Devon people sent on 350-mile round trip for coronavirus test

Councils are quietly scrapping the use of computer algorithms in helping to make decisions on benefit claims and other welfare issues, the Guardian has found, as critics call for more transparency on how such tools are being used in public services.

Sarah Marsh www.theguardian.com 

It comes as an expert warns the reasons for cancelling programmes among government bodies around the world range from problems in the way the systems work to concerns about bias and other negative effects. Most systems are implemented without consultation with the public, but critics say this must change.

The use of artificial intelligence or automated decision-making has come into sharp focus after an algorithm used by the exam regulator Ofqual downgraded almost 40% of the A-level grades assessed by teachers. It culminated in a humiliating government U-turn and the system being scrapped.

The fiasco has prompted critics to call for more scrutiny and transparency about the algorithms being used to make decisions related to welfare, immigration, and asylum cases.

The Guardian has found that about 20 councils have stopped using an algorithm to flag claims as “high risk” for potential welfare fraud. The ones they flagged were pulled out by staff to double-check, potentially slowing down people’s claims without them being aware.

Previous research by the Guardian found that one in three councils were using algorithms to help make decisions about benefit claims and other welfare issues.

Research from Cardiff Data Justice Lab (CDJL), working with the Carnegie UK Trust, has been looking at cancelled algorithm programmes.

According to them, Sunderland council has stopped using one which was designed to help it make efficiency savings of £100m.

Their research also found that Hackney council in east London had abandoned using data analytics to help predict which children were at risk of neglect and abuse.

The Data Justice Lab found at least two other councils had stopped using a risk-based verification system – which identifies benefit claims that are more likely to be fraudulent and may need to be checked.

One council found it often wrongly identified low-risk claims as high-risk, while another found the system did not make a difference to its work.

Dr Joanna Redden from the Data Justice Lab said: “We are finding that the situation experienced here with education is not unique … algorithmic and predictive decision systems are leading to a wide range of harms globally, and also that a number of government bodies across different countries are pausing or cancelling their use of these kinds of systems.

“The reasons for cancelling range from problems in the way the systems work to concerns about negative effects and bias. We’re in the process of identifying patterns, but one recurring factor tends to be a failure to consult with the public and particularly with those who will be most affected by the use of these automated and predictive systems before implementing them.”

The Home Office recently stopped using an algorithm to help decide visa applications after allegations that it contained “entrenched racism”. The charity the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) and the digital rights group Foxglove launched a legal challenge against the system, which was scrapped before a case went to court.

Foxglove characterised it as “speedy boarding for white people” but the Home Office said it did not accept that description. “We have been reviewing how the visa application streaming tool operates and will be redesigning our processes to make them even more streamlined and secure,” the Home Office added.

Martha Dark, the director and co-founder of Foxglove, said: “Recently we’ve seen the government rolling out algorithms as solutions to all kinds of complicated societal problems. It isn’t just A-level grades … People are being sorted and graded, denied visas, benefits and more, all because of flawed algorithms.”

She said poorly designed systems could lead to discrimination, adding that there had to be democratic debate and consultation with the public on any system that affected their lives before that system was implemented. “These systems have to be transparent, so bias can be identified and stopped.”

Police forces are increasingly experimenting with the use of artificial intelligence or automated decision-making.

The West Midlands police and crime commissioner’s strategic adviser, Tom McNeil, said he was “concerned” businesses were pitching algorithms to police forces knowing their products may not be properly scrutinised.

McNeil said: “In the West Midlands, we have an ethics committee that robustly examines and publishes recommendations on artificial intelligence projects. I have reason to believe that the robust and transparent process we have in the West Midlands may have deterred some data science organisations from getting further involved with us.”

Research from the Royal Society of Arts published in April found at least two forces were using or trialling artificial intelligence or automated decision-making to help them identify crime hotspots – Surrey police and West Yorkshire police.

Others using algorithms in some capacity or other include the Met, Hampshire Constabulary, Kent police, South Wales police, and Thames Valley police.

Asheem Singh, the RSA thinktank’s director of economics, said: “Very few police consulted with the public. Maybe great work is going on but police forces don’t want to talk about it. That is concerning. We are talking about black-box formulae affecting people’s livelihoods. This requires an entire architecture of democracy that we have not seen before.”

Without consultation “the principle of policing by consent goes out of the window”, Singh added.

The National Police Chief’s Council said it was unable to comment.

The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, an independent advisory body, is reviewing potential bias in algorithms. “Our review will make recommendations about how police forces and local authorities using predictive analytics are able to meet the right standards of governance and transparency for the challenges facing these sectors,” it said.

The front page of the Western Morning News (WMN) introduces this report from the TUC by saying it echoes demands from the Great South West alliance of businesses, local MPs, councillors, and the region’s Local Enterprise Partnerships (championed by the WMN).

Owl thinks it places a quite different set of priorities on: “Build,build,build”, benefiting the community and environment, not just developers.

Report can be found here. 

Philip Bowern Western Morning News 24 August

Close to 50,000 jobs could be created in the South West if the government backs a regional programme for green infrastructure, trade union bosses believe.

New analysis by the TUC, out today, show 46,453 jobs could be directly created in the next two years in the South West if the government supported fast-track investment in the so-called ‘green economy:

The commissioned research by Transition Economics forms part of a national TUC report – ‘Voice and place: how to plan fair and successful paths to net zero emissions’ – that draws on the expertise of local union reps on the challenges and opportunities available, with case studies and recommendations for regional and national policy.

According to the federation of trade unions, lessons must be learnt from previous recessions in order to achieve a fair and successful transition to a net zero South West, whilst boosting jobs and avoiding mass unemployment.

Fears have been expressed by environmentalists that the Prime Minister’s pledge to “build, build, build” to overcome the recession caused by Covid-19 could undo years of work to improve air quality and combat climate change.

But the TUC highlights that thousands more jobs in supply chains could also be supported in the region as a result of an £85 billion national intervention, while still observing green credentials.

The numbers of new jobs are based on ‘shovel-ready’ locally-led infrastructure projects that promote a greener, fairer and stronger economy including:

• 16,755 jobs building much-needed social housing
• 12,691 jobs creating sustainable transport networks, with expanded rail, electric car charging points and more cycle lanes and pedestrian routes
• 9,564 jobs retrofitting social housing and public buildings to higher environmental standards

Trade union leaders say plans must be tailored for the industry, culture and geography of the region, with prime opportunities to:

• Accelerate the upgrade of the rail system
• Improve the travel network with -charging points for electric vehicles and plans for pedestrian and cycling schemes
• Build high-quality social housing with low carbon technologies; and retrofit social housing and public buildings
• Harness the South West’s green energy potential, using the region’s world class R&D resources and expertise.

The Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Enterprise Partnership has already announced 1,100 jobs would be supported following a £14.3 million cash boost, as part of the government’s Getting Building Fund.

But the TUC say that while helpful this is just a drop in the ocean given the real threat of job losses and mass redundancies expected in the coming months.

The South West is set to be hard hit by the post-Covid recession, with the tourism and hospitality industries badly affected during lockdown and still suffering as the region emerges tentatively from tough measures imposed to slow the spread of the pandemic.

According to the latest government figures 83,400 workers in Cornwall remain furloughed under the job retention scheme amounting to 37% of the Cornish working population.

The number of people claiming welfare and unemployment support since March has also more than doubled since the lockdown began – from 8,810 claimants , to 20,530 in July, clear warning signs of struggles to come, says the TUC.

Localism was all about giving local communities a say in how their area was developed – can anyone spot it here? – Owl

Robert Booth www.theguardian.com 

Finalists in design contest plan communal gardens to boost social integration on estates

  Igloo has proposed car-free, self-build estates with communal gardens. Photograph: Homes for the Future

Could it be farewell to the traditional back garden? Architects shortlisted by the government to design prototype housing in England have called time on fenced-off sanctuaries and want to replace them with communal gardens to boost social integration.

Ministers have shortlisted six teams of designers to be teamed with volume housebuilders in an attempt to make the next generation of housing estates greener, healthier, better for elderly people and quicker to build. Several of the winning designs in the government’s Home of 2030 contest show communal spaces running right up to front doors, shared vegetable gardens and outdoor community dining areas.

One of the designs suggests four homes built around a courtyard garden that the residents can also book via an app for private use. Otherwise it would be shared. The proposals run contrary to the bulk of new housing that is built with private gardens, however small, partly because of planning rules that mean homes have to be spread out for privacy.

 A design by the architecture firm Perpendicular, whose director says ‘we need to remove the ubiquitous rear garden’. Photograph: Homes for the Future

Under the schemes, which have been awarded £40,000 development grants, homes could be self-built, include straw walls or green roofs, and some of the prototype estates are designed as car-free zones.

“We’re on a crusade to abolish greed-driven identikit development on soulless estates,” said Chris Brown, the director of Igloo, whose designs for free, self-build estates with communal gardens are among those shortlisted. “After Covid-19, people will want their towns and cities back, to make beautiful places where home schooling and working from home is designed in – not an afterthought – and where the climate, nature and community are prioritised over profit.”

Patrick Usborne, the director of Perpendicular, which oversaw another winning entry using wood panels made from British-only timber, said: “There’s an English perception that owning your castle needs its own land. But if we are to improve community cohesion we need to remove the ubiquitous rear garden and bring together external spaces for the community.”

The contest has the backing of the housing minister, Chris Pincher, as well as ministers with responsibility for elderly care and energy. The government gave designers four key requirements. The homes should be adaptable to how needs change as people become older, have net zero carbon emissions, promote healthy living, and be deliverable in large numbers.

The six finalists announced on Sunday have been told they will be introduced to developers bidding to build on public land managed by Homes England, to explore the possibility of developing bids.

 Homes with a central shared garden designed by Openstudio. Photograph: Homes for the Future

But entrants fear their designs will be resisted by builders determined to stick with existing blueprints for homes. Volume housebuilders are poised to erect hundreds of thousands of new homes to their standard designs on greenfield sites under planning changes announced earlier this month.

“The momentum in the system to build standard speculative estates is so strong,” said Brown.

Usborne added: “There may not be enough incentive from the government to make change and there’s not enough appetite in the housebuilding businesses.”

Michal Pajakiewicz, the director of Studio Open, which is proposing the bookable garden, said he hoped housebuilders would understand that people are starting to use their homes differently, with more working from home.

Pincher said: “This competition demonstrates the best of British design being brought to bear on a key issue for today, and future generations: delivering homes that are good for the planet and that promote healthy, independent living for older generations.”

Crispin Truman, chief executive of CPRE, writes today’s: The Thunderer www.thetimes.co.uk 

At the start of the month Robert Jenrick, the housing secretary, announced changes to the planning system that look to enact the most radical reforms since the end of the Second World War. It is now clear that a key policy of the new system could remove the right of residents and constituents to have a say on developments, effectively halving democratic input in the planning process.

Tremors are rumbling across the country as the realisation dawns that local democracy is under attack. Tectonic plates are shifting in the way we build homes, schools, hospitals, parks and all the other places that are essential for healthy, vibrant communities and green space, in rural and urban areas.

At CPRE, the countryside charity, our ear is to the ground. A survey with our network of 50 local groups to gauge initial reactions to the reforms shows unanimous concern at the loss of local democracy and the risk to our countryside, but that it is not too late to make sure communities are at the heart of decision-making about their environment.

Our litmus tests for these reforms will be: do they provide better quality housing that is genuinely affordable and zero carbon? Will we be able to build healthier places with public transport, ready access to plentiful green space and vibrant and connected communities? Will they protect and enhance our precious countryside for future generations? Will there be robust legal guarantees for public involvement in both policies and development projects?

Planners can deliver these if we give them a chance and if local authorities and communities are given more power. However, planning has become a convenient bogeyman for a government intent on deregulation that will deliver even greater developer profits.

The best way to deliver the places that we need, at the pace we need them, is to (i) make it easier for councils to get local plans in place, and then to hold developers to those plans; and (ii) invest in more of the affordable homes that are needed locally. The government has a golden opportunity to reform the planning system and to put people and nature at its heart.

Let’s learn the lessons of the lockdown and reform planning by making sure that communities have more of a say over what happens in their area, while treating the climate, nature and housing emergencies as the emergencies that they are. Anything less would be the opposite of levelling up or building back better.

In the lane beside the 12th-century church in Earnley, West Sussex, Robert Carey spotted a flattened toad. “There’s a picture of what’s happening to local residents,” he said. “Squashed.”

Owl believes that if sufficient pressure is put on the Government (and Tory MPs) there is a good chance of another U – Turn on these ill conceived planning “reforms” – see post on the consultation.

Robert Booth www.theguardian.com 

Boris Johnson’s reform proposals for the English planning system – widely seen as tipping the balance of power in favour of developers and away from local objectors – have gone down badly in this corner of the Conservative heartlands. Voters like Carey fear not just a loss of local power, which is already angering some local Conservative politicians, but the threat of “rural sprawl” creating new landscapes of unbroken low-density development across the shires. It means, one local objector said, the “suburbanisation” of the countryside.

It took less than 24 hours for the threat to become real after the planning white paper was unveiled. An application landed the next day with the parish council from an emboldened developer to build 100 homes on a stubbly wheat field on the edge of Earnley. It is exactly the sort of site that could be zoned for growth under the government’s new planning system, meaning that builders automatically get outline planning permission as long as the designs broadly meet a pre-agreed local plan.

Steve Culpitt, the managing director of the site’s developer, Seaward Properties, was understandably happy with the new policy, which he said “pulls the rug from beneath” opposition. “The major problem with all these sites is the objectors,” he said. “You always hear from them but never the supporters.”

If the scheme goes ahead, the flint cottages of Earnley will merge with the modern housing estates of the neighbouring beach settlement of East Wittering. It is not a unique scenario. East Wittering is ringed with fields where housebuilders including Barratt Homes have plans for 1,450 homes which could all be built under the new zoning system. It would increase the settlement’s size by 60%. Opponents like Carey fear they could be almost powerless to prevent it if the white paper becomes law.

Another rebellion is brewing 20 minutes east along the already busy A27. Four days after the planning reforms were launched, the UK’s largest housebuilder, Persimmon, lodged an application to erect 475 homes on wheat fields that would blend the settlements of Ferring and Goring-by-Sea.

“If and when this new planning regime comes into force this will be vulnerable,” said Ed Miller, the secretary of Ferring Conservation Group, who described the reforms as “an absolute attack on local government and local democracy”. Miller filled out his consultation response last week, describing the plans as “a betrayal of localism” and authoritarian.

The local MP, Peter Bottomley, has previously alerted Johnson to the development, saying that people must not be deprived of “the green lungs between them”.

Despite the concerns, the planning white paper is an attempt to tackle serious problems. It is billed as supporting the prime minister’s drive to “build, build, build” Britain’s way out of the Covid-19 recession while meeting an urgent need for more housing.

English housing stock grew by 241,000 homes in 2018/19 but 340,000 new homes a year are needed over the next decade, according to research commissioned by the National Housing Federation.

More are needed in West Sussex than in most other areas of the country, with 51,000 new households expected to be created in the next 15 years, according to Office for National Statistics projections, a 14% increase.

There are also 3,800 homeless people in Brighton & Hove, according to a 2019 analysis by the housing charity Shelter.

“Thanks to our planning system, we have nowhere near enough homes in the right places,” said Johnson in hisforeword to the planning white paper. The time has come to “tear it down and start again”.

The paper proposes that instead of each application being decided through an individual democratic process, councils will be asked to draw up multi-year plans that divide land into zones for development and protection.

Outline approval would be automatic in growth zones and there would be a statutory presumption in favour of development in renewal zones. Local voices must be heard when the local plan is drawn up, the policy states, but how this plays out remains to be seen.

Once the plan is fixed, the only say local people will have is over detail of developments, so-called reserved matters.

There would be protection for greenbelt and areas of outstanding natural beauty, but the new system looks certain to tilt the battlefield in favour of developers such as Barratt Homes. Its chief executive, David Thomas, said he welcomed “any proposals to speed up the planning system and provide transparency and certainty for both communities and housebuilders”.

The CPRE, the campaigning countryside charity, sees the proposals in more dramatic terms. “Policies that have allowed major housebuilders to trample over the wishes of local people will be reinforced with binding land release targets and reduced affordable housing contributions,” said Crispin Truman, its chief executive.

“Developers will be able to build what they want, where they want and for the most part when they want.”

A planning liberalisation that takes control from local voters could, however, create an electoral headache for the government.

Cllr Louise Goldsmith, until last year the Conservative leader of West Sussex county council, said local voters in the Tory strongholds were “very hacked off” with the plans. Alongside refuse collection and potholes, planning is often the issue on which local voters are most likely to regularly engage.

“People want a greater say, but this is greater centralisation,” said Goldsmith. “It worries every councillor because we want a happy community doing things in their community, but if they feel they are being done to … that’s quite a dangerous thing to happen.”

One voter the Conservatives might lose is Martin Silcocks, the landlord of the Thatched Tavern pub, a 16th-century inn overlooking a maize field where developers are poised to submit an application to build 226 homes.

“Oh good lord!” he said when he saw the plans. “It would destroy everything this pub stands for.” That includes his customers’ uninterrupted view of the sunset.

Silcocks used to vote Ukip. He switched back to the Conservatives in 2019, but is not happy with Boris Johnson. His daughter and her young family are looking for a home, but they do not expect to be able to afford the new houses.

Another Tory in rebellious mood is Libby Alexander, part of the Save Our South Coast Alliance, who feels the planning liberalisation would create expensive housing that was not needed and fail to deliver the cheaper accommodation that is in short supply.

“We are constantly being labelled as selfish and nimbyish when all we are doing is pointing out the obvious,” she said. “Local democracy is in danger of being slowly shut down.”

Alexander and her fellow campaigners fear new homes will be taken by elderly incomers rather than the local priced-out familiesThey are also concerned the houses will be at flood risk, destroy prime agricultural land and transform a rural landscape that is a key lure for tourists, who make a vital contribution to the local economy.

“If Boris just shut up and did nothing but help developers build affordable housing, that’s all we need in this country,” she said. “This is a Conservative speaking, but I am fed up with what is going on.”

“The planning documents subsequently published set out major and potentially lucrative development strategies for the sites in which they have an interest. The payments are not declared in the documents.”

Robert Booth www.theguardian.com 

Councils have accepted hundreds of thousands of pounds from property developers to fund planning guidelines designed to help govern their own schemes, a Guardian analysis has found.

In deals that have been criticised for allowing unfair influence and marginalising local residents, bodies including housing developers, landowners and urban regeneration companies paid large sums to draft supplementary planning documents (SPDs), which councillors must then consider when determining planning applications.

The planning documents subsequently published set out major and potentially lucrative development strategies for the sites in which they have an interest. The payments are not declared in the documents.

Councils, which normally fund SPDs, and developers have denied allegations of conflicts of interest, but critics fear the arrangements mean “poachers become gamekeepers”.

The practice has emerged less than two weeks after ministers announced a wholesale reform of the planning system which campaigners and voters fear will hand greater powers to developers in order to speed up building.

According to responses the Guardian obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, Conservative-run Barnet council in north London received £223,000 from the housing association Notting Hill Genesis to cover the costs of a planning brief for Graeme Park, a 3,000-home estate regeneration. The borough accepted the money via its joint venture company with Capita.

The SPD for Graeme Park specified additional social housing only “where viable” and the housing association later proposed cutting the number of affordable homes by 257. The London mayor, Sadiq Khan, described it as “a classic example of how not to do estate regeneration”.

In Hounslow, west London, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) paid the Labour-run council £20,000 to fund supplementary planning guidance for a barracks site it is planning to sell for the development of 1,000 homes, which critics have attacked as over-development.

In response to a freedom of information request to all English councils, none outside the capital said they engaged in the practice.

The London councils insist the arrangements afford developers no unfair influence over what is permitted on the sites, but some cited budget shortfalls as the reason for needing to take the money. Critics, however, attacked the practice.

“It is blatant collusion between planning authorities and developers,” said Bob Colenutt, the head of research the Northampton Institute for Urban Affairs and author of The Property Lobby. “Is this what the government means by cutting planning red tape? … Poachers have become gamekeepers with local councils ceding yet more influence over planning to vested interests in speculative development.”

Steve Reed, the shadow communities and local government secretary, said: “Government cuts to council funding have left town halls without the resources to develop full planning guidelines so developers have been allowed to write their own. This appears to be part of a strategy to diminish the voice of local communities and let wealthy developers bulldoze and concrete over local neighbourhoods and green spaces increasingly at will.”

Reed said it was a harbinger of the “anti-democratic planning reforms” the government proposed earlier this month, which could fast-track development without a requirement for detailed planning consent.

Councils usually pay for and draw up SPDs to provide guidance for what developers will be allowed to do. Councils said that plans drawn up using developer cash must still be meet wider planning rules. They are a material consideration in planning decisions.

“It is often said that ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune,’” said Steve Goodrich, a senior research manager at Transparency International UK. “Any planning guidance developed which then contributes to council policy should be drafted in the public interest, not that of landowners and developers. Accepting payments for this work from those with a clear financial interest in the outcome risks exposing the authors to heavy and undue influence.”

Barnet council also received £140,000 from the development company Joseph & Partners to draft a strategy for the renewal of North Finchley town centre. It then entered into a partnership agreement with the firm. The planning document included a proposal to demolish an art deco shopping arcade and replace it with an 12-storey apartment building. Campaigners including Dave Davies, the Kinks guitarist who used to buy guitar strings at the arcade in the 1960s, are opposing the scheme.

Jonathan Joseph, the head of Joseph & Partners, denied there was any conflict of interest. “If and when any proposals do come forward for North Finchley, a full consultation and engagement process will be undertaken,” he said.

Barnet denied the arrangements gave developers the role of poacher and gamekeeper. An SPD cannot be in conflict with wider planning policies in the borough, it said.

Notting Hill Genesis stressed that Barnet “retained responsibility for final decision-making both on the SPD and subsequent planning decisions” for Graeme Park.

On the Greenwich peninsula, the landowner Scotia Gas Networks (SGN) paid the council almost £30,000 for a planning brief for a gas-holder site. The brief concluded the area could accommodate high-rise buildings including as many as 1,200 homes, offices, a hotel, shops and restaurants.

The council cited “a decade of government cuts” as a reason for needing to accept the funds, but said the landowner had no unfair influence over the planning brief.

Dan Brown, a spokesman for SGN, said: “We had no role in producing the planning brief and the brief does not necessarily reflect the most favourable possible outcome for us.”

In Hounslow, the MoD’s property arm spent £20,000 to fund supplementary planning guidance for its 18th century cavalry barracks, which it plans to sell as a site for 1,000 new homes. When Hounslow formally adopted a version of the planning strategy drawn up by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, it made clear it “will be a material planning consideration in the determination of future planning applications”. Some local campaigners who oppose the plan say it amounts to “over-development” and want the buildings turned into a military museum.

“The draft planning brief underwent full public consultation,” said Lily Bath, the deputy leader of Hounslow council. “The brief is in no way a guarantee for planning permission, but provides a framework for consideration of future planning applications.”

An MoD spokesperson said it works “collaboratively with councils to draft guidance that ensure a quicker, and more cost efficient process for planning, design and development.”