Category Archives: Planning System

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

25 Jun 2018

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Planning System

Buy-to-let has skewed housing market and community-led development is the answer says Tory think tank

“Private landlords have put home ownership beyond the reach of at least 2 million families, research shows, while Britain has built only half as many new homes as France over the same period.

The radical report from the new Conservative thinktank Onward recommends ending or severely curtailing tax breaks for buy-to-let and private landlords, a stronger role for local councils and major reform of the planning system to allow communities rather than developers to lead the process.

The report, which was written by Neil O’Brien, a former aide to George Osborne who also worked for Theresa May at No 10, calls for government intervention in the housing market, including giving London councils the power to limit foreign ownership.

“We need to change the balance between the rented sector and home ownership,” O’Brien said. “We should protect existing landlords but discourage more people from investing in rental property, because the buy-to-let boom has bid up prices and reduced homeownership among younger people.”

Previous governments have already acted to curb tax relief on mortgage repayments and maintenance for landlords, but the thinktank says it is still a privileged form of investment that reduces the number of homes available for owner-occupiers while reducing the amount of capital available for more productive investment.

“The UK is one of the cheapest countries for investors involved in residential rental investments,” the report finds.

Emphasising the link between shortage of supply and rising home prices, the report offers radical ideas for increasing the number of new homes.

It argues that planning permission for a hectare of agricultural land can add as much as £2.5m to its value. If the community could benefit from some of the increase, the report argues, it could be used to pay for the kind of services and infrastructure that new developments sometimes lack.

Instead of piecemeal development, it recommends that councils should have the power to put together land and create new settlements with services. It looks across Europe, where most local authorities have strong powers to initiate and shape development and link it to public transport.

It proposes better support to help councils plan new developments drawing on expertise from across the sector, as well as abroad. It also recommends much higher density urban occupation, where the UK lags behind most other comparable countries. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/25/home-ownership-out-of-reach-for-2-million-uk-families-says-thinktank

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

25 Jun 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, EDBF, Greendale, Planning System

Greendale: yet another retrospective planning application

Yet another retrospective planning application from FWS Carter and Sons! It appears this planning application is yet another example (of many) of the company jumping the gun as the new building already seems to have been built!

“FWS Carter and Sons wish to expand the existing farm shop as well as build a new dedicated classroom facility at the site on the A3052, between the Greendale Business Park and Crealy.

They say they would be making a significant investment in the farm shop, that already makes sales of around £100,000 a week, would create 30 new jobs, and expand on the shop which is a focal point to the rural community which it serves.

The farm shop already employs 68 people (56 full time and 12 part time), but the company says the new proposals would directly create 30 new jobs (8 full time and 22 part time) in documents submitted with a planning application to East Devon District Council.”

Owl wonder why they need a classroom at a farm shop?

Maybe for the training of the Greendale and Ladram Bay management of how to correctly apply for planning permission? Not build it then submit a planning application again, again and again!

Quote from Cllr Geoff Jung the EDA District Councillor.

“I am totally exasperated by their total lack of conformity to the planning system!

However this application will be treated by East Devon District Council in the normal manner as required by the National Planning Policy”

Perhaps new planning guidance should bring in hefty fines for retrospective planning applications?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Jun 2018

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, EDDC, Fords of Sidmouth, Ian Thomas, Planning System, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Stuart Hughes

Sidford Business Park: “Nothing has changed’ highways outlines objection to business park proposals”

Owl says:

A test of whether EDDC develops or plans on the cards here. New Leader new times or new leader, old times?

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2018/06/18/sidford-business-park-a-grubby-history/

“Highway bosses have submitted fresh opposition to a new proposed business park at Sidford as ‘nothing has changed since the last time’.

Councillor Stuart Hughes, head of highways for Devon County Council, spoke exclusively to the Herald saying the department specifically objected to the distribution element of the application.

A change of use is being sought for the agricultural site, in Two Bridges Road, to provide 8,445sqm of employment floorspace.

The plan has received 102 letters of objection ahead of the deadline today (June 15) for comments.

Councillor Hughes posted on Facebook that the council would be submitting its objections and said the news would be welcomed by residents in Sidford and Sidbury.

He said: “Nothing has changed from the last time. The distribution element was a concern last time because it would bring big lorries through narrow streets in Sidford and Sidbury.

“They are very narrow and just aren’t big enough for this sort of traffic. It is the wrong site for a business park, in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.”

Resident Jackie Green said highway’s focus on the distribution element could ‘play straight into the developers hands’.

She said: “Any down-playing of the impact of the rest of the plan, two thirds of the development, risks making it easier for the application to be approved. Worse, if the B8 [class for distribution] is deleted, it would leave a space for even more B1 buildings (office and light industrial), which require more dedicated parking spaces than B8.

“This emphasis in the Highways objection will not ‘be welcomed by all local Sidford and Sidbury residents’, as Stuart Hughes claims, nor by any other users of the Sidford-Sidbury road. The plan as a whole is wrong, not just bits of it.”

The plans state the applicants aim to create 250 jobs and have addressed concerns raised when a scheme for a larger business park were submitted in 2016.

District council ward member David Barrett said he must remain impartial as he is a member of EDDC’s development management committee, which may be involved in making a final decision about the application.

EDDC will make the final decision about the plans.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/nothing-has-changed-devon-county-council-submits-opposition-against-sidford-business-park-1-5570042

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Jun 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Conflict of interest, Developers/ Development, Graham Brown, Planning System

Comments

2 Comments

Swire thinks planning officers are poorly trained and don’t stand up to developers

Hugo Swire:

“My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be aware of my view—as he and I have discussed it—that most objections to large planning developments are based on the fact that the developments themselves add nothing to the local vernacular, do not acknowledge it and are often poorly built. That is partly owing to a lack of local planning officers and the fact that planning officers are poorly trained. Could the Government consider affiliating some of them to the Royal Institute of British Architects or the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, and empowering them so that they can stand against the volume house builders?”

Owl says: What about councillors who roll over to have their tummies tickled by developers – or who are developers themselves!!!

Or even those in your own (Tory) back yard in East Devon, who run their own planning consultancies and boast they can get planning for anything but don’t expect to be paid peanuts for it:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9920971/If-I-cant-get-planning-nobody-will-says-Devon-councillor-and-planning-consultant.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Jun 2018

Posted under

Developers/ Development, Planning System

“Planning rules could be ripped up in last-ditch bid to save Britain’s high streets”

We’ve had offices into houses, barns into houses, now developers are going to be able to get their hands on high street shops to turn into houses …

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6574438/planning-rules-could-be-ripped-up-in-last-ditch-bid-to-save-britains-high-streets/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Jun 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Greater Exeter, Planning System

Council challenges planning inspector decision affecting strategic planning

Implications for the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan? You know, the one being delayed until after the next council elections …. for some reason …

“South Gloucestershire Council is to bring a legal challenge over a planning inspector’s decision to grant planning permission for a 350-home development in Thornbury.

The proposed Cleve Park scheme would also include a 70-unit elderly care facility, associated open space, community and commercial facilities, and infrastructure. The planning application was made by Welbeck Strategic Land LLP.

The local authority said it had “carefully considered” the Inspector’s decision and would be issuing legal proceedings challenging it.

South Gloucestershire added that it had written to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities & Local Government James Brokenshire, “requesting that he exercises his powers to recover the planning appeals relating to developments in Charfield and another in Thornbury from the Planning Inspectors, and make the decisions himself”.

These requests relate to two applications, one for outline planning permission for the erection of 121 homes and a retail outlet on land off Wotton Road in Charfield (Barratt Homes, Bristol), and also the appeal relating to land south of Gloucester Road, Thornbury (Bovis Homes Ltd), which seeks outline consent for the demolition of existing agricultural shed buildings and residential development of up to 370 homes, a flexible use building, public open space, accesses onto Gloucester Road and associated infrastructure.

The council said that it considered that these appeals, if granted, would undermine the Joint Spatial Plan (JSP) process and its impact upon the residents and communities of South Gloucestershire.

Cllr Toby Savage, Leader of South Gloucestershire Council, said: “Enough is enough. I am determined to see the council take a robust approach to challenging unsustainable development across the district. Where we have taken difficult decisions to proactively and positively plan for future housing and jobs growth, we should not have decisions from the Planning Inspectorate which undermines this work as it only stores up economic, social and environmental problems for the future.”

Cllr Colin Hunt, Cabinet Member for Planning at the council, said: “In South Gloucestershire we are trying to be plan led with our decisions on planning applications. While we appreciate that we have a shortfall on our five year land supply, nonetheless we want decisions to reflect that we have a solid plan that was prepared in consultation with the public.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=35658%3Acouncil-to-challenge-grant-of-planning-permission-for-350-home-scheme&catid=63&Itemid=31

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Jun 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Conflict of interest, Developers/ Development, East Devon economy, East Devon Growth Point, Greater Exeter, Local Enterprise Partnership, Local Plan, Planning System, Productivity

Devon and Somerset – a new Klondike gold rush?

The LEP housing numbers, anticipating 50,000 new households in Devon, are almost certainly driven in part by the heroic assumptions about the local economy, as Owl has pointed out many times.

As we know, the LEP assumption is 4% growth per annum for the next 18 years. Such a sustained economic boom would invoke a ‘Klondike’ style immigration rush into Devon and Somerset, as the economies of all of the rest of the western world failed to compete with us at that level.

East Devon’s current Local Plan is based upon an anticipated annual UK economic growth rate of 3% from 2007, which has turned out to be just over 1%.

This, of course, is why many of our employment sites are dormant (and one of the many reasons why we do not need a new site in Sidford), and all our town centres are struggling – there simply isn’t demand.

Even if economic growth was to average 3% growth from now until the end of the Plan period, which looks incredibly optimistic, we would still have 33% more employment land than we need, according to East Devon’s own numbers.

The LEP’s projections have been laughed at by everyone – especially, Owl gathers, in Whitehall.

But they feed into a whole raft of housing and economic projections, that will ultimately emerge as policy around the region.

What assumption will be used for the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP) projections, Owl wonders? Now delayed until after the next local council elections in 2019?

Will the GESP team dare to condemn the LEP numbers, or will they adopt them, even when they must know they are nonsense?

What might happen if those without vested interests in the growth of expensive housing in the area were for once denied a say due to conflict of interest?

And where are the signs of the revisions of our Local Plan, based on current realities, that are required every 5 years?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 May 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Housing (local), Planning System, Spin

Government non-expert “independent” expert refuses to ban combustible cladding used in Grenfell Tower

“Dame Judith Hackitt proved yesterday that appointing ‘independent’ experts is no guarantee that difficult policy areas can be somehow magically be set free from politics. She started off badly yesterday and it was downhill all the way afterwards. On the Today programme she struggled to explain why her review had failed to recommend an outright ban on combustible cladding. That was followed by an almost comical U-turn, saying that perhaps she should have recommended a ban. Then Housing Secretary James Brokenshire announced he would consult on a ban. It was not a coincidence that the panicked responses came after David Lammy, who has a moral authority ministers cannot ignore these days, declared the review a ‘whitewash’.

But things looked even worse later, when she told reporters “I am not an expert on Grenfell” and “has not looked into the details” of the fire that killed 71 people. With a Whitehallese worthy of Sir Humphrey Appleby, she declared her review was instead “triggered by the discovery that there were many other buildings that were not safe”. That’s true, but to say also that “my review was not triggered by the tragedy at Grenfell” was just plain daft.

On Question Time last night housing minister Dominic Raab said: “I’m sorry it’s taken so long” [to respond to Grenfell]. Meanwhile, a new report says four million homes are needed to solve the UK’s ‘epic’ housing crisis. Brokenshire needs to get a handle on his new brief rather quickly.”

Source: Huffington Post

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 May 2018

Posted under

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

Civic Voice submission on new planning rules

PRESS RELEASE

“Civic Voice – the authoritative voice of the civic movement – has submitted its final response to the draft National Planning Policy Framework consultation. The response is available here:

Click to access Civic_Voice_NPPF_response_FINAL.pdf

Ian Harvey, Executive Director said: “If the report in Planning Magazine over the weekend is true and the Government’s Chief Planner did confirm that the Government has received over 27,000 responses to the draft consultation, we believe that this shows the breadth of feeling across the country about the importance of our planning system.”

Responding to the draft NPPF, Civic Voice is calling for:

1. Given our membership and reach nationwide, we are concerned by the London and South East-centric nature of the NPPF; a greater level of ambition for economic development to is vital to address the viability challenges in some parts of the country.

2. The draft NPPF says much about the importance of design, however, it is our fear that as drafted, high quality design could be seen as a ‘nice to have’ but ‘easy to ignore’ rather than as an essential dimension of good planning.

3. Civic Voice supports the emphasis on early and meaningful engagement with communities within the draft NPPF and we would welcome working with MCHLG to develop the accompanying Planning Practice Guidance on this.

Harvey added: “We agree with the Government that finding a solution to the housing crisis is essential and we really hope that this was not a tokenistic consultation. We must ask, if the Government intends to publish the final document before the end of July, can it realistically be expected to review the thousands of responses comprehensively within a matter of weeks? We look forward to seeing the final document when it is released as it is important that the Government gets this right, because the consequences of getting it wrong will be felt for many years to come.”

Civic Voice President, Griff Rhys Jones finished by saying: “Whilst the Government wants to see the ‘right homes in the right places’, if it doesn’t get this right, it is very likely to end up with the ‘wrong homes in the wrong places. We hope they listen to the voices of communities across England.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 May 2018

Posted under

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

“Will the Tories’ starter homes initiative ever get off the ground?”

“Q Is anything ever likely to come of the starter homes initiative? It was launched amid much fanfare by George Osborne towards the end of 2014 but there has been little news since, beyond a few stories regarding funding concerns.

Meanwhile, the starter homes newsletter, which was getting increasingly infrequent and was only ever a series of adverts for developments (none of which contained starter homes) seems to have dried up, and the dedicated starter homes website simply links back to a generic new homes website, as it did when it was launched.

I had been holding off buying a house as the promised minimum discount of 20% sounds worth waiting for, but I’m beginning to question whether it was only ever a cynical attempt to woo millennial voters, to be abandoned at the first opportunity.
AB

A Given the dearth of news about the starter homes scheme, it’s tempting to think that it has been quietly shelved – not least because it was an initiative announced when the Tories were in coalition with the Lib Dems.

But in fact, shortly after the current government came to power, it was announced that the original target of 100,000 new starter homes to be built by 2020 would be doubled. So potentially 200,000 first-time buyers aged between 23 and 40 with a household income of £80,000 or less (£90,000 in London) will be able to buy new-build properties at a discount of at least 20% where the discounted price is less than £450,000 in London but £250,000 everywhere else in England. The starter homes will generally be built on underused or unviable brownfield land previously used for commercial or industrial purposes.

Those first-time buyers shouldn’t hold their breath, however, as no starter homes have yet been completed. And at the beginning of last year only 71 sites across England had received grants from the Starter Home Land Fund to enable local authorities to acquire and/or prepare suitable land for starter home developments. So a lot depends on where you live if you want to take advantage of the scheme. First-time buyers in Burnley won’t have to wait much longer as, in partnership with Barnfield Investment Properties, Burnley council started work on the first phase of residential apartments back in February 2017.

If you don’t happen to live in Burnley, finding out about starter home developments in your local area is hard and the new homes website you mention is no help at all. The alternative to waiting for a discounted starter home would be to look into the help-to-buy scheme where you get a loan of up to 20% from government towards the purchase of a new-build property.”

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/may/09/uk-starter-homes-initiative-theresa-may-target

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 May 2018

Posted under

Austerity cuts, EDDC, Planning System, Privatisation

EDDC charge £40 to tell you they don’t know the answer to a simple planning question

https://m.facebook.com/groups/175988535857207?view=permalink&id=1528476497275064

and

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1450832245038963&id=959780427477483

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 May 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Planning System, Section 106

Parish council successfully overturns officer “delegated authority” decision

“A parish council recently enjoyed success in a legal challenge over a purported exercise of delegated authority. Meyric Lewis explains how.

Newton Longville Parish Council has secured a quashing order by consent in their judicial review challenge to a grant of planning permission by Aylesbury Vale District Council under purported exercise of delegated authority.

District Council members resolved to grant planning permission for residential development “delegated to officers… subject to such conditions as are considered appropriate and to include a condition requiring that a reserved matters application be made within 18 months of the date of permission and that any permission arising from that application be implemented within 18 months”.

In exercising their delegated authority, officers took the view that there was insufficient justification for shortening the period for applying for reserved matters and for requiring implementation within 18 months. But that matter was neither raised with members nor addressed in the delegated report published by the Council.

In committee, members had wished to impose these short timeframes because they were concerned about the length of time that the site had remained undeveloped notwithstanding the existence of planning permission granted in 2007 and then renewed in 2011 and so they wished to encourage the building out of the site more swiftly than if longer timeframes were allowed.

Permission to apply for judicial review was granted by the High Court on the ground that the decision went beyond the terms of the delegated authority because it conflicted with the confined terms of the members’ resolution.

Permission was also granted on a ground concerning the related section 106 agreement and in respect of officers’ failure to provide adequate reasons, as required by under reg. 7 of the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, in that they did not address the matters relied on as justifying a departure from the terms of the members’ resolution in the delegated report.

The District Council and Interested Party have now signed a consent order submitting to judgment on all grounds.

Significant points to note on the case are that:

The parish council’s grounds distinguished Ouseley J’s decision on implied delegated authority in R (Couves) v. Gravesham BC [2015] EWHC 504 (Admin) because of the specific requirements as to time frames stipulated by members, see Couves at 47

It highlights the importance of officers going back to the terms of any resolution delegating authority to them and ensuring that their proposed action complies with its terms.

Developers and potential challengers will be astute to perform the exercise under (2) to see if a challenge can be mounted.

So there are practical consequences for officers, similar to when they receive an engrossment of a section 106, that they check the terms of what was resolved/agreed before issuing a formal grant of permission.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?view=article&catid=63%3Aplanning-articles&id=35128%3Aexercising-delegated-authority-in-planning&format=pdf&option=com_content&Itemid=31

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Apr 2018

Posted under

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

“Griff Rhys Jones supports new report and says we must not lose our precious countryside by building low density sprawling estates”

Press Release:

“Civic Voice president Griff Rhys Jones has today added his voice to campaigns by six community groups fighting “garden communities” being imposed on them by the Government.

He has penned a powerful Foreword to a Smart Growth UK report mostly written by community groups around the country who are opposing garden towns and villages. Griff warns that, far from being utopias, these are disordered schemes that ignore local communities and would be located in unsustainable locations.

“We encounter proposals that are not going to answer local needs for housing at all, but will waste precious countryside by building low density sprawling estates and creating expensive houses. Brownfield land in England can accommodate one million houses, So get on with it and use that.” he says.

Griff warns that terms like “housing crisis” and “emergency” are being used to force through development of the countryside which fails to provide the affordable homes we need as a nation.

The report sets out detailed objections by six groups opposing Government-sponsored garden communities and four opposing large greenfield developments marketed as “garden villages” by their promoters.

““Planning” by definition means looking to the future. That must mean the long-term future as well as the next few years. We need to recognize that people who urge care, caution and attention are not dwelling in the past. They are not NIMBYS, says Griff. “They are protecting the future.”

He says the protests, assessments and legitimate concerns in the report make sober reading.”

Report:

Click to access Garden%20Communities%20Report.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Apr 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Fracking, NPPF, Planning System, Sustainability

“Stampede to build homes threatens the rights of locals”

Article by Andrew Motion, President, CPRE in today’s Times (pay wall):

“In launching the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) last month, the communities secretary Sajid Javidpromised “a continued emphasis on development that’s sustainable and led locally”. Was he really talking about the same NPPF that, for the past five years, has forced wholly unsustainable development on communities already struggling with overstretched infrastructure and shrinking green spaces?

Initial analysis of the revisions by the Campaign to Protect Rural England shows that there is still not enough emphasis on a plan-led system such as the one that has been a cornerstone of our local democracy since 1947. We are calling for the final version to give a cast-iron guarantee that locally agreed development plans (including neighbourhood plans) should be upheld when deciding planning applications. It is the only way to restore communities’ faith in neighbourhood planning.

Local volunteers spend a great deal of time and effort in promoting good development, assessing housing needs and negotiating sites that respect settlement boundaries and preserve valued green spaces. So it is deeply disheartening that the revised NPPF could allow local authorities to overrule neighbourhood plans, either when local plans are reviewed (every five years) or if not enough homes are delivered elsewhere.

Communities across England are being targeted by parasitic “land promoters” who speculate on their ability to shoehorn large, expensive homes on to greenfield sites. In many cases the financial might of these companies allows them to steamroller councils in the appeals process, where the NPPF’s current “presumption in favour of sustainable development” provides the necessary loophole.

If it’s hard to achieve democratic decisions with respect to housing, the situation threatens to become even worse with fracking. The majority of recent applications have been decisively rejected by local authorities, yet the revised NPPF forces local authorities not only to place great weight on the supposed benefits of fracking for the economy, but also to recognise the benefits for “energy security” and “supporting a low-carbon transition”. This misguided emphasis can only lead to more travesties like January’s approval for oil exploration by West Sussex county council, in the face of 2,739 letters of objection (and 11 in support).

We must have new housing and infrastructure, but it remains vitally important that development benefits those who have to live with it. Now more than ever, we need to put people at the heart of the planning system.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Apr 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Greater Exeter, Housing (local), Infrastructure, Local Enterprise Partnership, NHS (local), Planning System, Scrutiny, Sustainability, Transparency

“The Greater Exeter plan has been delayed”

Owl is STILL having difficulty understanding how the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP) fits in with the Devon and Somerset Heart of the South West Strategic plan!!! So many strategies, so many plans, so many people being paid to work out how to invent what might, or more likely might not, turn out to be a wheel – though one of them MIGHT just manage to invent a square one!

“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.

… A consultation on the issues that the GESP should focus on took place 12 months ago and it was initially hoped that a consultation on a draft plan would begin in January of 2018.

But publication of the draft plan has been delayed and it is now likely that the draft GESP will be published in the summer of 2018.

Explaining the delay, a statement said: “In respect of the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP), and since our last Local Development Scheme was approved, there have been a number of factors which have delayed plan production.

“These include the fact that a great many sites were submitted through the Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment ‘call for sites’ and these are being carefully assessed as well as further draft changes to national Government planning policy and a wish to investigate differing ways to ensure we can secure the best forms of development, including the highest quality new housing with supporting facilities, to meet our future needs.”

… The GESP will sit above District-level Local and community Neighbourhood Plans, taking a long-term strategic view to ensure important decisions about development and investment are coordinated. … “

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/greater-exeter-plan-been-delayed-1412993

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Mar 2018

Posted under

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

Letwin explains rationing new builds to keep up prices with a new phrase “absorption rate”!

“A Government-commissioned report has blamed delays in the house-building process on builders concerns about future sale prices.

In the Autumn Budget the Chancellor set up an independent review to look at the delays between planning permission being granted, and houses being built. This review is being led by Sir Oliver Letwin.

The Treasury has now published the commission’s interim report alongside the Spring Statement:

Click to access Build_Out_Review_letter_to_Cx_and_Housing_SoS.pdf

These initial findings suggest that house-builders concerns about sale prices are a major factor in slow “build out” of homes on many of these larger developments.

Letwin says this review had initially focused on larger housing developments and major housebuilders. Further analysis may look at smaller scale models.

In a letter to the Chancellor and Sajid Javid – the secretary of state for housing communities and local government – Letwin says housebuilders have cited a number of “limitations”, including a shortage of available skilled labour, the availability of capital, provision of local transport infrastructure and the slow speed of installations by utility companies.

But in the interim report Letwin says: “I am not persuaded that these limitations are in fact the primary determinants of the speed of build out on large permitted sites at present.”

He goes on to say the fundamental driver of build out rates, once detailed planning permission is granted, appears to be the “absorption rate” – that is the rate at which newly constructed homes can be sold into the local market without materially disturbing the market price.

This rate, he says appears to be largely determined at present by the type of home being constructed and the pricing of the new homes built.

The interim report goes onto say this problem can be exacerbated by many larger development having a style of size of home that is fairly homogeneous.

The next stage of this review will look at whether build-out rates could be improved, either by reducing the reliance on large builders, or by encouraging them to offer more variety in terms of the type and price of property offered.

The report adds: “We have seen ample evidence from our site visits that the rate and completion of the ‘affordable ‘ and social rented’ homes is constrained by the requirement for cross-subsidy from the open market housing on the site.” This can delay the build out of these homes, the report adds.

Letwin says he plans to publish more detailed draft analysis by the end of June, which will contain a more detailed description of the problem and its causes.

The independent review will then seek comments from interested parties before a final analysis which will include a list of recommendations to improve the situation.”

Interim report on planning delays published alongside Spring Statement

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Mar 2018

Posted under

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

Foreign money raised house prices 20% over 15 years

“House prices in Britain have soared by around 20 per cent in the past 15 years due to an influx of foreign money, according to a new study.
The research by King’s College London showed the average price is around £215,000 but would have been about £174,000 without the investment from overseas.

University researchers said the cash has also had a ‘trickle down’ effect to less expensive properties.

Money from abroad has impacted house prices mostly in the South East and major cities in the north, such as Liverpool, Leeds and Manchester.
But researchers warned there was no evidence the increase in foreign investment lead to an increase in housing building or in the share of vacant homes. …”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5543887/House-prices-rise-20-cent-15-years-pushed-influx-foreign-money.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Mar 2018

Posted under

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

Weasel words on affordable housing from the government’s minister

Sajid Javid faces battle over 4% affordable homes in Sainsbury’s scheme

“The housing secretary, Sajid Javid, is facing a legal challenge after he approved a 700-home housing scheme by the supermarket chain Sainsbury’s, which includes just 4% affordable housing.

The 29-storey development in Ilford, east London, will be built in a borough that has a stated policy that 50% of all new homes should be affordable. It estimates it needs an extra 15,000 affordable homes in the next 15 years, but Javid backed a scheme with just 27 affordable homes. The rest are expected to be sold for about £400,000 for a two bedroom flat.

The London mayor, Sadiq Khan, branded the approval “outrageous” and said 4% was a “disgraceful” contribution. Labour’s shadow housing secretary, John Healey, said it was “a clear case of ministers backing private developer profit over the homes that local people need”.

A local residents group Ilford Noise is now preparing to request a judicial review of the decision after Javid accepted Sainsbury’s claim that the scheme would not be viable with any more affordable units. Javid’s report concluded: “There is no good reason to dispute the agreed conclusions of the financial experts.”

The decision came just weeks after Javid gave a speech insisting it is “totally unacceptable” for developers to claim they cannot afford to meet affordable housing promises.

He said: “It cheats communities of much-needed housing and infrastructure and gives new development a bad name.”

But in this case, where Sainsbury’s never promised more than 4%, he has allowed the developer to hugely undershoot the local target. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/23/sajid-javid-faces-battle-over-4-affordable-homes-in-sainsburys-scheme

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Mar 2018

Posted under

EDDC, Planning System, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Stuart Hughes, Transport (local)

Comments

1 Comment

Could Sidford cope with a new industrial site? A 75 minute traffic gridlock says not!

The idea of an industrial complex in Sidford has not died – it could return at any minute.  This was the situation when two large vehicles met on one of the narrowest parts of the road  – vehicles were trapped for more than an hour … imagine if there had been a medical emergency or fire during that time …

Sidmouth DCC councillor Stuart Hughes has responsibility for transport issues in Devon.

A picture is worth a thousand words …

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Mar 2018

Posted under

Neighbourhood Plans, Planning System

“Court of Appeal backs decision to put neighbourhood plan to referendum”

“Leeds City Council did not act unlawfully when it put a neighbourhood plan to a referendum after modifications had been made that partly differed from those recommended by the examiner, the Court of Appeal has said.

Kebbell Developments had challenged the council’s decision to allow the Linton neighbourhood plan to proceed to a referendum before its adoption under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

A 4.5 hectares site called The Ridge was not owned by Kebbell but it has applied for planning permission to build 26 homes there. The plan as drawn up would designate the site as unsuitable for development.

When the case first went to court Kerr J concluded Leeds had not dealt with the examiner’s recommendations unlawfully.

The appeal had to decide whether the council acted outside its powers in departing from the examiner’s recommendations when modifying the plan in relation to The Ridge, whether it failed to give sufficient reasons for its modifications, and whether it should have consulted on these.

Giving the lead judgment in Kebbell Developments Ltd v Leeds City Council [2018] EWCA Civ 450, Lindblom LJ said the modification was one the council was able to make in exercising its statutory powers.

“The modification was comfortably within the ambit of the local planning authority’s statutory power to modify a neighbourhood plan before putting it to a referendum,” he said.

The judge added: “The city council was entitled to conclude that the modification was effective both in securing compliance with the ‘basic conditions’ and in achieving internal consistency in the neighbourhood plan. There was no breach of the statutory procedure.”

He said the council’s reason for its actions could not “be regarded as unclear or inadequate”.

The procedure for post-examination representations on a neighbourhood plan was “tightly defined [and] the circumstances in which a local planning authority will be required to consult in accordance with it are limited to the particular circumstances referred to”, which did not fit with Kebbell’s case concerning The Ridge, the judge noted.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=34601%3Acourt-of-appeal-backs-decision-to-put-neighbourhood-plan-to-referendum&catid=63&Itemid=31