More than 80 new-build homes – worth over £40 million – will be knocked down and rebuilt, after more defects were discovered.

Oh dear! – Owl

ITV News www.itv.com 

Foundation issues were found at dozens of houses at the Darwin Green development in Cambridge – as developers admitted in June that 36 properties need to be demolished.

Now, that number has more than doubled to 83.

It was revealed in documents submitted to Cambridge City Council, as developers, Barratt and David Wilson Homes Cambridgeshire, applied for permission to demolish the homes.

They said tiles and other materials will be salvaged where possible, and concrete and brick will be crushed on site and reused.

At a city council meeting earlier this month, planning officers said they did not believe permission for the demolition work would be given before the end of October.

The Darwin Green estate is still being built and when completed, it will be made up of around 1,500 homes.

The homes sell for at least £575,000 each, with some selling for as much as £850,000.

Developers said in June that it was a “small number” of unoccupied homes that “did not meet its usual high standards”.

At the time, one councillor said people’s “lives and dreams” had been “shattered”, while another called for an independent inquiry.

“They know precisely who they are targeting, and where: the Tories, primarily in the south west and south east of England.”

“The party won’t publicly confirm how many seats it is focusing on at the next general election.

But expect it to be in the ballpark of 30 to 40.”

There is a survivor elation vibe to the Liberal Democrats.

Eight years on from their near death experience after the years of coalition government with the Conservatives, they’ve rediscovered their mojo.

By Chris Mason www.bbc.co.uk

And they know precisely who they are targeting, and where: the Tories, primarily in the south west and south east of England.

It is this more focused tilt at seats they hope to be winnable that gives the Lib Dems an outsized influence on the political psyche.

Yes, they are possessed of 15 MPs – just 2.3% of Parliament’s total – but a string of by-election victories over the Conservatives has given dozens of Tories a blast of the heebie-jeebies.

Oratorical arithmetic doesn’t tell you everything about a political leader’s approach, but sometimes it can tell you rather a lot.

By my reckoning Ed Davey referred to the Conservatives 27 times in his party conference speech here in Bournemouth.

Mentions of Labour? Just three.

Senior party figures describe their last general election campaign and performance as a “fiasco”.

The party got 3.7 million votes, an 11.5% share, and 11 seats, one fewer than in 2017.

Sir Ed’s critique has long been that the party spread itself way too thinly at the 2019 election, when his predecessor Jo Swinson talked of winning hundreds of seats.

To win seats under Westminster’s so-called first-past-the-post system, parties need geographically concentrated areas of support, not a smattering of votes in lots of places.

Breadth – driven by hubris – is now seen as an enemy.

The party won’t publicly confirm how many seats it is focusing on at the next general election.

But expect it to be in the ballpark of 30 to 40.

Recent council elections and by-elections have tempted party strategists to increase the number, but they do so with the shadow of 2019 loitering on their shoulder.

With a political focus on the Conservatives, and a geographical focus on plenty of places that voted for Leave in the EU referendum, the Lib Dem comfort foods of old are off the menu.

And little wonder: given their targeting, little wonder the Lib Dem leadership is not vociferously focused on bashing Brexit and putting up taxes.

The party’s long-standing commitment to putting a penny on income tax has been lobbed off Bournemouth Pier.

And while some activists here are desperate for the party to be far more full-blooded in its condemnation of Brexit, the leadership are allergic to the idea, detecting little appetite to focus on it from those they seek to woo.

Instead, there will be a relentless focus on the NHS, the cost of living and sewage in rivers and the sea.

The messaging will no doubt be tweaked from one place to the next, but these are seen as the touchstone issues in the places that matter for the Lib Dems.

Party staff are well aware of the observation of the elections guru Professor Sir John Curtice – who has pointed out that opinion polls suggest the Liberal Democrat national share of the vote remains glued at pretty much the same level it was at the last general election.

Their approach – their hope – is that this shouldn’t matter, if they maintain that targeted geographical and political focus on the places they can actually win.

The challenge they face is assembling the muscle to campaign in 30 to 40 places at the same time – rather different from throwing the entire resources of the party at a single by-election campaign.

Rishi Sunak must commit to levelling up England’s struggling seaside towns, or risk a political “tidal wave” at the next general election, a Conservative thinktank has warned.

Time and tide has run out for that on repeated occasions. – Owl 

Heather Stewart www.theguardian.com 

In a report entitled Troubled Waters, the thinktank Onward shows that communities set within 5km of England’s coast are poorer, sicker and more crime-ridden than their inland neighbours – and calls for a £500m regeneration package.

Grim statistics highlighted in the report include the fact that early, preventable deaths are 15% more likely in coastal areas than inland, crime rates are 12% higher and average disposable incomes £2,800 lower.

Seaside areas voted heavily for Brexit in 2016, with 83% of coastal seats voting leave, compared with 66% inland. These constituencies also heavily backed Boris Johnson’s “get Brexit done” message at the 2019 general election.

The report points out that coastal areas have tended to swing convincingly behind the winning party in recent polls – and could be poised to turn against the Tories.

“Where the coast goes, England follows. For nearly four decades, seaside towns and cities have backed the eventual election winners,” said the report’s author, Jenevieve Treadwell.

“Onward’s research exposes the growing gap between declining coastal communities and the rest of England. Unless the government fully embraces coastal areas in its levelling up agenda, they risk a tidal wave against them at the next election”.

Shadow levelling up secretary Angela Rayner blamed the plight of coastal areas highlighted in the report, on, “thirteen years of neglect and mismanagement by the Tories”.

“Our plan to make Britain a clean energy superpower will see a clean energy jobs boom in coastal communities and provide building blocks for a more sustainable future,” she added.

Onward highlights three underlying factors behind coastal deprivation: the decline of traditional industries such as fishing and shipbuilding, the seasonality of local economies, and the older populations in these areas.

“The fate of industrial communities along the coast mirrors those in manufacturing-intensive towns inland facing pressures from privatisations and globalisation,” the report says.

Tourism in traditional English seaside destinations has also faced long-term decline since affordable air travel arrived in the 1980s.

While these are longstanding trends, the gap between coastal areas and the rest of England has continued to widen in recent years – with inland economies growing more rapidly since the 2008 financial crisis.

Many seaside areas have struggled to attract investment over that period, and have often been left heavily reliant on seasonal tourism – which tends to have a relatively low-paid workforce.

By analysing detailed income data, Onward shows the stark differences that emerge, even over short distances. In Great Yarmouth, on the east coast, the average income is £23,600 a year, but just over 10km inland it jumps to £33,800.

The average worker in Workington, on the Cumbrian coast, earns £25,000; but less than 10km inland at Cockermouth the average is £34,200.

Coastal towns also have “some of the worst health outcomes in the country,” the report points out – as highlighted by England’s chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, in his annual report two years ago.

Blackpool, in Lancashire, is what the report calls “an extreme example of coastal health challenges”, with the rate of preventable deaths for under 75-year-olds 88% higher than the average across England.

Not surprisingly, coastal neighbourhoods also tend to have more claimants of unemployment and other benefits than inland areas, because of “higher rates of poor, sick and elderly people”, the report says.

Other challenges include the fact that crime and antisocial behaviour tends to spike in seaside towns during the summer, the report shows – potentially overwhelming the local police force.

In Brighton, for example, nearly half of neighbourhoods have crime rates above the regional average. In the area surrounding the city’s Churchill shopping centre, there were more crimes than residents in 2021.

Even in coastal areas where deprivation is less apparent, Onward suggests high rates of second home ownership can lead to a lack of affordable housing for local people, with knock-on effects for businesses looking for staff.

The thinktank calls for the government to adopt a comprehensive package of policies to regenerate coastal areas. These include creating a coastal economy transformation programme worth up to £500m.

Onward suggests this could be modelled on the Biden administration’s Recompete Pilot in the US, which is investing in economically deprived areas. It suggests giving local bodies powers over infrastructure, planning and skills as part of the scheme.

Other policies the thinktank calls for include extra funding for coastal police forces to help them cope with the summer surge in crime and higher taxes on second homes left standing empty for long periods.

A spokesperson for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said: “We are spreading opportunity and prosperity across the UK as part of our ambitious long-term levelling-up programme.

“Since 2012 we have invested over £229m through the coastal communities fund to run 359 projects throughout the UK’s rural and coastal communities helping to create jobs and boost businesses.

“We have also allocated around £1bn from the levelling-up fund to 50 projects in coastal communities.”

Another government failure to provide essential housing. – Owl

Homes England’s Affordable Homes Programme (AHP) has delivered fewer than a third of its completions target so far, with just 4% for social rent #UKhousing

“The NAO described the AHP as a poorly designed scheme marred by inadequate oversight, of which the targets set were unachievable and, ultimately, it was a programme that lacked the necessary incentives to deliver homes in areas of highest need or unaffordability.”

[The Affordable Homes Programme is a scheme that provides grant funding to contribute towards the cost of building affordable housing. Over £7.39 billion of funding has been made available through Homes England from April 2021 to help pay for the construction of up to 130,000 new homes outside of London by March 2026. ]

by Stephen Delahunty www.insidehousing.co.uk 

According to a Homes England-commissioned review, 102,300, or 79%, of the programme’s completions target of 130,000 had been approved by March 2021. 

The majority of these, around 60,000, were allocated via the continuous market engagement (CME) route, with the rest through strategic partners. 

A total of 34,780 have been completed, 96% of which have been for affordable homeownership and affordable rent. Just 4% were for social rent.

At the same time, there have been 59,300 starts. All housing starts funded by the programme are to be achieved by March 2023, and all completions by March 2025.

The reviewers were asked to look at what housing had been delivered, the programme’s impacts, and which lessons can be learned at this point in the AHP.

Strategic partners promised to shake up the way social housing development was funded and move from piecemeal to programme-based handouts.

The long-term approach shifted the AHP away from the usual CME form of funding that had been in place. Under this, providers approached the government on a project-by-project basis.

As CME was seen as cumbersome and inefficient, for years, housing associations have been calling for a longer-term funding plan for development to replace it.

But the report found that fixed grant rates, which are an element of the strategic-partner model, made delivery challenging, given the wider inflationary pressures affecting the costs of development over the programme period.

The reviewers found that “most organisations with grant-funded schemes are confident they will meet delivery targets”, but there was some uncertainty on time and delivery, particularly for social rent, due to issues around land values and scheme-specific viability.

The report found that there has been a relative lack of strategic ‘added value’ in the strategic-partner model, beyond funding certainty and scale. Most delivery partners said it was unclear what this added value was at this point in the programme.

One respondent to the review said: “The rhetoric around strategic partnerships was never quite matched by the delivery. 

“That initial bit that was strategic approach to grant funding, has been very successful … [but what we had] was a better grant programme under strategic partnerships, rather than a more strategic relationship.”

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities forecast that it would spend £20.7bn on new grant-funded homes through three rounds of the AHP between 2015 and 2023.

Views on the effectiveness of programme management and administrative requirements were polarised. For both issues, respectively, around half of partners felt the process worked well, the other half did not.

This evaluation of the AHP contains similar criticisms to a National Audit Office (NAO) review in September last year. 

The NAO described the AHP as a poorly designed scheme marred by inadequate oversight, of which the targets set were unachievable and, ultimately, it was a programme that lacked the necessary incentives to deliver homes in areas of highest need or unaffordability.

In its quantitative analysis, this new review found that delivery had not been concentrated in places with more-pronounced affordability pressures.

On modern methods of construction (MMC), the report found the AHP had a limited effect on supporting the use of MMC, as no targets were established, and no incentives were put in place on grant rates or approvals to support delivery.

The report makes a number of recommendations that include an investigation into how the strategic-partner model affects the competition for land, and the effects on land values as they relate to affordable housing delivery.

The report also calls for greater transparency in reporting and greater flexibility of tenure.

In its foreword to the report, Homes England said the recommendations had already been incorporated into the latest round of the AHP.

Martin Shaw, September 26, 2023 seatonmatters.org

Simon Jupp is MP for Exmouth and the surrounding area. His constituents have long complained that he failed to oppose the dumping of sewage in their rivers and on their beaches. But he’s not paying attention to their concerns – instead he’s moonlighting as a quiz compère in Seaton! Why? Simon thinks that he’ll lose if he stands in the new Exmouth seat in the general election, so he’s pitching for the new Honiton seat, of which Seaton is a part.

If Simon isn’t prepared to spend his time representing his constituents he should stop claiming his MP’s salary. And people in Seaton should take note – if Simon’s prepared to dump Exmouth because it’s no longer of use to him, he’ll do the same to Seaton if we give him the chance. Remember Hugo Swire? He used to be Seaton’s MP. Then they changed the boundaries and he did the dirty on Seaton’s hospital beds. Thank God we’ve got a decent, devoted MP, the Liberal Democrat Richard Foord, who’s standing for us again. Let’s send Simon back where he belongs

PS What’s the Gateway doing acting as a propaganda tool for failed Tory MPs?

www.ticketsource.co.uk/whats-on/devon/seaton-gateway-theatre/fundraiser-quiz-night-with-simon-jupp-mp/e-ebgevz

The government is delaying putting into effect new environmental laws forcing developers to improve countryside and wildlife habitats, the BBC has learned.

By Claire Marshall & Malcolm Prior www.bbc.co.uk 

Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) was meant to become a mandatory part of the planning system in England in November.

But government sources told the BBC it will now not be introduced this year.

Environmentalists have lamented the delay. The government said it was still committed to the policy and would soon announce a new implementation date.

The Wildlife Trusts called the delay “another hammer blow for nature”.

BNG policy was approved as part of the 2021 Environment Act. The rules are designed to ensure developers leave the natural environment in a measurably better state than it was beforehand.

The delay comes after weeks of political uncertainty on environmental policy, with the government looking to throw out “nutrient neutrality” pollution rules and to water down policy on achieving net zero.

The UK Green Building Council (UKGBC), an industry body that promotes sustainable development, said any delayed implementation of BNG would “hurt green businesses and development”.

Richard Benwell, CEO of environmental coalition group Wildlife & Countryside Link, said net gain had “already been pared back to the bare minimum to offset the habitat harm caused by new development”.

He added that a delay “could strike at the foundations” of the scheme.

The Home Builders Federation said developers “have embraced the principle of biodiversity net gain” but that there were “significant gaps” in government guidance.

Neil Jefferson, the federation’s managing director, said that would “not only prohibit local authorities’ abilities to effectively manage this new requirement but inevitably lead to further delays in the planning process”.

“We need government to deliver on its requirements so that industry can provide these huge environmental benefits alongside desperately needed new homes,” he said.

Philip Box, UKGBC’s public affairs and policy advisor, added: “Businesses from across the industry and our membership have raised concerns regarding any potential delay.

“This would be exceptionally damaging for them in terms of projected work pipelines, investment, supply chains, and related job roles.”

As part of planning permission, under the new rules developers will have to agree to delivering a biodiversity gain, on or off site, set at a minimum of 10%.

Habitats and wildlife impacted by development would be given a biodiversity value using a government-developed metric ‘calculator’: from native hedgerows and hay meadows, which support dozens of species and merit a high unit value, down to less habitat-rich cropland, and derelict land, which would be awarded a low value.

Sue Young, head of land use planning for The Wildlife Trusts, said they had wanted any gain to be set at 20% and said any delay now would “cause uncertainty for developers and could affect the quality of schemes”.

“Attempts to delay or weaken rules for biodiversity net gain would deliver yet another hammer blow for nature from the current UK government,” she added.

Georgia Stokes, CEO at Somerset Wildlife Trust, added: “It feels unnecessary for there to be a delay and we’re quite shocked that that’s where we’ve ended up. We need the government to take action.”

Government ‘fully committed’

Meanwhile, the Local Government Association (LGA) has called on government to confirm what funding council planners will be given when BNG finally becomes law.

A survey earlier this month by the Royal Town Planning Institute found more than 60% of public sector planning departments were unable to confirm they would have the necessary resources and expertise in place to deliver the scheme.

Darren Rodwell, environment spokesperson for the LGA said: “Councils are concerned about the impact of further delays on their ability to effectively implement BNG.

“Councils urgently need confirmation of go-live dates, essential guidance and definitions and a clear timetable of funding in order to employ additional staff and invest in the expertise and capacity.”

A spokesman for the government said it had already committed more than £15m to help local councils prepare and recruit new specialists to deliver the scheme.

He added: “We are fully committed to biodiversity net gain which will have benefits for people and nature. We will set out more details on implementation timings shortly.”