More storms, more floods

“Homeowners in the South West are being warned intense bouts of flooding are set to become more frequent.

The Environment Agency has launched the Flood Action Campaign to raise awareness.

Younger people are being encouraged to check flood risks as research shows 18 to 34 year olds are at the highest risk of fatality due to being less likely to perceive personal risk, the agency said.

Met Office records show intense storms are becoming more frequent, sea levels are rising, and since 1910 there have been 17 record breaking rainfall months or seasons – with nine since 2000.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-devon-42892693

“Developers leave 420,000 homes with planning permission unbuilt, new figures show”

“The number of homes that have not been built despite receiving planning permission has soared in the last year, new figures reveal, meaning sites for hundreds of thousands of new properties are being left undeveloped.

More than 400,000 homes have been granted permission but are still waiting to be built, according to analysis published by the Local Government Association (LGA) – a rise of 16 per cent in the past year.

The data also shows developers are taking significantly longer to build homes than they were four years ago. It now takes an average of 40 months from planning permission for a property to be completed – eight months longer than in 2013-14.

The findings will probably raise questions over why developers are taking more than three years to complete homes, and in many cases failing to build them at all, at a time when the UK is building around 50,000 fewer properties per year than is needed to meet current demand.

In 2015-16, the number of homes in England and Wales that had received planning permission but not been built was

365,146

A year later that had risen to

423,544

Developers argue that a burdensome planning system stops them building properties more quickly, but the LGA said the new figures prove that delays are the fault of developers, not councils.

Councillor Martin Tett, the organisation’s housing spokesman, said: “These figures prove that the planning system is not a barrier to house building. In fact the opposite is true. In the last year, councils and their communities granted twice as many planning permissions as the number of new homes that were completed.

“No one can live in a planning permission. Councils need greater powers to act where house building has stalled.”

Arguing that town halls need to be given greater freedom to borrow money to fund new homes, Mr Tett added: “Our national housing shortage is one of the most pressing issues we face. While private developers have a key role to play in solving our housing crisis, they cannot meet the 300,000 house-building target set by the Government on their own.

“We have no chance of housing supply meeting demand unless councils can get building again.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/developers-real-estate-homes-planning-permission-unbuilt-social-housing-crisis-figures-a8212641.html

“Further defects found at housing [new-build apartments] with Grenfell-style cladding”

“More than a dozen fire safety concerns have been uncovered in a new housing complex covered in Grenfell-style flammable cladding, built by one of Britain’s biggest housebuilders, Galliard Homes.

In the weeks after the Grenfell Tower fire, which claimed 71 lives, defective fire doors, missing fire-stopping, dangerous fire escapes and holes in plasterboard meant to stop the spread of flames and smoke were identified by fire officials at New Capital Quay in Greenwich, London, which is home to about 2,000 people and opened in 2013.

The Guardian has learned that another deficiency notice from the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) was issued on 25 January in relation to all 11 blocks in the complex.

It identified 16 fire safety issues, including a lack of arrangements to evacuate vulnerable and elderly residents, an ineffective maintenance regime, a broken firefighting lift and a broken fire hydrant outside one of the blocks.

It also found that “the procedures to be followed in the event of serious and imminent danger to relevant persons are inadequate”, raising residents’ fears about being trapped in the event of a fire.

Ruth Montlake, 85, who lives on the seventh floor of one of the blocks, said: “The fire situation is very worrying. I am hard of hearing; how will I know to evacuate?”

Simone Joseph, 35, a fashion buyer and mother of a seven-year-old boy, said there had been three fires in her block in the time she had lived there.

“To know that seven months down the line we are living in this property with this cladding is upsetting,” said Joseph, who rents from Hyde Housing, the head leaseholder of two of the blocks. “People have been cutting corners for so many years and are putting people’s lives at risk and they have to be held accountable.”

With more than 1,000 homes, New Capital Quay is believed to be one of the biggest single private housing developments in the country discovered to have flammable cladding in the wake of Grenfell. Galliard sold two-bedroom apartments for £700,000.

A fire warden patrol was put in place when the cladding was discovered last summer, but residents are concerned that it is still in place seven months after the west London disaster.

“We simply do not feel safe living in buildings with defective cladding that could rapidly go up in flames while we are sleeping,” one woman told the local council in an email exchange.

Galliard said some of the defects identified in July had been addressed and there had been no issue with missing fire-stopping material, just an error during the inspection.

It said the building was different to Grenfell: “Totally unlike Grenfell, NCQ was built and still has full and proper fire precautions with fire doors, fire-stopping, fire alarms, smoke-extract systems and no gas in apartments. The block at NCQ which has the most cladding has a full sprinkler system throughout.”

It also said that three of the 16 issues raised by fire authorities in its latest report were “not true” and questioned two further issues.

Asked whether residents were safe, Galliard said LFEPA was the leading expert. “They have the statutory power to issue notices to evacuate the homes. They have to date decided not to do so,” it said.

While residents fear their lives are at risk while the cladding remains, they are also concerned they will be asked to pay the estimated £20m-£40m bill – between £20,000 and £40,000 a flat – to make it safe. In addition, they face a £1.25m bill for round-the-clock fire patrols.

But they are particularly concerned about how difficult it is to get information and said they were forced to use a freedom of information request to uncover the fire safety notices from the London Fire Brigade (LFB).

Galliard, which is facing a bill of up to £40m, is planning to sue the warranty and insurance provider, National House Building Council. NHBC has indicated it will defend the claim.

Meanwhile, 30 fire marshals are patrolling the 11 buildings 24 hours a day at an estimated cost of £25,000 a week. But residents are concerned that wardens are not the solution.

Annabel Parsons, 54, a business psychologist who lives in the complex, said one marshal had been spotted asleep and another had brought a blanket with him. Before they were equipped with hand-held klaxons, one warden said their plan to raise the alarm in the event of a fire involved throwing stones at windows, residents claimed. Galliard said that without a date, time, name and other details of the fire marshal, it was an “impossible allegation to investigate”.

Hyde Housing, which has interests in six of the blocks as well as being head leaseholder in two, said the situation was “very distressing” for residents.

“We urge all those bodies involved in resolving this matter to do so speedily,” said Brent O’Halloran, director of asset management at Hyde.

A recent tribunal regarding a building in Croydon was told that official guidance was that fire wardens were the “least-efficient, most resource-intensive” solution of three recommended by LFB.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/15/further-defects-discovered-at-housing-with-grenfell-style-cladding

Swire says developers “gamed” Cranbrook to its detriment and Neighbourhood Plans aren’t working!

He says developers refused to create a town centre because there weren’t enough people living there! He says the council is now having to step in to rectify this!

Owl thinks that perhaps there are not enough people living there (question: how many is enough?) because there is no town centre!

Unitary authorities – the austerity measure that can’t be stopped?

Wonder what that new £10m EDDC HQ will be used for?

“Simon Heffer writes in the Sunday Telegraph to call on the Government to simplify and streamline the UK’s councils, replacing the system of county and district councils with county-level unitary authorities.

The need for “wholesale reform”, he says, has been made urgent by the problem of “social care that will break local government” and former chancellor George Osborne’s “disastrously flawed business rate system, which has had a profound effect on revenue-raising”.

He says that a system of unitary authorities would reduce payroll, offer the chance to sell off assets, and improve the handling of planning decisions, while the Government should remove “huge strategic questions such as social care from council control altogether”.

The Sunday Telegraph, Page: 21

“TORY MP STANDS UP FOR LABOUR POLICY PLAN IN SPAT WITH TORY MINISTER”

“A Tory minister has been taken to task for juvenile political point scoring by an unlikely source – a senior Tory MP.

The incredible spat between two of the Tories’ most prolific tweeters broke out when Treasury Secretary Liz Truss took a cheap shot at a housing policy being considered by Labour.

Under the plan, which is revealed on the front page of today’s Guardian, landowners would no longer be allowed to inflate the price of land sold for property development:

[There then follows a nasty Twitter spat between Tories Liz Truss and Nick Boles where Bowles sticks up for Corbyn!!!]

Truss responded by trying to tar the attempt to get more council homes built as some kind of Stalinist land grab.

But Nick Boles, himself a former planning minister, was having none of it.

The pair continued to spar until Truss brought the embarrassing blue-on-blue battle to a curt conclusion.

The clash comes after Boles made clear his dissatisfaction with abject lack of policy ideas coming from the Government and his party. …

The Conservative family is not a happy one.

As for Truss’ objections to Labour’s policy, we were reminded of a policy included in the last budget by her boss, Chancellor Philip Hammond.

Hammond announced an anti-land banking policy which the Tories had described as “Mugabe-style expropriation” when Labour floated the idea.

Liz Truss will be defending this “sinister confiscation” before you know it…

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2018/02/tory-mp-stands-up-for-labour-policy-plan-in-spat-with-tory-minister/

Tories disagree about compulsory land purchase for housing

Wonder where Swire stands on this?

“Labour’s plan to force the cheap sale of land to the state to boost housebuilding has been branded “deeply sinister” by Liz Truss, chief secretary to the Treasury, but the proposal has exposed a split in the Conservatives with influential Tory backbenchers backing the plan.

The shadow housing secretary, John Healey, told the Guardian on Thursday that a Jeremy Corbyn-led government could use compulsory purchase powers to buy land at closer to agricultural value rather than paying up to 100 times more, the kind of mark-up that land zoned for housing can currently fetch.

The proposal is intended to reduce the cost of building new council housing but Truss responded on Twitter saying: “First the utility companies, then the landowners. Who next? #freedomerosion #confiscation”.

She said she could not support the state imposing prices on landowners or private companies, adding: “We need more market not less.”

Nick Boles, the former Tory planning minister, who supports a similar policy to Labour, denied it was sinister and replied to Truss: “Why should a few landowners receive all of the windfall profit from planning permission when the taxpayer bears the cost of infrastructure?”

He argued that existing prices of development land aren’t the product of market forces.

“They’re the product of artificial scarcity created by the nationalisation of development rights and the introduction of the planning system,” he said.

Former education minister Robert Halfon also said he was sympathetic to the idea and said it was “an option we should look at”.

“We have to rapidly solve our housing crisis and we need to build social housing quickly,” he said. “We need to seriously look at this kind of thing and see the evidence on whether it would make a difference or not.”

Sajid Javid, the housing secretary, is examining proposals to remove planning permission from those who build too slowly. Oliver Letwin, the former Downing Street policy chief, is due to publish a review of land-banking later this year.

Landowners warned that small farms could suffer from the Labour proposal, which they described as “seeking to forcibly remove their assets at artificially low prices”.

“Compulsory purchase of land should only ever be a last resort and in practice it is far more likely to be small family farms that suffer, not the big players who have far more means to defend themselves,” said Christopher Price, policy director at the Country Land and Business Association which represents over 30,000 landowners across rural England and Wales.

Paul Smith, managing director of Strategic Land Group which makes money by securing planning permission for greenfield sites and sharing in the uplift in value, also attacked the plan.

“Land values are a consequence, not a cause, of house prices,” he said. “The industry and government should pool its collective wisdom and have a proper conversation around finding a workable solution to freeing up land – there are surely more straightforward ways to release land for development which should be fully explored.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/02/labours-housebuilding-plan-labelled-deeply-sinister-by-tory-minister

“Labour plans to make landowners sell to state for fraction of [development] value

Won’t that put the cat amongst the East Devon land-holding fat pigeons! And to add insult to land-owning injury – some top Tories agree!!!

“… Landowners currently sell at a price that factors in the dramatic increase in value planning consent is granted. It means a hectare of agricultural land worth around £20,000 can sell for closer to £2m if it is zoned for housing.

Labour believes this is slowing down housebuilding by dramatically increasing costs. It is planning a new English Sovereign Land Trust with powers to buy sites at closer to the lower price.

This would be enabled by a change in the 1961 Land Compensation Act so the state could compulsorily purchase land at a price that excluded the potential for future planning consent.

Healey’s analysis suggests that it would cut the cost of building 100,000 council houses a year by almost £10bn to around £16bn.

… With the “hope value” removed from the price of land, the cost of building a two-bed flat in Wandsworth, south-west London, would be cut from £380,000 to £250,000, in Chelmsford it would fall from £210,000 to £130,000 and in Tamworth in the West Midlands, where land values are lower, it would drop from £150,000 to £130,000.

“Rather than letting private landowners benefit from this windfall gain – and making everyone else pay for it – enabling public acquisition of land at nearer pre-planning-permission value would mean cheaper land which could help fund cheaper housing,” said Healey.

The proposal is expected to face strong opposition from landowners, including many pension fund investors, who would risk losing considerable sums on what they expected to receive. Savills, the property consultancy, warned that owners might launch legal challenges claiming the move infringed their property rights.

Companies known as strategic landowners make money for investors by buying agricultural land that may be needed for future housing at low prices, securing planning consent and selling it on for significant profits. They include Legal & General, which boasts “a strategic land portfolio of 3,550 acres stretching from Luton to Cardiff”.

… A similar policy has been advocated by some leading Conservatives, including the former planning minister Nick Boles. In a sign of growing political consensus, he said the huge windfalls gained by some landowners were inequitable and that the current system of capturing the uplift in land value through section 106 agreements was “incredibly inefficient”, because private developers could afford to outwit planners with expensive lawyers and consultants.

“There will be mass opposition, but there aren’t that many landowners and they are not a huge voting block,” Boles said. “Not all Conservatives would naturally feel comfortable with this but I have been struck by the positive reaction.”

Speaking earlier this week Javid indicated he would like to change the system. He said: “I think it’s right that the state takes a portion of that uplift to support local infrastructure and development.” …

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/01/labour-plans-landowners-sell-state-fraction-value

Blackhill Quarry: Who’s listening to the Community?

At the time this article was prepared, more than 145 individuals and resident associations had lodged formal objections against Clinton Devon Estate’s (CDE) planning application 17/3022 to create new industrial units on the Blackhill Quarry site. The condition on granting the original quarry licence was that when extraction ceased, the site should be returned to its natural state.

This number of objections is rising hourly, in spite of a determined PR campaign by CDE in the Exmouth Journal and local Parish Magazines to spin a favourable case (It’s only a small bit of land… the site proposed is currently covered in concrete and any restoration to high quality habitat will be problematic…. mitigation proposals that might secure significantly more wildlife benefits for the surrounding heathland are being discussed. Etc.) The consultation period has been extended.

Owl recalls last May CDE launched an on line “tell us what you think” survey with the introduction:

“We look to listen carefully to our staff, customers and those in our community. How we engage with you and what you think about our approach to sustainability is important to us and we want to get it right. Your feedback to this survey will play an important part in helping us develop our future communications.”

The survey asked questions such as:

To what extent do you agree with the following?

1. Clinton Devon Estates puts responsible stewardship and sustainable development at the heart of everything they do?

2. Clinton Devon Estates understands and conserves the wildlife it manages. And

3. How credible do you think “We pledge to do today what is right for tomorrow” is as a statement from Clinton Devon Estates?

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/05/30/time-running-out-to-tell-clinton-devon-estates-what-you-think-about-them/

anyone want to rethink their rezponses in light of the above?

TV tonight: “The New Builds Are Coming: Battle in the Countryside”

BBC 2
9 pm TONIGHT:

“Richard Macer explores the controversial decision by the government to free up the green belt to developers. In the tiny charming village of Culham he finds residents furious at plans to supersize their village to three and a half thousand new homes.”

Greenfield to concrete

England is losing an area the size of Glasgow every year because of a record number of developments on greenfield land.

Forests, fields and parks are disappearing under concrete at the fastest rate for a quarter of a century, an investigation by The Times has found.

“On average, 170 sq km of greenfield land were built on every year from 2013 to 2016 after the government relaxed planning rules to ease the housing shortage.

The rate of development is more than two-and-a-half times the 25-year average and five times higher than the rate between 2006 and 2011.

If the construction of new homes, shops and infrastructure continues at the present pace, an area the size of Greater London will have been built on by 2028.

Greenfield land — not to be confused with green belt — refers to “previously undeveloped land” that includes farmland, gardens, forests and “grassed areas” in towns and cities.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England said that the government figures were “startling”. Graeme Willis, head of rural campaigns, said: “To use land more sustainably, we must start using it more efficiently. This rate of loss cannot be endured without losing huge swathes of our countryside. It is a non-renewable resource. Once built on, [it] is lost forever.”

The government changed the planning laws in 2012 to increase the rate of building with “a presumption in favour of sustainable development”, which required local authorities to allocate land for development.

“What you saw after 2012 was local authorities getting their houses in order in terms of land supply,” Duncan Hartley, director of planning at Rural Solutions, a property consultancy, said. “They have been allocating sites for development and those sites have had to be substantial to meet housing needs.” The single biggest use for greenfield sites once developed was housing at 17 per cent. The other significant uses were for industrial sites, transport infrastructure, offices and shops.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Housing said: “We will be working to put the environment at the heart of planning, making sure any new development improves the environment locally and nationally, while contributing to the wider commitment to build 300,000 homes a year.”

From 1989 to 2011, most developments were on brownfield sites.

From 2013-16, the pendulum swung the other way, with greenfield sites supplying 54 per cent of the land.”

Source The Times, paywall

Greendale Business Park lose legal case for Planning Approval

Press release from Councillor Geoff Jung, East Devon Alliance Independent, Raleigh Ward:

”In a recent Planning Application, the owners of Greendale Business Park claimed that because an agricultural field has been used for open industrial storage for more than ten years they were entitled to continue that use under a little used clause in the Town and Country Planning Act, known as a “Certificate of Lawfulness”.

However, the Act stipulates it is not the length of use, but the length of a “breach in planning control”. As Laing Utilities occupied this area in association with the laying of the gas pipeline between 2006 and July 2009 and Utility companies are permitted to occupy and use locations as depots for the construction of pipelines or cables the use up to July 2009 could not be claimed to be a breach in planning control.

East Devon District Council as the (LPA) Local Planning Authority had to take legal advice and concluded that the company had not been able to demonstrate that there has been a “Breach of Planning Control for 10 years” and therefore the Application 17/2441/CPE has been refused.
Company can Appeal

The applicant however is entitled to appeal to the Secretary of State within six months of the notification of the refusal.

Enforcement Notice

The Report by East Devon District Council recommends that an Enforcement Notice is served requiring the owners to:

1. Permanently cease the use of the area shown on the plan for the storage of items not connected with agriculture and remove any such items
2. Permanently remove the perimeter and internal fencing and all hardstanding
3. Permanently remove the concrete, hardcore and drainage used to construct the
entrances.
4. Permanently remove all debris and paraphernalia from the area outlined in Red and return this site to an agricultural field clear of such items.

Location of are to be returned to agricultural use outlined in red above.

Greendale Extension East

This Planning Refusal comes only a month after another case at Greendale Business Park had an Enforcement Appeal upheld by the Secretary of State. This was after a Planning Appeal Inspector agreed with the Local Authority and again required the site to be removed of all industrial activities and returned to agricultural use. (Planning Application 15/2592/MOUT).

The Owners of Greendale have now appealed to the High Court for a Judicial Review on this Enforcement Appeal.

Retrospective Planning Applications.

Both cases were the result of the owners of Greendale constructing concrete roads and yards together with security fencing, drainage, lighting and industrial buildings prior to planning permission being obtained. This is known as Retrospective Planning Permission

Village Plan

The Woodbury Salterton Residents Association, a group of residents in the small rural village next to the business park have campaigned for more clarity and a clear understanding on a defined area where Industrial use and employment is permitted and what is classed as “open countryside.”

For 5 years the team of local people have worked tirelessly, working with local Parish Councils, District Councillors and the Planning Authorities to put a halt on the unplanned unlawful development at the Business Park.

The Local Development Plan approved in January 2016 gave some guidance and clarity and the recent unsuccessful application on Hogsbrook Hill and the extension East of the main Business Park are the result of following the guidance and principles laid down in the Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

However, the local plan stated that a further planning document will follow on from the Local Plan known as the “Villages Plan” giving further guidance and clarity to the 14 largest villages in East Devon and the business parks of Greendale and Hill Barton.

This document is very nearly to the stage of adoption, with 2 public consultations and a public hearing by the Planning Inspectorate.

The final draft was submitted in December for a final public consultation with the final date for people to have a say the 2nd February.

East Devon Alliance Independent Councillor Geoff Jung, who is the Councillor for Raleigh Ward which includes the village of Woodbury Salterton and Greendale Business Park says:

“I have worked with the Planning Policy Department officers and all other Councillors at East Devon District Council and attended every Council meeting when the Village Plan has been debated and attended the public hearings. This has been to ensure that the Village Plan and especially the guidance and controls on these 2 Business Parks went through correctly and democratically.

The Planning Inspector’s proposals for the Business Parks will provide the owners of the business parks, residents and the planning authority absolute certainty of where development will be permitted and where planning will be refused.

However, at the very last Council meeting in December an amendment to remove all mention of the business parks in the Villages Plan was proposed – this was rejected but is still supported by some District Councillors. Any changes to the Inspector’s recommendation would add ambiguity and loopholes to the planning process. I would encourage all interested parties to contact the local planning with their views by the 2nd Feb.

Email: planningpolicy@eastdevon.gov.uk
These views will be sent on to the inspector.

The following Hyperlink takes you to the EDDC Villages Plan Page
EDDC Villages Plan Consultation:

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/villages-plan/villages-plan-2017/villages-plan-examination/

I would like to thank the Planning Inspector Mrs Beverley Doward BSc BTP MRTPI and the East Devon team in the Planning Policy Department for a Villages Plan that will help many communities in East Devon.”

Tomorrow last day for comments on EDDC’s “planning application” for Exmouth seafront

The words “planning application” appear in quotes because it barely meets the requirement for an outline planning application, let alone a full one!

More haste … more money?

The planning application reference is 17/2944/FUL and must be quoted at all times.

You may write, email or login to the planning portal

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/view-planning-applications-enforcements-and-planning-appeals/

to place your objections. If you wish to speak to someone in planning the number is 01395 516551.

Please note that your objections must be to EDDC by 17th January so it is too late to write.

Clinton Devon Estates and Blackhill Quarry: a critical test of the company’s environmental credentials and standards

A correspondent writes:

Sites of Environmental Significance:

We have three very special environmental sites in, or on the edge of, East Devon protected by stringent European and UK Habitat Regulations: the Exe Estuary, Dawlish Warren and the Pebblebed Heaths.

Clinton Devon Estate (CDE) is the owner of 80% of the the Pebblebed Heaths, including the land of Blackhill Quarry.

CDE web site proclaims “Responsible stewardship and sustainable development are at the heart of everything we do”.

So it seems extraordinary that CDE, instead of promoting the reinstatement of the Blackhill Quarry site as part of the Pebblebed Heaths, should, instead, be seeking to turn it into an industrial site with all the accompanying pollution (noise, light, traffic etc).

Recently Aggregate Industries withdrew an application to continue quarrying on the site and has been restoring the site to encourage wildlife. Indeed, Aggregate Industries was awarded runner up and highly commended at the Mineral Product Association’s Biodiversity Awards 2017 for its restoration of the sand and gravel quarry.

“This is an unique wildlife habitat situated close to Exeter. Designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a Special Area of Conservation and a Special Protection Area, this area represents one of the most important conservation sites in Europe.”

http://www.pebblebedheaths.org.uk/

Also, studies have shown these are popular local sites, and access to them is vital to the local economy and highly valued by local people.

Access has widespread benefits including health, education, inspiration, spiritual and general well-being. While much of the access takes place regardless of the wildlife interest, that wildlife interest is also a part of the specific draw for many people. New development in the area is putting this under pressure not only by destroying green space but by increasing the footfall on what is left from an ever larger population. Local authorities have a legal duty to ensure no adverse effects occur as a result of their strategic plans.

Legally, there can be no building within 400m of these sites and also any development within 10Km requires a formal Habitats Protection Assessment with favourable conclusions. EDDC, however, accepts a funding levy from developers to get around having to do this individually, effectively taking on the responsibility for mitigation delivery themselves.

Though money might do a lot of things, it can’t create more land.

Your correspondent recalls a time when CDE were talking of using the old industrial site to enhance the existing recreation experience of the Heath. And now it wishes to develop an industrial site.

Do they think the prohibition on building within 400m doesn’t apply to them?

Plymouth and Torbay to share some strategic planning functions – so where does LEP fit in?

So where does our Local Enterprise Partnership fit in with these emerging Strategic Planning areas of Plymouth/Torbay and Greater Exeter/East Devon/Mid Devon/Teignbridge Strategic Plan?

It’s all getting very confusing! Well, except that most of the LEP Devon and Somerset plans and money end up surprisingly close to Hinkley C!

“Plymouth and Torbay councils could share some planning services under plans to be discussed later in January.

Plymouth’s cabinet will discuss an “in principle agreement” looking at sharing some planning functions with Torbay Council on 16 January.

Torbay requested the partnership after a service review by Plymouth City Council last year made a number of recommendations.

Areas which could be covered under the arrangement include strategic and local planning, environmental policy, natural infrastructure and major developments.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-devon-42543152

EDDC’s justification for Exmouth seafront “planning lite” application

Would you or I get away with this?

Exmouth Town Council arranging hurried meeting on 6 January 2018.

Let’s see what they think (Tory dominated, don’t build up you expectations!)

From EDDC to Town Councillors – how to justify the unjustifiable!

One for the Scrutiny Committee? Oh no, wait – not allowed to discuss individual planning applications! But maybe CAN investigate how there are double standards in planning – one for their own officers and one for everyone else.

No – even that’s not right! One for EDDC and its developers and one for the rest of us.

“Queen’s Drive Temporary Uses Planning Application Response to Concerns Raised by Exmouth Town Council

1. CONCERN ABOUT TOO LITTLE DETAIL IN THE APPLICATION.
The lack of detail in the planning application is a result of the tight timescale that we are faced with in delivering the temporary uses.
Time is a key driver for the delivery of the Temporary Uses project. We aim to have new facilities available by early spring 2018.
In order to achieve this, we have to secure a planning permission first, before starting work on the installation of the new facilities.
We also have to go through the research and then procurement process to find the suppliers (and operators where appropriate) for the new facilities.
We realised that if we are to achieve this tight timetable, we would need to undertake tasks concurrently. So we would need to submit a planning application without necessarily knowing the detail of exactly what the facilities would be and who would be supplying them.
We discussed this with our planning advisor and the Local Planning Authority and identified that we could submit a planning application that provided a general description of what we propose to do (and was therefore without too much detail), where (if approved at committee), the planning authority could put conditions on the permission and request the detail at a later time.
We agreed on a strategy for the planning application that would show the three zones for the three different “themes” of what will be on offer. Namely: children’s play, food and drink, and a range of one-off events.

2. CONCERNS ABOUT RESIDENTIAL AREA AND NOISE.
The District Council will have to apply for necessary licences to cover the hours of opening for the operation of the events on site. Again, as yet we do not know the detail of what the events will be as we are still in the research and planning stages. We would not expect that any event would be later than midnight. But note that this will only be on odd occasions – not every night. This application will be heard by the Licensing Committee in due course.

3. CONCERNS ABOUT THE FILLING IN OF THE PONDS.
We do not yet know the specific engineering solution for how the ponds will be filled in. It is thought that this will be loose material topped with sand. Whatever is used to fill the ponds could be removed in the future if required.
4. CONCERNS ABOUT THE TIMING OF SUBMISSION.
We are aiming for the application to be heard at DMC on 6 March 2018.
To meet this date and allow for the lead in period for the application to be processed, we therefore had to submit the application before Christmas (early December). It was not until early December that we had finalised the application ready for submission.

Alison Hayward
EDDC 3 January 2018”

Age segregation in housing must end says think-tank

Owl says: They don’t mention age segregation by affluence, where rich older people can segregate (and isolate) themselves in luxury apartments, leaving the poorer elderly to try to rent inadequate housing. Now where might they be …!

Britain must create 500 cross-generational housing, care home, school and nursery sites to break down “age apartheid” and heal social divisions, a think tank says.

The first wave of institutions should be set up within five years, it said, to reverse decades of social change that has increasingly kept younger and older generations apart.

The report by United For All Ages, which seeks to bring people together across generations, said that Britain was one of the most age-segregated countries in the world, resulting in loneliness and divided communities. This was driven in part by trends in housing, with many families living farther apart. High house prices meant that market towns and rural communities often had ageing populations while more inner city communities were dominated by young people, it said.

The problem was exacerbated by the diminished role in some communities of local shops, churches, pubs and clubs as retailers moved out of town or online, church attendance fell and pubs closed.

Changes in workplaces were also a factor, it said, as some industries attracted younger or older workforces while flexible or home working meant it was less common for people to mix with colleagues from several generations at work.

The study called on care providers, schools, planners and developers, ministers and local authorities to help to reverse the trend by creating institutions for shared use.

One example is a network of more than 450 multigeneration meeting houses developed in Germany as part of a government response to its ageing population. These host day care services for older people, parent-andtoddler groups, homework clubs, education courses and cafés, supported by volunteers. The report calls on nurseries, primary schools and care homes to develop similar spaces on their sites.

The Times reported in July how a nursery had become the first in Britain to open a site at a care home. Apples and Honey nursery opened its second site in a bungalow in the grounds of Nightingale House, a residential home for elderly Jewish men and women in Clapham, southwest London. Last month Downshall primary school in Redbridge, east London, opened a day centre three mornings a week for older people with dementia and depression to share activities with pupils.

The report urges planners to go further with cross-generation housing shared by older people and students, encouraging homeowners who want to downsize to subdivide their properties to create housing for families, and overlapping training for people to work in care homes and childcare.

Stephen Burke, director of United for All Ages, said: “Britain is dogged by divisions — we are divided by class, income, race, geography and age. The mistrust that arises from such divisions is fuelled by the lack of connection between different generations. This can breed myths and stereotypes, misunderstanding, ageism and exclusion. That’s why we believe mixing matters.”

Source: The Times (pay wall)

“Freemasons are blocking reform, says Police Federation leader”

Remember how Owl was taken to task for saying planners took more notice of Freemasons than town councillors …

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/12/15/buckfastleigh-dissolves-its-planning-committee-as-district-and-county-councils-take-no-notice-of-its-recommendations/

Well …

“Reform in policing is being blocked by members of the Freemasons, and their influence in the service is thwarting the progress of women and people from black and minority ethnic communities, the leader of rank-and-file officers has said.

Steve White, who steps down on Monday after three years as chair of the Police Federation, told the Guardian he was concerned about the continued influence of Freemasons.

White took charge with the government threatening to take over the federation if it did not reform after a string of scandals and controversies.

The Freemasons is one of the world’s oldest secular societies, made up of people, predominantly men, concerned with moral and spiritual values. Their critics say they are secretive and serve the interests of their members over the interests of the public. The Masons deny this, saying they uphold values in keeping with public service and high morals.

White told the Guardian: “What people do in their private lives is a matter for them. When it becomes an issue is when it affects their work. There have been occasions when colleagues of mine have suspected that Freemasons have been an obstacle to reform.

“We need to make sure that people are making decisions for the right reasons and there is a need for future continuing cultural reform in the Fed, which should be reflective of the makeup of policing.”

One previous Metropolitan police commissioner, the late Sir Kenneth Newman, opposed the presence of Masons in the police.

White would not name names, but did not deny that some key figures in local Police Federation branches were Masons.

White said: “It’s about trust and confidence. There are people who feel that being a Freemason and a police officer is not necessarily a good idea. I find it odd that there are pockets of the organisation where a significant number of representatives are Freemasons.”

The Masons deny any clash or reason police officers should not be members of their organisation.

Mike Baker, spokesman for the United Grand Lodge, said: “Why would there be a clash? It’s the same as saying there would be a clash between anyone in a membership organisation and in a public service.

“We are parallel organisations, we fit into these organisations and have high moral principles and values.”

Baker said Freemasonry was open to all, the only requirement being “faith in a supreme being”. He said there were a number of police officers who were Masons and police lodges, such as the Manor of St James, set up for Scotland Yard officers, and Sine Favore, set up in 2010 by Police Federation members. One of those was the Met officer John Tully, who went on to be chair of the federation and, after retirement from policing, is an administrator at the United Grand Lodge of England.

Masons in the police have been accused of covering up for fellow members and favouring them for promotion over more talented, non-Mason officers.

White said: “Some female representatives were concerned about Freemason influence in the Fed. The culture is something that can either discourage or encourage people from the ethnic minorities or women from being part of an organisation.”

The federation has passed new rules on how it runs itself, aimed at ending the fact that its key senior officials are all white, and predominantly male.

White said he hoped the new rules would lead to an end to old white men dominating the federation: “The new regulations will mean Freemasons leading to an old boys’ network will be much less likely in the future. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/31/freemasons-blocking-reform-police-federation-leader

“Tories drop two flagship housing policies from key strategy document”

“Two of the Conservatives’ flagship housing policies have been dropped from a key government document, raising questions about the future of the plans.

The new “single departmental plan” published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) does not include a single reference to Starter Homes, which form a central plank of the Government’s commitment to increase home ownership, or of the planned extension of Right to Buy.

…In the latest version, five specific pledges to boost home ownership, including delivering Starter Homes and the extension of Right to Buy, have been downgraded to a single-line promise to “increase home ownership through schemes including Help to Buy”.

… Furthermore, a specific commitment to “increasing home ownership” has been absorbed into the broader aim of fixing “the broken housing market”.

… Ministers had promised to build 200,000 of them by 2020 but The Independent revealed last month that not a single Starter Home has yet been built. This led to officials admitting the policy remained an “ambition” – but have now removed all mention of it from DCLG’s housing objectives.

The previous iteration of the departmental plan included a clear commitment to the policy. It said: “We are delivering a major boost to affordable home ownership with Starter Homes and extending Right to Buy to housing association tenants.”

It reiterated a pledge to build 200,000 Starter Homes, including 30,000 on brownfield land – former industrial sites earmarked for development.

Labour said the omissions in the new document showed the Government had “given up” on helping first-time buyers.

John Healey, the party’s Shadow Housing Secretary, said: “With home ownership at a 30-year low and the number of younger homeowners in free fall, the Government has now given up on first-time buyers.

“We need much more affordable housing for younger people looking to buy their first home but ministers have erased new housing for first-time buyers from the Communities Department’s official objectives. …”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-housing-policy-starter-homes-right-to-buy-housing-association-sajid-javid-tories-a8119266.html

Obscene Persimmon bonuses – add nearly £41,000 to cost of each house

Guardian Letters:

What do management bonuses mean to the average customer? Persimmon’s CEO will receive a bonus of £110m. Senior staff bonuses will exceed £500m. Persimmon builds approximately 15,000 houses a year. Arguably, therefore, the CEO’s bonus adds at least £7,333 to the price of a house and the senior staff bonuses add £33,333. It is unlikely that the customer would think it money well spent.”
Martin Jeffree

AND

“Surely the housebuilding company Persimmon can now afford to run its own help-to-buy scheme.”
David Simpson