EDDC parking meter overpayments

According to the response below “What is this excess revenue spent on? – This income is not separated from the total income received from car parking, which is used to fund the service itself and helps to fund a range of services provided by the Council.”

Er, what range of services? Income from parking is meant to be spent only on parking related projects and creaming-off the overpayments for “other services provided by the council” is very questionable to say the least and possibly illegal, though Owl will bow to the expertise of EDDC’s legal eagles on that point – and fortunately we do gave an expert councillor too – Chairman Hughes.

Let’s hope they follow correct procedure for using surplus funds, which is:

Safer Parking:
In deciding how to spend their parking surplus, local authorities should have regard for the advice given in the Local Government Association’s Circular 535/00. This circular urges authorities to work towards Safer Parking Accreditation (Park Mark®), and to consider using parking surpluses to fund the necessary measures.

The circular refers to section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and argues that this Act together with the provisions of section 55 of the 1984 Act makes it both necessary and desirable for authorities to prioritise spending on crime prevention measures in car parks before consideration is given to spending parking surpluses in other areas.”

Click to access PPN1%20-%20Charging%20for%20Parking%20-%20Aug%202011.pdf

Here is the Freedom of Information request:

“Date submitted: 15 September 2016

Summary of request

• Over the past five financial years how much money has the council made through parking-overpayments from its meters i.e. “over-vend” in parking meters that do not give out change?
• What is this excess revenue spent on?
• How many of these parking meters do the council manage?
• Over the past five financial years how much money has the council made in total through car parking meters?
Summary of response

• Over the past five financial years how much money has the council made through parking-overpayments from its meters i.e. “over-vend” in parking meters that do not give out change? – There were no overpayments in the financial years up to and including 2013/14 as our machines were programmed then to give the appropriate time for the money inserted into ticket machines. Because we wanted to add more choice to the customer, from the 1st April 2014 we introduced 2, 3 and 4 day permits. This meant that the memory available in the current ticket machines did not allow for the previous increments and so we introduced 50p increments without the option to give change.

2014/15 – £16,946 Gross inc VAT ( NET £14,122); 2015/16 – £15,066 Gross inc VAT (NET £12,555)

• What is this excess revenue spent on? – This income is not separated from the total income received from car parking, which is used to fund the service itself and helps to fund a range of services provided by the Council.

• How many of these parking meters do the council manage? – Currently we have 61 ticket machines.

• Over the past five financial years how much money has the council made in total through car parking meters? – The figures below are the NET income (which is how we report in the accounts/budgets etc) for the respective years just for the ticket machine income and Parkmobile charges.

2011/12 – £2,401,376
2012/13 – £2,244,874
2013/14 – £2,346,703
2014/15 – £2,477,864
2015/16 – £2,554,583

Date responded: 23 September 2016

show details
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/access-to-information/freedom-of-information/freedom-of-information-published-requests/

“East Devon car parking machines have taken more than £32,000 as a result of not giving change”

“Statistics released by a Freedom of Information request showed East Devon District Council introduced a new system which meant drivers overpaid an extra £16,946 in 2014/15 and £15,066 in 2015/16.

While, in 2013/14, there were no overpayments as ticket machines were programmed to give the appropriate time for the money inserted.

In the last three financial years, the council has made more than £3,100,000 per year in car parking revenue in Exmouth, Sidmouth, Honiton, Axminster, Budleigh Salterton, Beer, Seaton, Colyton, Lympstone and Ottery St Mary. …

… council spokeswoman said introducing the parking permits had meant customers could not buy parking time in 10p increments because there was not enough memory available in the current machines, so they introduced 50p increments.

This was because the number of ticket prices, which would be a new price point for every six minutes, to allow 10p increments, would be too much to continue alongside the new permit options.

To compromise, they introduced 50p increments on the same tariff, meaning customers would need to purchase parking in 30-minute periods rather than the previous six-minute increments – the minimum payment of 50p did not change. …”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/east_devon_parking_machines_take_32k_in_change_1_4689391

Well, maybe that will pay for a CEO’s platinum tea service and a Leader’s Gold ipad case.

Public parks face decline and neglect says Heritage Lottery Fund

The UK’s hugely popular public parks face falling into decline and neglect as a result of budget cuts, a new report warns.

Park use is rising, with 57% of adults now visiting their park once a month or more, while 90% of families with children under five head to their local green space at least monthly, the State of UK Public Parks 2016 study reveals.

But the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) study warns a decline in the condition of parks predicted in a first report in 2014 is set to continue, with almost all park managers experiencing ongoing cuts as austerity squeezes local authority budgets.

Some 92% of park managers had seen budgets cut and 95% were facing more reductions, a worsening of the situation since 2014, according to a survey of 193 councils as part of the report.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/07/uks-public-parks-face-decline-and-neglect-heritage-lottery-fund-report

Unfortunately, you won’t find the funds for flogging off part of the Knowle parkland for luxury pensioner apartments making its way to the remaining parkland. That’s all on its way to the new council HQ in Honiton.

EDDC cannot be sure what assets it owns and whether it is maintaining assets they no longer own

Some input from the Scrutiny Committee here, thinks Owl!

The following paragraphs detail all findings that warrant the attention of management.
The findings are all grouped under the objective and risk that they relate.
1.
Risk:
The Authority is not aware of all assets/land owned.” …

…The Principal Estates Surveyor believes EDDC could be maintaining assets that is no longer owned by EDDC because of a lack of interface between different systems. We understand that the Strategic Lead – Housing is currently looking at reducing the amount of cost/time spent maintaining land that is Devon County Council’s jurisdiction. …

… there is no senior officer with overall responsibility for managing the asset management system including the required changes needed to improve usage of the system. There is a risk that limited actions are undertaken to imp
rove the usage of the Uniform system as a result of lack of responsibility and ownership at a senior level. …

… 2.
Risk:
Land or assets owned by the Authority cause injury or harm to a member of staff or member of the public due to insufficient inspection, record management and actioning of work.

Click to access 010916amfcombinedagenda.pdf

EDDC: some assets not sweating?

Why didn’t EDDC get planning permission for the Knowle site BEFORE they offered it to PegasusLife? They might have got up to twice as much for the site?

PFI (2) – Many Scottish schools owned and traded by offshore companies

“More than 200 schools built in Scotland under private finance initiative (PFI) schemes are now at least partially owned by offshore investment funds.
Under PFI, the private sector builds and manages school buildings in return for a fee, typically over 25-30 years.

In one project in Edinburgh, 17 new schools were built, with the council paying £1.5m a month.

Analysis for the BBC found there had been 13 trades involving equity in the Edinburgh schools scheme since 2001.

Although published data does not confirm the exact number of PFI schools owned wholly or partly offshore, it is clear they represent the vast majority.

Stakes in PFI building projects can be sold. They can then be traded on the secondary market to become parts of larger investment funds and pensions, as the monthly fees paid by councils provide a steady income.

Dexter Whitfield, from the European Services Strategy Unit, told a BBC Scotland investigation the Edinburgh PPP1 scheme was now owned by four different companies.

“Those four different companies are located offshore in Guernsey and Jersey, and they are basically controlled by shareholders,” he said.

A critic of PFI, he has described the projects as “wealth machines”, adding: “There are an awful lot of people making very substantial sums of money out of it.”

The 17 schools built in Edinburgh under PPP1 were closed for repairs earlier this year after construction faults were found.

The problems – with wall and header ties, used to hold exterior and interior walls together and attach them to the rest of the building – first became apparent when part of a wall at Oxgangs Primary fell during stormy weather.
About 7,600 primary and secondary school children in the capital were eventually affected.

An independent inquiry into the matter will consider whether the private finance method contributed to the structural issues with the buildings.

The City of Edinburgh Council said the schools would be safe and well-maintained for as long as the contract is in place.

Andrew Kerr, the chief executive of City of Edinburgh Council, said the terms of the contract ensured that schools are kept in a good condition.

“That’s something that was decided 10, 15 years ago. Our job is to make sure we manage that contract going forward as well as it can be,” he added.

There are 93 PFI projects in Scotland – responsible for hundreds of schools, road, hospitals and energy projects – and worth more than £6bn.”u

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37135611

PFI (1) – tax avoidance and rape of public assets by all mainstream political parties

“The scandal of Edinburgh’s unsafe schools is the last gasp of a discredited model of public finance, forced on us by a tax-avoiding governing class.

The Acronym Soup can get confusing. PPP, PFI, NPD – they are all hurled about, but there will certainly be no alphabet learning for more than 7,000 pupils across Edinburgh locked out of school since the Easter break as building safety standards are assessed and repairs undertaken. The schools were built under the controversial private finance initiative – PFI – by the Labour/Liberal Democrat administration at Holyrood, and there’s now even talk that some of them may need to be knocked down and rebuilt.

Serious defects found at two more Edinburgh schools built using PFI
As a tangible symbol of rip-off Britain and the failed privatisation of the public sector, it is exemplary. In a week where the reality gap between rich and poor and the fetid reality of our tax-dodging governing class has been laid bare, it feels like the end of a really bad experiment. The system is discredited. The model is broken. It is crumbling before our eyes.

What have the Panama Papers got to do with schools in Edinburgh? It’s a perpetual circle. Tax avoidance drains money from society, forcing solutions that suit private contractors and let politicians off the hook.

These building problems raise significant wider issues about how we finance big public building programmes, and it’s not just about schools.

As early as 2011, BBC Alba’s Eorpa programme revealed that some contracts included leases lasting more than a century. The contract for the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary building lasts 25 years, but the lease on the land is for 130 years. It’s a debt we’ll have to pay for years to come.

George Monbiot has called PFI: “A racket, the legacy of 13 years of New Labour appeasement, triangulation and false accounting.” Certainly this scheme, which started under the John Major government, was enthusiastically embraced by Blair and Brown’s administrations. Scotland wasn’t just the testing ground for this disaster (the first PFI project in Britain was the Skye bridge), it has a far higher proportion than anywhere else. As the writer Gerry Hassan pointed out: “Scotland has 40% of PFI schools with 8.5% of the population.” Why is that? The journalist Mark Leftly suggests it was Brown who persuaded Blair to take PFI forward – resulting in a debt Leftly puts at a cool £222bn.

Predictably the political parties have been trying to blame each other. The beleaguered Scottish Labour leader, Kezia Dugdale, said that “she had nothing too apologise for, for building schools”, and her Conservative counterpart, Ruth Davidson, had the brass neck to claim it was the Scottish government’s fault for not monitoring the building work. The Liberal Democrats have called for an inquiry, a move they may regret.

Others have been dismissing the whole affair as simply a case of “poor construction”. Yet as many have pointed out, that’s a hell of a coincidence. Unison’s Dave Watson has argued that there’s a built-in likelihood of cost-cutting: “There is a profit incentive to keep costs to the minimum. Any saving that the construction partner can make increases profits to both the construction company and the other SPV [special purpose vehicle] partners. There is therefore a stronger cost-saving incentive than in conventional procurement.”

PFI was widely used by the Labour/Liberal Democrat executive and scrapped by the SNP when it came to power in 2007. The SNP then established the Scottish Futures Trust and introduced the non-profit distribution (NPD) model. NPD differs from PFI in that contractors invest solely in the debt of a project, not putting in any equity and not receiving returns on their capital investment. Critics argue that it’s not as different as its supporters make out.

But the sorry saga is not just about private solutions that don’t work. PFI fundamentally alters the relationship between the citizen and the state, so that our public bodies, buildings and institutions are no longer owned by, or accountable to, us. It’s a failure of democracy, not just bad accounting. In this way it’s not just a turn away from public ownership, from the protection of a non-commoditised realm in areas of common good such as “health” and “education”. It’s a turn not just from public to private, but from public to secret.

That’s a defining characteristic of the tax-avoidance culture we’re getting a glimpse of. This is a world in which the Tory MP Alan Duncan warns us that “we risk seeing a House of Commons which is stuffed full of low achievers who hate enterprise, hate people who look after their own family and know absolutely nothing about the outside world” – and Fraser Nelson, the Spectator editor, can tell Channel 4 News: “In Britain we tend to keep these things private”.

It’s a world in which Toby Young pleads: “Winston Churchill was notoriously bad with money. He borrowed and spent with abandon, ran up huge debts, and was an inveterate gambler. If he’d been forced to ‘come clean’ about his financial affairs, he’d have been hounded from office.”

This week is reminiscent of the end days of Major’s sleaze meltdown, and it’s no coincidence that PFI is at the heart of the crumbing ideological shambles. Yesterday it emerged that a fund registered in a tax haven owns a 20% stake in the schools. Something called the John Laing Infrastructure Fund has its registered office in Guernsey, though a spokesman has said that the company pays tax in the UK.

We have a governing class that has been found out, and it needs to be dragged out of the shadows of backroom deals and casino culture. Why should our children have to put up with shoddy, potentially dangerous buildings? That’s a disgrace in 2016.”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/12/edinburgh-schools-pfi-racket-crumbling-scotland-tax-avoiding-governing-classe

How to fail better in public services – be more honest and avoid superficial solutions

“The government must stop reaching for superficial solutions when explaining the failure of public services, according to an Institute for Government report released today.

In Failing Well, the Institute of Government analyses why organisations fail and makes recommendations on how to minimise the impact if and when things go wrong.

The report points to a raft of high-profile public service failures, such as Rotherham child services and Mid-Staffordshire Foundation Trust.

Within these and other examples, the institute found that cultures of denial, weak accountability and dysfunctional mechanisms for identifying failure “inhibited an effective response”.

It concluded that warning signs are often missed and that politicians routinely use “stock responses” to explain failures instead of seeking the root cause of the problem. …

… it was shown that the turnaround in performance [in case studies] was thanks to more honest reporting cultures, strong peer involvement, reinvigorated leadership and a shared ownership of failure. The tendency to restructure or lay blame, which is a standard organisational response to failure, was avoided. …

… “Failure is an ever-present threat in our public services – and the risks are increasing. Yet there are good and bad ways of responding to failure. Politicians too often use a superficial set of tools – restructuring a service or parceling out blame.

“But this won’t solve the problem: leadership, collaboration and transparency will,” she added. “Those overseeing turnarounds also need to hold their nerve and accept that performance can dip further as recovery begins.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/07/government-must-learn-fail-better-says-institute

East Devon street trading consultation

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/east-devon-street-trader-consultation-deadline-looming/story-29519491-detail/story.html

What you need to know:

The more street traders, the more income for East Devon.

Sidmouth: EDDC reasserts its authority over Port Royal

Probably stung by the popularity (and speed) of local residents who were able to organise and display interesting designs for Port Royal, EDDC has now announced funding for a scoping study (i.e. a PRE-study study) for the area. Not everyone is happy about the prospect:

EDDC deputy chief executive Richard Cohen added: “Good proposals, which are innovative as well as practically and financially possible, will be critical to the success of Port Royal’s development.

“Throughout the process, there will be a clear focus on consultation and collaboration with local people, businesses and organisations, to ensure that any future development is achieved with their understanding.

“The improvements that this scheme will bring about will help maintain Sidmouth as one of the UK’s premier seaside resorts.”

But concerns were voiced at Monday’s town council meeting.

Councillor Ian McKenzie-Edwards said: “A lot of funding in Seaton came from Tesco. OK, it funded Seaton Jurassic, but two of the businesses it replaced were in tourism. Seaton is at a pretty low ebb. Tesco is a hell of a way of getting funding.”

Cllr Louise Cole welcomed the opportunity to regenerate eastern town, but said: “There’s a massive issue of trust between EDDC and the community.

“People are very concerned their voices aren’t heard. The two latest developments [the Knowle redevelopment and plans for a business park in Sidford] have reaffirmed that. People are extremely angry.”

Cllr Turner countered that people had always been cynical and it was up to the councils to try to involve them in the process.”

Mr Cohen expects the £10,000 project to be completed by mid-November, with a decision on the next step before Christmas.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/councils_scoping_out_future_of_port_royal_1_4608377

Philip Skinner now Chairman of Exmouth Regeneration Board – we await his Christmas card …

See page 36:

RESOLVED; that Councillor Phillip Skinner be elected Chairman of the Board for the ensuing year.

Click to access cabinet130716combinedagenda.pdf

Councillor Skinner is probably best remembered for “Christmas card gate” when he was fired from his post as EDDC’s rural ” champion” during the reign of former EDDC Leader Chairman Sarah Randall-Johnson for sending her an inappropriate greeting:

CONSERVATIVE councillor has been stripped of his role as rural champion after off-the-cuff remarks in a Christmas card offended the leader of a Devon authority.

Philip Skinner, who represents Talaton, near Ottery St Mary, sent the card to Sara Randall Johnson, leader of East Devon District Council and headed it “My greatest adversary”. Mr Skinner heaped praise on her at the expense of other members, boasting: “The rest I can demolish in my sleep, but you are in a class of your own.”

Mr Skinner signed off with two footnotes, the last of which stated: “If only things had turned out different, we’d have made one hell of a team.”

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/tory-councillor-loses-role-greetings-card/story-11721863-detail/story.html

Unfortunately, we are not told what the first footnote was.

In the words of Tim Wannacott of Bargain Hunt: “Are you in charge of the sale today Philip? If so, we are in safe hands”.

Do EDDC consultants know how long their piece of string is?

Freedom of Information request on “What Do They Know” website:

Dear Ms Symington,

I would like to make a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I am also making this Request under the Environmental Impact Regulations 2004 which require disclosure on the part of Local Authorities.

1) The Davis Langdon report to Cabinet of 17th July 2013 states the following:
“3.4.3 The current gross internal floor area totals some 7,722 m2, with the former Hotel providing 5,784 m2 and the Office Extensions 1,938m2.” http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1183866/ca…

This is also referred to in an earlier FOI Request, where you state:
“The floor space area was calculated by an independent consultant and cross-checked with the Display Energy Certificate (DEC).” https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c…

2) The Valuation Office website states the following:
“Address of property: KNOWLE THE, STATION ROAD, SIDMOUTH, DEVON, EX10 8HL
“Total area: 4871.85 [sqm]”
http://www.2010.voa.gov.uk/rli/en/basic/…

I would be grateful if you could provide an explanation for the apparent discrepancy and provide me with evidence as to how the actual floor space at Knowle is calculated.

Thank you.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Jeremy Woodward

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/total_floor_area_of_knowle

If Persimmon tells you they can’t afford affordable housing …

… this is why:

A leading City investor has called on housebuilder Persimmon to cut back an executive pay plan that could see the management share £600m over the next five years.

The scheme is one of the largest ever at a FTSE 100 company outside banking.

The biggest beneficiary will be chief executive Jeff Fairburn, who could earn more than £100m.

Mike Fox, from Royal London Asset Management, said the payments were too high “in all circumstances”.
He called on the board to show restraint in the light of the housing crisis and government support for the housebuilding industry.

When the scheme was put in place, the housing market had begun to recover from the 2008 recession. About 150 managers were given the opportunity to earn shares worth up to 10% of the company’s total value, provided they hit tough targets on returning money to investors.

The company recently said it was running well ahead of those targets, and analysts say it is likely the scheme will pay out in full. Persimmon shares have more than tripled in value since the incentive plan was put in place, rising from £6.20 to about £20.

Disclosure of the size of the payments is likely to stoke the debate over executive compensation.

There has been a string of investor rebellions against pay deals this year, and in April a majority of shareholders voted against a £14m package for BP boss Bob Dudley.

Shareholders cannot veto amounts paid, but do have the final say on companies’ pay policies. …

… The company has defended the payouts, saying that since the scheme was put in place. Persimmon has increased the number of new homes it builds by half and invested more than £2bn in new land. Over the same period it has handed back £1bn to shareholders.

“This is a long-term plan that runs for almost a decade which is designed to drive outperformance through the housing cycle and to incentivise the management to deliver the capital return, grow the business and increase the share price,” the company said.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36501536

Knowle relocation: cost now approaching £10 million

Page 32 onwards.

Click to access 060416-combined-cabinet-agendasm.pdf

Consultation on new street trading rules

East Devon District Council (EDDC) launched the first stage of a consultation this week in a bid to boost the local economy, promote high streets and town centres and encourage market traders to flourish.

At present, street trading is banned in all but six designated ‘consent streets’ across the district, which include Sidmouth’s Esplanade and Promenade.

Richard Cohen, EDDC deputy chief executive, said: “We have many sole traders in East Devon, as well as a strong farming and food production history, and we want to encourage these businesses to trade actively, whether it is through farmers’ markets, festivals or street stalls.

“We want to actively encourage opinion about these proposals, as it is vital that we gain as much feedback as possible from everyone involved.

“People’s comments are greatly valued and will help inform the decision-making process for these changes to street trading.”

EDDC is looking to take a ‘more modern approach’ and follow in the footsteps of other councils in the Devon area, which have removed blanket restrictions. The council says an increase in street trading areas would allow it to actively and positively manage the quality of trade across the district, with each application being considered on its own merits.

Mr Cohen added: “More and more people are asking us if they can trade on the streets and there is tremendous public support for events like farmers’ markets and Christmas markets.”

Questionnaires have been sent out to town and parish councils, some street traders, street trading organisations, councillors, chambers of commerce and some local businesses, but EDDC would like to hear from residents.”

To complete a survey, visit: http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/streettrading Deadline for completed forms is July 29.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/bid_to_relax_rules_for_street_trading_in_east_devon_1_4560308

Increased street trading = increased income from more licences …

Beach huts: EDDC’s numbers don’t add up.

23 May 2016, EDDC Website:

Remaining East Devon beach hut/chalets/beach hut sites vacancies

Beer – three beach hut sites available – join the waiting list now
Seaton – 14 beach hut sites available – join the waiting list now and secure a spot near the new Seaton Jurassic centre
Budleigh – seven sites available – join the waiting list now
Exmouth – one chalet remaining (currently under offer)
Exmouth – four beach huts available – join the waiting list now

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/news/2016/05/east-devon-beach-huts-prove-popular-for-2016-season/

Save East Devon Beach Huts Facebook page today:

“Here is EDDC’s reply on beach hut waiting lists – it does not record individuals on multiple site lists:

Beer East Beach – 45
Beer East Shelf – 47
Beer West Beach – 35
Beer Far East – 48
Budleigh Salterton East huts – 69
Budleigh Salterton West huts – 71
Budleigh Salterton East sites – 86
Budleigh Salterton Police sites – 80
Budleigh Salterton Rolle sites – 87
Exmouth Foxholes – 27
Exmouth Queens Drive – 53
Seaton West Walk sites – 98
Seaton West Walk (former) huts – 98 (assumevthis duplicate of above)
Seaton East Walk sites – 68
Sidmouth Jacobs Ladder – 18″

So, 29 huts or chalets available on 23 May, 832 on the waiting list on 1 June and 832 people on the waiting list on 1 June

How can you have a press release telling people about 29 empty sites AND more than 800 on a waiting list on 1 June!

Sidmouth isn’t Brighton – but WE knew that!

So, in its wisdom, EDDC’s Asset Management Forum (Chairman, Geoff Pook) decided to compare East Devon with Brighton and to almost double rents for beach hut sites.

Result? 115 people gave up their huts (out of a total if 445), people on waiting lists declined offers and empty sites abounded. They had to resort to advertising on the huts in Sidmouth to get people to take them up.

If sites ARE taken up all it now proves is that:

A. Sidmouth – and Exmouth, Budleigh and Seaton are NOT Brighton.
B. The Asset Management has no idea what asset management is.
C. Only the really well-off can now afford to rent sites.

Thanks Councillor Pook, thanks for nothing.

“Those who can’t afford a home are being abandoned”

“Cash from council sell-offs will go to high-earning first-time buyers. It’s a huge blow to social housing.

Is this the worst thing this government has done? That’s a tough choice for those low-earning households written off as unlikely to vote Tory. Governments come and go, attempting to reverse each other’s actions – Labour spends more, then Tories cut back, but the housing and planning bill now in the Lords will do virtually irreparable damage.

The bill takes away properties from those who can never afford to buy, to give a large subsidy to better-off aspiring under-40s to buy starter homes. Council and housing association homes will be sold off, deliberately transferring housing provision from the worst-off to those above them – another trickle up.

This bill forces housing associations to sell homes to tenants (probably only the better-off ones) at a discount. To compensate housing associations, councils will be obliged to sell their most valuable properties – so two social homes are lost for each one sold. The money raised by the local authority sales will also pay for 20% discounts to first-time buyers of starter homes at prices of up to £450,000.

All parties want more home ownership, falling fast because of high prices. Generation rent is paying more to landlords than a mortgage costs. The injustice is in making councils pay for this subsidy from resources earmarked for families on waiting lists, instead of meeting it from general taxation.

Once sold, these homes can never be brought back into the social sector. Of the 2m council properties sold so far, over a third have ended up with private landlords who charge high rents. For every nine council homes sold, only one replacement has been built.

That’s why this is an un-housing bill. It will lose 180,000 social homes in the next five years, with 88,000 council homes gone, according to the local government association. George Osborne’s eye-catching 1% cut to social rents has already stopped dead plans to build 14,000 social homes, says the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Nor does the rent cut help most tenants, who just get it clawed back from housing benefit.

Worse is to come. As more people have moved on to universal credit, with their rent no longer automatically paid, 89% have fallen into arrears so far, further depleting money for new social housing. A third of housing associations are building no new affordable homes.

The bill is punitive towards tenants, making any council-house family who together earn more than £30,000 (£40,000 in London) pay a market rent, often so steep they will have to leave. The Treasury will snatch this pay-to-stay extra rent – so it can’t be used for local housing. New tenants only get short tenancies of two to five years so they risk joining the insecure multitude of families in the private sector with six-month rental agreements.

Security was the great gift of social housing. A family knew they would stay near their jobs and schools, make local bonds and join lasting communities. Good estates have stable populations, which include some people with average incomes. How do you educate children who keep moving schools, never settling? Already there are 1.5 million children growing up in private rented homes, without security of tenure.

A family support worker I spoke to last week was struggling to help a family who had moved four times in just over two years – because of temporary housing and short tenancies – with the children moving schools each time. One mother, sent to a distant town, had been leaving home for a bus at 6am every morning to try to keep her children in their old school two hours away, in the hope she would find a home in their old neighbourhood; but she had to give up.

A few weeks ago I spent time in court watching eviction cases, talking to tenants whose lives had become rootless through insecure jobs causing arrears. Landlords are eager to re-let flats at higher rents as prices soar. Most of those families will never reach the safe haven of a council home.

Ending social housing is part of the great escape from the welfare state planned by David Cameron and Osborne. But they may yet again be tripped up by their failure to think beyond ideology. Are they really willing to abandon the third of citizens who can never join their homeowning democracy? Tipping them on to the street is embarrassing, which is why the rising number of street homeless were given a small bung in the budget.

If not abandonment, then there are only two options: build social housing at a cheap rent; or leave people to private landlords where housing benefit picks up the bill. Even capped, housing benefit is extravagantly wasteful when – as Labour’s housing spokesman, John Healey, points out – building social housing makes a profit from rent after 20 years, by far the cheaper option. The government hasn’t dared abolish councils’ duty to house the vulnerable or homeless families with children, but how can they do that with ferocious budget cuts and this bill stripping away existing properties?

No wonder Tory as well as Labour council leaders are up in arms. Surrey’s leader wrote to the Guardian to protest at being forced to sell his council houses. Good for the Lords, who tonight followed up last week’s rebellions with more amendments to pay-to-stay plans. Valiant objections from trusted crossbenchers, such as Bob Kerslake, former head of the civil service, may force the government to soften some terms.

But nothing will prevent the main provisions passing: this is the first bill under English votes for English laws, stopping Scottish MPs voting – so despite some Tory rebels, it will pass in the Commons easily.

Eventually only real-world consequences can force the government to reconsider. Though housing is a fast-rising public concern, this bill has had too little attention. Though 74% worry about housing themselves or for their children or grandchildren, this demolition of social housing is still below the political radar. Ownership is political dynamite, but social housing gets less traction.

Ask how this government plans to house the many who could never afford full-cost rents and it has no answer. In their magical thinking, if council estates are sold off, the troublesome poorer denizens will melt into thin air.

This bill takes a wrecking ball to the great social housing ideals founded by Octavia Hill and other philanthropists who understood that decent housing is the bedrock of a decent society.”

http://gu.com/p/4te9m

Gremlins emerging in EDDC relocation plans

True to form, EDDC’s relocation project is not going entirely smoothly.

Wednesday’s Cabinet meeting (6 April) showed cracks already appearing, which the Leadership seemed to merrily paper over.

Long-term Exmouth councillors’ criticism of the planned design of their Town Hall renovation was treated with apparent amusement by Leader Paul Diviani and Chief Officers, Mark Williams and Richard Cohen.

Steve Gazzard (Lib Dem) said the proposed design was not flexible enough, a view echoed by his Tory counterparts, who complained of the “inadequacy of the space to be provided”, and were unhappy that “ all the memorabilia” has had to be taken down. They were also shocked at the possible prospect of having to book, or pay rent , for use of the Council Chamber.

Richard Cohen agreed that “Memorabilia is an issue”, and acknowledged the need for “an organised booking system”, and for what he called “the odd gremlin to be ironed out”. But he had no response to an exasperated Cllr Pauline Stott (Con, Exmouth), whose question showed that rather more than gremlins are involved.

It was proving very difficult, she said, to find alternative premises for staff obliged to move out so the Exmouth Town Hall renovation work could be done. (Estimated time 8-10 months, at a cost of £1m) .“How are YOU getting on with finding somewhere to move out to? I’m wondering if you have found somewhere to move out to?” she repeated.

The proposals for the Honiton newbuild office were criticised, too, with Cllr Peter Faithfull (Ind, Ottery) finding them seemingly “small and cramped”. We have no measurements..of what we are getting”, he said.

And Cllr Jill Elson (Con, Exmouth) was astonished that there was no staff café included in the Heathpark designs. Once again, this was treated as a joke, with Cllr Philip Skinner interjecting that there was always the nearby burger bar!

And Leader Paul Diviani’s remark that they were not using “stellar architects” for the new building, added no reassurance for those anticipating sound investment for public money.

More on that last point coming soon..

Government guidance on disposal of local authority assets

Disposals

“Where land or property is identified as surplus, there are some important principles which will help ensure that land is disposed of effectively and efficiently. These include;

Every disposal having clear objectives from the outset.

These should establish the key objectives and targets for land disposal – for example, this could be to maximise housing capacity, receipt or employment floorspace, or to reduce costs through divestment.

Disposals rooted in local plans.

Land disposals should help deliver local planning objectives, addressing matters such as the requirement for a five year land supply, or the assessed need for housing and employment land.

Early and meaningful engagement with other public bodies and the market.

Early engagement with other public bodies will ensure that the views of all authorities with an interest can be taken into account, so that land is used as efficiently as possible. Early market engagement should inform the disposal strategy and brief, and ensure the opportunity is attractive to the market.

The appropriate level of investment determined prior to disposal.

To ensure the best possible return, in many cases it may be appropriate to invest in a site before disposal, for example by obtaining planning permission or providing infrastructure. The appropriate type and scale of investment will depend on the individual circumstances of the site, and understanding these early will ensure the best outcome for authorities.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/508307/160316_Land_disposal_guidance.pdf