layout and road layout, new hedgerow planting and associated infrastructure.

The plans have proven controversial in the village with over 250 submitted letters of objection, 1,400 residents signing the Say NO To Sidford Business Park Campaign petition objecting to the proposed Business Park, and signs and placards against the development all over the village, although not everyone was against the scheme

The site is allocated in the Local Plan, but primarily for light industrial uses. When refusing the plans, and East Devon District Council spokesman had said: “The applicants included a significant amount of warehouse space in their application, which would be reliant on HGVs to deliver goods to the site and then distribute them from there. Devon County Council, as Highway Authority, objected to the application based on the number of HGVs likely to be generated by the proposal, which significantly exceeds the figure envisaged when the site was allocated.

“East Devon District Council has agreed that the numbers of HGVs combined with the narrow roads, both in the vicinity of the site and through Sidbury, would lead to conflict between vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians to the detriment of highway safety, and it was on this basis that the application was turned down.”

When plans were submitted, the applicants said that 250 new jobs would be created as part of the scheme and that the site’s development will secure a cycleway to the employment site.

It was the second time the application had been refused – a similar, but larger, scheme was rejected in 2016 as the application failed to demonstrate how the developers would achieve the high standards of design and landscaping.

Date set for controversial Sidford business park planning inquiry - Devon Live
.
.
.

Climate change and East Devon: "In what way have we changed our practices to respond to our pending oblivion on this planet? The answer: not enough."

Climate change issues can't be ignored:
Futures Forum: Climate change goes mainstream

With young people in East Devon making a noise:
Futures Forum: School Strike for Climate Action > Friday 12th April

Earlier this month, the District Council declared that it wanted to do more: 

East Devon District Council aims to set more ambitious target than 2050 to become carbon neutral

At their cabinet meeting last week, the district council’s cabinet agreed to work with the county council to tackle climate change in areas where meaningful change could be made.

Daniel Clark Local Democracy Reporter
15:57, 9 APR 2019

Leader of the council, Cllr Ian Thomas said that it was good the report had stimulated a lot of positive discussion rather than being nodded through.

He said: “We do to be more aggressive in what we want to do, and if I get the chance to, I will create a responsibility to drive change to deliver carbon neutrality significantly earlier. What we do needs to be more than something that is just stuck on a shelf and people forget where we put it. There needs to be specific initiatives that are in the remit we can deliver. There is no point debating things that we have no control over whatsoever, but we need to look at what we can do. It is nice to have the Devon County Council position as a backstop, but let us treat it as just that and try and do better.”

The cabinet unanimously agreed to work with Devon County Council on a shared climate change programme but to consider setting a more ambitious date for becoming carbon neutral than Devon’s 2050 target.

East Devon District Council aims to set more ambitious target than 2050 to become carbon neutral - Devon Live
Futures Forum: Climate change: District Council to "consider setting a more ambitious date for becoming carbon neutral"

The question is how: perhaps with an energy descent plan:
Energy descent - Wikipedia
Energy Descent Action Plans - a primer - Resilience
Energy Descent Action Plan (EDAP) - Transition Town Totnes

Or a carbon neutral plan:
Bristol's 2030 carbon-neutral plan 'ambitious' - BBC News
Climate Change Summit will help put Southwark Council's carbon neutral plan in place - Southwark News
The plan to make Greater Manchester carbon neutral - what it actually means - Manchester Evening News
Copenhagen’s carbon neutral plan
Climate change plan aims to make Christchurch carbon neutral ahead of 2050 target | Stuff.co.nz

As an East Devon resident notes, the District Council has shown commitment - but needs to act on it. Courtesy of the EDW blog:

GLOBAL WARMING: A LOCAL INITIATIVE

19 APR 2019

A correspondent has sent the following email to EDDC CEO Mark Williams:

“Dear Mark,

Back in 2006 you supported me in a move to show Planners the Al Gore film “The Inconvenient Truth’ about climate change. You allowed staff a half hour of work time on top of their lunch break to enable the departments staff to watch that film. Thank you!

Tonight I was reminded of this event and your support while watching David Attenborough s documentary ‘Climate Change: the Truth’.

What is scary for me is that the film tonight was so similar to that of Gore’s almost 15 years ago. Pleasing in that Attenborough verifies all the fears that Gore postulated then with our increasingly sophisticated technology. But the reality is the same.

In what way have we changed our practices to respond to our pending oblivion on this planet. ? The answer: not enough.”

Global warming: a local initiative | East Devon Watch
.
.
.

Sidford business park >> campaign group's latest update > Inquiry to start 16th July

The campaign against the proposed development at Sidford has sent out a reminder that further points can be made to the Inspector:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> campaign group's latest update > additional comments can be sent to the appeal Inspector by 22nd April

Meanwhile, we have learnt that there will be a public enquiry on the appeal over the planning permission for an industrial estate at Sidford:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> A PUBLIC Inquiry to be held >> "The appeal will now proceed by means of an Inquiry and not a Hearing"

And the campaign has issued a further posting on the issue:

Campaign Update 27

We have now been advised by the District Council that the Planning Inspector has determined that instead of holding a Hearing into the planning appeal as we previously had been told, the Inspector has now decided to hold an Inquiry which could last up to three days. The first of these days is due to start on 16 July.  We are assuming that the Inspector will therefore have penciled in the Inquiry to be held on 16, 17 and 18 July. The Inquiry will be held in public and will be held locally. If you have any interest in attending then put these dates in your diary now!

In our last Update we asked you to consider submitting additional evidence to the Planning Inspector and we know that a number have done so, and thank you to those who have.

The District Council's latest communication advises that the Inspector has put back the date by which additional submissions can be made. The new deadline by which any additional comments have to be received by the Inspector is now 17 May. 

We again would encourage as many of you as possible who wish to, to submit comments even at this late stage. As the District Council refused planning permission solely on grounds related to highways matters you should only submit highways related comments. In doing so you might want to address matters that include - 

• Evidence or statements regarding the effect of noise, vibration, damage and pollution on your properties (and vehicles) due to HGV or other traffic
• Effect on the health of residents attributable to air quality 
• Effect of pollution on children walking to school and in the playground of the primary school
• Road safety issues - lack of pavements or narrow pavements, plus no lollipop lady, crossing nor traffic lights to help you cross safely with your children 
• Traffic delays due to congestion at the various pinch points on the A375 in both Sidford and Sidbury
• Evidence of vehicles mounting and/or diving on pavements

Where possible your comments should be supported by photographic evidence. We believe that it is important for as many photographs and/or videos are submitted to the Planning Inspector showing images of traffic congestion/difficulties along the A375 at any point between Sidford and Cotford in Sidbury. 

Attached, once again, is a brief guide as to how to present any submission that you make.

Best wishes

Campaign Team

NOSidfordBusinessPark@yahoo.com
SayNOtoSidfordBusinessPark (@say_oto) on Twitter
Say NO to Sidford Business Park - Home | Facebook
.
.
.

Sidford business park >> A PUBLIC Inquiry to be held >> "The appeal will now proceed by means of an Inquiry and not a Hearing"

The Planning Inspector will be hearing an appeal over planning permission for an industrial estate north of Sidford:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> campaign group's latest update > BREAKING NEWS: Applicants submit appeal against decision to reject planning application

A correspondent has notified this blog that the Inspector will be conducting a public inquiry, rather than a hearing. 

There are concerns that the letter sent out by the District Council is rather 'vague': and yet it is clear that this will be a PUBLIC Inquiry, similar to that held for the Knowle appeal sessions:
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: BREAKING NEWS >>> PegasusLife appeal allowed > further reports 

As the correspondent notes: "Local folk need to be made aware of this, especially with local elections approaching".

Here is the letter sent out by the District Council:

18/1094/MOUT | Outline application accompanied by an Environmental Statement (with scale and appearance reserved) for the change of use of agricultural land to employment land (B1, B8 and D1 uses) to provide 8,445 sqm of new floorspace, new highway access, cycle and footway, improvements to flood attenuation, building layout and road layout, new hedgerow planting and associated infrastructure. | Land East Of Two Bridges Two Bridges Road Sidford
.
.
.

Proposals for sheltered housing for the elderly in Sidford > Inspector tells developers to pay full affordable housing contribution

At the beginning of the year, a controversial planning application was approved:
Futures Forum: Proposals for sheltered housing for the elderly in Sidford > third planning application approved, despite development 'potentially' generating increase in traffic

Now the Inspector has made clear what contributions the developer must make: 

Developers must pay full affordable housing contribution as demolition of former care home begins

An inspector rejected plans to reduce the off-site contribution

Daniel ClarkLocal Democracy Reporter
18:14, 8 APR 2019

.

CLICK TO PLAY

FORMER GREEN CLOSE CARE HOME

Demolition work has begun on converting a former care home into retirement apartments – but their bid to reduce the affordable housing contribution has been rejected.

Churchill Retirement Living’s plans to revamp the closed 23-bed former Green Close care home in Drakes Avenue in Sidford were finally given the go-ahead by East Devon District Council planners in December last year, after twice rejecting similar schemes.

The sheltered apartment plans would see the care home demolished and replaced with 40 apartments, with a guest suite, owners’ lounge, lift, office also be included, as would be 24 car parking spaces.

A financial contribution of £677,434 to the council towards the provision of affordable housing within the district is a condition of the application, which Churchill have agreed is acceptable.

The developers had appealed against a previous refusal by planners in May for a 39 one and two-bedroom apartments scheme as those plans only included an off-site contribution of £423,576, but no provision for on-site affordable housing. Councillors had voted by seven votes to five that this affordable housing offer was not policy compliant.

Planning inspector Rory Cridland has since upheld that decision, meaning that the council will receive the full affordable housing contribution of £677,434, which councillors at Tuesday’s development management committee meeting said was good news, when planning appeal statistics were discussed.

Mr Cridland’s report said: “The main issue is whether or not the proposed development would make adequate provision for affordable housing. The parties agree on the percentage of affordable housing required, that onsite provision is not appropriate and that a financial contribution towards off site provision is justified. They do not, however, agree on the amount or the means by which it should be calculated.”

The applicants had used a capitalisation rate at four per cent, considerably lower than the six per cent applied by the council.

He added: “The council’s six per cent figure is reasonably robust, and it is unlikely to be significantly out of kilter with prevailing market rates. In contrast, the evidence provided by the appellant to justify the four per cent rate is limited. Consequently, I favour the council’s evidence and conclude that the proposed contribution of £430,678 is insufficient to provide an off-site affordable housing contribution of equivalent value to on-site provision. As such, it would fail to make adequate provision for affordable housing and would, therefore, conflict with the requirements of the Local Plan.”

He dismissed the appeal, meaning the full £677,434 to the council towards the provision of affordable housing must be paid.

The Green Close care home was built in 1971 but closed in 2014 after Devon County Council cutbacks.

Developers must pay full affordable housing contribution as demolition of former care home begins - Devon Live
.
.
.

East Devon Heritage Strategy and Local List of Heritage Assets >>> report from strategic planning cttee

Last month's District Council Strategic Planning Committee considered its heritage strategy:
Futures Forum: East Devon Heritage Strategy and Local List of Heritage Assets >>> report for strategic planning cttee

The 'draft minutes' have just been published:
Browse meetings - Strategic Planning Committee - East Devon

Interestingly, East Budleigh has been chosen as a pilot scheme - because of its relative size and because of good contacts with the Otter Valley Association.

Nevertheless, due to the intervention of Cllr David Barratt of Sidmouth, it was made clear that the Sid Vale Association would be involved in a second, larger pilot scheme: 

Heritage Strategy 

The report presented to the committee outlined the outcome of the public consultation on the Heritage Strategy and sought agreement to the adoption of the East Devon Heritage Strategy 2019 – 2031, subject to amendments outlined in the report and to the introduction of a pilot scheme for a Conservation Area review in a phased approach for East Budleigh including the Otter Valley Association. 
The Service Lead, Planning Strategy and Development Management advised that 34 responses to the consultation had been received from consultees including local history and amenity groups, neighbourhood planning groups, and town and parish councils. Members noted that the responses received were largely positive including minor comments about detail and engagement with other groups and comments about the timing and monitoring of the action plan. Members also noted a positive response had been received from Historic England endorsing the strategy. 

The Committee were supportive of the recommendation and comments included:

 Clarification was sought about recommending East Budleigh for the pilot scheme. In response the Service Lead, Planning Strategy and Development Management advised East Budleigh was a typical example of a conservation area with a community group and neighbourhood planning group that were keen to be involved. 
 Clarification was sought if East Budleigh had been chosen because of its historic association. In response the Service Lead, Planning Strategy and Development Management confirmed this was the main reason and drew attention to the Otter Valley Association and the Neighbourhood Planning Groups. 
 Clarification was sought whether the parish council was aware of the proposal. In response the Service Lead, Planning Strategy was not able to confirm but advised the Policy Team had liaised with all the community groups. 
 Clarification was sought on the Sid Vale Association’s interest on the pilot scheme and whether two schemes could be run at the same time. The Service Lead, Planning Strategy and Development Management advised he was aware there had been interest but wanted to use a smaller town for the pilot to learn from; 
 The need for an additional planning officer to help undertake the task. In response the Chief Executive confirmed that additional staff resources were not envisaged; 
 The need to protect heritage; 
 The need to engage with national bodies including The National Trust; 

RESOLVED: 
1. That the East Devon Heritage Strategy 2019 – 2031 as detailed in this report be approved. 
2. That the pilot scheme for a Conservation Area review for East Budleigh including the Otter Valley Association as described in the Heritage Strategy be approved.


Printed minutes 26th-Mar-2019 10.00 Strategic Planning Committee.pdf
.
.
.