Sidford residents say resounding no to new industrial zone in village

“Residents and representatives blasted fresh plans for a business park between Sidford and Sidbury this week.

The reduced outline application failed to win over civic leaders and members of the public as it was unanimously opposed by Sidmouth Town Council’s planning committee on Wednesday.

Access, inadequate roads and flooding risk were among the reasons.

More than 150 residents, as well as town, district and county council representatives packed into Sidford Social Hall.

A change of use is being sought for the agricultural site, in Two Bridges Road, to provide 8,445sqm of employment floorspace.

District councillor Marianne Rixson said there was ‘zero requirement’ for the development and that the A375 was not wide enough to cope with traffic. She claimed the ‘only beneficiaries’ from the scheme would be the applicants, not ‘the people of the Sid Valley, nor the local economy’.

“It’s all about greed, not need,” added Cllr Rixson.

John Loudoun, of Sidbury, said it was ‘laudable’ for the applicants to promote alternative transport to the site, but the details were vague.

He added: “This is the wrong development in the wrong place. I support the need for local infrastructure – but not there. It will not be good for Sidford and I can assure you it will not be good for Sidbury.”

David Addis backed the application and said: “The Sid Valley needs to have a future supporting our families and the families that come after us. It should not just be a place for retired people or a holiday destination – we need a diverse economy.”

Joseph Marchant, agent for the applicant, said concerns from the previous proposals, submitted in 2016, had been listened to, adding: “It is quite substantially different, there is a huge reduction in volume. It represents 37 per cent of what was previously submitted. The volume of buildings would provide for 250 jobs and that is important in terms of providing the need identified in your allocated Local Plan as a district.”

Councillor Ian McKenzie-Edwards, who represents Sidford, said: “We know how busy that road gets. Putting this employment site where it is projected is going to exacerbate traffic. It’s going to lower the quality of life. The village of Sidbury; the traffic there is horrendous sometimes.”

Cllr Ian Barlow recommended that the council did not support the plans over the same concerns expressed about the 2016 application.

He said: “It is in the Local Plan, we know it is, and we fought to keep it out. Mistakes were made and we have seen it already. The Local Plan is a massive document and no council, however good or bad, can get it all right. If it is wrong, change it and have the guts to admit the mistake was made. It is a stupid place to put it. It’s expensive to build, it’s not required, certainly not the size of it – there has been no demand proved.”

A public meeting over the plans is due to be held in Sidford Social Hall on Tuesday, at 6.30pm.

The fate of the application will be decided by the district council.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/resounding-no-for-sidford-business-park-proposal-1-5542075

“Town council ordered to disclose contract with developer for sports complex sale” [for housing]

“The First-tier Tribunal has upheld a decision by the Information Commissioner’s Office that required a town council to disclose a contract entered into more than five years ago with a developer over the multi-million pound sale of a sports complex.

The case of Hemsworth Town Council v Information Commissioner & (Dismissed : Freedom of Information Act 2000) [2018] UKFTT 2017_0120 (GRC) involved conjoined appeals as the separate requests for information were materially identical.

The requests centred on the contract between Saul Construction, the developer, and Hemsworth Town Council in respect of the sale of the Hemsworth Sports Complex.

Entered into in early 2011, the development was to consist of more than 150 homes. It was agreed that the town council would take over a new community centre and new football facilities. That has happened.

Planning permission was sought for the site but was quashed by the High Court. Permission has been re-granted but is the subject of another judicial review.

Because of the hiatus caused by the judicial reviews, Saul Construction has refused to complete the contract. Title therefore remains with the council. The developer has paid £360,000 pursuant to a section 106 agreement and paid part of the contract price. Some £1.4m remains outstanding from the purchase price. The council and the developer are seeking to renegotiate the contract.

The requesters are local residents who have expressed concern about various environmental issues resulting from the sale and loss of open space.

The town council refused their request, arguing that the documents were exempt from disclosure under s. 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which covers commercial interests. This was upheld on review.
When the solicitors to one of the requesters cited the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“EIR”), the council relied on the exemption in regulation 12(5)(e) (legitimate economic interests). It did not however explain why.

On review, the council maintained its decision and argued that the public interest favoured withholding the requested information.

After receiving a complaint, the ICO concluded that the EIR, rather than FOIA, applied.

The ICO decided that the town council had failed to discharge the burden on it of establishing that regulation 12(5)(e) was engaged. “With regard to legitimate economic interests, under Tribunal caselaw it had to be shown that, on the balance of probabilities, adverse effects would accrue.” [Tribunal’s emphasis]

The authority had failed to identify any specific adverse effects arising from the disclosure of the disputed information (or parts of it), the ICO found. It concluded therefore that it did not need to apply the public interest test.

Hemsworth Town Council appealed, but this has now been rejected by the First-tier Tribunal.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=35511%3Atown-council-ordered-to-disclose-contract-with-developer-for-sports-complex-sale&catid=59&Itemid=27

“Judge quashes grant of planning permission for watersports hub”

“The Administrative Court has quashed Cheshire West & Chester Borough Council’s grant of planning permission for a watersports centre after finding that this changed from a facility for members to one for the public without proper notice to objectors.

HHJ Raeside said Clive Sykes, who lives next door to the site concerned, argued that the council failed to consult on a submission of last-minute information altering the nature of the application from members only use to that of the general public.

In Sykes v Cheshire West & Chester Borough Council [2018] EWHC 3655 (Admin) Mr Sykes argued there was no opportunity for the public to make representations on this late information and the failure to consult was contrary to rules of natural justice.

The judge said: “Any fair reading of a combination of one or more salient planning documents published…prior to the day of the planning hearing make it palpably clear that it was their intention…that the Watersports Hub was to be for use of a private club mainly the boathouse and that had existed for many years before, well-known for its members only [policy].”

He rejected the council’s claim that the change from this to an application for a facility for public use could be reasonably called “a clarification”.
“It is difficult to imagine how a change of use of facility from members only to those of the public can possibly be described as a ‘clarification’,” he said.

“In the ordinary use of the English language this is best described as a volte-face (of course allowing the introduction of French into the English language).”

The judge though dismissed two other grounds argued by Mr Sykes, that the council failed to heed environmental protection team advice that a full assessment was needed of the noise impact, and that planning committees were misled into believing that consultees had been aware the wider public would have access to the facility.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=35472%3Ajudge-quashes-grant-of-planning-permission-for-watersports-hub&catid=63&Itemid=31

Sidford Industrial park: planning meeting 30 May, 6.30 pm, Sidford Social Hall

It will be interesting to see which side Councillor Hughes backs …

Press release:

“While many of us were hoping it wouldn’t happen, it’s not a huge surprise that Tim and Mike Ford have submitted a new application to build a business park in Sidford. If you haven’t already heard about it you can read this article from last Friday’s Herald:

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/new-business-park-plan-is-unveiled-1-5522422

The council is holding a public planning meeting on

Wednesday 30 May 2018
at 6.30pm
at Sidford Social Hall
in Byes Lane

Please come along and have your say. And please tell your friends about it.

If you want to keep up with the campaign as it develops please like the Say NO Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/sayNOtoSidfordBusinessPark/

Have Cranbrook’s roads been adopted yet? Hope so, because, if not …

It’s not just Cranbrook – this could happen in any new development anywhere.

But it WAS a problem in Cranbrook in March this year:
https://www.cranbrooktowncouncil.gov.uk/concerned-about-our-roads/

The undated letters addressed to “The Occupier”, were pushed through doors along a cul-de-sac in Aldershot, Hampshire, on a Thursday in November. Those who bothered to open what looked like junk mail discovered that part of the road had been sold to a private company and they would have to buy a £2.50-a-week permit to leave their cars outside their homes where free parking had been available for 50 years. They also had to pay a £75 deposit or face a £60 further charge. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/may/28/parking-enforcement-private-law-fines-penalties-appeal

Developers rip off students and remit untaxed profits to tax havens

“Tens of thousands of undergraduates are paying for accommodation at universities where developers are cashing in on the privatisation of student housing using offshore companies, a Guardian investigation has found.

More than 20,000 students are paying for rooms owned by companies based in places such as Jersey, Guernsey, the British Virgin Islands and Luxembourg but that figure is likely to be an underestimate given the surge in building in university towns in recent years.

The holding structure means that overseas investors are able to sell on the rooms without paying tax on their gains and it allows buildings to change hands without any stamp duty bill. Complex company arrangements also give companies the opportunity to minimise the tax they pay while charging students up to £14,000 a year in fees for high-end housing.

One company collected £2.2m in rental income in 2016 but contributed just £10,000 in income tax after it paid £2.1m in charges, mostly to a Luxembourg based holding company.

The structures are perfectly legal, but MPs and students criticised their use. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/may/27/revealed-developers-cashing-in-privatisation-uk-student-housing

East Devon’s Villages Plan is agreed by the planning inspector (with implications for business parks)

Press Release including comments from East Devon Alliance Independent Councillor Geoff Jung:

“I am delighted that, after a number of years of hard work and following extensive public engagement, the Planning Inspector has found our Villages Plan to be sound. The Plan is a key document that once adopted will sit alongside the Local Plan and help promote the right types of development in the right places for our rural villages and communities while protecting our outstanding countryside assets and environment.”

Developers will be able to refer to Villages Plan when considering building in larger East Devon villages, the town of Colyton and Greendale and Hill Barton business parks.

Planning Inspector Beverley Doward’s report on the East Devon Villages Plan has been received by East Devon District Council and the inspector concludes it is sound, subject to her earlier submitted “main modifications”.

The East Devon Villages Plan sets out planning policy that will help determine planning applications in the larger villages of East Devon (and the town of Colyton), as well as at Greendale and Hill Barton business parks. The primary role of the Villages Plan is to set boundaries (known as built-up area boundaries and employment areas) around villages and the two business parks, which will help determine where new development can be built.

Outside these boundaries opportunities for development will be far more restricted, which will effectively control the outward expansion of villages and the two Business Parks into the surrounding countryside. The Villages Plan will sit alongside the adopted East Devon Local Plan and together they will guide and manage development across the whole district.

East Devon’s Strategic Planning Committee will consider the report on 26 June 2018. The committees new Chairman Cllr Paul Diviani says:

It is expected that the Villages Plan will go before the Full Council on 25 July 2018 for adoption.

Welcome News to the Communities of Farringdon and Woodbury Salterton
The adoption of the Villages plan is a welcome additional Planning Document to the two rural communities of Woodbury Salterton and Farringdon, which are close to Greendale and Hill Barton Business Parks. These very large Industrial parks have seen continued growth for many years and dwarfed their rural communities.

The Inspector in her report states that:

“By virtue of the definition set out in Strategy 7 of the EDLP, the business parks lie within the countryside where development will only be permitted where it is in accordance with a specific Local or Neighbourhood Plan policy that explicitly permits such development.”

Further in her report the Inspector notes that:

“Greendale Business Park and Hill Barton Business Park have clearly made an important contribution to the supply of employment land within the district and provide valuable employment opportunities.”

“There is nothing in the evidence that has been submitted to the examination of this Plan that leads me to conclude that there is currently a need to provide for future employment development in locations other than those which have been tested and found sound through the examination of the EDLP. (East Devon Local Plan)”

“The inclusion within the EDVP of a policy providing for future growth at Greendale Business Park and Hill Barton Business Park, whilst considered as a ‘reasonable alternative’ in the SA, is not supported by it and instead the option of not providing for further expansion of the business parks is identified as the preferred option.”

“I am satisfied that the approach not to provide for the further expansion of Greendale Business Park and Hill Barton Business Park in the EDVP beyond that which is already authorised is justified and consistent with the development strategy of the EDLP.”

“To conclude on this issue therefore, subject to MM08, MM09, MM10 and MM11 the approach adopted in the EDVP to Greendale Business Park and Hill Barton Business Park is justified and consistent with the development strategy of the EDLP and is capable of effective implementation.”

East Devon District Councillor Cllr Geoff Jung for Raleigh Ward which includes the village of Woodbury Salterton says:

“I welcome this long-awaited Village Plan and the inclusion of the Employment Areas for the Business Parks of Hill Barton and Greendale.

The Planning Inspector Beverley Doward’s comments and recommendation for the business parks demonstrates that further expansion of either the Business Parks beyond the present approved boundaries will not be considered appropriate.”

“This Plan will provide clarity and certainty required for both communities of Farringdon and Woodbury Salterton and the owners of the Business Parks.”

“Don’t make developers pay for social housing” … says BIG developer!

“One of the country’s top property developers has described the UK’s system of funding social housing as “nuts” and called for higher taxes to speed up building.

Roger Madelin, a member of the executive committee at British Land, told the Guardian the decades-old system of getting private developers to pay for affordable homes was “a stupid way of meeting this social need” and that the government should directly fund them.

“All companies should pay higher corporation tax,” he said. “This country needs to have more tax paid. If we did it like that we could get on and do it. It can’t work in the long term, you can’t expect developers to continue to produce for the population’s social needs at this level. It should come from general taxation.”

Madelin’s suggestion will raise eyebrows in the notoriously profit-driven property industry as it implies increased taxes on its profits. But he is a respected figure who led the regeneration of King’s Cross in London as well as Brindley place in Birmingham and his remarks reflect growing frustration that the system is not only failing to deliver enough cheap housing, it is also a drag on development.

He made his proposal as British Land submitted one of the UK’s largest planning applications for a £3bn regeneration of Surrey Quays in east London, with 3,000 homes, up to six skyscrapers and several new corporate headquarters on a site stretching across 53 acres – similar in size to the regeneration of King’s Cross. It is located about a 20 minutes’ tube journey from the City of London, between Shoreditch and Peckham, two rapidly gentrifying areas, on the London overground line. Some 35,000 people already live in the Rotherhithe peninsula, where the development will take place. …

Madelin believes that by avoiding the current haggling between council officers and developers about how much they should contribute to affordable homes, the government could regain control of how much and when much-needed affordable housing could be built.

“I find it nonsensical that we go through these viability assessments,” he said. ‘If you have a shortage of cars then you wouldn’t get motor manufacturers to subsidise people who can’t afford a decent car.” …”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/14/social-housing-funding-system-is-nuts-says-top-property-developer

Civic Voice submission on new planning rules

PRESS RELEASE

“Civic Voice – the authoritative voice of the civic movement – has submitted its final response to the draft National Planning Policy Framework consultation. The response is available here:

Click to access Civic_Voice_NPPF_response_FINAL.pdf

Ian Harvey, Executive Director said: “If the report in Planning Magazine over the weekend is true and the Government’s Chief Planner did confirm that the Government has received over 27,000 responses to the draft consultation, we believe that this shows the breadth of feeling across the country about the importance of our planning system.”

Responding to the draft NPPF, Civic Voice is calling for:

1. Given our membership and reach nationwide, we are concerned by the London and South East-centric nature of the NPPF; a greater level of ambition for economic development to is vital to address the viability challenges in some parts of the country.

2. The draft NPPF says much about the importance of design, however, it is our fear that as drafted, high quality design could be seen as a ‘nice to have’ but ‘easy to ignore’ rather than as an essential dimension of good planning.

3. Civic Voice supports the emphasis on early and meaningful engagement with communities within the draft NPPF and we would welcome working with MCHLG to develop the accompanying Planning Practice Guidance on this.

Harvey added: “We agree with the Government that finding a solution to the housing crisis is essential and we really hope that this was not a tokenistic consultation. We must ask, if the Government intends to publish the final document before the end of July, can it realistically be expected to review the thousands of responses comprehensively within a matter of weeks? We look forward to seeing the final document when it is released as it is important that the Government gets this right, because the consequences of getting it wrong will be felt for many years to come.”

Civic Voice President, Griff Rhys Jones finished by saying: “Whilst the Government wants to see the ‘right homes in the right places’, if it doesn’t get this right, it is very likely to end up with the ‘wrong homes in the wrong places. We hope they listen to the voices of communities across England.”

Unbelievable! “Creation of Honiton’s Neighbourhood Plan could be shelved until 2020”

Gobsmacking! Villages such as Feniton and Beer manage to have a quorate Neighbourhood Plan group, so have smaller towns such as Budleigh but Honiton can’t manage it:

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/plans-of-other-organisations/made-neighbourhood-plans/

Some really serious questions need to be asked and answered here otherwise Honiton will be descended on by vulture developers for years.

Didn’t Councillor Twiss intimate that he is Honiton’s problem solver …?

“Town councillors were asked to consider a recommendation to shelve the document at a meeting last night because its current steering group is ‘inquorate’ – meaning it is not made up of enough members.

A report submitted to the council by deputy clerk Heloise Marlow said: “A steering group made up of about nine to ten members with one-third councillors and two-thirds community members is essential.

“In view of the lack of past and current interest from the community of Honiton, the officers recommendation is that a neighbourhood plan cannot currently be delivered.

“As such the recommendation would be to put the process on hold for a period of two years.”

As part of the proposal, the town council’s annual budget of £10,000 would be put into earmarked reserves for a maximum of three years, including the financial year 2020-2021.

Research into average costings for a Neighbourhood Plan indicate that funding from the town council in the region of £30,000 would be needed, and there is limited grant funding available.

The deputy clerk’s report added: “Currently there is £1,022 being brought into earmarked reserves which is the balance of the East Devon District Council start up grant.

“In May 2020 when the matter is reviewed, there would be earmarked reserves available of £31,022 and therefore should the drafting of a Neighbourhood Plan over the next two years gather public support, and the decision is taken to revive the process, this would allow funding to be made available immediately.”

Councillor Caroline Kolek said: “I think we all understand the recommendation and I feel we have no option but to go with it.

“Having been involved with the Neighbourhood Plan right from the start, I think it’s really sad that we are at this point.”

Councillors opted to vote on the recommendation at next month’s meeting after Cllr Roy Coombs voice his concerns over the recommendation.

He said: “There’s no deadline but if we had got our Neighbourhood Plan in place now, possibly things could have been done differently over the Halse of Honiton site or the Ottery Moor Lane business park.

“There could be other missed opportunities – if we have not got a Neighbourhood Plan in place it could, I feel, become a developers’ free-for-all.”

Cllr Coombs proposed to defer the item to the council’s June meeting.

His motion was unanimously approved.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/creation-of-honiton-s-neighbourhood-plan-could-be-shelved-until-2020-1-5518228

Yet another loophole cuts affordable housing

Turning offices into flats does not require planning permission so no Section 106 payments towards affordable housing:

“Lack of investment and deregulation of planning were the main reasons given for hampering councils’ ability to help provide the number of homes needed in the UK, the report published by the not-for-profit Association for Public Service Excellence found.

Of 141 UK councils surveyed, 63% described the need for affordable housing as ‘severe’ while 35% describe their need as ‘moderate’.

Seventy per cent of 124 councils in England noted an increase in statutory homelessness in the last year, the survey revealed. It was researched and written by the campaigning organisation the Town and Country Planning Association on behalf of APSE and released last week.

Paul O’Brien, chief executive of APSE, said: “Investment in high quality social housing can also save public funds, such as through reducing poor physical and mental health outcomes that are currently experienced by those living in an unstable private rented sector or those in temporary accommodation.”

Kate Henderson, TCPA chief executive added: “We are not providing anywhere near enough genuinely affordable homes and homelessness is rising.

“Our latest research highlights that councils want to provide more affordable housing for their local communities, but their ability to do so is being undermined by planning deregulation.”

The report noted that while relaxing planning regulations allowing developers to convert offices into homes without the need for full planning permission had created more accommodation it had made it more difficult for councils to secure ‘affordable properties’. If development plans go through the full planning process local authorities can secure ‘affordable homes’ through section 106.

“Relaxing permitted development has led to tens of thousands of new homes being created without having to get full planning permission and this means that councils are unable to secure a contribution to affordable housing from the developer”, Henderson said.

The research by the TCPA showed that one in three councils in England believed these changes to permitted development had a negative impact on the delivery of affordable homes.

The report called on the change to be reversed and for planning powers to be given back to local authorities allowing them to make decisions to “reflect local circumstances”.

O’Brien said the report showed that insecure private rented sector tenancies had contributed to the rise in homelessness.

He said local authorities needed to bring “stability and capacity to the social rented sector, which in turn will help to stem these almost unprecedented rises in both statutory homelessness and rough sleeping”.

The government must be “bold and ambitious in challenging the shortfall of housing for hose in the most need in society,” O’Brien added.

It must also help councils return to their historic role as a provider of homes, he urged.

APSE is a non-profit membership organisation for local government officers.”

https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2018/05/local-authorities-warn-severe-need-more-affordable-homes

“Bovis homebuyers offered ‘cash in return for positive feedback’, investigation reveals”

“Homebuilding firm Bovis Homes is at the centre of a new row after an investigation by The Independent found that some customers had allegedly been offered rewards in return for completing positive satisfaction surveys.
Last year the company was awarded a 2-star rating by the House Builders Federation after a well-documented series of failings that left customers living in faulty homes.

Now, nine homebuyers have said that Bovis representatives offered them rewards if they agreed to fill in the HBF customer satisfaction form, the results of which are used to inform the annual ratings.

Five customers say the incentives were offered in return for positive feedback, something Bovis adamantly denies.

The homebuyers spoken to by The Independent bought their properties at different Bovis developments between 2016 and 2018.

Charlotte and Michael Kenton, who purchased their home in Bedfordshire in June 2016, claimed their site manager offered them high street vouchers in return for positive feedback.

“He said it was directly linked to his bonus so if we were happy with the sales process we should give him 5 stars and he could ‘make it worth our while,” they said.

Another couple claimed a Bovis employee offered free turf and John Lewis vouchers in December 2017 if they gave good feedback on the HBF survey or if they let the Bovis sales representatives fill in the form themselves.

In a further example, a homebuyer who bought her property in Oxfordshire in January 2017, said she was offered vouchers if she gave a positive response to the question of whether she would recommend Bovis to a friend.

She said: “We filled out the [HBF/NHBC] survey, gave 1 star at most, but we were told we would be given £500 worth of vouchers if we recommended Bovis to a friend.”

Another homebuyer, who wished to remain anonymous, said her site manager told her in February 2017 he would extend her patio for her if she gave him a good review.

She told The Independent: “I was advised by the site manager that the feedback form was very important and if you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours… he intimated that he would contribute towards turning a side garden into an extra parking spot if we looked after each other…”

In another instance, in February this year, a Bovis site manager sent a customer an email – seen by The Independent – confirming that the company would pay a month’s worth of household bills but appeared to require her to complete the HBF survey before sending copies of her bills.

The buyer was sent a cheque for more than £1,000 after she completed the survey.

The Independent understands that Bovis had advised the customer that the payment was compensation for inconvenience after the homebuyer’s kitchen was damaged (and not related to the survey).

Four other homebuyers, who have spoken to The Independent on condition of anonymity, were allegedly offered bottles of champagne, chocolates or contributions towards remedial work if they agreed to complete the survey.

Bovis stated that up until May 2016, it ran a programme offering customers incentives to complete feedback forms – irrespective of whether the response was positive or negative – but said the practice had been stopped.

Five of the nine homebuyers spoken to by The Independent claim they were offered incentives after Bovis told its representatives to change the policy.

HBF’s national survey of housebuilders was launched in 2005 in response to recommendations in the Barker Review of Housing in 2004 and results determine a house builder’s annual rating. Since 2013, ratings are based on just the one question: ‘Would you recommend your builder to a friend?’

In a statement, Bovis said it had made significant changes to its build quality and customer service, which had transformed the company. It added that it had a strict policy with regards to the HBF customer survey.

A spokesman said: “Currently more than 87 per cent of our customers across the country would recommend us to friends and family, representing a 30 percentage point improvement on where we were at the same time last year.

“There are strict rules around the management of the HBF customer survey and we are absolutely committed to adhering to those.

“In the current survey year, which started on 1 October 2017, we have so far received more than 740 surveys, and around 87 per cent of those returned would recommend us to family or friends.

“If there is any evidence that any one of those hundreds of positive responses – or any from previous years – were not returned according to the rules, then we would wish to see that evidence and we would investigate it thoroughly.”

In relation to the case in which £1,000 of a homebuyer’s bills had been paid, Bovis said it was investigating the claim that payment had been conditional on the customer completing her feedback form.

A spokesman said: “On this point, we are currently investigating one claim made by a customer to The Independent, where it appears that our processes and procedures have not been followed and the colleague involved has been removed from site while we make further enquiries.”

When new CEO Greg Fitzgerald took charge of Bovis – after the resignation of David Ritchie in January 2017 – he promised to ensure that the house builder was no longer “handing over crap or incomplete houses to customers”.

Mr Fitzgerald, who made the statement after Bovis was found to have been paying homebuyers as much as £3,000 to move into unfinished homes in a failed attempt to reach an ambitious target of completing 4,131 houses by the end of the financial year, served six years as a company director for the National House Builders Council, the UK’s main home construction warranty provider, prior to his appointment.

However, The Independent has been told by several homebuyers that problems with quality remain.

Allison Briggs, 49, said that her hi-spec washing machine was broken on the day she moved into her property on a development in April 2017.

When Bovis later replaced it, she claimed the whole house vibrated when was the washing machine was on.

She told The Independent: “I am living in a Bovis nightmare. I wish I could walk away.”

Another, who bought their property in January 2017, said they had experienced problems immediately. But when they approached Bovis, the house builder allegedly told them the house being situated on a corner caused the issues.

They told The Independent: “We raised the issue again with Bovis and yet again we were told every excuse possible.”

In a statement, Bovis said: “We are committed to continuing to drive through these improvements in our business and to deal with any customer issues by our home warranty.

In those rare instances where items might be disputed, then we welcome the involvement of external agencies, such as the NHBC, to objectively assess the issues, and we are committed to meeting all of our obligations in these instances.”

“We apologise to any customer who did not move into the home they deserved in the past, but we are concerned that using isolated historic case studies as a reflection of our current performance misrepresents the business and will have a negative impact for those thousands of satisfied Bovis Homes customers who are not being contacted by the media for their experiences of buying a new-build home.”

Buyers across the UK claim the house builder sells properties that are “not fit for purpose”, with some residents reporting issues relating to insulation, flooding, structural issues and rendering.

A Facebook group called Bovis Homes Victim Group has grown to more than 3,000 members and common complaints among them are a lack of sound insulation, incorrect appliances, dented doors, flooding and thermal issues.

A number of disgruntled homeowners have reached settlements with Bovis, the terms of which are sometimes protected by non-disclosure agreements.

Bovis said: “We want open and honest feedback – positive and negative – from all of our customers so that we can build on the major improvements we have driven through the business and further enhance the experience of buying a Bovis Home.”

Dave Howard, a founder of the group, which operates the domain http://www.bovishomesvictimsgroup.co.uk and the owner of a £400,000 home in Oxfordshire, said he continues to work closely with the firm.

“We continue to attempt to work constructively with Bovis Homes as members of its Homebuyers Panel but have yet to detect any noticeable improvement in either build quality or customer service.

Obviously, from both our perspective and that of our members, this is extremely disappointing.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bovis-homebuyers-cash-property-newbuilds-housing-developers-a8330766.html

“Will the Tories’ starter homes initiative ever get off the ground?”

“Q Is anything ever likely to come of the starter homes initiative? It was launched amid much fanfare by George Osborne towards the end of 2014 but there has been little news since, beyond a few stories regarding funding concerns.

Meanwhile, the starter homes newsletter, which was getting increasingly infrequent and was only ever a series of adverts for developments (none of which contained starter homes) seems to have dried up, and the dedicated starter homes website simply links back to a generic new homes website, as it did when it was launched.

I had been holding off buying a house as the promised minimum discount of 20% sounds worth waiting for, but I’m beginning to question whether it was only ever a cynical attempt to woo millennial voters, to be abandoned at the first opportunity.
AB

A Given the dearth of news about the starter homes scheme, it’s tempting to think that it has been quietly shelved – not least because it was an initiative announced when the Tories were in coalition with the Lib Dems.

But in fact, shortly after the current government came to power, it was announced that the original target of 100,000 new starter homes to be built by 2020 would be doubled. So potentially 200,000 first-time buyers aged between 23 and 40 with a household income of £80,000 or less (£90,000 in London) will be able to buy new-build properties at a discount of at least 20% where the discounted price is less than £450,000 in London but £250,000 everywhere else in England. The starter homes will generally be built on underused or unviable brownfield land previously used for commercial or industrial purposes.

Those first-time buyers shouldn’t hold their breath, however, as no starter homes have yet been completed. And at the beginning of last year only 71 sites across England had received grants from the Starter Home Land Fund to enable local authorities to acquire and/or prepare suitable land for starter home developments. So a lot depends on where you live if you want to take advantage of the scheme. First-time buyers in Burnley won’t have to wait much longer as, in partnership with Barnfield Investment Properties, Burnley council started work on the first phase of residential apartments back in February 2017.

If you don’t happen to live in Burnley, finding out about starter home developments in your local area is hard and the new homes website you mention is no help at all. The alternative to waiting for a discounted starter home would be to look into the help-to-buy scheme where you get a loan of up to 20% from government towards the purchase of a new-build property.”

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/may/09/uk-starter-homes-initiative-theresa-may-target

“UK parks save NHS more than £111m a year, study suggests”

And guess what? They are being sold off (as in land appropriated by EDDC for PegasusLife) or kept under the control of developers – as in Cranbrook.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/07/uk-parks-save-nhs-111m-year-study-suggests

“For every home built 2014/5 £60,000 went to landowner”

Thomas Aubrey of the Centre for Progressive Policy:

“Our system favours landlords over communities. The PM must side with the many, not the few.

Theresa May is right. Britain’s housing market is broken and needs fixing. Homelessness and rough sleeping are rising and owner-occupation levels for the young have collapsed because homes have become unaffordable.

The average private rent in London accounts for more than a third of household income. The bill for housing benefit has risen eight-fold since the early 1980s after inflation is taken into account. House building has risen since the lows reached during the financial crisis of a decade ago but needs to almost double to hit the government’s target of 300,000 new homes a year by the middle of the next decade.

Yes, the housing market is broken all right and for the Conservatives, a party that sees itself as the party of the homeowner, it is a serious political headache.

A crisis has been brewing for decades – and left unattended the problem can only get worse. Britain has a rising population and the trend is for smaller households, both of which mean demand for housing will keep on rising. The weak growth figures for the first three months of 2018 will keep borrowing costs on hold for now but sooner or later the Bank of England will raise interest rates. That will make it still harder for people in their 20s to get a foot on the housing ladder.

Yet sketching out the problem is one thing. Coming up with solutions is trickier.

Replace a regressive council tax with a land value tax? Labour is thinking about a LVT but there is no chance the Conservatives will introduce what they have dubbed a “garden tax” that would hit millions.

How about giving some of the anonymous farmland in the green belt over to housing development? The thin end of a wedge that will result in the south-east being turned into one big urban sprawl.

Make prime residences eligible for capital gains tax? Are you kidding? Politicians know that Britain’s housing market is broken but mess with it at their peril.

The problem is so big, however, that changes have to come. London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, wants to increase the supply of lower-cost homes in the capital, so under City Hall guidelines private development proposals where affordable units make up at least 35% of the total will be fast-tracked through the planning process. Under 35%, and developers can expect a much tougher time.
But as Daniel Bentley argues in a new pamphlet for the thinktank Civitas, the problem goes deeper than the planning system. Forcing councils to grant more planning permissions in high-demand areas doesn’t guarantee that the supply of new homes will markedly increase.

The reason for that, Bentley says, goes back to the 1961 Land Compensation Act passed by Harold Macmillan’s government. This enshrined in law the right of landowners, in the event of compulsory purchase, to be reimbursed not only for the value of their land as it stood but for its potential value if it were used for something else in the future.

A system so heavily weighted in favour of landowners had two consequences. First, it provided them with an incentive to wait, often for years, before selling their land for development because they would get a higher price. Second, house-builders had to recoup the costs of buying the land and did so by building more expensive properties that were drip-fed into the market to keep selling prices high.

If the aim is to build more affordable homes, this makes no sense. A site with planning permission for housing is worth more than a brownfield industrial site and 100 times more than agricultural land. Research by Thomas Aubrey of the Centre for Progressive Policy found that landowners made windfall profits of more than £9bn in 2014-15 on the sale of land. That meant for every home built that year, an average of £60,000 went to the landowner.

Bentley says the entitlement of landowners to this “hope value”, the prospect that it will be worth a lot more if used for something else, means public authorities are powerless to enforce development priorities that are in the interests of the community.

“This was not always the case. The new towns that were initiated before the 1961 act, and much of the local-authority output of the late 1940s and 1950s, was underpinned by a land values policy that meant landowners were compensated at values reflecting the existing use of the site,” he said.
“This meant land for new homes could be acquired at or close to its much lower agricultural or industrial use values. It also doused speculation and prevented the withholding of land.”

Reforming the 1961 act so that public-sector bodies can purchase land at less than its prospective residential use value makes sense because it would enable developers to get hold of land more cheaply and so build more affordable homes. Nor would it be an especially controversial move politically.

Judging by their 2017 manifestos, Labour and the Conservatives think the current system is weighted too heavily in favour of landowners, who see the value of their holdings increase not through their own efforts but through those of others.

Adam Smith and David Ricardo, darlings of the free-market right were critical of the “unearned increment” that landowners enjoyed. So was Henry George, who the left laud for coming up with the LVT.

May should seek bipartisan support for a rethink of the 1961 act. Sure, Conservative-supporting landowners would object but if the prime minister is to make good on her pledge to fix the housing market she has to side with the many not the few.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/29/want-to-resolve-the-uks-housing-crisis-heres-how

Links to the property industry? On the planning committee? No problem!

Does the reporter REALLY think this is only a London problem?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/29/nearly-100-london-councillors-have-links-to-property-industry?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Alas not, as we have proved in East Devon:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9920971/If-I-cant-get-planning-nobody-will-says-Devon-councillor-and-planning-consultant.html

Case law will impact on developers who say they can’t (now) afford affordable housing

Parkhurst Road Limited v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government & London Borough of Islington. Case No: CO/3528/2017, in the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Planning Court, 27 April 2018.

“A High Court judge has backed Islington Council in a long-standing battle between the council and developer First Base (Parkhurst Road Limited), who refused to provide affordable homes on a former Territorial Army site in line with the council’s planning rules.

The developer bought the site on Parkhurst Road in 2013 and has attempted to secure planning permission for a residential development with little or no affordable housing, ignoring the long-standing planning requirements on the provision of affordable homes set by the council.

An initial planning application was submitted in 2013 by the developer who were assisted by Gerald Eve as viability consultants. The council refused planning permission for this development twice on the grounds of not providing enough affordable housing, as well as other matters.

The case centres around the viability assessment of development and, in particular, how the price of land should be determined in planning, which is a tool increasingly used by developers and their viability consultants in recent years, to avoid complying with councils’ planning requirements on affordable housing.

Two lengthy public inquiries were held, both of which were won by Islington Council. Each time the low level of affordable housing provided on the scheme was being justified by the developer on factors such as the purchase price paid for the site, and land transactions of other schemes. Following the second public inquiry held in early 2017, an Independent Planning Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State, upheld Islington’s refusal of planning permission in his decision of 19 June 2017.

The developer then mounted a legal challenge against the Planning Inspector’s decision at the High Court. The Planning Inspector’s decision was defended in court jointly by Islington’s legal team and the lawyers representing the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).

Normally, the role of the courts in planning disputes is very limited and restricted to legal technicalities only. However, in this case the Judge Justice Mr David Holgate allowed a fairly detailed examination of planning issues and the development viability evidence in particular.

Today (Friday, 27 April) he dismissed the legal challenge on all three grounds put forward by the developer, and concluded that he was satisfied with the Planning Inspector’s decision to dismiss the developer’s appeal and uphold the council’s decision to refuse the planning application.

Responding to the judgement, an Islington Council spokesperson said:

“We are delighted by the High Court judgement. This decision reinforces Islington Council’s long standing position that developers should abide by the councils’ planning guidelines – rather than overpaying for land and then trying to bypass our affordable housing requirements.

“There is a shortage of good quality, genuinely affordable housing in Islington and a significant unmet housing need. The council is doing everything it can to address this, because we believe that everyone should have somewhere to live that is affordable, decent and secure – and developers must respect these important priorities when they purchase sites in Islington.”

In a highly unusual move, in a postscript to the judgment, Judge Mr Justice Holgate also recommended that the current, widely used, guidance on viability assessments by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) should be revised “in order to address any misunderstandings about market valuation concepts and techniques, the “circularity” issue and any other problems encountered in practice over the last 6 years, so as to help avoid protracted disputes of the kind we have seen in the present case and achieve more efficient decision-making.”

This is something that the council has been calling for over the last couple of years, due to serious concerns about how the RICS Financial Viability in Planning (2012) guidance note was being applied in practice.

Islington Council’s planning guidance on Development Viability is very clear and specifically cautions developers against overpaying for land and using the purchase price as a justification for providing little or no affordable housing. This landmark judgment reinforces what Islington (and many other councils) have been arguing for years that affordable housing requirements cannot be bypassed by using the “dark art” of viability assessments to ignore planning policy requirements.”

http://www.islington.media/r/97837/high_court_backs_islington_in_a_landmark_planning_case_on

Jobs before houses or houses before jobs on Honiton brownfield site?

“Plans to demolish the former Halse of Honiton site and convert it into a 32-home development are set to be rejected.

The Homes and Communities Agency submitted plans last year to build the new homes at Foundry Yard on a brownfield site that was recently vacated by Halse of Honiton, who have moved to a new site in Ottery St Mary. …

But East Devon District Council’s development management committee are being recommended to refuse the application when they meet on Tuesday, May 1.

The report says: “The site is considered to be an employment site and in assessing the proposal, it has not been demonstrated that a continued use employment use would significantly harm the quality of a locality whether through traffic, amenity, environmental or other associated problems.

“Furthermore, options for retention of the site or premises for its current or similar use have not been robustly explored, the site having been subject of a flawed marketing exercise that ruled out any such uses before marketing began.

Evidence from the Economic Development also indicates a strong demand for employment generating sites in Honiton coupled with a shortage in the supply of such sites. The release of the site for housing would therefore not comply with Strategy 32 of the Local Plan and the development would not be sustainable development as it would contribute to imbalances in the provision of housing and jobs in Honiton.”

The application submitted by the HCA had said: “The proposed development of the site creates an opportunity to provide a high quality residential development that integrates well with adjacent areas of Honiton.

“The development will be sustainable, providing much needed open market and affordable homes in a town centre location, with good connectivity.” …

The developer is also proposing ten of the proposed homes – or 30 per cent – to be affordable, five per cent more than the required provision of 25 per cent. …”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/plans-former-halse-honiton-site-1495246

“Building free-for-all [in new planning regulations] puts rural West at risk”

Western Morning News article, Saturday 21 April:

“Pristine protected areas of the South West could be at risk from housing developments plans, a conservation charity has warned. Even officially designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty would face developments due to “vague” proposed new planning guidance for local authorities the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) says.

The Government argues that the new rules, part of a move to open up land to solve the housing shortage, would still protect the environment.
However Justin Hague of the South Hams CPRE, said “this would be game over” for conservationists.

Some of the south West’s pristine and most beautiful landscapes could have houses built on them under Government plans conservationists have warned.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England says even officially designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty would face major development due to the “vague” new planning guidance for local authorities.

The proposals- which are being consulted on until May 10 – would end the fight to preserve the precious areas, said the chairman of the group in one of the most under-pressure parts of the regain.

“Not to sound too dramatic, but for countryside campaigners it would be game over” said Justin Hague, chairman of the South Hams branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England. (CPRE)

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) would be handed “on a plate to the developers”

He is urging people to write to their MPs to build opposition to the proposed changes.

The controversy is over sections of the National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF) which sets out the Government`s Policies on proposed developments and how they are expected to be applied.

Changes are being but forward partly to help solve the housing crisis.
The aim is to “bring forward more land in the right places” for development, the Government says “Protecting and enhancing the natural environment “ is one of the three key objectives , the document states.

However conservationists are concerned by what they say is watering down of the NPPF policies protecting special areas of the countryside and coast which were put in place in 2012.

Their attention focuses on one section of the proposals, Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment.

In the existing document, reference is made to protected areas such as National Parks and AONBs as having the “highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.

The wording disappears under the new proposals.

Mr Hague said absolute tests that helped reinforce protection of the special areas would also go if new guidelines were agreed.

“The proposals say major developments will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances. But what is “major”? Is that 100 homes? In the South Hams in the AONB 10homes could have a huge impact.

“It massively opens the door for development in AONBs” he said.

“My concern is these proposed changes are buried in a huge document that few people have the time or interest to read.

Mr Hague said he had an “unprecedented” response since he expressed his concerns in newsletter to fellow CPRE members in the South Hams.

“Usually I get three or four responses” he said “This time I had 70!”
Mr Hague said the South Hams faced particular pressure for development because of the desire for second homes.

Developers were struggling to sell homes in less-desirable areas, even with the assistance of the Governments Help to Buy Scheme “

They would be able to sell those houses like hot cakes to second home owners if they were able to build in beautiful areas and on the coast” he said.”