“Regeneration plans and meetings” – are they worth the effort

A correspondent writes:

“For years Exmouth and Seaton have had regeneration areas and Regeneration Boards. Until recently, all the Regeneration Board meetings were secret – now they are published but often with redacted parts.

But are these meetings, Boards, plans, consultations worth the bother?

Seaton’s regeneration area began life with a relatively small supermarket, housing, community and leisure facilities and a hotel, with 40% affordable housing in a total of over 400 houses. What they got was an enormous Tesco, less than 300 houses and no affordable homes.

Exmouth is now going the same way: it started as a purely seafront-themed “upgrading” but changed into expensive housing and cloned businesses.

So, we must ask ourselves: what were all these plans, meetings and consultations actually FOR? What we are ending up with on both sites is nothing like what was initially planned, or discussed or consulted on.

Regeneration Boards are top-heavy with the developers on each site, who appear to use them to push forward their plans, unchallenged either by councillors or officers – in fact, the total opposite, leaving said officers and councillors to ram through their development agendas.

Surely, this makes a total mockery of our officers, councillors and Regeneration Boards but, more importantly, the electors of East Devon, who were sold pups – coincidentally just before two major district elections.

Government has no idea how many homes have been built on public land

An influential committee of MPs has strongly criticised the Government for failing to collect information on the actual number of houses built or under construction under its high-profile public sector land disposal programme.

The Department of Communities and Local Government has previously claimed that by the end of March 2015, the Government had disposed of land with capacity for an estimated 109,950 homes, across 942 sites.

The biggest contributors were the Ministry of Defence (around 39,000 homes), the Homes and Communities Agency (around 21,000, on behalf of the DCLG) and the Department of Health (around 15,000).

But in a report, Disposal of public land for new homes, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) said the DCLG was unable to demonstrate whether the programme had succeeded in addressing the housing shortage or achieving value for money.

The Department had also not ascertained the proceeds from land sold, or whether the parcels of land were sold at market value, the MPs said.

“Instead, it chose to focus only on a notional number for ‘potential’ capacity for building houses on the land sold by individual departments in order to determine ‘success’,” the PAC said.

The committee noted that the DCLG had also counted towards the programme’s target the capacity of land sold before the programme had even started.

“It did not collect basic information necessary to oversee the programme effectively and, where it did collect programme-level data, there were omissions and inconsistencies, the report said.

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24529:mps-blast-lack-of-information-on-public-sector-land-disposal-programme&catid=58&Itemid=26

A different (Labour) way of financing social housing?

Under the plans, contained in a report produced for a think-tank, the new homes could pay for themselves within a generation through savings to housing benefit.

The report said the housing benefit bill has grown quicker under the Conservatives than under Labour administrations.

On current trends, the housing benefit bill is set to hit £45 billion in today’s prices by 2045, more than the UK currently spends on defence, the report said.

The report said the programme of affordable public homes to buy and rent could pay for itself in 26 years purely through lower housing benefit payments, returning a “profit” to the Exchequer of £5.8 billion over 30 years.

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Labour-plan-build-100-000-affordable-homes-year/story-27881403-detail/story.html

Sidmouth Mill Street “car park” – the latest scandal

“District councillor Matt Booth, a Sidmouth town ward member, said the first he saw of the ‘bombshell’ Mill Street proposals was in the Herald – and claimed the authority showed a ‘lack of transparency’.

Mr Booth claimed: “It has a problem of transparency and accountability – and it can’t go on ignoring that.

“It does a disservice to the councillors and officers who do such fantastic work. It’s also massively disrespectful to us as ward members – we weren’t consulted.”

Cllr Booth said he and Councillor Cathy Gardner had met EDDC chief executive Mark Williams two months ago to talk about how the section 106 funding would be spent. Cllr Booth said they discussed potential affordable housing on the Manstone Depot site or in Woolbrook Road – but claimed Mill Street car park was never mentioned.

An EDDC spokeswoman said: “We would like to emphasise that this is very early days in the decision-making process and that absolutely nothing has yet been agreed.

“There will be a fully transparent and participative debate about how people would like to see this important site used to its best advantage in the tow

http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk/in-the-press/20150925/sidmouth-herald-mill-street-proposal-eddc-lacks-transparency/

And follow Sidmothian conversations here:

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/the-district-council-developing-mill.html

“The other generation rent”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Housing targets like “Alice in Wonderland”

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

by Julie Mabberley
Wantage and Grove Campaign Group campaign manager

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good time to buy a Devon country estate

“… This is the time of opportunity for savvy London buyers who are looking to move down to the Westcountry. With many keeping their London homes and buying again in central Exeter or those selling a modest house in Notting Hill and buying a country house with 20 acres. This autumn market will be much better than in 2014 and we predict an improved level of transactions yet again, with buyers wishing to buy and complete before Christmas 2015.” …

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Westcountry-property-market-attracting-London/story-27862889-detail/story.html

Affordable housing? In your dreams.

Fantasy v. reality and localism v. centralism in housing supply

    And not a mention of the bigger problems – land banking, lack of infrastructure and no incentives to build affordable properties – in either article!

    Report calls for local authorities to be cut out of housing projects

    With just 117,720 homes built last year, a new report from planning consultancy Quod [and coincidentally appointed by Brandon Lewis below, to speed up planning permissions] and lawyers Bond Dickinson suggests that the housing shortage has become so severe that building projects should be considered by central government rather than by local authorities. It argues that housebuilding should be brought into the nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIP) regime, thus allowing developers to apply directly to the government for planning permission, bypassing local authority planning regulations.

    “Local housing plans are being held up either because it’s a difficult decision for local authorities to take, or two or three local authorities can’t agree between themselves, or the local inspectorate is pushing back. So it’s taking a long time for those local plans to come through, and there’s no guarantee that will change. There are no perfect solutions to delivering large-scale housing development, but the NSIP regime looks to be an attractive option, and we urge the government to consult on its usage as a matter of urgency,”

    Kevin Gibbs a partner at Bond Dickinson explains.
    The Times, Page: 45

    and

    “Lewis hopes for 1m new homes by end of Parliament

    Brandon Lewis, the housing minister, has said in a BBC documentary that he hopes to see 1m new homes built by the end of this Parliament. Gavin Smart, deputy chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Housing, said: “Matching the ambition with successful delivery would be a great achievement.”

    However, Professor Tony Crook, of the University of Sheffield, commented: “It would certainly be a significant target, but a lot of people would argue it’s not enough.” He added that private sector builders would only be able to deliver 150,000 a year by themselves, and said the Government must do more to support building by other sectors if it is to meet the target.

    The BBC Inside Out documentary was aired last night on BBC1 at 7.30pm and is available on BBC

The effects of land banking

It isn’t just that there are not enough planning permissions – it is also that those permissions granted are not being built to artificially inflate prices.

Time for a land tax perhaps where developers not building are taxed on the empty plots? Not likely in this government’s lifetime, as developers have a stranglehold on policies and use them to their benefit rather than ours.

Also interesting that the South West as a whole (Gloucestershire to Cornwall) appears to need about 40,000 houses and East Devon wants to build nearly half that total.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34209027

Broadening of “right to buy” will cause housing crisis

“Unable to buy, people – especially the young – are turning to rent as the only option. Private rents are exploding: the UK average monthly private rent is now £900, up 10% on last year. This is a dog-eat-dog world of large deposits, six weeks’ rent paid in advance and stunning agents’ fees. So for just a moderate flat the renter has to find more than £2,000 even to cross the threshold.

Hence, social housing has never been more important – yet last year only 1,230 new council houses were built to offset an estimated 10,000-15,000 that are sold each year. More than 1.5m council homes have been sold since 1980.”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/20/right-to-buy-disastrous-for-housing-market

Did Claire Wright have a crystal ball when speaking about Cranbrook and the ‘Growth Point’ in 2012?

Here are a few comments she made at that time when she and other councillors visited the Growth Point on 11 May 2012l:

“I asked how many companies had bought space at Skypark.

Answer: None.

And Skypark has been marketed for well over a year.

I remembered the stark warning given by consultants, Roger Tym, who state on page 75 of their Housing and Employment Study 2011, that marketing for a 1.4m sq ft scheme at Langage Business Park in Plymouth has progressed over the last five years without success of obtaining a single occupier.

It is the challenge of dealing with large strategic allocations, they say.

Hopefully, Skypark will achieve full occupation in time. But it does rather put the challenge of filling the many and large industrial allocations for the rest of East Devon, into perspective.

If Skypark, in a hugely convenient location is not proving a goer (so far), what hope is there for almost 50 acres of industrial land allocated for Honiton?”

Recall that Asda pulled out of Heathpark and now EDDC is plugging the gap by moving there itself at enormous cost. Skypark is still mostly empty with its owners having gone on record to say it could take many, many years to rent it all out.

And, having just returned from a visit to Cranbrook on the same day, she wrote:

When I got home I couldn’t help wondering whether:

– the Skypark would ever get off the ground, or instead would mirror the non-progress of Langage Business Park in Plymouth

– the Science Park would ever consist of any more than Exeter University’s Innovation Centre

– If the inhabitants of Rockbeare would be swallowed up by Cranbrook, following a highly dubious decision, backed by the majority of the Local Plan Panel (not me) and Development Management Committee, to allocate south of the A30 for future expansion, despite a promise that this would not happen

– the public would ever consider the millions of pounds of public money ploughed into ‘growth point’ and Cranbrook, as money well spent.

– What sort of town Cranbrook would become. How big would it grow? Would I enjoy visiting it?

I have no answers to these questions yet. No one does. Only time will tell.

I have to say I am already rather tired of the pictures in local papers of grinning councillor and developer faces at turf cuts, of the continual talk of ‘great excitement’ and the oft heard promises of thousands of jobs and creation of wealth, none of which has materialised yet… and may not ever do so.

That said, I genuinely hope that ‘growth point’ and Cranbrook are huge successes.

Mainly because any other outcome would be a staggering waste of public funding, not to mention an irreplaceable loss of beautiful countryside.”

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/an_honest_look_at_cranbrook_and_growth_point

NPPF to be “simplified” by group of developers, consultants, the Tory MP for Henley, a Tory Councillor and a Planner from a Tory Council!…

“Planning Minister Brandon Lewis  (15 September 2015) launched a new group of experts to help streamline the local plan-making process.  The 8-strong panel will consider how it can be simplified [yet again!] with the aim of slashing the amount of time it takes for local authorities to get them in place.

This will provide greater certainty to communities regarding plans for new homes and infrastructure in their area, while speeding up the planning process so developers can get on site quicker.

Members include:

  • Chair John Rhodes of planning consultants Quod
  • Adrian Penfold from developers British Land
  • Richard Harwood QC from legal firm 39 Essex Chambers
  • Councillor Toby Elliott from Swindon Borough Council
  • Keith Holland, a retired Senior Planning Inspector
  • Liz Peace, formerly of the British Property Federation
  • John Howell MP, member for Henley
  • Derek Stebbing, Local Authority Plans Manager for Chelmsford City Council”

Quote from the Planning Minister:

“Our planning reforms have caught the imagination of communities across the country, allowing them to bring forward developments that are a real benefit to local people.

However, while many have seized this opportunity, it’s fair to say the process of getting Local Plans in place can sometimes be lengthy and complicated.

That’s why we’ve brought together this panel of experts to help look at ways to streamline the process. Their first-class advice will help councils push on and deliver the homes and infrastructure that their communities need.”

https://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2015/09/16/its-pag-ii-they-are-the-main-cause-of-slow-local-plans-so-why-let-them-wreck-them-further/

“Group of experts, eh”.  Same old ……

East Devon council housing – 260 plus homes will have to be sold off

Can anyone explain why East Devon has to sell off more than twice as many council houses as the whole of Cornwall, four times as many as Bournemouth, Wiltshire, Cheltenham and Stroud and Exeter and seven times as many as Mid Devon, not to mention thirteen or fourteen times as many as Swindon, Gloucester and Sedgemoor? It can’t be explained by relative general house prices surely?  And why in order for housing association tenants to get up to £100,000 to buy THEIR homes?

To put it into another context – you would have to add up all the council housing to be sold in Sedgemoor, Gloucester, Swindon, Mid-Devon, Stroud, Cheltenham, Taunton Deane AND Exeter (286) to overtake just East Devon (262)!

TOTAL (South West) 1440 1.4%

Bristol, City of 374 1.3%

East Devon 262 6.1%

Poole 259 5.7%

Cornwall 111 1.1%

Bournemouth 71 1.4%

Wiltshire 71 1.3%

Exeter 70 1.4%

Taunton Deane 62 1.1%

Cheltenham 59 1.3%

Stroud 57 1.1%

Mid Devon 31 1.0%

Swindon 6 0.1%

Gloucester 5 0.1%

Sedgemoor 2 0.0%

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/East-Devon-areas-worst-hit-new-government-plans/story-27808795-detail/story.html

And still we don’t build age-appropriate housing …

Cranbrook was criticised for having no plans to deal with older people’s housing needs. You can see why:

Devon is facing an “unprecedented” challenge due to a “disproportionate” increase in the number of over-65s, according to a report.

The numbers are expected to increase by 20% within the next 10 years, a report to Devon County Council said.

The cost to the county’s health and social care system could rise by more than £275m over the next five years. The council said investment in disease prevention was needed “to reduce the financial burden”.

‘Downward spiral’

The number of over-85s is expected to grow by 37% over the next 10 years, according to the report. Andrea Davis, the councillor responsible for improving health and wellbeing, said: “We should celebrate that we are living longer. “But there’s no point in living longer if we are not very well.
“It’s when you are in your 40s, 50s, 60s or 70s that you can make a difference to those very late years of your life.”
Councillors will discuss the report at the corporate services scrutiny meeting on Thursday.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-34260197

What mainstream media isn’t telling you about that DCC Cranbrook Report!

What the Express and Echo article on Cranbrook DIDN’T report:

Firstly, that along with Councillor Moulding, other EDDC (or former EDDC) councillors were part of the DCC task group which were closely involved with the development of Cranbrook: councillors Bowden and former EDDC Leader Sarah Randall-Johnson.

and bits of the report that didn’t make the mainstream media have been extracted here:

Developers are house builders, not town builders. The planning of e.g. the town centre and open spaces is the responsibility of the district council as the local planning authority whose responsibility it is to ensure that developing land commercially is coordinated with building a new community with social as well as physical facilities and infrastructure. It took five years to negotiate the original Section 106 Agreement.

Numerous concerns were shared with the task group in relation to the developers’ activities, among them a large number of incidents relating to the quality of the completed homes, including compliance with plans and residents struggling to encourage developers to address any shortcomings. Landscaping of community space has followed rather than preceded development and the management and maintenance of future community space and development land is lacking. The number of complaints regarding the quality of the built environment resulted in some community representatives being concerned about Cranbrook’s future reputation and the success of future phases.

Despite numerous invitations it was disappointing that none of the four house builders were available to comment on the concerns which participants shared with the task group.

Community Infrastructure

There is no standard model for planning community infrastructure and negotiating with developers, service commissioners and providers, but what is critical in creating a new town is upfront funding to support delivery the development of roads, community infrastructure and affordable housing from the public purse. Some of those facilities, e.g. the primary and secondary schools, Clyst Honiton bypass and Younghayes Community Centre, have been finalised ahead of schedule in Cranbrook. For others, notably the train station, there is a strong public perception that facilities are substantially behind schedule. Building and operating facilities without residents to use them is not viable but equally, residents expect facilities as soon as they move in. Participants repeatedly called for a multi-disciplinary team to plan and shape the future provision of services in Cranbrook.

In the absence of alternative public transport provision other than a limited but expanding bus service, car parking facilities were described as inadequate, including insufficient car parking allocation per bedroom, no visitors’ car parking, allocated parking bays being situated away from homes and garages being physically too small for cars to fit in them. Concern was expressed that habits formed in the early days would be hard to unlearn and that transport infrastructure should be delivered in line with residential development. Residents criticised “blue sky” bicycle thinking ignoring the reality that today’s Society had a two car per dwelling dependency which should be catered for in new development.

The roads in the town are not yet adopted, and as they are carrying significant volumes of construction traffic, the County Council does not currently have timescales for when responsibility will be transferred. The maintenance for the roads remains the responsibility of the developers, including gritting in the winter. The task group understands that the developers have an agreement with Devon County Council to finance gritting by the highway authority in severe weather. Several participants expressed concerns about dangerous car parking by residents and developers on pavements, corners and junctions but Devon County Council cannot extend its civil parking enforcement service until the roads are adopted.

Safe access routes to the Cranbrook Education Campus (primary and secondary schools) were due to be completed by the end of August 2015, including secure footpaths. An Infrastructure Site Manager employed by the Developer Consortium was overseeing their completion.

The task group remains concerned about the secondary school being located next to the railway line. Network Rail has committed to delivering awareness training for the children once per year in the school. The school was also planning to operate manned gates.

The main road through Cranbrook is not finished which might cause problems for parents whose children attend both the Cranbrook Education Campus. They would have to drop children off at both sites at similar times with no direct access route to both.

A pre-school facility would have assisted at an early stage.

When the first residents moved into Cranbrook in the summer of 2012, there was no social or community infrastructure or service provision beyond the completion of their homes. The task group repeatedly heard how this was a problem especially for the more vulnerable residents, including single parent families and residents without access to private transport. Social housing occupants were housed in Cranbrook and thereby removed from established communities, with shops, public transport and public services, and lived in Cranbrook in isolation. The complete lack of healthcare, social care or other professional support during the first 18-24 months meant that some residents were left to struggle on their own, exacerbating existing problems, including (post-natal/long-term) depression and drug/alcohol dependency.

Participants repeatedly expressed how there was provision for young children under the age of five in the form of open spaces and safe play areas, and some surrounded by unsafe fencing, but still no facilities exist for older children and teenagers. This resulted in problems, e.g. older children using the park and making it an unpleasant environment for younger children to play. Although funding had been available in the Section 106 Agreement from the beginning, the youth bus had only commenced at a later date. The task group understands that this provision was temporally withdrawn following an alleged antisocial behaviour incident at the end of July 2015. Participants commented that the provision should increase in order to combat antisocial behaviour issues, rather than be withdrawn.

The Cranbrook Medical Centre opened on 20 April 2015, nearly three years after the first residents moved in. An unsuccessful tender for new services and premises had been issued by the then Devon Primary Care NHS Trust in the past. The reorganisation of the NHS saw the responsibility for the commissioning of primary care services transfer to NHS England which awarded the contract to Devon Doctors. A funding challenge remains: Core services delivered in GP surgeries are funded per capita based on the number of formal registrations with a surgery. Although the current practice in Cranbrook has a capacity for approximately 3,500 patients, only 514 patients were formally registered at the end of July 2015. NHS England has provided some core minimum funding to the practice whilst the list size remains low and this will be paid until the registered population reaches a certain size, at which point capitation-based funding will be applied; another example of upfront funding required in the initial period. Two GPs, who are building their work load up to full time, and one nurse are currently practicing.

A backlog of patients who still need to be registered remains. When moving to Cranbrook, residents had to register with the Pinhoe & Broadclyst Medical Practice in cases where their old surgeries would not keep them registered. The Pinhoe & Broadclyst Medical Practice was difficult to access with public transport from Cranbrook which had proved a challenge for the more vulnerable members of the community.

Cranbrook is forecast to have approximately 20,000 residents by 2031 and the GP surgery will have to slowly evolve in order to grow in conjunction with the growth in residents and their future healthcare needs. The surgery will need a new building in the future with sufficient capacity to expand in a modular way to grow with the population. It would therefore be important for the NHS to be able to access Section 106 funding as appropriate to enable such premises to be facilitated, although there are concerns around State Aid which will need to be addresses as GP practices are effectively private businesses. NHS England is currently working with other health partners to develop a joint response to planning applications being received.

Pharmacy

The independent pharmacy is being accommodated in temporary premises at present and the task group heard from participants how its provision might have been better coordinated and co-located with the GP surgery with improved forward planning.

One of the objectives in the development of Cranbrook is to develop the employment infrastructure, i.e. create one job per residential dwelling. Employment opportunities exist in nearby Exeter, the SkyPark and the Science Park and eventually in the town itself, with the intention that Cranbrook develops as a small enterprise town. The development of small-scale employment spaces is currently being pursued with the conversion of two residential dwellings into offices. Commercial properties in the town centre have not yet sold. The task group questioned where spaces are in the town for small- and medium-sized enterprises to establish their businesses. An Economic Development Strategy has been developed for Cranbrook.

What are Corbyn’s views on local government?

… “We should enable individual councils and consortia of authorities to plan and implement schemes, giving them power to raise funds in new ways such as local bond issues. Every pound raised for local projects should be spent on local projects, not leached away into financiers’ profits. We cannot afford to repeat the mistake of previous Labour administrations in demanding that projects be funded through wasteful PFI schemes.

The National Investment Bank that I have proposed would play a key role in facilitating finance for such devolved projects that met strategic objectives.

This would signal a major shift of power to local government from the Treasury, DCLG and DECC, and should be accompanied by strong community involvement before and during the statutory consenting process. Unlike the Tories, Labour should not make devolution of new powers conditional on moving towards elected mayors. I value a collegiate decision-making process in which power does not reside in an individual operating behind closed doors (something our parliamentary party could benefit from too!), but where all members of a local authority have a strong democratic role.” …

…”Council housing has to play the central role in tackling the housing crisis and kick-starting local economies. A new era of council housing should embrace its founding purpose: to host diverse, sustainable communities, not become the economic ghetto the Tories seek to create.

This new generation of council housing, must blaze a trail in sustainable housing – carbon neutral if possible and with minimum standards to ensure high quality housing for all. Construction and repairs should be undertaken by revitalised direct labour organisations wherever possible.” …

http://lgalabour.local.gov.uk/documents/330956/7416908/Jeremy+Corbyn.pdf/d2569268-f869-4271-8b5d-23c3fc131fa0

Can’t see some of this going down well in some quarters …

Help to buy scandal

“Overall, 1,758 help to buy loans were handed out to individuals or couples who take home more than £100,000 a year – despite them being in the top 10 per cent richest households in the country.

In addition, almost 500 of the couples earning over £100,000 who were given government help already owned a property.

Government officials insisted today that the scheme was working well – pointing to figures showing almost half the loans to first time buyers went to those earning £40,000 or less.

However, this masks the fact that more than 30,000 loans were handed to households earning more than £40,000 a year – which puts them in the richest 30 per cent of earners in the country.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3227614/Helps-Buy-helps-rich-1-750-couples-earning-100-000-Osborne-s-cheap-loans-including-500-house.html

Perhaps we could use Knowle to put up refugees

Well, with almost zero affordable housing in East Devon, where else is there? Cranbrook, perhaps?

This is what Leader Diviani has said (our translation: we won’t do a damned thing unless simeone forces us):

“EDDC leader councillor Paul Diviani said: “During the past 48 hours EDDC has received a number of enquiries from concerned local residents as well as the media regarding the Syrian Refugee Crisis, asking how they and the council will be able to help. 
“While we are awaiting more detailed advice from the Government, we would like to express our deep concern about the refugee situation and to confirm that we are keen to assist in any way we can as part of a practical local support network to help refugees resettle successfully.”

Why do most Germans rent their homes?

“It’s just a fact. Many Germans can’t be bothered to buy a house. The country’s homeownership rate ranks among the lowest in the developed world, and nearly dead last in Europe, though the Swiss rent even more. Here are comparative data from 2004, the last time the OECD updated its numbers.”

http://qz.com/167887/germany-has-one-of-the-worlds-lowest-homeownership-rates/