Budget favours men

“Jeremy Corbyn is leading a cross-party effort to force ministers to publish details of the impact of their policies broken down by gender, race, age, disability, class and region, after analysis showed women continue to bear the brunt of austerity.

The Labour leader has signed a letter with 126 other MPs, including members of his own party, the Lib Dems, SNP and Greens, calling for an immediate equality assessment of all government policies.

The letter to the education secretary, Justine Greening, whose brief covers equalities, accuses the government of failing in its duty to sufficiently consider the impact of its actions on all groups in society.

Labour said its analysis showed that men received 46% more spending in Philip Hammond’s autumn budget.

A financial model developed by Yvette Cooper, a senior Labour backbencher, and House of Commons library statisticians found that 86% of savings to the Treasury from tax and benefit changes since 2010 had come from women.

Labour said the latest budget did nothing to change that, meaning women had been hit six times harder by austerity measures than men since the Conservatives came to power in 2010.

The letter, co-signed by Corbyn, Dawn Butler, the shadow equalities secretary, Jo Swinson, the deputy Lib Dem leader, Angela Crawley, the SNP spokeswoman on equalities, and Caroline Lucas, the co-leader of the Greens, said: “If the government continues in this manner there can be no public confidence that the public sector equality duty is being fulfilled.

“We are calling on the government to undertake and publish a comprehensive cumulative equality impact assessment of all government policies. This assessment must include analysis of the impact of all its policies in relation to gender, race, age, disability, class and region. …”


Watch EDA councillor Shaw and Budleigh resident David Daniel make most sense on LEP “strategy”

Jump to 2 hours into the meeting to see these two local people talk total sense to a bunch of mostly Tory councillors most of whom seem to understand beggar-all about why they are there!

Mr Daniel – a former government strategic analyst is at around 15 minutes into the meeting and speaks persuasively about why the Heart of the South West LEP strategy is totally unachievable. Independent East Devon Alliance DCC Councillor Martin Shaw (whose forensic report was totally accepted with one additional point added) is at around 2 hours into the meeting speaking on why the report before the councillors is style over substance and dangerous to go along with in its current form.

In Owl’s opinion, they run rings around the rest of the committee!

Although one councillor did make a point (Owl is paraphrasing here!} that this is an 18 year “strategy” and could well be redundant in a few years – when some other crazy idea might replace it!


“Grenfell: Plastic firms helped write safety rules”

“The disaster was also a wake-up call; a deadly warning that something has to be seriously wrong with fire safety regulation and enforcement in Britain. If so many people could die in Grenfell Tower, how can anyone be certain that their own home, school, hospital or workplace is safe?

Our investigation, conducted over the past four months, has attempted to answer that question, and it has exposed some disturbing issues.

People take part in a silent march for Grenfell Tower fire victims in west London
Seventy-one people died in the Grenfell Tower fire in west London
Even before the first bodies had been removed from Grenfell Tower, senior figures in the fire safety sector began revealing a number of uncomfortable truths: they knew plastic insulation was storing up problems; they had suspected a disaster would happen; and many of them had been telling the Government for years that the building regulation and control system was not fit for purpose.

And some went further; claiming that elements of the plastics industry were not only helping to write the rules that require more insulation to be fitted to buildings, but were also trying to silence people who questioned whether plastic insulation was safe.

Time after time we were told the plastic insulation industry was highly litigious, that speaking out about its fire safety was impossible, and that while the story should be told, no-one would go on camera. Eventually we found a former government scientist who agreed to talk, on condition of anonymity, about the pressures he faced. He said threats to sue him had made him unwell.

“If you’ve got no [legal] insurance you lose your house,” he said. “It was a worrying time and they were quite famous for it – people knew this was the way they reacted.” He says he doesn’t think the work he did was influenced by the threats, but they had an effect: “I think perhaps more than anything else other people were silenced – by saying ‘Oh, you’d better not say anything about that, look what happened to him,'” he told us.

We have identified several other similar cases. Among them Rockwool, the main producer of the non-combustible mineral-based alternative to plastic insulation. Rockwool sent out videos in 2007 showing how their product doesn’t burn and how plastic insulation does. They were sued for trademark violation and malicious falsehood. Despite the falsehood claim being thrown out the legal action tied up Rockwool for years and cost them millions of pounds.

In 2013 an insurance firm set fire to plastic insulation panels to demonstrate that they burned more fiercely in real life than they did in official tests and posted the video on YouTube. It might explain, they suggested, why hundreds of millions of pounds of fire damage had been caused in a spate of factory fires. They were immediately threatened with legal action and had to remove all references that could have identified the manufacturer.

And the week after the Grenfell Tower fire, six European plastic industry lobby groups complained in a letter to the respected publishers of a peer-reviewed paper on the dangers of toxic smoke from burning plastic insulation written by chemistry and fire safety expert Professor Anna Stec at the University of Central Lancashire. “We request that the article is withdrawn,” it said. “The consequences […] are enormous and could well lead to significant consequential losses.” It ended: “We feel you should consider this very seriously.”

Prof Stec told us her employers are supportive but even vaguely-worded threats are stressful. “All the complaints, all the attacks are taken very seriously by my university,” she said. “It worries me at some point that if you’ve got complaints coming in on an annual basis the university will come out and say ‘how long do we have to handle that?'”

While legal threats were being made in private, the plastic insulation industry was openly advertising its role in writing the rules that govern the fitting of its products to millions of buildings across the country.

The main lobby group for the plastic insulation trade was, until November 2017, called the British Rigid Urethane Foam Manufacturers’ Association [BRUFMA]. Partly in response to Grenfell Tower – or what it refers to as “events of this year” – BRUFMA changed its name to the Insulation Manufacturers Association.

They advertise that they are “influencing UK and local government, specifying authorities, relevant approval and certification bodies,” and have “high level involvement in the drafting and regular revision of British and European standards [and] the Building Regulations.” Its members are promised the “opportunity to influence Government bodies and NGOs” and “direct input into relevant British Standards committees.”

How that influence works in practice is exposed by examination of government efforts to meet the UK’s climate change commitments. Since the Kyoto agreement in 1997 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, successive governments have created rules about how new and refurbished buildings must be insulated to reduce heat loss.

In 2011 the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) turned to the insulation industry for help, inviting representatives onto a Green Deal committee to come up with ways to push more insulation into homes. We discovered that of the 10 firms and construction industry groups on that committee, four were members of BRUFMA. One of them was Celotex, the firm whose plastic insulation would be fitted to the outside of Grenfell Tower four years later.

Celotex technical director Rob Warren was a leading committee member who made his intentions clear on a now-deleted company web page. Under the heading “Celotex enter government,” he said his position on the DECC committee meant he was “working inside government” to “shape this critical policy enabling the insulation industry to maximise the benefits.” Construction expert Simon Hay who was also on the committee told us he was aware of the agenda: “The point from the insulation companies was that they were going to sell a lot more insulation,” he said

A few years later Celotex revealed that the rules the plastics industry helps to write are key to company profits. Trade magazine Urethanes Technology International reported in 2015 that Warren had told them regulatory change was the “greatest driver” of plastic insulation sales. Without new regulations he was reported as saying: “You cannot give insulation away and the public are not really interested.”

But while new guidance and legislation led to a doubling of the market value of the main plastic insulation products in the UK between 2012 and 2016, efforts to insulate buildings rarely considered fire safety. Simon Hay who sat alongside Celotex and the other insulation firms on the DECC committee says he doesn’t recall fire being mentioned in any of the meetings. The government’s 2012 Green Deal launch report “Opportunities for Industry” contains 126 mentions of “cost” and 119 of “saving”, but nothing about fire safety.

Several fire safety experts have told us it was Part L of the building regulations which deal with heat loss that had a significant impact on the fire safety of buildings of all sizes. Niall Rowan from the Passive Fire Protection Association told us: “Due to the green agenda we’ve had a push to insulate buildings and the easiest and cheapest way to insulate was using these combustible materials […] our eye was off the ball.”

While one government department was increasing demand for combustible plastic products, the government department responsible for Part B of the regulations, dealing with fire safety, was being warned that the increasing use of plastics was increasing the risk of fires and the regulations were not good enough.

When plastic cladding on Garnock Court flats in Ayrshire caught fire in 1999, killing a man and injuring five other people, a parliamentary inquiry reported that building regulations were “far from being totally adequate.”

In 2009 plastic insulation burned on Lakanal House in London, killing six people and injuring 20. The coroner wrote to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in 2013 saying the building regulations were “a most difficult document to use” and calling for changes to include “clear” and “intelligible” guidance. The regulations were not changed.

Perhaps most puzzling of all, DCLG has refused to let us read 54 submissions they received in a 2010 consultation into how the fire safety rules needed to change. When we used the Freedom of Information Act to try to read them our application was refused on the grounds that releasing them was “not in the public interest.”

One of the submissions was from insurance industry trade group the Fire Protection Association (FPA) who sent us a copy. “Urgent research is required”, it warned the Government, into whether the building regulations were “fit for purpose.” It said “building regulations enforcement is not effective” with inspectors turning up “less frequently if at all,” and ministers “should act.”

Jonathan O’Neill, managing director of the FPA, told us he has seen other submissions sent in at the same time from other experts who independently warned DCLG that they must act urgently to review the fire safety regulations.

Amid the lack of building regulation review there were some significant regulatory changes. Building control – the enforcement arm of the fire safety system – was opened up to competition, pitting private building inspectors against council officers in what one architect told us was an “extremely stupid” form of privatisation.

Then the Regulatory Reform Order 2005 scrapped fire certificates for buildings, leaving landlords responsible for ensuring fire risk assessments are carried out. Technical expert Ian Abley said it was a significant weakening of fire safety protection: “A system of self-certification by building owners is weaker than a system of certification by a fire officer, somebody whose interest is directly to make sure his men and women fire officers don’t die in fighting fires,” he said. “There are holes in the regulatory reform order that don’t necessarily include the outside of a block of flats – which is Grenfell.”

Increasing pressure from the construction industry to use new insulation products coming into the market eventually led to some architects, developers and contractors making mistakes.

Mr Rowan, who has four decades of experience in the fire safety sector, described the failure to reform the regulations as “kind of creating a house of cards.” He said the lack of robust official guidance led to individuals deciding “I’m assessing that that’s OK, this document says that’s OK, and other people say well that authority and this authority say it’s OK so I can say it’s OK.”

Mr Rowan admitted that eventually it became an open secret that a disaster was looming. “The passive fire industry [has] been worried that someday we would have a fire with large loss of life because of what we know what goes on in buildings and design that it not adequate,” he said.

Throughout all the changes to the energy-saving Part L of the building regulations – three major revisions since 2010 – and the lack of changes to the fire safety Part B – none in the past 12 years – the Government has relied on fire safety advice from a group which also makes money from the plastics industry.

BRE, formerly the national Building Research Establishment, was privatised in 1997 and made to pay its way, with the plastics industry providing a significant revenue stream. In 2005, following the 1999 Garnock Court fire, BRE helped the Government to manage the risk from plastic insulation and cladding by creating a fire test called BS 8414.

Twelve years later it remains the only facility in the western hemisphere capable of conducting the test. Although BRE won’t say how much it has earned from BS 8414, its biggest plastic insulation client told us privately that BRE is currently being paid up to a million pounds a year.

After all the warnings from inside and outside the construction industry about the problems being caused by plastic insulation products BRE told the Government that the building regulations could cope. Under a rolling contract from DCLG to “investigate issues that may have implications for building regulations,” BRE reported in April 2016 that on high rise buildings there was “an increase in the volume of potential combustible materials being applied.”

It said “A number of significant fires… have demonstrated the potential risks,” but advised: “with the exception of one or two unfortunate cases, there is currently no evidence from BRE Global’s fire investigations for DCLG to suggest that current building regulation recommendations, to limit vertical fire spread up the exterior of high rise buildings, are failing in their purpose.”

The report told ministers that building controls, which BRE has influenced since 1948, were “adequate”.

The industry lobbying, the attempts to silence critics, the rules requiring more insulation, and the failure to heed warnings about the creaking building regulations have created what one respected expert has described as a fire safety crisis.

Simon Hay, who sat on the DECC committee in 2011, is an architect who worked inside the cladding industry and is now an expert witness with litigation services firm Diales. Since the Grenfell Tower disaster he has been commissioned to inspect high and low rise buildings and has found significant fire safety issues that had previously been missed. “These are not on anybody’s radar as yet,” he said, “I would say in all the investigations I’ve carried out I’ve found deficiencies.”

We asked him if he would describe the state of fire safety in Britain’ buildings as a crisis. “I think I would describe this as a crisis,” he told us. “I think fire safety is absolutely vital, and it’s not just about the premises that catch fire, it’s also about the fact that people should be able to live in their dwellings in the reasonable knowledge that they are safe in the sense that fire might break out.

“I’m afraid there will be buildings that are unsafe, and that must be a worry for people who are falling asleep in them.”

In response to the points we raised, BRE told us it “works with multiple partners across various sectors, including government, the emergency services and the private sector,” and said it is “working to improve the built environment through research and the provision of testing and certification services” which are “audited by the UK’s national accreditation body”.

Celotex told us that “because issues fall within the remit of the Grenfell Tower inquiry” it is “unable to provide any further information” but is offering “full cooperation with the ongoing investigations”.

A DCLG spokesperson said: “Nothing is more important than keeping people safe. After the coroner’s investigation into the Lakanal House Fire in 2013, government took action to implement all the recommendations,” and is “continuing to work on updating our fire safety guidance.”

And the Insulation Manufacturers Association says it “feeds into any building regulations reviews through all the usual public channels” and denied it or its members have used legal action to silence critics.

Grenfell Tower is still a crime scene and the Metropolitan Police says there are reasonable grounds to suspect offences of corporate manslaughter.

Sir Martin Moore-Bick has promised his public inquiry will “get at the truth” of what caused the fire, and Dame Judith Hackitt is conducting a review of building regulations and fire safety.

But it is far from clear whether anyone is asking why, with so little debate, so much material that burns is still being added to Britain’s buildings.

Exmouth’s Lonely Christmas Tree

“The Lonely Christmas Tree”

I am the lonely Christmas Tree,
In Exmouth’s market place;
No vending stalls are round about
No shopper’s welcome face.

The Strand is bare of trade and cheer
In Exmouth’s market place-
All moved to Ocean’s empty hall
To fill that empty place.

Shopkeepers have all tried their best
Around the market place
To pay their rates and sell their goods
With patience and good grace.

The loss to trade and income gone-
They’ve moved the Christmas Cracker;
No help then for the working shops-
Their Christmas has been knackered !”

“District heating network outage leaves Cranbrook without heating or hot water”

Owl has brought up the dangers of this contract frequently!


“Cranbrook was left without heating and hot water on Sunday morning.

The new town in East Devon has its heating and hot water supplied by the UK’s first community-wide energy scheme based on emissions-free renewable energy sources.

The project, to be funded by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, is based at E.ON’s energy centre in Cranbrook to the east of Exeter.

The district heating network supplies the whole of the town and residents are required to sign up to the scheme.

But residents in the town reported that on Sunday morning they were left without heating or hot water and that it is not the first time that it has happened.

Sarah Jenkins, Acting Town Clerk for Cranbrook Town Council, said: “The Town Council is aware that there was an outage on Sunday morning and I understand that it lasted about one and a half hours. I do not know how many homes were affected.

“The Cranrbook Consortium was made aware immediately on Sunday morning and has followed up the matter with E.ON.”

Several residents contacted DevonLive.com to report they were facing problems.

E.ON have been contacted but have not responded to request for comment.

E.ON though has an 80-year contract to supply Cranbrook, and once people have bought into a development, residents are locked into a deal with E.ON and are not allowed to fit solar panels or heat source pumps and, whether or not they use their heating, remain liable for often large standing charges which include maintenance and repair of the infrastructure.”


Two more utility franchises cost taxpayers dear – very, very dear


The East Coast rail franchise will be terminated three years early, avoiding the embarrassment of another private firm handing back the keys to the government but potentially forfeiting hundreds of millions in premiums due to the Treasury.

Under a rail strategy announced by the transport secretary, Chris Grayling, a new partnership model will replace the franchise contract of Virgin Trains East Coast (Vtec).

The train operator, a joint venture led by Stagecoach with Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Group, had pledged to pay £3.3bn to run the service until 2023 when it was reprivatised in 2015 after six years in public hands.

Instead, Vtec is likely to pay a fraction of that sum, with the bulk of payments due in the final years of the franchise.

The firm signalled that it also expects its payments for the next three years to be cut. In the first full year of operation, it paid £204m. Shares in Stagecoach jumped 12% on the news.

Andy MacDonald, the shadow transport secretary, told the Commons that the strategy announcement was “a total smokescreen”. He said: “The real issue is that the East Coast franchise has failed again and the taxpayer will bail it out.”

Pointing to the share price rise, he said: “Markets don’t lie. The secretary of state has let Stagecoach off the hook for hundreds of millions of pounds. He’s tough on everyone except the private sector.”


More questions were raised by a separate decision to give First Group another contract to run Great Western Railway (GWR) up to 2024 after it was controversially allowed to continue running the service, despite dodging £800m due to the government in an original contract.

The franchise, which runs commuter services into London Paddington and long-distance trains to Wales and the south-west, is likely to be broken up, under plans published by the DfT. The biggest commuter franchise, Govia, which operates the Thameslink, Great Northern and troubled Southern services, will also be broken up.

DfT will extend First’s current GWR franchise contract by another year, to April 2020, and then give a direct award for two more years, with an option to double the tenure.

First has run the trains during the botched upgrade of the route by Network Rail, which has seen costs overrun to almost treble the original budget and stretches of the electrification project abandoned to save money.”


Wrong Minister at wrong station, even though he stayed at a hotel directly opposite the right station in Exeter!

“They (the Government) sent the Roads Minister to talk to us about grand new plans for our rail network.

The press call was for 9am on Platform 6 at Exeter St David’s station.

Jesse Norman took the train to Exeter on Tuesday. He stayed in the Premier Inn, and strolled across to the station where he was due to meet Devon County Council leader John Hart and the media.

There was only one problem: Mr Norman went to Exeter Central, instead of to Exeter St David’s.

In the end he jumped into a cab to the right station, shaving a few minutes off an already tight interview schedule. …”


“Tories accused of trying to quietly re-privatise Britain’s rail infrastructure” (including south west)

The plan is for Great Western Railways to be split into two:

“The plans would create a new West of England rail franchise to provide long-distance services between London, Wiltshire, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall together with local and regional services across the south-west.”


“Transport secretary Chris Grayling says the government wants to break up the troubled [Great Western] Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise when the current contract comes to an end, and look into reopening lines closed during the notorious Beeching cuts of the 1960s.

But the proposals also include publicly-owned Network Rail sharing its responsibility for running the tracks with private train operators.

Britain’s rail network – the tracks, bridges and infrastructure – was taken into public ownership after a bungled experiment with privatisation left it close to collapse.

Railtrack, the privatised franchise, went bankrupt after being hit with the cost of repairs and compensation from the Hatfield rail crash in 2000. …

… Mr Grayling denied that the plans amounted to the splitting up and privatising of Network Rail.

He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “No, we’re not privatising Network Rail. Network Rail will remain in public ownership, but Network Rail is going to be devolved into a series of route businesses, it’s not going to be one big central blob, it’s going to be a series of locally-focused, or route-focused, operations around the country.”


Two (of many) privatised water scandals


“A water firm has been slammed for handing more money to its owners than it spent on upgrading equipment.

South West Water paid a £213.1million dividend to its parent group Pennon last year, while investing £190million in drinking and wastewater operations.

Research group Corporate Watch said that over past ten years, it has paid £1.7billion to its owner and banks, and invested £1.4billion on upgrades.
Last December the firm was fined £1.7million by the regulator Ofwat for missing pollution targets.

Its minor spills increased from 222 to 252 during 2016, according to is latest annual report. The firm says 82m litres of water leak a day, within its target of 84m litres. …



Enough has been written about a Conservative government that knows its electoral success depends on Britain remaining a property-owning democracy, yet offers nothing beyond token gestures to stop the young being priced out of home ownership. Enough, too, has been said about graduates being overcharged, pensioners soaking up the largesse of the tax and benefit systems, the failure to upgrade infrastructure, the obesity crisis, and all the other problems that can’t be tackled because of half-thought-through Tory prejudices.

Allow me instead to concentrate on the scandal of the privatised water industry. Journalists and academics have been banging on for what feels like an age about an ‘organised rip-off’, to use the words of the usually sedate Financial Times. Few took notice, and that should not surprise you. Causes can appear marginal for years. Politicians see no need to address them. Then, with no warning to those who haven’t been paying attention, they explode.

Last week Michael Robinson of the BBC presented a superb documentary on what Thames Water had done to London and the southeast. Most infamously, the company poured 1.4 billion litres of sewage into the Thames near Marlow alone, destroying fish and fouling the home lives of river-side residents. The residents were also its customers. Not that Thames Water seemed to care. Water is a private monopoly. Why should it bother itself about the feelings of people who had nowhere else to go? After hearing how managers ignored warnings from workers about persistent equipment failures, Judge Francis Sheridan encapsulated their attitude when he said that the company had presided over ‘a shocking and disgraceful state of affairs’.

As shocking is the way that the former owners of Thames, the Australian bank Macquarie, was able to pass its costs on to the public. Macquarie took on £2.8 billion of debt to buy the company; it then loaded £2 billion of Cayman Islands debt on to Thames Water and its customers, despite giving assurances to the water regulator Ofwat that it would do no such thing. Macquarie has taken its profits. According to Martin Blaiklock, an infrastructure consultant, its investors received returns of 15 to 19 per cent over 11 years — twice the expected level. All it has left behind is a £2 billion debt and a very bad smell.

Now Thames Water is owned by a Kuwaiti investment fund and a Canadian pension fund. Its managers talk the soothing language of customer service and corporate responsibility. But when pressed by the BBC to say that they would not seek to imitate Macquarie and extract rapacious returns from a captive market, they refused to answer the question.

What interest do Kuwaiti and Canadian investment funds, Australian banks and Cayman Islands financiers have in ensuring the quality and affordability of our water? The hopeless regulators have no answers. Since Margaret Thatcher privatised English water companies in 1989, six out of the nine have pulled themselves off the stock market, meaning they do not have to release to their shareholders information that the regulators can scrutinise.

They promised to bring efficiency. Instead they have brought unsustainable levels of debt that, one way or another, the public will have to redeem. Researchers at Greenwich University say that in the past decade, the nine companies have made £18.8 billion of post-tax profits. Far from using the money to make the water system better, they have paid out £18.1 billion in dividends, and financed investment through loading £42 billion of debt on to consumers.

The university estimates the English are paying £2.3 billion more a year in water and sewerage bills than if the utility companies had remained in state ownership. These costs might have been bearable in good times, but as the Brexit-induced fall in the pound pushes real wages back down again, the prices of water, gas and electricity are bound to be political issues. Customers may not be overly keen to subsidise shareholders and lavishly overpaid managers.

I am not surprised that the Conservatives haven’t joined Labour in demanding the renationalisation of the water industry. It would cost about £70 billion, and in any case, Tories don’t nationalise. But why, after the Macquarie shambles, aren’t ministers and the regulators saying that secretive private equity and Middle East funds should not be allowed to control utilities? Why have they allowed Macquarie to move to the National Grid’s gas division? Ofwat is huffing that it has got tough, but it imposes no penalties on managers who break their commitments. After loading Thames Water with debt and flooding the Thames Valley with excrement, its then boss, the unimprovably named Martin Baggs, bagged a 60 per cent pay rise in 2015.

Conservatives claim to believe in the free market. If they did, they would view monopolies as Adam Smith viewed them — as conspiracies against the public interest. They would not care whether the monopolies were public or private. Both give consumers no choice. Both can put their customers’ interests last. But to the Tory mind, a distinction without a difference makes all the difference.

Because water companies are private monopolies, politicians and regulators back away from confronting them with the necessary anger and vigour. If a nationalised industry behaved as Thames Water has, they would be outraged. As it is, the mere fact that the monopolies are private is enough to persuade politicians to stand aside and let a scandal grow. No one will be more surprised than them when it explodes.”


Developers want government to force landowners to sell to them

“The Government should prove it is serious about boosting homebuilding by forcing landowners to sell up, a top housing association boss has told MPs.

Public land should also be used for construction to bypass the sluggish system for buying and building on private space, said David Orr, chief executive of the National Housing Federation, which represents non-profit associations.

“If we are going to build 300,000 homes a year we need quite muscular government action on land, on the compulsory purchase of land in the way that we did in the 50s and 60s for the new towns and the peripheral estate urban extensions that were built in those years,” Mr Orr told the Treasury Select Committee.

“And I certainly think that we need a much much more vigorous approach to the use of publicly-owned land.

“If we are to make a transformative change in the level of supply, if you are going to build houses, you need access to land.”

Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, used last week’s Budget to set out plans to boost construction by offering funds and guarantees to builders as well as scrapping stamp duty for most first-time buyers.

Bur Mr Orr was unimpressed with the effort, noting that the Office for Budget Responsibility did not change its forecast for construction levels despite the Budget’s measures.

He said that extra guarantees beyond the £8bn offered last week would also be a substantial help.

Brian Berry at the Federation of Master Builders, which represents smaller construction firms, said those solutions from the Chancellor do little to address the supply shortfall.”


“Theresa May’s Extra £2billion For Affordable Homes Funded By Cuts To Other Housing Schemes”

“… HuffPost UK has discovered that tucked away in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s analysis of the Chancellor’s Budget last week is the truth about where that £2billion money is coming from.

It is not new money, and is instead being raised “by reducing spending on ‘accelerated construction’ and ‘starter homes’ across the four years from 2017-18 to 2020-21. …

… The OBR claimed his policy of scrapping stamp duty for first-time buyers on the first £300,000 of a home would actually drive up prices – although this was disputed by the Chancellor.

Housebuilding figures released today by the Government show 199 homes for social rent were completed between April and September this year, compared to 10,597 completed over the same period in 2009.”


CEO and Head of Audit suspended after irregularities in voting at General Election

Here in East Devon there were numerous mistakes made by our election officers but, so far, they have avoided examination or censure.

Nothing will change till electoral officers have to legally submit budgets of exactly how much money they spent (or did not spend), how much extra they were paid to do the job (average £10-20,000 per election, some got much more) AND they come under the Freedom of Information spotlight (they are currently exempted).

“Almost 1,500 voters were unable to take part in a general election contest which was won by just 30 votes, an independent inquiry has concluded.

Two senior officials in Newcastle-under-Lyme were suspended today following damning investigation into the June 8 election.

Newcastle Borough Council chief executive John Sellgren and Elizabeth Dodd, head of audit and elections, have been criticised for a number of issues by the Association of Electoral Administrators.

It found 500 postal voters were disenfranchised, nearly 1,000 potential electors were not included on the voting register and two people were able to vote who were not eligible to.

Labour’s Paul Farrelly held off a charge from Tory Owen Meredith to hold Newcastle-under-Lyme with a reduced majority.

The election cannot be re-run because complaints about the running of a poll must be made within 21 days.

But the probe concluded the result could have been different if the wrongly excluded voters had been allowed to take part.

The investigators it was ‘impossible not to question the result’ and detailed a ‘complex picture of administrative mistakes around registration and postal voting processes’.

There was an ‘inadequate performance by inexperienced and under-resourced elections office staff’, the report found.

Mr Farrelly described the election arrangements as a ‘shambles’ in the aftermath of the poll.

Mr Meredith said today: ‘It is vital lessons are learnt from this experience and that the recommendations of the report are implemented in full.
‘Urgent action must be taken by Newcastle Borough Council to ensure the credibility of upcoming council by-elections in December and the all-out elections in May.

‘Voters will be rightly horrified by the details of the report’s findings and trust in the democratic process in Newcastle-under-Lyme has been badly undermined. Urgent action is needed to restore that trust.

‘Voters have been truly let down by the Council officers and leadership and those involved must consider their positions.’

Council leader Elizabeth Shenton, said: ‘I sincerely apologise on behalf of the council for that situation but we can’t turn the clock back and right any wrong that occurred at that time.’

An Electoral Commission spokesman said: ‘Good planning and open communication are vital to ensure voters can receive the quality of service they deserve.

‘Both our guidance and this independent report recognise these factors.
‘We will now consider this report’s findings as part of our assessment of how Returning Officers performed at June’s election.

‘The Commission will continue to support and challenge the performance of the electoral services department at Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council to ensure forthcoming elections are well-run.”


Unable to rent or buy …

Guardian letter:

“Why does nobody address crippling private rent (Nils Pratley, 21 November)? Why is it OK for my daughter and boyfriend to pay someone else’s mortgage by renting and having to share with several other people, only living in a room, sharing a bathroom and small kitchen and no communal area, not being able to afford to rent a place of their own or to get a mortgage, despite both working. If people can afford to pay rent they should be able to get an affordable mortgage. My daughter could never afford a property over £250,000, so a new allowance for properties up to £300,000 is an irrelevance.

My husband and I both work more than full time. I work two jobs and we only scrape by; we could not afford a mortgage now if we were first-time buyers. I am guessing that the young people who can afford £300,000 on a house are young professionals on a very high wage or are from a wealthy background where they have help? My daughter and her boyfriend both have degrees and have been saddled with debt. Sadly, we, like many parents, are not in a position to be able to help. The government needs to look at more social housing, charging people who own more than one property extra tax for each additional property, and ensure rents are capped.

Stephanie Lovatt

Pockets of deprivation in affluent areas – coastal and rural communities have problems

“Children from deprived backgrounds face the worst prospects in some of the richest parts of the country, according to a damning new study that lays bare deep geographical divisions across Britain.

An annual report by the government’s own social mobility watchdog warns that while London and its suburbs are pulling away, rural, coastal and former industrial areas are being left behind.

The State of the Nation report finds that some of the wealthiest areas in England – including west Berkshire, the Cotswolds and Crawley, deliver worse outcomes for their disadvantaged children than places that are much poorer, such as Sunderland and Tower Hamlets. …

… Other findings include that:

51% of children on free school meals in London achieve A* to C grades in English and maths GCSE compared with a 36% average in all other regions.

There is a gulf between the highest figures of 63% in Westminster and the lowest, 27% on the Isle of the Wight

Meanwhile in Kensington and Chelsea, 50% of disadvantaged youngsters make it to university compared with just 10% in Hastings, Barnsley and Eastbourne

Some of the worst performing areas, such as Weymouth and Portland, and Allerdale, are rural not urban

In fact, in 71, largely rural areas, more than 30% of the people earn below the voluntary living wage – with average wages in west Somerset just £312 a week, less than half of the best performing areas

In Bolsover just 17% of residents are in jobs that are professional and managerial positions compared with 51% in Oxford

The study says that a critical factor in the best performing councils is the quality of teachers available, with secondary teachers 70% more likely to leave the profession in deprived areas.

Although richer parts of Britain do tend to outperform more deprived areas overall in the social mobility index designed by researchers, that isn’t always true. Some of the most affluent areas do worse for the poor kids than some of the least well off.

Coastal areas are a focus of the report, with warnings about schools being isolated. Recommendations include more collaboration between schools and subsidised travel for disadvantaged young people in isolated areas. The commission also calls for central government to fund a push for schools in rural and coastal areas to work together.

They also say that the government should rebalance the national transport budget to help tackle regional disparities. …

…. The report calls for the Department for Education’s £72m funding for opportunity areas to be matched by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in order to link up schooling and workplace opportunities.”


“As Knowle Appeal Inquiry begins, FOI asks “what cost relocation?”

From Save Our Sidmouth website today:

“The cost of EDDC’s relocation project, originally stated to be “cost neutral” has been spiralling for years (see link below*).

The following Freedom Of Information (FOI) Request was lodged on 26th November 2017, and awaits a response:

Dear East Devon District Council,

I would like to make a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I am also making this Request under the Environmental Impact Regulations 2004 which require disclosure on the part of Local Authorities.

Please let me have the costs to date of the Knowle relocation project, to include all preliminary pre “moving decision” costs, and subsequent costs of all work associated with the intended reallocation, including those at The Knowle, Manstone, the intended Honiton site and Exmouth Town Hall.

I should also like to know the current and projected costs of the Exmouth Town Hall move, (including all associated costs such as moving, staff compensation and travel costs and fitting out costs), and for Honiton and costs associated with the “mothballing” of various parts of the Knowle contingent upon the intended relocation of 90 staff to Exmouth.
Yours faithfully,
R Thurlow

You can monitor developments at this link:

Costs of Knowle relocation – a Freedom of Information request to East Devon District Council – WhatDoTheyKnow

As Knowle Appeal Inquiry begins, FOI asks “what cost relocation?”