Category Archives: Housing (local)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, General Election, Housing (local), Inequality

No magic money tree for high rise blocks with failed cladding

Grenfell Tower cladding scandal could cost councils millions after Government says no guarantee of extra funding.

‘There is no way we can afford to reclad our tower blocks. If we have to find that money, it will come from other projects’

But despite emergency fire safety checks being carried out nationwide under central government direction, councils will not be reimbursed for refurbishment work carried out.

A DCLG spokesperson said there was “no guarantee” of central government funding and that it would be “up to local authorities and housing associations to pay” for the work needed to ensure residents’ safety.

The spokesperson said financial support would be considered on a “case by case” basis for those that could not afford to carry out the necessary work, but did not clarify what the criteria for that consideration would be.

The announcement was met with severe criticism from some of the councils affected, with local authorities already having their budgets severely squeezed after years of austerity measures.

Julie Dore, leader of Sheffield City Council, which is among the authorities to have discovered unsafe cladding, said “starved” councils would be forced to make cuts to other areas, including schooling, if central government did not help with costs.

“Local authorities have been starved of money over the past seven years. Our spending power has decreased,” she said. “There is no way we can afford to reclad our tower blocks. If we have to find that money, it will come from other projects, from investing in the fabric of our schools, capital investment in our infrastructure, the money has to come out of that. And it can’t really be done.

“I say absolutely, categorically that the Government should pay. If they can find £1bn to send to Northern Ireland, that gets more spending per capita than anywhere else, to buy 10 votes, then these people, living in high-rise towers, deserve better.” …

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-cladding-scandal-council-funding-government-no-guarantee-local-government-budgets-a7809216.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, EDDC, Housing (local), Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, PegasusLife

Expensive new HQ and luxury apartments for rich elderly people or good-quality social housing? Tough choice for EDDC

Sidmouth resident Mike Temple has the lead letter in today’s Guardian on social housing. Our council is MUCH more interested in moving into its very expensive new offices (£10 million and counting) than building, or encouraging the building of, social and truly affordable housing. As shown when it agreed to sell its Knowle site to PegasusLife for super-luxury housing for only rich, elderly people, with PegasusLife attempting to exploit a loophole via a planning appeal to avoid any on-site or off-site affordable properties.

“The fire at Grenfell Tower has highlighted a number of issues relating to government housing policy in recent years, not only the failure to apply proper safety measures but also its whole approach to social housing.

The 2012 national planning policy framework, often described as a “developers’ charter”, has given precedence to expensive private development while discouraging social housing. The result is that through land-banking, slow build-out rates and using the housing market as an investment, house prices have risen way beyond the reach of most average-wage earners. At the same time, an increasing proportion of the incomes of the lower paid is spent on rented accommodation, which is often of poor quality.

Among the 72 Conservative MP landlords who voted against the 2016 housing bill to make “rented properties fit for human habitation” were the communities secretary, Sajid Javid, housing minister Brandon Lewis (who has also said installing fire-sprinklers could discourage house-building), fire minister Nick Hurd, and David Cameron.

Official Statistics on social housing show that since 2010 the number of government-funded houses for social rent has plummeted by 97%.

Gavin Barwell, until recently housing minister and author of a white paper that offered proposals to ease development while doing little to promote social housing, has – like the government he serves – failed to act on the recommendations in the report on the fire at Lakanal House in 2009. Like previous Conservative minsters he preferred light-touch regulation so that warnings have been ignored at national and local government level.

The result is a system that has failed to protect our citizens – cost-cutting and reckless decisions were made with little fear of anyone being held responsible.
Mike Temple
Sidmouth, Devon”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/25/grenfell-tower-tragedy-shows-social-housing-system-has-failed-uk-citizens

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Apr 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Devolution, Economy, Housing (local), Inequality, Local Enterprise Partnership, Planning System, Transport (local)

What SHOULD super-Mayors (and LEPs) be doing?

This is what a think tank believes Mayors (and by extension Local Enterprise Partnerships) SHOULD be tackling.

Can anyone see any of these issues being given attention in our Devon and Somerset super-mayoral area?

“… Mayors are due to be elected in May in Greater Manchester, the West Midlands, Tees Valley, Liverpool City Region, Cambridgeshire/ Peterborough and West of England, the latter an area based around Bristol.

The IPPR said its evidence base showed mayors should deliver inclusive growth by using their transport policy to prioritise poor neighbourhoods, establishing development corporations and championing the living wage and higher employment standards.

They could improve infrastructure by integrating land use planning and working with central government on housing investment and seek to embed health in all public policy.

The IPPR also urged mayors to set up companies to pilot ‘invest-to-save’ models in employment support, and to collaborate with councils to tackle homelessness….”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30775%3Athink-tank-urges-new-mayors-to-make-full-use-of-powers&catid=59&

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Mar 2017

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Austerity cuts, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), Land Supply, Planning System, Sustainability

“UK government woos world’s housebuilders”

“The housing minister, Gavin Barwell, has told the world’s housebuilders that if they cannot find enough land on which to build new homes they can “come and see me” and he will try to help.

Barwell told developers at the world’s biggest property conference in Cannes on Thursday that he wanted to be “clear and unequivocal” that he was there to help them build hundreds of thousands of new homes to help fix the UK’s housing crisis.

“If you’ve got parts of the country where you want to build homes and you’re struggling to find land, you come and see me and I will then raise those issues with the relevant local authorities,” he told investors at the UK government’s first promotional stand on the famous waterfront in the south of France. “I don’t want people who want to build unable to do so because they can’t find the sites they want.

“That’s an offer to anyone in this room – if you’re struggling to find sites you [can] come talk to me and I’ll try and do something about it.” …

… Barwell told property industry figures that he wanted to “change the politics” of housebuilding so that local people did not automatically protest at the suggestion of new construction. The Croydon MP also vowed to have “hard discussions” with local politicians who held up development.

Barwell said he would try to make sure housebuilding projects came with fresh infrastructure investments to allow communities to cope with additional residents. He also said more needed to be done to ensure newbuild homes were of good quality and design.

“People welcome homes that are really innovative in design, or fit in with the local area,” he said. “What they don’t like are homes that look like they could have been plonked down in any area of the country.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/16/uk-government-woos-worlds-housebuilders

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Barratt Homes, Bovis, Cranbrook, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), Persimmon, Redrow, Taylor Wimpey

Who will help people in sub-standard new build homes?

“There are rising concerns that the rush to build new homes is causing housebuilders to cut corners. Many firms have set tough targets to cash in on huge demand.

There are rising concerns that the rush to build new homes is causing housebuilders to cut corners. Many firms have set tough targets to cash in on huge demand — and meet the Government’s pledge to build 200,000 new homes a year.

Thousands of victims of poor workmanship have formed groups on social media websites such as Facebook, including Taylor Wimpey Unhappy Customers, Avoid Persimmon Homes and Bovis Homes Victims Group.

Hundreds have posted on Snagging.org — named after the jargon builders give to the task of finishing a project — citing problems such as creaking floors, scratched windows and stained carpets.

Campaign groups want a new homes ombudsman who can step in when families are let down. Buyers should also be given a chance to inspect their new-build before being handed the keys, they say.

Paula Higgins, chief executive of HomeOwners Alliance, says: ‘You have more consumer protection when you buy a toaster.

‘The industry is tilted too far in favour of developers, and the complaints system is too confusing.’

A report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Excellence in the Built Environment found more than nine in ten buyers report problems to their builder.

Oliver Colvile, chairman of the parliamentary group and Conservative MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, says: ‘There have been too many reports of new homes that are quite simply uninhabitable.

‘We need to ensure there is a clear process whereby developers can be held to account and are responsible for correcting any below-par workmanship as soon as possible.’

Britain’s biggest house builders nearly all reported soaring profits last month. Persimmon reported a pre-tax profit of £783 million for 2016 — a 23 per cent increase on 2015.

Barratt Developments saw a 20.7 per cent rise to £682.3 million, Bellway a 36.5 per cent rise to £492 million, Redrow a 35 per cent rise to £140 million and Taylor Wimpey a 21.5 per cent rise to £733.4 million.
Bovis reported a 3 per cent fall in profits but still made £154.7 million.
Bovis has been forced to set aside £7 million to compensate buyers who have complained about the poor quality of its homes.

In January the firm was revealed to have offered up to £3,000 to buyers who moved into their houses by December 23 as it struggled to meet targets.
Sales have been boosted by the Government’s Help to Buy scheme, which has helped 100,284 first-time buyers onto the property ladder since 2013.
All the firms reported an increase in both the number of homes built and average selling prices. …

… A spokesman for the National House Building Council says: ‘We carry out spot check inspections at key stages during construction… [but] the builder is responsible for ensuring homes conform to building regulations and our standards.’

A Taylor Wimpey spokesman says: ‘We recognise that we do sometimes get things wrong, but we are committed to resolving those issues.’
A Bovis spokesman says: ‘We are putting more resource into customer care and reviewing our processes to ensure a focus on quality.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-4314028/Who-help-families-forced-live-half-built-homes.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, EDDC, Housing (local), Land Supply, Local Enterprise Partnership, NPPF, Paul Diviani

Comments

1 Comment

“Evidence” for housing need in the post-truth era

As the country quietly celebrates annual economic growth of 2%, it is worth reminding ourselves that our housing and employment land allocations were based upon an expectation of a 3% annual economic growth rate over the entire length of the East Devon Local Plan. This is because Plans must be “evidence-based”.

The problem with East Devon’s various plans is that the evidence was hopelessly optimistic and pre-dated the recession, based on consistent “high growth”. When the recession came along, the powers that be just ignored its implications and carried on with their highly optimistic projections.

So today, Britain’s economy has shown only 8% growth since 2007, when the numbers for our Plan were first formulated. But according to our Plan we should be 34.5% ahead of where we were then.

No wonder that Skypark and the Science Park are windswept desolate areas festooned with tumbleweed, and Sidford is looking like complete economic nonsense.

Even if the incredibly unlikely happens, and we see 3% growth until the end of the plan period, we will never fulfil the assumptions that gave us these huge allocations. And when – not if – we fail to reach those optimistic figures, no doubt the government will fine us by telling us our plans must be MORE optimistic next time – and probably will say we have no five-year land supply, so it will be a developer free-for-all again.

So much for evidenced-based Plans: stick your finger in the air, check which way the wind is blowing, make a complete guess (that favours developers) and stick with it, regardless.

Diviani has “withdrawn” his plan to continue as a DCC councillor to “concentrate on being Leader of EDDC” – and a board member of the Local Enterprise Partnership. Owl wonders where the Leader is leading us – by the nose.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plans, Rural communications, Sustainability, Villages BUAB

Villages – check if your built-up boundaries have been changed

From Strategic Planning Committee agenda (meeting on 20 February at 2pm – when most people will be at work:

“That it is recommended to Council:

1. That approval is given for the attached East Devon Villages Plan (and documentation that underpins the Plan) to be ‘published’ for a period of six weeks to allow formal comments to be made,

2. Following the six week period the East Devon Villages Plan be submitted for examination together with any comments received during that period,

3. That the Built-up Area Boundaries defined in the Publication Villages Plan, from the 23 February 2017, be used as primary policy for development management purposes instead of the boundaries on the inset plans included in the previously adopted Local Plan.”

Click to access combined-agenda-spc-200217-compressed.pdf

page 9 plus appendix maps

“4.6 Main Changes from Consultation Draft Plan August 2016

The draft plan of August 2016 included justification for the approach of using BUAB’s and discussion of alternative approaches and details of how BUAB’s had been defined that is not necessary in the final plan. In terms of individual settlements the main differences between the two plans are highlighted below and full details of how individual sites were assessed against the criteria set and the refinement of this approach for Newton Poppleford and West Hill are included in the ‘Site by Site’ assessments for individual settlements.

Beer – the majority of the western part of the village and the new
housing at Little Hemphay and Bluff Terrace are now included in the BUAB. The wording of policy Beer 01 – Village Centre Vitality now reflects that of Policy E9 of the adopted Local Plan.

Broadclyst – the community orchard and car park in front of the primary school are now excluded and the new buildings at the secondary school included.

Clyst St. Mary – no change to the preferred approach boundary.

Colyton – part of the former Ceramtec site is now included together with
part of a former garage site. Policy 01 has been changed to reflect the
wording of Policy E9 of the adopted Local Plan.

East Budleigh – minor change to exclude parts of three gardens.

Feniton – the ‘Ackland Park’ site and is included but the land adjoining
the railway on the ‘nursery’ site is excluded.

Kilmington – additional land to south west of village is now included.

Musbury – both the ‘Mountfield’ land and ‘Baxter’s Farm’ site (including
village hall) are now included.

Newton Poppleford – minor change to reflect size of King Alfred Way
planning permission and preferred approach boundary followed, which excludes western part of village that was included in previously adopted local plan.

Sidbury – no changes to preferred approach boundary.

Uplyme – boundary now follows that proposed in the Uplyme Neighbourhood Plan.

West Hill – preferred approach boundary largely followed, but with some
limited expansion.

Whimple – no change to preferred approach boundary.

Woodbury – no change to preferred approach boundary.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Dec 2016

Posted under

AONB, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plans, Villages BUAB

Important case law on village development and exception sites

Parish council wins High Court planning battle over village needs

East Bergholt Parish Council has won a case against Babergh District Council that it said would affect two more planning applications in the district and potentially other rural areas.

The parish argued in a judicial review at the High Court that Babergh’s decision to allow 10 homes to be built was flawed as it did not take account of the village’s needs as set out in the local plan.

David Bowman, a senior associate at law firm Royds Withy King, which acted for East Bergholt, said: “The judge decided that Babergh had made a number of material legal errors, including misrepresenting to councillors what ‘local housing needs’ means in the context of the local plan.”

Bowman said the court also agreed with East Bergholt’s interpretation that the needs of the local area differed from those of the wider district, and that Babergh had incorrectly conducted an exercise to decide whether development on land within the Dedham Vale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty had an exceptional reason to overrule the ordinary prohibition on development.

The area is associated with the work of the artist John Constable.

A separate decision by Babergh to allow 144 homes on another site in East Bergholt is being reconsidered and a further development of 75 homes on a third site is also affected by the ruling, Bowman said.

He said the ruling was “a major setback” for what the parish believes is Babergh’s financial dependence on the New Homes Bonus.

A Babergh statement said the council would “consider the judgment of the High Court carefully before making any further comment about the consequences of the court’s decision, or the future consideration of this planning application”.

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29419%3Aparish-council-wins-high-court-planning-battle-over-village-needs&catid=63&Itemid=31

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Dec 2016

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Barratt Homes, Bovis, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), Persimmon, Redrow

“Builders make billions as housing crisis escalates”

… Multi-million pound executive pay
The rewards enjoyed by bosses are significant.

As well as their £141m wages, Tony Pidgley and Rob Perrins of Berkeley are also sitting on shares in the company worth £440m.

They are not alone. Two executives at Persimmon, another of Britain’s biggest house builders, have shares worth at least £105m as part of their company incentive plan.

Our investigation – published days after the Chancellor Philip Hammond announced more than £5bn of government money would be spent increasing affordable homes and speeding up house building – also shows that Taylor Wimpey CEO Peter Redfern has been paid more than £24m in the past five years. …

… Planning documents kept secret
Previous in-depth reporting by the Bureau highlighted how the UK’s planning system allows developers to reduce their affordable homes targets while keeping their justifications secret.

Developers carry out financial viability assessments for their proposed developments, which often conclude that meeting the affordable housing targets set by local authorities would reduce their profits to a point that the scheme would be worth their while. However those assessments are kept confidential, with even councillors unable to see them.

In order to make sure schemes goes ahead, the local authorities typically reduce their targets or accept payment from the developer in lieu of the affordable homes. That money is supposed to be invested into social and community projects, or the council’s own affordable housing schemes. …

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2016/11/27/uk-housing-crisis-house-prices

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Nov 2016

Posted under

Accountability, COVOP, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), Planning System

“NIMBY – reality or slur?”

“Communities across the South West have been suffering for some time from a planning system that all too often works against their interests while not serving the needs of the country.

Community Voice on Planning’s National Conference took place in Leeds recently and attracted delegates from as far away as Devon, over 20 groups across the South West being affiliated to CoVoP.

The South West has seen much recent inappropriate development: from building on the green belt around Bristol to unaffordable housing in St Ives and Salcombe. Building on Areas of Natural Beauty, on flood plains, prime farmland and public parks and swamping of green spaces around villages are further all-too-common examples.

Housing Targets are typically inflated and based on questionable methodology. And the current planning system encourages developers to land-bank, slow build-out rates allowing them to increase prices and exploit the 5-year land supply requirement to get even more planning permissions. Developers challenge planning restrictions through viability studies so that infrastructure or affordable housing needs are not met. And developers prefer to build expensive housing rather than the lower-cost houses that people actually need.

We, the undersigned, call upon the public as a matter of urgency to contact their MPs to change planning laws and halt the desecration of our green and pleasant land which is being sacrificed to the economic gain of a few developers and landowners, with public opinion ignored by councils and government.

Georgina Allen (Devon United) Jackie Green (Save Our Sidmouth) Stephen Henry (St Austell, Save Our Unspoilt Land (S.O.U.L.) Paul Adams, MBE (DefeND North Devon) Julie Fox (Your Kids’ Future Cornwall) Dr Louise MacAllister (Save Exmouth Seafront) Peter Burton (Our Cornwall) Mike Temple (East Devon Alliance) David Hurford (Pilton Residents Group) Ron Morton (Save Our Green Spaces)”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Nov 2016

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Housing (local), Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Local Plan, PegasusLife

EDDC and Knowle – reasons for refusal of PegasusLife planning application – but will a new HQ sway councillors?

A letter from Michael Temple, Sidmouth

“Compare and Contrast

The highly controversial PegasusLife application for Knowle is to be decided at 10.30 am on Tuesday 6 December in the Council Chamber at Knowle, Sidmouth.

Readers might like to compare it with other recent PegasusLife applications:
1. Bath (assisted living): refused: “excessive and incongruous height”, “harmful impact upon surrounding heritage assets”, “nearby listed buildings undermined”, “the excessive tall building fails to respect its context”, “harmful impact on character and appearance of surrounding conservation area”.

Bristol (Nuffield Hospital site) – officers can’t support due to “excessive bulk and massing”, “doesn’t relate to surrounding context”, would “dominate the townscape”.

Wilmslow: refused: “too large, too high, no affordables”.

Harpenden (retirement flats) – refused due to “height (20.7 metres)”, “lack of privacy for neighbours”, “footprint 28 degrees greater than existing buildings”, “visually intrusive”, “residents’ parking would spill onto neighbouring roads”.

Knowle, Sidmouth (assisted living – or second homes?) – officers approve.

The East Devon District Council’s planning officer, departing from the Local Plan and its planning strategies, claims the the “benefits” to Sidmouth outweigh the harm to an English-Heritage listed building.

“Benefits”? Could he mean

the overbearing, intrusive impact on the park and neighbourhood of an excessively high, out-of-scale massed development?

the loss of heritage buildings and public assets like the Council Chamber where so many people met recently over the proposed hospital bed cuts?

the loss of weekend parking to this tourist town?

the loss of about 100 jobs?

the blot on Sidmouth’s skyline?

the loss to the public of the park’s fine lawn prospect?

the lack of a contribution towards affordable housing?

possible downtown drainage overflow during flash floods?”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Nov 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), Planning System, Spin, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

“Ministers on course to miss target of selling enough public land for 160,000 new homes by 2020”

“The Public Accounts Committee said the Government will have to order a “significant acceleration in the last years of the programme” to sell land for the remaining 149,000 homes still to be built, over the next three and a half years.

Officials in charge of the policy at the Department for Communities and Local Government had “taken their eye off the ball” before the last election, they said.

The MPs said the Government’s plans to build 160,000 new homes between 2015 and 2020 were “back-loaded, which increases the risk that government will not meet its commitment”.

The Government told the MPs that only enough land for 8,380 new homes – five per cent of the total – had been sold.

They said the “slow start to the new programme” was either because they “took their eye off the ball at the end of the previous programme that ran up to 2015 or are struggling to find suitable sites”.

Meg Hillier MP, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said: “There is a desperate need for new homes and public land is an irreplaceable asset.

“Taxpayers clearly have a right to know whether they are getting a good deal from its sale and how many homes are being built as a result.

“Sluggish sales have hindered progress towards the 2020 target while questions continue to hang over the potential of many sites earmarked for sale and whether homes will be in the places people want to live.

“Ultimately the public will judge the success of this programme on the basis of the homes built and the Government must make clear who taxpayers should hold to account for this.”

Earlier this year the Government was criticised after it emerged that officials were not required to keep track of whether new homes were actually being built on public land sold for housing.

It then emerged in January this year that only 1,800 new homes had built on public land out of the 109,000 promised by former Prime Minister David Cameron in 2011.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/02/ministers-on-course-to-miss-target-of-selling-enough-public-land/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Nov 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Housing (local), Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

EDDC planning leaflet on what to do if build quality of new homes is bad

Cabinet meeting 9 November 2016, 17.30
Agenda Item 10

“Cabinet are asked to defer a decision on recommendation Minute 13 Recommendation 2 “that the Officers consider the resource and
financial implications for EDDC on the production of a leaflet giving advice to purchasers of new homes, on options available to them if issues arise regarding the quality of the build”; until further research has been undertaken by the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management.”

Click to access 091116combinedcabagenda-sm.pdf

QUESTION: Isn’t Building Control supposed to pick up poor build quality?
QUESTION: Should local authority searches identify poor quality buildings if the local authority knows this is the case?
QUESTION: Where are these poor quality homes and why are they not being identified?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Nov 2016

Posted under

Housing (local)

31October 2016 – Swire enjoys himself at Ambassadors Reception, London

Seems Swire just can’t tear himself away from foreign affairs. Still, no doubt it helps East Devon a lot … think of all those Kuwaiti tourists taking advantage of the fall of the pound … Sidmouth here they come!

FROM TWITTER
CMEC ‏@CMECnews Great evening @CMECnews Ambassadors Reception with speeches from @hugoswire @Tobias_Ellwood @foreignoffice & HE Khaled Al Duwaisan #kuwait

https://mobile.twitter.com/CMECnews

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Nov 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Development Management Committee, EDDC, Housing (local), Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, PegasusLife, Transparency

Residents want clarification of Knowle housing designation

An EDDC spokesperson says it will be up to the DMC to decide classification but then says there are legal aspects to be considered.

The DMC are laypersons- surely they are not qualified to take such decisions?

“District chiefs have yet to decide how the use of a proposed 115-home retirement community at Knowle should be classified.

The Knowle Residents’ Association this week called for clarity on the matter. Householders say that, if the development ends up classed as ‘C3’ – housing – developer PegasusLife will need to either include ‘affordable’ homes on-site, or pay towards them.

If it is care accommodation [C2], the group says the development will be even further from the 50 homes the site is allocated in East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) Local Plan.

Residents’ association chairman Kelvin Dent said the group is ‘amazed’ the authority has not decided what use class the development falls into. He added: “Our view is that the application is akin to housing – albeit with the occupants of the proposed apartments being able to purchase a package of care to suit their needs.

“Under planning law, this equates to a C3 use and PegasusLife will be obliged to provide social housing as part of their development or to make a substantial financial contribution towards the social housing that Sidmouth desperately needs and support for the local community.

“We look forward to receiving confirmation from EDDC that they agree and will be helping local young people to find a home.”

A spokeswoman for EDDC – which intends to relocate from the Knowle HQ to Exmouth and Honiton – said officers had been working on the basis that the development’s use would be C2.

She added: “However, officers have been considering whether the form and layout of the proposed development and the manner in which it is proposed to operate would constitute a C2 use or not.

“In considering this issue, officers have been, and continue to consider, the views expressed by residents and relevant case-law.”

The spokeswoman said the officers’ conclusions on PegasusLife’s application will likely be presented to EDDC’s development management committee (DMC) on December 6. The agenda will be published 10 days beforehand.

She added: “Ultimately, a decision on this issue is for the members of DMC to make.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/residents_call_for_clarity_over_future_knowle_use_1_4756297

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Oct 2016

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Devolution, East Devon Growth Point, Greater Exeter, Housing (local), Infrastructure, Land Supply, Local Enterprise Partnership, Local Plan, Transparency

“Greater Exeter” and its impact on housing and infrastructure in East Devon

We learned recently that the current Stagecoach depot opposite the bus station in Exeter is going to be turned into a massive block of student housing – 557 units.

Now we hear that there are plans for the site of the Honiton Inn, on the roundabout opposite the bus station to be another student block of 101 flats with their own private gym and cinema – opposite a public gym and cinema!

http://m.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/plans-in-for-huge-exeter-city-centre-student-block-on-honiton-inn-site/story-29794670-detail/story.html

What effect will this have on East Devon?

Well, “Greater Exeter” – whose “Visioning Board” like all such development and regeneration boards in “Greater Exeter” meets in secret – is making arrangements to do the next revision to its 3 Local Plans (Exeter, East Devon and Teignbridge) together.

It will be totally evident (in fact it is already) that Exeter’s main growth in housing will remain student housing. So, where will housing for other people go? Obviously East Devon and Teignbridge.

Cranbrook has natural boundaries beyond which it will soon make its further expansion much more difficult than heretofore. Therefore, it will be towns such as Exmouth, Honiton and Sidmouth – and the green fields in-between – that must be expanded to take in the commuters into Exeter, with a possible massive impact.

None of this is being put before the general public in any of the three areas nor is adequate infrastructure being planned for this big change (or at least we cannot be allowed know of any). And, of course, our Local Enterprise Partnership will “own” the business rates of the Exeter “Growth Area” and will have its fingers in the many development pies.

Time to start talking about the NEXT revision of the Local Plan which may well see even more massive development in East Devon on a much bigger scale than we could ever have imagined and could dwarf the extra numbers already agreed..

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Sep 2016

Posted under

Health and Social Care (local), Housing (local), Inequality

Report: “Getting ready for ageing”

“… Stop seeing ageing as being about older people: Ageing is about all of us. It isn’t about young versus old. We will fail to tackle the challenges and make the most of the opportunities of ageing whilst we pitch one generation against another.

Stop ignoring the demands and needs of an ageing population: In Government there is not and never has been a Minister, senior social or other post holder such as a ‘Commissioner’ or ‘Tsar’, or any cross cutting unit or Government strategy on an ageing society.

Stop delivering communities which fail to deliver beyond the basics: Sadly, many communities are even failing to provide the basics of public toilets and places to rest. A fear of falling and of crime acts as a barrier to getting out and about for many older people. We must deliver a more ambitious vision for our communities: of places which are fun and engaging for all ages, whilst also reducing the risk of isolation and loneliness.

End the discrimination: Age discrimination remains a barrier to the participation of older people in society. Legislation has gone some way to prevent discrimination but policymakers must ensure that older people are not prevented from accessing products and services simply because of their age. We all need to play a part in normalising ageing.

Reverse the decline in new and appropriate housing stock for older people: The numbers of new retirement homes being built are being allowed to fall at the same time as the numbers of older people are rapidly increasing. Too few new homes are being built. Those which are, are too often not accessible or adaptable for old age.

Stop ignoring the crisis in social care: Government investment in social care is sharply shrinking while the numbers of older people who need it are rising, yet good social care saves public money by reducing and postponing older people’s need for expensive acute hospital care and helps them to live independently for longer. Good social care for older people also allows family members to keep in employment – so they are not forced to choose between work and caring for an older relative.

Stop operating hospitals on a model designed for the past: Hospitals of the 21st Century are increasingly made up of older patients with complex needs. Sta ratios on hospital wards dedicated to older people, many of them with dementia, are typically lower than those in general wards. Yet we know that these older people often have greater need of help with essentials like eating and drinking.

Stop under-utilising older people: The over 65s in the UK currently spend around £2.2 billion per week (£114 billion per annum) on goods and services. Assuming the spending of the 65+ population rises in line with annual in ation of 2%, their spending will reach over £6 billion per week by 20377. People aged 65 and over in the UK last year contributed £61bn to the economy through employment, informal caring and volunteering. Yet almost four in ten workers aged 55-64 are not working. And almost half of the unemployed of this age range are in long term unemployment. We must do more to maximise the social and economic contribution of older people.” …

http://www.cpa.org.uk/cpa/docs/Ready_for_Ageing_Alliance_Manifesto.pdf

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

25 Jun 2016

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Austerity cuts, Developers/ Development, East Devon Growth Point, EDDC, EU Referendum, Hinkley C, Housing (local), Land Supply, Local Plan, Post-Brexit Adjustments

Comments

2 Comments

Brexit, developers, local plans and devolution

So, we voted out – and suddenly housebuilders (developers) shares plunged by 40%.

There does not seem to be an immediate link with voting out, but there is. We are in for an unstable time. There will be a recession and pundits differ only on whether it will be short (around 2 years) or long (anywhere from 5-20 years depending on who you listen to). House prices will reflect this by falling and mortgage rates may well rise, pushing some into negative equity and others wary of buying in case they fall into negative equity.

Housebuilders will also need to factor in higher import costs coming in the near future when EU trade reduces and new trade agreements have not begun, along with a local skills gap as workers from the EU dry up. Plus likely (possibly temporary)increases in income tax to cover lost government income from (again possibly temporary) shrinking markets. Not to mention higher unemployment benefits to those whose jobs currently depend directly and indirectly on those employers who would normally benefit from being in the EU.

To compound this, many developers have recently taken their huge profits out of their businesses by giving their directors massive bonuses.

All these factors cause a “perfect storm” for Local Plans and the general East Devon economy. Our Local Plan is predicated on continuous growth and increasing employment, fuelling a constant demand for new housing. And, more worryingly, there are penalties if this does not happen. If we (and all other councils) do not maintain a 5-year land supply, we are penalised by having our housing numbers INCREASED by 20%.

Another complication is that, currently, our council (and others) depend for income on the government’s “New Homes Bonus” – the more new homes it gets a developer to build, the more income it gets.

All this conspires to suddenly make our local plans hardly worth the paper they were written on.

Then there is devolution – which in Devon and Somerset also highly depends on housebuilding – having “promised” an extra 176,000 houses over and above Local Plans, and also dependent on continuous growth and constantly increasing employment. It is no coincidence that the Chairman of our Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP: the lead in the devolution bid) is Chairman of big developer, Midas.

Our LEP was also promised “jam tomorrow” funds (over 30 years) from the government AND anticipated masses of EU funding, all riding on the back of a new Hinkley C nuclear power station. All other devolved areas were given similar promises.

Our new government will now have its hands full attempting to negotiate its way out of the EU, rewriting or scrapping those EU laws we have (including those on environmental protection and workers rights) and trying desperately to work out where this notional extra £350 million a week is eventually going to be spent. It has already been promised to the health service, areas currently in receipt of EU regeneration funding and academic research programmes currently supported by EU grants. That is simply an arithmetical nightmare and almost certainly an impossibility.

This leaves East Devon in a precarious position: heavily dependant on new housebuilding and continuous year on year economic growth with constant employment growth and receipt of funds from a distracted government which has also promised to stem immigration – many having voted for this as its first priority. These two priorities will mean little time for other things. Not to mention having to deal at the same time with the implications of Scotland and Northern Ireland’s differing position on their future in the UK and EU.

The Local Plan and devolution deals are now almost certainly of much lower priority to this beleaguered government and this may well lead to unintended consequences the like of which our council and our LEP can only imagine and for which they have no plan B.

Many warned that economic growth and increasing employment between now and 2030, when our local plan ends, was unattainable and that at least one event would intervene for which there was no contingency. Few expected it to happen quite so quickly.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Jun 2016

Posted under

Democracy, Environment (local), Housing (local), Planning System, Rural communications, Sustainability

South Hams community raising crowd funding to protect wildlife

A community in Devon taking South Hams District Council to a Judicial Review, for granting planning permission to a developer bent on destroying wildlife. The scheme also forces social tenants, against their wishes, from bungalows with gardens into flats.

The group says Council won’t protect them, so they are doing it for ourselves. They are asking for help to set a vitally- needed national precedent and stand up for the rights of wildlife, for local people and kids futures.

The campaign is for Brimhay; a close of small bungalows set around a green adjoining a wild stream valley, in the heart of Dartington village, near Totnes, Devon. The valley is home to dormice and five species of bats- all endangered and which should be protected by European legislation.

Their crowdfunding page is here:
http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/www-dontburydartington-co-uk