Your webmaster is bowing out.    He may still make an occasional appearance when a ‘rant’ has to be expressed and the local press will not publish a letter.      

 ‘Max’ Maxwell (web designer and owner) deserves all the credit for the attractive appearance of the site and he continues to support the Society by upgrading and maintaining it.   The Society has recognised this work by making Max an Honorary annual member.  In the 3 years  the site has been webmastered, we have had about 9,000 comments with some most complimentary remarks about the appearance and the contents.   The blogs on the emerging local plan are being read like a serial book.   The Society might almost be getting  a fan club from far away.  It is to be hoped this will continue.

As a final message - Good Luck Tiverton Civic Society.    Tivertonians will need to be vigilant over their wonderful heritage.   Some good things have happened but too many developers have been allowed over the years to despoil the town and its surroundings.    The developers and the planners  leave but their horrid messes to stay behind, such as the ugly housing development dominating over Bolham junction and seen by tourist and locals alike for miles.    They go, the eyesores stay.    A Town Councillor told this webmaster that it had been voted the second ugliest development in Devon after Plymouth’s Drake Circus.     A friend from Surrey, who drove  to Tiverton from Barnstaple on the link road, said he had never seen such a bad looking development dominating the skyline like this  in Devon.   He called it Legoland.   In his opinion it gives a poor impression of Tiverton before entering the town.    Despite what the Planning Officer wrote about the proposed development  having no effect on Knightshayes and its heritage park, the ugliest block sits athwart the so-called protected view from Knightshayes to Heathcoat Factory and Mill Chimney.     Even the Inquiry Inspector was conned on this point, when he viewed  it on a misty February day and believed the District planners’ and developer’s  evidence that the development would lie to the side of the protected line.  It can be seen now that it doesn’t;  as the Civic Society and the Manager at Knightshayes stated at the Inquiry Hearing.   Its bang in the middle.    I could rant on.     Similarly the Hartnoll Business Centre does no favours for people coming to Tiverton through Halberton.    These are two of the Gateways into Tiverton.  All we need now is something dreadful on the southern entry to Tiverton.     It nearly happened with the gross and insensitive over-development on the tennis courts behind the Town Hall.       I have no doubt a developer and the planners will get together to oblige and put something equally horrid for people to see as they come into  Tiverton from the south.

Bye

representation-to-rss-issues-2010.doc

The lead Inspector (there was a second Inspector to help) made it clear he could not alter the plan to make it sound.  Then during the sessions he appeared to invite participants to suggest alterations if they thought the plan lacked soundness in any respect.   This approach opened up Pandora’s Box and developers’ hope flooded out.  Anybody at the Sessions who felt their interests had been left out were invited to submit representations to show how the plan was unsound and that their piece of land should be taken out of the plan or, more significantly,  PUT IN.  So, for example,  Hartnoll Developments in their full glory were paraded again and Junction 27 was flourished both as panaceas for all Tiverton’s lack of deliverable land.   The snag to this reporter’s mind was the public at large have had no opportunity to express their views on these new proposals as they did not form part of the “sound” plan adopted and put forward by the Council.  Only if you attended the Hearing Sessions or watched the MDDC relevant website  http://www.middevon.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=7166  like a predatory hawk would you know what might be going on.   THE SNAG IS THAT THE INSPECTOR’S  REPORT IS BINDING ON THE DISTRICT COUNCIL.  If the Report is politically unacceptable the Council have the right to reject the Report and start the plan again otherwise they are stuck with it.  But this puts the Council between a rock and a hard place.  The rock is, say, Hartnoll developing as a stand alone development in the open countryside with housing and employment land galore and to hell with the effect on roads, local amenity and sustainable planning OR, a hard place,  junking the plan and start spending another raft of rate payers’ money to do it again.   The latter may happen if the Inspector finds the Plan unsound as this Society has argued.  This outcome will expose some deficiency in the manner with which technical data was handled and jumping the gun by relying upon a draft Regional Spatial Strategy which was materially amended by the Secretary of State and which, anyway, may never be finally agreed by a changed Government.
And now the new Secretary of State, Mr Pickles, has done just that.  We no longer have any up to date housing targets. 

 The Inspectors have requested the MDDC to respond to this change in events.  The Council has replied that “the implications of the abolition of the RSS upon the AIDPD are very limited.”  The Council relies upon the Core Strategy being an adopted part of the statutory development plan.   This of course overlooks the fact that the Core Strategy is now a self compliant document with no obvious relationship on housing numbers to the old RPG10 and the County Strusture Plan which are  the  remaining parts of the statutory development plan.

The Society has been asked to respond to this nonsense.  It had already done so in its original representations for instance:“The MDDC is unable to challenge the draft RSS Policy HMA4. The Tiverton Civic Society (TCS) is not so fettered. It feels a duty to bring to the Inspectors’ notice where the draft RSS out-dated data, and drawn down into the MDDC LDF, may be challenged and why the exceptional targets do not deal with the draft RSS demands for self-sufficiency but are to satisfy a wider imposed requirement unrelated to the needs of local communities in Mid Devon and Tiverton in particular.”This latter reference, with extraordinary prescience, indicated that the HM4A4 housing target was unsustainable and lacked local scrutiny. The new SoS has taken the same line in his revealed new policy on RSS housing targets.

In short we felt, in Mid Devon’s adopted Core Strategy, Mid Devon DC had been over ambitious in slavishly following the draft RSS and had assumed house building target rates extrapolated on the boom years of 2000 - 2006. The SHLAA responses in the evidence base for the ensuing MDDC Allocations and Infrastructure Development Plan Document showed clearly that the house building industry saw no likelihood of these ambitious rates being delivered in the foreseeable future. The MDDC’s officers’ argument of “flexibility” misses the point of the need to plan to rationalised purpose rather than to a dreamed up gross over provision which is undeliverable.

The inference coming from the new SoS is that RSS housing targets are being dropped and locally determined figures will rule. With a Mid Devon Core Strategy having been adopted, the matter seems finessed and the local council  has to stick with the unrealistic targets forced upon it from a draft RSS which will not be signed off by the SoS.

However there is an opinion among independent professional planners that anything based (say a Core Strategy) on changed policy (such as the “being abolished” Regional Spatial Strategy housing targets) is out dated and such a Development Plan Framework Document has to be revised to take on board the changed Government policy.

One of the main arguments for the Development Plan Framework, replacing the old Local Plan procedures, was the ease of reviewing a framework document.

These are points we shall seek to make in our response to the Inspectors’ letter request.

The old style “land use” planning which had served for many decades has been replaced by a more complex style admitting some degree of social planning.    It is interesting to look back to when this new planning approach was legislated and recall what leading lawyers and an academic had to say.

Christopher Lockhart-Mummery, QC: “A ragbag of measures of inconsequential effect.”

Martin Edward (Barrister): “A classic example of Parliament sorting wheat from chaff.  Did the job well but threw away the wheat.”

Professor David Lock:”Like nothing we know.”  “Plan for Planet Zog”.  “Provision of a strange planning system”.  “A terrible tangle.” “Will not survive..”

What a tangled web has been woven with the new forms of “spatial” planning adopted by the past administration.  

ps-matter-1.doc

hartnoll-non-allocation-comment.doc

In addition to the minor changes, notice is given that Hartnoll has reared its unreasonable head again with the area between the Canal and the road being proposed for housing and employment land.   Oh Dear.  Here we go again.
For further info go to http://www.middevon.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=7165

tcs-response-dec-2009-ns.doc

The Tiverton Gazette has put on its front page the Society’s protestations about the crass mismatch between the Council’s own evidence base and the Allocations in  the Allocations and Infrastructure Development Plan Document.    See link     gazette-iten.doc

 Sixteen representations have been registered by the Council.  There is much to be answered before the Inspector.     The following  link gives the  the representations finalised by your Society.   aidpd-responses-tcs-nov-09.doc

Also to those who want to access the MDDC Infrastructure Plan to see the population figures for yourself

http://www.middevon.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=12027&p=0