Nick Clegg lambasts Cameron and Osborne: no social housing because Labour voters live in them an Tories rig rules to stay in power

“George Osborne and David Cameron blocked plans to build more social housing because it would “produce more Labour voters”, Nick Clegg has claimed,

According to the former deputy prime minister, the chancellor and prime minister rejected repeated Lib Dem attempts to get more money to build homes for people on low incomes.

Clegg quoted the chancellor and prime minister in an interview with The Independent today as telling him: “All it does is produce more Labour voters.”

The former Lib Dem leader also said Osborne blocked his attempts to expand childcare provision for two-year-olds for poorer families in favour of offering 30 hours of free childcare for older children as it would score a political victory over Ed Miliband.

Clegg claims the chancellor told him at the time: “All we want to do is to shoot Labour’s fox”.

Labour MP Jess Phillips MP told The Huffington Post UK: “Nick Clegg complaining about a Tory government which he propped up for five years would be funny were it not so serious for the millions of working people who have suffered at the hands of him and David Cameron.

“That said, amidst all the self-serving bluster Nick Clegg has stumbled upon one truth: the Tories are trying to rig the rules of the game in their favour.

“Whether its attacks on opposition funding or changing constituency boundaries to help themselves, David Cameron’s is a government which puts its own interests before the country and it’s Britain that is paying the price.”

In the interview, Clegg also accused the Conservative Party of “rigging the rules” in its favour in such a way that could lead to a Tory “one-party state”.

He said: “If you look at the way the Conservatives seek to hobble and neuter Westminster, the bullying swagger with which they treat the BBC, the general air of hubris, there is a feeling that politics is being reduced to the whims and mood swings of one political party. That is not healthy.

“A combination of US-style game playing by the Conservatives and Labour’s self-indulgence is conspiring to leave millions of British voters completely voiceless.”

His criticism comes as officials have announced details of how the UK’s electoral map is to be re-drawn, but an analysis of the Boundary Commission’s proposals suggest it could cost the Labour Party 10 MPs to the Conservatives at the next election.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/26/george-osborne-didnt-want-to-build-houses-that-produce-labour-voters-claims-nick-clegg_n_9324920.html

Yet another battle to fight: more, many more, sneaky changes to planning

The devil is in the detail here – so many “minor” changes, never seen before – all gearing up to give our LEP total control of the planning system:

“This consultation seeks views on the proposed approach to implementing the planning provisions in the Housing and Planning Bill, and some other planning measures. It covers the following areas:

Changes to planning application fees
 Permission in principle
 Brownfield register
 Small sites register
 Neighbourhood planning
 Local plans
 Expanding the planning performance regime
 Testing competition in the processing of planning applications
 Information about financial benefits
 Section 106 dispute resolution
 Permitted development rights for state-funded schools
 Changes to statutory consultation on planning applications”

Click to access Planning_consultation.pdf

WE HAVE UNTIL 15 APRIL 2016 TO RESPOND

Shock, horror: planning problems hit the Home Counties!

It’s a pity that Christopher Booker can’t tell his NPPF from his SPPS and that it is only when planning problems hit the Home Counties that people suddenly take notice and get press coverage.

It’s a pity that David Cameron could not, 10 days ago, have taken time from traipsing round Europe to visit the pretty Thames-side Oxfordshire village of Sutton Courtenay, not many miles from his constituency. He would have seen the main street flooded with sewage – just one consequence of his wish to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built across southern England, many of them in villages like Sutton Courtenay with its 1,000 homes (and where George Orwell, rather appropriately it seems, is buried in the churchyard).

Under Mr Cameron’s policy, which gives a cash incentive to councils to build as many new homes as possible under their own “Local Plans”, the Vale of the White Horse district council wants to see an additional 20,000 going up in the next few years. Those proposed for Sutton Courtenay, some already built, could be as many as 1,835, thus trebling the village’s population almost overnight to more than 7,000 (one of six current schemes may alone add 800 houses).

One of many glaring problems all this poses to residents is that, while the council seems only too eager to hand out planning permission to big developers, the local planners seem far less concerned about the colossal strain this will place on the village’s “infrastructure”, of which the recent tide of filth overflowing from its creaking Victorian sewerage system was only an early warning sign.

The village has just three shops, a small primary school and its surrounding roads are already under strain from a growing weight of traffic, not least a narrow bridge over the Thames which at busy times can already create long tailbacks. But when the villagers ask what plans there are to provide new infrastructure to support this avalanche of development, one document they are directed to is the government’s Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS), which in 2012 boasted it would slash thousands of pages of planning rules to little more than 50.

The SPPS opens ominously with a claim that “national and international bodies have set out broad principles of sustainable development”, beginning with UN “Resolution 42/187”. The word “sustainable” is repeated 107 times. There are 18 mentions of “climate change”. But although there are 46 references to “infrastructure” there seems remarkably little to suggest that, to ensure genuinely “sustainable” development, it might be an idea for the planners to pay rather more attention to the need for new roads, shops and even an adequate sewerage system.

When Orwell wrote of how, in his world of the future, “Peace” meant war and “Truth” meant lies, he did not foresee how “Sustainable” would likewise come to mean its very opposite. In Sutton Courtenay churchyard he must be smiling wryly in his grave.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/12166686/What-would-George-Orwell-say-to-what-the-planners-are-doing-to-his-village.html

Sheltered housing scrapped: not viable

“Hundreds of planned new sheltered accommodation units have been delayed or scrapped owing to proposed cuts to housing benefit, the BBC has learned.
Several housing associations have said they are no longer financially viable.

The flats, for the elderly or people with learning disabilities, are more expensive to build and run because they provide additional support.

Ministers say they are reviewing the sheltered housing sector “to ensure it works in the best way possible”.

The National Housing Federation (NHF) has calculated that nearly 2,500 units have so far been scrapped or delayed as sheltered housing providers face losing an average of £68 a week per tenant.

David Orr, chief executive of the NHF, told the BBC: “There is real impact now.

“New homes for people with support needs – vulnerable people – that would be being built have been cancelled.”

BBC News has spoken to four housing associations who confirmed their plans had needed to change:

Southdown Housing in East Sussex scrapped plans for 18 units for people with learning disabilities

Knightstone Housing in Somerset has delayed a complex of 65 homes for the elderly and 13 properties for learning-disabled people

In Manchester, Contour Homes has had to put on hold a scheme to build 36 units for the elderly

In North Yorkshire, Harrogate Neighbours has delayed construction of 55 extra care flats

The changes – announced in Chancellor George Osborne’s Autumn Statement – will bring housing benefit rates for social housing in line with the sums paid to landlords in the private sector.

Mr Osborne said the move, which will affect England, Scotland and Wales, would deliver savings of £225m by 2020-21, and is part of a £12bn package of cuts from the welfare bill.

The cap includes sheltered housing, which is more expensive to provide due to the additional support on offer – anything from canteens to round-the-clock care staff.

The benefit will not actually be cut until April 2018 but it will affect people signing new tenancies from this April.

‘We couldn’t just absorb that’

At one sheltered housing complex in Harrogate, the need for new development is clear – there is only one lift and the corridors are narrow.

“We need to move,” said resident Frank Forkes. “It’s very cramped. If the lift breaks down, it’s chaos because you’ve people upstairs in wheelchairs.”
The housing association has spent eight years developing plans for a new complex a couple of miles away.

But following the government’s announcement in November, the board of Harrogate Neighbours delayed the scheme. Under the new rules, they will lose £100,000 per annum on it.

“As an organisation we have to be absolutely certain that we can afford to deliver all the services. And at the moment, it’s not viable,” chief executive Sue Cawthray said.

The consequences of the benefit cuts are even worse for Contour Homes in Manchester.

“We stand to lose – over the course of the 40-year life cycle of the development – if things stay as they are, £3.35m. As an organisation, we couldn’t just absorb that,” director of customer services Chris Langan said.
Labour described the housing benefit cut as a “catastrophe for those who can least afford it”.

But a spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: “We’ve always been clear that we value the work the supported accommodation sector does to protect the most vulnerable members of society.

“That’s why we are carrying out a thorough review, working with the sector, to ensure that it works in the best way possible – which is what the NHF has asked for.

“We are also providing councils with £870m of Discretionary Housing Payments which can be paid to people in supported accommodation.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35583415?SThisFB

Councils buying back homes they were forced to sell

“Freedom of information requests by Inside Housing show that of the £1bn raised since 2012 to replace right to buy, £27.3m of it has been used to buy back homes sold under right to buy.

The government encourages the sale of council houses by offering attractive discounts to tenants, who understandably choose to buy. The council is then faced with dwindling stocks while waiting lists lengthen and homelessness spikes. So it uses its cash to buy back the homes it could not afford to lose in the first place.

If you’re not angry, you should be – it’s a damaging policy that uses Treasury cash to gift people cut-price homes, only to buy them back at full price.”

http://gu.com/p/4gph8

“Developers should get cash incentives to build homes for the elderly” say Lords peers.

With one-bed luxury retirement apartments at Knowle almost certain to cost £300,000 plus with massive service charges, who thought up this gizzard scheme to further incentivise developers such as Pegasus Life!

The development at Millbrook Village in Exeter is advertising one-bed apartments at £325,000 upwards and two-bed properties at £550,000 upwards.

http://www.millbrookvillage.co.uk/available-properties/

No mention of TRULY AFFORDABLE homes to buy or to rent for the poorest of our elderly some of whom may be stuck in council houses paying bedroom tax because there are no suitable properties for them.

Do you think it is a good idea to further assist these developers?

From the article in the Daily Telegraph

“Developers should get cash incentives to build more homes for the elderly, a cross-party committee of peers has said, warning that developers are getting away with building poor quality homes in the rush to meet rising demand for new homes.

They said that while 60 per cent of “household growth in England up to 2033″ will be for those headed by someone aged over 65, just two per cent of current homes in homes in the country were fit for pensioners.

The peers on the select committee on National Policy for the Built Environment said creating more homes for pensioners would free up billions of pounds-worth of large homes for young families.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/greenpolitics/planning/12163901/Reward-developers-which-build-more-homes-for-the-elderly-peers-tell-Government.html

“Cornwall for change” (70 town and parish councils) campaigns to protect countryside

“A group of town and parish councils has launched a campaign to protect “the green fields of Cornwall”.

The group Cornwall for Change, representing 70 town and parish councils, said there was great concern about the way planning was being executed in the Duchy.

And their fight won support from the House of Lords late last week.

Campaigners said that Cornwall Council has already given permission for nearly 30,000 new homes, most of which are to be built on green fields around existing towns.

“This will increase traffic, have a big (bad) visual impact and make little or no benefit to locals who need genuinely affordable homes,” the organisers said.

“We need to make much smarter use of existing sites in and around Cornwall’s town centres so they can flourish once again.”

Orlando Kimber, spokesman for the umbrella group, said: “We are seeing 52,000 new homes planned, and all over the place they are being built on the green fields of Cornwall.

“Using brownfield sites would reduce the pressure on transport, and increase housing density in towns, which Cornwall Chamber of Commerce is in favour of.

“We recognise that Cornwall Council is under pressure with its budget, and we feel that whatever money it does have, it should spend wisely.”

He has previously called for an audit of brownfield sites in the Duchy, and gave the example of two suitable brownfield sites in Bodmin – the Walker Lines industrial estate and the MPG book factory, which is now acquired by Ocean Housing. …”

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Battle-save-Green-fields-Cornwall/story-28767974-detail/story.html

Older renters: a growing problem

” … How do older and impoverished prospective renters in similar situations find a guarantor (often a deal-breaking requirement)? Do they ask their parents? You might imagine that’s ridiculous, but according to my correspondent, one especially witless letting agent he encountered blithely requested exactly that.

You may be “youthful”, engaged with the world, erudite, and educated; you may possess a sharp sense of humour, like to socialise and enjoy contemporary culture and music. But it is sadly the case that healthy, prospective flat-sharers visibly in their 60s have little chance of passing rigorous vetting procedures such as speed flatmate finding sessions, or those combative group interview panels – especially when all the other applicants are in their 20s and 30s.

Many healthy older renters nurse a fear of sheltered housing, which is designed for people frailer and less independent than they are. What older healthy tenants require is never a tiny room with space for a single bed, hand-rails and a commode but no storage. What they really want is a home, a comfortable, secure, affordable home where they can stay a while (having perhaps a further 40 years left ahead of them). They might move into a care home eventually, but what they need right now is the same as everyone else – a secure place to stay. …”

http://gu.com/p/4gn85

Does Local Enterprise Partnership trump local and neighbourhood plans: if so, who said so and why bother getting them?

A correspondent writes:

I must be very naïve as I am at a loss to work out where the LEP gets a remit to make policies on housing.

The latest “board minutes” for November 2015 include a report from the Housing Task and Finish group.” [Who are members of this group, how long has it been meeting? What does it DO?] It was noted that much of this paper is relevant to Devolution in terms of offering a local solution, and it was suggested that rural villages and small towns had a role to play in addressing housing shortages which would also benefit the viability of small communities.”

The councillors, the bureaucrats and indeed the people of East Devon have sweated blood [and spent a great deal of money] over many years to acquire a Local Plan and have an agreed figure for the district of 17,100 new houses until 2031. In conjunction with this plan the majority of rural villages and small towns have or are developing Neighbourhood Plans.

Surely the rural villages and small towns are already making – and will continue to do so in the future – significant contributions to addressing housing shortages?

Will LEP policies take precedence over the Local and Neighbourhood Plans?

Can someone help me solve this one?”

Right to buy makes huge paper profits for Treasury

“Rising house prices across much of England mean a government scheme to help buyers of newbuild property may have made more than £200m for the Treasury in its first two-and-a-half years.

The help-to-buy equity loan scheme gives buyers an interest-free loan for five years in return for a percentage stake in their property. When the home is sold, the buyer returns the same percentage of the sale price, meaning that any fall or rise in house prices affects the return.

Analysis by property firm Hometrack and shared with the Guardian suggests that a surge in house prices in some areas means the total value of homes bought through the scheme since its launch in April 2013 has increased by more than £1bn. ”

http://gu.com/p/4gt2v

Hope your children and grandchildren will be better off than you?

“The idea that each generation would be more fortunate than the last no longer applies and perhaps helps explain why young people feel that traditional politics has little to offer them. The political economy of the analogue age was based on the idea that people would have secure, full-time employment that would enable them to save the deposit on a home relatively quickly.

Two new reports show how that model has completely broken down.

The first comes from the Resolution Foundation, which launched an in-depth study of inter-generational fairness with a look at the housing market. …

… The idea that each generation would be more fortunate than the last no longer applies and perhaps helps explain why young people feel that traditional politics has little to offer them. The political economy of the analogue age was based on the idea that people would have secure, full-time employment that would enable them to save the deposit on a home relatively quickly.

Two new reports show how that model has completely broken down. The first comes from the Resolution Foundation, which launched an in-depth study of inter-generational fairness with a look at the housing market.

The findings are shocking. So-called millennials – those born between 1982 and 2004 are on average 16 percentage points less likely to own their own than their parents in generation X. They, in turn are 10 percentage points less likely to own a home than their parents in the baby boomer generation.

Advertisement

For those on low to middle incomes the situation has become particularly tough. As recently as 1998, more than half of those earning 10-50% of average national income had a mortgage. That figure has now dropped to one in four and will be around one in 10 within a decade on current trends. Owner occupation is increasingly becoming the preserve of the elderly and the well off.

It’s not difficult to see why it has become harder for a young person on a modest income to get a foot on the housing ladder: in the late 1990s it took them three years to save up for a deposit, while today it would take 22 years. Soaring house prices have been marvellous for baby boomers, who have often used their windfalls to create their own mini buy-to-let empires, but have been disastrous for generation rent. London has become a virtual no-go area for young people with ambitions to own a home.

Unaffordable country: where can you afford to buy a house?
Read more
Rising house prices are, however, not the only reason young people find themselves trapped in rented accommodation. The other factor is that they are struggling to make a decent wage in an increasingly insecure and casualised labour market in which low pay is endemic.

That emerges from the first in-depth study into the number of “crowd workers”, people who are paid for work through online platforms such as Uber, Upwork and Taskrabbit. Prof Ursula Huws of the University of Hertfordshire says that 5 million people are being paid through these online platforms, with more than 3 million of them regularly engaged in various forms of crowd work. Delivery drivers, cleaners, tree surgeons, plumbers are increasingly likely to get jobs this way, with the online platform taking a cut of whatever they earn. …”

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/14/economics-viewpoint-baby-boomers-generation-x-generation-rent-gig-economy

East Devon Alliance evidence to House of Lords inquiry on affordable housing

East Devon Alliance has submitted excellent evidence to a House of Lords inquiry on affordable housing and to other housing inquiries. Here is the summary but the full report is well worth reading.

Has EDDC submitted evidence? Not that we are aware.

SUMMARY:

The NPPF [National Planning Policy Framework] inflated housing forecasts and other government policies have resulted in an oversupply of high-end homes and a lack of genuinely affordable housing.

East Devon is one of the least affordable areas in the country with average house prices almost 12 times average income. It is an attractive region for retirement. Demand for houses outstrips supply and the affluent can always outbid the locally employed.

EDDC has already granted permission, or received planning applications, for 80% of its 18-year 17,100 high growth scenario housing target. Evidence given at the public examination of the Local Plan shows that slow build-out rates of new houses are due to developers reacting to “market saturation”.

Rented accommodation is too expensive for the average renter, often in a poor state, and there are high eviction rates. Social housing rents are being cut by government, leading to “black holes” in local authority housing budgets. Councils and housing associations are being forced to sell houses on “right to buy” discounts, leaving insufficient funds to build replacements.

The East Devon Alliance has made several submissions to organisations who are reviewing the state of the housing sector, and these are shown below.”

http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk/district-issues/housing/

Government committee criticises housing association “right to buy”

… “the Communities and Local Government committee says the funding model it is using, which will force councils to compensate housing associations with the money raised from council house sales, is “extremely questionable” and is effectively a “levy” on councils.

It says the scheme should be funded by central government and questions how ministers are going to meet their target of replacing every property sold off with a new one. …

… Committee chairman Clive Betts said: “The fundamental success of this policy depends not just on whether more tenants come to own their home but on whether more homes are built.

“The government needs to set out in more detail how it will meet its target of at least one-for-one replacement of the sold homes, particularly given issues such as the availability of land, the capacity of the building industry and the uncertainty of income from council home sales.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35534463

Greenwich insists that all developers publish their (non) affordable housing data

All planning applications in Greenwich must now include full details and cost calculations of calculations relating to affordable housing (or lack of it) in their initial planning applications.

http://www.publicsectorexecutive.com/Public-Sector-News/council-bans-developers-from-keeping-their-affordable-housing-viability-studies-confidential?utm_source=Public%20Sector%20Executive&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=6740360_PSE%20Bulletin%20Feb%2016%20wk%201&dm_i=IJU,40GW8,KSFJZ3,EI3XE,1

500,000 buy-to-let properties to flood market as tax breaks end?

“Half a million buy to let properties could be dumped on the housing market in the next 12 months, potentially driving down house prices as landlords move to avoid a crackdown by George Osborne.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3429735/Landlords-flood-market-half-MILLION-homes-drive-house-prices-scramble-avoid-George-Osborne-s-buy-let-crackdown.html

Questions: how come there were are so many and what profits were they making up to now? And where will people who can’t afford to buy live?

LGA fights further government attack on council finances

From a correspondent:

The Local Government Association is taking a strong stand against very damaging parts of Housing and Planning Bill currently in the Lords. Fundamentally, the proposal is to tax councils for a third of their most expensive council homes, expecting them to have been sold at a discount whenever vacant. Ministers Lewis, Clarke and presumably Osbourne are very intransigent on this issue, saying it was in the manifesto which 36.9 per cent of people voted for. They are dead set on a smaller public sector.

Under new legislation, councils will have to hand over the estimated equivalent sum for the sale of a third of their housing, whether they have sold them or not. Housing Associations will be expected to use that money towards building more housing somewhere in the country. It is hard to make it add up when substantial discounts are taken out along the way. It is also very discouraging for councils to build, knowing they will have to sell cheap. That pushes more people into the private rented sector. That is accompanied by an increase in the cost of welfare benefits and a greater risk of homelessness. Meanwhile the councils’ ability to assist is reduced.

Working with the Lords, the LGA has been clear that this legislation as it stands is very damaging. Crossbench Peers who have a great deal of expertise on this field and are working very hard on this, this week. They are proposing improvements in the legislation and hopefully some amendments will survive the course through the Lords and when it goes back to the Commons.

Next week, the Minister is considering our responses on the Finance Settlement 2016/17. The LGA submission is hefty and wide-ranging at nearly 30 pages long. It follows a series of direct meetings by leading members and officers to clarify each point. The Independent group members have played a substantial role in this. The reductions of 40 per cent in real terms is enough for some councils to be unable to set a budget at all, even with raising their council tax by 2 per cent. The additional 2 per cent care tax on top is a big help but will not cover the rising costs. Effectively there is a replacement of the income tax, in the government grants that comes to Councils in RSG, with council tax. This is less and being a property tax is a blunter tool.

The new business rates that are due to arrive are to be allocated to particular responsibilities of councils. For example, public health, capital development for transport in London, housing benefit administration and attendance allowance. This means the cuts we face now are long term. The effect of this is very harsh in some councils. For example, in one County Council it is currently proposed in this one year to use pretty well the remains of irs reserves to make the budget balance (£38m) and make cuts/savings of £42m, all on a budget of £476m. The council has also been selling off property as fast as possible, not looking for longer term gains, to help cover next year’s shortfall. However, it is now evident that the shortfall is not likely to be temporary.”

Insurance company to build 3,000 rental flats

Legal and General will construct 3,000 “Build to rent” flats in London, Bristol and Salford.

Affordable? Answers on a postcard …

http://gu.com/p/4g6nh

Only 200 put of a possible 100,000 homes built on public land sold off to developers

Just 200 homes have been built on public land sold off by the Government over the last five years, new figures have revealed.

Despite the land having a capacity for 109,000 homes, the only record of any homebuilding points to a mere 2% of them being actually constructed, MPs on the Public Accounts Committee heard.

The statistics came just weeks after David Cameron pledged to build hundreds of thousands of homes every year, as he battles to make housing a key legacy of his premiership.

Downing Street today insisted that despite the figures, it was determined to deliver a million new houses and flats by 2020.

In evidence to MPs, Whitehall officials from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) said that they had carried out research on 100 of 942 sites sold as part of the Tory-Lib Dem Coalition’s drive to free up spare land owned by the taxpayer.

Despite warnings from the National Audit Office for better record-keeping, the senior civil servants admitted that it would be upto ministers to require more monitoring of the results of public land sales.

Work has started on a further 2,400 homes, with 2,100 having received planning permission and 4,300 awaiting planning permission, one sample projected.

Extrapolating this to the whole programme could suggest that about 1,800 homes have been built in total, but Whitehall cannot say for sure as it does not know what happened to the other 842 sites which have been sold.

Melanie Dawes, the Permanent Secretary at the DCLG, said that the figures showed that “build-out can take a long time”.

“It can take 20 years for some of these sites to build out,” she said.

But her approach infuriated MPs on the committee, with chair Meg Hillier complaining that “we still don’t know how many homes have actually been built”.

Tory MP Stewart Jackson, a Conservative MP and committee member, said he was “very sceptical” about the department’s wider claims of success, dubbing the 200 figure “very poor performance”.

And fellow committee member Richard Bacon slated the department, accusing officials of “absolving yourself of the responsibility of making sure housing is built” on sites that government has sold off.

Both he and Mr Jackson said it was hard to see why it should take decades to build homes on the land.

Asked about the 200 figure, a spokesman for the Prime Minister today said: “The commitment is clear: we want to deliver 1 million new homes at the end of this Parliament.

“Numbers are increasing but clearly there is a lot more to do.”

Huffington Post UK

East Devon could solve more than 50% of Devon’s housing need …

… if every one of the new houses in the Local Plan was social or affordable housing.

According to a report on Spotlight tonight, Devon has 32,546 on its waiting lists.

EDDC is planning to build more than 18,000 houses here.

How many will be social or affordable? Depends on who you believe – but somewhere between almost none and hardly any is the best guess!

What happens when your Local Enterprise Partnership sets housing targets

Extract from article published in G2 20 Jan by Patrick Barkham concerning the development of Bicester, Britain’s only “Garden Town” entitled “Dog’s breakfast springs to mind”.

“In Bicester, as across the rest of England, high housing targets are driven by genuine need but also by the priorities set by unelected, unaccountable groups of businesspeople: Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs).

Bicester must take so many homes because the Oxfordshire Growth Board, a joint committee of the six councils of Oxfordshire, commissioned a strategic housing market assessment to determine the county’s housing needs.

This assessment is strongly influenced by the LEPs, according to the Campaign to Protect Rural England. “Housing targets are very much informed by the LEPs’ growth aspirations and these growth aspirations aren’t informed by a county’s capacity to take that growth,” says Matt Thomson, head of planning at the CPRE. “LEPs do all their work on aspirations for economic growth without considering the environment or social impacts but also without any public input. There’s no consultation, there’s no accountability’.

The housing target for Oxfordshire is particularly ambitious: 100,000 new homes by 2030 – increasing the county’s population by a third. Thomson doesn’t think it will be possible to build homes at double the highest-ever previous rate.

If those targets are unrealistic, what’s the problem? “By setting very high targets you have to identify lots of sites. Once those sites are identified, builders will choose the ones that are cheapest to buy and most profitable to build on – greenfield sites,” says Thomson. Cherry-picking the best sites will create unnecessary sprawl, a lack of affordable homes and half-built estates badly served by infrastructure.

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/jan/19/bicester-britains-only-garden-town

Also, if this ambitious target is not met, there is a very strong chance that the government will allow reversion to a developer free-for all.

Built-in failure for Local Plans – hmmm.