“Land bank statistics undermine attacks on planning”

New figures from the LGA show conclusively that numbers of unbuilt consented housing plots have been growing rapidly since 2012.

New research for the Local Government Association has confirmed that England has a vast surplus of consented but unbuilt housing developments, with 475,647 in builders’ land banks.

The study, carried out by Glenigan, shows unbuilt consented plots have grown rapidly since the National Planning Policy Framework was imposed in 2012. In 2012-13 there were 381,390 unimplemented plots and in 2013-14 there 443,265 despite a rapidly improving market.

“These figures conclusively prove that the planning system is not a barrier to house building,” said LGA housing spokesman Peter Box. “In fact the opposite is true, councils are approving almost half a million more houses than are being built, and this gap is increasing.”

He pointed out that, while private builders have a key role to play, they cannot solve housing shortages alone, so councils need the power to invest in homes and to force developers to build more quickly. He called for measures to address the construction skills shortage.

The analysis showed that the average time between planning consent and completion has also risen sharply. In 2008-9 it was 21 months, in 2012-13 it was 27 months but by 2014-15 it had risen to 32 months.”

https://brownfieldbriefing.com/44393/land-bank-statistics-undermine-attacks-on-planning

“Housing Bill: 16 Defeats And U-Turns Inflicted On Government’s Flagship Reforms”

“The Government’s flagship housing legislation is having a miserable time of it in the House of Lords. Three defeats last week followed by five this mean the Housing and Planning Bill will look significantly different by the time it returns to MPs a week on Monday.

And peers have another day at it.

From ending council houses for life to selling off expensive social housing to subsidise home-buyers, the Housing and Planning Bill is the Government’s answer to the housing crisis.

But it has critics. And with an “anti-Tory” Labour-Lib Dem majority in the House of Lords, plus disgruntled Tory peers, the Bill is being slowly demolished.

MPs may ignore the will of the Lords, but there has already been a series of concessions. Here are 16 defeats and U-turns it’s suffering from.

1. The Treasury has been blocked from keeping the proceeds of the forced sale of high-value council houses – to fund Right-to-But discounts – without parliamentary approval.

2. A flagship scheme to hand well-off first-time buyers a taxpayer-funded 20% discount on a Starter Home has been moderated.

3. English councils can decide how many starter homes are built-in their area.

4. Peers voted in support of a Labour-led amendment to give local councils the discretion over whether to implement “pay to stay”, a market rate charge for better-off tenants.

5. Peers to back an amendment to lower the “pay to stay” taper rate from 20p to 10p in every pound, so lower-paid families would not be hit as hard.

6. The Lords voted 266 to 175 to increase the “pay to stay” threshold by £10,000.

7. Wide open “planning permission in principle” powers are to be limited to housing development.

8. Parish councils and local forums right to appeal against developments they think go against a “local plan”.

9. The Government will consider a proposal to ensure a one-for-one – and like-for-like – replacement of council homes sold under the forced sale.

10. The Government is to look at backing down on the forced sale of council homes in national parks and areas of national beauty.

11. Ministers have accepted a proposal to make it harder for landlords to evict vulnerable people that have abandoned their homes.

12. The Government has been forced to consider giving councils discretion to exclude building homes in rural areas.

13. Ministers backed down on replacing lifelong secure tenancies with contracts lasting up to five years, and agreed to extend maximum to 10 years.

14. Ministers will insist letting agents have to put money in to a Client Money Protection account to stop “rogues” running off with deposit.

15. Ministers agreed to review planning laws relating to basement developments amid fears councils cannot control the growth of “subterranean development”.

16. The Government will look again at private landlords being able to reclaim properties when the become vacant after concern that it was open to being used as a “back-door” way to evict tenants.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/housing-bill-defeats-u-turns_uk_571a0368e4b077f671e7bb8e

“London’s luxury property market is crumbling and that’ bad news for affordable housing”

Although this is about London, it applies to all areas of England.

“The latest set of evidence shows that the luxury market is crumbling and this is really bad news for affordable housing in London. If luxury properties don’t tempt the rich then those in a lower band will, pricing out prospective buyers with less money.

Houses in the most sought after areas in London — such as Belgravia, Kensington, and Knightsbridge — are selling at a huge discount, according to LonRes data cited by the Financial Times.

For example, 59% of sales in Knightsbridge and Belgravia were selling at a discount of at least 10%. Meanwhile over half the properties on sale in Mayfair and Marylebone had similar discounts applied. …

… Firstly, anyone buying a property over £1.5 million is stung with a huge 12% stamp duty fee. …

… Secondly, if you own more than one property, a 3% stamp duty is applied. The new fee came into force in April and is applicable to buy-to-let investors and those who are buying a second home. This 3% fee is on top of the extra cost of a new purchase in April.

The knock-on effect on affordable housing

… Investors will instead consider buying properties that fall within a lower bracket with lower fees. This only squeezes the already squeezed market.

… So what does this all mean? As London’s richest slip from luxury properties to avoid fees, they’re likely to turn so-called affordable housing into something completely unaffordable for the average Londoner.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/lonres-luxury-properties-in-london-data-and-affordable-housing-impact-2016-4

Yet another Conservative climb down- this time on rogue landlords and perrs vote for parish councils to oppose developers!

“Rogue letting agents will be hit by a tough new scheme to stop them running off with tenants’ cash after a Tory climbdown. Under-fire ministers added strict rules to their Housing Bill at the last minute to avoid an embarrassing House of Lords defeat. The ‘dog’s breakfast’ Tory Bill, which launches Starter Homes and extends the Right to Buy, has already suffered seven defeats and as many U-turns.

Now a new clause, drafted hours before a planned vote, will force private letting agents to put cash in Client Money Protection accounts. Until now agents could keep rent and deposits in their own accounts while passing it between landlords and tenants. But that left customers penniless if agents went bust or ran off criminally with the cash. …

… The rules were approved without opposition by the House of Lords.

Tory Housing Minister Baroness Williams said she was pleased to wave through the change after working with Labour and the Lib Dems. She added: “I listened very carefully to the points they’ve made.”

But meanwhile, the Housing Bill still suffered its seventh defeat tonight.

Peers voted 251-194 to let parish councils and neighbourhood forums appeal against developments which ride roughshod over their overall plans for the local area.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tough-new-laws-force-rogue-7797054

“Those who can’t afford a home are being abandoned”

“Cash from council sell-offs will go to high-earning first-time buyers. It’s a huge blow to social housing.

Is this the worst thing this government has done? That’s a tough choice for those low-earning households written off as unlikely to vote Tory. Governments come and go, attempting to reverse each other’s actions – Labour spends more, then Tories cut back, but the housing and planning bill now in the Lords will do virtually irreparable damage.

The bill takes away properties from those who can never afford to buy, to give a large subsidy to better-off aspiring under-40s to buy starter homes. Council and housing association homes will be sold off, deliberately transferring housing provision from the worst-off to those above them – another trickle up.

This bill forces housing associations to sell homes to tenants (probably only the better-off ones) at a discount. To compensate housing associations, councils will be obliged to sell their most valuable properties – so two social homes are lost for each one sold. The money raised by the local authority sales will also pay for 20% discounts to first-time buyers of starter homes at prices of up to £450,000.

All parties want more home ownership, falling fast because of high prices. Generation rent is paying more to landlords than a mortgage costs. The injustice is in making councils pay for this subsidy from resources earmarked for families on waiting lists, instead of meeting it from general taxation.

Once sold, these homes can never be brought back into the social sector. Of the 2m council properties sold so far, over a third have ended up with private landlords who charge high rents. For every nine council homes sold, only one replacement has been built.

That’s why this is an un-housing bill. It will lose 180,000 social homes in the next five years, with 88,000 council homes gone, according to the local government association. George Osborne’s eye-catching 1% cut to social rents has already stopped dead plans to build 14,000 social homes, says the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Nor does the rent cut help most tenants, who just get it clawed back from housing benefit.

Worse is to come. As more people have moved on to universal credit, with their rent no longer automatically paid, 89% have fallen into arrears so far, further depleting money for new social housing. A third of housing associations are building no new affordable homes.

The bill is punitive towards tenants, making any council-house family who together earn more than £30,000 (£40,000 in London) pay a market rent, often so steep they will have to leave. The Treasury will snatch this pay-to-stay extra rent – so it can’t be used for local housing. New tenants only get short tenancies of two to five years so they risk joining the insecure multitude of families in the private sector with six-month rental agreements.

Security was the great gift of social housing. A family knew they would stay near their jobs and schools, make local bonds and join lasting communities. Good estates have stable populations, which include some people with average incomes. How do you educate children who keep moving schools, never settling? Already there are 1.5 million children growing up in private rented homes, without security of tenure.

A family support worker I spoke to last week was struggling to help a family who had moved four times in just over two years – because of temporary housing and short tenancies – with the children moving schools each time. One mother, sent to a distant town, had been leaving home for a bus at 6am every morning to try to keep her children in their old school two hours away, in the hope she would find a home in their old neighbourhood; but she had to give up.

A few weeks ago I spent time in court watching eviction cases, talking to tenants whose lives had become rootless through insecure jobs causing arrears. Landlords are eager to re-let flats at higher rents as prices soar. Most of those families will never reach the safe haven of a council home.

Ending social housing is part of the great escape from the welfare state planned by David Cameron and Osborne. But they may yet again be tripped up by their failure to think beyond ideology. Are they really willing to abandon the third of citizens who can never join their homeowning democracy? Tipping them on to the street is embarrassing, which is why the rising number of street homeless were given a small bung in the budget.

If not abandonment, then there are only two options: build social housing at a cheap rent; or leave people to private landlords where housing benefit picks up the bill. Even capped, housing benefit is extravagantly wasteful when – as Labour’s housing spokesman, John Healey, points out – building social housing makes a profit from rent after 20 years, by far the cheaper option. The government hasn’t dared abolish councils’ duty to house the vulnerable or homeless families with children, but how can they do that with ferocious budget cuts and this bill stripping away existing properties?

No wonder Tory as well as Labour council leaders are up in arms. Surrey’s leader wrote to the Guardian to protest at being forced to sell his council houses. Good for the Lords, who tonight followed up last week’s rebellions with more amendments to pay-to-stay plans. Valiant objections from trusted crossbenchers, such as Bob Kerslake, former head of the civil service, may force the government to soften some terms.

But nothing will prevent the main provisions passing: this is the first bill under English votes for English laws, stopping Scottish MPs voting – so despite some Tory rebels, it will pass in the Commons easily.

Eventually only real-world consequences can force the government to reconsider. Though housing is a fast-rising public concern, this bill has had too little attention. Though 74% worry about housing themselves or for their children or grandchildren, this demolition of social housing is still below the political radar. Ownership is political dynamite, but social housing gets less traction.

Ask how this government plans to house the many who could never afford full-cost rents and it has no answer. In their magical thinking, if council estates are sold off, the troublesome poorer denizens will melt into thin air.

This bill takes a wrecking ball to the great social housing ideals founded by Octavia Hill and other philanthropists who understood that decent housing is the bedrock of a decent society.”

http://gu.com/p/4te9m

“Selling off affordable homes ‘would add £4bn to housing benefit bill'”

Labour says sale of council and housing association property will force poorer people into expensive private rented accommodation

The government’s proposed sell-off of thousands of affordable homes could add more than £4bn to the housing benefit bill over the next 30 years, Labour has claimed. The sum emerged from an opposition analysis of the housing bill, being debated this week in the House of Lords.

The bill calls for the sale of low-rent housing, which the housing charity Shelter has estimated will mean the loss of 19,000 council homes and 66,500 housing association homes.

“If you sell off genuinely affordable homes and don’t replace them, then people on lower incomes will be forced into more expensive private rented accommodation and this will mean higher housing benefit spending to cover the cost,” said John Healey, shadow secretary of state for housing. …”

http://gu.com/p/4te8f

Parish councils don’t need the right to appeal planning decisions says government

“The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Give parish councils the right to appeal planning decisions.”.

Government responded:

The Government places great importance on community involvement in the planning system. Parish councils have statutory rights to contribute their views in the planning process.

The planning system is centred on community involvement. Communities, including parish councils and individual members of the public, have statutory rights to become involved in the preparation of the Local Plan for their area, through which they can influence development in their area. The local community can also come together to produce a neighbourhood plan, which sets out how the community want to see their own neighbourhood develop. Neighbourhood plans are often initiated by parish councils. Local and neighbourhood plans form the basis for decisions on planning applications.

In addition to input on local plans and neighbourhood plans, which set out the local development strategy, communities are also able to make representations on individual planning applications. Interested parties can raise all the issues that concern them during the planning process, in the knowledge that the decision maker will take their views into account, along with other material considerations, in reaching a decision.

The right of appeal following the refusal of an application is an important part of a planning system which controls the ability of an individual to carry out their development proposals. The existing right of appeal recognises that, in practice, the planning system acts as a control on how an individual may use their land. As a result, the Government believes it is right that an applicant has the option of an impartial appeal against the refusal of planning permission. This existing right of appeal compensates for the removal of the individual’s right to develop.

However, the Government does not believe that a right of appeal against the grant of planning permission for communities, including parish councils, is necessary. The Government considers that communities already have opportunity to guide and inform local planning issues via Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans, and it would be wrong for them to be able to delay a development at the last minute, through a community right of appeal, when any issues they would raise at that point could have been raised and should have been considered during the earlier planning application process. The Government does not think that the planning system would benefit from the grant of a community right of appeal which would lead to added delay, uncertainty and cost for all those involved.

Department for Communities and Local Government

Click this link to view the response online:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/110489?reveal_response=yes

“10 ways the ‘disgraceful’ Tory Housing Bill is being quietly torn to shreds”

“George Osborne’s housing plans are not going well.

Remarkable scenes have been unfolding in the House of Lords over the last two weeks. Piece after piece of the Tories’ “disgraceful” Housing Bill has been torn to shreds by peers who say it could destroy social housing as we know it. bFlagship David Cameron policies like Starter Homes, the Pay to Stay ‘tenant tax’ and council homes sell-off have all been butchered.

These days Labour is calling the law everything from “half-baked” to a “dog’s breakfast”.

It’s an eye-watering 206 pages long, and some of the major changes involve changing a single word.

That means it’s easy to lose sight of just how many climbdowns and defeats the Tory government has suffered in the unelected House.

So here’s a list of all of biggest ones so far after three days of House of Lords debate.

There could be more to come – as the law will return to the Lords for two more days on April 20 and April 25. …”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/10-ways-disgraceful-tory-housing-7781908

“The planning and delivery potential of LEPs” – Royal Town Planning Institute briefing

…”LEPs need to keep their private sector representation under review, and strengthen their relationship with local business organisations and local authority economic development teams, to ensure that plans and priorities reflect local business and interests. …

… LEPs should assess the social and environmental implications of decisions as part of their project appraisal processes. …

… The Local Growth Deals that have been agreed focus on transport and infrastructure aimed at unlocking employment and housing development. These appear quite generic in nature, with only a relatively small proportion of projects directed towards supporting priority growth sectors. Funding is also focused on principal urban areas and main transportation corridors. The resources secured and allocated by LEPs are being directed more towards areas of opportunity rather than need. …

… The relationship between local authorities and LEPs appears to be led at a corporate level and is largely resourced from economic development teams of upper tier authorities. There is little direct involvement of local authority planners with the work of LEPs and their awareness of LEPs’ activities is typically low (the exception is the West of England LEP, where the West of England Partnership has helped to bring forward additional joint working). …

… From the perspective of local planning authorities, LEPs are not seen as having a significant role to play in sustainable development given their clear remit around local economic growth. This stands in contrast to the work of the former South West RDA, which had a significant focus on environmental and social dimensions. …”

http://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/1733440/rtpi_research_briefing_-_local_enterprise_partnerships_in_the_south_west_18_march_2016.pdf

CPRE on land banking

“… Now is the time to get tough with the people in whose interest it is to ensure that just enough houses, and no more, get built each year to maintain healthy rises in property prices – a balancing act that is all about carefully failing to actually meet housing need.

Serious thought now needs to be given to incentivising developers to actually build houses. CPRE would suggest:

the granting of planning permission should be tied to a contract with the developer that determines the rate at which homes will be built;

failure to comply with the contract (or, in the absence of a contract, failure to construct homes at a reasonable rate) could lead to measures such as:

financial penalties on the developer; and/or

revocation of the developer’s right to build all or part of the outstanding planning permission, and delegation of that right to competing developers, including custom- and self-builders.

Then the Government might actually pass the test to make sure more houses are being built – and in the right places.”

http://www.cpre.org.uk/magazine/opinion/item/4269-stand-and-deliver

“Conservative MP likens proposed East Anglian mayor to Nazi official”

“A Conservative MP has likened a proposed directly elected mayor for Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire to a “Gauleiter”, a regional Nazi party leader in 1930s Germany.

Sir Henry Bellingham, MP for North-West Norfolk, made clear his opposition to the plan, which is designed to devolve greater power to the regions.

“What we don’t need is a really expensive, costly elected mayor with a fourth tier of local government,” he told local TV.

His comments were criticised by Conservative councillor John Fuller, the leader of South Norfolk Council, who claimed it was “wrong” to compare East Anglian devolution with Germany under Nazi rule” …

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/east-anglia-mayor-to-nazi-official-a6985661.html

Persimmon: company doing badly, directors doing very well, thank you

“Fears over slowing sales at Persimmon, one of Britain’s biggest housebuilders, have caused a sharp drop in its share price.

In a trading update on Thursday morning ahead of its annual meeting at York Racecourse, which could involve protests over executive pay and other issues, Persimmon said sales revenues had risen 8% to £2.15bn since the start of the year. Weekly private sales per site were 6% ahead of last year as the company sold 7,598 new homes, with an average selling price of £220,000, up 5.8%.

Analysts said the numbers suggested sales had slowed in recent weeks. Charlie Campbell, of Liberum, said: “Persimmon has seen a good start to 2016, with sales rates up 6%, but this implies that growth has moderated in the last seven weeks, to around 2.5%, as comparatives have strengthened.”

AdvertisementHide
He added that margins were peaking “as selling price inflation moderates and build cost inflation persists”. Persimmon shares fell nearly 6% to £19.07 in early trading.

At the same time, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors warned that the EU referendum in June and recent changes to stamp duty had created a climate of uncertainty that could lead to falling sales and prices in the housing market.

Shares in other housebuilders were also down, with Berkeley Group falling nearly 4% and Barratt down 2%.

Persimmon reiterated that housebuilding was being held back by planning delays. So far it has opened 75 of 100 new sites planned for the first half of the year.

The company’s AGM is one of the first of the AGM season.

Shareholder groups have issued warnings over a share scheme set up in 2012 that could hand an estimated £600m to 150 directors by 2022 – one of the most generous bonus schemes in the City. A retiring senior executive, Nigel Greenaway, who has led Persimmon’s southern division, could pocket up to £9.4m.

Some are also unhappy over Persimmon’s appointment of Nigel Mills as a non-executive director, questioning his independence due to his links with the housebuilder’s financial advisers, Citi.

The company sought to defend the share plan by saying that since the launch of its new strategy in early 2012, it had delivered a 56% increase in new homes built, invested more than £2.2bn in new land, and returned £1.071bn to shareholders – £550m more than was originally planned.”

http://gu.com/p/4tbcp

Devon and Somerset Devolution: a brief primer

By Georgina Allen, South Devon Watch, Facebook

“Devon and Somerset are in the middle of a Devolution process.

The word Devolution sounds as though it will increase and support local democracy, but in fact the opposite is true. What we are experiencing looks more and more like the privatisation of local authorities and local democracy – our devolution bid has been written and is being led by a group called the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership, or the HoSWLEP for short.

This is a quango made up mainly of business men, a couple of women and a few councillors. The business people are primarily property developers, construction CEOs and arms manufacturers. There are 24 of them and they are self-appointed, un-transparent, unaccountable and hold their meetings in secret. They publish minutes, but these are so opaque as to make them pointless. These people have written a bid for the future of Devon and Somerset, which is full of grandiose aspirations for growth.

They want to create 123,000 jobs, build business parks and growth hubs and most worryingly 179,000 houses.

They have no public mandate for this other than the fact that all our local councils have signed up to this bid.

Many local councillors have publicly stated that they are very unhappy with the way the devolution bid is shaping up. In the South Hams, the leader of the council said that they had been coerced into signing up. When questioned further about this, he explained by saying that councils had had their budgets slashed to such a point that they could hardly function.

The government has taken money away from councils and given it to the LEP, unless local councils sign up to the Devolution Bid, they will not get this funding. A simple privatisation practice, but a very effective one. With councils forced to sign up, the LEP have the illusion of a public mandate. There has been incredibly little press about the LEP and they have not consulted with the public, this Bid is going on behind closed doors and is therefore, very concerning.

Where housing is concerned – how did the LEP come up with the figure of 179,000 houses?

This is not based on any known survey. There is no mention of social, affordable or sustainable housing in the bid, just an enormous amount of market housing the LEP want to build.

As the board is mainly made up of developers this raises the question of conflict of interest, which the LEP acknowledge, but which has not stopped them from making the Devolution Bid almost entirely about growth. There is little to no mention of farming, the environment, tourism, all the industries that are most important down here, instead the Bid is about building and growth hubs and IT. It sounds more like a Bid for a northern powerhouse than it does the rural west country.

Most of the growth projections described in the Bid are reliant on Hinkley C going ahead. As there are very real worries about the viability of this, so there should be questions raised about the LEP, who are lacking a plan B. Councillors, MPs, the National Audit Office and many others are becoming increasingly concerned about the process of devolution and the LEP themselves and as a local person, I am also worried at seeing local issues like planning being passed to a quango of business people, who have financial interests in pushing the type of development that is least needed down here.”

Report of the Rural Housing Review: “Affordable Housing: A fairer deal for Rural Communities”

As referred to on “Farming Today”‘

http://view.pagetiger.com/RHPR/issue1

“Devon New Economy Gathering”

More signs of discontent – this time very local

“WHEN
Saturday, 16 April 2016 from 10:00 to 17:00

WHERE
Exeter Community Centre – 17 St Davids Hill, Exeter EX4 3RG
(Beside Iron Bridge)

Devon New Economy Gathering
organised by Exeter Pound and Exeter Transition

Tickets: £20 / £10 / £5 . Please select tickets according to what you can afford. £10 and £5 tickets are intended primarily for students and claimants.

A day to link organisers, activists, practitioners, and others working for economic change, and to hear about local and regional initiatives.
Join us in making the big shift happen!

There are exciting community-led economic solutions to austerity emerging across the region, as well as effective strategies, innovative projects and energetic collaborators. This is a chance to find out who (else) is working on a new local economy one that is more inclusive, democratically accountable, ecological and creates more wellbeing.

Find collaborators – How can we make it happen (more)?

Share visions for the wider economy to see how our local work fits in, and ways we can work together locally to move forward change in the big picture
Keynote session: launched By Stewart Wallis, Senior Adviser at New Economics Foundation

‘A new economy and how to make it happen’

Topics for discussion could include:

What needs to grow and what doesn’t? Well being and better indicators
Relocalizing money and finance – local currencies and financial institutions
Food for all – affordable and local?
Positive Money, a Green New Deal, banking reform
Fostering local enterprises – Local Enterprise Forum
Management of land for greater equality
Engines of inequality and how to interrupt them
Social enterprises – why are they different; starting them and teaching about them
If not austerity what? What to do about the national debt
Potential of the Devolution agenda
Fossil free Devon – Disinvestment from fossil fuels

To pay in Exeter Pounds or Exe’s, or to request a free ticket, please contact the organiser by email or tel 01647 24789/01392 348105

A childrens workshop will be available for the morning only: Please contact the organizer to enquire or book (by 8th April please)”

Cameron’s housing policy thrown out by House of Lords

“David Cameron could be forced to make big concessions to his flagship housing policy after the Government suffered two embarrassing defeats in the House of Lords.

The Prime Minister’s plan to help young people get on the housing ladder by offering a 20% discount could be blocked unless key changes are made to force buyers to pay back the discount if they sell up.

The decision puts the Government under significant pressure to get the bill through both houses before MPs break in May up ahead of local elections and the EU referendum.

Peers supported two key amendments to the Housing and Planning Bill.

One will force those who buy under the scheme to repay the discount they receive if they sell up, less 5% for every year they own the property over a 20 year period.

The second would allow councils to choose how many starter homes are built in their area in a bid to make sure affordable housing for those on low incomes remains a priority.

Brandon Lewis, the housing minister, said the Government’s commitment to giving first-time buyers a 20% discount on new developments is “unwavering”.

He added: ” The Government believes it is wrong that a 30-year-old couple’s aspirations should be thwarted by having to wait until they are 50 to benefit from the full value of their starter home.”

But Lord Kerslake, the former head of the civil service, said the changes would make the bill fairer and protect the taxpayer by ensuring people who buy starter homes repay the discount when they move.

The Government was also forced to make a last-minute concession to avoid a third defeat, promising that safeguards would be brought forward for so-called rural exception sites to ensure that starter homes will not be built on land earmarked for affordable housing.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/11/david-camerons-flagship-housing-policy-suffers-defeat-in-house-o/

“Tory local government leader asks Lords to block housing reforms”

“The Conservative leader in local government is urging peers to vote against the government on a number of key amendments to David Cameron’s housing bill amid fears it could force more people into homelessness.

In a letter to the Guardian, Cllr David Hodge – leader of the Tories at the Local Government Association (LGA) – warns that elements of the bill being debated in the Lords this week could have the “unintended consequence of increasing homelessness and pushing more families into the more expensive private rented sector”.

Hodge has teamed up with his Labour and Liberal Democrat counterparts to ask members of the House of Lords to try to block legislation that would force councils to sell their most expensive properties in order to fund the government’s Right to Buy policy.

“At a minimum, we urge peers to back amendments that allow councils to retain enough receipts from every home sold to be able to replace it in the same area,” they write.

They have also raised concerns about the government’s starter homes scheme, which means that one in five properties in new developments will be available to first-time buyers under 40 at a 20% discount.

Critics say that only middle or higher income earners could qualify for those homes, and yet developers will be able to classify them as “affordable”.

“Current proposals for starter homes carry a risk that a crucial supply of new affordable rented homes will be displaced, and despite 20% discounts they will still be out of reach for the majority of people in need of an affordable home,” write the local government leaders.

A number of the amendments have been laid down by LGA president and former head of the civil service, Lord Kerslake. “The amendments are trying to do three things,” he said. “To make it a fairer bill, so that it is not transferring resources from social housing for rent to ownership. To make it more localist. And to make it more workable. The numbers do not add up.”

The peer said he wasn’t against ownership but argued that for many people it was simply out of reach.

But the housing minister, Brandon Lewis, said the policies were intended to help people realise their ambition to own a home. He told the Guardian that 86% of people still aspired to homeownership.

“The hardest hit part of the housing market was first-time buyers and we are very clear that we want to increase supply but also ownership,” said Lewis, who argued that a 20% discount on an average property did make it much more affordable for ordinary people. He also argued that councils could still push for developments to include other forms of affordable homes on top of the government’s new scheme.

Those against the plans believe that starter homes are out of reach for the poorest. Campbell Robb, Shelter’s chief executive, said: “By building homes for people on middle to high incomes, the government is redistributing existing resources away from those on low incomes. This will have a massive impact on ordinary families being priced out of the dream of owning their own home, and millennials faced with expensive and unstable private renting, or living with their parents well into their 30s.”

http://gu.com/p/4t8g2

Beware supermarkets bearing gifts – particularly affordable housing!

This is what Tesco promised Seaton in 2009 – see highlighted last paragraph and does the store REALLY have 250 staff:

Sandwiched between the red and white cliffs of the Jurassic Coast and surrounded by acres of unspoilt saltmarsh, the Devon resort of Seaton has prided itself on its status as a serene backwater whose last serious skirmish with an unwanted invader was 700 years ago when it supplied Edward I with ships and sailors to fight off the French.

Yesterday, however, the 7,500 inhabitants of the town on the south Devon coast were readying themselves for a new battle after Tesco bought its largest employer, a holiday village, and promptly ordered its closure. The site also houses Seaton’s only nursery, catering for 35 children, and a swimming pool.

The 152 staff at the Lyme Bay Holiday Village have received redundancy letters informing them that the village, which hosts 40,000 people a year, will close next January to make way for a new development including a large supermarket, a visitor centre and tourist accommodation.

Residents have accused the retail giant, which last year made profits of nearly £2bn, of “breathtaking arrogance” by failing to present any firm proposals for the 15-hectare plot or a timetable for its redevelopment, meaning the town faces the prospect of being without a nursery or housing for the 80 holiday village staff who live on the sites.

Campaigners claim the company, which has said it wants to help make Seaton a “sustainable tourism” centre, has failed to respond to requests for a meeting to discuss its plans and only exercised its option to buy the holiday village after Sainsbury’s, expressed interest last month in acquiring land to build a store.

Lizzie Bewsher, head of a community group opposed to the plans, Stand Up 4 Seaton, said: “In one fell swoop, Tesco have bought up and shut down Seaton’s single biggest source of employment and income. A lot of businesses in the town rely on the passing trade that the holiday village brings in. The people who live in the holiday village face being made homeless and working parents will have nowhere to leave their children. The nearest nursery will be 10 miles away. The village also has the only gym and swimming pool in a town with very few facilities.

“Tesco has done this without offering any assurances that these facilities will be replaced next January or indeed without putting forward any plans for what it wants to do after the closure. It is acting with breathtaking arrogance. We have absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that Tesco will not bulldoze the holiday village, put a big fence around it and leave it untouched for a decade. They are throwing around their financial weight but we are determined not to stand for it.”

One employee said: “We are not by any means a failing business. The village is very popular with the local community and there is a very solid demand throughout the year. There is a lot of ill-feeling that a good business is being closed down without anything firm to replace it.”

If Tesco builds a store in Seaton it will be its tenth outlet within 22 miles. Residents have to travel 18 miles to reach one of its main competitors (Sainsbury’s, Asda or Morrisons), but there is a Waitrose seven miles away.

Tesco said in a statement: “The regeneration of Seaton … will bring significant and lasting benefits to the town, including new employment opportunities, with 250 or more new jobs being created by the new store, attractive shopping facilities and affordable housing. With regard to nursery provision, we are very happy to consider reproviding this service as part of the scheme in conjunction with private operators.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tesco-invades-seaton-ndashclosing-the-nursery-and-holiday-village-800210.html

Boo- hoo, Bovis still too poor to provide affordable housing in Seaton, and yet …

Poor, poor Bovis – literally.

Their housebuilding is going too slowly in Seaton and time is running out on their S106 agreement that reduced affordables on the 300+ housing site from 40% to 25% to 0%. So, they have to put in another submission showing that they simply cannot afford them and EDDC’s “independent valuer” agrees. Officers agree too and it just remains to be rubber-stamped at a forthcoming DMC.

http://planningapps.eastdevon.gov.uk/Planning/lg/dialog.page?Param=lg.Planning&org.apache.shale.dialog.DIALOG_NAME=gfplanningsearch&SDescription=13/1583/V106&viewdocs=true

BUT

In the meantime, councillors on and off the DMC, particularly in Seaton might want to think about it before jumping on that ” too poor” bandwagon:

Guardian 16 February 2016:

Bovis Homes predicts further growth after record profits
Housebuilder increases annual dividend by 14% to 40p a share after pre-tax profits for 2015 jump 20% to £160m”

Bovis Homes has predicted another year of growth after reporting record profits, which were helped by rising house prices and the government’s help to buy scheme.

http://gu.com/p/4hxx3

Yesterday, it was considered a “Buy” stock by Hragreaves Landsdown and Dautsche Bank and HBSC agreed:

http://www.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-search-results/b/bovis-homes-group-plc-ordinary-50p/broker-forecasts

Goldman Sachs agrees too:

Bovis Homes Group plc (BVS) Earns Buy Rating from Goldman Sachs

Terrible to be so poor isn’t it …

Cavanna Homes appeal against refusal of 40 dwellings in Newton Poppleford dismissed

15/0642/MRES Appeal 15/00052/REF Ref:
Cavanna Homes (Devon) Ltd And Pencleave 2 – Mr Ed Brown

Land South Of King Alfred Way Newton Poppleford Construction of 40 dwellings (including 16 affordable), doctors’ surgery and associated works (approval of details reserved by outline planning permission 13/0316/MOUT).

Appeal Dismissed Date: 02.03.2016 Written representations

Officer recommendation to approve, Committee Refusal. Affordable Housing pepper-potting reason upheld. (EDLP Strategy 34).

So, officers recommended, committee refused, committee decision upheld. How come officers did not know that East Devon Local Plan Strategy 34 was a reason to refuse!

STRATEGY 34:

Strategy 34 – District Wide Affordable Housing Provision Targets:
Affordable housing will be required on residential developments in East Devon as follows .
Within the areas defined below a target of 25% of the dwellings shall be affordable :
a) Axminster;
b) Exmouth;
c) Honiton;
d) Ottery St Mary;
e) Seaton; and
f) Major strategic ‘West end’ development sites.
Under this policy:
1 2
the towns listed above are defined by the area within the Built-up Area Boundary the major strategic West End development sites to which policy will apply are
a) Cranbrook,
b) adjacent to Pinhoe and
c) North of Blackhorse
as shown on the West End inset map (to the Proposals Plan)

Areas to which higher (50%) affordable housing targets apply: Outside of the areas listed above (i.e. all other parts of East Devon including all settlements not listed, coastal and rural areas and Budleigh Salterton and Sidmouth) 50% of the dwellings shall be affordable subject to viability considerations. The 50% figure applies to all areas that do not come under the 25% classification and which are permitted under Strategy 35 ‘Exceptions’ policy.

Where a proposal does not meet the above targets it will be necessary to submit evidence to demonstrate why provision is not viable or otherwise appropriate. An overage clause will be sought in respect of future profits and affordable housing provision, where levels of affordable housing fall below policy targets.

Looking across the lifespan of the plan an affordable housing policy provision target of 70% social or affordable rent accommodation and 30% intermediate or other affordable housing is sought. However in periods of depressed markets an alternative negotiated mix to reflect viability considerations and help deliver schemes will be acceptable. The District Council will consider issues of development viability and housing mix including additional costs associated with the development of brownfield sites, mitigation of contamination and the provision of significant community benefits provided the assessment process is completely transparent and there is full financial disclosure by stakeholders.

The thresholds at which this policy shall apply will be the minimum set out in Government policy or guidance (including any lower thresholds which Local Planning Authorities have the discretion to establish) subject to an up to date Council viability assessment showing that these thresholds can be justified. Where there is no applicable Government Policy or Guidance there will be no minimum size threshold at which affordable housing will be sought, subject to there being up to date strategic evidence that the general delivery of housing would not be significantly undermined.

Affordable housing shall be provided on site unless it is exempted through Government Policy or Guidance, is not mathematically possible or where off site provision of equivalent value is justified by circumstances such as no registered provider being willing to manage the new affordable units or other planning reasons. In such cases a payment towards an off site contribution will be required in lieu of on site provision. On any development site affordable housing should be ‘pepper-potted’ or dispersed throughout the scheme.