Category Archives: Planning System

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Planning System

Another building regulation dropped for developers

“The government must reverse its opposition to new building regulations that ensure homes, hospitals and schools do not overheat as the number of deadly heatwaves rises, according to its official climate change advisers.

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) recommended the new regulations in 2015 but ministers rejected the advice, citing a commitment to “reduce net regulation on homebuilders”. Without action, the number of people dying as a result of heat is expected to more than triple to 7,000 a year by 2040, the CCC warns in its annual report on the UK’s progress on tackling global warming. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/29/failure-to-update-building-regulations-could-triple-heatwave-deaths-by-2040

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, East Devon Alliance, EDDC, Planning System, Rural communities, Transparency, Woodbury

Greendale Business Park 120% expansion plan – battle for who really controls East Devon planning policy and an EDA councillor excluded from meetings about his own area.

document to support the already approved “East Devon Local Plan.”

The Owners proposal is approx. 120% more development beyond the present developed area. The various coloured outlines show the proposed
development areas.

 

“East Devon District Council recently asked local people about a planning

The Local Authorities proposal for Greendale Business Park. “No further expansion beyond the present permitted developments already permitted”

The Owners version published in a document called the “Greendale Masterplan” which is included in the published consultation documents.

This proposal, known as the “Villages Plan,” will provide planning guidance until 2031 for the larger villages in East Devon and two large industrial sites of Hill Barton and Greendale.

The Villages Plan is not yet approved but the owners FWS Carter and Sons have submitted a “masterplan” proposing a massive 120% expansion to their site. There is considerable local concern that further expansion at Greendale Business Park will now continue.

The company`s agents have submitted a multitude of documents to support their claim for continued expansion and in a bid to overcome possible objections have re-introduced a “liaison group” which they claim is:

“To provide better lines of communication and wider understanding”

A few years ago, following a great many complaints, contentious planning applications and planning appeals the owners of the Business Park were asked by the County Council to invite Planning, Environmental Officers and locally elected representatives to form a liaison group.

This was a success for a few years, but was disbanded by the management 18 months ago, however they held a liaison meeting on Wednesday June 21st at their offices.

There is local concern over who the owners invited to attend.

There was no invitation for members of the Residents Association, Woodbury Parish Council were restricted by the company who named two Councillors they wished to attend. Most controversially the “Terms of Reference” was changed by removing the word “Local” from “Local Elected Member of the District Council” and the invitation was sent to Conservative Budleigh Town and District Councillor Tom Wright but not the current ward member.

The local ward Councillor Geoff Jung (EDA Independent) who is also the secretary of the Residents Association and a Parish Councillor says:
“This is not the normal practice for a “Liaison Group”, but the company has the right to invite whoever they wish to these meetings.”

“It`s totally “legal” but it`s certainly not democratic, I am unable to represent people as a member of Residents Association, nor as a Parish Councillor, nor as a District Councillor”. “I now have the most bizarre situation that I must direct residents with local concerns to the new Chair of this Liaison Group, Conservative Exmouth Town and recently elected Local County Councillor Mr Richard Scott.”

“It`s standard practice that a District Councillor represents his own ward at Liaison meetings and this requires the approval of the District Council. Cllr Wright has ignored this protocol and attended but, I am very pleased to hear that planning officers from the District Council will not attend the meetings until my inclusion is agreed.”

“There are serious local concerns regarding the recently submitted “Greendale Masterplan” and I suspect that the re-introduction of this Local Liaison Group is to do with these expansionist plans”

The Planning History.

Thirty years ago, the business park was a farm with some agricultural buildings which the owners claimed to be “redundant for farming use” They were given permission to be converted to Industrial units. More agricultural buildings were built and again allowed to become Industrial. Many of planning applications were “retrospective” (Built or converted prior to Planning Permission being submitted.

In 2009 the Business Park was permitted to enlarge to its present size as an “Exception Site to the then Local Plan” This was because the East Devon Business Forum (chaired by disgraced Conservative Councillor Graham Brown who boasted to a daily Telegraph “sting” reporter that he could provide approval for planning for a fee). The Forum claimed there was an acute lack of Industrial land available within the district.

Steadily the owners have built a very large Business Park in the open Countryside which was never the local planning authorities policy.
The residents of the rural village of Woodbury Salterton consider that any further expansion will destroy their beautiful village set in the open countryside, and for the last 10 years have campaigned for better planning protection.

The Local Authority with their recently approved Local Plan decided on the location for housing and commercial land, and agreeing with the village residents that further expansion of Greendale Business Park would not be appropriate or suitable.

The Local Plan is a blueprint for district planning until 2031 and includes policies for commercial and industrial developments to be built close to urban settlements. Substantial commercial opportunities exist at Cranbrook, Exeter Airport and on land known as the West End (on the outskirts of Exeter). This is to follow the Government`s planning policy that people should not be required to commute far from their homes to a place of work.
The village community, through their Residents Association, their Parish, District and County Councillors have strived for a sensible balance of development and the proposals included in the Local Plan and the emerging Village Plan are a direct result of 10 years of hard work of campaigning and lobbying.

Councillor Geoff Jung says:

“The decisions for both the Local Plan and the Villages Plan were decided democratically and agreed by full Council and by a Government Planning Inspector. The owners of Greendale must not be allowed to bulldoze further and further into the countryside.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Planning System

EDDC’s reputation on planning described as “disaster area”

Express and Echo interview online with editor Patrick Phelvin had a brief mention of the reputation of East Devon (about 5 minutes into the interview on the video embedded within the article)

“being an absolute disaster area on matters like planning”

http://www.devonlive.com/east-devon-mp-hugo-swire/story-30382446-detail/story.html

And, no, he hadn’t contacted Owl when he said it!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Developers/ Development, Planning System

Grenfell Tower: an architect’s view on the (avoidable) tragedy

“Building control departments in councils have been left toothless and eviscerated while the authority of fire officers and architects has been weakened in favour of profit. Look where that has got us.

I am an architect in private practice with considerable experience in the design and delivery of a range of buildings in London, including high-rise residential buildings. The terrible Grenfell Tower fire in North Kensington was entirely avoidable.

It was not an act of God, but the tragic outcome of a growing void in the responsibility, expertise and single oversight of large construction projects. This has largely come about due to the breaking up of what I would call the triple safety lock around project delivery.

The first is:

building control, ensuring that increasingly complex building regulations are properly implemented. Building control departments in many local authorities have been eviscerated. They are invariably under-resourced with no teeth. Often a subset of planning departments, they lack the authority to carry out what is arguably the most important part of a local authority’s remit – to ensure the safety of its residents.

Furthermore this function has been partly privatised, with a range of companies competing for the business. It is often those companies with a reputation for gaining “easy” approvals that increasingly dominate the market, further undercutting the council building control.

The morale among many council building control officers is extremely low. I completed a small complex project in an inner London borough last year. The council building control officer I worked with was excellent, but told me that he could not cope with his workload, and was unhappy with the way the department was run. He has since left the council.

Second:

Fire officers play a crucial role in ensuring that all fire regulations are met, and devising a fire strategy for a project. Building control acts as a conduit to local fire departments to assess that all fire regulations have been met, as well as bringing their own experience to bear.

In early 2007 I was working on a large refurbishment project in the West End. We were informed by the fire officer who was reviewing the project with us that in the near future fire officers would no longer play an active role.

A new form of self-certification was to be introduced, with the onus on the developer/owner to ensure a project met all fire regulations. This took no cognisance of the fact that different buildings could have very different fire requirements. The fire officer looked me straight in the eyes and told me that in his opinion this was a recipe for disaster.

The third part of the triple lock:

Is to ensure that all materials used in a building are fit for purpose – obviously particularly important in the case of fire safety. In the past, architects have specified construction materials and have then been in a position to ensure that the specified materials were used. This is increasingly not the case as performance specifications enable alternative materials to be used, often selected by the developer, contractor or sub-contractors.

With architects now seldom having the authority to insist on specific products being used, there is a tendency to go for cheaper materials, without necessarily understanding the impact or potential knock-on effect.

Public safety should not be privatised. Putting a monetary value on human lives is unacceptable. The triple lock should be recognised and strengthened.

Bring back building control to its rightful place in local authorities, working independently of the planning function and the private sector. Bring back fire officers working closely with council building control to scrutinise proposals and carry out proper inspections on all projects. Bring back the specification of materials to a single point of responsibility under the architect or engineer responsible for the specification of materials, working with the building control officer and fire officer.

Allow the experts to do what they know best without interference from politicians or those who tend to take shortcuts or the cheapest option. Look where that has got us.

Deon Lombard has a private architecture practice.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Jun 2017

Posted under

Environment (local), Planning System, Rural communities, Tourism

“Rural tourism worth more than farming”

“TOURISM generates more revenue and provides more employment for the rural sector than farming, delegates at a recent seminar were told.

John Hoy, head of rural at consultants Bidwells, was speaking at the firm’s latest event, which was themed around the wealth of diversification opportunities available to the rural sector.

Whether it is glamping, holiday lets, sporting events, filming, wedding venues, concerts or even hosting festivals, the tourism sector offers an array of profitable opportunities, he said.

And tourism is set to play an even more important role in the rural sector in a post-Brexit environment especially if it is incorporated into any replacement scheme for CAP.

Mr Hoy said: “The value of tourism for the rural sector is very poorly understood.

“If we look for example at the numbers around tourism and agriculture there are 365m trips to rural destinations each year, generating £18.6bn for the rural economy and providing 340,000 full-time jobs.

“So tourism actually generates more revenue and provides more employment for the rural sector than farming, which might surprise many who work in this industry.

“It is therefore really important that the linkages between farming, the environment and our unique landscape is recognised in how the CAP is reformed going forward.”

Mr Hoy was the chief executive of Blenheim Palace for 14 years, before he joined Bidwells in January.

During the presentation, he talked through the potential key areas that must be addressed in order to ensure that the tourism industry continues to thrive post-Brexit.

These include reinstating tourism planning guidance, developing a skilled workforce, reducing red tape and improving public transport.
The rural industry must look at innovative new ways to generate income in a post-Brexit environment – and the returns could be very rewarding, said Mr Hoy.

Britain’s events industry alone is worth over £41bn to the economy through direct visitor spend, he told the audience.

Mr Hoy also gave guidance on some of the do’s and don’ts when hosting events and highlighted the additional incomes which they can provide.

“There are huge opportunities in all of these areas and the rural sector needs to look creatively in the post-Brexit market that we are in,” he said.
“It needs to be more entrepreneurial, find other things to do and discover just what opportunities are out there.”

http://www.rsnonline.org.uk/business/rural-tourism-worth-more-than-farming

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Jun 2017

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Planning System

“CPRE: Give councils cash to build homes and stop developers playing the system”

Difficult times as the recent housing minister Brandon Lewis (author of a book on how to win marginal seats) yesterday lost his marginal seat.

“The next government must give councils cash to build homes and stop developers using the planning system to get out of building affordable homes, a rural charity has said.

A report from the Campaign To Protect Rural England said homebuilders are using ‘viability assessments’ to force through developments with minimal affordable housing.

This way developers can increase their profits, the CPRE pointed out. The organisation said developers are “gaming” the planning system, which allows them to draw up an assessment to show a development is no longer financially viable with the number of required affordable homes.

Local authorities grant planning permission to applications on the condition that a certain number of affordable homes are built but these can be overturned by a viability assessment study.

Many councils’ targets of achieving 35 to 40% affordable homes per development are being routinely missed because of this, the report out on Tuesday stated.

Paul Miner, planning campaign manager at CPRE: “If we don’t change things this will just get worse.

“The next government must reduce the power of these viability studies, stop highly profitable developers gaming the system and give councils the hard cash to start building houses again.”

Miner said you have to “look at those developers who continually use shady tactics to renege on promises to build affordable homes and new community infrastructure”.

“These are often the promises that win them permission in the first place.”

This is affecting the number of homes built in rural areas, the CPRE said.

In 2011-12, 35% of homes built were affordable in rural areas. This has dropped to just 16% in 2015/16 – a year in which Department for Communities and Local Government figures show councils built only 1,890 homes across the country.

CPRE’s research also shows that five of the 15 most unaffordable districts outside London have met their most recent lowest affordable housing target.

Andrew Whitaker, planning director at the Home Builders Federation, said: “The private sector currently provides around 40% of all affordable homes built in this country via cross subsidy from private sales.

“Local authorities should ensure they do not set unrealistic affordable housing targets which prevent developments from coming forward at all.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/06/cpre-give-councils-cash-build-homes-and-stop-developers-playing-system

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Jun 2017

Posted under

Developers/ Development, EDDC, Flooding, Planning System

“Nine tenths of England’s floodplains not fit for purpose, study finds”

With EDDC allowing building on flood plains all over the district – a timely warning:

“Only a tenth of England’s extensive floodplains are now fit for purpose – 90% no longer function properly – with the shortfall putting an increasing number of homes and businesses at risk of flooding, according to a new report.

Floods are more likely due to climate change and will claim higher economic costs unless action is taken to halt the damage to floodplains and restore some of their functions, warned the authors of the 12-month study – the first to paint a comprehensive view of England’s floodplains and their capabilities.

“We have ignored our floodplains,” said George Heritage of Salford University, co-author of the study the Changing Face of Floodplains, published by Co-Op Insurance on Thursday. “The changes to them mean water [from heavy rainfall] can flow much faster downstream, and can flow at the same speed as the water in the rivers.”

This accelerated flow has led to sudden and unstoppable deluges in recent years. For instance, Storm Desmond in 2015 affected more than 6,000 homes as rivers and streams burst their banks and spread water over floodplains. As these natural floodplains had been altered by man-made features, they no longer had the ability to store water, leading to rapid flows into urban areas which led to the devastation.

Storm Desmond caused more than £500m in damages, and misery for families excluded from their homes sometimes for months. The UK’s flooding bills are on the rise, with scientists warning of rocketing numbers of cloudbursts and periods of sudden and intense rainfall as climate change takes effect.

Floodplains act as natural “sponges”, soaking up excess water in their vegetation, forming natural buffers that hold back or divert rushing water after rain, and providing areas where rivers can breach their banks and wetlands can be replenished.

Intensive agriculture, increasing urbanisation, poor management of rivers and the draining of wetlands have left the vast majority of these natural features – many previously preserved for centuries by communities who understood their value – unable to fulfil these valuable functions, with some close to collapse.

Building on floodplains has been singled out for years as a key problem, but perhaps surprisingly was found to contribute only about a tenth of the damage in the study. Far greater is intensive farming, which has created artificially “smooth” and uniform landscapes, with hedgerows removed, large areas given over to single crops, wetlands drained and woods and grassland diminished. Farming accounts for nearly two-thirds of the loss of functioning floodplains, according to the study.

Natural floodplains cover about 5% of England, from upland areas and tablelands to low-lying marshes, such as the Somerset levels and the East Anglian fens. Once they were used for grazing for parts of the year, or left uncultivated. However, the exploitation of such areas accelerated in the middle of the last century, when wetlands were drained, hedgerows grubbed up and small farms gave way to bigger farming enterprises.

Today, the report found, 90% of England’s floodplains no longer function properly, with 65% modified by agriculture “meaning they’re now man-made, smoother surfaces”; 9% lost to urban and suburban building developments; 4% are now occupied by open water and 6% by semi-natural woodland and rough grassland; and only 0.5% is now natural or semi-natural wetland.

“It would be almost impossible to return the altered areas to their original state,” noted Heritage. “But it is possible to work with farmers to introduce features that would allow them to function better. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/01/englands-90-floodplains-not-fit-for-purpose-study-finds?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Environment (local), Planning System, Public Open Space

Comments

1 Comment

Cranbrook “country park” to go to public inquiry

Basically, developers want to skimp, and EDDC has no other way open to attempt to thwart their stinginess.

Don’t hold your breath for a good result in the current political and developer-led situation.

http://www.devonlive.com/public-inquiry-to-be-held-of-plans-for-countryside-park-in-cranbrook/story-30348970-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Planning System

New estate in Bristol could be (should be?) demolished

“Developers UKS Group were given permission to build 13 three-bed houses and one two-bed house off the A38 in Highridge, Bristol. But locals say they have actually built 13 four-beds and one three-bed.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4510530/Bristol-s-new-multi-million-estate-demolished.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, AONB, EDDC, NPPF, Planning System

Councils ‘ignore powers to limit building on green belt’

“Communities face a postcode lottery over how much of their countryside is blighted by new homes because some councils fail to use powers to protect it, research has found.

Some local authorities choose to protect their green belts but others accept much higher housing targets and allow developers to build on environmentally valuable land.

The different approaches mean some areas are being earmarked to have thousands more homes than necessary, according to research by the Campaign to Protect Rural England.

Councils are planning more than 360,000 homes on England’s 14 green belts, which are rings of protected land designed to prevent urban sprawl.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), introduced in 2012, requires all councils to determine their “objectively assessed need” (OAN) for housing, which is the number of new homes required to meet market demand and social need.

Councils do not have to accept the targets produced by the assessment if they have large amounts of green belt or other protected land, such as national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and nature sites.
Brighton and Hove council has set a target of 13,200 homes by 2030, less than half the 30,120 determined by its OAN. In its local plan it said it cut the number “to respect the historic, built and natural environment of the city”.

Watford, Hastings and Crawley have also set housing targets of only half their assessed need.

By contrast, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, which includes the prime minister’s constituency, is planning to meet its full OAN of 14,200 homes by 2033 despite 83 per cent of the borough being green belt.
Simon Dudley, the leader of Windsor and Maidenhead council, is strongly supporting housebuilding in the borough, including 6,000 homes in the green belt. He has been accused of sacking a fellow Conservative councillor who questioned the plans.

Mr Dudley has previously said that his plans would only reduce his borough’s green-belt land by 1.7 per cent.

Christchurch and East Dorset is also planning to meet its full OAN of 8,490 houses over 15 years, despite 84 per cent of the area being green belt, an area of natural beauty or other protected land.

Paul Miner, the CPRE’s planning campaign manager, said that there was a postcode lottery on housing targets.

He said: “Councils have got scope to reduce their housing numbers but some are not doing so. Reasons include pressure from developers and also the political leadership of the council seeing an opportunity to make quick money from the new homes bonus.”

The government has promised to pay councils a new homes bonus, typically worth £9,000, for each home they build.

The planning framework states that there needs to be “exceptional circumstances” to amend green-belt boundaries. Elmbridge borough council, in Surrey, wrote to Sajid Javid, the communities secretary, asking him to define exceptional circumstances.

In his reply, seen by The Times, dated March 20, Mr Javid said that green-belt losses would have to be offset by improvements to remaining green-belt land, but added: “We would be disinclined to go even further into listing what might be considered an exceptional circumstance.”

Source: The Times (paywall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Colyton, Councillor Helen Parr, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Local Plan, Planning System, Seaton/ Colyford / Colyton, Transparency, Voting

Comments

2 Comments

Express and Echo names EDDC Vice-Chair Helen Parr as councillor under police investigation at Colyton

Councillor Parr is standing for the DCC Seaton and Colyton seat at elections tomorrow.

“The vice-chairman of East Devon District Council is under investigation over an allegation she influenced plans to develop her area while failing to declare an interest.

Councillor Helen Parr will be speaking to police officers on a voluntary basis, the Express & Echo understands.

The investigation into the councillor for Coly Valley regards late changes to the East Devon Villages plan made after she was among those who spoke at the meeting of the East Devon District Council strategic planning committee on February 20.

Cllr Parr is a director of a company which owns land next to the former Ceramtec factory site in Colyton. The factory was due to be slated for housing until Cllr Parr spoke at the planning meeting and it was decided to recommend that it remains for employment.

She told the committee: “The main concern and why people are not at all happy about what is proposed in the document is that the built up area boundary line now has suddenly, after the consultation, gone out round the built section of the Ceramtec site.

“It is a very large site and will accommodate, if it went only to houses, about 80 houses. It would be a large development for Colyton which nobody, until now, had any inkling of, in that the built-up area boundary excluded this site.

“There is concern because the bottom line for Colyton is that we lost 80 jobs when this factory closed and we would like to retained as much as possible for employment land.

“I would ask the committee to agree or to propose that the wording should make it clear that on the preamble to the plan that on page 20 it includes words that show that this is protected as an employment site and it should be retained for employment use.”

The East Devon Alliance – a group of independent district councillors – has raised concerns about Cllr Parr’s conduct with Devon & Cornwall Police.

Members say she should have declared and interest and not spoken on the issue.

Cllr Parr and her husband are directors of J & FJ Baker & Company Limited, which owns land at Turlings Farm, next to the Ceramtec site.

East Devon Alliance Councillor Cathy Gardner, at last week’s East Devon District Council meeting, revealed that there was an ongoing police investigation into the council’s handling of the matter.

A spokesperson for Devon & Cornwall Police said it could not confirm or deny the scope of the police investigation. Cllr Parr was asked for comment, but said that due to purdah – rules brought in before an election – she could not say anything.

Last year J & FJ Baker & Company Limited bought land on the south side of Turlings Farm which connects the Ceramtec site to the farm that the Parrs own. They paid £1 for the strip of property.

Cllr Gardner said at last week’s meeting of East Devon District Council: “It may be proven that undue influence has distorted the content of the plan. If that does turn out to be the case, do you agree that it is the responsibility of this council to rectify the result of this influence – in order to ensure the residents of Colyton are not adversely affected and to do so before the plan goes to the (Planning) Inspector?”

In response, Cllr Paul Diviani, the council’s leader, said: “In terms of the village plan, I can’t see a reason why we should be inclined to second guess what an inspector or other authority or otherwise is going to do and in that respect I will reserve judgement as to when we actually do take action.”

An East Devon Alliance source told the Echo: “She is the vice-chairman of the council and has been the chairman of the planning committee for years, so she knows what she is doing, so we have got to pursue this.”

An East Devon District Council spokesman said: “Only the three statutory officers at the council together with one other officer were aware that there was a police investigation prior to the meeting of council on Wednesday and these officers have kept the matter confidential.

“Given that there is an active police investigation, and the sensitivities around purdah for both the county and General Election, it would be wholly inappropriate for the council to comment on the investigation at this time. The council also cannot comment on how Cllr Gardner became aware of the police investigation, and the chief executive and monitoring officer were surprised that she raised this matter at a public meeting.

“The process that has been followed for the village plan and the representations made/considered by officers and reported to the strategic planning committee, can be found on the East Devon District Council website.”

The East Devon Villages Plan – a blueprint for development in the area – is currently out for consultation”.

REPRODUCEABLE IMAGES:

UNFORTUNATELY SOME IMAGES IN THIS ARTICLE ARE NOT REPRODUCEABLE HERE – SEE LINK TO FULL ARTICLE AT END OF THIS POST WHICH IS REPEATED VERBATIM FROM THE DEVON-LIVE WEBSITE. FOR FULL STORY AND ALL EVIDENTIAL IMAGES SEE:

http://www.devonlive.com/east-devon-council-vice-chairman-to-speak-to-police-over-plan-changes/story-30310460-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Colyton, EDDC, Independent Councillors, Planning System, Scrutiny, Spin

Midweek Herald manages 2 sentences on Colyton Village Plan story that took half a page in Western Morning News!

No boat-rocking investigative journalism here! Actually, no journalism at all! See if you can spot it:

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Planning System

“Planning chief faces prison for illegal changes to home”

“A senior Conservative councillor is facing jail for illegally altering her grade II listed 14th-century cottage that was featured on the Channel 4 show Double Your House for Half the Money.

The £830,000 property was held up as a good example of how to renovate an old house. But Barby Dashwood-Morris, 70, had failed to get planning permission from Wealden district council, despite serving as chairwoman of the planning committee.

At Brighton magistrates’ court she admitted six of 22 charges of executing the demolition or alteration of a building affecting its listed character, including removing a barley twist banister and rail and replacing them with a glass panel and new handrail. Some of the alterations to the cottage in the East Sussex village of Hellingly were alleged to have been carried out while she was chairwoman of the committee. The alterations came to light when prospective buyers ordered a survey.

Dashwood-Morris said on the TV show it was “an example of how to turn an ancient Sussex hall into a home that meets all the comforts of modern living”.

She was bailed until a hearing later this month.”

Source: The Times (paywall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Apr 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Community Infrastructure Levy, Developers/ Development, Planning System

Council development gain mechanism flawed says RTPI

“The methods used to capture development gain for local communities are inadequate, the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) has said.
It has commissioned research to see how the section106 and community infrastructure levy (CIL) regimes compare to alternatives used abroad to capture the uplift in land value resulting from planning permission or public investment on or near a piece of land.

CIL was found ineffective by a working group that reported to ministers in February.

The RTPI’s project will compare the current mechanisms with a simple tariff mechanism and two variants of the impact fee approach used in North America.
Each approach’s ability to raise money, and its attractiveness and ease of implementation will be tested via interviews with planners, planning consultants, lawyers, valuers and developers.

RTPI president Stephen Wilkinson said: “Infrastructure is critical to housing delivery and economic growth. At a time when public finance is squeezed we have to look at new funding models to ensure infrastructure can be built at the speed and scale we need.

“We are missing a trick by not accessing the vast potential of rising land values which currently go directly to landowners. Rising land values are a reasonable place to look for infrastructure funding and international evidence suggests there are fairer, more effective ways of sharing this gain.”

He said the present methods successfully clawed back some uplift but did not allow “local authorities to be proactive by using rising land values to fund land assembly and deliver housing”.

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30817%3Amethods-for-capturing-development-gain-qinadequateq-says-rtpi&catid=63&Itemid=31

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

8 Apr 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Environment (local), Greater Exeter, Inequality, Infrastructure, Land banking, Land Supply, Local Enterprise Partnership, Planning System, Sustainability

“Greater Exeter Strategic Plan”: are we already shafted?

Time is running out to comment on the “Greater Exeter Strategic Plan” initial consultation on “Issues”. Comments must be in by

10 April 2017

and the document is here:

https://www.gesp.org.uk/consultations/issues/

and the full (12 page) document is here:

Click to access Greater-Exeter-Strategic-Plan-proof-v14.pdf

Owl thinks that there is precious little in the document that points either to a strategy or a plan! There are, however, many issues not covered such as:

– inequality ( how are the “just managing”, the “barely managing” and the “not managing at all going to access Greater Exeter’s resources (housing, transport, infrastructure, environment, health care, education) none of which is geared to them – only to the “managing very nicely thank you and ready to trade up to a bigger property or luxury retirement village” group

– the effect of Brexit, labour and skills shortages on the much-vaunted “economic growth”

– landbanking and housing supply – how they undermine all strategic planning projects

Owl also thinks this “plan” is shutting the door well after several horses have bolted, as already in the pipeline are massive developments planned to circle the city:

– west of Exeter: the 5,000-plus houses planned for “Culm Village” (Mid Devon)
– north/east of Exeter: the more than doubling in size of Cranbrook (East Devon) and the connected developments at Tithebarn Green, Pinn Brook Pinhoe and Monkerton (East Devon and Exeter City)
– south of Exeter: the massive development of Alphington and similar plans for doubling the size of Newton Abbott
– not to mention city developments such as St James’s Park and the thousands of student units in the city centre
– Local Enterprise Partnership plans to build extra houses just about everywhere else

Can anyone tell Owl which bits of “Greater Exeter” are left to consult on?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Mar 2017

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Planning System

“The government lacks the political will to fix the broken [housing] market

“If the price of milk had risen in line with average house prices over the past 40 years, consumers would now be shelling out more than £10 for a four-pint carton: a sobering reminder of just how broken Britain’s housing market is. With price increases like these, it is little surprise the number of first-time buyers relying on family loans is now at a historic high, according to new research from the Social Mobility Commission: one in three rely on family help, and the proportion of 25- to 29-year-olds who own their home has almost halved since 1990.

A world where a growing proportion of young people can only afford to buy a home with family support makes a mockery of equal opportunity. Home ownership matters in Britain: yes, as oft remarked, it is a cultural aspiration; but one that is underpinned by rational financial interests. Home ownership provides a stability and financial security simply unavailable to those who rent, thanks to house price growth that benefits owners but drives up rents, and our very weak framework of tenants’ rights.

The success of government attempts to improve housing policy should be judged by a simple indicator: price. For decades, governments have rolled out policies aimed at improving affordability and helping people to get on the ladder, but at the same time long-term house price growth has far outpaced any increase in wages. What’s gone wrong?

The biggest problem is a land market that serves landowners and developers at the expense of buyers. Land is a fixed commodity and a public good: its sale should be highly regulated. Yet our planning system delivers huge windfall gains to landowners in areas of high demand: giving agricultural land residential planning status increases its value on average by a factor of 328. Landowners sell to developers offering the highest price, who maximise profit by slowly releasing houses on to the market to fuel further price growth, skimping on build quality and affordable housing.

This is a distortion relatively easily fixed. As Shelter has argued, local authorities and public development corporations should be given the power to buy undeveloped land based on its existing value: a power widely used across much of Europe. They could then sell land on to developers who commit to building affordable housing of better quality for quick release. This should be accompanied by tax reform – council tax is a hugely regressive property tax based on property values from 1990 – and stronger rights for tenants in the private rented sector, including caps on rent rises and longer-term minimum tenancies of at least five years.

This package of reforms would slow house price growth while increasing security for renters. But it is one the government shied away from in its recent white paper: it took only the most tentative of steps towards land market reform and improving tenants’ rights. Instead it has lifted regulations on minimum home sizes, paving the way for a flurry of tiny “rabbit hutch” homes to come on to the market. It is focusing the bulk of its political capital on deregulatory planning reforms, unlikely to have much impact given that planning permission has already been granted for almost half a million homes yet to be built.

The problem is not a lack of solutions, but a lack of political will. This is an area where ministers fear their own success. What government truly wants to preside over years of flatlining house prices at the expense of relatively affluent homeowners in the south-east? Almost 10 years after the financial crisis, economic growth remains too fuelled by the consumer debt enabled by rising house prices, and too little by long-term investment. And so the charade continues: politicians tout over-ambitious house building targets while tinkering at the margins, avoiding the market intervention needed to truly put a brake on price growth. It is young people without family wealth who will pay the price.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/27/the-guardian-view-on-house-prices-the-government-lacks-the-political-will-to-fix-the-broken-market

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Mar 2017

Posted under

DCLG, Democracy, Developers/ Development, Neighbourhood Plans, Planning System

MP criticises his own government on neighbourhood plan hypocrisy

“Responding to the decision by the Secretary of State on Thursday (16 March) to allow up to 97 houses at Hassocks, in contravention of the village’s emerging neighbourhood plan, Arundel & South Downs MP Nick Herbert said:

“I am dismayed by the Government’s decision, which actually admits that it will erode local confidence in neighbourhood planning, and I simply cannot reconcile it with what I was told in December when Ministers agreed to give more protection to neighbourhood plans.

“While the Government rightly wants to see more housing, they are now undermining the very policy of neighbourhood planning which they championed and which has delivered more homes than expected.

“Until the Government decides to protect neighbourhood plans properly, communities will see little point in going ahead with them. Ministers had better decide whether they want neighbourhood planning or not.

“The Government cannot go on encouraging volunteers in local communities to invest time and money in neighbourhood plans, going to all the trouble of holding a local referendum, if their plans are then torn up in front of their eyes.”

http://www.nickherbert.com/news.php/767/mp-government-is-undermining-its-own-policy-of-neighbourhood-planning

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Mar 2017

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, COVOP, DCLG, Developers/ Development, Planning System

National planning campaigners month of action

“A national group representing community groups throughout England launches its “Month of Action” in April with a big rally in Manchester on April 1st.

CoVoP, which represents more than 100 campaigning groups, was formed to protect green spaces perceived to be under threat throughout the country.
Last year CoVoP members held a “Day of Action” but this year April has been designated the “Month of Action”.

Affiliated groups throughout England will be participating in various activities and the launch event on April 1st will be in Manchester. It is expected that thousands will attend a rally organised by the Save Greater Manchester Greenbelt alliance.

Cheryl Tyler, Chairman of Community Voice on Planning (CoVoP), attacked the long-awaited white paper, “Fixing Our Broken Housing Market” as short on detail and soft on developers.

“It is very disappointing that having waited so long for a sensible document this falls far short of our hoped-for expectations. It does not address the fundamental issues people up and down the country are experiencing, leaving them vulnerable to unscrupulous developers”. She added that “members are extremely frustrated” by the lack of understanding of the concerns of communities”.

These issues include:

• Local Plans failing to take into account empty properties sometimes abandoned for years that could be put back into use.
• Permissions being granted on appeal for greenfield sites outside of local plans
• Not doing enough for urban regeneration but allowing green fields and the greenbelt to be developed preferentially.

Cheryl Tyler says “The government must listen to the voice of the people and realise that the National Planning Policy Framework requires urgent reform to rebalance the needs of communities and the interests of developers”.

For more information about CoVoP: http://www.covop.org”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Mar 2017

Posted under

Art and Culture, Developers/ Development, NPPF, Planning System

Comments

1 Comment

Planning permission rescinded in Birmingham before threatened judicial review

“Birmingham City Council is to revoke planning permission for a supermarket after admitting it made an error and facing a threatened judicial review.

The dispute over a proposed Lidl store at Stirchley saw a local group gain pro bono help from the Environmental Law Foundation to pursue the case.

Birmingham’s assistant director for planning and regeneration Ian MacLeod said: “A planning application to redevelop the Fitness First gym and Stirchley Ten Pin Bowling site for a food store was made by Lidl in 2016.

The application was presented to the planning committee in December, when it decided to grant planning permission for the new store, subject to the completion of a legal agreement securing funding for local environmental/public realm improvements. The planning permission was issued last month.

“A legal challenge has been mounted against the council’s decision, based around the application of planning policy with respect to sporting/leisure facilities.

“Regrettably, the council accepts that a mistake was made and so the challenge has strong merit and it will not resist the claim. As such, the planning consent will be revoked shortly and it is anticipated that the council will re-consider the application in due course, including returning to the planning committee for a new decision.”

Local campaigners had objected to the loss of the gym and bowling facilities, saying the nearest alternatives were some four miles away. They also said more than 670 jobs would be lost and traffic problems would result from the store’s presence.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30474%3Acouncil-rescinds-planning-permission-following-procedural-mistake&catid=63&Itemid=31