Cranbrook estate rent charges 2

(See post below also)

From a correspondent:

Wain Homes (55 properties) and Cavanna Homes (19 properties) have their own Estate Rent Charge which will remain in place but they will pay the higher CTC precept

The Town Council had indicated a willingness in principle to take on the public open space on both sites. Wain Homes remain subject to enforcement because of failure to complete the public open space and we met with them in the summer of 2017 to discuss this.

If they complete the work CTC could adopt the public open space. Hopefully local residents on the site will press Wain Homes to do this.

Cavanna have passed their public open space to a management company but undertook to have talks to have the public open space transferred back so that CTC could adopt it. In both cases the ball is in the developers’ court.”

Cranbrook residents very unhappy about estate rent charge bills

Basically a total mess with large annual bills hitting residents just before Christmas. Many residents dispute work and charges.

And this is interesting:

Double charging because residents pay the full East Devon District Council council tax

EDDC has consistently taken the line that it will not take on responsibility for anything other than its statutory responsibilities and this is not unique to Cranbrook but affecting all other new major developments.
On the face of it this is unfair – Cranbrook residents contribute to all public open space owned by EDDC but the reverse is not the case.

This is why the Town Council is seeking to take on these responsibilities to provide best value for residents of the Town.

It is for EDDC to respond to this point.”

https://www.cranbrooktowncouncil.gov.uk/town-councils-response-statement-re-estate-rent-charge-letters

“Freemasons are blocking reform, says Police Federation leader”

Remember how Owl was taken to task for saying planners took more notice of Freemasons than town councillors …

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/12/15/buckfastleigh-dissolves-its-planning-committee-as-district-and-county-councils-take-no-notice-of-its-recommendations/

Well …

“Reform in policing is being blocked by members of the Freemasons, and their influence in the service is thwarting the progress of women and people from black and minority ethnic communities, the leader of rank-and-file officers has said.

Steve White, who steps down on Monday after three years as chair of the Police Federation, told the Guardian he was concerned about the continued influence of Freemasons.

White took charge with the government threatening to take over the federation if it did not reform after a string of scandals and controversies.

The Freemasons is one of the world’s oldest secular societies, made up of people, predominantly men, concerned with moral and spiritual values. Their critics say they are secretive and serve the interests of their members over the interests of the public. The Masons deny this, saying they uphold values in keeping with public service and high morals.

White told the Guardian: “What people do in their private lives is a matter for them. When it becomes an issue is when it affects their work. There have been occasions when colleagues of mine have suspected that Freemasons have been an obstacle to reform.

“We need to make sure that people are making decisions for the right reasons and there is a need for future continuing cultural reform in the Fed, which should be reflective of the makeup of policing.”

One previous Metropolitan police commissioner, the late Sir Kenneth Newman, opposed the presence of Masons in the police.

White would not name names, but did not deny that some key figures in local Police Federation branches were Masons.

White said: “It’s about trust and confidence. There are people who feel that being a Freemason and a police officer is not necessarily a good idea. I find it odd that there are pockets of the organisation where a significant number of representatives are Freemasons.”

The Masons deny any clash or reason police officers should not be members of their organisation.

Mike Baker, spokesman for the United Grand Lodge, said: “Why would there be a clash? It’s the same as saying there would be a clash between anyone in a membership organisation and in a public service.

“We are parallel organisations, we fit into these organisations and have high moral principles and values.”

Baker said Freemasonry was open to all, the only requirement being “faith in a supreme being”. He said there were a number of police officers who were Masons and police lodges, such as the Manor of St James, set up for Scotland Yard officers, and Sine Favore, set up in 2010 by Police Federation members. One of those was the Met officer John Tully, who went on to be chair of the federation and, after retirement from policing, is an administrator at the United Grand Lodge of England.

Masons in the police have been accused of covering up for fellow members and favouring them for promotion over more talented, non-Mason officers.

White said: “Some female representatives were concerned about Freemason influence in the Fed. The culture is something that can either discourage or encourage people from the ethnic minorities or women from being part of an organisation.”

The federation has passed new rules on how it runs itself, aimed at ending the fact that its key senior officials are all white, and predominantly male.

White said he hoped the new rules would lead to an end to old white men dominating the federation: “The new regulations will mean Freemasons leading to an old boys’ network will be much less likely in the future. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/31/freemasons-blocking-reform-police-federation-leader

“Tories drop two flagship housing policies from key strategy document”

“Two of the Conservatives’ flagship housing policies have been dropped from a key government document, raising questions about the future of the plans.

The new “single departmental plan” published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) does not include a single reference to Starter Homes, which form a central plank of the Government’s commitment to increase home ownership, or of the planned extension of Right to Buy.

…In the latest version, five specific pledges to boost home ownership, including delivering Starter Homes and the extension of Right to Buy, have been downgraded to a single-line promise to “increase home ownership through schemes including Help to Buy”.

… Furthermore, a specific commitment to “increasing home ownership” has been absorbed into the broader aim of fixing “the broken housing market”.

… Ministers had promised to build 200,000 of them by 2020 but The Independent revealed last month that not a single Starter Home has yet been built. This led to officials admitting the policy remained an “ambition” – but have now removed all mention of it from DCLG’s housing objectives.

The previous iteration of the departmental plan included a clear commitment to the policy. It said: “We are delivering a major boost to affordable home ownership with Starter Homes and extending Right to Buy to housing association tenants.”

It reiterated a pledge to build 200,000 Starter Homes, including 30,000 on brownfield land – former industrial sites earmarked for development.

Labour said the omissions in the new document showed the Government had “given up” on helping first-time buyers.

John Healey, the party’s Shadow Housing Secretary, said: “With home ownership at a 30-year low and the number of younger homeowners in free fall, the Government has now given up on first-time buyers.

“We need much more affordable housing for younger people looking to buy their first home but ministers have erased new housing for first-time buyers from the Communities Department’s official objectives. …”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-housing-policy-starter-homes-right-to-buy-housing-association-sajid-javid-tories-a8119266.html

Obscene Persimmon bonuses – add nearly £41,000 to cost of each house

Guardian Letters:

What do management bonuses mean to the average customer? Persimmon’s CEO will receive a bonus of £110m. Senior staff bonuses will exceed £500m. Persimmon builds approximately 15,000 houses a year. Arguably, therefore, the CEO’s bonus adds at least £7,333 to the price of a house and the senior staff bonuses add £33,333. It is unlikely that the customer would think it money well spent.”
Martin Jeffree

AND

“Surely the housebuilding company Persimmon can now afford to run its own help-to-buy scheme.”
David Simpson

Sidmouth Port Royal: an independent view

“In July, ‘Three Rs’ campaigners unveiled their alternative vision to ‘retain, refurbish, re-use’ the site’s existing buildings.

They wanted to challenge suggestions that the ‘only apparent option’ for the development of eastern town was to construct a multi-use building with 30 homes that could stand up to five storeys high.

Campaigners argue the existing buildings should be retained, the whole area should be refurbished as needed and sites such as the Drill Hall and the old boat park should be re-used.

In a bid to keep the public informed, they have created four information sheets ahead of the publication of a final report on Port Royal.

Councillor Cathy Gardner, [Independent East Devon Alliance] who is one of those leading the Three Rs campaign, said: “We think it is important people have more background information for the proposals for the Port Royal area, particularly while we are waiting for the final report from the scoping study – we are expecting that in January.

“We have tried to be as factual as we can. People ask a lot of questions and sometimes there are misunderstandings, and we just want to help clarify it for everybody.”

The information sheets explain the challenges East Devon District Council (EDDC) faces in redeveloping the site and the importance of the authority deciding on what happens, and argue it is essential to retain the Drill Hall.

The guides also look at what the Ham is and its conveyance, the role played by Sidmouth Town Council, what the Local Plan has to do with Port Royal, and where Devon County Council comes in.

As well as this, the information sheets will address how the car parks could be refurbished.

Cllr Gardner said the campaigners could also cover other topics so asked residents who were unsure on anything or think something should be clarified to let them know.

The information sheets have also been pinned up on a notice boards around Sidmouth and are available online at http://www.retain-refurbish-reuse.uk.

Alternatively, email cathy.gardner@eastdevonalliance.org.uk for an electronic copy.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/info-sheets-released-to-help-all-understand-potential-port-royal-development-in-sidmouth-1-5322440

CPRE seminar 19/01/2018 10 am: New Housing and The Greater Exeter Strategic Plan – special guest: Hugo Swire

Friday 19th January 2018.
10am-12.30pm.
The Gipsy Hill Hotel,
Gipsy Hill Lane,
Pinhoe, Exeter
EX1 3RN

Guest speakers:
Rt Hon Sir Hugo Swire MP;
George Marshall, Greater Exeter Strategic Plan.

How many new homes are planned for your community and where?

Please join us for this important opportunity to find out more about the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan for Exeter, East Devon, Mid Devon and Teignbridge and the plans for new housing.

All welcome.

Places must be reserved – to book a place please contact us on
01392 966737
or email:
director@cpredevon.org.uk

East Devon mentioned in corruption and bribery article in Sunday Times

See post below for the history of the mention of East Devon.

“Bricks, bribery and mortar — the flaw built into our planning rules

This newspaper’s exposure of a corruption scandal in London is just the tip of the iceberg, says Rohan Silva. Outmoded development laws allow crime to thrive.

Exactly seven years ago today, on December 17, 2010, a young man named Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire outside a government building in Tunisia, kicking off the Arab Spring that turned the geopolitics of the region on its head.

In the aftermath of the turmoil, the influential economist Hernando De Soto interviewed Bouazizi’s family — and the families of the dozens of other people who killed themselves in similar ways in countries from Saudi Arabia to Egypt.

De Soto wanted to find out why these young men and women had committed violent acts of self-immolation — and he concluded that every case had the same root cause: “Desperation over property.”

According to De Soto, the absence of enforceable property rights in Tunisia — and across the Arab world — meant people were at constant risk of their property being confiscated by the government, and made it almost impossible to escape poverty and build a better life for their families.

Here in the UK, we tend to think property rights are a developing-world issue — with our long history of land registration and ownership, it’s easy to assume everything is hunky-dory.

If only. Last weekend this newspaper published a damning exposé of corruption in east London, with a £2m bribe sought from a developer in exchange for the promise of permission to build a skyscraper, Alpha Square.

Off the back of this exemplary journalism, the National Crime Agency is investigating the incident. Hopefully the bent politicians and officials will be brought to justice.

But the depressing truth is that corruption is endemic in Britain’s bureaucratic planning system. In every corner of the country, you can find stories of bribery, with local councillors and officials rigging the planning process for their own gain.

Doncaster, Enfield, Greater Manchester, EAST DEVON — these are just a handful of the local authorities where corrupt practices have been discovered in planning departments. In other words, the corruption is systemic and it’s caused by the inadequacy of Britain’s property rights.

To understand why, we need to look back to 1947, when post-war socialist planning was all the rage, industries were being nationalised and the state was steadily gaining control of the “commanding heights” of the economy.

That year, the Town and Country Planning Act was introduced, giving the government the power to determine the direction of property development. This piece of legislation is the basis of today’s planning system — and it took land development rights away from property owners and gave them to the planning authorities. It was another form of nationalisation, in other words.

Ever since, when you buy a piece of land in the UK you receive its property title, but you have absolutely no idea what you’re allowed to build on it — that’s up to planning officials in the local council.

Given that the value of a property can increase by tens — or even hundreds — of millions of pounds depending on what the planners decide, the incentive for corruption among low-paid officials and councillors is overwhelming.

Unfortunately, the lack of clear property rights doesn’t only lead to corruption. It also slows down every aspect of the development process, creating a boon for expensive planning consultants and lawyers.

All this bureaucracy helps explain why too few houses have been built over many decades, with monumental social and economic consequences.

As Mark Littlewood of the Institute of Economic Affairs has pointed out, our outmoded planning system has artificially inflated property prices in the UK by as much as 41%, adding more than £3,000 to the average family’s annual rent or mortgage payments.

What’s more, our post-war planning system stifles innovation. Developers have to play it safe, putting forward generic projects designed to get through the bureaucracy, rather than delivering what consumers want.

As the architect Lord Rogers has asked, why should bureaucrats get to decide on aesthetics? It’s a recipe for the kind of soulless grey buildings you now find in every British city.

Corrupt practices. Market failure. Lack of innovation. These are just some of the consequences of our broken planning system — the last vestige of socialist command-and-control we have left in the UK. (Until Jeremy Corbyn gets elected, anyway.)

It doesn’t have to be like this. In US cities, when you buy a piece of land, it comes with property rights that tell you what you’re allowed to build on it and how much extra space you can add.

This is known as “by-right” planning permission — because you don’t need a bureaucratic process to tell you what you can do. You apply for planning permission only if you want to build more than you’re entitled to.

Now is the time to bring this approach to this country and clamp down on corruption. By strengthening the UK’s framework of property rights and dismantling the failed post-war planning system, we can cut red tape and stamp out bribery.

Thanks to this newspaper’s exposure of corrupt practices, change is surely coming. You might even call it a British Spring.

Rohan Silva”

Source: Sunday Times, paywall

The disgraced ex-EDDC Tory Councillor Graham Brown “If I can’t get planning, nobody will” scandal refuses to die

Remember the disgraced ex-Councilor Graham Brown scandal?

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

Well, it refuses to die.

The Sunday Times today (page 29, main paper) mentions it in passing in an article entitled “Bricks, Bribery and Planning – the flaw built into our planning rules” (full text to follow shortly).

“But the depressing truth is that corruption is endemic in Britain’s bureaucratic planning system. In every corner of the country, you can fund stories of bribery, with local councillors and officials rigging the planning system for their own gain.

Doncaster, Enfield, Greater Manchester, EAST DEVON – these are just a handful of local authorities where corrupt practices have been discovered in planning departments. In other words, the corruption is systemic and it’s caused by the inadequacy of Britain’s property rights”. …”

Brown, at various times, headed up the East Devon Business Forum, was also highly influential in the early stages of the Local Development Plan (which wasted two years or more mostly visiting big development sites owned by prominent businessmen and which had to be abandoned and re-started under the later chairmanship of Councillor Philip Skinner).

Brown held many other posts throughout his long career as an EDDC councillor, mostly related to planning, while running his local planning consultancy business – a fact of which other Tory majority party councillors and officers were very well aware, but did not perceive as not being a conflict of interest – until the Daily Telegraph sting.

His only censure was to be kicked out of his local Tory party – local police refused to be involved with an inquiry due to insufficient evidence. Were local planners and councillors – or even the Daily Telegraph or Anna Minton – asked for evidence? We have no idea.

Brown features (as does East Devon generally – a whole chapter) in the Anna Minton expose “ Scaring the Living Daylights Out of People: The Local Lobby and the Failure of Democracy” (Section 3: The Local Mafia: Conflicts of Interest in East Devon”) :

Click to access scaring-the-living-daylights-final.pdf

As a final insult to injury, after his departure from EDDC he attempted to get the agricultural tie lifted from the farmhouse in which he lived (which would have greatly increased its value by up to 40%) until a local investigation (led by East Devon Alliance) uncovered the fact that he had been receiving EU farming subsidies to the tune of at least £850,000 throughout the period he said he was no longer farming:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2014/09/22/ex-councillor-browns-facts-disputed-2/

“£500,000 to get your first flat: A quarter of London homes bought by first-time buyers ‘worth half a million or more’ “

Remember, the “Help to Buy” scheme drops 20% of the purchase price of properties up to £600,000 into developers’ pockets and the government has just put an extra £10 billion into this scheme from other hoysing budgets.

The Help to Buy: Equity Loan can be used to purchase a new build property up to the value of £600,000, with a maximum equity loan of £120,000 (20%). In London, applicants are able to claim an equity loan up to 40% of the purchase price.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/10-billion-new-funding-for-help-to-buy-equity-loan

“A record number of first time buyers must find at least £500,000 to get a foothold on the housing ladder in London, new research reveals today.

The dramatic surge in property values in the capital over the past decade is forcing young Londoners to raise vast sums that would have been unimaginable to their parents, it shows.

So far this year an unprecedented 25.9 per cent of the homes bought by debut buyers in London have been at or above the half a million pound mark, according to analysis of mortgage lending by agents Savills.

… The data, from trade body Finance UK, also shows that no mortgages at all were advanced to first time buyers for homes in the £125,000 to £175,000 bracket during the third quarter. It was the first time on record that this more affordable segment of the market has dried up altogether. …”

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/500000-to-get-your-first-flat-a-quarter-of-london-homes-bought-by-firsttime-buyers-worth-half-a-a3720361.html

That Persimmon boss £128 million bonus in perspective

“Wow! A bonus worth more than working since the building of Stonehenge for an average Briton…”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/15/persimmon-chair-resigns-chief-executive-obscene-bonus
(comment)

Buckfastleigh dissolves its planning committee – as district and county councils take no notice of its recommendations

Most districts are more likely to take the views of their local Tory association and/or Freemasons Lodges and/or developers than any of its town councils! Well done Buckfastleigh for recognising and admitting this.

“Town Council Dissolve Planning Committee

Yesterday (Wed 13th Dec 2017), at the Buckfastleigh Full Town Council meeting, The Council decided to dissolve it’s Planning Committee.

The Planning, Environment & Transport Committee, which evolved from the Planning Committee that was in place until 2015, has up till now examined and responded on every local planning application made to the Dartmoor National Park Authority (DNPA), Teignbridge District Council (TDC) or Devon County Council (DCC).

At the meeting we observed that as a Town Council we have in fact had no powers in terms of planning since 1974, when TDC took over most of the powers of the then Buckfastleigh Urban District Council, but that many local people still felt that we had some control over planning decisions. This has led to both misplaced hope that bringing a case to the Planning Committee will make a difference to their case and consequent blame when planning decisions go ahead regardless of their concerns.

It has been made quite clear in recent years that the carefully considered and well-informed responses to planning applications to DNPA, TDC and DCC have been ignored by their planning authorities in reaching decisions. In fact the Town Council has recently a formal complaint with DCC about it’s inability to enforce planning legislation and it’s misconduct in issuing planning notices in the case of Whitecleave Quarry.

Since the start of this council in May 2015, none of the responses submitted by the council in response to any major planning proposal in the parish has had an appreciable effect on the outcome. This includes the Town Council’s responses to the DNPA for piecemeal development of the Devonia site at the heart of the town which has now twice been given permission to demolish and build afresh. This despite the Buckfastleigh Neighbourhood Plan, initiated by the Town Council, which, after prolonged and detailed consultation with local residents, has recommended developing a Masterplan for the site which takes into account flood mitigation and coherent future mixed-use and also after assurances that DNPA would work ‘closely’ with us in future and that ‘mistakes’ had been made in the past.

We are quite sure too that our carefully expressed concerns about the upcoming plans for 80 plus new homes at Barn Park and Holne Rd (despite proven lack of local housing need), resulting in increased traffic/parking issues, flood risk and pressure on local amenities, will also be ignored by the DNP, who, in line with the the other authorities, seem always by default to find in favour of commercial developers whilst disregarding the needs of local residents.

We feel that by maintaining a ‘Planning’ committee, which is clearly impotent, we are misleading the public and misdirecting any concerns they have. We believe it would likely have more impact if all the individual councillors and members of the public made their own representations to planning authorities (although evidence is limited that this has any effect either!) and we don’t want to be duped into inadvertently acting as fodder for those authorities going through the motions of carrying out statutory consultative procedures, unless our opinion is actually given some weight.

We will continue to flag up any planning proposals that are likely to have a significant impact on the parish and fight for the interests of our constituents, but we will no longer formally meet as a planning committee to formulate our responses – these will come from full council. The current Planning, Environment & Transport committee will be dissolved and it’s members will meet to discuss any future remit.

Buckfastleigh Town Council”

“Persimmon chair resigns over chief executive’s ‘obscene’ £128m bonus”: “corporate looting”

£128m bonus =
427 homes at £300,000 or
512 at £250,000
– just saying …

The chair of Persimmon has resigned over his role in orchestrating a £128m bonus for the housebuilder’s chief executive, Jeff Fairburn, that will begin paying out on New Year’s Eve.

Nicholas Wrigley, the company’s chair and a former banker, said he regretted not capping the bonus scheme and was leaving “in recognition of this omission”.

The Guardian understands Wrigley had put pressure on Fairburn to donate some of his bonus to charity, although Persimmon declined to comment.

The bonus scheme – believed to be the most generous ever in the UK – is due to start paying out more than £800m to 150 senior staff on 31 December. The payouts are linked to the company’s stock market performance, which has been significantly boosted by the government’s help to buy scheme.

Persimmon’s share price has more than doubled since George Osborne introduced help to buy in 2013. About half of Persimmon homes sold last year were to help-to-buy recipients, meaning government money helped finance the sales.

The bonuses have been widely criticised by politicians, charities and corporate governance experts contacted by the Guardian this week. One expert described the bonuses as “corporate looting”, while another said directors had their “hands in an open cookie jar”.

Vince Cable, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, said the “scale of this bonus is obscene” and built on a “government subsidy”.

“It is reminiscent of the worst excesses of corporate greed that helped to create the financial crisis, when short-termism was heavily incentivised and long-term planning ignored,” he said.

“This is also a perverse situation where a corporate fortune has been built on what is essentially a government subsidy in help to buy. This situation shows just why help to buy is so flawed: it fuels demand rather than supply, putting house prices even further out of reach of young people, while adding zeros to the bank balances of housebuilding executives.”

Homeowners trapped by ‘fleecehold’ – the new cash cow for developers
Fairburn is due to collect the first £50m worth of bonus shares on 31 December. The scheme, which is based on the level of dividend returned to shareholders, was meant to take 10 years to pay out, but the company has accelerated dividend payments.

This means Fairburn, other executives and more than 100 middle managers are likely to collect all of the £800m worth of shares by July 2018, far ahead of the 2021 schedule.

The top three Persimmon bosses are due to collect more than £230m from the scheme, which was worth 9% of the entire company when it was created.

John Hunter, the chair of the UK Shareholder Association, which represents small investors, said the bonus scheme was “completely ridiculous” and was based solely on the dividend payments.

“Any bloody fool can pay dividends – it’s just paying them their own money. The scheme is doing the opposite of what it is meant to do – incentive performance and retention,” Hunter said.

“How does this incentive people when they’re all sitting on fortunes? If you’re a manager and you’re getting millions you’d retire on the spot.”

Hunter said Persimmon defends the scheme, which was approved by 85% of investors in 2012, as a reflection of the company’s strong performance and the billions of pounds it has returned to investors through dividends.

“It has done brilliantly well – with our money,” he said. “Help to buy has been almost a license to print money – our money. These bonuses are being subsided by us. All building companies have made a lot of money from help to buy, a government subsidy. We, the voters, have subsidised these payments to directors.”

He added: “I don’t blame directors for putting their hands in an open cookie jar – they are only human. The question here is how this scheme ever got approved.”

Jonathan Davie, Persimmon’s senior independent director and chair of the renumeration committee, which sets company pay, also resigned on Thursday.

“Nicholas and Jonathan recognise that the 2012 LTIP [long-term incentive plan] could have included a cap,” the company said in a statement. “In recognition of this omission, they have therefore tendered their resignations.”

Davie resigned with immediate effect. Wrigley will stay on until his successor has been appointed. …”

How to stop developers using the “viability assessment” loophole to avoid building affordable housing

Excellent report on the current disgraceful situation and what needs to be done about it. Part of the conclusion of the 38 page report of November 2017 which should be required reading for all council planning officers:

“… On its own, Section 106 will never meet the country’s need for new affordable housing supply. But the current use and abuse of viability assessments means that we are getting less affordable housing out of private developments than we were before and during the crash, and certainly less than we could.

Flexibility in the viability system has driven down affordable housing provision at the expense of land price inflation, essentially making development more expensive.

By amending the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance to close the viability loophole, we can maximise developer contributions to affordable housing, with knock-on positive effects for overall housing supply, build out rates and community support for new housing.

The government is already consulting on the changes needed to turn affordable housing policies into cast iron pledges. It is now vital that they follow through on these plans.”

Click to access 2017.11.01_Slipping_through_the_loophole.pdf

PegasusLife’s second attempt to demolish New Forest heritage property thwarted

Just one note: where PegasusLife bemoans the fact that they are being prevented from building “housing for older people” it should in Owl’s opinion read: “housing for very, very rich old people”.

A grudging offer of 15 “affordable homes” in the second application should be seen for what it is – an attempt to get their own way by any possible means with as little outlay as possible. Owl imagines – as is usual in these circumstances – that there would eventually be a “viability assessment” that rendered the affordable homes “uneconomic” after construction of the non-affordable properties was well underway.

As an aside: isn’t it time these so-called “viability assessments” were banned by the government and developers forced to sink or swim on their original costings? Imagine buying a house and, just before exchange of contracts, the buyer says: “Sorry, I’ve done a viability assessment of my (unchanged or even improved ) finances and you will have to accept a cut of 30% of the agreed price – and the seller being forced to accept!

“Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s only surviving building has been saved by a campaign run by heritage experts.

The legendary author is best known for creating the world’s most famous fictional detective Sherlock Holmes, but Conan Doyle also designed houses and even a golf course.

After the fiction writer stayed at the Lyndhurst Park Hotel in March 1912, he sketched designs for a third storey extension and redesigned the front of the building.

The hotel sits in the heart of the pretty New Forest, Hants, just miles from his home, and though it has been vacant since 2014 the building is considered ‘highly historically significant’ thanks to his designs.

A controversial application to demolish the property and replace it with flats and affordable homes threatened the site and heritage charity The Victorian Society stepped in to criticise the plans.

Conan Doyle was a regular at the hotel in the late 19th and early 20th century.

The building was originally built as an early 19th century mansion known as ‘Glasshayes House’ but was transformed into a hotel in 1895.

Conan Doyle, who lived in the New Forest’s Brook, was a regular at the hotel in the late 19th century and early 20th century.

By the autumn of 1912 it was given a major face-lift based on ideas submitted by the world famous writer after he visited with his family earlier that year.

He designed the entire third floor extension as well as the new facade and it is his only surviving building.

Property developers PegasusLife have now submitted two applications to bulldoze the site, with both being rejected.

Their first application to build 74 homes for the elderly was declined in December 2016, and their latest attempt to create 75 new houses has also been turned down.

The new application included plans to replace the hotel with 75 flats and 15 affordable homes.

In a report on the bid, the New Forest National Park Authority ‘little consideration’ had been given by the developers to the ‘very cramped’ development.

It said: ‘Little consideration has been given to integrating the affordable housing element within the scene as a whole.

‘It demonstrates a very cramped form of development set around a courtyard dominated by parking with little in the way of amenity space.’

Despite its historic significance, the building is unlisted and therefore unprotected. Conservationists The Victorian Society say it is of ‘paramount importance’ it is saved.

The fact that Glasshayes House is thought to be the last remaining building designed by Arthur Conan Doyle makes it unique, and therefore highly historically significant and certainly worthy of reassessment.

‘In addition, no justification has been submitted to support its complete demolition.’

Speaking when the application was made, Tom Taylor, from The Victorian Society, said: ‘It is now of paramount importance that the building be reconsidered for listing, as that would offer it valuable protection against demolition and insensitive redevelopment.

A spokesman added: [Conan Doyle’s] ambitious redesign transformed the building into what you see today, the building as it currently stands is a near perfect expression of Doyle’s plans.

‘Time is swiftly running out for Glasshayes House, and the risk that it may be lost forever to be replaced with a run-of-the-mill block of flats is becoming ever more real.’

In the planning application by property developers PegasusLife, it said the building is a heritage asset of ‘minor significance’.

PegasusLife planning director Guy Flintoft said the company was ‘disappointed’ with the decision to reject a second application to redevelop Lyndhurst Park Hotel.

He said: ‘We are disappointed with the National Park Authority’s decision.
‘The rejected application included 15 affordable homes, which we would have delivered with our partners at Sovereign Housing Association, a respected provider working in the area.

‘It is disheartening that the provision of housing for older people is so often disregarded.

‘It is disappointing that this amendment to our application has been largely ignored by campaigners – despite being raised by locals as a key reason for the original refusal earlier this year.

‘We will now take some time to consider our next steps.’ “

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5180321/Sir-Arthur-Conan-Doyles-surviving-building-saved.html

“Families with stable jobs at risk of homelessness in Britain, report finds”

Homelessness is now a serious risk for working families with stable jobs who cannot find somewhere affordable to live after being evicted by private-sector landlords seeking higher rents, the local government ombudsman has warned.

Michael King said nurses, taxi drivers, hospitality staff and council workers were among those assisted by his office after being made homeless and placed in often squalid and unsafe temporary accommodation by local authorities.

“People are coming to us not because they have a ‘life crisis’ or a drug and alcohol problem, but because they are losing what they thought was a stable private-sector tenancy, being evicted and then being priced out of the [rental] market,” he said.

King said the common perception that homelessness was about people with chaotic lives who slept rough no longer held true. “Increasingly, [homeless people] are normal families who would not have expected to be in this situation,” he said.

The ombudsman’s report came as the latest quarterly homelessness statistics showed another year-on-year rise in the number of households classed as homeless. There are 79,150 homeless households in temporary housing, including 6,400 in bed and breakfast accommodation.

Homelessness of all kinds has increased for six consecutive years in England, prompting a highly critical National Audit Office report in September that said social security cuts and ministers’ failure to get a grip on a “visibly growing problem” was costing the taxpayer £1bn a year.

The homelessness charity Crisis said: “As social housing declines, welfare cuts bite and private renting costs soar, people who were less likely to become homeless in the past are now being pushed further to the brink of losing their homes.”

The ombudsman investigates individual complaints about public services and registered social care providers, and fines councils thousands of pounds when complaints are upheld. In 2016-17, the ombudsman received 450 complaints about council homelessness services, with 70% of those investigated upheld.

King was particularly critical of local authorities he had investigated that rehoused homeless families in damp, filthy and dangerous temporary homes. “You do not have to look to Victorian fiction to see totally Dickensian housing conditions,” he said.

“Dreadful” cases of homeless families being put up in substandard accommodation landed on his desk every week, he said. Examples include:

A couple with two young children who spent 26 weeks in a single room in a B&B. Although they reported that the shower did not work and the room was infested with cockroaches, the council failed to ensure repairs were made.

A mother whose baby had type 1 diabetes was placed in a dirty and unhygienic B&B room without access to cooking facilities. The baby contracted an infection and ended up in hospital. The hospital blamed the housing, saying the mother was unable to properly feed her baby.

A disabled single parent with four children was put up in B&B accommodation for nearly two and a half years after her benefits were capped. The council ignored letters from medical professionals outlining concerns that living in the property was affecting the family’s health.

Some councils routinely flouted homelessness law, with many placing homeless families with children in B&B rooms for longer than the legal six-week limit, a practice that had a “devastating impact” on many tenants’ lives, King said. The situation had deteriorated in the four years since the ombudsman last examined it. …”

Naughty Persimmon

“A national housebuilder has been ordered to stop construction on one of its developments.

Plymouth City Council has issued a 28-day “temporary stop notice” to Persimmon Homes because it’s breached weekend working hours at its Saltram Meadow development on the former Plymstock Quarry site. …”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-devon-42266659

Isn’t 7 years in power long enough to stop blaming previous government for housing situation?

David Cameron came to power with the Lib Dems in May 2010 and began the “austerity” policy. One of the first things he did was arrange for developers to rewrite planning policies in their favour. Yet Theresa May still prefers to blame Labour for her housing disasters!

“The sombre shadow of the Grenfell Tower disaster hung over Prime Minister’s questions.

The six month anniversary of the tragedy was noted by Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn, with the Labour leader saying it had shone a “light on the neglect of working class communities.”

The Labour then used all six of his questions to shine a forensic light on the Government’s record on housing.

Mr Corbyn struck a dignified, almost sorrowful tone as he listed how homelessness has risen by 50% under the Tories and rough sleeping has doubled.

“Will the Prime Minister pledge that 2018 will be the year when homelessness starts to go down?” he asked.

Theresa May ignored the question.

The Labour leader tried again. And again.

Would the Prime Minister ensure all rented homes are fit for human habitation?

Would she ensure no children would spend next Christmas in temporary accommodation?

Would the Prime Minister bring in a three-year rent cap?

You could tell Mrs May was uncomfortable as she went into full automaton mode, regurgitating her “I’m perfectly clear” and “we are clear” lines without actually saying anything of substance or even providing an answer.

The Prime Minister was stronger in her last couple of responses but she was forced to rely on the previous Labour government’s record to defend her own administration’s failure on housing.

Voters may have lingering gripes about what Tony Blair and Gordon Brown achieved but they will also know it is now seven years since they were in power.

May’s use of statistics was not so much brazen as shameful. At one point she claimed “statutory homelessness peaked under the Labour government and is down by over 50% since then.”

Yes, it peaked in 2003 but then fell every year until Labour left government in 2010. It is now rising again.

Corbyn could not resist ramping up the volume for his final question where he accused the Tories of putting the interests of private speculators and rogue landlords ahead of tenants.

Though clips of these attacks tend to play well with the faithful, he was at his most effective when asking quiet, penetrating questions.

It was not a walkover for the Labour leader but it was a return to form after an indifferent couple of weeks.

SCORE Jeremy Corbyn 2 Theresa May 1”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/who-won-pmqs-jeremy-corbyn-11686939

You can’t build anything you like in the countryside (well, at least in Mid-Devon!)

“Councillors [in mid Devon NOT East Devon!]have warned residents who live in the rural areas that they cannot just build what they like after a two-storey outbuilding was refused planning permission.

Applicants Mr and Mrs D Hall had requested the retention of a replacement two-storey timber building at Forestry Houses in Chenson, between Lapford and Eggesford Station. The application was brought before Mid Devon District Council’s planning committee on Wednesday, November 29 after a previous decision not to take enforcement action and to invite an application given the rural nature of the property and the limited negative impact of the application.

The proposed use of the building was purported to be a workshop with domestic storage over, a greenhouse and potting shed were also included within the lean-to structure.

In his report to members, area team leader Simon Trafford recommended refusal. His report said: “The development by virtue of its siting, scale and massing represents an incongruous feature on the site and furthermore contributes towards an unnecessary proliferation of built structures within this part of the countryside. For these reasons the development as it has been constructed is considered to be harmful to the overall character and appearance of the countryside.

“At the time of this decision the application site contained a single storey timber cabin building used as ancillary domestic accommodation, a pitched roof timber outbuilding with double doors used for the storage of building materials and a motorbike, a timber pitched roof field shelter, a timber store building and a small lean-to extension providing ancillary storage for the main dwelling. …

… All 11 members of the planning committee voted in favour of refusing the application.”

http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/living-remote-areas-does-not-919277

Housing Viennese-style

Vienna effortlessly tops the world’s most liveable city surveys, and for good reason. Its citizens – 1.8 million at the last count – enjoy affordable public transport, abundant greenery and rents UK citizens could only dream of. In fact, acccommodation in Vienna is plentiful and cheap, making it one of the most affordable places to live.

In this compact city, dominated by four- and five-storey, walk-up mansion blocks, tenants have been known to snag flats with palace views, free heating and Alps mineral water on tap. More than 80% of residents rent, and two-thirds of Viennese citizens live in municipal or publicly subsidised housing.

Eight out of ten flats built in the city today are financed by Vienna’s housing subsidy scheme. This quality and range helps push down rental prices, meaning low-paid workers can afford to live in the Austrian capital, even in the city centre. They often live centrally and enjoy its cheap amenities, short commutes and, thanks to a sound economy, jobs – even when renting on the partially regulated private market. …

…Vienna spends more than €570m a year on subsidising, constructing and preserving public housing despite having a population nearly eight times smaller than the UK capital. Annual government funding for affordable housing in London, with a population of around 8.7m, is only around £500m, less than half the amount spent in 2009/10 and London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, says this needs to increase to 2.7bn a year to prevent the housing crisis from getting worse. Vienna also wants to do more, last year committing to increasing annual housing production by 30% in order to meet demand.

… “It’s been so very important to be close to my working place and that is possible in Vienna (especially after the night shift),” says Hammer.

“Tenancy regulations are so important for living sanely, so, yes, I’m a big fan of rent controls and of Vienna. If I had to spend 79% of my income [on rent, like in London] then I think I’d have to leave Vienna because that’s insanely expensive,” she says.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/12/vienna-housing-policy-uk-rent-controls