The ” Exmouth Splash”special song, dedicated to Andrew Moulding and Philip Skinner

Talking Heads, “Road to Nowhere”:

“Road To Nowhere”

Well we know where we’re goin’
But we don’t know where we’ve been
And we know what we’re knowin’
But we can’t say what we’ve seen
And we’re not little children
And we know what we want
And the future is certain
Give us time to work it out

We’re on a road to nowhere
Come on inside
Takin’ that ride to nowhere
We’ll take that ride

I’m feelin’ okay this mornin’
And you know,
We’re on the road to paradise
Here we go, here we go

[CHORUS]

Maybe you wonder where you are
I don’t care
Here is where time is on our side
Take you there…take you there

We’re on a road to nowhere
We’re on a road to nowhere
We’re on a road to nowhere

There’s a city in my mind
Come along and take that ride
and it’s all right, baby, it’s all right

And it’s very far away
But it’s growing day by day
And it’s all right, baby, it’s all right

They can tell you what to do
But they’ll make a fool of you
And it’s all right, baby, it’s all right
We’re on a road to nowhere.”

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/talkingheads/roadtonowhere.html

Millionaire property developer hosts Cameron’s 50th birthday party

Wonder if Hugo Swire knighted by Cameron in the cronies honours list – is invited? Ah, apparently not, says the article.

When plans were first being made for David Cameron’s 50th birthday party it was going to be a grand affair at Chequers, the stately home where Sir Winston Churchill made some of his wartime broadcasts.

But the EU referendum and Cameron’s tearful departure from Downing Street changed all of that.

The former prime minister will not exactly be slumming it, however, when he celebrates his half century tonight, the day before his actual birthday.

Cameron and his wife Samantha will be the star turn at a discreet dinner party in one of the most magnificent homes in private ownership in Britain. They will be entertained by property developer Tony Gallagher at Sarsden House, a listed 17th-century Oxfordshire mansion set in 459 acres.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3827953/Cameron-celebrates-50th-ultra-exclusive-party-Just-23-guests-invited-Dave-s-low-key-birthday-albeit-26million-country-pile-owned-favourite-Tory-donor.html

Transcript of Councillor Andrew Moulding’s attempt to explain development on Exmouth Seafront to Simon Bates on BBC radio

Owl’s summary of Moulding’s attempt to explain EDDC’s current “thinking”:

We have been planning Exmouth Sea Front for 6 years and we know exactly what we are doing, even though our preferred bidder Moirai has only got initial ideas and we haven’t yet decided what Phase 3 will consist of or how much it will all cost. And it’s going to be completely built up yet very open – and sand drifts are exactly what everyone wants.”

The interview transcript:

“Simon Bates: In Exmouth a group of badgers are thought to be living near a former crazy golf course on the sea front, and they’re involved in a completely different type of dispute. At stake is the proposed multi-million pound development of the area, seen as crucial for Exmouth by East Devon District Council, but viewed by some locals as a terrible mistake for the town.

In the maelstrom, in the middle of it, trying to keep the peace is Adrian Campbell. Good morning Adrian. … What’s going on?

Adrian Campbell: Well, badgers and crazy golf – it does sound a bit peculiar I agree. On Queen’s Drive on the sea front in Exmouth the district council has plans for a quite a big development there. It’s close to the former crazy golf area. There’s also an amusement arcade nearby, and an old railway carriage cafe used to be there.

Now some of these have already gone, they’ve been fenced off, big changes are planned for an idea originally called Exmouth Splash. There’s been consultation about that before. They want to develop this area. Its close to another development that has already taken place known as Ocean, which is a big bowling area that has been built on the sea front just down from the Premier Inn.

However, on this site are badgers, and local people say that they believe that they were under the crazy golf course. That seems to have been confirmed – not so many of them, as there is a bigger sett further off the site.

We spoke to Louise McAllister from Save Exmouth Seafront…

Louise MacAllister: It was alerted to me by a local resident that there were badgers living in this site up until very recently. So I was a little bit concerned that they had already gone ahead with the demolition, because you have to apply for a license to interfere with a sett, and I am just a little bit worried that East Devon District Council have not had the time to do that.

Simon Bates: Can we talk about East Devon District Council because this sounds like a labyrinthine one, let alone about the sett. What did they tell you?

Adrian Campbell: Well they have confirmed that they have, first of all, found out using an expert, Dr. Julian Brown, that there are two small setts, part of a more significant complex badger sett off the site. However, this is important, they say that they have been working with Natural England and they’ve been given a license to relocated them to a larger sett. And they say, basically, that the work that has been done so far won’t have caused any problem and is perfectly OK. So that is what they are saying, but you have this larger issue, much larger issue, about what’s going to happen in the area and lots of controversy about that.

Simon Bates: Yes. That is a story I hadn’t thought of. Because where do you put badgers, because they don’t automatically go into other badger setts because that is a confrontation situation.

Adrian Campbell: Well they wouldn’t go far apparently. They would go just to the bigger sett nearby, but off the site. That’s what they said.

Simon Bates: But would that be OK with those badgers that already occupy the bigger sett.

Adrian Campbell: I don’t know. I’m not a badger expert.

Simon Bates: No, neither am I. But you know what dogs are like, and basically that’s what we are talking about.

Adrian Campbell: I was just going to say, presumably under the advice of Natural England, it should be OK. But then you’ve got this larger issue about this whole area and the big changes that are being proposed. And, some people have asked about modernising this area.

Effectively, there is a boating lake there with swans on it. It’s a very traditional seaside kind of scene at the moment, or it has been, and what is talked about here is a really big change. Now some people are quite keen on that – other people are slightly concerned about it. We spoke to one gentleman, Robin Rule, and is what he was saying.

Robin Rule: Our main priorities now are to try to preserve the boating lake and the fun park. Because the boating lake and the fun park is in fact the face, the face, of Exmouth Seafront. Millions of people love it, whether you live here, whether you are visiting it from holiday or around. That’s what we want to try to hold onto.

Simon Bates: Its the traditional against the future, isn’t it. The swans on the boating lake – I suppose you can call iconic. And then there are the other attractions that have been there for donkeys years vs. the new face of the seafront, the bowling centre you talked about, the Exmouth Ocean. Which vision do you think will win out?

Adrian Campbell: Well when you look at the plans, and I am looking at a plan that goes back to 2013, a big graphic showing what is proposed. Now the council has told me that it has changed quite a lot, but it’s a really large site. Some have told me locally it would be similar in size to the town centre of Exmouth, but right on the seafront. Now some people are a bit concerned about that, and you will hear from the council in a minute. We spoke to an independent councillor, Megan Armstrong, she’s quite worked up about it.

Cllr Megan Armstrong: What concerns people is that as soon as one building goes up it’s setting the scene for a whole more other buildings going up. And people just don’t want that. They like the openness, they like the facilities that are here because children love them, families love them, and they’re reasonably priced because a lot of people who come here don’t have a lot of money, and they’re families with children, at that’s why we get a lot of people coming here.

Simon Bates: Well, there’s the independent councillor Megan Armstrong. We’ve got, as you’ve hinted there Adrian, Cllr Andrew Moulding.

Good morning Cllr Moulding. Deputy Leader of East Devon District Council.

Adrian Campbell: Cllr, Good Morning. You’ve heard the reaction of some of the people there that we have spoken to. First of all, with the badgers, has the council got it right?

Cllr Andrew Moulding: Well, I heard your report, Adrian, on the situation with the badgers which is exactly as you stated. The council has a license from Natural England and during this sensitive process that is what we have to have. We have, and again you are quite right, we have a badger expert. He’s a leading consultant on badgers in the country, and that is Dr. Julian Brown. He’s identified that these two small setts are part of a more significant complex badger sett which is off the site, and in consultation with Dr Brown, the badgers who are living in these two small badger setts can quite amicably be relocated to the larger sett. And that’s what under the advice of Dr Brown and with the license from Natural England, that is what the council are carrying out.

Adrian Campbell: But what about the scale of this? Because people are saying in the area, people that we spoke to yesterday, and admittedly though a self-selecting group who turned up, but they are talking about the scale of this. I mean, how many millions is this going to cost, and how big is phase one, two and three?

Cllr Andrew Moulding: We don’t know the overall cost of this yet. What we do know is that we have put the project into three phases. The first phase is to relocate the road and the car park, so that the car park is further to the rear of the site and not inhibiting the views across the estuary. Similarly with the road. That will allow access to visitors and residents to the sea front. That will be stage one.

Stage two will be a very exciting water sports centre, built on the …

Adrian Campbell: It’s big isn’t it? It’s going to be very big?

Cllr Andrew Moulding: Oh yes, it’s pretty big, yes. It will, but it will encompass a water sports centre for people who are doing kite-surfing and so on, but also there will be an open-air performance space there, a number of small units that trade in water sports. So the attraction of water sports to Exmouth has always been well known. We already have national competitions at Exmouth and we obviously feel that this is something that will be well appreciated by visitors and locals alike.

Adrian Campbell: But just briefly, do you understand the concerns of local people who are saying that the scale of this dwarfs what has been there in the past traditionally. You’ve got the bowling centre down the road – they say that the council’s taken that on because it wasn’t making enough money, I don’t know whether that’s right or not. But they question whether or not there is the demand for all of this. And they also say this is a special area.

Cllr Andrew Moulding: Yes. There would almost be an anchor at each end. So you’ve got Ocean at one end, you’ll have the water sports centre at the other end, inbetween phase three is the development of what was the old fun park – or still is because we are allowing the tenant of the fun park to trade for another season while the details of that part of the site are being developed – so he will carry on and trade there until such time as we need the site to be vacated so that the phase three work can go ahead. That’s still to be determined …

Simon Bates: Actually, can I just jump in there Councillor Moulding because Adrian can’t ask you this, he’s is far too nice a man. It all sounds a bit woolly.

Cllr Andrew Moulding: No not woolly at all. I mean its a plan that’s been in the offing for about the last six years. Now at last it is coming to fruition. And obviously there are stages one needs to go through to arrange the necessary planning details, and so on. That is going through process at the moment. The first phase, as I say, is to relocate the road, move the car park, and then to get the water sports centre built, and then we can look in more detail at phase three which is the remainder of the site. We very much hope that the majority of the area will be open and free to people to use.

Simon Bates: It’s a very exposed site as well, isn’t it Councillor? You’ve got high seas and sand blowing in during the winter.

Cllr Andrew Moulding: That’s the beauty of the site. I mean, that’s what everybody likes about it. That it is …

Simon Bates: Yes, but your going to build up the whole place aren’t you?

Cllr Andrew Moulding: The water sports centre will have open spaces within it. But its a development which has been well planned, we are working with the …

Adrian Campbell: But you haven’t got drawings or architect’s plans yet, have you? And you haven;t got a developer as I understand, so people are saying that the area’s closed off, and they can’t get to it and use it.

Cllr Andrew Moulding: Well, we have the water sports centre, [sniggering heard in background] and we have a preferred developer in place, Moirai, who have come up with some initial proposals. We are looking closely at those to see if it is exactly what is required, we shall look carefully at that as phase three while the tenant is still on site so that the people of Exmouth can enjoy facilities on the site until we are ready to go forward with the next stage.

Simon Bates: Councillor, thank you very much indeed. Adrian, I think that’s all we are going to get, don’t you?

Adrian Campbell: I know. Thank you, Simon.

[Sounds of laughter from Simon Bates]
Simon Bates: Stay across it. Beaver or should I say badger away. Adrian Campbell, thank you very much indeed.”

http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk/megan-armstrong/20161007/simon-bates-cllrs-armstrong-moulding-interviewed-exmouth-seafront/

Devon and Somerset devolution on governments “back burner”

Owl has two questions:

if it IS on the back burner, should we be hanging on Somerset’s coat tails, hoping for Hinkley C breadcrumbs and an elected Mayor who will be Hinkley-centric?

and

should we be employing LEP staff and shovelling out expenses to our LEP while things are re-evaluated – or should we cut our losses, scrap it and look to sustaining our own Devon economy in what will possibly be rocky post- Brexit times?

The region’s devolution bid appears to have been shoved onto the back burner this week, following a Government U-turn on the need for elected mayors.

Earlier this year council leaders were optimistic of securing a deal by the autumn, after agreeing on proposals to establish a combined-authority.

But the Treasury now looks to have ruled this possibility out, after revealing its “priority” will be areas with directly elected mayors.

Speaking to the Herald, Treasury minister David Gauke claimed this model provides local authorities with “maximal” opportunities for devolved powers.

“To get the most powers you need the best accountability and that’s delivered by directly-elected mayors,” he said.

“We think [it’s] the best model… so we continue to encourage local authorities to go down that route.

“Those areas that don’t want to go down that route, we will of course still look at the devolution options there.

“I think the priority is delivering the directly elected mayor model.”

This renewed focus on mayors appears to contradict messages from the Department for Communities and Local Government, which has previously indicated support for a combined authority model.

Earlier this year, councils in Devon and Somerset voted in favour of creating a combined authority for the region, on the understanding this would improve the area’s chances of a devolution deal.

Critics of the mayoral model express concern about the ability of a single leader to effectively represent areas as economically and geographically diverse as Plymouth and the Mendips.

Responding to Mr Gauke’s comments, leader of Somerset County Council, John Osman, said his understanding “is that the Prime Minister does not think a mayor is essential for devolution”.

“Some initial public engagement this summer suggests that is a view shared by Somerset residents,” he added.

“We have a compelling case for devolved powers and budgets which has the potential to drive productivity, address challenges and capitalise on our many opportunities.

“We aim to continue these with the new relevant minister, Sajid Javid, in the near future to maintain the momentum and take our plans forward.”

Conservative MP for Wells, James Heappey, acknowledged that the recent change in Government leadership has resulted in changes to devolution policy.

He suggested this could provide the region with an opportunity to “take [its] foot off the accelerator” and review its proposals.

“If there is value in doing it, if it’s going to allow public services to be more efficient…. Then clearly we should go ahead [with a combined authority bid],” he said.

“[But] it makes no sense to change things just for the sake of changing things.”

Kevin Foster, the MP for Torbay – which recently voted to scrap its mayoral system – said many residents “won’t be itching” to have another elected mayor.

But he suggested the option is worth considering if it means “getting transport powers and an ability to deliver for local people”.

Mr Gauke did stress that the Government is still keen to extend devolution beyond the high profile city regions.

He said “a lot of focus has been on cities” but it would be good to “show how devolution can work in all parts of the country”.

Read more at http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/ministers-send-devon-devolution-deal-to-the-back-of-the-queue/story-29780812-detail/story.html

Seaton/Colyford green wedge under attack from developers for the fourth time

Amended Planning Application 15/2188/MOUT

hosted by
Seaton & Colyford Green Wedge Community Action Group

Wednesday 12th October 7.00pm
Seaton Town Council Office Meeting Room
Marshlands Centre, Harbour Road, Seaton EX12 2LT

The above Meeting will be Chaired by Howard West, Leader of the Group, and Martin Shaw, a Seaton Town Councillor and Chair of their Planning Committee will also speak and explain the details of the Application. They will both be taking questions.

If you have looked at the paperwork in more detail, you will notice there is only one football pitch, with a Training & Recreation Area, plus parking and a Club House. Seaton FC were asking for two pitches. The Application mentions that there will be no floodlighting to the Recreation Area and Training Ground, but does not mention about the football pitch! Therefore we must assume that there will be floodlighting, as there is on the existing football pitch in Seaton.

This is a Public Meeting and you are all invited to come along and participate in the discussion. The Marshlands Centre is situated at the Harbour Road roundabout and there is limited parking on site. There is plenty of parking in the vicinity including Tescos (max 2 hours)”

Housing Minister wants more tiny “pocket apartments”

Or, “Honey I shrunk the flat – and how! And you can bet they won’t be any cheaper than current apartments – just slightly more of them.

“Britain already builds the smallest homes in Europe. A one-bedroom flat averages at 500sq ft – about the size of a tube carriage – while Barwell’s favoured developer, Pocket Living, sells 400sq ft flats for a quarter of a million pounds apiece.

The Royal Institute of British Architects says that more than half of new houses built are too small for families to live in (it’s a bit of a mystery where all these “home-grown” workers our Brexit-mad government keeps going on about are actually going to, well, grow up).

The average home in Denmark is twice as big as one of ours already. It’s a shameful state of affairs unlikely to be remedied by one of the stupidest policy suggestions to come out of the housing crisis thus far”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/05/housing-crisis-building-standards-size

Swire’s puzzling parliamentary questions on retrospective planning applications

Owl thinks the third question is most interesting – where he asks about fees paid by developers. Why “developers” rather than “people” or “applicants” or “homeowners”?

Just who is he representing? Local residents or developer pals?

1. To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what estimate his Department has made of the cost of retrospective planning applications to local councils in (a) Devon and (b) the UK in the last five years.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-09-02.44219.h&s=speaker%3A11265#g44219.q0

2. To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what proportion of the cost of a retrospective planning application is covered by the (a) applicant and (b) local authority.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-09-02.44220.h&s=speaker%3A11265#g44220.q0

3. To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whether he plans to change the proportion of the cost of retrospective planning applications currently paid by developers.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-09-02.44221.h&s=speaker%3A11265#g44221.q0

NB The answers from the Secretary of State are pretty useless!

Developer meeting … somewhere in deep, dark Devon

£3 billion or £5 billion to be made available to build 25,000 houses by 2020:

“OK Hammond is giving us £3 billion to build 25,000 homes by 2020 – that’s £120,000 per unit, right? So, you know that site we’ve had our eye on in the Home Counties, that we were going to put the £350,000 houses on – let’s just go right ahead and charge £475,000 and claim the subsidy. Right. That’s a £120,000 extra profit for each house. Phil – that looks like a nice little earner for us, can you get Damien to buy them all with those Panama shell companies he set up for us? Sweet!”

Hammond wants to “emphasise” brownfield sites:

“Phil I found a rotten brownfield site – it’s absolute rubbish – literally, built on an old landfill site the council is offering us for £1 – I know, I know – old Bill came up trumps, well worth that deal we did for his daughter. What do you think about slapping up a few ticky-tackies at about £50,000 a pop, claiming the brownfield subsidy of £120,000 each and flogging ’em off fast at a bargain price of, oh, let’s say £250,000? In, out, bosh, bosh, a donation to the party and bob’s my knighthood. Get on to it Phil – and keep a couple back, I hear Bill has a couple of other kids he needs to set up”.

Hammond has also suggested developing derelict shopping centres for housing:

“Now, about Middletown Shopping Centre. Yes, I KNOW it’s fully let, yes I KNOW it’s popular, yes, I KNOW there’s a waiting list for vacancies, yes, I KNOW it’s been a nice little earner for us over the years. But that new Hammond idea is the way to go. So, Damien – cut down the maintenance to bare bones, bung up the bogs and start telling the papers about the terrible drug problems there. Yes, I KNOW there isn’t a drug problem – it’s your job to make sure there is, Damien. … Now how many units can we cram in there with a £120,000 each subsidy. Yes, I KNOW they will have to go 5 miles to shop, but that isn’t my problem. (Starts to sing): “We’re in the money, we’re in the money…”

Housing: a sticking plaster on gangrene

“Key measures announced today include the launch of a new £3 billion Home Building Fund to help small and “custom” builders deliver 25,500 homes by 2020.

This will be used to unlock a pipe line of up to 200,000 homes over the longer term – with the emphasis on development on brownfield land.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/tories-promise-boost-for-housing-infrastructure-and-enterprise/story-29772997-detail/story.html

1. It will not stop land banking or developers dribbling out new houses to keep prices up.

2. Large builders will now create small offshoots to sponge up the money.

3. DEFINITELY no social or truly-affordable houses.

4. So far, no help for low and mid-income people to truly be able to afford deposits and mortgages without the bank of mum and dad.

5. Many of the new homes will probably be buy-to-let.

6. No INSISTENCE on brownfield sites, just am ” emphasis”.

Nice one. Just 25,000 more houses … a drop in the ocean …

“Tory housing minister says building more council homes will increase inequality”

Jeremy Corbyn’s pledge to dramatically increase the construction of council homes will actually increase inequality, the Conservative housing minister today claimed.

Gavin Barwell told the party’s conference that the Labour plan to build at least 500,000 council homes as part of an increase overall housebuilding to a million would increase inequality between people who owned homes and those that did not.

He told a fringe event at the Birmingham gathering on Sunday afternoon that far from solving the housing crisis, the plan and would widen “the divide in society”.

“If we carry on building at the current rate then by 2020 the average house in the south east of England will increase by about £1000 a week. That will mean normal people’s homes in Kent or Hampshire, or wherever, are going to be earning more than they’re earning,” Mr Barwell said.

“Think about the consequences of that in terms of the equality in society between people that are lucky enough to have or inherit a property – and those that don’t have property.

“That was what I think was so remarkable about what Jeremy Corbyn envisaged last week – because he envisaged a future where half of us live in council homes.

“If you’re going to build at the current rate – which is what he’s talking about – and half the people are going to go in council homes and half of them are going to own, the divide in society is only going to get wider and wider. I would have thought he cares about that.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-council-housing-housebuilding-gavin-barwell-conference-live-2016-a7341946.html

However, the new Minister is a NIMBY in his own constituency:

The new Housing Minister that Theresa May tasked to increase home-building has been accused of taking a “not in my back yard” approach, after it emerged he fought against the construction of hundreds of properties in his own constituency.

Gavin Barwell was appointed by Theresa May last month as the incoming Prime Minister pledged to “get more houses built” and solve the housing crisis plaguing parts of Britain.

But plans opposed by Mr Barwell in his own constituency of Croydon Central, despite a huge housing shortage there, would have potentially provided homes for more than 500 families in the area. …”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-council-housing-housebuilding-gavin-barwell-conference-live-2016-a7341946.html

“Plans for ‘flood risk’ symbols on homes prove controversial”

Not a chance of this being taken up either by estate agents or developers in rainy, hilly, run-off, river crossed East Devon!

“The insurance industry has published three “flood risk” symbols it would like estate agents in England and Wales to put on their property particulars.

The Association of British Insurers (ABI) is proposing traffic light symbols in red, amber and green, to warn buyers about the flood dangers.

But estate agents say such symbols would stop buyers even looking at a property, so would block sales.

Around one in six properties would be labelled as either amber or red.

The ABI says the symbols would prompt buyers to investigate flood risks properly.

It claims that at the moment, house-hunters are more likely to ask about parking provision than flooding.

Last December, as many as 16,000 homes in the north of England succumbed to flood waters, as a result of Storm Desmond and Storm Eva.

img_1308

Three flood symbolsImage copyrightABIt

James Dalton, director of general insurance at the ABI, said: “As the floods of last winter reminded us, being flooded is horribly traumatic and can leave people out of their home or business for months.

“Anyone whose property is at flood risk needs to be aware of that, so they can take steps to protect themselves.”
However, estate agents say they are unlikely to take up the idea.

They point out that, under the Consumer Protection Regulations, they are already obliged to tell buyers of any material concerns about a property, including the risk of flooding.

But having such prominent warning symbols would put most buyers off, they say.

“If you see a red, you wouldn’t bother to look at it. You’d say, I’m not going to visit,” said Mark Hayward, the managing director of the National Association of Estate Agents.

See the Environment Agency flood maps for England and Wales
“It would be a pointless and fruitless exercise,” said property expert Henry Pryor.

“You would make a huge proportion of homes unsalable and unmortgageable.”

He said having just three symbols would also be an oversimplification of many different degrees of flood risk.
The ABI said that if estate agents did not take up the idea voluntarily, it might consider asking for legislation to make it compulsory.

The government appeared to offer qualified support for the idea of the flood risk symbols.

“It’s important people understand flood risk, so they can make informed decisions about where they live,” said a spokesperson from the Department for the Environment and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

“We’re making more data and technology available than ever before through the Environment Agency’s free Flood Warnings Service and our advanced flood mapping and forecasting.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37497092

“Help to buy” scheme ends – with £117.2 billion left in the kitty

Question: what happens to the £117.2bn underspend still left in the kitty? That’s an awful lot of affordable social housing. Oh, forgot – this government doesn’t build social housing as the people in it vote Labour, according to George Osborne. Bet it goes to large-scale, high-end developers – again.

“… The programme was announced by Hammond’s predecessor George Osborne in his 2013 Budget to boost the housing market and help people buy a home. At the launch, Osborne said he intended the support to run for three years from its launch in September 2013, and Hammond confirmed it would close to new loans on 31 December.

The programme offers government mortgage guarantees to people who are struggling to raise a deposit. According to figures published today, 86,341 mortgages have been completed with the support of the scheme. Of these, 79% were purchases by first time buyers, while the total value of mortgages supported by the scheme is £12.8bn, less than a tenth of the £130bn worth of mortgages that Osborne initially said the scheme could support. …”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/09/osbornes-flagship-help-buy-scheme-close-hammond-confirms

The full refusal for Sidford Business Park

[Has Owl said Hip Hip Hurrah, Councillor Marianne Rixson? What the heck, here is another one for her!]

EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL
Council Offices, Knowle
Sidmouth, Devon EX10 8HL
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION

Applicant: Fords And Sons Application No: 16/0669/MOUT
Address: (Mr T Ford)
Alexandria Industrial Estate
Sidmouth
EX10 9HA
Date of Registration:
22 March 2016

Agent: Context Logic Ltd Date of Decision: 27 September 2016
Address: (Mr J Marchant)
Threshers Stone
Church Road
Colaton Raleigh
Sidmouth
EX10 0LH

Proposal: Outline application accompanied by an Environmental Statement (with all matters reserved except access) for the development of up to 22,800sqm of floor space for use classes B1 (Office Light Industry), B2 (General Industry) and B8 (Storage and Distribution) with details of, and associated strategic landscaping for, the access, linking cycleway and footway, and flood improvements/attenuation.

Location: Land Adjacent To Two Bridges
Two Bridges Road
Sidford

The Council hereby refuses permission to carry out the development described in the application and the plans attached thereto for the following reasons:

1. The application has failed to demonstrate how the quantum and mix of development and the parameters for its scale and massing could be incorporated into this rural location whilst reflecting both the local vernacular styles and reinforcing the existing landscape.

Without robust landscape mitigation and an associated design code with adequate detail, the development would:
o result in harm to the landscape;
o make inadequate provision for green infrastructure; and
o fails to work sensitively with local habitats resulting in an over engineered appearance to the regraded stream and proposed flood attenuation ponds.

It is considered that the proposal therefore fails to meet the requirement for the highest design and landscaping standards set out within the policy which allocates the site for employment development and fails to adequately respect the landscape which is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and which should therefore be afforded the highest level of landscape protection. As such the proposal is considered contrary to national guidance and to Strategies 5 (Environment), 26 (Development at Sidmouth), 46 (Landscape Conservation), 48 (Local Distinctiveness in the Built Environment) and Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) D2 (Landscape Requirements) EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Natural features), of the adopted East Devon
Local Plan 2013-2031.

2. The proposed development would use access routes that by reason of their inadequate road width (with unsuitable footway provision) and a potentially unsatisfactory junction, are unsuitable to accommodate the increase in traffic likely to be generated by the currently proposed quantum and split of employment uses. In addition the directional split of traffic generation has also not been justified. As such the proposed development is therefore considered contrary to paragraph 32 of the National Planning
Policy Framework and Strategies 26 (Development at Sidmouth), and Policies TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan
2013 – 2031.

3. Insufficient information has been submitted to justify the noise assessment and its findings that are contained within the Environmental Statement. As such it is not
considered possible to accurately understand or assess the likely amenity impact that the development would have on near neighbours or secure appropriate mitigation. As
such the proposal is currently considered contrary to Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan
2013 – 2031.

4. No mechanism has been submitted to secure necessary contributions towards or the management and maintenance of both the hedgerow bounding the proposed cycle route and the surface water attenuation and drainage scheme proposed. In addition there is no mechanism to secure the necessary junction assessment in respect of Sidford Cross which is likely to require an improved signal system and which falls
outside of the identified strategic infrastructure list associated with the adopted CIL charging scheme. As such the proposed development is therefore currently considered
contrary to Strategy 50 (Infrastructure Delivery) and Policies TC7 (Adequacy of Road network and site access), EN22 (Surface run off implications of new development) and
D2 (Landscape requirements) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013 – 2031.

NOTE FOR APPLICANT
Informative:
In accordance with the requirements of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 in determining this application, East Devon District Council has worked proactively and positively with the applicant to attempt to resolve the planning concerns the Council has with the application.
However, the applicant was unable to satisfy the key policy tests in the submission and as such the application has been refused.

The plans relating to this application are listed below:
CONTEXT LOGIC General
Correspondence
11.08.16
PETER BRETT General Correspondence
11.08.16

LANDSCAPE/VISUAL IMPACT STMT
General Correspondence
11.08.16
G416B Proposed Combined Plans
11.08.16
G417C Landscaping 11.08.16
H100K Other Plans 11.08.16
G415D Sections 11.08.16
H102A Proposed Site Plan 11.08.16
H103 REV P1 Location Plan 11.08.16
Other Plans 12.08.16
058-001A Landscaping 11.08.16
CIL Form – Additional Information
19.08.16
H101B Other Plans 31.05.16
General Correspondence
31.05.16
Arboriculturist Report 05.05.16
Design and Access Statement
05.05.16
LIGHTING STRATEGY
Additional Information 06.05.16
ENVIRONMENT
AL STM
Additional Information 22.03.16
ENVIRONMENT
AL STM
Additional Information 22.03.16
ENVIRONMENT
AL STM
Additional Information 22.03.16
ENVIRONMENT
AL STM
Additional Information 22.03.16
ENVIRONMENT Additional Information 22.03.16

Fords of Sidmouth sell business “to concentrate on property business interests”

“Fords of Sidmouth directors Tim and Mike Ford ‘will support the transition of their business into the Clearvac Group and will then focus on their property business interests’.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/home/sidmouth_man_david_seals_deal_for_clearvac_to_take_over_fords_services_1_4707882

One might think they already believe their business park planning application is in the bag.

Poor quality of new housing in Axminster

The EDDC Overview Committee deliberated about the poor quality of new private housing being built in East Devon, particularly in Axminster:

“A number of concerns and issues were noted by the Think Tank including common problems such as the quality of finish of plaster and cracking, the fitting of kitchens and bathrooms and other internal cosmetic issues.

More specific issues such as a development in Axminster where the retaining structures supporting split levels between gardens had been made of timber which had subsequently rotted leaving residents with gardens that were subsiding and concerns over who is
responsible for rectifying these fault.”

Click to access 270916-overview-agenda-combined.pdf

They had nothing useful to say about how this could be improved.

Important High Court decision on the residual impact of development

“The High Court recently rejected a challenge to refusal of planning permission for 650 homes in Cheltenham. The ruling is important on the issue of residual cumulative impacts of development, writes Ashley Bowes.

Mr Justice Holgate has refused Bovis Homes and Miller Homes permission to proceed to challenge the decision of the Secretary of State to withhold planning permission for 650 new homes in Cheltenham, finding the claim to be “unarguable”.

The challenge was of particular note for its analysis of paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which provides that development should be prevented if the “residual cumulative impacts of development are severe”.
The Inspector had concluded at IR,225 that:

“Whilst I can agree therefore that the development should not need to solve all existing unrelated transport problems, the existing or future “in any event” situation on the highway network, is not an unrelated problem which evaluation of the proposed development ignore. It is a related problem which is highly pertinent to the evaluation of the current appeal proposal”

He went on to have regard to the guidance in DfT Circular 02/2013, paragraph 9 which provides:

“Development proposals are likely to be acceptable if they can be accommodated within the existing capacity of a section (link or junction) of the strategic road network, or they do not increase demand for use of a section that is already operating at over-capacity levels, taking account of any travel plan, traffic management and/or capacity enhancement measures that may be agreed …”

Mr Justice Holgate was not persuaded that the Inspector and Secretary of State arguably erred in law by taking into account of the existing highway situation when resolving the paragraph 32 NPPF questions.

In particular, the Judge noted that it would be open to a decision taker to rationally conclude that a given development could wash its own face in highway impact terms, but due to existing over capacity, the residual cumulative impacts of the development could be severe.

Whilst the decision that the claim is not arguable does not create binding authority on the meaning of para.32 NPPF, it does provide an interesting insight into the breadth of discretion open to a decision taker when resolving whether the residential cumulative impacts of development are severe.

Ashley Bowes is a barrister at Cornerstone Barristers. He acted for the successful Interested Parties (Leckhampton with Warden Parish Council and Leckhampton Green Land Action Group Ltd, instructed by Richard Stein at Leigh Day) before the High Court, and on behalf of Leckhampton Green Land Action Group Ltd before the planning inquiry.”

Notes
Appeal decision letter reference: LAND AT KIDNAPPERS LANE, LECKHAMPTON, CHELTENHAM APP/B1605/W/14/3001717

Case reference: Bovis Homes Ltd & Miller Homes Ltd v SSCLG (CO/3029/2016) (2 September 2016).

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28286%3Aresidual-cumulative-impacts-of-development&catid=63&Itemid=31

‘ “State of Nature”reveals the destructive impact of intensive farming, urbanisation and climate change on plants, animals and habitats’

“More than one in 10 of the UK’s wildlife species are threatened with extinction and the numbers of the nation’s most endangered creatures have plummeted by two-thirds since 1970, according to a major report.

The abundance of all wildlife has also fallen, with one in six animals, birds, fish and plants having been lost, the State of Nature report found.

Together with historical deforestation and industrialisation, these trends have left the UK “among the most nature-depleted countries in the world”, with most of the country having gone past the threshold at which “ecosystems may no longer reliably meet society’s needs”.

The comprehensive scientific report, compiled by more than 50 conservation organisations, spells out the destructive impact of intensive farming, urbanisation and climate change on habitats from farmland and hills to rivers and the coast. It found that the fall in wildlife over the last four decades cannot be blamed on past harm, but has continued in recent years.

“It wasn’t just all back in 70s and 80s, it is still happening now,” said Mark Eaton, at RSPB and the lead author of the report. “We are getting ever more efficient in our farming. In a way it is something to be celebrated, how good our farming science and technology is, but it does squeeze nature out.” …

… The report includes a new “biodiversity intactness index”, which analyses the loss of species over centuries. The UK has lost significantly more nature over the long term than the global average, the report said, with the UK the 29th lowest out of 218 countries.

“It is quite shocking where we stand compared to the rest of the world, even compared to other western European countries: France and Germany are quite a way above us in the rankings,” said Eaton. “The index gives an idea of where we have got to over the centuries, and we are pretty knackered.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/14/one-in-10-uk-wildlife-species-faces-extinction-major-report-shows?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Angry cries of “Boycott Fords” at Sidford meeting

BOYCOTT FORDS!’ CALL AT ANGRY SIDFORD MEETING

There was standing room only at Sidford Social Hall last night at a meeting called by local residents to “Say No to Sidford Business Park”.

Feelings ran high as speaker after speaker condemned this “monstrosity of a project” on road safety, environmental, and flooding grounds.

Notable comments included:

a plea from a Director of the Norman Lockyer Observatory “not to kill” astronomy in Sidmouth with the bright lights of a Business Park.

a warning from a governor of Sidbury primary school that increases in heavy vehicles would place schoolchildren in greater danger on the village’s narrow roads which often lacked pavements.

claims from an environmentalist that rare, protected horseshoe bats were likely to be present in larger numbers than estimated in the planning application.

Among many suggestions to mobilise opposition was a mass boycott of Fords of Sidmouth, the applicant.

This was enthusiastically supported, and will be actively considered by the organising committee.

Crowdfunding for high court case on third party objection to inspector planning consents

“A Lewisham resident is seeking to crowd fund a case concerning whether those affected by a planning inspector’s decision may challenge it without a full High Court action.

Louise Venn has raised £5,432 towards her £30,000 target, with 49 days to go.

In an explanation of her decision to launch the initiative, Ms Venn said: “The UK is completely ignoring basic minimum standards of environmental justice under European law. It is actively preventing the public from being able to challenge illegal and environmentally damaging decisions by its own national planning inspectors.”

Her concerns centre on applications that have been rejected by a local planning authority but permitted by an inspector on appeal. “The only way to correct [this] is through a High Court case against the secretary of state,” she said.

“This is almost impossible, as I discovered, because you become liable to pay the other side’s legal costs as soon as you bring a case. These costs generally run into tens of thousands of pounds.”

Ms Venn claimed this meant inspectors could act with impunity knowing only the wealthy could challenge them.

Her lawyer, Dr Paul Stookes of Richard Buxton Environmental and Planning Law, said: “The Government admitted to the Court of Appeal in 2014 that it had intentionally left a loophole in the law, preventing challenges to its own Planning Inspectors (but allowing such challenges to local planning decisions). In Venn v Secretary of State [2014] the Court of Appeal held that the claim fell within the scope of the Aarhus Convention, and ruled the UK was non-compliant with the Convention. But because the government had left the loophole intentionally, the Court did not intervene.

“Some two years on and the problem still persists. Added to this, the United Nations Aarhus Compliance Committee has repeatedly found that the UK is non-compliant with its international obligations – something the government simply ignores.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28318%3Aclaimant-crowd-funds-action-over-appeals-against-decisions-of-planning-inspectors&catid=63&Itemid=31