“Housing money wasted ‘propping up rents’ “

“Taxpayers’ money is being wasted on “propping up rents” in a “failing housing market”, a report says.

The National Housing Federation report highlights how money spent on housing benefit rose from £16.6bn in the mid-1990s to £25.1bn in 2015-16.

It added that since 2011, no government money has been made available to build homes in England for low paid people to rent.

The government said building more homes was its absolute priority.
A Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) spokesman said it was continuing to work closely with the sector.

But the report from the federation, which represents housing associations and social landlords, says housing someone in a private rented property costs £21 a week more than housing them in a social rent property, on average.

Its chief executive David Orr said this was “poor value for the taxpayer” and had “a knock-on effect, with everyone struggling to rent or buy”.
“We know we need more, better quality social housing. And yet, rather than putting public money into building the homes we need, we are propping up rents in a failing market.” …”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-41309316

6 Somerset estate agents fined £370,000 for commission price-fixing

CMA fines estate agents cartel £370,000 for rate fixing

A group of estate agents who secretly conspired to keep their fees high to make “as much profit as possible” have been fined £370,000 for operating an illegal cartel.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said this was the second time in two-and-a-half years that it had taken enforcement action against estate agents, and this latest case raised concerns that the sector “does not properly understand the seriousness of anti-competitive conduct and the consequences of breaking competition law”.

The six estate agents, all based in the Burnham-on-Sea area of Somerset, had a meeting and agreed to fix their minimum commission rates at 1.5%, thereby denying local homeowners the chance of getting a better deal when selling their homes. Between them the agents dominated the local area: their market share was said to be potentially as high as 95%.

The CMA said it was publishing full details of the case to remind other agents to comply with the law and avoid being fined.

Penalties totalling £370,084 were imposed on five firms: Abbott and Frost Estate Agents Limited, Gary Berryman Estate Agents Ltd (and its ultimate parent company Warne Investments Limited), Greenslade Taylor Hunt, Saxons PS Limited, and West Coast Property Services (UK) Limited.

The sixth, Annagram Estates Limited, trading as CJ Hole, has not been fined as it was the first to confess its involvement in the arrangement and cooperated with the investigation.

The price-fixing cartel was formed in early 2014 when the estate agents met with each other to “have a chat about fees”.

Email evidence showed that the agents’ rationale was “With a bit of talking and cooperation between us, we all win!”. The correspondence also explained how “the aim of the meeting … will be to drive the fee level up to 1.5%” and “… it’s really important we all give it the priority it deserves (making as much as profit as possible!)”.

The estate agents took steps to ensure the minimum fee agreement was kept to by emailing each other when a specific issue arose, such as accusations of “cheating” on their agreement. Each business also took it in turn to “police” the cartel to make sure everyone was sticking to the agreement.

However, in December 2015 the CMA carried out searches of the estate agent offices and seized documents and digital material. Stephen Blake, senior director of cartel enforcement, said: “Cartels are a form of cheating. They are typically carried out in secret to make you think you are getting a fair deal, even though the businesses involved are conspiring to keep prices high.”

He added: “We have taken action against estate agents before and remain committed to tackling competition law issues in the sector.”

In May 2015 the CMA ruled that three members of an association of estate and letting agents, the association itself, and a newspaper publisher infringed competition law. That case involved the advertising of fees in the area around Fleet in Hampshire, and resulted in penalties totalling more than £735,000 being imposed.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/sep/18/cma-fines-cartel-of-estate-agents-rate-fixing-burnham-on-sea

“Open consultation: “Planning for the right homes in the right places: consultation proposals”

Owl says: seems the decision that we need MORE and MORE housing is taken as a given – and this is more an exercise on how and where they can be shoe-horned in:

This consultation closes at
11:45pm on 9 November 2017

Summary
Consultation on further measures set out in the housing white paper to boost housing supply in England.

“This consultation sets out a number of proposals to reform the planning system to increase the supply of new homes and increase local authority capacity to manage growth.

Proposals include:

a standard method for calculating local authorities’ housing need

how neighbourhood planning groups can have greater certainty on the level of housing need to plan for

a statement of common ground to improve how local authorities work together to meet housing and other needs across boundaries

making the use of viability assessments simpler, quicker and more transparent

increased planning application fees in those areas where local planning authorities are delivering the homes their communities need

The attached ‘Housing need consultation data table’ (see links below) sets out the housing need for each local planning authority using our proposed method, how many homes every place in the country is currently planning for, and, where available, how many homes they believe they need.

Alongside this consultation, the attached ‘Comprehensive registration programme: priority areas for land registration’ document lists those areas where Her Majesty’s Land Registry intends to prioritise the registration of ownership of all publicly held land.”

Click to access Planning_for_Homes_consultation_document.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/644783/Housing_Need_Consultation_Data_Table.xlsx

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/644786/120917_Priority_areas_for_land_registration.pdf

So, you’re thinking of buying a Knowle PegasusLife flat ….

Peggy Browning bought a new retirement flat in Devon [Exmouth] priced at £206,450 nine years ago, at the age of 89. After her death last year, the property passed to her two daughters. It is now on the market for £125,000 and is proving difficult to sell. Until a buyer is found, Lyn Field and her sister have to pay the £190 a month (£2,282 a year) management charges on the flat, even though it is empty.

Their story highlights the potential burden of retirement properties for buyers’ descendants. A significant number have lost value in recent years and come with hefty charges that fall on those who inherit the homes.

Sebastian O’Kelly of the campaign group Better Retirement Housing said: “Newly built retirement flats have an appalling reputation for value on resale. This family’s example is by no means unusual.”

Almost two-thirds of new retirement homes bought at a similar time to Browning’s were resold at a loss, research by the charity Elderly Accommodation Counsel (EAC) suggests. By contrast, the average price of a UK home has risen by more than 40%, Land Registry figures show.

Adam Hillier of EAC acknowledged that buyers were prepared to pay extra for new properties, but described the number of such homes that had fallen in value as “surprising”.

IN NUMBERS
£206,450 The value of Peggy Browning’s flat when she bought it in 2008
£125,000 The price her home is on the market for today
£190 Monthly charges that must be covered by her daughters

Additional costs typically include ground rent, paid to the freeholder, and exit fees, calculated as a percentage of the value when the flat is resold. Hillier said exit fees could be as high as 30% in developments offering care in the home and facilities such as shops and subsidised restaurants.

Browning bought her flat in the seaside town of Exmouth from McCarthy & Stone, Britain’s leading retirement home developer. The company said: “We are sorry to hear about the fall in value [of Mrs Browning’s property]. We recognise there are a small number of cases, particularly with our older properties and those sold in the recession, where the resale values of some apartments have not performed as well as we would have wished. This can be down to many reasons, including the performance of some local property markets. … ”

Sunday Times, pay wall

“Coastal communities among worst off in UK, report finds”

“The UK’s coastal communities are among the country’s worst off for earnings, employment, health and education, a report for the BBC has found.
The Social Market Foundation said the economic gap between coastal and non-coastal places has grown.

Average wages are £3,600 a year lower in these “pockets of deprivation”, according to the think tank.

Meanwhile, the minister for coastal communities has announced £40m in funding to help coastal areas.

The report, produced for BBC Breakfast, found that five of the 10 local authorities in the UK with the highest unemployment rate for the three months to March 2017 were coastal. These were Hartlepool, North Ayrshire, Torridge, Hastings, South Tyneside and Sunderland. It also found those in employment in coastal areas were likely to be paid less. Of the 98 local authorities on the coast, 85% had pay levels below the UK’s average in 2016.

… The report found the economic gap between coastal and non-coastal areas has widened from 23% to 26% from 1997 to 2015.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41141647

“Government spends four times more subsidising private housing than building affordable homes” – Study shows 79 per cent of total housing budget is spent on higher-cost homes for sale

“The CIH report reveals that the number of affordable homes being built with Government money has fallen by 50 per cent since 2010, from 56,000 to 28,000.

Instead, money has been diverted to help middle- and high-income households get on the housing ladder. For example, around £5bn of loans have been given to buyers via the Help to Buy Scheme established by George Osborne in 2013.

“The CIH called for a shift in spending to help people on lower incomes afford homes.

Its chief executive, Terrie Alafat, said: “People on lower incomes are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet as they experience the impact of stagnant wages, rising inflation and welfare reform cuts. These factors and the shift towards ‘affordable rent’ all mean that housing is becoming increasingly unaffordable in many parts of the country.

“We know we need to build more homes to get to grips with our national housing crisis – our UK Housing Review briefing highlights that annual supply remains at least 30,000 homes short of household growth. But it’s not just about building more homes; it’s about building more affordable homes for people on lower incomes. The Government needs to take an urgent look at rebalancing the housing budget and investing more in genuinely affordable homes for rent.

“The November Budget gives the Government a golden opportunity to rebalance investment away from the private sector towards affordable housing without having to increase its overall commitment to housing.”

Critics say that, because affordable homes can cost up to 80 per cent of market value, they are not affordable for millions of people on low incomes.

However, Conservative ministers have prioritised building affordable homes over social homes.

As a result, since 2010 the number of new social homes has plummeted by 97 per cent, from almost 37,000 in 2010 to just over 1,100 last year.

The CIH called for more investment to maintain existing social homes – a need it said had been exposed by the Grenfell disaster. It said the Decent Homes Standard, which is used to measure whether a property is of an acceptable quality, has not been updated for ten years and that funding for helping landlords to maintain their properties has been scrapped.

“Essentially, investment in the existing social stock has been left for landlords to finance from rents, while government has been cutting their rental income and will continue to do so for another two years”, the report said. …”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/affordable-housing-spending-private-tory-government-a7945616.html

Rebellion in the shires – no affordable homes in MY backyard (acres) say Tory MPs

“Proposals to force some of the most affluent parts of England to accept up to 40 per cent more homes are bringing the prime minister into conflict with Conservative MPs.

It emerged that Theresa May successfully fought against plans for new homes in her constituency just weeks before unveiling the increase. She supported the Save Poundfield campaign to stop dozens of new homes in Cookham, a greenfield site on the Thames in Berkshire.

Berkeley, the housebuilder, withdrew its planning application without giving a reason about two weeks ago. Mrs May is believed to support another development which is not in the green belt.

The plans announced on Thursday will force several cabinet ministers’ constituencies in the southeast to accept the maximum 40 per cent increase in housing. The number of homes that must be built will rise from 250,000 to 266,000 annually from April.

Crispin Blunt, the Conservative MP for Reigate in Surrey, told The Daily Telegraph: “We need to incentivise more homes in regions and cities in need of development, whilst ensuring that those areas of the country unsuitable for large-scale housing expansion are under less obligation.”

Cabinet ministers affected include James Brokenshire, Justine Greening, and David Lidington.”

Times, paywall

Sidmouth Drill Hall ‘propaganda’

Owl says: starting a consultation by illustrating it with a detailed schematic plan of 5 storey buildings is asking for trouble – duh!

If you then go on to construct those 5 storey buildings, it would get very murky indeed!

A campaigner determined to see Sidmouth’s Drill Hall considered as part of any regeneration plans for Port Royal has slammed ‘propaganda’ from project leaders.

Mary Walden-Till’s research into the history of the eastern town has covered much of the same ground as the scoping study commissioned by landowners Sidmouth Town Council (STC) and East Devon District Council (EDDC).

Town clerk Christopher Holland and Councillor Jeff Turner sat down with the Herald in a bid to reassure residents nothing has yet been decided – but Ms Walden-Till took issue with several of the points they raised.

She raised: “I know that both Cllr Turner and Mr Holland are committed to doing what they think is the best for Sidmouth so I was very disappointed to read something in the Herald (‘Port Royal could see massive development – or nothing at all’) which appeared to be propaganda rather than unadorned fact.

“If we want the best outcome for the town, we all need to make sure we are not playing games, even accidentally. If they can’t avoid ‘spin’ then they can’t claim to be open-minded on the issue. It is a matter of fact that both of them are on record as being vehemently opposed to preserving the Drill Hall.

“If the starting point is that the Drill Hall must be demolished, then it has to be accepted that it is unlikely that a developer would be interested in such a small plot, so then the search begin for a way to make it worth a developer’s time.

As a designer, it is important to me to start a project with no preconceptions about what should be removed or retained in order to achieve the desired result.

“The scoping exercise consultants should have started from the same point, and we should be able to see that they had considered a range of ways of increasing what Port Royal can offer to the town.

“This development should be about the town and not about ways of making money for the district as a whole. The district has already benefitted from Sidmouth’s loss in far too many circumstances: for example the loss of Fortfield Hotel to expensive apartments, the Section 106 money from which went to the district not solely to Sidmouth, and the upcoming loss of the council jobs at the Knowle, moving employment from Sidmouth to other areas of the district.

“To suggest that reusing the Drill Hall will of necessity ‘take away from other users’ of Port Royal is clearly ridiculous. How would preserving what is there at the same time reduce what is there?”

In a joint statement, Mr Holland and Cllr Turner said: “STC and EDDC would like to reiterate the aims of the scoping study. It is to research, investigate and report on the opportunities and constraints of improving the whole important Port Royal area.

“The councils have yet to receive the independent consultant’s Scoping Study to even begin discussing issues such as detailed designs, which would come further along in the project.

“The study is the start of a process that would, if supported by the councils, involve a much more detailed visioning for future consideration.

“To champion a single building at this stage which is a small part of a much larger area and be in constant opposition to a simple study which only aims to help inform councillors is not helpful.

“Members of both councils will decide how and if to proceed once the scoping study report is presented to them.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/drill-hall-campaigner-hits-out-at-port-royal-propaganda-1-5194185

How do you spot a development site? Look for a road tunnel!

This article contains a useful overview of the Clyst Honiton bypass tunnel, whose lights are being replaced by LEDs.

But the accompanying aerial view of it is the more interesting photo:

http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/clyst-honiton-bypass-tunnel-near-463174

It is a “Growth Point” development site

http://www.exetersciencepark.co.uk/news-events/25-news/77-clyst-honiton-bypass

and, obviously, a new road could not interfere with that given its access to vastly more development land a la Lidl and Skypark!

With the airport and other developments in “Greater Exeter”, will Cranbrook become one of the most polluted places in Devon?

Budleigh Salterton neighbourhood plan passes final hurdle

“Budleigh Neighbourhood Plan gets 95 per cent approval

Budleigh Salterton is set to become the first town in East Devon to have their neighbourhood plan implimented after 95 per cent voted in favour of adopting the blueprint document

The Budleigh Salterton community has given its backing to a plan which lays out how the town could look in the future.

Residents went to the polls on Wednesday (September 6) on Budleigh’s Neighbourhood Plan.

Voters were asked to say yes or no to the question: ‘Do you want East Devon District Council (EDDC) to use the Neighbourhood Plan (NP) for Budleigh Salterton to help decide planning applications in the neighbourhood area?

Some 94.7 per cent of the 1,320 who voted said yes while 5.3 per cent voted no with two ballot papers spoiled. There was a turnout of 31 per cent.

The plan will now go back to EDDC cabinet to me ‘made’. This will make Budleigh the first town in East Devon to successfully complete the Neighbourhood Plan process.

When the document gets rubber-stamped by EDDC, it will have to be referred to alongside the East Devon Local Plan, when any planning applications are considered.

Town mayor Alan Dent said: “This will help control future development, will support businesses and will really help in securing a viable future for the town.

“The NP will also protect the character and history of Budleigh which is loved and admired by both residents and visitors. … ”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/buldiegh-nieghbourhood-plan-referendum-approval-1-5189761

Air pollution – citizen fights back

“An environmental campaigner is to bring a legal challenge over a city council’s adoption of its Local Plan, claiming that it is in breach of procedural requirements with regard to compliance with air pollution law.
The Canterbury District Local Plan proposes 16,000 new houses, mostly near Canterbury, on farmland outside the city boundary, with new slip roads, relief roads and further infrastructure.

The claimant, Emily Shirley, argues that this will result in additional car journeys of up to 112,000 daily, adding significantly to Canterbury’s roads.

Represented by law firm Leigh Day, she claims that the impact on air pollution was not properly considered by Canterbury City Council when adopting the plan and that the local authority failed to assess the cumulative effects of the proposed developments on the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) as required by the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004.

Shirley is crowd funding the case through the CrowdJustice website. She said: “Air pollution is the invisible killer. Everyone knows how congested Canterbury’s roads are but few are aware of the dangers of air pollution. For many years, individuals, amenity groups and parish councils have tried to get air pollution reduction measures implemented in Canterbury without success. Challenging the Adopted Canterbury Local Plan in the High Court will hopefully lead to a Plan that will reduce the unlawful air pollution levels as soon as possible.”

Rowan Smith, solicitor at Leigh Day, said: “With the dangers of air pollution so much of a zeitgeist issue, it is unfathomable that the City Council is prepared to risk making things worse in its area. You only have to look at the UK’s recent commitment to ban the sale of all diesel and petrol vehicles from 2040 to realise how out of step these plans are with current low carbon trends in policy-making. The legal errors we say it has made in formulating its plans only further demonstrate how imperative it is that the City Council goes back to the drawing board.”

Canterbury City Council has been approached for comment.

Judgment is meanwhile awaited in an earlier legal challenge on air pollution grounds in Canterbury this year. This challenge, also involving Shirley – Shirley & Rundell vs Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government – was heard in the High Court in July 2017. This case concerned the failure of the Secretary of State to call in a large planning application of 4,000 houses on air pollution grounds.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php

Funding opportunities for coastal communities

Unfortunately, in terms of regeneration £40m doesn’t go very far.

“£40m for new coastal funding round

Ministers have confirmed that £40m will be available through the next round of a fund to support coastal communities. The government has already provided £170m for 278 projects around the country since the Coastal Communities Fund was launched in 2012. Coastal communities minister Jake Berry said: “This year is already looking like another record year for staycations and our latest round of funding will help attract even more visitors to the great British coast so that our coastal communities can thrive.”

http://www.room151.co.uk/151-news/news-roundup-pwlb-borrowing-on-the-rise-basildon-slams-javid-lga-attempts-to-kick-start-devolution/

“Britain flouting duty to protect citizens from toxic air pollution – UN”

“… “Air pollution continues to plague the UK,” he said. “I am alarmed that despite repeated judicial instruction, the UK government continues to flout its duty to ensure adequate air quality and protect the rights to life and health of its citizens. It has violated its obligations.” …

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/10/uk-flouting-duty-to-cut-air-pollution-deaths-says-un-human-rights-report

Thinking of buying a new, luxury retirement home? Think again

Buyer beware – that’s the message from the BBC Money Box Live programme today at midday. When buying a luxury retirement property a large part of your purchase price can disappear into thin air almost immediately!

“Half of new-build retirement homes sell at a loss.

Around half of new build retirement homes sold during a 10-year period were later re-sold at a loss, according to exclusive research for the BBC.
The research by the Elderly Accommodation Counsel charity found falls in value could be more than 50%.

It looked at thousands of Land Registry records for resale details of homes built between 1998 and 2012. The charity found many properties built after 2002 had underperformed the general property market.

Adam Hillier of the Elderly Accommodation Counsel (EAC), which advises people considering retirement housing, called the scale of the falls “startling”.

Steep falls

According to the research, 51% of retirement properties built and sold between 2000 and 2010, and then sold again between 2006 and 2016, suffered a loss in value. For those properties which declined in value, the average loss was 17%. For some, the falls are much steeper.

The EAC found that for new build retirement properties sold between 2005 and 2007, and then resold between 2012 and 2014, more than four fifths fell in value. The average loss for these properties was 25%.

Mr Hillier said it was unclear why it was happening. “It’s the million dollar question, really. “I think part of it is the new build premium – especially when it comes to retirement housing,” he said. Another reason could be under-investment from developers once they have built the properties, he said.

“The traditional model was to hand over these properties to a managing agent to run them,” he said. “Does the developer have that much of an interest in investing in the property?” The trend has continued in recent years too. For new retirement properties sold between 2008 and 2010, and then resold between 2015 and 2017, nearly two thirds were sold for less than the purchase price. The average loss here was 19%.

Money Box spoke to the residents of one development – Burlington Court, in Bridlington in East Yorkshire – where prices have more than halved since it was first built around a decade ago.

According to Land Registry figures, one flat in Burlington Court, bought new in 2006 for £166,000, was resold for just £70,000 in 2014. Another two bedroom apartment bought for £140,000, in 2008, was sold last year for £58,000.

Ken, 91, bought his flat in Burlington Court for around £180,000 in 2008.
“I thought when I bought this that if I lived for another five or six years, my children would get maybe £190,000 for it,” he said. “In actual fact they’ll be lucky to get £70,000 for it, maybe even £60,000. “It’s criminal really. When I mention it other people, they say: ‘Why should you worry, you won’t be here?’ “But I do feel my son and daughter have lost out. It’s a lot of money,” he added.

Margarete, 92, paid nearly £150,000 for her flat eleven years ago. She sold a detached bungalow in York. Like most residents of Burlington Court, she says it’s a nice place to live, with a nice community of people. But Margarete says she’s always wanted to move back to Germany, where she was born. However the value of her property means that isn’t now an option.

“My friends in Germany always wanted me to go back.” “But if I get £40,000 for this flat I’d be lucky. I couldn’t afford to go back to Germany and buy a place there.”

Incentives

The largest developer of retirement homes, McCarthy and Stone, told the BBC that the numbers did not include incentives given to the original buyers, which effectively lowers the purchase price. The company also said it had worked hard to increase resale values in recent years, including extending leases, retaining management of developments, and providing sales support.
“The vast majority of our retirement apartments increase in value on resale”, McCarthy and Stone told the BBC in a statement.

“It is also important to understand that the value of specialist retirement housing is not purely financial. It improves lives, provides peace of mind, care and support and ultimately helps older people maintain their independence.

“However, we recognise that there are a small number of cases, particularly with our older properties, where resale values of some apartments haven’t performed as we would have wished. This can be down to many reasons, including the performance of some local property markets.”
McCarthy and Stone, which also built Burlington Court, said resale values in that particular development had been hit by a lack of car parking spaces and a difficult local property market.

‘Seriously wrong’

Sebastian O’Kelly, director of BetterRetirementHousing.com, said: “Dismal resale prices for retirement properties help explain why only 2% of over-65s live in designated retirement properties – far less than the US or Australia. “Something is seriously wrong with the business model that these flats fall so drastically in value.

“The retirement housing sector will not expand notably until this is addressed. That would be more effective than attempting to deny that the problem exists.”

Listen to the full report on Money Box, midday on Saturday 9 September on BBC Radio 4.”

PegasusLife one-bed properties at Knowle could start at anything from £300,000 – £400,000 at their current prices. At their development in Cheltenham, one bed apartments start at £447,950. Service charges can start in the high thousands per year.

https://www.pegasuslife.co.uk/portfolio/onebayshillrd-cheltenham?gclid=CjwKEAjwos7NBRCW0uTH59WPp1ESJADKk0J7tjhYgbZJtyWb_Yh9_aSvbzYMEUyOMeif0jANw2xGRRoCiEjw_wcB

Closer to home, Millbrook Village in Exeter comes in at a very cheap (!)£325,000 for one bedroom, but this may be because sales appear to have been somewhat slow:

http://www.millbrookvillage.co.uk/

The answer to all our problems? Gardening, say Tory MPs

In case you think that all our MPs are interested in is Brexit, well, it’s not true. Some of them have MUCH more important things to do:

“Encouraging gardening needs to be put at the heart of Government policy making, Tory MPs have said in a report backed by Theresa May.

A 56-page report from the Conservative Environment Network said that “getting more people gardening” has to be part of a “truly holistic, cross departmental, high impact policy”.

The report, which has been sent to Cabinet ministers, said encouraging gardening should be adopted as a policy by a range of government departments including health, justice, defence, local government and education.

Gardening could help to cut childhood obesity, improve public spaces, help people deal with mental stress and provide purpose for prisoners in jails.

Tory MP Rebecca Pow – a former BBC, ITV and C4 reporter who specialised in the environment, farming and gardening – wrote in the report: “Gardens, gardening, and horticultural skills can have a striking effect on our communities.

“Getting more people gardening is a truly holistic, cross departmental, high impact policy.” …

… “To get the full benefits that the power of plants can provide our communities with, especially in urban areas, requires an interlinked approach and now is the time to sow those seeds and spread those roots for the greater good.” …

The Prime Minister said the report “raised the health benefits of green space, which are becoming ever more recognised”.

She pledged that Defra “will consider the evidence within that report and will focus on what can be done to ensure that the benefits provided by access to green space are available to all segments of society”.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/08/put-gardening-heart-policy-making-tory-mps-tell-whitehall-theresa/

Just to point out a few things:

Many people don’t even have houses to live in, let alone gardens to tend so could we perhaps sort that out first?

Public open spaces and parks are being concreted over by developers (including Clinton Devon Estates land grab of the Budleigh Hospital Garden)

Most new builds have gardens the size of pocket handkerchiefs full of builders rubble
(Cranbrook is a good example where gardens are six concrete paving slabs and a narrow strip of green)

Growth gets sucked up into profits as south west wages now more than 30% behind south east

It’s what we all suspected – money goes into profits not wages – yet who are the people in charge of our LEP? Those who suck up those profits! That’s the market economy.

“The UK is the most geographically unbalanced economy in Europe and needs radical reform, an IPPR think-tank report has concluded.

The study highlighted that 40% of the countries output is produced in London and the South East and average incomes in the North West, South West, West Midlands and Wales are now more than 30% lower than in London. …

It stated gains from growth have gone largely into profits rather than earnings, and the UK economy is now in the longest period of pay stagnation for 150 years.

IPPR noted that though GDP per head has risen by 12% since 2010, average earnings per employee have fallen by 6%.

Since the 1970s the share of national income which has gone to wages has gradually declined, from 80% to 73%, while the share going to profits has increased.

The wage share is now the lowest it has been since the second world war, said the report.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/09/uk-most-geographically-unbalanced-economy-europe

Bovis: another “poor” developer upping dividends

“The City gave the thumbs-up to new boss Greg Fitzgerald’s “small is beautiful” turnaround plans for struggling Bovis Homes on Thursday, marking the shares up 8% despite a slump in first-half profits.

Bovis sacked its previous chief executive David Ritchie in January after profit warnings and controversy over “bribes” for buyers to move into barely finished homes — triggering opportunisitic takeover bids from rivals Redrow and Galliford Try.

Fitzgerald’s medicine involves rebuilding the business’s scarred reputation with customers and scaling back its growth plans, now aiming to sell 4000 homes a year instead of 6000 by 2020.

The firm has also shed 120 jobs to cut costs by merging two of its regional businesses.

But the payouts are getting bigger, with investors in line for £180 million in special dividends, funded by cutting exposure and investment on its larger sites, and selling some developments.

The ordinary dividend is jacked up 5% this year, with the promise of an extra 20% in 2018.

Shares jumped 8% or 85.7p to 1140p despite a 31% slide in profits to £42.7 million in the first half of the year.

The ex-Galliford boss, who took over in April, said the housebuilder’s woes were “very fixable”.

He said: “I’ve got a great hand of cards, we’ve just got to play that hand of cards better than we have in the past.

“Our strategy represents the minimal risk for the maximum shareholder return. Where Bovis is at the moment, that’s the right thing to do instead of charging on to get to 10,000 units. We’re well on the way to fixing Bovis but it is going to take more than a day.”

Jefferies analyst Anthony Codling called the strategy a “new dawn” and upgraded his estimates for the firm’s annual profits.”

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/new-bovis-chief-whets-city-appetite-for-turnaround-with-divi-bonanza-a3629156.html

Clinton Devon Estates and Budleigh Hospital Garden – a PR nightmare for today and tomorrow!

In May 2017 Clinton Devon Estates (CDE) ran an online survey which was covered by Owl. Questions were heavily weighted towards suitably glowing answers, such as:

“How credible do you think “We pledge to do today what is right for tomorrow” is as a statement from Clinton Devon Estates?”

In July 2017 Owl then ran the story of how CDE had made a last minute land grab by submitting an outline planning permission to develop half of the Budleigh Hospital Garden for two small houses. The Neighbourhood Planning team had nominated the garden as an historic open green space and the new health hub hoped to use it as an outdoor therapeutic area. As stakeholders in the Neighbourhood Plan CDE had been consulted at all stages but had not divulged their plans for the space.

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/07/29/budleigh-neighbourhood-plan-group-apologises-for-being-unable-to-save-hospital-garden-after-being-outmaneuvered-by-clinton-devon-estates/

CDE followed this by launching an appeal on the grounds that EDDC had not determined the application within the prescribed time. This appeal has now been roundly rejected.

A planning inspector has ruled against CDE on the appeal, and it seems CDE might now have to think of other ways to wheedle their way our hearts and minds.

Here is the text of a Budleigh Journal article on the appeal:

“A controversial planning application which sought to build houses on a section of Budleigh Salterton green space has been rejected at appeal.

The outline application, for means of access, proposed two houses to be built on half of the former hospital gardens, in Boucher Road.

Applicant Clinton Devon Estates (CDE) appealed to the planning inspectorate against the length of time it had taken East Devon District Council to reach a decision on the plan.

But planning inspector Andy Harwood ruled that the appeal should be dismissed and that the proposal was rejected.

In his report he said: “The retention of the remaining garden would continue to meet some needs for local people. It would continue to be a pleasant landscaped area. “However, it is not demonstrated how the space would be enhanced by the proposal.”

Mr Harwood also pointed out that under the East Devon Local Plan, development should not involve the loss of land of recreational value.

The whole garden had been earmarked for activities relating to the health and wellbeing hub, due to open at the former hospital later this year.

In response to the ruling, a CDE spokesman said: “We have noted the inspector’s report and will be considering our options in due course.”

Town council planning committee chairman Courtney Richards said: “That land was designated an open space in our Neighbourhood Plan. I am glad to see that will be retained for open space in the town.

“Having that open space available for people at the hub will be of tremendous benefit.”

See the full Inspector’s decision here:

Click to access obj.pdf

The somewhat chilling phrase that CDE are now “considering their options” should no doubt include taking the views of the local community into account when making decisions and pledging to do today what is right for tomorrow.

Owl recollects the First Law of Holes that states that: “if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging”!

Help-to-buy helps developers much more than buyers

Owl says: But isn’t that what this government and our council wants?

Housebuilder Redrow says it’s looking forward to working with government to consider the future of the help-to-buy subsidy scheme beyond 2021. You bet it is. Since former chancellor George Osborne in 2013 committed to helping homebuyers purchase new properties with a deposit of only 5%, Redrow has reported record profits every year.

The latest annual numbers – and a share price that has improved threefold since 2013 – shows how wonderful life has become for big housebuilders. You’d almost think Redrow was producing high-tech consumer gadgets. Operating margins are running at 19% and return on capital employed has hit 26%. About 40% of its private sales are to help-to-buy purchases, which is typical for the sector.

After an improvement of a quarter in pre-tax profits to £315m, the company hiked its dividend by 70% and said there’s plenty left in the tank. Profits will rise to about £430m by 2020 and the dividend can be almost doubled again “subject to market conditions remaining unchanged”.

The obvious question is why on earth the government, having spent £4.6bn already, would wish to continue with help to buy after 2021. Yes, the scheme has allowed some people to buy homes who would not otherwise have been able to do so, but the clearest beneficiaries of the stimulus to prices have been housebuilders’ shareholders and executives.

Back in 2013, one justification was the limp state of the mortgage market. That no longer applies. The banks are well-capitalised, high loan-to-value mortgages have returned and the Bank of England these days frets about too much lending, not too little.

Osborne’s other argument was that more demand for houses would increase supply. The numbers suggest modest success, even if some of the increase would have happened anyway. But the point now is that withdrawing help to buy overnight wouldn’t obviously cause the housebuilders to down tools for fear that non-subsidised houses would sell for slightly less. A return of capital of 26% is splendid but it is still worth getting out of bed for 15%.

Before ministers commit to renewing help to buy on the same terms, they should recall the warning by Lord King, former governor of the Bank of England, in 2014: “This scheme is a little too close for comfort to a general scheme to guarantee mortgages. We had a very healthy mortgage market with competing lenders attracting borrowers before the crisis, and we need to get back to that healthy mortgage market … We mustn’t let this scheme turn into a permanent scheme.”

Ditching help to buy outright in 2021 may be undesirable since there is a fair case that first-time buyers still deserve a leg-up. But, as even wiser housebuilders concede, too many houses qualify for help to buy. Current ceilings are set at £600,000 and 20% of the value of mortgage. Both figures could usefully be cut in half before the scheme becomes an addiction.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2017/sep/05/help-to-buy-scheme-buyers-builders-subsidy