“Law Society criticises proposed government approach to planning conditions”

“The Law Society has expressed concern that the government’s proposed new approach to planning conditions was “overly prescriptive and risked generating more appeals as a result of refusal or non-determination of planning applications”.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s consultation on draft regulations intended to improve the use of planning conditions ran until 27 February.

It invited comments on draft regulations which create an exemption to the requirement in the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 that local planning authorities obtain the written agreement of an applicant before imposing a pre-commencement condition on a grant of planning permission.

In its response Chancery Lane’s Planning & Environmental Law Committee said the generation of more appeals was an outcome that “would defeat the object of the exercise”.

The Committee went on to propose alternative approaches to meet the government’s objectives.

The Committee’s response, which can be downloaded here, was as follows:

Q1: Do you agree that the notice should require the local planning authority to give full reasons for the proposed condition and full reasons for making it a pre-commencement condition?
We agree with the requirement to give reasons for proposed conditions but are concerned that the meaning of “full reasons” is undefined (and is not defined in S100ZA of the 1990 Act) and could thus lead to litigation in the same manner as happened with “summary reasons”.
It may be preferable to apply the recently affirmed standard for reasons in the Dover case(1) – “proper, adequate and intelligible”, also per South Bucks(2) many years before.
(1) Dover District Council v CPRE Kent; CPRE Kent v China Gateway International Ltd [2017] UKSC 79
(2) South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953

Q2: Do you agree with our proposed definition of “substantive response” set out in draft Regulation 2(6)?
A developer veto without reasons is also unlikely to help achieve government’s goals if it increases the number of non-determinations and thus appeals. Furthermore, the Planning Inspectorate may find it unnecessarily difficult to deal promptly with such appeals if the developer’s reasoning for bringing them is not known at the outset.
We suggest that developers should be expected to give “proper, adequate and intelligible” reasons for refusing a condition, just as planning authorities should do for proposing them.

Q3: Do you agree with our proposal not to give local planning authorities discretion to agree with applicants a longer period than 10 working days to respond to the notice?
We propose that planning authorities should have discretion to allow a longer response time where this facilitates an agreed position during the notice period. Given that a longer notice period can benefit an applicant there shouldn’t be negative consequences from the additional “delay”.
If a limitation is sought, the regulations could emulate recent changes in Environmental Impact Assessment by permitting extension by agreement up to a maximum (90 days for EIA).

Q4: Do you have any other comments on the draft regulations?
While commending their brevity and clarity, we have concerns that the regulations as proposed are overly prescriptive and could lead to unnecessary increases in appeals – thus defeating their original object. We hope that our proposed amendments offer constructive solutions and would be happy to assist the Ministry further.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=34464%3Alaw-society-criticises-proposed-government-approach-to-planning-conditions&catid=63&Itemid=31

“PM wrong to blame councils for housing crisis but big builders have a case to answer”

Owl says: Couldn’t have put it better than this Tory leader of the Local Government Association!

“Theresa May seems to like giving “major” speeches. She’s delivering them everywhere right now. If she’s not careful she’ll end up with the sort of sore throat that made her speech at the Tory Party conference rather more entertaining than usual last year.

The latest one is on housing, for which the over used adjective “crisis” is for once apt. Cue a telling-off for developers and “nimby” local authorities for failing to “do their duty” to foster the British dream of home-ownership.

It’s a standard, and cheap, tactic of central government to blame others for its own failings, particularly local government.

Some 321,000 new homes were greenlighted in 2016 to 2017. Just 183,000 were actually built. There is a bank of 423,000 homes with planning permission awaiting construction. If there’s something stopping housebuilding it wouldn’t appear to be the planning system.

By the way, Lord Porter is a Conservative.

The figures supplied by his Local Government Association would certainly suggest that there is something to the claim that the big housebuilders have been sitting on land banks with the aim of profiting from rising values.

There are perverse incentives on them not to build, not just through those land values but also because of the fact that a genuine increase in the supply of homes might serve to reduce asking prices and thus the developers’ profits, not the mention the crazy bonuses they have been handing to executives.

The PM, in her speech, railed against the latter, and no wonder given their companies have made huge profits on the back of her Government’s Help to Buy scheme without doing much to increase the supply of homes.

Councils quite like the idea of being given powers to force their hands. Whether the limp measures suggested by the PM would do that is open to question, if they ever reach the statute book. Allowing councils to revoke permissions after two years if a building doesn’t get started feels like a half measure.

We, said, Lord Porter, a council leader and chair of the Local Government Association, are doing our bit and we have the figures to prove it.

Nine out of every 10 planning applications are approved and when the rare refusals are appealed to the Planning Inspectorate nearly three out of every four (73 per cent) of council decisions are upheld.

One thing that would help increase the supply of available homes would be to allow councils to borrow to build so that they could pick up the development slack. It’s a suggestion that has found favour with Communities Secretary Sajid Javid in the past, but not, so far, with his colleagues.

Another might be a windfall tax on developers’ profits, and perhaps on their executives’ bonuses, like the one Labour imposed on bankers, too. They could help to provide desperately needed funding to cash-strapped councils.

They might also prove to be rather popular. But they would be controversial, and require a PM with some gumption to force through. This one prefers to talk and talk and talk, and to moan a bit about local government while she’s doing it. She’ll be needing more cough sweets before too long. The rest of us will be after headache pills and prozac.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/housing-crisis-theresa-may-councils-builders-construction-a8240516.html

Do you want to tell the government what you think of the National Planning Policy Framework?

Well, you can – until 10 May 2018:

“… Alongside the National Planning Policy Framework consultation documents, we have published for reference the draft planning practice guidance on viability and the housing delivery test measurement rulebook. We will publish additional draft planning practice guidance for reference later this week. …”

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/draft-revised-national-planning-policy-framework

Housing minister who attacked NIMBYs is a NIMBY – or maybe a BANANA!

Sajid Javid has attacked councils and NIMBYs for standing in the way of more housing.

Now, it seems Javid is even worse – a BANANA – Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone!

“…1) Just months before his re-election in 2015, Javid slammed plans from his local Tory Council, Redditch Borough, to build 2,800 new homes. He said:

“…..I wish to re-emphasise my concern that land within Redditch Borough is fully utilised before any consideration is given to expanding the area’s housing need into Bromsgrove Green Belt as a neighbouring district.”
Ah, the green belt, of course. Javid is a man of principle, let us not forget.

2) In June 2016, Javid slammed his local council’s plans to build 1,300 houses in Perryfields:

“While I understand this land was designated for housing, there is significant concern about the implications such a large-scale development would have on local infrastructure, facilities and environment.”
Aaaah, it all makes sense now: Javid cares about providing sustainable housing. Makes perfect sense:

3) In 2012, Javid backed another campaign against plans to build 175 homes in the Worcestershire village of Hagley. At the time, he said:

“People aren’t against it just for the sake of being against the development, it’s can the local infrastructure cope?”
Hmm, a theme seems to be emerging. Surely Javid was again rallying to defend the green belt, no? Well, no. The council head of planning Ruth Bamford responded to Javid’s NIMBYism by pointing out: “If it didn’t go here it would most likely go on greenbelt because there isn’t much land around Bromsgrove district that can take new housing.”

Slippery Javid just keeps on passing the buck #NIMBYpamby.”

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2018/03/housing-hypocrite-sajid-javid-fought-plans-for-4200-homes-in-own-backyard/

“May wrong to blame housing crisis on councils, says LGA”

“… The truth is that councils are currently approving nine in 10 planning applications, which shows that the planning system is working well and is not a barrier to building,” Porter said.

“Nearly three-quarters (73%) of planning refusals are upheld on appeal, vindicating councils’ original decisions. It is completely wrong, therefore, to suggest the country’s failure to build the housing it desperately needs is down to councils.”

He said the government proposal to put independent inspectors in place where councils were seen to be blocking housing development was “unhelpful and misguided”.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/05/local-authorities-criticise-theresa-may-housing-crisis

How do you solve the housing crisis? With great difficulty given vested interests

Matt Ridley:

“Sajid Javid, the housing secretary, is right — and brave — to go on the warpath about Britain’s housing crisis in his new national planning framework, to be launched today. Britain’s housing costs are absurdly high by international standards: eight times average earnings in England, fifteen in London. A mortgage deposit that might have taken a few years to earn in the early 1990s can now take somebody decades to earn. Average rents in Britain are almost 50 per cent higher than average rents in Germany, France and crowded Holland.

Britain really is an outlier in this respect. Knightsbridge has overtaken Monaco in rental levels. Wealthy, crowded Switzerland has falling house prices and lower rents than Britain. Over recent decades, most things people buy have become more affordable — food, clothing, communication — and the cost of building a house has come down too. Yet the price you pay for it in Britain, either as a buyer or a tenant, has gone up and up.

Speculation exacerbates the problem. British people, and foreign investors here, borrow money to invest in housing on the generally valid assumption it will rise in value. This distorts our economy, diverting funds from more productive investments and exacerbating labour shortages in expensive places such as London and Cambridge.

The fastest take-off in house prices relative to earnings has been in the past two decades, when cheap money has further fuelled the house-price spiral, rewarding the haves at the expense of the have-nots. The high cost of housing is by far the biggest contributor to inequality. The reason people have to turn to food banks is not because of high food prices, but because of high housing costs. It is a rich irony that the Attlee government’s Town and Country Planning Act 1947 is probably as responsible as anything for the continuing prosperity of most dukes.

Yet seeking out profiteers misses the point. At the root of the problem is supply and demand. Britain restricts the supply of housing through its planning system far more tightly than other countries. That keeps prices going up, enabling developers, landlords and speculative buyers to make gains. We are building not much more than half as many houses each year as France, despite a faster population growth rate, and a quarter as many as Japan.

So why is British planning so restrictive? Until 1947 Britain regulated housebuilding in most cities the same way other countries did: by telling people what they could build, rather than whether they could build. As Nicholas Boys Smith, director of Create Streets, told a recent conference at the Legatum Institute, in the centuries following the Great Fire of 1666 “there was a series of pieces of legislation that set down very tight parameters: ratio of street width to street height, the fire treatment of windows etc. That is how most of Europe still manages planning. They have not taken away your right to build a building.”

Britain switched to deregulating what you could build, but nationalised whether you could build, by adopting a system of government planning in which permission to build was determined by officials responding to their own estimate of “need”. This brought great uncertainty to the system, because planning permission now depended on the whims of planners, the actions of rivals and the representations of objectors. Today local plans are often years out of date, if they exist at all, and are vast, unwieldy documents, opaque to ordinary citizens and subject to endless legal challenge and revision.

This makes Britain both far more subject to centralised command and control, and far more dominated by big corporations than other countries. It is a good example of how socialism and crony capitalism go hand in hand. Barriers to entry erected by planning play into the hands of large companies and make it hard for small, innovative competitors to take them on. In turn, this leads developers to produce unimaginative, repetitive designs to get the best return on their huge investment in land and permission.

Getting planning permission to build houses in Britain requires you to spend big sums on consultants, lawyers, lobbyists and PR experts, as you wear down the councils’ planning teams and their ever-growing lists of questions over several years. Not that the two sides in such debates are really antagonists: it is more like a symbiosis, a dance in which both sides benefit, because the fees to be earned by everybody from ecologists to economists are rich. And that is because at the end of the process the reward can be huge: a hundredfold uplift or more in the value of a field that gets turned into housing.

As a property owner, I have experience of this system and, I freely admit, a vested interest in it. I should be arguing for it, rather than against. However frustrating planning authorities can be, the rewards they bring to property owners can be large, either through upward pressure on prices and rents by their restrictions on permissions, or through uplifts in the value of land zoned for development.

Our mostly centralised taxes make things worse. In Switzerland, cantons compete for the local taxes that residential property owners pay, encouraging them to agree promptly to building bids, whereas here development brings headaches for local councils in providing infrastructure and services, only partly redressed with “section 106” agreements that make developers pay for schools and roads.

The system also creates opportunities for nimbyism on a greater scale than elsewhere. Opposing new development because it blocks your view, increases congestion on the roads and crowds the doctor’s surgery and local school, is rational everywhere. But it is much easier to organise a protest when the decisions are taken by council officials and the permissions are for big projects, rather than where many small decisions to build are taken by many dispersed owners and builders.

If Sajid Javid is to succeed in revolutionising Britain’s housing market, he must tackle the underlying causes. Rent control, Help to Buy, affordable housing and bearing down on developers’ land banks mostly address the symptoms. Forcing councils to set higher targets for housebuilding is a start, but if he were to succeed in unleashing a building boom across the country sufficient to bring down house prices, he would create a debt crisis among those with negative equity. So it will not be easy to cure Britain’s addiction to property, but he must try.”

Source: The Times (pay wall)

May desperately tries to claw back housing votes her government has lost

“Theresa May will hit out at the “perverse incentive” of housing industry bonus structures paying out millions of pounds to chief executives as a result of company profits rather than the number of homes built.

The prime minister will make the comments as she unveils a series of measures, previously outlined in the government’s housing white paper, to rewrite the rules on planning in an attempt to boost the speed of housebuilding and ease prices.

She will call the “national housing crisis” one of the biggest barriers to social mobility and argue that she “cannot bring about the kind of society I want to see” without tackling it.

May, who wants to make housing her number one domestic priority, will say she expects “developers to do their duty to Britain and build the homes our country needs”.

Under the plans:

Local authorities will be able to take into account how quickly a developer builds on a site before issuing future planning permission.
Independent inspectors will be given the power to take over decision-making in local areas if “nimby councils” fail to publish housing plans quickly enough.
Staff working for councils and hospitals will be given priority when public land is sold off.
Homeowners will be able to add two storeys to existing properties.
The prime minister will tell the national planning conference in London that developers must play their part too. “The bonuses paid to the heads of some of our biggest developers are based not on the number of homes they build but on their profits or share price,” she will say.

“In a market where lower supply equals higher prices that creates a perverse incentive, one that does not encourage them to build the homes we need.” [Duh – we told her that in 2010 when developers wrote their own rules]

The comments come after a decision to pay the chief executive of housebuilder Persimmon a £110m bonus was widely criticised, with some describing it as “corporate looting”. Jeff Fairburn collected the first £50m worth of shares on New Year’s Eve, while 140 members of senior staff were also in line for more than £500m, with more than 80 receiving in excess of £1m.

While the government cannot force a change in bonus structures, May will hope to pile pressure on companies. [While taking their donations to the Conservative Party and meeting them privately]

Areas where action can be taken include “allowing councils to take a developer’s previous rate of build-out into account when deciding whether to grant planning permission”, May will say.

May will argue that the aim is to improve affordability so that more people can achieve the dream of home ownership.

“I still vividly remember the first home I shared with my husband, Philip. Not only our pictures on the walls and our books on the shelves, but the security that came from knowing we couldn’t be asked to move on at short notice,” she will say.

But she will admit that in much of the country millions who ought to own cannot do so, and prices are being pushed upwards.

“The result is a vicious circle from which most people can only escape with help from the bank of Mum and Dad. If you’re not lucky enough to have such support, the door to home ownership is all too often locked and barred.”

Polly Neate, the chief executive of the housing charity Shelter, said the planning system was not delivering and welcomed the move, but said the evidence would be in the building figures. “It appears the government is waking up to the scale of our housing emergency and the critical need for action which is urgent and bold,” she said.

Steve Turner from the Home Builders Federation said: “We welcome measures to speed up the planning system and stimulate all parts of the market from starter to retirement homes. The industry has delivered big increases in recent years and is committed to working with government to go further and match supply to need.”

However, the shadow housing secretary argued that May should be embarrassed to be “fronting up these feeble measures first announced a year ago”.

“After eight years of failure on housing it’s clear her government has got no plan to fix the housing crisis,” John Healey said.

One industry expert questioned whether linking planning permissions to former build-out rates was workable. He pointed out that permissions were attached to the location, not a particular developer, and many were held by landowners or promoters who would then sell on the site to a housing company.

May will promise to retain protections for the green belt, saying boundaries can only be changed if every “other reasonable option” for places to build needed homes had been explored. Downing Street pointed out that only 10% of England has been built on and only 13% is covered by green belt. But Mark Littlewood, Director General at the Institute of Economic Affairs said the commitment to the Green belt meant the proposals fell “at the first hurdle”.

“I want to see planning permissions going to people who are actually going to build houses, not just sit on land and watch its value rise. Where councils are allocating sufficient land for the homes people need, our new planning rulebook will stop developers building on large sites that aren’t allocated in the plan – something that’s not fair on residents who agree to a plan only to see it ignored.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/04/may-attacks-perverse-incentive-housing-industry-bonuses

Javid says build more expensive houses to solve housing crisis

So, where houses are expensive MORE expensive even more houses must be built because Javid thinks that will bring prices down! Yet developers will still be allowed to make more than 20% profit on EACH development before affordable housing has to be built.

Just watch for the first developer to blame Brexit for house prices that don’t go down, and watch Letwin’s report on land banking get kicked into the long grass!

Remember this is the man who has just given more than £800m earmarked fo4 affordable housing back to the Treasury.

And it will be COUNCILS which are sanctioned when developers keep land with planning consent bare NOT DEVELOPERS.

Well done, Javid, well done. Your developer donors getting bigger profits and councils being forced to bend to developer will – and still youngsters won’t be able to get on the housing ladder.

“Thousands of new homes are to be approved and council Nimbyism curbed, the housing secretary Sajid Javid tells Tim Shipman.

Up to five new garden towns are to be approved for the corridor between Oxford and Cambridge under government plans to launch a “housing revolution” this week.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, Sajid Javid, the housing secretary, said he would give the go-ahead to at least two new towns in the next few weeks and could push for up to three more. The decision comes after ministers agreed to fund a high-speed rail line and an “expressway” for cars between the two leading university towns.

“Along that corridor there’s an opportunity to build at least four or five garden towns and villages with thousands of homes,” Javid said. The first step will be to establish “new town development corporations” for the chosen sites, which will help developers and town planners to “cut through a lot of the bureaucracy”, he said.

Referring to the creation of Milton Keynes in 1967 and the transformation of London’s Docklands in the 1980s, Javid said: “We haven’t been that ambitious for a long time.”

Now that Theresa May’s latest Brexit speech is behind it, the government will return this week to what Javid calls “our No 1 domestic priority”.

He said: “We have a housing crisis in this country. Average house prices in England are eight times average earnings. In London, where we have the most acute shortage, it is 15 times average earnings. That’s not just the worst we have had in England , it’s the worst of any major developed economy.”

Last year 217,000 homes were built, more than double the total in 2010, but well under the 300,000 a year the government is aiming for by 2025.

This week ministers will change the planning rules to try to kick-start house-building “where it is needed” and turn the heat up on “Nimby councils” who have refused to build what is needed.

Tomorrow Javid will unveil a new version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), to get councils to give more land for development. “You’ve got to release it where people are demanding more homes,” he said.

The NPPF will contain new national rules determining how many homes councils should be building each year — taking account of local house prices and wages and the number of key workers in the area. Javid is clear that will force many councils to set higher targets.

“It will no longer allow Nimby councils that don’t really want to build the homes that their local community needs to fudge the numbers,” Javid said. “For the first time it will explicitly take into account the market prices. If you are in an area where the unaffordability ratio is much higher you will have to build even more. It will make clear to councils that this number is a minimum, not a maximum.”

Javid will also launch a crackdown on councils who do not meet targets. He said: “The other thing we’ll introduce is the delivery test. If they say we’re going to plan for 300 a year at the moment there is nothing in the system that checks to see they are actually delivering the 300 and that is going to change.”

Councils who fail to step up will be stripped of their right to decide what gets built in their areas, with decisions made by independent planning inspectors instead. “Developers can only apply for planning permission in the areas the council has identified,” he said. “If the protection of that plan is switched off, a developer can apply for planning permission anywhere in your area.

“This is quite a big sanction for every local authority to not just come up with the right number, but once that number is in place, we are going to be breathing down your neck to make sure you are actually delivering on those numbers.”

Javid says that does not mean building on the green belt, “but it does mean that outside of naturally protected land like woodland and green belt they can pretty much roam everywhere outside that”.

The housing secretary has shown he is prepared to intervene after he threatened 15 councils who had failed to draw up any local plan for development.

“The last time York had a plan was 1954,” he said. “There was the chancellor’s district council, Runnymede. They responded positively. It doesn’t matter who you are or who your MP is, if you haven’t got a plan you will be hearing from me. If a council keeps ignoring its responsibility we can take that planning responsibility away from them and give it to someone else.”

The new planning framework will also seek to make local plans more responsive to their populations’ needs. Javid said: “Our nurses, police officers and fire officers want to live as close as possible to where they serve the British public. We want to make it easier it build and take their needs into account.”

In cities he is keen to see more building upwards. New rules will make it easier for homeowners to add two storeys to their houses — and will clear the way for a large number of mansion blocks to be built.

“The density of London is less than half that of Paris. We don’t want London to end up like Hong Kong,” Javid said, but he wants more “mansion blocks, the kind you might see in Kensington and Chelsea”. He said: “It will be quite surprising how easy we want to make it for people who want to build upwards.”

Further proposals to force developers to build more quickly will be revealed next week when the former cabinet minister Oliver Letwin publishes the interim findings of his report into the problem of land banking by developers.

“We need planning permission to turn into homes,” Javid said. “I don’t think Oliver is going to hold back.”

Javid is aware that failure to deliver could cost the Tories the next election. “We need a housing revolution. We have to show the British public that we are doing everything we reasonably can because if we don’t they will turn to the hard-left ideas of [Jeremy] Corbyn. If that means taking on councils, developers and others that’s what we’re going to do.”

Source: Sunday Times (pay wall)

“Housing ministry returns cash to Treasury”

Affordable homes? Pah, who needs them!

“The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has returned £817m of unspent cash to the Treasury.

According to website Huffington Post, the money includes £329m for the government’s Starter Homes programme, £72m for affordable homes and £52m for estate regeneration.

Labour’s shadow housing secretary, John Healey, said: “If the secretary of state can’t defend his department’s budget from the Treasury he should give the job to someone who can.”

http://www.room151.co.uk/151-news/news-roundup-pwlb-borrowing-reaches-464m-mhclg-returns-unspent-817m-to-treasury-us-firm-enters-advice-market/

EDDC, the property consultant and Premier Inns – a worrying menage-a-trois?

From East Devon Alliance Facebook page:

“Look who’s coming to advise our Council: Item 7 on Overview agenda, March 13th.

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/…/130318-overview-agenda-combined.p…
Do we trust these people? Public can attend the meeting”

Anyone recall a few years ago, Tesco was flavour of the month? Now it seems to be Premier Inns.

Oh, and JLL was the company that chose Moirai as the lead developer for the first ill-fated stab at seafront development in Exmouth!

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2016/07/18/exmouth-eddc-backtracks-on-moirai-capital-investments-seafront-development-up-for-grabs-again/

The blurb that goes with this agenda item says:

“Matters for Debate 7 JLL presentation – Commercial Property Investment for Local Authorities JLL is a leading professional services firm that specializes in real estate and investment management. A Fortune 500 company, JLL helps real estate owners, occupiers and investors achieve their business ambitions.

Presenting Team John Kinsey, National Director John Kinsey joined the practice in November 2003 and has over 30 years of experience within the property markets throughout the South West. He has considerable experience in out-of-town leisure and retail developments along with High Street A3 developments. He is the representative for Whitbread Plc for their Premier Inn hotel chain throughout the South West. He has advised a number of local authorities on key project work and regeneration schemes. Simon Bennett, National Director Simon joined Jones Lang LaSalle in October 1995. He has 22 years’ experience within the Investment Department, specialising in the disposal and acquisition of a variety of properties across the whole of the South West. His clients are a wide range of institutional, local authority, property companies and private investors, together with a number of charity clients. Recent clients include CBRE Global Investors, AEW, IO Group, Standard Life and Mayfair Capital. David Roberts, Director A Director in JLL’s Planning and Development Team with a focus on the preparation and implementation of effective estate strategies for a range of public sector clients. David also currently works on a significant number of commercial and residential regeneration projects across the South West. His specialist skills include concept development, masterplanning, options appraisal, viability analysis, due diligence, business planning and estate strategy, implementation strategy, development partner procurement, agency and funding support.

Presentation JLL will be presenting and discussing with the council the recent drive by local authorities to enter into the commercial investment market and how this is being used for both income generation and regeneration projects.

They will present a number of case studies and also discuss case studies where local authorities have used their covenant to enable regeneration and investment opportunities.“

Majority of councils fear effect of Brexit

ALL councils, irrespective of who is in control – scary!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/03/council-leaders-across-uk-believe-brexit-will-hurt-local-economy

Developers and loopholes – go together like a horse and carriage!

Owl says: as millions of pounds meant to be used for affordable homes was returned to the Treasury by the Department of Communities, Local Government and HOUSING, we can only assume this government doesn’t give a stuff about this.

“Property developers have used a legal loophole to halve the number of affordable homes that they are building in the countryside.

A study of more than 150 new housing developments found that confidential viability assessments had been used to cut the number of affordable houses by 48 per cent. The assessments let developers break promises made to get planning permission, if they can show those commitments will eat into profits.

The research, which was commissioned by Shelter, the charity for the homeless, and the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), found that eight rural councils lost 938 affordable homes after viability studies over the course of a year. “The viability loophole is slashing affordable housing supply in the countryside,” the report said. “The profits of volume housebuilders are rocketing, yet affordable housing provision by the same developers is being undercut on the grounds that it is not profitable enough.”

In one instance in Cornwall, the owners of a disused tin and copper mine promised that 40 per cent of the site’s 99 new homes would be affordable. They cut that commitment to zero with a viability study. The owners then advertised the plot for sale, boasting in the brochure that all of the plots had been approved for “open market housing” without any “liabilities”.

Central Bedfordshire, which was the worst affected of the eight councils in the study, lost 533 affordable homes in the 2015-2016 financial year.

Affordable housing includes homes for social rent, shared ownership and other intermediate tenures. “The term affordable in this context does not necessarily mean that these homes are in fact genuinely affordable to local people,” the report said.

The profits of Britain’s three biggest builders, Barratt Developments, Taylor Wimpey and Persimmon Homes, have quadrupled since 2012 to £2.2 billion a year. Yet they regularly cite financial constraints to reduce the percentage of affordable homes at new developments.

At Sowerby Gateway in North Yorkshire, Taylor Wimpey promised to build 256 affordable homes. A viability study cut that promise to zero. “Too much of our countryside is eaten up for developments that boost profits, but don’t meet local housing needs because of the viability loopholes,” said Crispin Truman, the chief executive of CPRE.

Councils can challenge viability studies but the government has guaranteed big builders at least a 20 per cent profit. If the builders can show that they stand to make less, the government will side with them.

“Developers are using this legal loophole to overpower local communities and are refusing to build the affordable homes they need,” said Polly Neate, the chief executive of Shelter.

Sajid Javid, the communities secretary, has promised to review how “viability is assessed” when he starts a consultation next week to overhaul the planning laws.

Separate research by the Institute for Public Policy Research, a think tank, found that the number of people sleeping rough in rural parts of England increased by 42 per cent from 397 in 2010 to 565 in 2016.

Houses are 26 per cent more expensive in the countryside because of pressure from wealthy retirees and buyers of second homes, but wages in rural areas are 26 per cent lower, which has created an exodus of young families.

Andrew Whitaker, from the Home Builders Federation, an industry body, said local authority targets were always negotiable. “There is a limit as to what can be extracted from development sites before they become unviable and you get no homes of any sort,” he said.”

Source: Times (paywall)

Government gave special treatment to failing private training provider

“The government gave England’s largest commercial further education provider ‘special treatment’ even though its performance was declining, a group of MPs concluded.

A Public Accounts Committee report out today has criticised the government’s continued commitment to its multi-million pound contract with Learndirect.

The report shows that the Education and Skills Funding Agency and its predecessor the Skills Funding Agency gave Learndirect almost £500m in the academic years from 2013-14 to 2016-17.

However, the PAC also notes that the quality of Learndirect’s apprenticeships have been in steady decline – Ofsted gave it a rating of ‘good’ in March 2013 but downgraded this to the lowest possible rating of ‘inadequate’ in March 2017.

Learndirect instigated a legal challenge challenging the ‘inadequate’ rating, which delayed the publication of Ofsted’s inspection report.

The Department for Education would normally cancel an ‘inadequate’ provider’s contract and withdraw funding immediately, but Learndirect warned that this would impact its 75,000 learners.

The government has since said it is ending Learndirect’s contract to provide apprenticeships and adult education.

Learndirect received £121m from central government in 2016-17 and is expected to get another £105m in the current financial year, the PAC pointed out.

PAC chair Meg Hillier said: “It cannot be right that individual contractors should command such large sums of public money regardless of their performance.

“No commercial provider should be allowed to become so essential to the delivery of services that it cannot be allowed to fail.”

She added: “Government has a duty to manage taxpayers’ exposure to risk diligently and we urge it to act on the recommendations set out in our report. … ”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2018/03/dfe-gave-inadequate-training-provider-learndirect-special-treatment

Tory donor puts screws on tenants in Grenfell-type block

“A company run by a property tycoon who recently made a five figure donation to the Tories is forcing the residents of a block of flats with flammable cladding foot the bill for safety measures.

The latest party funding figures reveal the Tories pocketed £10,000 from Ashcorn Estates Limited, which is owned by James Tuttiett, a multimillionaire who lives in a £1.6 million farm house which has its own vineyard.

Another of his companies, E&J Estates, has been in the news recently.

It owns an apartment block in Salford which was found to have been constructed with a similar type of cladding to the one used on the Grenfell Tower.

The Guardian reported last month that E&J have told residents that they have to pay the £100,000 cost of interim fire wardens needed to make the building safe until the cladding is replaced.

The company even took legal action to enforce the charge, which one resident said would cost him an extra £235-a-month.

Matthew Crisp told the Manchester Evening News:

“I’m worried this now sets a precedent for us to foot the bill for the cladding too, and that’s devastating, as I don’t know if I’ll be able to continue living in my home.”

Crisp’s fears aren’t unfounded.

Scrapbook revealed in January how residents living in a building owned by a separate millionaire Tory donor were forced to pay the £2 million to replace flammable cladding.

The Government say they are clear that “private sector landlords follow the lead of the social sector and not pass on the costs of essential fire safety works.”

So why do the Tories keep taking their money?”

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2018/03/company-of-tory-donor-forcing-residents-of-flats-with-grenfell-style-cladding-to-pay-for-fire-safety-measures/

“Clean coal” – like “cheap nuclear energy”?

Substitute “nuclear energy” (or perhaps Hinkley C!) to see what can go wrong with flagship, vanity energy projects that ignore renewable power:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/02/clean-coal-america-kemper-power-plant

“Public at risk from ‘daily cocktail of pollution’ “

We can all do more – but big institutions can do a lot more. AND our councils can lead … sorry could lead if there was the foresight and will. Has our CCG – always thinking of our health (lol) – considered this? You bet not!

“People are being exposed to a daily cocktail of pollution that may be having a significant impact on their health, England’s chief medical officer says.

Prof Dame Sally Davies said the impact of air, light and noise pollution was well recognised in the environment.
But she said its role in terms of health was yet to be fully understood.

Dame Sally added there was enough evidence to suggest action had to be taken. And, in her annual report, she said the NHS could lead the way in cutting pollution levels. She said one in 20 vehicle journeys was linked to the NHS, either from patients or staff travelling.

Seven charts that explain the plastic pollution problem
And making sure services were brought out of hospitals and closer to people’s homes could help reduce that burden.
Dame Sally also pointed to the attempts being made to phase out ambulances run on diesel, a key source of nitrogen dioxide, which is linked to respiratory disease.

And she said the NHS could cut its use of disposable plastics, landfill and incineration. …”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43246263

“NHS England treats too many patients as an emergency, watchdog warns”

“The ageing population and other unexplained factors mean hospitals are now treating 5.8 million patients as emergency admissions every year, 24% more than a decade ago, the NAO found. Together they cost the health service £13.7bn, almost a 10th of its budget, and account for 33.59m bed days.

Its hard-hitting report, published on Friday, praises NHS England’s handling of the extra numbers but also criticises its failure to put in place enough services outside of hospitals to keep patients healthier.

The watchdog believes this lack of provision underpins its finding that 24% of emergency admissions are avoidable, implying that £3.43bn a year of NHS funds may be being wasted on people who, with better care, would not have ended up falling ill.

GPs offered cash to refer fewer people to hospital
The NAO said: “The impact on hospitals of rising emergency admissions poses a serious challenge to both the service and financial position of the NHS.”

It acknowledged that hospitals have done well to reduce the overall impact of rising emergency admissions in recent years, in particular by reducing patients’ length of stay and treating more patients as day cases.

But it warned: “[The health service] cannot know if its approach is achieving enduring results until it understands whether reported increases in readmissions are a sign that some people admitted as an emergency are being discharged too soon.

“The NHS also still has too many avoidable admissions and too much unexplained variation. A lot of effort is being made and progress can be seen in some areas, but the challenge of managing emergency admissions is far from being under control.”

The NAO cast serious doubt on whether key government-backed NHS initiatives to keep people out of increasingly overloaded hospitals have proved effective. The NHS’s longstanding policy of reducing its supply of beds has made things even more difficult for hospitals trying to deal with rising emergency admissions, the watchdog added.

The latest NHS data published on Thursday on how health services are coping with winter’s intense pressures shows that 95.3% of hospital beds were occupied last week – more than 10% more than the limit considered necessary for patient safety.

The NAO also voiced concern that the number of emergency admissions varies from 73 to 155 per 1,000 overall admissions in different parts of England, suggesting NHS trusts’ admission policies appear to be inconsistent and possibly wasteful.

NHS organisations and health unions endorsed the NAO’s conclusion that health service leaders’ failure to create and deliver more services in and nearer patients’ homes, despite promises to do so, was a key factor behind the upward trend in admissions.

The number of nurses working in NHS community services fell by 15% between 2010 and 2017, the Royal College of Nursing pointed out.

“People, particularly older people, are not getting the support they need in the community, which leads to more emergency admissions and dangerous levels of bed occupancy when demand is high, as we have seen this winter”, said Donna Kinnair, the RCN’s director of nursing, policy and practice.

Saffron Cordery, the deputy chief executive of NHS Providers, which represents hospitals, said proper community services were “central to the [NHS’s] ambitions” to transform the way it cares for patients. However, she added, efforts to do so had been hampered by underfunding and such care not being seen as a priority.

Prof Keith Willett, NHS England’s medical director for acute care, said: “As the report states, there are 12% fewer A&E patients being admitted than was predicted at the start of the decade, and hospitals, community trusts and GPs trialling new models of care have meaningfully reduced admissions compared with their peers.

“In addition, growth in the cost of managing emergency admissions has been less than a third of the growth in demand.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/02/nhs-england-too-many-patients-as-emergency-nao-warns

RDE declares crisis

Well, we didn’t see that one coming did we – after more than 200 of our community beds were closed.

How on earth do you “prioritise patients in currently in your care” when emergencies happen and when your next nearest large hospitals are 40-90 miles away and having their own crises?

Here’s an idea: have community hospitals and move dying, improving or rehabilitation patients closer to their homes, freeing up acute beds!

“The severity of today’s weather has resulted in the Royal Devon & Exeter Hospital declaring a status of ‘internal critical incident’.

The warning means that care is being prioritised to patients already in its care, and it is calling on all available staff to come in to work.

Pete Adey, RD&E chief operating officer, said: “Due to the adverse weather conditions the trust, earlier today, declared an internal critical incident. This means we are diverting all available staff and resources to provide care for the patients who are in the hospital and receiving care from our community teams.

“We are asking staff within walking distance of the RD&E’s main Wonford site to come in and provide help if it is safe for them to do so.

“As we expect the weather conditions to continue, our focus for the next 24 hours is to provide urgent and emergency services and to look after the patients already in our care.

“In view of the treacherous driving conditions, patients should only attend their booked appointments if it is safe to do so. Appointments for all of the patients who cannot reach the hospital and those we have needed to postpone in light of the weather conditions will be rescheduled as soon as possible.”

The RD&E advised Honiton Minor Injuries Unit will reopen at 9am tomorrow.

Tiverton and Exmouth MIUs are open as normal at this time but may be subject to change. Regular updates will be provided.

Mr Adey continued: “We sincerely thank the public for their help and support at this challenging time and pay tribute to our staff who are working incredibly hard to keep our essential urgent and emergency services running.”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/devon-hospital-declares-internal-critical-1285163

Privatisation: Network Rail assets likely to be sold off to billionaire equity funds

“Private equity firms, including Guy Hands’ Terra Firma, have emerged as contenders to take over Network Rail’s commercial property business, fuelling further dismay over the forced sale of assets to fund the budget shortfall.

The US investment giant Blackstone is understood to be another bidder for the rail property arm, which includes about 5,500 premises across England and Wales and is estimated to be worth £1.2bn.

According to Sky News, about 20 parties are expected to table preliminary bids on Friday, including Telereal Trillium, owned by the billionaire Pears family, and also funds linked to the Wall Street bank Goldman Sachs.

Much of the property is in urban areas under railway arches, and often let to small businesses such as bars, garages and hairdressers. The portfolio generated a large proportion of Network Rail’s total rental income of £293m in 2017. Network Rail has said existing tenants will retain their leases under the new landlords.

The involvement of Guernsey-based Terra Firma was revealed a month after a scathing report from the National Audit Office found the government had lost up to £4.2bn in a previous sell-off to part of Hands’ private equity group. The Ministry of Defence sold 57,400 army homes for military families for £1.66bn in 1997 to Annington Homes, and then rented them, which the public accounts committee chair, Meg Hillier, described as “a rotten deal for taxpayers”.

Terra Firma has also attracted attention for its management of the crisis-hit Four Seasons Health Care, whose care homes look after 17,000 elderly people in the UK and which is seeking a rescuer.

The sale of Network Rail assets, including some depots but no stations, was agreed as a condition of George Osborne (who was then the chancellor) releasing more funds in 2015 to continue promised infrastructure work. Network Rail hoped to raise £1.8bn towards a £2.5bn shortfall. A host of rail upgrades in a five-year plan from 2014-19 were cancelled after the budget for electrifying the Great Western mainline alone overran by approximately £2bn. …”

Unions and campaigners condemned the sale. Mick Cash, general secretary of the RMT union, said: “This is the same old bunch of chancers, speculators and asset strippers queuing up to make another killing at the expense of our public services. These property assets make a decent income for Network Rail and once they are gone they are gone, smashing another gaping hole in the rail infrastructure budget.” …

… Cat Hobbs, of the campaign group We Own It, said: “Railway land belongs to all of us – we don’t want it parcelled up and sold to the highest bidder. This is an asset which generates millions every year, money which should be returned to the public purse not disappear into private profits.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/mar/01/guy-hands-emerges-as-bidder-in-national-rails-property-sell-off

Bovis pays out £10.5 m to repair sub-standard homes

“Profits at Bovis slumped last year after the housebuilder was forced to spend millions of pounds repairing poorly-built homes and fending off takeover attempts by rivals Galliford Try and Redrow.

The company was criticised after rushing the construction of some properties and offering customers cash to move into unfinished houses, some of which had plumbing and electrical problems.

The scandal has so far forced it to spend £10.5m on repairs, including £3.5m in 2017. Other one-off costs last year included £4m for restructuring and £2.8m on advisory fees as it tried to see off the takeover bids.

The charges dragged down Bovis’s annual pre-tax profits, which fell 26pc to £114m. Revenues dipped 3pc to around £1bn, despite a 7pc hike in its average selling price to £272,000.

The housebuilder’s previous chief executive David Ritchie resigned last January, just days before the quality scandal came to light, after Bovis was forced to issue a profit warning because it had struggled to build as many homes as expected in 2016. …”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/03/01/bovis-profits-slump-35m-payout-botched-homes/