Major project approved with no affordable homes
Plans to build 1,300 homes in a flagship scheme on the waterfront in Exeter have been given the go-ahead without any requirement for affordable housing.
Up to 980 flats and 320 student accommodation units, as well as shops and restaurants, will be built in the Water Lane development.
At Exeter City Council's planning committee on Monday, some councillors said it was unacceptable to approve the plans without any agreement to provide affordable or social housing.
The developer said it was spending more than £10m on getting the industrial site ready for development and was keen to deliver affordable housing as part of the scheme at a later date.
The development could be up to nine storeys high on the former industrial site alongside Exeter's canal.
The councillor for the ward, Diana Moore, Green Party leader, said: "It's very clear in the decision that affordable housing will not be secured through the planning system - it may be delivered by other mechanisms.
"That means the developer has no responsibility to deliver any affordable or social housing, and that responsibility is offloaded on to the council or housing associations, or other organisations that are going to have to work up those schemes and pay for it in other ways.
"That really concerns me and we will be keeping a very close eye on what is actually agreed and making sure affordable housing is delivered."
During the four-hour meeting Liberal Democrat group leader Michael Mitchell said affordable housing should be included as a condition.
Conservative leader Anne Jobson said there should be a "clear commitment" to reviewing the possibility of affordable or social housing at every stage.
At the opening of the meeting Paul Knott, planning committee chairman and Labour member for Exwick, said it was the "largest and most complex" planning application he had dealt with in his 18 years as a councillor.
Proposing the motion to approve the plans, he said: "I'm satisfied that if it's viable affordable housing will be delivered."
Andy Wilkins, from the Water Lane Development Management Company, told the meeting this was "a watershed moment for the city".
"This is an exciting moment that will see the delivery of much-needed housing in an exemplar scheme," he said.
When questioned by councillors about the reasons for the absence of affordable housing, he said: "This site is about as brownfield as it gets and the cost of delivery is significant."
He said the viability of affordable housing changed according to market conditions.
"If it's viable for affordable housing to be delivered, it will be delivered," he said.
Follow BBC Devon on X, Facebook and Instagram. Send your story ideas to spotlight@bbc.co.uk.
No affordable homes in major waterside development
Fear over £110m 'industrial' energy centre in park
Exeter City Council
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Campaigners join national walk against solar farms
Campaigners have taken part in a walk to protest against plans to install thousands of solar panels on prime agricultural land. The Claydons Solar Action Group organised the event near Winslow and The Claydons in Buckinghamshire as part of a national community walk day on Sunday to highlight the issue of rural solar farm development. Developers say the Rosefield Solar Farm would provide enough clean energy to power more than 57,000 homes - and would have a shelf life of 40 years. The Conservative Mid Buckinghamshire MP, Greg Smith, described the plan as "inefficient technology that trashes the countryside and damages our food security". A government spokesperson said projects were "subject to a rigorous planning process, in which the views and interests of the local community and impacts on the local environment, including any impact on amenities, landscapes and land use, are considered." The walk at Botolph Claydon was one of 25 taking place nationally against solar farm developments, with others planned in Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire, Norfolk and Bedfordshire. Geography teacher Lorraine Campbell, who has lived in the area for 15 years, said: "The whole reason people come to live in the countryside is because they want to be able to enjoy the wildlife and the landscape. "It's being taken away from us. "This is not the place for solar panels. This is agricultural grade land, it's full of biodiversity. "Solar panels should be put on the roofs of warehouses, of distribution centres. There are hundreds of those." Local councillor Frank Mahon said the plan was a "ridiculous proposal". "North Buckinghamshire has become a dumping ground for major infrastructure, HS2, East West Rail, a mega prison, not to mention three solar farms. "Nobody is taking into consideration the beautiful countryside we have and the amount of farmers that will lose their livelihoods." MP Mr Smith said constituents were "absolutely opposed to the dearth of solar farms, battery storage, substation rebuilds that we're seeing in our beautiful Buckinghamshire countryside". "Two thousand acres of solar panels to produce enough energy for 50,000 homes - a tiny tiny fraction of our energy need." A government spokesperson said: "Solar is at the heart of our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower, and just this week the government confirmed that new build homes will have solar panels by default. "As of September last year, solar farms covered around 0.1 per cent of the total land area of the UK, while bringing huge benefits for the British public and our energy security." A consultation on the Rosefield plan took place between 18 September and 5 December 2024 and the planning process was ongoing. Follow Beds, Herts and Bucks news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X. Campaigners join national walk against solar farms Solar farm size reduced after public consultation Rosefield Solar Farm
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Campaigners join national walk against solar farms
Campaigners have taken part in a walk to protest against plans to install thousands of solar panels on prime agricultural land. The Claydons Solar Action Group organised the event near Winslow and The Claydons in Buckinghamshire as part of a national community walk day on Sunday to highlight the issue of rural solar farm development. Developers say the Rosefield Solar Farm would provide enough clean energy to power more than 57,000 homes - and would have a shelf life of 40 years. The Conservative Mid Buckinghamshire MP, Greg Smith, described the plan as "inefficient technology that trashes the countryside and damages our food security". A government spokesperson said projects were "subject to a rigorous planning process, in which the views and interests of the local community and impacts on the local environment, including any impact on amenities, landscapes and land use, are considered." The walk at Botolph Claydon was one of 25 taking place nationally against solar farm developments, with others planned in Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire, Norfolk and Bedfordshire. Geography teacher Lorraine Campbell, who has lived in the area for 15 years, said: "The whole reason people come to live in the countryside is because they want to be able to enjoy the wildlife and the landscape. "It's being taken away from us. "This is not the place for solar panels. This is agricultural grade land, it's full of biodiversity. "Solar panels should be put on the roofs of warehouses, of distribution centres. There are hundreds of those." Local councillor Frank Mahon said the plan was a "ridiculous proposal". "North Buckinghamshire has become a dumping ground for major infrastructure, HS2, East West Rail, a mega prison, not to mention three solar farms. "Nobody is taking into consideration the beautiful countryside we have and the amount of farmers that will lose their livelihoods." MP Mr Smith said constituents were "absolutely opposed to the dearth of solar farms, battery storage, substation rebuilds that we're seeing in our beautiful Buckinghamshire countryside". "Two thousand acres of solar panels to produce enough energy for 50,000 homes - a tiny tiny fraction of our energy need." A government spokesperson said: "Solar is at the heart of our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower, and just this week the government confirmed that new build homes will have solar panels by default. "As of September last year, solar farms covered around 0.1 per cent of the total land area of the UK, while bringing huge benefits for the British public and our energy security." A consultation on the Rosefield plan took place between 18 September and 5 December 2024 and the planning process was ongoing. Follow Beds, Herts and Bucks news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X. Campaigners join national walk against solar farms Solar farm size reduced after public consultation Rosefield Solar Farm
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Government struggles to cut foreign aid spent on asylum hotels
The government is struggling to cut the amount of foreign aid it spends on hotel bills for asylum seekers in the UK, the BBC has learnt. New figures released quietly by ministers in recent days show the Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of overseas development assistance (ODA) this financial year - that is only marginally less than the £2.3bn it spent in 2024/25. The money is largely used to cover the accommodation costs of thousands of asylum seekers who have recently arrived in the UK. The Home Office said it was committed to ending asylum hotels and was speeding up asylum decisions to save taxpayers' money. The figures were published on the Home Office website with no accompanying notification to media. Foreign aid is supposed to be spent alleviating poverty by providing humanitarian and development assistance overseas. But under international rules, governments can spend some of their foreign aid budgets at home to support asylum seekers during the first year after their arrival. According to the most recent Home Office figures, there are about 32,000 asylum seekers in hotels in the UK. Labour promised in its manifesto to "end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds". Contracts signed by the Conservative government in 2019 were expected to see £4.5bn of public cash paid to three companies to accommodate asylum seekers over a 10-year period. But a report by spending watchdog the National Audit Office (NAO) in May said that number was expected to be £15.3bn. Asylum accommodation costs set to triple, says watchdog Asylum hotel companies vow to hand back some profits On June 3, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told the Home Affairs Committee she was "concerned about the level of money" being spent on asylum seekers' accommodation and added: "We need to end asylum hotels altogether." The Home Office said it was trying to bear down on the numbers by reducing the time asylum seekers can appeal against decisions. It is also planning to introduce tighter financial eligibility checks to ensure only those without means are housed. But Whitehall officials and international charities have said the Home Office has no incentive to reduce ODA spending because the money does not come out of its budgets. The scale of government aid spending on asylum hotels has meant huge cuts in UK support for humanitarian and development priorities across the world. Those cuts have been exacerbated by the government's reductions to the overall ODA budget. In February, Sir Keir Starmer said he would cut aid spending from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% by 2027 - a fall in absolute terms of about £14bn to some £9bn. Such was the scale of aid spending on asylum hotels in recent years that the previous Conservative government gave the Foreign Office an extra £2bn to shore up its humanitarian commitments overseas. But Labour has refused to match that commitment. Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy at the Bond network of development organisations, said: "Cutting the UK aid budget while using it to prop up Home Office costs is a reckless repeat of decisions taken by the previous Conservative government. "Diverting £2.2bn of UK aid to cover asylum accommodation in the UK is unsustainable, poor value for money, and comes at the expense of vital development and humanitarian programmes tackling the root causes of poverty, conflict and displacement. "It is essential that we support refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, but the government should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul." Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, said the government was introducing "savage cuts" to its ODA spending, risking the UK's development priorities and international reputation, while "Home Office raids on the aid budget" had barely reduced. "Aid is meant to help the poorest and most vulnerable across the world: to alleviate poverty, improve life chances and reduce the risk of conflict," she said. "Allowing the Home Office to spend it in the UK makes this task even harder." "The government must get a grip on spending aid in the UK," she said. "The Spending Review needs to finally draw a line under this perverse use of taxpayer money designed to keep everyone safe and prosperous in their own homes, not funding inappropriate, expensive accommodation here." Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: "Labour promised in their manifesto to end the use of asylum hotels for illegal immigrants. But the truth is there are now thousands more illegal migrants being housed in hotels under Labour. "Now these documents reveal that Labour are using foreign aid to pay for asylum hotel accommodation – yet another promise broken." A Home Office spokesperson said: "We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure, and continue to take action, restoring order, and reduce costs. This will ultimately reduce the amount of Official Development Assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. "We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4bn by 2026." Is the government meeting its pledges on illegal immigration and asylum?
