IFS research economist uncovers unbalanced application of inflation estimates leading to deeper “real” cuts than appear from a superficial look at the budget – Owl
Rishi Sunak’s departmental spending cuts in the budget were deeper than thought, analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows.
The chancellor took advantage of a change in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s inflation outlook to cut everyday spending budgets by £4 billion in cash terms from 2022-23 onwards while holding fast to the government’s principle that it is ending austerity.
However, the IFS found that he did not apply the same principle to the OBR’s higher inflation forecast for 2021-22. Rather than raise cash spending, he held it.
Ben Zaranko, an IFS research economist, said the double standards showed that the claim that the cut was a response to the altered inflation outlook did not stand up to scrutiny.
“Describing this as simply a ‘mechanical change’ is misleading. It’s a choice,” he said.
As the higher inflation estimate for 2021-22 more than offset the lower estimate for 2022-23, the price level in 2022-23 is higher than previously forecast, which makes the cut even deeper in real terms, he added.
The overall impact of the November spending round and the March budget was to reduce spending by £14 billion from 2022-23 compared with plans before the pandemic.
As protected departments such as health and schools have separate cash deals, unprotected departments including justice and local government face an ever deeper squeeze.
“The plans in the budget mean spending 8 per cent less on unprotected services in 2022-23 than the government was planning prior to Covid — despite the extra demands caused by the pandemic,” Zaranko said.
Sunak unveiled a significant increase in public service spending in the budget. Day-to-day spending on public services is on course to grow 3 per cent above inflation over the parliament.
A Treasury spokesman said: “This is categorically not a return to austerity. We are significantly increasing public spending with a £72 billion rise over this year and next. We remain committed to investing in our vital public services.”
Even under the “New Guard” EDDC has been granting planning permission to extend caravan sites within the AONB e.g most recently Pooh Cottage, Budleigh Salterton and there seems to be never ending expansions at Ladram Bay.
If this sets a precedent then such permissions would seem to be open to successful legal challenge – Owl
“Even if I only take into consideration the development of the Service Field, that is a significant intrusion into the AONB, contrary to a host of local and national policies. This case is in my view a more extreme version of Thornton Hall – the interests of the credibility of the planning system weighs heavily in favour of quashing the permission.” Mrs Justice Lieven
A campaign group in North Devon has succeeded in quashing planning permission to allow a holiday park to extend land into an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Croyde Area Residents Association (CARA) filed the lawsuit against Parkdean Resorts and North Devon District Council to reverse planning permission from January 2014, granting Ruda Holiday Park expansion into green field areas around Croyde Bay.
The group claimed that North Devon Council unknowingly gave Parkdean permission to place an unlimited amount of caravans on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty after approving a change to the resort’s opening dates.
The case was heard in the High Court of Justice on March 4 and 5, with a decision being made by Mrs Justice Lieven.
Mrs Justice Lieven stated in her judgement: “Even if I only take into consideration the development of the Service Field, that is a significant intrusion into the AONB, contrary to a host of local and national policies. This case is in my view a more extreme version of Thornton Hall – the interests of the credibility of the planning system weighs heavily in favour of quashing the permission.”
“It would be very hard to explain to a member of the public why a permission which was granted in complete error and where the developer has now got a permission which gives him what he originally sought, i.e. the extension of operating times, should not be quashed.”
Croyde Area Residents Association was set up in response to increasing tourism in the Georgeham area. The association raised over £40,000 from local backers to file the lawsuit, in what they named a ‘David v Goliath’ fight.
Service field to be used for holiday park expansion
A spokesperson for CARA said: “CARA is delighted that Mrs Justice Lieven has quashed the harmful 2014 planning decision that unlawfully permitted expansion of Ruda Holiday Park into green undeveloped fields in the area of outstanding natural beauty in the Croyde Bay area.”
“This is the right decision for this beautiful natural landscape and the environment. We are relieved that this result has, for now, put the AONB and environment back at the forefront when it comes to proposals for any development in this precious area.”
“We want to thank our legal advisers Richard Turney and Alex Shattock of Landmark Chambers and Lisa Foster and her team at Richard Buxton Solicitors for their patience, commitment, expertise and practical approach to this important legal action.”
“Finally, and not least, we are hugely grateful to all those who have supported us from near and far. The funds we needed to raise to bring this legal action were substantial and the time and effort required pursue this case, considerable.”
“We could not have done this without the generosity, good spirit and good will provided by so many along the way. This decision represents a significant achievement for the many hundreds of people who have contributed in so many ways.”
“Whilst CARA fronted this action, it has been buoyed up by a much wider community of people who care about preserving protections to ensure that beautiful areas like this continue to be there for everyone not only now but in the future as well.”
Parkdean resorts, who own Ruda Holiday Park, currently own 67 holiday parks across the country, with four in Devon and eight in Cornwall.
In October 2013, the park applied for an “extension of the time limits during which the holiday park may be open”, using a site location plan which extended into unused land, as well as 12 hectares of land owned by third parties.
In November 2016, Parkdean Resorts submitted a planning application to station 50 within the Service Field to the North East of the park, meeting objection from the National Trust and regional AONB Partnership Officer.
After withdrawing the application in December 2017, the resort applied for a Lawful Development Certificate for siting caravans in the Service Field, claiming that the 2014 permission permitted the use of the entire red-lined area of the site location plan. After an appeals process, this was granted in February 2020 and challenged by CARA in July 2020.
A Parkdean Resorts Spokesperson stated: “We have been in frequent contact with the local parish council and local planning authority and have followed all the appropriate legal procedures.
“Our relationship with residents in the local area is very important to us and we look to maintain an open dialogue with the local community.”
East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) Planning Committee turned down blueprints for the four-storey ‘extra care’ facility – exclusively for over-70s – earmarked for a plot next to Tesco.
They also panned the inclusion of a two-floor employment space as a ‘sweetener’.
Previous blueprints for just retirement apartments on the two-and-a-half-acre site were turned down by EDDC in 2017 – with a subsequent appeal also rejected on 2019.
The site is allocated as employment in the council’s Local Plan and applicant YourLife Management Services Ltd – a joint-venture by McCarthy and Stone and Somerset Care – changed its proposals to include office space.
The site off Salterton Road in Exmouth.
EDDC planning officers had recommended that the scheme be approved.
But Exmouth Withycombe Raleigh representative Councillor Brenda Taylor said: “This has gone on for far too long. We don’t need another block on Salterton Road and we have plenty of care homes.”
Fellow ward member Cllr Steve Gazzard, who proposed refusal, added: “This revised plan is slightly amended and a sweetener offered to the council by the four business units.
“But the plan hasn’t addressed the issues of the marketing for the site and is snubbing the Neighbourhood Plan and we either agree that they are important and take note or we might as well have not bothered.
“We have more than enough of care facilities in Exmouth, and we have one around the corner.”
Cllr Philip Skinner said: “We are desperate to have flat employment space for Exmouth and the clear lack of employment space is evident for everyone to see.
“I cannot support this and it throws against everything that we do.”
Cllr Olly Davey added: “They have just tagged on four industrial units which is not enough to compensate the loss of the employment land. We have lost so much employment land and there is an overprovision of care homes.”
From the planning application – an artist’s impression of the proposed building.
EDDC officers had recommended that the scheme for approval.
Development manager Chris Rose said in a report to the committee: “On balance, while the proposal would conflict with certain elements of the development plan, the economic benefits and the creation of additional jobs, particularly in this time of significant economic difficulty, is considered to outweigh the loss of a relatively small area of allocated employment land.”
Councillors voted to reject the application on the grounds of the loss of employment land.
McCarthy and Stone last year responded to criticism of its plans, saying the ‘much-needed’ scheme could inject £10.9million into the local economy.
‘Extra care’ is described as ‘suitable for tenants with a heightened level of assisted care requirement’.
Every now and then in the pushing-boulder-uphill world of local government, the stars align and a really good thing is enabled which creates a brilliant outcome.
At this week’s Poverty Working Group at East Devon District Council, I listened in as our officers set out the wonderful new beginning for a new project addressing both our climate action and poverty relief agendas.
Just last August, our officers put in a bid for £500,000 from the government’s “Green Homes Grant Local Authority Delivery Scheme”.
This scheme is one of the early manifestations of the universally desired idea that as we recover from the pandemic a large part of that fresh start should be to deliver on the green agenda.
There is agreement on this across the political spectrum
Our East Devon officers’ bid to the scheme was successful, one of 55 such local authorities in the country, and as a result they will have been able between January this year and the end of March to have installed no fewer than 100 council-owned homes with air-source heat pumps, an amazing effort.
These are, in essence, retro-fitted units mounted on outside walls which take atmospheric warmth and, through a process akin to reverse refrigeration, create heating warmth and hot water for homes.
This has two permanent positive effects. Firstly, it will drive down the fuel bills for council tenants hugely.
They won’t go to zero, of course, as you still need some electricity to drive the pumps. But, heating and hot water bills will hugely decrease.
That is why this was reported at the Poverty Working Group meeting, chaired excellently by Cllr Megan Armstrong, because of the most pernicious forms of real poverty, that around fuel has been on the increase for many years.
We will all know someone who has to choose between turning a radiator on and affording the ingredients for a meal. It’s grinding, Dickensian, and there should be no place for this in the twenty-first century.
Alongside the implications for lowering costs to tenants, this also fits into our council’s climate change agenda. Only ten months ago,
I was able as new Leader to create a specific Cabinet role for a Portfolio Holder for Climate Action, Cllr Marianne Rixson. We are committed as a council to carbon neutrality by 2040, and the time for action is now. This is a great start.
However, there is a long way to go. We also need to do a lot of work to seal homes against heat loss, easier said than done in some of our older housing stock, and begin to look at what we can do with photo-voltaic panels.
The reality is, it may be even more productive to strive for net zero by making sure that new housing stock being built – whether for the public or private sector – is as compliant with the aims of carbon neutrality as possible, that it exceeds current standards where at all possible.
For example, there is an increasing argument for timber framed new builds, allowing for different types of wall construction more ambitious than just rendered breeze block.
There is a desire to source materials as locally as possible, reducing the air/lorry/sea miles incurred in transporting them to site. With new builds, it is possible to look at ground source heat pumps too, perhaps serving multiple units of accommodation, and larger solar/pv schemes.
Happily, all of this is right at the centre of the government’s agenda. Signals are being sent that very serious money will be made available for councils and companies who are seeking to join forces in this. It’s no cakewalk – councils may have to find matched funding for huge grants, as may companies, but it’s a start.
And the political weather for all of this seems to have changed permanently. At the Poverty Working Group meeting, there was accord across councillors of all parties and none. Long may this last.
More than one million hard to reach homes and businesses will have next generation gigabit broadband built to them in the first phase of a £5 billion government infrastructure project.
Up to 510,000 homes and businesses in Cambridgeshire, Cornwall, Cumbria, Dorset, Durham, Essex, Northumberland, South Tyneside and Tees Valley will be the first to benefit as part of ‘Project Gigabit’.
Up to 110,000 homes in Cornwall are set to be connected to the fastest broadband in the world.
Cornwall – along with the Isles of Scilly – will be among the first areas to benefit from Project Gigabit, the Government’s new £5 billion scheme to bring the fastest broadband on Earth to hard-to-reach areas.
The government-funded projects will prioritise buildings that currently have the slowest connections and which would otherwise have been left behind in broadband companies’ rollout plans.
Their available speeds will rocket to more than 1,000 megabits – or one gigabit – per second, meaning families will no longer have to ‘battle’ over bandwidth and will give people in rural areas the freedom to live and work more flexibly.
Gigabit-capable broadband connections offer the fastest and most reliable speeds available.
Digital Infrastructure Minister Matt Warman said: ”Our £5 billion Project Gigabit will dismantle the digital divide and level up rural communities in every corner of the nation, and I’m thrilled that Cornwall will be one of the first areas to benefit.
“As we build back better from coronavirus these lightning-fast internet speeds will level up Cornish communities making them more attractive places to live, raise families and start businesses.”
Up to 510,000 homes and businesses are set to benefit across the UK, with Cornwall down as one of eight areas announced as the first in line for procurement alongside Cambridgeshire, Cumbria, Dorset, Durham, Essex, Northumberland, South Tyneside and Tees Valley.
This will rise to a million in June.
Project Gigabit will invest a record £5 billion to incentivise network providers to build to areas deemed “commercially unviable”.
Areas with the largest proportion of premises identified as hard-to-reach or connected to slow speeds will be first in line for support.
The successful Gigabit Broadband Voucher scheme is also being extended with a £210 million cash injection to give people in rural areas immediate financial help to get gigabit speeds.
Additionally, the government is making £110 million available to connect public sector buildings in the countryside – such as GP surgeries, libraries and schools – with this revolutionary infrastructure.
Tim Dwelly, Cornwall Council Cabinet member for culture, economy and planning, said: ”As we have seen during the coronavirus emergency, the importance of good, reliable and fast broadband connections has never been more vital.
“Cornwall being earmarked as one of the first places to benefit from Project Gigabit will have a positive impact for local businesses and enable thousands more to reach out to new customers and revolutionise the way they operate.
“But it’s also the connections between families and communities, as well as enabling many to work efficiently from home in these difficult times, that is welcomed.
”Our great connectivity is one of the reasons global leaders will be coming to Cornwall for the G7 and this will further our reputation as a great place to do business and connect with the world.”
The first areas will see spades in the ground in the first half of 2022.
Cornwall Council has called on the hotel which is set to host the G7 summit to halt “unauthorised” works.
[What chance for what Whitehall probably regards as a ” National Strategic Infrastructure”, and how are they going to get President Biden’s “The Beast” around those winding lanes? – Owl]
The council said in a statement: “Cornwall Council have investigated these works and determined that planning permission is needed.
“We can confirm that a planning application has been registered and publicised on our web site. Members of the public are invited to make comments in respect of the proposed development which comprises ground works and the stationing of three single storey buildings to be used as meeting rooms.
“When buildings works are being carried out that need planning permission, we advise owners that they may have to remove the buildings if they do not gain permission.
“Planning legislation does not give us powers to stop works whilst we determine the application, but we urge owners to do so.”
It added: “The council is seeking urgent discussions with the owners of the hotel and continues to investigate tree loss. The council will be discussing with the owner mitigation for the impact that the works have already had upon the environment.”
Concerns have been raised by local residents over ongoing development at the Carbis Bay Hotel complex, after a number of trees were felled.
Tim Dwelly, Cabinet member for economy and planning, said: “As a council, we say to any landowner that they should cease unauthorised works and only go ahead if/when the works have planning permission.
“We always urge landowners to respect this request. I had expected Carbis Bay Hotel to do exactly this, in response to the enforcement case triggered by complaints about tree felling and laying of concrete foundations without planning permission.”
Pictured on Saturday, March 13, the controversial ongoing development work at the Carbis Bay Hote ahead of the G7 Summit in June,l which has seen an area of trees cleared.
He added: ““I hope the hotel now takes note. Local people should have their comments considered through the transparent planning process, one which weighs up the pros and cons of development at this site in an objective, considered manner.
“This will be much harder should any further unauthorised and permanent works continue.”
The supreme court is to hear a challenge to the government’s decision to hold voter ID trials in 2019 in a case that could have implications for the wider rollout of the scheme.
The LGBT Foundation and Stonewall, representing the interests of individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or trans, and the Runnymede Trust, Operation Black Vote and Voice4Change, representing the interests of black, Asian and minority ethnic voters, have also been allowed to take part in the supreme court case.
Coughlan, 68, a retired voluntary worker who lives in Witham, Essex, one of the areas where the 2019 pilots took place, said: “I am hopeful that the supreme court judges will agree that when hundreds of individuals were denied their vote in the 2019 local elections because of voter ID pilots, that should have been only as a result of an act of parliament following proper scrutiny.
Neil Coughlan: ‘Requiring individuals to produce identity documents is going to deprive legitimate members of the electorate of the vote.’
“Requiring individuals to produce identity documents is going to deprive legitimate members of the electorate of the vote and I believe it will disproportionately affect the poor and marginalised members of our society.”
Among the arguments Coughlan’s lawyers, from Leigh Day, will make, is that the court was wrong to say measures to combat electoral fraud were consistent with what parliament intended because they would encourage and facilitate voting in the longer term. He says a demand for ID such as a passport, driving licence or utility bill at the polling station “frustrates the facilitation and encouragement to vote”.
Cat Smith, shadow minister for democracy, said: “Voting is a fundamental democratic right, not a privilege for those with the right form of photo ID.
“The range of different civil rights and charity groups supporting this case is testament to the widespread impact this policy will have of suppressing voters across all sections of society.”
The trials at English council elections in 2018 and 2019 permitted voters in different areas to show a variety of documents, but the proposed law is expected to mandate photo ID such as a passport or driving licence. Approximately 11 million electors (24% of the electorate) hold neither of these items.
Tessa Gregory, a solicitor with Leigh Day, said Coughlan hoped that the appeal would show how mandating voter ID “will exclude those at the margins of society whom our democratic institutions need to work the hardest to engage”.
A date has yet to be fixed for the supreme court hearing.
Chloe Smith, minister of state for the constitution and devolution, said: “A local electoral card will be available free of charge from their local council for anyone who wants it.”
If the test flights are successful it could lead to hybrid-electric aircraft zipping about the region.
It follows a successful bid to UK Research and Innovation’s £30 [M?] Future Flight Challenge from a consortium led by electric aviation firm Ampaire.
The consortium – which also includes Rolls-Royce Electrical, University of Nottingham, Loganair Ltd, Exeter and Devon Airport Ltd, Cornwall Airport Ltd, Heart of the South West LEP, and UK Power Network Services – has received £2.4m from the Future Flight Challenge for its £5m 2ZERO (Towards Zero Emissions in Regional Aircraft Operations) programme.
It involves putting in place and testing the infrastructure needed to enable electric planes to operate within existing airport and airline operations.
The 2ZERO project is running from December 2020 to May 2022. It will see electric aircraft test flights taking off at Exeter Airport and flying to Newquay Airport.
The demonstration flights will be carried out using Ampaire’s six-seat Electric EEL aircraft and, in a later phase, with a 19-seat Eco Otter, hybrid-electric retrofit of the workhorse Twin Otter commuter aircraft. These test aircraft will be used to develop and evaluate requirements for a fully integrated electric aviation infrastructure.
The 2ZERO team believes an effective demonstration of hybrid-electric aircraft in an integrated system, including the necessary charging and battery storage infrastructure, could lead to a fundamental shift in regional airline operations.
Emissions would be reduced by up to 70% with hybrid-electric aircraft and entirely with a subsequent generation of all-electric aircraft.
Successful demonstration up to 19 seats and 1 MW of power will help to shape regulations and standards which currently have gaps for these new classes of aircraft and airport operations.
2ZERO is seen as an important step towards being part of an exciting new market, forecast by UBS to be worth US$178billion to US$192billion globally between 2028 and 2040.
Andrew Bell, chief executive of Regional and City Airports, the owner of Exeter Airport, said: “Our 2ZERO programme is incredibly exciting for us and the South West region.
“Exeter is an important regional airport and this project really puts us on the map as a forward-looking airport and demonstrates our commitment, along with our partners, to making the future of aviation a sustainable one.”
Karl Tucker, chair of HotSW LEP, said: “We’re delighted to be part of this successful consortium bid to UKRI. The South West has so much to offer, including boasting the most highly skilled workforce in the aerospace sector and our smart aviation cluster.
“This programme is a huge step forwards in transforming the future of air travel and helping the UK to achieve its target of net carbon flights by 2050.”
Susan Ying, Ampaire senior vice president for Global Partnerships, said: “For electric aviation to become commonplace, and play a significant role in reducing greenhouse gases, we need to look at not only electric aircraft but the entire ecosystem to support electric aviation. That will be a key aim of the 2ZERO programme.”
“Councils should not hide details of their borrowing and investments from the public” an Information Tribunal has ruled in a decision that will help to shine a light on local authorities’ risky investment practices.
“Responsibility for holding local authorities to account for their borrowing and spending decisions ultimately falls on voters. Voters must be informed to make those decisions.” – Meg Hillier, Chair Public Accounts Committee
Argument that disclosure “would damage the council’s commercial interests” – rejected
This is an another exampled of a Conservative Council trying to hide its “secret deals” behind a screen of “commercial sensitivity”. They have been successfully called out by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
Councils should not hide details of their borrowing and investments from the public, a tribunal has ruled in a decision that will help to shine a light on local authorities’ risky investment practices.
In a victory for campaigners, a freedom of information tribunal has ordered Thurrock council in Essex to disclose which councils it borrowed £800 million from and what “green energy” deals the money financed.
The council took out loans from more than 150 local authorities and then poured more than £800 million into what it believed to be money-spinning renewable energy ventures. This may have been a breach of guidelines which state councils should not borrow in an attempt to make a profit.
Last year The Times revealed that in one £145 million solar power deal the council paid £5 million of taxpayers’ cash in commission to a globetrotting supercar fan.
The loans and investments were overseen by Sean Clark, the council’s finance director, who was also responsible for dealing with finance requests under the Freedom of Information Act. He rejected an FoI request from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism to reveal which councils Thurrock had borrowed from and what deals that money had financed, arguing that it would damage the council’s commercial interests. His decision was upheld by the information commissioner.
The Bureau pursued the case, supported by The Times, and this week the tribunal rejected the council’s argument, saying there was “significant public interest in transparency”.
Meg Hillier, chairwoman of the Commons public accounts committee, said: “Responsibility for holding local authorities to account for their borrowing and spending decisions ultimately falls on voters. Voters must be informed to make those decisions.”
Owl has found a fuller quote from Meg Hillier:
“I applaud the determination of The Bureau for pursuing this and winning a victory for taxpayers.
As the information rights tribunal judge says – responsibility for holding local authorities to account for their borrowing and spending decisions ultimately falls on voters. Voters must be informed to make those decisions. Let the public judge what level of risk they are content to bear with the money they pay in taxes for essential local services.“
Challenges posed by the covid pandemic have made it an incredibly tough year. As with all attractions, it has had to close for much of the past 12 months. But now the need “to undertake substantial, costly renovations to the attraction’s exhibitions” have led the trust to decide now is the time to hand over to another manager.
Owned by East Devon District Council, Seaton Jurassic opened in 2016 and a quarter of a million people have now visited to explore its interpretation of the story of life and its evolution from the Jurassic to the present day.
Devon Wildlife Trust’s Chief Executive, Harry Barton, said: “We’re very proud of what we have achieved at Seaton Jurassic over the past five years. The team of staff and volunteers we’ve built have done great work establishing the centre. We have also developed good and supportive partnerships with East Devon District Council and the wider community of Seaton.”
Councillor Nick Hookway, East Devon District Council’s portfolio holder for tourism, sports, leisure and culture, said: “We’re very sorry to hear this news but understand that the pandemic has had a dramatic impact on many, including Devon Wildlife Trust (DWT) and East Devon District Council (EDDC). Our partnership at Seaton Jurassic has been of immense benefit to the town and the many visitors that have enjoyed Seaton Jurassic.”
Councillor Paul Arnott, East Devon District Council’s leader, added: “We cannot let this moment pass without thanking the huge number of volunteers from Seaton who have given so much time to keep the centre going against the odds. EDDC will ensure that any future plans are the subject of a full community engagement with the people of Seaton.”
A shocking re-inspection of Devon’s NHS 111 and out of hours GP service has found that patients are still not all receiving safe care or treatment – six months after major failings were exposed.
[Owl would feel more confident if less use was made of stock buzz phrases such as: “build back better”]
Devon Doctors Limited, which is based in Exeter and provides an Urgent Integrated Care Service (UICS) across Devon and Somerset, was inspected by independent health and social care regulator the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in July 2020, after concerns were raised about the service, including safety fears and insufficient staffing to meet expected demand.
Following the focused inspection, the CQC imposed a timeframe to make urgent improvements after ‘deep rooted issues’ were identified.
‘Significant’ shortfalls in systems were uncovered which led to delays to care and treatment; call answering targets were not consistently being met; there were often adequate numbers of staff; and governance processes were not effective.
A further focused inspection was conducted between December 7 to 9, to follow up on the urgent conditions imposed.
However, due to further concerns found during the visit, a full comprehensive inspection was instead carried out and it has since been rated inadequate and placed in special measures.
The report from that inspection has been published today, March 17. Key findings include:
Sufficient numbers of staff available to run the service were inconsistent to ensure risk was minimised and the service could respond quickly to an increase in demand.
Risks to patients were not adequately assessed, monitored or managed to maintain patient safety.
Overall service performance was not always consistently monitored in a way that ensured patient safety.
There was a lack of clarity on how significant events and risks were identified and managed. Improvement was still needed to ensure learning and actions taken from incidents were understood and acted on by all relevant staff.
There were risks of patients not receiving effective care or treatment.
There were shortfalls in systems and processes that did always not enable safe and effective care to be provided.
There were still shortfalls in some of the personal development and support provision for staff.
There were shortfalls in communication between senior leaders and staff groups, and staff did not consider they had been fully engaged in the running of the service.
Governance arrangements were not consistent to support the delivery of a safe, effective and well-led service in a consistent manner.
Devon Doctors received an overall rating of ‘inadequate’. It was deemed as requiring improvements for its services to be safe, caring and responsive, and inadequate for being effective and well-led.
However, inspectors highlighted how staff were kind and caring, and responsive to patients‘ needs. It was also noted that performance levels had shown signs of improvement and were now in line with national performance levels.
Dr Rosie Benneyworth, chief inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care, said: “We extended the timescales for the urgent conditions to be met, as evidence gathered during this inspection showed some improvement, but it was insufficient to deem that the urgent conditions had been met.
“In addition, we imposed two new urgent conditions on the provider’s registration relating to taking calls from the NHS 111 national contingency service.
“National contingency is a systematic process available to all NHS 111 providers in England. This enables any other NHS 111 services nationally to route telephone calls of another provider during periods of high demand.
“The second condition was for the provider to produce duty rotas which clearly showed which staff were scheduled to work across the service; which staff actually worked; and reasons for absence of staff.
“We also made requirements related to meeting the fundamental standards; complaints handling; provision of staff training, appraisals and supervision; and health and safety.”
The service has now been put in special measures which means it will be inspected again within six months.
If insufficient improvements have been made, the CQC can begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service.
The service will be kept under review and if needed could be escalated to urgent enforcement action.
Dr Rosie Benneyworth concluded: “Special measures will give people who use the service the reassurance that the care they get should improve.”
Devon Doctors has nine treatment centres in Devon, which are open at various times throughout the week and weekends to provide the out of hours GP service. It also has five treatment centres in Somerset.
Devon Doctors is responsible for providing the NHS 111 service and out of hours service in Devon and Somerset.
The NHS 111 service for Somerset is subcontracted to another provider. Devon Doctors Limited remains responsible for any services which it subcontracts out as the main contract holder.
Staff employed by Devon Doctors Limited include; call handlers, drivers, reception staff, GPs, nurse practitioners, call centre coordinators and supporting office staff holding lead roles such as clinical governance, recruitment, rotas and medicines.
Supporting staff also include communication and information governance staff. These members of staff are led by a management team overseen by a board of directors.
The out of hours service operates between 6pm and 8am Monday to Friday, and 24 hours on Saturdays, Sundays and bank holiday. The NHS 111 aspect of the service provision operates 24 hours a day, all year round.
A spokesperson for Devon Doctors said: “We recognise that we have fallen short of the high standards which characterised Devon Doctors Group services over more than two decades.
“We can only apologise that of late the care received by users of our integrated urgent care services in Devon and Somerset has not been as good as it should have been, while our staff and clinicians haven’t always enjoyed the level of support they might reasonably have expected.
“While putting patients first has always been our overriding objective, it has become apparent that, as Devon Doctors Group has grown and its responsibilities have swelled, some parts of the organisation have struggled to keep pace.
“Remedying this has not been easy and it has taken us longer than we would have hoped to resolve all the concerns raised by the CQC.
“However, after a year of unprecedented challenges, progress is being made. For instance, we have already: recruited significantly more staff; implemented heightened safeguarding measures; improved infection control procedures; and introduced enhanced governance processes.
“In addition, we acted swiftly to affect significant changes in personnel. A number of senior employees have left the organisation, which has been boosted by the recruitment of a number of new directors, and senior managers, with proven track records in the delivery of healthcare.
“Over the coming months, working in tandem with the CQC, National Health Service England (NHSE), our commissioners, and other healthcare partners, Devon Doctors Group will do whatever it takes to build back better and restore the confidence of service users, and other stakeholders, in our integrated urgent care services.
“In the meantime, patients in Devon and Somerset should continue to ‘Think 111 First’ when they need to swiftly and directly access urgent health services in Devon and Somerset. “
The prime minister’s former aide, Dominic Cummings, has criticised the Department of Health as “a smoking ruin in terms of procurement and PPE” at the start of the pandemic.
Note this was an aside, the “Disrupter in Chief” was actually giving evidence to MPs on the Science and Technology Committee about the creation of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency know as Aria.
Last four paragraphs from National Audit Office report summary: “Timeliness of local auditor reporting on local government in England, 2020”, under the heading “Underlying weaknesses of the local audit system”:
The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated problems which already existed within the local audit landscape. Our previous reports and consultation with the sector identified several long-standing problems within local audit. There is insufficient staff with the relevant qualifications, skills and experience in both local finance teams and firms serving the local audit sector, and a net loss of qualified staff from both. The requirements of International Financial Reporting Standards, along with the increased expectations from the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) following the high-profile corporate failures such as Carillion, have combined to produce a significant increase in audit work, such as on asset and pensions valuations, which local authorities found less useful. The relative lack of attractiveness of the audit of local public bodies, compared with alternative audit opportunities available to staff, has contributed to a high staff turnover level. Competing workload pressures, both within the finance function and elsewhere in local authorities, diverted staff resources from completing working papers and preparing accounts within the time available for submission to the external auditors which made the preparation of accounts increasingly challenging (paragraphs 2.15 to 2.22).
The Committee of Public Accounts has continued to express concern about the system of local audit. The Department recognised these concerns and in July 2019 commissioned the Redmond Review to review the local audit landscape. The committee recommended that the review should ensure that concerns over current fee levels and the contribution of external audit to governance are examined fully and rigorously. The committee also recommended that the review should assess if external audit was providing an effective service and meeting the needs of local authorities (paragraph 1.13).
The Redmond Review reported in September 2020 and recommended major changes in the organisation and regulation of local audit in England. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government stated, on publication of the Redmond Review, that he would consider the findings and recommendations carefully and remained committed to strengthening the local audit system, so that it worked more effectively for taxpayers and councils. The Department’s response accepted some of the recommendations of the review and recognised the findings regarding the fragility of the local audit market, agreeing that urgent action is required. The Department set out actions to support market stability, to alleviate some of the immediate funding and timing pressures facing audit firms and local authorities, but decided to consider further the central recommendation to establish a new independent regulator for local audit (paragraphs 1.14 to 1.17).
Concerns over the quality of local audit have been raised by the FRC in its report on local audits in October 2020. The FRC inspected 15 financial statement audits in 2019-20 across seven local audit firms. It described the overall results as concerning, with only 40% of audits judged good or requiring no more than limited improvement, down from 64% in 2018-19. The FRC said that urgent action was required from some of the firms, to take appropriate action to respond to the findings and ensure improvements were made in audit quality, given the deterioration in quality in the year (paragraphs 2.25 to 2.29).
Conclusion
Given the increasing financial challenge and service pressures on local authorities since 2010, local councils need strong arrangements to manage finances and secure value for money. External auditors have a key role in providing independent assurance on whether these arrangements are strong enough and recommending any action. The late delivery of 2019-20 audit opinions is concerning, given the important part that external audit plays in assurance over taxpayers’ money both centrally and locally.
The London mayoral election and other local elections are to be changed to the First Past the Post system under plans being considered by the Government.
Priti Patel said the voting system for combined authority mayors, the mayor of London election and police and crime commissioners will all be changed.
Announcing the move, the Home Secretary said that First Past the Post “provides for strong and clear local accountability”.
The voting system awards seats to whoever has the highest vote count and does not take preferences into account.
The planned changes will need to be confirmed through Government legislation and will not be in place before the upcoming local elections on May 6.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson included in his 2019 election manifesto a pledge to further roll out the voting system, which is used for General Elections, at a local level.
The mayoral election in the capital is currently decided through a preference vote.
Two candidates go through to the second round if no one gets more than 50 per cent of the primary vote. A winner is then chosen by taking preferences into account from voters who chose eliminated candidates as their first preference.
In a ministerial written statement on Tuesday, Ms Patel said “transferable voting systems were rejected by the British people in the 2011 nationwide referendum”. Therefore, she said, local elections should be changed to reflect that.
Tony Travers, local government expert at the London School of Economics, said the change would “wipe out” many smaller parties like the Lib Dems and the Greens if it applied to the London Assembly.
The London Assembly is a 25-member body that holds the city’s mayor to account. It is made up of members directly elected through First Past the Post, and others who are elected through proportional London-wide voting.
“It’s hard to imagine them having the mayor and not the whole assembly as First Past the Post and if that happens it would disadvantage the Greens, Ukip and the Lib Dems,” he told City AM.
“It works very very well for the biggest and the second biggest party in the country.”
The London Mayor was created in 2000 following a referendum 1998. The type of voting system to elect the mayor was not on the referendum paper.
London Labour said the move amounted to “breathtaking arrogance” from the Government. A spokesperson said: “The people of London voted overwhelmingly in a referendum in 1998 for the creation of the Mayor of London in which voters would be able to state a first and second preference candidate.
“It’s a fairer system that promotes a wide choice for voters and it has served Londoners well for over twenty years and there’s no groundswell for a change.
“For the Tory Government to impose a change to the electoral system without first asking the views of Londoners in a follow-up referendum demonstrates their breathtaking arrogance and their utter disdain for devolution.”
The Standard has approached City Hall and the Home Office for comment on the move.
Public support for a statutory public inquiry into the UK’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic is running more than twice as high as opposition to the idea, exclusive polling for the Guardian has revealed.
As a growing number of doctors, nurses, scientists and the bereaved call on the prime minister to trigger a formal independent investigation, 47% of people said they supported a public inquiry which has legal powers to compel people to give evidence under oath. Only 18% said they were opposed. 35% said they neither supported or opposed it or didn’t know, according to polling carried out by ICM last weekend.
The top priority among those wanting an inquiry was an investigation into the government’s preparedness for a pandemic which has left the UK with the highest mortality rate of any of the world’s largest economies. The death toll among people who tested positive reached 125,690 on Tuesday.
Those polled believe an inquiry’s next highest priorities should be examining how the UK controlled the movement of people through its borders and the timing and strategy of lockdowns, which epidemiologists have already concluded cost lives.
The focus on lockdowns comes amid reports that the prime minister Boris Johnson now regrets not locking down earlier in March 2020 and that he believes the advice he was receiving about infection spread was based on out of date projections.
Protection of care home residents, around 40,000 of whom died with Covid; the provision and procurement of PPE, which has been mired in allegations of cronyism; and the effectiveness of NHS test and trace, which parliament’s public accounts committee last week said had failed to avert further lockdowns despite a £37bn two-year budget, were the next priorities.
The highest levels of support for a statutory inquiry are in the north of England, Northern Ireland, Wales and the south-west, the poll revealed.
It follows calls by scientists, doctors, nurses, the bereaved and minority ethnic leaders for Boris Johnson to finally announce an independent inquiry with powers to compel witnesses to attend and to order the disclosure of documents. Downing Street said this week “now is not the right time to devote huge amounts of official time to an inquiry”.
A government spokesperson said: “There will be an appropriate time in the future to look back, analyse and reflect on all aspects of this global pandemic.”
Senior figures in the UK’s Covid response including Prof John Edmunds and Prof Andrew Hayward, who sit on the government’s scientific advisory group for emergencies (Sage), have spoken in support of an inquiry, while the former head of the civil service Lord Kerslake said it would be “criminal not to learn lessons”.
Amid increasing pressure on the prime minister to set up a statutory inquiry, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing also called for an inquiry, while Lord Woolley, the former chair of the advisory group to the government’s race disparity unit, said a public examination into the impact of Covid, which has disproportionately hit BAME communities, is a chance to rethink the nation’s social infrastructure.
Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice, which represents more than 2,800 families who lost loved ones during the pandemic, welcomed the poll as vindication of its calls since last summer for a full public inquiry.
“It’s as plain as day we need a proper public inquiry into the government’s handling of the pandemic,” said Jo Goodman, co-founder of the group, who lost her father, Stuart, to Covid. “Just one in five people think otherwise and as more and more information comes to light ever more people are realising how crucial this is for the whole country. This is a generation-defining crisis and if the government doesn’t learn from its mistakes then how will it save lives in the future.”
But in a sign that a decision on launching an inquiry – which is in the hands of the prime minister – could become highly political, the poll of more than 2,000 adults showed that Labour and Liberal Democrat voters at the 2019 general election were almost twice as likely to want an inquiry as Conservative supporters. The prime minister is likely to consider the impact of any conclusions from a public inquiry which could take several years may co-incide on the next general election expected no later than May 2024. Opponents of a public inquiry fear it could take years and an adversarial process that places as much emphasis on accountability as learning may hinder rather than help attempts to correct mistakes, in the short term at least.
Honiton Forward has been delighted by the response from members of the community who wish to stand for election as Honiton Independents for the Community (HICS).
[Owl notes that existing Town Councillors are trying to “hang on”, we have seen this sort of thing before haven’t we?]
A high calibre collection of candidates, of all ages and backgrounds, have put themselves forward and it is already clear that the Council would be safe in their hands.
Once their nominations are confirmed, it will be announced who they are and they will tell you why they want to be Town Councillors.
Meanwhile, remaining Town Councillors are trying to reduce the number of seats available for public election and instead co-opt a new member in themselves at the next full meeting in April.
The clear message to the Council for the past year has been that the community wants an election for all seats on the Council.
No one who believes in democracy could possibly apply for a co-opted seat when it is possible to stand for election and no fair-minded council would seek to fill a seat this way.
This “explains” how economic indices have been used to prioritise the distribution of the “Levelling Up” fund. Whether these funds replace what has been stripped out from Local Authorities over the years is another question – Owl
Maybe we should just call it another “mutant algorithm”?
This note sets out the methodology used to develop an index of priority places for the Levelling Up Fund. The methodology was developed to help the Fund deliver its core objective of improving local communities by investing in local infrastructure that has a visible impact on people. The Fund will achieve this by focusing on:
Town centre and high street regeneration, including remediation and repurposing of vacant and brownfield sites;
Improving local transport connectivity and infrastructure, including upgrades to local bus, road and cycle infrastructure; and
Maintaining and regenerating cultural, heritage and civic assets.
The index places local authorities into categories 1,2 or 3, depending on their identified level of need, with category 1 representing places deemed in most need of investment through this Fund. We will use the categories for two main purposes:
Across Great Britain, each place’s category will form one part of the process for assessing bids, as part of the ‘characteristics of place’ criteria, alongside the other 3 criteria – deliverability, value for money and strategic fit. While preference will be given to bids from higher priority areas, the bandings do not represent eligibility criteria, nor the amount or number of bids a place can submit. Bids from places in all categories will still be considered for funding on their merits of deliverability, value for money and strategic fit, and could still be successful if they are of high enough quality.
In England, category 1 places will be eligible to receive targeted capacity funding, to support them in preparing high-quality bids (all places in Scotland and Wales are eligible for capacity funding, independent of their place in the index).
General principles
The index was developed in accordance with the following core principles:
1. That any metrics used should be chosen in support of targeting places in need of the following, in line with the objectives of the fund:
economic recovery and growth (indicator 1)
improved transport connectivity (indicator 2)
regeneration (indicator 3)
2. That any data used should be publicly available, so that the calculations behind the index rankings are fully transparent.
3. That any comparison of need between places in different nations should be made using a consistent set of GB-wide metrics only.
4. That, in line with the Fund’s delivery geographies, the index should cover the following institutions (referred to as ‘eligible LAs’ throughout this document):
District councils, metropolitan and London boroughs and unitary authorities in England; and
Unitary authorities in Scotland and Wales.
The key challenge of developing a methodology in accordance with the above priorities was a lack of availability of GB-wide data to measure both regeneration and transport connectivity.
To address this, an approach was taken to ensure that additional England, Scotland and Wales-specific data could be incorporated into the index without jeopardising principle 3 above – the need to be consistent when comparing places across borders.
This approach comprised two steps:
Step 1: a GB-wide index was developed at eligible LA level, using only data available GB-wide, and used to determine the number of places that would be in categories 1, 2 and 3 across England, Scotland, and Wales.
Step 2: distinct indices for England, Scotland and Wales were developed at eligible LA level with both GB-wide and nation-specific data and used to determine the specific list of places that would be in categories 1, 2 and 3 within each nation.
Choice of metrics
The metrics used at each step of the process were as follows:
Step 1: This step uses GB-wide data only, measuring ‘need for economic recovery and growth’ – indicator 1 identified above, incorporating standard metrics measuring places’:
Productivity, measured using gross value added (GVA) per hour;
16+ Unemployment rate; and
Skills, measured using the proportion of the working-age population without a national vocational qualification (NVQ).
These metrics were chosen to best align with the fund’s focus on bringing investment to areas of low productivity and those lacking in labour market opportunities and economic resilience (as measured by unemployment rate and skills), as set out in the prospectus.
Step 2: This step uses the following data, by nation, to measure ‘need for improved transport connectivity’ (in England only) and ‘need for regeneration’ in addition to ‘need for economic recovery and growth’, the last of which is measured in the same way as in step 1. These metrics were chosen based on availability – for example, there was no publicly-available data on journey times for Scotland and Wales, or an equivalent alternative, so transport connectivity was not assessed in the Welsh and Scottish national indices:
Need for improved transport connectivity (indicator 2, data only available within England):
England: Average journey times to employment centres by car, public transport and bike.
Need for regeneration (indicator 3):
England: commercial and dwelling vacancy rates.
Scotland: dwelling vacancy rates (commercial vacancy rate date not available at time of calculation).
Wales: commercial and dwelling vacancy rates.
The average journey time metric was chosen (where available) to best align with the Fund’s focus on bringing transport upgrades to places with poor connectivity and identifying parts of England where local transport networks may be limiting local economies.
The commercial and dwelling vacancy rate metrics were chosen a proxy for places’ need for regeneration, given the Fund’s particular focus on repurposing and regenerating vacant and brownfield sites on high streets and within town centres.
The selection of metrics as set out above was subject to ministerial approval at the design stage based on alignment with the policy goals of the fund. Ministers did not see a list of specific places before agreeing the list of metrics. At no point did Ministers make changes to the index, weightings or metrics recommended by officials.
Banding process
The 368 eligible LAs in Great Britain were divided into roughly equal bands, with 123 places in category 1, 123 in category 2 and 122 in category 3 respectively.
Step 1: To determine the number of category 1, 2 and 3 ‘slots’ to assign to each nation, a GB-wide index was created to rank places against criterion A (need for economic recovery and growth) only, which contains only GB-wide data weighted as follows:
Table 1: GB-wide index seeking to capture places’ need for economic recovery and growth (criterion A) at the eligible LA level
Target metric
Indicator
Data source (year)
Weight
Productivity
Natural log of GVA per hour worked(1)
ONS (2018); For any LA that had changed boundaries since 2018, a data point was constructed using population sizes and the previous LA statistics
(33.3%)
Unemployment
Estimates of unemployment rate in the 16+ population
ONS model-based estimates of unemployment rates (October 2019 – September 2020) in the first instance; Where data was not available for an LA, ONS raw estimates of unemployment rates over aggregated geographies (October 2019 – September 2020) were used
(33.3%)
Skills
Proportion of the 16-64 population without NVQ qualifications
ONS (January 2019 – December 2019) in the first instance; Where data was not available for an LA, ONS estimates over aggregated geographies(2) (January 2019 – December 2019) were usedd
(33.3%)
1 ‘Natural logs are used to compare places according to the relative difference in their productivity levels rather than according to the absolute difference in their productivity levels.
2 ‘ONS aggregated data based on counties, unitary authorities, and groups of districts in England, groups of unitary authorities in Wales, and groups of council areas in Scotland.
Rationale for choice of indicators and weightings:
As set out above, the GB index seeks to measure places’ need on a consistent and comparable basis. Due to data availability, the GB-comparison could only be performed on the basis of indicator 1 – on measures of productivity, unemployment and skills – because this is where common GB-wide datasets were available. Within this indicator, each metric was applied with equal weight.
Had full and consistent datasets been available for indicators 1, 2 and 3 across Great Britain, a comprehensive GB-wide ranking would have been performed. This approach was prevented by data limitations, as already addressed.
Construction of GB-wide index
For each indicator, values were indexed to allow for consistent comparison of values across indicators in different units. The smallest value in the dataset was set to 0 and the largest value set to 100. All other values were allocated a score between 0 and 100 based on their relative distance from the minimum and maximum dataset values.
The composite index score was then calculated for each eligible LA by taking an average of the index scores, weighed according to the weights displayed in Table 1.
For the metrics outlined in Table 1, this resulted in the following assignment of category 1, 2 and 3 places between England, Scotland and Wales:
Table 2: Number of category 1, 2 and 3 slots assigned to England, Scotland and Wales respectively following step 1
Category
Number of LAs in England
Number of LAs in Scotland
Number of LAs in Wales
Total
1
93
13
17
123
2
108
12
3
123
3
113
7
2
122
Step 2: Having determined the number of category 1, 2 and 3 slots to assign to each nation using only GB-wide data, places were then sorted into these slots within each nation using additional England, Scotland and Wales-only metrics (in addition to the GB-wide metrics used in step 1) to account for the varying availability of data between nations relating to criteria B and C. The following data and weightings for England, Scotland and Wales were used:
Table 3: England national index
Target metric
Indicator
Data source (data for)
Indicator weight (Target metric weight)
Indicator 1: Need for economic recovery and growth
50%
Productivity
Natural log of GVA per hour worked
ONS (2018); For any LA that had changed boundaries since 2018, a data point was constructed using population sizes and the previous LA statistics
(33.3%)
Unemployment
Estimates of unemployment rate in the 16+ population
ONS model-based estimates of unemployment rates (October 2019 – September 2020) in the first instance; Where data was not available for an LA, ONS raw estimates of unemployment rates over aggregated geographies(2) (October 2019 – September 2020) were used
(33.3%)
Skills
Proportion of the 16-64 population without NVQ qualifications
ONS (January 2019 – December 2019) in the first instance; Where data was not available for an LA, ONS estimates over aggregated geographies(2) (January 2019 – December 2019) were used
(33.3%)
Indicator 2: Need for improved transport connectivity
25%
Journey time to employment by car
Average journey time to the nearest employment centre of at least 5,000 jobs when traveling by car
DfT (2017); For any LA that had changed boundaries since the 2017 data publication, weighted journey time stats were created based on population and previous LA statistics
(75.2%)
Journey time to employment by public transport
Average journey time to the nearest employment centre of at least 5,000 jobs when traveling by public transport
DfT (2017); For any LA that had changed boundaries since the 2017 publication, weighted journey time stats were created based on population and previous LA statistics
(21.2%)
Journey time to employment by cycle
Average journey time to the nearest employment centre of at least 5,000 jobs when traveling by cycle
DfT (2017); For any LA that had changed boundaries since the 2017 publication, weighted journey time stats were created based on population and previous LA statistics
(3.5%)
Indicator 3: Need for regeneration
25%
Commercial vacancy rate
Proportion of retail, industrial, office and leisure units that are vacant
Publicly available commercial location data from Whythawk and Sqwyre.com (July 2020); Where LAs did not share their vacancy rate data, the average vacancy rate of the LAs in the same ONS aggregated area(2) that did share their commercial vacancy rate was used as a proxy. Where no LA in the ONS aggregated area shared their vacancy rate, the average vacancy rate of the LAs over larger aggregated geographies(3) were used as a proxy. For any LAs where boundaries had changed since 2020, a data point was constructed using population sizes and the previous LA statistics
(75%)
Dwellings vacancy rate
Proportion of dwellings chargeable for council tax that are classed as long-term empty (empty for more than 6 months)(4)
MHCLG (2020)
(25%)
2 ‘ONS aggregated data based on counties, unitary authorities, and groups of districts in England, groups of unitary authorities in Wales, and groups of council areas in Scotland.
3 ‘ONS aggregated data based on counties in England (most grouped), groups of districts in Greater London, groups of unitary authorities in Wales and groups of council areas in Scotland.
4 ‘Dwellings vacancy rate in England are calculated as the ratio of the number of vacant units less those that are only empty due to flooding (Line 16 less lines 16.a and 16.b in the Council Tax Base 2020) to the total adjusted number of chargeable dwellings (Council Tax Base 2020 line 7).
Rationale for choice of indicators and weightings:
Had it been possible, national indices would have been developed in the same way for all nations. However, due to data availability limitations this was not possible.
The relative weights of places’ need for economic recovery and growth (indicator 1), places’ need for improved transport connectivity (indicator 2) and places’ need for regeneration (indicator 3) were weighted according to a ratio of 2:1:1. This weighting was chosen to best align with the overall objectives of the Fund – ‘to support economic recovery…prioritising places in need and areas of low productivity’ as per the prospectus, as well as to make the most of UK-wide data where available.
Indicator 1 was developed in the same way as for the GB-wide index, with equal weightings for each metric.
Indicator 2 captures a place’s need for improved transport connectivity. This was measured using DfT data on journey times to employment centres via different transport modes – car, public transport and bicycle. This measures a place’s access to jobs, identifying where the local transport network may be limiting the local economy. The DfT journey time stats were weighted according to transport modal split at nation level – in other words, weighted according to the proportion of total journeys made by each type of transport across each nation as a whole.
For indicator 3, commercial and dwellings vacancy rates were used as a proxy for places’ need for regeneration, given the Fund’s focus on repurposing and regeneration of vacant and brownfield sites on high streets and within town centres. A higher weighting was given to commercial vacancy rates in the indicator for regeneration because the objectives of the fund focus in particular on improving commercial spaces. The ratio of the commercial vacancy rate indicator weight to the dwelling vacancy rate indicator weight was set at 3:1.
East Devon Watch 