Is our MP’s Party “Committed to protecting our natural environment”?

Not in East Devon, nor indeed in the UK, as pointed out in this letter in the Exmouth Journal (04/12/2014):

‘Last week Hugo Swire told us that his party is committed to protecting the natural environment, keeping development sustainable etc. But that view is not shared across the country.
The Government planning policies have failed to protect communities from rapid and disproportionate development. That was the widespread view of those, like me, who had been invited form all parts of the country to Westminster in September to give evidence to a Parliamentary Select Committee.
Everyone had stories to share of large tracts of agricultural land being built on; villages doubled in size; brownfield sites in the centre of old industrial towns being left, while the green fields around the margins are being built on because it is cheaper; extensive building in flood plains; the green belt eroded; AONB protection swept aside.
All this is happening under the guise of sustainable development because of the Government’s drive for house building at any cost and in any place. But the term sustainable is so ill defined that using wooden cladding or installing plastic plumbing in place of copper and a low flush toilet, ticks the box.
No thought is being given to social or environmental sustainability. Yes, we need housing to meet local needs, particularly affordable housing. But we are not getting it and we have sacrificed a lot of agricultural land in the process. Affordable housing promised in planning applications disappears when developers plead poverty. I understand none of the affordable housing promised by Tesco in Seaton, for example, will be built.
David Daniel’

East Devon, Exeter and Teignbridge three of the most unaffordable places to rent in SW

Well, that will give the new group something to talk about, but will they act? East Devon is striking out affordable housing when asked (pressurised) to do so by developers:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Exeter-revealed-unaffordable-place-rent-South/story-25209270-detail/story.html

For every 4 council houses sold off, 1 built

http://rss.feedsportal.com/c/266/f/3496/s/4103ec79/sc/7/l/0L0Sindependent0O0Cnews0Cuk0Cpolitics0Csocial0Ehousing0Ein0Ecrisis0Eas0Erighttobuy0Edepletes0Estock0E98967130Bhtml/story01.htm

Another loophole to avoid “Section 106” payments

S 106 payments are payable by developers to offset the disadvantages of their developments. They pay for such things as play areas or new facilities for residents. Developers do not like them (though they like Community Infrastructure Levy even less as it is a fixed cost per square metre and harder to get out of, especially when they are trumpeting the size of their luxury houses).

But, fear not developers, one of your number has worked out how to avoid shelling out on some S 106 payments:

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=20899:s-106-obligations-and-later-planning-permissions&catid=63&Itemid=31

Might a betting company open the odds on which East Devon developer will be first to take advantage of this newly-created loophole? So many to choose from!

Leading academic says planning system letting the countryside down and may be being made ready for sell-off

” … Planning departments across the peninsula have been cut by up to half, and Prof Balch said the axe was likely to fall again. One planning officer told him she had a caseload of 91 applications, which had to be determined within eight weeks – more than two a day.

“How can you visit the site, prepare paperwork and do all the consultation?

“The changes may not be bad in principle, but you will see unintended consequences. You are probably going to see more legal challenges from a system which is running on three-quarters empty.”

Who are we doing planning for? Is it for the landowner and applicant, or is it for the community and society?”

Prof Balch said that there was some suspicion that the government was “teeing up” the planning system to be outsourced.

Prof Balch warned that decisions were likely to become more inconsistent because the government had introduced more ambiguity into the system.

“In Teignbridge virtually all the barn conversions go through on prior approval. In Wiltshire they have hardly approved any,” he said. …”

Read more: http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Countryside-risk-planning-control-ditched-8216/story-24609710-detail/story.html#ixzz3JuPHdRgG
Follow us: @WMNNews on Twitter | westernmorningnews on Facebook

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Countryside-risk-planning-control-ditched-8216/story-24609710-detail/story.html

Reading between the lines: “Habitat Regulation Delivery Officer”

Anyone else think that this job description (EDDC Habitat Regulation Delivery Officer) may be the exact opposite of what it purports to be and may be, in fact, a way of helping developers to build even more houses in environmentally sensitive locations in East Devon – such as AONBs?

“Strategic in your thinking, you will be confident setting the direction – and budget – of various programmes to protect wildlife. Persuasive and credible, you are an exceptional communicator with good networking, negotiation and communication skills, and you are capable in sharing information with a wide variety of stakeholders.”

A tongue in cheek translation:

“Strategic in your thinking” – doing as you are told
“Confident in setting the direction and budget” – doing as you are told on the cheap
“Persuasive, credible, exceptional communicator” – doing as you are told whilst persuading others of the opposite
“A wide variety of stakeholders” – doing as you are told whilst keeping developers happy but also persuading the voters you are on their side!

http://www.countryside-jobs.com/Jobs/Dec14/Habitat-Regulation-Delivery-Officer-East-Devon-District-Council-2111_2.html

East Devon: the rural premium and lack of affordable housing

” …The latest Halifax rural housing review found that rural homeowners in Devon and Cornwall are paying an average of £56,000 more for their properties than an urban equivalent. …

… Figures also revealed that the South Hams and Eastern and Northern parts of Devon are among the ten least affordable rural districts in the country. …

… Social housing was found to account for just 8% of housing stock in Torridge, 9% in Teignbridge and East Devon and 10% in North Devon and the South Hams.

The national rural average for social housing is 12% and the typical urban rate is 19%.”

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/56-000-premium-rural-lifestyle/story-24519038-detail/story.html

Dying supermarkets: a plague on the landscape

Big supermarkets may be dying but they leave a plague on the landscape.

Sir Simon Jenkins has written another interesting, though controversial, article in The Guardian on planning. This time on the death of the supermarket, how the High Street may evolve in the face of on-line shopping and what role the planners should play.

Here are the highlights:

“Big supermarkets are dying. ….. Some may become warehouses for online distribution centres. Most will languish as cheap stores and homelessness shelters, like the high streets they ruined. Some will be replaced by bleak, ill-sited housing estates, part of the scarred, blotched landscape that is the coalition’s most visible legacy to the British environment.”

“Planning was certainly too rigid, but non-planning is far worse. The leads and lags of a free market in land impose huge “external costs” on the community. It was clearly wrong to allow an oversupply of out-of-town sites for competitive retailing, with no thought given to the impact on city centres or on local communities in general. The anti-green waste of energy, building material and infrastructure was never considered. The gods of the market triumphed.”

“There is no mystery here. If you want to kill a town centre, offer out-of-town sites to Tesco and Sainsbury’s – and build roads to help them. Thatcher, Blair and Cameron did just this. Shoppers had “market choice” for a year or two, then saw their towns “hollow out” and collapse. ……..This is not a free market, it is a stupid market.”

“Land is Britain’s most precious resource. The point of planning is to economise its usefulness. At present, smart planning ought to be thinking ahead of the boom in online shopping. What mistakes might there be in pandering to its gargantuan appetites? What are the implications of every street jammed with home delivery lorries? What of every suburb blighted with distribution centres, supplied by giant hangars littering every motorway?”
“Markets go in cycles.

The job of planning is to even them out, not to exaggerate boom and bust. The out-of-town supermarket era has been brief, barely a quarter century old, but it has done as much damage to the countryside as it has to Britain’s urban cohesion. Its inflexible floor plates and characterless exteriors make even the ghosts of the industrial revolution look picturesque. They will blight the landscape for decades.”

“I am sure many big supermarkets will survive. The convenience ones in town are booming. The Institute of Grocery Distribution predicts they will grow by a third in the next five years. The law of futurology applies to them as to all once-doomed relics of the past, such as books, newspapers, the church, live theatre and jazz. Booms burn out, but every fashion finds its level and something of it survives.”

“I believe town and village centres will find a new role in the post-digital economy of “live experience”. Convenience itself has a value. High streets supply such personal services as coffee bars, beauty salons, tattoo parlours and gyms. After them will come market stalls, foodie counters, pop-up shops and junk vendors, the live activities of the new “smart city”.”

“The high street has no right to eternity but it can supply the framework in which a “small society” flourishes, far below the metropolitan scanner of the coalition’s big society. The high street should embody the ideal of a regulated free market. They tried to kill it, but what a mess we have made of bringing it back.”

Full article here:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/20/big-supermarkets-dying-plague-landscape-retail

Affordable housing changes will be “catastrophic for the countryside” and “people don’t like living next to social tenants”

“Nick Chase from ACRE said: “This change would have a catastrophic effect on the numbers of affordable houses coming forward for local communities.

“It also flies in the face of allowing local communities to take responsibility for the numbers and types of houses that they want.” The organisation wants villages with a population of less than 3000 to be exempt.”

For the first time the heads of all ten National Parks in England have come together to personally sign a letter to the government. It says the measure “puts at risk” their affordable housing supply.

Ghost towns and villages

They believe that in rural areas, the open market is already failing to provide enough homes that people on average salaries can buy or rent.

According to Chief Executive of the Yorkshire Dales National Park, leaving housing purely to the open market will lead to “ghost towns and villages“.

A developer went on to say:

” …many people didn’t want to buy or rent a house next to a social tenant. To get permission to build eight homes on a site, his company recently had to make one an affordable home. “There’s an issue of saleability. Sales on either side of the social house were at a reduced price because of the stigma attached,” he explained.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30009901

“Grey” seaside towns in the southwest

And still we build Cranbrook and luxury housing.

“Torbay MP, Adrian Sanders, a member of the all-party group for coastal communities, said the findings highlighted the need to redress the age imbalance.

He warned that if action was not taken, some towns could struggle to cope with the pressures of an ageing population.

“These coastal locations strongly appeal to older residents looking to retire, but this comes with increased social costs,” he said. Over 65s are coming to these communities at a time when they are less economically active but have growing needs which must be met by local services. While they can be a fantastic asset to their local community, in the long term we have to look at creating a more mixed demographic in these communities. We need to attract and retain more of the skilled, working age population.”

The ONS report, which looked at 274 coastal towns in England and Wales with populations of more than 1,000, identified several South West communities as having particularly high concentrations of retirement age inhabitants.

These included Charmouth in Dorset and Newton Ferrers in Devon, where 42% of residents are 65 and over, and Sidmouth and Budleigh Salterton in south east Devon, where numbers were around 41%. This is compared to the national average of around 16%.

The study also found many seaside communities suffered from lower than average employment rates and higher economic inactivity rates, as well as higher numbers of workers in part-time employment.

Mr Sanders said that these towns were in desperate need of better housing, infrastructure and educational provisions.”

“You need good schools and colleges to ensure the local labour market can offer employers the right skills. Many businesses find they have to move out of smaller communities when they want to expand because they can’t find the right employees,” he said.

“You also need the best possible connectivity, both in terms of rail and road as well as digital and communication. But most important is the housing policy – you need to ensure that young people who can work locally can also live locally.

“We need more regulated rent, secure tenancy housing in order to create stronger, enduring communities. In my opinion, this kind of accommodation needs to account for half of all new developments.”

Westcountry coastal towns have some of the highest proportions of private sector rentals of any location in the UK, according to the ONS study, even outstripping areas of London and Manchester.

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Calls-economic-revival-South-West-s-grey-seaside/story-24569258-detail/story.html

Landbanking sites with planning permission to keep lack of 5 year land supply

A new wheeze on the part of developers which a Conservative MP is annoyed about and which explains a lot. Oddly, the government has never plugged this loophole:

“… I do not pretend Test Valley is unique in facing the challenge of a five year housing land supply which appears to be a somewhat movable target, and I have noticed how successive developers seek to demonstrate their rivals’ schemes are, for whatever reason, undeliverable, only to then appear to struggle to deliver their own when it is granted permission, usually on appeal. Of course, there will always be some planning reasons why schemes are not developed at the rate initially predicted, but these should not be commercial reasons, where sites are delayed or developed only painfully slowly. In many cases these tactics can simply be a ploy to prove the local authority does not have a five year supply, thus improving the chances of yet another speculative site being granted on appeal.

Test Valley currently has granted as much as seven years of planning permissions, yet slow build rates, or in some cases no building at all, mean that each and every speculative application can point to the rate of delivery and suggest there is not a 5 year supply. In some cases we have even seen developers arguing against themselves, that a site they previously had demonstrated would be more deliverable than a rival’s, now for whatever reason is not, so they need to bring forward yet another one.”

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/caroline-nokes-mp-getting-balance-between-house-building-000429054.html#7Z9Gx6u

Affordable homes? In your dreams!

But we have known this for a long time in East Devon where even enormous schemes are allowed to build without any affordable homes at all:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30009901?

though coincidentally it appears to be the case in South Somerset too:

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/opinion-Catch-22-planning-rules-holds-councils/story-24570865-detail/story.html

Exmouth: yet another questionable “consultation”

It seems the word “consultation” has a different meaning in East Devon compared to other areas.

Yesterday, 18th November 2014, a ‘public consultation’ about a proposal to build 150 houses in land off Marley Road, took place in Brixington Community Church Exmouth.

We are told that anyone going there expecting to learn much about the proposals was likely to have been disappointed. The exhibition consisted of around six display boards and there were a number of representatves of Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners Ltd who had laid on the event.

Their event did not get off to a good start when it was learned that
an oak (?) tree situated at what is to be the site entrance had been felled very recently. None of the representatives present could offer any explanation, or say who was responsible. Local comment was to the effect that the tree, with a diameter of around seven feet, was in a healthy condition prior to felling. Many present felt that this showed contempt for local opinion and the local ecology.

Many residents raised the issue of flooding,and drainage. This is already a problem resulting in run off coming down from the area and across Dinan Way at times. We were told that this would be dealt with by the use of attenuation tanks, devices that collect water and then release it gradually. The suggestion was that EDDC would ensure that no flooding or drainage problems were generated. Comment was made that the same promises were made to the residents of Feniton but have proved pretty worthless.

It transpires that this site, and an adjacent one to the north, were put forward to EDDC a couple of years ago as land to be included in the Local Plan for housing. Neither made it to any form of the provisional local plan.

Many will be aware that because EDDC have failed so miserably to produce a local plan that the Inspector will approve, that this has left a gap in planning practice which has, and continues to be exploited by developers. Many at the exhibition were left in no doubt that this proposal sought to exploit the mess that local planning is in. It was suggested that one of the exhibition team admitted as much.

That another plot, north of the one subject to this plan, was seen as having development potential, leads one to suspect that if this is approved a further one may follow. This would mean that The Eagle development for 350 houses at Goodmore Farm might be followed by another 150 here, and then an unknown number above.

In answer to a question about the likely price of ‘affordable houses’, the agents could not give an answer.

The exhibition provided no information to take away and digest. The consultants have provided no website though comments can be submitted to marleyroad@nlpplanning.com

“Growth” in “non-metropolitan areas”

aka “Development in rural areas”

Needless to say, the Local Government Asdociation has its own view of localism and devolution:

http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/6193395/How+the+Other+Half+Grows+(lo+res).pdf/b1556a61-b8c5-4676-8df7-e3ee3090eaef

“Shoeboxes”

from an EDA member:

Sunday Times Homes supplement, article p.4

...”The Royal Institute of British Architects (Riba) has been campaigning to introduce minimum space standards for new-build homes; and, last week, it convinced the government to take action. Property developers will now be required to stop constructing shoeboxes. Despite this, the UK has the smallest new-build houses in the whole of western Europe. The latest Riba research has revealed, for example, that Yorkshire – a county with one of the lowest population densities in England – has been building the smallest new-builds in the country.”

I wonder whether they have visited Cranbrook? If the shoeboxes are to be bigger in future, perhaps the current residents will kick themselves and wish they had waited for a larger “footprint”.

“The arrogant and philistine are ruining our countryside”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2835353/Outgoing-chairman-National-Trust-accuses-arrogant-philistine-political-class-ruining-loveliest-countryside.html

The “small town” of Beer: development by Clinton Devon Estates begins

Recall our story here on 10 November 2012 that, for Draft Local Plan purposes, Beer has been declared “a small town” and that we predicted that higher levels of development would be set for the “small town”.

Here it is: Planning Application 14/2621/MOUT – Clinton Devon Estates – land at Short Furlong, Beer for development of “up to” 30 houses with “up to” 40% affordable homes. The current application seeks to get planning permission for access only.

However, it is hard to understand why “up to” 30 homes required 70 parking spaces. Oh, and the planning application says that there are protected species on the land.