Cranbrook – stable, ooh look the door is open – well what do you know, the horses have bolted!

Quick, let’s spend lots of money building new stables for new horses … no don’t worry about the doors … we can always retro-fit them if we need them… let’s just employ a lot more people and have a meeting … get the sherry in …

http://www.cranbrookherald.com/news/eddc_s_challenge_cranbrook_grows_while_funds_shrink_1_3833357

Poor, poor Bovis – or is it poor, pathetic East Devon District Council?

EDDC agreed to allow Tesco to drop all the affordable housing on their Seaton site as Tesco said it would be uneconomic for any developer to build there if affordable housing was included.

The Development Management Committee agreed a “surcharge” on the site so that if it DID make a profit, EDDC would see some of it. When the planning consent was ratified, that clause had disappeared. No-one quite understands where, why or how that happened, but it did.

Bovis are currently building the first 50 of a planned 300+ houses on the site (in addition to the McCarthy and Stone 42 apartment block which is on the site previously earmarked for a hotel).

Bovis announced yesterday that they expect their profits to be up 10% on last year and is forecasting higher dividends for shareholders. They mention that rising house prices have absorbed increased costs and says they have a substantial order book for 2015.

Lucky Bovis, unlucky Seaton, pathetic East Devon District Council – the developer’s friend.

Is this why our council is dragging its heels on Community Infrastructure Levy?

Oh, the shame of having to pass 25% of it to the town or parish councils!

http://www.nalc.gov.uk/campaign-updates?view=entry&id=69

and this is why developers don’t like it:

http://www.warnergoodman.co.uk/news/2014/10/commercial-property-developers-start-to-see-impact-of-the-community-infrastructure-levy-regulations-2010/

All in all, our local developers must be laughing all the way to the bank: ignoring S106 requirements and having no CIL to worry about.

The council’s CIL draft was thrown out by the Planning Inspector because it was based on the Draft Local Plan figures which he refused to accept because they were out-of-date and not appropriately evidence-based.