Wainhomes has regrouped ready for the next onslaught

Like a petulant child who fails to understand the word ‘No!’, Wainhomes has made public its intention to build more houses in the poor besieged village of Feniton.

Fifty homes won at appeal in 2012 are currently under construction on land off Station Road, marketed as Winchester Park. The site itself was not a site which the Parish Council, the District Council or indeed the people of Feniton wanted to see developed.

Collapsed Wainhomes signWainhomes fought a Super Inquiry in January this year to build an extension of 83 houses to Winchester Park and the result of the inquiry, made public just four months ago, dismissed the appeal on the grounds of sustainability and landscape amenity.

The decision by Planning Inspector, Jessica Graham, has not stopped the voracious ambitions of this developer, who intend to put the village through yet more misery.

But to be clear, there is no formal application currently with EDDC … Wainhomes have simply expressed an intention which planners have to consider.

Reports that the developer is already marketing the additional homes they hope to build in Feniton is simply a marketing ploy to demonstrate that there is interest in the new houses.

Like any plan, this application has to be assessed by planners, meet with the approval of Feniton Parish Council, be subject to full public consultation, and be approved by the Planning Committee at EDDC. Eventually, the extra houses could be the subject of an appeal.

Any potential purchaser who is thinking that their new home will have magnificent countryside views might be wise to consider precisely what Wainhomes’ next strategic move might be before buying.

This entry was posted in News and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Wainhomes has regrouped ready for the next onslaught

  1. Val Jones says:

    Wainhomes are indeed marketing houses on land that does NOT have planning permission, in fact on land that was dismissed by the Inspector Jessica Graham. Their sales plan now shows a further 31 houses filling up the field they are already in. Wainhomes appear to have decided that the allotments are not needed so are building on them and the Community Hall area so have put houses on there as well. Their application, which was allowed on appeal in September 2012 was for 50 houses, plus allotments, community hall ground and children’s play area. They should be made to stick to what they have approval for, not move the goal posts. The play area they have will be the next to go. And they certainly should not be allowed to market houses where they have NO planning permission

  2. Peter Crawford says:

    I thought I should respond to this as there are as usual, incorrect statements and misunderstanding
    We are not marketing any homes that we do not have consent for.
    We have contacted EDDC and sent them a plan showing the potential for an additional 31 units , asking for comment
    The plan showing the potential for the additional housing is indeed held in the sales office, not to market the potential properties, but to show potential purchasers of the already consented units what may come in the future. We would not want a purchaser to beleive they were getting a countryside view if they may not!
    If Val Jones would like to read the inspectors comments in the sept 12 appeal she will see that it is not Wainhomes who have decided that the allotments and community building are not required it is actually the Inspector who stated that they were not required as part of the approval.
    Whilst we do not expect your support we do expect the facts to be correct – rather than basing your statements on hearsay and rumour may I suggest you pick up the phone and ask

    • susiebond says:

      Thank you for taking the time to comment on my blog.

      I’m delighted to hear that you are not actively marketing any of the houses for which you do not have consent and you will note on my blog that I emphasise that this is a pre-application to dispel rumours that consent has already been granted for the additional housing. However, surely you would agree that by promoting yet another extension to the existing site, to the point of publicly displaying plans for a development that has not even been proposed yet, Wainhomes is engaging in a form of passive marketing? Surely it is disingenuous to claim otherwise?

      I have heard from new residents of Winchester Park who were distraught to discover that Wainhomes had plans to extend the site, having apparently been given assurances by your sales people that no further development was planned.

      The community building originally proposed was widely seen by many as unnecessary, given that it is close to the existing Youth Centre. It was hoped in the spirit of Localism that the land could be used for a community orchard (and this was mooted at a Parish Council meeting) to maintain some green space amid the concrete proposed.

      Indeed, as you say, the community building, the allotments and the new access to the Youth Centre were not deemed to be necessary to make the application acceptable by the Planning Inspector in the 2012 appeal.

      However, it is doubly unfortunate that while it was not a condition in the appeal decision to retain the allotments, Wainhomes consider that concreting them over is acceptable practice. These would have been enjoyed by the new residents of the village and are always an excellent way of promoting community cohesion once the developer has left the site.

    • Val Jones says:

      Peter Crawford need not worry I am aware of probably every word in the Inspector’s report. However, the approval which was given consent under the appeal in September 2012 was for an application submitted as “erection of 50 residential dwellings with associated roads, sewers, landscaping, parking and garages and the provision of allotments, play space and a community building”. (perhaps you would like to check this out)
      So whilst the Inspector may say the application is not dependent on the provision of allotments, the land allocated for allotments was nevertheless part of the application site (enclosed within the red boundary on the site plan) and was not shown for housing. The same applies to the land for a community hall and the play area.
      Whilst a community hall may not be needed, the need or otherwise for allotments has not been established – this is very much in the future.
      The other houses on the sale plan are completely outside the application site and are in fact on land which has been refused on appeal.(April 2014)
      Peter Crawford needs to advise his potential customers that Wainhomes lost their appeal for more houses in April 2014 and therefore it will be many years before this site is again considered for development. By producing plans showing additional houses (and these sales plans were produced to a potential customer who called at the site office) he is inaccurately marketing his building site.

      • susiebond says:

        Just to be absolutely clear, the original application promised the land for a community building, access to the existing community building and allotments. Ken Barton, the Planning Inspector in the 2012 Planning Inquiry stated in para 52 of his decision:

        “Schedule 5 of the Obligation makes provision for leasing land for a community building, village hall access, and allotments. Only the land is offered and there is little evidence of a desire by any public body to provide the community building. These measures do not directly relate to the proposal and would not satisfy the tests in the Framework. They have not been taken into account in determining this appeal.”

        In other words, following the appeal decision, Wainhomes are under no obligation to provide the land for any of these. This does not mean that they can decide to build on them, but have to go through the process of gaining planning consent to do so.

        Effectively, the provision of the allotments is in the gift of Wainhomes and they would apparently prefer to build on the land than to provide open space.

      • Peter Crawford says:

        Dear Councillor Bond
        Thank you for clarifying the matter and confirming the planning situation for Mrs Jones.
        Please be assured the plan is not there for marketing purposes but as responsible developers we wish to ensure that all potential purchasers are aware of what may come in the future.
        Of course, as you say, any further housing will have to be subject of a further application, consultation, committee meeting and possibly an appeal
        Rather than conducting a conversation via this blog, would you like to meet to discuss the matter face to face?
        Peter Crawford

      • susiebond says:

        Dear Mr Crawford
        I’d be more than happy to discuss the Wainhomes proposal with you at EDDC’s offices in Sidmouth in the company of planning officers and in the long-term interests of Feniton.
        Kind regards, Susie Bond

      • Peter Crawford says:

        Thank you. I look forward to meeting you.
        We will speak with the plannig officers and set up a meeting. I am away next week but will pick up on this when I am back.
        Regards
        Peter

  3. John Withrington says:

    A ‘responsible developer’ would not be selling houses to people in a village it knows has e.g. an overcrowded school, inadequate public transport and narrow lanes with traffic problems. A ‘responsible developer’ would acknowledge that publicity showing the extension of an existing site was de facto a form of passive marketing. A ‘responsible developer’ would respect the long-standing opposition of the community, Parish and District Councils to development of the site in question. A ‘responsible developer’ would recognise that it had failed in previous bids to build on the site, and respect the Planning Inspectorate’s concerns about Feniton’s sustainability credentials. A ‘responsible developer’ would not keep returning to Feniton with tweaked proposals for expansion in the hope of wearing down opposition and exhausting public funds in pursuit of its goals (the latest wheeze, for 31 houses this time, leaking out roughly just 16 weeks after the Planning Inspectorate turned down a similar proposal). A ‘responsible developer’, in short, would be motivated by something other than ego and greed. (But that would be too much to expect from a company that, frustrated in its attempt to build Cornwall’s biggest housing estate, took its case up to the High Court – and then lost.) I don’t expect morality from a developer. But please spare Feniton the hypocrisy, Mr Crawford.

  4. Peter Bending says:

    Its not just us who are somewhat fed up with Wainhomes and their aggressive bully boy tactics.
    http://www.cornishguardian.co.uk/simple-explanation-Wainhomes-isn-t-wanted/story-21643381-detail/story.html#Q72S6MQip0xbcEFP.03.

    Perhaps at your meeting you could ask Mr Crawford if and when they intend to install the attenuation tanks, which, of course, they will need to stop the existing development from flooding.

    I’m sure you will also be warning him that we are more than ready for another fight should it be required

  5. Pingback: Feniton Fights – Forever, it seems | East Devon Alliance

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s