Posted by

Posted on

28 Jan 2018

Posted under

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

“Hundreds of thousands living in squalid rented homes in England”

Owl says: the sixth RICHEST country in the world …. where landlord MPs refused to pass a law about habitable housing because … well just because they can.

“Rented housing so squalid it is likely to leave tenants requiring medical attention is being endured by hundreds of thousands of young adults in England, an analysis of government figures has revealed.

Rats, mouldy walls, exposed electrical wiring, leaking roofs and broken locks are among problems blighting an estimated 338,000 homes rented by people under 35 that have been deemed so hazardous they are likely to cause harm.

It is likely to mean that over half a million people are starting their adult lives in such conditions amid a worsening housing shortage and rising rents across the UK which are up 15% in the last seven years.

Visits by the Guardian to properties where tenants are paying private landlords up to £1,100 a month have revealed holes in external walls, insect-infested beds, water pouring through ceilings and mould-covered kitchens.

A 30-year-old mother near Bristol said her home is so damp that her child’s cot rotted. A 34-year-old woman in Luton told of living with no heating and infestations of rats and cockroaches, while a 24-year-old mother from Kent said she lived in a damp flat with no heating and defective wiring for a year before it was condemned. …

Government figures suggest as many as 2.4 million people in England live in rented homes – both in the private and social sectors – with category 1 hazards. That includes 756,000 households living in private rented properties – almost one in five of the whole private rented stock – and 244,000 households in social housing.

Sajid Javid, the housing secretary, said he was determined “to do everything possible to protect tenants” and pledged government support for new legislation that requires all landlords to ensure properties are safe and give tenants the right to take legal action if landlords fail in their duties..

“In practice you have fewer rights renting a family home than you do buying a fridge-freezer,” said John Healey MP, Labour’s shadow secretary of state for housing. “Too many people are forced to put up with downright dangerous housing. After the terrible fire at Grenfell Tower, it’s even more important that ministers back Labour’s plan to make all homes fit for human habitation.” …

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/28/hundreds-of-thousands-living-in-squalid-rented-homes-in-england?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

27 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, AONB, Blackhill Quarry, Clinton Devon Estates, Developers/ Development, Misc, Woodbury

“50 disused quarries turned into wildlife habitats to help Britain’s endangered birds”

Owl says: Alas not Clinton Devon Estates Blackhill Quarry, promised for environmental restoration, now subject of a heavily industrial planning application:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2018/01/26/woodbury-business-park-expansion-would-be-morally-and-ecologically-wrong/

… “A conservation project to turn 50 quarries into nature reserves by 2020 has been completed two years early and is already saving endangered species, like the turtle dove.

In 2010, the RSPB joined forces with building materials supplier CEMEX to rejuvenate dozens of disused quarries.

And within fewer than eight years, 1,000 hectares of grassland, woodland, heath and wetland has been created which is helping rare and unusual species to flourish including 50 ‘at risk’ species.

Threatened birds which have moved into the conservation areas include turtle doves, choughs and twites, all of which have seen huge falls in numbers in the past decades. …

… Andy Spencer, Director of Sustainability, CEMEX UK said: “While supplying our customers with concrete, cement, sand and stone we also aim to balance the needs of operations with the protection and enhancement of the natural world. The RSPB has been pivotal in helping us to achieve this aim.

“The 1000th hectare that has just been created is a significant and outstanding milestone and our partnership to date has helped create some amazing places for communities and nature.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/01/27/50-disused-quarries-turned-wildlife-habitats-help-britains-endangered/

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

27 Jan 2018

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Misc

“Building more homes in London won’t solve the country’s housing crisis”

Owl says: most homes in the Devon and Somerset Local Enterprise Partnership area are being built near Hinkley C nuclear power station to house up to 5,000 largely temporary workers.

“… England’s fragile economic growth is underpinned by household expenditure, which accounts for 63% of gross domestic product. This is dependent upon perceived wealth, which is directly correlated with the price of housing. House price growth has left homeowners (particularly in London) feeling richer while renters feel poorer. To undermine that perception of affluence among homeowners would have a significant economic impact.

So there is huge demand for new housing, but little incentive for policymakers to deliver this where greatest demand exists. We need an answer that is politically expedient, economically pragmatic and socially responsible.

The government needs to avoid house price depreciation but stabilise prices in London, where there is highest demand. Affordability is a spatial problem that demands a spatial solution. It must focus attention on areas where the ability to purchase and the cost of doing so are more closely aligned. The mayor’s plan for London could then focus policies on providing genuinely affordable homes for Londoners.

The Midlands engine and northern powerhouse are attracting and retaining investor attention, and elected mayors in Bristol, Birmingham and Manchester, among others, are beginning to flex their muscles. Yet this is as much a reaction to the London market as any proactive national policies. Clearer government leadership would expedite change and provide greater long-term certainty.

Investment and infrastructure decisions are being made but are too often buried within various national plans ‘and strategies. They should be bought to the forefront. Every other country in western Europe has a national spatial plan; England should publish one too. This would make clear how spending and policy decisions are related, supporting regional revival.

The housing paradox is stifling. To solve it, we must take a pragmatic approach that supports England’s regions. That would not be at the expense of London, but we could all be better served by casting a wider net.”

https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2017/nov/17/building-homes-london-wont-solve-housing-crisis?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

26 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, AONB, Clinton Devon Estates, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Woodbury

Comments

2 Comments

“Woodbury business park expansion would be ‘morally and ecologically wrong’ “

The moral of this story? question anything and everything a developer says or promises.

“Environmental campaigners have said it would be ‘morally and ecologically wrong’ to allow proposed expansion business units at Blackhill Quarry in Woodbury.

The scheme, for the proposed expansion of Blackhill Engineering, is seeking approval of access for construction of up to 3251 sqm (35,000 sq ft) of general industrial floor space with access, parking and associated infrastructure.

The proposed development is located within the area that is currently being turned into a nature reserve, which was previously used as the processing area for extracted minerals and latterly for the processing of material transported to the site from other quarries.

The processing plant in “Area 12” is being removed as planned and the area was to be restored to heathland.

But Tony Bennett, from Wild Woodbury, has said that the plans would seek to reverse this restoration plan and the “U-turn” would be a huge blow to the environment as it sits within one of the most highly protected and scientifically important areas of countryside in Europe.

Mr Bennett added: “The heathland restoration plan represented a prime opportunity to turn a significant area of industrial wasteland into a nature reserve that will benefit everyone. The U-turn would make a mockery of the Conservative government’s new environmental initiative entitled “A green future – Our 25 year plan to Improve the Environment”.

“Lowland heaths are wild open areas similar to Moorland, and Woodbury Common is one of the few areas of it that are left in the UK. With regards to flora & fauna the Pebblebed heaths are home to many important species including rare butterflies such as the pearl-bordered fritillary and silver-studded blue, 24 types of dragonfly and damselfly, and innumerable rare plants. Notable birds include the hobby, the nocturnal nightjar, hen harrier and the elusive Dartford warbler. Deer, foxes, rabbits & hares, several species of rare bats, and many other mammals also make it their home.

“The application shows a total disregard for public opinion. The applicant states that it was not considered necessary to carry out a “formal community consultation exercise” as the site is “remote from any settlement”. By allowing this area to be used for industrial purposes the public are being deprived of access to an area that should be heathland.

“There will be a massive increase in number of cars using an already over stretched local road network. More huge heavy transporters and low-loaders will be bringing materials to and from the industrial site causing congestion and damage to roads that are too narrow and unsuitable for this type of vehicle. “Indeed complaints from residents of the nearby towns and parish councils about traffic problems, and the unsuitability of the location was one of the main reasons that the processing plant in area 12 was closed down.

“This extremely sensitive area should be restored – not degraded by further industry. It would be morally and ecologically wrong to allow development in this area.”

Woodbury parish council have also voted to object to the application.

The application says: “Quarrying operations within the site have diminished and the existing sifting and grading plant structures which remain on site today are largely redundant. It is proposed that they are removed, allowing new development to take place and to facilitate the expansion of the existing Blackhill Engineering business, as there is a clearly identified need to expand the existing premises on the adjoining land.

“The proposal is to construct three separate buildings units that would be clustered around an open service yard and the existing site entrance would be used to provide access to the scheme.

“Blackhill Engineering’s operations have grown substantially in recent years and their existing facilities are now at capacity. As a result, the existing facilities are unable to facilitate further growth of the business, and if they are to remain in their current premises, they now need to expand their operations onto the application site.

“The proposed development would be within the area that the existing quarry equipment is currently located, which would in turn be removed.”

East Devon District Council planners will determine the fate of the planning application.”

http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/woodbury-business-park-expansion-would-1115778

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

25 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Developers/ Development, Economy, Privatisation

Public-Private partnership – the downside

“… PPP is one of those financial inventions that was sold as being a win-win for both sides: the companies could be awarded lots of lucrative contracts to build stuff for the state; the government would get new infrastructure more quickly and without the financial risk, as private companies would bid for the work and the market would ensure taxpayer value.

At least, that was the theory. What actually happened was that companies kept bidding for projects, but tough competition meant the contracts came with skinnier and skinnier margins. So, if problems occurred, a contractor’s 2% profit would not just be wiped out – huge losses could be incurred too.

Sam Cullen, an analyst at investment bank Jefferies, said: “That is why construction can be such a fundamentally horrendous business. Under pressure to grow the top line and operating on wafer-thin margins, everyone bids each other to death. It’s a situation not helped when your largest customer, the government, is under huge pressure to get value for money and is more susceptible to accept the lowest bidder.”

The big question is: why do companies keep bidding, if the contracts can cause so much pain?

The answer probably lies in the structure of major PPP construction deals, because they hand the contract winner a large chunk of cash upfront.

Work on construction can then begin, while contractors like Carillion may not need to start paying sub-contractors for another 120 days.

During those four months, much of the upfront payment might be used to pay other debts within the business, meaning these deals can create situations where firms have to keep winning new contracts just to keep going.

Or, as it turns out, not keep going.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/15/the-four-contracts-that-finished-carillion-public-private-partnership

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

24 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Conflict of interest, Developers/ Development, Development Management Committee, Lobbying, Scrutiny, Spin

Councillor planning conflicts ghost raises its head … in Torbay this time

Owl says: the story below the link seems disturbingly familiar:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9920971/If-I-cant-get-planning-nobody-will-says-Devon-councillor-and-planning-consultant.html

Unfortunately this government seems not to worry about any of these things.

“Opposition Liberal Democrats on Torbay Council have made a formal complaint about a Conservative councillor, claiming he shouldn’t be advertising his elected position on his business website.

Thomas Winfield is a director of a firm of chartered surveyors.

On the firm’s website it states that he has the “benefit” of being elected as a local councillor for Torbay, and that he is on the Torbay Planning Committee.

The Lib Dems say this is inappropriate, because of a perceived conflict of interest.

However, Mr Winfield has told the BBC that he works in finance for commercial lending, as opposed to planning work.

Mr Winfield called the Lib Dems “small minded” for making an issue of it.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-devon-42730712

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

24 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Conflict of interest, Developers/ Development, Lobbying, Sleaze

Tory donors and that “men only” fundraiser – sleaze isn’t a good enough word

“A journalist has revealed the shocking details of how young women were allegedly harassed and degraded while working as hostesses at a men-only charity gala at Mayfair’s Dorchester.

Politicians have lined up to condemn the prestigious dinner after a damning report in the Financial Times claimed female agency workers were repeatedly victims of groping and propositioning.

Two undercover reporters posing as hostesses spent six hours at the “most un-PC event of the year” – for which they were instructed to wear skimpy black outfits and matching underwear.

The paper reports that at an after-party, many of the female workers – some of them students – were “groped, sexually harassed and propositioned”, while among the prizes up for grabs at the evening’s fundraising auction were an evening at a Soho strip club and a course of plastic surgery to “add spice to your wife” for the lucky winner. …

…The Presidents Club – which denies any knowledge of wrongdoing at its events – is chaired by Mayfair property developer Bruce Ritchie and David Meller, who sits on the board of the Department for Education and the Mayor’s Fund for London. …”

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/men-only-charity-mayfair-harassment_uk_5a67c154e4b002283007ada8

Of course, Mr Richie is also a super-rich Tory donor and property developer:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/12/conservatives-tycoons-fundraising-black-and-white-ball

and Meller is a property developer academy schools investor:
http://www.mellereducationaltrust.org/meet-our-people/david-meller

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

23 Jan 2018

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Economy, Environment (local), Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation

A 16-year old talks more sense about housing than MPs and councillors!

Student Euan Trower, 16, lives near Stokeinteignhead and studies in Exeter:

“With all the political parties targeting young potential voters, I, as a 16-year-old college student, am a key target for the next election. One of the key issues right now is housing. There simply aren’t enough houses to go around. All the parties are promising to build more houses and to relax planning laws for councils in rural areas. But does it solve the problem?

Simply concreting over England’s green and pleasant lands – isn’t going to solve a national crisis. The South West is a prominent victim of these failed policies with over development dividing and destroying both rural and urban communities. In his book ‘The Death of Rural England’, Professor Alun Howkins says that, “During the last century, the countryside has changed absolutely fundamentally”. Large housing developments without the necessary infrastructure to support these extra people mean pretty villages and market towns are reduced to an urban sprawl of poorly built suburbs.

The economic arguments for these policies are that it reduces the demand for housing and that it encourages local economic growth. Both of these are false.

The demand for housing, especially in rural areas, is down to the sickening number of second homes which is killing off the local way of life. A survey in 2011 showed that there were 4000 second homes in the South Hams alone. The Influx of people coming for “a slice of country life” is driving up house prices and driving out local people. The same survey showed that in 2010, the house-wage affordability ratio for Devon was 2.52 points above the rest of England, with that gap expected to rise. Farmer’s barns, the old mill, the old bakery, the old shop, the old forge, they’ve all been converted into houses, many of them only lived in for half the year.

As for those who argue this promotes local economic growth, oh no it doesn’t. While there will be a short-term demand for skilled tradesmen, something of which we have very few, the South West is a low skill low wage economy, so where are the jobs for these new home owners to go too?

So with development even proposed for the beautiful market town of Moretonhampstead, perhaps the way to deal with this growing crisis is not to try and rapidly increase the nation’s housing stock but rather to fairly distribute the houses we already have. The government should also look to drastically reform the way we rent property while any new developments should be very carefully assessed to reduce the impact on the local area to an absolute minimum. In essence, rather than building houses, developers must build communities.

And it takes all sorts to make a community, not just the privileged few.”

http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/over-development-rural-england-1106412

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

19 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, East Devon Alliance, EDDC, Independent Councillors, Planning System, Villages BUAB, Woodbury

Greendale Business Park lose legal case for Planning Approval

Press release from Councillor Geoff Jung, East Devon Alliance Independent, Raleigh Ward:

“”In a recent Planning Application, the owners of Greendale Business Park claimed that because an agricultural field has been used for open industrial storage for more than ten years they were entitled to continue that use under a little used clause in the Town and Country Planning Act, known as a “Certificate of Lawfulness”.

However, the Act stipulates it is not the length of use, but the length of a “breach in planning control”. As Laing Utilities occupied this area in association with the laying of the gas pipeline between 2006 and July 2009 and Utility companies are permitted to occupy and use locations as depots for the construction of pipelines or cables the use up to July 2009 could not be claimed to be a breach in planning control.

East Devon District Council as the (LPA) Local Planning Authority had to take legal advice and concluded that the company had not been able to demonstrate that there has been a “Breach of Planning Control for 10 years” and therefore the Application 17/2441/CPE has been refused.
Company can Appeal

The applicant however is entitled to appeal to the Secretary of State within six months of the notification of the refusal.

Enforcement Notice

The Report by East Devon District Council recommends that an Enforcement Notice is served requiring the owners to:

1. Permanently cease the use of the area shown on the plan for the storage of items not connected with agriculture and remove any such items
2. Permanently remove the perimeter and internal fencing and all hardstanding
3. Permanently remove the concrete, hardcore and drainage used to construct the
entrances.
4. Permanently remove all debris and paraphernalia from the area outlined in Red and return this site to an agricultural field clear of such items.

Location of are to be returned to agricultural use outlined in red above.

Greendale Extension East

This Planning Refusal comes only a month after another case at Greendale Business Park had an Enforcement Appeal upheld by the Secretary of State. This was after a Planning Appeal Inspector agreed with the Local Authority and again required the site to be removed of all industrial activities and returned to agricultural use. (Planning Application 15/2592/MOUT).

The Owners of Greendale have now appealed to the High Court for a Judicial Review on this Enforcement Appeal.

Retrospective Planning Applications.

Both cases were the result of the owners of Greendale constructing concrete roads and yards together with security fencing, drainage, lighting and industrial buildings prior to planning permission being obtained. This is known as Retrospective Planning Permission

Village Plan

The Woodbury Salterton Residents Association, a group of residents in the small rural village next to the business park have campaigned for more clarity and a clear understanding on a defined area where Industrial use and employment is permitted and what is classed as “open countryside.”

For 5 years the team of local people have worked tirelessly, working with local Parish Councils, District Councillors and the Planning Authorities to put a halt on the unplanned unlawful development at the Business Park.

The Local Development Plan approved in January 2016 gave some guidance and clarity and the recent unsuccessful application on Hogsbrook Hill and the extension East of the main Business Park are the result of following the guidance and principles laid down in the Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

However, the local plan stated that a further planning document will follow on from the Local Plan known as the “Villages Plan” giving further guidance and clarity to the 14 largest villages in East Devon and the business parks of Greendale and Hill Barton.

This document is very nearly to the stage of adoption, with 2 public consultations and a public hearing by the Planning Inspectorate.

The final draft was submitted in December for a final public consultation with the final date for people to have a say the 2nd February.

East Devon Alliance Independent Councillor Geoff Jung, who is the Councillor for Raleigh Ward which includes the village of Woodbury Salterton and Greendale Business Park says:

“I have worked with the Planning Policy Department officers and all other Councillors at East Devon District Council and attended every Council meeting when the Village Plan has been debated and attended the public hearings. This has been to ensure that the Village Plan and especially the guidance and controls on these 2 Business Parks went through correctly and democratically.

The Planning Inspector’s proposals for the Business Parks will provide the owners of the business parks, residents and the planning authority absolute certainty of where development will be permitted and where planning will be refused.

However, at the very last Council meeting in December an amendment to remove all mention of the business parks in the Villages Plan was proposed – this was rejected but is still supported by some District Councillors. Any changes to the Inspector’s recommendation would add ambiguity and loopholes to the planning process. I would encourage all interested parties to contact the local planning with their views by the 2nd Feb.

Email: planningpolicy@eastdevon.gov.uk
These views will be sent on to the inspector.

The following Hyperlink takes you to the EDDC Villages Plan Page
EDDC Villages Plan Consultation:

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/villages-plan/villages-plan-2017/villages-plan-examination/

I would like to thank the Planning Inspector Mrs Beverley Doward BSc BTP MRTPI and the East Devon team in the Planning Policy Department for a Villages Plan that will help many communities in East Devon.”

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

19 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Inequality, Lobbying, Sleaze

Comments

2 Comments

“LANDLORD FORCING TENANTS TO PAY FOR REMOVAL OF FLAMMABLE CLADDING IS A SUPER RICH TORY DONOR”

“The Guardian has published a rip-roaring story about wealthy landlord who’s trying to get his tenants to pay for fire safety improvements needed to avoid a repeat of the Grenfell tragedy – but they’ve missed one important detail.

It reveals how the owners of a block of flats in Croydon have refused to remove and replace flammable cladding on the building until the tenants stump up the £2 million cost of the work.

That amounts to a charge of £31,300 per flat – more than a year’s salary for many of the tenants who say they are “terrified” about the cladding since Grenfell.

The owner of the block of 93 flats is Proxima GR Properties, which the Guardian points out is “owned by the family trust of the multi-millionaire property mogul Vincent Tchenguiz.”

It notes that Tchenguiz is: “Believed to be worth hundreds of millions of pounds and last year bought a new 165-foot superyacht moored in the Mediterranean called Da Vinci. He is said to own 300,000 freeholds in the UK, including 10 Hilton hotels.”

On top of all that, Scrapbook can reveal that Tchenguiz is also a Tory donor – he gave the party more than £21,000 before the 2010 general election.

His brother, Robert, has also given the Tories a five figure sum and his sister, Elizabeth, made a donation of £100,000 in 2008.

Presumably that means Vincent Tchenguiz’s contact details are hanging around Tory HQ somewhere.

So Sajid Javid should have no problem in getting in touch to sort out this absolute scandal.

If you’ve got enough money to throw some of it at the Tories, you’ve got enough money to keep your tenants safe… “

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2018/01/landlord-forcing-tenants-to-pay-for-removal-of-flammable-cladding-is-a-super-rich-tory-donor/

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

16 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Development Management Committee, Economy, EDDC, Skypark, Small and Medium businesses, Sustainability, Villages BUAB, Woodbury

EDDC councillor desperately tries to justify expansion of Greendale and Hill Barton – going against Village Built Up Area requirements

Owl says: what a lot of help Greendale and Hill Barton are getting from (some) EDDC councillors! Hurriedly arranged meetings, a desperate race to find loopholes to allow expansion and now this. Is it a personal comment? Well, an awful lot of “we” in there!!! And quoting 2012 consultant’s views in 2018 – astonishing! AND playing down their own industrial sites (too big for small businesses) – REALLY!

“Mike Allen comment to Inspector on Hill Barton and Greendale issues

(The Lead Councillor for Business and Employment in East Devon District Council (EDDC) and past Chair of the Local Plan Forum which developed the current EDDC Local Plan)

EDDC welcomes proposals for business investment and the creation of units for small and medium sized enterprises across the East Devon area subject to NPPF and Local Plan criteria.

We appreciate that cumulative development along the A3052 road corridor has the potential to negatively impact upon existing communities and infrastructure and the operations of existing businesses. The lack of objection from Highways England on a recent nearby planning application is significant Hill Barton (HB) and Greendale Business Park (GBP) are situated near recently approved (on appeal) Yeo Business Park. This determination is of direct material significance in considering further proposed development.

I will examine four main areas of consideration for Economic development in respect of this SPD for Business Parks:

1) It could be reasonably assumed that the Planning Inspector’s view that employment space proposals of a ‘relatively small-scale development that would provide jobs for local people’ would be applicable to the current plans for Business Parks in the area. It is similarly likely that this location would also be deemed a suitable location for small scale business units at appeal.

2) Greendale and Hill Barton Business Parks are larger scale and vitally important to the economic expansion of East Devon outside of the Science Park and Skypark areas.

3) The lack of residential neighbours means no loss of amenity.

4) There is clear demand for the facilities at Hill Barton and Greendale, without which business expansion would not be accommodated elsewhere. The medium quality, flexibility and appeal of the industrial storage space and units for larger growing businesses in the district is essential.

To be clear, we have no economic basis on which to challenge further development within the perimeters set in the Villages DPD.

5) EDDC’s Economic Development team have reviewed the Draft Villages Plan as well as the Sustainability Appraisal. Having also reviewed Strategy 27 and Policy E7 of the adopted Local Plan, in addition to material evidence in respect of employment land delivery below, I recommend that the Greendale (GD) and Hill Barton (HB) employment sites be removed from this Villages Development Plan.
Approval of this draft Villages DPD with GD and HB included will exacerbate the undersupply of employment premises we are already experiencing through non-delivery of our employment allocations in the adopted Local Plan.

The Council’s strategic drive is to prioritise the development of employment land in the west of the district. Any applicants are advised to examine the potential suitability of our Enterprise Zone sites (Inc. the Exeter Airport Business Park Expansion site; Cranbrook Town Centre; Skypark & Science Park), all of which benefit from infrastructure investment in excess of £25 million and include enhanced transport corridor infrastructure, rail stations and employment site infrastructure as well as being immediately adjacent to Exeter Airport and A30 and M5 junctions.

However, we are aware of some businesses feeding back a view that sites, such those examined above are aimed predominantly at the medium to large scale employers with scientific and professional or transport accommodation requirements in excess of 5,000 sq. ft. This can fail to meet the needs of many new and growing local medium sized manufacturing / B2 class businesses many of which would not be welcome in proximity to residential areas or on Science Parks.

In 2012 East Devon District Council Commissioned Professor Nigel Jump of Strategic Economics Ltd to carry out an independent assessment of the economic impact of the two strategic employment sites in East Devon. His conclusions were clear in that investment in these locations has unlocked valuable employment and economic growth in the district.

Moreover, these sites have the potential to make further economic net benefits (job creation, added GVA and inward investment) throughout challenging economic periods
to come. The report concludes that when social and environmental factors are considered, there remains a net positive impact of extended capacity at these sites which are yet to run their full course.

In light of this EDDC commissioned evidence, inclusion of Greendale and Hill Barton within the Villages DPD is unwarranted, contrary to the specialist advice we have commissioned and would cause demonstrable harm to the district.

These findings are echoed in 3 subsequent studies of demand for industrial and commercial space in East Devon which formed the overall economic element of the EDDC Local Plan which placed great weight on the sustainable balance of social, economic and environmental issues as the “Golden thread” which ran through the Local Plan and the NPPF

The proposals for the development of medium sized businesses of B2/B8 category fit well with a large number of B use premises enquires received by Economic Development in the last 2 years,

The filling out and redevelopment of Greendale and Hill Barton will complement the demand for larger B use provision and remain a welcome addition to the diverse mix of commercial accommodation required to facilitate indigenous business growth as well as the district’s ability to meet the needs of potential inward investors seeking to become established or grow their operations in East Devon.

Having recently reviewed B use premises demand across the district, the following updates can be cited: –

In Exmouth, B use accommodation at Liverton Business Park is in high demand. We have seen speculative build in this location with all but their final unit now let. They are unable to accommodate further demand

Across Clinton Devon Estate’s whole East Devon portfolio of commercial property; they have no other vacant B use premises available, representing a significant shortage of supply.

The Exeter and Heart of Devon Commercial Premises Register has received 43 separate enquiries for B1 Office accommodation in the District in the last 3 months

Greendale have received more than 80 B use premises enquiries in the last 12 months totalling more than 850,000 sq. ft.

Also, west of the Enterprise Zone, land is being brought forward for speculative development of small, flexible B use units.

Recently, as part of their Business Plan for the use of the Owen Building, Rolle Exmouth Ltd provided details of 59 separate businesses, social enterprises, individuals, groups/classes, education & training providers who have declared an interest in finding small SME commercial premises in Exmouth
Lastly, to curtail the provision of good jobs at Hill Barton and Greendale would be to consciously, selectively and actively undermine our stated (and adopted) Local Plan ambition of delivering one job per new dwelling. This target has not yet been realised, resulting in an unsustainable imbalance between the provision of new homes and new, quality jobs in East Devon.

We cannot continue to overlook this imbalance as our young teens and twenties leave to pursue careers elsewhere and the economically inactive grow as a proportion of our aging population.

We continue to receive inward investment enquires of differing scales and different employment use classes, including from the Dept. for International Trade (DIT, formerly UKTI).

These request a diverse mix of investment formats and much needed employment opportunities from outside the district. However, it is often difficult to identify suitable available employment premises.

Maintaining a diverse mix of development land and premises is key to securing these investments and associated local economic benefit.

The increased density of employment possible on Greendale and Hill Barton sites for B1/B2/B8 use is a clear benefit to our established local supply chains and producers/providers served by these developments.

Finally – I am concerned about an issue of prejudice: I believe that it would be prejudicial to the economic development of East Devon to consider the imposition of Strategy 7 (Greenfield) on Hill Barton on Greendale since the sites are clearly well used industrial sites which are in the right location for the type of businesses they serve.

The two sites have been afforded a specific exception in Policy E7 – ‘Extensions to
Existing Employment Sites’ of our adopted Local Plan (See Pg. 196 “This policy will not apply at Hill Barton and Greendale business Parks”). While for landscape and other reasons we might wish to limit the further expansion of the sites, I believe it would be prejudicial to single out these two sites rather than the 50 other smaller industrial sites for special treatment.

The criteria already laid down within the Local Plan are fully sufficient to control and promote the appropriate development on these sites.

Recommendation

I recommend that the Greendale (GBP) and Hill Barton (HB) employment sites be removed from this Villages Development Plan. I recommend that any application of strategy 7 within the perimeters already agreed should not occur but that other Planning Policies on Industrial Land development should be applied on the basis of equity and equality with other industrial sites in East Devon.

Approval of this draft Villages DPD with GD and HB included and subject to strategy 7 will exacerbate the undersupply of employment premises we are already experiencing through non-delivery of our employment allocations in the adopted Local Plan.”

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

14 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Conflict of interest, Developers/ Development, East Devon economy, East Devon Tories, EDBF, EDDC, Scrutiny

A new East Devon Business Forum?

And just how will EDDC decide who are the top 50 employers? Turnover, number of employees, closeness to Woodbury or Otterton? Or big developers? Businesses submitting the most planning applications or biggest landholders? Or might it be social responsibility – lol? Environmental credentials – lol? Employee stakeholders – lol?

And how will they treat these “top 50 compared to the bottom several thousand?

Shades of the discredited, run by disgraced ex-councillor Graham Brown, East Devon Business Forum? And, here it comes again – scrutiny … conflicts of interest …

Owl ruffles its feathers …

“For the many or the few” to quote someone-or-other!

“Develop more effective business engagement though:

1) Publishing quarterly business bulletins and increasing SME readership;

2) Identifying and establishing communication with up to 6 Key Ambassador businesses in East Devon

3) developing and maintaining a contact list of our top 50 employers;

4) Identifying and making contact with businesses comprising our 4 GESP priority sectors (Smart Logistics, Data Analytics, Knowledge Based Industries and Environmental Futures).

Click to access 170118-joint-overview-scrutiny-agenda-combined.pdf

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

13 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Land banking, Land Supply, NHS (local)

Oliver Letwin in charge of investigating land banking! First target Tories identify – NHS land!

Owl says: A High Tory who adores privatisation in charge of investigating developers! Pull the other one! AND this is the man who:

“… Speaking to consultancy firm KPMG on 27 July 2011, Letwin caused controversy after stating that you cannot have “innovation and excellence” without “real discipline and some fear on the part of the providers” in the public sector. This was widely reported, with The Guardian headline stating Letwin says ‘public sector workers need “discipline and fear.”

This is the Tory Conservative Home press release says about this – and identifies NHS land as ripe for fast development:

“Sir Oliver Letwin is undertaking a review for the Government on “land banking” by property developers. It will seek to “explain the significant gap between housing completions and the amount of land allocated or permissioned and make recommendations for closing the gap”.

The delays are certainly a source of frustration. “Use it, or lose it,” is that great rallying cry – forgetting that planning permission routinely expires after three years under the current rules. In any case if property developers expect prices to be going up why would that be a reason not to build the homes – which they could then delay selling? I suspect delays are more usually caused by the planning system and difficulties raising the required capital.

We will see what Sir Oliver makes of it. But as he knows better than anyone, the worst culprit when it comes to land banking is the state itself – at least based on the broad definition of sitting on surplus land that could be developed. I have quoted from his memoirs, the examples of the Ministry of Defence and Network Rail. Even in London where we are all so squashed, Transport for London owns land equivalent to the size of Camden.

Another prime culprit is the National Health Service Chris Philp, the Conservative MP for Croydon South, wrote on this site last month that:

“The NHS alone sits on enough surplus land for more than 500,000 homes.”

In his paper for the Centre for Policy Studies, Homes for Everyone, Philp elaborates:

“In its 2017 report on surplus land, NHS Digital identified 1,332 hectares of surplus land across a total of 563 sites. Just 91 hectares of surplus land had been sold previously, with 11 hectares of those sold during 2016/17 – less than 1% of the potential total. At that rate, it would take 112 years to dispose of all the surplus NHS land. (A further 135 hectares is set to be sold by 2020, which is still only ten per cent of the available spare land.) If the NHS was to release its entire 1,332 hectares of surplus land for housing, as many as 533,000 new homes could be created.”

Actually if you look at the data it is likely that the potential is much greater. The NHS Trusts were marking their own homework. They can always say that some bit of unused land isn’t surplus as they might think of something to do with it some time. Then we had 75 of the 236 Trusts that responded denying having any surplus land.

But anyway, the acknowledged 1,332 hectares (that’s 3,291 acres since you ask) is a useful starting point. Surely this is something that councillors should help to pursue? After all, the housing shortage and the financial pressure on the NHS are two of the biggest political concerns of our time – releasing this land for development could help with both.

Perhaps the scrutiny remit of Health and Wellbeing Boards could be extended to cover it. But council leaders should also be chasing the NHS about all these derelict sites. They should be actively encouraged to seek outline planning permission so that the proceeds from sales could be increased. Of course Philip is right that central Government should doing far more. But let’s also get some pressure going locally.”

https://www.conservativehome.com/localgovernment/2018/01/councils-should-challenge-the-nhs-to-sell-more-surplus-land-for-housing.html

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

13 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Inequality, Sleaze, Taylor Wimpey

John Lewis pension fund investing in controversial home leaseholds

“Thousands of young homebuyers remain trapped in virtually brand-new homes made unsaleable by spiralling ground rents and abandoned by developers such as Taylor Wimpey, despite a ban on the charges promised by the government.

Guardian Money can also reveal that the £5bn John Lewis pension fund is behind the soaring rents that have made the lives of some homeowners a misery. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jan/13/ground-rent-young-homebuyers-charges

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

12 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Cranbrook, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Estate rentcharges, Inequality, Scrutiny, Transparency

Cranbrook Herald reports on estate rent charges

Owl broke this story on 2January:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2018/01/02/cranbrook-residents-very-unhappy-about-estate-rent-charge-bills/

Now Cranbrook Herald has taken it up:

“The unexpected demand for payment caused uproar on social media, distressing many during the festive break.

One resident said the company which sent the letter was using ‘scare-mongering tactics’.

Another said the matter was a ‘disgrace’.

The estate and asset management company Blenheims sent the bill on behalf of the Cranbrook Consortium and FPCR (which provides the town’s landscape and horicultural services).

In the letter – delivered to all Cranbrook households on Friday, December 22 – Blenheims explained that the annual Estate Rent Charge (ERC), which meets the cost of maintaining the public open spaces and amenity areas had been reviewed.

Previously set at £150 per annum – based on an ‘historic and initial assessment of the annual costs’ – the Consortium had increased the ERC to £231.76, to reflect actual accounting figures. These suggested that the total costs of the 2017-18 ERC were £370,816. Split between 1,600 properties, this came to £231.76 per household.

In many cases, the £231.76 demand was reduced to £194.26, taking into account an initial quarterly ERC instalment paid by residents of £37.50.

The letter implied that the £194.26 needed to be paid in one sum. There was also confusion about when the money needed to be paid, with some residents believing it had to be within 10 working days.

There was no suggestion of being able to pay in instalments (although Blenheims has since said that there are three payment dates – January 22, February 1 and March 1).

Having received their bills, Cranbrook residents found Blenheims had shut for Christmas, and initially there was no one available to discuss the issue.

At the request of Cranbrook Town Council (CTC), the Reverend Lythan Nevard – Cranbrook’s minister and a Belonging to Cranbrook Facebook moderator – offered advice for residents, posting her thoughts on social media.

On January 2, CTC posted its own advice on its website, describing the timing of the letter as ‘unfortunate’, and Blenheims has since issued a ‘frequently asked questions’ (FAQ) document.

“I think the timing of the Blenheims’ letter was poor at best,” said a Cranbrook resident, who did not wish to be named. “Some people were concerned that if they just cancelled their direct debits, they would end up with bailiffs at their door after Christmas.”

“It was a disgrace to receive a letter demanding payment of £231.76 within ten days, and especially at this time of the year,” said another resident.

In its FAQ to residents, Blenheims said the payment demand was issued on December 22 in advance of the next collection date, December 25, and was ‘in accordance’ with residents’ ERC deed.

It also issued advice for those that had cancelled their direct debit or hadn’t returned their mandate and explained why the ERC was being increased and why residents – who are already paying council tax – were being charged for ERC.

Neither Blenheims nor the Consortium have provided the Herald with further comment on this matter.

CTC is currently finalising details of taking over the town’s ERC. If draft agreements are approved, from April 6, 2018, the ERC will be paid as part of EDDC’s council tax, with any increase in the element of the council tax payable to CTC.”

http://www.cranbrookherald.com/news/cranbrook-estate-rent-charge-1-5349929

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

11 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Community Infrastructure Levy, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Local Infrastructure and CIL, Local Plan

Infrastructure: Shortfall of £270m over period of Local Plan says external auditor

“Appendix A page 39

Click to access 180118bpauditgovernaceoperationalrisk.pdf

“Current estimates show that there will be a £270 million shortfall in infrastructure over the period of the Local Plan. Changes in legislation are needed to address this albeit a CIL charging schedule review is underway and may improve the situation. Fundamentally the current system relies on funding from other sources and infrastructure providers and so pressure needs to be put in bodies such as DCC, NHS etc to help fund infrastructure projects in the district.”

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

11 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Blackhill Quarry, Clinton Devon Estates, Conflict of interest, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Environment (local), Planning System, Woodbury

Clinton Devon Estates and Blackhill Quarry: a critical test of the company’s environmental credentials and standards

A correspondent writes:

Sites of Environmental Significance:

We have three very special environmental sites in, or on the edge of, East Devon protected by stringent European and UK Habitat Regulations: the Exe Estuary, Dawlish Warren and the Pebblebed Heaths.

Clinton Devon Estate (CDE) is the owner of 80% of the the Pebblebed Heaths, including the land of Blackhill Quarry.

CDE web site proclaims “Responsible stewardship and sustainable development are at the heart of everything we do”.

So it seems extraordinary that CDE, instead of promoting the reinstatement of the Blackhill Quarry site as part of the Pebblebed Heaths, should, instead, be seeking to turn it into an industrial site with all the accompanying pollution (noise, light, traffic etc).

Recently Aggregate Industries withdrew an application to continue quarrying on the site and has been restoring the site to encourage wildlife. Indeed, Aggregate Industries was awarded runner up and highly commended at the Mineral Product Association’s Biodiversity Awards 2017 for its restoration of the sand and gravel quarry.

“This is an unique wildlife habitat situated close to Exeter. Designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a Special Area of Conservation and a Special Protection Area, this area represents one of the most important conservation sites in Europe.”

http://www.pebblebedheaths.org.uk/

Also, studies have shown these are popular local sites, and access to them is vital to the local economy and highly valued by local people.

Access has widespread benefits including health, education, inspiration, spiritual and general well-being. While much of the access takes place regardless of the wildlife interest, that wildlife interest is also a part of the specific draw for many people. New development in the area is putting this under pressure not only by destroying green space but by increasing the footfall on what is left from an ever larger population. Local authorities have a legal duty to ensure no adverse effects occur as a result of their strategic plans.

Legally, there can be no building within 400m of these sites and also any development within 10Km requires a formal Habitats Protection Assessment with favourable conclusions. EDDC, however, accepts a funding levy from developers to get around having to do this individually, effectively taking on the responsibility for mitigation delivery themselves.

Though money might do a lot of things, it can’t create more land.

Your correspondent recalls a time when CDE were talking of using the old industrial site to enhance the existing recreation experience of the Heath. And now it wishes to develop an industrial site.

Do they think the prohibition on building within 400m doesn’t apply to them?

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

9 Jan 2018

Posted under

Coastal communities, Developers/ Development, Exmouth, Otterto, Tourism

Sandy Bay caravan park looks bigger than some East Devon towns!

“The holiday park, at Sandy Bay, is holding an open day on Saturday, January 20, from 10am until 3pm, where applications will be accepted for more than 400 vacancies.

Pat Titley, talent manager at the holiday park, said staff training starts at the end of January in readiness for March 1 and the new holiday season.

Allen Main, Devon Cliffs Holiday Park assistant general manager, said last year more than 23,000 families holidayed at the attraction. …”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/exmouth-hundreds-of-jobs-available-as-devon-cliffs-launches-summer-season-recruitment-drive-1-5348502

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

6 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Coastal communities, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Exmouth, Planning System, Regeneration, Scrutiny, Spin, Transparency

EDDC’s justification for Exmouth seafront “planning lite” application

Would you or I get away with this?

Exmouth Town Council arranging hurried meeting on 6 January 2018.

Let’s see what they think (Tory dominated, don’t build up you expectations!)

From EDDC to Town Councillors – how to justify the unjustifiable!

One for the Scrutiny Committee? Oh no, wait – not allowed to discuss individual planning applications! But maybe CAN investigate how there are double standards in planning – one for their own officers and one for everyone else.

No – even that’s not right! One for EDDC and its developers and one for the rest of us.

“Queen’s Drive Temporary Uses Planning Application Response to Concerns Raised by Exmouth Town Council

1. CONCERN ABOUT TOO LITTLE DETAIL IN THE APPLICATION.
The lack of detail in the planning application is a result of the tight timescale that we are faced with in delivering the temporary uses.
Time is a key driver for the delivery of the Temporary Uses project. We aim to have new facilities available by early spring 2018.
In order to achieve this, we have to secure a planning permission first, before starting work on the installation of the new facilities.
We also have to go through the research and then procurement process to find the suppliers (and operators where appropriate) for the new facilities.
We realised that if we are to achieve this tight timetable, we would need to undertake tasks concurrently. So we would need to submit a planning application without necessarily knowing the detail of exactly what the facilities would be and who would be supplying them.
We discussed this with our planning advisor and the Local Planning Authority and identified that we could submit a planning application that provided a general description of what we propose to do (and was therefore without too much detail), where (if approved at committee), the planning authority could put conditions on the permission and request the detail at a later time.
We agreed on a strategy for the planning application that would show the three zones for the three different “themes” of what will be on offer. Namely: children’s play, food and drink, and a range of one-off events.

2. CONCERNS ABOUT RESIDENTIAL AREA AND NOISE.
The District Council will have to apply for necessary licences to cover the hours of opening for the operation of the events on site. Again, as yet we do not know the detail of what the events will be as we are still in the research and planning stages. We would not expect that any event would be later than midnight. But note that this will only be on odd occasions – not every night. This application will be heard by the Licensing Committee in due course.

3. CONCERNS ABOUT THE FILLING IN OF THE PONDS.
We do not yet know the specific engineering solution for how the ponds will be filled in. It is thought that this will be loose material topped with sand. Whatever is used to fill the ponds could be removed in the future if required.
4. CONCERNS ABOUT THE TIMING OF SUBMISSION.
We are aiming for the application to be heard at DMC on 6 March 2018.
To meet this date and allow for the lead in period for the application to be processed, we therefore had to submit the application before Christmas (early December). It was not until early December that we had finalised the application ready for submission.

Alison Hayward
EDDC 3 January 2018”

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: