“Save Exmouth Seafront campaigners challenge ‘arrogant’ Queen’s Drive plans”

Is Grenadier’s funding perhaps contingent on EDDC moving the road? A big gamble for EDDC …

“Save Exmouth Seafront campaigners have expressed concerns after East Devon District Council pushed through plans to realign the Queen’s Drive road and car park.

Seafront campaigners have hit out at ‘arrogant’ plans to fast track the redirection of Exmouth’s Queens Drive to make way for a new watersports centre.

Save Exmouth Seafront (SES) said it ‘views with grave concern’ the decision by East Devon District Council (EDDC) to proceed with diverting Queen’s Drive behind the proposed Watersports centre, because the decision was ‘taken at very short notice’.

The campaign group’s concerns are in response East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) cabinet approval for work to begin on phase one of the regeneration, despite no ‘legal commitment’ from Grenadier Estates for ‘phase two’.

Nick Hookway, SES chairman, said: “This decision by the EDDC cabinet, taken at very short notice and voted through before residents had a chance to speak, shows yet again the arrogance of this council and the contempt with which residents’ views and concerns are considered.

“This decision raises a whole range of questions.”

He said the campaign group wants to know why the new road is being moved behind the before the developer has fully signed up to the project, and questions why EDDC was funding it.

The group asked what would happen if Grenadier Estates did not go ahead with the watersports centre and whether there was a contingency plan, fearing residents face a future with a derelict seafront site.

EDDC said it was ‘making sure’ it was on track to deliver what residents want.

An EDDC spokeswoman said: “The council is not prepared to allow further delays on the delivery of a new road and car park, which will pave the way for the much awaited water sports centre and a vision for the wider Queen’s Drive site.”

She added: “We also appreciate that there are a number of long term detractors who have their concerns about how the new seafront is taking shape, so we want to provide reassurance that we are constantly keeping under review the programme of development and maintaining progress while keeping Exmouth people informed on what we are doing.”

She said the council was ‘fully committed’ to the ongoing consultation with the public about changes to the seafront.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/save-exmouth-seafront-group-challenges-redirection-of-queen-s-drive-1-5788976

“Berkeley Group [housing developer] bosses were accused of engaging in years of bribery”

Owl says: cannot recall using the category “Sleaze” so often as in the last few weeks.

“Bosses at the housebuilding firm Berkeley Group were accused of engaging in years of bribery with a partner at a major estate agent, according to papers filed in a pair of lawsuits brought against Berkeley by a former finance director in 2014 and 2015.

The claim was among numerous “whistleblowing” allegations by Nicolas Simpkin, 49, who served on the board of the £2.7bn turnover company from 2009 until he was fired in 2014.

Berkeley ​paid £9.5m ​to Simpkin​ in an out-of-court ​settlement​, according to the company’s annual report published in August. It also stated that the allegations had been withdrawn as part of the deal. On Wednesday, Berkeley said the settlement had been reached after it had “thoroughly” investigated the allegations and found them to be “unfounded”.

After an acrimonious dismissal in September 2014, Simpkin filed an unfair dismissal case the following December and then a 2015 breach of contract case in the high court.

According to court documents in the second case, Simpkin had made a series of whistleblowing allegations in his 2014 case, all of which were denied by Berkeley. The company argued that Simpkin had failed to raise and act on his claims. As the cases were settled, none of the allegations were ever tested and they remain unproven.

High court papers obtained by the Guardian and the investigative website Finance Uncovered show that Simpkin accused Berkeley’s chairman, Tony Pidgley, who earned £174m from the company over the previous decade, of being “consistently engaged in bribing one of the partners in a major estate agency with whom Berkeley Group regularly dealt in relation to land acquisitions” between 2005 and 2010.

The documents further ​detail how Simpkin claimed that “this bribery included” Pidgley “making expensive gifts” to the estate agency partner; extending a Berkeley loan to the same partner, which the housebuilder’s “managing director [Rob Perrins] later … instructed the then financial controller to write off”; and allowing Berkeley to carry out work at the estate agency partner’s property “without the partner being properly charged”.

According to the court papers Simpkin said he had been “staggered” when he was told in 2011 that the loan had been written off four years earlier.

While Simpkin withdrew his legal cases as part of the out-of-court settlement, the ​substance of the allegations remains in court filings because Berkeley Group used a 113-page high court defence document to dismiss its former director’s claims.

In those papers, Berkeley said the facts underpinning many of his allegations were wrong, as it also denied his claims that between 2005 and 2014:

• Pidgley benefitted from “around” £660,000 of Berkeley Group’s money that had been “intended to be used on fitting out” one of the chairman’s luxury London flats “on the pretence the flat was to be used as a show home”.

• Berkeley’s staff were “pressurised to make false claims to recover VAT in relation to [Pidgley’s] property”.

• There had been “inappropriate payments by the Berkeley Group” to Pidgley’s son.

• Perrins had “deliberately and unlawfully provided quantities of non-public and price sensitive information to a shareholder in May 2014”.

In its annual report published in August, Berkeley Group said: “During the period the company settled the proceedings brought by Mr Nicolas Simpkin, its former finance director, in the employment tribunal and high court. Under the settlement Berkeley made a payment of £4.95m to Mr Simpkin and a further payment of £4.55m towards his legal fees and disbursements.”

Simpkin, who was earning a base salary of £330,000 a year but who had pocketed a £1.2m package in the previous 12 months, was sacked in September 2014.

The court filings show that Berkeley’s board claimed he had been performing poorly in his role and had lost the confidence of senior colleagues.

If Simpkin had succeeded in his legal claims he would have been entitled to his share in a bonus scheme set up for Berkeley executives, which would have been worth many millions of pounds to him.

As well as denying all the whistleblowing claims, Berkeley said Simpkin had failed to raise any of the allegations with the group solicitor, the board or independent directors of the company.

The company added that if any of the allegations were true, Simpkin should and could have taken action, adding he would have been complicit in any criminal activity if his claims were accurate.

A Berkeley spokeswoman said the settlement dated back 18 months, adding: “There was a thorough and extensive investigation by a QC and a senior lawyer from a major law firm which concluded these allegations were unfounded, following which Mr Simpkin withdrew his allegations and settled all his claims.”

Simpkin said: “The counter-allegations made by Berkeley against me in the high court documents are unfounded, untested, plainly vexatious and risible … Following the payment of damages the court proceedings were withdrawn.

“I am bound by confidentiality terms which prevent me from making any comment on the other issues you raise.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/21/berkeley-group-bosses-were-accused-of-engaging-in-years-of-bribery-allegations-withdrawn-court-settlement

London unsold homes numbers jump – wrong homes in wrong places and Brexit uncertainty blamed

Domino effect?

“London’s stock of completed but unsold homes has surged by almost half this year as Brexit uncertainty and affordability issues dog the housing market.

The number in the capital jumped to 2,374 units as of Sept. 30, the most on record and up from 1,595 at the end of 2017, according to data compiled by Molior London. The borough with the biggest stockpile is Wandsworth, an area that borders the River Thames, followed by Croydon, an outer borough in the south of the city.

Some of this excess has built up because it’s the wrong product at the wrong pricing for what people want to, and can afford to buy,” said Tim Craine, founder of the property research firm. “For the rest, it’s a case of bad timing due to the lull in the market that’s come about due to Brexit.”

Britain’s housing market is slowing after a multi-year boom as the U.K.’s impending divorce from the European Union weighs on sentiment and prices remain out of reach for many potential buyers. It now takes the average Londoner 14.5 times their annual salary to purchase a home, the highest multiple ever, according to Hometrack.

Homebuilders fell on Tuesday, led by Barratt Developments Plc, which dropped 2.2 percent as of 10:59 a.m. in London, while Taylor Wimpey Plc slipped 2 percent. Both were among the 25 worst performers in the benchmark FTSE 100 Index. Crest Nicholson Holdings Plc fell 2.1 percent.

Overseas buyers from Asia to the Middle East piled into London property in recent years as a weak pound and price gains made the capital’s real estate an attractive investment. Developers began building higher-end homes to capitalize on that demand, and many have been left holding empty units as foreign investment dwindles amid a rise in property taxes.

Asking prices for U.K. homes fell for the first time since 2011 in October, data from Rightmove show, with prices declining the most in the center of London. Asking prices dropped 0.2 percent overall, while in Greater London, they declined 2.4 percent annually. Homes located within London’s Zone 1 area lost the most, with a 6.9 percent retreat on the year to an average of 1.3 million pounds ($1.7 million).”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-20/london-s-stockpile-of-unsold-homes-jumps-almost-50-to-a-record

Greater Exeter – city council plans and housing need

Now that Exeter is planning (at least) 450 homes on sites adjacent to Exeter bus station (and possibly even more), is this 450 fewer homes that the rest of Greater Exeter has to supply to “meet Exeter’s needs”?

https://www.devonlive.com/news/business/new-300million-exeter-bus-station-2236936

“Parish council has ‘stronger reservations’ about housing plans for East Budleigh bat habitat”

Owl says: Will EDDC’s old mates Clinton Devon Estates get their own way (as they so often do) or will conservation win the day? Hhmmm …

“Wildlife concerns have been raised over a plan to demolish the home of roosting rare bats in East Budleigh to make way for a new house.

An amended application by landowner Clinton Devon Estates to demolish a barn on an area of village green space known as ‘The Pound’ is seeking to construct a separate ‘bat barn’ on the site as mitigation for concerns raised for rare species of bats.

At an extraordinary parish council planning meeting held at the village hall, residents raised fears that lighting from the dwelling may deter bats from using their new habitat and the village could lose its rare bats.

Councillors, who previously supported the application, said they now had ‘stronger reservations’ about the proposal and want to see a lighting strategy put in place prior to development. They also want a period of 12 months between the bat barn and the house being built to allow bats to get used to their new home.

Village resident Cathy Moyle chairs the East Budleigh Parish Wildlife Conversation Group set up earlier this year to fight the ‘destruction’ of the wildlife habitat.

Speaking at the meeting, she said: “If the light impact cannot be resolved, then in accordance with legislation, the planning permission should be refused.

“If, unfortunately, the application does get approved, then conditions should be placed on the planning permission that no artificial external lighting should be erected by future occupants.

“As the application stands, there is likely to be a significant adverse impact on the conservation status of, in particular, the international rare greater and lesser horseshoe and the exceptionally rare grey long-eared bat.”

Karen Alexander-Clarke, secretary of the conservation group, added: “We have incredibly rare bats in our village, they are European-protected species and there is no mitigation measure that is guaranteed to be successful.

“Clinton Devon Estates are involved with many conservation projects and seems to be incredibly proud of what they are doing for bats in the rest of the county yet they want to destroy a roost in their own parish.”

East Devon District Council will make the final decision on the application at a later date.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/east-budleigh-housing-development-1-5786516

“Calls for removal of Sidford business park site in Local Plan are ‘unrealistic’, says Highways boss [Stuart Hughes]”

Owl says: Interestingly Hughes does not explain why the site was added at the very last minute and why officers and Tory councillors did not attempt to remove it BEFORE it went to the inspector when its inclusion had been highlighted by local people in time for remedial action ….. especially as Hughes is the area’s DCC councillor with responsibility for highways.

“Cllr Hughes said: “If the decision is appealed by the applicant then it will be considered by a planning inspector.

“It would however also allow representations to be made to the inspector on other elements such as flooding, AONB etc.”

Calls to change the Local Plan:

“Suggesting the land at Sidford should be taken out of the Local Plan is unrealistic, given the plan is already in place.

“A Local Plan inspector is not going to review a decision for an already ‘made plan’ that has been in effect for some time.

“By the time any refresh of the East Devon Local Plan is completed this matter will have most likely been decided and there should not be any false hope or expectation put forward that this will be any different.

“The simple truth is that the land allocation at Sidford should never have been included in the Local Plan.

“It came in as a late addition without full consideration of its suitability, particularly as other far more appropriate sites which were ‘brownfield’ should have been considered and were put forward at the early stages of the process of making the Local Plan.

“My personal suggested site would have been adjacent to the Garden Centre on the A3052. …”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/calls-for-removal-of-sidford-business-park-site-in-local-plan-are-unrealistic-says-highways-boss-1-5781382

Cranbrook – no more unaffordable affordable homes or even affordable affordable homes?

“To date 10% of all homes at Cranbrook have been ‘affordable by design’ properties, whose maximum floor spaces have been limited by the terms of the existing S106 agreement. These are properties whose floor spaces have been below that which would normally be seen for two or three bedroom properties and which therefore have a lower open market value; they do not fall under the definition of affordable housing.

With a drive to improve people’s health and wellbeing at the town and lenders being increasingly reluctant to lend on the current terms of the S106 agreement, Officers consider it appropriate to cease the requirement for these houses to be delivered. A deed of variation to the S106 agreement is being progressed to deal with this matter.”

Click to access 271118strategicplanningcombinedagenda.pdf

“Is there a crisis of quality in new-build homes?”

Some of the stories in the article are both heart-rending and almost unbelievable and, almost as expected now, involve Persimmon/Charles Church. Here is the conclusion of the article:

“… Stories about poor quality are far from uncommon with buyers of new homes in Britain. Just over half (51%) of new home owners have experienced major problems with their properties including issues with construction, unfinished fittings and faults with utilities, according to housing charity Shelter.

Currently, all new homes must come with a warranty from an accredited provider. About 80% have a 10-year warranty from the NHBC, an insurance company that says it inspects “every home” registered with them. During the first two years of the policy, the NHBC says the builder is responsible for fixing any defects which do not comply with its technical standards. During years three to 10, the NHBC provides direct insurance cover for damage caused by defects in specific areas of the home.

The NHBC paid out £84.8m in claims between 2016-17.

Campaign group HomeOwners Alliance says the current system does not allow for quality of workmanship and fittings. “Although work is meant to be inspected independently at key stages, the inspection regime is currently failing homebuyers,” says its chief executive Paula Higgins. Instead, she argues, there needs to be a higher body policing the sector.

“We’ve been calling for a new homes ombudsman for a long time now as we’re inundated with calls from our members about shoddy workmanship and flawed properties yet there is currently no one holding these developers to account,” she says. “These firms are under pressure to build and with a shortage of skills in the sector corners get cut.”

A spokesman for Home Builders Federation says: “Inevitably when you are building hundreds of thousands of any product, in a field in all weathers there will be some, usually very minor issues in a small number of cases. In these instances it is the builders’ responsibility to correct those issues to the satisfaction of the customer.”

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/nov/17/quality-build-homes-charles-church-buyers?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

“Funding [loan] agreed for Axminster relief road that will end gridlock in the town centre

This loan of £7 million is being taken out based on an expectation that developers will pay it back … good luck there councillors, especially as developers are Crown Estates and … drum roll or scary music … PERSIMMON!

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/funding-agreed-axminster-relief-road-2211212

“No let-up in housing crisis: Developers slow house-building ahead of Brexit and government targets will be missed”

“Britain’s housing crisis is not set to improve in the near future as official figures today revealed developers have slashed the rate at which they are building new houses ahead of Brexit.

Government figures revealed a bit more than 222,000 new homes were delivered in 2017/18, up just 2 per cent on the previous year and well below the government’s promised target of 300,000.

The rate of growth for residential construction meanwhile has halved, from 11.9 per cent in 2016/17 to 6.4 per cent in 2017/18.

… ‘Housebuilders and would be-buyers alike are nervous about what the fall-out from Brexit could be and that’s hit the number of net additional dwellings hard.’

Grainne Gilmore, head of UK residential research at Knight Frank, said warned that other data was already pointing to a further slowdown in housing completions to come.

‘Net additions are still around 26 per cent lower than the government’s 300,000 annual target while separate housing starts data, which captures information on new homes being started on site, shows a moderation in activity that could weigh on housing completions in 2020/21,’ she said.

Meanwhile a trading statement from Bovis Homes released this morning blamed ‘uncertainty surrounding Brexit’ for a fall in buyer interest.

It said: ‘Our sales rate per outlet per week for the year to date is 0.51, with pricing in line with our expectations. Whilst we have maintained our rate of sale, the uncertainty surrounding Brexit has impacted discretionary buyers.’

Taylor Wimpey has also said it expects flat sales growth next year due to Brexit uncertainty, but claimed there is potential for ‘significant growth’ after 2020.

It comes amid a slew of data pointing to a gloomy outlook for Britain’s housing market.

Earlier this week UK Finance, the trade body representing British banks, confirmed that mortgage lending in September was down on a year ago as people sit on their hands to see what happens with Brexit.

First-time buyer numbers have dropped 4.5 per cent since September 2017, households moving home fell 8.4 per cent over the same period and landlords purchasing properties slumped 18.8 per cent.

… Gilmore said today’s construction figures presented ‘a headache for policymakers’ in London particularly, with the net number of new dwellings in the capital falling by 20 per cent over the year.

‘Only 12 of the 33 boroughs in the capital reported a rise in the number of new homes provided in the year to March,’ she said. “

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-6393103/Housing-crisis-set-continue-developers-slow-housebuilding-ahead-Brexit.html

Pity the children of Sidford

“Pollution from diesel vehicles is stunting the growth of children’s lungs, leaving them damaged for life, a major study has found.

The research, conducted with more than 2,000 school children in London, is the first such study in a city where diesel pollution is a significant factor, and has implications for cities around the world. It also showed that charges to deter polluting trucks from entering the city did reduce air pollution a little but did not reduce the harm to children’s lungs. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/14/diesel-pollution-stunts-childrens-lung-growth-london-study-shows

People using self-storage units permanently because their homes are too small

“… The average household in the UK is 2.4 persons, larger than both Germany and France, yet we have the smallest average property size, making the UK population “one of the most squeezed in Europe”, according to the SSA.

So it’s not surprising that people are turning to self-storage, with it cheaper to rent extra space than it is to buy or rent a bigger home, says Rennie Schafer, chief executive of the SSA.

A “room away from home” is how he describes it. …”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46100793

“Rule changes ‘risk new social housing black hole’ in England”

“A proposal designed to speed up the creation of new homes in England risks “supercharging” a get-out clause allowing developers to build properties without providing social housing, the charity Shelter has said.

The government has proposed new rules that would allow builders to buy and demolish commercial buildings and create new homes without planning permission.

The plan would extend permitted development rights, which allow the conversion of office buildings to homes.

The rules have also allowed developers to build tiny homes, some as small as 13 sq metres.

Almost one in 10 new homes created last year were created this way, but councils do not get the chance to see plans before the homes are built and miss out on planning fees, as well as contributions towards affordable homes.

Shelter said extending the right could create a new “social housing black hole” if they allowed more developers to avoid building affordable homes as part of their project.

The charity said in a handful of local authorities more than half of new homes had been delivered like this, despite the need for social housing in those areas.

In Stevenage, for example, 73% of new homes built last year came through permitted development rights, while in Nottingham 60% of its 975 new homes were created this way.

At the same time, 159 affordable homes were delivered in Stevenage, and its waiting list for social housing stood at 1,862 households. In Nottingham, 5,188 households were waiting for social housing, and 143 affordable homes were built.

Under the proposal in the consultation paper delivered on budget day, the government says the current system “may encourage an owner to change use rather than seek to redevelop the site, which is likely to allow for a higher density development”.

It also raises the question of contributions for affordable homes, asking for input on how this money could be secured for projects that do not need planning permission.

Polly Neate, the CEO of Shelter, said: “Anyone can see it’s wrong to give developers a licence to dodge social housing when hundreds of thousands of people are homeless.

“We need to raise the alarm so the government halt these plans and instead look to bring down the cost of land to build the social homes we need.”

The Town and Country Planning Association recently voiced its concerns about the plan to extend the permitted development rules, warning that it could deprive local authorities of essential funding and risked “creating poor living conditions for vulnerable people”.

“Under the existing system of permitted development, 1,000 new flats can be built in an old 1970s office building or industrial estate, and the local council can’t require a single square foot of play space for the children who live there – and the communities have effectively no say,” said its interim chief executive, Hugh Ellis. “This cannot become the norm.”

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, said: “No one benefits from delays in planning applications. We expect these proposals to provide flexibility, reduce bureaucracy and make the most effective use of existing buildings.

“We are committed to delivering more affordable housing and we are investing £9bn.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/13/government-rules-risk-black-hole-in-social-housing-affordable-homes

“Westminster council to ban ‘super-size’ new homes”

And lawyers will already be planning to find loopholes! In fact, one has already been “designed in” – any big home currently split into flats will be allowed to return to one dwelling. Watch the oligarchs use that one!

But, imagine if EDDC (or even Greater Exeter) had a new development plan to build only houses put up for sale at no more than 5 times the average annual local salary …..!

“Westminster city council is to ban new “super-size properties” built for oligarchs and other members of the global ultra-rich elite in order to free up space for more affordable homes.

The council, which includes Mayfair, Knightsbridge and Belgravia, said it would restrict new homes larger than 150 sq metres (1,615sq ft) because “Westminster’s position in the global housing market can create demand for super-size properties which underoptimise development of Westminster’s scarce land resource”.

Westminster said banning “Monopoly board-style” homes would help free up more space for affordable homes for Londoners. The new size ban is part of Westminster’s 2019-40 development plan released on Monday night, which also included a commitment to build more than 10,000 affordable units by 2040.

The council said 150 sq metres was 50% larger than the average private home in the borough and would “still enable generously sized homes to be developed to meet development from the prime market, but balances that against the other, more strategic housing need of the city”.

The size of the average home in the UK has been shrinking in recent years. Homes from the most recent decade have about 67.8 square metres of living space, according to LABC Warranty, which is not much more than both decks of a London bus, at 55 sq metres. The figure factors in living areas, kitchens and bathrooms, but does not include hallways or staircases.

The mega-mansion ban is the latest move in Westminster’s efforts to tackle growing inequality in the borough, where very few people can afford to buy or rent a home on the open market.

Earlier this year the council blocked a plan to create a 1,580 sq metre £40m home in Grade I-listed terrace overlooking Regent’s Park, telling the developer to “wake up” to the housing crisis. “Our city’s golden postcodes must not be used for Monopoly board-style investments to cater only for oligarchs and the most wealthy,” councillor Richard Beddoe, Westminster’s chairman of planning, said.

He wrote in the city plan: “As we set out to create our city of the future, there is one question that should be at the forefront of our minds in every development we undertake: Will this be an asset to people’s lives?”.

The proposals are subject to six weeks’ consultation. The ban would not apply to homes that had been split up into flats and were being converted back into a single family house.

Westminster has already introduced tight restrictions on homeowners digging large basements to create so-called “iceberg homes” with several underground storeys used for gyms, cinemas, swimming pools and car garages. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/13/westminster-council-to-ban-super-size-new-homes?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

“Take business park land out of Local Plan say campaigners”

“Campaigners have called for land earmarked for a multi-million pound Sidford business park to be taken out of the Local Plan.

t follows East Devon District Council’s decision to throw out an application to build 8,445sqm of employment floor space on an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

The proposed development for the Two Bridges site received 255 comments of objection and 111 in support. A campaign group also submitted a petition to the council with 1,400 signatures opposing the plans.

Now campaigners are calling on council bosses to look at removing the area, earmarked for development, out the Local Plan, claiming it should have never been there in their first place.

The Herald understands the application could once again go to appeal following a response from East Devon District Council saying it would not be appropriate to respond to the campaigners’ comments.

An EDDC spokeswoman said: “As we understand that this matter is now going to appeal, it would not be appropriate to make any comments about the status of the Local Plan.

“The campaigners can make their points direct to the Planning Inspector in support of the council’s decision to refuse.”

Councillor Marianne Rixson has spoken out on the reasons why the town should join her rallying call to pressure the authority to look at taking the site out of the Local Plan at the earliest opportunity.

The Local Plan

“When a Government inspector was examining the suitability of the site in 2014, county Highways failed to point out that the roads would not be able to cope with the traffic an industrial estate would bring. Highways only admitted their error in September 2016.

“After the draft Local Plan had been sent to the Inspector for final approval in 2015, district councillors realised they’d made a mistake and voted almost unanimously to try to remove it from the plan but no effort was made to explain to the Inspector the reasons why the site was unsuitable – consequently he had no option but to rule that the site should remain, subject to planning.”

Flooding issues:

“It is on a floodplain and flooding will inevitably get worse with climate change.

“The Two Bridges site is in zones 3A and two flood risk zones – yet another reason why this site is unsuitable.”

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB):

“England has 34 AONB all of which are supposed to have the highest rate of protection in law and Government policy.

“We should only build on AONB if there is an overwhelming need for a development. The owners’ plans for a business park were market driven so there isn’t any hard proof. Surely we need to know for sure that there is an overwhelming need for employment space in the Sid Valley before we destroy this AONB?

“I would advocate for the district and town councils to work together to look seriously at how we can attract good quality, well paid jobs into the valley and how we can most effectively locate them without encroaching into the AONB and where there is good transport infrastructure.

“We need to attract good quality, well paid jobs into the area. Surely we can do this without encroaching into the AONB and where there are better road links? Regrettably by mid November Sidmouth will have lost three banks and building societies. Far better to turn these buildings into offices, which would help to keep our town vibrant, rather than build new offices on the outskirts.

Roads:

“Traffic cannot cope on this narrow road as it is due to the bottlenecks and number of HGVs already using the A375 – it will not be able to cope with more.

“Highways now agree this is not suitable for HGVs. “For two lorries to pass you need 6.5 metres. The main access for business park would be School Street which has a pinch point of 4.77 metres. There are several points through Sidbury too where the road is less than 5.5m, including Sidbury Mill and Cotford Bridge.

“Surely there should be a weight restriction on this road?

“According to an FOI submitted by the Say No Sidford Business Park campaigners some 30,000 cars travelled along the road in one off-peak week in April.

“I’d like to call for a weigh restriction on these struggling roads.

Endangered Bats and Japanese knotweed:

“The Two Bridges site is an important wildlife site for species that are protected such as horseshoe bats, otters and dormice.

“Knotweed exterminators have been seen on the site – it takes several years to get rid of.

Light Pollution

“The Norman Lockyer Observatory is both historical and the home to an active amateur astronomical society.

It also has plans to build a £70,000 extension so more experiments can take place than ever before.

“The light from any business park there will have an impact on the night sky, which currently has semi rural dark skies status at Sidford.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/campaigners-reasons-why-sidford-business-park-land-should-not-be-in-eddc-local-plan-1-5772366

“More than one public play park is closed every WEEK as green spaces are ‘left to rot, be overrun by thugs or turned into properties’ “

“Playgrounds are being closed at the alarming rate of nearly two a week as they fall victim to neglect, vandalism and property developers, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

To the dismay of families, a staggering 347 council playgrounds have been axed since 2014 – the equivalent of seven a month – according to the new figures.

Local authorities have removed 70 playgrounds in the last year alone – and they plan to further slash spending on facilities by almost half in the next two years. …”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6376137/More-one-public-play-park-closed-WEEK-green-spaces-left-rot.html

Persimmon in the soup – again – in Exeter

“New home owners having spoken of fearing for their lives after properties in their housing development were found to be missing vital fire barriers in its cavity walls.

The revelation was made following a ‘ferocious’ blaze which broke out at Greenacres, described as a ‘prestigious development’ in Exeter.

Paul Frost, who lives in Trafalgar Road near to where the fire broke out, says he was the first to make the discovery when he used his building knowledge to inspect his own property.

Last week Persimmon Homes denied there was a problem with some of its properties.

But the housebuilder had already penned a letter to residents asking them to inspect their homes due to roof space cavity problems in another property.

A report, by the National House Building Council (NHBC), and shared with Devon Live, states the missing barriers at Mr Frost’s property posed an ‘imminent risk to health and safety’, and there was a breach of building regulations.

The developer has not confirmed how many properties so far have been identified as failing to meet required safety standards, despite direct questioning.

However, an indication of the extent of the problem has been provided by Paul, who has asked all residents to let him know the outcome of their inspections.

His says his findings so far have shown out of 18 homes he knows to have been inspected, 70 per cent are missing fire resistant cavity barriers.

He said: “It is horrific to imagine the impact on a family, never mind potential loss of life.

“Not only is the builder responsible for this horrific situation of missing fire barriers in so many homes, but the site managers, construction heads and managing director of, in this case Persimmon Homes South West, are also culpable because they are clearly not checking their homes properly as they are being built, or before they are sold.

“However, and perhaps in some ways even more serious, is the fact these homes have been signed off by a qualified building inspector, in this case employed by the NHBC, to be fully compliable with existing building regulations at the time of signing off. This just shocks and offends me and I feel a moral obligation to ensure all new homes are built and signed off to better standards than they are currently.”

The problem has emerged following major fire in Trafalgar Road, off Admiral Way and Topsham Road, back in April, which spread into the roof spaces of two of the adjoining properties.

Firefighters had to dig through cavity walls between properties to ensure the fire was fully out.

Last Wednesday, October 31, Persimmon Homes denied there is a problem with the properties which were passed by the National House Building Council (NHBC).

A spokesperson for Persimmon Homes South West said at the time: “There was a fire in a property on Trafalgar Road several months ago, but official reports from the landlord of the property indicate that it was caused by a cigarette being discarded recklessly.

“Under these circumstances the structure of the house cannot be implicated and it would be wrong to do so.”

However, on the same day Persimmon gave the response it is believed it sent a letter to 88 residents informing them it was carrying out voluntary checks within the Greenacres development due to safety concerns.

The letter said: “We are conducting a check of roof spaces on your development to make sure the roof space cavity has been installed correctly following a recent inspection within the development.

“We are offering this precautionary measure to you. Should you wish to take up that offer please contact us and we shall arrange for an inspection to be made, and any necessary remedial works to be carried out.”

This week Persimmon has accepted there is an ‘error’ with some of its properties.

A spokesperson for Persimmon Homes South West said: “Following engagement with a customer who had raised a complaint, an issue with the cavity closure installation was discovered. We rectified this within 24 hours of being notified.

“As a responsible construction firm we are taking immediate action to ensure this error has not been replicated and have therefore been contacting our customers directly. We are checking all properties within the phase of the development as a precaution.

“We have in place a checking process where both the contractor and site manager sign off the cavity closer check. Periodic checks are made by the contracts manager.

“These checks are in addition to the NHBC building inspector sign off of the superstructure.”

Persimmon did not answer a number of key questions posed by Devon Live including:

When was the initial compliant lodged?
How many homes are being inspected in the Greenacres development?
How many have been inspected so far, and of those, how many have failed for missing fire barriers?
Who assessed and passed the properties as compliant which have now since failed?
Will all Persimmon homes now be inspected?

Trafalgar Road resident Mr Frost, who has more than 30 years experience in the building industry, knew his home had failed, and the NHBC support the result.

He said: “I live at the opposite end of the road where the fire was which may have also had missing cavity inserts which by law it should have.

“It doesn’t matter if it’s missing inches or metres; your home, contents and, worst of all, lives, are more risk than they should ever be. This is probably one of the biggest building regulations you can have.

“I went to a semi-detached house at the far end of the development by Ikea. The house passed but the house attached to it failed!

“Their homes were built seven years ago where as mine is four years old showing it’s possibly an endemic problem in the building industry.

“If only one fails that is horrific. To imagine the impact on a family, never mind potential loss of life for anyone, but to find a current statistic like we have here is abhorrent.”

The alarming problem has prompted Mr Frost to launch a national campaign calling for Parliament to consider a new direction to encourage developers to build better quality homes.

He said: “I want to try to make this a national campaign of some of sorts, to at least help to reduce the possibility of loss of life.

“The way forward is to encourage better quality construction and certainly the installation of heat sensors in roof voids, as a minimum outcome of this horrific situation of risking peoples lives for what can only be seen as better profits.”

Like many other Persimmon Homes owners, it is not the first problem Mr Frost has experienced with his property.

He says he has had about 130 ‘snagging issues’ including faulty brickwork which will mean him having to move out while it is repaired.

Mr Frost, who set up a company called Snagaroo snagging inspections, due to all the problems he and his neighbours have had, said: “The number of issues we have had with our home has reached a point where Persimmon have agreed to rebuild our external facades, as well as conduct over £20,000 of work internally.

“That was before we reveal any issues with the timber frame or floor levels.

“And it’s not all over yet; We are forever seeing something else. The problem is quality control. Once they get that right there won’t be a problem.

“In fairness to Persimmon, as soon as my house was found to be missing fire resistant cavity barriers it was sorted out straight away, but it should have been built properly in the first place.”

Fellow Trafalgar Road resident Lydia Burge has also encountered many problems with her new build.

It was five years ago this month she moved in to the road and after having had 120 issues with the property she says she is still experiencing problems.

Her home is one of those which has found to have had the correct the fire barriers so passed the inspection.

She said: “I am afraid that myself and probably all my neighbours have never been happy with the standard of build and the response to problems were always a problem when we were within the guarantee period. I have yet to come across anyone who has purchased a Persimmon house that has been happy.”

An NHBC spokesperson said: “We are sorry to hear that these homeowners are experiencing problems with their new homes, which are covered by NHBC’s 10-year Buildmark warranty and insurance policy.”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/alarming-imminent-risk-health-safety-2194451

Save Clyst St Mary update

NB:
East Devon Watch readers will recall the earlier history of this plant:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2018/07/13/investigation-launched-at-greendale-business-park-by-the-environment-agency/

“It’s been a while since any new large scale planning applications have been submitted in Clyst St Mary and I’m aware that there are a number of residents interested in our Campaign who are new to the village. We have recently been inundated regarding the new planning applications for the expansion and variation of the Anaerobic Digester. This is situated in Oil Mill Lane and has historically been the cause of some extremely offensive smells in the village.

Such increases do not comply with the original 2014 concept for a small, sustainable on-farm digester and planning conditions limiting site size, infrastructure, tonnage, transportation and output were specifically included to protect the amenities of local residents and control over-development. We support sustainable, environmentally friendly energy production – but approving a small on-farm Anaerobic Digester in Clyst St Mary is entirely inconsistent with approving a huge industrial-sized one!
Since 2014 the Applicants have systematically pursued enormous expansion and, as a village, we have suffered hugely from odours, noise and congestion from the multiple farm vehicles visiting the site.

One of our members has written some detailed sample letters objecting to the variation of conditions and extension to the anaerobic digester. If you want to object, please use one of the sample letters for the variation and a second one for the expansion. Add your details and send your emails to planningwest@eastdevon.gov.uk or you can print a copy off and post through our letter box (11 Clyst Valley Road) before 21st November 2018. I will ensure they get to East Devon District Council.

As you’re probably aware we are still expecting an amendment to the Winslade Park development (a very large scale housing development) and therefore The Save Clyst St Mary group is always very grateful for more hands-on support from residents, so if you would like to get more actively involved, please do let me know.”

Saveclyststmary.org.uk

Windfalls for greedy property developers

An article which needs to be read in full.

“… Osborne played his get-out-of-jail card: he chucked money at the British housing market. He launched the help-to-buy scheme, billed as aid to first-time buyers, giving them government equity loans of up to 20% of the purchase price of any new-build. The likely consequences were obvious from the outset. Osborne’s plan would chuck a canister of petrol on to house prices. The chancellor who slashed billions from social security for the working poor had no problem whatsoever with handing billions to property developers.

It was cynical, it was costly; it was Osborne all over. And for the property sector – the mortgage lenders, the estate agents and most of all the housebuilders – it was what industry expert Henry Pryor calls “crack cocaine”. It kept the market bubbling over, underpinned prices and brought in massive profits. And like the addicts of cliche, the property industry kept demanding more. Housebuilders have repeatedly lobbied for the scheme to be extended and expanded. Again and again, Osborne and Hammond have obliged. What began as a three-year programme worth £3.5bn will now run until 2023 and suck in more than £29bn of taxpayer money.

In Austerity Britain, this may be the single biggest giveaway to one small group of businesspeople – and it gets barely any attention. The scheme may have helped some first-time buyers on to the ladder, but by inflating prices, it has kept many others off. Add to it quantitative easing and the erosion of stamp duty, and the British state has looked after housebuilders like no other. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/09/housebuilders-tax-jeff-fairburn-bonus-windfalls

INDEPENDENT COUNCILLORS SLAM TORY SUPPORT FOR HIGH RISK EXMOUTH STRATEGY

Press release:

“A series of East Devon District Council Independent councillors strongly criticised Tory proposals to commence work on a replacement car park, as part of the Queens Drive Regeneration Project, at the EDDC Cabinet meeting on 31 October.

Leading the criticism was Exmouth Councillor Megan Armstrong (Exmouth Halsdon – Independent) who referred to the planned new road as “a road to nowhere”.

Other Independent Councillors expressing concern about the Tory course of action were Independents Roger Giles, Ben Ingham, and Rob Longhurst and EDA Members Cathy Gardner and Geoff Jung.

The first criticism related to timing. Although it was a major and contentious issue, the report for the meeting was issued just 24 hours before the meeting.

Megan Armstrong urged that the report be deferred to allow councillors time to properly consider the proposals, and the implications. She said that sending out the report so late was “manipulative management.”

Cathy Gardner said it was “extremely regrettable that such short notice was given for such an important issue”.

It had originally been agreed that the go ahead for construction of the car park would only be given when agreement had been reached between EDDC and Grenadier about construction of the Watersports Centre by Grenadier.

However the EDDC Cabinet was informed on 31 October that no such agreement had been reached. Merely that verbal assurances had been made.

Roger Giles warned the Cabinet that going ahead without the required agreement carried substantial risks. He cited paragraph 2.7 of the report which said : `Cabinet should be aware that this represents a risk that the council is incurring costs without Grenadier being legally committed to delivering the Watersports Centre thereafter.`

Roger Giles asked whether independent audit advice had been sought about the inherent risk. He was told it had not.

Ben Ingham was strongly critical of undertaking such a high risk strategy.

Rob Longhurst criticised the lack of a business plan, and the absence of costings, and said there was a lack of justification for the departure from the previous strategy.

Geoff Jung questioned the income assumptions; he asked how a smaller car park than the original would generate increased income. He also expressed concern about EDDC`s responsibilities anf financial burden, should Grenadier not develop the site.

Megan Armstrong pointed out that the Cabinet agenda papers (item 10 pages 31 to 35) contained the minutes of the meeting of the Exmouth Regeneration Board on 20 September. The minutes contained no reference to the proposed early construction of the car park!

Megan Armstrong asked a series of critical questions, including about the three outstanding `condition precedents`, and seeking explanation of the beach access agreement.

She complained that questions asked by herself, and by other independent councillors, had not received proper answers. Council Leader Ian Thomas told her he would ensure that she received answers after the meeting; Megan Armstrong was very critical of councillors being asked to make a decision – and then to receive the pertinent information AFTER the decision was made: she said “That is a very poor form of decision making.”

In spite of the failure to achieve the necessary agreements the (Conservative) Cabinet agreed to proceed with early construction of the car park after only 3 Cabinet Members spoke very briefly.

After the meeting Megan Armstrong was highly critical of the Cabinet decision.

“Tonight Tory councillors made an important decision relating to Exmouth, and they denied the people of Exmouth the opportunity to comment on it. The Tory councillors agreed a very high risk strategy without justification for it, and without proper safeguard for public funds for which they are responsible. It is irresponsible political management; Exmouth deserves better.”