Due to the effect on A la Ronde:
http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/national_trust_opposes_plan_for_exmouth_s_dinan_way_1_4779102
Category Archives: Developers/ Development
Skypark: 30,000 sq ft let – only 1,300,000 sq ft or so left to go!
“Exeter-based housing association DCH is set to relocate its city centre headquarters to a new office building at Skypark.
It will be the first office occupier on the new business park near Exeter Airport when staff move into a new 30,000 sq ft office space at the 1.4 million sq ft scheme.
The new offices will join the Ambulance Special Operations Centre (ASOC West) and DPD UK’s new 60,000 sq ft distribution centre on the site.”
http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/housing-association-dch-to-move-exeter-headquarters-to-skypark/story-29906748-detail/story.html
30,000 sq ft out of 1.4 million sq ft available!
The (quite small) ambulance centre opened in 2014 and the 60,000 sq ft DPS distribution centre opened in 2015. With DCH in (probably) 2017 this will be 3 tenants in 4 years.
No wonder EDDC mooted having their HQ there – and plans are now being changed to accommodate things such as a nursery and hotel … remember, Diviani promised us all 6,500 new jobs from this development.
And how will people from areas outlying Exeter area find their way to Skypark? At the moment one bus will take most people (tenants, potential tenants and employees) into the central offices in Exeter – getting to Skypark will entail another journey out, with consequent expense.
But selling off the offices in Exeter (for student housing? which already surrounds the bus station) will be very lucrative.
Clinton Devon Estates wants to make it easier to build in AONB – Part 2
A correspondent writes:
“Also relevant to CDE’s approach to development in Newton Poppleford is their latest attempt to get planning permission on Frogmore Road in nearby East Budleigh. This is in the prominent field that slopes up towards Syon House (CDE’s old HQ) on the south side of Oak Hill along the road between Budleigh Salterton and Newton Poppleford. The site is outside the built up area boundary, subject to recurrent flooding problems, and, as with Newton Poppleford, within the AONB. It is also Grade 1 agricultural land, of which there is very little in East Devon.
The East Budleigh emerging neighbourhood plan, now in its final phase and just about to be submitted to the Inspector, has identified suitable sites for future development in the village but the Frogmore Road site is not one of them. It was comprehensively rejected in place of other sites during the statutory democratic Community Consultation conducted by EDDC in 2012 as part of the process of formulating the East Devon Village Plan.
Despite this, CDE made an outline planning application in 2014 (14/2959) for 18 dwellings covering approximately half the field. This was eventually withdrawn. Now a new outline planning application (16/1673) has been lodged for only 5 dwellings. This obviously covers a smaller part of the field, but, curiously, the application includes 14 car parking spaces on roads that appear to lead nowhere. Flooding, however, is a reserve matter (as it has been with Newton Poppleford).”
KPMG Section 106 report: high-level risks identified by external auditor
Verbatim from the report to be discussed by the Audit and Governance Committees
17 November 2016, 2.30 pm, Knowle
“The Council currently has no summarised monitoring document which shows the value of all s106 contributions outstanding at any one point, with the trigger which would lead the contribution to be payable and, if the contribution is liable to be paid, the current status of the collection process. In addition to this the Council does not currently have the information in a format which is consistent with s106 contribution triggers so it cannot determine if triggers have been met.
From our understanding there is no challenge or enforcement of the developers’ legal obligation to provide the Council with details of the number of dwellings constructed, sold and occupied, instead only information on completions is supplied. In addition this information should be received quarterly but our testing suggests that it is received on an ad hoc and untimely basis. This means that there is a risk that the Council has inaccurate information on which to track outstanding s106 contribution monies.
It has been found that at present there is a gap in the understanding of the financial and accounting implications of a contribution trigger being met within Planning, due to an oversight in communication between Finance and Planning over the treatment. When contributions become virtually certain to be received, but are not invoiced for practical or commercial reasons, they should be recognised as accrued income.
At current however, given this gap in understanding in the planning team, the Council’s Finance team only accounts for s106 contributions when the cash has been received or an invoice has been raised. This has led to the financial accounts having an incomplete accrued income balance on the Statement of Financial Position.”
Click to access item-12-management-of-s106-contributions-report.pdf
Clinton Devon Estates wants to make it easier to build in AONB
A landowner is using its drawn-out application to build 40 homes and a doctors’ surgery in Newton Poppleford as a case study to lobby for changes to planning rules.
Clinton Devon Estates (CDE) was awarded outline permission to develop a field south of King Alfred Way in 2012, but its detailed, reserved-matters, plans have failed to win over decision-makers.
It initially expected that construction would have finished by the end of February 2017, but now it is unlikely before 2019.
CDE is appealing the refusal – but is also calling for it to be made easier to develop in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), harsher sanctions for ‘poor’ decisions, and for the potential for legal challenges to be reduced.
East Devon District Council (EDDC) has told CDE that the 16 ‘affordable’ houses should be ‘pepper-potted’ throughout the King Alfred Way development, as this is a policy in its Local Plan.
The landowner, now in a joint venture with developers Cavanna Homes and Pencleave 2, has also faced opposition from residents, who voiced fears about flooding and that the doctors’ surgery would not be delivered.
A CDE spokesperson said the report is an early draft of a case study that was submitted in its final form to the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) in May. It was also copied – for information only – to EDDC and a Cabinet Office representative.
The spokesperson said: “It is interesting to note that since the paper was submitted to RICS six months ago, the planning application is no closer to determination. A series of legal arguments and appeals have stalled the progress and a hearing date has still not been set for the latest appeal.
“It is disappointing that, five years after a housing needs survey in Newton Poppleford identified the pressing need for 18 affordable new homes in the community, that they are no closer to being delivered.
“Even if the appeal is heard early in 2017 and the development is given the go-ahead, it is unlikely that the first homes and the surgery will be available before 2019.”
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/devon_landowner_lobbies_for_planning_rule_changes_1_4770875
Exmouth’s Franksy in top form with Tyrannosaurus Exe!
Very rare grey long-eared bat confirmed in East Devon
Owl wonders where these fellow creatures are roosting and if there are any developments planned nearby. How will we know if ecologists won’t say where they are? It would be very awkward if they forage on the Seaton Wetlands, flying over the green wedge, which developers are still trying to build on.
“Exeter-based company Acorn Ecology shared photographs of a grey long-eared bat, of which there are less than 3,000 in the country. Staff carried out biometric tests on droppings below the roosting mammals to confirm it was the rare species and not the more common brown long-eared bat.
Colin Bonfield, senior ecologist, said: “The bat appears to be using the building as an occasional day roost and a regular night roost and is probably associated with a larger colony somewhere in the locality.
“The South West is a stronghold for bat species and 17 species have been recorded in Devon. In my opinion, the presence of grey long-eared bats in Devon is highly linked to lower levels of light pollution as long-eared bats are one of several light averse species present in Devon.
“Other very important factors include currently favourable agricultural practises, suitably diverse foraging habitat and the presence of suitably managed woodlands and the presence of old buildings and structures that provide suitable roosts.”
The company carries out ecological surveys and impact assessments in support of planning applications. It could not disclose the exact location of the bats.”
http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/rare_bat_discovered_roosting_in_east_devon_1_4772609
Channel 4 “Britain’s Housing Crisis” – notes
476,000 outstanding GRANTED planning permissions not commenced.
28% rise in planning permissions, 10% more completed homes.
Average delay from granting planning permission to starting construction up from 21 to 32 months.
Developers build out big sites very slowly to maximise profits says MP Clive Betts.
Oxford – most unaffordable city – land is being hoarded says Ed Turner, Oxford Councillor and a housing spokesperson for the Local Government Association. Developers “making a fast buck”.
Big developers have made serious money –
Persimmon profits up from £638 MILLION – up 34% on the previous year.
Taylor Wimpey £604m – also up 34%
Barratt Homes – £682m – up 45%
(these 3 builders provide a quarter of all new homes, the eight next largest more than a half, small builders around a quarter). In the 1980’s small builders built two-thirds of homes each year.
Community Secretary Javid talks the talk but isn’t walking the walk – said he wants to “break the stranglehold of developers”.
Home Builders Association – weasel words – 30% more new homes in last 2 years, industry not sitting on land banks – no reason why they would delay. Nothing their fault.
Reporter puzzled by that statement – it includes existing houses turned into multiple flats and shops converted to housing. Official government data shows in 2013 133,000 new homes built – lowest figures in over half a century. 2015 – 152,000 new homes – up only 14% over 2 years NOT 30% and from a very low base. Over this summer housebuilding actually fell.
Javid “determined to do something about it”!
Small builders feel shut out – no land particularly in London, only small sites available. Developers have too cosy a relationship with councils says one small builder. Public sector land is not being released to small builders.
Last year the Big 3 house builders completed 44,360 homes and had planning permission to build a further 200,823 homes. They have strategic land holdings that could accommodate a further 278,600 more homes.
“Option agreements” are common – paying landowners if planning permission is granted – but only they can buy the land – no-one else.
A farmer near Gatwick told his story – first approach “a chat” to sell an option for exclusive development. They offered £275m which the farmer rejected, saying the developer already has land nearby they can develop. But options are not always recorded by the Land Registry so it is hard to know who controls such land.
So what is Javid going to DO, asked the reporter – a White Paper next month – we can’t have a market dominated by big suppliers, more small developers needed. But no idea how he is going to do it!
Reporter pointed out that the big house builders are major donors to the Tory party.
The big house builders are not impressed by talks of fines for not starting new builds more quickly. The bloke from their association said that if you start restricting the house building industry they will react by reducing output. The reporter asked if that was a threat – the spokesperson denied that. He said that, if the big builders had to forfeit land with planning permission but not started, house builders will restrict the flow of planning applications.
Land banking taxes may be needed says reporter, as the system is broken.
Nasty.
Franksy strikes again in Exmouth!
Franksy in fine form:
Do developers landbank?
Do bears … no, no – just watch Dispatches, Channel 4 at 8 pm tonight.
Sidford employment land victim of “electioneering”
District council chiefs who voted to remove Sidford’s controversial 12-acre employment site from a strategic plan were in fact powerless to enforce the decision, a campaigner has been told.
Councillor Marianne Rixson last week questioned why – after the decision was made unanimously in March 2015 – officers were never instructed to submit a ‘flood of new evidence’ to put it into action. Despite the last-ditch vote to have it removed, a Government planning inspector later ruled the allocation must remain in East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) Local Plan.
The answer to Cllr Rixson’s question, given at last Wednesday’s full EDDC meeting, confirmed the instruction was never given to remove the allocation from the plan – because a public inquiry was already under way.
Members heard that officer advice would have been to allow the planning inspector, who led the inquiry, to ‘reach his own conclusions’.
Last week’s meeting heard: “Members’ resolution to remove the allocation from the plan was, and could only ever have been, a suggestion to the inspector as, following its submission for examination, the council no longer had the power to make changes to it.
“There was, therefore, no opportunity to submit evidence to support this change, however, even if there had been, the evidence produced up to that point had supported its allocation and it is likely that any future evidence would have reached the same conclusion.”
Cllr Rixson, a long-time campaigner against the allocation who was elected last May, said the Conservative-majority council only took the vote because it felt threatened by her and her East Devon Alliance colleagues.
She said: “The final comment [above] confirms our suspicions that EDDC never changed its mind about the Sidford site being in the Local Plan.
“Voting to ‘remove it’ was purely an electioneering stunt just before the district council elections in 2015.”
An application to develop the employment site into a 9.3-acre business park was refused in September, although EDDC bosses said they remain committed to its development.
Cllr Rixson added: “The recent refusal of the application to develop the site exposed significant planning policies that should have been considered when the Local Plan was being drawn up.
“The outstanding question is why they did not come to the fore when they could have made an impact on the Local Plan?”
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/vote_to_remove_sidford_employment_site_electioneering_1_4761216
Black holes and green fields
Comment reproduced from post below:
The leaderships approach to finances over the last decade or more has been driven by a single-minded dogma to avoid any rise in council tax, even to match inflation. They have achieved this by relying not only on the government’s normal grant, but also on the government’s New Homes Bribe (ooops, Bonus – which gives payments for 6 years for each house built) which in turn has driven the mind-boggling growth numbers in the East Devon Local Plan which could easily see overall growth of more than 35% – YES THAT IS NOT A TYPO, I DO MEAN GROWTH OF HOMES OF MORE THAN A THIRD – over the period of the current Local Plan.
(Imagine all the buildings in East Devon – in Exmouth, Budleigh, Sidmouth, Seaton, Axminster, Honiton, etc. etc. – all lumped together – that’s a lot of land built on. Now take a third of that huge area, and imagine all the green fields in East Devon that will need to be built upon to make that happen, a lot of which will be in our AONBs. That is the EDDC Conservative vision for East Devon.)
Anyway, back to the finances. So EDDC’s future financial plans were predicated on large income from the New Homes Bonus. But George Osborne introduced an austerity regime which decided to abolish not only the normal grant but also the New Homes Bonus, so now the EDDC’s finances have a huge hole in them (made worse of course by the vanity projects they are undertaking like the no-longer-cost-neutral move from the Knowle).
And that is why we have seen a 4% increase in Council tax this year, and likely to see further increases in council tax way above inflation in the next few years.
Fortunately (????!!!!!), the government has thrown EDDC a lifeline by deciding to allow councils to keep all the local business rates as revenue – so we are now seeing EDDC allowing dubious business developments approved (like the recent Greendale application – submitted by a generous donor to the local Conservatives) and we should expect this to ramp up as the cash flow from the New Homes Bonus runs down.
Now back to the mental picture of 1/3 growth in homes – take the amount of land you have pictured for new homes, and add to it a significant growth in industrial buildings (like Sidford and Greendale). Terrifying isn’t it.
Of course, if you take have been watching EDDC’s actions, you will know that they have already rationalised this by joining (without any consultation with the public or indeed councillors) with Exeter City Council and Teignbridge District Council to form so called Greater Exeter. Think of Greater London and Greater Manchester and you will get the picture – huge sprawling joined up conurbations, with extensive suburbs to feed the businesses in the city centre. We are already seeing assaults on the green wedges that separate our towns and villages – so this is not as far from reality as you might think.
So there you have it. A double whammy – huge increases in Council Tax whilst rampant developments start to cover our beautiful countryside and Exeter grows exponentially in order to meet the huge Local Plan targets for new homes.
EDDC isn’t like John Lewis (“Never knowingly undersold)!
Letter in today’s Sidmouth Herald:
Cllr Barlow rightly castigates the developers of the 36 Churchill homes for their measly offer towards affordable homes in the light of the profits likely to be made. How much more profit will PegasusLife make from 115 apartments at Knowle, but in this case without any payment at all towards affordable homes? What is more, EDDC have, I believe, “knowingly undersold” the site, including parts of the public park, to pay towards an unnecessary re-location, so that PegasusLife are likely, according to some estimates, to make a net profit of around £26 million. And because of the inadequate care to be provided, this development will very likely put great strain on already threatened local health services. Or does PegasusLife expect most of the apartments to become second homes for the extremely wealthy, as there is apparently nothing apart from cost to prevent this? Either way, is this what Sidmouth needs?
Readers may also like to know that, since they sent in their objections to the Knowle development, well over 50 new documents have been submitted by PegasusLife (in August and on 27 October). Some of these contradict earlier and misleading artist-impressions and show new details and changes including drainage problems upon which people may wish to comment. Comments should reach the planning department by November 11 as the application is likely to be put to the Development Management Committee on December 6.
Michael Temple Sidmouth
“Ministers on course to miss target of selling enough public land for 160,000 new homes by 2020”
“The Public Accounts Committee said the Government will have to order a “significant acceleration in the last years of the programme” to sell land for the remaining 149,000 homes still to be built, over the next three and a half years.
Officials in charge of the policy at the Department for Communities and Local Government had “taken their eye off the ball” before the last election, they said.
The MPs said the Government’s plans to build 160,000 new homes between 2015 and 2020 were “back-loaded, which increases the risk that government will not meet its commitment”.
The Government told the MPs that only enough land for 8,380 new homes – five per cent of the total – had been sold.
They said the “slow start to the new programme” was either because they “took their eye off the ball at the end of the previous programme that ran up to 2015 or are struggling to find suitable sites”.
Meg Hillier MP, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said: “There is a desperate need for new homes and public land is an irreplaceable asset.
“Taxpayers clearly have a right to know whether they are getting a good deal from its sale and how many homes are being built as a result.
“Sluggish sales have hindered progress towards the 2020 target while questions continue to hang over the potential of many sites earmarked for sale and whether homes will be in the places people want to live.
“Ultimately the public will judge the success of this programme on the basis of the homes built and the Government must make clear who taxpayers should hold to account for this.”
Earlier this year the Government was criticised after it emerged that officials were not required to keep track of whether new homes were actually being built on public land sold for housing.
It then emerged in January this year that only 1,800 new homes had built on public land out of the 109,000 promised by former Prime Minister David Cameron in 2011.”
Whatever happened to … Knowle relocation costs?
Given that Exmouth’s regeneration plan costs have more than doubled from £1.5m to £3.2m (see below) and part of that cost is said to be the development costs rising, whatever happened to Knowle relocation costs?
First it was going to be cost neutral …
Then it was going to cost an extra £4 million …
The latest estimate (some time ago) had the extra cost at £9.7 million
Since then:
… labour costs have increased (minimum wage rise)
… skilled labour is less available (migrants choosing not to come or being sucked into Hinkley C, our older skilled workers retiring and not being replaced by youngsters with the required training due to skills gap)
… imported raw materials costs have risen enormously due to the falling pound
… Community Infrastructure Levy to be paid
Of course, EDDC could build prefab offices to keep down costs, just as the government intends to do with housing …
Suddenly Knowle looks much more attractive in that bright autumn sun, with its lovely park and the view of the sea …
Oh, wait … it’s been flogged off for luxury retirement housing.
EDDC planning leaflet on what to do if build quality of new homes is bad
Cabinet meeting 9 November 2016, 17.30
Agenda Item 10
“Cabinet are asked to defer a decision on recommendation Minute 13 Recommendation 2 “that the Officers consider the resource and
financial implications for EDDC on the production of a leaflet giving advice to purchasers of new homes, on options available to them if issues arise regarding the quality of the build”; until further research has been undertaken by the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management.”
Click to access 091116combinedcabagenda-sm.pdf
QUESTION: Isn’t Building Control supposed to pick up poor build quality?
QUESTION: Should local authority searches identify poor quality buildings if the local authority knows this is the case?
QUESTION: Where are these poor quality homes and why are they not being identified?
Exmouth overspend and its worrying ramifications
See agenda item 16 – pages 81 – 91 of papers for next Cabinet meeting on 9 November:
Of particular note:
· The budget estimate rising from £1.5m to £3.12m
· As per 2.1 and 2.2 – a planning application for phases 2 and 3 is being submitted, as a ‘technical exercise’ to sustain the planning application (as the outline would be due to expire). [Is this allowed?]
· As quoted on page 84 ‘The planning authority will seek responses from the public to the planning application but the Council itself is not proposing to go beyond this with additional consultation for this technical exercise’.
· Consultation is then mentioned as coming after the technical exercise, in language used to imply consultation will be thorough (despite missing the important issue of consultation needing to happen before decisions are made!).
· Having told the tenants of the Harbour View (in a public meeting) that the Harbour View will be considered a separate application, and framing it to sound altruistic and caring of them, they now state that the Regeneration board has considered marketing the Harbour View site BEFORE the rest of the site in recognition of its value!”
… Loads more in there, makes awful reading.
Exmouth/ EDDC: more of our money down the drain
“A report has highlighted that costs for Exmouth’s Queen’s Drive project have now more than doubled – from £1.5 million to £3.1 million.
The figures come as East Devon District Council (EDDC) continue looking for “fresh ideas” for the biggest chunk of the nine-acre development site – after sacking the previous developer, Moirai, over the summer.
They say they will be consulting with residents, businesses and tourists for this ‘third phase’ of the Queen’s Drive site in Exmouth.
Residents want clarification of Knowle housing designation
An EDDC spokesperson says it will be up to the DMC to decide classification but then says there are legal aspects to be considered.
The DMC are laypersons- surely they are not qualified to take such decisions?
“District chiefs have yet to decide how the use of a proposed 115-home retirement community at Knowle should be classified.
The Knowle Residents’ Association this week called for clarity on the matter. Householders say that, if the development ends up classed as ‘C3’ – housing – developer PegasusLife will need to either include ‘affordable’ homes on-site, or pay towards them.
If it is care accommodation [C2], the group says the development will be even further from the 50 homes the site is allocated in East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) Local Plan.
Residents’ association chairman Kelvin Dent said the group is ‘amazed’ the authority has not decided what use class the development falls into. He added: “Our view is that the application is akin to housing – albeit with the occupants of the proposed apartments being able to purchase a package of care to suit their needs.
“Under planning law, this equates to a C3 use and PegasusLife will be obliged to provide social housing as part of their development or to make a substantial financial contribution towards the social housing that Sidmouth desperately needs and support for the local community.
“We look forward to receiving confirmation from EDDC that they agree and will be helping local young people to find a home.”
A spokeswoman for EDDC – which intends to relocate from the Knowle HQ to Exmouth and Honiton – said officers had been working on the basis that the development’s use would be C2.
She added: “However, officers have been considering whether the form and layout of the proposed development and the manner in which it is proposed to operate would constitute a C2 use or not.
“In considering this issue, officers have been, and continue to consider, the views expressed by residents and relevant case-law.”
The spokeswoman said the officers’ conclusions on PegasusLife’s application will likely be presented to EDDC’s development management committee (DMC) on December 6. The agenda will be published 10 days beforehand.
She added: “Ultimately, a decision on this issue is for the members of DMC to make.”
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/residents_call_for_clarity_over_future_knowle_use_1_4756297
Make millions, pay peanuts … EDDC says that’s fine
“Town councillors have reiterated their opposition to Churchill Retirement Living’s plans to demolish Green Close, in Drakes Avenue, and build 36 sheltered housing apartments for the elderly.
They said the housing stock for older people cannot keep growing without also creating homes for nurses and carers to look after them – and argued the developer could cut into its 30 per cent operating profit margin to pay for it.
Planning committee members suggested Churchill should pay at least £360,000.
Councillor Ian Barlow, committee chairman, told the Herald: “Churchill’s profit margin is the one of the highest in the industry.
“They say they can’t pay more than £41,000 or it won’t be profitable – but those 36 homes are probably going to be worth £6-7million.
“Churchill is making a profit and taking it out of the town. They’re bringing in older people who will use the facilities, but they’re barely putting anything into the pot.”
The £41,000 referred to is a ‘section 106’ payment – cash that is meant to mitigate the impact of developments and fund improvements such as ‘affordable’ housing. The contribution depends on factors such as the size and number of dwellings being built.
Churchill is proposing to build 36 apartments in place of the 23-bed Green Close care home, which was run by Devon County Council until cutbacks brought about its closure in 2014.
The planning committee, which met last week, ruled: “Members noted that a contribution of £41,208 had been offered by the applicant towards affordable housing. Members expressed the view that this was an insult to the community of Sidmouth and urged the local planning authority not to accept the offer.”
Cllr Barlow compared the Green Close proposal with the Sanditon development, on the plot of the former Fortfield Hotel.
The developer there built 29 apartments and made a £1.5million ‘section 106’ payment – 36 times what Churchill is offering.
Cllr Barlow said the firm can avoid a larger payment because it is creating sheltered housing, adding: “We’re concerned that a lot of places are being provided for the elderly, but there’s nowhere being built for younger people.
“If there’s no provision at the same time for a nurse or a carer to live, who is going to look after them?”
Churchill’s planning director, Andrew Burgess, told the Herald: “We are disappointed by Sidmouth Town Council’s decision, since we have been consulting the community and working with the planning authorities for several months to develop plans for an attractive and sustainable new retirement community that will bring benefits to local people and the local economy.”
He said the proposed affordable housing contribution is based on a detailed viability assessment, industry best practice and factors such as the market value of the site.
Mr Burgess added: “We will continue to work with the council and the local community to ensure we can deliver the high-quality specialist retirement accommodation that is urgently needed by older people in Sidmouth.”
The application has been recommended for approval by EDDC’s planning officers, who noted the ‘comparatively modest’ financial contribution.
The authority’s development management committee will decide its fate on Tuesday (November 1).”
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/home/developer_s_offer_slammed_as_insult_to_sidmouth_1_4756271
East Devon Watch 