Category Archives: Developers/ Development

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Aug 2016

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, AONB, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Local Plan, Rural communities

East Devon villages must feed back on EDDC’s plans for their boundaries by 28 September 2016

The expansion of some of East Devon’s most recognisable villages is at the forefront of a new public consultation.

East Devon District Council has begun the eight-week process for its major draft Villages Plan.b The idea is to guide where new developments will go at 14 of the district’s larger villages, as well as the town of Colyton.

Responses will be looked over by the council’s Strategic Planning Committee, before a final version of the plan is produced for yet another consultation.

Locations earmarked for expansion include Beer, Broadclyst, Clyst St. Mary, East Budleigh, Feniton, Kilmington, Musbury, Newton Poppleford, Sidbury, Uplyme, West Hill, Whimple, Woodbury and the town of Colyton.

The Villages Plan will show a black line – the technical term being a Built-up Area Boundary – around the villages.

Within the black line, new houses will generally be acceptable, but outside they will only be acceptable in special circumstances.

The consultation gives the public an opportunity to comment on where the lines should be drawn.

The aim of the council’s planning policy team is to ensure that the main existing built-up areas are included, together with areas that have already been agreed for development – either through planning permission or planning allocations.

A number of alternatives have already been considered, including not having boundaries, drawing boundaries more tightly or drawing them more loosely.

However, none of these options have been progressed, as they differ from the approach set out in the Local Plan which was adopted in January 2016.

Further research has been undertaken to determine whether the boundaries drawn using the council’s existing criteria should be reduced in areas where it is difficult to access local services and facilities on foot.

This approach is being proposed for Beer, Newton Poppleford, Uplyme and West Hill.

Planning permission is less likely to be granted for new housing and industry that fall into areas outside the black line, but this does not mean that these homes and businesses are not part of a village in any other way.

The Villages Plan does not affect any changes that residents could make to their homes without planning permission.

Councillor Andrew Moulding, who is Chairman of the Strategic Planning Committee, said: “We will consider all the comments that are made before producing an East Devon Villages Plan for further public consultation.

“It will then be formally submitted for consideration by an independent Inspector who will decide whether the plan is sound. It is important that we seek the views of the local communities on this plan, which will help in the determination of planning applications.”

Communities and residents have until Wednesday, September 28 to put forward any comments they wish to make on the draft plan. The Villages Plan will then be submitted for examination by a Planning Inspector.

The draft consultation Villages Plan and supporting documents are available at the council offices at Station Road, Sidmouth, in local libraries, with the relevant parish councils or online here:

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/villages-plan/villages-plan-2016-consultation/

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/here-s-how-these-14-east-devon-could-expand-and-how-to-have-your-say-on-it/story-29601801-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Aug 2016

Posted under

Developers/ Development, Dorset and Devon National Park, EDDC

Comments

1 Comment

“Control of assets” more important than creating a national park says EDDC

Owl says: how come Dorset is so enthusiastic then? It, too, has assets but seems happy to use them for the greater good.

Of course, assets can be bought by developers … but it is much harder to develop a national park … and our LEP would be very unhappy, as where would those EXTRA 176,000 houses go, over and above those in Local Plans.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/plans_for_east_devon_national_park_dismissed_as_opportunistic_approach_on_region_s_assets_1_4645079

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Aug 2016

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development

Right- wing Tory group calls for innovative (market-oriented) solutions to housing problems

Owl thinks they want to know how to make more money out of more rented housing!

“The Tory Reform Group (TRG) has launched a public call for evidence seeking innovative policy proposals to address the two-fold challenge of availability and affordability of homes to rent and buy. The call forms part of a year-long focus on housing policy, launched at the organisation’s AGM in London on Tuesday.

TRG National Chairman, David Fazakerley, said:

“Rents are rising, home ownership is falling, and too many households are spending more than half their income on housing costs. A series of very welcome government initiatives have been launched to help people buy their first home, but there is undoubtedly more radical thinking needed to address the long-term crisis. The TRG is seeking evidence to help the Conservative Government continue stepping up to that challenge.”

The call comes as latest reports show average UK house prices have jumped by 8.1% in the past year to reach a new record high of £211,000, nearly 8 times the average UK salary. House prices in London increased 14.5% in the last year, with an average property price of £472,000.

Mr Fazakerely added:

“We are on an unsustainable path and need to think outside the box to begin turning things around. As a voluntary group, we draw on expertise from within the conservative family and from across the political spectrum to deliver a One Nation agenda in Government and I hope organisations and individuals with policy expertise will respond to this call and help shape our output over the coming year.”

The TRG was formed 41 years ago as the home of One Nation thinking within the Conservative Party, promoting policies which deliver a modern, socially liberal country pursuing a market oriented agenda that works for everyone, regardless of background.

Organisation, or individuals, wishing to submit to the call for evidence should email housing@trg.org.uk, with the first stage of the evidence call closing on September 30th 2016.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Exmouth, Freedom of Information Act, Moirai Exmouth project, Regeneration

EDDC – Exmouth: searching questions about relationship with former ” preferred partner”

“Dear East Devon District Council,

I make this request under the FOI Act and Environmental regs

We have learned from local press reports that EDDC has ended the status of Moirai Capital Investments as preferred partner in relation to the regeneration of Exmouth.

Has council made any payments to Moirai, or any agent on their behalf (JLL?) and if so, what are the details.

What meetings have been held with Moirai or any of it’s agents and what officer time or other costs have been incurred. Full details please , to include dates, place of meeting and officers/members meeting.

Is it correct that EDDC has been taking councillors (and any others e.g regeneration panel members) to view Moirai’s Swindon operation? Full details please.

When did EDDC decide to end it’s preferred partner relationship with Moirai and why? please supply full reasons and dates with copies of reports and decisions .

Please explain what has changed, other than the passage of time, that necessitates a rethink on regeneration proposals.

Please ensure that the fullest details are given in response together with copies of all relevant paperwork, emails etc.”

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/payments_to_moirai_capital_inves

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Jul 2016

Posted under

Andrew Moulding, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Section 106, Wainhomes

Comments

1 Comment

Wainhomes Axminster: EDDC considers legal action to recover

Serious problems in Axminster, according to this week’s View from Axminster:

image

where the newspaper reveals that EDDC is considering taking legal action to recover more than £650,000 from Wainhomes, developer at Millbrook Meadows off Chard Road. The money is due under a Section 106 agreement to cover infrastructure, new school places, sports facilities, play areas, sewerage network and public art. In addition there are safety concerns about fencing and subsidence.

In an editorial on page 3 of the newspaper it is also noted that there are serious concerns about the quality of new housing in Axminster and an anecdotal story of a house under construction having been pulled down overnight.

Wainhomes have been at the centre of a number of controversies, not least in nearby Feniton, where required flood defences were not constructed and planning conditions not met when a new housing estate was built in the village and where the company attempted to build many more houses than those originally sought.

Yet another headache for the new Axminster Regeneration Board, headed by Councillor Moulding.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

25 Jul 2016

Posted under

AONB, Developers/ Development, Environment (local), Land Supply, Planning System

Taxpayers Alliance wants most planning rules to be abolished

“The government should scrap stamp duty and ease planning restrictions to address the worsening housing crisis, the TaxPayers’ Alliance has said today.

In a new report, the group called for “real reform” to tackle the housing shortage accusing successive governments of merely tinkering around the edges instead of dealing with underlying issues facing the sector. …

… the fundamental problem with housing markets in Britain is overly tight planning restrictions, the group suggests. The alliance urges the government to declassify swathes of green-belt land to tackle the chronic lack of new house building. For example, it estimates that allowing just 5% of the greenbelt around London to be built on will enable the city to grow by one sixth.

Taller, denser housing construction should be also encouraged, as well as more infilling, despite the likely increased pressure on traffic systems and public services.

The alliance cites the work of groups such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Victorian Society, and the “thousands” of local groups who successfully protect the character of communities.

However, protecting land from development restricts the supply of new properties and inevitably raises the cost of housing, the alliance argues. It says: “The political fact is that housing cannot become more affordable unless it becomes cheaper and easier to build more of it in the places where … groups object.”

Jonathan Isaby, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “For decades politicians have failed to tackle the root causes of the housing crisis: a chronic lack of supply. What’s more, stamp duty is still punitively high and gimmicky tweaks to the tax system will ultimately end up penalising tenants and increasing rents.”

Isaby is urging new chancellor Phillip Hammond to seize the opportunity “to drastically simplify and reduce property taxes, while removing planning restrictions which prevent huge swathes of land from being built on for no good reason at all”.

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/07/abolish-stamp-duty-and-ease-planning-restrictions-urges-taxpayers-alliance

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Jul 2016

Posted under

Developers/ Development, NPPF

” The inanities of the National Planning Policy Framework “

Letters page Daily Telegraph 23 July 2016:

SIR –

It is the kind of self-interested view of the planning system given by Professor Adam that got us into this mess in the first place. Developers play the system to obtain permissions that they land-bank rather than build-out.

The inanities of the National Planning Policy Framework then allow them to use the lack of five-year housing supply to demand even more permissions, often in places that command higher prices than those that communities have identified for development.

Developers are businesses and they are interested in profit. It is time for a rather obtuse government to understand that this doesn’t deliver either mass housing or specific housing such as bungalows.

There is selective deafness on the part of the Government in respect of the failure of the National Planning Policy Framework. Maybe this is yet another example of why there was selective deafness on the part of the electorate to the wishes of the Government in relation to the referendum.

Jenny Unsworth
Congleton, Cheshire

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Jul 2016

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development

“Slum conditions return to Britain as housing crisis brings squalor, exploitation”

“Dickensian housing conditions reminiscent of the Victorian era have returned to Britain amid a rise in private renters living in squalid lodgings and rogue landlords demanding sex in return for delayed rent.
According to local authorities and housing activists the lack of housing stock, affordable homes and regulation is forcing more and more people, especially vulnerable and low-income workers into deceitful contracts and precarious rents.

A Sky News investigation spoke to dancer Sandrine Anterrion, who found herself in a homelessness cycle after being evicted for refusing to perform sexual favors on her landlord in exchange for rent. She now lives in a “flea-infested London flat with no hot water or working toilet.” …

https://www.rt.com/uk/352463-slum-conditions-rent-housing/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Jul 2016

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Council tax, Developers/ Development, Land banking

Charge council tax on unbuilt homes says Lords Committee

“The [House of Lords] Economic Affairs Committee in its report “Building more homes” has strongly recommended that the Government must lift its target by 50% and build 300,000 homes each year to tackle the housing crisis. It also suggests that Local authorities and housing associations must be freed to build substantial numbers of homes for rent and for sale.

Key findings

In their report, “Building more homes”, published today, the cross-party House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee criticises the Government’s housing policy for:

Setting a new homes target which will fail to meet the demand for new homes or moderate the rate of house price increases.

Restricting local authorities’ access to funding to build more social housing.

Creating uncertainty in the already dysfunctional housing market by frequent changes to tax rules and subsidies for house purchases, reductions in social rents, and the extension of the Right to Buy. All of these changes reduce the supply of homes for those who need low cost rental accommodation.
A narrow focus on home ownership which neglects those who rent their home.

Conclusions

The Committee makes wide-ranging recommendations to address the housing crisis, including:

Restraints on local authority borrowing should be lifted. Local authorities should be free to borrow to fund social housebuilding as they are other building programmes. This would enable local authorities to resume their historic role as one of the major builders of new homes, particularly social housing.

The current historically low cost of borrowing means local authorities could make a large contribution to building the houses we need for the future. Further, the new Prime Minister has announced that the Government will abandon their fiscal target. This paves the way to increase local authority borrowing powers.

Council tax should be charged on development that is not completed quickly. The Government’s reliance on private developers to meet its target of new homes is misguided. The private sector housebuilding market is oligopolistic with the eight largest builders building 50% of new homes. Their business model is to restrict the volume of housebuilding to maximise their profit margin. To address this the Committee recommend that local authorities are granted the power to levy council tax on developments that are not completed within a set time period.

Maximise the use of public land. The Government must take decisive steps to build on the very substantial holdings of surplus publicly owned land. The Committee recommends that a senior Cabinet minister must be given overall responsibility for identifying and coordinating the release of public land for housing, with a particular focus on providing low cost homes. The National Infrastructure Commission should oversee this process.

Local authorities should be given the power to increase planning fees. Local authorities should be able to set and vary planning fees to help fund a more efficient planning system and the upper cap on these charges should be much higher than the current limit. …”

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeconaf/20/20.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Jul 2016

Posted under

Developers/ Development, EDDC, Local Plan, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Judge quashes out-of-town planning permission for discount store

Wonder how this applies to out-of-town industrial developments?

Mr Justice Ouseley has quashed planning permission for an Aldi store in Mansfield after finding a series of errors in the way in which the planning authority processed the application.

Mansfield District Council had given permission to developer Regal Sherwood Oaks for a food store of 1,925 square metres at Sherwood Oaks Business Park, for which the intended occupier was Aldi.

Developer Aldergate Properties challenged this citing an adverse impact on its development in the town centre contrary to the sequential test in planning policy designed to protect town centre retailing from out-of-town rivals.

Aldergate argued that the council erred in its approach to the sequential test, imposed a condition personal to Aldi without considering relevant planning policy objections to this and failed to consider whether the proposal accorded with the development plan.

In his judgment, Ouseley J said Mansfield had misinterpreted the National Planing Policy Framework as the necessary sequential test has not been carried out and a material factor has not been taken into account.

He also did not accept that the planning committee would have been aware of guidance on personal conditions “in the absence of specific evidence to that effect.

“This is not just because this is not a very common point, but also because the evidence produced by the district council did not show that their training had covered this particular aspect of conditions, and nothing more was forthcoming despite requests.”

He also found the council had misinterpreted its development plan.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27743%3Ajudge-quashes-planning-permission-over-interpretation-errors-&catid=63&Itemid=31

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Jul 2016

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development

Sharp fall in house building and maintenance

“A sharp fall in housebuilding ahead of the EU referendum dragged down the construction sector in May as firms mothballed projects and delayed new work. Housing construction tumbled 3.2% during the month after edging down 0.1% in April, the biggest drop since February 2014.

Earlier this week the UK’s biggest housebuilder, Barratt, said it could reduce the rate at which it builds new homes as the company prepares for a possible slowdown following Britain’s vote to leave the EU.

The impact of an underperforming housebuilding sector on the broader industry was to drag down output by 2.1% on the previous month and by almost 2% on the previous year. Housing output has now fallen in every month this year apart from February, and things could slow further after the 23 June Brexit vote.

The latest figures from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, published earlier this week, found that buyer interest and expectations of future sales withered in the post-referendum period. Government cuts to local authority spending were also to blame for a fall in repairs and maintenance activity, highlighting the need for Theresa May’s new infrastructure ministry to boost growth.

Local authority spending on repairs and maintenance has declined sharply in real terms since the middle of 2014, mainly in response to cuts to council budgets.

In May, construction firms reported a fall in new work and repairs and maintenance by 2.6% and 1.4%, respectively. “The fall in May 2016, taken together with the strength of April’s figures, continues a longer trend of broadly flat output growth since the start of 2015,” the ONS said. “Within all new work, there were decreases in all work types, except infrastructure. The main contribution to the decrease came from private new housing.”

Chris Williamson, chief economist at financial data provider Markit, said the drop in construction output adds to “what’s looking like an ugly run of data for the sector”. “It looks like there’s worse to come; possibly much worse. Markit/CIPS PMI survey data recorded the steepest contraction of construction activity for seven years in June as projects were put on hold in the lead up to the EU referendum. Housing and commercial construction were especially badly affected,” he said.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/15/sharp-fall-in-uk-housebuilding-drags-down-construction-sector?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Jul 2016

Posted under

AONB, Developers/ Development, National Planning Policy Framework

“Supreme Court to consider NPPF definitions for first time”

The Supreme Court has granted permission to Suffolk Coastal District Council and Cheshire East Council to appeal the landmark decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Suffolk Coastal D.C. v Hopkins Homes and Richborough Estates Partnership LLP v Cheshire East Borough Council.

The decision re-opens the controversy over the meaning of “relevant policies for the supply of housing” in paragraph 49 of the NPPF. A clear definition of the term has eluded decision makers and several conflicting decisions were hoped to be resolved by the Court of Appeal’s decision in April 2016.

In his judgement in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Lindblom had come down on a “wide” definition, which had included policies for the protection of Green Belt and AONB as “policies for the supply of housing” to be treated as “out of date” where a Council could not demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and triggering the presumption in favour of planning permission in paragraph 14 of the NPPF.

Suffolk Coastal D.C. had also sought permission to challenge a second ground in the judgment where the Court of Appeal had ruled on the approach to assessing the impact of development on the significance of heritage assets.
The grant of permission by the Supreme Court leaves the issues open to reconsideration in full.

This is the first time the Supreme Court has considered the NPPF. It also gives the Court the opportunity to reconsider the principle in Tesco v Dundee that holds that the meaning of planning policy is a matter of law.
Jonathan Clay and Ashley Bowes of Cornerstone Barristers instructed by Trevor Griffiths of Sharpe Pritchard solicitors appeared for Suffolk Coastal D.C in the Court of Appeal and prepared the grounds for the permission application for Suffolk Coastal in the Supreme Court.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27719%3Asupreme-court-to-consider-nppf-definitions-for-first-time&catid=63&Itemi

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Jul 2016

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), Infrastructure, National Planning Policy Framework, Planning System

Comments

1 Comment

Our new Communities Minister – Sajid David

“Javid was born in Rochdale, Lancashire, one of five sons of parents of Pakistani descent. His father was a bus driver. His family moved from Lancashire to Stapleton Road, Bristol.

Javid was educated from 1981 to 1986 at Downend School, a state comprehensive near Bristol, followed by Filton Technical College from 1986 to 1988, and finally the University of Exeter from 1988 to 1991. At Exeter he studied economics and politics and became a member of the Conservative Party.

When he was twenty, Javid attended his first Conservative Party Conference and campaigned against the Thatcher government’s decision in that year to join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), calling it a “fatal mistake”.

Javid joined Chase Manhattan Bank in New York immediately after university, working mostly in South America. Aged 25, he became the youngest vice-president in the history of the bank. He returned to London in 1997, and later joined Deutsche Bank as a director in 2000. In 2004 he became a managing director at Deutsche Bank and, one year later, global head of Emerging Markets Structuring.

In 2007 he relocated to Singapore as head of Deutsche Bank’s credit trading, equity convertibles, commodities and private equity businesses in Asia, and was appointed a board member of Deutsche Bank International Limited. He left Deutsche Bank in 2009 to pursue a career in politics. His earnings at Deutsche Bank would have been roughly £3m a year at the time he left.

Javid is a trustee of the London Early Years Foundation, was a governor of Normand Croft Community School, and has led an expedition to the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro, the highest mountain in Africa, to show his support of Help The Aged.”

Source: Wikipedia

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Jul 2016

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development

Comments

1 Comment

“We need homes for older people, not just starter homes”

Unfortunately, you can only buy new “right size” housing for older people at the top end of house price market (PegasusLife upwards of £300,000 for a one-bed flat plus maintenance service charges – no care – around £5,000 per year) if you live in East Devon, thanks to EDDC needing more and more money to pay for its new HQ – now coming in at around £10m.

…”Our report, Housing our ageing population: positive ideas – brought together for us by the Housing Learning and Improvement Network – points out that the government gets multiple benefits from enabling older people to enjoy better health and wellbeing in new homes. These include significant savings in NHS and social care spending. And those who have moved into age-exclusive, attractive new homes talk not just of the savings in outgoings – and often the release of cash to spend on other things – but the social life that banishes loneliness too.

So why is the UK so different from the US and most other European countries in terms of its housing output for those of us in our extended middle age? Why are we averse to moving until a health crisis forces us out when an earlier move could ensure our independence, in a place of our choosing, for the rest of our days? …

… As well as recommendations for housebuilders, developers and housing associations, our report urges all of us to reimagine life as we grow older, considering our future needs in a positive light. Right-sizing can help us gain the most in our later years and we need to insist – not just for ourselves but for our children and grandchildren – that barriers are lifted and opportunities enhanced for a national programme of later homes. “

https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/jun/14/later-homes-older-starter-young-uk-housebuilding

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Jul 2016

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development

Parliament starts inquiry into housebuilding capacity

“The Communities and Local Government Committee has launched an inquiry into the capacity of the housebuilding industry to meet demand for new homes.

Inquiry: Capacity in the homebuilding industry
Communities and Local Government Committee
Purpose of the inquiry
The Committee is expected to invite the chief executives of major developers to give evidence.

Other areas to be covered by the inquiry include the role of small and medium-sized developers, the skills, size and sustainability of the workforce, the planning process and development finance.

The Committee also considers innovative ways of overcoming constraints on the industry, such as self-builds, off-site construction and direct commissioning by central Government.

The Committee is likely to invite ministers and representatives of industry bodies, the Homes and Communities Agency, local authorities and housing associations to give evidence in public. Skills and training experts, members of the off-site construction and self-build sectors and debt and equity financiers are also expected to be called.

Terms of reference

The Committee invites submissions of evidence on the following issues:

whether the numbers of builders and types of firms in the homebuilding industry is sufficient to meet housing demand

the structure of the homebuilding industry, in particular the role of small and medium-sized developers

housebuilders’ business models and how risk and uncertainty affect incentives to expand

the sustainability, size and skills of the building industry workforce
why fewer homes are being started and completed than the number of planning permissions being granted

the extent to which current planning approaches cause delays to the building of new homes

innovative approaches to increasing the housing supply, for example self-build, off-site construction and direct commissioning by central government and local housing companies

the role of development finance and how it can promote or constrain housing investment

The Committee would be grateful to receive written submissions by 12 September 2016. …

… Clive Betts MP, Chair of the Committee, said:

“The capacity of the homebuilding industry is a key factor in housing supply, which is simply not keeping up with demand and has left us in the midst of a crisis.

The Committee will cast a critical eye over the major homebuilders, examine the decline of small and medium-sized developers and look closely at the skills shortages, planning delays and finance issues hampering the industry.

Our wide-ranging inquiry will also explore alternative models, such as self-builds and off-site construction, to see if such innovative approaches to homebuilding can help address the country’s housing needs.”

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/communities-and-local-government-committee/news-parliament-2015/homebuilding-launch-16-17/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Local Plan, Rural communities

EDDC draft villages plan – broken link in Cabinet agenda

Note that in the agenda for the next cabinet the draft plan for villages, which must be added to the Local Plan cannot be accessed from the link provided.

Nor can the pdf link be accessed from the page which takes you straight back to the agenda in a circular link.

There are some details about the results of consultations here:

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/villages-plan/villages-plan-2016-consultation/

but it is suggested that each village checks what is being put before the Cabinet as it is not clear if each document is a summary of consultations or a recommendation – it simply labels documents “analysis”.

The villages involved are:

Beer
Broadclyst
Clyst St Mary
Colyton
East Budleigh
Feniton
Kilmington
Musbury
Newton Poppleford
Sidbury
Uplyme
West Hill
Whimple
Woodbury

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Jul 2016

Posted under

Developers/ Development, Post-Brexit Adjustments, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Who will fund the Sidford Industrial Park post-Brexit?

Property funds that own offices, shops, industrial units and warehouses are freezing their assets as fundholders seek to remove their investments in them. In a recession, such properties are millstones, as they go quickly into negative equity and are hard to shift unless you do so at a loss.

Businesses contracting and cautious entrepreneurs no longer want accommodation and this leads to a glut of empty properties which exacerbates the problem.

In this climate, who would fund Sidford Fields and why?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Jul 2016

Posted under

AONB, Developers/ Development, Rural communities, Tourism

Remove rural tourism red tape = more holiday lets for farmers!

Isn’t it just predictable that the givernment would think that tourism can only be improved by more holiday lets!

What about removing VAT on ALL tourist accommodation – as is the case in most of – you would never believe it! – Europe! What about not concreting over our green fields? What about not building houses on our beauty spots and AONBs? No – just let farmers (and other developers) build more!

“Rural campaigners have called for the abolition of planning red tape to help turn round a decline in the number of visitors to Devon and Cornwall’s glorious countryside.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee has announced that it will examine the reasons behind a national wane in visitors to the countryside.

Sarah Lee, head of policy at the Countryside Alliance, said tourism was vital to the economy of rural areas in the region and the Government needed to take action.

“Tourism is of enormous financial importance to rural areas like the Westcountry and it is alarming to see the market decline in this way,” she said.

“We welcome the Efra Select Committee inquiry into the problem and urge parliament to do everything it can to boost and support rural tourism.”

Ms Lee said the Government could act to “remove the red tape” that surrounds planning permission to make it easier for redundant farm buildings to get a new lease of life as holiday lets…. ”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/remove-red-tape-call-to-boost-rural-tourism/story-29484249-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Bovis, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Regeneration

Bovis and Seaton affordable housing – a long and winding road

Below is a report of the original discussion EDDC had in July 2013 about affordable housing on the (then) Tesco site. It should be notec that, though “overage” was discussed and apparently agreed at this meeting, the requirement was subsequently dropped, though no explanation was given for this:

“… Tesco has petitioned for the removal of all the affordable housing on its site to make it more saleable, as it has many problems associated with the infilling of the site which mean that only certain types of houses can be built and fewer of them.

“What I say below is a personal opinion only and reflects my layperson understanding of the debate.

The DMC heard from myself [Sandra Semple] and Paul Arnott: there were no representatives of the town council in attendance. District Councillor Peter Burrows was in attendance earlier in the day as a member of the DMC but left before this item. District Councillor Steph Jones appeared in her capacity as Deputy Portfolio Holder for Housing.

Members of the committee appeared strongly of the view that Tesco was going a step too far. They particularly disliked the comment from the company’s agent that if EDDC did not agree to what they wanted, they would appeal. Some thought this was unacceptable pressure. One member of the committee noted that no affordable housing has been built in Seaton for many, many years and if this reduction was allowed other developers in the town would think they should have the same treatment.

Mr Freeman (I forget what title he has these days) pointed out that there was a mistake in calculations in the documentation (not sure whose fault) and that whereas it had been stated that the company might sustain a loss of over £2 million if affordable housing were included, the real amount on the figures provided was more like £750,000.

It was suggested that this application was a good candidate for EDDC’s new policy of “overage” and here I get a little fuzzy about what they mean – and to be fair so did some of the members of the committee. However, what it appears (to me) to be is that yes, Tesco will be allowed to take out the affordable housing BUT EDDC will put in place an overage clause which says that when the potential loss has been recovered (i.e. after the £750,000 loss has been taken into account – or whatever the correct figure is) then EDDC will take a percentage of the profit thereafter. This means, as I understand it, that, say, Tesco sells the site for £5 million, then they ignore the first £750,000 and the remaining profit is then split between EDDC and Tesco. The EDDC lawyer in attendance could not remember what the percentages agreed were but I have looked it up and the default allowed in the new policy is 50% each but EDDC has the option to increase this percentage if it sees paperwork which shows that the profit could be extremely high.

This only applies to the current planning application. If the site is still vacant when the current planning application runs out then everything has to be renegotiated including the S106 agreements and percentage of affordable housing.

Throughout the afternoon several members of the committee (perhaps with an eye to the next election) said that the economic climate was improving and that this meant that Tesco has less to worry about.

https://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/seaton-eddc-votes-to-share-the-profits-with-tesco-but-no-affordable-housing-on-the-site/