Hammond threatens to “hire builders” to build on green belt to speed housing construction

“MINISTERS could hire builders to erect thousands of homes under Budget plans being pondered by the Chancellor.

The Government would free up public land and get construction firms to use it.

Homes could then hit the market right away rather than wait for firms to release them when prices rise, Sun columnist James Forsyth reveals today.

Philip Hammond is also said to be ready to take on Tory backbenchers by loosening curbs on green belt development in a bid to solve the housing crisis.

One insider indicated No10 may back the move despite the likely fury of Tories across the South East.

The insider said: “The PM has moved on this issue but is not entirely there yet.”

Theresa May pledged to take “personal ownership” of the drive to speed up housebuilding during No10 talks with the industry earlier this week.

Before the 2015 election, Tories pledged one million new English homes by 2020 and 500,000 more in the following two years.

Ministers accept they face defeat at the next election in 2022 unless they sort out the housing crisis. Experts warn that an entire generation cannot get on the property ladder.

And charity Shelter said resulting rent rises were seeing poorer Brits cut back on food, clothes and kids’ toys.”

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4733588/philip-hammond-considers-freeing-up-sites-and-hiring-builders-for-thousands-of-new-homes/

“Sainsbury’s faces anger over London plot with just 4% affordable homes”

683 homes on a prime London site and Sainsbury’s says it can afford for only 27 of them to be affordable … beggars belief. PLEASE, PLEASE get this government – which not only allows this sort of thing but encourages it – OUT!

“Sainsbury’s is facing housing campaigners’ anger over a proposed high-rise development surrounding an east London superstore that includes just 4% affordable homes.

Local opponents have described the supermarket’s proposal that just 27 of the 683 homes in the Ilford project will be available for affordable rent as “insulting”.

Planning experts for the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, have said the offer “falls substantially short” of City Hall’s plan to deliver 17,000 affordable homes per year – equivalent to 40% of the strategic housebuilding target.

It also falls well short of the London Borough of Redbridge’s target of 50% affordable housing across all new developments. There are currently over 8,000 households on the waiting list for affordable housing in the area, and more than 2,400 living in temporary accommodation.

The borough estimates it needs an extra 15,000 affordable homes by 2033. The case is set to go before a public inquiry starting on Tuesday, but the project appears likely to go ahead after the council withdrew its opposition on Saturday.

Sainsbury’s says the “maximum reasonable” amount of affordable housing it can include is 14 one- and two-bedroom flats, a dozen three-bedroom units and a single four-bedroom property. It estimates making a 20% profit selling off the private flats, according to planning documents. At current local prices that could exceed £40m.

It has described it as “a financially challenging project”, partly because of lost revenues to its retail operation when it closes its existing store for construction. It has also agreed to pay Redbridge £11.4m in community infrastructure levy, although this cannot be used to fund affordable housing.

But Meenakshi Sharma, co-founder of Ilford NOISE, a local residents group, said the amount of affordable housing being offered was “ridiculous and insulting”.

“People can’t believe it is 4% especially with all the publicity about the need for affordable housing,” she said. “And yet this still carries on. They don’t take any notice whatsoever. There’s a big housing need in the area. There are lots of people in temporary accommodation and lots of overcrowding.”

It is the latest in a series of high-profile battles over the financial viability of private housing schemes in the capital with councils seeking to maximise the number of cheaper homes in developments and developers seeking to minimise them. Previous disputes have centred on central London sites where developers have argued that the high cost of land limits their ability to subsidise affordable housing, but the row over the Ilford site suggests the issue is spreading to the outer London suburbs.

Affordable in this case means rents capped at 60% of market rates. Sainsbury’s is increasingly moving into housebuilding, using the space above its stores for housing. The Ilford project is its largest yet, but it has also built 650 homes around a store in Nine Elms and 500 homes above a store in Fulham, both in London.

Redbridge had originally rejected the application because of the lack of affordable housing and was planning to oppose it at the public inquiry, but it has now reversed its position and accepted the 4% offer.

On Friday, a spokeswoman for Redbridge told the Guardian: “We declined the application because of the huge gap between the borough’s expectations on affordable housing in new developments, and the proposals we were given. The capital is critically short of housing, especially affordable housing and we need to increase the stock in the borough.”

But on Saturday it told the planning inspector it was withdrawing its opposition and would not resist Sainsbury’s appeal against its original refusal.

In a letter to the planning inspectorate, the head of planning, Joanne Woodward, said it had agreed common ground on the financial viability of the project and a planning deal, although without any increase in the affordable housing included in the development.

“The council will attend on the first day of the inquiry to explain how the position it has now adopted has been reached,” she said.

Sainsbury’s said: “Our plans will help kick-start Ilford’s future regeneration by driving growth and job creation, as well as provide a broad mix of housing for local people. We look forward to the outcome of the appeal. We have agreed with the council to review the provision at certain points throughout the development, and if we can increase the number of affordable homes we will.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/15/sainsburys-faces-anger-over-london-plot-with-just-4-affordable-homes

Telegraph: “There are more than 200,000 homes sitting empty in England – worth a total of £43bn”

“In England there are 200,000 homes that have been sitting empty for more than six months, according to new Government figures. This is equivalent to £43bn worth of housing stock.

In London alone there were 19,845 homes sitting vacant for over six months last year, property that is worth £9.4bn, taking into account average prices.

Kensington and Chelsea has the capital’s highest number of homes which are vacant for more than six months with 1,399 empty, up 8.5pc on last year, and 22.7pc higher than 10 years ago.

This is likely due to the buy-to-leave phenomenon, where wealthy buyers snap up homes as an investment, and leave them empty while waiting for its value to increase.

Communities secretary Sajid Javid downplayed the role of such foreign buyers in exacerbating the housing crisis, saying the problem “isn’t as bad as some people think”. A Savills’ report found that the majority of homes bought by people based overseas were being rented out, rather than left empty. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/house-prices/200000-homes-sitting-empty-england-worth-total-43bn/

Devon planners told they are not needed – part 2

See post below this for a somewhat puzzling company (Wilson Planning and Architecture) which appears to talk like a big developer but seemingly performs as an architect for single dwellings.

Firstly, it does appear to be Torridge [where EDDC’s former planning supremo Kate Little was once in charge) the company is talking about:

“LAND WANTED THROUGHTOUT TORRIDGE FOR A DISTRICT WIDE PLANNING APPLICATION, WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT QUANTITY OF LAND BANKED ALREADY
We are actively seeking land sharing a common border with a village or town to assess the sites suitability for inclusion in a wider proposal to benefit the whole district. If you have land, email us the details and we’ll get back to you.”

(this has so far engendered at least 35 mostly less than supportive responses!)

Their earlier Facebook post (picked out by Andrew Lainton’s ‘Decisions, Decisions’ blog) seemed to imply that developers are now fully in charge in Devon, not planners, and that Local Plans are easily overcome, and indeed, the company has secured planning permission for individuals on contented sites.

They have many posts and tweets in similar vein on

https://www.facebook.com/WilsonPlanning1/

and

http://www.wilsonplanning.co.uk/

though some are more easy to understand than others.

For example on their home page they say:

“Having experience of working in the South West area for over twenty years, we have been able to build up significant and mutually respected relations with local authorities throughout the South West.”

but then it gets a bit confusing with the post we initially blogged:

“The land in our country and our district is irreplaceable. My [not sure who the ‘my’ is] proposal unites the land owners, puts differences aside and makes the actual most efficient use of the land humanly possible by collaboration. This proposal is for the good of each and every individual within the district. We have total flexibility whereas the local plan is rigid and doesn’t think on an actual district level, it’s fragmented and broken. Every single person should support this.”

to which a number of people have rightly responded on the lines “what on earth are you talking about?”!

Wilson Architecture and Planning appears to be in Bideford and seems to have started up in 2015 with George, Christopher and Paula Wilson (so presumably existed as some other entity prior to 2015 if they have been in business for over 20 years) though Christopher resigned in 2015 and was re-appointed again quite quickly:

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/qpveCxK_xjsdgXZfVIxID58EJlsDcssgW9cGvfbD_Kk/application-pdf

Not a developer as such, then, but appears to think that developers are now (or should be? difficult to work out!) in charge of the county.

Elucidation appreciated!

Is there an election coming up? Neil Parish suddenly gets interested in new house design

Suddenly, as a bolt from the ( Tory bright) blue, Parish rediscovers his inner planning officer! Is there a new housing estate planned near his gaffe in Somerset? Or is he desperately seeking pre-election brownie points, aware that he has perhaps spent too much time on farmers and dualling the A303?

“ … when Parliament returns in September, I will be holding a debate on New Housing Design.

As a former Planning Officer at District Council level, I know just how terrified some communities are of new development. Not because they are NIMBYs. But because they have seen how previous developments in the last 50 years have left communities with homes totally unsuitable for their area.

The 2017 Conservative manifesto, for all its controversy, pledged to build “better homes which match the quality of those we have inherited from previous generations”. This is a must.”

http://www.devonlive.com/news/property/homebuilders-must-held-account-independent-322281

Devon planners told to go home by developer – s/he has the county sewn up?

Not sure which district council this is (Teignbridge, Torridge?) but one developer appears to believe s/he runs the district and possibly even the county. As the blogger (Andrew Lainton – Decisions, Decisions blog) says, the alleged author may well regret his or her early morning post!

The wild (south) west of planning!

https://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2017/10/13/go-home-devon-planners-wilson-architects-and-planner-will-replace-all-your-local-plans/amp/

CPRE: wrong homes in wrong places

“New paper shows Government focus on meeting market demand is failing to provide homes people need

A new paper published today by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) argues that the Government’s continuing failure to prioritise genuine local housing needs over market demand will perpetuate the housing crisis while wasting precious countryside [1].

CPRE’s Needless Demand analyses the current method that councils use to plan for local housing and what is being built as a result. It finds that ‘housing need’ and ‘housing demand’ are being conflated in planning policy, with the result that sheer numbers matter more than type and tenure of housing.

CPRE had hoped that the Government’s new consultation on housing – Planning for the right homes in the right places, published last Thursday – would clearly distinguish between genuine local needs and market demand [2]. In calling for a standardised approach to identifying the needs of different social groups, the Government took some steps towards this.

Yet the general thrust of the Government’s plans was to argue that high-demand areas will have to accept more homes to improve the affordability of the housing market. CPRE sees this as neither building the right homes, nor building them in the right places. The likely result is profitable executive homes built on precious countryside in the south east, rather than building what communities across the country actually need. …”

http://www.cpre.org.uk/media-centre/latest-news-releases/item/4675-the-wrong-homes-in-the-wrong-places

After freehold leases another scam: unadopted roads

Rumour has it there are many such roads in our part of the world …
http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/practical-advice-issued-for-sensible-parking-in-cranbrook-1-3999229
and
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/02/20/cranbrook-estate-rent-charges-another-developer-cash-cow/comment-page-1/

Owners of new homes are living on potholed roads with no street lights or rubbish collection as housebuilders and councils shun the responsibility for road maintenance.

Developers can save thousands by dodging the legal agreements that pass the roads on to local authority control, allowing builders to make roads narrower than usual, for example, and leaving homeowners to pay for the road’s upkeep or see it fall into disrepair.

People living on these unadopted streets have been forced to seek approval from road management committees before selling their homes and say it is harder to find buyers.

The government is to ban new houses from being sold on a leasehold basis to tackle onerous ground rent charges, yet owners of freehold houses on unadopted streets are being “held to ransom” by management companies that charge households up to £660 a year for road maintenance.

“We seem to be rewriting the rules on the way that roads are looked after,” says Derrick Chester, a councillor for Littlehampton and Arun in West Sussex.

Normally housebuilders have new roads “adopted” by the local authority through a legal agreement under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980, while the sewers underneath are covered by a similar Section 104 arrangement. When the road is left unadopted, homeowners on the road are responsible for its upkeep, and often the sewers and facilities such as playgrounds and parks.

Halima Ali, 30, and her husband bought their freehold four-bedroom home in Rochdale, Greater Manchester, from Persimmon, the developer, and believed that the road would later be adopted by the local council. Seven years later the streets around the 120 flats and houses remain unadopted and are deteriorating.

“The street lights have not been fixed for years, so there are areas that are in complete darkness; it is quite scary at night. A neighbour has had a problem with a sewer cover, which is in danger of collapse,” she says. “There is a children’s playground and, even though it is a public park, residents are required to maintain it. The public come and trash it and we can be made to pay for its maintenance, which is outrageous, and we are paying council tax on top.”

Another homeowner, 56, bought a three-bedroom freehold house in Kettering, Northamptonshire, from SDC Builders nine years ago. “At the time it was sold to me as a benefit, your own private neighbourhood, which would be passed into the residents’ control once the developer had left,” she says, “but, as an unadopted road, we have no street lighting, the bin men won’t come down and we are liable if anyone has an accident on the communal land.”

She has been trying to sell her home, but buyers pulled out when they found out about problems with the unadopted road.

She says that SDC Builders set up a limited company for managing the development, which was passed to residents, who elected two neighbours as directors. She was not aware that if she wanted to sell her property it would require the directors’ approval, and they have refused permission over what she says is a trivial disagreement about parking.

Christine Hereward, the head of planning at Pemberton Greenish, the law firm, says councils and highways authorities will only adopt roads if they are built to their standards. Section 38 agreements are also backed by a lump sum, sometimes running to hundreds of thousands of pounds, put down by the housing developer as a bond against the road not being finished properly. Developers receive their bond back only when the road is adopted. Ms Ali says: “Persimmon has not built our road to the required standard. The council won’t adopt it.”

Critics say developers are choosing not to enter into a section 38 agreement so that they can bypass local authority standards; roads can be narrower and car parking spaces smaller than regulations require, for example. They also save tens of thousands by not making the required bond payments.

In 2009 the government estimated that it would cost £3 billion to bring the country’s thousands of unadopted streets up to an adoptable standard. “Developers can achieve cost savings and make their lives easier. It does enable them to construct a substandard highway. It is a shortcut. To be fair to the developers, it is up to councils to enforce the standards,” says a source who did not want to be named. “There is very little sanction.”

The public come and trash the park and we can be made to pay for it
Mr Chester says councils and housebuilders are colluding over the issue because it saves both parties money. “It fits into the narrative about local authority budget cuts,” he says.

Phil Waller, a former construction manager who runs the website Brand-newhomes.co.uk, says: “I know of one development where a fire engine was unable to access a fire because of parked cars and the layout of the road.”

Unlike private roads, which are often gated, unadopted roads appear as ordinary streets. Whether the public has right of way can be uncertain. Mark Loveday, a barrister from Tanfield Chambers in London, says he frequently hears from homeowners who did not realise that their property was on an unadopted road. “What very often happens is nothing is done to the road for many years and it is only when potholes appear and someone living on the road says, ‘hang on, someone should be maintaining this road’”, he says.

Buyers of new-build homes ought to check the specifics of the road before the sale. “This is an important thing that should be flagged up by the solicitor,” says Mr Loveday. Those who are unsure about the status of their road can apply to the Land Registry for details.

Steve Turner of the Home Builders Federation, the trade association, says housebuilders are increasingly in dispute with local authorities and planning departments over the specifications of newly built roads, which is causing delays in local authorities adopting them. “The resolution typically involves the authority demanding more cash,” he says.

‘We may have to pay for the road upgrade’

Residents of unadopted streets often need to take out public liability insurance in case someone is injured on the street.

Keith Beattie used the government’s flagship Help to Buy scheme to buy his house in Haydock, near St Helens, Merseyside, from Westby Homes North West. In February 2014, when he moved in, the road was unfinished, with tarmac not properly laid and potholes filling up with water. The housebuilder went into administration in August. “The administrators have informed us that they won’t be completing the road and paths. St Helens council will not enter a section 38 until the road is brought to an adoptable standard, which it is not,” he says. “As residents, we may have to pay to have the road completed to the council’s standard.”

Source: Times, pay wall

Dense-area city dwellers happier and healthier than suburban counterparts

Seems counter-intuitive to us who choose to live in East Devon but more city development would certainly make a dent in coastal town/rural area calls for more development there:

“Contrary to popular belief, busy city centres beat suburban living when it comes to human wellbeing, as socialising and walking make for happier, healthier people, according to a new report.

Downtown residents – packed together in tight row houses or apartment blocks – are more active and socially engaged than people who live in the sprawl of suburbia, according to a report that aims to challenge popular beliefs about city life.

Its authors said their findings should encourage politicians to promote the benefits of built-up city living.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/06/inner-city-living-makes-for-healthier-happier-people-study-finds

May’s housing announcement “tinkering at the edges”

“Responding to the Prime Minister’s conference announcement on housing, Radical Housing Network said:

“May is pumping £10bn into a housing policy that worsens the housing crisis: Help to Buy has kept house prices high, provides subsidies to a small number of people, and does nothing to address the chronic shortage of low-cost housing.

“And her announcement of £2bn for affordable housing alongside permitting some councils to build more social rent homes is simply tinkering at the edges of a failed system. May’s announcement was proclaimed a ‘revolutionary’ shift in policy – but in fact would only provide homes for just 5% of the 1.2 million people who have languished on waiting lists for years.

“Over decades we have lost 1.5 million council homes while powerful property owners dominate the market. In London, millions of people are stuck in poor housing on extortionate rents while developers game the system, while only a fraction – 13% – of new houses announced last year met even the low standard for ‘affordability’ set by the Conservatives.”

“If May wants to prove she’s ‘listened and learned’ on housing, she needs to get serious about providing the safe, decent and affordable homes which we desperately need. It’s estimated that we need national public investment of £10bn to provide enough council homes to meet demand, and it’s essential that tenants and communities are involved in the planning of those homes.

“Corbyn’s commitment to put tenants back at the heart of housing policy could be the start of real change, yet change is yet to be seen from London’s Labour run councils – including Lewisham, Haringey and Holloway – who continue to sell off public land and housing for profit in flawed ‘regeneration’ schemes, despite community opposition.

“The tragedy at Grenfell starkly revealed what happens when residents’ concerns and voices are ignored. Grenfell should mark a turning point for all parties, who must commit to real action on our broken housing system.”

Radical Housing Network, Facebook page

Developer making massive profit wants better and quicker service from councils

“The boss of Cala Homes has hit out at ‘understaffed’ councils for slowing the pace of development as the firm reported a fifth year of record growth.

Alan Brown, chief executive of the private housebuilder, said that he wanted to see more “responsibility at a local level” for making sure development of new homes was able to go ahead.

“The issue is about how central government gets local government to take their responsibility more seriously,” he said. “At a time when the country desperately needs more homes, local authorities are cutting back on people.”

Research by the Royal Town Planning Institute released in August found that council planning departments were “just about managing” due to budget pressure.

“All local government services have been under significant pressure over the past few years, However, data suggests that planning and development has been the hardest hit of all,” the research found.

Mr Brown praised Theresa May’s commitment to extending the Help to Buy scheme, which helps first time buyers get onto the housing ladder. The prime minister announced over the weekend that the scheme would benefit a further 135,000 people, giving a boost to housebuilders who feared an end to the subsidy.

Around 14pc of Cala’s sales in the last year have been made through Help to Buy, Mr Brown said, although he added that he thought it should eventually be “transitioned out over time” as the number of higher loan-to-value mortgages increases.

Cala Homes, which is backed by Legal & General and Patron Capital, made revenues of £747.9m in the year to June 30, 27pc higher than in the previous year.

It rapidly increased the number of homes it built, completing 1,677 in the 12-month period compared to 1,151 in the previous year, an increase of 46pc.

Its pre-tax profits jumped 14pc to £68.5m, despite the average selling price of its homes dipping 8pc to £497,000. This was a result of Cala’s move away from building homes worth more than £1m in order to concentrate on more mid-market properties.

Clyde Lewis, analyst at Peel Hunt, said: “We expect the group to see a decent improvement in margins this year as strong volume growth catches up with the overhead investment.”

http://www.newsrepublic.net/detail/0585683D6F10100001_uk

“Supreme Court to consider legal standard on adequacy of reasons in planning”

A rather technical article but basically the Supreme Court is to rule on how much information and how much detail y must be provided when an applicant wants to build in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty:

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php

Survey: public perception of the planning system

If you wish to give your views on the public perception of planning, a survey can be found here:

https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/RaynsfordPublic

Keep it clean, people, keep it clean!

Comments by 31 October 2017.

Home ownership – a hopeless dream for most young people

Home Affront: housing across the generations

a report by the Resolution Foundation

Key findings

“After those born in 1946-50, every cohort has experienced lower home ownership rates than its predecessor at the same age. Today’s families headed by 30 year olds are only half as likely to own their home as the baby boomer generation was at the same age, and home ownership has declined across all regions and income groups.

With falling home ownership and a shrinking social rented sector, four out of every ten 30 year olds now live in private rented accommodation – in contrast to one in ten 50 years ago.

Millennials have also been more likely to be living with their parents in their mid-20s than previous cohorts, while families are much less likely to house their elderly parents than they were in the past.

While the average family spent just 6 per cent of their income on housing costs in the early 1960s, this has trebled to 18 per cent. Housing costs have taken up a growing proportion of disposable income from each generation to the next. This is true of private and social renters, but mortgage interest costs have come down for recent generations. However, the proportion of income being spent on capital repayments has risen relentlessly from generation to generation thanks to house price growth.

The quality of housing has in many respects improved hugely. But millennial-headed households are more likely than previous generations to live in overcrowded conditions, and when we look at the distribution of square meterage we see today’s under-45s have been net losers in the space stakes compared to previous cohorts, while over-45s are net gainers.
More recent generations have also had longer commutes on average than previous cohorts, despite spending more on housing.

We conclude by modelling what the future might hold for today’s young people. Based on historic relationships between a range of factors and home ownership growth, an optimistic set of assumptions would imply that these cohorts could make up much of the lost ground on home ownership. However, if similar trends to the 2002-2012 were to return, less than half of millennials will buy a home before the age of 45 compared to over 70 per cent of baby boomers who had done so by that age.

Clearly there is scope for political determination to make a difference to the housing outlook, and future work for the Intergenerational Commission will consider what action should be taken.”

http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/home-affront-housing-across-the-generations/

How much bigger does the housing scandal need to get before SOMEONE does SOMETHING?

“Millennials are spending three times more of their income on housing than their grandparents yet are often living in worse accommodation, says a study launched by former Conservative minister David Willetts that warns of a “housing catastrophe”.

The generation currently aged 18-36 are typically spending over a third of their post-tax income on rent or about 12% on mortgages, compared with 5%-10% of income spent by their grandparents in the 1960s and 1970s. Despite spending more, young people today are more likely to live in overcrowded and smaller spaces, and face longer journeys to work – commuting for the equivalent of three days a year more than their parents.” …

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/20/millennials-spend-three-times-more-of-income-on-housing-than-grandparents

Times leader column attacks housing developers and the government

(see also post below)

“Anyone who has fielded rival bids for a kitchen extension is likely to be familiar with the pattern: once contracts are signed and work is under way the winning bidder finds ways to cut costs or otherwise boost profits. Committed to the project, the client’s options are to sue or surrender.

In the multibillion-pound business of updating and expanding Britain’s housing stock, the equivalent of the kitchen extension is the mixed-used development that includes affordable housing to be let or sold at below-market rates.

Affordable housing is in critically short supply. This drives up prices in precisely the areas where buyers and the broader housing market need them to come down. It forces low-income families to live farther and farther from places of work, especially in the southeast, and it is storing up trouble for a weak Conservative government with little traction among voters aged under 40.

This is a government that has promised 1.5 million new homes by 2022. In principle almost all these homes are to be built by the private sector. In practice developers are being allowed to game the system by promising generous allocations of affordable housing only to dilute those commitments once planning permission has been granted and building is under way.

Examples of this underhand but technically legal approach are legion in cities. It has now spread to rural Britain too. The country’s biggest builders are rowing back on affordable housing commitments to the extent of 18 much-needed rural homes a day, leading to a projected shortfall of 33,000 affordable homes in the countryside as a whole by the end of this parliament.

The government should be acting to fix the problem. Instead it is making it worse, siding with developers against local councils in 17 of 23 appeals by builders seeking to cut the number of affordable housing units for which they have had to budget since 2013. Worse still, the process is shrouded in secrecy because it hinges on “viability assessments” that developers are allowed to keep confidential unless a court demands wider access.

These assessments should be open to public scrutiny as a matter of course. Sajid Javid, the communities secretary, claims to have adopted an “honest, open and consistent” approach to assessing local housing needs. It is none of these things.

In the housing plans that all local authorities are required to produce, the average requirement for affordable housing in rural areas is 68 per cent of the total. Under pressure from builders that share has fallen to 29 per cent, even as the companies post record profits. Those of the country’s three largest housebuilders have quadrupled since 2012.

Britain is a crowded island. Space for new homes is at a premium. Demand for land reliably outstrips supply. Landowners sell to high bidders who seek guaranteed generous profit margins to protect against downturns in a market that they are helping to overheat.

This is a classic market failure that might warrant state intervention in the form of publicly funded housebuilding to balance supply and demand at the lower end of the property ladder. This government has ruled that out, however, cutting public spending on social housing by 97 per cent since 2010 and on affordable housing by half in the same period.

At the same time, as the head of the National Housing Federation tells its annual conference today, housing benefit payments have risen by 51 per cent over the past two decades, to £25 billion a year, to help to cover inflated private sector rents.

If the government insists on staying out of the housebuilding business itself it must at the very least make affordable housing quotas binding, and high enough to house those unable to get on the housing ladder any other way. The alternative is a property-owning democracy that founders for want of property to own.”

Source: Times (pay wall)

Developers, magic money trees and (un)affordable housing

Government thinks 20% profit is acceptable for developers.

We all know that, as developers make their case to cut affordable homes on a development by development basis, and not on aggregate figures, they can make numbers tell any story.

Seems weird that, with this system, as so many developments don’t make enough money to fund affordable homes, their profits soar, their directors get bigger and bigger bonuses and their shareholders get higher and higher dividends.

It’s a magic money tree!

“The countryside is facing a shortfall of 33,000 affordable homes over the next five years despite builders making record profits at a time of rising rural homelessness.

Profits at Britain’s three biggest builders have quadrupled since 2012 to £2.2 billion, yet they regularly cite financial constraints when cutting affordable homes in developments. Builders miss targets for affordable homes in the countryside by 18 houses a day, research by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) shows.

Profits at Barratt Developments, Britain’s biggest developer, increased almost sevenfold from £100 million in 2012 to £682 million last year. Meanwhile, the number of affordable homes fell from 23 per cent of the total built in 2012 to 17 per cent last year.

Developers use “viability studies” under planning laws to pressure local authorities into cutting the requirement for affordable homes. The reports are kept confidential, on commercial grounds, but documents seen by The Times show that officials from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) ruled that 20 per cent profit was a “reasonable” margin for a developer. They backed a builder’s attempt to cut the number of affordable homes at a development in Gloucestershire to safeguard that return.

Sajid Javid, the communities secretary, has said that failing to fix Britain’s “broken housing market . . . would be nothing less than an act of intergenerational betrayal”.

Research by the CPRE found that the government overruled councils fighting house builders in 17 out of 23 appeals since 2013. Matt Thomson, the CPRE’s head of planning, said developers had councils “over a barrel”. “The developers will say, ‘Either you give us the 20 per cent profit we need, otherwise we won’t build the houses’,” he said. “It’s just extortion at the end of the day.”

The charity analysed more than 60 local plans, which are council blueprints for new housing, and found that the average rural authority needed 68 per cent of new homes to be affordable. Affordable housing includes shared ownership schemes, council houses and properties owned by housing associations which are rented at no more than 80 per cent of the market rate.

In practice, the councils cut the official requirement to just 29 per cent affordable, on the ground that developers would never agree to 68 per cent. Even that has proven unachievable. Just 26 per cent of new homes in the countryside were classed as affordable over the past three years. The average rural authority is short of 46 affordable homes a year. Across 145 rural authorities in England that is a shortfall of 6,670 homes a year.

A separate report by the Institute for Public Policy Research found that 6,270 rural households became homeless in 2016, part of a 40 per cent rise in rough sleeping since 2010. The centre-left think thank partly blamed “shortages in affordable homes”.

Polly Neate, the head of Shelter, a charity for the homeless, said the crisis would only get worse “if we keep letting developers off the hook”.

The Home Builders Federation, which represents developers, said local authorities “should be realistic”. “Making projects unviable reduces overall housing supply, including the supply of more affordable housing,” Andrew Whitaker, its planning director, said.

Georgina Butler, head of affordable housing at Barratt, said the company was “absolutely committed to delivering the homes of all types that the country needs”.

A spokesman for the DCLG said almost 333,000 affordable homes had been built since 2010, more than 102,000 in rural local authorities.

A funding crisis in social housing will continue unless the government “breaks with the past” to provide financial backing for new affordable homes, the head of an influential housing sector body will say today.

Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money could be saved by building social housing instead of channelling housing benefit to private landlords, David Orr, chief executive of the National Housing Federation, will tell the organisation’s annual conference.

The government decided in 2010 that no further public money would be made available to finance social housing, which provides accommodation at below-market rents to those on low incomes.

Britain needs to build about 250,000 new homes a year to cope with an existing shortage and a growing population, but only 141,000 homes were built last year.

About a million families are on the housing waiting list, said the NHF, which represents housing associations and social landlords.

In a report published today, the NHF says that the government is now spending “more than ever” on housing benefit to accommodate people in private rentals instead of cheaper social homes, which cost £21 a week less per person.

The amount of housing benefit channelled to private landlords almost doubled in the last decade to £9.1 billion.

“This is poor value for the taxpayer and has a knock-on effect on everyone struggling to rent or buy,” the NHF said.”

Source: Times (pay wall)

“Housing money wasted ‘propping up rents’ “

“Taxpayers’ money is being wasted on “propping up rents” in a “failing housing market”, a report says.

The National Housing Federation report highlights how money spent on housing benefit rose from £16.6bn in the mid-1990s to £25.1bn in 2015-16.

It added that since 2011, no government money has been made available to build homes in England for low paid people to rent.

The government said building more homes was its absolute priority.
A Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) spokesman said it was continuing to work closely with the sector.

But the report from the federation, which represents housing associations and social landlords, says housing someone in a private rented property costs £21 a week more than housing them in a social rent property, on average.

Its chief executive David Orr said this was “poor value for the taxpayer” and had “a knock-on effect, with everyone struggling to rent or buy”.
“We know we need more, better quality social housing. And yet, rather than putting public money into building the homes we need, we are propping up rents in a failing market.” …”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-41309316

“Open consultation: “Planning for the right homes in the right places: consultation proposals”

Owl says: seems the decision that we need MORE and MORE housing is taken as a given – and this is more an exercise on how and where they can be shoe-horned in:

This consultation closes at
11:45pm on 9 November 2017

Summary
Consultation on further measures set out in the housing white paper to boost housing supply in England.

“This consultation sets out a number of proposals to reform the planning system to increase the supply of new homes and increase local authority capacity to manage growth.

Proposals include:

a standard method for calculating local authorities’ housing need

how neighbourhood planning groups can have greater certainty on the level of housing need to plan for

a statement of common ground to improve how local authorities work together to meet housing and other needs across boundaries

making the use of viability assessments simpler, quicker and more transparent

increased planning application fees in those areas where local planning authorities are delivering the homes their communities need

The attached ‘Housing need consultation data table’ (see links below) sets out the housing need for each local planning authority using our proposed method, how many homes every place in the country is currently planning for, and, where available, how many homes they believe they need.

Alongside this consultation, the attached ‘Comprehensive registration programme: priority areas for land registration’ document lists those areas where Her Majesty’s Land Registry intends to prioritise the registration of ownership of all publicly held land.”

Click to access Planning_for_Homes_consultation_document.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/644783/Housing_Need_Consultation_Data_Table.xlsx

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/644786/120917_Priority_areas_for_land_registration.pdf

Clinton Devon Estates and Budleigh Hospital Garden – a PR nightmare for today and tomorrow!

In May 2017 Clinton Devon Estates (CDE) ran an online survey which was covered by Owl. Questions were heavily weighted towards suitably glowing answers, such as:

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

In July 2017 Owl then ran the story of how CDE had made a last minute land grab by submitting an outline planning permission to develop half of the Budleigh Hospital Garden for two small houses. The Neighbourhood Planning team had nominated the garden as an historic open green space and the new health hub hoped to use it as an outdoor therapeutic area. As stakeholders in the Neighbourhood Plan CDE had been consulted at all stages but had not divulged their plans for the space.

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/07/29/budleigh-neighbourhood-plan-group-apologises-for-being-unable-to-save-hospital-garden-after-being-outmaneuvered-by-clinton-devon-estates/

CDE followed this by launching an appeal on the grounds that EDDC had not determined the application within the prescribed time. This appeal has now been roundly rejected.

A planning inspector has ruled against CDE on the appeal, and it seems CDE might now have to think of other ways to wheedle their way our hearts and minds.

Here is the text of a Budleigh Journal article on the appeal:

“A controversial planning application which sought to build houses on a section of Budleigh Salterton green space has been rejected at appeal.

The outline application, for means of access, proposed two houses to be built on half of the former hospital gardens, in Boucher Road.

Applicant Clinton Devon Estates (CDE) appealed to the planning inspectorate against the length of time it had taken East Devon District Council to reach a decision on the plan.

But planning inspector Andy Harwood ruled that the appeal should be dismissed and that the proposal was rejected.

In his report he said: “The retention of the remaining garden would continue to meet some needs for local people. It would continue to be a pleasant landscaped area. “However, it is not demonstrated how the space would be enhanced by the proposal.”

Mr Harwood also pointed out that under the East Devon Local Plan, development should not involve the loss of land of recreational value.

The whole garden had been earmarked for activities relating to the health and wellbeing hub, due to open at the former hospital later this year.

In response to the ruling, a CDE spokesman said: “We have noted the inspector’s report and will be considering our options in due course.”

Town council planning committee chairman Courtney Richards said: “That land was designated an open space in our Neighbourhood Plan. I am glad to see that will be retained for open space in the town.

“Having that open space available for people at the hub will be of tremendous benefit.”

See the full Inspector’s decision here:

Click to access obj.pdf

The somewhat chilling phrase that CDE are now “considering their options” should no doubt include taking the views of the local community into account when making decisions and pledging to do today what is right for tomorrow.

Owl recollects the First Law of Holes that states that: “if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging”!