Cranbrook attempts to rid itself of the developers’ “estate rent charge”

Cranbrook’s estate rent charge – currently around £150 per year per household – may be scrapped if plans by Cranbrook Town Council (CTC) go ahead.

If approved, the annual charge – for the management of Cranbrook’s public spaces, including play areas and the Country Park – would be replaced next April by an increase in CTC’s element of the East Devon District Council (EDDC) council tax bill.

But the increase won’t be a flat rate.

It would be a banded charge, depending on the rateable value of a property.

However, CTC believes its proposal will save people money. The council says that ‘considerable’ savings would be achieved by ‘cutting out’ expensive collection, legal and administration costs, removing management layers and being able to negotiate maintenance contracts.

In addition, all households in Cranbrook would contribute towards the maintenance of facilities within the town’s boundaries, whereas at present the estate rent charge is limited to those who purchase homes from the main consortium of developers.

“This is a significant step for the town,” said Cllr Kevin Blakey, CTC’s chairman. “The estate rent charge has been a continual source of concern for residents with the threat that the management company may seek to collect substantial back-payments and also raise charges without any apparent checks and balances.

“Some residents may feel this change is unfair, but based on the savings which the town council can make and the fact that we feel that it is fairer for all households to contribute to the maintenance of public amenities and facilities, we believe this is the right thing to do.

“It also provides an opportunity for those less able to pay to apply the current arrangements for council tax relief.

The developers and CTC are keen to reach an agreement.

Cllr Kevin Blakey said: “Both parties are working on the basis that the agreement would provide a clean break between the current estate rent charge position and the future. The town council wants to take control of the estate rent charge, once and for all.”

CTC has issued a Q&A sheet at: http://www.cranbrooktowncouncil.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/170908-ERC-Press-Release-QA.pdf

http://www.cranbrookherald.com/news/ctc-s-estate-rent-charge-shake-up-1-5233944

Public land sell off with no affordable homes built – map

Knowle site identified [correction – identified as Stowford Lodge site]

http://neweconomics.org/save-public-land/

Want to comment on LEP’s business plan for us? Go to Torbay council website says Sidmouth Herald!

Sidmouth Herald (as part of Archant a BIG supporter of our LEP) prints a press release on the Sidmouth Herald website on “consultation” on the LEP’s new, improved, answer to all our prayers business plan, citing the enthusiastic words of Paul Diviani, the Deputy Chair of an un-named committee.

Unfortunately, according to the press release, the consultation document appears to be only on Torbay’s website! No link to an EDDC website or the LEP’s own website!

Sloppy.

Perhaps the first consultation comment might be: put your own house in order before you attempt to put a nuclear cell in those of other people!

Here is the press release, in full, in all its glory, where 20 or so business and council members, many with nuclear interests or nuclear-industry-supporting industries attempt to persuade the rest of us that most of their (ie our) money going to Hinkley C is a good thing:

County and district councils in the two counties, along with the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), Dartmoor and Exmoor national park authorities, and NHS commissioning groups from Northern, Eastern and Western Devon, South Devon and Torbay, and Somerset, have worked together to come up with a draft productivity strategy for the area, referred to as the Heart of the South West.

This has now been put out for a consultation, which will run until November 30.

The partnership is said to be seeking the views of businesses, organisations, groups and individuals.

It says its ambition is to double the size of the area’s economy to £70 billion by 2036 and is seeking the right interventions and Government backing to achieve this.

The partnership says the area has ‘unprecedented opportunities’ in sectors including nuclear, marine, rural productivity, health and care, aerospace and advanced engineering, and data analytics.

Councillor Paul Diviani, deputy chair of the prospective joint committee of the leaders of the Heart of the South West, said: “The Heart of the South West economy is larger than that of Birmingham, so we need to be recognised for our true potential as a cohesive economic area.

“Our vision is for all parts of the Heart of the South West to become more prosperous, enabling people to have a better quality of life and higher living standards.

“To achieve that, we have to create a more vibrant and competitive economy where the benefits can be shared by everyone, and by working in partnership we can present a stronger proposition.

“We urge our stakeholders in business and the wider community to give us their views and help us create an effective strategy for delivery.”

The results from the consultation will be considered by the joint committee of the leaders of the Heart of the South West and the Heart of the South West LEP board, before a final productivity strategy is agreed early in 2018.

The consultation documents are available to view on Torbay Council’s website at

http://www.torbay.gov.uk/devolution.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/south-west-business-plan-up-for-consultation-1-5242862

Many councils fail to replace social housing lost to right to buy

Dozens of councils have failed to replace a single home sold off under the Tories ’ Right to Buy in the last year.

Shock figures show at least 32 town halls lost homes under the controversial scheme without starting a single direct replacement.

A further 15 councils didn’t record a single new home but had some data missing in government figures.

The analysis said 12,383 council homes were sold overall under Right to Buy between July 2016 and June 2017 – but just 4,813 (38%) were replaced in the same period.

The figures are an embarrassment for Theresa May after she summoned housebuilding giants to Downing Street to “fix the broken housing market.”

Bosses of Barratt, Redrow and Taylor Wimpey were among more than 20 developers who met the Prime Minister ahead of measures expected in next month’s budget.

The official government statistics, compiled by the Lib Dems, show Leicester City Council sold off 398 homes under the scheme from July 2016 to June 2017.

Yet the council did not make a single ‘start on site’ of replacement homes in the same period, the figures show.

Hull, Wigan and Doncaster all also sold more than 170 homes in the 12-month period without starting any direct replacements.

Councils had warned they were too cash-strapped to replace homes like-for-like when the Tories announced they would extend Right to Buy to housing associations in 2015.

Local Government Association housing spokesman Martin Tett said: “Councils only keep a third of all receipts from homes sold under Right to Buy.

“Further complex rules and restrictions mean councils are struggling to rapidly replace them.

“It is vital that councils are able to retain 100% of receipts from any council homes they sell.”

Leicester City Council assistant mayor Andy Connelly said Right to Buy had cut the city’s housing stock from 1,500 to 1,200 in just two years – and cost £1.6m in lost rent last year.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/dozens-councils-fail-sell-single-11359877

45% of south-west rivers unacceptably polluted by raw sewerage

See page 28 for ways to design developments to reduce problems.

Click to access Flushed%20Away_12Oct17.pdf

Exmouth “has too many retirement flats” – what, only Exmouth!

“The number of elderly people moving into new retirement developments in Exmouth is becoming unsustainable, town councillors have warned

Developer McCarthy and Stone is proposing 59 retirement flats on land to the south of Redgate, next to Tesco in Salterton Road.

Members of Exmouth Town Council’s planning committee were asked this week to reconsider plans for the scheme, which they had previously opposed, after additional information was submitted by the developer about why permission should be granted, on subjects including flood risk and land use policy.

However, councillors voted to continue their previous objections, which were on the grounds that site had been allocated as employment land in the East Devon Local Plan, and they felt Exmouth had reached ‘saturation point’ with developments of this type.

Councillor Brenda Taylor said: “All of that land up from Tesco is allocated as employment land.

“We need jobs here. I think we should again refuse it on those grounds.

“Years of work went into the local plan, and for what?

“They have got five or six properties in Exmouth already, and it’s a huge overload on our services.

“We can’t sustain these older people.”

Councillor Maddy Chapman said that an argument by McCarthy and Stone that employment would be provided by the development was not satisfactory.

She said: “When they say they are supplying jobs, and it’s going to be a care home sort of thing, the qualifications of people they employ, you cannot say it is a care home.

“For those number of flats, to say they are going to employ 15 people, you put them on a rota basis, and it’s absolute rubbish.

“Also we’ve got the other retirement flats being built up Drakes Avenue, so we’ve got two lots of flats going up. Who is going to look after all these people?”

Councillor Fred Caygill said: “If it’s not going to be employment land I would rather see affordable housing on the site, rather than I think probably the fifth McCarthy and Stone development in the town, which we cannot sustain.”

EDDC will rule on planning permission.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/exmouth-can-t-sustain-more-retirement-flats-1-5235760

“Sainsbury’s faces anger over London plot with just 4% affordable homes”

683 homes on a prime London site and Sainsbury’s says it can afford for only 27 of them to be affordable … beggars belief. PLEASE, PLEASE get this government – which not only allows this sort of thing but encourages it – OUT!

“Sainsbury’s is facing housing campaigners’ anger over a proposed high-rise development surrounding an east London superstore that includes just 4% affordable homes.

Local opponents have described the supermarket’s proposal that just 27 of the 683 homes in the Ilford project will be available for affordable rent as “insulting”.

Planning experts for the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, have said the offer “falls substantially short” of City Hall’s plan to deliver 17,000 affordable homes per year – equivalent to 40% of the strategic housebuilding target.

It also falls well short of the London Borough of Redbridge’s target of 50% affordable housing across all new developments. There are currently over 8,000 households on the waiting list for affordable housing in the area, and more than 2,400 living in temporary accommodation.

The borough estimates it needs an extra 15,000 affordable homes by 2033. The case is set to go before a public inquiry starting on Tuesday, but the project appears likely to go ahead after the council withdrew its opposition on Saturday.

Sainsbury’s says the “maximum reasonable” amount of affordable housing it can include is 14 one- and two-bedroom flats, a dozen three-bedroom units and a single four-bedroom property. It estimates making a 20% profit selling off the private flats, according to planning documents. At current local prices that could exceed £40m.

It has described it as “a financially challenging project”, partly because of lost revenues to its retail operation when it closes its existing store for construction. It has also agreed to pay Redbridge £11.4m in community infrastructure levy, although this cannot be used to fund affordable housing.

But Meenakshi Sharma, co-founder of Ilford NOISE, a local residents group, said the amount of affordable housing being offered was “ridiculous and insulting”.

“People can’t believe it is 4% especially with all the publicity about the need for affordable housing,” she said. “And yet this still carries on. They don’t take any notice whatsoever. There’s a big housing need in the area. There are lots of people in temporary accommodation and lots of overcrowding.”

It is the latest in a series of high-profile battles over the financial viability of private housing schemes in the capital with councils seeking to maximise the number of cheaper homes in developments and developers seeking to minimise them. Previous disputes have centred on central London sites where developers have argued that the high cost of land limits their ability to subsidise affordable housing, but the row over the Ilford site suggests the issue is spreading to the outer London suburbs.

Affordable in this case means rents capped at 60% of market rates. Sainsbury’s is increasingly moving into housebuilding, using the space above its stores for housing. The Ilford project is its largest yet, but it has also built 650 homes around a store in Nine Elms and 500 homes above a store in Fulham, both in London.

Redbridge had originally rejected the application because of the lack of affordable housing and was planning to oppose it at the public inquiry, but it has now reversed its position and accepted the 4% offer.

On Friday, a spokeswoman for Redbridge told the Guardian: “We declined the application because of the huge gap between the borough’s expectations on affordable housing in new developments, and the proposals we were given. The capital is critically short of housing, especially affordable housing and we need to increase the stock in the borough.”

But on Saturday it told the planning inspector it was withdrawing its opposition and would not resist Sainsbury’s appeal against its original refusal.

In a letter to the planning inspectorate, the head of planning, Joanne Woodward, said it had agreed common ground on the financial viability of the project and a planning deal, although without any increase in the affordable housing included in the development.

“The council will attend on the first day of the inquiry to explain how the position it has now adopted has been reached,” she said.

Sainsbury’s said: “Our plans will help kick-start Ilford’s future regeneration by driving growth and job creation, as well as provide a broad mix of housing for local people. We look forward to the outcome of the appeal. We have agreed with the council to review the provision at certain points throughout the development, and if we can increase the number of affordable homes we will.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/15/sainsburys-faces-anger-over-london-plot-with-just-4-affordable-homes

Telegraph: “There are more than 200,000 homes sitting empty in England – worth a total of £43bn”

“In England there are 200,000 homes that have been sitting empty for more than six months, according to new Government figures. This is equivalent to £43bn worth of housing stock.

In London alone there were 19,845 homes sitting vacant for over six months last year, property that is worth £9.4bn, taking into account average prices.

Kensington and Chelsea has the capital’s highest number of homes which are vacant for more than six months with 1,399 empty, up 8.5pc on last year, and 22.7pc higher than 10 years ago.

This is likely due to the buy-to-leave phenomenon, where wealthy buyers snap up homes as an investment, and leave them empty while waiting for its value to increase.

Communities secretary Sajid Javid downplayed the role of such foreign buyers in exacerbating the housing crisis, saying the problem “isn’t as bad as some people think”. A Savills’ report found that the majority of homes bought by people based overseas were being rented out, rather than left empty. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/house-prices/200000-homes-sitting-empty-england-worth-total-43bn/

Devon planners told they are not needed – part 2

See post below this for a somewhat puzzling company (Wilson Planning and Architecture) which appears to talk like a big developer but seemingly performs as an architect for single dwellings.

Firstly, it does appear to be Torridge [where EDDC’s former planning supremo Kate Little was once in charge) the company is talking about:

“LAND WANTED THROUGHTOUT TORRIDGE FOR A DISTRICT WIDE PLANNING APPLICATION, WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT QUANTITY OF LAND BANKED ALREADY
We are actively seeking land sharing a common border with a village or town to assess the sites suitability for inclusion in a wider proposal to benefit the whole district. If you have land, email us the details and we’ll get back to you.”

(this has so far engendered at least 35 mostly less than supportive responses!)

Their earlier Facebook post (picked out by Andrew Lainton’s ‘Decisions, Decisions’ blog) seemed to imply that developers are now fully in charge in Devon, not planners, and that Local Plans are easily overcome, and indeed, the company has secured planning permission for individuals on contented sites.

They have many posts and tweets in similar vein on

https://www.facebook.com/WilsonPlanning1/

and

http://www.wilsonplanning.co.uk/

though some are more easy to understand than others.

For example on their home page they say:

“Having experience of working in the South West area for over twenty years, we have been able to build up significant and mutually respected relations with local authorities throughout the South West.”

but then it gets a bit confusing with the post we initially blogged:

“The land in our country and our district is irreplaceable. My [not sure who the ‘my’ is] proposal unites the land owners, puts differences aside and makes the actual most efficient use of the land humanly possible by collaboration. This proposal is for the good of each and every individual within the district. We have total flexibility whereas the local plan is rigid and doesn’t think on an actual district level, it’s fragmented and broken. Every single person should support this.”

to which a number of people have rightly responded on the lines “what on earth are you talking about?”!

Wilson Architecture and Planning appears to be in Bideford and seems to have started up in 2015 with George, Christopher and Paula Wilson (so presumably existed as some other entity prior to 2015 if they have been in business for over 20 years) though Christopher resigned in 2015 and was re-appointed again quite quickly:

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/qpveCxK_xjsdgXZfVIxID58EJlsDcssgW9cGvfbD_Kk/application-pdf

Not a developer as such, then, but appears to think that developers are now (or should be? difficult to work out!) in charge of the county.

Elucidation appreciated!

Is there an election coming up? Neil Parish suddenly gets interested in new house design

Suddenly, as a bolt from the ( Tory bright) blue, Parish rediscovers his inner planning officer! Is there a new housing estate planned near his gaffe in Somerset? Or is he desperately seeking pre-election brownie points, aware that he has perhaps spent too much time on farmers and dualling the A303?

“ … when Parliament returns in September, I will be holding a debate on New Housing Design.

As a former Planning Officer at District Council level, I know just how terrified some communities are of new development. Not because they are NIMBYs. But because they have seen how previous developments in the last 50 years have left communities with homes totally unsuitable for their area.

The 2017 Conservative manifesto, for all its controversy, pledged to build “better homes which match the quality of those we have inherited from previous generations”. This is a must.”

http://www.devonlive.com/news/property/homebuilders-must-held-account-independent-322281

Devon planners told to go home by developer – s/he has the county sewn up?

Not sure which district council this is (Teignbridge, Torridge?) but one developer appears to believe s/he runs the district and possibly even the county. As the blogger (Andrew Lainton – Decisions, Decisions blog) says, the alleged author may well regret his or her early morning post!

The wild (south) west of planning!

https://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2017/10/13/go-home-devon-planners-wilson-architects-and-planner-will-replace-all-your-local-plans/amp/

What is the view of independent councillors at the Local Government Association?

“Dear colleagues,

It has been good to see so many of you this month at our Group Party conferences and at the National Conference of Children and Adult Services. We also ran the first module of the Next Generation leadership course. All this adds skills and knowledge to the many talents of our [Independent] members and enables us to discuss issues and craft better solutions. The regional meetings also start shortly in every area, so we shall soon be at a place nearer you to hear your views first hand. Thank you to those who made it to the recent information and development seminar on campaigning, either in person or online in the webinar.

English councils have taken a reduction of £16m in Government Grant funding from income tax, only partly offset by the 50 per cent retention of local business rates. 166 councils will be expected to pay the Government instead, further centralising money and power, exactly contrary to the agreed direction. The LGA is working hard on this in their Budget submission. 97 per cent of councils signed up to the four year agreement, but on the promise that 100 per cent of the business rates would be retained in local government, now a broken promise. If you are one of the 166 councils, have you passed a motion to seek a better deal? Please let us know.

It leaves us short of funds to run services and makes it hard to support more people with increased housing. We have called long and hard for powers and funds to build the houses people can afford. It is bizarre that councils can borrow to build a swimming pool or a hotel, but not for much needed housing, regardless of a sound business case.

Instead of lifting this cap, Theresa May has announced a £2bn fund for social and/or “affordable” housing. If you rely on the media it is unclear whether this is intended for affordable or social housing. For example, the Sky News headline refers to affordable housing while the Guardian headline refers to social housing. Whichever it is for, it is only available to some councils and then only through a bidding process, ratheru than just giving us the funds. Her calculation of 5,000 homes a year, is based on an £80,000 subsidy per dwelling, but in areas of greatest demand, where she says she wants to direct the funding, that will fall woefully short. In its budget submission, the Chartered Institute of Housing recommended an extra £1.5bn every year to build 28,000 homes.

Sadly, although genuine funds are always welcome, the fund announced by the PM will not tackle the problem. We cannot plug the housing gap while the “right to buy” continues to drain our resources. In many councils, these have almost doubled this year, each sale taking two thirds of the value out of the public purse and into central government and private hands. We have to start to limit these expensive donations to what we can afford.

We cannot flood the market to bring house prices down while demand is unrestricted. Anyone in the world can buy here, and they do. Like a foreign holiday home, the first sale brings money into the community, but after that sales are often passed from one absent owner to another and sometimes left empty – more a place to house funds, rather than people.

We cannot make housing affordable while rents spiral without restraint and “affordable” is not linked to income, but to 80 per cent of commercial value. Many people will obviously continue to struggle. A housing rent statement is expected to confirm the move back to a maximum of 1 per cent above the consumer price index.

Meanwhile, homelessness is rising. I visited EMMAUS which provides an en suite room, regular meals, a community and a job for 720 homeless people. But it uses Housing Benefit that is about to be swallowed up in Universal Credit, an issue colleagues and I have raised at all levels. Our Vice President, Lord Victor Adebowale, CE of Turning Point was on Twitter this week supporting the work of community enterprise.

Greg Clarke, one the most thoughtful of our Ministers, responded brilliantly to my question recently, pointing out that growth could be an empty target if it did not provide balanced communities with work and housing to match.

However, DCLG has a consultation out now about increasing the pressure on councils to give permissions for housing, regardless of local ability to provide jobs, services, infrastructure such as roads and schools, and regardless of land availability without damage to the environment. Our Group’s Deputy Chairman, Rachel Eburne, is on the LGA board for the Environment, Economy, Housing and Transport. She pointed out that the cross party board was unanimous in its objection to the centralised steamroller approach.

The LGA has sought powers to prevent land-banking that prevents houses being built, while councils are required to compensate by giving ever more permissions, making a mockery of a planning system which is prevented from planning ahead. DCLG has not chosen to put any pressure on the developers to get on with it, despite our calls to give councils the ability to step in. Also the viability studies remain obscure and enable developers to reject the much-needed contributions to affordable housing or infrastructure. We cannot just look at housing on its own. It must be linked to economics, environment, and sustainability.

Leader of the Independent Group
Vice Chair of the Local Government Association
Lincolnshire County Councillor and North Kesteven District Councillor”

“Low-income tenants battle soaring rents”

These people are not feckless, work-shy or scroungers – they are trying hard to make ends meet:

Low-income tenants are now spending an average of 28% of their wages on rent, up from 21% in the mid-1990s, new research indicates. They have been hit by substantial cuts to housing benefit, with government support expected to fall “further and further behind” the cost of housing, says the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Over the same period of time, the proportion of people renting homes privately has increased from 8% to 19%. Average private rents have gone up 33%.

“Renters are paying considerably more for their homes than 20 years ago,” says the IFS analysis, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

“In real terms, the median private rent paid in London was 53% higher in the mid-2010s than in the mid-1990s, while in the rest of the country, it was 29% higher. Those rises mainly occurred in the late 1990s and early 2000s (in London) or the early and mid-2000s (elsewhere).
“Meanwhile, social housing rents have been consistently growing in real terms since the mid-1990s. …”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41601455

CPRE: wrong homes in wrong places

“New paper shows Government focus on meeting market demand is failing to provide homes people need

A new paper published today by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) argues that the Government’s continuing failure to prioritise genuine local housing needs over market demand will perpetuate the housing crisis while wasting precious countryside [1].

CPRE’s Needless Demand analyses the current method that councils use to plan for local housing and what is being built as a result. It finds that ‘housing need’ and ‘housing demand’ are being conflated in planning policy, with the result that sheer numbers matter more than type and tenure of housing.

CPRE had hoped that the Government’s new consultation on housing – Planning for the right homes in the right places, published last Thursday – would clearly distinguish between genuine local needs and market demand [2]. In calling for a standardised approach to identifying the needs of different social groups, the Government took some steps towards this.

Yet the general thrust of the Government’s plans was to argue that high-demand areas will have to accept more homes to improve the affordability of the housing market. CPRE sees this as neither building the right homes, nor building them in the right places. The likely result is profitable executive homes built on precious countryside in the south east, rather than building what communities across the country actually need. …”

http://www.cpre.org.uk/media-centre/latest-news-releases/item/4675-the-wrong-homes-in-the-wrong-places

Exmouth Water Sports Centre: Grenadier’s three days of consultation announced

Grenadier is holding consultation events at Ocean in Queen’s Drive on October 21 and 25, between 9am and 5pm, and on November 1 between 5pm and 9pm.

It says the proposed scheme would provide training and changing facilities alongside an outdoor events space and eateries, and is expected to provide services throughout the year.

The initial plans have been called “uninspiring” and protestors note that the illustrations do not show the Queens Drive road diversion as described by EDDC.

Developer “builds more homes as it cashes in on Government support”

It calls houses it sells for an average of £515,000 CHEAP!

“The FTSE 250 company builds both private homes for sale and undertakes regeneration of housing estates. It said that in the year to September 30 it built 53pc more houses for sale than the year before, from 783 to 1,197 homes, while completions in its ‘partnerships’ arm increased by 17pc.

It expects this division, which is being helped by Government grants and other policies, to soon be the biggest part of the business. Ian Sutcliffe, the chief executive, said: “This means we can grow the business faster because we’re not waiting behind a sales rate to build and it gives us greater resilience. When the market starts to turn [our output of affordable and rental homes] won’t slow down but could increase.”

The company added that customer demand had remained strong, boosted by low interest rates and the Help to Buy programme, which has just been extended by the Government, and which is used on 53pc of Countryside’s private sales.

Mr Sutcliffe added: “We’re really pleased with the Government reaffirming support for housing, and not just private for sale, but affordable too, which plays really well to our business.”

The average selling price of Countryside’s private homes for sale fell by 23pc to £515,000 in the period, as part of its plan to reduce exposure to the subdued higher end of the market, which is suffering from slower sales rates. Its order book increased by 8pc to £242.4m, and it boosted its land bank. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/10/11/countryside-builds-homes-cashes-government-support/

Affordable/social housing? Think again: it’s the developers gaining yet again

“While Theresa May was making headlines for all the wrong reasons, the government quietly announced an extra £2.5m “cash boost” for local authorities in England. But the problem is the money is almost entirely going to Tory-led county and district councils. And in some cases, the public won’t see the result of the extra cash for up to two decades.

Show me the money

On Tuesday 3 October, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) announced a “£2.5m cash boost to speed up the delivery of over 155,000 new homes in the proposed garden towns across England”. The DCLG, led by Communities Secretary Sajid Javid, said:

Nine locally-led garden town developments, from Bicester to Taunton, will each receive new funding to fast track the build out of these large housing projects… speeding up the progress of developments through additional dedicated resources and expertise.

Cash for the Tories’ mates?

The DCLG claims that garden towns are:

development[s] of more than 10,000 homes… [The] government is encouraging different and ambitious solutions to fix the housing market.

But what the DCLG failed to mention is just where the £2.5m was going. Research by The Canary shows that of the 22 county, district and borough councils involved in the scheme, 19 are Conservative controlled. Also, developments like the North Northants Garden Communities are being developed [pdf p39] by companies like Barratt Homes, which was caught up in a government lobbying scandal in 2014. The Guardian caught it, along with other developers, pressuring senior ministers to relax planning regulations. At the time the DCLG denied policy was being influenced by developers.

Not so picturesque

But there are other issues surrounding the Conservatives’ garden towns projects:

The North Essex Garden Communities project will only deliver [pdf p124] around 25% “affordable” homes, and no social housing at all.

Also, the developers of the scheme in Taunton have said that the 25% affordable home requirement is “not financially viable”.

The garden town in Didcot will not be fully completed [pdf p41-42] until at least 2031. And the construction of 3,000 homes in part of the Bicester development will not begin until 2031.

Campaign groups like Smart Growth UK claim [pdf p13] that none of the garden town projects are on new sites; they are just extensions of existing developments.

Research by consultancy firm Turley found that the garden towns are not located in areas with the greatest housing need. Also, the developments only provide “a relatively limited proportion” of the housing that the area needs.

The Campaign for Rural England has criticised garden towns as being “influenced” by Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP) which are driven by “aspirations for economic growth without considering the environment or social impacts”.

Garden towns will do little to reduce transport carbon emissions, as all of them [pdf p27] are near motorways, A roads or trunk roads.
None of the developments are in the most deprived areas of the England.
The government response?

In a statement the DCLG told The Canary:

lThis government wants to support local authorities and communities in developing their own vision for locally-led Garden Towns and Villages, taking account of local plans. We’re seeing good progress on housing delivery and we’re expecting that at least 25,000 homes will have been completed or started across our garden villages, towns and cities by 2020. We expect to see a good mix of tenures, including affordable rented, in our garden towns.l

A busted flush

The DCLG announcement came as some of the media declared that May had pledged in her conference speech to spend £2bn on “council housing”. But this is not strictly the case. Because May said:

“I can announce that we will invest an additional £2bn in affordable housing, taking the government’s total affordable housing budget to almost £9bn.

We will encourage councils as well as housing associations to bid for this money and provide certainty over future rent levels. And in those parts of the country where the need is greatest, allow homes to be built for social rent, well below market level.”

‘Affordable‘ housing is property where rent is 80% of the market rate. ‘Social‘ housing is property set at government-defined rents with a secure tenancy. And “encouraging” councils and housing associations to bid for money is not a guarantee of more council or social houses. So, May’s words seem to be more spin than substance.

As with many Conservative-led initiatives, this appears to be less about England’s urgent housing needs, and more about lining the pockets of developers; along with presenting a thinly veiled image of “acting” on the housing crisis. The government has dressed its £2.5m “cash boost” up as in some way helping solve England’s housing problem. When in reality, it is merely a small drop in a very expensive ocean.”

https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2017/10/04/while-all-eyes-were-on-theresa-may-the-government-just-quietly-bunged-2-5m-to-her-mates/

After freehold leases another scam: unadopted roads

Rumour has it there are many such roads in our part of the world …
http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/practical-advice-issued-for-sensible-parking-in-cranbrook-1-3999229
and
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/02/20/cranbrook-estate-rent-charges-another-developer-cash-cow/comment-page-1/

Owners of new homes are living on potholed roads with no street lights or rubbish collection as housebuilders and councils shun the responsibility for road maintenance.

Developers can save thousands by dodging the legal agreements that pass the roads on to local authority control, allowing builders to make roads narrower than usual, for example, and leaving homeowners to pay for the road’s upkeep or see it fall into disrepair.

People living on these unadopted streets have been forced to seek approval from road management committees before selling their homes and say it is harder to find buyers.

The government is to ban new houses from being sold on a leasehold basis to tackle onerous ground rent charges, yet owners of freehold houses on unadopted streets are being “held to ransom” by management companies that charge households up to £660 a year for road maintenance.

“We seem to be rewriting the rules on the way that roads are looked after,” says Derrick Chester, a councillor for Littlehampton and Arun in West Sussex.

Normally housebuilders have new roads “adopted” by the local authority through a legal agreement under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980, while the sewers underneath are covered by a similar Section 104 arrangement. When the road is left unadopted, homeowners on the road are responsible for its upkeep, and often the sewers and facilities such as playgrounds and parks.

Halima Ali, 30, and her husband bought their freehold four-bedroom home in Rochdale, Greater Manchester, from Persimmon, the developer, and believed that the road would later be adopted by the local council. Seven years later the streets around the 120 flats and houses remain unadopted and are deteriorating.

“The street lights have not been fixed for years, so there are areas that are in complete darkness; it is quite scary at night. A neighbour has had a problem with a sewer cover, which is in danger of collapse,” she says. “There is a children’s playground and, even though it is a public park, residents are required to maintain it. The public come and trash it and we can be made to pay for its maintenance, which is outrageous, and we are paying council tax on top.”

Another homeowner, 56, bought a three-bedroom freehold house in Kettering, Northamptonshire, from SDC Builders nine years ago. “At the time it was sold to me as a benefit, your own private neighbourhood, which would be passed into the residents’ control once the developer had left,” she says, “but, as an unadopted road, we have no street lighting, the bin men won’t come down and we are liable if anyone has an accident on the communal land.”

She has been trying to sell her home, but buyers pulled out when they found out about problems with the unadopted road.

She says that SDC Builders set up a limited company for managing the development, which was passed to residents, who elected two neighbours as directors. She was not aware that if she wanted to sell her property it would require the directors’ approval, and they have refused permission over what she says is a trivial disagreement about parking.

Christine Hereward, the head of planning at Pemberton Greenish, the law firm, says councils and highways authorities will only adopt roads if they are built to their standards. Section 38 agreements are also backed by a lump sum, sometimes running to hundreds of thousands of pounds, put down by the housing developer as a bond against the road not being finished properly. Developers receive their bond back only when the road is adopted. Ms Ali says: “Persimmon has not built our road to the required standard. The council won’t adopt it.”

Critics say developers are choosing not to enter into a section 38 agreement so that they can bypass local authority standards; roads can be narrower and car parking spaces smaller than regulations require, for example. They also save tens of thousands by not making the required bond payments.

In 2009 the government estimated that it would cost £3 billion to bring the country’s thousands of unadopted streets up to an adoptable standard. “Developers can achieve cost savings and make their lives easier. It does enable them to construct a substandard highway. It is a shortcut. To be fair to the developers, it is up to councils to enforce the standards,” says a source who did not want to be named. “There is very little sanction.”

The public come and trash the park and we can be made to pay for it
Mr Chester says councils and housebuilders are colluding over the issue because it saves both parties money. “It fits into the narrative about local authority budget cuts,” he says.

Phil Waller, a former construction manager who runs the website Brand-newhomes.co.uk, says: “I know of one development where a fire engine was unable to access a fire because of parked cars and the layout of the road.”

Unlike private roads, which are often gated, unadopted roads appear as ordinary streets. Whether the public has right of way can be uncertain. Mark Loveday, a barrister from Tanfield Chambers in London, says he frequently hears from homeowners who did not realise that their property was on an unadopted road. “What very often happens is nothing is done to the road for many years and it is only when potholes appear and someone living on the road says, ‘hang on, someone should be maintaining this road’”, he says.

Buyers of new-build homes ought to check the specifics of the road before the sale. “This is an important thing that should be flagged up by the solicitor,” says Mr Loveday. Those who are unsure about the status of their road can apply to the Land Registry for details.

Steve Turner of the Home Builders Federation, the trade association, says housebuilders are increasingly in dispute with local authorities and planning departments over the specifications of newly built roads, which is causing delays in local authorities adopting them. “The resolution typically involves the authority demanding more cash,” he says.

‘We may have to pay for the road upgrade’

Residents of unadopted streets often need to take out public liability insurance in case someone is injured on the street.

Keith Beattie used the government’s flagship Help to Buy scheme to buy his house in Haydock, near St Helens, Merseyside, from Westby Homes North West. In February 2014, when he moved in, the road was unfinished, with tarmac not properly laid and potholes filling up with water. The housebuilder went into administration in August. “The administrators have informed us that they won’t be completing the road and paths. St Helens council will not enter a section 38 until the road is brought to an adoptable standard, which it is not,” he says. “As residents, we may have to pay to have the road completed to the council’s standard.”

Source: Times, pay wall

London Mayor asks car manufacturers to contribute to anti-pollution measures

Why stop at London?

Greater Exeter is already polluted by cars streaming into and out of the cities and towns it covers. Who is going to tackle that?

Not our Local Enterprise Partnership, or the Greater Exeter partners that”s for sure – they both want more houses and more roads.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/06/sadiq-khan-asks-car-manufacturers-to-give-funds-towards-tackling-londons-toxic-air

“Wealthy families exploit £7billion Help to Buy home scheme with 40% of recipients on more than £50k a year”

“Wealthy families are exploiting a £7billion government scheme aimed at first-time buyers.

Help to Buy doles out taxpayers’ money so househunters can secure a mortgage.

Almost 135,000 families have taken advantage since its launch in 2013. But four in ten recipients were earning more than £50,000 a year and one in ten was on at least £80,000.

More than 5,000 purchasers had six-figure incomes. Help to Buy has also been highly lucrative for builders and their bosses, accounting for a third of private sales of new homes. …

Profits, share prices and executive bonuses have soared at firms including Barratt, Bellway and Taylor Wimpey. Jeff Fairburn, chief executive of Persimmon, where around half of sales are through Help to Buy, is in line for a £130million payout.

Academics said the scheme – given a £10billion further boost by Theresa May this week – was driving up house prices.

‘Help to Buy is like throwing petrol on to a bonfire,’ said Sam Bowman, of the Adam Smith Institute. ‘This scheme is being used by investment bankers and doctors. They are certainly not the sort of people who the taxpayer should be subsidising.

‘It is astonishing that households earning over £100,000 a year are using it.’

Luke Murphy of the Institute for Public Policy Research, another think-tank, said Help to Buy had made houses less affordable.

‘The two fundamental problems are that it pushes up property prices and that it is primarily helping those who would have been able to buy anyway,’ he added.

‘For those that can’t afford to purchase their own home, Help to Buy is pushing their dream further out of reach.’

A government survey found that 57 per cent of people using Help to Buy said they could have afforded to purchase a home without the scheme. One in five was not a first-time buyer at all.

Shelter said the scheme was making it progressively harder for renters to get on the housing ladder. ‘Extending Help to Buy is the wrong priority,’ said Polly Neate, the charity’s chief executive.

‘It has barely helped the first-time buyers it is targeted at and has done nothing to help those worst affected by our broken housing market.’

Mark Littlewood, of the Institute of Economic Affairs, said: ‘Not only does Help to Buy completely fail to recognise why the cost of housing is so high in the first place, it will also fail to benefit many of the people it’s designed to help. The policy, which encourages people to take on debt they cannot afford in order to boost demand and lead to a rise in house prices is improvident, reckless and wrong.’

The Treasury has insisted the extra £10billion of funding will help another 135,000 families ‘make their dream of owning a home a reality’. When the house is sold, the Government takes the same proportion of the sale price as it loaned at the time of the initial purchase. If the house price has gone up, the government makes money, if it has fallen, the taxpayer makes a loss.
There is also a Help to Buy Isa and a Help to Buy shared ownership scheme.
The five biggest stock market listed builders made combined profits of more than £3billion last year.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4957030/Wealthy-families-exploit-7billion-Help-Buy-home-scheme.html