Alternative vision for Sidmouth’s Port Royal

To see drawings link to the original link at the end of this post.

Sidmouth Town Council and East Devon District Council (EDDC) have released a preliminary idea that shows the lifeboat station, sailing club and other facilities incorporated into a single building that could stand five storeys high.

Graham Cooper’s alternative vision – created in a personal capacity – is to build on what is there, rather than ‘destroy’ Sidmouth’s heritage as a fishing town and block views of the sea.

Mr Cooper, who entered an architecture competition last year to ‘re-imagine’ Port Royal, said: “In everybody’s mind, five storeys is too large. EDDC might say that it’s just an idea, but that’s what it’s put into the public domain as a ‘proposal’. It’s not ‘scaremongering’ to suggest it’s almost like a Trojan horse.

“The consultants are only proposing to include community assets that are already there. It doesn’t add anything, except holiday apartments.

“We want other options. An alternative would be to make incremental changes – to refurbish and repurpose what’s there.

“A lot of people have said there should be a performance area, but we already have the Drill Hall.

“The fishing area is a piece of history. That fishing compound is what eastern town used to be like.

“A big building is a form of cultural cleansing – it’s clearing out the heritage that is there. You shouldn’t destroy things unless you have a better solution.”

Mr Cooper proposed adding a further floor and balcony to the sailing club, with canopies extending over the boat yard and to the east of the Drill Hall linking it to the toilets.

The maximum height would be below that of Trinity Court, the four-storey block adjacent.

Mr Cooper added: “I think the Drill Hall would make a great flexible event space, café and bar, with a gallery in the basement shooting range.

“The top floor added to the sailing club would make a fabulous fish restaurant!”

In response, Sidmouth Town Council and EDDC said in a joint statement: “We are currently consulting on the findings of the independent consultants and we must stress that there are no proposals, no plans and no schemes currently being put forward.

“We are delighted to have so far received 159 responses to the consultation and responses are welcome from the public up to the closing date of Monday, July 31.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/graham-shares-alternative-vision-for-port-royal-1-5129254

Are Cranbrook’s streets too narrow?

The fire service has already said so:
http://www.devonlive.com/service-issue-warning-inconsiderate-cranbrook/story-29053868-detail/story.html

and a highly critical report mentioned the problem of cars parked in streets – one which has not gone away:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/09/14/what-mainstream-media-isnt-telling-you-about-that-dcc-cranbrook-report/

Now the bus company with the near monopoly in Devon, and which sends only single-decker buses through the town, issues a warning:

“Residents on newly built housing estates are being cut off from the bus network because developers are failing to construct wide enough roads, according to public transport bosses.

One of Britain’s biggest operators warned that buses were being forced to avoid many estates amid concerns over narrow roads, sharp bends, overzealous traffic calming and parked cars.

Stagecoach said that high-density developments were being built with roads only 6m wide, when operators needed 6.5m to allow two buses to pass without clipping wing mirrors.

It blamed planning rules that have cut road widths or pushed the layout of sharp bends to keep car speeds down.

The company also said that national guidelines introduced by Labour 17 years ago intended to clear roads of cars by providing less off-street parking had backfired, with many motorists leaving vehicles on the street.

Stagecoach has issued its own guidance to councils, urging them to build roads at least 6.5m wide, with sweeping bends and off-street parking provided.

It also said that “shared space” schemes that seek to declutter streets by stripping out kerbs, road markings and traffic signs should be redesigned to “avoid buses straying into areas intended mainly for pedestrians”.

Nick Small, Stagecoach’s head of strategic development for the south, said examples included the Shilton Park estate in Carterton, Oxfordshire, where the company could not operate a full-size bus, and the Kingsway development, Gloucester, which had areas “impenetrable by buses”.

Daniel Carey-Dawes, a senior infrastructure campaigner at the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said: “Bad design will lock our towns and countryside into toxic congestion and car dependency for decades.”

Martin Tett, housing and transport spokesman for the Local Government Association, said: “We will be looking closely at this blueprint and continuing to work hard to deliver places where our communities can thrive.”

Source: The Times (pay wall)

Budleigh Neighbourhood Plan group apologises for being unable to save hospital garden after being outmaneuvered by Clinton Devon Estates

“A neighbourhood plan focus group has apologised to the Budleigh Salterton community after a bid to save the entire hospital garden from development failed.

The former hospital garden, in Boucher Road, had been listed in the draft neighbourhood plan as one of the key green spaces to be protected from future development.

It had also previously been earmarked for health and wellbeing activities for a new hub being built on the site of the former hospital.

In February this year, landowner Clinton Devon Estates (CDE) put in a planning application to build two houses on half of the site, keeping the other half as a public-access garden.

An independent examiner assessing the town’s draft neighbourhood plan requested more information clarifying the importance of the hospital garden.
Chartered town planners Bell Cornwell, on behalf of CDE, wrote a letter to the examiner confirming that the planned public access garden would be “more than adequate” for hub activities.

One of the examiner’s alterations to the plan, ratified by the district council, was that the area of protected green space in the garden be reduced by half.

Nicola Daniel, on behalf of the Budleigh Neighbourhood Plan Built and Natural Environment Focus Group, has apologised for not being able to secure the whole garden for the town.

In a letter to the Journal (see page 20), she said: “By the time we saw this letter it was too late to challenge it. We were outmanoeuvred.
“Bell Cornwell was given more weight than the expert knowledge of the medical practitioners involved in setting up the hub, who know the full benefits of having the entire garden as a facility for the health and wellbeing hub and its success.”

In response, a CDE spokesman said: “CDE has for many years supported the NHS in Budleigh Salterton and, more recently, the Budleigh Salterton Hospital League of Friends, by making available the garden area off Boucher Road.
“We submitted proposals to East Devon District Council which include keeping half the garden, nearest the site of the new health hub, as a garden which would be open to the public for the first time.

“Our position has not changed since the application was submitted.”

Prince Charles gets his own (beautiful?) way with his new south-west town

Owl says: bet this wouldn’t happen in the Republic of East Devon! And wonders if a “zombie town” of which they speak might be on our own doorstep!

Jerome Starkey
http://www.thetimes.co.uk

“Three of Britain’s biggest housebuilders have lost an attempt to change the plans for a garden town designed by Prince Charles’s architects, amid claims that the builders’ proposals would have created a “zombie town”.

The Sherford Valley, on the outskirts of Plymouth, had been earmarked for 5,500 new homes and was designed by the Prince’s Foundation to create an eco-friendly pedestrian community like Poundbury in Dorset.

Bovis Homes, Linden Homes and Taylor Wimpey, which bought the site in 2014, had applied to Plymouth council to water down the design rules and change Prince Charles’s plan so that they could build cheaper homes more quickly.
Councillors said that the move would have created a “zombie town” with “years of planning thrown out of the window” and rejected their application.
The builders had built fewer than 300 of the homes when they applied to amend the town code and master plan.

“Instead of having the highest standard of new homes, we will instead have a rather large housing estate,” Vivien Pengelly, a councillor, said.
The housebuilders said that they were asking for minor changes that would not have affected the quality of homes. However, Ben Bolgar, a director of the Prince’s Foundation, said that they were trying to strip out commitments to quality.

He said that Sherford was designed to prove that Prince Charles’s model village of Poundbury, near Dorchester, could work on a larger scale but that the builders were determined to “build their normal boxes”.

The design code meant that the builders had to produce a range of houses, built from local materials, which were not more than 500m from the shops. Cars had to be parked in hidden courtyards rather than on the street to encourage people to walk.

Mr Bolgar said that the builders’ plans would have transformed Sherford into a “rubbish housing estate”.

Jonny Morris, a councillor, said that he did not want Sherford to end up like the sort of place you would see “in the aftermath of a zombie apocalypse”.

Housing companies applied to ditch a town code drawn up 13 years ago and replace it with a set of “fundamental principles” which they said allowed them greater flexibility over materials and construction methods.

“This is simply far too premature to take such a radical act, disregarding all those measures that allowed permission to be granted in the first place,” Nick Kelly, the deputy lord mayor, said. “We want development but everybody thinks, ‘This is what we’re going to get’, and at the stroke of a pen years of planning and assurances go out of the window.”

Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, who wrote a report in 2015 calling for dozens of new garden villages, said that Sherford had an excellent town plan and was “overwhelmingly supported by the local community” because of its commitment to quality. “The housebuilders knew what they were signing up to. There should really be no question about what will be delivered,” he said.”

Times (paywall)

BBC to highlight ‘Save Our Devon Seafronts’ campaign this Thursday (27 July). Port Royal, Sidmouth, will be featured.

“Campaigners from Devon’s seaside towns have united in an initiative to ‘Save Our Seafronts’. Sidmouth is included. This Thursday, BBC Radio Devon breakfast show will include an interview with Sidmouth Councillor Matt Booth, one of the four East Devon District Councillors who are leading the 3Rs campaign for an alternative vision for Por Royal – Retain,Refurbish,Reuse’.

The debate may continue on the radio lunchtime phone in programme (tel 0345 301 1034) and possibly on Spotlight TV on BBC 1 that same day.”

BBC to highlight ‘Save Our Devon Seafronts’ campaign this Thursday (27 July). Port Royal, Sidmouth, will be featured.

“Pseudo-public space” – watch out Cranbrook

Developers still control the Cranbrook “country park” and heaven knows how much more of East Devon.

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/05/24/cranbrook-country-park-to-go-to-public-inquiry/

“Guardian Cities investigation has for the first time mapped the startling spread of pseudo-public spaces across the UK capital, revealing an almost complete lack of transparency over who owns the sites and how they are policed.

Pseudo-public spaces – large squares, parks and thoroughfares that appear to be public but are actually owned and controlled by developers and their private backers – are on the rise in London and many other British cities, as local authorities argue they cannot afford to create or maintain such spaces themselves.

Although they are seemingly accessible to members of the public and have the look and feel of public land, these sites – also known as privately owned public spaces or “Pops” – are not subject to ordinary local authority bylaws but rather governed by restrictions drawn up the landowner and usually enforced by private security companies.

The Guardian contacted the landowners of more than 50 major pseudo-public spaces in London, ranging from financial giant JP Morgan (owner of Bishops Square in Spitalfields) to the Tokyo-based Mitsubishi Estate (owner of Paternoster Square in the City of London) and the Abu Dhabi National Exhibitions Company (owner of the open space around the ExCeL centre)….”

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/24/revealed-pseudo-public-space-pops-london-investigation-map

One in three earns less than two-thirds average wage in south-west

Affordable Housing (80% average price of houses being built at the time) – in your dreams. Inequality- the price paid for rampant “growth”.

“The wage gap is growing in the South West – with almost a third of people now earning less than two-thirds of the UK average.

New figures show 31.2% of full-time employees in our region earned less than two thirds of the national average during the last quarter of 2016.

That compares to just 29.3% as recently as the first quarter of 2015.

The increase is the fifth biggest for any region in the UK after the South East, the North East and Northern Ireland (with the same increase) and Wales. …”

http://www.devonlive.com/one-in-three-in-devon-earn-two-thirds-less-than-the-average-wage/story-30449598-detail/story.html

Corruption, absolute corruption, developers and councils

BUT THIS BLOG AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS!

HEAD … BRICK WALL … HEAD … BRICK WALL

Here are just a few recent East Devon Watch articles:

Tell EDDC what you want Section 106 money spent on so they can ignore you and spend it on what they want!

Section 106 scandal: New controls and a surprising revelation from CEO Mark Williams

The Great EDDC Section 106 Scandal of 2016 – and probably earlier years

Another loophole to avoid “Section 106” payments

Developers, councils and Section 106: the shocking truth

and the BBC has only just discovered it!

“The council that ran the Grenfell Tower block struck deals worth nearly £50m last year to allow developers to avoid having to build affordable homes, research for BBC News shows.

Kensington and Chelsea’s own analysis shows it has built a fraction of the social housing the borough needs.

Developers can pay a fee if they can convince the council that affordable homes would make their plans unviable.

The council said it struggled to build affordable homes in a crowded area.
Kensington and Chelsea has been severely criticised for its failures over Grenfell Tower, including allegations that the regeneration of the tower was done on the cheap and that survivors of the blaze were not properly cared for.

At least 80 people died in the fire.

The disaster, in one of the richest areas in the country, has also thrown a spotlight on the council’s attitude towards its poorest residents.

Huge shortfall

The council’s policy is for half of homes in large housing schemes to be available for rent or sale at below market rates.

The official target is to build 200 affordable units – flats or houses – each year between 2011 and 2021.

But the council’s own figures show that since 2011-12, just 336 units have been built; in 2012-13, just four were completed.

At the same time, Kensington and Chelsea struck deals with developers to pay it nearly £60m.

Since 2011, the council has agreed payments worth £59.7m, in what are known as Section 106 agreements.

The council is allowed to charge developers a fee if their scheme would ordinarily be liable to include social housing but its backers can convince officials that to do so would make the proposal unviable.

That headline figure includes £47.3m in 2016 alone.

The figures have been calculated for BBC News by EG, a property consultancy firm, whose work includes researching planning committee reports for Section 106 payments.

Senior analyst Graham Shone said payment to the council had undergone a “step change” on previous years.

“Maybe the council is a bit more receptive to those kinds of agreements going through as a way to encourage development across the borough,” he said.

The council will gain £12.1m instead of affordable housing at Knightsbridge station

K1 development, Knightsbridge

Developers Chelsfield plan to “reinvigorate, restore and celebrate” the block above Knightsbridge Tube station.

The design includes retail outlets at street level, new offices, 35 residential apartments, an underground car park and a rooftop garden and restaurant.

Given the size of the development, to comply with the council’s own policy, the scheme should include affordable housing.

However, in their planning application, the architects say: “The size of units [flats] are larger than what would normally be associated with affordable housing based on the London Housing Design Guide.”

They also argue the service charge on the flats “would far exceed what would be a sustainable level for affordable housing”.

And while they had considered creating another lift to accommodate affordable housing, this would “compromise” the retail units on the ground floor.

A mix of private and affordable homes, they say, is therefore “not viable”.
The council accepted the arguments, passed the scheme, and will receive £12.1m in lieu of affordable housing at the development.

The payments are meant to help the council provide affordable housing in other parts of the borough or to renovate existing stock.

A paper prepared for the council’s cabinet last year shows that of the nearly £21m the council has received since 2009-10 for affordable homes, £9.2m remains unspent.

Developers can also pay fees to off-set other impacts of their schemes. And the same paper shows that of the total £57.3m that Kensington and Chelsea has received since 2009-10, £36.7m has still not been spent.

None of the developers’ contributions has been used to improve air quality, libraries, sports facilities or healthcare, and very little has been spent on employment initiatives or children’s playgrounds.

The leader of Kensington’s Labour group says he is shocked by the lack of new affordable homes

Robert Atkinson, head of the Labour group at Kensington and Chelsea, said he was shocked by the amount of money the council was receiving and how few affordable homes were being built.

“One of the beauties of living in London is you have a balanced population, and I do think we have a duty not to produce the prettiest ghost town in Western Europe.

“Our first loyalty should be to maintaining and strengthening our communities, and we have fallen down on that job terribly.”

The need for affordable housing in Kensington and Chelsea is acute.

A Freedom of Information request submitted by the BBC last year showed the council had spent £28m providing temporary accommodation to homeless residents in 2015-16, a figure that has doubled in five years.

Almost three-quarters of those people are being housed outside the borough – the highest proportion in London.

The council said that “as the smallest London borough”, with the second highest population density in England and Wales and 4,000 listed buildings, “the borough only has a limited capacity to deliver housing”.

A spokesman said its policy of allowing developers to negotiate on affordable housing “stems from government policy”.

“The council scrutinises any viability information provided by the applicants in detail and in some cases is able to secure higher proportions than those proposed by applicants,” he added.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40643072

“Cranbrook expansion plans for 1,200 new homes opposed by Cranbrook town council”

“Cranbrook town council voted on Monday night to object to plans for the southern expansion of the new town. Two new applications for the southern expansion of Cranbrook have been submitted to East Devon District Council for the outline planning permission for 27.2 hectares of residential development, 9.2 hectares of employment development, a new primary school, a local community centre, and sport pitches and tennis courts as part of a sports hub.

The plans includes 1,200 new homes, a new primary school, a sports hub, a petrol station, and a site for travellers and were a revision of plans that had been outlined in 2015 but had been deferred while the Cranbrook Development Plan Document was being finalised.

The revised plans would see a reduction of 350 homes, a reduction in employment space by 5,000 square meters to 35,000 square meters, enhanced sports and play areas with all-weather facilities, floodlighting, changing facilities and children’s play, community uses as well as the possibility of gypsy and traveller pitches as an alternative to employment land.

But concerns by the council’s planning committee were raised about the fact that the proposals added land for housing on the eastern edge of the original proposals between Parsons Lane and the Country Park boundary immediately opposite the existing homes in Post Coach Way which front the B3174, and they requested further clarification on the gypsy and/or traveller allocation being provided.

The committee said: “Broadly the planning proposals being considered are in line with East Devon District Council’s Local Plan 2013-2031, which precludes development within the Neighbourhood Plan areas of the surrounding villages. By reducing the application to 1,200 homes, the proposals maintain an acceptable density per hectare and respect the Neighbourhood Plan areas of the two immediate parish neighbours.

“The Committee considered that density of 45 dwellings per hectare as acceptable and reiterated that parking issues associated with that level of density were well recorded.

“The Committee felt that the applications ignored previous pledges about the green wedge contained within East Devon District Council’s Local Plan 2013-2031. Councillors were anxious to preserve the green wedge between Cranbrook and Rockbeare and considered the proposed wedge too narrow.

The proposal added land for housing on the eastern edge of the original proposals between Parsons Lane and the Country Park boundary immediately opposite the existing homes in Post Coach Way which front the B3174 which may raise concerns about visual impact from the village of Rockbeare.

“The inclusion of the “gypsy and traveller pitches” required clarification.The Town Council always maintained a position that it is acceptable for Cranbrook to accommodate a proportionate and reasonable number of pitches particularly to provide permanent homes for gypsy and/or traveller families and this provision should be within the allocation of affordable homes within the scheme.

“The indicative site was, however, shown as an alternative to employment land and had close proximity to the airport. This site was not suitable for settled gypsy or traveller families to be located because of its proximity to the airport and the Committee felt that a possible transition site should be located nearer the main arterial routes and the M5 and not in a residential area

“The Committee also reiterated that there was a need to separate between sites for each group and, traditionally both genuine gypsy and genuine traveller families were not usually content to share sites with new age or caravan travellers.”

They resolved to object to the planning applications.

Since the build of the new town in East Devon began in 2010, 3,500 homes, a railway station, St Martin’s Primary School, play facilities, the neighbourhood centre, local shops, the education campus, the Cranbrook Farm pub, while construction of buildings in the town centre and the sports pitches are underway, while plans for the ecology park in the town have also been submitted.

The application for the southern expansion for Cranbrook would see the town get an additional 1,200 homes, but also a petrol station, a residential care home, employment land, a new primary school, and an all-weather sports facility.”

http://www.devonlive.com/cranbrook-expansion-plans-opposed-by-cranbrook-town-council/story-30445666-detail/story.html

Exeter fourth largest growth rate in UK

Surely at this rate the Exeter area economy will become greatly overheated with an inevitable crash, especially as we are told that 70% of its exports currently go to the EU? Will East Devon, with Cranbrook’s creep towards the city just become a suburb of an ever-sprawling Greater Exeter but with no supporting infrastructure to speak of?

“Exeter is in the top five cities in the UK for job creation, new figures have revealed.

The UK Powerhouse report, produced by law firm Irwin Mitchell alongside the Centre for Business and Economic research, provides an estimate of the value of goods and services produced and annual job growth of 45 of the UK’s largest cities, 12 months ahead of the Government’s official figures.

Exeter sees an annual change of 1.5 per cent when it comes to employment, putting it as fourth in the UK.

It also revealed the growing importance that the banking, finance and insurance sector has on the city, revealing that 5,900 jobs were created between 2013 and 2016.

The report also predicts that Exeter’s city economy will grow by 18.1 per cent over the next 10 years whilst employment will grow by 9.4 per cent during the same period.

Jack Coy, economist at Cebr, said: “Despite the UK-level economic slowdown over the first quarter, it is good to see some bright sparks in local economies across the country.

“In particular, the best performing cities have benefitted from a combination of cutting-edge, productive industries and high-skilled workforces.”

http://www.devonlive.com/exeter-fourth-best-city-in-country-for-employment-growth/story-30444024-detail/story.html

“LEP funded” project runs into problems

“A string of major restaurant chains have lifted the lid on how Plymouth’s £40million Bretonside development could look.

The Herald revealed earlier this month how Mexican food emporium Wahaca had become the ninth chain to rule themselves out of the massive cinema and restaurants complex, which is currently under construction.

They followed big names such as Wetherspoon, Pret a Manger, Five Guys, Harry Ramsden and Greggs in confirming they would not have a Bretonside branch.

And now a further six popular brands have told The Herald they will not be part of the project. …”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/big-name-restaurants-reveal-why-they-ve-snubbed-bretonside/story-30442774-detail/story.html

A solution to the housing crisis? The flatpack house

Inventor David Martyn, 58, of Wallingford, Oxfordshire, said the building’s partitions and storage space allow it to be used as a home, classrooms, business spaces, operating theatres and shelters for refugees.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4696276/The-100-000-flat-packed-house-unfolds-10-minutes.html

Well, that could put developers out of business, so you can bet they are looking for ways of sabotaging it!

Councillors and developers – a (happy for them) marriage made in hell

Journalist Anna Minton wrote a damning report in 2013 (“Scaring the Living Daylights out of People”) heavily featuring the chilling antics of the East Devon Business Forum and its disgraced Chairman, former EDDC councillor Graham Brown and mentions this in today’s article in The Guardian:

Click to access e87dab_fd0c8efb6c0f4c4b8a9304e7ed16bc34.pdf

This article on the politicisation of planning is reproduced in its entirety as there was not one sentence that Owl could cut. Although the article concentrates on cities it applies equally to areas such as East Devon.

“The politicisation of planning has come with the growth of the regeneration industry. While once planning officers in local government made recommendations that elected members of planning committees generally followed, today lobbyists are able to exert far greater influence.

It’s not easy to see into this world, but there are traces in the public domain. Registers of hospitality, for example, detail some of the interactions between councillors and the commercial property business. Take a week in the life of Nick Paget-Brown, the Kensington and Chelsea leader who resigned in the aftermath of the Grenfell fire. In October last year he had lunch at the five-star riverside Royal Horseguards Hotel courtesy of the property giant Willmott Dixon. The previous evening he had been at a reception put on by the business lobby group London First, whose membership is dominated by property and housing firms. He had breakfast with the Grosvenor Estate, the global property empire worth £6.5bn, and lunch at Knightsbridge’s Carlton Tower Hotel. This was paid for by the Cadogan Estate, the second largest of the aristocratic estates (after Grosvenor), which owns 93 acres in Kensington, including Sloane Square and the King’s Road.

Rock Feilding-Mellen, the councillor in charge of the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, who has stepped down as the council’s deputy leader, had his own list of engagements. As the Grenfell Action Group noted earlier this year, he was a dinner guest of Terrapin, the firm founded by Peter Bingle, a property lobbyist renowned for lavish hospitality.

Bingle is also a player in the other big regeneration story of recent weeks: Haringey council’s approval of plans for its HDV – Haringey development vehicle. This is a “partnership” with the Australian property developer Lendlease, a lobbying client of Terrapin’s. The HDV promises to create a £2bn fund to build a new town centre and thousands of new homes, but local residents on the Northumberland Park housing estate, whose homes will be demolished, are vehemently opposed. The Haringey leader, Claire Kober, has lunched or dined six times at Terrapin’s expense.

In Southwark, just as in Haringey and Kensington, there is a revolving door between politicians and lobbyists. The former leader of Southwark council, Jeremy Fraser, went on to found the lobbying firm Four Communications, where he was joined by Southwark’s former cabinet member for regeneration Steve Lancashire. Derek Myers, who until 2013 jointly ran Kensington and Chelsea and Hammersmith and Fulham councils, is now a director of the London Communications Agency, a lobbying agency with property developers on its client list. Merrick Cockell, the leader of Kensington and Chelsea until 2013, now chairs the lobbying firm Cratus Communications, which also specialises in property lobbying. In Westminster, the hospitality register for the last three years of its deputy leader, Robert Davis – chair of the council’s planning committee for 17 years – runs to 19 pages.

Cities other than London and rural areas also provide examples of worrying relationships. In East Devon a serving councillor was found in 2013 to be offering his services as a consultant to help developers get the planning decisions they wanted. In Newcastle a councillor who worked for a lobbying company boasted of “tricks of the trade” that included making sure planning committees included friendly faces.

Meanwhile the culture of regular meetings and socialising does not stop with councils. The diary of David Lunts, head of housing and land at the Greater London Authority for the first three months of 2017, reveals a lunch in Mayfair with Bingle, a VIP dinner laid on by a London developer, another meal paid for by a housing giant, and dinner on Valentine’s Day with a regeneration firm. Consultants and a developer furnished him with more meals before he headed off to Cannes for Mipim, the world’s biggest property fair. He also had dinner with Rydon, the firm that refurbished Grenfell Tower.

Further up the food chain, it was only because of Bingle’s boasts that we heard of a dinner he gave the then local government secretary, Eric Pickles. Held in the Savoy’s Gondoliers Room, it was also attended by business chiefs, including one who was waiting for a planning decision from Pickles’s department. The dinner was never declared on any register of hospitality because Pickles said he was attending in a private capacity.

Lunt’s former colleague Richard Blakeway, who was London’s deputy mayor for housing until last year, and David Cameron’s adviser on housing policy, became a paid adviser to Willmott Dixon. He is also on the board of the Homes and Communities Agency, the government body that regulates and invests in social housing. Its chair is Blakeway’s old boss, the former London deputy mayor for policy and planning Ed Lister, who is also a non-executive director of the developer Stanhope.

The MP Mark Prisk, housing minister until 2013, advocated “removing unnecessary housing, construction and planning regulations” as part of the government’s red tape challenge. He became an adviser to the property developer Essential Living, eight months after leaving office. Prisk advises the firm on legislation, providing support for developments and “brand” building. Essential Living’s former development manager Nick Cuff was also a Conservative councillor and chair of Wandsworth’s planning committee. A colleague of Cuff’s, who spent 30 years in the south London borough’s planning department, now works for Bingle’s lobbying firm, Terrapin.

This is the world that Kensington’s Paget-Brown and Feilding-Mellen, Haringey’s Kober and countless other council leaders inhabit. Socialising between these property men – and they are mostly men – is used to cement ties, and the lines between politician, official, developer and lobbyist are barely drawn. This culture, and the questions of accountability it raises, must be part of the public inquiry into Grenfell. It is perhaps no surprise that the government doesn’t want it to be.

• Tamasin Cave, a director of the lobbying transparency organisation Spinwatch, contributed to this article”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/14/grenfell-developers-cities-politicians-lobbyists-housing

Local authority companies ” should not have many council board members” – so why run the company?

Owl says: If councillors and officers are no good at running commercial companies – why are they being created?

“Local authority-run companies should avoid having too many council members on executive boards to ensure commercial success, CIPFA’s annual conference was told.

The advice on governance was issued today by Mike Britch, chief executive of Norse Group, a firm with a £300m turnover wholly owned by Norfolk County Council, at a workshop on councils and commercialism.

He told delegates the presence of too many members on executive boards could hamper the agility that a small and focused board needed to efficiently deliver services in a commercial environment.

Britch said: “You can’t run a commercial service as a department of a local authority, that means you have to get yourself from under the shackles of a 151 [financial] officer, the monitoring officer and everybody else who wants to reduce what they perceive as the risk to their shareholders.

“You need to have commercial and operational freedom to trade and to make the decisions you need to make.” …”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/07/local-authority-run-companies-should-avoid-too-many-council-board-members

Barratt: 12% rise in profits yet only 76 more homes sold!

“Britain’s largest builder Barratt posted a better-than-expected 12 percent rise in 2016/17 profit as selling prices rose but it only built 76 more homes than its previous financial year, despite government efforts to tackle a chronic shortage.

Britain needs to deliver up to double the roughly 200,000 new properties arriving on the market each year just to keep up with demand, which has pushed up prices and rent, stopping many younger people from getting onto the property ladder.

Barratt, which built 17,395 homes in the 12 months to the end of June and posted pretax profit of 765 million pounds ($982 million), has previously said it wanted to focus on quality, with rivals such Bovis being criticised for poor workmanship.”

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-boe-broadbent-idUKKBN19X0IG

Er, “quality” – don’t they mean “eye-wateringly expensive”?

“Inspector to decide if developer should pay more Sidmouth community cash”

Recall that PegasusLife is calling it’s plans for the Knowle “assisted living accommodation”. Why? Because it doesn’t then have to contribute to affordable housing.

Does anyone recall EDDC making a fuss about that? No – they left it to local objectors to point it out!

“A government planning inspector will decide whether a developer will have to pay a share of its profits from 36 proposed sheltered apartments to the public coffers.

The matter was the subject of an inquiry this week after Churchill Retirement Living and East Devon District Council (EDDC) could not agree terms for an ‘overage’ clause.

Churchill hopes to demolish the former Green Close care home in Drakes Avenue to make way for the development. The firm launched an appeal due to non-determination of its application.

The delay in EDDC deciding the fate of the scheme was due to officers trying to apply an ‘overage’ clause that would require Churchill to pay up if its profits exceed current expectations.

EDDC documents argue plans to create the apartments for the elderly should be worth nearly £1million to the Sidmouth community – but the developer has shown it is ‘unviable’ to pay more than £41,000.

Churchill’s five-figure offer towards off-site ‘affordable’ housing was last year slammed as an ‘insult to Sidmouth’ by town councillors, who suggested the developer should pay at least £360,000.

Papers submitted to the appeal process from EDDC say there is a policy expectation that half of the site should be provided as ‘affordable’ housing and that there is a ‘substantial’ need for one- and two-bedroom units in Sidmouth.

If 18 ‘affordable’ homes cannot be provided on-site, a payment of £935,201 would be expected so the properties can be built elsewhere.

Churchill said a viability assessment showed building ‘affordable’ homes on the site was ‘impractical’ and ‘unrealistic’.

It added: “It has been demonstrated that the application development is not sufficiently viable to permit the imposition of any affordable housing or planning gain contributions above £41,208.”

An EDDC spokeswoman said: “Unfortunately, the development is not sufficiently viable to pay this [£935,201] sum and, following an independent assessment of the viability of the scheme, it was reluctantly accepted that the scheme could only afford to pay £41,208 towards affordable housing.

“Under government guidance, we are required to reduce our requirements where a development is unviable and so we have no real choice but to accept this position.”

EDDC also expected Churchill to pay £22,536 for habitat mitigation, plus an £18,400 public open space contribution. The total is nearly £1million.

At the hearing on Wednesday, a representative for the developer said a viability report showed it could not offer more than £41,208 if it wanted a competitive return of 20 per cent.

He argued such developments, both locally and nationally, did not have an ‘overage’ clause like the one proposed and added that it was not in line with national guidelines.

“We need to ensure there are competitive returns for the developer and the landowner,” said the representative.

“If the developer, through his own skill or from fortuitous circumstances, makes a larger profit than intended, then the council wants to have a proportion of it and, if they are not so fortunate and make less than 20 per cent, the entire downside is to be borne by the developer.”

Town councillor Ian Barlow argued that the £41,208 contribution was only agreed to because councillors were told it was subject to an ‘overage’ clause. He added: “If they make an obscene amount of money from our community, then they should put it back into the community. They are now saying it is not plausible.

“We only deal with common sense.

“Theoretically, if someone builds a £5million-ish place and they are only giving around £41,000 back, at the end of the day, that does not seem right.”

Cllr Barlow argued that he found it hard to believe such a successful company would make an investment which was not financially viable.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/inspector-to-decide-if-developer-should-pay-more-sidmouth-community-cash-1-5100503

Investigation into government links with developers, Channel 4, 8 pm

Dispatches, 8 pm tonight, Channel 4

How property companies have failed to deliver new, affordable homes and asks questions about the link between government and the property industry.”

Public parks – soon to be just a memory?

“… Yet Britain’s parks are now facing their greatest dangers for a generation. Their maintenance budgets are being halved or worse. Local authorities, desperate to reduce their costs, are trying to exploit them with every commercial use they can think of, or offload their care on to the private sector, or on to friends’ groups and community associations little more able than the council to look after them on minimal budgets.

The consequences are that parks become shabbier, uglier, more badly maintained and, eventually, more dangerous. Drew Bennellick, the Heritage Lottery Fund’s head of landscape and natural heritage, says that local authorities are losing the skills of ecology, arboriculture, horticulture and landscape architecture, resulting in “random tree planting, a huge increase in herbicides, fountains being shut down, graffiti not being removed, mismatched street furniture and cafes being replaced by mobile food units”. He says that some maintenance contracts only allow 30 seconds to prune each shrub, so they are hacked into small spheres. “You end up with bare soil and a few shrubs in ball shapes,” he says.

Antisocial behaviour creeps in. Cycles of decline start, in which parks get nastier, so their users stop going, so they get nastier still. City-dwellers retreat more to their homes and their electronic screens, with terrible effects on health. Intrusive and inappropriate commercial uses colonise green space and disturb the lives of residents. Fees for sporting facilities – tennis courts and football pitches – go up. In the worst cases, public green space is sold off for development and lost for ever.

Last year, the House of Commons communities committee said that parks were at a “tipping point” and that “if the value of parks and their potential contribution are not recognised, then the consequences could be severe for some of the most important policy agendas facing our communities today”.

The Heritage Lottery Fund noted a growing gap between the rising use of parks and declining funding, a gap that “does not bode well for the future condition and health of the nation’s public parks”. The Commons committee also said that central government should provide “vision, leadership and coordination”.

… To which central government only shrugs. Until June, there was a minister with responsibility for parks, one Andrew Percy MP. He didn’t seem to achieve much, but when I ask the Department for Communities and Local Government who can now speak on the subject, I am told there is no replacement and I am offered the Northern Powerhouse minister or the minister for local government. A week later, I am told that the latter, Marcus Jones MP, is in fact also the new parks minister, even though it is not among the 10 responsibilities listed on his official website.

Nor can he talk to me or respond to the committee’s call for vision, leadership and coordination. I am however told that “parks breathe life into our towns and cities and are spaces for the whole community to come together to exercise, learn and play”. Gee, thanks. The department then boasts of a £1.5m fund – a whole £1.5m! – to deliver 87 pocket parks. Finally, it says that councils have the “freedom” to spend their much-reduced funding on “meeting local priorities, including maintaining local parks”. As far as national government is concerned, in other words, it’s not their problem. They’ve outsourced it to local authorities.

This abnegation of responsibility is the reason why parks all over the country are degrading. Local authorities have had their budgets cut drastically. They have to maintain their statutory duties – to house the involuntarily homeless, for example – which means that everything else gets squeezed even harder. Looking after parks is not a statutory duty. So, even though their running costs might be less than half a per cent of a local authority’s budget, they get cut and cut again.

… Councils go to the private sector, both to run parks and exploit the commercial opportunities they offer. But the profit motive does not have the long-term wellbeing of natural assets at heart. Bennellick argues that, as well as creating those shrivelled shrubs, private contractors have no interest in the bigger picture. To maximise their environmental benefits, he says, parks need a strategic approach that considers them not in isolation but in relation to each other. There’s not much chance of this happening in a minimum-cost maintenance contract.

Strangely, given the importance of this collective national treasure, there’s not much by way of powerful national organisations to fight for their interests. There are valiant voluntary bodies such as National Federation of Parks and Green Spaces, the Parks Alliance and the 90-year-old Fields in Trust, but they don’t command public attention as they should. The Heritage Lottery Fund, whose primary concern is not green space, finds itself one of its principal champions, by virtue of the amount it has invested.

In the end, however much ingenuity is expended on new forms of management and funding, parks are public assets that require public money. The National Federation of Parks and Green Spaces believes that the current expenditure of £1.2bn per year should be more like £2-3bn. It is asking, in other words, for about as much in additional funding as is going on the notorious bung to the Democratic Unionist party.

It might also help, as a number of campaigners have argued, if care of parks became a statutory duty for local authorities. In this patriotic Brexit era, when Britain is learning to again stand strong and alone, parks are a British achievement and asset to be proud of, imitated and envied across the world. If national government had the decency even to notice that they are under threat from their policies, it would be a start.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/09/the-end-of-park-life-as-we-know-it-the-battle-for-britains-green-spaces-rowan-moore

“Hammond could land £1.5m in green-belt housing deal”

“The chancellor, Philip Hammond, who helped spearhead the government’s housebuilding programme, could make more than £1.5m in a previously undisclosed deal over a possible housing development on green-belt land.

Land Registry documents reveal Hammond has agreed an option with a housebuilder on about three acres of land he owns next to his home in Surrey … ”

Sunday Times (paywall) page 10

He says it is a standard provision and doesn’t need to be declared … the former Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life disagrees.

Easy to guess who will win that one.

“Builders gag buyers over shoddy work”

Buyers of substandard new homes are being asked to sign gagging orders to keep the faults secret and are routinely refused access to technical plans that show how their properties should have been constructed.

Some owners are then locked out of their homes during repairs, an investigation by The Sunday Times has found.

The research reveals how builders wield power over buyers at every stage of the new-build market, allowing quality to slip as the government spends £43bn on stimulating private housebuilding to try to hit a target of 1.5m new homes by 2022. …”

Sunday Times, page 4 (paywall)

The article talks of builders forcing people to sign non-disclosure agreements and are forced out of their homes so they cannot see what work has been done before remedial work is carried out so neighbours and press cannot find out.

Bellway, Taylor Wimpey, Strata, Barratt and Bovis mentioned for various alleged transgressions.