“Will the Tories’ starter homes initiative ever get off the ground?”

“Q Is anything ever likely to come of the starter homes initiative? It was launched amid much fanfare by George Osborne towards the end of 2014 but there has been little news since, beyond a few stories regarding funding concerns.

Meanwhile, the starter homes newsletter, which was getting increasingly infrequent and was only ever a series of adverts for developments (none of which contained starter homes) seems to have dried up, and the dedicated starter homes website simply links back to a generic new homes website, as it did when it was launched.

I had been holding off buying a house as the promised minimum discount of 20% sounds worth waiting for, but I’m beginning to question whether it was only ever a cynical attempt to woo millennial voters, to be abandoned at the first opportunity.
AB

A Given the dearth of news about the starter homes scheme, it’s tempting to think that it has been quietly shelved – not least because it was an initiative announced when the Tories were in coalition with the Lib Dems.

But in fact, shortly after the current government came to power, it was announced that the original target of 100,000 new starter homes to be built by 2020 would be doubled. So potentially 200,000 first-time buyers aged between 23 and 40 with a household income of £80,000 or less (£90,000 in London) will be able to buy new-build properties at a discount of at least 20% where the discounted price is less than £450,000 in London but £250,000 everywhere else in England. The starter homes will generally be built on underused or unviable brownfield land previously used for commercial or industrial purposes.

Those first-time buyers shouldn’t hold their breath, however, as no starter homes have yet been completed. And at the beginning of last year only 71 sites across England had received grants from the Starter Home Land Fund to enable local authorities to acquire and/or prepare suitable land for starter home developments. So a lot depends on where you live if you want to take advantage of the scheme. First-time buyers in Burnley won’t have to wait much longer as, in partnership with Barnfield Investment Properties, Burnley council started work on the first phase of residential apartments back in February 2017.

If you don’t happen to live in Burnley, finding out about starter home developments in your local area is hard and the new homes website you mention is no help at all. The alternative to waiting for a discounted starter home would be to look into the help-to-buy scheme where you get a loan of up to 20% from government towards the purchase of a new-build property.”

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/may/09/uk-starter-homes-initiative-theresa-may-target

” ‘Perfect storm’ over rural social care costs”

“Rural residents are unfairly penalised when it comes to Improved Better Care Funding, MPs have been told.

The Rural Services Network issued the warning in response to an inquiry by MPs who are examining the long-term future of adult social care.

The Long Term Funding of Adult Social Care Inquiry is being undertaken by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee of the House of Commons.

Submitting evidence to the inquiry, the Rural Services Network said the average predominantly urban resident will attract £37.74 per head in Improved Better Care Funding in 2019/20.

This is £8.20 more than rural residents who attract just £29.54 per head.

In 2017/18 Adult Social Care Core Funding is met by Council Tax to the tune of 76% in rural areas compared to just 53% in urban.

The Rural Services Network said there was no relationship between the numbers of people requiring social care and either Council Tax or Business Rates.

Growth in business rates or council tax income is in no way correlated to the service needs of care services, it pointed out.

“It is obvious that the rising costs of caring for the growing elderly population cannot be met by local taxation and must be funded per capita by central government,” said the network.

In rural areas, there are significantly more residents aged 65+, fewer businesses required to pay business rates and Council Tax levels are already much higher than in urban areas.

The network added: “Thus, there is created a ‘perfect storm’ of rising costs and limited income in the rural areas across England.”

Cost pressures in Social Care Services mean county and unitary councils serving rural areas are having to cut other budgets to the detriment of the well-being of rural residents and businesses.

Council tax per head is reflected in the Final Settlement for 2018/19 is £541.46 for Predominantly Rural Areas compared to £450.58 in Predominantly Urban Areas.

“The gap, at circa £91 per head, is inexcusable,” said the network.

There appears to be a conscious policy decision by the government that in rural areas Spending Power will be increasingly funded by council-taxpayers, it added.

In other words, the government appeared content for people in rural areas to pay more council tax from lower incomes and yet receive fewer services than their urban counterparts.

“This is manifestly unreasonable and totally inequitable,” said the network.

The role of preventative services in respect of adult social care was not formally recognised by government and district councils were not funded for public health.

With increasing pressures on district council budgets, there remained uncertainty as to how public health interventions delivered at a local level would be funded in the future.

http://www.rsnonline.org.uk/perfect-storm-over-rural-social-care-costs

“These are the MPs who voted to keep government Windrush documents secret”

… Parish, Neil

… Swire, Hugo

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/these-are-the-mps-who-voted-to-keep-government-windrush-document-secret/

“Crumbling Britain: how austerity is hollowing out the heart of Tory Somerset”

The article takes the town of Dulverton and charts its decline due to council austerity cuts. Just change Dulverton to any rural area in Devon and you have the same story.

“Richard Eales pulls off his walking shoes and sits back on the sofa in his caravan, where he lives with his wife and their four-year-old son. Wisps of dog hair stick to his khaki polo shirt, which bears the badge: “Exmoor National Park Ranger”. His three dogs, Jet, Star and Sky, settle at his feet.

The 40-year-old father has been living for 17 years on the edge of Dulverton, a remote rural town in west Somerset known as the “gateway to Exmoor”. From managing the native pony herds and deer to grappling with farmers and landowners, Eales says: “It’s not a job; it’s a way of life. You’re always on duty.”Even when opening a tab at the pub, he’s logged as “National Park – Richard”. As he travels around Dulverton’s narrow streets in his mud-splattered Land Rover, the tall and gregarious figure seems to know everyone.

His first child Thomas attended Little Owls, the local nursery, from the “the age of nought”. The nursery opens 8am-6pm Monday to Friday, 49 weeks a year, for children up until the age of four.

But the family might not be here much longer.”Little Owls nursery is facing spending cuts, and Richard’s wife, Rebecca, who works as a dental hygienist, is three months’ pregnant. The nearest alternative nursery would add almost two hours to their daily drive, which would, in effect, stop them working.

Yet Eales and other parents isolated deep in this wooded valley have been told that Little Owls’ hours are likely to be reduced after the next academic year to 9am-3.30pm Monday to Thursday, term-time only, with no provision for under-twos. “We couldn’t afford to live if Bex [my wife] wasn’t working,” Eales says.

The current nursery provision is only continuing until July 2019. It applies for emergency money to keep the hours that it does, which is not deemed sustainable. A Somerset county council spokesperson tells me the nursery “applied for and recently received a grant from the Sustainability Fund and can apply again”​ but that “these grants are to help providers while they look for ways of being sustainable in the long term and we are currently helping the nursery do that”.​

“I look at other families and I can see why they’re claiming [benefits],” Eales sighs. “We’d be far better off money-wise if we moved further away. You stick it for as long as you can, but you get these hurdles chucked in front of you that keep getting bigger.”

Dulverton’s state provision has been rolled back. Its Sure Start children’s centre was “de-designated” (transferred to the local school and stripped of many services) in 2014 – a precursor to this year’s decision to close two-thirds of Sure Start buildings in Somerset.

Recent government figures reveal that more than 500 Sure Start centres – established by the last Labour government in 1998 to provide early years support – have closed throughout the country since 2010, when the Conservatives took office.

The Council insists children’s services will still be available – just no longer run in “expensive and sometimes difficult to reach buildings”, which will instead be taken over by nurseries, schools and others. But that was not the result in Dulverton, which made this change four years ago.

Once a hub of parent clubs and support sessions, Dulverton children’s centre services have been “really reduced”, according to Becky Fry, who has a four-year-old son and one-year-old daughter. She relied on the weekly baby group, health visitors and reading time with her first child. “I don’t know what I would have done without it… I’ve struggled with my second one.” She works for a charity more than a 45-minute drive away from where she lives.

Dulverton’s library, a former green-fronted old ironmongers on the main square, is also under threat – nearly half of Somerset’s libraries face closure as the council consults on making them community- or volunteer-supported instead of council-run, or replacing them with mobile libraries. In the consultation, Dulverton library has a “no change” option, but locals are gloomy about its fate.

The town even lost its only bank two years ago; now a mobile bank stops by every Tuesday for 45 minutes in the late morning.

“By taking all that away, you’re not encouraging any young, working families to live and stay in the area. You’re literally just pushing them out,” says Richard Eales, the park ranger.

The woodland idyll masks widespread deprivation. West Somerset has the worst social mobility in England, performing particularly poorly on services for early years and working-age people. Job opportunities are scarce and public transport poor – the word “bus” provokes bitter laughter from people I meet.

Wages are low but retirees moving in, and holidaymakers with second homes for shooting and fishing on Exmoor, inflate property prices. West Somerset has Britain’s highest percentage of people aged 65 and over, and its population is dwindling.

“We’re not a theme park or just a place for people to retire to,” says the Somerset county councillor for Dulverton, Conservative Frances Nicholson. “Working families should be supported because they will move out.”

Rural deprivation is so great that the government has made west Somerset an “opportunities area”: an area to focus funds on improving outcomes for children.

For residents like Eales, however, it’s already too late. “It almost feels like [living here] you are being pushed beyond the realms of our reach,” he says. “It’s austerity, isn’t it?”

Somerset is solid Tory territory. With the exception of Bath, all its constituencies are held by Conservative MPs – the best-known being Jacob Rees-Mogg (whose six children are unlikely to bear the brunt of Sure Start cuts).

Yet, because of the “Corbyn effect”, west Somerset’s local Labour Party membership has more than tripled in the last two years. “No Labour politicians ever come to this area,” leader Kathrine See tells me. “We’ve got to tackle these communities; we can’t just ignore them. For one, it’s not responsible because that’s not part of the [Labour slogan] ‘For the many’, and two, we need their votes… It’s a poor area for the majority.”

Local Tories also feel neglected by their Westminster counterparts. “I’m just wondering where our society’s going, and what can be done? And are our policymakers really in touch with the grassroots?” asks the chairman of West Somerset Council, Bruce Heywood, who has represented Dulverton since 2011, when I meet him for a coffee outside the grey stone-walled Tantivy Café. To avoid bankruptcy his council is merging with neighbouring Taunton Deane. “It is a chipping away of what has been established over years that causes problems in our environment… when they turn the tap off funding.”

The former mayor of Dulverton and fellow district councillor Nick Thwaites warns that the “slow creep” of austerity – “when the pillars the town depends on are removed one by one” – is difficult to reverse. This is why, he says, “you have to fight each removal as if it is much bigger than it first appears”.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/04/crumbling-britain-how-austerity-hollowing-out-heart-tory-somerset

“Tax on pensioners proposed to heal inter-generational divide”

A Robin Hood tax? Owl doubts pensioners in East Devon (quite a few of whom have probably given their kids and grandkids substantially more than £10,000) would agree!

“A £10,000 payment should be given to the young and pensioners taxed more, a new report into inter-generational fairness in the UK suggests.

The research and policy organisation, the Resolution Foundation, says these radical moves are needed to better fund the NHS and maintain social cohesion.

Its chairman, Lord Willetts, said the contract between young and old had “broken down”.

Without action, young people would become “increasingly angry”, he said.

The Resolution Foundation says its goal is to improve outcomes for people on low and modest incomes. ….”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44029808

Do you have a damp home? Do you need an affordable home? Contact Councillor Phil Twiss to get your problems sorted!

It seems councillor Twiss is a modern-day superhero – able to help you with just about any problem you might come across.

So, if you live in Honiton, do contact him:

Email: ptwiss@eastdevon.gov.uk
Telephone: 01404 891327
Address: Swallowcliff, Beacon, Honiton, EX14 4TT

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/councillors/honiton-st-michaels/phil-twiss/

or at DCC:
Email: phil.twiss@devon.gov.uk

True, he hasn’t so far sorted East Devon’s broadband not-spots, wasn’t able to halt the closure of Honiton Hospital’s community beds or stop Baker Estates from weaselling out of their affordable housing commitments and the ‘fillip’ to Honiton’s jobs and shops when the EDDC HQ moves to Honiton will be at the expense of Sidmouth … but these are just minor hiccoughs … aren’t they?

NHS discriminates against older people … says former old people’s tsar

“The NHS is discriminating against older people, Dame Joan Bakewell has claimed, as she said she had been denied access to a vaccination for shingles and mammograms because of her age.

Dame Joan, the former ‘older people’s tsar’ for the government said she was concerned that the health service was prioritising younger people for preventative treatment and screening.

The 85-year-old broadcaster and Labour peer, said older people would be left to ‘fend for themselves’ unless the NHS realised the value of keeping pensioners healthy.

Speaking on ITV’s Peston on Sunday, Dame Joan said: “Something is going wrong. I went to my local clinic I would like to have a mammogram again and I have been having them all my life, and I stay healthy, and I’ve resolved to stay healthy and they said, no you don’t automatically get called in now.

“Now that also happens to shingles. It’s a very horrible illness and there are now vaccines for people who are old because the risk of shingles increases with age especially if you had chickenpox as a child. And I applied for that. No you aren’t eligible for shingles.

“So what is happening? Is the health service saying, well the old they’ve had their lives we’ve got bigger priorities, it doesn’t matter.

“Given the problems of our finances, we’ll put the money with younger people rather than old, is that what’s happening? In which case the old are going to have to fend for themselves.”

Dame Joan said she was denied the shingles vaccine because she was too old
Dame Joan said she was raising the issue following the recent NHS breast cancer scandal in which 450,000 older women failed to receive screenings, which may have shortened the lives of 270 and led to thousands of missed cancer diagnosis.

Currently women are only offered screening up to the age of 70, because it was felt that by then the harms of over-diagnosis outweight the risk of cancer. However trials are currently underway to find out if it would be beneficial to extend screening to 73.

Older people are also only allowed the shingles vaccine up to the age of 79.

Dame Joan said prevention was extremely important to keep older people healthy and save the NHS money.

“There are more older people and they are very concerned about their health and it would save the health service money if they avoid illness

“Believe me, when you are over 70 (prevention) is very important. And I know that’s true of all my generation. We’re eager to stay fit, we want help in doing it, but we don’t want to fall off the radar. We need to be told about these things.”

Asked by Robert Peston whether it amount to a scandal, Dame Joan said: “Well I’m not sure that it is yet, but I am eager to find out what is happening here, to people who are over 70, over 80, people are living into their 90s.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/05/06/nhs-discriminates-against-older-people-warns-dame-joan-bakewell/

“£250m spent but no starter homes yet built under flagship fund”

“The government has spent £250m to boost starter home construction without a single property being built so far, it has emerged.

Dominic Raab, the housing minister, made the admission in response to a question from John Healey, the shadow housing secretary, who described the situation as “a betrayal of young Brits looking for help to buy a first home”.

In March 2016 the government announced a £1.2bn fund to help deliver “200,000 quality starter homes by 2020 exclusively for first-time buyers at a 20% discount on market value”. The promise was originally made in the Conservatives’ 2015 election manifesto.

The aim was to use the cash to support the purchase and cleanup of sites to guarantee the construction of starter homes. The policy recognised that the cost of making brownfield sites useable could make some places unviable for development. Ministers believed that targeted interventions could help increase housebuilding at the bottom of the market where the affordability crisis had bitten most deeply and particularly affected millennials.

In January 2017, Gavin Barwell, then housing minister, said the first homes would be built that year after partnership agreements with 30 local authorities.

He said: “This first wave of partnerships shows the strong local interest to build thousands of starter homes on hundreds of brownfield sites in the coming years. One in three councils has expressed an interest to work with us so far.”

However, after Raab confirmed that “£250m of the starter homes land fund has been spent to date”, a spokesman for his department said, adding: “At the moment no specific starter homes have been built yet.”

The government has now placed the operation of the flagship fund under review.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Governmen, said: “We have spent £250m buying land to build affordable properties, and work is underway getting them ready for development. It is important we get starter homes right and we aim to introduce regulations on them alongside our new planning policy before building gets underway.” …”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/02/250m-spent-but-no-starter-homes-built-under-flagship-fund

“Housing Issues Can Make Mental Health Problems Worse”

Well, duh! No surprise there!

“Housing issues can make mental health problems worse or even cause them, according to a new study by the mental health charity Mind.

The charity surveyed 1,780 who described themselves as having mental health problems and nearly four in five of those said a housing situation had made their mental health worse.”…

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/housing-issues-can-make-mental-health-problems-worse_uk_5ae890e0e4b02baed1be6f74

MPs in power: “Reckless Opportunists”

Owl says: MPs as elites, out of touch and just in it for the glory – well, we know a lot about that in this part of the country!

(By the way, if your/our MPs have not been about much recently it is because they have been despatched to areas where the party in power might lose control in local elections tomorrow).

“[Amber] Rudd exemplifies a political class light on expertise and principle, yet heavy on careerism and happy to ruin lives. All the key traits are here. In a dizzying ascent, she went from rookie MP in 2010 to secretary of state for energy in 2015, before being put in charge of the Home Office the very next year. Lewis Hamilton would kill for such an accelerant, yet it leaves no time to master detail, such as your own department’s targets. Since 2014 Sajid Javid, Rudd’s replacement, has hopped from culture to business to local government, rarely staying in any post for more than a year. Margaret Thatcher kept her cabinet ministers at one department for most of a parliamentary term, but this stepping-stone culture turns urgent national problems – such as police funding and knife crime – into PR firefighting.

Another hallmark of Rudd exemplifies a political class light on expertise and principle, yet heavy on careerism and happy to ruin lives. All the key traits are here. In a dizzying ascent, she went from rookie MP in 2010 to secretary of state for energy in 2015, before being put in charge of the Home Office the very next year. Lewis Hamilton would kill for such an accelerant, yet it leaves no time to master detail, such as your own department’s targets. Since 2014 Sajid Javid, Rudd’s replacement, has hopped from culture to business to local government, rarely staying in any post for more than a year. Margaret Thatcher kept her cabinet ministers at one department for most of a parliamentary term, but this stepping-stone culture turns urgent national problems – such as police funding and knife crime – into PR firefighting.

Another hallmark of this set is the disposability of its values. Cameron hugs Arctic huskies, then orders aides to “get rid of all the green crap”. As for Rudd, the May cabinet’s big liberal vowed to force companies to reveal the numbers of their foreign staff, stoking the embers of racism in a tawdry bid to boost her standing with Tory activists. Praised by Osborne for her “human” touch, she was revealed this week privately moaning about “bed-blocking” in British detention centres.

And when things get sticky, you put your officials in the line of fire. During the Brexit referendum, Osborne revved up the Treasury to generate apocalyptic scenarios about the cost of leaving. While doomsday never came, his tactic caused incalculable damage both to the standing of economists and to the civil service’s reputation for impartiality. Rudd settled for trashing her own officials for their “appalling” treatment of Windrush-era migrants.

None of these traits are entirely new, nor are they the sole preserve of the blue team. At the fag end of Gordon Brown’s government, the sociologist Aeron Davis studied the 49 politicians on both frontbenches. They split readily into two types. An older lot had spent an average of 15 years in business or law or campaigning before going into parliament – then debated and amended and sat on select committees for another nine years before reaching the cabinet.

The younger bunch had pre-Westminster careers that typically came to little more than seven years, often spent at thinktanks or as ministerial advisers. They took a mere three years to vault into cabinet ranks. This isn’t “professionalisation”. It is nothing less than the creation of a new Westminster caste: a group of self-styled leaders with no proof of prowess and nothing in common with their voters. May’s team is stuffed full of them. …

Davis depicts a political and business elite that can’t be bothered about the collective good or even its own institutions – because it cannot see further than the next job opportunity. In this environment, you promise anything for poll ratings, even if it’s an impossible pledge to get net migration down to the tens of thousands.this set is the disposability of its values. Cameron hugs Arctic huskies, then orders aides to “get rid of all the green crap”. As for Rudd, the May cabinet’s big liberal vowed to force companies to reveal the numbers of their foreign staff, stoking the embers of racism in a tawdry bid to boost her standing with Tory activists. Praised by Osborne for her “human” touch, she was revealed this week privately moaning about “bed-blocking” in British detention centres.

And when things get sticky, you put your officials in the line of fire. During the Brexit referendum, Osborne revved up the Treasury to generate apocalyptic scenarios about the cost of leaving. While doomsday never came, his tactic caused incalculable damage both to the standing of economists and to the civil service’s reputation for impartiality. Rudd settled for trashing her own officials for their “appalling” treatment of Windrush-era migrants.

None of these traits are entirely new, nor are they the sole preserve of the blue team. At the fag end of Gordon Brown’s government, the sociologist Aeron Davis studied the 49 politicians on both frontbenches. They split readily into two types. An older lot had spent an average of 15 years in business or law or campaigning before going into parliament – then debated and amended and sat on select committees for another nine years before reaching the cabinet.

The younger bunch had pre-Westminster careers that typically came to little more than seven years, often spent at thinktanks or as ministerial advisers. They took a mere three years to vault into cabinet ranks. This isn’t “professionalisation”. It is nothing less than the creation of a new Westminster caste: a group of self-styled leaders with no proof of prowess and nothing in common with their voters. May’s team is stuffed full of them. After conducting more than 350 interviews with frontbench politicians, civil servants, FTSE chief executives and top financiers, Davis has collected his insights in a book. The argument is summed up in its title: Reckless Opportunists. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/01/amber-rudd-career-elite-ordinary-people-contempt

“Food, clothes, a mattress and three funerals. What teachers buy for children”

“.. . In 2014 Gemma Morton, the headteacher of a large secondary school, told Education Guardian her school had helped to pay for the funeral of a student whose family couldn’t afford it, even after they had sold their car. Three years on, she has helped to pay for two more funerals. “When a child dies, nobody’s saved for it,” says Morton. “There is literally nowhere for families to go apart from the people they already know, and most of them are poverty-struck too.” 

… At Gill Williams’s primary school in the north-west of England, local supermarkets deliver bread and fresh vegetables three times a week, which are placed in the playground for parents to help themselves. There is rarely a crumb left. …

… Georgia Easton, a secondary teacher, always carries a few pounds in her pocket for children who have “forgotten” their dinner money. “It’s heartbreaking,” she says. “Kids saying ‘I had one slice of toast for tea.’” She estimates she spends about £10 a week of her own money on food and other shopping for needy pupils. That’s £380 per year. Gemma Kay, a food science teacher, spends much the same. “You hear kids talking about how in the holidays their parents are going to the food bank because they relied on free school meals in the week. It’s just very sad,” she says. “With changes to benefits, you’d know parents were on less money.” …

… Williams asked her leadership team to compile a list of the school’s recent expenditure on personal items for students and their families. It included school shoes, bus passes, uniform when the pupil welfare department said a child didn’t meet their criteria; a pregnancy test for a mother who arrived at school in turmoil; an entire food shop after a home visit when it was apparent there was nothing to eat in the house; a mattress for a child sleeping on a sofa; and a bedroom carpet when social services said bare floorboards were acceptable.

… Her school has put aside a sliver of budget, known as the social inclusion fund, for crisis situations, which has to be repaid. The fund has helped to guarantee a child’s physical safety during a criminal trial, when the family felt in danger: Williams paid for a week’s rental on a caravan out of the area.

… She also used the fund to install a safety gate in a family’s house after first trying and failing to fit it herself. “The children were unsafe without one and I couldn’t leave them another night in the space.”

… She observes pointedly that the local authority was unable to help. Thresholds of need for support by social services departments have increased and emergency grant and loan funds have been cut.

“There was mum with two teenage boys who’d been made homeless and put into one room,” says Easton. “I took them to Asda and got new shirts, trousers and shoes. It came out of staff pockets because much as school wanted to pay, it couldn’t.”

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/may/01/teachers-buy-children-food-clothes-mattress-funerals-child-poverty

East Devon Alliance Conference, 26 May 2018 – details and how to book a free place

Blog of Councillor Martin Shaw – East Devon Alliance, Devon County Council:

Time for a Change’ in East Devon

East Devon Alliance holding conference to bring together everyone fighting on health, environment, planning and other issues

Saturday 26th May, 10-1.30, Beehive, Honiton. A must-attend event for everyone who would like to see a change in local politics. If you’d like to come, please book your place via this link (there is no charge). I hope to see you there.

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/45482525458?aff=d43c421797

All across East Devon people are worried about their HEALTH, their HOMES and their JOBS. Never has it been more important to involve yourself with local democracy in your district.. YOU CAN MAKE THE DIFFERENCE.

The EAST DEVON ALLIANCE is trying to help with all of this, an umbrella group of Independent people, who since 2015 have won 7 district council seats and 1 county seat. The EDA is free from the negative influence of national parties who – at East Devon District Council – have acquired the arrogant habits of a Conservative one-party state.

This conference is for YOU. Speakers will include County Councillors CLAIRE WRIGHT and MARTIN SHAW, and PAM BARRETT, Chair of the Independent Buckfastleigh Town Council and regional expert on transforming democracy from the bottom up.

In two sessions you will be able to hear our experience and then CONTRIBUTE your own personal views:

a) how did the democratic deficit in East Devon happen? Or – the problem.

b) what can we do about it through democracy in our parishes, towns and district. Or – the solution.

Please come. We are all volunteers but if we band together now to fight for hospitals, homes and jobs we have a chance to change how our local area is run.

Parking: nearest is Lace Walk. 2 minute walk. If full, New Street, 5 mins.”

‘Time for a Change’ in East Devon – @EDevonAlliance holding conference to bring together everyone fighting on health, environment, planning and other issues

The epidemic of community hospital closures shows no signs of slowing down …

We in East Devon feel your pain:

“Former MP slams plans to close Teignmouth Hospital – the first purpose build NHS Hospital in the UK”

The area’s former MP says:

“We need more hospital beds. The Germans have 8.13 beds per 1000 people but the UK only has 2.61 beds per 1,000, and this needs to improve as there is a local and a national need for beds.”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/former-mp-slams-plans-close-1516807

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/former-mp-slams-plans-close-1516807

Case law will impact on developers who say they can’t (now) afford affordable housing

Parkhurst Road Limited v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government & London Borough of Islington. Case No: CO/3528/2017, in the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Planning Court, 27 April 2018.

“A High Court judge has backed Islington Council in a long-standing battle between the council and developer First Base (Parkhurst Road Limited), who refused to provide affordable homes on a former Territorial Army site in line with the council’s planning rules.

The developer bought the site on Parkhurst Road in 2013 and has attempted to secure planning permission for a residential development with little or no affordable housing, ignoring the long-standing planning requirements on the provision of affordable homes set by the council.

An initial planning application was submitted in 2013 by the developer who were assisted by Gerald Eve as viability consultants. The council refused planning permission for this development twice on the grounds of not providing enough affordable housing, as well as other matters.

The case centres around the viability assessment of development and, in particular, how the price of land should be determined in planning, which is a tool increasingly used by developers and their viability consultants in recent years, to avoid complying with councils’ planning requirements on affordable housing.

Two lengthy public inquiries were held, both of which were won by Islington Council. Each time the low level of affordable housing provided on the scheme was being justified by the developer on factors such as the purchase price paid for the site, and land transactions of other schemes. Following the second public inquiry held in early 2017, an Independent Planning Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State, upheld Islington’s refusal of planning permission in his decision of 19 June 2017.

The developer then mounted a legal challenge against the Planning Inspector’s decision at the High Court. The Planning Inspector’s decision was defended in court jointly by Islington’s legal team and the lawyers representing the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).

Normally, the role of the courts in planning disputes is very limited and restricted to legal technicalities only. However, in this case the Judge Justice Mr David Holgate allowed a fairly detailed examination of planning issues and the development viability evidence in particular.

Today (Friday, 27 April) he dismissed the legal challenge on all three grounds put forward by the developer, and concluded that he was satisfied with the Planning Inspector’s decision to dismiss the developer’s appeal and uphold the council’s decision to refuse the planning application.

Responding to the judgement, an Islington Council spokesperson said:

“We are delighted by the High Court judgement. This decision reinforces Islington Council’s long standing position that developers should abide by the councils’ planning guidelines – rather than overpaying for land and then trying to bypass our affordable housing requirements.

“There is a shortage of good quality, genuinely affordable housing in Islington and a significant unmet housing need. The council is doing everything it can to address this, because we believe that everyone should have somewhere to live that is affordable, decent and secure – and developers must respect these important priorities when they purchase sites in Islington.”

In a highly unusual move, in a postscript to the judgment, Judge Mr Justice Holgate also recommended that the current, widely used, guidance on viability assessments by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) should be revised “in order to address any misunderstandings about market valuation concepts and techniques, the “circularity” issue and any other problems encountered in practice over the last 6 years, so as to help avoid protracted disputes of the kind we have seen in the present case and achieve more efficient decision-making.”

This is something that the council has been calling for over the last couple of years, due to serious concerns about how the RICS Financial Viability in Planning (2012) guidance note was being applied in practice.

Islington Council’s planning guidance on Development Viability is very clear and specifically cautions developers against overpaying for land and using the purchase price as a justification for providing little or no affordable housing. This landmark judgment reinforces what Islington (and many other councils) have been arguing for years that affordable housing requirements cannot be bypassed by using the “dark art” of viability assessments to ignore planning policy requirements.”

http://www.islington.media/r/97837/high_court_backs_islington_in_a_landmark_planning_case_on

“RURAL RESIDENTS FACE SOCIAL CARE ‘LOTTERY'”

The government’s system of funding social care services is unsustainable and unfair for rural communities, the Rural Services Network has warned.

Service providers operating across rural areas face inequitable costs compared to their urban counterparts for both adult and child social care, said the network.

Rural council taxpayers also faced unfair costs, warned the network in response to an inquiry by MPs who are examining the long-term future of adult social care.

RSN chief executive Graham Biggs said: “Social care is a national issue but it is in crisis.

He added: “While continuing to be delivered locally with flexibility for councils to respond to local circumstances and priorities, it should be 100% funded by central government to provide an adequate core service level for all residents nationally – irrespective of where people live.

“Council tax is an unsuitable taxation vehicle for demand responsive services and means rural residents face a postcode lottery when it comes to social care provision.”

Mr Biggs said council tax should only be used to fund social care if a given local authority decided extra money was needed to boost services above a core level locally.

It should not be used to fund the core, national, service, he added.

Mr Biggs said: “It costs substantially more to provide social care in rural areas than it does in larger towns and cities – and there is higher demand for services in rural areas.

“As a statutory duty, services have to be prioritised and other budgets – such as rural transport support, for example – are being cut significantly as a consequence.”

This was because older people make up a higher proportion of the population in rural areas than they do in urban areas, said Mr Biggs.

At the same time, the twin challenge of isolation and distance made it harder and more expensive to deliver services to dispersed rural populations.

Such costs inevitably and unfairly penalised rural councils – and were compounded by issues such as poor economies of scale and poorer external markets for delivery.

Mr Biggs said: “A future formulae to fund social care services must fully reflect the different costs of delivery imposed by both geography and population.”

http://www.rsnonline.org.uk/rural-residents-face-social-care-lottery

“Millennial housing crisis engulfs Britain”

“Home ownership among young families has plummeted across every corner of Britain over the past 35 years, according to a devastating inquiry into the housing crisis facing millennials.

The proportion of families headed by a 25- to 34-year-old that own their own home has more than halved in some regions, showing that the crisis goes far beyond London.

Analysis conducted as part of a two-year investigation into intergenerational fairness in Britain, chaired by a former Tory minister, found that millennials are being forced into increasingly cramped and expensive rented properties that leave them with a longer commute and little chance of saving for a home. It also finds an increasing proportion of the young living in overcrowded housing.

The commission, which has been overseen by the Resolution Foundation thinktank and includes the former universities minister David Willetts, is expected to conclude that new taxes on property wealth may be the only way to restore fairness and prepare the country to pay the care and support costs of an ageing population.

Ownership among 25- to 34-year-olds has plummeted in Greater Manchester from 53% in 1984 to 26% last year. It has fallen from 54% to 25% in south Yorkshire, from 45% to 20% in the West Midlands, from 50% to 28% in Wales and from 55% to 27% in the south-east. In outer London, the proportion has collapsed from 53% to just 16%. Out of 22 regions analysed by the commission, in only one – Strathclyde in Scotland – has home ownership among the young remained stable. It stood at 32% in 1984 and 33% last year, having peaked at 45% in 2002.

Ownership in London has fallen consistently over the past 30 years, whereas rates in some other parts of the country declined more slowly before the early 2000s, but very rapidly thereafter.

Even favourable economic conditions are likely to result in millennials catching up with the home ownership levels of the previous cohort only by the age of 45. Fast-growing inheritances will help some, but nearly half of young non-homeowners have parents who do not own either.

Millennials, classed as those born between 1981 and 2000, are half as likely to own a home at the age of 30 as baby boomers because of higher prices, low earnings growth and tighter credit rules. In the 1980s it would have taken a typical household in their late 20s around three years to save for an average-sized deposit. It would now take 19 years, the analysis shows.

Almost two-fifths of millennials rent privately at 30, double the rate for Generation X, born between 1966 and 1980, and four times the rate for baby boomers – born after the war until 1965 – at the same age.

Millennials are now spending an average of nearly a quarter of their net income on housing, three times more than the pre-war generation, now aged 70 and over.

Their living space is also declining. Each person living in the private rented sector now has on average eight square metres less space than they did in 1996. Meanwhile, those who own their own homes enjoy an extra four square metres each. Since younger households are more likely to be private renters than owners, they now have less space on average per household member. Just under one in 10 households headed by millennials in their late 20s now live in overcrowded conditions.

They are facing longer commutes than older generations endured. If current differences continue, millennials will spend almost three full days more commuting in the year they turn 40 than the baby boomers did at the same age.

The Resolution Foundation says that a combination of an ageing population and an increased demand for services which governments are committed to deliver means that welfare spending looks likely to increase very substantially in the coming decades.

It says that one way of addressing some of the generational implications of tax rises would be to change the age profile that these additional revenues are drawn from. The tax treatment of property and pension wealth may also have to be considered….”

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nhs-doctors-confidentiality-patients-children-a8326106.html

“Local Elections: Diverse voices are being drowned out by the undemocratic voting system in England and Wales”

” … Across England, local elections are non-proportionate i.e. the diverse way in which people vote is not accurately reflected in the results.

Many council wards elect multiple councillors – but the opportunity this presents to increase the level of proportionality isn’t being taken. Instead, councillors in such wards are generally elected in one of two ways: all-up or by thirds.

In Newham, East London, for example, the council elects all at the same time. There are 20 wards each electing three councillors. When voters there go to the polls, they can vote for up to three candidates. Parties will typically put forward three candidates each and the three candidates with the most votes win.

Electing councillors in this way can be even less proportionate than in single-member wards using the same ‘First Past the Post’ style system, because a ward may have, for instance, two bits that are supportive of one party and one bit that is supportive of another – and the two bits will always overpower the third.

Newham has seen one party (Labour) hold every single seat on the council since 2010, last time winning 60% of the vote. While this is clearly deserving of a majority, it should not be without opposition.

The other way councillors in multi-member wards are elected are in staggered ballots, which will take place in 107 councils this year. Typically, this sees a portion of members up for election, usually in three years out of every four. So a ward will often have councillors elected in different years.

This not only creates disproportionality, but the constant cycle of elections tends to reduce turnout, from a combination of electoral fatigue and because of the reduced power of the ballot box. If a council is say 85% controlled by one party, and a third of seats go up for election, then even if the opposition take every seat that party will still control 52% of seats.

The situation could not be more different North of Hadrian’s Wall, however. Until 2007 Scotland was very familiar with the problems of majoritarian voting in local government. Councils were distant and unaccountable. And there were one-party states with just a handful of opposition councillors, or none at all.

But a change to the Single Transferable Vote (STV) brought proportional representation to Scottish local government.

Overnight every council and ward in Scotland became competitive, forcing a renewal of local democracy.

Scottish local government is now not only more competitive, it is better functioning. In 2003 (before the reform) 52.3% of voters saw their vote elect their chosen candidate. By 2012 (after the reform) 76.7% saw their first preference elected.

Councils have since been governed by coalitions, minorities and parties with absolute control. And turnout in 2017 was strong by local council standards at 46.9% – which compares favourably to the 38.9% in the last locals in London.

There are now moves towards giving Welsh councils the chance to choose to change to the system.

So while the Electoral Reform Society and other civil society groups are rightly campaigning for people to cast their votes on May 3, it is also recognised that change is desperately needed to spread the use of a proportional system across the United Kingdom.

This democratic reform must be extended to England too so that its local government be revitalised in the same way. “

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/local-elections-diverse-voices-are-being-drowned-out-by-the-undemocratic-voting-system-in-england-and-wales/

“Millennials don’t need living rooms, says leading architect”

“In a briefing paper, Patrik Schumacher, who worked on the London Aquatics Centre built for the Olympics, argued that centrally-located “hotel room-sized” studio flats are ideal for busy young people.

“Those who are now making the hard choice between paying 80 per cent of their income on a central flat versus commuting from afar, will in the liberalized future appreciate new options and perhaps choose to pay only 60 per cent for a smaller but more central flat.

“For many young professionals who are out and about networking 24/7, a small, clean, private hotel room-sized central patch serves their needs perfectly well,” he said.

The most central homes should be given to people “whose productive lives are most enhanced by being thus positioned, i.e. those who operate at the centre of our network society, attending early morning meetings, after work networking events,weekend conferences, and professional lectures”, he said.”

Mr Schumacher argues in the paper published by the Adam Smith Institute that the minimum size of 38 square metres on newbuild flats is “paternalistic” and stops poorer young people from getting on the housing ladder.

He said: “Units half that size, built at an earlier time, are rare and thus at the moment overpriced, hotly desired commodities, for rent or for sale.

“Lifting this prohibition would allow a whole new (lower) income group, which is now excluded, to enter the market. This move would both boost overall unit numbers and affordability.” …

He said planning regulations have been “unduly politicised and thereby paralysed”.

In 2016 the controversial architect told an audience at the World Architecture Festival in Berlin that public spaces such as streets and parks in London should be privatised and social housing should be abolished. …

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/25/millennials-dont-need-living-rooms-says-leading-architect-says/

It costs twice as much to buy energy, water, council tax and insurance in Devon as it does in London

“It costs almost twice as much to live in Devon as it does to live in the heart of London – and the county has the country’s worst broadband speeds and highest water rates.

New research reveals the 10 most expensive places for home insurance, energy bills, water rates and council tax are in the county – and part of Devon has come out worst.

The study by price comparison site uSwitch found South Hams residents pay an average of £332 a month on utility bills and insurance compared with £185 for those in Westminster.

The county also has the slowest broadband speeds in the country and the highest water rates, reports The Mirror.

Devon and Cornwall pay the most for water with average monthly bills of £71.

South West Water, says the steep cost is because of thousands of miles of pipes are needed to reach a large area of land, with only a small number of households to cover the costs. …”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/costs-twice-much-live-devon-1506192

Deliberate government policies … NOT unintended consequences

“… Either the home secretary ignored the inevitable cruelty in chasing her targets – or she was too dumb to ask. True, Border Force staff told me that Rudd had had the wool pulled over her eyes about its state of dereliction. When she first visited Heathrow, managers bussed in apprentice tax-collectors from Newcastle to staff the passport kiosks, with passengers held back in another hall so that she saw no queues.

… Breaking this government’s stone heart has proved impossible over the years. As £30bn and then another £12bn were gouged from the social security budget, the devastating effects on families, on disabled people, on children, had no impact. Instead the government heaped abuse on victims, as Iain Duncan Smith vowed to end the “something-for-nothing culture”. Never admitting most people on benefits are in work, he liked warning them: “This is not an easy life any more, chum. I think you’re a slacker.” He denied his strict targets for knocking people off benefits: but jobcentre staff showed me what were called ”spinning plates” monthly targets, with one telling me: “You park your conscience when you work here.” Staff missing their quota were disciplined. The easiest hits were people with learning disabilities or mental illness, and benefits were stopped for tiny infractions. Did anyone in government break their heart over diabetic ex-soldier David Clapson, who starved to death when his benefits were stopped?

George Osborne relentlessly sneered at households sleeping on with “closed blinds while honest citizens set off to work”. Now his Evening Standard begs for charity for London’s hungry children, impoverished by him: the Institute for Fiscal Studies warns that another 1.2 million children are falling into poverty.

It never broke their hearts to punish families with more than two children, or cut rent support, or evict anyone with a spare room, sending them sometimes hundreds of miles from schools, jobs, friends and family. It didn’t break their hearts to see more than 50,000 Motability cars taken from disabled households. Would it break their hearts to see people with children using food banks?

Tory MPs know all this. I have sat in their surgeries to see how they react to the stream of human suffering they are inflicting. They look sorrowful, and promise to write (useless) letters to ministers. They get pleas for help from people being evicted and frail old people neglected at home for lack of care. They see children’s centres closing, and the soaring numbers of children taken into care because no one caught family problems early. They hear from patients in pain or danger through operations postponed. Maybe they complain about 600,000 lost young people, hanging around neither in education nor employment, with youth services having been abolished.

A “hostile environment” is what the government has deliberately created. Calculated cruelty has been policy, not accident. Writing about all this state-inflicted suffering can feel like banging your head against a brick wall: Guardian readers know it already, while government ministers don’t give a damn. Is Amber Rudd’s “heartbreak” a moment of great collective epiphany? Will a frozen dam of tears suddenly be unleashed? Theresa May’s “burning social injustices” burn brighter than ever, with no sign yet of an outbreak of howling repentance along the government benches.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/26/amber-rudd-heartbroken-windrush