Sheltered housing scrapped: not viable

“Hundreds of planned new sheltered accommodation units have been delayed or scrapped owing to proposed cuts to housing benefit, the BBC has learned.
Several housing associations have said they are no longer financially viable.

The flats, for the elderly or people with learning disabilities, are more expensive to build and run because they provide additional support.

Ministers say they are reviewing the sheltered housing sector “to ensure it works in the best way possible”.

The National Housing Federation (NHF) has calculated that nearly 2,500 units have so far been scrapped or delayed as sheltered housing providers face losing an average of £68 a week per tenant.

David Orr, chief executive of the NHF, told the BBC: “There is real impact now.

“New homes for people with support needs – vulnerable people – that would be being built have been cancelled.”

BBC News has spoken to four housing associations who confirmed their plans had needed to change:

Southdown Housing in East Sussex scrapped plans for 18 units for people with learning disabilities

Knightstone Housing in Somerset has delayed a complex of 65 homes for the elderly and 13 properties for learning-disabled people

In Manchester, Contour Homes has had to put on hold a scheme to build 36 units for the elderly

In North Yorkshire, Harrogate Neighbours has delayed construction of 55 extra care flats

The changes – announced in Chancellor George Osborne’s Autumn Statement – will bring housing benefit rates for social housing in line with the sums paid to landlords in the private sector.

Mr Osborne said the move, which will affect England, Scotland and Wales, would deliver savings of £225m by 2020-21, and is part of a £12bn package of cuts from the welfare bill.

The cap includes sheltered housing, which is more expensive to provide due to the additional support on offer – anything from canteens to round-the-clock care staff.

The benefit will not actually be cut until April 2018 but it will affect people signing new tenancies from this April.

‘We couldn’t just absorb that’

At one sheltered housing complex in Harrogate, the need for new development is clear – there is only one lift and the corridors are narrow.

“We need to move,” said resident Frank Forkes. “It’s very cramped. If the lift breaks down, it’s chaos because you’ve people upstairs in wheelchairs.”
The housing association has spent eight years developing plans for a new complex a couple of miles away.

But following the government’s announcement in November, the board of Harrogate Neighbours delayed the scheme. Under the new rules, they will lose £100,000 per annum on it.

“As an organisation we have to be absolutely certain that we can afford to deliver all the services. And at the moment, it’s not viable,” chief executive Sue Cawthray said.

The consequences of the benefit cuts are even worse for Contour Homes in Manchester.

“We stand to lose – over the course of the 40-year life cycle of the development – if things stay as they are, £3.35m. As an organisation, we couldn’t just absorb that,” director of customer services Chris Langan said.
Labour described the housing benefit cut as a “catastrophe for those who can least afford it”.

But a spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: “We’ve always been clear that we value the work the supported accommodation sector does to protect the most vulnerable members of society.

“That’s why we are carrying out a thorough review, working with the sector, to ensure that it works in the best way possible – which is what the NHF has asked for.

“We are also providing councils with £870m of Discretionary Housing Payments which can be paid to people in supported accommodation.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35583415?SThisFB

Ombudsman criticises council for lack of transparency in planning decision

“The Local Government Ombudsman has criticised a council after members of its planning committee approved an application against an officer’s recommendation but failed to give reasons for doing so.

The decision by Erewash Borough Council related to an application for a development in the Green Belt. The applicant wanted permission to extend his bungalow by adding a first floor and garage extension.

The complainants to the LGO were neighbours of the site, which was on the edge of a village.

They submitted a number of complaints, including that the initial application was not advertised properly, and that members did not give any reasons for granting planning permission.

In its report, which can be viewed here, the Ombudsman upheld these complaints, but did not uphold some others.

The LGO found that Erewash posted a site notice, which notified adjoining neighbours and the parish council, but did not advertise it in a local newspaper as a departure from the local plan.

A planning officer recommended refusal because the proposed extensions were disproportionate to the size of the original building and would increase the building’s prominence.

The officer’s report to the committee included details of the neighbours’ objections and those of the local parish council along with representations from the applicant and his agent.

Following a site visit, members decided to approve the application against the officer’s recommendation. However, no record was made of the reasons for their decision.

The LGO has recommended Erewash BC:

apologise to the neighbours for failing to publicise the application as a departure from the local plan and for also not giving reasons for the decision to grant planning permission. “The council should recognise that residents will now be uncertain of what the outcome might have been but for the council’s fault”;
review its working practices and procedures regarding how it makes and records the reasons for its decisions; and
provide training to members on giving proper reasons for their decisions.
Dr Jane Martin, Local Government Ombudsman, said: “For people to have confidence in the local planning system, decisions must be made in as transparent a way as possible. This includes making records of the reasons for those decisions.

“This is particularly important when members decide against planning officers’ recommendations. Without written reasons people who are affected by a decision cannot know exactly what has happened or feel reassured that decisions were taken fairly.

“I now urge Erewash council to provide the remedies I have recommended and improve its practices and procedures to ensure people can have faith in its planning decisions.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26049:ombudsman-criticises-council-for-lack-of-transparency-in-planning-decision&catid=63&Itemid=31

Local Enterprise Partnerships: “foxes in charge of the hen house”

Oxfordshire Green Party:

15 Oct 2015 — The Government has put the foxes in charge of the hen house. The Commission appointed to review the Freedom of Information Act is full of those antagonistic to accountability and transparency: For example, Jack Straw who vetoed the release of the cabinet minutes covering the Iraq war and called for wider restrictions covering policy development and ministerial communication.

It’s part of a pattern which includes the lack of transparency around how Local Enterprise Partnerships work.

Please help get more signatures on my petition by sharing it on facebook, emailing your friends and tweeting.

Suggesters tweet: #accountability for LEPs

Local Enterprise Partnerships spend billions of your money but you can’t hold them to account. Please sign the petition on this at change.org and tell all your friends

https://www.change.org/p/greg-clark-mp-the-secretary-of-state-for-communities-and-local-government-make-local-enterprise-partnerships-accountable-to-the-public/u/13789412

Seaton Heights: facilities complete by “June 2016” says website!

Isn’t it about time the people who own Seaton Heights put out another reason? excuse? waffle? about why it is still sitting derelict after all these years and all their promises?

The once rather posh website has gone distinctly plain these days:

http://lymebayleisure.co.uk/seaton-heights/

and yet they are still offering to reserve off-plan properties for £1,000 and give a completion date of June 2016 for facilities. Here is what they say on the website today

“The resort is only a two and half [sic] drive from central London and is serviced by mainline trains from either Paddington or Waterloo stations. Located at the entrance to Seaton and overlooking Seaton Bay and the mouth of the River Axe all of the properties being released in the first phase can be assured of wonderful sea views.

Once complete the Deck Houses will be supported by “The Gatehouse” a luxury four star leisure facility (opening in June 2016) consisting of a gymnasium and swimming pool with glass fronted views over the bay. A luxury spa with five treatment rooms, sauna, steam and herbal suits with a therapeutic thermal pool for the ultimate indulgence. The ground floor has a reception, coffee shop and sea facing restaurant providing a wonderful dining experience 7 days a week.

The first phase of Deck House are a mix of two and three bedroom properties ranging from 93 to 122 square meters all with either integral balconies or roof top terraces to enjoy the wonderful views across the bay. The properties are finished [but not yet started] to a high specification with all bedrooms having en-suite facilities and underfloor heating. The kitchen is finished with top of the range Miele appliances and all homes are air-conditioned have solid wood floors and the benefit of their own designated parking space.

Discerning purchases [sic] can secure a plot of their choice now for an initial reservation fee of just £1,000, for further details of available plots, terms and conditions and time frames please email our dedicated sales team at info@lymebayleisure.co.uk. …”

http://lymebayleisure.co.uk/luxury-properties/

They had better get a move on to finish by June!
(and you try being “easily accessible” from Paddington!)

DCC Deputy Leader moans about the effects of austerity – the platform he chose to stand on at recent elections!

Owl is having difficulty understanding why the Deputy Leader (Conservative) of Devon County Council is moaning about cuts in public services, since austerity was the platform he chose to stand on when he asked for public votes at a recent election.

What did he think was going to happen?

Those who didn’t vote for his party (the majority of voters in the country and in Devon (first past the post creates this) knew pretty much how things were going to pan out and are angry but not as surprised as Mr Clatworthy!

Here is his view:

The funding of rural counties over urban areas has been condemned as unfair by the deputy leader of Devon County Council.

John Clatworthy, who is also the cabinet member for finance, said Devon’s budget would have been very different if the county was funded at the national average.

He said the government had recognised the disparity between rural and urban funding and granted Devon an extra £8.4m – the fourth highest in the country.

But overall Devon’s residents were still suffering from historic under-funding.

“I did not come into local government to see fewer resources to support our communities,” he said.

“On the contrary, we need the right level of financial support. Devon does not receive average funding and there is a clear disparity between urban and rural funding.”

Mr Clatworthy said, on average, rural areas received £130 per person less Government funding than urban areas.

Devon’s schools got £287 less per pupil than the national average. If Devon received the average it would mean an extra £25m for the county’s schools, he said.

In Public Health, Devon got £38 per person compared with an national average of £69 whilst the City of London received £200 per person. If Devon received the average it would mean an additional £22.4m.

When it comes to transport infrastructure, for every £100 spent in the South East we receive £7.50 in the South West,” said Mr Clatworthy.

“Because we are receiving less than the average funding, many authorities must be receiving well above the average.

“That cannot be right or equitable and needs to be addressed because the cuts are felt harder on authorities with less than average funding.”

Mr Clatworthy said that the Government’s austerity agenda meant that between 2010 and 2019, almost £250m would have been removed from Devon’s budget.

But, for 2016/17, the county council would still be spending £443.5m on services. After allowing for inflation and other spending pressures, that represented savings of £34.3m on the current year.

In spite of this, there would be an increase of £11.3m in the budget for children and £5m in the budget for adult care.

Mr Clatworthy said the council had decided to accept the Government’s offer of a two per cent increase in council tax to help fund adult social care.

The increase in the living wage would cost Devon over £7 million and the two per cent rise would bring in £6.5m.

“With reduced Government support, we need to have sufficient funds to deliver all our services so, reluctantly, we are having to add 1.99 per cent to the two per cent making a 3.99 per cent increase this year.

“This additional funding will give certainty of income which is essential to protect services.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Devon-s-historic-underfunding-highlighted-council/story-28769419-detail/story.html

Transfer “assets” to town and parish councils, then threaten them if they put up their precepts to pay for them!

BOTH THESE STORIES ARE FROM THIS WEEK’S KNOWLEDGE E-NEWSLETTER PUBLISHED BY EDDC:

That’s what happens when you live in Eton La-La Land!

Council finances are in a “mess” and the vast majority have said they will need to increase charges for services to make ends meet in the face of a government funding cut of 28%, a think-tank has said. As councils finalise their 2016/17 budgets, nearly 90% said they will have to increase charges,
according to a survey by the Local Government Information Unit. The think-tank also found that:

40% would need to cut frontline services that are “evident to the public”. Nine in 10 councils will raise council tax in the coming year, compared with half in 2015. In addition, 82% of councils said they will have to dip into reserves to balance the books, up from 55% in 2015. Jonathan Carr-West, Chief Executive of LGiU, said: “Local government finance is a mess. Our research shows that right now councils are cobbling together their finances by using reserves and increasing charging wherever they can.”

So, district councils are transferring “assets” that cost money to maintain to towns and parishes – toilets, halls, etc – but not assets that make them lots of money, such as car parks. To retain these services, towns and parishes have to increase precepts to pay for them.

BUT

HERE IS THE SECOND STORY:

Parish councils wanting to raise council tax “excessively” may have to first consult the public in line with larger authorities, the Government has warned. Analysis by BBC News show 3,659 parish councils raised the basic Band D tax bill by more than 1.99%, the referendum threshold for larger councils. Sixty small authorities at least doubled residents’ bills last year. Another 130 put their bills up by between 50 and 99% while 1,001 increased the annual bill for a Band D home by £5 or more.

A Department for Communities and Local Government spokesman said: “Town and parish councils should protect their taxpayers from excessive council tax increases; if they fail to do so, government has the option of making them subject to the referendum principles in future.”

Click to access the-knowledge-19-february-2016-issue-39.pdf

Councils buying back homes they were forced to sell

“Freedom of information requests by Inside Housing show that of the £1bn raised since 2012 to replace right to buy, £27.3m of it has been used to buy back homes sold under right to buy.

The government encourages the sale of council houses by offering attractive discounts to tenants, who understandably choose to buy. The council is then faced with dwindling stocks while waiting lists lengthen and homelessness spikes. So it uses its cash to buy back the homes it could not afford to lose in the first place.

If you’re not angry, you should be – it’s a damaging policy that uses Treasury cash to gift people cut-price homes, only to buy them back at full price.”

http://gu.com/p/4gph8

“Developers should get cash incentives to build homes for the elderly” say Lords peers.

With one-bed luxury retirement apartments at Knowle almost certain to cost £300,000 plus with massive service charges, who thought up this gizzard scheme to further incentivise developers such as Pegasus Life!

The development at Millbrook Village in Exeter is advertising one-bed apartments at £325,000 upwards and two-bed properties at £550,000 upwards.

http://www.millbrookvillage.co.uk/available-properties/

No mention of TRULY AFFORDABLE homes to buy or to rent for the poorest of our elderly some of whom may be stuck in council houses paying bedroom tax because there are no suitable properties for them.

Do you think it is a good idea to further assist these developers?

From the article in the Daily Telegraph

“Developers should get cash incentives to build more homes for the elderly, a cross-party committee of peers has said, warning that developers are getting away with building poor quality homes in the rush to meet rising demand for new homes.

They said that while 60 per cent of “household growth in England up to 2033″ will be for those headed by someone aged over 65, just two per cent of current homes in homes in the country were fit for pensioners.

The peers on the select committee on National Policy for the Built Environment said creating more homes for pensioners would free up billions of pounds-worth of large homes for young families.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/greenpolitics/planning/12163901/Reward-developers-which-build-more-homes-for-the-elderly-peers-tell-Government.html

Law Commission Consultation: Misconduct in public office

“To launch our consultation, we have published our first paper on Misconduct in Public Office.

Misconduct in Public Office: Issues Paper 1 – The Current Law is a background document that sets out the current law of misconduct in public office, highlighting problems that arise through areas of uncertainty, as well as gaps and overlaps with alternative offences.

We launched the first phase of our consultation with a symposium of eminent speakers and delegates, which coincided with the publication of Issues Paper 1 on 20 January 2016 (we have published a selection of tweets from the day). Our focus at this stage is on the current law and its problems. The aim of the paper and symposium is to provide us with an opportunity to stimulate informed debate on the problems identified, explore the options for reform and engage with practitioners and experts who deal with the offence. We seek responses to the questions set out in this background paper by 20 March 2016.

The second phase of consultation will begin later this spring with the publication of a paper exploring options for reform. A final report will be published in 2017.

Our project

Our reform objectives are to decide whether the existing offence of misconduct in public office should be abolished, retained, restated or amended and to pursue whatever scheme of reform is decided upon.

The legal concepts involved in the offence of misconduct in public office are highly technical and complex and not easily accessible to non-lawyers.

Furthermore there is often some confusion between what the law is and what it should be. The question of the appropriate boundaries of criminal liability for public officials is clearly a matter of broad public interest.

The offence and its problems

Misconduct in public office is a common law offence: it is not defined in any statute. It carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The offence requires that: a public officer acting as such; wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself; to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder; without reasonable excuse or justification.

Historically the offence held public officers to account for their misconduct, where there were no other adequate ways of doing so. Nowadays such misconduct will usually amount to another, narrower and better defined, criminal offence.

The offence is widely considered to be ill-defined and has been subject to recent criticism by the government, the Court of Appeal, the press and legal academics.

Statistics suggest that more people are being accused of misconduct in public office while fewer of those accusations lead to convictions. One possible reason is that the lack of clear definition of the offence renders it difficult to apply.

We have identified a number of problems with the offence:

“Public office” lacks clear definition yet is a critical element of the offence. This ambiguity generates significant difficulties in interpreting and applying the offence.

The types of duty that may qualify someone to be a public office holder are ill-defined. Whether it is essential to prove a breach of those particular duties is also unclear from the case law.

An “abuse of the public’s trust” is crucial in acting as a threshold element of the offence, but is so vague that it is difficult for investigators, prosecutors and juries to apply.

The fault element that must be proved for the offence differs depending on the circumstances. That is an unusual and unprincipled position.

Although “without reasonable excuse or justification” appears as an element of the offence, it is unclear whether it operates as a free standing defence or as a definitional element of the offence.

Please contact us if you have any enquiries about this project.”

Misconduct in Public Office

“Cornwall for change” (70 town and parish councils) campaigns to protect countryside

“A group of town and parish councils has launched a campaign to protect “the green fields of Cornwall”.

The group Cornwall for Change, representing 70 town and parish councils, said there was great concern about the way planning was being executed in the Duchy.

And their fight won support from the House of Lords late last week.

Campaigners said that Cornwall Council has already given permission for nearly 30,000 new homes, most of which are to be built on green fields around existing towns.

“This will increase traffic, have a big (bad) visual impact and make little or no benefit to locals who need genuinely affordable homes,” the organisers said.

“We need to make much smarter use of existing sites in and around Cornwall’s town centres so they can flourish once again.”

Orlando Kimber, spokesman for the umbrella group, said: “We are seeing 52,000 new homes planned, and all over the place they are being built on the green fields of Cornwall.

“Using brownfield sites would reduce the pressure on transport, and increase housing density in towns, which Cornwall Chamber of Commerce is in favour of.

“We recognise that Cornwall Council is under pressure with its budget, and we feel that whatever money it does have, it should spend wisely.”

He has previously called for an audit of brownfield sites in the Duchy, and gave the example of two suitable brownfield sites in Bodmin – the Walker Lines industrial estate and the MPG book factory, which is now acquired by Ocean Housing. …”

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Battle-save-Green-fields-Cornwall/story-28767974-detail/story.html

Alternative photographic competition.

For those of you who never read the “sticky” section at the top of the page and rush to see the latest post, this is duplicated for your benefit:

NEWS- PHOTOGRAPHIC COMPETITION
The alternative East Devon Photographic Competition

EDDC, in its infinite wisdom, has decided to run a photographic competition. The intention is to offer a prize and to use the 12 best shots to make up an EDDC Countryside calendar:

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/get_snapping_for_district_photo_contest_1_4422625

Entries by 30 April 2016.

Owl, in its flights over East Devon has been struck by an increasing absence of “countryside” – catching the vermin it needs to survive has become increasingly difficult!

So, Owl is running an Alternative East Devon Calendar Photo Competition:

THE EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNTRYSIDE DESTRUCTION CALENDAR
PHOTOGRAPHIC COMPETITION
All entries will be considered and entries will close on 30 April 2016.

The twelve winning entries will be published (that’s the prize) and, if you want to make a calendar from them, feel free!

Anonymous contributions will be allowed but please let us know when and where your entry was photographed.