“Buyers who purchased new properties direct from some of the UK’s biggest builders have been left in the dark as investment companies play pass-the-parcel with the land their homes stand on.”
Category Archives: Developers/ Development
Grenadier test drills on Exmouth seafront
Let’s hope (or not) that they don’t come across too many sink holes!
“An environmental site investigation is being carried out on Exmouth seafront by Grenadier Estates ahead of submitting a planning application for a new watersports centre. Grenadier Estates are currently working on proposals for a new Watersports Centre on Queen’s Drive as part of the multi-million pound redevelopment plans for the seafront.
Ahead of submitting a formal planning application, Grenadier Estates have been granted a temporary licence by East Devon District Council to carry out environmental site investigations on the seafront.
An East Devon District Council spokesman said: “Works will involve the drilling, monitoring and sampling of boreholes in accordance with an agreed method statement. This activity is standard practice in the run up to a planning process and the information from the investigations will be used to inform the detail of Grenadier’s planning application. …
… Nick Hookway, Save Exmouth Seafront spokesman, Why are the council carrying on with the proposals when there is no developer interested, apart from the watersports centre which is just a small part of the plan.
“When the fun park closes, the rest of the seafront will just be derelict and it is horrifying the thought of the seafront being all boarded up.
“We are concerned that the area will be left empty and there will be an air of dereliction about the whole site. Why should Exmouth residents have to put up with a derelict seafront as a result of this? There is already an air of dereliction on the site as metal hoardings appear. This is a situation that will get worse when these last two businesses close.
… Cllr Philip Skinner, East Devon District Council’s Portfolio holder for the Economy, said: “We have said on a number of occasions that residents will be consulted fully on what is proposed for this vital site on the wonderful seafront of Exmouth. We want to see investment and new, more modern activities there for everyone to enjoy. We look forward to shortly signing an agreement with the watersports centre developer Grenadier who will reveal their building designs soon. Following a period of full public consultation, the proposed watersports centre development will go through the planning decision process later this year.
“We have already received planning permission to build the new road and car park which can begin once a decision on the watersports centre is made. Phase three of the project will see further public consultation independent of any developer and the public’s views will be sought as to what they would like to see there. Everyone will get a number of opportunities to have their say. …”
First impressions of Cranbrook expansion plans
“Jill Ellis said: “This will make traffic chaos from Cranbrook to the A30 a massive problem. There are already so many accidents because of the layout of the junction. This will get much worse.”
Mac McLaren said: “This planned expansion of Cranbrook has been expressed since the inception. It wont end with the 1200 dwellings, but grow massively, with extra `travellers sites` . The current highways structure does not cause RTC`s, its the drivers. Where better could developers chose for the housing that is required?”
Alan Grace said: “Next week, they will be asking where the wildlife has gone – butterflies are suddenly disappearing, and bird numbers dropping. And the other great question, is why the hospitals and roads can’t cope?”
Rachel Perram said: “Oh the glamour keeps on coming. What about the amazing and vibrant high street and community feel promised by EDDC planners when Cranbrook was in the offing?”
Veronica Anstey: “Don’t like, they keep going on about global warming, yet we are allowing our countryside to be destroyed disgusting.”
Gill Hargrove said: “What about all the extra traffic, roads will be grid locked.”
Austerity and the poor
Letter in today’s Guardian:
“• Deborah Orr (Opinion, 30 June) is unfortunately absolutely right in all she says about the Grenfell catastrophe. A contempt has developed for health and safety considerations and they are considered a pathetic nanny-state approach.
This, coupled with the worship of cost-cutting at the expense of humanity, has caused this tragedy.
Even though I understood that terrible things were happening in the name of austerity I must admit I still thought we lived in a country that used regulation to require housing to be built or altered so as to offer adequate fire protection. Not if you live in social housing it seems. Could that be any more shameful?
Linda Maughan
Hartlepool”
“Why do England’s high-rises keep failing fire tests?”
“… Undermining the building regulations
The first thing to know is that local officials no longer run all building inspections. England has a so-called “Approved Inspector” regime.
Contractors must no longer wait for a local authority official to check their work. Instead, they may hire people to check their construction processes meet the required standards. There is no single regulator – or arm of government – directly upholding standards.
Second, the most important requirement in the building regulations is to build a safe building. So long as you do that, the fine print of the rules does not much matter too much. That is why, when inspectors sign off sites, they do not feel the need to work directly from the government’s own guidelines. And the guidelines set out by government are rather old, and cannot specify everything in all circumstances.
That has left a gap into which esteemed sector bodies have stepped. Their umbrella organisation – the Building Control Alliance (BCA) – has issued advice about how to get a building signed off as compliant without using the type of materials specified in the government guidelines.
And it is the case that, in the event of some prosecutions or a civil case, breaching the government’s guidance would count as a serious strike against a builder. But it would also be the case that following widely accepted professional practise and BCA guidance may also constitute a defence in a suit for negligence and grounds for mitigation in a criminal prosecution.
The problem is that this BCA guidance does not just suggest ways of making new technology fit the old rules. It introduces loopholes. The net effect of the sector bodies’ guidance is to set weaker standards than the government’s rulebook. …”
Cranbrook expansion plans including travellers site
For plans and pictures see quoted article.
“Plans for the southern expansion of Cranbrook have been revealed – and it includes 1,200 new homes, a new primary school, a sports hub, a petrol station, and a site for travellers.
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.
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.
Now, as part of the southern expansion for Cranbrook, the town is set to 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.
The long-running problem of travellers pitching-up in Cranbrook is also set to be solved as an area has been identified within the employment area site as a potential travellers site, but discussions will need to be held with the district council about the exact location.
WHAT THE APPLICATION INCLUDES
Residential
The parameters plan proposes 27.2 hectares of residential development of up to 1,200 homes.
Employment
Employment provision forms part of the mix of uses within the southern expansion area. It proposes 9.2 hectares of employment land, comprising of up to 35,000 sq m of employment uses and a petrol station with associated convenience retail and facilities. An area is identified within the employment area as a potential travellers site. Provision is also made within the employment area for a future expansion of the energy centre if required.
Education
A two form entry primary school is proposed within the southern expansion area.
Local Centre
A local centre is proposed in the heart of the southern expansion area to serve all the residents and the employment area. It will comprise of financial services, restaurants, pubs, takeaway and business uses.
Open space
Around 35 hectares of green infrastructure will be provides. The sports pitches are proposed in one central location on the southern edge of the development. The outline application sports hub land can accommodate an all-weather playing pitch with floodlighting, senior and youth football pitches, changing facilities, and a youth and children’s play area. Two adult rugby pitches and four tennis courts can be delivered.
The application says: “The adopted East Devon Local Plan identifies the future growth of the town of Cranbrook as part of the strategic growth of the area referred to as East Devon’s West End. Land is allocated within the local plan to meet the demand for the town to grow to 6,300 dwellings.
“The three outline planning applications for the expansion of Cranbrook to the west, east and south were submitted in December 2014 which sought planning permission for up to an additional 4,120 dwellings. The three 2014 expansion area outline planning applications are awaiting a decision.”
The latest application comes following public consultation on the plans over the past two years.
The application says: “The southern expansion of Cranbrook establishes an attractive and sustainable development that will become a place where people will to and enjoy living.
“The vision for the town is that Cranbrook will be a dynamic town, of a size to support a broad range of facilities, infrastructure and opportunities in a vibrant town centre and local centres sustained by its population. Cranbrook will be independent from, yet serving, existing communities, with the identity of surrounding villages always protected by a strong green buffer.
“The expansion of Cranbrook, including the southern expansion area, is able to realise that vision.”
http://www.devonlive.com/major-cranbrook-expansion-plans-revealed/story-30420895-detail/story.html
Oh, those poor, poor developers with their begging bowls
“Documents show plans to create 36 sheltered 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 Retirement Living hopes to demolish the former Green Close care home in Drakes Avenue to make way for the development.
Its five-figure offer towards off-site ‘affordable’ housing was slammed as an ‘insult to Sidmouth’ by town councillors, who suggested the developer should pay at least £360,000.
After failing to reach an agreement with East Devon District Council (EDDC), Churchill launched an appeal due to non-determination of its application.
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.
The delay in EDDC deciding the fate of the application was due to officers trying to apply an ‘overage’ clause that would require Churchill to pay up if its profits exceed current expectations.
A Planning Inspectorate spokesman confirmed that the appeal had been validated and it is in discussion with both parties.”
Question: What is the average price a first-time buyer pays for a property?
Answer:
“The average price first-time buyers are paying to get on to the property ladder has hit a record high of £207,693, according to the latest Halifax First Time Buyer Review.”
Source: Moneywise:
https://t.co/C5aHSWGKiV
Question: What is an average wage in Devon?
Answer:
“Families in Devon need to earn almost £60,000 a year now to afford the average mortgage which represents a 156% pay rise for average earners.
With average Devon salaries now of £23,197, a worker would need a staggering £36,279 pay rise (156%) to £59,476 to get a mortgage for an average home in the county.
A couple each earning a combined average wage totalling £46,394 would still need a 28% pay increase to get a standard 80% mortgage.
With average private monthly rents in Devon of £687 this accounts for 43% of average monthly net pay. Average property prices are £260,209 which is more than 11 times the average salary.”
UK has lowest economic growth of G7 countries – the implications for East Devon
Owl says: According to our Local Plan, the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan AND the plans of Local Enterprise Partnership, development in East Devon, Exeter, Devon and Somerset (economic and housing) was based on an expectation of constant, uninterrupted high growth. Now what?
“The consumer-driven momentum that has kept the British economy afloat since the Brexit vote is declining rapidly, with new data showing households in the grip of the most protracted squeeze on living standards since the economic crisis of the mid-1970s.
Against a backdrop of rising prices and stagnant wage growth, incomes adjusted for inflation have now fallen for three successive quarters, the first time this has occurred since the International Monetary Fund had to bail Britain out in 1976.
At the same time, the amount being set aside as savings has now slipped to just 1.7% of disposable income – the lowest level on record, and a fraction of the near-10% average for the last 50 years. Just a year ago, it was more than three times the current rate.
The new data from the Office for National Statistics shows that in the first three months of 2017, the mounting financial pressure on consumers brought the UK’s strong performance following last summer’s Brexit vote to an abrupt halt.
On Thursday, separate figures showed an unexpected jump in consumer credit. Households borrowed an extra £1.7bn in May – £300m more than had been expected – on credit cards, personal loans and car finance. A survey of consumer confidence also showed a steep decline.
Despite saving less and borrowing more, consumers still reined in their spending, contributing to economic growth confirmed today at just 0.2% – the lowest of any of the major G7 industrial nations.
Spending in the shops, new car sales and property transactions have all showed signs of weakness, and the Bank of England has expressed concern about rising levels of consumer debt. …”
Another building regulation dropped for developers
“The government must reverse its opposition to new building regulations that ensure homes, hospitals and schools do not overheat as the number of deadly heatwaves rises, according to its official climate change advisers.
The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) recommended the new regulations in 2015 but ministers rejected the advice, citing a commitment to “reduce net regulation on homebuilders”. Without action, the number of people dying as a result of heat is expected to more than triple to 7,000 a year by 2040, the CCC warns in its annual report on the UK’s progress on tackling global warming. …”
Sidmouth ward councillor not told about advanced development plans
“A leading Sidmouth councillor has said she is ‘alarmed’ after illustrations as to how Sidmouth seafront could look as part of plans to redevelop the Port Royal area of the town have were revealed.
Consultants are carrying out a scoping study to assess the feasibility of redevelopment of the area on behalf of Sidmouth Town and East Devon District Councils who are the major landowners of the site.
Plans were put on show on Monday and Tuesday at consultation events at Kennaway House in Sidmouth and revealed that the seafront could get up to 30 flats that stand five storeys high.
But Cllr Cathy Gardner, who represents Sidmouth on East Devon District Council and is also the leader of the East Devon Alliance, said she was very surprised on Monday when she saw a five storey block of flats revealed on the consultation boards.
Cllr Gardner said: “We are concerned and I was alarmed at what I saw. At this early stage of the consultation, we expected to see a review of what the limitations of the site are and what would be possible.
“What we certainly did not expect to see what a five storey flats building included in the consultation board.
“I am alarmed that we are looking at five storey building within this area of the seafront. There will be a lot of discussion over the next month about this and I am sure we will get a lot of comments about what people want, but this is not what we expected.”
She said that everyone accepts that the Port Royal area of the town, which includes The Ham, the riverside, the car park, fishing compound, the public toilets, the Drill Hall, the sailing club and the lifeboat station, does need something doing to it, but said that it should be something more in keeping with the town.
She added although it is a consultation exercise, it had the feel of something that was fait accompli, particularly as questionnaires as part of the Sid Valley Neighbourhood Plan survey asks residents their views about Port Royal area of the town are currently out with residents to fill in.
She added: “I am told that feedback from this will be taken into account, but it does seem to be putting the cart before the horse.”
The consultation boards say: “The existing lifeboat station and sailing club need to have a waterfront location for operational reasons, but there are no obvious technical reasons that would prevent the lifeboat station, sailing club, Drill Hall and toilet block from being demolished with an alternative development provided on that part of the Study Area.”
Under potential development opportunities, the boards say: “The development could comprise a building of between 3 and 5 storeys. It could be a single building incorporating various uses including a new lifeboat station, a multifunction unit that could incorporate the sailing club, other water related clubs already operating, public toilets and wider community use. Space could also be created for a café and restaurant. These could occupy the ground floor and first floor of the building.
“Up to thirty residential apartments with potential to be of various sizes could form part of this development occupying the second, third and fourth floors.
The illustrations on this board are only intended to give an impression of the scale and size of a building on the site and how it might appear in relation to other buildings nearby. It is not a proposal for how the building will look
“Pedestrianisation ofthe Esplanade from its junction with Ham Lane running eastwards towards Salcombe Hill would create an opportunity for a vibrant, active frontage to the new development on the allocated site where people can use the space free of traffic whilst maintaining access for emergency vehicles, e.g. lifeboat.
“An access road from Ham Lane could be created to provide additional pedestrian access through the site along with access for service vehicles, access to sailing club storage and some water users.”
The Ham and East Street car parks have also been included in the scoping study area, but as they are within a high risk flood zone, further discussion will be required with both the Environment Agency and East Devon District Council planning department before any proposals can be taken forward.
Consultants will use the feedback to produce a set of recommendations that balance community expectations with what is achievable in the area.
These recommendations are expected to be considered by Sidmouth Town Council and East Devon District Council later in the year.
You can fill in the survey here https://www.snapsurveys.com/wh/s.asp?k=14984725150…”
“Sidmouth seafront redevelopment plans revealed”
“… Under potential development opportunities, the boards say: “The development could comprise a building of between 3 and 5 storeys. It could be a single building incorporating various uses including a new lifeboat station, a multifunction unit that could incorporate the sailing club, other water related clubs already operating, public toilets and wider community use. Space could also be created for a café and restaurant. These could occupy the ground floor and first floor of the building.
“Up to thirty residential apartments with potential to be of various sizes could form part of this development occupying the second, third and fourth floors. … “
So, mostly housing development rather than regeneration – no surprises there then. First impressions? Owl’s is: meh – overpowering, underwhelming, out of place, dull and boring. But what do Sidmothians think?
Clinton Devon Estates and Budleigh Salterton “health hub” have an unhealthy relationship
Readers will recall an earlier Owl story of landowners Clinton Devon Estates grabbing a large part of the garden to Budleigh Hospital for development, considering the garden surplus to the requirements of the new “health hub” and much more suitable for their plans for two houses:
The Budleigh Neighbourhood Plan designated the Hospital garden as open green space. Neighbourhood plans can do this and this space ticks all the NPPF criteria boxes. The garden was considered an essential part of the psychological and therapeutic welfare of patients at the “health hub”.
Bell Cornwell for CDE only commented at the very last minute of the very last stage. They made a number of general comments to EDDC on 16 February 2017 suggesting a loosening of a number of policy phrases and a general comment that too many green spaces were being designated. No mention of Hospital Hubs or development of that site at all.
Click to access bell-cornwell-for-clinton-devon-estates.pdf
An application to build two houses on the hospital garden was then submitted and validated on 27 February 2017 It takes about two-thirds of the garden, rather than the half suggested.
The Plan Inspector asked the steering group for clarification of criteria used in each green space case on 18 April 2017. The steering group responded, and its response was published on the internet.
The Inspector in her report sided with CDE.
The Neighbourhood Plan steering group unanimously agreed to accept all the Inspector’s recommendations except the one where she agreed with Bell Cornwell who, of course, had no medical evidence to draw on!
The decision to accept or reject Inspector’s recommendations now lies with EDDC.
The question now is – how brave will EDDC councillors they be? There is a track record of rolling over for tummy tickles when CDE engages with them. CDE has fingers in many East Devon pies and held restrictive covenants on the seafront at Exmouth that it relinquished to allow EDDC to approve the Grenadier development and has everything from large landholdings to small ransom strips all over the district.
Strong administrative pressure will be to do the easy thing and to get the plan to Cabinet in July with no controversy and no action against CDE.
Local opinion is running strongly against “droit de seigneur” ( medeival feudal rights) in this case.
If it looks like everyone is rolling over without a fight, the plan may well be rejected at referendum.
“Health and safety professionals urge deregulation rethink”
But it goes hand-in-glove with the Tory policy of the smaller state and the hands-off approach to development and developers!
“The government has been urged to rethink the deregulation of health and safety legislation in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire, which is believed to have killed at least 79 people.
In an open letter to prime minister Theresa May, more than 70 leading organisations and figures from the UK’s health and safety professions have called for a change in attitude to health and safety regulation and fire risk management.
The signatories have also called on the government to complete its review of Part B of the Building Regulations 2010, which cover fire safety within and around buildings in England, as a matter of urgency.
The letter, whose signatories include the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH), Park Health & Safety, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) and the British Safety Council, states: “We believe it is totally unacceptable for residents, members of the public and our emergency services to be exposed to this level of preventable risk in modern-day Britain.”
East Devon bursting at the seams – official!
Owl says: all these extra residents accessing fewer and fewer services. Let’s hope most of them are young and going to Cranbrook, Exmouth and Sidmouth – because there will be no maternity services or community hospitals in Axminster, Seaton, Honiton or Ottery St Mary.
“People moving to East Devon increased the population by almost 2,500 people – more than almost anywhere else in England and Wales.
An estimated 8,316 people moved to East Devon from elsewhere in the UK between July 2015 and June 2016.
This compared to 5,848 who went the other way during this time, new figures from the Office for National Statistics show.
This meant that an extra 2,468 people moved to East Devon than left – the second highest figure anywhere out of almost 350 counties and districts around England and Wales.
As of June 2016 there were 139,908 people in East Devon, meaning that 1.8 per cent of the population was made up of people who had just moved to the county from elsewhere within Britain.
This was the highest share out of anywhere in England and Wales.
The most popular destination for people to move to East Devon from was Exeter.
… A total of 700 people were estimated to have moved from East Devon to Exeter after subtracting those that went the other way, more than anywhere else.
On the other hand, Taunton Deane was the number one destination away from the area.
A net total of 54 people moved to Taunton Deane from East Devon in 2015/16.”
Local government property investment – the auditors’ roles
“Are these the magic money trees? The office blocks, shopping centres and petrol stations currently filling up the local government property portfolio with their promise of a harvest abundant enough to keep the fruit bowl full for years to come? Quite possibly, with a good soil for rooting, plenty of sunshine and lots of green-fingered attention. But also quite possibly not. Which is why you can expect a visit from your auditors, once they have remembered where they put their wellies.
It is a common scenario for auditors to have no knowledge of a substantial and risky project until it is too late for them to have any influence over it. Commercial sensitivities often lead to projects being run on a “need to know” basis, with external auditors joining internal auditors, scrutiny committees and sometimes even the section 151 officer on the other side of a firmly locked door.
The auditor may only find out about a project when the ink is drying on the contract, when there doesn’t seem much more to do than offer a sheet of blotting paper.
However, there is still a lot that the auditor can do that would be of benefit, even if there is nothing to be critical about.
For instance, the Spelthorne Borough Council £360m purchase of the BP campus with new borrowings of £377m against a budget requirement of around £13m is such a huge transaction that its mere existence surely justifies a public interest report from the auditors to reassure the local population that their new role as BP’s landlords will not weigh heavy upon them. There is no reason why public interest reports have to be reserved for bad news.
Unfortunately, auditors are not particularly keen on bringing good news. The best you will get is “negative assurance”: a declaration that, based on the investigations carried out, there is nothing that provokes the need for criticism. But this would still be a valuable contribution and is arguably what is required by the reporting duties in Schedule 7 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.
The least that we can expect is that auditors will eventually say enough to manage their reputation risk – limiting the possibility that someone at some point in the future could ask “where were the auditors?”. A couple of paragraphs in the audit letter affirming that it is an authority’s responsibility to make its own investment decisions and summarising the less reliable judgements by which those decisions have been taken.
So what will the auditors be particularly interested in?
Legal Powers
Since the introduction of the general power of competence, people seem more relaxed about identifying the legal powers supporting a decision. However, it is still important to know what powers are being exercised, particularly in understanding the implications of the limitations on those powers for a particular proposal.
For instance, the general power comes with restrictions on charging other than to recover costs and requires commercial activity to be run via a company. And the investment powers in the Local Government Act 2003 only extend to purposes relevant to an authority’s functions or the prudent management of its financial affairs. Advice confirming legality will be expected.
It is sometimes forgotten, by those without a legal background, that even if a power can be identified, then that power has to be exercised reasonably under the Wednesbury rules. Auditors will look for legal advice being properly grounded.
If an authority is borrowing to fund its purchases, there may also be questions about the propriety of borrowing to invest. Not so long ago this is something that would have rung alarm bells across the audit community. Judging by their appearance before the Public Accounts Committee in 2016, though, it does not seem a matter that DCLG and the Treasury are overly concerned by.
Finally, how are these projects integrated into the Prudential Framework? Arguments can be put that asset prices will rise to more than cover the cost of acquiring property and making good its depreciation, such that Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) is not needed. But this is risking a potentially major funding problem if the value/cost relationship shifts adversely in the future. How can an authority demonstrate its legal duty to act prudently?
Value for Money
Auditors will be concerned to examine all the significant judgements, estimates and projections involved in a decision to invest. They will also review accounting treatments to ensure they align costs and benefits appropriately and look critically at funding and financing arrangements.
Exit strategies will also be relevant, particularly noting that if rental income falls sale of a property will only generate a capital receipt rather than revenue income that might fill the gap in the budget.
Any reporting in this area will be restricted to the adequacy of the arrangements put in place by the authority to achieve value for money and will not provide any comfort that it has actually been achieved.
Decision Making
Auditors will check that the authority has complied with its democratic framework and schemes of delegation, particularly if the proposal has proceeded on a “need to know” basis.
So, if you are in the process of bulking up your property portfolio, prepare for the muddy tread of your auditors as they come to gaze sceptically upon your magic money tree.
Stephen Sheen is the managing director of Ichabod’s Industries, a consultancy providing technical accounting support to local government.
Affordable homes in Budleigh Salterton? You’re having a laugh!
Owl says: two totally different plans? A new planning application called for. Show your mettle EDDC!
“The number of affordable homes in a 59-dwelling development being built south of the B3178 is set to be slashed by nearly half under altered plans.
At a meeting of the town council’s planning committee, it was also revealed that the amount of one- and two-bedroom ‘starter’ houses could be reduced from 39 to 12.
Town councillors raised concerns over the change while discussing plans to move plots due to the costs of relocating a foul drain on the site, which will be known as Evans Field when it is built.
The council backed plans to move the plots in phase one of the project, but expressed ‘disquiet’ about the changes lined up for phase two.
Planning committee chairman Councillor Courtney Richards said that changes, which could see the amount of people living on the new site increase, did not ‘sit easy’ with him.
He added: “It’s exactly the same number of dwellings; however, there’s one extra five-bedroom house, 11 extra four-bedroom houses, 15 extra three-bedroom houses, 22 fewer two-bedroom houses and five fewer one-bedroom houses.
“I find that a very significant change in the plan to what has been previously agreed. The two sets of plans are very, very different.”
Previously, an application to reduce the amount of affordable homes on the site from 50 per cent to 40 was rejected.
Thirty affordable homes were originally planned for the site, but under the variation proposal, this could be reduced to 16. The requirement for 50 per cent affordable homes would still be met as shared-ownership homes would make up the other 14 needed.
Deputy mayor and district councillor Tom Wright added: “We’re keen to have starter homes for people. The need in Budleigh is for young families to move into smaller homes to get onto the housing ladder.”
Telegraph: planning permissions being granted in wrong places
“Planning permissions granted for new homes are being concentrated in the wrong areas, where there is less need for housing, according to new research by Savills.
It found that there is a lack of 90,000 planning consents for homes in the least affordable and most in-demand areas of the country.
Only 20pc of planning consents in 2016 were in the most unaffordable places, where the lowest priced homes are at least 11.4 times income. However, 40pc of the country’s total need for new homes is in these markets, while there is a surplus of consents in the most affordable locations.
Research found that in areas where the house price to earnings ratio is over 11.4, which includes London and much of the South East, there is a shortfall of 73,000 planning consents for homes.
Since the National Planning Policy Framework was launched four years ago, with the aim of simplifying the system, there has been a 56pc increase in the number of consents granted.
But analysis shows that there has not been any increase in the areas where affordability is most stretched and where housing need is the greatest.
The Savills report said: “This means we are not building enough homes in areas where they are most needed to improve affordability and support economic productivity.”
Only 41pc of local authorities have a housing plan which sets out housing need and a five-year plan of how to cater for it.
Savills also modelled the potential impact of the Housing Delivery Test, which was announced in the Housing White Paper last February and would assess need based on market strength in an attempt to build “homes in the right places”. It found that it would double London’s housing need to more than 100,000 homes.
Chris Buckle, Savills research director, said: “There continues to be a massive shortfall in London and its surrounds and it is this misalignment of housing need versus delivery which could ultimately hinder economic growth.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/uk/planning-permissions-new-homes-granted-wrong-areas-says-new/
Money versus safety: money always wins out
” …The Observer has learned that successive governments have commissioned and paid for – over the past 12 years – a series of reports into the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of sprinkler systems in the construction of new buildings, including schools and care homes. All have concluded beyond any doubt that they should be used.
Yet last year fire experts were enraged when ministers decided to loosen, not tighten, regulations to allow new schools to be built without sprinkler systems at all. The need to build more schools fast and cheaply appeared to have prevailed. “Everybody bombarded the ministers in education,” says King. “Meetings took place with ministers and they went back to have another look at their guidance and it is still pending today, because they are still trying to hedge their bets.”
It is understood that in March or April this year Barwell [last Housing Minister before the election] agreed in principle to meet the all-parliamentary group for the first time, but the meeting never happened because May called a general election and Barwell, no longer a member of parliament, moved to Downing Street to advise her. …”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/17/tragedy-grenfell-tower-lives-money-fire-safety
The new Housing Minister – does he really matter?
“Alok Sharma [is the new housing minister] … Sharma is the 15th housing minister since 1997 and the seventh since 2010, suggesting that most have only a limited time to develop expertise. Sharma, 49, an accountant by profession, comes to it as a housing novice. I’m sure the industry will be keen to colour in what looks like a blank sheet of paper“.
David Smith, Sunday Times Home, Opinion page 6(paywall)
Owl says: really no need to worry, Mr Smith – developers (aided by enthusiastic local authorities) have been in charge of housing foy YEARS and have no intention to relinquish control to a mere housing minister – who doesn’t even have a seat in the Cabinet.
East Devon Watch 