What happens when your Local Enterprise Partnership sets housing targets

Extract from article published in G2 20 Jan by Patrick Barkham concerning the development of Bicester, Britain’s only “Garden Town” entitled “Dog’s breakfast springs to mind”.

“In Bicester, as across the rest of England, high housing targets are driven by genuine need but also by the priorities set by unelected, unaccountable groups of businesspeople: Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs).

Bicester must take so many homes because the Oxfordshire Growth Board, a joint committee of the six councils of Oxfordshire, commissioned a strategic housing market assessment to determine the county’s housing needs.

This assessment is strongly influenced by the LEPs, according to the Campaign to Protect Rural England. “Housing targets are very much informed by the LEPs’ growth aspirations and these growth aspirations aren’t informed by a county’s capacity to take that growth,” says Matt Thomson, head of planning at the CPRE. “LEPs do all their work on aspirations for economic growth without considering the environment or social impacts but also without any public input. There’s no consultation, there’s no accountability’.

The housing target for Oxfordshire is particularly ambitious: 100,000 new homes by 2030 – increasing the county’s population by a third. Thomson doesn’t think it will be possible to build homes at double the highest-ever previous rate.

If those targets are unrealistic, what’s the problem? “By setting very high targets you have to identify lots of sites. Once those sites are identified, builders will choose the ones that are cheapest to buy and most profitable to build on – greenfield sites,” says Thomson. Cherry-picking the best sites will create unnecessary sprawl, a lack of affordable homes and half-built estates badly served by infrastructure.

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/jan/19/bicester-britains-only-garden-town

Also, if this ambitious target is not met, there is a very strong chance that the government will allow reversion to a developer free-for all.

Built-in failure for Local Plans – hmmm.

The effect of the Local Plan on villages of East Devon

Excellent summary of the effect of the Local Plan on the district’s villages – including potential pitfalls if the Plan goes hopelessly wrong, given the risky “high growth” strategy that the Inspector has accepted:

https://susiebond.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/major-leap-taken-towards-adoption-of-east-devons-local-plan/

Masterplans: EDDC’s new Achilles heels

Exmouth, Axminster and Cranbrook – all needing new Masterplans in our new Local Plan, according to the Inspector. And Sidmouth needing one at its eastern end according to EDDC.

Given the omnishambles EDDC has made of the new local plan – at least 8 years in the making, one false start wasting more than two years, and two rejected drafts plus the interference of the East Devon Business Forum – what are the odds of our current councillors and officers getting these new Masterplans right?

Below are the challenges they face. It will take more than crossed fingers to see these through … especially as, with so many of them, the councillors and officers are at odds with the electorate about what is acceptable and appropriate.

A new commuter town, a rural town massively expanding , and two seaside towns fighting to retain their identities … and all with AONBs, important wildlife sites and the World Heritage Coast to accommodate, not to mention thousands of homes and industries and their infrastructure to create under an “asset sweating” ruling party.

CRANBROOK

On Cranbrook, Diviani says this in a press release today:

“The Cranbrook masterplan, which is currently in production, will put some meat on the bones of these policies and will provide a strong vision and guide to future development at Cranbrook to ensure that it becomes an attractive, vibrant and sustainable modern town.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/inspector_recognises_importance_of_further_development_at_cranbrook_1_4385501

Remember that the first plan of Cranbrook neglected to plan for appropriate health facilities, it did not include enough shops, not enough green spaces and a football pitch that could not be used in the evenings because it was no-one’s responsibility to pay for or maintain floodlights and where roads are still unadopted.

The highly critical DCC report is here:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/09/14/what-mainstream-media-isnt-telling-you-about-that-dcc-cranbrook-report/

AXMINSTER

On Axminster, he says:

“a North South relief road for the town will be delivered as part of this development linking Chard Road (A358) to Lyme Road (B261). A Masterplan will be required for this site and development will be subject to improved public transport provision.”

and

Prior to the granting of planning permission for any major residential schemes at Axminster, the Council will agree, with the Environment Agency and Natural England, a timetable for the review or development of a Nutrient Management Plan for the River Axe.

This plan will set out detailed actions that allow for new growth at Axminster to progress with adequate mitigation in place to negate the additional phosphate load that would be caused. The Nutrient Management Plan will work in collaboration with the diffuse Water Pollution Plan, and will seek to restore water quality for the River Axe SAC to enable it to meet its conservation objectives within a specified timescale, and in accordance with commitments to European Directives.

Depending on the findings of the plan, growth will only proceed in accordance with the mitigation delivery set out within that plan. Growth at Axminster will also be informed by the current status of the relevant discharge consents for waste water treatment works, and any upgrade required to support new growth will be the subject of Habitats Regulations Assessment prior to planning permission being given. The determination of such development applications will be informed by Habitat Regulations Assessment that takes account of the consent requirements.”

EXMOUTH

Oh, where to start with Exmouth. Suffice to say the Inspector says:

The Exmouth Seafront is recognised as a key asset for the town and the Council is a key driver in its further enhancement. To this end, along with Devon County Council, the District Council appointed LDA Design to undertake a town centre and waterfront design study to identify opportunities for renewal and improvement in the physical, economic and environmental quality of the town.

The Final LDA study5 and recommendations and conclusion have been endorsed by the Council. The implementation of some projects in the Masterplan is underway but the Council also recognises that it is time to re-evaluate the Masterplan. The future intention is that a new or refreshed Masterplan will be produced with this becoming a Supplementary planning Document (SPD).”

Hard to see how this can be worked into what seems now to be a fait accompli with the developer (though the Inspector fired several warning shots about protecting the environs of the Exe Estuary.

SIDMOUTH

Mr Thickett says:

Land at Port Royal Site – Land for residential use is allocated for 30 homes (site ED03 (this site will incorporate mixed use redevelopment to include housing and community, commercial, recreation and other uses).”

Sidford Fields employment land: who knew what and when?

Leading up to the district council elections Councillor Stuart Hughes and (now ex) Councillor Troman made much of what they considered a successful effort to remove the Sidford Fields employment site from the Local Plan.

It was covered initially on this blog and here:

25 March 2015:

The Development Management Committee (DMC) rejected the amendment, but agreed to send a note to the Inspector advising him of the of the unprecedented number of representations that had been received about the Sidford Fields site, and pointing out the lack of need and environmental concerns, particularly flooding and traffic issues.

DMC refuses to amend Local Plan proposal for Sidford.

One day later, we read this:

“By a narrow margin of, we are told, 18 votes to 13, District Councillors at today’s Extra Ordinary meeting at Knowle, have decided to drop the controversial proposal for a 12 acre employment site at Sidford Fields.
Congratulations and thanks to Sidmouth Councillors Stuart Hughes and Graham Troman for proposing the amendment. As a recent commentator on this blog noted recently, Cllr Troman had already argued strongly at the Development Management Committee, that the Sidford site was not justified by the council’s own formulae.”

Proposed Sidford Business Park removed from Local Plan

However, CEO Mark Williams made his position clear here:

“The inspector has already heard everything we have said and is yet to tell us what his view is on that part of the application. He may recommend that this site is not suitable and should be removed. It’s his decision now, not yours.

“It’s your funeral if you want to take it out.”

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/04/11/sidford-business-park/

Hughes made this comment in his Devon Conservatives blog for 16 April 2015:

“There appears to be some excellent news for Sidmouth and Sidford in that the Sidford Business/Retail Park that Graham Troman and I were successful in getting removed from the draft plan on the 26th March isn’t included …”

http://www.devonconservative.org.uk/hughesreport.htm

On this basis – choosing to ignore the warning of Williams – people might have been prepared to vote for them on these comments alone.

QUESTIONS:

Did EDDC officers send (on behalf of the Development Management Committee) the extra information about the Sidford Fields site, pointing out the lack of need and environmental concerns, and flooding and traffic issue at the relevant time or at all?

As this is cited as a “main modification” can it still be challenged by EDDC before adoption of the Local Plan?

What would have been the outcome of elections if electors had realised that it was extremely unlikely that the site would actually be withdrawn, with or without additional information, in spite of the strong assurances put out by councillors Hughes and Troman?

BREAKING NEWS: Diviani says Local Plan sound – BUT Inspector rewrites it with nearly 200 major changes!

Here is Diviani’s puff job:

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/news/2016/01/key-milestone-for-east-devons-local-plan/

The “main modifications” are here:

Click to access appendix-1-main-modifications-2.pdf

A quick glance suggests that the I spector did more work on the plan in a few months than EDDC did in nearly a decade. There are MANY changes that have implications for just about every town and village in the district.

More to follow …

BUT one major point:

Councillor Stuart Hughes was talking out of his … when he said, in a re ent Sidmouth Herald, thanks to him and ex-Councillor Troman the employment land site in Sidford had been deleted – IT HAS NOT BEEN DELETED.

“Why are Brits so obsessed with buying their own homes?”

“… Economics and culture are of course interconnected. The British economy is built on this home ownership hysteria and if the government bangs on about cutting the public deficit, it is partly to avoid talking about the country’s stratospheric level of private debt – which it encourages.

The British are among the most indebted people in the world. At the end of 2015, they personally owed almost £1.5trn, and the Office for Budgetary Responsibility forecast puts household debt in 2019 at 182% of disposable income – more than twice as much as in France. This is mostly driven by mortgage debt, but also by the heavy use of consumer credit.

… Britain has a risk-taking culture. In France, we are risk-adverse and debt is considered a social disease. Even if you want to borrow yourself to death, as in Britain, you can’t – the law doesn’t allow it. Monthly repayments, to pay off a mortgage for instance, cannot exceed 30% of your income. In other words, in France the legislators make sure you have enough left every month to buy your daily dose of reblochon and go to the movies.

So while the French are left to enjoy life’s many modest pleasures, courtesy of legislators who look after them like mother hens, the British live more dangerously, and by doing so sustain the country’s infrastructure. In other words, while we save, you spend; while we rent, you buy, sell and buy again. And make the British economy roar. As they say, no pain, no gain.”

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/jan/14/why-are-brits-so-obsessed-with-buying-their-own-homes

Sell everything before crash, says bank economist

“In a note to its clients the bank said: “Sell everything except high quality bonds. This is about return of capital, not return on capital. In a crowded hall, exit doors are small.” It said the current situation was reminiscent of 2008, when the collapse of the Lehman Brothers investment bank led to the global financial crisis. This time China could be the crisis point.”

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/12/sell-everything-ahead-of-stock-market-crash-say-rbs-economists

And still EDDC plumps for high growth and massive housing development.

Housing market collapse?

House prices have broken free from reality and defied gravity for far too long, but they are an asset like anything else, and there are six clear reasons a nasty correction looms in the coming year.

Global asset price crash

Asset prices around the world soared as central bankers embarked on the greatest money printing experiment in history. While much of that money flowed into the stock market, a great deal also found its way into house prices. What we are now witnessing on trading screens around the world is the unwinding of the era of monetary excess, and house prices will not escape the fallout.

… There is a delayed effect on property prices because the market is so inefficient.

Transactions can take up to three months to complete and the property itself may have to languish on the market for even longer. The prices are also dictated by estate agents, who have an interest in inflating them to raise fees. The number of transactions is also still about 40pc below that of 2006 and 2007, which allows prices to stray from the fundamentals for a longer period.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/house-prices/12087971/UK-house-price-to-crash-as-global-asset-prices-unravel.html

The article goes on to cite other factors which could lead to a price crash: changes to the buy to let market, fewer international buyers, possible interest rate rises and a massive increase in household debt

Clyst St Mary Update

From the Save Clyst St Mary campaign

Firstly, on behalf of the Save Clyst St. Mary campaign, I would like to wish everyone a ‘Happy New Year’ and thank you all for your invaluable support during 2015. Believe it or not, it has been twelve month since we first got together and formed the group. During the year we have had many ups and downs, but so the balance has been in favour of the former; let’s hope that remains the case for 2016!

Local Plan

You may have read that the Local Plan (covering all of East Devon) has been inspected in great detail by HM Planning Inspectorate and is now deemed to be sound. It will now move to the Adoption phase which should protect the village from the onslaught of large scale, inappropriate planning applications on the extremities of of our village.

Neighbourhood Plan

The Neighbour Plan which will protect the village itself is now in its final pre-submission Consultation phase (16 Jan – 1 March 2016). A copy of the draft Plan can be found on the Bishops Clyst Planning website at:

http://www.planning.bishopsclyst.co.uk

or you can go along to one of the open sessions as listed below:

– Clyst St Mary Village Hall Saturday 6th February 1pm-6pm
– Sowton Village Hall Saturday 13th February 1pm-6pm
– Cat and Fiddle Inn Wednesday 10th February 10am – 1pm

Fibre-optic broadband

Our village has taken all of the capacity that has been provided so there are no fibre lines free at the moment. I have been in contact with Openreach and they are in the process of arranging for a second green cabinet to provide an additional one hundred lines. Apparently this is not as straightforward as it may seem, so there will be some delay before they are able to offer fibre-optic broadband to residents requesting an upgrade.

Flooding at Winslade Manor

Thank you to all the residents who got in contact to tell us about the water cascading out of the grounds of Winslade Manor (Friends Provident). We alerted the Authorities and action was taken by both the Police and the Environment Agency to resolve the problem. We have since submitted photographic evidence to East Devon District Council as obviously we would not want the proposed new houses to flood!

The following Planning applications have all either been withdrawn or refused:

Cat and Fiddle Retirement Village/ Cat and Fiddle housing development/ application by Plymouth Brethren for 40 houses/ Solar Farm off Oil Mill Lane

6 Applications for 296 houses on Friends Provident Site:
This continues to be assessed by East Devon District Council and we still await the outcome. We have worked hard with Charlie Hopkins to ensure we present as strong a case as possible.

Thank you, once again, for your continued support (and patience when it comes to signing letters); we desperately hope that 2016 is just as successful. Please remember: as an individual, it really difficult to win a battle, but as a united community we can be a powerful force for good.

Beware developer promises in East Devon: Donald Trump shows us why

Here in East Devon we have had our fair share of promises from developers – particularly promises about employment. The ” promised” jobs get built into ” economic growth” forecasts that fuel housing need predictions and then suddenly fail to materialise – though the housing figures never get adjusted to reflect the cuts.

Here we highlighted the difference between promised jobs and real jobs at the Exmouth Premier Inn – 50 promised, 25 delivered:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2014/12/10/jobs-at-premier-inn-exmouth-think-of-a-number-then-half-it/

And here with the relocation of the DPD depot from Sowton to Skypark 147 promised down to 35 delivered:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/12/07/skypark-jobs-now-you-see-them-now-you-dont/

and we note the promise that Lidl “will create 500 jobs” at the recently-sold Sainsbury’s depot site:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Business-leaders-welcome-Lidl-s-plans-create-500/story-28474215-detail/story.html

A timely reminder not to believe everything you hear comes from no less than US presidential candidate Donald Trump, who promised to inject around £1 billion pounds and 6,000 jobs into the Scottish economy and now threatens to cancel most of that if the UK government causes any trouble after recent racial comments.

Best estimates are that he has so far spent around £30 million and created less than 100 jobs:

“…Councillor Martin Ford was chairman of Aberdeenshire Council’s infrastructure services committee when Trump’s planning application was received in 2006.

After using his casting vote to go against the plans, he was later sacked from the position.

Cllr Ford said: “Mr Trump promised everything under the sun and they were all ludicrous, ridiculous exaggerations which nobody should have believed. He said it was a £1billion investment but it was about £13million in 2011 – including buying the estate.

By the end of 2013, it had gone up to about £25million and, since then, he’s built a clubhouse and a few sheds. It’s pretty safe to say he’s spent under £30million.

“From the point where the plan was first announced, the amount of money and the number of jobs just kept getting bigger.

“Fewer than 100 jobs is a tiny fraction of what was pledged and promised. It is important to note that Trump has not built a golf resort – he’s built a golf course and clubhouse.

“He was going to build a 450-bed five-star hotel. He has instead converted Menie House into a small hotel.

“So you can see the pattern here – £1billion goes down to £30million, 6000 jobs go down to 95 and a 450-bed hotel which has something like six rooms.”

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/donald-trumps-700m-blowhard-economist-7150504

An enforcable Local Plan “soon”: most definitely not there yet

Diviani’s press release says:

“… I can, however, say that the report concludes that both the Local Plan and CIL charging schedule are sound and can move to adoption subject to main modifications. …”

So, what are “main modifications”?

Here is an explanation:

“What if modifications are required to make a submitted Local Plan sound?”

The Inspector can recommend ‘main modifications’ (changes that materially affect the policies) to make a submitted Local Plan sound and legally compliant only if asked to do so by the local planning authority under section 20(7C) of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act as amended). The council can also put forward ’additional modifications’ of its own to deal with more minor matters.

Where the changes recommended by the Inspector would be so extensive as to require a virtual re-writing of the Local Plan, the Inspector is likely to suggest that the local planning authority withdraws the plan. Exceptionally, under section 21 (9) (a) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Secretary of State has the power to direct a local planning authority to withdraw its submitted plan.

Inspectors will require the local planning authority to consult upon all proposed main modifications. Depending on the scope of the modifications, further Sustainability Appraisal work may also be required. The Inspector’s report on the plan will only be issued once the local planning authority has consulted on the main modifications and the Inspector has had the opportunity to consider the representations on these.

Whether to advertise any ‘additional modifications’ is at the discretion of the local planning authority, but they may wish to do so at the same time as consulting on the main modifications..”

http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/guidance/local-plans/publication-and-examination-of-the-draft-plan/

So, it seems these main modifications will have to be put to consultation – again and possibly Sustainability Appraisals will need to be prepared. And then the Inspector has to consider responses – again.

Will we see an adopted Local Plan “soon” as Diviani intimates? Well, it all depends on your definition of “soon”!

And, in the meantime, our developers will continue to run amok.

Does Councillor Stuart Hughes understand what “confidential” means?

Leader Diviani made it clear that the draft Local Plan is confidential until EDDC has formally responded to Mr Thickett and until facts have been checked and he disclosed nothing except that it allows for 17,000 new homes.

So, how come in today’s Sidmouth Herald (page 5), Councillor Stuart Hughes announced that Mr Thickett has decided that employment land at Sidford will not be included?

Will Councillor Hughes be reported to the Monitoring Officer?

If it had been an Independent Councillor making the announcement in the press, would he or she have engendered the ire of Councillor Twiss?

All you need is trust, says Diviani

Chairing Wednesday’s Cabinet meeting at Knowle (6 Jan 2016), the Leader was in ebullient mood, announcing that the Local Plan is likely to be adopted quite soon, and that Lidl is now taking what was to be Sainsbury distribution site on the so-called ‘intermodal hub’, creating 450 new jobs. It was not specified how many of the jobs would be well-paid.

He was still upbeat, when Cllr Ian Thomas (Con) emphasised the financial risks threatening EDDC’s Budget, and that in the coming years, the relationship with the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) would be crucial.

Cllr Phil Twiss agreed that you “can’t underestimate the impact of Devolution,” as he’d learned from the counterparts from northern powerhouse councils, whom he’d recently met at Warwick Business School. “There was much uncertainty”, he said.

The leader had the solution. “The most important thing you need is trust” he told his Cabinet colleagues – adding jocularly, “We don’t trust the government, and they don’t trust us”.

Local Plan declared sound-ish, sort of … 17,100 homes to be shoe-horned in to the district

Well, it’s sort-of sound except that it isn’t yet being published because EDDC has to “fact check” it and/or respond to it ….. or simply agree with it.  It appears that Mr Thickett, aware of EDDC’s foot-dragging in this area has said that he wants their response within two weeks.  The press release also mentions “main modifications.

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/eddc_s_local_plan_finally_judged_sound_by_inspector_1_4370685

So, don’t hold your breath – many a slip twixt cup and lip and every delay means that developers can whap in more pre-agreement planning applications …..

And EDDC will, of course, have to find time to accept it in their very busy meetings schedule, which might also take some time.

 

Housing Bill debate: started 8.50 pm ended 2 am

The government has been described as “not grown up” for going ahead with a debate over its housing bill that did not begin until 8.50pm and continued to 2am.

The debate on the report stage of the bill was pushed back to late on Tuesday after a series of urgent ministerial statements, by the prime minister and the home secretary, were announced in the Commons.

Labour tried to get the debate postponed until a later date, but MPs voted by 303 to 195 in favour of pushing on with a session to scrutinise the legislation on Tuesday evening.

The housing bill will offer discounts of up to £102,700 in London and £77,000 in the rest of England to people renting from housing associations who want to buy their homes. The policy would not apply in Scotland or Wales, where the right to buy is being abolished.

The policy would be partly funded by requiring councils to sell the top third of their most valuable council homes from their remaining stock. The government also quietly tabled an amendment to the housing and planning bill that sets a maximum of five-year terms for new secure tenancies.

Fiona Mactaggart, the Labour MP for Slough, told MPs: “I am very unhappy about the programme motion, merely because of the time we are starting to debate it: 10 minutes to 9pm.”

She said this meant that “really important clauses” would be considered after midnight. “There are a number of really important issues which, frankly, I think our constituents, who are concerned about housing and planning, would not expect to be decided after midnight,” she said.

That is not grown up; it is a return to the days when I first came to this house and voted against beating children at 4am. I vowed never to have such important votes at that time of the morning again.”

Brandon Lewis, the minister for housing and planning, said the arrangements for the debate had been “agreed through the usual channels to ensure proper and full scrutiny of the bill”.

“Given the comments made by some members about the time until which we may be here tonight, all colleagues have the ability to exercise self-restraint if they wish, and from a ministerial point of view, I will do that to ensure that backbenchers have a good opportunity to speak,” he said.

Roberta Blackman-Woods said:

Never in my experience of many bills in this house have I witnessed 65 pages of government new clauses and amendments being produced at the last minute for a bill that is 145 pages long,” she said. “That is simply appalling and means that there will be no proper scrutiny in this house of almost a third of the bill.

“We wish to register our strong view that that is no way for legislation to be made, and the government should do the honourable thing and reprogramme this debate.”

Planning Bill: the potential for corruption

” … Labour’s shadow planning minister Roberta Blackman-Woods said: “I cannot believe that the government are serious about this. I know that they tend to carry out pilots, but they must realise that the potential for this mechanism to generate a degree of corruption and totally inappropriate conflicts of interest is probably endless. These new clauses need to be subjected to a degree of scrutiny that will not be possible this evening.”

She said that ministers’ decision to table the amendment late in the bill’s passage through Parliament meant that it has “not been possible for the planning agencies that will be affected by the changes to have a say or to have any input into the process. That is quite frankly disgraceful, because these will be huge changes to the planning system”.

Communities and local government select committee chair Clive Betts said that the new clause is “effectively about the privatisation of the planning service. That is what it potentially amounts to after pilots have been brought in”.

He said: “Let me explore what that might mean. Does it mean that an individual or organisation will be free to shop around for whichever alternative provider they think can give them the best chance of getting a planning application accepted? Will they be able to look at the track record of providers around the country?”

Betts added: “My worry here is that someone parachuted in from outside, with no knowledge of an area but a track record of dealing with applications quickly, may not be as sensitive to the needs of a local community.

“If I was a local MP in an area with particular planning pressures and had concerns about getting those decisions right, I would start to be very worried about the scenario that is developing.”

http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1378327/mps-blast-plan-privatise-processing-applications

Daily Telegraph: “Developers can circumvent planning departments that take too long to clear approvals”

Sneaked in hurriedly just before Christmas, changes to planning rules means that developers will be able to go to private planning consultants of their choice rather than to local authority planning departments – a backdoor privatisation of the planning function.

Inevitably, private consultants will have worked closely with developers in the past.

This is potentially the biggest change to planning law for decades and is being introduced with no consultation and the minimum of debate.

It creates a loophole where, if a planning application is controversial, a local authority can deliberately drag its heels, see the application passed to a private consultant of the developer’s choosing and be approved. The local authority can then throw up its hands and say “Sorry, not our fault” when it patently is.

Current local authority planners will be seduced by initial high salaries offered by private consultants, leaving planning departments unable to function and with private consultants holding the balance of power.

Here is how today’s Daily Telegraph reports yesterday’s “debate” on something already agreed behind closed doors.

What a Christmas present for developers!

“Developers will be able to circumvent planning departments that take too long to process applications.

Housing minister Brandon Lewis told MPs the Government wants to pilot schemes which allow people to choose who processes their planning applications to speed up the process.

However, they were warned that allowing people to “shop around” by outsourcing planning applications risk undermining council planning departments.

He said this would “test the benefits of introducing competition” while local authorities will still make decisions on the applications.

But Labour’s Helen Hayes, a member of the Communities and Local Government Committee, warned the policy is “potentially very damaging” as it “weakens the accountability” of local authority planning services.

Speaking during report stage of the Housing and Planning Bill, Mr Lewis explained the new regulations would allow the communities secretary to decide who is able to offer their services to process planning applications.
He said: “Let me be very clear this evening with the House – this is about competition for the processing of applications, not the determination of applications.

“The democratic determination of planning applications by local planning authorities is a fundamental pillar of the planning system and will remain the case during any pilot schemes the secretary of state brings forward.
“Let me also be clear with the House that new clause 43 will require that any pilot schemes brought forward by the secretary of state will be for a limited period of time, specified in the regulations.”

Further proposals also outline how fees will be developed and allow the communities secretary to intervene if fees are judged “excessive”, MPs heard.

Mr Lewis said: “These new clauses will allow us to test in specific areas of the country and for a limited period of time the benefits of allowing planning applicants to choose who processes their applications.

“It’ll lead to a more efficient and effective planning system, better able to secure the development of homes and other facilities that our communities need and want.

“Introducing choice to the applicant enables them to shop around for services that best meet their needs and enable innovation in service provision, bringing new resources into the planning system and driving down costs while improving performance.”

But Ms Hayes, the MP for Dulwich and West Norwood, said: “New clause 43 introduces the outsourcing of planning applications. This clause is potentially very damaging.

“It weakens the accountability of local planning services and it removes with one hand the fees which the Government is enabling local authorities to raise with another.

“Fundamentally, it’s a solution to a symptom of the problem of the disproportionate effect of local government cuts on planning departments.
“This is a symptom which we alleviated by the proper resourcing, which a system of new planning fees will facilitate.

“So I urge the Government to rethink this proposal, which simply undermines local planning departments.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/greenpolitics/planning/12084354/Developers-can-circumvent-planning-departments-that-take-too-long-to-clear-approvals.html

“A wholesale power grab: how the UK government is handing housing over to private developers”

“In any sane universe, something called the Housing and Planning Bill might safely be assumed to stimulate house building and improve planning. But the bill, which receives its third and final reading in the House of Commons today, does exactly the opposite of what it says on the tin. It will exacerbate the housing crisis and further enfeeble the planning system in ways we cannot yet comprehend.

The primary assault on social housing has been much discussed in these pages. The bill’s flagship measure – promoted at ownyourhome.gov.uk – will replace genuinely affordable homes with public subsidies for property investors. Rather than building homes for affordable rent, the legislation will force local authorities to build “Starter Homes” for first-time buyers. Capped at £450,000 in London and £250,000 in the rest of England, these homes will be unaffordable for people on average incomes in over half of the country, as Shelter has pointed out. Buyers will be free to sell their assets after five years at full market value, thereby minting a new generation of property speculators and removing any long-term benefit for future first-time buyers.

In addition to this, the bill will extend Right to Buy to housing associations, further depleting the number of homes for social rent. It will also compel local authorities to sell their highest value housing stock and pass the proceeds on to central government. Given that these high value areas are already subject to the greatest pressures on affordable housing, the effect will simply be to remove resources from the places that need it most. It will see British cities divided further into segregated enclaves for rich and poor.

The bill will bring an end to secure lifetime council tenancies, replacing them with two to five-year tenancies, and force those with a total household income of over £30,000 to pay market rents – hitting low-paid working families hardest.

In short, it is a raft of misguided measures that will only increase housing inequality. As campaign group Architects for Social Housing – demonstrating outside Parliament today – puts it, the bill is “an extremely subtle and duplicitous piece of legislation that in almost every aspect does something very different, if not the direct opposite, of what it is claiming to do.”

But the planning side of the bill has yet to receive the attention it deserves, in either the Commons or the national media. The proposed changes are shrouded in a haze of intentional ambiguity, but they threaten to eat away at the last shreds of the democratic process that safeguards how our communities are made, putting power instead in the hands of developers.

The most radical measure is the introduction of automatic planning permission in principle on sites allocated for development, without applications being subject to the usual rigours of the planning process. When the idea was mooted in October, ministers suggested it would initially be limited to proposals for housing on brownfield land but nothing in the legislation prevents it from being applied to any kind of development on any site.

“It is extremely dangerous,” says Hugh Ellis, policy director at the Town and Country Planning Association. “It could apply to all forms of development – for example, fracking could easily be given ‘permission in principle’ as part of a minerals plan. You can’t make a decision in principle about a site until you know the detail of its implications, from flood risk appraisal to the degree of affordable housing. Giving permission in principle would fundamentally undermine our ability to build resilient, mixed communities in the long term.”

Ellis fears that the bill marks the introduction of a “zonal” planning system, along US lines, whereby land is zoned for particular uses at a broad-brush scale and permission granted without the finer-grain negotiation of applications on a case-by-case basis, which has always defined the English postwar planning system.

“Zoning is one of the major contributors to the economic and social segregation of cities in America,” says Ellis. “If the government is going to make such a fundamental change to the planning system there needs to be an enormous amount of public debate and research. The future of British cities is at stake here, but there’s been no white paper and no public discussion at all.”

Lack of debate seems to characterise the entire bill, which saw several crucial amendments slipped in under the radar just before Christmas. In a change that opens the door for the privatisation of the planning system, communities secretary Greg Clark added a clause in December to allow the “processing of planning applications by alternative providers”. Rather than submitting a planning application to the local authority, it suggests that developers could assign a “designated person” to process the application for them instead.

Dr Bob Colenutt, planning expert at the University of Northampton, describes the move as “iniquitous”. “It will replace a public-sector ethos with a developer-led ethos,” he says. “The ‘designated persons’ are likely to be consultants who also work for the private sector, which introduces probable bias and reduces the public scrutiny trail. And it is very likely to reduce the right that the public has to make comments on planning applications.”
In the same way that developers’ financial viability assessments have been hidden from public view, it could mean that the entire planning process happens behind closed doors, with applications assessed by private consultants, paid for by the applicants.

“The question is, what problem is this really trying to solve?” asks Janet Askew, president of the Royal Town Planning Institute. “Local authority planning departments are critically underresourced, so if it’s a question of them being too slow then the government needs to increase their capacity, not strip it away further.”

Elsewhere in the bill, if local powers aren’t being handed out to the private sector, they’re being trampled by central government. Independent planning inspectors will be bypassed in a measure that lets the secretary of state intervene in the assessment of local plans. Another clause introduces a new power that will allow the government to produce plans for areas where it deems the local authority to be “failing or omitting” to do the work.

“It is all profoundly undemocratic,” says David Vickery, a recently retired senior planning inspector. “The bill represents a significant centralisation of powers by government to micro-manage planning, without thinking through the consequences. It reads like a panicked reaction to current low housebuilding rates, and the fact that the government doesn’t trust anyone other than itself to do the job. It proves that localism is dead.”

By further diluting the planning system in the name of “cutting red tape”, the government has picked the wrong target once again: the problem isn’t with planning, but with developers sitting on land. DCLG figures show that planning permission was granted for 261,000 homes in the year ending March 2015 (against the need for at least 240,000 homes per year), but only 125,110 homes were actually built. Put simply, 136,000 more homes were consented through the local planning system than were built by house builders. And, as a recent Guardian investigation revealed, the UK’s biggest developers have a land bank big enough for 600,000 new homes. It might be an idea to get them to use it. Instead, this bill represents a wholesale power grab, transferring both housing assets and planning powers from public to private hands in a drunken festival of deregulation.”

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2016/jan/05/housing-and-planning-bill-power-grab-developers

Even Totnes has fallen to greedy developers – what hope for the rest of us?

“… Totnes has become a victim of the government’s 2012 relaxation of planning laws. The failure of South Hams District Council to produce a new Local Plan has given developers and landowners alike a loophole, through which they have swarmed, eager to build all around and over this popular historic town.

Landowners like the Duke of Somerset, or the ‘Dukes a Hazard’ as he’s known here, have made millions selling off their ancestral lands to developers like Linden Homes and Cavanna, who are in the process of building hundreds and hundreds of homes around Totnes, hundreds of identikit boxes. Sites like the misnamed ‘Camomile Lawn,’ where they have managed to water down the provision for affordable homes and have built enormous £850,000 executive villas on the banks of the Dart, 100 mixed houses, only eleven of which are deemed affordable. A year ago sheep peacefully grazed here.

They are cramming houses into any green space they can find between Totnes and the neighbouring villages of Dartington and Berry Pomeroy. There are plans to build on school fields, on wildlife corridors, over the assisted houses of elderly people. The last dairy farm in Totnes, a farm of 400 acres with a 4th generation tenant farmer attached, has been sold off by the Duke of Somerset to developers and the farmer pushed off his land. Despite all the protests, all the agonising by local people, the developers continue and they seem unstoppable. There’s talk of enlarging the road to Torbay, of building alongside it. This is all farmland. The only development the council managed to oppose was contested in court by Linden Homes and the council ended up having to pay both costs. Local people effectively therefore, had to pay to aid the developer in the destruction of their town.

In the 2011 general census Totnes had 8,056 inhabitants. The population has hardly grown since then and yet nearly 1,500 houses between here, Berry Pomeroy and Dartington have been granted or are in the process of being granted, planning permission. That could mean up to 4,000 new people, maybe more as many of these houses are 4 to 5 bed houses; this could result in the near doubling of the population. There has been little to no new infrastructure built alongside this mass development. The developers, Linden, Cavanna and Bloor have paid for a couple of roads to be tarmaced, a couple of new bicycle lanes extended, but no new car parks, no new doctors surgeries, no extension of the sewerage works, the schools are at capacity and traffic here throughout the year is appalling, it takes 40 minutes often to drive the couple of miles between Dartington and Totnes. All of these developments bar two are on greenfield sites.

Its an absolute disaster, the greed of a few to the detriment of the many. And they don’t even deal with the stated reason for it all – affordable housing for those on the housing lists. There was a housing problem before the mass developments started and there still is one. Prices are high in Totnes because of incomers money and the large amount of holiday homes here. Totnes and nearby Dartmouth and Salcombe are expensive because they are still beautiful and were spared the planning fiascoes of the 60’s which decimated towns like Paignton, Torquay, Newton Abbot and Plymouth, which is one of the poorest urban areas in Europe. The unspoilt towns and villages of the South Hams are where incomers and retirees want to live, where people want to visit, house prices are therefore higher. There is also a lack of rental property. It is more profitable for landlords to rent out their houses in the summer than rent them to local people, so many houses are left empty throughout the winter or have seasonal tenants only. This needs to be resolved, but this mass building on our farmland has not helped at all.

A large number of these new houses are being sold to second home owners or as buy to let properties. Investors have been buying the very few cheaper houses on offer and renting them out at the usual exorbitant prices. The most expensive of the new builds, the £850,000 villas on the Dart have gone as second homes according to a local estate agent . Unless they manage to get one of the few houses that offer shared ownership, then people in need can no more afford to buy the £250,000 new builds than they can buy the hundreds of houses for that price that are on the market already and which linger in estate agents windows for years. There are a great number of empty homes in Torbay and the South Hams. There isn’t a lack of houses here, it’s a lack of money that’s the problem and still is. In fact the new builds have made the situation much worse because they threaten our livelihoods as well.

Devon’s main asset is its countryside. We are lucky enough to have fertile, productive land, which is also beautiful enough to attract tourists. We have a profitable and growing food industry here, which is being hit hard by the loss of prime farmland. Land is at a premium and is being sold at very high cost; farmers are looking to sell to developers, knowing that if planning permission is sought, it is very likely to be granted by a council unable to cope. Although Mr Cavanna of Cavanna Housing describes the countryside as ‘empty land’, its anything but. This is where people live and work, this is where our food is grown and our wildlife lives. Once it has been built over it has gone for good, there is no reversal, prime farmland and wildlife corridors are being concreted over and are lost forever.

Tourism is also suffering; people come to see the rolling hills and bucolic villages of the Devon countryside, not enormous housing estates and choked roads. Visitors I talked to in the summer spoke of their dismay at the number of houses going up in AONB, that the problems with traffic and building would put them off coming back to Devon. People will lose their jobs – the B&Bs in the ancient villages, which are now being consumed by giant estates, talk of disappearing visitor numbers. Landowners are leaving the county with millions in their pockets for a nice retirement in the sun, while organisations like the National Trust and CPRE talk of a catastrophe. Devon is sinking and its all because of the government’s blind rush to build houses without giving local people a chance to direct and be involved in the development.

Totnes, being a place full of enterprising and creative people has tried to become involved. The old Dairy Crest site, which closed 8 years ago has been the focus of a community led development group. They have secured investment and have plans for truly affordable homes and an arts centre on the site, called Atmos. Its a very interesting, thoughtful project, but is totally overshadowed by the mass developments going on around it. Leading down from Atmos by the train station, there is a row of 3 story buildings planned by a developer and hardly in the spirit of Atmos. ‘It will look,’ says a local campaigner, ‘like you’re coming in to a redbrick London suburb.’

On the northern edge of Totnes, the largest landowner is Dartington Hall Trust. This is a charitable trust which was left their land for the good of the community to advance research in alternative education and agriculture. They have have found it just a little bit more profitable however, to sell to developers, offering a large amount of their green fields to the council for consideration The village attached to the estate polled a no confidence vote in the Trust last year and yet against all the wishes of their local populace and against the legacy of their trust they have refused to remove their land from consideration.

Dartington is interesting because the chairman of their property board, Tim Jones, also sits on the board of Devon’s LEP, an organisation set up by the government to promote business and enterprise in the South West. The board is given millions by the government to encourage development, much of which has gone to promoting house building. There’s talk of the LEP funding 11,000 new homes in Devon. On the board with Tim Jones, also sit CEOs of housing corporations, property managers, Devon county councillors and people with business interests in transport construction. There is concern amongst local people, who want questions answered. They also want questions asked of the council, who have failed to turn down any of the mass developments here. They reject self-builds and extensions because of ‘adverse impact on traffic’; but that doesn’t seem a problem when there are major builds at stake and the council gets paid a new house bonus on each house built. Questions should also be asked also of where this new house bonus goes. The council has it listed as revenue on its books and use expected revenue from house bonuses as a part of their predicted annual budget, even before the development goes before them for planning permission. Therefore it is in their interest, it seems, to pass them, however inappropriate and damaging they are.

Totnes is not alone. There are many, many other villages and towns facing the same problem not just in Devon, but across the country and its hard to see many positives. We are losing greenfield sites like never before, people are disenfranchised and ignored, our jobs and infrastructure are being adversely affected and it doesn’t seem to be slowing down. All you hear from the media and from parliament is the need to build, not the need to build well, or only to build where its actually needed. We need protection from this land grab, this profiteering.

The future for the Totnes of 2016 is a lot less rosy than it was just a couple of years ago when the Guardian wrote a piece called, ‘Totnes: Britain’s town of the future’, that all rings a little hollow now.”

https://allengeorgina.wordpress.com/2015/11/08/the-sad-fate-of-totnes/

Nine housebuilding companies are sitting on at least 615,000 agreed planning permissions

“Britain’s biggest housebuilders possess enough land to create more than 600,000 new homes, an analysis by the Guardian has found, raising questions about whether they are doing enough to solve the housing crisis facing Britain.

The nine housebuilders in the FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 hold 615,152 housing plots in their landbank, according to financial disclosures. This is four times the total number of homes built in Britain in the past year.

Berkeley, Barratt, Persimmon and Taylor Wimpey – the four biggest companies in the industry – account for more than 450,000 of the plots. They are also sitting on £947m of cash and declared or issued more than £1.5bn in payouts to shareholders in 2015.

Shelter said the figures showed how dysfunctional the housing market has become. Toby Lloyd, head of policy for the housing charity, said: “Developers do need a pipeline of future sites – but when housebuilding is still stubbornly low and landbanks are this large it is a signal of how dysfunctional our housebuilding system is….

… The land held by housebuilders includes sites they own and sites that they have an contractual option to build on. Some housebuilders do not publicly disclose all the land they control, meaning their total landbank could be even bigger. For example, Bellway does not report land that has not got planning permission for house construction, while Persimmon says it controls 18,000 acres of “strategic land” on top of more than 90,000 plots that already have planning permission.

http://gu.com/p/4fbdn