Category Archives: Accountability

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Planning System

Home ownership – a hopeless dream for most young people

Home Affront: housing across the generations

a report by the Resolution Foundation

Key findings

“After those born in 1946-50, every cohort has experienced lower home ownership rates than its predecessor at the same age. Today’s families headed by 30 year olds are only half as likely to own their home as the baby boomer generation was at the same age, and home ownership has declined across all regions and income groups.

With falling home ownership and a shrinking social rented sector, four out of every ten 30 year olds now live in private rented accommodation – in contrast to one in ten 50 years ago.

Millennials have also been more likely to be living with their parents in their mid-20s than previous cohorts, while families are much less likely to house their elderly parents than they were in the past.

While the average family spent just 6 per cent of their income on housing costs in the early 1960s, this has trebled to 18 per cent. Housing costs have taken up a growing proportion of disposable income from each generation to the next. This is true of private and social renters, but mortgage interest costs have come down for recent generations. However, the proportion of income being spent on capital repayments has risen relentlessly from generation to generation thanks to house price growth.

The quality of housing has in many respects improved hugely. But millennial-headed households are more likely than previous generations to live in overcrowded conditions, and when we look at the distribution of square meterage we see today’s under-45s have been net losers in the space stakes compared to previous cohorts, while over-45s are net gainers.
More recent generations have also had longer commutes on average than previous cohorts, despite spending more on housing.

We conclude by modelling what the future might hold for today’s young people. Based on historic relationships between a range of factors and home ownership growth, an optimistic set of assumptions would imply that these cohorts could make up much of the lost ground on home ownership. However, if similar trends to the 2002-2012 were to return, less than half of millennials will buy a home before the age of 45 compared to over 70 per cent of baby boomers who had done so by that age.

Clearly there is scope for political determination to make a difference to the housing outlook, and future work for the Intergenerational Commission will consider what action should be taken.”

http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/home-affront-housing-across-the-generations/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, East Devon Alliance, Health and Social Care (local), Martin Shaw (Seaton), NHS (local), Scrutiny, Transparency

EDA DCC Councillor Martin Shaw asks council to scrutinise ownership and governance of community hospitals

PRESS RELEASE from DCC Councillor Martin Shaw (Seaton and Colyton):

“Tomorrow I am asking the committee to consider a proposal on ‘Ownership, Community Stakeholding and the Governance of Community Hospitals’, the briefing note for which is copied below and is self-explanatory:

Ownership, Community Stakeholding and the Governance of Community Hospitals

Community hospitals in Devon have always been built and maintained with a high degree of community involvement and support. In many cases, local communities took the initiative to build the hospitals and raised a substantial part of the original funding, or even the entire funding of additional wings and facilities, as well as contributing to staff and other running costs, the introduction of new specialist services, etc.

Unlike Private Finance Initiatives undertaken in partnership with private companies, these ‘community finance initiatives’ – which sought no profit from their investments other than the improvement of the facilities and services they enabled – appear not to have secured their interests in the hospitals they helped to build. The Leagues of Friends and others who raised funds for hospitals trusted that their investments would continue to be used for the benefit of place-based health services in their local area.

Since the 2012 Health and Social Care Act, however, the organisation of the NHS has changed and the ownership of NHS buildings is in the process of being transferred to a new company, NHS Property Services, wholly owned by the Secretary of State and charged with managing the NHS estate in line with national priorities. NHS Property Services is enabled to sell off parts of the estate and to charge NHS organisations market rents for their use of NHS buildings.

This change creates dilemmas for local communities which have invested in Devon community hospitals. Clearly Leagues of Friends and other local bodies, including town and parish councils as representatives of communities which have raised large amounts of funding, can be considered ‘stakeholders’ in community hospitals. However these community stakeholders appear not to possess formal rights in the ownership and governance of the hospitals.

The proposal is that the Health and Adult Care Scrutiny undertake an investigation into

1. The changing ownership and governance of community hospitals in Devon and its implications.
2. The historic and ongoing contributions of local communities and Leagues of Friends to funding the hospitals.
The purpose of this investigation would be to address the question of
3. How community stakeholders’ interests should be secured in the future governance of community hospitals.

It is envisaged that in the course of this investigation, the Committee would both collect evidence and invite expressions of views from all stakeholders, including both local community organisations and NHS bodies, including NHS Property Services.

Martin Shaw
Independent East Devon Alliance County Councillor for Seaton & Colyton”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Asset Management Group, EDDC, EDDC HQ, Exmouth, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, PegasusLife, Post-Brexit Adjustments, Scrutiny, SWAP (EDDC internal audit)

Council’s £1 million overspend investigated; our council’s multimillion overspend on new HQ not investigated!

OUR council has already spent nearly that much on its satellite HQ in Exmouth. The Honiton HQ was supposed to be cost neutral with the proceeds of the £7 Knowle sale to PegasusLife but latest estimates (some while ago and not adjusted for post-Brexit soaring costs) was around £10 million.

How come SWAP could do this in Herefordshire but not in East Devon. Or why KPMG – its new auditors – are not doing it now?

“A special investigation into how the costs of establishing a joint customer services hub in a refurbished building soared from £950,000 to more than £1.9m has found evidence that officers “knowingly disregarded council process and procedures”.

The investigation into the Blueschool House refurbishment was carried out by the South West Audit Partnership for Herefordshire Council. The local authority has been working with the Department of Work and Pensions on the project. Have we ever seen the (updated) business case for the new HQ?

The business case for the hub was approved by the council’s Director of Resources on 13 May 2016 and the key decision taken on 2 June 2016 was approved by the Cabinet Member Contracts and Assets.

The SWAP report said: “Overall the council’s normal governance processes have not been followed by key officers involved in the Blueschool House refurbishment.

The key decision did follow the correct governance process however the business case to support the key decision lacked clarity over what works would be included in the £950K agreed financial envelope.

“It would appear that key staff including senior officers at Director level were aware of the council processes and procedures but these have not been applied during this project and there is evidence that officers have knowingly disregarded council process and procedure.”

The investigation found that although there were early indications from the framework provider that the project could not be delivered within the financial envelope even with value engineering, key officers failed to report this to Cabinet.

The report also said:

The rationale for the selection of the contractor could not be demonstrated as there were no records to support this. The property services team had responded to client requests without providing robust challenge, and had not followed the council procedure rules in relation to procurement.

The relationship between the property services team and contractors appeared to be informal for a capital project of this value and throughout the project there was little evidence that value for money could be demonstrated.

In line with the capital guidance, major projects should be overseen by a project board. The Accommodation Programme Board had oversight of the overall accommodation strategy until November 2016 however, there was no project board for the Blueschool House refurbishment project.

The timescale of the project was identified as a major risk in the business case as the project was subject to a time constraint pressure due to the DWP serving notice on their current property. This was a key factor in ensuring the project was progressed and had contributed to the overall poor governance.

The SWAP report said it was “for management to consider and determine whether any further action such as disciplinary action, should be taken against individual officers as it is clear there has been disregard for processes and procedures which has resulted in a significant overspend on the project”.

The report was due to be considered by the council’s audit and governance committee at a meeting this week (20 September).”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Scrutiny, Standards Committee

“Ministers to tighten disqualification criteria for councillors and mayors”

“Individuals who are given an anti-social behaviour injunction or a criminal behaviour order or who are added to the sex offenders’ register will no longer be able to be a councillor or elected mayor, under reforms put out to consultation this week.

The Department for Communities and Local Government said the planned changes to the disqualification criteria for councillors and mayors “would ensure those who represent their communities are held to the highest possible standards”.

Under the current rules anyone convicted of an offence carrying a prison sentence of more than three months is banned from serving as a local councillor.

Local Government Minister Marcus Jones said that while this might have prevented criminals from becoming councillors, it did not reflect modern sentencing practices.

He added: “Councillors hold an important position of trust and authority in communities across England. We need to hold them to the highest possible standards.

“The current rules are letting residents and councils down by not preventing people who should never be considered for such roles from standing for election.

“The changes the government is proposing would help make sure anyone convicted of a serious crime, regardless of whether it comes with a custodial sentence, will not be able to serve as a councillor.”

The DCLG said the proposed measures would “bring rules much more into the present day” by including the alternatives to a prison sentence also becoming a barrier to being a councillor.

The changes, if implemented, will apply to councillors and mayors in parish, town, local, county and unitary councils, combined authorities and the Greater London Authority.

The ban would prevent an individual standing in an election or if they are already a councillor or mayor, require them to stand down.

The consultation, which can be viewed here, runs until

5 pm on 8 December 2017

It proposes updating the disqualification criteria in section 80 of the Local Government Act 1972, paragraph 9 of schedule 5B to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, and section 21 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to prohibit those subject to the notification requirements (commonly referred to as ‘being on the sex offenders register’) and those subject to certain anti-social behaviour sanctions from being local authority members, London Assembly members or directly-elected mayors.

The consultation does not propose changing the disqualification criteria for Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs).

The proposals do not extend to the Council of the Isles of Scilly or the Common Council of the City of London.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Planning System

How much bigger does the housing scandal need to get before SOMEONE does SOMETHING?

“Millennials are spending three times more of their income on housing than their grandparents yet are often living in worse accommodation, says a study launched by former Conservative minister David Willetts that warns of a “housing catastrophe”.

The generation currently aged 18-36 are typically spending over a third of their post-tax income on rent or about 12% on mortgages, compared with 5%-10% of income spent by their grandparents in the 1960s and 1970s. Despite spending more, young people today are more likely to live in overcrowded and smaller spaces, and face longer journeys to work – commuting for the equivalent of three days a year more than their parents.” …

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/20/millennials-spend-three-times-more-of-income-on-housing-than-grandparents

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Claire Wright, Democracy, General Election, Independent Councillors, Proportional representation, Scrutiny, Voting

“Do we need political parties?”

A view from a German writer:

“In many Western countries, party structures are dissolving. Traditional political organisations are disintegrating, being swept away by new movements, or infiltrated by fresh members. There is not much left of the once-defining role of classical parties. And the examples are abundant.

In France, the traditional party system has decayed. The Socialists, after being the governing party in Paris until spring, have practically ceased to exist. Other traditional parties have also been hit hard, replaced by movements such as Emmanuel Macron’s “En Marche!” and Jean-Luc Melenchon’s “La France insoumise”.

The US’ once-lofty Republicans – the self-proclaimed “Grand Old Party” – have now disintegrated into separate wings, whose positions differ to the extent that a common programme is hardly recognisable. And the party organisation is so weak that it could be captured by a non-politician like Donald Trump.

Until recently in the UK, the Labour Party, which had been positioned in the pragmatic centre, has moved vehemently to the left. It was infiltrated by an influx of often young new members, who celebrate the party’s leader, Jeremy Corbyn – formerly a marginal figure in the political life of the island – as a pop star.

In Italy, the populist Five Star Movement of former comedian Beppe Grillo has been unsettling the political system for some years. On the right, the former regional party “Lega Nord” is expanding with new national-populist content.

There’s an evolving pattern. Traditional political structures are breaking up, liquefying political systems. People are becoming more important than parties, and posing seems more relevant than policies.

Politicians who have served their time and worked their way up through party ranks are ousted by outside figures with star attributes – cheered along by citizens, who suddenly behave like fans. [Watch out Hugo!]

Still, there’s a prominent exception: Germany.

Or so it would seem. Large parties and their established top figures still dominate the political scene. At the top are well-tempered characters like Angela Merkel, the chancellor, and Martin Schulz, the Social Democratic contender. And, above all, both of them promise that as little as possible is going change.

But this is just the visible surface. In Germany, like elsewhere in Europe, the political system is being transformed. Anger and frustration are on the rise – sentiments which parties like the far-right AfD are only able capture to a small extent.

The next federal government will likely be formed by a coalition that promises stability on the verge of boredom. However, this does not preclude the possibility of unexpected turns in regard to specific topics.”

https://euobserver.com/opinion/138989

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, EDDC, Local Enterprise Partnership, Sleaze, Somerset

Comments

1 Comment

Compare and contrast: pay rises

£81,000 to £95,000:

“The board that oversees Glasgow’s three further education colleges has dropped plans to award a 17% pay rise to a senior official.

This followed intervention by the deputy first minister after the proposal was roundly criticised by Holyrood’s public audit committee.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/09/scottish-fe-executives-17-pay-rise-blocked-after-ministerial-intervention

MEANWHILE, here in Devon:

£90,727 to £115,000:

“So, here we are: Somerset County Council theoretically holds the purse strings – except it obviously doesn’t! There is no scrutiny or transparency, no way of stopping this juggernaut that we have never been consulted about.

AND we have no way of knowing how Diviani voted – the LEP doesn’t release such information.

“Chris Garcia, chief executive of the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), could see his pay jump nearly 27% from £90,729 to £115,000. [This was agreed today with the two councils objecting].

“Somerset council leader John Osman said: “The pay of £90,000 is already too much so I believe it should be at least 10% less than that.”

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/01/17/17562/

As a recent commentator points out:

“Two key points:

1. LEP is completely and utterly unaccountable either to the people of the SW directly or via our elected representatives on the CCs.

2. Unlike the Scottish government, the UK government is unwilling to step in in the interests of prudent and acceptable public spending, and by failing to step in is giving the appearance that they promote this sort of excessive pay for their friends (and in some case party sponsors) in what many of would consider a corrupt way.

Funny how there is never any money for essential rank-and-file public sector workers like nurses and firemen and prison officers and the police etc. whose pay rises (when they get them) continue to be below inflation, but they never have anything to say and never take any action when it is their mates and sponsors who are getting them. And if the excuse is because of the weight of their responsibilities and the stresses of the position, why does not that also apply to nurses etc. who face danger and traumatic experiences every day, and whose workloads are increasing due to cuts in staff numbers?

SUMMARY: Its one rule for the Conservative elite and their friends / sponsors, and another for the remaining 95%-98% of the population.

CONSERVATIVES: “For the few not the many.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development

Another savage attack on government failure on affordable and social housing

Owl says: But why is everyone surprised? This is the free market in operation – what Conservatives have ALWAYS believed in. This automatically favours “survival of the fittest” which most often means the most wealthy. Nothing new there. Just get wealthy – problem solved.

Unfortunately, those low down in the pecking order seem to think that, if they vote Conservative, they will be helped to become rich. That isn’t how it works – the rich like their exclusivity and power. Sharing that power with more people isn’t in their interest as it dilutes both – less exclusive, more power-sharing = not a good idea.

Wise up everyone: if you want change in a Tory constituency or in the country, hold your nose and vote for whoever in your constituency is most likely to come second, and make them first. Change IS hard – but it is desperately needed if we are to do the right thing by all generations.

David Orr, National Housing Federation:

““… The prime minister is right that we’ve not paid social housing enough attention. After the tragic fire at Grenfell, this crisis can no longer be ignored. The government must be bold and make a break with the past by making money available to build genuinely affordable homes.

“There’s more than a billion pounds that remains unspent on Starter Homes. Let’s put this money to use and let housing associations build 20,000 of the genuinely affordable homes the nation needs.”

Orr, who is chief executive of the federation, is expected to argue for a complete shift in government policy.

Since 2010 the government has overseen a massive reduction in the provision of homes for social rent, instead focusing on “affordable” rents, which can be as much as 80% of the market value.

A report by the federation, produced to coincide with the conference, says the amount of capital committed by the government to homebuilding has fallen from £11.4bn in 2009 to £5.3bn in 2015.

In combination with this, the decision to stop public funding for social rented homes led to a decline in construction of these from 36,000 starts in 2010/11 to slightly over 3,000 the next year.

The report says the only new social rent homes now are coming either from previous funding commitments or through cross-subsidies within housing associations projects, amounting to just under 1,000 starts in 2016/17.

It says the increase in rented housing stock has instead come from the private sector, with a 57% rise in real terms over the past two decades.

The federation says private rents are on average £21 per week more expensive than their social let equivalents, meaning that over the last 20 years the annual spend on housing benefit has risen from £16.6bn to £25.1bn.

There is another cost, the report says. “Not only is it 23% more expensive to house someone in the private rented sector than social housing, but none of that money increases the supply of new homes.

“Social landlords do reinvest in new homes, building a third of all new homes last year including for social rent from their own funds, but the same does not happen in the private rented sector.”

In his speech, Orr will argue that this is an unsustainable situation. “It is absurd that we’re spending less on building social housing than we did in the 90s – there are even more people today on housing waiting lists than then, despite increasingly stringent criteria.

“We know we need more, better quality social housing. And yet, rather than putting public money into building the homes we need, we are propping up rents in a failing market. Ultimately, this is poor value for the taxpayer and has a knock-on effect on everyone struggling to rent or buy.”

John Healey, the shadow housing secretary, said: “Conservative ministers have washed their hands of any responsibility to build the homes families on ordinary incomes need. Ministers try to hide their failure to build more affordable homes by branding more homes ‘affordable’. The Conservative definition of affordable housing now includes homes close to full market rent and on sale for up to £450,000.

“Public concern about housing is around the highest level for 40 years. Millions of families are struggling with high housing costs. Faced with this, ministers have turned their back on the way they can help most – by building low-cost homes to rent and buy.” …”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Planning System, Rural communities

Times leader column attacks housing developers and the government

(see also post below)

“Anyone who has fielded rival bids for a kitchen extension is likely to be familiar with the pattern: once contracts are signed and work is under way the winning bidder finds ways to cut costs or otherwise boost profits. Committed to the project, the client’s options are to sue or surrender.

In the multibillion-pound business of updating and expanding Britain’s housing stock, the equivalent of the kitchen extension is the mixed-used development that includes affordable housing to be let or sold at below-market rates.

Affordable housing is in critically short supply. This drives up prices in precisely the areas where buyers and the broader housing market need them to come down. It forces low-income families to live farther and farther from places of work, especially in the southeast, and it is storing up trouble for a weak Conservative government with little traction among voters aged under 40.

This is a government that has promised 1.5 million new homes by 2022. In principle almost all these homes are to be built by the private sector. In practice developers are being allowed to game the system by promising generous allocations of affordable housing only to dilute those commitments once planning permission has been granted and building is under way.

Examples of this underhand but technically legal approach are legion in cities. It has now spread to rural Britain too. The country’s biggest builders are rowing back on affordable housing commitments to the extent of 18 much-needed rural homes a day, leading to a projected shortfall of 33,000 affordable homes in the countryside as a whole by the end of this parliament.

The government should be acting to fix the problem. Instead it is making it worse, siding with developers against local councils in 17 of 23 appeals by builders seeking to cut the number of affordable housing units for which they have had to budget since 2013. Worse still, the process is shrouded in secrecy because it hinges on “viability assessments” that developers are allowed to keep confidential unless a court demands wider access.

These assessments should be open to public scrutiny as a matter of course. Sajid Javid, the communities secretary, claims to have adopted an “honest, open and consistent” approach to assessing local housing needs. It is none of these things.

In the housing plans that all local authorities are required to produce, the average requirement for affordable housing in rural areas is 68 per cent of the total. Under pressure from builders that share has fallen to 29 per cent, even as the companies post record profits. Those of the country’s three largest housebuilders have quadrupled since 2012.

Britain is a crowded island. Space for new homes is at a premium. Demand for land reliably outstrips supply. Landowners sell to high bidders who seek guaranteed generous profit margins to protect against downturns in a market that they are helping to overheat.

This is a classic market failure that might warrant state intervention in the form of publicly funded housebuilding to balance supply and demand at the lower end of the property ladder. This government has ruled that out, however, cutting public spending on social housing by 97 per cent since 2010 and on affordable housing by half in the same period.

At the same time, as the head of the National Housing Federation tells its annual conference today, housing benefit payments have risen by 51 per cent over the past two decades, to £25 billion a year, to help to cover inflated private sector rents.

If the government insists on staying out of the housebuilding business itself it must at the very least make affordable housing quotas binding, and high enough to house those unable to get on the housing ladder any other way. The alternative is a property-owning democracy that founders for want of property to own.”

Source: Times (pay wall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Barratt Homes, Developers/ Development, Planning System, Rural communications, Section 106

Comments

1 Comment

Developers, magic money trees and (un)affordable housing

Government thinks 20% profit is acceptable for developers.

We all know that, as developers make their case to cut affordable homes on a development by development basis, and not on aggregate figures, they can make numbers tell any story.

Seems weird that, with this system, as so many developments don’t make enough money to fund affordable homes, their profits soar, their directors get bigger and bigger bonuses and their shareholders get higher and higher dividends.

It’s a magic money tree!

“The countryside is facing a shortfall of 33,000 affordable homes over the next five years despite builders making record profits at a time of rising rural homelessness.

Profits at Britain’s three biggest builders have quadrupled since 2012 to £2.2 billion, yet they regularly cite financial constraints when cutting affordable homes in developments. Builders miss targets for affordable homes in the countryside by 18 houses a day, research by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) shows.

Profits at Barratt Developments, Britain’s biggest developer, increased almost sevenfold from £100 million in 2012 to £682 million last year. Meanwhile, the number of affordable homes fell from 23 per cent of the total built in 2012 to 17 per cent last year.

Developers use “viability studies” under planning laws to pressure local authorities into cutting the requirement for affordable homes. The reports are kept confidential, on commercial grounds, but documents seen by The Times show that officials from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) ruled that 20 per cent profit was a “reasonable” margin for a developer. They backed a builder’s attempt to cut the number of affordable homes at a development in Gloucestershire to safeguard that return.

Sajid Javid, the communities secretary, has said that failing to fix Britain’s “broken housing market . . . would be nothing less than an act of intergenerational betrayal”.

Research by the CPRE found that the government overruled councils fighting house builders in 17 out of 23 appeals since 2013. Matt Thomson, the CPRE’s head of planning, said developers had councils “over a barrel”. “The developers will say, ‘Either you give us the 20 per cent profit we need, otherwise we won’t build the houses’,” he said. “It’s just extortion at the end of the day.”

The charity analysed more than 60 local plans, which are council blueprints for new housing, and found that the average rural authority needed 68 per cent of new homes to be affordable. Affordable housing includes shared ownership schemes, council houses and properties owned by housing associations which are rented at no more than 80 per cent of the market rate.

In practice, the councils cut the official requirement to just 29 per cent affordable, on the ground that developers would never agree to 68 per cent. Even that has proven unachievable. Just 26 per cent of new homes in the countryside were classed as affordable over the past three years. The average rural authority is short of 46 affordable homes a year. Across 145 rural authorities in England that is a shortfall of 6,670 homes a year.

A separate report by the Institute for Public Policy Research found that 6,270 rural households became homeless in 2016, part of a 40 per cent rise in rough sleeping since 2010. The centre-left think thank partly blamed “shortages in affordable homes”.

Polly Neate, the head of Shelter, a charity for the homeless, said the crisis would only get worse “if we keep letting developers off the hook”.

The Home Builders Federation, which represents developers, said local authorities “should be realistic”. “Making projects unviable reduces overall housing supply, including the supply of more affordable housing,” Andrew Whitaker, its planning director, said.

Georgina Butler, head of affordable housing at Barratt, said the company was “absolutely committed to delivering the homes of all types that the country needs”.

A spokesman for the DCLG said almost 333,000 affordable homes had been built since 2010, more than 102,000 in rural local authorities.

A funding crisis in social housing will continue unless the government “breaks with the past” to provide financial backing for new affordable homes, the head of an influential housing sector body will say today.

Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money could be saved by building social housing instead of channelling housing benefit to private landlords, David Orr, chief executive of the National Housing Federation, will tell the organisation’s annual conference.

The government decided in 2010 that no further public money would be made available to finance social housing, which provides accommodation at below-market rents to those on low incomes.

Britain needs to build about 250,000 new homes a year to cope with an existing shortage and a growing population, but only 141,000 homes were built last year.

About a million families are on the housing waiting list, said the NHF, which represents housing associations and social landlords.

In a report published today, the NHF says that the government is now spending “more than ever” on housing benefit to accommodate people in private rentals instead of cheaper social homes, which cost £21 a week less per person.

The amount of housing benefit channelled to private landlords almost doubled in the last decade to £9.1 billion.

“This is poor value for the taxpayer and has a knock-on effect on everyone struggling to rent or buy,” the NHF said.”

Source: Times (pay wall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Corruption, Developers/ Development, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Somerset

Comments

1 Comment

6 Somerset estate agents fined £370,000 for commission price-fixing

CMA fines estate agents cartel £370,000 for rate fixing

“A group of estate agents who secretly conspired to keep their fees high to make “as much profit as possible” have been fined £370,000 for operating an illegal cartel.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said this was the second time in two-and-a-half years that it had taken enforcement action against estate agents, and this latest case raised concerns that the sector “does not properly understand the seriousness of anti-competitive conduct and the consequences of breaking competition law”.

The six estate agents, all based in the Burnham-on-Sea area of Somerset, had a meeting and agreed to fix their minimum commission rates at 1.5%, thereby denying local homeowners the chance of getting a better deal when selling their homes. Between them the agents dominated the local area: their market share was said to be potentially as high as 95%.

The CMA said it was publishing full details of the case to remind other agents to comply with the law and avoid being fined.

Penalties totalling £370,084 were imposed on five firms: Abbott and Frost Estate Agents Limited, Gary Berryman Estate Agents Ltd (and its ultimate parent company Warne Investments Limited), Greenslade Taylor Hunt, Saxons PS Limited, and West Coast Property Services (UK) Limited.

The sixth, Annagram Estates Limited, trading as CJ Hole, has not been fined as it was the first to confess its involvement in the arrangement and cooperated with the investigation.

The price-fixing cartel was formed in early 2014 when the estate agents met with each other to “have a chat about fees”.

Email evidence showed that the agents’ rationale was “With a bit of talking and cooperation between us, we all win!”. The correspondence also explained how “the aim of the meeting … will be to drive the fee level up to 1.5%” and “… it’s really important we all give it the priority it deserves (making as much as profit as possible!)”.

The estate agents took steps to ensure the minimum fee agreement was kept to by emailing each other when a specific issue arose, such as accusations of “cheating” on their agreement. Each business also took it in turn to “police” the cartel to make sure everyone was sticking to the agreement.

However, in December 2015 the CMA carried out searches of the estate agent offices and seized documents and digital material. Stephen Blake, senior director of cartel enforcement, said: “Cartels are a form of cheating. They are typically carried out in secret to make you think you are getting a fair deal, even though the businesses involved are conspiring to keep prices high.”

He added: “We have taken action against estate agents before and remain committed to tackling competition law issues in the sector.”

In May 2015 the CMA ruled that three members of an association of estate and letting agents, the association itself, and a newspaper publisher infringed competition law. That case involved the advertising of fees in the area around Fleet in Hampshire, and resulted in penalties totalling more than £735,000 being imposed.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/sep/18/cma-fines-cartel-of-estate-agents-rate-fixing-burnham-on-sea

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Lobbying, Sleaze

Minister criticises her own government on charity gagging

“A minister today took a swipe at her own Government for refusing to relax rules restricting the campaigning charities can do the year before elections.

The Government last week revealed it will not amend the controversial Lobbying Act – despite a government commissioned review calling for major changes.

And in a move suggesting division in the heart of government over the decision, civil society minister Tracey Crouch retweeted an article criticising the decision.

The article warned the decision will fuel concerns that Theresa May’s administration is a ‘weak minority Government that largely only has eyes for Brexit’.

And it questioned what influence Ms Crouch ‘genuinely has within Government’ if she has not been able to convince her fellow ministers of the need for change.

‘A divided government bogged down by Brexit doesn’t have the time or the inclination to push through sensible changes to poorly-drafted legislation.
‘Tracey Crouch deserves credit for speaking out but the truth is the country is suffering as a result’. …”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4895914/Tracey-Crouch-s-swipe-government-charity-lobbying.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Education (local)

Teacher training (cuts) bite

“Efforts to improve teacher training and retention have failed to demonstrate a positive impact or value for money, according to the National Audit Office.

A report from the spending watchdog, out on Tuesday last week, showed although schools were spending about £21bn a year on training teachers there remained a problem with staff retention.

Amyas Morse, head of NAO, said: “Schools are facing real challenges in retaining and developing their teachers, with growing pupil numbers and tighter budgets.

“The trends over time and variation between schools are concerning, and there is a risk that the pressure on teachers will grow.”

The NAO noted government spending on training and supporting new teachers went down from £555m in 2013/14 to £35.7m in 2016-17 on programmes for teacher development and retention, of which £91,000 was aimed at improving teacher retention.

Growing workloads were cited as an issue for the sector, the watchdog NAO, and that in 2016 34,910 teachers (8.1% of the qualified workforce) left for reasons other than retirement.

In an NAO teacher survey, 67% of respondents reported that workload is a barrier to retention.

A Department for Education survey found classroom teachers and middle leaders worked, on average, 54.4 hours during the reference week in March 2016, including the weekend.

The loss of some existing staff comes against the background of an overall increase in the number of teachers in state-funded schools in England which went up by 15,500 (3.5%) between 2010 and 2016, reaching 457,300 in total last year.

But the number of secondary school teachers fell by 10,800 (4.9%) over the same period as these schools face significant challenges to keep pace with rising pupil numbers.

Schools filled only half of their vacancies with teachers with the experience and expertise required and, in around a tenth of cases, schools did not fill the vacancy at all, an NAO survey of school leaders found. …”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/09/nao-efforts-improve-teacher-training-show-little-value-money

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Exeter City Council, Exmouth, Greater Exeter, Transparency

Is there enough oxygen at Oxygen House?

Owl is intrigued by just how much oxygen there is in Oxygen House, Grenadier Road, Exeter Business Park, Exeter EX1 3LH

Click to access Exeter-Business-Park-brochure.pdf

and whether it will be enough to allow everyone working there to breathe it in.

The building is shown here as home to 16 companies:

https://www.companieshousedata.co.uk/a/18713

Of course, it is the headquarters of Grenadier, the preferred developer of the Exmouth watersports centre and Grenadier is shown as having, or having had, no less than eight companies there.

Grenadier Exmouth has five directors, who share 37 directorships of other companies also based at Oxygen House and more companies in different parts of the country (for example head honcho Mark Dixon has 17 of his 20 directorships based in the building and other directorships of other companies in nearby properties on the same business park).

The building’s blurb says:

“The Oxygen House group invests in environmental rebalance on which building a prosperous society depends. A dynamic mix of established companies and start-ups, our specialities include venture capital & private equity, impact investment, property, renewable energy & clean tech, education technology, city planning and data analytics.

Our business model mobilises financial, scientific, mathematical and engineering expertise to address the following urgent goals:

A carbon-neutral society. This will be based on MWs of both renewable energy produced and demand reduced by more prudent energy consumption.
An overhaul in educational standards through shrewd, patient investment in radical data technology.”

AND it is a friendly place for all based there:

“Oxygen House enables individuals and our partner companies to develop and flourish. Literally we’re a shared physical space. Conceptually we’re a mutually supportive value system. Emotionally we’re a family of likeminded companies and individuals. And our commitment to common goals is unshakeable.”

http://www.oxygenhouse.com

But less obvious is the “shared physical space” and individual connections with “Greater Exeter” and, through that link, to other interests pertinent to East Devon.

For example, “Exeter City Futures” is also shown as having its base there:

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09891138

and one of its directors is Exeter City Councillor, Rosie Denham.

“Exeter City Futures” describes itself laudably thus:

“Exeter City Futures goal is to make the Exeter region congestion free and energy independent by 2025.”

However, Councillor Denham is also an Exeter City Council signatory to one of the major “Greater Exeter” documents, “Exeter and Heart of Devon Economic Partnership Strategy 2017-2020”:

Click to access S0031_EHOD%20shared%20strategy_lowres.pdf

Exeter City, East Devon, Mid Devon and Teignbridge are the partners in that. (Quite how Councillor Denham will make Exeter energy independent without pushing its problems on to the other areas of the partnership, including East Devon, in which she is involved will be very challenging for her)!

Shown also as a director of “Exeter City Futures” is Glen Woodcock. He is a director of no less than NINE companies registered at Oxygen House (plus 5 others elsewhere). He shares several of these directorships with Grenadier boss Mark James Dixon – director of Grenadier Exmouth.

Mr Woodcock is also a director of “City Science Corporation” also based at Oxygen House which includes a description as “Management consultancy activities other than financial management”
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09801932

Owl feels it would be possible to go on and on almost infinitely with these “six degrees of separation” links that bind the individuals popping in and out of Oxygen House and the companies that exist, parallel and overlapping in the building.

But suffice to say, there must be an awful lot of oxygen (and possibly hot air) in the building!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Hugo Swire, Inequality, Neil Parish

Comments

1 Comment

An invitation to our two well-fed MPs

From a correspondent”

“Could you, through your esteemed publication, inform your readers of a play that will be performed in the committee rooms of the HofP based upon the experience of Food Bank users.

All MPs have been invited and I would suggest to those readers represented by Huge Swin[r]e that he may like a ‘reminder’ to attend, where he may be interested to hear the stories of those making a ‘lifestyle choice’ to use them.

Yours
[signature]
(Who shall be urging their own MP Neil Parrish, to do the same)”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Neighbourhood Plans, Planning System

Comments

1 Comment

“Open consultation: “Planning for the right homes in the right places: consultation proposals”

Owl says: seems the decision that we need MORE and MORE housing is taken as a given – and this is more an exercise on how and where they can be shoe-horned in:

“This consultation closes at
11:45pm on 9 November 2017

Summary
Consultation on further measures set out in the housing white paper to boost housing supply in England.

“This consultation sets out a number of proposals to reform the planning system to increase the supply of new homes and increase local authority capacity to manage growth.

Proposals include:

a standard method for calculating local authorities’ housing need

how neighbourhood planning groups can have greater certainty on the level of housing need to plan for

a statement of common ground to improve how local authorities work together to meet housing and other needs across boundaries

making the use of viability assessments simpler, quicker and more transparent

increased planning application fees in those areas where local planning authorities are delivering the homes their communities need

The attached ‘Housing need consultation data table’ (see links below) sets out the housing need for each local planning authority using our proposed method, how many homes every place in the country is currently planning for, and, where available, how many homes they believe they need.

Alongside this consultation, the attached ‘Comprehensive registration programme: priority areas for land registration’ document lists those areas where Her Majesty’s Land Registry intends to prioritise the registration of ownership of all publicly held land.”

Click to access Planning_for_Homes_consultation_document.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/644783/Housing_Need_Consultation_Data_Table.xlsx

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/644786/120917_Priority_areas_for_land_registration.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Greater Exeter, Local Enterprise Partnership, Paul Diviani, Philip Skinner, Transparency

Diviani and Skinner lead EDDC for “Greater Exeter” and business-led Local Enterprise Partnership

“Pragmatic in its focus, the strategy sets out how our economic development teams are working effectively on the areas where our respective council/corporate plans overlap.
The strategy also sets out our collective growth ambitions, priorities and future approach that we will take to support economic growth and development for the greater Exeter area.

No new resource or structural changes are being put forward in this strategy – only an assurance that EHOD authorities continue to dedicate the existing economic officer resource to the four key EHOD economic initiatives where we can show collaborative working to be more effective and efficient in delivering outputs for our local authority areas beyond what we could achieve in isolation. …

… We will use the Shared Economic Strategy to communicate to partners our ambitions and plans, with a view of improving collaboration and maximising leverage.”

The strategy will address the key themes of the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership (HoTSW LEP) Devolution Prospectus and support the delivery of the emerging Single Productivity Plan, maximising the effectiveness of the group’s work with the HoTSW LEP. …”

Signature here Cllr Paul Diviani Leader
Signature here Cllr Philip Skinner Economy PFH Exeter City Council
Signature here Cllr Pete Edwards Leader, Exeter City Council
Signature here Cllr Rosie Denham Economy and Culture PFH, Exeter City Council

Click to access S0031_EHOD%20shared%20strategy_lowres.pdf

So, no resources except officer time … a very expensive resource, the hourly cost of which is never counted by our councils and comes out of our pockets.

Diviani and Skinner … a marriage made in … ! Still, our Tory councillors do so trust each other, so that’s … er … fine?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, EDDC, Midweek Herald, Scrutiny, Spin

Comments

1 Comment

Newspapers and their dependence on council advertising revenues

Owl says: Recent research and Freedom of Information requests revealed that around 90% of EDDC’s advertising budget goes to Archant titles (Midweek Herald, Sidmouth Herald, Exmouth Journal), up to 5% with Express and Echo and up to 5% to View from … titles.

Most major controversial or contentious news stories involving EDDC seem to emanate from the Express and Echo and View from … titles (though the Daily Telegraph revealed the explosive story of disgraced ex-Councillor Graham Brown’s conflicts of interest on its front page in March 2013).

“853 exclusive: Greenwich borough’s newest local paper scrapped its news coverage after Greenwich Council objected to “negative” stories and considered withdrawing its advertising, sources have told 853.
The free Greenwich Weekender launched in May this year after publisher Southwark Newspaper successfully bid for a contract to carry the council’s public notices – official notifications about planning applications, traffic restrictions and other council functions.

Public notices used to appear in the council’s own weekly, Greenwich Time, which closed in June 2016 after government restrictions were put on “council Pravdas”.

33,500 copies of the what’s-on paper are delivered door-to-door across Greenwich borough, with a further 8,500 available at collection points across the area.

As well as covering culture and leisure items, early editions of Weekender devoted space to straight news stories, following a template set by its sister paper in Lambeth. Ahead of its launch, reporter Kirsty Purnell made contact with local community groups to introduce herself and get stories.

An editorial introducing issue one, signed by managing directors Chris Mullany and Kevin Quinn, promised “local news, town hall events and all your community events and campaigns”. And Purnell’s efforts paid off, with Weekender featuring many stories missed by other outlets.

But this didn’t go down well with Greenwich Council.

The first edition gave space to people concerned about Greenwich Council’s plans to redevelop the old Woolwich covered market and neighbouring buildings. Later editions saw traders in Greenwich Market get space for their fears over business rates, while residents in Woolwich grumbled about council staff taking their parking spaces. …

In short, Greenwich Weekender was doing the job of a proper local paper. Indeed, it even planned to run columns from local political leaders, again echoing a feature in Lambeth Weekender. Hartley was among those approached, but the columns never apeared.

This website understands leading figures in the council were angry about the paper covering “negative” news stories – and were also unhappy about Efford’s coverage in the paper during June’s general election campaign.

A proposal to scrap Greenwich Weekender‘s ad contract – which would effectively close the paper – was discussed. But councillors voted down the measure at a meeting of the council’s Labour group in mid-June, which is said to have descended into a “huge row”. One idea discussed was to place the ads in the London Evening Standard instead, 853 has been told.

Instead, it was decided that the council would tell Weekender to stop covering news stories.

News stories disappeared from the title at the end of June, and the only “news” in Greenwich Weekender – which still bills itself as “an independent weekly newspaper” – since have been advertorial pieces paid for by Greenwich Council. …

The three-year Greenwich Weekender deal is worth up to £1.2 million to Southwark Newspaper. It also means the paper can be distributed from libraries and other council-affiliated locations.

But in the council report recommending taking up the contract, it said it wanted its public notices to be “published… in the context of engaging local editorial content which helps to positively inform local residents about the measures that their neighbours and local service providers are undertaking to make the borough a great place to live, work, learn and visit”.

It would appear that Greenwich Council believes this means snuffing out scrutiny of its actions in any outlet that carries its ads. …

Greenwich’s newest local paper drops news coverage after council pressure

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Inequality, Rural communications, Transport (local)

Transport charities may not be allowed to compete with non-existent bus routes!

The government is proposing that, if a charity such as TRIP, which provides has salaried employees or carries out services under contract it could be considered as a competitor to bus companies and might lose its licence – even if there is mo bus company doing the same thing.

Wonder which MPs have bus company shares!

“The manager of a Honiton community transport charity says a proposal to change how legislation is enforced could ‘stifle’ many of the services it offers.

Neil Hurlock, who oversees TRIP in New Street, has expressed his fears about the impact of proposed government changes detailed in a letter from the Department for Transport (DfT).

The letter revealed that the government is currently consulting on a raft of alterations to existing legislation for all groups using a Section 19 permit under the Transport Act 1985.

This permit, under which TRIP operates all of its vehicles, allows charitable and not-for-profit groups to provide transport services at a reduced cost.

But in its letter, the DfT warned that an operator whose activities mirror that of a bus company, in that it employs salaried drivers and carries out services under won contracts, cannot be regarded as carrying out its activities ‘exclusively for non-commercial purposes’.

As a result of this, the DfT added, operators can not operate any vehicles under a section 19 permit as it ‘falls outside the scope of the derogation’.

This means TRIP could be forced to consider the way it is run if it wants to carry on with any commercial work.

Mr Hurlock says if the proposed alterations are approved, the regulations could greatly increase the charity’s vehicle operating costs – potentially forcing its ‘essential’ rural transport services to be axed.

Mr Hurlock said: “This could be the kiss of death for older people who use our service.

“A lot of these people are only able to live in their homes because they can rely on us to help maintain their ability to stay there by taking them shopping and to other vital appointments.

“If our services were forced to be axed due to this legislation, it will massively impact on our users, who could be left high and dry.”

Mr Hurlock says the charity is unable to afford the extra expenditure that it would face if the legislation is passed.

He is urging the community to rally behind a national campaign to ensure that the services can continue without extra cost burdens being placed on them.

Mr Hurlock added: “Devon has already lost three important community transport providers. We want to make sure this does not happen to others.

“The DfT is holding a consultation on these proposals during the autumn and I strongly urge people who rely on our services to write to them and emphasise the importance of affordable community transport in their own words.”

A spokesman for the DfT said: “Community transport operators provide vital services that encourages growth and reduces isolation by linking people to existing transport networks, jobs, education, shops and services.

“We are committed to supporting community transport operators and have no intention to end the permits system.

“We will carry out a consultation later this year, which will set out the changes needed to the guidance on the issue and use of permits.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/fears-that-legislation-changes-could-damage-honiton-transport-charity-1-5194867

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, East Devon Electoral/Returning Officer, Electoral Commission, General Election, Voting

“Five areas in England to pilot voter ID checks” – unfortunately ours isn’t one of them

“Voters in five areas in England will be asked to take identification to polling stations at local elections next year as part of a pilot scheme.
People in Woking, Gosport, Bromley, Watford and Slough will be asked to take different forms of ID with them to see which works best.

The Electoral Commission recommended three years ago that voters be asked to prove their identity.

Minister Chris Skidmore said the aim was to ensure the system was “secure”.
Reports of “personation” in polling stations – votes cast in someone else’s name – increased from 21 in 2014 to 44 in 2016.

Mr Skidmore said the current situation meant it was harder to take out a library book or collect a parcel than it was to vote in someone else’s name.
He told the BBC: “We currently have a situation where people can go into the ballot station, point out their name on the register, don’t need to provide any information to prove who they are.”

He said it was corrosive to democracy if people did not believe the system was secure.

“At the moment we simply don’t know if people are impersonating one another or not. We just need to make sure that the system is secure enough.”
For some years, voters in Northern Ireland have had to prove their identity at polling stations.

But Tom Brake, for the Liberal Democrats, described the latest proposals as “a completely unnecessary move that risks undermining our democracy by preventing millions of people from voting”.

“Evidence from around the world tells us forcing voters to bring ID won’t stop determined fraudsters, but is likely to led to even lower turnouts amongst young people and minority groups.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41287240