Who will be working where with the new EDDC HQ

Freedom of Information request 19 February 2018. EDDC seems to be increasing staff during austerity.

“Total number of employees working for EDDC
513 – data as at 28 February 2018.

How many currently working remotely or ‘on the move’ are:

A) based in Exmouth Town Hall -79
B) based in Sidmouth – 280
154 are based elsewhere across the district including THG, Manor Pavilion, Cranbrook, StreetScene depots, parks and gardens, Lymebourne House, Business Centre, Camperdown or may be mobile touching down at both ETH and Knowle.

How will this situation change once the new office opens in Honiton (number):

It remains to be seen exactly but I would expect the majority of the 280 to relocate to Honiton but I will be consulting with all individuals and where there are people who potentially live in Exmouth who can work more sensibly from Exmouth we may make adjustments.”

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/access-to-information/freedom-of-information/freedom-of-information-published-requests/

Blackill Engineering Extension – is this an excuse to drive a new industrial site into the heart of the Pebblebed Heaths?

These days most large developers pay for pre-application advice before submitting a planning application. A recent Freedom of Information request has uncovered the advice that was offered to someone (name redacted) seeking such advice on proposed business units at Blackhill Quarry, Woodbury in early October 2017.

Specifically this proposal was for the erection of AN ADDITIONAL industrial building to support the existing business, Blackhill Engineering, being operated form the site together with the erection of FIVE ADDITIONAL industrial buildings for use by other businesses.

In summary the advice given was that this would not comply with the protective policies that cover this sensitive site. A much stronger employment benefit case regarding the expansion of the existing business to justify a departure from these policies would be needed. The five speculative industrial buildings would not justify a policy departure.

On 20 December 2017, within three months of this advice, planning application 17/3022/MOUT was submitted for outline application seeking approval of access for construction of up to 3251 sqm (35,000 sq ft) of B2 (general industrial) floor space with access, parking and associated infrastructure.

The accompanying justification reads:

“There is considerable and clearly identified need for the existing business at Blackhill Engineering to expand as a result of that business having grown considerably over recent years and with its existing premises now at full capacity. The provision of additional facilities on the application site would allow the company to continue its expansion and so deliver additional economic and employment benefits to the local area…. With the winding down of the existing quarry use of the site, there is a short and fortuitous window of opportunity in which to address BESL’s growth requirements with the reuse of an area of former minerals processing site….It is a crucial part of both local and national employment strategy to protect existing businesses and to encourage their expansion. If approved, the scheme would allow the existing business not to only remain at the site but also to expand. The resulting investment will enable a substantial increase in the provision of highly skilled jobs in the area, increased training opportunities for apprentices and added value to the local economy. Furthermore, the expansion of the Blackhill Engineering will help reinforce the vitality of its parent organisation…”

So, is this application all about the needs of Blackhill Engineering to expand, having already designed flood defence gates for New York City Hospital, worked for the European Space Agency and the pier at Hinkley Point, which in October seemed to require only one building; or more about Clinton Devon Estates trying to generate rent from a new industrial park? Restoration provides no income.

For those interested here is the detailed pre-application advice, given on an informal basis and without prejudice, in about half the words:

The extant planning permission on the site requires a restoration and aftercare scheme to be implemented following cessation of the quarrying operations. As part of this condition, alternative schemes (subject to planning permission) can be considered but two policies are of particular relevance:

East Devon Local Plan- Strategy 7 – Development in the Countryside.

This strategy states that development in the countryside “will only be permitted where it is in accordance with a specific Local or Neighbourhood Plan policy that explicitly permits such development”. In this instance, there is no local or neighbourhood plan which would permit the proposal and, therefore, it is considered that it would not comply with Strategy 7.

East Devon Local Plan- Policy E5 – Small scale Economic Development in Rural Areas.

This policy states that the expansion of existing businesses designed to provide jobs for local people will be permitted where

1. it involves the conversion of existing buildings. Or

2. if new buildings are involved, it is on previously developed land. Or

3. if on a greenfield site, shall be well related in scale and form and in sustainability terms to the village and surrounding areas.

In this instance, the Local Planning Authority recognise the previously developed nature of the site, however, in the ‘Glossary of Terms’ section of the Local Plan (which echoes those contained in the National Planning Policy Framework) previously developed land specifically excludes land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures.

Accordingly, the land would be considered as greenfield.
In terms of Policy E5, as the site would not be well related in sustainability terms to Woodbury or surrounding areas, the proposal would be contrary to policy.

However, if sufficient justification can be made in terms of the needs of the existing business being operated from the site to expand into an additional building, then the economic benefits may outweigh the environmental harm, of the unsustainable location as a departure from the Local Plan.

For this purpose, an economic benefits statement would need to be submitted as part of an application.

The five speculative units being located in an unsustainable location would not be acceptable.”

If you are a man, live long in Newton Poppleford!

The top five areas for life expectancy
For men:

Warfield Harvest Ride, Berkshire (90.3 years)
Fleet North (89.7 years)
Easton, Norfolk (89.6 years)
Newton Poppleford and Harpford, Devon (89.4years)
Salcey, Northampton (89.3 years)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5472373/Figures-life-expectancy-rates-Britain-ward-ward.html

“Tories seek to block move to reveal donations to DUP in EU referendum”

Imagine if this was Corbyn paying off the Lib Dems with £1 billion and then agreeing to keep all Lib Dem referendum donations secret – what would the Conservative Party be saying and doing?

“Ministers will whip Conservative MPs to block a move to reveal donations to the DUP during the EU referendum, which Labour has said is “doing the party’s dirty work”.

The government is set to help the Northern Irish party conceal details of past political donations, including a highly controversial sum given during the referendum, despite a 2014 law that extended party transparency rules to Northern Ireland.

The rules on transparency were to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK, which first introduced in legislation in 2014 with the wide understanding it would be applied from that year.

However, the government has since said the transparency rules will apply from 1 July 2017, which would mean donations during the EU referendum in 2016 will not be made public.

The shadow Northern Ireland secretary, Owen Smith, said it was outrageous that the government would not backdate the donations rules.

“All parties in Northern Ireland apart from the DUP support the government’s previous promise to publish. There is simply no excuse to not publish the donations,” he said.

“The Tories must explain why they are doing the DUP’s dirty work by helping them avoid publishing the source of the funds received in the EU referendum. Those funds played a significant part in the referendum campaign across the UK and the public have a right to know precisely where that money came from.”

Serious questions remain over the DUP’s spending on the EU referendum in June 2016 – including a £435,000 donation from a group called the Constitutional Research Council (CRC), chaired by Richard Cook, a former vice-chairman of the Scottish Conservatives and Unionist party.

The DUP spent more than £280,000 of that money on a wraparound advertisement in the London-based Metro newspaper, which is not distributed in Northern Ireland.

On Monday night, the government attempted to enact the transparency rules in the legislation via statutory instrument, a process which allows the provisions of an act of parliament to come into force or be altered without parliament having to debate them.

However, after objections by Labour at the last-minute nature of the SI, the measure will now be put to a vote on Wednesday, where the party will attempt to get the law backdated to its introduction in 2014. Conservative MPs are under a three-line whip to oppose.

A Labour source said: “The government tried to pull a fast one and got their minister to sit down early so they could vote on the SIs last night rather than deferred on Wednesday. We stopped it but it’s very unusual and shows the nervousness on this, especially the NI political donations.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/07/tories-seek-to-block-move-to-reveal-donations-to-dup-in-eu-referendum

“How Bristol is standing up to developers”

East Devon developers do not disclose their viability agreements – EDDC thinks they should remain confidential because they contain “commercially sensitive information” yet Bristol disagrees and publishes theirs.

Baker Estates in Honiton have been allowed to reduce the number of affordable properties, using such a confidential document.

“Last autumn, campaigners scored an unprecedented victory. The target was “viability assessments”: dossiers produced by housing developers to justify the amount of affordable housing – or lack thereof – in their developments, and which are frequently used during the construction process to shrug off previous commitments.

“Developers were saying, ‘We can’t afford to put 30-40% affordable housing in here,’ to make the profits they are legally entitled to,” says Louise Herbert, spokesperson for Bristol-born tenants union Acorn. “But all of their numbers – how much they projected to sell the houses for, how much they bought the land for – were redacted.”

Acorn, along with the Bristol Cable media co-operative, campaigned for the full release of these files. Following a public outcry, the council voted to make the viability assessments public.

Now, Herbert says, the public can examine these assessments themselves, and make sure that more affordable housing is built in their areas.

In response, Andrew Whitaker, planning director at the Home Builders Federation (HBF), argues that those without formal training “may feel that the figures set out in such assessments are ‘too high’ or ‘too low’ and make representations and decisions accordingly, rather than based on the evidence.”

For now, it’s too soon to tell if publishing the viability assessments has achieved change in Bristol. But it’s a small step that could point the way for cities such as London, where viability assessments remain pervasive, or Manchester, where in contravention of the city’s own guidelines, none of the nearly 15,000 planned new developments have any provision for affordable housing.

Bristol’s mayor, Marvin Rees, believes that it sends a signal to developers: “We’re a great city to do business in – but we want the right kind of money.”

Councillor Paul Smith agrees. “Housing can’t be left to the market if you want to meet the housing needs of the whole city,” he says. “There are 500 families in temporary accommodation, 100 people sleeping rough on the streets, huge numbers who are inadequately housed, and people living in poor-quality, high-rent accommodation.”…

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/07/bristol-housing-developers-affordable-property

McCarthy & Stone demands exemption from ground rent charges

“The market leader in developing retirement homes has urged the government to exempt it from plans to reduce ground rents on new long leases to zero.

McCarthy & Stone used a trading update for the first half of its year to say that it was working in a state of uncertainty and wanted “swift clarification” on the new rules.

Last summer the government said that it would ban the sale of new houses on a leasehold basis and was setting all ground rents on long leases to zero, including on newly built flats.

McCarthy & Stone, which controls 70 per cent of the retirement housing market, specialises in flats and sells most of them leasehold, with the freehold sold to private companies. It argues that this allows it to afford more land to build more homes for the elderly.

The ground rent charged by the private investors starts at about £450 per year and rises in line with the retail prices index every 15 years. Last year McCarthy & Stone made 4 per cent of its revenue, about £27 million, by selling freeholds to investors.

Clive Fenton, chief executive, said: “We believe that there is a strong case for a very specific exemption for the retirement housebuilding sector and we are seeking swift clarification.

“Until this is received, we continue planning to mitigate the potential impact on the business, including maintaining discipline around our cash position and adopting a more measured approach to securing land.” First-half revenue is expected to be broadly flat from the previous year at £240 million.”

Source: Times (pay wall)

“Planners back REDUCTION of affordable homes in Honiton”

“… Councillors voted by 13 votes to one on Tuesday afternoon to allow the application, but not until Cllr Jenny Bond asked the committee to remember the 26 affordable homes and the families who would miss out when voting on it.

She had earlier added: “We have lived and breathed this application for many years through gritted teeth but this is disappointing as there is a real need for affordable housing in Honiton and Gittisham. The current offer is 90 affordable with £500,000 offsite, which equates to four houses, so the net loss is 26 families in desperate need of an affordable house who have to wait.

“With my heart I would recommend refusal and vote against it, but my head says that we have to vote with the recommendation and not waste public money on appeal. But to lose 26 affordable houses is unforgivable.”

Cllr David Barratt said: “I will propose approval as we need to vote with our heads on this one, even though affordable housing is incredibly important.”

The committee was told by development manager for EDDC Chris Rose that the applicants have submitted the request as they believe that current planning policy would support a reduction in the provision of affordable housing down to 25 per cent, if a new planning application were to be submitted.

The planning officers’ report advised that while there is a chance that Baker Estates may not be able to successfully argue 25 per cent affordable housing provision as part of a new planning application, there is an equal chance that such a proposal would be acceptable should an application be submitted and determined on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate.

Graham Hutton, Development Director at Baker Estates had said: “We think that we are making a very fair offer. We have consulted at length with the local ward members, as well as with both Gittisham Parish Council and Honiton Town Council, to make sure that we get this right.

“What is now on the table is a proposal to provide 31 per centaffordable housing, as well as a far better mix of homes and a further £500,000 off-site contribution. This provides the best chance of securing the swift delivery of 90 affordable homes for the local area – it’s worth bearing in mind that fewer than 10 affordable homes have been built in Honiton in the past decade.

“Only by reaching agreement at the local level today is it possible to offer a package this generous, as the costs of appeal or a new application would prohibit it. An agreement today will allow us to continue delivery of the homes and this will make a huge difference to Honiton and Gittisham.”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/planners-back-reduction-affordable-homes-1305831

“Law Society criticises proposed government approach to planning conditions”

“The Law Society has expressed concern that the government’s proposed new approach to planning conditions was “overly prescriptive and risked generating more appeals as a result of refusal or non-determination of planning applications”.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s consultation on draft regulations intended to improve the use of planning conditions ran until 27 February.

It invited comments on draft regulations which create an exemption to the requirement in the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 that local planning authorities obtain the written agreement of an applicant before imposing a pre-commencement condition on a grant of planning permission.

In its response Chancery Lane’s Planning & Environmental Law Committee said the generation of more appeals was an outcome that “would defeat the object of the exercise”.

The Committee went on to propose alternative approaches to meet the government’s objectives.

The Committee’s response, which can be downloaded here, was as follows:

Q1: Do you agree that the notice should require the local planning authority to give full reasons for the proposed condition and full reasons for making it a pre-commencement condition?
We agree with the requirement to give reasons for proposed conditions but are concerned that the meaning of “full reasons” is undefined (and is not defined in S100ZA of the 1990 Act) and could thus lead to litigation in the same manner as happened with “summary reasons”.
It may be preferable to apply the recently affirmed standard for reasons in the Dover case(1) – “proper, adequate and intelligible”, also per South Bucks(2) many years before.
(1) Dover District Council v CPRE Kent; CPRE Kent v China Gateway International Ltd [2017] UKSC 79
(2) South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953

Q2: Do you agree with our proposed definition of “substantive response” set out in draft Regulation 2(6)?
A developer veto without reasons is also unlikely to help achieve government’s goals if it increases the number of non-determinations and thus appeals. Furthermore, the Planning Inspectorate may find it unnecessarily difficult to deal promptly with such appeals if the developer’s reasoning for bringing them is not known at the outset.
We suggest that developers should be expected to give “proper, adequate and intelligible” reasons for refusing a condition, just as planning authorities should do for proposing them.

Q3: Do you agree with our proposal not to give local planning authorities discretion to agree with applicants a longer period than 10 working days to respond to the notice?
We propose that planning authorities should have discretion to allow a longer response time where this facilitates an agreed position during the notice period. Given that a longer notice period can benefit an applicant there shouldn’t be negative consequences from the additional “delay”.
If a limitation is sought, the regulations could emulate recent changes in Environmental Impact Assessment by permitting extension by agreement up to a maximum (90 days for EIA).

Q4: Do you have any other comments on the draft regulations?
While commending their brevity and clarity, we have concerns that the regulations as proposed are overly prescriptive and could lead to unnecessary increases in appeals – thus defeating their original object. We hope that our proposed amendments offer constructive solutions and would be happy to assist the Ministry further.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=34464%3Alaw-society-criticises-proposed-government-approach-to-planning-conditions&catid=63&Itemid=31

“PM wrong to blame councils for housing crisis but big builders have a case to answer”

Owl says: Couldn’t have put it better than this Tory leader of the Local Government Association!

“Theresa May seems to like giving “major” speeches. She’s delivering them everywhere right now. If she’s not careful she’ll end up with the sort of sore throat that made her speech at the Tory Party conference rather more entertaining than usual last year.

The latest one is on housing, for which the over used adjective “crisis” is for once apt. Cue a telling-off for developers and “nimby” local authorities for failing to “do their duty” to foster the British dream of home-ownership.

It’s a standard, and cheap, tactic of central government to blame others for its own failings, particularly local government.

Some 321,000 new homes were greenlighted in 2016 to 2017. Just 183,000 were actually built. There is a bank of 423,000 homes with planning permission awaiting construction. If there’s something stopping housebuilding it wouldn’t appear to be the planning system.

By the way, Lord Porter is a Conservative.

The figures supplied by his Local Government Association would certainly suggest that there is something to the claim that the big housebuilders have been sitting on land banks with the aim of profiting from rising values.

There are perverse incentives on them not to build, not just through those land values but also because of the fact that a genuine increase in the supply of homes might serve to reduce asking prices and thus the developers’ profits, not the mention the crazy bonuses they have been handing to executives.

The PM, in her speech, railed against the latter, and no wonder given their companies have made huge profits on the back of her Government’s Help to Buy scheme without doing much to increase the supply of homes.

Councils quite like the idea of being given powers to force their hands. Whether the limp measures suggested by the PM would do that is open to question, if they ever reach the statute book. Allowing councils to revoke permissions after two years if a building doesn’t get started feels like a half measure.

We, said, Lord Porter, a council leader and chair of the Local Government Association, are doing our bit and we have the figures to prove it.

Nine out of every 10 planning applications are approved and when the rare refusals are appealed to the Planning Inspectorate nearly three out of every four (73 per cent) of council decisions are upheld.

One thing that would help increase the supply of available homes would be to allow councils to borrow to build so that they could pick up the development slack. It’s a suggestion that has found favour with Communities Secretary Sajid Javid in the past, but not, so far, with his colleagues.

Another might be a windfall tax on developers’ profits, and perhaps on their executives’ bonuses, like the one Labour imposed on bankers, too. They could help to provide desperately needed funding to cash-strapped councils.

They might also prove to be rather popular. But they would be controversial, and require a PM with some gumption to force through. This one prefers to talk and talk and talk, and to moan a bit about local government while she’s doing it. She’ll be needing more cough sweets before too long. The rest of us will be after headache pills and prozac.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/housing-crisis-theresa-may-councils-builders-construction-a8240516.html

Do you want to tell the government what you think of the National Planning Policy Framework?

Well, you can – until 10 May 2018:

“… Alongside the National Planning Policy Framework consultation documents, we have published for reference the draft planning practice guidance on viability and the housing delivery test measurement rulebook. We will publish additional draft planning practice guidance for reference later this week. …”

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/draft-revised-national-planning-policy-framework

Housing minister who attacked NIMBYs is a NIMBY – or maybe a BANANA!

Sajid Javid has attacked councils and NIMBYs for standing in the way of more housing.

Now, it seems Javid is even worse – a BANANA – Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone!

“…1) Just months before his re-election in 2015, Javid slammed plans from his local Tory Council, Redditch Borough, to build 2,800 new homes. He said:

“…..I wish to re-emphasise my concern that land within Redditch Borough is fully utilised before any consideration is given to expanding the area’s housing need into Bromsgrove Green Belt as a neighbouring district.”
Ah, the green belt, of course. Javid is a man of principle, let us not forget.

2) In June 2016, Javid slammed his local council’s plans to build 1,300 houses in Perryfields:

“While I understand this land was designated for housing, there is significant concern about the implications such a large-scale development would have on local infrastructure, facilities and environment.”
Aaaah, it all makes sense now: Javid cares about providing sustainable housing. Makes perfect sense:

3) In 2012, Javid backed another campaign against plans to build 175 homes in the Worcestershire village of Hagley. At the time, he said:

“People aren’t against it just for the sake of being against the development, it’s can the local infrastructure cope?”
Hmm, a theme seems to be emerging. Surely Javid was again rallying to defend the green belt, no? Well, no. The council head of planning Ruth Bamford responded to Javid’s NIMBYism by pointing out: “If it didn’t go here it would most likely go on greenbelt because there isn’t much land around Bromsgrove district that can take new housing.”

Slippery Javid just keeps on passing the buck #NIMBYpamby.”

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2018/03/housing-hypocrite-sajid-javid-fought-plans-for-4200-homes-in-own-backyard/

The myth of affordable homes

“Some of the UK’s biggest cities are allowing developers to plan huge new residential developments containing little or no affordable housing, a Guardian Cities investigation has found.

In Manchester, none of the 14,667 homes in big developments granted planning permission in the last two years are set to be “affordable”, planning documents show – in direct contravention of its own rules, and leading to worries that London’s affordable housing crisis is spreading.

In Sheffield – where house prices grew faster last year than in any other UK city, according to property portal Zoopla – just 97 homes out of 6,943 (1.4%) approved by planners in 2016 and 2017 met the government’s affordable definition. That says homes must either be offered for social rent (often known as council housing), or rented at no more than 80% of the local market rate.

In Nottingham, where the council aims for 20% of new housing to be affordable, just 3.8% of units given the green light by council planners meet the definition, Guardian research found. …

One major way developers get past planners is by filing confidential “viability” appraisals. These assessments, which often take place once significant work on the development has already been done, frequently conclude that, if the developer were forced to include any affordable flats, their schemes would be insufficiently profitable.

Research by the housing charity Shelter in November found that where viability assessments were used, new housing sites achieved just 7% affordable housing.

Liberal Democrat councillor John Leech, the one-man opposition to the Labour-run council in Manchester, has demanded the council publish these appraisals so that they can be scrutinised.

Last year, Bristol council decided to force housing developers to do so. Guardian figures show that in the last two years just 6.77% of new developments in the city will be affordable. …

Other cities are far more strict with developers. In Cardiff, 24% of the homes granted planning approval in 2016 and 2017 met the affordable definition.

Leeds council routinely forces developers to include at least 5% affordable units in any large development. Some 2,011 affordable homes have been built in Leeds since 2012 – 510 of which were in the private sector, agreed as part of agreements with big developers. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/05/british-cities-developers-affordable-housing-manchester-sheffield

“May wrong to blame housing crisis on councils, says LGA”

“… The truth is that councils are currently approving nine in 10 planning applications, which shows that the planning system is working well and is not a barrier to building,” Porter said.

“Nearly three-quarters (73%) of planning refusals are upheld on appeal, vindicating councils’ original decisions. It is completely wrong, therefore, to suggest the country’s failure to build the housing it desperately needs is down to councils.”

He said the government proposal to put independent inspectors in place where councils were seen to be blocking housing development was “unhelpful and misguided”.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/05/local-authorities-criticise-theresa-may-housing-crisis

New Knowle owners will benefit from £750,000 taxpayer-funded flood prevention scheme

“The first phase of the project will include drainage improvements, followed by the installation of a massive water storage tank at Knowle.

Funding to the tune of £750,000 has now been secured after a 2013 report found that Sidmouth has a history of flooding, both from rivers and surface water. …

Mr Hughes added: “It is hoped that the surface water drainage improvements can 
be delivered during 2018/19 and storage at the Knowle – which will be subject to landowner agreement and planning approval – to be created in the latter stages of 2019/20. …”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/750k-secured-to-protect-sidmouth-properties-from-flooding-1-5418416

How do you solve the housing crisis? With great difficulty given vested interests

Matt Ridley:

“Sajid Javid, the housing secretary, is right — and brave — to go on the warpath about Britain’s housing crisis in his new national planning framework, to be launched today. Britain’s housing costs are absurdly high by international standards: eight times average earnings in England, fifteen in London. A mortgage deposit that might have taken a few years to earn in the early 1990s can now take somebody decades to earn. Average rents in Britain are almost 50 per cent higher than average rents in Germany, France and crowded Holland.

Britain really is an outlier in this respect. Knightsbridge has overtaken Monaco in rental levels. Wealthy, crowded Switzerland has falling house prices and lower rents than Britain. Over recent decades, most things people buy have become more affordable — food, clothing, communication — and the cost of building a house has come down too. Yet the price you pay for it in Britain, either as a buyer or a tenant, has gone up and up.

Speculation exacerbates the problem. British people, and foreign investors here, borrow money to invest in housing on the generally valid assumption it will rise in value. This distorts our economy, diverting funds from more productive investments and exacerbating labour shortages in expensive places such as London and Cambridge.

The fastest take-off in house prices relative to earnings has been in the past two decades, when cheap money has further fuelled the house-price spiral, rewarding the haves at the expense of the have-nots. The high cost of housing is by far the biggest contributor to inequality. The reason people have to turn to food banks is not because of high food prices, but because of high housing costs. It is a rich irony that the Attlee government’s Town and Country Planning Act 1947 is probably as responsible as anything for the continuing prosperity of most dukes.

Yet seeking out profiteers misses the point. At the root of the problem is supply and demand. Britain restricts the supply of housing through its planning system far more tightly than other countries. That keeps prices going up, enabling developers, landlords and speculative buyers to make gains. We are building not much more than half as many houses each year as France, despite a faster population growth rate, and a quarter as many as Japan.

So why is British planning so restrictive? Until 1947 Britain regulated housebuilding in most cities the same way other countries did: by telling people what they could build, rather than whether they could build. As Nicholas Boys Smith, director of Create Streets, told a recent conference at the Legatum Institute, in the centuries following the Great Fire of 1666 “there was a series of pieces of legislation that set down very tight parameters: ratio of street width to street height, the fire treatment of windows etc. That is how most of Europe still manages planning. They have not taken away your right to build a building.”

Britain switched to deregulating what you could build, but nationalised whether you could build, by adopting a system of government planning in which permission to build was determined by officials responding to their own estimate of “need”. This brought great uncertainty to the system, because planning permission now depended on the whims of planners, the actions of rivals and the representations of objectors. Today local plans are often years out of date, if they exist at all, and are vast, unwieldy documents, opaque to ordinary citizens and subject to endless legal challenge and revision.

This makes Britain both far more subject to centralised command and control, and far more dominated by big corporations than other countries. It is a good example of how socialism and crony capitalism go hand in hand. Barriers to entry erected by planning play into the hands of large companies and make it hard for small, innovative competitors to take them on. In turn, this leads developers to produce unimaginative, repetitive designs to get the best return on their huge investment in land and permission.

Getting planning permission to build houses in Britain requires you to spend big sums on consultants, lawyers, lobbyists and PR experts, as you wear down the councils’ planning teams and their ever-growing lists of questions over several years. Not that the two sides in such debates are really antagonists: it is more like a symbiosis, a dance in which both sides benefit, because the fees to be earned by everybody from ecologists to economists are rich. And that is because at the end of the process the reward can be huge: a hundredfold uplift or more in the value of a field that gets turned into housing.

As a property owner, I have experience of this system and, I freely admit, a vested interest in it. I should be arguing for it, rather than against. However frustrating planning authorities can be, the rewards they bring to property owners can be large, either through upward pressure on prices and rents by their restrictions on permissions, or through uplifts in the value of land zoned for development.

Our mostly centralised taxes make things worse. In Switzerland, cantons compete for the local taxes that residential property owners pay, encouraging them to agree promptly to building bids, whereas here development brings headaches for local councils in providing infrastructure and services, only partly redressed with “section 106” agreements that make developers pay for schools and roads.

The system also creates opportunities for nimbyism on a greater scale than elsewhere. Opposing new development because it blocks your view, increases congestion on the roads and crowds the doctor’s surgery and local school, is rational everywhere. But it is much easier to organise a protest when the decisions are taken by council officials and the permissions are for big projects, rather than where many small decisions to build are taken by many dispersed owners and builders.

If Sajid Javid is to succeed in revolutionising Britain’s housing market, he must tackle the underlying causes. Rent control, Help to Buy, affordable housing and bearing down on developers’ land banks mostly address the symptoms. Forcing councils to set higher targets for housebuilding is a start, but if he were to succeed in unleashing a building boom across the country sufficient to bring down house prices, he would create a debt crisis among those with negative equity. So it will not be easy to cure Britain’s addiction to property, but he must try.”

Source: The Times (pay wall)

More than 2,000 deaths due to cold snap Ministers were warned about 3 months ago

Fuel poverty – does our CCG take this into account when sending people home with a “care package” – no. And we are the 6th richest country in the world.

“The death toll from Britain’s big freeze could rise to more than 2,000, as it emerged the Met Office had warned ministers a month ago about the cold snap.

The number of people who have died in cold homes in the UK might reach 100 per day this winter, a charity warned in an analysis of Office for National Statistics figures. …

But amid the expected lift in most travel restrictions on Monday, experts have begun to assess the health impacts of the cold snap.

The estimated rise in deaths, compared to a five-year average, comes as thousands face broken down boilers and fuel poverty, preventing them from heating their homes to safe temperatures.

Campaigners claimed that public health officials had been too slow in warning the public – particularly the vulnerable and elderly – of potential health risks so they could protect themselves. …

Peter Smith, director of policy for National Energy Action, said that the weather would likely see an average of as many as 100 people per day perishing in cold homes this winter, compared to a five-year average of 80 people per day.

The total number of cold-home deaths due to the “Beast from the East” cold front is therefore estimated to be more than 2,300.

At least ten deaths have so far been attributed to the cold weather, but the true death toll is likely to take longer to emerge due to the increase in strokes and heart attacks linked to cold weather.

Mr Smith’s analysis is based on ONS data from previous years and a comparable period of cold weather in the winter of 2010-11.

The World Health Organisation estimates that an overall proportion of 30 per cent of excess winter deaths are due to cold homes. … “

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/04/uk-weather-big-freeze-death-toll-could-rise-2000-emerges-met/

May desperately tries to claw back housing votes her government has lost

“Theresa May will hit out at the “perverse incentive” of housing industry bonus structures paying out millions of pounds to chief executives as a result of company profits rather than the number of homes built.

The prime minister will make the comments as she unveils a series of measures, previously outlined in the government’s housing white paper, to rewrite the rules on planning in an attempt to boost the speed of housebuilding and ease prices.

She will call the “national housing crisis” one of the biggest barriers to social mobility and argue that she “cannot bring about the kind of society I want to see” without tackling it.

May, who wants to make housing her number one domestic priority, will say she expects “developers to do their duty to Britain and build the homes our country needs”.

Under the plans:

Local authorities will be able to take into account how quickly a developer builds on a site before issuing future planning permission.
Independent inspectors will be given the power to take over decision-making in local areas if “nimby councils” fail to publish housing plans quickly enough.
Staff working for councils and hospitals will be given priority when public land is sold off.
Homeowners will be able to add two storeys to existing properties.
The prime minister will tell the national planning conference in London that developers must play their part too. “The bonuses paid to the heads of some of our biggest developers are based not on the number of homes they build but on their profits or share price,” she will say.

“In a market where lower supply equals higher prices that creates a perverse incentive, one that does not encourage them to build the homes we need.” [Duh – we told her that in 2010 when developers wrote their own rules]

The comments come after a decision to pay the chief executive of housebuilder Persimmon a £110m bonus was widely criticised, with some describing it as “corporate looting”. Jeff Fairburn collected the first £50m worth of shares on New Year’s Eve, while 140 members of senior staff were also in line for more than £500m, with more than 80 receiving in excess of £1m.

While the government cannot force a change in bonus structures, May will hope to pile pressure on companies. [While taking their donations to the Conservative Party and meeting them privately]

Areas where action can be taken include “allowing councils to take a developer’s previous rate of build-out into account when deciding whether to grant planning permission”, May will say.

May will argue that the aim is to improve affordability so that more people can achieve the dream of home ownership.

“I still vividly remember the first home I shared with my husband, Philip. Not only our pictures on the walls and our books on the shelves, but the security that came from knowing we couldn’t be asked to move on at short notice,” she will say.

But she will admit that in much of the country millions who ought to own cannot do so, and prices are being pushed upwards.

“The result is a vicious circle from which most people can only escape with help from the bank of Mum and Dad. If you’re not lucky enough to have such support, the door to home ownership is all too often locked and barred.”

Polly Neate, the chief executive of the housing charity Shelter, said the planning system was not delivering and welcomed the move, but said the evidence would be in the building figures. “It appears the government is waking up to the scale of our housing emergency and the critical need for action which is urgent and bold,” she said.

Steve Turner from the Home Builders Federation said: “We welcome measures to speed up the planning system and stimulate all parts of the market from starter to retirement homes. The industry has delivered big increases in recent years and is committed to working with government to go further and match supply to need.”

However, the shadow housing secretary argued that May should be embarrassed to be “fronting up these feeble measures first announced a year ago”.

“After eight years of failure on housing it’s clear her government has got no plan to fix the housing crisis,” John Healey said.

One industry expert questioned whether linking planning permissions to former build-out rates was workable. He pointed out that permissions were attached to the location, not a particular developer, and many were held by landowners or promoters who would then sell on the site to a housing company.

May will promise to retain protections for the green belt, saying boundaries can only be changed if every “other reasonable option” for places to build needed homes had been explored. Downing Street pointed out that only 10% of England has been built on and only 13% is covered by green belt. But Mark Littlewood, Director General at the Institute of Economic Affairs said the commitment to the Green belt meant the proposals fell “at the first hurdle”.

“I want to see planning permissions going to people who are actually going to build houses, not just sit on land and watch its value rise. Where councils are allocating sufficient land for the homes people need, our new planning rulebook will stop developers building on large sites that aren’t allocated in the plan – something that’s not fair on residents who agree to a plan only to see it ignored.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/04/may-attacks-perverse-incentive-housing-industry-bonuses

Javid says build more expensive houses to solve housing crisis

So, where houses are expensive MORE expensive even more houses must be built because Javid thinks that will bring prices down! Yet developers will still be allowed to make more than 20% profit on EACH development before affordable housing has to be built.

Just watch for the first developer to blame Brexit for house prices that don’t go down, and watch Letwin’s report on land banking get kicked into the long grass!

Remember this is the man who has just given more than £800m earmarked fo4 affordable housing back to the Treasury.

And it will be COUNCILS which are sanctioned when developers keep land with planning consent bare NOT DEVELOPERS.

Well done, Javid, well done. Your developer donors getting bigger profits and councils being forced to bend to developer will – and still youngsters won’t be able to get on the housing ladder.

“Thousands of new homes are to be approved and council Nimbyism curbed, the housing secretary Sajid Javid tells Tim Shipman.

Up to five new garden towns are to be approved for the corridor between Oxford and Cambridge under government plans to launch a “housing revolution” this week.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, Sajid Javid, the housing secretary, said he would give the go-ahead to at least two new towns in the next few weeks and could push for up to three more. The decision comes after ministers agreed to fund a high-speed rail line and an “expressway” for cars between the two leading university towns.

“Along that corridor there’s an opportunity to build at least four or five garden towns and villages with thousands of homes,” Javid said. The first step will be to establish “new town development corporations” for the chosen sites, which will help developers and town planners to “cut through a lot of the bureaucracy”, he said.

Referring to the creation of Milton Keynes in 1967 and the transformation of London’s Docklands in the 1980s, Javid said: “We haven’t been that ambitious for a long time.”

Now that Theresa May’s latest Brexit speech is behind it, the government will return this week to what Javid calls “our No 1 domestic priority”.

He said: “We have a housing crisis in this country. Average house prices in England are eight times average earnings. In London, where we have the most acute shortage, it is 15 times average earnings. That’s not just the worst we have had in England , it’s the worst of any major developed economy.”

Last year 217,000 homes were built, more than double the total in 2010, but well under the 300,000 a year the government is aiming for by 2025.

This week ministers will change the planning rules to try to kick-start house-building “where it is needed” and turn the heat up on “Nimby councils” who have refused to build what is needed.

Tomorrow Javid will unveil a new version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), to get councils to give more land for development. “You’ve got to release it where people are demanding more homes,” he said.

The NPPF will contain new national rules determining how many homes councils should be building each year — taking account of local house prices and wages and the number of key workers in the area. Javid is clear that will force many councils to set higher targets.

“It will no longer allow Nimby councils that don’t really want to build the homes that their local community needs to fudge the numbers,” Javid said. “For the first time it will explicitly take into account the market prices. If you are in an area where the unaffordability ratio is much higher you will have to build even more. It will make clear to councils that this number is a minimum, not a maximum.”

Javid will also launch a crackdown on councils who do not meet targets. He said: “The other thing we’ll introduce is the delivery test. If they say we’re going to plan for 300 a year at the moment there is nothing in the system that checks to see they are actually delivering the 300 and that is going to change.”

Councils who fail to step up will be stripped of their right to decide what gets built in their areas, with decisions made by independent planning inspectors instead. “Developers can only apply for planning permission in the areas the council has identified,” he said. “If the protection of that plan is switched off, a developer can apply for planning permission anywhere in your area.

“This is quite a big sanction for every local authority to not just come up with the right number, but once that number is in place, we are going to be breathing down your neck to make sure you are actually delivering on those numbers.”

Javid says that does not mean building on the green belt, “but it does mean that outside of naturally protected land like woodland and green belt they can pretty much roam everywhere outside that”.

The housing secretary has shown he is prepared to intervene after he threatened 15 councils who had failed to draw up any local plan for development.

“The last time York had a plan was 1954,” he said. “There was the chancellor’s district council, Runnymede. They responded positively. It doesn’t matter who you are or who your MP is, if you haven’t got a plan you will be hearing from me. If a council keeps ignoring its responsibility we can take that planning responsibility away from them and give it to someone else.”

The new planning framework will also seek to make local plans more responsive to their populations’ needs. Javid said: “Our nurses, police officers and fire officers want to live as close as possible to where they serve the British public. We want to make it easier it build and take their needs into account.”

In cities he is keen to see more building upwards. New rules will make it easier for homeowners to add two storeys to their houses — and will clear the way for a large number of mansion blocks to be built.

“The density of London is less than half that of Paris. We don’t want London to end up like Hong Kong,” Javid said, but he wants more “mansion blocks, the kind you might see in Kensington and Chelsea”. He said: “It will be quite surprising how easy we want to make it for people who want to build upwards.”

Further proposals to force developers to build more quickly will be revealed next week when the former cabinet minister Oliver Letwin publishes the interim findings of his report into the problem of land banking by developers.

“We need planning permission to turn into homes,” Javid said. “I don’t think Oliver is going to hold back.”

Javid is aware that failure to deliver could cost the Tories the next election. “We need a housing revolution. We have to show the British public that we are doing everything we reasonably can because if we don’t they will turn to the hard-left ideas of [Jeremy] Corbyn. If that means taking on councils, developers and others that’s what we’re going to do.”

Source: Sunday Times (pay wall)

“Housing ministry returns cash to Treasury”

Affordable homes? Pah, who needs them!

“The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has returned £817m of unspent cash to the Treasury.

According to website Huffington Post, the money includes £329m for the government’s Starter Homes programme, £72m for affordable homes and £52m for estate regeneration.

Labour’s shadow housing secretary, John Healey, said: “If the secretary of state can’t defend his department’s budget from the Treasury he should give the job to someone who can.”

http://www.room151.co.uk/151-news/news-roundup-pwlb-borrowing-reaches-464m-mhclg-returns-unspent-817m-to-treasury-us-firm-enters-advice-market/