Category Archives: Planning System

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Cranbrook, Developers/ Development, Greater Exeter, NPPF, Paul Diviani, Planning System, Sustainability, Transparency

“New Cranbrook” and creeping unitisation worry Greater Exeter councillors

Owl says: Read with the post below Owl thinks there will be more than one “New Cranbrook” in the Greater Exeter area!

“Consultation events held in Devon this week shed light on the creation of a major strategic blueprint, which could lead to new settlements on the same scale as Cranbrook.

Mid Devon, East Devon, Teignbridge and Exeter City Council, in partnership with Devon County Council, are teaming up to create a Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP) which focuses on the creation of jobs and housing until 2040.

Hundreds visited Exeter’s Guildhall today to see early Greater Exeter plans between 2pm and 8pm. Similar consultations were held at Phoenix House, Tiverton yesterday and at Mackarness Hall, Honiton on Wednesday, March 8.

Andrew Robbins, city development manager for Exeter, said: “We need to provide more houses for the population and more jobs. What we’re looking to do is plan for the next 20 years, with Exeter City Council working with its neighbours because we see the influence of Exeter outside its boundaries. We’re looking at the best places for new housing and the best places for new jobs.

“For example, the new settlement at Cranbrook has been developed in recent years. One of the things we’re thinking of is ‘do we need another settlement outside of the city.'”

“What we want to do is get people involved in the process at what we call the issues stage. This is the absolute beginning of the process and its asking people for their ideas for how they see the region developing, before consulting on a draft plan at the beginning of 2018.”

Cllr Jeremy Christophers, Leader of Teignbridge said: “The creation of a strategic plan across a wider geography responds to how people actually live their lives. Combining housing options with job opportunities and providing the proper transport will support our ambition for local people to live the lives they wish for. As councils, we need to work together to deliver better results for the future – clearly, this is the way forward.”

Cllr Paul Diviani, Leader of East Devon said: “It has been clear for some time that there was a significant gap left with the demise of the Devon Structure Plan and without wishing to re-invent the wheel, we should be establishing a strategic plan for our Greater Exeter area which has input from Exeter, Mid Devon, Teignbridge and ourselves, alongside the County Council. We are the epi-centre of the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership and we need to ensure we have a central, aligned, significant role to play as we take our well-established partnership forward.”

Cllr Pete Edwards, Leader of Exeter City said: “Every weekday 37,000 people commute into Exeter and 11,000 people head out of Exeter. These volumes are second only to Cambridge and it is imperative that we address housing, transport and infrastructure in a joined-up way to respond to this reality.”

Cllr Clive Eginton, Leader of Mid Devon, said: “This is an excellent opportunity to reflect on how our residents and businesses live their lives across council administrative boundaries and to start embedding our shared aspiration for a successful future in plans for the Greater Exeter area.”

Cllr John Hart, Leader of Devon County Council, said: “The emerging relationship between the four local authorities in preparing a single Strategic Plan for the area is a very positive step and will help the planning system to work efficiently to boost the supply of housing and growth required. We are pleased and well-placed to be part of this collaborative way of working, which will improve and streamline our planning system.”

However the plans have raised fears that councils are “sleepwalking” into becoming unitary authorities. Liberal Councillor Jenny Roach who represents Silverton expressed fears that Mid Devon District Council would be ceding powers.

She said: “We’re looking like we could be ceding power to this planning partnership, and I know people will shake their heads and say no, but there are several points which worry me.

“Exeter needs land and you can imagine where I sit in my ward, Exeter City Council could be looking at developing the swathe of land that is between Silverton and Exeter and similarly between Thorverton and Newton St Cyres. If you look at the East Devon side there are huge estates marching across that land, so this worries me.

“It worries me that it’s being done by degree and almost by stealth. When we went to the public to talk about the sort of governance the district wanted, they didn’t like the cabinet, but unfortunately we didn’t get the 3000 signatures we needed in that period of time.

“There are a tremendous amount of people who were not happy with the governance of this authority as it is now, they don’t like the cabinet system, and it is the cabinet system that is sleepwalking us into a unitary authority. I’ve seen this happen before and I would really like to know that the very least we would do is have a state of the district debate on this Greater Strategic Exeter Plan.”

An online consultation form can be found at http://www.gesp.org.uk/issues”

http://www.devonlive.com/greater-exeter-plan-could-lead-to-a-new-cranbrook/story-30209261-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Mar 2017

Posted under

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

“UK government woos world’s housebuilders”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Mar 2017

Posted under

Developers/ Development, Neighbourhood Plans, Planning System, Scrutiny, Transparency

When planning goes horribly wrong

“The family of a businessman who helped shape the future of development in South Devon are set to make hundreds of thousands of pounds after a plot they bought at a knock-down price was designated for housing. Paignton residents have expressed concerns over the future of the land in Waterside Road.

They are unhappy that the space, which backs onto Dartmouth Road, has been cleared of trees and identified for housing in the latest draft of the Brixham Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan.

The land is owned by the family of the neighbourhood plan forum’s vice-chair Adam Billings and was bought at auction from Torbay Council as amenity land in 2014.

Neighbours say the plot would have generated far more money for the taxpayer if it has been sold with planning permission rather being designed to be a green space.

Mr Billings did not wish to comment on the plans for the land but hit out at ‘factually incorrect claims’ that had been made about his actions. He declared an interest in the land during the neighbourhood plan process. …”

http://www.devonlive.com/residents-concern-over-potential-development-of-green-land/story-30203442-detail/story.html

Recall EDDC’s senior planner recently wrote to councillors suggesting that if they had any development land hidden away now was the time to bring it forward!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Mar 2017

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Cavanna Homes, Clinton Devon Estates, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Independent Councillors, Local Plan, Newton Poppleford, Planning System

EDDC Local Plan not fit for purpose as developer (and Clinton Devon Estates) challenge succeeds at Newton Poppleford

“Cavanna Homes already has outline permission for the site off King Alfred Way, but East Devon District Council (EDDC) refused its reserved matters proposals due to a lack of ‘pepper-potting’.

The Planning Inspectorate has overturned the decision, arguing the authority’s Local Plan policy – intended to encourage integration between market-rate and ‘affordable’ homes – lacks ‘substantive evidence’ on its specific requirements.

In his report, inspector Andrew Dawe said Cavanna Homes, in a joint application with Pencleave 2, had modified the distribution of the 16 ‘affordable’ homes in a way that was materially different from a previous application.

He said two sheltered housing providers were opposed to ‘pepper-potting’ and supported clustering to cut costs.

As a result, Mr Dawe said he was satisfied that an acceptable level of integration could be achieved and moved to approve the reserved matters application.

District councillor Val Ranger previously argued the importance of getting this ‘major development right’.

Responding to the decision, she said: “This just shows the Local Plan is not worth the paper it’s written on. The social housing is not dispersed throughout the site. This will only encourage [landowner] Clinton Devon Estates to continue to lobby the Government that they should be able to build anywhere in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.”

An EDDC spokeswoman said: “It is unfortunate that the inspector has overturned the council’s decision on this matter, however, the extent to which affordable homes should be mixed in with market housing within a site is a grey area in planning. While the decision does not lead to the level of integration that we had hoped to achieve on this site, it is good that the inspector accepted the principle of what we were trying to achieve, and it does at least provide some clarity over what inspectors consider acceptable to guide consideration of other schemes in the district.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/official_overrules_decision_on_40_homes_in_newton_poppleford_1_4929184

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Development Management Committee, Planning System, Scrutiny, Transparency

“Council applies for judicial review of one of its own planning decisions”

Would never happen here … though Owl does recall something not dissimilar … a while back.

“A local authority has applied for a judicial review of one of its planning decisions, after a councillor voted in favour of an application brought by her brother-in-law.

Applicant Nick Barrett, owner of a restaurant in Long Melford, had applied to Babergh District Council for permission to build an annexe.

His application was approved at a meeting in November 2016. The minutes of the meeting note that Melanie Barrett, Mr Barrett’s sister-in-law, had stated that she had a family association with the applicant.

The minutes of the meeting also said that another councillor had stated that he was employed by a family member of the applicant.

The minutes continued: “Following clarification from Phil Devonald, Interim Deputy Monitoring Officer -Programme Delivery, the legal advisor to the Committee, the Councillors asserted that the statements by Councillors Barrett and Holt did not constitute a disclosable interest by reason of close family relationship or employment as provided for under the Suffolk Local Code of Conduct adopted by the Council.

“He advised however that this was a matter of public perception and confidence in the transparency and fairness of the system and that Members should consider whether they should take part in the proceedings given the nature of their relationship to the Applicant. This advice was not accepted by the Councillors concerned.”

A spokesman for Babergh told Local Government Lawyer that the council had not received any complaints but the authority considered it necessary to take the issue to judicial review.

“On the one hand it is not a good thing that we are having to do this,” he added. “However, it shows that the mechanisms are there to review our actions.”

Mr Barrett told the Suffolk Free Press that the annexe was being built for his 87-year-old father.

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30304%3Acouncil-applies-for-judicial-review-of-one-of-its-own-planning-decisions&catid=63&Itemid=31

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Mar 2017

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Brownfield sites, Developers/ Development, Land banking, Planning System

Planners not to blame for housing crisis says Telegraph

FINALLY planners are NOT to blame for the housing crisis, building rates are not increasing substantially, 50% of permissions are not being built but land banked, subsidies aren’t having much impact, Shelter says land should be compulsorily purchased at “current value” by councils to build council housing, developers drag out S106 negotiations so that councils get into trouble for not getting enough houses built, housebuilders exist to maximise profits not units built, the market isn’t working.

And it took this long to get to this point!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/03/04/dont-let-housing-crisis-go-unnoticed/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Consultation, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Greater Exeter, Land banking, Land Supply, Local Enterprise Partnership, Local Plan, NPPF, Planning System, Spin

Government response to petition – “Give communities back the right to decide where houses are built.”.

OWL SAYS: if you believe this, you will believe anything. Have we been consulted about where our Local Enterprise Partnership is going to build extra houses? No. What say do we have about extra houses for Greater Exeter? Almost none. Do (favoured) developers get just about anything and everything they ask for in East Devon? Yes, they do.

Truly we live in a parallel universe to the government!


“Local communities are not forced to accept large housing developments. Communities are consulted throughout the Local Plan process and on individual planning applications.

Read the response in full

The National Planning Policy Framework strongly encourages all local planning authorities to get up-to-date Local Plans in place as soon as possible, in consultation with the local community. Up-to-date Local Plans ensure that communities get the right development, in the right place, at the right time, reflecting the principles of sustainable development. Through the White Paper we are ensuring that every part of the country produces, maintains and implements an up-to-date plan, yet with the flexibility for local areas to decide how to plan in a way that best meets their needs.

A wide section of the community should be proactively engaged so that Local Plans, as far as possible, reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable development of the area, including those contained in any neighbourhood plans that have been made.

The Framework recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. That is why our proposals are focussed on development in built up areas.
We are also absolutely clear that Green Belt must be protected and that there are other areas that local authorities must pursue first, such as brownfield land and taking steps to increase density on urban sites. The Government is committed to maximising the use of brownfield land and has already embarked on an ambitious programme to bring brownfield land back into use.

We believe that developers should mitigate the impacts of development. This is vital to make it acceptable to the local community and to addresses the cumulative impact of development in an area. Both the Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 agreements can be used by local planning authorities to help fund supporting infrastructure and address the cumulative demand that development places on infrastructure. Through the White Paper, the Government announced that it will examine the options for reforming the existing system of developer contributions to see how this can be simplified, with further announcements at Autumn Budget 2017.

The £2.3billion Housing Infrastructure Fund will deliver up to 100,000 new homes by putting in the right infrastructure, in the right place, at the right time. We expect the fund to be able to deliver a variety of types of infrastructure necessary to unlock housing growth in high demand areas.

There is nothing automatic about grants of planning permission where there is not yet an up-to-date Local Plan. It is still up to local decision-makers to interpret and apply national policy to local circumstances, alongside the views of the local community. Applications should not be approved if the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits; or if specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted.

Communities are also able to make representations on individual planning applications and in response to most appeals by the applicant against a local authority decision. Interested parties can raise all the issues that concern them during the planning process, in the knowledge that the decision maker will take their views into account, along with other material considerations, in reaching a decision.

We therefore do not believe a right of appeal against the grant of planning permission for communities is necessary. It is considered that communities already have plenty of opportunity to have their say on local planning issues, and it would be wrong for them to be able to delay a development at the last minute, through a community right of appeal, when any issues they would raise at that point could have been raised and should have been considered during the earlier planning application process.

Department for Communities and Local Government”

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/177333

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Feb 2017

Posted under

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

Developers could be fined for not developing sites with permission says Govt Minister

“Housing minister Gavin Barwell told MPs that the government is considering publishing league table on the performance of developers showing how many homes they are building.

This would enable councils – and activist investors – to hold the major developers to account and end claims of landbanking.

Barwell discussed the idea during evidence to the Commons communities and local government committee on the recent housing White paper and plans to speed up housebuilding.

The minister revealed the idea of fining developers for not turning sites into homes had been ruled out.

But league tables – including their record of turning sites into developments – “should be a determination” that allows councils assess the record of developer in building out permissions.

“There is a balance to be had. If it was too draconian, the effect would be chilling,” he said.

The minister accepted developers needed to have land in reserve to be able to start sites as a development finishes. But he wants to reduce the time taken from purchase to build by the main private developers which is currently five years.

He also questioned if developers were too risk averse with sites. On a site with the potential of 1,000 homes only around 70 would be built in order protect the company’s financial position.

Barwell said: “The main way that we reduce landbanking is to speed up the planning system. But my real concern is once you start.”

Other plans include a major review of how taxes on developments are decided.

His department and the Treasury are looking at a nationally set charge that would be locally collected locally spent by councils.

Barwell revealed a review of the Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 agreements will be included in the autumn Budget.

“It’s something we need to address,” Barwell said. “There is a lot of dissatisfaction with how the current system works. But what we don’t want to lose is the localism element of how money is spent.”

There was good news for local authority planning departments which have been hit by staff cuts caused by austerity cuts.

Barwell said the government was looking at enabling councils to increase planning fees to cover the whole cost of running their teams. Where some councils had major regeneration projects, they would not only be able to raise more money from applicants but his department would look at targeted intervention where some LAs need support.

“I’m clearly on the side of getting more money spent on those planning departments. Local authority planning departments are under-resourced,” he said.

The biggest controversy in the White Paper had been over the future of green belt land. …”

http://www.24housing.co.uk/news/league-tables-for-housing-developers-warns-barwell/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Consultation, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Environment (local), Greater Exeter, Infrastructure, Land Supply, Local Plan, Planning System, Sustainability, Transparency, Transport (local)

Greater Exeter Strategic Plan consultation – only one public meeting to discuss implications for East Devon

NOTE THAT, UNLIKE THE EMAIL TO EDDC COUNCILLORS (see earlier post) WE ARE NOT BEING ASKED IF WE WANT TO PUT FORWARD SECRET LAND HOLDINGS – THOUGH NO DOUBT THE TAXMAN WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IF YOU DID!

THE BIGGEST PLANNING ISSUE TO HIT EAST DEVON SINCE THE LOCAL PLAN AND YOU MUST TREK TO HONITON ON 8 MARCH IF YOU WANT TO HAVE YOUR SAY. THAT’S IT – ONE MEETING IN ONE PLACE.

DO YOU RECALL BEING ASKED IF YOU WANTED TO BE PART OF GREATER EXETER? OWL NEITHER!

“Greater Exeter Strategic Plan Consultation: Issues

The local authorities of East Devon, Exeter, Mid Devon and Teignbridge in partnership with Devon County Council are working together to prepare a Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP). This formal statutory document will provide the overall spatial strategy and level of housing and employment land to be provided up to 2040. Please visit http://www.gesp.org.uk for more information.

Engagement with stakeholders and communities will be critical to the success of the Plan. At this first stage, the authorities are consulting on an initial ‘issues document’ which, after setting out some background information, looks to explain the scope and content of the plan as well as describing the key issues facing the Greater Exeter area. This early stage of consultation is designed to stimulate debate and the local planning authorities are seeking your views on the scope and content of the plan as well as the key issues facing your area.

A number of other associated documents are also being consulted on:

Draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report:

· The Draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report is the first stage of work in undertaking the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) for the plan. This process is used to assess the sustainability of the plan content as it develops.

Statement of Community Involvement:

· The joint Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) sets out the approach for consultation in the GESP. The SCI sets out the way in which we will be engaging with communities and other interested parties throughout the process.

The consultation will run from 27 February 2017 until 10 April 2017. To view the consultation material and to make your comments please visit http://www.gesp.org.uk/consultations/issues/.

Alternatively, paper copies of the consultation document are available to view at your local library and Council Office.

A series of exhibitions are being held during the consultation period in the following locations:

Honiton: Mackarness Hall, High Street, EX14 1PG – Wednesday 8 March 2017, 2pm-8pm

Tiverton: Mid Devon District Council Office, Phoenix House, Phoenix Lane, EX16 6PP – Wednesday 15 March 2017, 2-8pm
Exeter: The Guildhall, High Street, EX4 3EB – Thursday 16 March 2017, 2-8pm
Newton Abbot: Old Forde House, Brunel Road, TQ12 4XX – Thursday 23 March 2017, 2- 8pm

A ‘call for sites’ has also been arranged to run alongside the consultation. This is a technical exercise which allows interested parties to submit potential sites for development to the Local Authorities. The sites are then assessed to consider whether they are suitable for possible inclusion in the plan. Further information is http://gesp.org.uk/call-for-sites/.

If you need further information please visit the website, email GESP@devon.gov.uk or contact your Local Council using the phone numbers below:

East Devon: 01395 571533
Exeter: 01392 265615
Mid Devon: 01884 234221
Teignbridge: 01626 215735

As there are four Councils contacting their stakeholders for the consultation and call for sites, you may receive duplicate letters/emails. Please accept my apologies if this is the case.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Feb 2017

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Planning System

“Javid’s plans for housing fall woefully short” says Telegraph

“The biggest barrier to social mobility and social progress is our broken housing market,” said Sajid Javid, while launching his long-awaited housing White Paper last week. “Fixing it means taking on tough vested interests.” The Communities Secretary is right on both counts. But if this White Paper is a genuine guide to future government action, it isn’t up to the job

Over the last 20 years, amid soaring demand, we’ve built around two and a half million too few homes across the UK. This yawning supply-demand gap has made ownership ever more unaffordable. The average house today costs almost eight times average earnings – an all-time record, the ratio having doubled since 1997. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/11/sajid-javids-plans-housing-fall-woefully-short/

If the Telegraph doesn’t like it, it myst be rubbish!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Feb 2017

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Planning System

UK rents to rise faster than house prices – unaffordable rents to become even more unaffordable

The pigs have sniffed out another trough:

“The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has predicted that rents will increase by just over 25% in the coming years, while property values are set to grow by less than 20%.

In the three months to January, tenant demand for rental properties continued to go up. With landlords expected to scale back their portfolios in the next 12 months, tenants will have fewer properties to choose from, which is likely to push rents higher, the survey suggests.

Rics said there was a lack of new listings coming on to the lettings market for the fourth quarter in a row and its members expect this to worsen.

The past few months have seen a number of buy-to-let investors sell up, including Britain’s biggest landlord, Fergus Wilson and his wife, Judith, who declared that the days of small buy-to-let landlords were numbered after the stamp duty increase last year and other tax changes, along with tougher mortgage rules.

The Rics survey was conducted before the release of the government’s housing white paper on Tuesday, which promised encouragement for private developers to build large-volume rental flats for tenants, and more long-term “family friendly” tenancies. Campaign group Generation Rent criticised the fact that these were limited to new purpose-built private rented homes and said renters on stagnant wages needed homes costing no more than one-third of their income. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/09/uk-rents-rise-faster-house-prices-next-five-years-rics-survey?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Feb 2017

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Barratt Homes, Developers/ Development, NPPF, Persimmon, Planning System, Taylor Wimpey

The housing white paper: Guardian nails it!

“Not so long ago, the communities secretary, Sajid Javid, sounded like the scourge of the big housebuilders as he complained that current rates of housebuilding were “not good enough”. His white paper on housing upgraded the rhetoric to describe the market as “broken” but it would be hard to conclude the fix-it plan will make life uncomfortable for the likes of Barratt, Persimmon and Taylor Wimpey.

The stick that Javid has chosen to beat the big boys looks more like a twig. Developers will be forced to build on land within two years of gaining planning permission. That is a reduction from the current cut-off of three years but, given that most developers tell us they start building almost as soon they receive permission, the switch may be barely noticed.

At a push, one might say government assistance for small housebuilders could inject more competition. But, if the sight of profit margins at 20%-plus across the sector hasn’t brought forth a rush of new rivals, the problem may go deeper than a lack of official encouragement for the smaller brigades.

Javid’s greater focus seems to be funding more “affordable” homes, to be delivered chiefly by housing associations and local authorities. Since the big boys tend to be uninterested in the affordable end, they’ll be happy to let others get on with the job. Share prices across the sector rose gently, and one can understand why. The big boys can continue building at their current steady rate and their special dividends can keep flowing.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2017/feb/07/housing-white-paper-builders-sajid-javid

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Feb 2017

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Local Plan, National Planning Policy Framework, Planning System

Housing White Paper: “damp squib”

“The Government has finally unveiled its plans to fix the ‘broken housing market’ in a white paper spanning 104 pages.

Among lengthy reiterations of existing housing policy schemes including Help to Buy were proposals to stop developers land banking, try to speed up planning approvals and support the delivery of more homes to rent.

But some experts have already dubbed the plans a ‘damp squib’ with little hope of fixing anything.

Secretary of State Sajid Javid told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme before revealing the bill: ‘People want a decent home to buy or a decent home to rent, it’s a choice for them, we should be helping both types of tenancies.’

But Shadow Secretary of State for Housing John Healey called the paper ‘feeble’ and added: ‘We were promised a white paper; we’ve got a white flag.’

He was not alone in his disappointment. Simon Gerrard, past president of the National Association of Estate Agents, summed up how most pundits in the industry felt about this long-awaited paper.

“Today’s announcement shows that the Government is good at producing soundbites, but not realistic solutions. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of the market and what is required to fix it.

‘The schemes outlined will be discussed and debated for longer than they are implemented, with nothing new being offered. We need to simplify the system and make it easier to build homes that people want, quickly, and I am disappointed this has not yet been achieved.”

… Jonathan Manns, head of regeneration and director of planning at Colliers International, said: ‘Dig into the (*cough*) detail and, beyond the hollow and misguiding rhetoric, there are odd tweaks to the status quo.
‘Councils, we’re told, should continue to review the targets in their local plans and ensure they’re up-to-date. Hardly ground-breaking but reassuringly familiar.’

The Government is also proposing to cut the time local authorities have to approve planning applications from three years to two.

Will it help? Gerrard doesn’t think so: ‘The introduction of capping the time between obtaining planning permission and starting construction to two years is misguided. It is not the timescale that hinders building across the UK, but the planning system itself.

‘All too often, permission is granted that is simply impossible to implement because local government departments do not communicate effectively with each other.’

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-4196264/How-Housing-White-Paper-plans-affect-you.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Feb 2017

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Local Plan, Misc, National Planning Policy Framework, Planning System

Yet another consultation on our “broken” housing market (yet another opportunity for developers to shaft us?)

Here is the White Paper”:

Click to access Fixing_our_broken_housing_market_-_housing_white_paper.pdf

Here is the consultation document on it:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/fixing-our-broken-housing-market-consultation

This consultation closes at

11:45pm on

2 May 2017

[just before local elections …]

You can respond online here:
https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/QLLWWSS

Another opportunity for the public not to be listened to, another chance for the government and developers to create loopholes.

A first thought: if “small builders” are going to be encouraged to build the cheapest houses, how do they get the economies of scale the big builders get? Well, we could charge no VAT at all on smaller, affordable house building on small sites of say 10 homes or less and LOTS OF VAT on luxury houses on big sites.

What’s that? It’s the sound of the big developer choking on their pate de foie gras whilst trying to phone the Tory party chairman? Surprise, surprise!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Feb 2017

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, National Planning Policy Framework, Planning System

Comments

1 Comment

Housing market ” broken” says government – duh!

Owl says: funny how it took the government SO long to see the “housing market” is, and always has been, broken under their tenure.

Still, lots of developers have got VERY rich on the back of their mistakes … developers who give LOTS and LOTS of money to the Conservative Party and who basically were given the National Planning Policy Framework to write in their own image.

However, now that there is a real possibility of losing millions of votes from people in dire housing need – the “just about managing” that they must capture and keep if they want to stay in power not just feckless Labour voters – more tinkering at the edges is being offered, rather than real solutions.

What is needed is what happened after WW2: a massive government housebuilding programme – NOT developer-led.

Still, never too late …! Although Brexit now pushing up materials costs due to the devaluation of the pound coupled with a shortage of skilled labour makes this the worst of times for the government to dig itself out of a very big hole.

“England’s housing market is “broken”, ministers have admitted, as they unveil plans to build more affordable homes.

The new housing strategy for England includes forcing councils to plan for their local housing needs and giving them powers to pressure developers to start building on land they own.

Communities Secretary Sajid Javid said people want a decent home not a “false choice” between renting and owning.

Labour accused the government of “seven years of failure” on housing.
The government says at least 250,000 new homes are needed each year to keep pace with demand and local councils and developers need to “get real” to the scale of the challenge.

Mr Javid will set out the details of the housing White Paper in a statement to MPs.

Measures are expected to include:

Forcing councils to produce an up-to-date plan for housing demand
Expecting developers to avoid “low density” housing where land availability is short
Reducing the time allowed between planning permission and the start of building from three to two years
Using a £3bn fund to help smaller building firms challenge major developers, including support for off-site construction, where parts of buildings are assembled in a factory
A “lifetime ISA” to help first-time buyers save for a deposit
Maintaining protection for the green belt, which can only be built on “in exceptional circumstances”
So-called starter homes, championed by ex-PM David Cameron, will be aimed at “households that need them most” with combined incomes of less than £80,000 or £90,000 in London.

The government said there would be a change in focus from starter homes – which will be offered to first-time buyers at a discount – to “a wider range of affordable housing”.

Mr Javid will say: “Walk down your local high street today and there’s one sight you’re almost certain to see. Young people, faces pressed against the estate agent’s window, trying and failing to find a home they can afford.
“With prices continuing to skyrocket, if we don’t act now, a whole generation could be left behind. We need to do better, and that means tackling the failures at every point in the system.

“The housing market in this country is broken and the solution means building many more houses in the places that people want to live.”

Asked if ministers were abandoning their goal of increasing home ownership – an ambition of most post-war Conservative governments – Mr Javid told BBC Radio 4’s Today that the approach “shouldn’t all be about ownership”.
“It is a false choice. The reality is we need more homes, whether to rent or buy.”

With house prices now eight times average earnings and the number of affordable homes being built at a 24-year low, he said the cost of housing was the “greatest barrier to social progress in Britain today”.

Many councils, he added, had “fudged the numbers” when it came to assessing local housing needs and this had to change.

Ministers have admitted the government is behind schedule in its efforts to build one million new homes in England by 2020.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England welcomed what it said was a focus on addressing current failings rather than “meddling” with the planning system.
“We are pleased that ministers have recognised that weakening the Green Belt is unnecessary,” said chief executive Shaun Spiers. “But with 360,000 houses already proposed for Green Belt land the government needs to do much more to uphold national policy and stop councils releasing it for development.”

Labour’s shadow housing minister John Healey said: “The measures announced so far in Theresa May’s long-promised housing white paper are feeble beyond belief.

“After seven years of failure and 1,000 housing announcements, the housing crisis is getting worse not better.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38884601

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Exmouth, Planning System, Regeneration, Transparency

“Queen’s Drive. Is it a full planning application or not?”

Press Release 31.1.17

“A most heated debate took place at Exmouth Town Council’s Planning Committee meeting last night.

Cllr Megan Armstrong, an EDA Independent District Councillor for Exmouth explained at some length that the “Reserved Matters Application” they were about to debate was in effect a “Full Planning Application” for phases 2 and 3 for the Queen’s Drive development.

The Chairman however interjected half way through her 3 minute allocated time and stated she wished to make a point clear. She then explained that East Devon District Council (the Applicant) has not allocated funding for the project, and therefore was not in a position to proceed.

NOTE (The consideration that an applicant has funds to deliver a project is not a consideration for a planning committee to debate).

Cllr Megan Armstrong was then allowed to proceed and stated she hoped the committee would consider the planning application without reference to the press releases and documents sent to each councillor by the applicant.
“Forget the promise of further consultations and further promises of more planning applications, don’t be confused by the press releases and further information sent to you, they are inadmissible.”

“You have to consider this application on its own merits from the documents and plans presented and anything else you have been told is irrelevant and should not be a consideration.”

NOTE (Planning regulations state that an applicant can apply in one of two ways. To submit a “Full Planning Application”, or if the application is substantial or problematic the applicant can submit an “Outline Planning Application” reserving all the detailed drawings and details to be submitted if the outline application is approved within a 3 year time period. This is known as a “Reserved Matters Application”).

Following the representations from a number of local residents and Cllr Armstrong the Chairman opened the debate to the planning committee.
Cllr Bill Nash (Conservative) started the proceedings explaining to the committee that Cllr Armstrong was incorrect and referring to the press release and documents sent by the applicant, explained that the application was merely an extension to the outline, and that there will be further planning applications and consultations for Phases 2 and 3.

At no time during the whole debate were the plans explained or shown on the large screen. The only document shown throughout the debate on the overhead projector was a flowchart of the possible suggested consultations and planning applications that may be brought forward at a later date.

In fact one councillor stated he looked forward to the plans for the “Watersports Centre” in phase 2 and another councillor was most interested in seeing the proposals for the hotel plans in phase 3.

This simply demonstrated that some of the planning committee members had not seen the full list of documents that they were now discussing.

The local authority planning portal has all the detailed plans for the application, and it is standard practice for major planning applications for the local authority to provide paper copies as well as providing the information online to assist councillors to understand the proposal that they were required to debate and on which they should agree a proposal.
Within the documents provided were very detailed drawings of both the proposed hotel and full details of the watersports centre, showing every aspect including the positions of the tables and chairs and the cycle store layout!

The public who are not allowed to comment or interject during the debate were at times most vocal to the discussion and content of the debate, demonstrating their displeasure as much as they were able.

The whole debate centred on the issue that it was a “mere exercise” in extending an outline application (this is not permitted in National Planning Policy). The other issues debated were the further consultations and further planning applications.

NOTE. (A planning application should be considered in its entirety with only the planning documents presented by the applicant and separate from any other planning application).

Without a single explanation of the design and layout and without a single illustration of the proposal the chair asked for a vote and the decision was carried 6 votes to 3.

The decision demonstrates the change in opinion as the previous outline application was not supported by the Town Council and in fact Cllr Bill Nash wrote a very strong letter of objection regarding the outline proposal in 2013 on behalf of his constituents living on Trefusis Terrace overlooking the proposed development.

Cllr Megan Armstrong when asked about the decision said:

“I was not surprised by the inconsistencies and change in opinion. It is unfortunate that such an important decision seems to have been turned into a party political game which is so sad. Party politics should not be an issue for such a momentous decision for the people of Exmouth.”

“However the town council planning committee is simply a consultee and the final decision will be made at East Devon’s Development Management Committee meeting at Sidmouth in a few months’ time.”

“Let us all hope that the facts will be explained without any spin and the decision is agreed democratically by the members on the district council committee.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Consultation, EDDC, Planning System

Tinder for planning?

“Imagine if next time you saw a plan for an oversized monster tower block proposed for your street, you could get out your smartphone and swipe left to oppose it? Or see a carefully designed scheme for a new neighbourhood library and swipe right to support it?

Tinder for urban planning might sound far-fetched, but it is already being trialled in the sun-kissed Californian city of Santa Monica. City authorities are trying to gauge public opinion on everything from street furniture and parking, to murals and market stalls for their forthcoming urban plan, using a digital tool modelled on a dating app. …”

https://www.facebook.com/groups/999845120071233/1210137492375327/?comment_id=1210142955708114&ref=notif&notif_t=like&notif_id=1485249849574665

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Consultation, Democracy, EDDC, Greater Exeter, Local Enterprise Partnership, Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plans, NPPF, Planning System, Sustainability, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Greater Exeter: only 5 EDDC councillors get decision-making powers -and its another forum!

“A joint informal advisory reference forum is set up consisting of 5 councillors each from Devon, East Devon, Exeter, Mid Devon and Teignbridge to consider and make comments on draft plan proposals before they are formally considered by each council.”

AND it links seamlessly into Local Enterprise Partnership plans … none of which have been put out for public consultation:

“Role of the joint plan and relationship with other plans

o Setting out the overall scope of the plan and how it can support other related strategies such as the Local Enterprise Partnership’s policies and the results of the devolution discussions. How it relates to the existing and proposed new local plans prepared by each council and with Neighbourhood Plans. Duty to cooperate discussions.”

AND it is all-encompassing:

‘Plan Strategy
o Description of the overall strategy which best meets vision and the challenges facing the area. Covering the big ticket themes of where and how many homes and jobs are needed, how key environmental assets will be protected and enhanced and the need for new and improved infrastructure.

Strategic Settlements and area strategy and functions

o The implications of the vision and strategy for each of the main settlements and the
plan area as a whole. Setting out the key planning functions and role of these.  Strategic Development Proposals
o The strategic development sites allocated in this plan to meet the strategy and other area’s needs. Implications for the remaining district/city level local plans’ allocations.

Strategic Policies

o Homes – setting the strategic targets for the objectively assessed need for housing,
and considering the need for specific types of housing (including affordable, student,
custom build and accessible homes).
o Economy – considering forecast economic performance and how the plan can
guide/improve. This is likely to include consideration of particular economic sectors (and in particular the evolving role of the knowledge economy and innovation), the protection of key economic assets across the whole plan area.
o City and Town Centres – giving the overall approach to the need and best locations for retail, leisure and other “main town centre uses” taking account of the existing “hierarchy” of town and city centres in the area.
o Environment – policies concerning issues including climate change, air quality, flooding, protection of European sites, other strategic landscape and biodiversity matters and heritage protection.
o Community infrastructure – policies and proposals for the provision of community facilities and infrastructure, including information, smart systems and broadband.
o Quality of development – improving the design of new development, including consideration of density and space standards.
 Implementation, delivery and monitoring – proposals to ensure that policies and proposals happen on the ground and how their success will be measured.”

AND ordinary councillors (including Tories) will be frozen out of decision-making:

“It is recognised that it might be difficult for the wider council membership to input into a joint plan through the normal committee/council channels.

It is therefore proposed that member input is provided for in two additional ways.

Firstly, it is proposed that a joint informal advisory reference forum is set up, consisting of 5 councillors from each of the five authorities (total 25 members). There would be an expectation that the councillors from each authority would be politically balanced. This joint forum would consider plan drafts and comment upon them before they are finalised and presented to the meetings of the individual councils. Secondly, officers will run member briefings before each formal committee cycle to allow all councillors to review and comment upon draft plan contents and proposals. This would help to ensure that councillors’ views can be considered before proposals are finalised.

Members should note that there is a separate proposal to set up a Greater Exeter Growth and Development Board as a formal joint committee to consider economic and other related matters across the area. This has been agreed in principle by Exeter and Teignbridge and will be considered by East Devon and Mid Devon (note that Devon County have confirmed their wish not to be involved in such a joint committee at this stage, although this does not undermine their commitment to the GESP). It is envisaged that the member steering group referred to above would have a role reporting on plan progress and strategy to the joint committee. This does not affect the recommendation referred to above to prepare the GESP under Section 28.”

Click to access 170117-combined-strategic-planning-agenda-compressed.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Jan 2017

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Local Plan, Planning System

Petition – take back local control of housing development

Petition to Government

Give communities back the right to decide where houses are built.

This petition calls for a parliamentary debate on government Housing and Planning policy over building on greenfield land and seeks community right of appeal on planning decisions and the removal of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Too many communities are now forced to accept large housing developments seeing the irreversible loss of valuable greenfields without the right of appeal. The failure of government planning policy has resulted in the loss of valued countryside and agricultural land and leaves communities forced to grow too fast without appropriate infrastructure. Major changes to planning legislation are required to protect established communities across the UK and deliver the right housing in the right places.”

Sign at:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/177333

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Local Plan, National Planning Policy Framework, Planning System

“Planning systems favour developers over communities” survey finds

“Almost three-quarters of local councils believe that the planning system is weighted too heavily in favour of developers at the expense of local democracy, according to a survey.

Commissioned by the National Trust and carried out by the Local Government Information Unit, the survey canvassed 1,200 ward councilors in England on aspects of the planning system.

The results, published today, show that 72% of councillors feel the existing system puts the interests of developers over and above those of councils and communities. Also, half of councillors said planning departments are inadequately funded, and the same amount claimed sites that are not in line with their council’s local plans are being approved for new housing.

The government has pushed for the adoption of local plans throughout England. In a statement to the Commons in 2015, then housing and planning minister Brandon Lewis described local plans as the “cornerstone” of the government’s planning reforms. Produced in consultation with communities, they are designed to offer “certainty on where new homes are to be built”.

The survey findings come as the government puts the final touches to its housing white paper, which is expected to be published later this month. The National Trust and LGIU urged Whitehall to revise the paper to boost confidence in the way the system works.

In a joint statement, the organisations argued that the views of councillors were often ignored in debates around the future of the planning system. “Yet, as local decision-makers, and an important link with local communities, they have an essential role to play in ensuring development is sensitive to the needs of the area,” they said.

Theresa May’s government has responded to pressure over a lack of new housebuilding in the country by announcing a raft of new measures and significant funding to boost construction.

As such, communities secretary Sajid Javid last week invited housing providers to bid for a share of a £7bn fund in what was described as a “dramatic expansion” of the affordable house programme.

The survey also revealed anxieties about loosened planning restrictions, with 58% of councillors believing their council would allocate green belt land for housing in the next five years. There are also concerns about the introduction of permitted development rights for home extensions, office-to-residential use conversions and other changes of use.

Moreover, the National Planning Policy Framework does not appear to be having the positive impact it was intended to have on design quality. Only 18% of councillors say designs have improved, and only 12% believe that loosening planning restrictions has had any positive impact.

Jonathan Carr-West, chief executive of the LGiU, said that five years on from the adoption of the government’s planning reforms, it was worrying that councillors felt it hadn’t delivered the localism that was promised.

He said: “If ministers are serious about local plans being at the heart of the planning system, then they should invest in council planning teams and use the housing white paper to give them the tools to deliver good quality housing in the right places.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/01/planning-systems-favour-developers-over-communities-lgiu-survey-finds