Letwin on housing: no bricklayers, no infrastructure, developers slow to release (wrong kind of) housing to keep prices up

As reported in “Decisions, Decisions, Decisions – original article from today’s Sunday Telegraph.

Owl says Well, we could have written this, couldn’t we! And where is the Magic Money Tree for infrastructure?

It is two years since Sir Oliver Letwin formally left the government, and yet in recent months he has found himself relied on by Theresa May almost as much as if he had retained his role in the Cabinet Office.

The former Conservative policy chief has been credited with averting at least two major Tory rebellions over Brexit by developing compromise amendments to the Government’s EU (Withdrawal) Bill.

In November he was asked by Philip Hammond to tackle another thorny issue for the Prime Minister, who has pledged to increase the number of new homes to 300,000 per year: the vast gap between the number of properties given planning permission, and those that have actually been built.

Sir Oliver’s inquiry began amid claims developers were deliberately “banking” land. The only “land banking” that does exist, he has concluded, is as a result of the “absorption rate”, which sees builders sell new properties over a longer period of time because putting a large number of similar homes on to the market at the same time was depressing prices.

Sir Oliver’s analysis found that firms were taking an average of 15.5 years to complete large developments, with work progressing at a rate of 6.5 per cent of the development per year. At the extreme end of the scale the buildout rate of a development was almost 44 years. “It is an extraordinary fact,” he says. The larger the site, Sir Oliver’s team found, the smaller the percentage of the development that would be built each year.

The problem, he has concluded, is that homes on the largest sites were too alike, both in terms of the buildings themselves and their surroundings, and the “tenure” of the properties – whether, for example, they were ultimately aimed at private purchasers or renters, or those who would be renting through local authorities or housing associations.

‘Co-ordination across the various layers of government… is not good enough’

“When you go to these estates they will sometimes tell you, ‘we have three or four different flags’, as they put it, or ‘outlets’, or even ‘brands’,” he says.

“We have wandered up and down these sites and looked for the differences. I assure you, it’s very difficult to tell which is which.”

He adds: “There are people who want retirement living, people who want student accommodation, people who want homes that look and feel completely different from the sorts of things builders are building on these sites. They will find them in the second hand market very possibly, but they won’t find them on these sites, because these sites are being built like these builders build them – that’s what’s on offer. Any car you want as long as it’s black.”

The exact “policy levers” that Sir Oliver will recommend to tackle the problem will be the subject of the next six months of his review, on which he will report ahead of the November budget. But he now knows what he is aiming to achieve.

“The outcome we need is an outcome which somehow varies in lots of different modes and ways what’s on offer. Just as important that they should be varied in soft ways to do with architecture, urban design, ecology and style as in the hard ways of tenure and size.

“If you can have different markets that you’re addressing… you will end up with more homes.”

Sir Oliver has been careful to keep his focus on the time period between planning consent being gained and a site being completed, in line with his formal brief. But he will also make recommendations for tackling problems that he has discovered are delaying – by an average of more than four years – the point at which full consent is provided.

“We discovered en route that the provision of major infrastructure, particularly major transport infrastructure… has a huge effect,” he said.

“Barking Riverside [in east London] for years and years didn’t happen to speak of because everyone was discussing how not to provide an extension of the Docklands Light Railway. They eventually decided it wasn’t going to be provided and they would instead extend the London Overground. Then Barking could proceed.

“It would be much better if our country were one in which once someone’s decided that there’s a large area of post-industrial land which it would be really useful to build, somebody got their act together and got the infrastructure in place.”

He added: “There are lots of government schemes and money and so on available… but I have noted that co-ordination across the various layers of government – departments, agencies, Highways England and National Grid and all these others – is not good enough to create the energy to get rapid decisions made.”

Another problem is a shortage of bricklayers – which will only get worse if the Government’s efforts lead to a rapid expansion in the number of homes being built, he warns.

He calls for a five-year “flash” programme of on-the-job training to increase the number of bricklayers by around 15,000 – adding almost a quarter to the current workforce.

Sir Oliver understands the scale of the task on his hands. Housing, as Mrs May has realised, could make or break the Conservatives at the next election.

“I think there’s absolutely no doubt that any political party that doesn’t take really, really seriously the need to provide sufficient homes for our population… is going to suffer.”

https://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/author/andrewlainton/

Torbay unitary runs out of money – wants to be returned as a district to DCC

So the elected mayor experiment failed and Torquay is attempting to rejoin DCC with its tail between its legs.

The mayor caused major controversies, here are a few highlights:

The Tory council majority split and split again:
https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/three-torbay-tory-rebels-sent-886395
and
https://www.devonlive.com/news/three-more-torbay-tories-walk-712029

The mayor bought up a shopping centre in Bournemouth, an office building in Exeter, a business park in Torquay:
https://www.devonlive.com/news/local-news/row-torbay-council-buys-tesco-292274

He lost a no confidence vote but refused to resign:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-40682962

A referendum decided that the mayoral system was not wanted so the council was going to revert to a cabinet system:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2016-36241115

and now he says the council has run out of money:

“Torbay went it alone in 1998 but it has now taken the first steps back to Devon County Council being responsible for running the threatened services.

Mr Oliver said: “We cannot survive as we are beyond this next financial year. There is no money. …

“We have got two years. Whoever wins the election in May 2019, this has to be an all-party solution. “The lack of money will drive economies of scale. Local authorities will have to work in partnership. “Some of them are just too small as they are. “There are 10 chief executives in Devon and 10 financial officers. …

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/torquays-seafront-not-protected-high-668592

Serve on a government committee – and award yourself a gong for it!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5875889/Fresh-evidence-honours-going-people-committees-handing-out.html

SWIPE – South West Independent Party for England! A pipe dream …?

A post from East Devon Watch August 2015 is recently seeing revived interest from readers. Here it is again – the points it makes no less relevant now:

“Following on from our post about how much the South-West loses out to other areas of Britain, particularly the South-East, we have been considering the suggestion that we should create in this region a party similar to (but definitely not the same as) the Scottish National Party – a party representing an area which finds itself time and again the poor relation to other areas.

One should recall that the South-West has had a long tradition of non-conformity. Indeed, search on the words “south west england” and “nonconformity” and a whole host of links will turn up. Devon County Council even has web pages for it:

http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/councildemocracy/record_office/north_record_office/leaflets/sources_for_history_of_nonconformity-2.htm

Admittedly, this refers specifically to religious non-conformity. But the South-West showed its independent thinking by being a hotbed of liberalism when liberalism was something more than Nick Clegg getting into bed with the Tories. From Yeovil to Cornwall, this area steadfastly refused to be buttonholed into conformity to the pendulum swings between Labour and Conservative.

So, given that the area is now so definitely politically blue, are we getting a better deal? The post from earlier this week shows very definitely that we are not:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/07/31/is-it-time-the-west-country-had-its-own-party/

So, Owl thinks it is time we started thinking about alternatives.

Firstly, what is the South-West? Officially (for political and statistical purposes) it consists of nine official regions of England: Gloucestershire, Bristol, Wiltshire, Somerset, Dorset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. The Owl thinks that we can discount Gloucestershire (hunting, shooting, fishing, the residences of Prince Charles and the Princes Royal and MI5 keep them firmly blue!) and Wiltshire seems just a little too close to the Home Counties and includes Swindon – definitely out. Dorset we dismiss too – they are totally conformist (see Letwin, Oliver and Grand Designs)!

That leaves Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. Bristol has gone extremely green over recent years and are likely to remain so (hopefully) and the Isles of Scilly have always done their own thing and have never considered themselves part of mainland life, but they can have the option of joining us within Cornwall (as at present). This leaves Devon, Cornwall (including the Isles of Scilly if they so wish) and Somerset. These three counties have so much in common. Long sea coasts, poor infrastructure and transport links, large retirement communities, large number of second homes, tourism forming an important part of economic life, a history of being overlooked when the honey pot is being shared out.

Imagine a specific party for Devon, Somerset and Cornwall! Imagine what a group of people from this area who held the balance of power in Parliament could achieve. Imagine just how powerful that could be.

And the acronym: South West Independence Party England – SWIPE!

Take a SWIPE at London-centric politics – devolution for the Cornwall, Devon and Somerset region!

Alas, just a pipe dream – for now …”

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/08/02/swipe-south-west-independence-party-england/

BHS’s Sir Philip Green worried about his reputation in auditor’s report, seeks gagging clause

Owl says: impossible to harm this bloke’s reputation any further – he already managed it all by himself.

And as for PwC auditor who spent only 2 hours on the BHS audit file – wonder how much that cost BHS!

“Sir Philip Green is seeking a gagging order to prevent the full publication of a watchdog’s report that casts fresh light on the BHS scandal.

On Thursday, Green launched a high court bid to stop the Financial Reporting Council publishing its damning report on the failures of the auditors responsible for checking BHS’s accounts.

The Topshop tycoon wants sections of the FRC analysis to be redacted or changed, arguing that references to him and other members of the former BHS management could cause “serious and potentially irreparable harm” to their reputations.

Last week Steve Denison, the senior PricewaterhouseCoopers accountant who audited the BHS accounts ahead of its sale for £1, only a year before the department store chain collapsed, was given a 15-year ban and and record personal fine of £325,000 after he admitted misconduct. …

On Thursday, a leaked email sent to nearly 1,000 PwC partners and written by the firm’s UK chairman, Kevin Ellis, was heavily critical of Denison who, it emerged, had backdated his BHS audit opinion and spent just two hours working on the file.

In the email, Ellis described Denison’s supervision of the audit as “inadequate” with too much work delegated to a junior team member. “This situation should not have happened and we need to face up to the failings and learn the lessons,” he wrote.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/21/sir-philip-green-in-bid-to-gag-regulators-report-on-pwc

Clinton Devon Farms Partnership charged with corporate manslaughter

A Devon farm partnership has been charged with the corporate manslaughter of a 25-year-old worker who died in a tractor crash.

Clinton Devon Farms Partnership, which is based in East Devon, is alleged to have caused the death of Kevin Dorman on May 19, 2014.

The charge relates to a fatal incident involving Mr Dorman who was driving a tractor at Houghton Farm near Newton Poppleford.

The company, which is registered to Bicton Arena, Budleigh Salterton, entered a plea of not guilty to the charge that it caused the death of Mr Dorman by failing to properly maintain machinery, which amounted to a gross breach of care. It also denied a failure of care for its employees under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

George Perrot, 51, of Colebrooke, Crediton, is also charged with manslaughter and breaching health and safety law in relation to the death of Mr Dorman. He also entered a plea of not guilty.

Magistrates sent the case to Exeter Crown Court. The next hearing will be on July 17.

Tributes were paid to Mr Dorman, a former Sidmouth College student, after his death. He had been one of Sidmouth Town Football Club’s star forwards for several years and the club said at the time he would be ‘sorely missed’.”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-farm-charged-corporate-manslaughter-1697431

Neil Parish: is his only job as one of our MPs to stick up for fellow farmers?

We rarely hear these days from or about Tiverton and Honiton MP Neil Parish. As our other absentee MP (he farms on the Somerset/North Devon border where he has his home) his visits to East Devon seem to get more and more rare.

But when he does pipe up, it always seems to be for fellow farmers.

What about the rest of your patch Mr Parish? Closed community hospitals, overdevelopment, no affordable housing, poor transport links, education cuts …. anything to say about them?

Seems our two MPs have little interest in their constituencies but an awful lot of self-interest.

“Sainsbury’s and Asda bosses faced accusations in Parliament on Wednesday that their £14 billion mega-merger could end up “cutting the throats” of suppliers.

Neil Parish, the chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, launched a scathing tirade about the effects the deal will have on suppliers while the chains’ bosses were grilled in Parliament. He said: “You say it’s a cut-throat business out there. Yes it is, but I know exactly whose throats you’re going to cut.”

The merging grocers have pledged to cut prices on some, unspecified products by 10%. Parish said: “If you’re going to make anywhere near the 10% [price] saving in a hugely competitive market, you will have to take the model of the cheapest buying. Don’t come in here and give us a load of baloney. You’re going to get most of that from a supply chain.” …

Oh, and global warming and coastal erosion, unavailable home care, child poverty, food banks …..

Do you represent your constituents in Parliament – or just the National Farmers Union?

Sidford Business Park: “Nothing has changed’ highways outlines objection to business park proposals”

Owl says:

A test of whether EDDC develops or plans on the cards here. New Leader new times or new leader, old times?

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2018/06/18/sidford-business-park-a-grubby-history/

“Highway bosses have submitted fresh opposition to a new proposed business park at Sidford as ‘nothing has changed since the last time’.

Councillor Stuart Hughes, head of highways for Devon County Council, spoke exclusively to the Herald saying the department specifically objected to the distribution element of the application.

A change of use is being sought for the agricultural site, in Two Bridges Road, to provide 8,445sqm of employment floorspace.

The plan has received 102 letters of objection ahead of the deadline today (June 15) for comments.

Councillor Hughes posted on Facebook that the council would be submitting its objections and said the news would be welcomed by residents in Sidford and Sidbury.

He said: “Nothing has changed from the last time. The distribution element was a concern last time because it would bring big lorries through narrow streets in Sidford and Sidbury.

“They are very narrow and just aren’t big enough for this sort of traffic. It is the wrong site for a business park, in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.”

Resident Jackie Green said highway’s focus on the distribution element could ‘play straight into the developers hands’.

She said: “Any down-playing of the impact of the rest of the plan, two thirds of the development, risks making it easier for the application to be approved. Worse, if the B8 [class for distribution] is deleted, it would leave a space for even more B1 buildings (office and light industrial), which require more dedicated parking spaces than B8.

“This emphasis in the Highways objection will not ‘be welcomed by all local Sidford and Sidbury residents’, as Stuart Hughes claims, nor by any other users of the Sidford-Sidbury road. The plan as a whole is wrong, not just bits of it.”

The plans state the applicants aim to create 250 jobs and have addressed concerns raised when a scheme for a larger business park were submitted in 2016.

District council ward member David Barrett said he must remain impartial as he is a member of EDDC’s development management committee, which may be involved in making a final decision about the application.

EDDC will make the final decision about the plans.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/nothing-has-changed-devon-county-council-submits-opposition-against-sidford-business-park-1-5570042

Panama Papers latest leaks: in many cases company had no idea who they were working for

“… Two months after the firm became aware of the records breach, it still couldn’t identify owners of more than 70 percent of 28,500 active companies in the British Virgin Islands, the firm’s busiest offshore hub. It didn’t know who owned 75 percent of 10,500 active shell companies in Panama, the records show. …”

https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/new-panama-papers-leak-reveals-mossack-fonsecas-chaotic-scramble/

Swire thinks planning officers are poorly trained and don’t stand up to developers

Hugo Swire:

“My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be aware of my view—as he and I have discussed it—that most objections to large planning developments are based on the fact that the developments themselves add nothing to the local vernacular, do not acknowledge it and are often poorly built. That is partly owing to a lack of local planning officers and the fact that planning officers are poorly trained. Could the Government consider affiliating some of them to the Royal Institute of British Architects or the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, and empowering them so that they can stand against the volume house builders?”

Owl says: What about councillors who roll over to have their tummies tickled by developers – or who are developers themselves!!!

Or even those in your own (Tory) back yard in East Devon, who run their own planning consultancies and boast they can get planning for anything but don’t expect to be paid peanuts for it:

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

“Grenfell Tower borough ‘behaved like a property developer’ “

Fancy that … a council more interested in property development than public service … rather like a council that sells off its land to a luxury retirement housing developer so it can build itself a new, expensive HQ elsewhere …

“The chief executive of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea told survivors of the Grenfell Tower disaster that the council had been behaving like “a property developer masquerading as a local authority”, MPs have been told.

Barry Quirk, who took over at the borough one week after the fire in June 2017, made the comment in a private meeting with Grenfell United, the survivors’ group, one of its leading members, Edward Daffarn, told the House of Commons housing select committee.

“Think about that,” Daffarn told the MPs. “They were property developers masquerading as a local authority. They failed to keep us safe because they had higher priorities – getting their hands on the land, this massive goldmine they had.”

The council said it accepted Daffarn’s remarks and agreed. It indicated its strategy has changed since the fire, which sparked the resignations of the leader and deputy leader, Nick Paget-Brown and Rock Feilding-Mellen, the latter of whom works as a property developer.

Kim Taylor-Smith, current deputy leader, said: “We know we have to change, to listen to our residents and to act on their wishes. We respect Ed Daffarn’s views … The new council has pledged to build new social homes in the borough and have also taken on private developers like Capco, who are building high-end flats in Earl’s Court, and have made them include more social homes in their developments.”

Daffarn also criticised the council’s evidence to the public inquiry into the disaster, which claimed 72 lives. He said it was not being honest about “the little cabal of senior councillors and senior council officers from housing, from corporate property and from planning who have decided to asset strip the whole of our community, sweat our public buildings, disregard the people that live there and force them from the land they were living on because it was a gold mine.”

The committee heard from residents’ leaders that a year after the fire the relationship between the Conservative-led council and residents was riven with mistrust, particularly over the process of rehousing. It also took evidence from Elizabeth Campbell, the leader of the council, and Quirk.

Quirk told the committee that several of the senior executives at the council have been changed, notably in the housing department.

Sixty-eight households from Grenfell Tower and the walkways below have yet to move into a temporary or permanent home, according to the latest figures.

Nineteen households have yet to accept any offer, although Campbell, said 18 of these cases were in hand. Quirk said errors had slowed down rehousing by up to three months.

Sophie Earnshaw, of the North Kensington Law Centre, told the MPs: “The level of mistrust between the council and survivors and residents is significant. In initial months there was a lot of pressure on survivors to make very important decisions about their housing and survivors felt under pressure to accept unsuitable offers. The council has improved to a certain extent but residents do still feel that pressure.”

She said the council bought 100 properties soon after the fire that disregarded the needs of survivors, with some in high-rise buildings.

Jacqui Haynes, from the Lancaster West Residents’ Association, which represents residents in the wider area, said the problem with rehousing them was similar to those of Grenfell itself. Of the 127 Lancaster West residents only 39 have moved into a permanent home.

“They are being given one offer that they have to take,” Haynes said of some residents. “Some of the policies that surround their tenancy effectively mean they feel they are being forced to move out when they are unsure or uncertain. This is years of disempowerment and years of being looked upon as if we don’t matter and it is something that has cascaded.

“We have been suffering this sort of treatment for years and decades and it has been OK. It was just the fact that this disaster happened that everything blew up into the air and we can see this cannot continue. We don’t trust them and possibly that won’t happen for years.”

Campbell said: “Each household will come to a different decision. We hope that some of them will return home”. If they don’t they will be given high priority in bidding for other homes, she said.

Quirk told the committee that the council had addressed the rehousing challenge early on “without genuinely appreciating the depth of grief and despair”. He said the council had made housing its priority, but it should have been the humanitarian response. The council has bought 320 properties for rehousing in all.

Daffarn told the committee that some of the properties had not had fire risk assessments carried out.

“Residents weren’t informed of that when they were viewing and choosing,” he said. “Examples like that show the way that we feel we are not being treated with the respect we deserve. Even if they didn’t have the fire safety certificates, they should have informed us these properties would have to undergo further tests.”

Campbell denied the council had shown indifference. “We absolutely do care,” she said. “People have been in hotels a long time, but it’s complicated. We have worked extremely hard to build that [trust].”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/20/grenfell-tower-borough-behaved-like-property-developer-barry-quirk

Swire worries about flowers for us …

Upcoming Business – Commons: Westminster Hall (27 Jun 2018)

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/calendar/?d=2018-06-27#cal21564

Protection of British flora form (sic) imported diseases – Hugo Swire:

*Westminster Hall debate; 4:30 pm*

PFI – not value for money, offshore companies paying little tax own strategic assets

“The private finance initiative has created “immense pain” for councils and the Treasury cannot back up claims that it represents value for money for the taxpayer, a review has found.

The Commons public accounts committee has demanded that the government “comes clean” about the value of PFI and has accused it of having no plans to examine whether the initiative delivers financial benefits.

The committee said that what it had found was “unacceptable”. Meg Hillier, its chairwoman, said: “Government’s inability to answer basic questions about PFI remains undimmed. It beggars belief that such apparently institutionalised fuzzy thinking over such large sums of public money should have prevailed for so long.”

The public accounts committee launched its review of PFI and PF2, the second iteration of the initiative, in January after an inquiry by the spending watchdog found that the taxpayer would foot a £200 million bill for the contentious contracts.

Its findings show that PFI deals have allowed offshore investment funds, which pay little tax in Britain, to own billions of pounds of public infrastructure. Offshore funds have bought about half of the £60 billion of schools, hospitals, roads and other infrastructure assets built through 700 PFI deals signed in the past 25 years. That has resulted in owners of public services being “increasingly remote” from the services themselves, the MPs said.

The government has used PFI deals for 25 years to build public infrastructure assets such as schools, hospitals and roads. Under such deals the public sector signs a contract with a private company, which raises money to fund the asset and leases it to the government. Typically the leases run for 25 to 30 years. The government has paid £110 billion to private companies under the contracts and will pay a further £199 billion by the 2040s for existing deals alone.

The arrangement has faced repeated criticism. In January the National Audit Office said there was little evidence that government investment in public-private projects had delivered financial benefits. PFI contracts have been attacked, too, for being inflexible, sometimes leaving councils with a large bill for assets that are not in use.

“It is critical that taxpayers are not further lumbered with excessive costs arising from poor contracting,” Ms Hillier said.”

Source: Times (pay wall)

The Great Public Asset Sale!

No mention of community hospital sales – many hospitals having been financed by the local population.

And it begs the question: if the community has no assets and is getting only statutory services which are funded out of general taxation – what are we paying (increased) council taxes for?

“Libraries, swimming pools, youth and community centres, town halls, parks and other open spaces were among more than 4,000 public assets sold by local councils to developers and other private buyers last year.

Sales appear to have risen since George Osborne, who was then the chancellor, changed the rules in 2016 to allow local authorities to use money from sales of publicly owned buildings and land to cover running costs. Campaigners say that authorities facing financial pressures are denying future generations access to many community assets.

Locality, a network of community organisations, submitted freedom of information requests to all 353 local authorities in England asking about asset sales, of which 240 responded. The results showed that councils sold 4,131 buildings or plots of land last year.

Tony Armstrong, the chief executive of Locality, said: “One of the concerns we have is that many local authorities are just selling these assets off, and until now we have not had a clear picture of the scale of this.” He called for more buildings and sites that councils could no longer operate to be transferred to community groups that could run them on a not-for-profit basis.

Richard Watts, of the Local Government Association, said: “With local government facing an overall funding gap in excess of £5 billion a year by 2020, councils face difficult decisions about how best to use their resources to support local services, day-to-day activities and to protect public assets. Before a decision is made to sell an asset, the cost of selling it versus the benefit it could bring is considered carefully.”

Source:Times (pay wall)

Retirement home builders feeling the pinch …

“” … Another profit warning at McCarthy & Stone (MCS.L) triggered a sharp share price fall for the UK’s biggest builder of homes for retirees a 18.8 percent decline. …”

Could this be part of the reason? There are no affordable properties being built at the PegasusLife Knowle site:

“The Mayor of London’s Office has today welcomed a judgment handed down by the High Court that has backed the Mayor’s ‘threshold’ approach to affordable housing.

Following a legal challenge by four retirement homes developers, the Hon Mr Justice Ouseley has ruled that the Mayor’s threshold approach, which allows developments to be fast tracked through the planning system where they provide at least 35 per cent affordable housing, is consistent with the adopted London Plan.

The judge rejected claims by McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd, Pegasus Life Ltd, Churchill Retirement Living and Renaissance Retirement Ltd that this policy, contained within the Mayor’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Affordable Housing and Viability, would fail to secure the maximum reasonable level of affordable housing.

Jules Pipe, Deputy Mayor for Planning, Skills and Regeneration, said; “Tackling the capital’s housing crisis is the Mayor’s top priority and this ruling is an important moment for thousands of Londoners who are desperate for genuinely affordable homes to rent and buy.

“Our guidance sets out a clear approach that makes the planning system in London clearer, quicker and more consistent. I am pleased that the Judge has backed this approach which will help us to turn around years of neglect when it comes to building the homes Londoners so desperately need.”

The Mayor’s Draft London Plan includes the same requirements on reviews as the SPG. The judgment confirms that this has weight as it is an emerging plan.

The judgment also rejected the claims of the retirement homes developers that the guidance should have been the subject of Strategic Environmental Assessment and found that the claims that the Mayor had failed to have due regard to his duties under the public sector equality duty of the Equality Act 2010 were unarguable.”

https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/judge-rules-in-favour-of-mayors-housing-approach

Wake up apathetic Honiton! For the sake of half-a-dozen volunteers your town is at enormous risk!

Owl simply cannot believe that in a town the size of Honiton half-a-dozen people cannot be found to join the neighbourhood planning group. People have been falling over themselves in the rush to volunteer in smaller towns and villages, many of which gave already had their plans signed, sealed and delivered.

What is wrong with the people in the town? Have they no civic pride? Do Honiton people not realise what enormous danger they are in if they DON’T have a neighbourhood plan? Everywhere in Honiton NOT named in the Local Plan (and that’s a lot of land) up for grabs by developers. Who will provide no infrastructure to the town and likely no affordable housing.

It paints a dreadful picture of a totally apathetic town with an inept town deputy clerk (who suggested shelving the project until 2020) and lazy town councillors if this situation is allowed to happen.

“Residents have been urged to ‘step up’ or face ‘losing out’ after the creation of the Honiton’s Neighbourhood Plan was granted a six-month continuation.

The warning, made by the town’s mayor, comes a month after the future of the document was thrown into doubt following a recommendation to shelve the document until 2020.

Deputy town clerk Heloise Marlow made the suggestion to town councillors based on the ‘lack of past and current’ interest from residents in getting involved with the plan’s creation.

The Honiton Neighbourhood Plan’s current committee is ‘inquorate’ – meaning it is not made up of enough members.

A report submitted to last month’s council meeting said: “A steering group made up of about nine to ten members with one-third councillors and two-thirds community members is essential. In view of the lack of past and current interest from the community of Honiton, the recommendation is that a neighbourhood plan cannot currently be delivered.”

However, at a meeting of Honiton Town Council last week, members agreed to let the creation of the town’s Neighbourhood Plan continue for the next six months.

Cllr Henry Brown, town mayor and chair of the council, said: “The Neighbourhood Plan will continue for the next six months, with the hope that the Community Engagement Forum will act as a conduit to entice members of the public to join the Neighbourhood Plan.

“The public must outnumber the council in representation on this – our community needs to step up or we face losing out.”

At last month’s council meeting, Cllr Roy Coombs staged a late intervention to save the Neighbourhood Plan from being shelved until 2020 – recommending it be deferred until last week’s council meeting at The Beehive.

He said: “If we have not got a Neighbourhood Plan in place it could, I feel, become a developers’ free-for-all.”

The Community Engagement Forum, which is comprised of various groups in Honiton, was formed in 2016 with the aim of improving the town and bringing about change.

Anyone who wants to join the Neighbourhood Plan committee should get in touch with the town council on 01404 42957 and ask to speak to Heloise.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/creation-of-honiton-s-threatened-neighbourhood-plan-granted-a-six-month-continuation-1-5567305

Children pay a terrible price for austerity cuts – a shaming report

“More than 40% of parents with primary school children have had to forgo basic hygiene or cleaning products because they cannot afford them, according to a study.

A survey of 2,000 parents by charity In Kind Direct also found some 18% admitted their child wears the same underwear for at least two days in a row.

The charity, which was founded by the Prince of Wales, said teachers are seeing soaring numbers of young children who turn up to school unwashed and in dirty clothes.

Almost half (47%) of 100 primary school teachers polled said children have attended class without brushing their teeth, while nearly two thirds (63%) have seen youngsters in unclean clothes. More than a third (36%) said they have provided toothpaste, while 29% claimed to have given children soap, and 27% said they provided head lice products or bought pupils a toothbrush.

Nicola Finney, head teacher at St Paul’s Church of England Primary School in Stoke on Trent, which receives products from In Kind Direct, said staff are considering installing a washing machine.

She said: “We now make allowances in our very tight school budget to make sure we can buy personal hygiene and washing items, such as toiletries, washing powder and toothpaste, as well as spare uniforms, shoes and deodorant, because we know increasing numbers of families simply can’t afford to buy them.”

Ms Finney said she has spent hundreds of pounds of her own money buying items for students. She added: “We have seen significantly more children coming into school with washing and hygiene issues over the last few years.

“It used to be just a couple of children across the school, but now there are two or three in every classroom dealing with these issues. “I’ve spoken to teachers across the country and they are doing the same as us. “We want all of our pupils to get the best outcomes, not just those that can afford the basic essentials to keep themselves and their clothes clean and presentable.”

The charity survey found more than a quarter (26%) of parents said their children have to wear the same shirt or blouse for at least a week, while almost one in five (19%) admitted they cannot afford to wash their offspring’s clothes as often as they would like.

Some 14% said they have struggled to afford soap and shampoo, while 43% admitted they had to forgo basic hygiene or cleaning products because they cannot afford them.

Robin Boles, In Kind Direct chief executive, said: “The results of our latest study are a shocking reflection of the growing scale of family hygiene poverty across the UK. “Teachers are increasingly being relied upon to step in to provide pupils with everyday essential products because their parents simply can’t afford to make ends meet. “Alongside this, we have seen a sharp rise in the number of people who are increasingly relying on support from the charities across the UK to which we supply products. “It is clear that hygiene poverty is hitting families hard and is having a huge impact on children’s wellbeing at school.

“No child’s education and future life chances should be compromised because of the stigma they face, simply because their families can’t afford the hygiene products to keep themselves clean.”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/children-going-school-dirty-because-1690421

“KPMG singled out in critical report on audit industry”

KPMG were, until recently, the auditors of East Devon District Council. Let’s hope that Grant Thornton (now back in the frame at EDDC) perform better – but who recalls their pitiful performance when they “investigated” the disgraced Councillor Graham Brown affair and found ….. nothing.

“KPMG, the accounting firm that signed off the books in the years leading up to Carillion’s collapse, has been singled out by the industry regulator in a report that says the overall quality of the audit profession is in decline.

The Financial Reporting Council, the watchdog for the UK’s accountants, said the profession had demonstrated a “failure to challenge management and show appropriate scepticism across their audits”.

There have been calls for the “big four” accountants – KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers, EY and Deloitte – to be broken up to spur competition and improve standards.

All four gave Carillion financial advice before the construction and outsourcing company failed. MPs accused the four of “feasting” on Carillion, whose finances proved far less healthy than directors had suggested.

The FRC reported a decline in the quality of the work of all four, with KPMG performing the worst. The watchdog is already investigating KPMG over its role in the collapse of Carillion and it said on Monday there had been an “unacceptable deterioration” in the quality of its work.

The FRC cited figures that showed half of KPMG’s audits of firms in the FTSE350 index had required “more than just limited” improvements, up from 35% in the previous year.

“The overall quality of the audits inspected in the year, and indeed the decline in quality over the past five years, is unacceptable and reflects badly on the action taken by the previous leadership, not just on the performance of frontline teams,” the regulator said.

“Our key concern is the extent of challenge of management and exercise of professional scepticism by audit teams, both being critical attributes of an effective audit, and more generally the inconsistent execution of audits within the firm.”

It added: “[KPMG] agrees that its efforts in recent years have not been sufficient; the FRC will hold KPMG’s new leadership to account for the success of their work to improve audit quality.” …

The FRC said it would now scrutinise KPMG more closely as a result of its findings. It will inspect 25% more KPMG audits than before and monitor the firm’s plans to improve the quality of its work.

In the FRC’s overall assessment of eight accountants, it found that 72% of audits of all firms, including those outside the FTSE350, required no more than limited improvement, down from 78% last year. While only half of KPMG’s FTSE350 audits were deemed satisfactory, rivals scored far higher, although all showed declines and fell short of the FRC’s target of 90%.

Deloitte scored 79%, down from 82% last year, EY fell from 92% to 82% and PwC was down from 90% to 84%. The four firms immediately below the big four – BDO, Mazars, GT and Moore Stephens – were told that the quality of their audits had generally improved.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/18/kpmg-singled-out-in-critical-report-on-audit-industry

Council challenges planning inspector decision affecting strategic planning

Implications for the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan? You know, the one being delayed until after the next council elections …. for some reason …

“South Gloucestershire Council is to bring a legal challenge over a planning inspector’s decision to grant planning permission for a 350-home development in Thornbury.

The proposed Cleve Park scheme would also include a 70-unit elderly care facility, associated open space, community and commercial facilities, and infrastructure. The planning application was made by Welbeck Strategic Land LLP.

The local authority said it had “carefully considered” the Inspector’s decision and would be issuing legal proceedings challenging it.

South Gloucestershire added that it had written to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities & Local Government James Brokenshire, “requesting that he exercises his powers to recover the planning appeals relating to developments in Charfield and another in Thornbury from the Planning Inspectors, and make the decisions himself”.

These requests relate to two applications, one for outline planning permission for the erection of 121 homes and a retail outlet on land off Wotton Road in Charfield (Barratt Homes, Bristol), and also the appeal relating to land south of Gloucester Road, Thornbury (Bovis Homes Ltd), which seeks outline consent for the demolition of existing agricultural shed buildings and residential development of up to 370 homes, a flexible use building, public open space, accesses onto Gloucester Road and associated infrastructure.

The council said that it considered that these appeals, if granted, would undermine the Joint Spatial Plan (JSP) process and its impact upon the residents and communities of South Gloucestershire.

Cllr Toby Savage, Leader of South Gloucestershire Council, said: “Enough is enough. I am determined to see the council take a robust approach to challenging unsustainable development across the district. Where we have taken difficult decisions to proactively and positively plan for future housing and jobs growth, we should not have decisions from the Planning Inspectorate which undermines this work as it only stores up economic, social and environmental problems for the future.”

Cllr Colin Hunt, Cabinet Member for Planning at the council, said: “In South Gloucestershire we are trying to be plan led with our decisions on planning applications. While we appreciate that we have a shortfall on our five year land supply, nonetheless we want decisions to reflect that we have a solid plan that was prepared in consultation with the public.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=35658%3Acouncil-to-challenge-grant-of-planning-permission-for-350-home-scheme&catid=63&Itemid=31