Loss of public services and spaces leading to social problems

“As well as the stripping-back of some of the most essential public services, one of the key effects of 10 years of austerity has been the crushing of countless other shared spaces: drop-in centres, libraries, Sure Starts.

Perhaps the most overlooked casualties have been the hundreds of youth centres and clubs that have closed since 2010. More than 600 such facilities in Britain have shut over the last six years, with the loss of 139,000 youth places and 3,650 staff.

In our major cities, anxiety about this organised neglect is focused on gangs and knife crime. In quieter parts of the country people’s worries are more basic – as in Gywnedd, north Wales, where recent plans to close all 39 of the county’s youth clubs were greeted with the unanswerable argument that “young people will have nowhere but the streets to socialise with each other in the evenings”.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/04/britain-shared-spaces-pubs-youth-clubs-libraries-austerity

“County council workers’ pension pot invests millions in fracking”

Local government workers throughout Devon are paying into a pension pot that invests in fracking:

https://www.devonlive.com/news/business/county-council-workers-pension-pot-1965648

Next domino down: UK’s geographically largest council (one-third of Scotland, no overall control)

And guess what – they just bought an expensive building!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-44725806

“The geographically largest local authority in the UK will be forced to defer non-essential spending, accelerate savings and cut back further on staff recruitment in order to tackle an urgent projected deficit.

In papers submitted to its Corporate Resources Committee this week, Highland Council—which serves a third of the land area of Scotland—revealed a plan to reduce expenditure in face of an expected overspend of £5.1m.

To make matters worse, the council’s reserves, at around £8m, are “well below the minimum level” recommended by Audit Scotland. Budget leader Cllr Alister Mackinnon stressed that it is vital this money isn’t depleted further by a year-end deficit.

“Services need to work within their budgets and the measures set out are designed to ensure that this happens,” she added. “I am confident however that we can deliver an improved situation by addressing the issues thoroughly now.

“We must remember that, although this is a serious issue which must be corrected urgently, this is 1% variance on our budget and it is common to expect a small deviation early in the financial year. We are not alone – all Scottish councils are facing financial problems.”

The local authority’s leader, Margaret Davidson, said the biggest area of concern is around children’s services, particularly looked-after children accommodated out of Highland. “A plan to bring some of the children back to the Highlands and to improve the outcomes for these children needs to be accelerated,” she urged. “We need to simultaneously be more efficient and make the best decisions for some of our most vulnerable children.” …”

http://www.publicsectorexecutive.com/Public-Sector-News/biggest-uk-council-defers-spending-and-recruitment-to-handle-serious-looming-deficit

“60% of public sector finance professionals have come under pressure to act unethically at least once in their career”

“Almost 60% of public sector finance professionals have come under pressure to act unethically at least once in their career, a CIPFA survey has found.

The institute surveyed members and other public sector accountants about ethical matters over the summer.

The results, revealed exclusively in PF, found that 57% of the 487 respondents said they had been put under pressure or felt under pressure to act in a professionally unethical way.

Of those who felt under pressure, 8% said they had fully carried out an unethical action, and 28% had done so partially.

The three most commonly cited unethical actions were supporting excessively optimistic budgets and business cases, dodging policies, standing orders and other regulations, and unreasonably downplaying risks.

Line managers and chief finance officers, chief executives and other directors were the two most commonly cited source of pressure in all sectors.

For respondents in local government, the council’s political leadership provided a third source of pressure, while those in the NHS cited pressure from regulators. …”

Source: CIPFA

Metropolitan Police has run out of properties to sell

The ‘crown jewels’ of property sold off by the Metropolitan Police have been revealed today as the force admits it has “run out of things to sell”.

Britain’s largest police force has been at “breaking point,” according to bosses at the Metropolitan Police Federation. They have sold off their headquarters at New Scotland Yard, police stations and hundreds of flats in its portfolio to make hundreds of millions in savings.

The sell-off has earned the Met £1bn in the past six years, but opponents said the force had “sold the crown jewels.”

Ken Marsh, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said: “We’ve sold the Crown Jewels, so to speak. We’ve run out of things to sell. This is really, really, worrying for society.

“At the end of the day they have all been sold so that we don’t have to cut police officers. That is shocking. The government talk a good talk, always praising us and saying how brilliant we are.

“But when it actually comes to it, you know, there’s officers around the country using food banks.”

Hundreds of flats and buildings have been bought from the force since 2012, with many owned by the force since the 19th Century, and New Scotland Yard went for £370m to investors from Abu Dhabi for luxury flats two years ago.… .

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/revealed-1bn-of-properties-sold-off-by-scotland-yard-a3926436.html

“Berkeley calls affordable housing targets ‘unviable’ as chairman earns £174m”

“… Excluding developments where planning consents were gained by a previous owner and the student accommodation projects, in 93% of Berkeley’s 57 London developments the company told local authorities that their affordable housing targets were unviable.

In one example, Land Registry data indicates Berkeley Group sold 71 homes in its Ebury Square development in Belgravia, central London, for a total of £358m.

The company told Westminster council that as the development was refurbishing an existing building that contained 60 units, only 11 additional homes would be generated. This meant, under Westminster planning rules, that Berkeley was obliged to build only one affordable home. But instead of building it on site, Berkeley made a payment to the council of £1.6m towards low-cost housing elsewhere in the borough.

Freedom of information disclosures show that Berkeley bought the Ebury Square site – a former police house – from the Metropolitan Police for £23.6m in 2009. The profit on this single development is thought to be in excess of £200m.

At Kew Bridge in west London, Hounslow council accepted that Berkeley could only build 20% of a 308-unit scheme as affordable – half the local authority’s affordable target.

Building those units, Berkeley stated in a planning agreement, would mean the scheme would be £24.6m in deficit. Berkeley told Hounslow that house sales would generate £132m. Berkeley did agree to make an extra payment to Hounslow capped at £8.3m in the event of the scheme performing well. Land Registry data suggest that the scheme generated close to £250m, with one apartment selling for £4.55m.

A spokesman for the company said: “Berkeley has a sustainable, successful business model that enables it to perform well throughout the economic cycle, as demonstrated by its results of recent years and creation of fantastic new communities and long term value. We are justly proud of our track record in building 10% of London’s much-needed private and affordable homes.

“Last year alone, Berkeley contributed more than £400m of subsidy for affordable housing and wider community and infrastructure projects, which has helped us be recognised as London and the south-east’s leading place-maker. Sales utilising Help to Buy are a very small part of Berkeley’s sales.” …

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/03/berkeley-calls-affordable-housing-targets-unviable-as-chairman-earns-174m

“Document detailing Cranbrook’s 8,000 home expansion to be published by end of 2018”

The statement that building Cranbrook town centre is now set fair because Exeter City Council refused one out-of-town shopping centre development close to the town recently is naive and misleading. That planning application could go to appeal and be won or, if lost, there are three further sites earmarked for similar developments in a cluster in the same area – the B and Q site, another site adjacent to B and Q and the current police HQ at Middlemoor.

….”More details about the proposed town centre for Cranbrook are also expected to be revealed in the plan as well.

Recently, Exeter City Council planners, contrary to the recommendation of officers, rejected plans for a retail park at the Moor Exchange at the east of Exeter.

Concerns had been raised about the impact that a new retail park at the East of Exeter would have had on the proposed Cranbrook Town Centre, with both East Devon New Community Partners, the Cranbrook developers, and East Devon District Council objecting to the scheme.

The town centre will be built on land next to Cranberry Farm, which will eventually be in the middle of the town.
http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/document-detailing-cranbrook-s-8-000-home-expansion-to-be-published-by-end-of-2018-1-5675758

“600 police stations shut in eight years”

“More than 600 police stations have shut since 2010 in the largest closure programme in policing history.

Some forces have closed more than half their stations. In Gloucestershire, 21 out of 28 police stations, including Tetbury, Bourton-on-the-Water, and Moreton-in-the-Marsh, have shut.

Cities such as Bath and St Albans no longer have a dedicated station. St Albans police station was closed in 2015, and residents in the city of 140,000 are directed to a “free telephone to police control room” outside the council offices. London alone has lost 100 police stations in the past eight years.”

Source: Sunday Times

Arms manufacturers teach children as young as 4 about their weapons

“Arms manufacturers are spending millions of pounds a year promoting their brands in Britain’s schools, the Observer has learned.

The companies, which between them have sold tens of billions of pounds of weapons to overseas governments, including those with poor human rights records, sponsor a series of school events at which their brands are prominently on display. In addition, they issue teaching materials for use in classrooms that promote the defence sector, sponsor competitions and award prizes.

One company even deployed a high-profile children’s television presenter to promote its activities in a school, while another developed a missile simulator for pupils to “play with”. Critics accuse the companies of trying to “normalise their appalling business” in the minds of the young, but the body representing the defence sector says such an approach is vital if the UK is to produce a future generation of engineers.

“When these companies are promoting themselves to children they are not talking about the deadly impact their weapons are having,” said Andrew Smith of Campaign Against Arms Trade. “Many of these companies have profited from war and fuelled atrocities around the world. Schools are vital to our society and should never be used as commercial vehicles for arms companies. It is time for arms companies to be kicked out of the classroom.”

BAE Systems, Europe’s largest arms company whose fighter jets are currently being used by Saudi forces in Yemen – where there have been large numbers of strikes on civilian buildings – visited 420 schools across the UK last year and prepared lesson plans for children as young as seven.

The company promotes its roadshows on Twitter and other social media. One event included an appearance by CBeebies television presenter Maddie Moate who, according to BAE, was there to “join in the fun and take a few ‘selfies’ for her own personal collection”.

In an online presentation, BAE states that it spends tens of millions of pounds a year on reaching pupils as young as four. Among worksheets issued to schoolchildren were some encouraging them to think about how BAE’s special camouflage system could have “significant advantages on the battlefield” by allowing tanks to become invisible to hostile thermal imaging systems.

Another sheet encourages pupils to look at the company’s past initiatives to find out “more about how shapes of aeroplanes, ships, submarines and tanks have changed over the years”. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/01/arms-industry-spending-millions-normalise-weapons-in-schools

“Citizens’ Juries could become the core of a revived local democracy”

Owl says: a bit too radical for EDDC which is predicated on NOT listening to its citizens! It surely would have to be forced on the district with its current majority party!

“The Department of Digital, Culture Media and Sport has also now decided to pilot participatory democratic approaches in local authorities around England. Scotland and Wales are having their own discussions.

As with many innovations, the devil will be in the detail.

They will need to be representative of the area they are discussing. If half the residents are over 50, half the jury members should be too. They mustn’t be self-selecting: they can’t be yet another platform for the already engaged.

Both the Democracy Matters assembly on city regions and the Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit paid participants a token amount to reach ordinary citizens who wouldn’t normally volunteer.

In order for them to be Citizens’ Juries in more than just name, they need to have three equally important phases.

The first phase is learning about the options and how the process will work. Participants are guided through the current state of affairs and presented with the options for change.

Traditionally this has meant impartial experts preparing papers and delivering short lectures, which Ed Hammond correctly points out can get quite expensive. To combat this, we ran an experimental deliberative programme in the run-up to the EU referendum with recorded videos from academics from the ESRC’s UK in a Changing Europe project.

Following their briefing, participants then hear from campaigners, presenting their case for why the assembly should side with them. Members can question them armed with the knowledge they gained in the previous phase, and – if the assemblies I’ve attended are any measure – will rigorously scrutinise them.

The last phase is the deliberation itself. Breaking up into small groups and facilitated to ensure no one person dominates, they discuss amongst themselves everything they’ve heard, feeding back into the full assembly and eventually voting.

Citizens’ Juries are nothing like the fractious social media debate that tends to pass for political discussion today. All sides have a common pool of knowledge to draw from, and by discussing issues face-to-face, are far more likely to compromise.

They are also, in many ways, at the opposite end from the local councils they will be advising. Due to the voting system, local government in England is not representative of local political opinions, let alone local demographics.

It would be a shame if Citizens’ Juries became just another institution bolted on to deal with the unrepresentative nature of our local electoral system, rather than deal with the problem at the source. …”

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/citizens-juries-could-become-the-core-of-a-revived-local-democracy/

Exeter stops its councillors parking for free at Civic Centre

…. and they are complaining that they will have to use the city’s “public” car parks that might be “full of druggies”!

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/councillors-threatened-fines-banned-parking-1957876

Dominoes teetering on the brink – Somerset County Council proposes 130 redundancies and cuts

Owl says: Bear in mind that Somerset County Council is the lead financial and administrative authority for the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership.

“A council has proposed cutting more than 100 jobs and major services so it can balance its books.

Somerset County Council has begun a consultation on 130 redundancies and is proposing cutbacks to highways, public transport and special needs services.

The authority needed to save £19.5m in 2017/18, but only made cuts of £11.1m.

In an email to staff, the council’s chief executive said the latest cuts were being considered due to severe financial pressures.

Council leader David Fothergill said the authority had been open about its “huge” financial challenge and would formally consult with trade unions about the redundancies.

“The coming weeks will be very difficult for the council and its staff, but we have to achieve financial stability,” he said.

Liberal Democrat councillor Neil Bloomfield said Somerset was going the same way as Northamptonshire County Council, which is facing a funding shortfall of about £70m and has banned all new spending this year.

‘A ruthless process’

He said: “If Somerset were to issue a 114 notice and the government appointed special commissioners, the desire would be to create their vision of a unitary authority and then you lose control of your own, local, decision making.

“The commissioners’ job is to save money and bring you back on budget. It’s a ruthless process.”

In an email sent to staff, chief executive Pat Flaherty said severe financial pressures meant the council was considering a “reduction in services and changes to staffing structures”.

Other ideas for savings include cutting funds to services for children and support for vulnerable pupils.

More details on the proposals will be announced next week.

The authority said it was trying to balance its books after eight years of central government cuts.

A final decision will be made by the cabinet on 12 September, Mr Flaherty said.”

Source: The Times (pay wall)

East Devon has more than £5 million of unspent money from developers – topping Exeter and Plymouth for non-spending

A Freedom of Information request revealed East Devon has received nearly £8.4 million from developers of Section 106 money, of which it has spent only about £4.4 million.

The exact amount not spent is £5,139,000.

Section 106 contributions are paid to local authorities by developers when planning permission is agreed. The contributions are discussed and agreed before developments are given the go ahead. The money is ringfenced for certain projects and has to be spent within a time period – usually five years [after that the money is lost and can never be reclaimed, any interest on the money is presumably retained by EDDC].

It is by far the highest amount of all the local councils which responded.

Exeter has £872,183 unspent; Teignbridge nearly £4 million; Plymouth nearly £2.5 million.

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/councils-millions-pounds-developers-cash-1951395

Clyst St Mary and the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan – the EDDC position

This was the addendum to the post below – the East Devon District Council case for the extra 57,000 homes it has been agreed must be built around Exeter. Do note that government funding is NOT guaranteed by any current budgetary measures nor are there any major job creation schemes in the pipeline.

ALSO NOTE: these are paragraphs from the report, not the full report, chosen to reflect the particular issues for Clyst St Mary:

“The purpose of this report to Strategic Planning Committee is not intended to pre-judge any Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP) detailed assessment and evidence gathering but simply to start the debate to establish broad principles and locations for growth.

The continued growth of the district and the future incentives form a vital element in the mitigation of the future financial pressures anticipated in East Devon from 2020/21.

GESP gives an opportunity for councils to negotiate deals with the government to fund additional infrastructure in association with growth.

Much infrastructure funding comes from development, central government grants and the Councils themselves. Other Councils have worked with the Government to agree ‘infrastructure deals’ to provide more and higher quality homes in return for infrastructure investment e.g. Oxfordshire have agreed a deal where the Government provides up to £215 million towards infrastructure and housing in return for a commitment to a specific number of homes being built. We realise that new development, transport and infrastructure need to be thought about together and more detail on those issues will be identified and consulted on in the draft GESP in the summer of 2019.

Up to 2040, extra large-scale infrastructure is likely to cost more than £1 Billion. This will be determined to a large extent by future development sites in the plan but these sites are not yet determined. The infrastructure we may need to provide up to 2040 in the GESP area are:

New primary and secondary schools; Relief to major junctions on the M5; Improvements to the A30/A303; A number of new Park and Ride sites on the main roads into Exeter; Walking and cycling routes in and between towns and Exeter; Improvements to rail and bus routes and buses; Low carbon energy generation and a smart grid; New, accessible green space; Healthcare facilities; Community facilities; Internet connectivity and mobile communications and this is likely to cost around £700m.

Projects are funded in part but there is still a large ‘funding gap’.

Providing more, better and a wider variety of new homes is the main way to improve the present unbalanced housing situation. New NPPF policies require a baseline of a minimum of 844 homes per year to be accommodated in East Devon although this is less than the 950 new homes per year already agreed in the East Devon Local Plan to 2031. However, the baseline of 844 homes does not account for any additional need that the Council may agree to accommodate with neighbouring authorities in GESP which may lead to an increase in the overall number.

Therefore, if Councils deliver more than the minimum total provision of 2,600 housing per year for the combined GESP areas, then the Government will provide more funding for infrastructure. Prompt housing delivery could also be Government funded for affordable housing lost through right to buy sales in our high value housing Districts which continues to be problematic. Additionally, East Devon’s aspiration of one job per home will also need to deliver enough employment space to accommodate a minimum of 844 jobs per year with Councils in the South West agreeing that they will also try to double the size of the local economy by 2036 to increase local prosperity. Evidence suggests that the area has a high number of entrepreneurs and small businesses and encouraging these businesses and providing suitable accommodation for them to expand and grow will be an important factor for accommodating growth.

The NPPF recommends the effective use of previously developed or ‘brownfield’ land for meeting development needs but avoiding low density to make optimal use of sites with allocated sites and those with outline permissions being commenced within five years.

The government intend that viability assessment work is primarily undertaken at the plan making stage. The onus is on local authorities to undertake robust viability assessments which are open and transparent and publically available. The revised NPPF addresses the importance of good design (“Paragraph 124. The creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities”).

However, decision making in relation to flood risk and heritage assets remains unchanged in the revised NPPF with one of the Key Issues in the Report to Committee stating

· Flood zones – Clearly we should not be planning for new homes in areas at high risk of flooding and so areas within flood zones 2 and 3 should be excluded from any search for locations to accommodate growth.
Two of the main principles for growth are to
· Accommodate growth outside of areas within flood zones 2 and 3 and ensure that sustainable drainage systems are incorporated to ensure that surface water is wherever possible dealt with on site.
· Locate growth in locations well served by jobs and services to minimise the need to travel and encourage the use of walking, cycling and public transport to promote sustainable travel.

Suitable locations for accommodating growth recommend the west end of the district as it is less constrained. There may be some scope for further growth at Cranbrook but it is not likely to be close to the scale of growth accommodated in the last two local plans in this area.

9. Options for growth in the North West quadrant of the district
The western most quadrant of the district to the north of Exmouth and west of Ottery St Mary is the least constrained part of the district for accommodating growth. The land is relatively flat with no landscape designations. It is well served by main roads with good vehicle access via the M5, A30, A3052 and A376 and has good existing public transport links with the railway line and existing bus routes. The main constraints in this area of the district are the airport safeguarding and noise zones but these cover a relatively small part of the area and development could readily be accommodated outside of these zones.

9.1 Centre growth around one or more existing villages ​

This scenario would identify a number of key villages with scope for significant expansion based on factors such as access to public transport, road infrastructure and the services and facilities available within the village. This option has the benefits of helping to support existing businesses and services potentially helping to secure the future of existing village shops, schools, pubs, churches etc. It could also encourage new services and facilities to be provided which are then beneficial to existing residents as well as new residents. This is something that the new NPPF encourages, however these issues would require further consideration on a village by village basis as in most cases growth would have to be quite substantial (in the region of 400 – 500 homes) to make it viable to deliver the required services and facilities to make the settlement suitably sustainable for growth and in the process could harm the character of the village and the existing community.

9.3 Establish a further new town – This scenario would involve the creation of a new community similar to Cranbrook within the western part of the district. Cranbrook has been successful in delivering a high number of new homes in a relatively short space of time and has delivered some significant infrastructure alongside such as schools, a community centre and the railway station. There is however still much to be delivered at Cranbrook and the creation of a similar new town in the district could harm delivery at Cranbrook. Cranbrook benefited from substantial government investment to get development started and there is no guarantee that such resources would be made available again. It has also been a private sector led development and there is some uncertainty whether the private sector would commit to a further new town delivered on a similar basis in the district. Cranbrook has also been criticised for delivering one type of housing which has successfully met the needs of young families but it has not to date provided a wide range of choice to meet the broad range of housing needs that exist in the district. The delivery of a town centre and some other key facilities at Cranbrook is still pending with the town needing to reach a critical mass to support these things. This in itself illustrates the scale a new community needs to achieve before such facilities can economically be provided.

9.5 Establish a number of new villages – This scenario would involve the creation of a series of modern Devon villages that could reflect to some degree the form of existing villages within the district. This option would potentially be the most sensitive option in landscape terms. If the villages were designed so that they had different characters and form then there would be the greatest potential to broaden the choice of housing in the district and maximise delivery rates by having several developers delivering different types of housing simultaneously across the area and is favoured in terms of delivery as there would be scope to have several builders delivering simultaneously with each village providing opportunities to develop their own form and character. A significant concern with this option is the ability of new villages to deliver the required service and facilities as well as jobs alongside the housing. Existing villages are struggling to maintain such facilities and providing new within a new village is likely to be even more difficult unless the villages are quite large and facilities are somehow shared with neighbouring settlements and good transport links provided between them.

Exmouth – Options for growth at Exmouth include sites that are locally sensitive and would potentially involve incursions into the Maer Valley or expansion of the town out into the Lympstone ward.

9.7 Each of these options raises issues but the new NPPF acknowledges that “The supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided they are well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities. By working with the support of their communities, and with other authorities if appropriate, strategic policymaking authorities should identify suitable locations for such development where this can help to meet identified needs in a sustainable way.”

9.8 The assessment of each of the options is at an early stage but Members views are sought on these options and any clear preferences that Members may have.

Recommendations:

· A significant proportion of growth to be accommodated within the western part of the district.
· Accommodate growth in the existing towns focusing strategic growth around Axminster, Exmouth, Honiton and Ottery St Mary with the remaining towns taking more modest growth to meet the needs of those settlements.
· Villages to bring forward modest levels of growth to meet their own needs through neighbourhood plans.
· Focus development around main transport corridors where possible.

11. Conclusion

It is early days in terms of understanding how growth could be accommodated in the district and this report is not intended to pre-empt this work which will establish an evidence base to inform detailed consultation and discussion in the future. The principles included in this report are proposed as a baseline position to inform strategy development and work only but hopefully help to aid understanding of the issues and start the debate.

Greater Exeter Strategic Plan – Update and Vision

Since the previous consultation the GESP team has been busy analysing the consultation responses, the sites suggested and exploring issues for preparing the Draft Plan. A consultation will be held between 5 October and 30 November 2018 on a new vision for the plan, separated into three sections covering ‘the plan, ‘the place’ and ‘the priorities’ and includes the key areas of housing, a potential transport strategy and required infrastructure but no details about specific proposals will be published until the summer of 2019 (after the Local Elections in May 2019).”

How much do you really know about the UK? Are you just making it up?

What is the immigration level (what percentage if people living in the UK are immigrants), crime rates (how many crimes per 1,000 population), teenage pregnancy rates (per 1,000 women under 18) and obesity rates in the UK (percentage of adults). Write down your answers, read the article and see correct answers at the end,

“We looked across 13 countries and over 50,000 interviews on 28 questions – asking people to guess at immigration levels, crime rates, teenage pregnancy, obesity levels and more.

Italians are the most likely to be wrong on key social realities about their country, with the US the next worst. At the other end of the spectrum, the Swedes are the most accurate, followed by Germany.

Those are the findings from our exhaustive ‘Misperceptions Index’, published in a forthcoming book on ‘The Perils of Perception’.

We looked across 13 countries and over 50,000 interviews on 28 questions – asking people to guess at immigration levels, crime rates, teenage pregnancy, obesity levels, how happy people are, unemployment rates, smartphone ownership, and many other social realities – to find out who was most and least wrong.

And the Italians are worthy ‘winners’. They guessed that 49% of working-age Italians were unemployed, when in reality at the time it was 12%. They thought 30% of their country were immigrants, when the actual figure was 7%. They guessed 35% of people in Italy have diabetes, when in reality it’s only 5%

The US is not much better. Americans thought 17% of their population are Muslim, when the actual figure is around 1%. They guessed 24% of girls aged 15 to 19 give birth each year, when the actual figure is 2.1%

At the other end of the spectrum, Sweden is very accurate on some facts: for example, they guessed that 32% of prisoners in Sweden were immigrants, when the actual figure was 31%. But even the Swedes get a lot wrong: they guessed that 24% of the population were unemployed, when at the time it was 8%.

We also asked people who they think has the least accurate view of their own society. And the country that people picked out most often was the US, with an impressive 27% of the vote, way ahead of any other country.

And this is not just an unfair image from outside – Americans think this of themselves too: 49% of Americans expected their fellow country-folk to have the least accurate view of facts about their society.

The immediate question that springs to mind is… why? Why are some countries worse on these realities than others?

The main message from the book is that we’re wrong not just because of what we’re told – by the media, politicians and social media – but also how we think, our own many biases, for example, in looking for information that confirms our already held views, how we’re drawn to negative information and the way we think the past was better than it was.

But that still leaves the question of why misperceptions vary so much between countries. To help answer this, I looked at how measures of all sorts of national characteristics – on the quality of the media in each country, the openness of government, ratings of education systems, trust in politics and the media, and many others – related to our Misperceptions Index.

And the honest answer starts with a shrug – there are no clear-cut, full explanations for this global variety.

But there is one factor that does seem to be related: how ‘emotionally expressive’ people in the country are. This index was developed by Erin Meyer in her book The Culture Map and measures things like whether people in different cultures around the world tend to raise their voices, touch each other or laugh passionately when talking.

This may seem a strange set of characteristics to be related to how deluded we are about, for example, immigration levels. But we need to remember that our guesses at these questions are partly emotional – they send a message about what’s worrying us. If immigration is a big concern, we automatically pick a big number, even if in reality immigration levels are much lower.

Our misperceptions are about our emotions as much as our ignorance of the facts, and therefore it’s not surprising that more emotionally expressive countries have more exaggerated guesses. It’s the mental arithmetic equivalent of wild hand gestures and loud arguments.

Of course, we need to strenuously avoid stereotyping all Swedes and Germans as calculating and rational, compared with voluble and gesticulating Italians and Americans. Our emotional expressiveness is far from a complete explanation, and there are many exceptions.

Our errors are not completely set in our national culture, and we can do something about them. This is reinforced by one other possible explanation for why Sweden is the least wrong.

Sweden is of course the home of late, great Hans Rosling, where he is a national figure, and where his Gapminder foundation has been taking their teaching material on global realities into schools and workplaces for many years, to ‘dis­mantle misconceptions and promote a fact-based worldview’.

And this does seem to work, for some Swedes at least: in a follow-up survey among Swedes who got various facts correct, asking how they knew the right answers, ‘Hans Rosling’ was a common response.

Of course, not every country can have their own Hans Rosling, and it’s probably no coincidence that a culture like Sweden was lucky enough to produce one. But it suggests we can improve our understanding of our countries and the world, with effort and invention. Our misperceptions are important to understand, but they’re not inevitable.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/peril-perception_uk_5b86be25e4b0511db3d3cb50

For comparison:

At the last census 8.3% of the UK population were immigrants, West Yorkshire came top with 88.6 victim-based crimes per 1,000 people living there. Meanwhile, Dyfed-Powys was the safest place to live in the UK last year, with 36.6 offences per 1,000 people. Among under-18s, the conception rate has halved in eight years, to 21 per 1,000 women in 2015, data from the Office for National Statistics shows. In 2016, 26 per cent of adults were classified as obese. This has increased from 15 per cent in 1993 but has remained at a similar level since 2010.

Greater Exeter Strategic Plan: consultation about consultation and Skinner has a pet project other councils are ignoring

Correctiin: headline changed from Diviani to Skinner as it is assumed it is new Deputy Leader who wants a sports venue. Well, he is known to be a rugby fan!

“The vision is about to start to decide specific issues in October, with the aim to prepare a draft plan for consultation in the summer of 2019 after the local elections.” …

For the GESP area, 2,600 homes a year are needed, meaning over the 20 years of the plan to 2040, around 57,200 new homes will be built. …

[Here follows a masterpiece of shooting down Diviani’s idea for a “major sporting venue” ncely!]

“In previous discussions regarding the GESP, the Deputy Leader of East Devon District Council has put forward the idea of developing a regionally or nationally significant sports arena and concert venue within the GESP area.

The consultation does not specifically refer to this concept as work in understanding the need for such a facility and how it could be delivered are at an early stage as it is focusesd at high level issues and does not talk in any detail about specific proposals.

It is however considered that the consultation asks about public aspirations for the delivery of infrastructure thus enabling respondents to raise the opportunity for such a facility and make suggestions for what it would be. …”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/could-57000-new-homes-exeter-1948541

Dis-unitisation: Bankrupt Tory council splits in two

Owl says: do debts go 50/50?

“Stricken Northamptonshire County Council has voted to abolish itself in the first of a series of meetings due this week to settle the authority’s fate.
Councillors backed the proposal to replace the county and its districts with two new unitary councils. These would be North Northamptonshire, covering Corby, East Northamptonshire, Kettering and Wellingborough, and West Northamptonshire comprising Daventry, Northampton and South Northamptonshire.

Each district has a meeting due this week to vote on the proposal, which will then go to communities secretary James Brokenshire.

A report to the county council noted that Max Caller, the inspector appointed to report to the government on Northamptonshire’s financial plight, had said: “The problems faced by NCC are now so deep and ingrained that it is not possible to promote a recovery plan that could bring the council back to stability and safety in a reasonable timescale” and that a unitary reorganisation should follow.

This week’s report said: “The county, borough and district councils are making this [unitary] proposal – not out of a positive ambition for this radical structural change, but instead out of a pragmatic and responsible approach to the Government’s clearly-signalled direction of travel.” It warned too that unitary reorganisation would not in itself solve the county’s financial problems.

“There is currently a very significant imbalance between revenue income and expenditure at NCC, and this will have an impact on sustainability of the new unitaries if the current financial position is inherited by them in 2020-21,” it said.

“It is essential that NCC delivers a balanced revenue position and sustainable services that can be inherited from day one. “

Northamptonshire in July took the rare step of issuing a second section 114 notice to limit spending.

The government in May imposed commissioners to run parts of the council after Mr Caller’s report highlighted serious flaws in its operation.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=36537%3Anorthamptonshire-councillors-vote-for-plan-to-split-county-into-unitaries&catid=59&Itemid=27

“Grant Thornton [EDDC’s past and present auditor] in record fine as auditing scandal spreads”

“The scandal around City auditors spread beyond the big four on Wednesday as Grant Thornton was slapped with a major fine for serious conflicts of interest with two audit clients.

The Financial Reporting Council fined the professional services firm £4 million, reduced to £3 million after a settlement discount. Three senior staffers and a former partner had admitted misconduct in the handling of financial audits for Vimto drinks-maker Nichols and the University of Salford.

The ex-partner, Eric Healey, was slammed for “reckless” behaviour after taking jobs on the audit committees of Nichols and the university despite continuing to work as a consultant to Grant Thornton after retirement. The accountancy firm continued as auditor to both, creating “serious familiarity and self-interest threats”.

The FRC delivered the damning verdicts five years after it opened the probes, which cover 2010 to 2013.

The £4 million penalty is the largest imposed on an accountancy firm outside of the big four — PwC, KPMG, Deloitte and EY. The costs will come out of partner profits.

It is the latest in a series of reprimands for Britain’s biggest auditing firms — just last week KPMG was fined £3 million for its audits of Ted Baker — as the FRC faces calls to reduce the big four’s dominance.

Healey’s simultaneous engagement with Grant Thornton, Nichols and the University of Salford “resulted in the loss of independence in respect of eight audits over the course of four years,” said the FRC.

It added: “The case also revealed widespread and serious inadequacies in the control environment in Grant Thornton’s Manchester office over the period as well as firm-wide deficiencies in policies and procedures relating to retiring partners.”

Healey, who retired from Grant Thornton in 2009, joined the audit committees of the University of Salford and AIM-listed Nichols in 2010 and 2011 respectively. The former role was unpaid and he got £22,000 per year for the latter.

The FRC said it has issued a £200,000 fine (discounted for settlement to £150,000) to Healey and excluded him from the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales for five years.

Three senior statutory auditors at Grant Thornton, Kevin Engel, David Barnes, and Joanne Kearns, were reprimanded and fined £75,000, £52,500 and £45,000 respectively (after discount for settlements).

Grant Thornton said: “Whilst the focus of the investigation was not on our technical competence in carrying out either of these audit assignments, the matter of ethical conduct and independence is equally of critical importance in ensuring the quality of our work and it is regrettable that we fell short of the standards expected of us on this occasion. As we have since made significant investments in our people and processes and remain committed to continuous improvement in this regard, we are confident that such a situation should not arise in the future.”

Source: Evening Standard

Barclays refuses mortgages on controversial Taylor Wimpey new homes – and Taylor Wimpey share price INCREASES!

“Scandal hit Taylor Wimpey has suffered a blow after Barclays refused to offer mortgages at a flagship development because of fears over leaseholds.

The housebuilder is seeking buyers for its Chobham Manor site in the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in London but the properties come with complicated leases.

Barclays told one family looking at a property they could not have a mortgage because of a clause which might mean the lease was terminated if one of Taylor Wimpey’s subsidiaries went bust.

If that happened the bank would be unable to get its money back.

Taylor Wimpey has pledged to fix the problem but would not say how many properties were affected at the site, where prices are as high as £1million.

The firm has been criticised for selling leasehold homes with unaffordable ground rents.

Shares rose 1.1% or 1.85p to 170.65p.”

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-6108205/Taylor-Wimpey-hit-leasehold-woes.html

“England’s means-testing for care is the world’s harshest”

“Older people in England who need long-term care have to pass one of the harshest means tests in the developed world to gain state support, a study found.

Older people and their families are more likely than their counterparts in many other countries to pay large care bills because of the way social care is funded. A generation of elderly people missed out on better long-term care as successive governments ducked reform, leaving England “the poor man of Europe” for social care, it said. England also fared badly when compared with Japan.

The report by Incisive Health, a consultancy, for Age UK looked at the funding and effectiveness of social care in developed countries with similar demographic challenges to England of an ageing population and falling birth rate. The government plans to publish reforms to England’s social care this autumn, while cash-strapped councils have cut the fees they pay for care, leaving many care homes struggling.

The study concluded that England’s social care system was behind Germany, Japan and France, whose governments define national entitlements, and Spain and Italy where services vary by region. These countries each provide some basic support to elderly people regardless of wealth, use a flexible means test or limit total costs. In England care costs must be met in full by anyone with assets above £23,250.

France had the most progressive social care system, funded by national insurance, Incisive Health concluded. Payments are collected as part of income tax with top-up payments from individuals using a gradual means test or the private insurance market.

Germany’s system was judged the best funded, paid for by an income tax levy of 2.55 per cent, of which half is paid by employers.

The study praised Japan for expanding support to its ageing population, with half the funding from general taxation and a third from an additional levy on people aged between 40 and 65. People are also required to pay 10 per cent of their care costs.

The authors said that social care in Spain, which is organised and funded regionally with some national taxation, had been good until its government made cuts when the economy stalled.

Italy has a highly localised system, with many areas paying cash directly to families but the report said that in poorer parts of southern Italy these payments were often used to supplement incomes rather than for care.

Caroline Abrahams, Age UK’s charity director, said: “Sadly, this report shows that England has been left behind in the race to update the funding of care for older people, compared to some other similar nations. As a result, our older people and their families are paying more and bearing a lot more of the risk of needing expensive long-term care.”

Source: Times, pay wall