“Elderly waiting up to a year for home care”

Remember this when we are told next week which of our community hospitals are being closed.

More than 4,000 of the country’s most frail and elderly pensioners are languishing on hidden waiting lists for home care, with some recorded waits of a year or longer.

Details of the waiting lists, provided to The Sunday Times by more than 100 councils, reveal a postcode lottery in which some pensioners assessed as needing council-funded care may wait for months for help, while in other parts of the country there are no waiting lists at all. …”

Sunday Times (paywall)

Man who ran for Police and Crime Commissioner convicted of electoral fraud

From the blog of Dr Mark Pack – who is assiduously following the cases of electoral fraud from the 2015 elections:

“Last year I covered the odd case of a man facing trial on electoral fraud charges who managed to get the trial delayed… because he was running for Police and Crime Commissioner.

When I published that earlier post, he commented on this site, saying, “with complaints about the investigating Policeman, the behaviour of the Judge, the incompetence of the Court, and the fact that the CPS have only circumstantial evidence, it is most unlikely that this case will ever go to trial”.

Well, the trial has now happened and Steve Uncles of the English Democrats found guilty:

“A disgraced far-right activist is facing jail for cheating the election system by submitting fraudulent nomination forms.

English Democrats regional leader Steven Uncles dreamt up fictitious names such as Anna Cleves and Rachelle Stevens – referred to by a judge as “the lady from S Club 7”.

The 52-year-old local politician, who has since resigned but remained an official in high office, was convicted of seven charges of using a false instrument with intent and two of causing or permitting a false statement to be included in a nomination form…

The case faced several delays caused by Uncles applying for adjournments – one being because he ran for the post of Police Commissioner in May last year.

He failed to appear on the first day of his trial on February 8 and was arrested on a warrant outside the court when he turned up the next day. He has denied breaching his bail. [Kent Online]

http://www.markpack.org.uk/148525/steve-uncles-english-democrats/

Got a bit of green space? Greater Exeter would LOVE to build on it

https://www.gesp.org.uk/consultations/call-for-sites/

and a (pointless) “consultation” document here:

https://www.gesp.org.uk/consultations/issues/

Since, as usual, all done and dusted.

Big expansion to Newton Abbott already moving on, same with the Teignbridge side of Exeter at Alphington and at Cranbrook – and all the partner councils happy to allow development anywhere and everywhere else. Unless you are in Exeter, in which case all housing will probably be student housing.

The East Devon Local Plan was supposed to cover us till 2030. This one goes from now to 2040.

Local Plans for 4 councils (ours taking nearly a decade to pass) all to be ripped up as no longer worth the paper they were (eventually) written on.

And, whilst all this is going on, EDDC’s main preoccupation is spend millions of pounds of our money to relocate to a site that could be redundant before they ever set foot in it.

Lancashire devolution killed off due to lack of support – why not Devon and Somerset?

Surely, with the bid for a “Golden Triangle LEP” coupled with Somerset-centric funding and LEP business interests, we are in much worse disarray than (one county) Lancashire?

Lancashire councils have been ordered by the government to rewrite their devolution plans.

The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) said the plans were “redundant” after two of the county’s 15 councils withdrew support.
The leader of Fylde Borough Council leader said on Wednesday the deal was not good enough and it was pulling out.

Devolution would mean Lancashire making its own decisions on transport, housing and parts of education.

Lancashire’s 15 local authorities, with the exception of Wyre, backed an original bid to take powers from Westminster last November.

A DCLG spokesperson said: “Councils in Lancashire have been told they will have to resubmit an application for devolution, if Fylde withdraws its support for a Combined Authority.

“An application which was submitted last year was being considered by government, but that becomes redundant if Fylde pulls out – which it looks set to do.”
i
The decision to withdraw will have to be formally rubber-stamped by Fylde Council in the coming weeks.”

How did our (unelected, unrepresentative) LEP come to power and why?

Bumped from comment to post:

“I think that the clue is in the failure to seek involvement of either the broader business community or the public.

The signal failure is made most obvious by the admission, “private sector participation on the Board needs to be broader than just development related companies and needs to ensure representation from the wider local business community as has been successfully achieved in Exeter and Heart of Devon Economic Partnership and the Exeter and the East Devon business forums.”

The “post truth” (do we mean lie?) is that Heart of Devon and East Devon Business Forum were even more unrepresentative, representing only the individuals who elected themselves to be representatives. To put no finer point on it, nobody asked me if I approved these individuals to do anything at all.

The principal economic interests (see official statistics bodies) for Devon are tourism and agriculture. Always, were, always will. So yes, there may be other routes to market and other markets.

But you are a damn fool to ignore your principal strengths and capitalize on them.

But even with the agricultural economic disaster of Brexit staring the agricultural lobby in the face there is no move to lobby parliament. What we are presented with is a mantra that we will make the location healthy and thus we don’t need the NHS or care in the community or local hospitals, but must concentrate on building houses that are only economic if the developer’s clever accountants say so, and return nothing to the community.

I assume that the builders have got those clever computer models that figure out what is the economic point at which you maximise profit for bothering to build a house as opposed to land-banking it. If they don’t then the shareholders MUST be looking for a new board of directors (Bovis?). For that is the nub of the problem.

Commercial businesses are constrained to make profits for the benefit of the remuneration of the directors (first, if you please) and then shareholders, but not the employees because they are below the salt. There is nothing in their Memorandum and Articles about social justice and social responsibility – trust me, it is not there; and damn all about social housing.

So that is the real problem. Bodies are being created that are private sector beneficial, but they are being paid for out of public sector funds. So the tax payer is enriching, without any recourse, bodies that they did not authorise, to distribute public money – the council tax – for the benefit of self-elected groups who appear to have no responsibility to report to the public, or to be open to prosecution if they fail to behave with the probity one expects of those who administer public moneys.

Can we do anything about it.

Damn all? Maybe go to parliament to get local authorities to be able to do their own developments instead of being compelled to offer their own developments for right to purchase.

Frankly speaking, I find it unacceptable that the mantra that market forces must prevail on all accounts over any sector. Why should my taxes be used to give profits to people just because their house was built for social housing instead of for profit? Why don’t I get my money back?

There is a nostrum that says health is simply an economic matter – it you do not have the money you cannot afford to be healthy. Indeed, in all social matters, it is imperative that, through the public sector, we test if the private sector actually offer value for money or not. And we can only do this by having the ability to mount public sector developments (whether building hospitals or housing developments) that allow us to test value for money.

Value for money is not about how much profit a company can make out of running a train service (or failing to?) but about how much does it cost the tax payer to commission that service and what return does the taxpayer get?

If we look at the banking sector and the 2007 disaster – paid for by the tax payer – and still being paid for by the tax payer when we own RBS. What is your government doing for you? So far the tax payer is deeply exposed to RBS. And none of that means the tax payer sees a return themselves. Nothing in the hustings develops agriculture or tourism. So we are entitled to conclude that the blandishments of the LEP are mere frippery and bring no improvement to the region’s economics or development of travel and tourism.

For if you insist on economic measures for the region, first you have to define them, if they do not resonate with the Office of National Statistics (trust me – those folks have more serious statistics) then you have a serious credibility problem.

And therein hangs the tail. Agriculture and tourism is what we do – but the (irrelevant?) use cases being presented are what we don’t do.

Now the guys pushing for new developments are being told if they do not hit the ‘hot buttons’ of development they do not get funding, so we can only be certain that farmers and B&B providers are going to lose out because they are ‘yesterday’s market’ even though they are where the true market of Devon is.

Jurassic eat your heart out?’

“Beware the Rentcharge “Scam” – and it’s perfectly legal”

From the blog of Clutton Cox, Bristol.

Owl cannot verify this legal information but, if it is correct, it has important implications for many Cranbrook residents so they may wish to check this out urgently:

The arcane world of Rentcharges has moved on significantly – and not in a good way.

We have updated this post a few times since my appearance on Radio 4’s “You and Yours” a couple of years ago to discuss Rentcharges.

At the beginning of last year, we were able to confirm what we thought was the end to a particularly vindictive abuse of process in how arrears were recovered.

Annoyingly, on appeal, the law has been returned to its previous anachronistic form.

If you are the owner of a property with a Rentcharge (or Chief Rent depending on which area you live) you need to read on to avoid your being an unwitting part of a particularly nasty Conveyancing Nightmare.

More on that later, but first some background.

What is a Rentcharge?

Rentcharges (technically Rentscharge but let’s not be too pedantic, we’re friends after all) originated in the early part of the last century and were a means for builders to develop land without paying a premium to the owner of the Land.

Landowners would sell land to Developers at a reduced capital sum or for no money at all in return for an income from the owners of the new houses and their subsequent owners.

The person entitled to the Rentcharge is known as the Rentowner.

Rentcharges normally range between £2 and £10 per annum with the most expensive at around £12.60.

Rentcharges originated in the early part of the last century and were a means for builders to develop land without paying a premium to the owner of the Land

Rentcharges in Bristol, Chief Rents in Manchester

A Rentcharge is a peculiarity of Conveyancing in Bristol and surrounding towns and villages. They can also crop up in other areas of England such as Bath and Sunderland.

In Manchester such payments are known as Chief Rents.

Estate Agents, in our neck of the woods, often use the term “freehold and free” in their property particulars and brochures. In this context “freehold and free” refers to a freehold house which is not subject to the payment of a Rentcharge.

The 1977 Rentcharges Act abolished the creation of all new Rentcharges, subject to a few exceptions, for example, small developments with shared facilities such as a pumping station or shared accessways.

The shelf-life for existing Rentcharges was capped at 60 years so that all relevant Rentcharges would expire in 2037.

The 1977 Act, for those who could not wait that long, by design or choice, permitted existing freehold owners, to buy out (or redeem as it is technically known) the Rentcharges attached to their property.

A Rentcharge should not be confused with a Ground Rent which only relates to Leasehold properties, especially, although not exclusively, to flats. You do not have an automatic right to buy your Ground Rent.

How Much Does It Cost To Redeem a Rentcharge?

If you know the identity of the Rentowner you can apply to the Department for Communities and Local Government to redeem the Rentcharge.

The cost of redeeming the Rentcharge will be about 16 times the yearly payment.

We had an enquiry from a client who had received a letter from an Estate Agent acting for a Rentowner and was asked would he like to purchase the Rentcharge for £750

We were asked whether £750 was a good deal or not.

The Rentcharge in question amounted to £2.64 per annum.

The cost to redeem under the 1977 Rentcharge Act would be about 16 times the yearly payment, approximately, £43.

We said it was not a good deal and advised him to contact the Department for Communities and Local Government

If you know the identity of the Rentowner you can apply to the Department for Communities and Local Government to redeem the Rentcharge.

The address to write to or download the application form online is:

Rentcharges Unit:

Department for Communities and Local Government, Ground Floor, Rosebrae Court, Woodside Ferry Approach, Birkenhead, Merseyside, CH41 6DU.

Are There Any Problems with Rentcharges When Selling Your Property

Many homeowners have been paying the yearly rentcharge although many may have forgotten to pay, not been asked to pay or not known who to pay.

As Conveyancing Solicitors, we often have to deal with problems where there is no evidence of payment of the Rentcharge on the sale of a property.

Conveyancing Solicitors in Bristol normally agree on an apportionment from the sale price of 6 years (the limitation period for a debt) Rentcharge payments roughly between £15 and £75.

No big deal then?

The Rentcharge “Scam”?

Many conveyancing deeds which include a rentcharge state that such rent will be payable annually “whether formally demanded or not”.

Rentowners, including a growing number of Investment Companies, have used non-payment as a trigger to impose draconian penalties on unsuspecting homeowners.

Here is what happened to one of our conveyancing clients in Bristol.

The Facts:

Our client owned a house in Bristol subject to a Rentcharge. He received a Rentcharge demand purporting to be from the new Rentowner.

Our client had been paying his Rentcharge annually ever since he bought the property to another person. Naturally, he asked for proof of ownership before paying to someone else. Proof, he was told, would only be provided if a £60 administration fee was paid. Not, unsurprisingly, he refused.

But, here’s the rub: the company went ahead with imposing a Statutory Lease on the property rather than pursuing its debt through the Courts.

The company used the little-known Section 121 (4) of the Law of Property Act 1925 ( the LPA) to create a Lease as security for payment of its Rentcharge.

The sum total of the Rentcharge debt that the company, Morgoed Estates Limited (Morgoed), could have legitimately claimed through the Courts was only £16.50

Morgoed used the LPA to create a Lease on his property as security for debt of the £16.50 unpaid Rentcharge.

When our client discovered a Lease had been created on his property, he offered the £16.50 offered in full payment of the outstanding debt.

The company refused this offer.

A Sledgehammer Lease to Crack a Rentcharge Nut

What Morgoed did was perfectly legal, but hardly proportionate.

In 1925 the annual sums payable as Rentcharges were not insignificant.

The ability to create a Lease therefore as security for payment would not have been that controversial.

But the power to impose a Statutory Lease remains from the 1925 Act and was not abolished by the 1977 Act.

Fast forward to the present day and inflation has eroded any financial impact for Rentowners. But the power to impose a Statutory Lease remains from the 1925 Act and was not abolished by the 1977 Act.

The 1925 Act also permits the Rentowner to claim its fees for creating the Lease and a payment for the removal of the Lease as well.

Unfortunately, there is no requirement in the Act for the fees charged to be reasonable.

The fees could easily run into thousands of pounds if the Rentowner so chooses.

Our client took Morgoed to Court to remove the Lease from the title to his property.

And, he at least, had his day in Court.

A Short-Lived Victory

The Court was having none of it and decided in favour of our client.Act

The Court decided that

“The lease …is not registrable at HM Land Registry as a lease because it is a mortgage (within sections 3(5) and 4 (5) of the Land Registration Act 2002) and can only be protected on the register by a notice.”

The company could not ask for any additional monies over and above the outstanding Rentcharge debt.

The judge did not temper his opinion when he stated:

By the Applicants (Morgoed) unreasonable conduct in these proceedings and in persisting in charging unreasonable sums as a condition for redeeming the Rentcharge I see no reason why the standard order for costs (against Morgoed) should not follow the failure of the application.”

Morgoed’s ruse of creating a Lease had been rumbled.

The Land Registry removed the restriction on our clients title and he was able to sell his property without the Statutory Lease.

But, unfortunately, for other homeowners that changed once again on an Appeal in July 2016.

The Appeal Decision

Viewers look away now, as they say on TV, as you may find scenes of an unpleasant nature.

The Court reversed the earlier decision and held that:

“It is clear from s 121 of the LPA that the right to grant a lease arises once there is 40 days of arrears, provided that the rentcharge remains in existence and even if payment was not demanded.

That right is unaffected even if the Appellants have provided no information about their entitlement to the rentcharge, even if they have sent demands to the wrong address, and even if they have refused arrears after the grant of the lease.”

It is difficult to see how the appeal could have gone any better for Morgoed. You can read the full decision here.

The judge although recognizing how the result was not appropriate said that Parliament should have reformed the remedies available in the 1977 Act and abolished the right to the Statutory Lease.

To be fair to the lawmakers, such abuses were not prevalent, if at all, at the time.

8 Tips To Avoid the Rentcharge “Scam” Happening To You.

The Rentcharge “scam” is very real one and legal!

There are a few things you can do to minimize your risk of being caught in the “scam”

1. First, check your deeds to see if your property could be subject to a Rentcharge. If you are unsure check with your Conveyancing Solicitor or the Land Registry.

2. Make sure you pay your Rentcharge on time whether demanded or not and ask for a receipt.

3. Set up a Standing Order if possible to avoid overlooking payment of the Rentcharge.

4. If you were paying a Rentcharge but it has not been demanded check with your neighbours to see if they have any information.

5. If you receive a new demand for a Rentcharge ask for documentary proof from the purported new Rentowner and ensure your request by mail is “Signed for”

6. Be prepared to pay an Administration fee for proof (however unpalatable) to avoid paying hundreds of pounds later if a Statutory Lease is registered against your property.

7. If your Rentowner is Morgoed or other “investment companies” make sure you never miss a payment not even when you were not prompted to pay. Companies like Morgoed exist to make money out of unsuspecting homeowners with Rentcharge liabilities from dubious administration fees and/or payment defaults.

8. Best of all, redeem your Rentcharge through the Department for Communities and Local Government as it will save potential hassle and additional cost later on when you sell your house.

Don’t fall into the Rentcharge Trap and turn the non-payment of a few pounds into a Conveyancing Nightmare.”

http://www.cluttoncox.co.uk/site/blog/conveyancingblog/rentcharge_trap_cost_thousands_bristol.html

EDDC “tourism champion” sets out her stall – adverts on walks website and posters at railway stations

East Devon District Council’s cultural tourism opportunities
Councillor Jenny Brown, Tourism Champion, spoke to the Forum about cultural tourism opportunities in East Devon.

The South West Coast Path Association was leading the way in marketing walking holidays for overseas visitors, encouraging year round visits and in turn helping rural and coastal tourism businesses in the region to benefit from the popularity of walking on the South West Coast Path. Suggested itineraries had been produced for 3, 5 and 7 day walking holidays. There were a number of ways that local businesses could benefit from this, including becoming a business member of the Association and having the tourism business listed alongside some of the walks on the website, which all link to the nearby places to eat, sleep, drink and do.

Councillor Brown also outlined the East Devon line partnership with South West trains, which involved displaying advertising boards at stations. Train stations could act as great shop windows. This initiative was 50/50 match funded, with councils providing the design materials and the station providing the frame. For example the station at Axminster could have a poster advertising Seaton Jurassic, Seaton Tram, Seaton Wetlands, Axminster and Seaton Town Councils and EDDC. The importance of co-ordinating bus and train times was discussed.

On behalf of the Forum the Chairman thanked Cllr Brown for her presentation.”

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/2002435/minutes-010217.pdf

Cranbrook’s cultural development: “a target hitting itself” (what?)

“Cranbook’s cultural development plan progress

EDDC’s Urban Designer updated the Forum on the progress of Cranbrook’s cultural development plan. He outlined the original development plan for Cranbrook and explained how the town and its population was growing and how the town centre had shifted. Cranbrook now had approximately 3,500 residents.

The Urban Designer explained that it was extremely hard to build shops and empty spaces on a commercial development. Planning consultation had shown that there were real concerns about the lack of available enterprise space. Cranbrook was growing quickly, with a lot of change in its population, which raised the issue of how to hit a moving target.

The cultural development strategy concentrated on getting the target to hit itself, rather than trying to hit a target that was moving. The principle was that buildings do not make culture, people do. People will do things where they can and that activities should be put before themes. This de-risked cultural development. The final stage of the cultural plan should be infrastructure. It was suggested that every public space should be capable of hosting a cultural activity and people should be given the ability in undefined spaces.

It was noted that there was section 106 funding for public art in Cranbrook. The Forum were asked to consider whether this should be spent on a piece of art or on a person who could build the capacity of the activities people would do, therefore enabling development to happen from within the community. The Forum considered whether the wording of the section 106 agreement should be varied to allow for an arts/cultural development officer at Cranbrook and it was suggested that section 106 funding for Honiton could also be used as partnership funding.

The Chairman thanked the Urban Designer for his interesting presentation.”

Click to access minutes-010217.pdf

What?

Is there a DCC election coming up? You bet!

How does Owl know? DCC Highways councillor Stuart Hughes takes a sudden interest in the A3052! Which apparently leads to Sidmouth and on to Seaton … funny, Owl thought it led direct to Lyme Regis … with Sidmouth and Seaton offshoots … B3176 leads to Sidmouth, B3052 to Seaton… or at least they did until today …

Expect more and more of this sort of stuff between now and purdah …

which must start on 27 March 2017:

http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/6869714/L15-91+Unpacking+Purdah_04.pdf/c80978b9-dc0b-4eee-9f81-49bd47afeb2d

which states:

Publicity [during purdah] is defined as “any communication, in whatever form, addressed to the public at large or to a section of the public.”

The first question to ask is ‘could a reasonable person conclude that you were spending public money to influence the outcome of the election?’ In other words it must pass the ‘is it reasonable’ test. When making your decision, you should consider the following:

You should not:

• produce publicity on matters which are politically controversial
• make references to individual politicians or groups in press releases
• arrange proactive media or events involving candidates
• issue photographs which include candidates
• supply council photographs or other materials to councillors or political group staff unless you have verified that they will not be used for campaigning purposes
• continue hosting third-party blogs or e-communications
• help with national political visits (as this would involve using public money to support a particular candidate or party). These should be organised by political parties with no cost or resource implications for the council.

You should also think carefully before you:

• Continue to run campaign material to support your own local campaigns. If the campaign is already running and is non-controversial (for example, on issues like recycling or foster care) and would be a waste of public money to cancel or postpone them, then continue. However, you should always think carefully if a campaign could be deemed likely to influence the outcome of the election and you should not use councillors in press releases and events in pre-election periods. In such cases you should stop or defer them. An example might be a campaign on an issue which has been subject of local political debate and/or disagreement.

• Launch any new consultations. Unless it is a statutory duty, don’t start any new consultations or publish report findings from consultation exercises, which could be politically sensitive.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/fears_over_speeding_on_sidmouth_s_main_access_route_prompt_calls_for_action_1_4903876

Just so everyone is clear!

Decision on East Devon community hospitals next week

Owl thinks these decisions were made LONG before “consultation”:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/community-hospital-beds-closures-in-devon-to-be-decided-next-week/story-30160691-detail/story.html

The birth of our LEP – and it was planned to include the Chairman of the East Devon Business Forum!

This Exeter City Council committee document pretty much sets out how the LEP would take over council funds and transfer them to businesses – and the EAST DEVON BUSINESS FORUM:

4.3 Given the geography of the area it will be challenging to get all the key public and private sector and development companies to have a role in the combined Board. However it is possible to identify the significant parties for each of the local authority areas that could be invited to attend. The private sector participation on the Board needs to be broader than just development related companies and needs to ensure representation from the wider local business community as has been successfully achieved in Exeter and Heart of Devon Economic Partnership and the Exeter and the East Devon business forums. The NGPSB currently has on the Board the Chairman of Exeter Vision and the Chairman of the East Devon Business Forum*. The Board has resolved Exeter Chamber of Commerce should also be on the Board. Teignbridge DC has been asked to nominate a business representative for Teignbridge.”

Click to access NGP%20EHOD.pdf

* The Chairman of the East Devon Business Forum at that time was subsequently disgraced Councillor Graham Brown:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9920971/If-I-cant-get-planning-nobody-will-says-Devon-councillor-and-planning-consultant.html

BBC Spotlight highlights Cranbrook district heating fiasco

A poor mother with 4 kids (including triplets) and no hot water, bathing them in the kitchen sink … intermittent problem … can’t stay warm … talking head from E.on says it is “bedding down” … consumers can’t switch … problems pretty much every day … residents think it is pretty rubbish … no option … E.on blames “internal plumbing” for at least one problem …

Oh dear – remember that award it got for “best new town” – though not eco-town” as it was originally labelled – that was quietly dropped.

New homes “not fit to live in”

“They might be the most ubiquitous feature of the modern English landscape, and yet they barely attract any comment: those sprawling newbuild housing developments that seem to surround almost every town and city, offering a promise of comfort and security and a vital foot on the property ladder.

More often than not, their avenues and culs-de-sac will have faux-bucolic names often ending in “meadows”, “mead”, or “wood”. The life therein seems profoundly modern: stripped of much history or sense of shared experience so that everything suggests the weightlessness of suburbia. Yet for all the outward gleam, something is wrong.

This week the Guardian reported that Bovis is set to award people who live in some of its newbuild homes a total of £7m in compensation, in response to claims that houses have faulty plumbing or wiring, missing insulation, and other serious defects. Some people say they were offered money to move into homes that have not been completed. When the news broke, the Bovis share price fell by 10%, wiping £100m off its stock market value.

This is just one part of a bigger story of complaints about Britain’s construction giants – and what happens when the rush to build leads to corners being cut and houses left either unfinished or deeply defective. On social media there are hundreds-strong groups telling their personal stories: “The toilet leaked into the living room and when my plumber came to fix it he found the toilet had not been installed correctly”; “having my kitchen ripped out for the second time”; “no insulation in roof”; “mould growing all over the house … too dangerous too live in as I have asthma”.

Meanwhile, the pressure is on to build as many new homes as possible. Even if it is behind on its targets, the government still wants a million to have been put up by 2020. The year 2015 saw a big jump in completed builds: 142,890 homes were finished, a 20% year-on-year increase. Last year the number was put at more than 150,000.

Behind these increases sat policies such as the new homes bonus (which gives councils cash rewards for granting planning permission for newbuild developments) and George Osborne’s help-to-buy scheme – now drastically stripped back, although the fact that interest-free loans are still available for newbuild homes means that the policy will carry on incentivising builders to put up houses.

But in privately owned developments and new social housing, and the mixed-tenure places that combine the two, problems abound. Last month I spent two weeks reporting on the case of the Orchard Village estate on the Essex/east London border, and properties split between homeowners and tenants whose problems – with leaks and damp, and allegedly faulty fire protection and dangerous levels of methane – are mind-boggling.

Since then I have been contacted by people in other newly built developments who have suffered similar problems. The most spectacular case is that of a development called Solomon’s Passage in Peckham, south London: four housing blocks completed in 2010 that were plagued with leaks, fire protection issues and defective balconies, until the housing association in charge – Wandle, which owns about 7,000 homes across the capital – decided to tear two of them down and start again. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/23/building-millions-new-homes-not-fit-to-live-in-regulation

Beach management: a timely warning from Dawlish Warren?

Is it good to go for cheap, short-term beach management plans?

“Storm Doris has caused beach levels at Dawlish Warren to drop. The recent stormy conditions have increased the vulnerability of the dunes, and have led to erosion of the dunes in some areas.

As a result, the schedule of works as part of the £14million scheme to raise the beach level at Dawlish Warren by two metres, as well as removing gabions along the sand spit, upgrading the revetments, dredging and recharging the beach and reinforcing the neck of the sand spit has changed.

A Teignbridge Council spokesman said: “To allow the dunes at Dawlish Warren to behave naturally, a key element of the Beach Management Scheme involves removing the existing stone filled gabion baskets installed along the Warren. Works started on this activity in early February.

“However, following recent stormy conditions the beach levels at Dawlish Warren have dropped dramatically, increasing the vulnerability of the dunes, and leading to erosion of the dunes in some areas. …

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/storm-doris-causes-dawlish-warren-beach-levels-to-drop/story-30158793-detail/story.html

Time for a relocation cost update?

Including the REAL cost of satellites in Exmouth and Manstone Depot.

“Exeter’s planned leisure centre and bus station now face an indefinite delay, sparking fierce criticism of the council for not having a tender in place before beginning disruptive city centre works.

The chair of the Leisure Complex and Bus Station Programme Board, Cllr Phil Bialyk, also says he cannot promise the current £26m and £6.25m price tags attached to the major development won’t increase as a result.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/here-s-the-full-story-behind-the-indefinite-delay-of-st-sidwell-s-point-and-the-bus-station/story-30158750-detail/story.html

LEP funding – spin, old news

Why can Owl find information on only three of ten projects which are said to have received government funding through the Heart of the South West LEP? And why is this new news when it was announced last November (see below). And does anyone recall any of these going out for consultation as to whether they are the priorities of the electors? Oh, and our LEP applied for 27 projects – not the 3 or 10 they boast about.

All press releases mention these three projects only:

– funding for Hinkley C (you know, the nuclear plant that isn’t costing us a penny according to the government)

– funding for rural broadband (which will be paid for by all users)

and – a re-vamp of the Plymouth railway station area.

The remaining 7 are referred to as “other projects”.

But all ten projects – announced as if they are new are past projects recycled into new spin! The proof? Here

Click to access SW_HotSW_Fact_Sheet.pdf

in a document produced in November 2016 listing all the projects:

“What will this new funding deliver?
This new tranche of funding is expected to deliver:

Phase 3 of the Somerset Innovation Centre in Bridgwater; which will provide a hub for businesses in the energy and engineering sector to collaborate. [For Hinkley C]

Expansion of the Connecting Devon and Somerset broadband and mobile project.

Youth Construction Skills Project “Devon Communities Together”, an innovative project offering students and people from disadvantaged backgrounds experience in construction [particularly nuclear? fulfilling developers’ needs?]

South Devon College Hi Tech Centre, linking to the Torbay electronics/photonics cluster [including nuclear?]

iAero (South) Centre, Yeovil, an aerospace innovation space [including nuclear?]

Next generation ICT training project “Blue Screen IT – PROJECT X” in Plymouth, offering training for cyber security, big data and social media. [and nuclear, given Chinese and French involvement?]

Houghton Barton Package, Newton Abbot – a link road and park and change site. [lovely for developers of the potential massive expansion of the town – including Midas one assumes]

Taunton Toneway Corridor Capacity Improvements (Phase 1 Creech Castle),
providing junction capacity on a major link between the M5 and Taunton [and Hinkley C?]

Huntspill Energy Park, Bridgwater, delivering infrastructure for the Enterprise Zone. [to service Hinkley C]

An exciting regeneration project around Plymouth train station [Developers again – perhaps including Midas]

Truly, our Local Enterprise Partnership’s board members will be very happy with this!

But apart from “Youth Construction Skills Project” can anyone see what benefits (a) the Devon County Council area or (b) the East Devon area.

Heart of the South-West LEP “local investment showcase”

Spot the board members’ interests!!!!!! And spot the missing number 4 ( or number 1 if you live in Devon – tourism!

“Top 3 reasons to invest

1.
The location of EDF’s Hinkley Point C – the UK’s first new nuclear power station for 30-years. The £16 billion construction and decommissioning projects offer opportunities for lucrative inward investment.

2.
The Heart of the South West has a strong, established Advanced Manufacturing and Engineering supply chain, powered by innovative research and design. Linked to world-leading colleges and universities and a highly skilled workforce it leads the market in marine, aerospace & space, food & drink and nuclear companies locally, nationally and internationally.

3.
Companies locating to the Global Environmental Futures Campus, which features The Met Office Supercomputer, can collaborate on Climate Change ‘big data’ within a unique Information Economy cluster.”

https://www.localinvestuk.com/heart-south-west-local-enterprise-partnership

Quiz Swire on Lebanon – in London

Those of you going on the “Save the NHS” march in London on 4 March might want to stay over for this no doubt fascinating talk chaired by East Devon MP Swire:

“Event to be held at the following time, date, and location:

Monday, March 6, 2017 from 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM (GMT)

Conservative Middle East Council
55 Tufton Street
SW1P 3QL London
United Kingdom

Lebanon: an expert overview

Chaired by:
The Rt Hon Sir Hugo Swire KCMG MP

Speakers:

Dr Lina Khatib, Head of the MENA Programme at Chatham House

The Rt Hon Lord Michael Williams of Baglan PhD, former UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon

This will be a wide ranging discussion that considers Lebanon in relation to Syria, the refugee crisis and the regional confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia”

“All bar one Devon Conservative MPs vote in favour of massive cuts to councils AGAIN”

From the blog of Claire Wright – the MP we needed and should have had.

“Wednesday, 22 February 2017

Every Devon Conservative MP voted in favour of massive cuts to councils this afternoon, except Anne Marie Morris who abstained.

This includes Hugo Swire, who today rather ironically tweeted an article starting with the sentence: “I’m not very rebellious by nature and I don’t think I have ever defied the party whip…”

Devon County Council had written to Devon MPs last month, urging them to vote against the crippling cuts for the third year running and I had written to Hugo Swire also for the third year running, with exactly the same request.

Last night, Devon County Council leader, Cllr John Hart told the BBC he thought the government handling of the local government finance arrangements was a “shambles” because the council was legally forced to set its budget before even receiving the details of the latest round of funding from government.

Then the funding news was received at 11pm on Monday night just 36 hours before MPs would be examining the information for debate and vote in parliament.

John Hart although a conservative council leader, has the guts to stand up to his party seniors at Westminster and openly criticise them. Something he does often and he should be given credit for this.

What a shame our MPs aren’t made of similar stern stuff.

On a more serious note, and this is serious, I was pretty shocked at the paltry numbers of MPs who were present for the debate this afternoon. I think I counted about 30, for what should have been an absolutely key parliamentary sitting as its impact on constituents, especially vulnerable people, is likely to be significant.

Local government secretary of state, Sajid Javid uttered a few warm but empty words about what a fine job councils do, before explaining that they will get no government funding whatsoever after 2019. They will be expected to survive on business rates and council tax income only after this.

This is the seventh year of austerity and Devon County Council has now lost over half of its budget to government cuts. It has coped as best it can but studying the risk assessments in the budget scrutiny papers last month made for sobering reading.

Read here for more detail: http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/fewer_devon_people_to_receive_social_care_as_23m_is_slashed_from_budgets

Returning to the subject of the sadly expected but weak-willed vote by East Devon’s MP, Hugo Swire, how can he justify on the one hand complaining about underfunding for social care – the responsibility of Devon County Council and underfunding of our schools – also under Devon County Council – and then be absent during the parliamentary funding cuts debate, sneaking to the lobby only afterwards to vote in favour of the cuts?

The answer is he can’t. He has simply proved once again that he puts his party before his constituents.

Every time.”