Daily Archives: 15 Mar 2021

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Mar 2021

Posted under

Misc

Towns Fund: How were the winners chosen?

Chancellor Rishi Sunak, said: “The formula for the grant payments for the new fund is based on an index of economic need.”

But that is certainly not the only factor.

Read on to discover the “mechanism” by which Exmouth (and Axminster) lost out- Owl

By Anthony Reuben www.bbc.co.uk BBC Reality Check

The 45 towns in England that will share just over £1bn from the Towns Fund were announced in Wednesday’s Budget [3 March].

There has been some criticism of the towns chosen.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said: “If you end up with a list of 45 areas where the funding is going in and ‘by coincidence’ 40 of them are where there is a Conservative MP, I think people would be saying, ‘What’s going on here? This looks fishy.'”

But Prime Minister Boris Johnson said: “The criteria is entirely objective, looking at data, poverty, employment.”

He said the government wanted to “level up” the country in “a completely impartial way”.

Chancellor Rishi Sunak, meanwhile, said: “The formula for the grant payments for the new fund is based on an index of economic need.”

But that is certainly not the only factor.

Picking a shortlist

BBC News analysis found 56 constituencies would benefit, as some of the 45 towns cover multiple constituencies.

Of those, 47 have Conservative MPs, including 14 gained from Labour at the 2019 election.

The other nine have Labour MPs.

The Conservatives tend to do better in towns, though, with Labour support generally stronger in cities.

Sir Keir has called on the government to publish the full criteria.

But we already know quite a lot about why the towns were chosen.

The first step was to pick a shortlist of 101 towns, which would be invited to apply for £25m, or £50m in exceptional circumstances.

Ranking towns

Following concern about the lack of transparency in that process, the National Audit Office (NAO) published a report setting out how the shortlist had been compiled.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) officials took a ranking of English towns by an Office for National Statistics (ONS) index of deprivation and then further ranked the 541 most deprived, about half of the total, using a formula based on:

  • income deprivation
  • skills deprivation
  • productivity (the amount produced per hour of work)
  • exposure to Brexit
  • exposure to economic shocks
  • level of private investment
  • eligibility for other government funding, which could be combined with Towns Fund money

The first four of those criteria were judged on official statistics and the last three on the judgement of officials.

Another factor was towns in more deprived areas were more likely to be shortlisted.

Setting priorities

The towns were then divided into priority groups:

  • high
  • medium
  • low

But the 40 high-priority towns did not necessarily have the highest scores based on the formula – some adjustments were made to ensure the most deprived areas in each region of England were included.

There were 318 medium-priority towns and 183 low.

The officials recommended ministers shortlist:

  • all 40 high priority
  • 60 of the medium
  • none of the low

They also suggested the 15 biggest towns should be excluded because they could also be eligible for city funding.

But the ministers ignored the advice on the biggest towns, putting 10 of the 15 on the shortlist.

And the final shortlist comprised:

  • all 40 high priority
  • 49 of the medium
  • 12 of the low

In choosing these 12 low-priority towns, ministers used criteria other than scores devised by civil servants, including:

  • being on the coast
  • poor transport links or a good geographical spread of towns across a region
  • potential for investment or growth

Officials concluded the shortlist met Treasury rules for managing public money.

But it is clear there was considerable divergence from the formula devised by the civil servants.

We do not know exactly how the 45 winning towns were chosen from the 101 invited to apply.

  • 19 of the high priority
  • 21 of the medium
  • five of the low

And the five low-priority towns, Cheadle, Leyland, Morley, Southport and Stocksbridge are all in constituencies with a Conservative MP.

The most striking choice was Cheadle.

It had the seventh lowest score on the MHCLG officials’ list.

But ministers said it was primed for investment because of recent transport improvements in the area, as well as being strategically located between Stockport and Manchester Airport and having strong motorway links.

In a report on the process, the Public Accounts Committee of MPs said they were “not convinced by the rationales for selecting some towns and not others”.

It added that: “The justification offered by ministers for selecting individual towns are vague and based on sweeping assumptions.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Mar 2021

Posted under

Misc

Comments

5 Comments

NEW LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION –Why are representations not flooding in?

From a correspondent:

From a personal perspective having spent hours, days, weeks . . . . no actually . . . . . seven years voluntarily taking an interest in representing and contributing the views of the community on the future development in our village to the East Devon District Council for the Local Plan 2013-2031, the Villages Plan (including BUABs) and our Neighbourhood Plan – may I suggest that (even with much prompting on Facebook and social media from District Councillors to remind us that time is running out for making representations for the New Local Plan)  – the reason why many previously interested parties in our communities do not wish to comment on the new Local Plan going forward is that after multitudinous  time spent and huge efforts in the past  – one local community found that inappropriate development was approved by the Planning Committee recently (in spite of hundreds of local residents’ objections) on green fields, on high risk flood areas with proposals supported that will  increase traffic substantially in an area which already suffers with massive traffic congestion!

There was approval for 54 new homes on an agricultural greenfield outside of the Local Plan, the BUAB and the Neighbourhood Plan;

There was approval for a change of proposals from a supportable, modest amount of homes shown at a Public Consultation to a block of 40 two-three storey apartments overlooking existing residents’ homes directly opposite to a Grade II* Listed Building when, surprisingly, proposals for blocks of two/three storey apartments were not included in the Neighbourhood Plan for an historic, rural village;

There was approval for increased provision of multiple commercial uses, in tandem with adding 94 dwellings to the mix, in a countryside location because the developers’ viability reports maintained that the whole masterplan would be financially unviable without building homes on green fields;

There was approval for a significant increase in traffic (with no extra provision for public transport) in an area that already suffers with major gridlock, noise and air pollution. . . when most of us are trying to improve our carbon footprint and EDDC state they are committed to policies to improve climate change;

There was approval for a large impermeable car park on green, agricultural fields adjacent to a watercourse that is within an area of high flood risk.

It must be remembered that the preparation of the current Local Plan 2013-2031 incurred exorbitant costs, magnified by the need for a Planning Inspector to advise  for many months to ensure that the Plan was sound, with copious, administration costs that accumulated over ‘eons’ – so it is fair to say that Local Plans cost East Devon tax payers very highly!!

However, when all local representations have been taken into account and the policies have been written and the Local Plan is adopted and in place – the bad news is that around 16 elected Local Authority Councillors (as the ultimate decision makers) with recommendations from Planning Officers  can ignore the Local Plan, BUAB, the Neighbourhood Plan and National Planning Policies  and  approve an application that offers substantial economical growth to the entire district, which in their opinion, outweighs the social and environmental policies set down for the protection of a village community in East Devon!

There is little point in giving people confidence that planning policies will protect their areas with Local Plans or pretend that local democracy and community involvement has any value  in decision making when, in fact, such policies can be overridden and the local people’s representations ignored!

There were, indeed, a great deal of positive aspects attached to the approved development  that were hugely innovative and supportable – but sadly planners deemed that environmental and social aspects within their Local Plan could be ignored for the greater good of providing economic benefits for the entire district to fill a funding gap black hole!

The electorate had sent a clear message to the Council that after five decades of Conservative dominance, they wanted change and they were hoping for a reformed and improved council whose administration would bring stability and direction for the benefit of all its residents.   In this context all residents must be interpreted as some residents because some residents have had to tolerate a build, build, build policy because East Devon has vast swathes of protected Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty – so some communities in the planning lottery will have to draw ‘the short straw’ resulting in an historic, rural village being sacrificed and residents’ views being brushed aside!

And that’s why many people have lost faith in the local planning system and will not waste any more of their precious time responding to a new East Devon Local Plan Consultation that can equally be ignored if it suits the decision makers!

The Localism Act sought to decentralise power away from Whitehall and back into the hands of local councils, communities and individuals to act on local priorities and this concept is applauded.

The pandemic has shown us that our personal choices and decisions can have huge impacts on other peoples’ lives – flippancy is not supported and there will be no hand- clapping for planners in this community!

However, in an effort to end on a positive note – us ‘minions’ have all been assured by our elected members that this is the way democracy works – we elect them to be our representatives and they make the decisions – Mmmmmm!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Mar 2021

Posted under

Misc

Planning applications validated by EDDC week beginning 1 March