Category Archives: Developers/ Development

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Aug 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Cranbrook, Developers/ Development, East Devon Tories, Exeter City Council, Greater Exeter, Growth Strategy, Housing (local), Infrastructure, Local Plan, Lympstone, Neighbourhood Plans, Ottery St Mary, Planning System, Rural communities, Sustainability, Villages BUAB, Villages Development Plan, West End: WestClyst BroadClyst/ Pinhoe, West Hill, Woodbury

Is YOUR village on the EDDC list for expansion? And another east/west divide

East Devon District Council Strategic Planning Committee are going to discuss:

“Principles for accommodating the future growth needs of East Devon”

on 4 September 2018.

The Committee are being asked to endorse

“The proposed principles for growth” as the basis for future discussion and consultation on accommodating extra growth in the district.”

The document is described as the “start of the debate” for future East Devon growth points for both the GESP (The Greater Exeter Strategic Plan) and the East Devon Local Plan review, which is required to be updated within the next two years.

For the last few years East Devon District Council have achieved their own Local Plan agreed target of 950 dwellings per year. (EDDC Target is 17,100 dwellings between the years of 2013 to 2031).

Recently Central Government decided to calculate each District`s housing requirement targets on a set matrix. East Devon’s build out figure has been set to be 844 homes per year. However, the report suggests that rather than achieve the Government target of 844 new houses per year there is a proposal to build out much higher levels of growth.

The report explains that the objective of higher growth could be achieved by what is called a “Growth Deal” with Central Government where a group of Councils agree to build more housing in return for infrastructure investment from central funds.

This proposed “Growth Deal” is being prepared by the Councils of East Devon, Exeter, Teignbridge and Mid Devon through the “GESP” Greater Exeter Strategic Plan.

It is recognised that Exeter is unable to provide the housing land required to sustain the expected growth of the city, and the rural areas and towns in the rest of the combined area will be required to increase their housing requirements in exchange for the infrastructure improvements for access to and from the city of Exeter.

Improvements to the motorway junctions, new roads, extra park and rides, rail improvements, new stations and an integrated transport system are all identified as priority improvements to overcome the already chronic delays on Exeter`s transport network. There are also aspirations for a “sports hub and concert venue” for Greater Exeter to be included in the GESP infrastructure needs.

The report gives a brief synopsis of the towns in East Devon and concludes that other than the new town of Cranbrook there is limited scope for growth due to the various towns’ proximity to the AONB designated areas, or they are bordering on the coast or close to flood plains.

The conclusion from the report is that the existing towns will only accommodate minimal growth, and with two-thirds of East Devon being included in the AONB of the Pebblebed Heaths or the Blackdown Hills the only area that can accommodate substantial growth is within the North West part of the district.

The report describes this area as the Western most quadrant of this district to the North of Exmouth and West of Ottery St Mary. The land is described to benefit from being relatively flat with no landscape designations. It is also well served by main roads with good vehicle access via the M5, A30, A3052 and A376 and has good existing public transport links with the railway line and existing bus routes.

There are 3 possible ways described as to how development could be achieved in this area.

1. Establish a further new town. Basically, create another Cranbrook. However, the report considers that the creation of another new town in the area could harm the delivery of Cranbrook.

2. Establish a number of new villages. Create a series of modern Devon villages but the report considers that this option would be most damaging in landscape terms.

3. Centre Growth around Existing Villages.

Growth would be required to be substantial with around 400 to 500 extra homes to be added to a number of existing villages (The report does not state how many villages will be required within this area). However, this could harm the character of the village and the existing community.

The new NPPF acknowledges that:

“The supply of a large number of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided they are well located and designed, and supported by necessary infrastructure and facilities.”

A list of the Parishes within the expansion area for extra housing area

By referring to a map of the area these are the Parishes(villages) which are within the West of the district which could have development of between 400 to 500 extra dwellings, parishes identified could be:

Nether Exe
Rewe
Brampford Speke
Upton Pyne.
Stoke Canon ​

All these Villages are North of Exeter and access is by way of the A377 – which is not listed as one of the featured roads, so it is unlikely these will be included.

Broadclyst
Clyst Honiton
Sowton
Rockbeare
Wimple.​

These Villages are close to Cranbrook and therefore unlikely to be selected to avoid the villages and town merging.

Clyst Hydon
Clyst St Lawrence
Aylesbeare
Marsh Green

These Parishes are remote from a main road or railway station which probably eliminates them because of their unsustainable location.

Lympstone

This Village is already designated in the report to provide growth for Exmouth.

This leaves the following Parishes most likely to be included for further expansion in the proposals:

Poltimore
Huxham
Clyst St Mary
Clyst St George (includes the village of Ebford)
West Hill
Woodbury​ (includes the village of Woodbury Salterton and Exton)
Farringdon.

The “Principles for Growth” which the committee are being asked to agree to:

• A significant proportion of growth to be in the Western part of the district by either a new town or extending a number of villages or building new villages.

• Plus, modest growth in existing towns with strategic growth around Axminster, Exmouth (including Lympstone), Honiton and Ottery St Mary.

• All other Villages to be encouraged to provide modest growth through their Neighbourhood Plans.

• Focus development on main transport corridors if possible.

Conclusion:

For the last few years, East Devon has successfully complied with the government`s Housing Strategy, with their current Local Plan and at present build out rates, this will over subscribe the Government Building Target until the year 2031.

The Government is not forcing East Devon to co-operate with Exeter to provide some of their housing needs. This decision is totally at the discretion of the District Council and their leaders.

Yes, Exeter is a thriving growth city, and it is recognised that the road and rail connections are dire, but why destroy the character of a part of East Devon for these improvements?

The very reason people choose to relocate to Exeter, its surrounding towns and villages is the beautiful Devon countryside; the building of a mass of new housing will simply make the area a mirror image of the existing areas the people are wanting to move away from!

So, to satisfy the aspirations and needs of the City of Exeter, the rural west area of East Devon will be required to build many more houses with either another new town or new villages or building an extra 500 houses to a number of existing village communities.

Will the Strategic Planning Committee endorse this proposal or not?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Aug 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Asset sweating, Consultation, Developers/ Development, Local Government Finance, Privatisation

Another local government HQ sale horror story

District council sells town council HQ without consultation as the private developer’s offer was twice what the town council could afford:

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/sale-crediton-town-hall-an-1927970

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Aug 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Inequality, Persimmon

Comments

2 Comments

“Persimmon profits rise 13% after help-to-buy boost”

Owl says; Summary – take care of your donors and they will take care of you.

“The housebuilder Persimmon has reported that its profits rose by 13% in the first half of the year, boosted by the government’s help-to-buy scheme and competitive mortgage deals.

Pretax profits jumped to £516m from £457m in the six months to 30 June, and Persimmon said it expected further growth in the second half of the year, bucking the wider trend of a slowing UK housing market.

“We have continued to experience good levels of customer interest in our housing development sites as we trade through the quieter summer season,” said the Persimmon chief executive, Jeff Fairburn.

“Customers are continuing to benefit from a competitive mortgage market and confidence remains resilient based on healthy employment trends and low interest rates.”

Britiain’s second biggest housebuilder angered shareholders earlier this year after handing Fairburn a £75m bonus. A report published last week by the High Pay Centre revealed Fairburn was the highest paid FTSE 100 boss in 2017, with a £47.1m package.

Persimmon sold 8,072 new homes in the first half of the year, up 4%. The average selling price increased by 1%, to £215,813.

The housebuilder has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of the government’s help-to-buy programme, which has lifted sales and supported house prices across the UK. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/21/persimmon-profits-rise-housing-market-help-to-buy

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Aug 2018

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Housing (local)

New homes: extra small and privacy only in the toilet

“New homes are 20% smaller than they were in the 70s, a study has found.

Families today squash into houses just 65sqm big, quarter of the size of a tennis court.

But while homes may be shrinking, their prices are expanding. In 1971, the average cost was £5,632, with wages being around £2,000 a year.

Now, buying a house sets us back on average £228,400 and pay is £27,000.

The study by the Royal Institute of British Architects of new pads on sale in 20 cities found kitchens are around 25% smaller than in the 70s, while bedrooms and ­bathrooms have 20% less space.

Riba president Ben Derbyshire said: “This becomes a critical problem for families. In a two bed, four person home there is no space to be on your own except in the ­lavatory.”

Homes in London are the most cramped, with Glasgow second on the list.

But the Home Builders ­Federation insisted smaller houses are making it easier for first time buyers to get a property.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/british-houses-shrinking-property-prices-13111497

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Aug 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development

It is taking a petition to try to force government/developers to pay for their cladding mistakes

Dreadful that this has not been forced upon them by government.

Save homeowners from financial ruin. Ensure the right parties pay in the Cladding Scandal:

https://www.change.org/p/kit-malthouse-save-homeowners-from-financial-ruin-by-ensuring-developers-pay-for-their-cladding-mistakes

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Aug 2018

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Brownfield sites, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), Inequality, Land Supply, National Planning Policy Framework, Planning System

“Government £200m brownfields building fund falls flat, as number of new homes declines”

“A £200million Government fund to pay for more homes on industrial land has resulted in the opposite effect, with fewer homes built on brownfield areas than before it was set up.

Official Government’s land use change statistics show that the proportion of new homes registered on previously developed land has fallen by 4 percentage points since 2014, when the fund was set up.

Yet over the same period the number of new residential addresses on supposedly heavily protected Green Belt land has increased by the same proportion – 4 per cent.

Separately, over the same period – 2013/14 to 2016/17 – the proportion of new residential addresses on the protected Green Belt land increased from 3 per cent to 4 per cent of all new homes built.

The Government’s record on building on brownfield sites was attacked by Labour which said minister’s commitment to building on brownfield sites was “hot air”.

The £200million fund was announced by Brandon Lewis, the current Tory party chairman and then then-Housing minister, in August 2014 so “councils across the country can now team up with developers and bid for government assistance to build thousands of new homes on previously-developed land”.

Mr Lewis published bidding criteria to create 10 housing zones on brownfield land, each able to deliver up to 2,000 new homes each.

The new zones, which will be outside London, should be large enough to deliver 750 to 2,000 properties and would help councils boost housebuilding on previously-developed land while safeguading the countryside, he said.

However John Healey MP, Labour’s Shadow Housing Secretary, said the figures showed that the Government had gone backwards on its pledge to encourage more building on brownfield sites.

He said: “If hot air built homes then Ministers would have fixed our housing crisis. Despite big promises to get building on brownfield land, official Government figures show we’ve gone backwards.

“It’s clear that Ministers are failing to get good value-for-money for taxpayers.

“By giving developers a free rein to do what they want, the Government is failing [to] get homes for local people built where they are needed.”

Matt Thomson, Head of Planning at the Campaign to Protect Rural England, backed the findings, saying that “promises to build the homes the nation needs while protecting the countryside are not being carried through.

“Our analysis of the government’s new ‘planning rulebook’ suggests that despite a lot of warm words current trends will continue, to the detriment of both town and country.

“The government must stick to its guns and end this constant cycle of broken promises.

“They need to rein back greenfield development where suitable brownfield land is available, and discourage growth where it cannot happen without compromising their own policies intended to manage sprawl and protect open land.”

Last week the CPRE warned that green belt was disappearing at an “alarming rate” with the equivalent of 5,000 football pitches lost because of a relaxation of planning laws.”

Source: Sunday Times (pay wall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Aug 2018

Posted under

Consultation, Developers/ Development, National Planning Policy Framework

Planning consultation – new NPPF weakens public input

“In May, the Government (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government) held a consultation on revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework – the headline planning policy document from which all other planning policy stems.

The Institute responded to the consultation, specifically commenting on the very opaque legislation / guidance surrounding the requirements for consultation in planning and development.

Despite growing concern about public disaffection in the planning system, the guidance contained within the original NPPF was very vague: while developers were encouraged to engage and the benefits are described, there was nothing in law to require developers to consult local people before submitting a planning application.

The revised NPPF has now been published and we were disappointed to see that very little has changed in the requirement to consult.

Engagement is still only ‘encouraged’; one of the few changes being that it has been extended from solely statutory, to both statutory and non-statutory consultees.

However, the list of information requirements that local authorities must make of developers has been reduced from ‘proportionate to the nature and scale of development proposals’ to ‘kept to the minimum needed to make decisions’. To view the exact changes between the two documents, click here:

Click to access The-NPPF-on-Pre-application-engagement-and-front-loading-a-comparison-between-the-original-and-revised-versions-1.pdf

While the legal requirement for developers to consult remains opaque, the notion that community involvement can benefit planning decisions is unequivocal.

Planning is ultimately about people: whether a local authority-run strategic plan or a private sector-led development proposal, change to the built environment impacts on communities. While it is generally believed that those proposing changes should involve local residents as a courtesy, additionally planners and developers have much to benefit from involving local people.

Consultation provides the opportunity to glean information and ideas from a local community. This might include knowledge of local history and which has the potential to enrich a scheme, otherwise unknown social issues which might have delayed the process, and the needs and aspirations of the community which may be met through the new development. With local input, proposals can be enriched and finely tuned to a specific neighbourhood, creating a unique scheme well suited to its location.

The local community, too, can benefit: community involvement can promote social cohesion, strengthen individual groups within it and create a shared legacy.

Following local dialogue at an early stage and having had proposals either challenged or welcomed, a developer has a greater chance of building local support for a proposed scheme. And a well-run consultation can build a trusting and mutually cooperative relationship between the developer and the community, which can minimise the potential for conflict and thereby remove risk in the process.

While tCI is disappointed by the lack of commitment to consultation in the revised NPPF, we are encouraged that policy might ultimately change following the Raynsford Review, a review of the planning system which has been commissioned by the Town and Country Planning Association and makes community participation a high priority. To view tCI ‘s contribution to the Review’s Interim Report, click here:

https://www.consultationinstitute.org/tcis-response-to-the-interim-report-of-the-raynsford-review-on-greater-community-involvement-in-planning/

https://www.consultationinstitute.org/the-nppf-and-consultation-or-revised-planning-policy-and-consultation/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Aug 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Sleaze

“Developer in £13m legal wrangle with Northumberland now plans to take council to High Court”

“A property developer who launched a £13m legal bid against Northumberland County Council says it has been banned from sharing vital information with council members.

Newcastle-based Lugano Group was due to build the Dissington Garden Village – commissioned by Northumberland CC when Labour was in power in the authority – in a move that would create 2,000 homes north of Ponteland,
But since the Conservatives gained control of the area in last year’s local elections, the Dissington project has been put under review, potentially leaving the developer with significant costs reportedly totalling over £13,305,000.

The property firm this week claimed it had “no option” but to take the claim to the High Court against the council itself, leader Peter Jackson, Cllr John Riddle, and chief executive Daljit Lally.

Lugano has said that the council’s solicitors have disclosed the report into the contents of “several anonymous letters of complaints” regarding the conduct of Cllr Jackson and documents associated with that report— however, the information was disclosed 12 weeks after the request, and Northumberland only disclosed the documents subject to confidentiality provisions that bind Lugano.

In a letter to Northumberland CC dated 13 August, Lugano said the council’s solicitors had refused to provide confirmation the key pieces of information, noting that the lawyers are keeping information from council members confidential.

The property developer said that the only “reasonable inference” that can be drawn from the solicitors’ reluctance to disclose the information is that the council would attempt to sue Lugano if copies of the report were provided to the cabinet committee, and those tasked with reviewing the decision to indemnify the legal costs that will incur in defending Lugano’s proceedings.

“We strongly disagree with the council’s solicitors’ comment that they would have a cause of action against Lugano if we were to disclose the report and documents,” the letter said.

In a statement, Northumberland County Council denied all allegations, labelling them “inappropriate, untrue, and defamatory.”

A spokesperson added: “We are aware of further correspondence from the Lugano Group, and continue to take legal advice in this regard.
“As previously stated, we believe that the council has acted lawfully and reasonably throughout this process. We continue to work with Lugano on their live planning application for Dissington Garden Village.”

http://www.publicsectorexecutive.com/Public-Sector-News/developer-in-13m-legal-wrangle-with-northumberland-now-plans-to-take-council-to-high-court

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Aug 2018

Posted under

Developers/ Development, Taylor Wimpey

Do you have a Taylor Wimpey house? Check your mirrors!

“A house builder is checking wardrobe mirrors at a new development after one fell and ‘exploded’ near to where a baby normally sleeps.

Jennie and Joe Adams claim full-length wardrobe mirrors were ‘stuck on with tape’ at their new home in Gorebridge, Midlothian.

As a result, they say one of the mirrors fell off and crashed to the floor with a massive bang, leaving shards of glass everywhere. …

A spokeswoman for Taylor Wimpey East Scotland said: ‘We are very sorry to learn about the situation at our Harvieston Park development, and we have carried out a full investigation in conjunction with our wardrobe door installer to understand the circumstances.

‘We have apologised to the family involved and we have offered our assistance to resolve this matter for them.

‘As an additional precaution, and to provide comfort to other homeowners living at the development, we will conduct additional checks on similarly fitted mirrored wardrobe doors that could be affected to make sure this issue does not happen again.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6071415/Taylor-Wimpey-forced-check-mirrors-new-housing-estate-failure.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Aug 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Consultation, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Exmouth, Regeneration, Tourism

“Fears seafront consultation internet portal could stop third of town having their say”

“Concerns have been raised that plans for an online portal for consultation on the vision for Exmouth seafront could leave 30 per cent of the town unable to have their say.

Hemingway Designs has been tasked with coming up with a vision for ‘phase three’ of the Exmouth seafront regeneration scheme and it was revealed at a town council meeting the seaside specialists will soon be launching an internet consultation website.

At the council’s August meeting, concerns were raised that if this was the only form of consultation, nearly a third of residents in Exmouth would be left unable to have their say.

East Devon District Council (EDDC) has since said there will be hard copies available for those without access to computers.

Speaking at the meeting, cllr Lynne Elson said: “My concern is that the majority of comments will be through the online portal.

“More than 30 per cent of residents in Exmouth don’t have access to online and if they do as suggested by EDDC and ‘go to the library’ they will have to pay as they will exceed the time allowed.”

Cllr Tim Dumper added: “We do need other ways of consulting.

“In the past East Devon (district council) hasn’t always covered itself in glory when it comes to consultation. “This time things are going very well.

“I wouldn’t like to let those 30 per cent or so down. Particularly involving residents who feel very strongly about our seafront and I think it would be wrong not to involve them fully in any consultation.”

A spokeswoman for EDDC said: “Hemingway Design will shortly be launching their survey to hear people’s views and ideas for this piece of Devon’s seaside.

“It will be easy to complete as you can do it online through the portal that Hemingway Design is setting up.

“When the survey is launched if you need access to a computer then you will be able to use the ones that we have in Exmouth Town Hall reception for free or paper copies will, of course, be available.

“The survey is being finalised at the moment and will be available soon.

“There will be an announcement to that effect.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/hemingway-designs-consultation-portal-plans-for-seafront-development-revealed-1-5653129

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Aug 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Cranbrook, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Environment (local), Local Government Finance, Public Open Space, Section 106

Cranbrook Town Council and EDDC at loggerheads over “country park resource centre”

“A bid has been launched by Cranbrook Town Council (CTC) to halt the building of the new country park resource centre.

The move comes a month after permission was granted by district planning chiefs for the 135sqm centre on land west of Stone Barton.

However, a report by CTC clerk Sarah Jenkins said East Devon District Council (EDDC) went back on an ‘understanding’ to adopt the country park resource centre, which its country park ranger would use it as a base.

However, EDDC cite the ‘economic climate’ and ‘availability of local authority funding’ as the reason it prefers to merge a number of facilities into a single building.

In her report, Mrs Jenkins said: “Under the section 106 agreement (private agreements made between local authorities and developers), the Consortium are required to provide a country park resource centre, hence the recent planning application.

“At the time, there was an understanding that EDDC would adopt the centre and their country park ranger would use it as a base. Since then, EDDC has decided that it does not want to adopt the centre.”

In January this year, councillors at CTC resolved to agree in principle that it would take ownership of the centre direct from the Consortium, once it is delivered.

They also resolved to enter negotiations with EDDC to determine the future role of the country park ranger and their future employment arrangements.

But in her report, Mrs Jenkins said: “The country park ranger has since left and EDDC has made the decision not to recruit a replacement ranger.

“Having been faced with the EDDC withdrawal, the town council has indicated to the Consortium and EDDC that it may not wish to have resource centre.”

At a meeting last month, CTC resolved to request the centre is not built and that the function of the facility and country park ranger be accommodated instead in Cranbrook’s future town hall.

Councillors also resolved to request that the section 106 funding for the country park centre be transferred to the town to provide other ‘much-needed’ facilities.

A spokesperson for EDDC said: “The section 106 agreement that secures developer contributions and obligations in relation to the country park resource centre and other infrastructure at Cranbrook was originally signed in 2010.

“At the time, it was envisaged that the town would be served by a number of individual buildings to accommodate civic and community uses.

“When the original legal agreement was approved, EDDC had been indicated as taking ownership of the country park resource centre.

“In the absence of having responsibility over any part of the country park, that now sits with Cranbrook Town Council, it was decided to offer the asset to the town council for adoption.

“From April 2018, Cranbrook Town Council adopted the country park in the town and is now responsible for its management and maintenance.

“A building housing the permanent offices of Cranbrook Town Council (as well as the library) is envisaged to be built on land immediately south of the country park in the town centre, a location where many of the functions of a country park resource centre could be accommodated.

“The community space element of the previously proposed country park resource centre could be accommodated in another community building and this could be part-funded by some of the monies that would have otherwise been spent on the centre.

“The Cranbrook country park ranger had been employed by East Devon District Council but the ranger left post earlier in 2018 and before the end of the developer funding for the position.

“A new legal agreement to pass the remaining funding to Cranbrook Town Council to enable them to employ a ranger to manage the land they have adopted is under way.

“In the interim there is currently no Cranbrook country park ranger in post.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/council-launches-bid-to-block-build-of-cranbrook-s-country-park-resource-centre-1-5649550

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Aug 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Cranbrook, Developers/ Development

The new big out-of-town retail planning application near Cranbrook – the decision

The recommendation from officers, just announced, is for approval but councillors vote against that unanimously.

The application is REFUSED.

[However, it will almost certainly go to appeal/planning inquiry so this is not the last we have heard of it and there are three other similar schemes in the pipeline in the same area yet to come forward].

One of the objectors:

“Keith Lewis from Exeter Civic Society is speaking against the proposals.

“Many of the proposed retail outlets are too large,” he says. “We support the development of a local centre. These proposals seem to ignore established policy and the needs of local communities. “This application is worse than those you have refused before.

“Cranbrook has a planned town centre with development land in place. This jeopardises its establishment.

“A number of private bodies have asked you to refuse this application because it is not a local centre and we will also ask the same.”

and

“Cllr Percy Prowse expresses worry over the traffic impact “I’m trying to picture who would want to visit this new site,” Cllr Percy Prowse. “On Friday, I went to the environment department and asked them about how we had breached air quality results in the Heavitree corridor. “A new retail park would be very unsatisfactory.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Aug 2018

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Health and Social Care (local), Housing (local), Inequality

“Elderly should be housed in luxury developments with spas to keep them out of care home”

Owl says: Just one problem – in the whole glowing article the cost of these homes is never mentioned! You can be quite sure these homes will be out of reach for “ordinary” (ie not rich) people – rather like all other new housing.

“Traditional care homes will be increasingly replaced by luxury developments with spas, hairdressers and beauty salons in a bid to keep pensioners independent for longer, ministers say today.

The Government plans will see £76 million invested annually for the next three years in new homes specially designed for those who are frail, elderly or suffering from disabilities.

Health officials said the plans aim to keep people independent for longer – with their own front door, but more support on hand, with use of sensors and video monitoring to track the most vulnerable.

Housing developers will be able to bid for funds, from the programme which has already seen £315 million allocated to projects which design such homes. …”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/13/elderly-should-housed-luxury-developments-spas-keep-care-homes/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Aug 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, AONB, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Housing (local), Inequality, Land Supply, NPPF, Planning System

A useful critique on new planning regulations (local councils stay silent on their views)

Why CPRE thinks it is a developers’ charter (again):

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/new-planning-policy-framework-slammed-1892197

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Aug 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Archant Press, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Environment (local), Exmouth, Housing (local), Taylor Wimpey, Transparency

Taylor Wimpey, Archant, EDDC and red dust in Littleham, Exmouth : “fake news”?

Below is information from an Exmouth resident sent to an Archant local reporter regarding development at Littleham, Exmouth, the “red dust” it is creating and its effect on a large number of frustrated residents.

The resident has received no reply to either email and the newspaper has not balanced its original mild article to reflect the information in these emails:

“11 August 2018:

Ms Brainwood [Archant reporter who wrote original article]:

Further to my email from last week I write to inform you of the following. It has been noted by the way that you did not pay me the courtesy of a reply.

Local residents are quite rightly annoyed that your article gave false impressions.

You reported the following :

1. The only residents to be affected were two elderly people in Buckingham Close.
2. The only area affected was indeed Buckingham Close.
3. Taylor Wimpey were doing everything they could to minimise the red dust site vehicles generated.
4. EDDC were happy that the red dust was “ within limits “.
5. Environmental Health Officers from EDDC were quite happy with the overall situation.

The real situation could not be further from the truth.

If you had asked local residents they would have informed you the red dust was experienced in Littleham Road, Midway, The Crescent, Jarvis Close, The Broadway, Douglas Road and Cranford Road just to name a few areas.

Local resident who I have spoken to agree your article is at best sloppy journalism and at worst, fake news.

I read on the Exmouth Journal website your Group Editor Philip Griffin tells us the paper is “ respected for it`s balanced reporting “. We all had a good laugh at that.

For you information the cycle path in Jarvis Close north of Plumb Park is being currently dug up by South West Water to lay pipes. The work will last for 5 weeks. More excessive noise, more disruption and even more dust just a couple of metres from residences in Littleham Road.

Finally, it is your prerogative not to reply to my emails, it is our prerogative not to purchase your paper. “

and the resident’s earlier email to which the resident also had no reply:

“2 August 2018

To: laura.brainwood@archant.co.uk
Subject: Red dust causes misery for residents near Plumb Park development

I would like to make you aware of a few facts regarding the current red dust problem that you reported on in the 1st August 2018 edition of the Exmouth Journal.

“ Taylor Wimpey have taken measures to reduce the impact “. This is not correct.

When I have contacted their Exeter call centre ( 01392 442617 ) they say dust suppression is taking place, but it is not. We are told a water bowser “ damp down” every day. As the site is visible from my bedroom window in Littleham Road, 30 meters from the north fence, I can inform you it never takes place. We are also told a street sweeper is used to suppress the dust. We have never seen the vehicle.

A resident who lives in Jarvis Close (his wife has a very serious case of COPD), confronted the Site Manger face to face recently and was told “damping down“ takes place in certain areas every 20 minutes. This is a lie.

I have contacted Environmental Health to complain about the red dust. I am not the only Littleham Road resident to have done this.

Alice Gill EHO did call back to inform me that Taylor Wimpy is taking action to reduce the dust. She is telling me what Taylor Wimpey is telling her. It is just not happening. Recent emails informing them again, that there is still a big problem have been ignored.

Food has to be covered to stop contamination from the dust in the kitchen. As windows are left open due to the warm weather we even have dust on tooth brushes in the bathroom. It has permeated into closed cupboards. Yes. It is inside the house!!!

In the meantime elderly resident who have COPD have to inhale red dust, along with everybody else, just because Taylor Wimpey can`t be bothered to do anything.

EDDC Development Management Committee was informed in June 2013 by many local residents that this development would blight the lives of local people. They were not interested.

Perhaps your readers would like to know a few facts regarding this issue, plus the current disinterest.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Aug 2018

Posted under

Developers/ Development, East Devon economy, East Devon Tories, EDDC

“Flybe … a perennial basket case”

Owl recalls the many, many times East Devon District Council Tories (and in particular their former Leader Paul Diviani) has used Flybe as an indicator of the district’s economic prowess … hhhhmmmm!

From today’s Sunday Times:

“As the boss of regional airline Flybe, Ourmières-Widener (her married name) is one of a handful of female airline bosses.

She has one of the toughest jobs in the industry. Flybe has been a perennial basket case, disappointing investors repeatedly in its short life as a listed company. After floating on the stock market in 2010 with a valuation of £200m, it is now worth just £90m.

In 2014, under Saad Hammad, then chief executive, it returned to investors with a begging bowl, raising £156m in a deeply discounted rights issue with a promise to build “resilience and profitable growth”. Yet its performance since then has been lacklustre at best. Flybe’s first — and only — annual profit as a listed company was £2.7m, in the year to the end of March 2016. …

Her plan is to shrink Flybe to success by cutting its fleet from a peak of 85 aircraft in May 2017 to 70 by 2020. … “

Source: Sunday Times (pay wall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Aug 2018

Posted under

Cranbrook, Developers/ Development, Environment (local)

Comments

1 Comment

Cranbrook – the “eco town” that never materialised

Anyone remember when, in the not-that-dim-and-distant past, EDDC councillors touted Cranbrook as an “eco town”? Somewhere along the line – in 2015 to be precise – the “eco” was quietly dropped.

Compare and contrast eco-promises and reality here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-13951306

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.com/2015/12/cranbrook-eco-town-no-more.html

http://www.stevemelia.co.uk/ecotowns.htm

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Aug 2018

Posted under

Bovis, Cranbrook, Developers/ Development

Rats in Cranbrook: developer denies drains are source

Owl noticed a big spike in searches for “Bovis Homes Victims Group” Facebook page – mentioned in a link on this blog recently – now it knows why …

However, the group was forced to close as it feared legal risks due to the nature of some of the posts on its site:

https://bovishomesvictimsgroup.co.uk/

A BBC Devon website report says:

“Residents in a new housing development in Devon claim they are “living in hell” following a “rat infestation”.

People living in the homes think the rodents use the drainage system in Cranbrook to enter the properties.

Homeowners have told the BBC it has been “stressful” and it has cost them “thousands of pounds” to deal with the problem.

Many are calling on the developer, Bovis Homes, for compensation.

[Bovis replied]:

“We undertook camera surveys and other works and there was no evidence suggesting that the cause of the rat infestation was the result of the design or construction. A pre-construction ecological survey found no evidence of rats or other vermin being present on the ground prior to the property being occupied. No such issues were raised with them during the two-year customer warranty period, or in the 18 months that followed.”

Bovis Homes

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-devon-45023099

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Aug 2018

Posted under

Accountability, AONB, Clinton Devon Estates, Developers/ Development, East Budleigh, Environment (local), Planning System

CLINTON DEVON SERVE EVICTION NOTICE ON 11 SPECIES OF BAT

A new nature protection group has been formed in East Budleigh to try to save eleven species of bat from having their habitat destroyed. Six of these species are amongst the rarest found in Britain. The story has broken today simultaneously on BBC Radio Devon and BBC Spotlight, presented by Adrian Campbell, and in the Exmouth Journal.

Owl will comment after using the following Journal story to set the scene:

“Landowners have defended their plan to redevelop an area of land in East Budleigh amid concerns for wildlife living on the site.

Clinton Devon Estates (CDE) has applied for permission to demolish a barn at The Pound, in Lower Budeigh, and replace it with a new dwelling.

Residents have raised concerns about the bats that have traditionally called the barn their home.

There are also concerns about access to the site; it is argued to be through the centre of The Pound, which is claimed to be in the village’s built-up area boundary.

CDE say the new building will provide ‘conditions more suitable’ for bats, including a dedicated loft area and ground floor with free flight access for the animals.

Writing in objection to the application, Mr and Mrs Moyle said: “We should be proud that we have so many rare bats, including gray long-eared bats, which are very rare.

“Building this so-called bat house means we have no proof that the bats will use it.

“It is being built a long way from the barn, so we are likely to lose out rare bats.”

Another letter, from a Mrs Maynard, said: “This is an absolutely ridiculous and totally unnecessary attempt to develop what is at present is an extremely pretty corner of a very lovely village.”

A spokesman for Clinton Devon Estates said: “The new building, whilst smaller than the existing barn, has been designed to provide conditions more suitable for breeding bats in the summer; for example, it will have a slate roof to provide a warm loft, as opposed to a draughty metal shed. “It will also have a cool ground floor to provide fairly stable winter temperature and high humidity, with the aim of providing a potential winter roost.

“For horseshoe and long-eared bat species, a dedicated loft area and ground floor with free flight access will be provided.

“For crevice-dwelling bat species, roosting provision will be provided in various places within the bat barn, including bat slates, a raised ridge tile, timber cladding, a Schwegler bat tube and internal crevices.”

CDE providing a brand new Des. Res. for free? There must be a catch.

Owl fears for these bats.

Are they going to be sent away for a holiday by the sea whilst their ancient barn (oldest still standing in East Budleigh) is bulldozed away and their new bat loft constructed?

Temporary social housing is a non-starter. As mentioned in one of the Spotlight interviews, what are they going to do for food. They feed on moths but the overgrown habitat of the moths is also going to be bulldozed?

And how are they going to navigate when the trees they use for echo location have also been razed to the ground as well?

Owl has many, many bat friends who join it in its nocturnal foreys and is VERY protective of them.

However, for the status of Clinton Devon Estates environmental credentials see just a few recent Owl stories here (there are many more):

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2018/02/09/clinton-devon-estates-pr-team-working-overtime-on-blackhill-quarry/

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/09/07/clinton-devon-estates-and-budleigh-hospital-garden-a-pr-nightmare-for-today-and-tomorrow/

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/03/14/eddc-local-plan-not-fit-for-purpose-as-developer-and-clinton-devon-estates-challenge-succeeds-at-newton-poppleford/

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2016/11/15/clinton-devon-estates-wants-to-make-it-easier-to-build-in-aonb/

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2016/05/09/beer-officers-recommend-refusal-of-clinton-devon-estates-development-in-aonb/

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2016/08/04/east-budleigh-clinton-devon-5-houses-with-fourteen-parking-spaces-in-aonb-on-grade-1-agricultural-land/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Aug 2018

Posted under

Cranbrook, Developers/ Development, East Devon economy, EDDC, Exeter City Council, Greater Exeter, Infrastructure, Sustainability

Cranbrook – just another suburb of Exeter and now unlikely to get its long-promised town centre?

Exeter City Council is working in partnership with surrounding District Council Partners, isn’t it? Or is it?

The Councils of East Devon, Teignbridge, Mid Devon and Exeter have been working for some time now towards a combined Strategic Plan – “Greater Exeter” – though we are not allowed to know EXACTLY what that means until after the next local elections in May 2019. Public consultation, which had been timetabled for this year was postponed until then but no reason given. It seems unlikely to offer good news.

But perhaps recent developments in the Exeter/Cranbrook area might shed just a little light on forward plans.

Firstly, it does makes sense to share ideas and come up with a plan to benefit the whole area rather than cram everything into the bulging-growth City of Exeter. Indeed, Plymouth is doing the same thing with its surrounding councils.

In theory, it allows the spread the housing evenly throughout the wider area, enables the building of strategic new roads and other infrastructure and improves bus and rail services to help manage the ongoing problems of congestion in the City. Basically, spread the costs, the developments, and share in the joint benefits this will bring. We see an example of this here:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2018/08/06/western-east-devon-profits-from-extra-buses-eastern-east-devon-gets-nothing-time-to-join-west-dorset/

East Devon has been working hard with Exeter for some years now with developments in their contiguous areas, creating the new town of Cranbrook, the Exeter Science Park and Sky Park (all on East Devon land) to provide workspace and office accommodation close to the City of Exeter.

However, EDDC has found it impossible to persuade retailers (and their partner developers) to take space in their planned “Cranbrook Town Centre”, which currently consists of only half a dozen small shops and a pub. A second “town centre” was mooted for the next phase of housing development but has never been firmed up.

Cranbrook and other massive housing developments close to the Exeter city boundary (Monkerton, Pinhoe) are now simply dormitory estates to Exeter, relying on the retail offer provided by the City and Sowton to supply the ever-increasing housing in these locations.

The reluctance of retailers and developers to come forward to provide the shops in the heart to the new town of Cranbrook is not difficult to understand. Most retailers are going through a massive change with most companies reporting closures, downturn in profits and many high street names pulling away from the traditional high street.

However, in the greater Exeter area, there is yet another reason for the reluctance of investment into the Cranbrook retail offer. Despite the abandonment of the Bus and Coach Station site last year for retail redevelopment, Exeter’s planners are recommending approval for a massive new “Out of Town Retail Park” close to the MET office and only a short journey from Cranbrook:

https://www.devonlive.com/whats-on/shopping/massive-exeter-retail-park-includes-1866178

The Exeter planners state the application is contrary to their own council policy as the proposed development will not be a ‘local centre’. But the scheme does provide, as part of a wider package, a “local function” – and so it is extremely unlikely that a more ‘traditional’ local centre will be delivered within the newly built housing estates at Monkerton and Hill Barton area of the City. The City planners conclude this is the only realistic opportunity to secure local retail facilities in the area – including Cranbrook.

The applicants claim the scheme will offer a mix of use classes including food retail, non-food retail, restaurants and cafes with ancillary drive thru’ offerings too.

If this application is approved by Exeter City Council next week (13th August 2018) and goes ahead this will be another massive hurdle that East Devon will need to overcome to persuade retailers to locate in their own town centre. As a result, if Exeter planners have their way the likelihood of any retail local centre at Cranbrook coming forward look to be close to zero.

Exeter councillors are being told the City will benefit from a massive economic injection associated with the scheme – with a £15 million construction investment, 260 average construction jobs during the build, 520 FTE permanent jobs, £12 million estimated total annual wage bill across the development, £9 million estimated total annual expenditure in the UK economy by employees of the development, 160 FTE jobs supported in the wider economy by the development, £1.1 million annual business rate contribution and finally up to £2.2 million in Community Infrastructure Levy.

And if this bid fails, there are three more massive retail offerings in the pipeline within half a mile of the same area and all within the Exeter City Council boundary:

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/exeter-smyths-next-mcdonalds-costa-1769559

So where does that leave “partnership”? And Cranbrook?

Exeter Council coffers will benefit substantially, and East Devon District Council get a large “Out of Town Retail Park” on the edge of their almost shop-less Cranbrook new town.

What a great partner Exeter City Council is proving to be by cherry-picking the juicy benefits and income streams provided by their partners’ hard work in providing the dwellings that will provide the customers to flood into Exeter’s new retail park.

Cranbrook is basically becoming an eastern version of Alphington (Marsh Barton, Matford) – just another suburb of congested, polluted, not-that-great Exeter.