Population of Devon and Somerset combined: approx 2 million
Population of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire combined: approx 2 million
Number of extra homes Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire LEP says they need:
77,000
Number of extra homes Devon and Somerset says they need:
179,000
Explain.
Long, puff job for devolution – the devolution deal for Devon and Somerset having been sent to the government without one iota of public consultation and with most district and county councillors totally ignorant about exactly what is going on, having been completely cut out of the decision-making, but having agreed anyway.
And the final chilling paragraphs of the press release:
“LEP chairman Steve Hindley said: “Businesses across the Heart of the South West are the driving force that will deliver transformational growth and are keen to be at the helm of a prospective devolution deal alongside local authority partners.
“We look forward to working with Government and investors as we embark on this journey towards prosperity and increased productivity that will benefit not only the Heart of the South West but the UK economy as a whole.”
http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Devolution-bid-boost-prosperity-Devon-Somerset/story-28854690-detail/story.html
Wholesale privatisation of major local government functions to a handful of business owners and a very few career politicians.
A sad day for democracy – and for Devon and Somerset.
EDBF is dead, long live mega-EDBF.
“Today the House of Lords is trying to stop another Tory policy – counting Starter Homes which cost £450,000 as ‘affordable housing’.
But while there’s been a lot of noise about Labour-dominated inner-cities, campaigners say there are forgotten victims too – those who live in the countryside.
Shaun Spiers, chief executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), writes why the Bill is hammering people in the Tories’ heartland.
The traditional idea of an English village may be one of rolling fields, thatched cottages and workers tending the land.
But just as important for our villages’ survival is a vibrant mix of people from all backgrounds.
The sad reality facing the countryside is that young people are moving out of their villages because they can’t afford a home.
Schools, shops and pubs are closing. And the Government, which last year promised to put the countryside at the heart of policy-making, is totally ignoring the housing plight of rural people on low or average wages.
With rural house prices much higher than urban prices and rural wages much lower, the only way to make villages affordable is to build more housing association or council homes for rent.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tories-housing-bill-wreak-havoc-7488979
It all seems to depend in how different council value their properties. And when you have an “asset sweating” council like EDDC, with its excellent relationship with developers, Owl thinks we all know the answer to that one …
“Older and disabled people could be disproportionately affected by plans to force councils in England to sell high-value social housing, campaigners say.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation said the policy was likely to lead to a widespread sell-off of bungalows, which are often popular among the elderly.
It said 15,300 council-owned bungalows in England could be sold off by 2021.
But ministers say councils can decide not to sell a property if it meets “a particular need” or is hard to replace.
The Housing and Planning Bill – which the government says will help more people become home owners – goes before the House of Lords later.
If it is passed, local authorities will be compelled to sell expensive properties as they become vacant, to “ensure that the money locked up in high value vacant housing stock will be reinvested in building new homes”.
According to the Bill, what will count as a “high value” property is likely to vary in different areas. …
… In the [Joseph Rowntree ] foundation’s report, researchers from Cambridge University said they found high demand for bungalows meant they were almost three times more likely to be sold off and would be harder to replace because of the amount of land needed.
It also estimated that while bungalows make up 9% of council-owned housing, they were likely to make up 25% of high-value property sales because of their higher cost and more frequent vacancies – a result of people moving into residential care or tenants moving later in life.
One in five older people currently lives in a bungalow, a proportion that increases steadily from 55-75, according to the report. This figure rises to one in four when there is someone sick or disabled in an older person’s household.
Brian Robson, from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, said the housing Bill would reduce the number of affordable homes at a time of an “acute housing crisis”.
“We risk holding a great British bungalow sell-off that will make things worse for older and disabled tenants who are trying to find suitable, affordable accommodation,” he said.
“The increasing reliance on costly, insecure tenancies in the private-rented sector to house families on low incomes will only serve to trap more people in poverty. …”
“Britain’s developers have been accused of increasing their profits from the UK’s housing crisis by restricting the supply of new houses to keep prices artificially high.
Latest figures reveal that nearly half a million homes in England now have planning permission granted but have yet to be built. The length of time it takes for developers to complete a house has jumped from 24 months to 32.
It reignites a long-running row between policymakers and the housebuilding sector over who is to blame for the current housing shortage.
While rates of planning permission for new homes have increased by 60% since 2010, there has been a 48% increase in the number of new homes being built.
Labour MP Clive Betts, chair of the local government select committee, said the failure of the big housebuilders to speed up development was simply designed to maximise their profits.
“I think it is clear that the big developers are building at a rate to maximise their profits rather than addressing the country’s housing need,” he said.
Betts said that some developments that have had planning permission were not due to be completed for another 10 years.
He added: “These are private companies who are very simply trying to make money for their shareholders. They are restricting supply and the government urgently needs to come forward with measures to address this.”
Ministers are increasingly concerned by the failure of developers to speed up housebuilding. It has been reported that some senior Conservatives privately believe that some developers are deliberately restricting the supply of new houses to boost profits.
Brandon Lewis, the housing minister, last week gave vent to his own frustrations with developers.
“When you have got housebuilders delivering, on average, 48 homes a year on some [large] sites that’s not good enough,” he told the local government committee.
“We know they can go further. Housebuilders will talk about saturating the market. But we are aware that in too many places we are still taking 20 weeks to build a house when we can do it in three or four.”
Taylor Wimpey recently announced a record operating profit margin of more than 20% as it sold more homes at higher prices. Pre-tax profits at Barratt Homes, Britain’s biggest housebuilder, have also jumped 40% in the last six months to nearly £300m.
Housebuilders reject claims of hoarding land as property prices soar
Ministers are understood to be contemplating new measures to force up the rate of development amid fears that they will fall short of their manifesto commitment to build 1m new homes by 2020.
This could include forcing developers that buy publicly owned land to commit to rapid construction as part of the planning process.
The housing industry analyst Glenigan compiled the latest data for the Local Government Association, which was released in January.
It showed that 475,647 homes in England which have been given planning permission were yet to be built in 2014/2015.
In 2012/13, the total of unimplemented planning permissions was 381,390 and in 2013/14 it was 443,265.
A spokesman for the Home Builders Federation, which represents the industry, said the most recent government figures show there were 170,690 net additions to the housing stock during 2014/15, an increase of almost 25% on the previous year.
“The industry has delivered unprecedented increases in supply over the past two years driven predominantly by the large private sector housebuilders,” he said.
“This has been on the back of the pro development policies introduced in recent years and a general increase in demand.”
He blamed the planning systems of local and central government for the shortfall in housing.
“As a priority, it needs to work with local authorities to speed up the planning system and ensure local plans allocate enough sites of different types and sizes that are attractive to a range of companies,” he said.”
Forgive Owl being cynical but larger homes sell for more money and make more profit for the builder! And why does “empty nesting” need larger homes?
“One of the UK’s biggest housebuilders has hit out at government planning policy as new figures emerged showing a steady decline in the number of larger family homes being built.
The number of homes constructed with four bedrooms or more halved between 2001 and 2011, from around 50,000 to 25,000, research carried out by law firm Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners and Cala Homes found.
Since 1991, only 28pc of new homes built have had four bedrooms or more, which Cala blamed on rules that require developers to build a minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare, favouring smaller homes.
The housebuilder warned that with the rise of the UK’s middle classes and a growing trend among the nation’s ageing population for “empty nesting”, more home owners are now demanding larger houses. It claimed more than 700,000 households in England are overcrowded.
Price inflation for large detached family homes has significantly outpaced that of other housing types over the last 20 years, further putting the squeeze on families looking to move up the housing ladder.
Recent government policy has focused on boosting housing supply for first time buyers through new initiatives such as the Help to Buy scheme, which provides mortgage guarantees and equity, and Starter Homes.
Cala wants the Government to review housing policy to give large home development at least equal weighting to that of smaller homes – saying it is currently too biased towards first time buyers. It also criticised the Government’s strategy to encourage older or single people to downsize, saying the policy will never contribute sufficient numbers of homes to affect housing supply.
Alan Brown, chief executive of Cala, said the policies failed to meet “the real demands of growing families across the country”.”
David Cameron’s promise to spend millions on bulldozing and rebuilding sink estates as a key part of his prime ministerial legacy appeared to unravel last night as it emerged that the small amount of money set aside for the project can only be accessed by private developers in the form of loans.
To great fanfare, the prime minister announced his intention in January to potentially tear down 100 of the UK’s worst estates to tackle drug abuse and gang culture. The modest size of the £140m “fund” set aside by Cameron to meet costs was widely questioned at the time, but Downing Street insisted that the redevelopment programme would reverse decades of neglect.
The housing developments being targeted reportedly include the Winstanley estate in Wandsworth, south London, the Lower Falinge estate in Rochdale, Greater Manchester, and Broadwater Farm in Tottenham, north London.
Now the Observer has learned that the £140m is only available in loan form to private sector organisations who come forward to regenerate stricken areas. A statement quietly released by the Department for Communities and Local Governmentin February admitted: “£140m of loan funding has been set aside by government, to be used as a springboard for partnership and joint venture arrangements, with the active involvement of communities.”
A spokesman said the rate of interest on the loans to private companies would vary “scheme by scheme”. The application process, more than a month since the announcement, has yet to be opened to interested parties.
The revelation will be an embarrassment for the prime minister, who claimed on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show at the time that “in the worst estates … you’re confronted by concrete slabs dropped from on high, brutal high-rise towers and dark alleyways that are a gift to criminals and drug dealers”.
Promising to transform the worst estates, Cameron added: “For some, this will mean knocking them down and starting again. For others, it might mean changes to layout, upgrading facilities and improving road and transport links.”
His announcement on the regeneration of sink estates was widely seen as an attempt to claim the centre ground as Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party moved to the left. The redevelopment programme is to be overseen by Michael Heseltine, who helped to transform the Liverpool and London docks in the 1980s. However, in the light of revelation about the reality of the funding, John Healey MP, the shadow secretary of state for housing and planning, accused the prime minister of making “hollow announcements to make headlines”.
He said: “After five years of Tory failure on housing, those living on estates around the country need investment in new homes and estate regeneration – not an announcement of a new fund that is quietly downgraded when it is hoped no one will notice.”
A DCLG spokesman said the loan status of money set aside for regeneration had been laid out in the autumn statement, ahead of Cameron’s claim in a Sunday newspaper and on the BBC to have put aside a “fund” for the initiative.He said: “We’re determined to kick-start the regeneration of council estates to provide high quality homes to benefit thousands of people.
“The autumn statement made absolutely clear that the government is providing loan funding for council estate regeneration projects. “The £140m will be used to lever in additional funding from local authorities, housing associations and private investment. High up-front costs and long timescales for development mean regeneration schemes can become stalled because upfront finance is unavailable. These low-risk loans will help remove blockages and speed up processes to transform estates.”
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/27/david-cameron-sink-estates-fund-turns-out-to-be-loan
THE PROBLEM
“A couple have been left horrified after they discovered their dream farm cottage is set to be surrounded by a modern 700 house estate.
Cheryle Walton, 56, and her partner Paul Jones, 50, were completely unaware of plans to build the mini town – insisting that at no point were they consulted.
It was only when they were speaking with passer-by who mentioned the development that they found out that the 507,500 square metre estate in Chippenham, Wiltshire, is set to completely encompass their detached cottage, which currently sits in miles of green fields.
The devastated couple’s house – estimated to now be worth £500,000 – doesn’t even appear on the submitted aerial drawings of the proposed new estate – despite being right in the middle. …
… If it goes ahead, they will be totally swallowed by the estate, joining up their currently rural home with the rest of the town. The plans propose erecting 700 homes on the 50 hectares site to the north east of Chippenham. It also includes 4.5 hectares of ’employment space’, 10 hectares of public open space, cycle paths, ‘retirement living’, a primary school and a nursery. …”
THE COUNCIL’S SOLUTION
“A spokesman for Wiltshire Council added: ‘The developers carried out public consultation events on these planning proposals and should have ensured all residents were told.
‘We understand from Miss Walton that she was not informed and was only made aware when she received a letter from us in January stating a planning application has been submitted by the developers.
‘We’ve suggested the developers call Miss Walton to explain what they are planning to do and why she was not involved earlier in the public consultation events.’
“Safety measures branded ‘crazy and irresponsible’
“An outline planning application to build on a Greenfield site next to Sidmouth Road [Ottery St Mary]now includes provision of a white line on the highway to provide a footway for pedestrians and a pledge to start a ‘walking bus’ for schoolchildren.
The plans submitted by the Gerway Land Owners Consortium were put before Ottery Town Council at a meeting on Monday, where they were blasted as ‘unsuitable’, ‘unsafe’ – and described as even worse than the original proposal.
The decision to strongly oppose the plan – which has now received 688 objections – was agreed by a unanimous vote.
Mayor Glyn Dobson said: “I could never agree to either of these schemes where they are going to paint a line on a highway and expect children to walk along it. It is a crazy application – it’s not safe and it’s not suitable to build there.”
Speaking at the meeting, Dave McKinney, of Sidmouth Road, said: “To now introduce high volumes of pedestrian traffic, particularly schoolchildren, along this road with the current traffic conditions is irresponsible.
“The walking bus would have to negotiate this road at the worst time of day with no protection from the traffic. To sponsor a start-up walking bus is just paying lip service to the issue and has no longevity. The reality is people will not risk walking along the road and will drive. The footpath proposal illustrates a desperate attempt to gain approval for an unsuitable development.”
Paul Vickory said he has lived in the area for more than 50 years and suggested traffic calming measures proposed by the developer would only exacerbate existing congestion problems at Tip Hill.
Brian Nelson, chairman of Gerway Action Group, set up in protest to the initial proposal, said he has been informed by Devon County Council’s (DCC) highways team that the example of a white line walkway given by the developer – for a road in Dartington – would now be against policy.
This was backed up by planning chairman Councillor Ian Holmes, who said the aforementioned example would not be renewed.
Mr Nelson concluded: “I seriously worry for the safety of the children being walked in a long line on an 80-metre stretch of Sidmouth Road.”
Cllr Roger Giles put forward the proposal to ‘strongly oppose’ the application, saying: “Usually in these cases, the applicant submits something more reasonable. This application is different in that what the applicant has proposed is even worse, if that’s possible, and there are even stronger grounds to refuse it.”
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/safety_measures_branded_crazy_and_irresponsible_1_4425911
” 6.4 Local plans adopted since the National Planning Policy Framework was published in March 2012 allocate substantially more housing than those adopted before the Framework was published. The average post- National Planning Policy Framework plan makes provision for 109% of household projections (footnote 40) compared to only 86% for pre-Framework plans.”
Footnote 40 reads:
Household projections are from census data indicating future household formations
The devil is in the detail here – so many “minor” changes, never seen before – all gearing up to give our LEP total control of the planning system:
“This consultation seeks views on the proposed approach to implementing the planning provisions in the Housing and Planning Bill, and some other planning measures. It covers the following areas:
Changes to planning application fees
Permission in principle
Brownfield register
Small sites register
Neighbourhood planning
Local plans
Expanding the planning performance regime
Testing competition in the processing of planning applications
Information about financial benefits
Section 106 dispute resolution
Permitted development rights for state-funded schools
Changes to statutory consultation on planning applications”
Click to access Planning_consultation.pdf
WE HAVE UNTIL 15 APRIL 2016 TO RESPOND
The local people kicking up a storm against billion-pound developments.
A selection of comments from the article”
““One reason we are seeing more campaigns such as mine is that you don’t have the public interest being served by councils or government; instead, they act as an arbitrator between communities and business. The people whose job it is to work in the public interest don’t see that as their job anymore”
Turner says many developers are successfully lobbying government to tie the hands of campaigners like him – hence the measures in the housing bill.”
and
“To understand what was going on with the scheme I had to visit the council offices,” explains McHattie. “I couldn’t see the plans online. When I turned up I was put in a room and shown the plans, which were dragged up from a box in the archives. I was told I could not take photographs but I have no architecture expertise so I didn’t understand what I was looking at. How could people of the city understand what was going on if they all had to visit this room to get information?”
and
“It’s in a developer’s interest to make the documents as difficult to comprehend as possible,” says Donoghue, who adds that it is “ridiculous” that the Goodsyard documents have more pages than the complete works of Shakespeare or the bible.”
and
“Groups like ours do not oppose development per se,” says Hammerson, a local researcher and author. “We oppose bad development, and unfortunately we get too much of that.”
He says more developers now use the planning system as a “second throw of the dice” to overrule refusals made under local policies.”
Would our council have stood its ground the way Plymouth did?
“A LEADING house builder has lost its appeal against councils chiefs who insisted the firm carry out the work it promised on the Plympton homes five years ago.
A planning inspector told Persimmon Homes it had to carry out the work it was initially agreed to – the installation of solar panels on 12 executive homes it had built in Cundy Close, Woodford.
In March last year the firm narrowly avoided being taken to court by Plymouth City Council after residents and the council complained that only three of the houses received the solar panels.
Residents also pointed out the company never installed footpath lighting as agreed with the planning chiefs.
As the council prepared to take Persimmon Homes to court for breach of conditions the hearing was vacated as on the day of trial the building firm submitted an application to vary the condition.
Persimmon Homes applied to amend the energy strategy for the site, claiming the panels were not needed as the homes were energy efficient.
One angry resident wrote to the council’s planning chiefs saying ““Persimmon should have fulfilled their obligation under the original planning permission when these houses were built.”
At the time the council’s joint planning chairs Cllr Bill Stevens and Cllr Patrick Nicholson refused the application as it “does not with the council’s policy on Renewable Energy or deliver the proposals outlined in the applicant’s own energy strategy, approved as part of the planning permission.
“The development should incorporate enough renewable energy equipment to offset at least 15 percent of predicted carbon emissions for the period up to 2016.”
Rather than carry out the work Persimmon Homes chose to appeal the decision.
After months of deliberation, the planning inspector agreed with the residents and Plymouth City Council, telling Persimmon Homes its new energy saving assessment did not mean it could avoid finishing the work it initially proposed to do.
The inspectors report notes how the photovoltaic PV cells “so far installed achieve 6 percent reductions in predicted carbon emissions through on-site renewable energy production”, which was not disputed by Persimmon Homes.
However, the inspector also noted how the council had “two relevant objectives; to reduce energy consumption and thereby carbon emissions, through the use of insulation and good design, and to require the production of on-site renewable energy”
As such, the firm’s proposed measures “would not comply” with the council’s policies.
The inspector said the firm’s proposal fell “considerably short of the 15 percent target for offsetting predicted carbon emissions through on-site energy production by renewable sources” and it would “unacceptably conflict” with the council’s policy.
The inspector also noted how the firm admitted how retrofitting the PV cells “would be technically feasible” and dismissed their appeal.
Cllr Bill Stevens said the planning inspector “quite rightly” backed the council’s planning decision which showed “the benefit of locally appointed people taking these decisions – we know our area better.”
He said the ball was now in Persimmon Homes’ court and he would be meeting with the council’s enforcement officers be updated on the firm’s response.
He said: “It’s the same for every application. The planning process is there to make sure that you can allow appropriate development and we take a robust stance with every applicant, whether they are a multi-million company or a small local builder.
“Everybody has to comply with the rules and to my mind there’s no exception to that.”
Cllr Patrick Nicholson also urged residents of Cundy Close to consult their solicitors, suggesting Persimmon Homes procrastination over the installing of the solar panels may have caused residents to lose out on cheaper energy bills since 2012.
A spokesman for Persimmon refused to rule out yet further action. Daniel Heathcote, director in charge at Persimmon Homes Cornwall said: “We are reviewing the inspector’s findings before making a decision on what action to take.”
In September 2011 the council’s planning committee granted Persimmon Homes permission to build a 1,684 home development at the former Plymstock Quarry site – now named Saltram Meadows – after a £26m package was agreed. The agreement saw the company promise contributions to the local infrastructure, including £1.5m towards sports provision, of which £420,000 will go towards a swimming pool in Plymstock.”
Bumped up from a comment so people have the chance to see how a current commentator views it:
“A quick search suggests that you can find a background summary at http://www.devon.gov.uk/cma_report.htm?cmadoc=report_hcw1371.html and further documents relating to the appeal at http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/countryside/rightsofway/onlinerow/onlinerowd
The bad news is that this process seems to be well advanced – the good news is that it doesn’t appear to be completed yet.
It appears that DCC made an order on 20 November 2013 to delete these footpaths, but that this requires review by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and a Public Local Inquiry.
The Notice of review by SecState and Public Local Inquiry was dated 1 September 2014 (more than 17 months ago), with an implication that representations and objections preceded that date, and a deadline of 8 December 2014 for representers and objectors to submit their legal case. The good news is that the Public Local Inquiry has been postponed at least twice first from 11 February 2015 and then from August 2015, with no revised date appearing – and no indication why there is a delay or whether the process has stalled permanently.
I would imagine that the proposals can still be viewed at Colyton Parish Council offices on Tuesdays and Thursdays 10:30am-noon, and at Devon County Hall weekdays 9am-4pm.”
With one-bed luxury retirement apartments at Knowle almost certain to cost £300,000 plus with massive service charges, who thought up this gizzard scheme to further incentivise developers such as Pegasus Life!
The development at Millbrook Village in Exeter is advertising one-bed apartments at £325,000 upwards and two-bed properties at £550,000 upwards.
http://www.millbrookvillage.co.uk/available-properties/
No mention of TRULY AFFORDABLE homes to buy or to rent for the poorest of our elderly some of whom may be stuck in council houses paying bedroom tax because there are no suitable properties for them.
Do you think it is a good idea to further assist these developers?
From the article in the Daily Telegraph
“Developers should get cash incentives to build more homes for the elderly, a cross-party committee of peers has said, warning that developers are getting away with building poor quality homes in the rush to meet rising demand for new homes.
They said that while 60 per cent of “household growth in England up to 2033″ will be for those headed by someone aged over 65, just two per cent of current homes in homes in the country were fit for pensioners.
The peers on the select committee on National Policy for the Built Environment said creating more homes for pensioners would free up billions of pounds-worth of large homes for young families.”
“A group of town and parish councils has launched a campaign to protect “the green fields of Cornwall”.
The group Cornwall for Change, representing 70 town and parish councils, said there was great concern about the way planning was being executed in the Duchy.
And their fight won support from the House of Lords late last week.
Campaigners said that Cornwall Council has already given permission for nearly 30,000 new homes, most of which are to be built on green fields around existing towns.
“This will increase traffic, have a big (bad) visual impact and make little or no benefit to locals who need genuinely affordable homes,” the organisers said.
“We need to make much smarter use of existing sites in and around Cornwall’s town centres so they can flourish once again.”
Orlando Kimber, spokesman for the umbrella group, said: “We are seeing 52,000 new homes planned, and all over the place they are being built on the green fields of Cornwall.
“Using brownfield sites would reduce the pressure on transport, and increase housing density in towns, which Cornwall Chamber of Commerce is in favour of.
“We recognise that Cornwall Council is under pressure with its budget, and we feel that whatever money it does have, it should spend wisely.”
He has previously called for an audit of brownfield sites in the Duchy, and gave the example of two suitable brownfield sites in Bodmin – the Walker Lines industrial estate and the MPG book factory, which is now acquired by Ocean Housing. …”
For those of you who never read the “sticky” section at the top of the page and rush to see the latest post, this is duplicated for your benefit:
NEWS- PHOTOGRAPHIC COMPETITION
The alternative East Devon Photographic Competition
EDDC, in its infinite wisdom, has decided to run a photographic competition. The intention is to offer a prize and to use the 12 best shots to make up an EDDC Countryside calendar:
http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/get_snapping_for_district_photo_contest_1_4422625
Entries by 30 April 2016.
Owl, in its flights over East Devon has been struck by an increasing absence of “countryside” – catching the vermin it needs to survive has become increasingly difficult!
So, Owl is running an Alternative East Devon Calendar Photo Competition:
THE EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNTRYSIDE DESTRUCTION CALENDAR
PHOTOGRAPHIC COMPETITION
All entries will be considered and entries will close on 30 April 2016.
The twelve winning entries will be published (that’s the prize) and, if you want to make a calendar from them, feel free!
Anonymous contributions will be allowed but please let us know when and where your entry was photographed.
“Councils to compete to process planning applications under new proposals
Councils will compete to process planning applications and offer fast-track application services under new government proposals set out today.
The proposals will allow the government to pilot a scheme in a number of areas where planning applications can be made either to the local authority or to another ‘approved provider’.
Councils would also be able to offer a fast-track application service similar to a fast-track passport application, either through competition pilots or devolution deals.
Communities secretary Greg Clark MP said: “Council planning departments play a vital role in getting local housebuilding off the ground, but for too long they have had no incentive to get things done quickly or better, resulting in drawn out applications and local frustration.”
Other proposals include increasing planning fees by a proportionate amount which is linked to inflation and performance, separating decision-making on ‘in principle’ issues such as location from technical issues, and increasing rights to support the development of free schools.
The proposals, which relate to the Housing and Planning Bill, are open for consultation until 15 April.”
Owl can imagine planning consultants jockeying for the business – but “they won’t come cheap”.
From a correspondent:
“A group of landowners, Stubbings Group, are trying to close Footpath 8 Northleigh, 3 Farway, 6 Colyton and 10 Southleigh.
Colyton Parish Council have supported the closure contrary to an appeal by a former councillor September 2014.
The last proposal to agree the closures was dominated by Andrew Parr, proposed by Bob Collier and seconded by Colin Pady – all members of the Feoffees. The Stubbins Group have 4 members of the Hurford family – one of which was also a Feoffee for many many years.
There was going to be a public appeal in February 2015 in Northleigh but now it is going to be judged on paperwork only and submissions. The Ramblers have put in a large document.
The East Devon Way has had to go on road from the original route because of this and Devon County Council have 2 new bridges sitting in a depot because the land owners will not allow access over their land to erect them until this legal battle is decided.
However, if anyone wants to challenge the closure and make a comment it has to be in by Monday 22nd February 2015, which has not been publicised by Colyton Parish Council.
Chairman Andrew Parr told this correspondent following a meeting on Wednesday that it was too late to submit an appeal but this is not correct.
If you want to lodge your comments they must be there before Monday 22nd to:
Planning Inspectorate, Helen Sparks, Rights of Way section, Room 3/25, Hawk Wing, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN
OR email:helen.sparks@pins.gsi.gov.uk
which if done any now from now over the weekend would get there.”
The timeline of how the decisions were taken make VERY, VERY interesting reading – in documents accompanying the Scrutiny Committee agenda for
18 February 2016, 6.00pm
here:
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1531428/180215-scrutiny-agenda-combined.pdf
particularly page 13 onwards:
DUNKESWELL
East Devon Watch 