Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Axminster, Bovis, Developers/ Development, Persimmon, Redrow

Bovis … creek … no paddle?

Bovis is currently constructing all over East Devon, including in large numbers at Axminster, Seaton and Cranbrook.

The company has recently seen the creation of the Bovis Homex Victims Group Facebook site:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2016/09/08/bovis-homes-victims-group-facebook-page/

Could it be that this has also contributed to their woes?
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2016/12/23/axminster-and-cranbrook-slums-of-the-future-says-councillor-hull-whilst-councillor-moulding-says-nothing/

“A City attempt to lay the foundations of a £5bn merger of Bovis Homes and Berkeley Group is on shaky ground, with Berkeley understood to have rejected the idea.

Schroders, Bovis’ biggest shareholder, wrote to Berkeley proposing an all-share merger following a difficult trading period for Bovis which claimed the scalp of its chief executive David Ritchie.

Bovis had issued a surprise profit warning at the end of 2016, saying that pre-tax profits were likely to be flat this year at between £160m and £170m, below analyst predictions of £180m, due to a slowdown in the rate of building and sales in December.

The string of events prompted Schroders to target a merger with Berkeley, which mostly builds homes in London and the South East. Bovis’ activity is also concentrated on that area.

But Berkeley sources said the company had dismissed the call, instead choosing to concentrate on growing through partnerships with the likes of the National Grid, with whom it signed a £700m joint venture to develop new homes on disused land owned by the power provider in 2014, rather than mergers.

Other housebuilders, such as rivals Redrow or Persimmon, could still be in the frame to buy Bovis, which has struggled in recent months with slowing sales of its homes amid wider market uncertainty.

Berkeley itself has not been immune to a slump in the market: last month it amended its five-year dividend plan to return some cash through share buybacks instead. It also said in December that the number of reservations for its homes had fallen by a fifth since the referendum, signalling the impact of the slowing London property market on the company.

It hit out at Government policy which it said was increasing demand rather than supply, saying while it had helped in some areas, it was having “a negative effect on the capital”.

Schroders declined to comment on the terms of its proposals.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/01/22/merger-bovis-berkeley-shaky-ground/

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Councillor Megan Armstrong EDA, Developers/ Development, East Devon Alliance, EDDC Monitoring Officer, Exmouth, Independent Councillors, Regeneration

Comments

Exmouth seafront extended planning documents – EDA Independent Councillor Megan Armstrong responds

Below is the response of Independent Exmouth councillor Megan Armstrong to the extended planning permission submission for Exmouth seafront by EDDC:

queens-drive-comment-to-press-release-5r

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Developers/ Development, EDDC Monitoring Officer, Exmouth, Freedom of Information Act, Philip Skinner, Regeneration, Spin, Transparency

“Creative group” or “group of creatives” – what’s the difference!

Recall that Councillor Skinner has said that he has never met “The Ecmouth Creative Group”, then read this Freedom of Information response:

“Thank you for your request for information. Please find the response to your query below.

What criteria does the Exmouth Regeneration Board (ERB) use when selecting potential community groups to communicate with?
The ERB does not formally communicate with community groups and does not therefore apply any specific criteria. The notes of ERB meetings are published and the various members of the ERB including both District and Town Councils communicate with a wide range of Exmouth community groups as required.

[BUT THIS IS CONTRADICTED FURTHER IN THIS RESPONSE!]

Why was the Exmouth Creative Group assigned a brief to design a vision for Exmouth?
Cllr Skinner met in December with some Exmouth local businesses in his capacity as Chair of the Exmouth Regeneration Board and Portfolio Holder for Economy. It was an informal meeting to talk about Exmouth matters and to share views with a group of local businesses who would describe themselves as ‘creative’.

When was the decision made to as the Exmouth Creative Group to design a vision for Exmouth, who was involved in making this decision and whose idea was it in the first instance?
This decision was not taken by the ERB or by any representative of EDDC and no information is held in relation to this question.

How did EDDC and the Exmouth Regeneration Board in particular approach the Exmouth Community Group and who did this?
As above, Cllr Skinner met with some local businesses.

Given that the Exmouth Creative Group is unknown within Exmouth, please explain why the many well known community groups have been overlooked in favour of the Exmouth Creative Group for this task?
The Council engages with all manner of local groups in Exmouth and elsewhere in a variety of ways.

Please provide the names of those in attendance and dates of any meetings between any officers or councillors of EDDC with the Exmouth Creative Group or any representative of the Exmouth Creative Group.
The meeting was an informal one and the Council does not have an attendance list.

I hope this information is helpful but if you feel dissatisfied with the way we have responded, please contact our Monitoring Officer, Henry Gordon Lennox, to request an internal review at [email address]

You may also approach the Information Commissioner for advice at http://www.ico.org.uk”

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/east_devon_district_council_and?nocache=incoming-922717#incoming-922717

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Austerity cuts, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation

Comments

EDDC to see drop in income which may affect relocation funding

EDDC has been relying on the New Homes Bonus ( which can be spent on anything) to partly fund their relocation expenditure:

“Planned changes to the New Homes Bonus will have an adverse effect on communities, shrinking funding and reducing the incentive for new housebuilding, the District Councils Network has warned.

Responding to the provisional local government finance settlement for 2017-18, the DCN said its members will see a 5.2% cut to core spending power. This is compared with average cuts of 1.1% across local government, it stated.

Introduced by the coalition government, the New Homes Bonus aims to encourage local authorities to grant planning permissions for new housing in return for additional revenue.

In the settlement, the government outlined plans to divert funding from the NHB scheme to upper-tier councils to fund a growing crisis in adult social care.

DCN chair Neil Clarke said the plan essentially “robbing Peter to pay Paul”. It will strip out £75m from district council revenues and “risk destroying the link between economic growth and the funding of local public services”, he said.

Clarke added: “It is clear that district councils are taking the largest hit in spending power reductions between 2016/17 and 2017/18.”

Government plans will see a 0.4% baseline for housing growth introduced, under which councils will not receive any NHB. Clarke called this “unfair” because the idea had not been included in the original consultation on the bonus and “could not have been predicted”.

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Exmouth, Exmouth Creative Group, Grenadier

Grenadier and the Exmouth Creative Group – is there a connection?

Grenadier have launched new website:

http://grenadierestates.co.uk/

Interesting that the Watersports Centre no longer listed as one of their community projects. It has been moved to a Commercial project.

Was it therefore Grenadier and its hangers-on that was involved with the “Exmouth Creative Group” that Councillor Skinner seems to have forgotten he may have spoken to?

It says of “community projects”:

“We assess any impacts we believe we make as a business on the environment and community and pro-actively become involved with projects that do not necessarily provide an immediate financial benefit to the company, but instead promote positive social and environmental change.”

http://grenadierestates.co.uk/community/

which would fit the brief of the secretive “Exmouth Creative Group” perfectly:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/01/06/exmouth-creative-group-and-eddc-curioser-and-curioser/

Now, Owl is NOT saying that there is a connection – Owl is not even sure that such a group ever existed, only that, if it did indeed exist, there might be such a connection – indeed it would be surprising if there were not as such a group would surely want to influence all the “movers and shakers” in Exmouth. And the group’s members were said to include ” developers”.

It says of its commercial developments:

“Our work includes building new commercial developments from the ground up, converting existing buildings or sites and their use, and investing in new property that has the scope for additional development or income.”

Big difference isn’t it.

Owl will be happy to publish a response from Grenadier and/or EDDC and/or Councillor Skinner on this topic:

eastdevonwatch@gmail.com

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Coastal communities, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Exmouth, Philip Skinner, Regeneration, Richard Cohen

Exmouth seafront- another sorry tale involving EDDC

“An embittered disagreement has arisen between the owner of an Exmouth seafront attraction and the district council over whether he rejected an offer to be involved in its £18m redevelopment of the area.

East Devon District Council is pressing ahead with its ambitious but controversial redevelopment of a 3.6 hectare swathe of Queen’s Drive which has already resulted in the closure and demolition of several long-standing businesses including DJ’s Diner, the Arnold Palmer/Jungle Fun site, and the model railway.

Chris Wright and his family have been running Exmouth Fun Park for four decades. After months of negotiations, Mr Wright said the council made an offer to him involving a lease to run a golf operation, but this was subsequently withdrawn within weeks, without warning.

However, the council claims that Mr Wright rejected the offer before they withdrew it. Members were instructed of his rejection last April in a document entitled ‘Communicating about Queen’s Drive’. The spokesperson added that the council would have liked to reach a settlement with Mr Wright, “but he would not agree terms”.

This claim is vehemently refuted by Mr Wright who is adamant that he did not reject the offer made in September 2015.

A “costly” court battle then ensued regarding his tenancy, in which the council won the right to terminate the Mr Wright’s lease, “devastating” the family “financially and emotionally”.

In a Freedom of Information request (FOI) to the council, and a subsequent request for clarification after the response was only partially answered, the Echo asked for details about how Mr Wright rejected the offer, including the date and the means of rejection, such as verbally or in writing.

The council responded: “The offer was not accepted and was then withdrawn by EDDC on the 12th October 2015 prior to the trial commencing on the 2nd November 2015…there was no acceptance from Mr Wright and accordingly on the basis of legal principles relating to offer and acceptance, an offer that has not been accepted can be withdrawn by the party which made the offer,” the response continued: “There had been extensive negotiation between the parties’ legal representatives during the period between the offer and the date of withdrawal…”

In response to the Echo’s probing into whether the council took an absence of a reply as non-acceptance of the offer, and whether any effort was made to chase up the offer made, it responded: “…the offer was not accepted. There had been extensive negotiation between the parties’ legal representatives during the period between the offer and the date of withdrawal…”

Mr Wright, said: “On September 7, 2015, the council offered us a new 25 year lease on a subject to contract basis. We were happy with the terms of the offer and on the advice of our solicitors, we arranged to meet with council officials to clarify the details of the lease.

“On October 5, we met with an official to discuss the details. After the meeting the council’s solicitor wrote to our solicitors to confirm that an “understanding” had been reached. Our solicitors responded to confirm that if the concerns we raised were addressed, there was no reason an agreement couldn’t be reached imminently, as an understanding had been reached on other issues.

But the draft leases were not provided as the council had indicated they would be, and we received a letter from the council three days later saying they were taking further professional advice.”

Mr Wright said that he heard nothing further until the council wrote to his solicitors on October 12, saying: “It has now become apparent that there can be no agreement reached between the parties to settle the issues…The Council is unable to accommodate your client in the development at this time and therefore the Council is, as of today’s date, withdrawing from any further negotiations”.

As a result, Mr Wright took the council to court because under the Landlord and Tenant Act, he had the right to ask the court to grant a new tenancy, or a tenancy of a part of the new development. However, the council was entitled to oppose the grant of new tenancies on the grounds they intended to develop the land and that it would not be reasonable to carry out the development with us remaining in occupation. The court ruled in the council’s favour.

Mr Wright, said: “We spent a significant amount of time negotiating the terms for a new lease of a part of the development to avoid court proceedings. We were committed to being a part of the future of the seafront.”

He added: “Having traded on Exmouth Seafront as a family for some 40 years, far from being against investment, for over a decade we sought to do just that and submitted countless proposals to be part of the future. As a family this has been emotionally and financially devastating.”

A council spokesperson, added: “The council made a number of attempts, both formal/informal and in writing/face to face, to reach agreement with Mr Wright. This included an offer made in August 2015 by the council to Mr Wright for him to have a new and longer lease directly with the council and to stay on part of the site rather than leave. This offer was increased formally in a letter dated September 7, 2015 and remained on the table while further negotiations continued.

“By October 5, 2015, when a further meeting took place with Mr Wright, there was still no confirmed acceptance by him. During this period of negotiation his financial compensation expectations continued to increase as the trial date approached.

“Clearly negotiation was not working and the council needed to address the imminent court hearing. The council would have liked to reach a settlement with Mr Wright, but he would not agree terms, so the matter went to court and the council’s offer was withdrawn.”

Exmouth Fun Park will continue operating until August 31, 2017.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/east-devon-district-council-and-exmouth-fun-park-owners-in-dispute-over-seafront-development-offer/story-30055875-detail/story.html

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Developers/ Development, Local Enterprise Partnership

Should LEP’s be county based? To be tested in Sheffield

“Residents of South Yorkshire will not get to vote for a mayor this summer after the high court ruled they had not been not properly consulted on whether the county could annex part of Derbyshire.

The mayoral elections are being postponed until 2018 so that the Sheffield city region (SCR) can consult the public on whether Chesterfield in Derbyshire should join the combined authority, along with Bassetlaw in Nottinghamshire.

Momentum is building behind calls for the SCR proposal to be scrapped in favour of a whole-Yorkshire deal. With more than 5 million residents, the four counties of Yorkshire have a bigger population than Scotland and a GDP double that of Wales.

Caroline Flint, the Labour MP for the Don Valley, said a Yorkshire-wide deal should be explored. “It’s disappointing that the deal has fallen through but maybe there is an opportunity to reflect on whether there is another way forward,” she said.

“Maybe there is a regional way to bring the whole of Yorkshire and the Humber together because if we were given the powers through devolution I think we could do a great job. With 5 million people it would be amazing the things we could do. There is nothing stronger than the Yorkshire brand – it’s one of the best things we have to promote our region.”

In October 2015 the Sheffield city region became the second combined authority to sign a devolution deal with the then chancellor, George Osborne, as part of his dream to build a “northern powerhouse” to rival London and the south-east.

Under the terms of the agreement, South Yorkshire was to elect its own mayor this May, along with Greater Manchester, Tees Valley, the West Midlands, the west of England and the Liverpool city region.

The former sports minister Richard Caborn and the Barnsley council leader, Stephen Houghton, had been expected to contest the Labour nomination for South Yorkshire mayor.

After the SCR officially postponed the mayoral elections on Thursday, Ros Jones, the mayor of Doncaster, and Houghton issued a joint statement saying they owed it to residents to “work with colleagues to explore this new Yorkshire-wide option, to ensure we give all potential devolution solutions proper consideration so that residents can be fully informed when being asked to participate in consultation over the summer months”.

Conservative MPs and councillors in Yorkshire have long favoured a whole-Yorkshire deal, reasoning that their party would then have a better shot at winning a mayoral election. The idea has been strongly resisted, particularly by Labour leaders in West Yorkshire, who caused David Cameron to once remark: “We just thought people in Yorkshire hated everyone else; we didn’t realise they hated each other so much.”

In September last year the five Labour leaders of West Yorkshire’s councils – Leeds, Bradford, Wakefield, Calderdale and Kirklees – reluctantly agreed to follow Greater Manchester’s lead and accept the imposition of an elected mayor in return for more power. Their proposed Leeds city region would have included cooperation with York, Selby, Craven and Harrogate in North Yorkshire.

But the deal was stymied by Tories including Kevin Hollinrake, the MP for Thirsk and Malton, who told the Guardian last year that when he was councillor he had lobbied Osborne and the then local government minister, Greg Clark, to reject the West Yorkshire deal. He denied his objections were politically motivated, saying he thought the proposed geography was “very counterproductive and ill-thought-out” and would put his rural constituency at a disadvantage.

“The reason I was concerned is that the West Yorkshire deal encompassed York and Harrogate, and as a representative for a rural North Yorkshire seat it would cause significant problems to have the key towns and city within our economy included and us left outside,” he said.

Hollinrake and other Conservatives prefer the idea of a Greater Yorkshire devolution deal. “It’s in the economic best interests of my region. This isn’t political. According to our calculations, if there were a mayor of Greater Yorkshire it’s very evenly balanced as to whether they are Labour or Conservative or indeed independent,” he said.

He said he thought Alan Johnson, the Labour MP for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, or William Hague, the Conservative former foreign secretary who represented Richmond in North Yorkshire for 26 years until 2015, could do a good job as mayor.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/12/sheffield-mayoral-vote-delay-prompts-calls-for-yorkshire-wide-deal?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Barratt Homes, Developers/ Development

And now it’s Barratt’s turn to post bad news

“Barratt said it built 7,180 homes in the six months to December 31, down 6% on the same period a year earlier reflecting a fall in completions in the capital.

A slowdown in London’s property market since the Brexit vote has seen Barratt Developments PLC (LON:BDEV) report a year-on-year drop in the number of homes it built in its first half.

Britain’s biggest housebuilder by volume said it built 7,180 homes in the six months to December 31, down 6% on the same period a year earlier reflecting a fall in completions in the capital.

The FTSE 100-listed firm’s disappointing update comes a fortnight after its FTSE 250-listed peer Bovis Homes PLC (LON:BVS) said that its new house sales this year will be lower than expected due to completions in December falling short.”

http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/171527/london-market-slow-down-sees-barratt-developments-post-drop-in-the-number-of-homes-built-171527.html

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Bovis, Developers/ Development

“More Hovis than Bovis”

“Like a loaf of bread, the house bullder Bovis is a bit crumbly. Its chief executive has just departed, in advance of some poor financial results. One of the company’s problems seems to be that it can’t build the houses it promised to build.

At the end of last year Bovis issued a profits warning. It stated: “We have experienced slower-than-expected build production across the group’s sites during December, resulting in approximately 180 largely built and sold private homes that were expected to complete in 2016 being deferred into early 2017”[1].

One story not covered in the company’s media releases featured heavily in The Times this morning, and also in the Guardian [2]. This is that Bovis was paying purchasers cash of between £2000 and £3000 to complete the purchase of new homes even though the houses were not ready. Some 650 people are members of the Bovis Homes Victims Group [3] set up on Facebook to share their depressing experiences.

One lesson to be drawn from this story is that reliance on the volume housebuilders to deliver the housing we need is a fool’s errand. Despite its use of standard designs, of as low a density and as a high a price as they can get away with, Bovis hasn’t met its own targets. Moreover, all large housebuilders shy away from building on brownfield – previously developed – land because it costs more to build there than on green fields. And so we get urban sprawl and loss of productive farming land or greenspace for us to enjoy. Meanwhile the government blames local authorities and the planning system for delays, while turning a blind eye to the failings among its own corporate supporters.

At the same time, small and medium-sized housebuilders are having difficulty finding land on which to build homes, as a recent report from the Federation of Master Builders and the Local Government Information Unit showed [4]. The report did aim criticism at local authorities for concentrating on large developments when drawing up local plans, a charge that is certainly true in some areas. This bias against small firms also hinders the development of housing co-operatives which design the housing their members want rather than what the housebuilders tell them they can have.

NOTES

[1] Bovis Homes Group plc press release 28 December 2016 at http://www.bovishomesgroup.co.uk/media-centre/press-releases/press-release-173/pre-close-update/

[2] Guardian story at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/11/bovis-accused-of-pressurising-buyers-to-move-into-unfinished-homes The Times is behind a paywall.

[3] https://www.facebook.com/groups/BovisVictimsGroup/

[4] http://www.fmb.org.uk/about-the-fmb/policy-and-public-affairs/new-fmb-research/”

Source: https://petercleasby.com/2017/01/11/more-hovis-than-bovis/

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Bovis, Developers/ Development

“Bovis accused of pressuring buyers to move into unfinished homes”

“Bovis Homes has been accused of pressuring customers to move into unfinished houses before Christmas by offering them cash incentives, a week before it issued a profit warning.

Several Bovis customers said they had been offered cheques of £2,000 to £3,000, or other incentives, if they completed on their house purchases before 23 December.

Members of the Bovis Homes Victims Group on Facebook, which also has a YouTube channel, have swelled to 650, with 244 people joining in the last two months.

Marc Holden, one of the group’s administrators, said: “We were getting a lot of people joining the group just before Christmas who were posting about being ‘encouraged’ to complete by 23 December, some were being offered money and other incentives.”

He said a group of at least 30 disgruntled Bovis customers would stage a protest at the company’s annual meeting in Tunbridge Wells on 2 May.

A company spokesman said: “Bovis Homes is fully aware of the customer group and their complaints, and we take these issues very seriously. We recognise that in some of these cases we have not provided our best standard of customer service and have taken too long to rectify customer issues, for which we apologise.”

Bovis, one of Britain’s biggest housebuilders, added that a “limited number of customers were offered an incentive to complete before the year end and all homes were habitable with the requisite CML industry certification, with a timetable for outstanding finishing works to be carried out in the new year.”

The firm insisted that no one was forced to move in before Christmas and that the homes only needed some finishing touches. “Customers were clearly free to decide their preferred course of action. The group often offers a range of incentives at sale and completion in line with industry practice,” the spokesman said.

The housebuilder’s chief executive David Ritchie quit on Monday, less than a week after the group issued its profit warning. It warned last Wednesday that it would complete about 180 fewer homes than expected in 2016, blaming operational issues. This will affect profits – Bovis now expects to make an annual pre-tax profit of £160m to £170m, compared with analysts’ forecasts of about £183m.

One couple was offered a post-completion cheque of £2,000 if they could legally complete on their property by 23 December, according to an email seen by the Guardian.

Comments from other customers suggest the homes lacked more than just finishing touches.

Chad Clifton said he and his wife were “forced” to complete on their four-bedroom house in Brockworth, Gloucestershire on 23 December and found the fridge had not been fitted yet and that the hallway was unfinished, out of a list of 115 defects. They were offered £350 and a free move. “We were told we didn’t have much choice – if the house is ready we have to complete on 23r December.”

None of the defects have been fixed yet but Clifton said the couple “love the house” and that the customer service had improved vastly after his wife sent a scathing letter to Bovis’s head office.

Another Bovis customer said he and his wife had been offered £3,000 if they completed on 23 December, but declined the offer because of numerous problems (such as the wrong kitchen being fitted) at the £320,000 three-bedroom property in Inkberrow, Worcestershire.

The couple are still waiting for the problems to be rectified and to complete on the purchase. He said they had not been offered any compensation despite the stress caused, time taken off work and the cost of extending storage.

Holden and his wife form part of a group of eight families who bought Bovis homes across the country in recent years and have taken the company to task over defects and the length of time it is taking to fix them. In response, the firm launched a review in December and set up a team from across the business to resolve the issues.

Bovis said: “We recognise that our customer service has to improve and the leadership of the organisation is absolutely committed to getting this right.”

Karen Louise Richardson and her family said it had taken until now, two years after they moved into a four-bedroom house in Norwich, to fix more than 200 defects.

The Richardsons moved in on 19 December 2014 but maintain they were not advised that their house was unfinished until an hour after completion. “I’d never buy Bovis again; I’d never buy a new build again unless I did a lot of research,” she said.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/11/bovis-accused-of-pressurising-buyers-to-move-into-unfinished-homes?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Local Plan, National Planning Policy Framework, Planning System

“Planning systems favour developers over communities” survey finds

“Almost three-quarters of local councils believe that the planning system is weighted too heavily in favour of developers at the expense of local democracy, according to a survey.

Commissioned by the National Trust and carried out by the Local Government Information Unit, the survey canvassed 1,200 ward councilors in England on aspects of the planning system.

The results, published today, show that 72% of councillors feel the existing system puts the interests of developers over and above those of councils and communities. Also, half of councillors said planning departments are inadequately funded, and the same amount claimed sites that are not in line with their council’s local plans are being approved for new housing.

The government has pushed for the adoption of local plans throughout England. In a statement to the Commons in 2015, then housing and planning minister Brandon Lewis described local plans as the “cornerstone” of the government’s planning reforms. Produced in consultation with communities, they are designed to offer “certainty on where new homes are to be built”.

The survey findings come as the government puts the final touches to its housing white paper, which is expected to be published later this month. The National Trust and LGIU urged Whitehall to revise the paper to boost confidence in the way the system works.

In a joint statement, the organisations argued that the views of councillors were often ignored in debates around the future of the planning system. “Yet, as local decision-makers, and an important link with local communities, they have an essential role to play in ensuring development is sensitive to the needs of the area,” they said.

Theresa May’s government has responded to pressure over a lack of new housebuilding in the country by announcing a raft of new measures and significant funding to boost construction.

As such, communities secretary Sajid Javid last week invited housing providers to bid for a share of a £7bn fund in what was described as a “dramatic expansion” of the affordable house programme.

The survey also revealed anxieties about loosened planning restrictions, with 58% of councillors believing their council would allocate green belt land for housing in the next five years. There are also concerns about the introduction of permitted development rights for home extensions, office-to-residential use conversions and other changes of use.

Moreover, the National Planning Policy Framework does not appear to be having the positive impact it was intended to have on design quality. Only 18% of councillors say designs have improved, and only 12% believe that loosening planning restrictions has had any positive impact.

Jonathan Carr-West, chief executive of the LGiU, said that five years on from the adoption of the government’s planning reforms, it was worrying that councillors felt it hadn’t delivered the localism that was promised.

He said: “If ministers are serious about local plans being at the heart of the planning system, then they should invest in council planning teams and use the housing white paper to give them the tools to deliver good quality housing in the right places.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/01/planning-systems-favour-developers-over-communities-lgiu-survey-finds

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Axminster, Bovis, Developers/ Development

One reason (close to home) why Bovis CEO resigned?

Axminster councillor Douglas Hull recently went on a tirade against badly-built homes in the town, though he took on the monkey NHBC (the business that issues 10 year warranties for new homes, rather than the organ grinders – the developers who build the shoddy homes in the first place.

Now, news reaches us of a national protest group taking housebuilder Bovis (a major player in Axminster, Seaton and all over East Devon) to task:

“Disgruntled Bovis Homes customers are to protest outside the annual meeting of the housebuilder, whose chief executive David Ritchie was ousted this week.

The Bovis Homes Victims Group has swollen to 650 Facebook members with a litany of complaints, as well as a YouTube channel with more than 9000 views.

Spokesman Marc Holden’s £490,000 Bovis home in Milton Keynes was beset with defects, prompting a company review.

Holden said: “We are not going to stop our active campaign. There are a lot of unhappy people.”

The meeting will be in Tunbridge Wells in May. Bovis warned on profits last month after delays to sales, prompting Ritchie to resign.

A Bovis spokesman said: “Bovis Homes is aware of the issues experienced by a small number of customers and recently established a dedicated team of specialists to resolve them, and apologises to the customers impacted.”

http://www.standard.co.uk/business/bovis-customers-plan-protest-at-beleaguered-builder-s-meeting-a3436836.html

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Comments

EDDC kicks out affordable housing on its own land in Sidmouth – using it for a third office site after relocation

Remember the old days, when EDDC said its move to a single new building in Honiton would save money?

Then it added an old, crumbling building in Exmouth (the Town Hall) neglecting to have a full survey before estimating the cost of refurbishment. Those refurbishment costs are now £1.669m, – £408,000 more than the original estimate.

Now we hear that, instead of providing 20 affordable houses on the Manstone Depot site in Sidmouth as set out in the local plan, EDDC has instead decided to build offices for its Estates Department and keep the Streetscene department there.

No costs appear to be in the public domain for this – which should form part of the relocation budget. And it begs the question: why is the Estates Department and Streetscene relocating to Manstone Depot rather than to the new site in Honiton? Is the Honiton site too small, or does EDDC have an antipathy to affordable housing in Sidmouth? Or is there some other more murky reason?

Or is it just that officers and councillors don’t want Streetscene vehicles and materials spoiling their view in Honiton?

Here is the story from Sidmouth Herald:

“East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) Manstone Depot is allocated for 20 homes in its Local Plan – but now the authority wants to keep its estates department in Sidmouth when it relocates to Exmouth and Honiton.

Its development management committee (DMC) has been recommended to approve the plans for a single-storey office block when it meets on Tuesday (January 10).

Jeremy Woodward, who has campaigned for transparency in the relocation project, said: “I am dismayed about what seems to be EDDC’s disregard for its own Local Plan – and promises of affordable housing which is much-needed in Sidmouth.

“This application is clearly very sensitive.

“Firstly, it is on a site reserved for housing in the Local Plan; and secondly, it is clearly part of the ‘larger picture’ of the district council’s relocation project.”

Mr Woodward submitted a Freedom of Information request in 2014 which revealed that EDDC’s housing service had made two conditional offers to build 25 homes on the Manstone Depot site. One had a mix of market and ‘affordable’ homes; the other was fully ‘affordable’.

The report to DMC members says the offices will be limited to one section of the site and housing could still be delivered on the remaining area. It adds, the departure from the Local Plan is not grounds to refuse the application.

The office building would act as a ‘hub’ for operations that already largely take place from the depot, which is used by the StreetScene team and for storage, adds the report.

An EDDC spokeswoman said: “The consolidation of Knowle Depot activities to our existing site at Manstone is an opportunity that results as part of the relocation project.

“The transfer of depot activities is an existing costed element of the relocation project and, as such, included within the independent and positive cost modelling of relocation.

“Manstone Depot continues to provide a base for a range of important services to Sidmouth and the wider district.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/dismay_at_office_plan_on_sidmouth_site_allocated_for_affordable_homes_1_4838725

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Developers/ Development, EDDC, Planning System

Comments

High Court confirms that decisions under delegated authority to grant planning permission require reasons

“The High Court has held that local government officers granting planning permission under delegated authority are required to give reasons for their decisions, Francis Taylor Building has reported.

The decision in (Riki Shasha and others) v. Westminster CC [2016] EWHC 3283 (Admin) was based on the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, made under the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, the set added.

Francis Taylor Building said: “This is despite the fact that the requirement to give reasons for a grant of planning permission which was at one stage imposed under amendments to the GPDO 1995 from 2003 was consciously repealed in 2013 as part of the red tape challenge and the current Development Management Procedure Order 2015 contains no such requirement.

“The decision will have inevitable implications for decision making by local planning authorities where officers are acting under delegated powers.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29563%3Adecisions-under-delegated-authority-to-grant-planning-permission-require-reasons-high-court&catid=63&Itemid=31

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Bovis, Developers/ Development, Land banking

CEO of Bovis Homes leaves suddenly

“The boss of house builder Bovis Homes Group PLC (LON:BVS) has quit his role with immediate effect just over a week after the group warned it will miss home sales targets

The FTSE 250-listed firm said David Ritchie has stepped down as its chief executive officer with immediate effect but will remain with the firm until the end of February to help with the transition process.

Bovis added that Earl Sibley, the firm’s finance director, will be interim CEO as the group searches for a permanent successor to Ritchie, a process which it said will start immediately and which is expected to take several months.

No reason was given for Ritchie’s abrupt departure but it comes after the group cautioned on December 28 that new house sales this year will be lower than expected due to completions in December falling short.

The group said in an unscheduled trading update then that total sales for the year will now be between 3,950 to 4,000, with slower than predicted building times pushing 180 homes due to complete into the next trading year.

In a note to clients, analysts at Liberum said: “Management change could be positive for the Group in due course if the building of homes can be improved, so that the Group can exploit a decent landbank more effectively. …”

http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/171312/bovis-homes-boss-quits-with-immediate-effect-just-over-a-week-after-cautious-update-171312.html

In early morning trade, Bovis shares were 2.5% higher, up 20.5p at 831.5p.

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Austerity cuts, Developers/ Development

Outgoing Shelter chief: “The housing crisis has spread to everybody”

” … The housing crisis “has spread to everywhere. It’s not just poor people, or those who are just managing, it’s right up there.” The average house price in the UK has climbed 29.4pc in the last seven years; in London it has soared by 69.6pc, far ahead of wage increases.

As a result, it has become a hot potato. “It’s a political issue that has become real for a lot of people across the country. Not just in Labour seats, but Conservative MPs have people in their constituencies who are saying my children can’t afford to buy,” he says. “We have a group of people who are in their 50s and 60s for the first generation since the Second World War, looking at their children’s housing prospects, and they are worse than their own.”

Not only is there political pressure coming from voters, but also from big companies.

Deloitte and KPMG both bought flats in the capital for their graduates to live in, and Shelter has teamed up with companies such as Starbucks to introduce a rental deposit scheme which workers can pay back, interest free.

It could have been even worse, he says. “In the last seven years, if interest rates had gone up by 2 or 3pc you would have seen a raft of repossessions like those in the 80s. You would have seen a crisis beyond what we already have. So in some ways housing policy has been lucky.

This affordability crisis has been compounded by a “failure of certain policies”, he says, as well as the financial crisis and the austerity that followed. The previous governments, including New Labour and the coalition, all failed to build enough and put little focus on the supply side, he argues. They all “believed the way to solve the housing crisis was on the home ownership and on demand side, to effectively make money available cheaply through Help to Buy-type products, [which enables first-time buyers to purchase a home with a 5pc deposit] and less so in direct investment in house building.” Help to Buy was a crucial policy after the downturn, designed to get house builders moving again by stimulating demand. But that policy has continued, even while house builders are posting record profits once again.

There’s a problem with this model of solving the housing crisis, says Robb: “it’s broken”. “With the death of public housing and local authorities, the private house builders have had to carry that weight and they can’t,” he says. Part of the problem is due to the land market; the high cost of land forces developers to keep upping prices and making homes smaller. “You can’t criticise them for doing what they were set up to do, they are there to maximise profit for their shareholders,” he says. “That doesn’t necessarily translate into the best housing policy for Britain. That’s why you need more small builders, more land available – public and private – and you need public building. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/house-prices/robbthe-housing-crisis-has-spread-everybody/

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Cornwall, Developers/ Development, Independent Councillors

New independent group in Cornwall

… a new pressure group [is] being formed in Cornwall this week. Charter for Cornwall has been formed by the people who run the popular anti-developers Facebook group “It’s our Cornwall” and they told CS [Cornish Stuff blog] that the group will seek to be a “conduit for the unfocused energy we see around us – we are an essay in grassroots activism. Let’s make a better Cornwall together”

Charter for Cornwall will pressure those seeking election to the Council in May, when all Cornwall Council seats will be up for grabs, to pledge to support 4 commitments when they do get elected.

A launch statement on charterforcornwall.com says:

“We believe that we cannot give way to despair and apathy. We have to use what democratic rights are left to us to challenge Cornwall Council’s narrow and short-sighted strategy. Elections in May provide one opportunity to make our voices heard and make our future an issue.

We are not alone. Across Cornwall local groups have been campaigning against massive, speculative and unnecessary housing projects. Over 7,000 people have signed the CPRE’s petition Save Cornwall’s Green Fields, calling for a change in the planning system. Over 70 town and parish councils have supported Cornwall for Change, which is demanding a change in direction at Cornwall Council. Posts on the It’s Our Cornwall facebook page about building projects reach an average 2,000 people daily and sometimes as many as 10,000″.

People are dismayed, worried and angry about what they see around them. But anger and sadness too often leads to despair. That despair has to be transformed into hope. We can change things. We can take back control of our future. This is a first step”.

The statement continued,

“We will campaigns to increase community-level influence over the future of our land. We need to change Cornwall Council for the better by electing better councillors. We need a Council that is more open, more responsive and more willing to listen to residents’ concerns. In the short-term we will be supporting those candidates in next May’s local elections who stand for our values. In the longer-term we must work to end the Council’s pursuit of unsustainable growth policies”

The four ‘principles’ of the new group are to

Protect our Cornish heritage (“Councillors have been unable to stop Cornwall becoming an easy ride for property developers”)

Provide genuinely affordable housing (“The Government has cynically redefined ‘affordability’ to include housing at 80% of market prices that are simply unaffordable for most local people”)

Put limits on second homes (“The extension of second home ownership has destroyed community life in many of our coastal towns and villages”)

Plan for Cornish communities, not developers’ profits (“The planning system is rigged. Blatantly unsound data have been used to drive the housing target up to an unnecessary 52,500 minimum”)

The group has spent the last few weeks gathering contributions and support from various political groups, including KMTU who support the initiative. Formed by Pete Burton, Bernard Deacon, Julie Fox The Charter for Cornwall will roll out in three phases in Feb – May with the first phase to agree on the final wording of the pledges Councillors will be asked to commit to.”

21st century Cornwall: Developers Won, Paradise Lost? As Cornwall seeks to introduce planning charge, a new group is formed to pressure councillors

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Coastal communities, Consultation, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Exmouth, Philip Skinner, Regeneration

The “Exmouth Vision Group”: “access” deconstructed

In an earlier post Owl deconstructed the “Vision” of the purported “Exmouth Vision Group”:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/01/06/the-exmouth-creative-group-vision-deconstructed/

Now let us turn to the second part of the document headed “Access”.

Actually, what Owl thinks it covers (and this is subjective) is MUCH more than access.

Broadly and in summary it sets a goal of replacing “low culture” with “high culture” and ensuring that those of “high culture” can cycle from their suburban homes to the seafront or from the seafront to pretty woodlands on their “sit up and beg” bikes during the day and enjoy a “scene” in the evenings!

Here are Owl’s thoughts on the deconstructed points

o How do we draw people into the town when there is a lack of parking?
Especially from the ‘suburbs’ of Exmouth who live on the surrounding hill which is too far away to walk to the town/seafront. If travelling by car, most will just go straight to Exeter.

What Owl thinks most surprising about this point is that this group thinks it can solve the problems of a spread-out, city-commuter town all on its own – which no group anywhere seems to have cracked! IF they could crack it IN A SUSTAINABLE AND INEXPENSIVE WAY they will be in great demand – and might have to move from Exmouth!

o Join together the town, seafront, train station and marina etc.
See above! Of course, what you need is a pedestrian/cycling route – but where will the money come from to build and maintain it? Or maybe a “land train” – though that is “low culture” (see below).

• Bring together the fragmented community groups.
Good luck on that one, guys when, if you exist at all (about which Owl has doubts) you don’t identify yourselves, meet in secret, and (possibly) meet in secret with someone or someones from EDDC!

• Exmouth’s culture is either ‘low end’ or just well hidden.
Which makes you wonder why these “creatives” choose to live in the town! This is highly insulting to Exmouthians, who by implication, appear to be dismissed as largely low end “chavs”. Perhaps this group is just miffed it couldn’t afford to live in Budleigh Salterton (though maybe some do!).

• Create something for all of the age groups.
Yeah, pensioner polo or teenage carriage driving should up culture to the “high end”.

• There is little decent employment and opportunities within the town: the young are leaving the town due to lack of opportunities.
The young are leaving because, like lots of young people, they go to university, travel, meet new people and put down new roots elsewhere, often in vibrant cities – leaving Exmouth, perhaps, to “high end cultured” people and the low-end chavs!

• Exmouth is too small to have a close knit community; but too large to have a ‘scene’.
Oh, God, can you imagine a “scene” in Exmouth – with all those trainee Marines, chavs and cultured people! A concert hall, perhaps, or a polo field (or whatever they call them – see above).

Chukkas away!

There is no problem adding culture to the seaside – eg the art gallery at Margate):
https://www.turnercontemporary.org/

but equally you CAN add a funfair as at Southend:
http://adventureisland.co.uk/

They are NOT mutually exclusive. And the key is:

TOTAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION and
LISTENING AND ACTING ON TOTAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

not consulting with one elitist group (WHICH INCLUDES VESTED-INTEREST DEVELOPERS) at the expense of everyone else.

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Developers/ Development, Seaton/ Colyford / Colyton

Comments

Seaton Heights (Lyme Bay Leisure Ltd) director named in Guardian article

David Sullivan, a director of Lyme Bay Leisure Ltd (current or former owner of the Seaton Heights development (remember that?)

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08513325/officers
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dave-sullivan-4b19152a

was named in today’s Guardian in connection with a highly controversial development in Lewisham (where he was formerly a highly controversial council leader and mayor for more than 20 years) which could see local Millwall football club having to relocate more than 100 miles away:

“Millwall Football Club have admitted for the first time that they may be forced to leave their south London home and relocate to Kent should the seizure of their land go ahead. Lewisham council’s plan to compulsorily purchase areas around the Den and sell them on to a mysterious offshore developer with connections to the current Labour administration has already drawn both disbelief and mass protest. …

… Until now concerns over the Millwall land-grab have centred on the council’s historic relationship with the offshore developers Renewal. Renewal’s chief executive is a former Lewisham officer and colleague of the current Lewisham chief executive, Barry Quirk, an unelected official best known locally for being paid more pro rata than the prime minister for working a three day week. In another bizarre twist Renewal was also set up and originality part-owned by the previous Labour mayor of Lewisham, Dave Sullivan. Sullivan has stated he no longer has any part in the company, which is owned by two anonymous offshore trusts based in the Isle Of Man and the British Virgin Islands.”

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jan/05/millwall-admit-council-scheme-leave-lewisham

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Barratt Homes, Developers/ Development, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey

Developers on a big roll – but still far too poor to provide truly affordable housing

Owl believes that the Conservative government’s policy is to destroy affordable and social housing in favour of private renting, where housing benefit is payable direct to landlords and councils have no responsibilities for their poorest residents and their families.

Current “affordable housing” provided by developers (at 20% less than average prices on the same site) are actually much smaller houses, with basic and/or cheap fittings on the least pleasant parts of sites – e.g. near main roads, parking areas, etc and require such discounting.

“[Persimmon] reported an 8 percent revenue rise, and said that the sales rate was up 15 percent between July and December, confounding the notion that the Brexit vote could take the wind out of property-related companies.

However, the stock remains down 9.2 percent since the referendum last June.

Sector peers also rose on Thursday, with Taylor Wimpey (TW.L) and Barratt Developments (BDEV.L) both up nearly 3 percent.

“This latest positive update from a sector major adds to yesterday’s positive UK PMI Construction read and improving mortgage approvals data while the UK mortgage market remains highly competitive and government initiatives supportive,” said Mike van Dulken, head of research at Accendo Markets.

“Although house price data does remain notoriously mixed, the post-Brexit crash foreseen by many simply hasn’t materialised and prices held up remarkably well”.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-stocks-idUKKBN14P0YK