DOCSLIB.ORG

The Housing Forum

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Housing Forum What consumers thought about… The Housing Forum Base: All respondents (9,913 in 2003, 10,015 in Key 2001 and 10,283 in 2000) Source: MORI Very Fairly Neither/nor Fairly Very No opinion satisfied satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied National Customer Satisfaction Survey 2003 Designed by Lillington Green 0118 927Designed by Lillington 2474 Green 0118 …the quality of the home …the service from their housebuilder New Home Owners Survey The 2003 National Customer Satisfaction Survey is the third survey conducted among owners of newly built homes; Overall satisfaction with quality Overall satisfaction with service Q15 Taking everything into account, overall, how satisfied or Q2 Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with previous surveys were conducted in 2001 and 2000. Commissioned independently by the Housing Forum – Constructing dissatisfied are you with the quality of your home? the service provided by your housebuilder, taking into Excellence and sponsored by the DTI and ODPM, the survey is designed to provide an analysis of the trends of customer 83 12 account the service both before and after you moved in? satisfaction within the private house building industry over the last three years and form a guide to advise consumers of the 2003 40 43 6 7 5 * +71 65 26 above average performers in the industry this year. In conjunction with the survey results the Housing Forum has produced 87 8 2003 24 41 10 14 12 * +39 2001 43 44 5 5 3 * +79 70 21 a consumer guidance leaflet, What you need to check when buying a newly built property – 10 top tips on key 87 8 2001 27 43 9 12 9 * +49 2000 45 42 4 5 3 * +79 69 23 issues to consider. + Net satisfied - % 2000 27 42 8 14 9 * +46 + Construction and finish Net good - % Q16a How good or poor would you rate the quality of the Condition on moving in day Key findings Attitudes towards all aspects of the compared with 84% in 2001 and construction and finish? Q3b How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the condition of home asked about – construction and 81% in 2000) However, satisfaction 73 17 your home on moving in day? Overall finish, fixtures and fittings, design and with the overall service provided in 2003 31 42 10 11 6 * +56 appearance of the development, dealing with these problems remains 77 13 71 25 In general, more recent change in 2001 34 43 9 9 4 * +64 2003 34 37 5 12 13 * +46 findings is apparent than was seen external design and appearance of the positive (51% satisfied), and only 78 14 75 20 between the first two surveys, with home, use of internal space and slightly lower than previously (53% 2000 36 42 8 9 5 * +64 2001 37 38 5 10 9 * +55 75 20 satisfaction levels slightly lower parking space along with sound versus 54% in 2000). Net good + % - 2000 36 39 5 11 9 * +55 this year. proofing – are all positive. Although + Value for money Net good - % these scores are generally lower than Owner Attitudes The star ratings allocated in the Q21 Taking everything into account, overall, do you think that After sales service previously, and despite properties Attitudes towards newly built homes Housebuilder Rating Table show that the price you paid for this property represents good or poor Q3d How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the service after becoming more expensive, rating of are very positive, although owners are while the ratings for some value for money? value for money is unchanged. generally less positive about their you moved in? housebuilders remain unchanged, particular housebuilder. For example, 82 8 56 36 there has been some movement with 2003 37 45 8 6 21* +74 2003 23 33 7 18 18 1* +74 Service Provided by Housebuilders almost all owners are pleased about 82 9 more now getting higher star ratings 60 33 Nearly two-thirds (65%) are satisfied buying the home they did (88%), and 2001 33 49 9 9 21* +73 2001 23 37 7 17 16 1* +73 than previously, particularly on overall 78 14 with the service from their a majority (55%) would want another 59 34 36 47 7 6 21 satisfaction with the housebuilder and 2000 * +75 2000 24 35 6 18 16 1 * +75 housebuilder. Following trends newly built one if they were to move + the condition of the home on moving Net good - % + towards satisfaction with the home, again. However, fewer agree than Net satisfied - % in day. More also get higher ratings on this finding is lower than in both 2001 disagree that they would want to buy recommendation of the housebuilder and 2000. another home from the same and overall satisfaction with the housebuilder (29% versus 41%). Rating and Ranking Quandrant quality of the home. Satisfaction with the service provided Rating and Ranking Quandrant Similarly, while attitudes are % External design and appearance of home by housebuilders tends to decline over - + 95 When comparing findings for the favourable towards the design of 46 Helpfulness/efficiency of staff successive stages of the purchase Use of internal space % Condition on moving day - 85 + housebuilding industry between newly built homes, they are less Design/appearance of development 36 Reliability/accuracy of communication process, although in all cases the 75 Value for money surveys, due to the large sample sizes positive about the build quality majority remain positive. Views are 65 Quality of fixtures/fittings 26 (over 10,000 respondents), only small compared with old ones (46% and Meeting deadlines/finishing home on time most favourable during the buying 55 Sound proofing Quality of construction/finish 16 differences are required to indicate a 22% agree respectively). Parking space Service dealing with defects/snags process, lower on moving-in day, and 45 significant change (between +0.8 and Rating: Net positive 6 least positive towards the after-sales Although more people would +1.4 percentage points). 0 5 1015202530354045505560 Rating: Net positive 0 5 1015202530354045505560 service. Ratings of staff follow the recommend their housebuilder than Base: All owners of newly built homes (9,913) Source: MORI Ranking: % Important Base: All owners of newly built homes (9,913) Source: MORI Ranking: % Important same pattern, with those responsible would be critical of them (with a Quality of the Home for sales higher rated than customer positive net recommend balance of Over four in five (83%) are satisfied care or after-sales staff. +10), this level of recommendation is Would consumers… recommend their housebuilder with their new home -a little lower than previously (+20 in 2001 lower than 2001 and 2000 (87% Experience of defects and/or snags in Q25 Which of these comes closest to describing how you would speak about your housebuilder? and +21 in 2000). in both years). the home has increased (90% 46 36 2003 17 29 18 20 16 +10 49 29 2001 18 31 21 17 12 +20 52 31 2000 20 32 17 18 13 +21 + Net satisfied - % See inside for the Housebuilders’ Rating Table. The Housebuilders Rating Table and the consumer Key guidance leaflet can be accessed at The Housing Recommend without Recommend if asked Neutral Critical if asked Critical without being Forum website – www.thehousingforum.org.uk being asked asked HFCE-LG-O104-v.1 I I Results for the 2001 survey were published in February 2002 and included owners who bought their home between 1 April 2000 and 30 June 2001, results for the Innovation Best Practice Productivity 2000 survey were published at the end of February 2001 and include owners who bought their home between 1 January 1999 and 31 March 2000. For more information about the national customer satisfaction survey results please contact The Housing Forum on 020 7691 0220 National Customer Satisfaction Survey 2003 – Housebuilder Rating Table Key Above industry average Industry average Below industry average Statistically at 95% confidence level ★★★ ★★ ★ Less than 95% confidence level ✩✩✩ ✩✩ ✩ Ratings based on a telephone survey with a representative sample of owners of newly built homes selected from databases supplied by NHBC and Zurich. Fieldwork conducted between 15th October and 12th November 2003 Sample size Quality of Home Service from Housebuilder Overall Construction Value for Likelihood of Overall Condition on After-sales satisfaction and finish money recommending satisfaction moving in day service housebuilder 600 Barratt Homes ★★★★★★★ 600 Bellway Homes ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★ 125 Ben Bailey Homes ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ ★★★ ✩✩✩ ★★★ ✩✩✩ 186 Berkeley Group ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★ ★★★ ★★★ 238 Bett Homes ✩✩ ✩✩ ✩✩ ★★ ✩✩ ✩✩ ★ 321 Bloor Homes ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ 458 Bovis Homes ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★ ✩✩ 603 Bryant Homes ★ ★★★★★★★★★★★ 76 Cala ✩✩✩ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ 84 Countryside Properties ✩✩ ✩✩ ✩✩ ✩✩✩ ✩✩ ★★ ✩✩ 170 Crest Nicholson ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ 75 Croudace ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ 65 David McLean Homes ✩✩✩★★★★ 600 David Wilson Homes ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★ 215 Fairclough Homes ★★ ★★ ★★ ✩✩✩ ★★★ ★★ ★★ 202 Fairview New Homes ★★★★★✩✩★★ 603 George Wimpey ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ 103 Haslam Homes ✩✩✩ ✩✩ ✩✩ ✩✩ ✩✩✩ ✩✩ ✩✩✩ 95 Jelson ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ 71 Jones Homes ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ ★★★ ★★★ ✩✩ ★★★ 232 Kier Residential ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ ★★ ✩✩ ✩✩ ★ 105 Linden ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ ✩✩ ✩✩✩ ★★★ 96 Lovell ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ 193 McCarthy & Stone ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ ★★★ 396 Miller Homes ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★ 186 Morris Homes ✩✩✩✩★★★★ 113 North Country Homes1 ✩★★✩★★✩ 658 Persimmon Homes ★★ ✩✩ ✩✩ ★ ★★ ★★ ★ 601 Redrow Homes ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★ ★★ 45 Rialto Homes ✩★★★★★★ 87 Shepherd Homes ✩✩ ✩✩ ✩✩ ★★ ✩✩ ✩✩ ✩✩ 278 Stewart Milne ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ ★★ ✩✩✩ ✩✩ 30 Swan Hill ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ 77 Tulloch Homes ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ ✩✩ ✩✩ ✩ 68 Ward Homes ★★★ ✩✩✩ ✩✩✩ ★★★ ★★★ ✩✩✩ ★★★ 600 Westbury Homes ★★★★★★★★ 604 Wilcon Homes2 ★★★★★★★★ 1 Now part of Country & Metropolitan Plc © This table is the copyright of Constructing Excellence. It must not be altered without the permission of Constructing Excellence. 2 Now Wilson Connolly part of Taylor Woodrow.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Consultation Statement for SPD3
    Consultation Statement Supplementary Planning Document SPD3: Parking Standards and Design February 2012 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK LOCAL Trafford LDF – SPD3: Parking Standards and Design Consultation Statement – February 2012 -1- Trafford LDF – SPD3: Parking Standards and Design Consultation Statement – February 2012 CONTENTS 1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 3 2 Statement of Community Involvement Review ......................................... 3 3 Public Consultation ................................................................................... 3 4 Inspecting the Scoping and Issues and SPD3: Parking Standards and Design consultation papers .............................................................................. 4 5 Representations on the Scoping and Issues SPD and the SPD3: Parking Standards and Design consultation papers ..................................................... 4 6 Consultation Responses and Main Issues ................................................ 5 7 Main Changes to the SPD ........................................................................ 5 8. Next Steps ................................................................................................ 7 Appendix 1 - Specific Consultees ................................................................. 8 Appendix 2 – General Consultees ................................................................ 9 Appendix 3 – Other Consultation Bodies ...................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C. List of Consultees
    Appendix C. List of Consultees C.1. Introduction C.1.1 This appendix provides a list of the organisations consulted under section 42, section 47 and section 48 of the Planning Act 2008 . C.2. Section 42(1)(a) Prescribed Consultees C.2.1 Prescribed consultees are set out under Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 ; these are outlined in Appendix Table A below. Any variation from the list of organisations set out in Schedule 1 is clarified within column 3 of the table. C.2.2 The Planning Inspectorate provided a list of prescribed consultation bodies in accordance with Regulation 9(1)(b) of the EIA Regulations and Advice Note three 1 (see Appendix A ), referred to as the “Regulation 9 list”. Those consultees included in the Reg 9 list are included in Table A, B and C. Those consultees that were not previously identified as a prescribed consultee as per Schedule 1 are identified with asterisk (*), and were consulted in the same way as the Schedule 1 consultees. C.2.3 The list of parish councils consulted under section 42 (1) (a) is outlined separately in Appendix Table C. The list of statutory undertakers consulted under Section 42 (1) (a) is outlined separately in Appendix Table B . C.2.4 Organisations noted in Appendix Tables A, B and C were issued with a copy of the Section 48 notice, notifying them of the proposed application and with consultation information, including the consultation brochure and details of how to respond. Appendix Table A: Prescribed Consultees Variation from the schedule where Consultee Organisation applicable The proposed application is not likely The Welsh Ministers N/A to affect land in Wales.
    [Show full text]
  • AGENDA Mm NO
    1 AGENDA mM NO.----.---------.I Application No. S/99/00886/OUT Date registered 20thJuly 1999 APPLICANT EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT LTD, PALACE HOUSE, NEWPORT, NP9 4EA Agent Stangate Investments (Aylesbury) Ltd, Henstaff Court Business Centre, Gloesfaen, Cardiff DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INTO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN LIEU OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CREATION OF ANCILLARY OPENSPACE AND ACCESS ROAD LOCATION ‘CARFIN VILLAGE’, CARFNHOLYTOWN LINK ROAD (A732) CARFIN, MOTHERWELL Ward No. 5 Grid Reference 276600658600 File Reference S/PL/B/5/56( 1 I 8)/CLK/JF Site History 1. S/95/00635/OUT - Redevelopment of ‘Carfin Bond’ site to allow for residential development, neighbourhood centre and public open space. Granted 1 1/7/96 2. S/98/00108/REM - Details of Access Arrangements to Site from A723. Granted 9/3/98 3. Mineral and Contamination Remediation Measures. Approved 29/1/98 4. S/98/0 1208/REM - Construction of 1 18 Houses and 3 8 Flats (Ogilvie Homes) - Granted 8/2/99 5. S/98/01560/OUT- Construction of Dwellinghouses (outline) on site of playground to rear of Hillhead Crescent. Application under consideration. 6. S/98/01564/FUL - Construction of New Road Link Between redevelopment Site and Carfin Street (via Bruce Road) - granted 10/5/99 7. S/98/01244/REM - Construction of 104 Houses and 28 Flats (Bellway Homes) - Granted 8/2/99 8. S/99/00598/FUL - Construction of 88 Houses (Barratt Homes), partly in lieu of Ogilvie Homes development. Granted 9. Construction of 90 houses (McLean Homes) - Granted 2/6/99 This supercedes the ‘Bellway’ proposal. Development Plan 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Consultee List
    Consultee List • A43 Action Group • BBD • Abbey Developments Ltd • BDP • Acorn Homes • Beanfield Junior School • Adams Holmes Associates • Beanfield Tenants & Residents Association • Afro Caribbean Association • Bedford Borough Council • Age Concern Northampton & County • Bedford Group Of Drainage Boards • Age Concern Wellingborough • Bedford PCT • Aldwincle Parish Council • Bedfordshire County Council • Alfred Street Junior School • Bee Bee Developments Ltd • Alfred Underwood Limited • Bell Cornwell Partnership • Al-Jamaat Ul-Muslimin Of Bangladesh • Bellway Homes • All Saints CE Primary School • Bellway Homes Ltd • All Saints Church Mears Ashby • Benefield Parish Council • All Saints Gt Harrowden & St Marys Lt Harrowden and • Berkeley Community Villages St Mary’s Orlingbury • Berry Morris • Amec E&E (UK) Ltd • Berry's • Ancer SPA • Bidwells • Andrew Granger & Co LLP • Bidwells Property Consultants • Anglian Water Services Limited • Biffa Waste Services Ltd • Apethorpe Parish Meeting • Billing Parish Council • Appletree Homes Ltd • Bishop Stopford School • Aragon Land And Planning Uk Ltd • Blackthorn Residents Association • Arc Recycled Materials • Blatherwycke Parish Meeting • Archaelogical And Historical Society • Blenheim Property Associates • Architectural And Surveying Services Ltd • Blenheim Realty • Architectural And Surveying Services Ltd • Bletsoes • Arriva UK Ltd • Bloomfields Ltd • Arthingworth Parish Council • Bloor Homes • Arts Council England East Midlands • Boothville Community Council • Ashley Parish Council • Borough
    [Show full text]
  • FOI Request 7862
    FOI Ref Response sent 7862 13 Oct 20 (CCC) Taylor Wimpey - Council Tax & NNDR Credit/Refund Request A) Can you please confirm if your Authority in both the council tax and business rates department holds accounts for Taylor Wimpey or its Subsidiaries listed below (Yes or No will be fine but please specify NNDR or Ctax). Taylor Wimpey and its subsidiaries; including but not limited to Bryant Homes, Taylor Woodrow, George Wimpey, Taylor Wimpey, Mclean Homes, Laing Homes & McAlpine Homes. B) Please advise if you have any accounts that currently have credits, write-on’s, or rate overpayments held on account for Taylor Wimpey and its subsidiaries; including but not limited to Bryant Homes, Taylor Woodrow, George Wimpey, Taylor Wimpey, Mclean Homes, Laing Homes & McAlpine Homes in relation to all domestic Council tax and Non-Domestic Business Rates rating matters (Yes or No will be fine but please specify NNDR or Ctax). If yes; B1) Please provide the account number, full account name, full account address including postcode, occupation dates start and end, the amount of credit due. (Ideally provide data by excel) C) Please can you confirm if any accounts are overdue or with enforcement agents (Yes or No will be fine but please specify NNDR or Ctax) If yes; C1) If Yes please provide the account number, full account name, full account address including postcode, occupation dates both start and end date if applicable, amount charged, and any fees. Response: Thank you for your request for information above, which we have dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Core Strategy DPD Annexes to Sustainability Appraisal Report
    Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy DPD Annexes to Sustainability Appraisal Report April 2010 If you would like this leaflet in large print, on audio tape, in Braille or on disk, please contact: Planning Policy Team Communities, Regeneration & Environment Directorate Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council FREEPOST Stockport SK1 3YQ Telephone: 0161 474 4395 Fax: 0161 474 4586 Core Strategy DPD: Annexes to Sustainability Appraisal Report Annex 1 Rapid Health Impact Assessment Screening Report Stockport Core Strategy DPD Rapid Health Impact Assessment Screening Report Date: September 2009 (Reviewed January 2010) Author: Angie Jukes, BSc, MSc. Health & Environment Advisor (Planning) Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council Reviewed by: Dr Stephen Watkins, Director of Public Health, NHS Stockport Health Impact Assessment Team at NHS Stockport Planning Policy Team at Stockport MBC Stockport Local Strategic Partnership Contents 1.0 Executive Summary 2.0 Introduction 2.1 Stockport’s Local Development Framework 2.2 Why do Health Impact Assessment? 2.3 Sustainability Appraisal 2.4 HIA Methodology 2.5 A Health Portrait of Stockport 3.0 HIA Rapid Assessment Findings 3.1 Environmental Conditions 3.2 Socio Economic & Cultural Conditions 3.3 Social & Community Networks 3.4 Lifestyle 4.0 Conclusions & Recommendations to Policy Makers 4.1 Significant Issues 4.2 Health Prevention 4.3 Two birds with one stone 4.4 Recommendations 5.0 Consultation Process & Next Steps Appendix 1 NHS Stockport Pro Forma Drafted Application to Core Strategy Emerging Objectives & Policies 1.0 Executive Summary The Local Development Framework (LDF) incorporates the Core Strategy which is the most important document in the LDF because it sets an overall strategy and vision, establishing the broad aims and objectives for the use of land in Stockport.
    [Show full text]
  • Psd10a Sunderland City Council and South Tyneside Council International Advanced Manufacturing Park Area Action Plan Statement of Compliance
    PSD10a Sunderland City Council and South Tyneside Council International Advanced Manufacturing Park Area Action Plan Statement of Compliance February 2017 Sunderland City Council and South Tyneside Council International Advanced Manufacturing Park Area Action Plan Statement of Compliance | February 2017 This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client. It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party. Job number Job number Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Admiral House Rose Wharf 78 East Street Leeds LS9 8EE United Kingdom www.arup.com Sunderland City Council and South Tyneside Council International Advanced Manufacturing Park Area Action Plan Statement of Compliance Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Purpose of the Compliance Report 1 1.2 Structure of this report 2 1.3 Introduction to the IAMP 2 1.4 Development Plan 3 1.5 Planning for the IAMP 4 1.6 Why an Area Action Plan 7 2 Legal and Procedural Compliance 9 2.1 National and European Legal and Procedural Requirements 9 2.1.1 Localism Act 2011 9 2.1.2 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 9 2.2 Legal Requirements for Consultation and engagement 9 2.2.1 Statements of Community Involvement 10 2.2.2 Local Development Scheme 12 2.3 Legal Requirements of the Duty to Cooperate 12 2.4 Legal Requirements for the Sustainability Appraisal 13 2.4.1 Evidence of Compliance 15 2.5 Legal Requirement for the Habitats Regulation Assessment 18 2.5.1 Evidence of Compliance 18 3 Consultation Statement
    [Show full text]
  • Building on Strong Foundations 2001 December 1 WP066 AR 2001 COVER V3 Tp 6/3/02 2:33 Pm Page FC2
    1 WP066 AR_2001 COVER_v3 tp 6/3/02 2:37 pm Page FC1 january february march Annual Report & Accounts 2001 april may june july august september october november Annual Report & Accounts 2001 building on strong foundations 2001 december 1 WP066 AR_2001 COVER_v3 tp 6/3/02 2:33 pm Page FC2 Our commitment to create and deliver value for our customers and shareholders has determined the ways in which we have brought changes to George Wimpey. By continuing to create real value we will achieve our goal of becoming a truly successful housebuilder measured by customers and shareholders alike. Contents Financial Highlights 02 Chairman’s Statement 03 Chief Executive’s Review 04 2001 – The Year That Changed George Wimpey 06 Operating and Financial Review 14 Environmental, Health and Safety Report 20 Board of Directors 21 Corporate Governance 22 Remuneration Report 24 Directors’ Report 27 Group Profit and Loss Account 30 Balance Sheet 31 Group Cash Flow Statement 32 Accounting Policies 33 Notes on the Accounts 34 Auditors’ Report 48 Five Year Review 49 Notice of Meeting 50 George Wimpey PLC Business Directory UK and US 53 Shareholder Information IBC George Wimpey Annual Report & Accounts 2001 During 2001 we have changed to create a new and rejuvenated business. We are rebuilding our Company to ensure that George Wimpey offers a long term secure and rewarding investment for our shareholders. George Wimpey Annual Report & Accounts 2001 02 Financial Highlights Year ended 31 December 2001 2000 Turnover £1895.9m £1702.0m Operating profit* £213.1m £170.2m
    [Show full text]
  • 5. Letters to the Department for Transport Seeking and Granting Permission to Carry out a Targeted Consultation
    SECTION 153 OF THE PLANNING ACT 2008, PARAGRAPH 2 OF REGULATION 6 OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (CHANGES TO, AND REVOCATION OF, DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDERS) REGULATIONS 2011 (AS AMENDED) APPLICATION TO MAKE A NON-MATERIAL CHANGE TO THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER: The A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme Development Consent Order 2016 (SI 2016 No 547) (as corrected by the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme Development Consent (Correction) Order 2017 (SI 2017/1121)) 5. Letters to the Department for Transport seeking and granting permission to carry out a targeted consultation January 2019 Our ref:TR010018 Woodlands Manton Lane Bedford MK41 7LW Natasha Kopala Head of TWA Orders Unit Department for Transport 26 November 2018 Zone 1/14 – 18 Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London SW1P 4DR Dear Ms Kopala, Proposed non-material change to the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme Development Consent Order 2016 The Infrastructure Planning (Changes to, and Revocation of, Development Consent Orders) Regulations: Regulation 7(3) – request for exemption from consulting with certain stakeholders on the above application In January 2015 the then Highways Agency submitted a DCO application for the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme. The A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme Development Consent Order 2016 (the Order) was subsequently made by the Secretary of State for Transport on 11 May 2016. The original DCO submission, documentation and decision can be found on the Planning Inspectorate’s website. Following the Roads Minister’s instruction to Highways England, in 2018, requesting that the new A14 be classified as a motorway, Highways England intends to seek consent from the Secretary of State to make a non-material change to the Order.
    [Show full text]
  • Taylor Wimpey Annual Report and Accounts 2020
    Taylor Wimpey plc Annual Report and Accounts 2020 Emerging StrongerAnnual Report and Accounts 2020 www.taylorwimpey.co.uk Contents Taylor Wimpey plc is a customer-focused residential Strategic report developer building and delivering homes and 2 Chairman’s statement communities across the UK and in Spain. 4 Chief Executive’s statement 6 Our market environment 10 Our response in 2020 12 Our equity raise 14 Our management 16 Our robust investment case 18 Our purpose 20 Our business model Our purpose 22 Our strategy and key performance indicators 26 Materiality assessment 28 Our stakeholders 42 Environmental strategy Our response is to build great 44 Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures Our equity raise in 2020 46 Our approach to identifying and managing risk See pages 12 and 13 See pages 10 and 11 49 Principal Risks and uncertainties homes and 54 Group financial review Directors’ report: governance 60 Chairman’s Statement 62 Governance at a glance create thriving 80 Nomination and Governance Committee report 90 Audit Committee report 98 Remuneration Committee report communities. 121 Statutory, regulatory and other information Financial statements 124 Independent auditor’s report Emerging 130 Consolidated income statement stronger for our 131 Consolidated statement of comprehensive income Our purpose stakeholders This is what our teams come to work to do each 132 Consolidated balance sheet See pages 18 and 19 See pages 28 to 41 133 Consolidated statement of changes in equity and every day and is where the core drivers of 134 Consolidated cash flow statement value for all our stakeholders ultimately lie. 135 Notes to the consolidated financial statements 165 Company balance sheet 2020 has not been a normal year.
    [Show full text]
  • View Annual Report
    Welcome Our vision is to be Creating value the UK’s leading residential by delivering developer for quality creating value and Annual Report and Accounts 2015 delivering quality What’s inside 2 Strategic Report 42 Governance 92 Financial Statements 147 Shareholder Information Delivering quality for all our stakeholders Sustainability Report 2015 Visit us online at www.taylorwimpey.co.uk In This Report 2015 Overview Strategic Report Our integrated approach Operational highlights 4 Where We Operate As part of our continued commitment to good • Completed a total of 13,219 homes, 6 Our Investment Case reporting, this year we have evolved the way we 8 Our Market Review report by integrating aspects of our sustainability, excluding joint ventures, across the UK, 10 Chairman’s Statement operating review and Key Performance Indicators up 7.5% (2014: 12,294 homes) 12 Chief Executive’s Review into our Business Model. Our aim is to balance 16 Our Strategy the long term economic stability and growth of our • 8.0% increase in total average selling 18 Our Business Model Company with our responsibilities to the environment, society and the local economies in which we operate. price to £230k (2014: £213k) 34 Our Approach to Risk Management See our Chief Executive’s • Short term landbank of c.76k plots 36 Principal Risks and Uncertainties Review on page 12 Where can I find key information? 38 Group Financial Review with 60% sourced from the strategic Investors Our Investment Case pages 6 to 7 land pipeline Chief Executive’s Review pages 12 to 17 Our Business
    [Show full text]
  • Shepherds Bush Green Management Plan 2013-23
    [2013-23] andrewk Shepherd Bush Green Managementquadron Plan [Pick the date] Revision Date Author(s) Approved for LBHF by: V1 15/02/13 Andrew Kauffman / Preeti Paul Bassi Chatwal (QSL) 2 1. Contents 1. CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................ 3 2. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 6 2.1 ACTION PLAN PROGRESS SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 7 3. STRATEGIC CONTEXT................................................................................................................. 8 3.1 HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM COMMUNITY STRATEGY .................................................................. 8 3.2 PARKS AND OPEN SPACES STRATEGY .......................................................................................... 9 3.3 HOW SHEPHERDS BUSH GREEN CONTRIBUTES TO STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES ........................................... 9 4. KEY SITE INFORMATION AND DESCRIPTION ............................................................................ 11 4.1 SITE DETAILS ...................................................................................................................... 11 4.2 LOCATION ......................................................................................................................... 12 4.3 SOILS ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]