There has been a temporary gypsy and traveller site on the land for the past 8 years, having been granted temporary planning permission twice, under the grounds that Mole Valley District Council had the legal obligation to find an alternative site.  The council failed to do so, having done no research at all until November 2010, and are now allowing the gypsy families to apply for permanent planning permission.

The site has been deemed by the Government Planning Inspector as “inappropriate development in the Green Belt” and it is paramount that this development is rejected in order to stop this becoming an example for the allowance of future similar developments.

This has been an ongoing battle for the last 8 years and it is coming to a conclusion this year, so PLEASE can you sign the petition and preserve the green belt of River Lane.

THIS IS A SERIOUS PLANNING ISSUE. THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE OF PREJUDICE. IT IS A LEGAL ISSUE.

THE LAND IS DESIGNATED GREEN BELT AND IT HAS BEEN AGREED BY THE PLANNING INSPECTOR THAT THE CURRENT SITUATION IS “INAPPRORIATE DEVELOPMENT IN THE GREEN BELT.”

The petition can be found at the following address: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/riverlaneleatherhead/

If you have any questions do not hesitate to contact us at claracuffe@aol.com

Thank you so much for your support,

The residents of River Lane

If the Government wants to pursue its plans for Heathrow expansion it must now go back to square one and reconsider the entire case for the runway.

The implications of today’s ruling are profound, not just for Heathrow but for airport expansion plans across the UK.  Lord Justice Carnwath ruled that the 2003 Air Transport White Paper – the foundation of expansion plans across the country – is obsolete because it is inconsistent with the Climate Change Act 2008.

The judge expressed real concern over the “hardship caused to the local community by uncertainty” over the third runway. The coalition which brought the successful legal challenge is now calling on the Government to end the uncertainty and scrap the runway plans once and for all.

The judge ruled that:

• If the Government decides to push ahead with the runway project it must now review the climate change implications of Heathrow expansion, the economic case for a third runway, and the issue of how additional passengers would get to a bigger airport.

• The Government’s entire aviation policy must now be reviewed to take into account the implications of the 2008 Climate Change Act. The judge found that “the claimants’ submissions add up, in my view, to a powerful demonstration of the potential significance of developments in climate change policy since the 2003 Air Transport White Paper. They are clearly matters which will need to be taken into account under the new Airports National Policy Statement.”(1)

• On the economic case for Heathrow expansion he would be ‘surprised’ if the recent tripling of the estimated cost to society of emitting carbon did not have ‘a significant effect’ on the economic case for the runway. The judge also said that “it makes no sense to treat the economic case as settled in 2003.”

• On the issue of surface access he said the claimants’ case – that there is no credible plan in place to transport millions of extra passengers to an expanded Heathrow – was ‘justified’. Significantly, he noted that the Government was “unable to provide a convincing answer” in court when it was pressed about over-crowding on the Piccadilly underground line that would result from construction of a third runway.

The judge is now inviting the Government to sign a legally binding undertaking that it will not base future aviation policy solely on its 2003 white paper. A further court hearing is expected to take place next month to examine the Government’s response to the judge’s request. At the same hearing the coalition will seek costs and fully expects to recover those costs from the Government.

Shaun Spiers, Chief Executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said:
“The Government said there could be no argument about the need for a third runway. This was undemocratic and it was wrong.

“We were forced to bring this legal case to give people the right to challenge the expansion of Heathrow. The High Court has now made clear that a fundamental review of aviation policy is needed. This not just a victory for people living around Heathrow or around other airports, it is a victory for everyone who wants a tranquil countryside and a democratic planning system.”

Cllr Ray Puddifoot speaking on behalf of the local councils said:
“This is a spectacular victory for our residents. The Government had been trying to close down debate on the true economic impact of a third runway by presenting it as a done deal.

“Today’s ruling has blown that position apart. The Government just did not want to have to take on board the real consequences of new climate change laws. The judge made it clear the figures just did not add up.

“If after this ministers are still intent on pressing ahead with expansion they will have to go back to the beginning and justify the whole economic case in public. Knowing what we now know about rising carbon costs this is an argument they cannot win.

“The third runway is effectively dead because it cannot survive the proper economic and environmental scrutiny which the Government tried to avoid. As local councils we call on the Prime Minister to do to the decent thing and bury this discredited policy.”
Geraldine Nicholson, Chair of NoTRAG, said:
“As local residents, we now demand that the Government drops all plans for a 3rd runway and sixth terminal at Heathrow so that we can cast off the 8 years of blight and start to rejuvenate our communities.”

Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said:
“This ruling leaves the Government’s Heathrow decision in tatters. Ministers will now have to go back to the drawing board and conduct a broad consultation on key issues where their case is extremely weak. The third runway was already on life support, but with this ruling it’s hard to even find a pulse. This shows that David Cameron and Nick Clegg backed the right horse when they pledged to scrap the third runway, and it makes any Conservative U-turn after the election all but politically impossible.”

David Nussbaum, CEO of WWF-UK, said:
“We are delighted with today’s judgement. It deals a body blow to the third runway, but more than that it makes it clear that the Government’s whole policy of airport expansion must be reviewed in order to bring it into line with the Climate Change Act.

“Today’s landmark ruling has implications that could resonate far wider than the aviation sector. For a judge to tell the Government that it cannot build huge pieces of carbon-intensive infrastructure without considering the long-term consequences is a resounding win in the fight to tackle climate change. It is also a further indication of the need for the UK to make a swift transition to a low carbon economy. WWF would now urge the Government to focus on green investment, encouraging alternative ways of connecting with people wherever possible, such as high speed rail and videoconferencing, rather than relying on carbon-heavy methods such as flying.”

HACAN Chair John Stewart said:
“This is an utterly damning verdict for the Government.  It not only raises very serious concerns about a third runway at Heathrow, it also calls into question the Government’s entire aviation policy.  This really could be the final nail in the coffin for a third runway.”

Martin Harper, the RSPB’s Head of Sustainable Development, said:
“Right from the start, we have argued that building a third runway at a time when we are battling to reduce our carbon emissions made no sense.

“Climate change threatens many species with extinction and we are already seeing its impacts with catastrophic declines in seabird numbers in parts of the North Sea.

“Concerns about climate change are at the heart of today’s judgement. The clear message from the High Court is that Government must now take those concerns into account.”

ENDS

NOTES TO EDITORS
1.) National Policy Statements (NPSs) are a key part of the new planning system that was established by the Planning Act 2008. They are strategic planning documents will set out the  national  need for major infrastructure developments  such as power stations, ports, airports, roads  and transmission lines. When an application is submitted for such a development above a certain threshold, there will be a presumption in favour of granting permission. The Government has said it intends to publish a draft Airports NPS next year.

2.) Six local authorities in West London (Hammersmith and Fulham, Hounslow, Hillingdon, Richmond upon Thames, Wandsworth and Windsor & Maidenhead) are claimants to the challenge, alongside   the local residents group (NoTRAG) and the national campaigning group against airport expansion HACAN. WWF-UK, Campaign to Protect Rural England and Greenpeace are also claimants. Transport for London is an independent party supporting the claim. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is an expert witness. The challenge is also supported by Kensington and Chelsea and the Mayor of London. The local authorities are all members of the 2M Group which comprises 24 local councils opposed to Heathrow expansion with a combined population of 5 million.

3.) The legal challenge was launched in April 2009 and the case was heard in the High Court at a rolled-up hearing on the 23rd – 25th February 2010.

4.) In February 2007, Greenpeace won a Judicial Review against the Government’s energy review which backed a new generation of nuclear power stations. As a result the government was forced to re-run the public consultation.

5.) If a third runway at Heathrow airport were to be built, the airport would become the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide in the UK. Unrestrained airport expansion would make it impossible for the UK to play its part in tackling climate change. The Government has committed the UK to cuts of at least 80% in CO2 emissions by 2050. Research from the respected Tyndall Centre shows that if the industry is allowed to expand as predicted, aviation emissions alone would make it impossible to meet this target.

6.) Aviation has a number of high-altitude impacts that increase its total warming effect on the climate. The Committee on Climate Change has recently suggested that aviation has a Global Warming Potential of around two, meaning that its total warming effect is twice that of its CO2 emissions alone.

7.) In December 2009, the Committee on Climate Change published a report with recommendations of how the Government target to reduce aviation emissions to 2005 levels by 2050 could be met. The Committee recommended that aviation growth needs to be limited to around half of that planned in the White Paper, but warned that the target may need to be further tightened in the future.

8.) All the claimants are represented by Harrison Grant (solicitors) instructing Nigel Pleming QC of 39 Essex Street, Nathalie Lieven QC and David Forsdick of Landmark Chambers.

Some 29,623 homes would need to be built in the region annually

The government has announced it is to rethink controversial plans to build more than half a million new homes in the South West region of England.

The Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West (RSSSW) proposed 592,460 new homes to meet official predictions of housing needs for the next 20 years.

But the plans have met with significant opposition.

The government now says it wants to ensure the RSSSW is the “most sustainable way forward”.

Negative response

The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and the Government Office for the South West (GOSW) had hoped to sign off the plan by June of this year.

But in May the High Court ruled it had not considered “reasonable alternatives” to some proposals in the South East of England.

And officials have acknowledged they have been influenced by the “unprecedented level” of opposition.

Some 35,000 responses were received during the RSSSW public consultation – the majority negative.

A GOSW statement said it would now carry out a new appraisal to ensure the current blueprints “represent the most sustainable way forward for the region”.

‘Partial victory’

Chris Pope, co-chairman of the Dundry Residents Action Group, which campaigns against building on greenbelt land in North Somerset, said: “In some ways I view this as a partial victory.

“We’ve always questioned the government’s figures.

“Their expectations of population growth seem extortionately high.

“But from our point of view, the problem has not gone away.”

The results are not expected to come in before early next year.

Ministers will then have to decide whether to scale down the South West’s housing targets.

Link to original BBC article

The remark made by Mr Robert Maund, chairman of the Scottish Campaign for National Parks, came a day after the Scottish Government revealed An Camas Mòr had been chosen as one of 11 “exemplar” low-carbon communities of the future backed by £400,000 of public money.

Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing Nicola Sturgeon said the communities would lead the way in the drive to make Scotland greener and healthier.

Mr Maund highlighted his concern that the cart was being put before the horse at the public inquiry into the Cairngorms National Park Local Plan.

It allocates land for the first phase of the new community on Rothiemurchus Estate which is expected to comprise 1,500 homes by 2028.

Mr Maund said: “I was concerned when I read about Nicola Sturgeon announcing that – it could compromise this hearing and the outcome of it.

“Here we have a Local Plan which is the subject of a hearing with nothing approved, we have a planning application for the development come in a couple of days ago and pretty much the same day the Minister stands up and says this is one of 11 schemes the government is putting £400,000 into to further the aims of the Scottish Sustainable Communities Initiative.

“I wonder if I should just go home and do some gardening and put in an application for costs.

“At every level judgements seem to be being made in advance of the Reporter’s recommendations to the park authority.

“It is as if it is a done deal and that would be very worrying for the planning process and for the democratic process.”

Mr Maund asked for “some kind of reassurance” from Reporter Jill Moody leading the hearing on An Camas Mòr that Ms Sturgeon’s announcement would not colour proceedings.

She responded: “I can say in absolute honesty that I have not a clue about any announcement by Nicola Sturgeon.”

Ms Moody said that her involvement was “absolutely objective” and she would be applying “normal planning judgement”.

The SSCI encourages the creation of places which are designed and built to last, where a high quality of life can be achieved and which demonstrate how to reduce ecological footprints.

Other winning exemplar projects include Craigmillar, Edinburgh, PARC Craigmillar; Lochgelly, Fife, Fife Council; Maryhill Locks, Glasgow, Glasgow Canal Regeneration Partnership and Tornagrain, near Inverness, Moray Estates Commenting on them, Ms Sturgeon said the Scottish Government was committed to creating an enduring legacy of high quality, distinctive new places.

“The projects selected include innovative design and building principles but they also promote environmental solutions which communities across Scotland can adopt.

“It is vital for our long term economic and social success that we create communities which provide new homes in the right place, of the right type and which contribute to reducing energy demand and impact on the environment.”

Moving Aviemore across the River Spey was first mooted at a meeting of the village’s community council in 1989.

Speaking at the public inquiry on Thursday, Mr Don McKee, the national park’s head of planning, said: “The park authority has acknowledged that An Camas Mòr is different. It is a new community in a national park and presents both a challenge and an opportunity.”

Explaining the need for the site to be allocated for housing, he said: “We are trying to respect the character of the established communities. We have reached a point where we can no longer add infinitum to the volume of housing. It is increasingly difficult to justify.”

He added that An Camas Mòr could be developed in a co-ordinated way: “This will relieve some of the pressure on other communities but we will be looking at them on an on-going basis to ensure that they remain viable.”

However, Dr Gus Jones, chairman of the Badenoch and Strathspey Conservation Group, claimed An Camas Mòr was unsustainable and would seriously damage the natural heritage. “This development within a National Scenic Area has long been viewed as unacceptable,” he said after the hearing. “Apparent ministerial support seems to be based on wishful thinking that ignores widespread opposition.

“Realistically the last thing the Cairngorms National Park needs is another flawed and over-ambitious development, especially one riding roughshod over landscape, conservation and significant community interests.

Mr Johnnie Grant, owner of Rothiemurchus Estate and applicant for the development, said An Camas Mòr was subject to an environmental impact assessment (EIA) and well-supported by planning policy.

He commented: “As there are more than 1,000 pages of detailed work to be understood and the proposal is to be tested against pages of planning policies it is very far fetched to describe it as a ‘done deal’.

“There is an immense amount of work to be carried out by a wide range of hard working, qualified and experienced public officials. “Furthermore the granting of outline consent would be only the start of the consent process.”

A Scottish Government spokesman said of the “done deal” claims: “The awarding of the SSCI status to a project by the Scottish Government is completely separate from the process of planning approval.

“The Scottish Government is supportive of the SSCI exemplar projects in their vision to create sustainable communities.

“All proposals have to go through the relevant planning process and SSCI exemplar status does not in any way influence or compromise this process or the considerations of the local authority.”

By Gillian Bell – Press and Journal

Published: 01/08/2008

The Scottish Government has been asked to launch an investigation into north-east residents’ claims that a factor has taken money for work it has not adequately carried out.

Aberdeenshire councillor Martin Ford said he has been contacted by a “number of people” about the Greenbelt Group, which maintains open spaces in housing estates across the north-east.

A resident of the Redcloak estate at Stonehaven had claimed the company has not cut the grass there in more than seven months, despite having already been paid to do so.

The company disputes the time period, but admits there have been problems with a few of its contractors over the last three to four weeks.

Residents at an estate at Newmachar had also complained about the company halving the frequency of its visits.

In a letter to Community Safety Minister Fergus Ewing, Mr Ford said: “It appears that there is a widespread problem of poor or no grounds maintenance when the Greenbelt Group are responsible.

“This seems to be the case both when residents are paying on an annual basis and when the developer has paid a lump sum on completion of the development.”

The Liberal Democrat member for East Garioch added: “I have been a councillor for nine years and I have been aware of recurring problems involving the Greenbelt Group.

“I would ask you to look into the problems surrounding the operations of this company. I would also ask you to examine whether we can revert to the situation prior to 1992 where it was almost invariably the case that public open space passed to the local council.

“In my experience, the local council provides the only reliable and sustainable maintenance solution for public open space.”

Greenbelt’s managing director Alex Middleton said problems with contractors over the last three weeks have caused the company difficulties in the north-east.

He said: “Greenbelt has had problems in the north-east and are trying to resolve them as quickly as possible. We will take a look at the particular problems and value for money.

“We are committed to the sites in the north-east and are committed to giving a good service.”

Press and Journal article link

Eco-towns of up to 20,000 people each are proposed

The government’s approach to delivering up to 10 eco-towns could be “unlawful”, councils have warned.

Ministers are to publish a planning policy statement to set out standards and potential locations in England.

But the Local Government Association said the proposals went against the principle of development through plans drawn up by local authorities.

This might show a wish to avoid “proper scrutiny”, it added. But the government said it “absolutely” disagreed.

‘Deeply flawed’

The eco-towns scheme aims to deliver settlements of 5,000 to 20,000 homes which are zero-carbon overall.

The government shortlisted 15 proposals for new settlements in April and has said up to 10 final approved bids will have to go through the planning process once they have been chosen later this year.

Lawyers John Steel QC and James Strachan, representing the LGA, said an existing planning policy statement covered the concept of providing housing in new settlements in an environmentally sustainable way.

‘ECO-TOWNS’ SHORTLIST Bordon, Hampshire Coltishall, Norfolk Elsenham, Essex Ford, West Sussex Hanley Grange, Cambridgeshire Imerys, nr St Austell, Cornwall Leeds city region, West Yorkshire Marston Vale and New Marston, Bedfordshire Middle Quinton, Warwickshire Pennbury, Leicestershire Rossington, South Yorkshire Rushcliffe, Nottinghamshire Weston Otmoor, Oxfordshire Source: Department of Communities and Local Government The plans: Site-by-site

There did not seem to be any justification for promoting eco-towns outside the existing rules, “other than the government’s wish to avoid the system due to the proper need for scrutiny, which takes time”, they added.

The LGA said the legal advice showed the government’s approach to eco-towns was “deeply flawed”.

Chairman Sir Simon Milton said the LGA was not opposed to the eco-towns as a way of meeting housing needs and combating climate change.

But he urged: “Ministers must talk to council leaders about adopting a new approach that will deliver development in places where councils and local people agree that eco-towns can work.

“Eco-towns must be delivered without bypassing the planning processes and ensure that new developments have good transport connections alongside the schools, health and leisure facilities which are needed to create places where people would want to live.”

Bidders for eco-towns at Manby, in Lincolnshire, and Curborough, Staffordshire, have pulled out, while part of a third bid at New Marston, in Bedfordshire, has also been withdrawn.

‘Stretching standards’

A Department for Communities and Local Government spokesman said: “We absolutely disagree with the LGA’s claims and believe this legal advice can only have been obtained on the basis of a misrepresentation of our policy.

“We have made it absolutely clear throughout that eco-towns will be different and will have higher environmental standards than a normal development and the applications will also have to be considered through the normal planning process.”

Shadow housing minister Grant Shapps said the legal advice would add weight to the argument that ministers had “effectively destroyed their own eco-town project”.

Liberal Democrat communities spokeswoman Julia Goldsworthy said: “What this government fails to understand is that centrally imposed solutions are doomed to failure.”

Slowdown ‘risks housing targets’

The CIH said more people will need affordable homes as mortgages dry up

Concerns have been raised that the credit crunch could prevent government affordable housing targets being met.

The Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) called for “imaginative” measures to build 35,000 homes a year by 2015.

It said the Scottish Government should work with housing associations or councils to use homes or land started by private firms which are lying empty.

The communities minister said he was open to working with others to buy unsold privately built homes.

The CIH’s director in Scotland, Alan Ferguson, said the current financial climate made it harder for those building affordable homes to borrow the money needed for their developments.

He said this must lead to concerns that targets would not be met for affordable housing.

The housing association sector is in a very strong position to weather the credit crunch Scottish Government spokesman

“As the credit crunch bites, we may also expect to see more people in need of an affordable solution as access to mortgages continue to dry up,” he said.

“At the same time we are seeing private housing developers struggling, leading to job losses and severely reduced building programmes.

“We believe it is time for the Scottish Government to promote some more imaginative solutions that will help deliver more affordable houses, assist first-time buyers and assist struggling private builders.”

Ministers have set a goal of increasing the rate of house building to 35,000 new homes a year by the middle of the next decade.

A Scottish Government spokesman said: “We welcome the CIH’s support for our efforts to improve the supply of affordable housing.

“The changes we have made to our subsidies to housing associations are essential if we are to achieve that objective at a time of great pressure on public expenditure.

“The housing association sector is in a very strong position to weather the credit crunch and the Scottish Government will continue to work with them in the meantime.”

Earlier, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon announced a £25m package to build new council homes.

Mr Maxwell said action was already being taken to increase social housing

Last month, she also revealed details of a range of housing measures, including a £250m boost for shared equity schemes that allow people to own part of a property.

The government also plans to launch a Homeowners Support Fund, providing £25m over the next two years to help those at risk of repossession.

Communities Minister Stewart Maxwell said the measures announced by the government showed it was taking action.

He stressed the importance of dealing with the underlying problem – the “under-supply” of housing – and said he would consider working with others agencies to buy unsold privately built homes.

The minister said: “I’m open to that suggestion.

“I think the issue here is housing associations and house builders have to get together and find out what is the most appropriate way forward bring forward projects which provide houses of the right type in the right place and at the right price.

“When that’s done we’ll certainly look at them and see whether that’s affordable and that’s the right thing to do.”

Link to original article

Stephen Nickell
Fears housing chances are becoming social polarised.

Professor Stephen Nickell said that, unless conditions change, the target of three million new homes in England by 2020 will not be met.

To get to this target, the housing industry needs to be building 240,000 homes a year, a figure that few think they will achieve this year.

The industry is already behind in its construction targets.

Just over 200,000 new homes were built last year.

Priced out

Homebuilders have cut back new building this year as a lack of mortgage products and falling house prices have cut demand.

Mr Nickell, who heads the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit, believes that alongside the financial constraints local authorities are also holding up new house building.

The wealthier people in society can satisfy their housing demands, more or less, as they get richer Professor Stephen Nickell

“Unless local authorities are given a strong incentive to allow house building in their locality, it seems to me very unlikely that we will hit the housing targets,” he said.

“And if you don’t keep building these houses the prices just keep going up relative to people’s incomes.”

Government figures published recently showed that new housing work was down 5% in the first quarter of this year compared with the same period in 2007.

The Home Builders Federation, which represents major house builders, said that new building work did not show any signs of picking up.

“Right now the credit crunch is stopping people from getting the finance that people need to buy homes,” said John Slaughter, director of external affairs at the Federation.

“Longer term we need a better business environment and less regulatory cost to get the industry moving.”

The big building companies are beginning to show the strain with rumours that they may have to raise new capital to survive.

The two giants of the industry, Taylor Wimpey and Barratt Developments, carry a total of more than £2.5 billion of debt.

That equates to more than double their combined market worth.

The financial pain being felt by the companies has already forced one of them, Persimmon, to put a halt on all new building projects.

Falling prices

Figures from the Nationwide this month showed a 2.5% drop in house prices in May, with some predicting a 20% drop by the end of 2008.

But despite falling house prices, Professor Nickell said the current situation seemed to be only benefiting the richer parts of society.

“The wealthier people in society can satisfy their housing demands, more or less, as they get richer. While the rest of us get squashed into smaller and smaller houses.” he said.

And he added that if present trends continue, things are looking bleak for the future of housing in England.

“If the present situation continues we will be less well housed than the majority of people in Europe, Australia or the United States,” he said.

Original Article

Stephen Nickell

Is currently Warden of Nuffield College, Oxford. He was an External Member of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee from 2000-2006 writing a number of pieces on the subject of the UK housing market. Until 2005 he was School Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, following this role from 1984-1998 as Professor of Economics and Director of the Institute of Economics and Statistics at the University of Oxford. He has also had earlier roles as an economist at the London School of Economics, in Paris and at the University of Princeton. He has been awarded a number of academic honours including Fellow of the British Academy and Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He has published widely in numerous branches of applied economics.

Four and a half years on, ask him if it is still a good place to come to and he hesitates.

“It’s difficult,” he said.

“It’s no better than other areas throughout the UK. The bottom line is that Inverness has the opportunity to learn from other areas and plan accordingly but no-one seems willing to do it.”

This apparent unwillingness to get to grips with the area’s planning deficiencies seems even more surprising to Barrie given the Highlands’ economic reliance on tourism.

“Tourists do not travel to see rows of soulless housing,” he pointed out.

For Barrie, who retired from a career in business at the age of 50, coming to the Highlands was an easy move to make as communications technology allowed his own public relations and allied services firm to operate from anywhere he chose.

He still enjoys getting out on the hills at the weekends and journeying to the unspoiled West Highlands, but soon learned that other parts of the region, not least Inverness itself, were going through what he describes as a quantum change.

To Barrie, Inverness’s rapid growth is being led by developers at the expense of community benefit and with little or no strategic planning or effective planning control “The emphasis in Inverness is on trying to build houses and then try and sort out the problems afterwards,” he said. “Exhibit A is the new trunk road with talk of bulldozing the new church at Inshes and compulsory purchase of properties. You would have thought they would have reserved the land, but that would be too easy.

“There is a growing view of many people in Inverness that the council should firmly get to grips with the situation and control planning so that development can take place in a properly thought out manner.

“Consultation is a joke. It’s a meaningless word in the planning process. Objections are rarely listened to and it’s the will of the developer that prevails over the will of the community.”

His awareness of discontent with the planning situation in Inverness was only heightened by his involvement with local community organisations.

Barrie is a founder member of the Milton of Leys local residents association, a member of Inverness Crime Prevention Panel and an Inverness South Community Councillor. More recently he has become involved with the Highlands and Islands Resilience Group, a disaster planning initiative designed to look at how threats such as pandemic influenza and terrorism could affect the Highlands.

These activities bring him into regular contact with a range of business owners, chamber of commerce members, police officers, community leaders, MPs, MSPs and Highland Council officials and local councillors.

A common topic of conversation has been concern at the way Highland Council is being run and its rapidly growing external debt problem which, by March this year, stood at a gross figure of 580 million.

The loss of prime farm land to residential housing with no meaningful infrastructure is another area of concern.

It was a prominent local councillor who initially suggested that a “Planning Watch” organisation was needed.

Barrie took up the suggestion and, as communities throughout Britain have similar issues to Inverness, widened the remit to create Planning Watch UK.

The organisation’s aims, objectives and interests are not confined to property matters. The regulation of the building industry, including land maintenance and property management companies, remains of prime importance.

“At present the new house build purchaser has been described by the National Consumer Council as having less consumer protection in law than when buying a kettle. This cannot continue and in general allows developers to make huge profits at the expense of the unsuspecting purchaser,” Barrie declared.

Nationally, Planning Watch UK members and contributors are working with MPs, MSPs and other organisations to introduce legislative changes to give houseowners the protection they need, just as locally the organisation wants to see more evidence of meaningful strategic planning.

Barrie Haycock, Planning Watch UK campaigner.

“The developer profit-driven process ignores the crucial requirement of infrastructure,” Barrie commented.

“Any future development must also look at education, health and transport services through to the massive number of jobs required to support the growing communities.”

Equally important are forward planning for roads, sewage and water supply and potential flood risk in certain areas. While there are plenty of bad examples of planning in Britain Telford in Shropshire or Scotland’s post-war New Towns there are also more positive designs which the Highlands could look to, such as Poundbury in Dorset. Designed by architect Leon Krier for landowner Prince Charles, this is an integrated community of shops, businesses and private and social housing and one which the planners of the Highlands would be advised to follow, Barrie suggested.

There are similar projects proposed for the Highlands, such as the “New Urbanist” community at Tornagrain, but for Barrie these being built are on too limited a scale and the principles which they adopt should be applied throughout the Highland region.

His work for Planning Watch UK and his other activities does take up a lot of his time and includes researching and studying local authority documents or fielding inquiries from journalists, but it is something he enjoys. “I don’t like to see people misled or ripped off and I have particular empathy and concerns for elderly people who are hung out to dry by the process. Who do they turn to for support?”

Barrie is scathing of a council which, he says, “would rather spend 300,000 on a fireworks display than care of the elderly.”

“The elderly are always the first to suffer when councils run into funding problems, yet the fat cat desk jockeys who decide the financial cuts continue to thrive,” he stated.

“This issue is constantly being raised by those who suffer and is a high priority for Planning Watch UK. Care of the elderly, young and disabled has to be of major importance but is so often put at the end of the bureaucrats’ list.”

Which is why Planning Watch UK highlights anything it regards as a waste of taxpayers’ money and wants to see local authority and government quango spending kept under strict financial control.

“A local example seems to be the bizarre reported redundancy payouts made to HIE members of staff, some of whom seem to have moved to highly paid new jobs some within Highland Council while collecting massive redundancy payments. This is an absolute disgrace!” he declared.

Barrie stood as an Independent candidate in the 2007 Highland Council election for Inverness South and came last, but reveals that he feels happier outside the political system.

“If you are part of the current system, you could very quickly get drowned under the current method of operation,” he said.

That system has been made even less effective, he believes, by the recent move to a party political council from one with a tradition of political independence and the creation of multi-member wards.

“The multi-councillor ward system isn’t working, full stop. None of the councillors can agree amongst themselves. End result: chaos,” Barrie said.

“Our councillors are paid salaries now, so there should be accountability all the way down from the chief executive to the most junior councillor.”

What is not so important, to Barrie at least, is the political hue of those councillors or even the MPs and MSPs.

“I’m apolitical,” Barrie stated.

“I don’t give a damn what party is in power as long as there are sensible policies from that party and I believe most people think the same.”

c.macleod@inverness-courier.co.uk

Related links

• • Housing fair malpractice to be rejected

The fight to achieve legislation change continues and ever increasing numbers of MP’s and MSP’s are becoming worldly aware of their constituency growing problems.

Many thanks to all MP’s and MSP’s who have been working to achieve changes in consumer protection legislation.

Westminster Hall debates – Wednesday, 6 February 2008

What is Westminster Hall?

New Home Buyers

All Westminster Hall debates on 6 Feb 2008 « Previous Westminster Hall debate Next Westminster Hall debate »

4:00 pm

Mark Lazarowicz

(PPS (David Cairns, Minister of State), Scotland Office, Edinburgh North & Leith, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

I intend to raise a number of issues concerning the difficulties experienced by many people buying newly built houses or flats. Those problems are legion. They can range from houses not being built on time or not being made available to the purchaser, sometimes for years after the date on which they were meant to be; defects in the building work that are not repaired in spite of repeated requests and demands from the purchasers; problems with the estate as a whole; and problems with the property management companies associated with new build developments. Those problems often affect those buying new build homes at the time when they are most under pressure, owing to the personal and financial stress involved in buying a new home.

I am raising this matter today, because a large number of new build properties—mainly, but not exclusively flats—are being built, or have been built recently, in my constituency. Over a number of years, I have been approached by constituents who have had problems with new build housing such as those that I have described. Indeed, I first raised this issue in Parliament in April 2002, less than a year after I was first elected. I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the matter again, but the fact that I am obliged to do so illustrates that much action is still required to deal with a problem that has been raised with me on many occasions in my constituency. However, consumer organisations are also concerned and see it as a problem affecting the entire UK.

As I said, particular issues have been raised in my constituency, and I shall describe in more detail a particular case raised with me recently. However, I emphasise that the problem exists throughout the UK. Extensive research on the matter has recently been conducted by the consumer group Which?, the National Consumer Council and the Scottish Consumer Council. It shows that as many as 90 per cent. of those who buy new build homes are left with snagging problems, such as faulty wiring, badly fitting doors, leaking windows or more serious problems. More than a quarter of new build property developments are described by their purchasers as being of poor quality.

As I have said, this issue has been raised with me on a number of occasions, over a number of years. However, the particular case that led to me raising the matter today was brought to my attention by a constituent of mine who lives in a development called Corinthian Quay, undertaken by Elphinstone builders, on Lower Granton road in my constituency. I shall quote briefly from her email in which she first raised the matter with me shortly before Christmas:

"I would like to draw your attention to another matter that has been a source of constant worry and stress to me for the past 2 and half years. I bought a new apartment off plan in Feb 2005 and have had nothing but problems with the builders – they have been very uncommunicative and unhelpful… We have been lied to on numerous occasions and been told that the build would be ready again and again when it was obvious it would not. We sold our properties on the strength of what they told us and ended up at in rented accommodation for 8 months (at great expense)".

The email continues:

"when one thing is fixed we find another. Many of the other residents have experienced horrendous problems eg sewage coming up through baths and sinks onto carpets, ceilings collapsing and many other problems. The resident above us is currently experiencing his 4th water leak and water is seeping into our apartment".

I shall not read her e-mail in full, because it would take too long. However, the crux of the matter comes in her final comments:

"We feel that we have more rights buying a packet of crisps than a £285K luxury apartment. We have paid the builder and we are not getting what we paid for. We moved to a new build so we would not have any problems – we now have more problems with this build than we have had with all the older properties we bought put together!"

That highlights one constituent’s problems, but, as my research shows, the same problems—although perhaps not as bad as in that development—affect many people in many parts of the country.

My constituent’s comments about having more rights when buying a packet of crisps than when buying an new house touch on one the central problems in dealing with the issue. For many people, a new home—possibly a new build home—will be the biggest purchase of their lives. However, practical remedies are not available to them as consumers to enable them to deal with problems that can arise when buying such a property. That contrasts with the simplest and cheapest items that one might buy in a corner shop, when consumers benefit from legislation, such as the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which, of course, does not apply to new build homes. As a result, consumers have fewer legal rights than if they bought a packet of crisps in a local shop.

One problem is that the purchase of houses or flats, whether new build or older properties, is covered by property law. There are differences between Scotland and England, but the general point is still a reasonable one. Property law is governed essentially by the rule of buyer beware, which gives consumers much less protection than they would have if they enjoyed legal rights similar to those that apply under the 1979 Act.

Add your comment

 Jim Devine (Livingston, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Has he had difficulties with factoring companies as a result of such sales? We have had major difficulties with companies such as Greenbelt Group Ltd and Ross and Liddle taking constituents of mine to court. They were charging up to £400 a year for a service that they did not provide.

Add your comment

Mark Lazarowicz (PPS (David Cairns, Minister of State), Scotland Office, Edinburgh North & Leith, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Problems can arise with factoring companies or property management companies—or however they want to describe themselves. Certainly constituents of mine have raised such concerns, although the case that I just referred to did not involve that problem. However, it is certainly an indication of the kind of problems that arise for many people living in new build flats in particular. Action needs to be taken, perhaps at a devolved level in my hon. Friend’s case, or at a UK level. That problem needs to be attended to.

On the extension of consumer protection to the buyer of a new build property, the problem was recognised by the Housing Improvement Task Force set up by the Scottish Executive some years ago. In 2003—five years ago, which illustrates part of the difficulty—it reported:

"We believe that caveat emptor"—

the buyer beware principle—

"may need to be qualified in respect of new build developments, where the sale is not between two private individuals and where the builder is in a similar position to other commercial providers of goods and services who are expected to comply with consumer protection legislation".

That highlights another problem faced by those buying new build properties. In effect, they must accept the developer’s terms, or they do not get the house. They have no alternative or room to negotiate for a better deal.

The developer will normally have a standard builders missive or contract. In theory, in some circumstances, the purchaser might be able to withdraw from a contract to buy the property and get their money back, but that is not normally a realistic option in practice. It is not much use if people have had to wait for years to get their property, and then they find that their only option is to try to cancel the deal, dump all their furniture in the street and start all over again. That is not a realistic option for most people who buy new build property, or indeed any property, even though it might apply in theory in some cases.

We need changes to the law to give people who buy newly built houses or flats much greater consumer protection; and as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, it is a UK-wide problem, because consumer protection is a reserved matter for the UK Parliament. Aspects of it relate to devolved legislation, but the consumer protection aspect requires action at UK level. Although I refer to cases in Scotland and in my constituency, the problem applies UK-wide, and the consumer organisations have requested a change in the law at UK level, which I certainly support.

There must be changes in the law, such as providing people who buy new build flats or houses rights similar to those under the Sale of Goods Act 1979. However, there must also be important changes in practice, too. Many organisations have agued that the standard new build missive must be much fairer to buyers. For example, there should be a specific entry date, rather than a vague entry date that is not worth the paper that it is written on.

My colleague, Helen Eadie MSP, recently submitted a Bill to the Scottish Parliament designed to bring about precisely that change to the law to ensure that there is a specific entry date for new property. However, she has been advised—whether correctly is open to discussion—that because of the consumer protection provisions, it is a reserved matter for the UK Parliament, so she can no longer pursue it as a private Member’s Bill in the Scottish Parliament. Again, the situation indicates that we need action not only at a Scottish level, but at a UK level. We need action to ensure that, when people in Scottish constituencies are affected, the two levels of government work together to find a solution. Furthermore, there must be better self-regulation by the housing industry, as the consumer organisations have said. I do not have time to go into that issue, but it is another part of the solution.

Having made some suggestions for change, I recognise that other proposals might be introduced to deal with the situation. I first raised the issue almost six years ago, and there has certainly been a great deal of talk, but not much action. Recently, however, the Office of Fair Trading has begun an investigation into the issue—an important step that I hope will result in an improvement in the situation for people who have such problems with new build property.

The first round of consultation by the OFT has concluded, but I have been told that it would welcome the submission of evidence of such problems. I shall certainly be submitting to the OFT examples from my constituency, and if any of my constituents watching the debate decide to send me information, I shall submit that, too. However, I should ask that people in other constituencies do not send me information, because when I raised the issue previously, I received correspondence from throughout the UK. That illustrates the problem, but the evidence should nevertheless go to the individual’s MP.

The OFT is carrying out a study, so I am sure that the Minister will tell us that he wants to wait for its report before the Government come to a conclusion on the matter, which I understand. However, I ask him to assure us that, when the OFT reports, the Government will act urgently to make changes to give proper consumer protection to people who buy newly built homes and flats and who find that they have such problems. In particular, as an MP representing a Scottish constituency, I ask him to ensure that the appropriate UK Departments get together with the appropriate Scottish Departments, the relevant consumer organisations and legal and trade interests to ensure that the action that I have called for is implemented throughout the UK.

As I have indicated, apparently, this involves some complex areas of law, which may have caused the delay in taking action in Scotland in particular, but we cannot wait too much longer for action—not much longer at all, I hope. The number of new build developments is increasing in most constituencies—certainly in mine and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) more than in others. Therefore, we cannot wait for action indefinitely. We want it soon, and I should like a commitment from the Minister that the Government recognise the seriousness of the problem and that they will take early action, including on the issues that overlap the Scottish and UK levels of government. Co-operation between the various interests should resolve that overlap, and I am sure the Minister agrees that it should not be an excuse for inactivity.

Add your comment

4:14 pm

Gareth Thomas (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for International Development) Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on obtaining the debate and on his assiduousness in pursuing the issue for the length of time that he has. It is clearly important to his constituency and to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) , given his intervention. 

I listened in particular when my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith read out that extract detailing the frustration of his constituent. No one who has ever bought a home could fail to be sympathetic to the frustration that his constituent has endured. My hon. Friend raised two broad areas of concern for new home buyers: snagging and the rectification of faults, and delays in completion. He made specific requests about the OFT study, and I can assure him that, once we have seen the study, we will ensure that its conclusions are discussed with officials in the Scottish Executive. I welcome my hon. Friend’s writing to the OFT directly, and I shall bring his remarks to the OFT’s attention.

Add your comment

Jim Devine (Livingston, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

Will my hon. Friend the Minister also include the role of factoring companies in his discussions with the OFT? Companies such as Greenbelt Group take over the common land and own it in perpetuity, so regardless of whether they provide a good service, people have to pay and the companies have a monopoly, which is totally unacceptable, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree.

Add your comment

Gareth Thomas (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for International Development) Link to this | Hansard source

I hear my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I am happy to draw them to the OFT’s attention. I should also be happy if my hon. Friend would like to meet separately to discuss them.

There are already some initiatives regarding the two areas of concern that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith discussed. The Council of Mortgage Lenders has introduced a revised finalling procedure, under which lenders will not release the mortgage funds on a property until a satisfactory final inspection has been completed and confirmation has been given that a full new home warranty will be in place on or before the entry date. It follows a similar initiative in England and Wales that was successful in reducing the number of failed pre-handover inspections. There have also been discussions between the Law Society of Scotland and Homes for Scotland—the umbrella organisation for the home building industry in Scotland—about standard terms for the builders missives, the conveyancing contract.

Those initiatives will be helpful in addressing the issues that my hon. Friend has raised, but he will recognise that such matters fall within the purview of the Scottish Executive. I have no doubt that the Executive will be interested in what the OFT has to say. I hope that he recognises that I am not in a position to comment at length on matters that fall within the responsibility of the Scottish Executive, but I repeat that I will ensure that the outcome of the OFT study is discussed with Executive officials.

Add your comment

Mark Lazarowicz (PPS (David Cairns, Minister of State), Scotland Office, Edinburgh North & Leith, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

I accept that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot act on matters within the purview of the Scottish Executive, but I reiterate that Helen Eadie MSP has been advised by the legal officers of the Scottish Parliament that she cannot introduce legislation on an entry date, because it falls within UK reserved competence. I hope that the Minister’s Department will consider that before it assumes that it is a Scottish Executive responsibility. I am concerned that we could end up with years of argument between the two levels of government about who is responsible, and we do not want that to happen. I hope that he will ensure that his Department notes that there is some argument about where responsibility lies.

Add your comment

Gareth Thomas (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for International Development) Link to this | Hansard source

I note my hon. Friend’s intervention, and I have heard his point about the discussions that have taken place in Scotland between Helen Eadie MSP and the Scottish Executive. I would be happy to receive direct representations on those discussions from either my hon. Friend or Ms Eadie herself.

My hon. Friend also mentioned a matter on which I do have specific and immediate responsibility for consumer protection: the Sale of Goods Act 1979, from which, as he rightly said, the purchase of homes is excluded. I hope that I can clarify why that is so, but I first wish to indicate again our welcome for the work that the OFT is currently engaging in. It is examining the home buyer’s purchasing experience and the fitness for purpose of new homes. It will consider the consumer protection and redress that is available, including the consumer legislation that currently applies, and whether changes are necessary. We expect that study to report in the autumn. My hon. Friend asked for early action, but he made an assumption that I do not wish to make. However, I assure him that we will give early consideration to the outcome of the report, particularly any recommendation that falls to my Department.

On the Sale of Goods Act, there is not an exceptional emission or exclusion for housing. There is a much broader pattern and structure of how property law, covering land and buildings, is recognised. The law relating to property is distinct, forming a separate body of legislation and jurisprudence, reflecting the importance and value of transactions in land or property. As my hon. Friend will no doubt recognise, for transactions in land, it is particularly necessary that there should be clarity about exactly when ownership passes from one person to another and what is, and is not, included in any transfer. Property law has developed distinctively to meet those needs. Consumer law in general therefore does not apply to transactions in land or buildings, albeit with one significant exception.

Although consumer law and the statutory rights attached to consumer transactions do not generally apply to the purchase of a new home, it does not follow that the consumer is lacking in rights or redress when purchasing a new home. It is true that, on occasion, the buyer of a new home is in a weaker position than the builder. My hon. Friend may be aware of cases in which the developer has had standard terms prepared for the contract and not been willing to amend them. If there is unfairness in such standard terms, it can be addressed through the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Under those regulations, a term that is found to be unfair is not binding on the consumer, and the Office of Fair Trading can take action to have standard terms altered if there is a view that they are unfairly weighted against the interests of the consumer. The purchaser of a new home therefore has rights and redress if a contract is not properly performed.

The most used remedies under the Sale of Goods Act—the rejection of unsatisfactory goods by the purchaser or replacement by the vendor—are most unlikely to be appropriate for a dispute about the construction standards of a new house or flat. The contract can be annulled in extreme cases, but it is essentially tied to the property in question, and replacement with another house or flat is probably not realistic and may be undesirable for the buyer. I suggest to my hon. Friend that it is not surprising that the Sale of Goods Act remedies are not appropriate, because they were framed for quite different situations. As I have indicated, we have an open mind about the possibility that new rights could be created for the benefit of consumers if the existing balance of rights and redress is found to be unsatisfactory.

My hon. Friend mentioned the suggestion by the Housing Improvement Task Force that it might be necessary to amend the rule of caveat emptor in relation to new build homes. Of course, any new legal provision that confers rights or imposes implied terms will, in some sense, qualify the simple rule of caveat emptor. I have no difficulty in principle with that idea but, as I hope my hon. Friend will recognise, we will want to hear what the OFT has to say on that in its report.

I say again that I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend’s concerns and particularly to the views of his constituents who have written to him about their experiences of buying new homes. I hope that he recognises that the situation that he described—that someone has more rights buying a packet of crisps than buying a new home—is not accurate, but we understand the frustration of people who have had bad experiences with rogue builders. That is one reason why the OFT is conducting its market study.

I recognise the need for us here in London, in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, with our responsibility for consumer affairs as a reserved issue, to discuss the Scottish experience of the matter with the Scottish Executive. I have also offered to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston about the issue that he raised, and I am happy to receive representations from Helen Eadie or my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith, about what Ms Eadie has discussed with the Scottish Executive.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.