The strange case of Clinton Devon Estates and the hospital garden

Clinton Devon Estate has just submitted outline planning application 17/0495, for 2 bijou residences, an access road and a small residual strip of green space.

The site is vaguely (and perhaps somewhat disingenuously) described as “east of East Budleigh Road, Budleigh Salterton.”

It is, in fact, the Budleigh Salterton Cottage Hospital garden, gifted 120 years ago in commemoration of Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee. It has been used, ever since, to help patients convalesence and has been planted with an “in-memoriam” garden.

Because of this history and recreational use, the garden has been proposed as an open green space in the emerging Budleigh Salterton Neighbourhood Plan, approved this week by the EDDC Cabinet.

It ticks all the para. 77 NPPF boxes for the designation of open spaces. CDE are stakeholders in the formulation of this plan and at consultation made no comment.

So this application comes as a bit of a surprise to the people of Budleigh Salterton who have been promised an all-singing and dancing “Health Hub” with recreational facilities on the hospital site.

Chancellor Philip Hammond – property developer

“The property development company owned by Chancellor Philip Hammond has warned of Britain’s critical shortage of construction workers just weeks before the Brexit negotiations many fear will prevent crucial EU migrant workers coming to the UK.

Hammond privately owns care-home builder Castlemead, which admitted in its recently filed financial accounts that the building industry was “suffering from supply bottlenecks, particularly of skilled tradespeople, driving up costs”.

Separately, a construction investment company he owns called Chiswell (Moorgate) said in its filings: “The scarcity of good quality and committed subcontractors is still an issue.” …

… The Chancellor has not been involved in running his businesses since 2010, owning them through a family trust, but it is believed he is kept abreast of the situation they face.

Directors Richard Shackleton and Joe O’Donnell declined to comment.

Chiswell’s accounts statement was signed off on December 21 while Castlemead’s was dated July 29, a month after the Brexit referendum.

Despite the labour shortages, Hammond’s companies staged a significant bounceback from losses the year before.

Castlemead revealed the property market is so improved it was planning to return to housebuilding after several years out of the “speculative” residential market. …

… Hammond has in the past received a dividend of £1.8 million from the companies. … “

http://www.standard.co.uk/business/building-firms-owned-by-the-chancellor-voice-labour-worries-as-brexit-talks-near-a3484406.html

Well, he would say that wouldn’t he!

Businessman calls for budget to boost businesses that just happen to be those of his fellow LEP board members.

Not the NHS, not social care, not tourism, not agriculture – businesses such as his own (housing developer – CEO of Midas Group).

Move on, move on, nothing to see here!

“<em>A budget to boost business is at the top of the wish list for the South West. Economic leaders are calling for policies that support innovation and investment – and that means business rate reform and investment in the region’s infrastructure.

Steve Hindley, CBE DL Chairman of the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership, said: “The South West peninsula crucially needs step change in its connectivity to unlock its potential for economic prosperity.

“We already have clusters of thriving businesses, top class universities, colleges, schools and a Science Park that compete in a global arena; and with improved access to markets, many other businesses can achieve sustainable growth and create new employment opportunities to bring our GVA up to the national average and beyond. … “

http://www.devonlive.com/better-trains-and-business-rate-reform-come-top-of-our-budget-wish-list/story-30186325-detail/story.html

Now McCarthy and Stone not doing so well

Question: why is there no retirement housing in Cranbrook?

“Retirement housebuilder McCarthy & Stone PLC (LON:MCS) expects first half revenue to fall, reflecting a decline in sales releases and a reduction in the forward order book.

The company expects revenue in the six months to 28 February 2017 to dip to £238mln from £250mln in the year-ago period.

McCarthy & Stone said trading in the first half was constrained by a lower forward order book brought into the year, the weighting of completions from higher margin sites into the second half and a drop in sales releases.

Total legal completions during the period edged down to 866 units from 923 units.

The total forward order book, including legal completions, dropped to £418mln from £440mln, while net reservations fell to 1,084 from 1,132.

The average selling price climbed 1% to £260,000 from £257,000 and the company expects further growth as it improves the location and quality of its developments.

However, margins in the first half are expected to be lower than the previous year.

Net debt is expected to be £30mln, up from £24mln.

“We have delivered a solid performance during this half year despite the headwinds created by the lower forward order book brought into the year and the weighting of expected completions from higher margin new sites into the second half of the year,” said chief executive Clive Fenton.

“Our forward order book remains healthy and leaves us well-placed to deliver results in line with market expectations for the full year.”

Fenton said the market for retirement housing continues to be attractive due to an ageing population. He also noted the UK government’s pledge to address housing needs for older people in February’s Housing White Paper.”

https://t.co/uyoK0tIamf

Barratt Homes in more trouble

“Barratt has sold 172 luxury London new-build flats as rental homes, including an entire block at Nine Elms.

Here’s an unusual move by a housebuilder: Barratt Homes has bundled together 172 flats at various developments across London and sold them off as rental homes.

The housebuilder said it had sold the units to Henderson Park for £140.5m. The portfolio includes 29 units at Aldgate Place, a joint venture with British Land, 25 in Fulham Riverside and all 118 at its Nine Elms Point tower in Vauxhall, a joint venture with L&Q.

The deal is Henderson Park’s first foray into the private rented sector: Greystar will manage the homes.

David Thomas, Barratt’s chief executive, called the move an “excellent opportunity”.

“In particular the build and sale contract for an entire tower at our Nine Elms Point development enables us to deliver homes more quickly than we would otherwise.”

Back in January Barratt reported the number of sales it completed in London had fallen more than 56 per cent in the six months to the end of December, to 367 from 842 the year before.

The company said it had lowered prices and was offering bulk deals, like today’s, to shift homes in the capital.

However, last month the housebuilder reported an 8.8 per cent rise in pre-tax profits during the period, partly thanks to the fact completions outside the capital were at their highest level in nine years.

Meanwhile, figures published by Hometrack suggested house prices in the capital grew just 6.4 per cent in January, the lowest growth in four years.

At the time Richard Donnell, insight director at Hometrack, said: “When you consider that house prices in London are 85 per cent higher than they were in 2009, it is not surprising that the pace of increases is slowing toward a standstill as very high house price increases mean affordability is stretched.”

http://www.cityam.com/260324/barratt-sold-172-luxury-london-new-build-flats-rental-homes

When is a council asset not an asset?

” … If you didn’t know your local council had become a trader in gardening services, you may be even more surprised to learn it has turned into a property trader, buying up shopping centres, business parks, office blocks, hotels and garages. In 2016, local authorities spent over £1bn on real estate. [EDDC will be doing this when it funds its new Honiton HQ].

You may think this is a peculiar state of affairs when councils are simultaneously selling assets to mitigate budget shortfalls. But the arithmetic is simple. The Public Works Loan Board, a statutory body established in 1793, will lend at 2.5% interest. Property assets will yield at least 4.5% and often far more. The result is that local councils are becoming significant players in the UK property market, causing the Financial Times columnist John Plender to warn of its “creeping nationalisation”. Canterbury’s Whitefriars shopping centre (Kent), Sutton Coldfield’s Red Rose shopping centre (Birmingham) and Sunbury’s BP Business Park (Surrey) are all owned or partly owned by a local council.

Municipal enterprise is nothing new – councils sold local gas supplies in the Victorian era, and Joseph Chamberlain, Harold Macmillan and Anthony Crosland all proposed an expansion of municipal trading. But until recently, such opportunities were strictly limited by legislation that, for example, restricted them to trading only with each other. New Labour gave them explicit permission in 2003 to trade “ordinary functions” for a “commercial purpose”. In 2011, the coalition government’s Localism Act allowed them to do whatever they liked unless specifically prohibited by law. Now councils, having been forced to relinquish their roles as landlords of inexpensive housing for local people, re-emerge as landlords of multinational stores.

The dangers are obvious. If the property market were to crash, councils would be saddled with assets of dubious value. Moreover, it seems strange that, after deeming them incapable of running schools, Tory ministers are now happy for councils to manage investment portfolios covering areas of which they have little experience. But it is all part of the neoliberal vision for the world.

Boundaries between public and private sectors are being blurred. Since 1990 companies have been allowed, in effect, to bribe councils with payments for improved roads, new schools, high-street facelifts and affordable homes in return for planning permission. It is another step along the same road for the council itself to become a company and/or a property developer. Just as the state was omnipresent in the Soviet Union, stamping out entrepreneurial instincts, so the market becomes omnipresent in our society, sweeping away the ethos of public service. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/06/councils-local-authorities-bankruptcy-public-service

“Council applies for judicial review of one of its own planning decisions”

Would never happen here … though Owl does recall something not dissimilar … a while back.

“A local authority has applied for a judicial review of one of its planning decisions, after a councillor voted in favour of an application brought by her brother-in-law.

Applicant Nick Barrett, owner of a restaurant in Long Melford, had applied to Babergh District Council for permission to build an annexe.

His application was approved at a meeting in November 2016. The minutes of the meeting note that Melanie Barrett, Mr Barrett’s sister-in-law, had stated that she had a family association with the applicant.

The minutes of the meeting also said that another councillor had stated that he was employed by a family member of the applicant.

The minutes continued: “Following clarification from Phil Devonald, Interim Deputy Monitoring Officer -Programme Delivery, the legal advisor to the Committee, the Councillors asserted that the statements by Councillors Barrett and Holt did not constitute a disclosable interest by reason of close family relationship or employment as provided for under the Suffolk Local Code of Conduct adopted by the Council.

“He advised however that this was a matter of public perception and confidence in the transparency and fairness of the system and that Members should consider whether they should take part in the proceedings given the nature of their relationship to the Applicant. This advice was not accepted by the Councillors concerned.”

A spokesman for Babergh told Local Government Lawyer that the council had not received any complaints but the authority considered it necessary to take the issue to judicial review.

“On the one hand it is not a good thing that we are having to do this,” he added. “However, it shows that the mechanisms are there to review our actions.”

Mr Barrett told the Suffolk Free Press that the annexe was being built for his 87-year-old father.

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30304%3Acouncil-applies-for-judicial-review-of-one-of-its-own-planning-decisions&catid=63&Itemid=31

Very sour grapes at Clinton Devon Estates towards EDDC!

Owl says: CDE not getting their own way with highly ontroversial AONB development blames officers and councillors at EDDC – CDE not happy bunnies!

[To] Housing Delivery Task and Finish Forum – Observations on Issues affecting Housing Delivery

“[From]Leigh Rix, Head of Property for Clinton Devon Estates Iestyn John, Partner at Bell Cornwell LLP

Background

Clinton Devon Estates are rural landowners with substantial land and property interests in East Devon, notably in the southern part of the district between Exmouth and Beer. The Estate therefore operates within a large number of rural communities and in an area which is subject to a range of landscape and other sensitivities, all of which have with the potential to affect housing delivery. The Estate seeks to act as a responsible landowner with the principles of sustainability at the heart of all its activities. The Estate takes a long term intergenerational view which takes precedence over short term political and economic interests. It is within this context that its observations on the issues affecting housing delivery are provided.

In the Estate’s experience, there are two types of issues which are frustrating housing delivery:

cultural factors and technical factors

Cultural Issues

The absence within the Council of a positive, solution focused mindset necessary to properly resolve the undoubted tensions which exist between business, community and local politics, reflecting an agreed vision of how housing delivery will support wider longer term ambitions for the district in the context of an economically, socially and environmentally vibrant community. This absence appears to ‘set the tone’ for the setting of land use policy and decision making and may act as a barrier to investment in the area;

Greater pragmatism is needed, especially with regard to pursuing opportunities for properly considered housing proposals in rural areas. Such opportunities have the potential to act as a source of considerable amounts of additional housing without harming rural character. It is notable that earlier drafts of the Local Plan proposed to allocate 5% extra housing to each village. In individual villages, this would represent very small scale growth but is an approach, which collectively, would have contributed at least 500 more houses to the District’s identified supply than the approved Local Plan. The current approach of relying on neighbourhood plans to deliver local growth, whilst politically expedient, is inherently problematic especially in those areas in which the Estate operates, given the predominance of NIMBY interests which do not typically act in support of traditional local communities or longer term, future generational thinking;

Stronger, more decisive leadership is needed and at all levels. Amongst other things, this will generate certainty for the development industry and confidence that planning applications once supported, will be approved.

There are clear political tensions within the Council which create considerable uncertainties, delays and costs to bringing forward housing supply. The Estates’ experience with their development at King Alfred Way in Newton Poppleford is a clear example. Despite receiving officer support throughout the process, it took five years, four applications and five planning committees to secure a development which is modest in size, provides a high level of affordable housing and a clearly identified community facility in the form of a new doctor’s surgery. It will be understood that such problems do not act as positive signal to those seeking to invest in housing schemes – of any form – in East Devon.

Technical Issues

Some officers within the planning teams seek to apply seemingly needless bureaucracy; for example in the scope of the information they ask for to validate or process applications. It is obviously important that properly relevant information be provided, however unnecessary requests generate delay and cost and add little to consideration of the issue. We note the recent application validation list actually seems to make this issue worse. A more pragmatic and proportionate position is needed.

Feedback from statutory consultees is extremely slow. This is partly an issue of under-resourcing of these agencies which is out of the control of the Council. However, such poor responses have the potential to significantly delay decisions on applications. We would suggest that officers need to feel able to come to their own view on issues where specific advice is not forthcoming in a timely manner unless there are fundamental issues such as highways safety under consideration.

Officers need to support schemes which are common sense and where there is unlikely to be any harm to wider objectives. It is notable that there are various schemes in the Cranbrook area – a central part of the Council’s housing delivery strategy – which are not being determined until the Council’s much delayed SPD for the area is approved. In this core location, the Council appear to be getting locked into a planning rather than delivery cycle which prevents certain sizeable schemes e.g. the non-consortium site at Farlands from coming forward with, in that case, an approval for 200 + dwellings.

From the experience of the Estate it would seem that some members of Development Management and other Committees require training in their responsibilities and the planning process as well as more general Committee Management skills. Poor quality, ill informed decisions made by members disregarding legal and planning advice causes increased skills costs for housing projects and local taxpayers as well as a lack of delivery of schemes which meet agreed local plan criteria.”

Planners not to blame for housing crisis says Telegraph

FINALLY planners are NOT to blame for the housing crisis, building rates are not increasing substantially, 50% of permissions are not being built but land banked, subsidies aren’t having much impact, Shelter says land should be compulsorily purchased at “current value” by councils to build council housing, developers drag out S106 negotiations so that councils get into trouble for not getting enough houses built, housebuilders exist to maximise profits not units built, the market isn’t working.

And it took this long to get to this point!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/03/04/dont-let-housing-crisis-go-unnoticed/

“More than half of new-build homes in England ‘have major faults’ “

” … More than half of the buyers of new homes have experienced major problems with their properties, according to research, which comes after Bovis Homes agreed to pay £7m compensation to customers for poorly built houses.

A YouGov survey for the housing charity Shelter found that 51% of homeowners of recent new builds in England said they had experienced major problems including issues with construction, unfinished fittings and faults with utilities.

The survey, which polled 4,341 UK adults online, was published alongside a Shelter report that concluded that the housebuilding sector is rigged in favour of big developers and land traders rather than families looking for homes.

The current speculative system of housebuilding is failing families by producing expensive, yet poor-quality homes, according to the report, published after the government branded the housing market “broken” in its recent housing white paper.

Eight in ten working families who are renting privately cannot afford to buy a newly built home – even if they use the government’s Help to Buy scheme, Shelter said. The West Midlands ranked as the worst region, with 93% of families unable to purchase an average-priced new home.

In the report, entitled New Civic Housebuilding, the charity calls for a return to building good-quality, affordable homes like the model villages for Cadbury workers at Bournville, the red brick developments of the Peabody and Guinness estates, the Victorian and Georgian terraces in Edinburgh and Bath, and the garden cities of Letchworth and Welwyn.

The YouGov poll showed 41% of homeowners disagreed with the statement “I would prefer to live in a new home rather than an older one”; 29% agreed, and 26% neither agreed nor disagreed. And 45% disagreed with the statement “New homes are built to a higher standard than older homes”; 22% agreed and 23% were neutral.

The findings come amid rising complaints about poor building standards in new homes and the regulation of the sector. Critics claim the National House Building Council (NHBC), which checks new homes for defects and provides 10-year warranties for most new homes in Britain, is too close to the housebuilders and is failing in its duty to protect consumers.

Last week Bovis Homes’ interim boss, Earl Sibley, apologised to customers as the company set aside £7m to pay compensation and to fix shoddily built new homes, with many customers reporting hundreds of “snags” after moving in.

Shelter called for a shake-up of the housebuilding sector, with a bigger role for development corporations, which have specific powers (such as the Olympic Delivery Authority) – they can give planning permission and acquire land, if necessary compulsorily, at reasonable prices. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/02/over-half-of-new-build-homes-in-england-have-major-faults

Houses as commodities and not as homes

The UN special rapporteur for housing, Leilani Farha, will highlight the devastating human rights impact of society’s tendency to view houses as financial commodities rather than homes for people, in her report to the UN this week.

Farha, who has been UN special rapporteur for housing and human rights since May 2014, has published a hard-hitting report [pdf], which she presents to the UN in Geneva on 1 March. It details the shift in recent years that has seen massive amounts of global capital invested in housing as a commodity, particularly as security for financial instruments that are traded on global markets and as a means of accumulating wealth. As a result, she says, homes are often left empty – even in areas where housing is scarce.

“Shops are closing, restaurants are closing,” Farha has told the Guardian, in an exclusive interview. “You see immediately a loss of vibrancy.”

‘Housing should be seen as a human right. Not a commodity’ | Patrick Butler
Farha wants governments around the world to act. She is calling for them to redefine their relationship with private investors and international financial institutions, and reform the governance of financial markets, in order to reclaim housing as a social good, “and thus ensure the human right to a place to live in security and dignity”. Here are some of the report’s key findings.

Building homes to lie empty

The report warns about a rise in “dehumanised housing”: housing built as a high-yield commodity rather than for social use. A significant portion of investor-owned homes are simply left empty. In Melbourne, Australia, for example, 82,000 (or one fifth) of investor-owned units are unoccupied. In prime locations for wealthy foreign investors, such as the affluent boroughs of Chelsea and Kensington in the city of London, the number of vacant units increased by 40% between 2013 and 2014.

In such markets, the value of housing is no longer based on its social use. Properties are equally valuable regardless of whether they are vacant or occupied, so there is no pressure to ensure properties are lived in. They are built with the intention of lying empty and accumulating value, while at the same time, homelessness remains a persistent problem.

People’s homes are not commodities: cities need to rethink housing
The average income of local residents or kinds of housing they would like to inhabit is of little concern to financial investors, who cater to the desires of speculative markets. These are likely to replace affordable housing that is needed locally with luxury housing that sits vacant because that is how best to turn a profit quickly.

For instance, Kensington & Chelsea is a hotspot for building luxury housing, and yet the borough also has the fourth highest number of households in temporary accommodation in UK, as well as the highest rate of out-of-borough placements (meaning when people become homeless, they are moved to different boroughs entirely).

Farha’s report says escalating house prices have become key factors in the increase in wealth inequality. Those who own property in prime urban locations have become richer, while lower-income households become poorer. Surveys of ultra-high net-worth individuals show that over 50% have increased the proportion of their investments allocated to housing. The most common reasons are in order to sell at a later date and provide a safe return on investment, thus protecting wealth. The “economics of inequality” may be explained in large part by the inequalities of wealth generated by housing investments.

The impact of private investment has also contributed to spatial segregation and inequality within cities, Farha points out. In South Africa, private investment in cities has sustained many of the discriminatory patterns of the apartheid area, with wealthier, predominantly white households occupying areas close to the centre and poorer black South Africans living on the peripheries. That “spatial mismatch”, relegating poor black households to areas where employment opportunities are scarce, has entrenched poverty and cemented inequality.

Similar patterns of racial displacement from urban centres and segregation can be found in large cities in the US.

This also creates gender segregation: in Australia, analysis has shown that average-income single female workers can afford to live in only one suburb of Melbourne, and cannot afford to live anywhere in Sydney.

Farha’s report calls for action. She wants governments to provide housing for people affected by economic downturns and unemployment, but many have been hampered by austerity measures imposed by creditors. As a result, they have agreed to dramatically reduce or eliminate affordable housing programmes, privatise social housing and sell off real estate assets to private equity funds.

The report argues that many governments are too deferential to unregulated markets and have failed to protect the right to adequate housing. Tax subsidies for homeownership, tax breaks for investors, and bailouts for financial institutions have subsidised and encouraged the excessive financialisation of housing.

Farha concludes that all laws and policies related to foreclosure, indebtedness and housing should be examined to ensure the right to adequate housing is paramount, including the obligation to prevent any eviction resulting in homelessness.”

When and how does devolution become a scam?

Georgina Allen:


“Looking at the papers at the moment, there is a stark contrast to be witnessed – on the one hand, local people out in the rain and cold, holding bedraggled posters, begging for hospitals to be saved, for school funds not to be cut, for councils to hold strong against insistent developers – while on the other hand, the self-congratulations of business people and the LEP, the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership, on winning yet another enormous handout from the government – £43.56 million this time. This brings their total budget to over £200 million.

Where has this £43 million come from? If the government can’t find money to help keep local hospitals open, how can they suddenly produce this huge windfall? Council budgets here in the South West have been reduced on average by about 40%, forcing councils to cut back on essential services.

Local councils are having to make some very difficult decisions. They are being kept afloat by income from the New Homes Bonuses, money which they are given for every house built. This however, puts them at odds with their constituents, who see thousands of unaffordable new houses spreading over their fields, damaging agriculture, tourism and local infrastructure. Council taxes have gone up, business rates have gone up, services are being cut, yet suddenly this huge windfall has appeared.

The LEP, who have been given this bonanza to share out, are an interesting organisation to be responsible for this amount of public money. They are a self-elected group of business people and councillors. The majority of business represented are from the construction industry. There are also representatives from the arms industry, cyber technology, the nuclear industry and people with financial interests in house building. Their meetings are held in private, they are unaccountable and are not required to be transparent. They are responsible for the division of an enormous amount of public money and yet their board represents the construction industries who benefit the most from the windfall, leading to many awkward conflicts of interest.

Their choices on where to spend this money reflect their own interests too closely in my opinion. Money, which it can be argued, has been taken from council funds, is being sent to fund an upgrade to the train station in Plymouth, to help a proposed new town on the edge of Newton Abbot, to build a high technology centre in Torbay.

All of this investment is good of course, but if it comes at the expense of our hospitals, schools and roads, then questions need to be asked about who is making the decision on where that money goes. If money is being drained from council funds and the public purse to build massive new developments, developments which benefit the businesses that the people making the decisions are in charge of, then the public need to be a lot more informed than they are.

In light of the recent scandals shaking LEPs in other areas, as reported by the Times and the Mail, it would make a lot of sense to ask for a great deal more transparency. To quote the Times article, “Millions of pounds have been spent, however, on businesses run by board members of the partnerships or on the companies of people close to them.” I’m sure our LEP have done nothing wrong, so a little more openness in the way they function cannot hurt.

The lack of openness is especially worrying when you see how fundamentally the changes that the LEP are behind, are changing the face of Devon and Somerset. Housing for example – the LEP have come up with a figure of 169,000 new houses needed for Devon and Somerset.

How have they come up with this figure?

Nobody seems to know – several councillors in my local area of the South Hams have asked and as they put it, ‘have been fobbed off’. The LEP don’t need to answer questions and you can’t do a freedom of information on them as they are not a public body. It’s mentioned that this figure is possibly based on local housing needs assessments – so where do these housing assessments come from? How does a town like Newton Abbot, which has had a static or declining population for many years, suddenly need to double in size according to a ‘local housing need assessment’? I was told by a chief planning officer that he didn’t understand the way they were calculated. I would argue that they are based on market needs not local needs.

Who will benefit then from having a high housing figure? Well the people who develop the land will and it is unfortunate that so many of them are sitting on the board of the LEP. It doesn’t inspire confidence. Many of the houses that have been built are not selling, but that doesn’t seem to stop the LEP and various councils represented on its board, from producing larger and larger plans – the one for a Greater Exeter has just come out.

If they want local people to support them, they must explain where the money is going and why. They must put the money into supporting agriculture, tourism, the environment and services instead of just endless, huge infrastructural projects. They must consult and discuss properly and answer freedom of information requests, otherwise like the other scandal-ridden LEPs, it will just resemble a scam. A scam whereby local services are cut and public money is diverted into supporting private industry and how does that really help any of us.”

Government response to petition – “Give communities back the right to decide where houses are built.”.

OWL SAYS: if you believe this, you will believe anything. Have we been consulted about where our Local Enterprise Partnership is going to build extra houses? No. What say do we have about extra houses for Greater Exeter? Almost none. Do (favoured) developers get just about anything and everything they ask for in East Devon? Yes, they do.

Truly we live in a parallel universe to the government!


“Local communities are not forced to accept large housing developments. Communities are consulted throughout the Local Plan process and on individual planning applications.

Read the response in full

The National Planning Policy Framework strongly encourages all local planning authorities to get up-to-date Local Plans in place as soon as possible, in consultation with the local community. Up-to-date Local Plans ensure that communities get the right development, in the right place, at the right time, reflecting the principles of sustainable development. Through the White Paper we are ensuring that every part of the country produces, maintains and implements an up-to-date plan, yet with the flexibility for local areas to decide how to plan in a way that best meets their needs.

A wide section of the community should be proactively engaged so that Local Plans, as far as possible, reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable development of the area, including those contained in any neighbourhood plans that have been made.

The Framework recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. That is why our proposals are focussed on development in built up areas.
We are also absolutely clear that Green Belt must be protected and that there are other areas that local authorities must pursue first, such as brownfield land and taking steps to increase density on urban sites. The Government is committed to maximising the use of brownfield land and has already embarked on an ambitious programme to bring brownfield land back into use.

We believe that developers should mitigate the impacts of development. This is vital to make it acceptable to the local community and to addresses the cumulative impact of development in an area. Both the Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 agreements can be used by local planning authorities to help fund supporting infrastructure and address the cumulative demand that development places on infrastructure. Through the White Paper, the Government announced that it will examine the options for reforming the existing system of developer contributions to see how this can be simplified, with further announcements at Autumn Budget 2017.

The £2.3billion Housing Infrastructure Fund will deliver up to 100,000 new homes by putting in the right infrastructure, in the right place, at the right time. We expect the fund to be able to deliver a variety of types of infrastructure necessary to unlock housing growth in high demand areas.

There is nothing automatic about grants of planning permission where there is not yet an up-to-date Local Plan. It is still up to local decision-makers to interpret and apply national policy to local circumstances, alongside the views of the local community. Applications should not be approved if the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits; or if specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted.

Communities are also able to make representations on individual planning applications and in response to most appeals by the applicant against a local authority decision. Interested parties can raise all the issues that concern them during the planning process, in the knowledge that the decision maker will take their views into account, along with other material considerations, in reaching a decision.

We therefore do not believe a right of appeal against the grant of planning permission for communities is necessary. It is considered that communities already have plenty of opportunity to have their say on local planning issues, and it would be wrong for them to be able to delay a development at the last minute, through a community right of appeal, when any issues they would raise at that point could have been raised and should have been considered during the earlier planning application process.

Department for Communities and Local Government”

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/177333

Developers could be fined for not developing sites with permission says Govt Minister

“Housing minister Gavin Barwell told MPs that the government is considering publishing league table on the performance of developers showing how many homes they are building.

This would enable councils – and activist investors – to hold the major developers to account and end claims of landbanking.

Barwell discussed the idea during evidence to the Commons communities and local government committee on the recent housing White paper and plans to speed up housebuilding.

The minister revealed the idea of fining developers for not turning sites into homes had been ruled out.

But league tables – including their record of turning sites into developments – “should be a determination” that allows councils assess the record of developer in building out permissions.

“There is a balance to be had. If it was too draconian, the effect would be chilling,” he said.

The minister accepted developers needed to have land in reserve to be able to start sites as a development finishes. But he wants to reduce the time taken from purchase to build by the main private developers which is currently five years.

He also questioned if developers were too risk averse with sites. On a site with the potential of 1,000 homes only around 70 would be built in order protect the company’s financial position.

Barwell said: “The main way that we reduce landbanking is to speed up the planning system. But my real concern is once you start.”

Other plans include a major review of how taxes on developments are decided.

His department and the Treasury are looking at a nationally set charge that would be locally collected locally spent by councils.

Barwell revealed a review of the Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 agreements will be included in the autumn Budget.

“It’s something we need to address,” Barwell said. “There is a lot of dissatisfaction with how the current system works. But what we don’t want to lose is the localism element of how money is spent.”

There was good news for local authority planning departments which have been hit by staff cuts caused by austerity cuts.

Barwell said the government was looking at enabling councils to increase planning fees to cover the whole cost of running their teams. Where some councils had major regeneration projects, they would not only be able to raise more money from applicants but his department would look at targeted intervention where some LAs need support.

“I’m clearly on the side of getting more money spent on those planning departments. Local authority planning departments are under-resourced,” he said.

The biggest controversy in the White Paper had been over the future of green belt land. …”

http://www.24housing.co.uk/news/league-tables-for-housing-developers-warns-barwell/

Exmouth seafront: reserved matters planning application WILL result in full planning permission

“Residents attending a meeting about East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) reserved matters application for the seafront said members did not debate relevant planning points.

They called for the vote to support the plan be declared invalid. Residents also said Councillor Lynne Elson should apologise to district councillor Megan Armstrong for interrupting her.

An EDDC spokesperson said: “EDDC’s monitoring officer has considered this letter of complaint, but, in a case such as this, neither he nor the council are in a position to interfere with the legitimate decision-making of Exmouth Town Council.”

The spokesperson said concern about the decision would be a legal matter for the courts, and added that even if a councillor had been found in breach of the code of conduct, this would not legally affect the decision.

They added that the monitoring officer had heard a recording of the meeting and ruled there was nothing ‘untoward’ in the exchange between Cllr Elson and Cllr Armstrong.

The spokesperson added that although the application would produce a ‘valid and implementable’ planning permission, only the district council could carry out the development if approved.

However, EDDC has confirmed it only intends to realign the road and carry out the car park works. Therefore, any developers would have to apply for permission for the watersports centre and remainder of the site.

In response, Ron Metcalfe, one of the complainants, said: “We thank EDDC for finally confirming that if the reserved matters application is approved it will result in a valid and implementable planning permission to build.

“The basis of our complaint was an EDDC and town councillor repeatedly claimed this was not the case.

“We remain concerned that the town council decision was made based on misleading and inaccurate information and lack of relevant discussion.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/complaint_against_exmouth_town_council_vote_dismissed_1_4903311

Exmouth: grab your Warren View sports ground before it goes for development

If no suitable tenants are found EDDC could use that as an excuse to sell it. Maybe consider village green status asap too?

http://www.devonlive.com/sports-clubs-wanted-to-take-over-lease-of-exmouth-sports-ground/story-30166070-detail/story.html

Seaton Heights up for auction at £2.5 – £3 million next month

20 March 2017, lot 141

“Arguably the single most important, anticipated and iconic holiday village, hotel & spa development opportunity in the South West of England enjoying a lofty position overlooking Lyme Bay and the Jurassic Coast (a World Heritage Site) benefitting from planning consent for 38 semi-detached ‘deck homes’, a 12 bedroom hotel and associated facilities.

Mother Nature has been very kind to the site with its near perfect topography, outlook and orientation while on the ‘man-made’ front there could hardly be a better proximity to the local and regional road network. With Lyme Regis, Charmouth and West Bay to the east and Beer, Branscombe and Sidmouth to the west, the property could hardly be more centrally located on the highly prized and popular stretch of coastline that spans West Dorset and East Devon.

Simple development, as per the current approval in the form of a holiday home sales/lettings and hotel operation, may be on the minds of some but the potential for multi-week disposals and future service charge and ground rent opportunities will be not far from the radar of many.

Finally, there may be opportunities to increase the number of holiday homes and hotel rooms by virtue of the relatively generous use of space thus far, subject to all necessary consents being obtainable. Interested applicants are advised to make their own enquiries with the ‘East Team’ at the Local Planning Authority, the East Devon District Council: Tel: 01395 517475. Website: eastdevon.gov.uk.

Site Measurements

The whole site extends to 2.7 hectares (5.13 acres).

Planning

Planning Permission has been granted by East Devon District Council, under ref: 14/0677/MFUL dated 5 May 2015, for the construction of two storey 12 bedroom hotel; 38 units of holiday accommodation; central amenities building for restaurant/leisure club and associated parking and access, subject to conditions.

A copy of the Planning Consent and proposed plans are available via the Local Planning Authority’s website.

Freehold with Vacant Possession”

http://www.cliveemson.co.uk/properties/192/141/

5 year land supply test case in Supreme Court

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30149%3Athe-nppf-heads-to-the-supreme-court&catid=63&Itemid=31

Greater Exeter Strategic Plan consultation – only one public meeting to discuss implications for East Devon

NOTE THAT, UNLIKE THE EMAIL TO EDDC COUNCILLORS (see earlier post) WE ARE NOT BEING ASKED IF WE WANT TO PUT FORWARD SECRET LAND HOLDINGS – THOUGH NO DOUBT THE TAXMAN WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IF YOU DID!

THE BIGGEST PLANNING ISSUE TO HIT EAST DEVON SINCE THE LOCAL PLAN AND YOU MUST TREK TO HONITON ON 8 MARCH IF YOU WANT TO HAVE YOUR SAY. THAT’S IT – ONE MEETING IN ONE PLACE.

DO YOU RECALL BEING ASKED IF YOU WANTED TO BE PART OF GREATER EXETER? OWL NEITHER!

Greater Exeter Strategic Plan Consultation: Issues

The local authorities of East Devon, Exeter, Mid Devon and Teignbridge in partnership with Devon County Council are working together to prepare a Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP). This formal statutory document will provide the overall spatial strategy and level of housing and employment land to be provided up to 2040. Please visit http://www.gesp.org.uk for more information.

Engagement with stakeholders and communities will be critical to the success of the Plan. At this first stage, the authorities are consulting on an initial ‘issues document’ which, after setting out some background information, looks to explain the scope and content of the plan as well as describing the key issues facing the Greater Exeter area. This early stage of consultation is designed to stimulate debate and the local planning authorities are seeking your views on the scope and content of the plan as well as the key issues facing your area.

A number of other associated documents are also being consulted on:

Draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report:

· The Draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report is the first stage of work in undertaking the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) for the plan. This process is used to assess the sustainability of the plan content as it develops.

Statement of Community Involvement:

· The joint Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) sets out the approach for consultation in the GESP. The SCI sets out the way in which we will be engaging with communities and other interested parties throughout the process.

The consultation will run from 27 February 2017 until 10 April 2017. To view the consultation material and to make your comments please visit http://www.gesp.org.uk/consultations/issues/.

Alternatively, paper copies of the consultation document are available to view at your local library and Council Office.

A series of exhibitions are being held during the consultation period in the following locations:

Honiton: Mackarness Hall, High Street, EX14 1PG – Wednesday 8 March 2017, 2pm-8pm

Tiverton: Mid Devon District Council Office, Phoenix House, Phoenix Lane, EX16 6PP – Wednesday 15 March 2017, 2-8pm
Exeter: The Guildhall, High Street, EX4 3EB – Thursday 16 March 2017, 2-8pm
Newton Abbot: Old Forde House, Brunel Road, TQ12 4XX – Thursday 23 March 2017, 2- 8pm

A ‘call for sites’ has also been arranged to run alongside the consultation. This is a technical exercise which allows interested parties to submit potential sites for development to the Local Authorities. The sites are then assessed to consider whether they are suitable for possible inclusion in the plan. Further information is http://gesp.org.uk/call-for-sites/.

If you need further information please visit the website, email GESP@devon.gov.uk or contact your Local Council using the phone numbers below:

East Devon: 01395 571533
Exeter: 01392 265615
Mid Devon: 01884 234221
Teignbridge: 01626 215735

As there are four Councils contacting their stakeholders for the consultation and call for sites, you may receive duplicate letters/emails. Please accept my apologies if this is the case.”

Got a bit of green space? Greater Exeter would LOVE to build on it

https://www.gesp.org.uk/consultations/call-for-sites/

and a (pointless) “consultation” document here:

https://www.gesp.org.uk/consultations/issues/

Since, as usual, all done and dusted.

Big expansion to Newton Abbott already moving on, same with the Teignbridge side of Exeter at Alphington and at Cranbrook – and all the partner councils happy to allow development anywhere and everywhere else. Unless you are in Exeter, in which case all housing will probably be student housing.

The East Devon Local Plan was supposed to cover us till 2030. This one goes from now to 2040.

Local Plans for 4 councils (ours taking nearly a decade to pass) all to be ripped up as no longer worth the paper they were (eventually) written on.

And, whilst all this is going on, EDDC’s main preoccupation is spend millions of pounds of our money to relocate to a site that could be redundant before they ever set foot in it.