“The other generation rent”

“The number of individuals forced to flatshare well into their 40s has risen dramatically, with figures showing a surge in middle-aged renters priced out of the property market and with little choice but to live with strangers.

Between 2009 and 2014, the number of flatsharers aged between 35 and 44 rose by 186%, according to Spareroom, the UK’s biggest flatshare website, while the number of sharers aged 45 to 54 went up by 300%.

Most are locked out of buying by soaring house prices, but also find that renting their own property is unaffordable. Average rents across Britain have gone up by 10.5% over the past year, far ahead of the rise in earnings, with the typical London rent now £1,558 a month, and close to £1,000 across much of the south of England. Tenants are typically handing over 50% of their salaries to landlords, rising to 72% in the capital.” …..

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/sep/25/flatsharing-40s-housing-crisis-lack-homes-renting-london

Bats don’t matter if there is a plan …

http://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24522:judge-rejects-bid-for-jr-over-impact-of-regeneration-scheme-on-bats&catid=63&Itemid=31

“Bank of England concerns over buy-to-let boom”

“The growing buy-to-let property market in the UK could post a threat to wider financial stability, a Bank of England committee has said.

Buy-to-let mortgage lending had the potential to “amplify” a housing boom and bust, the Bank’s Financial Stability Committee (FPC) concluded.

Lending in this sector has risen by 40% since 2008, the FPC said.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34356801

Wonder how many of Cranbrook’s houses are/will be buy-to-let?

“A rose by any other name …”

Standards Committee agenda papers, in a section on lobbying of councillors:

“Points made and questions raised during discussion on the report included

The use of the word ‘developer’ should be replaced with ‘applicant’ as this was considered more appropriate – most people tended to associate the word developer with large scale developments.”

Click to access 290915standardscombinedagenda.pdf

Well, We don’t know about you but we are pretty clear on the difference: an applicant is someone who (usually) lives in the property they want to change and isn’t asking to build more properties, a developer (usually) doesn’t live in the property and includes the words ” lack of 5 year land supply” in the documentation!

The crowded diary of an East Devon councillor

Oh dear, the scent of desperation pervades East Devon District Council this week. It seems that councillors are in dire need some training (aka brainwashing?) about exactly how wonderful East Devon really is and how wonderful officers of East Devon are.

To that end, councillors are being bussed around the area, here, there and everywhere (as long as it is close to Exeter) where, no doubt, various developers and consultants will attempt to sell them snake oil. They are also being encouraged to attend meetings (or perhaps rallies?) to make them to understand just what the district is all about and to have some sympathy for the poor officers who have to deal with the snake oil salesmen on a daily basis.

Here is the crowded schedule:

30th September – all councillors requested to visit the “Growth Point” (you know, the one that doesn’t seem to be growing very much – if at all).

2nd October – all councillors again requested to join the “Exmouth and Cranbrook Countryside Service tour”, with the added perk of a free lunch AND a coach trip from Knowle!

6th October – a Development Management Committee training session open to all councillors on Highways (though lunch will be provided ONLY for committee members).

8th October – “Meet the Building Control Team” (the one having such a problem in Feniton and Cranbrook where developers are just not interested in talking to them).

9th October – WWorking together for the future of East Devon” “event”. The word “event” conjouring up to Owl the spectre of Powerpoint presentations and flip charts …

Click to access 250915-knowledge-issue-20.pdf

When do councillors get any time to WORK!

Housing targets like “Alice in Wonderland”

By the chair of “Community Voice on Planning” and echoes a very similar situation in her district to ours – all you would need to do is change the names.

by Julie Mabberley
Wantage and Grove Campaign Group campaign manager

This week is the first week of the examination for the Vale of the White Horse District Council Local Plan.

Planning Inspector Malcolm Rivett is hearing views from the great and good, answering the question: “Is the identified objectively assessed need for housing of 20,560 new dwellings (an average of 1,028 per year), for the Vale of the White Horse, soundly based and supported by robust and credible evidence?”

There are many people across the Vale who say it is not.b The logic is very simple. The number of jobs which theoretically could be created between now and 2031 was calculated. They then used these figures to estimate how many houses would be needed if these jobs materialised.

The problem is that if the jobs projection is fantasy, as many people think it is, then the “objectively assessed” housing number is also fantasy.

The employment forecasts were pulled together by Cambridge Econometrics to justify bids for Government money for the Oxfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership (OxLEP). These employment forecasts were optimistic figures based on how many jobs might be created across Oxfordshire with lots of investment by the Government, European Union and other organisations by 2031.

A company called GL Hearn was then commissioned by our district councils to estimate housing need, assuming that all of these forecast jobs will actually exist. This is the Oxfordshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, or SHMA. There are many who believe that this is a story worthy of LewisCarroll himself.

Take the agricultural industry, for example. In the Vale of the White Horse, the Government statistics show that in 2011 there were about 600 people working in agriculture. Cambridge Econometrics says that by 2031 there will be about 1,500 people working in agriculture.

Even the National Farmers’ Union says that agricultural employment is actually declining. So that’s about 750 new homes which supposedly will be needed for additional agricultural workers by 2031.

A more realistic assessment might be that there may be agricultural workers looking for new jobs. Actual employment figures across the Vale of the White Horse haven’t changed much since 2000.

In 2000, according to Government statistics, there were 63,000 jobs and by 2014 there were 62,700 jobs. So overall employment is static, but Cambridge Econometrics thinks that over the next 15 years employment will grow by 22,982 jobs. Based on figures for the last 15 years, employment may not grow at all.

This forecast of 22,982 new jobs translates into 20,560 houses across the Vale by 2031, in among the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Oxford Green Belt, the flood plains and, of course, the land earmarked for the new Thames Valley reservoir.

This means building more than 1,000 houses a year every year. We haven’t achieved that at any time in recent history. In fact, during the past 20 years, there have been an average of 392 houses built every year in the Vale.

Now we all know we need more houses, particularly houses that our children can afford to buy or rent, but the identified objectively assessed need for housing of 20,560 new dwellings (an average of 1,028 per year) for the Vale of the White Horse is totally unrealistic.

The law states that the district council must approve enough new planning applications to meet the ‘objectively assessed need for housing’ for the next five years, plus a 20 per cent margin. If they don’t, then the developers can appeal to a planning inspector who will approve them, because the local plan says we need them.

Developers won’t start building houses unless they will make enough profit to satisfy their shareholders. That means keeping prices high.

Great Western Park in Didcot is years behind the planned development schedule, because not enough people want to buy the houses. Yet people working at Harwell, on public sector salaries, can’t afford them.

The problem is that approving a housing development like Grove Airfield – with 2,500 new homes, a new commercial centre for the village, a secondary school and two primary schools – isn’t working. This was recommended for approval in 2013, yet the legal agreements with the developers and landowners still aren’t signed and detailed plans haven’t been submitted.

Something is wrong with the planning system. Silly housing targets let developers get permission to build executive homes in rural villages where little, if any, expensive infrastructure, like new roads and schools, has to be paid for. Few existing residents can afford them and it isn’t going to create homes for our children.

The Oxfordshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment is fantasy and not soundly-based or supported by robust and credible evidence.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/13779434.Politics__Housing_targets_is_fantasy_worthy_of_Carroll___s_stories/