As referred to on “Farming Today”‘
Category Archives: Rural communities
Cameron’s housing policy thrown out by House of Lords
“David Cameron could be forced to make big concessions to his flagship housing policy after the Government suffered two embarrassing defeats in the House of Lords.
The Prime Minister’s plan to help young people get on the housing ladder by offering a 20% discount could be blocked unless key changes are made to force buyers to pay back the discount if they sell up.
The decision puts the Government under significant pressure to get the bill through both houses before MPs break in May up ahead of local elections and the EU referendum.
Peers supported two key amendments to the Housing and Planning Bill.
One will force those who buy under the scheme to repay the discount they receive if they sell up, less 5% for every year they own the property over a 20 year period.
The second would allow councils to choose how many starter homes are built in their area in a bid to make sure affordable housing for those on low incomes remains a priority.
Brandon Lewis, the housing minister, said the Government’s commitment to giving first-time buyers a 20% discount on new developments is “unwavering”.
He added: ” The Government believes it is wrong that a 30-year-old couple’s aspirations should be thwarted by having to wait until they are 50 to benefit from the full value of their starter home.”
But Lord Kerslake, the former head of the civil service, said the changes would make the bill fairer and protect the taxpayer by ensuring people who buy starter homes repay the discount when they move.
The Government was also forced to make a last-minute concession to avoid a third defeat, promising that safeguards would be brought forward for so-called rural exception sites to ensure that starter homes will not be built on land earmarked for affordable housing.”
Next scrutiny committee agenda published – rural broadband down the pan
Really worth a full read but here are some highlights:
Broadband (or lack of):
“I regret that our application was unsuccessful as you will see from the two letters that are appended to this update.” (Twiss quote)
The exchange of correspondence between EDDC and the grant funders who turned down the application is VERY enlightening and should be a major embarrassment to lead councillor Phil Twiss.
Having pulled out of the Devon-wide consortium that has just been granted extra funding we are – precisely nowhere, in fact worse than that, much further back with rural broadband provision than ever before.
Public engagement (or lack of):
A risible attempt to produce a (very brief) report that pretends that EDDC consults appropriately and widely – but listing examples where the public has the exact opposite opinion!
Website (or lack of)
Boasting that more and more forms are going online and how wonderful the industry insiders think it is (so it’s a pity you can rarely find what you are looking for as an outsider and with many documents missing. But how you can get gold stars from your colleagues when your search function is described only as “fairly good” beats Owl!
and the committee’s draft report for the council’s own annual report all up for scrutiny.
Gateshead asks sensible questions before committing to devolution
“Town hall leaders in the North East are making a series of demands on George Osborne on a number of key issues as talks to devolve powers to the region continue after councillors in Gateshead failed to endorse the latest deal.
An agreement would see the North East handed a raft of new powers and an extra £30m in regional funding in return for establishing an elected mayor as part of the Chancellor’s Northern Powerhouse agenda.
But Gateshead Council’s cabinet voted last week to reject the proposals, sparking doubts about whether the deal could be made.
The region’s six remaining local authorities are now looking to press ahead, but are calling for “clarification and commitment” from the Government on a number of “outstanding issues” from the Government before deciding whether to give their seal of approval to the multi-billion pound covenant.
The North East Combined Authority has set out a list of these issues ahead of further talks with the Government and has delayed making a final decision until May.
Newcastle Council’s leader Nick Forbes, whose council has endorsed the deal, said at a meeting of the authority’s leadership board: “None of us would have had this deal as a starting point, but it is important that we take this first step.”
Helen Golightly, North East Local Enterprise Partnership’s chief operating officer, said the meeting “underlined the region’s continued support for devolution”.
She said: “There are still matters where the local authorities feel they need more clarification from Government. The North East LEP remains fully supportive of the devolution process.”
She added: “Devolving powers will give us more opportunity to help drive the economic growth our region needs to contribute our full worth to the UK economy.”
Outstanding issues include a lack of certainty over £30m a year funding over 30 years and the need to “rural proof” investment to ensure rural areas are not left behind. The councils are also awaiting confirmation on how the Government plans to devolve funding for sustainable transport. Leaders also want further commitments to ensure the North East is not put at a financial disadvantage in relation to Scotland.
Jeremy Middleton, North East LEP board member and a mayoral candidate for the region, said the North East Combined Authority’s politicians were “holding the region back”.
He said: “This delay means there is a very real risk that the North East will be left behind again.”
A Government spokesman said: “The Government is making huge progress towards rebalancing Britain’s economy and empowering local areas through the devolution of powers and resources away from Whitehall.
“This is a bottom up process and if any local authority in the end decides it no longer wants to be part of it, then we will continue to work with those local partners who do, in order to make this historic opportunity in for the North East a reality.”
Chardstock and Dunkeswell: Scrutiny Committee report throws up worrying matters
How sensible it was of Councillor Gardner to make her own recording of this meeting, as it appears the Council’s own audio equipment broke down for this section of the meeting.
What follows is Councillor Gardner’s report.
Scrutiny of late amendments to the Local Plan: what did we learn?
Written by Cathy Gardner on 22-Mar-2016. Posted in Cathy Gardner EDA web site:
“On Thursday 17 March 2016, EDDCs Scrutiny Committee finally examined what went on in March last year when, at the 11th hour, two changes to the draft Local Plan (LP) were voted through. Using clear criteria, Officers had compiled a list of ‘sustainable’ villages, which excluded Dunkeswell and Chardstock. However, at the final Development Management Committee (DMC) meeting for the LP, Dunkeswell was added to the list and at the extra-ordinary Council meeting to finalise the LP, Chardstock was added in. These actions were taken without any request for Officers to verify the evidence supporting the changes.
The decision to include Dunkeswell was made on the suggestion by the then-ward member that a school was going to be built. This was not the case. Arguments made in support of Chardstock by the Deputy Leader Andrew Moulding, on behalf of the ward member, the Leader of the Council Paul Diviani, were also erroneous.
It seems that Planning Officers did not think it was necessary (or even appropriate) to check the information stated by the then ward member for Dunkeswell, despite there being time to do this before the Council meeting. Even more interesting was the assertion by the Councils’ Legal Advisor that it is not the role of any officer (including the CEO Mark Williams) to “…withhold decision-making powers from Councillors” (1). This may be true but surely Officers must give clear advice to Councillors, especially if a proposed decision might be unsound. In this case the CEO did not provide clear advice (2) to full Council that they were being asked to vote on amendments which were both against Planning Officer advice and based on information that had not been verified. He did not suggest that Members might prefer to ask for the information to be confirmed before voting or that making a decision under these circumstances was inadvisable.
The urge to get the draft LP signed off seems to have overridden any caution that making last minute changes might be unsound. Fortunately, in these cases, the Inspector did not uphold the changes and neither village is now in the ‘sustainable’ list. Unfortunately there have been consequences for Chardstock and development was approved on the understanding that the village was to be classified as ‘sustainable’.
So, apparently, Members can make unfounded and unconfirmed assertions and if other Members accept what they are told, they can vote through changes to a document as vital as the LP, contrary to the result of proper process and Officer advice without any difficulty. In the end the Council is accountable for its decisions and they should be evidence-based, but the only recourse for communities affected by an error is a Judicial Review (JR). If someone can afford to bring a JR and wins, the result will be a cost to the Council – which is our money. There are no sanctions for any Members who may present incorrect information to bring such a result about.
Can this happen again?
Yes, almost certainly. In the short term the Villages Development Plan is being finalised. In the medium term the LP will be up for review. So there will always be opportunities for incorrect information to be used to sway the content of development plans.
So what can we do?
I suppose the only thing we can do is to be alert to events like this and make efforts to call them out as they happen; to request that Officers confirm what is being suggested and to ask for any vote to be deferred until this has happened. We have to insist that all decisions are based on sound evidence.
The lesson for Members has to be to not take anything at face value, no matter who says it. Put the interests of residents first, follow evidence-based advice and do not be swayed by persuasive speakers. And perhaps wonder about the motives behind such actions.
Personal audio recording of Scrutiny Committee meeting, March 17 2016 (Council system broke down during this part of the meeting), C Gardner
2. Audio recording of extra-ordinary Council Meeting, March 26 2015, EDDC website (2:42:44) http://eastdevon.gov.uk/recordings/council/eocouncil260315recording
Source: Scrutiny of late amendments to the Local Plan: what did we learn?
Written by Cathy Gardner on 22-Mar-2016. Posted in Cathy Gardner
“Rural broadband con”
“Almost half of homes and businesses in rural areas described as “live” on broadband maps are not connected for fast speeds, it has been revealed.
The premises have been “passed” by fibre networks capable of delivering speeds of 24 Megabits per second (Mbps), so are shaded green – “live and accepting orders” – on official maps.
But 48 per cent of them – around 1.5 million people, it is believed – are stuck with speeds below 10Mbps and 22 per cent of those cannot obtain speeds above 5Mbps. A campaigner for better rural broadband, which uncovered the figures, accused ministers of carrying out a “deception” on people living and working in the countryside.
Graham Long, chairman of Broadband for Rural Devon and Somerset, said: “This is one of the biggest confidence tricks played on the British public since the South Sea Bubble. In urban areas, the passed but not connected effect is of the order of about four per cent – but in rural areas it is 48 per cent.” …
Broadband in some English villages slower than on Everest!
Dan Howdle … warned that “digital black holes” risked economic decline as businesses needed an online presence.
… “These often beautiful, scenic locations will become ghost towns,” he said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35718107
Perhaps our new super-devolved Devon and Somerset Local Enterprise Partnership could divert some of the vast sums of our money they are pledging to the Hinkley Point power station that may never be built to this good cause that will no doubt promote “economic growth”, though perhaps not for the people they would rather it went to.
“The Tories’ Housing Bill will wreak havoc in their own back yard”
“Today the House of Lords is trying to stop another Tory policy – counting Starter Homes which cost £450,000 as ‘affordable housing’.
But while there’s been a lot of noise about Labour-dominated inner-cities, campaigners say there are forgotten victims too – those who live in the countryside.
Shaun Spiers, chief executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), writes why the Bill is hammering people in the Tories’ heartland.
The traditional idea of an English village may be one of rolling fields, thatched cottages and workers tending the land.
But just as important for our villages’ survival is a vibrant mix of people from all backgrounds.
The sad reality facing the countryside is that young people are moving out of their villages because they can’t afford a home.
Schools, shops and pubs are closing. And the Government, which last year promised to put the countryside at the heart of policy-making, is totally ignoring the housing plight of rural people on low or average wages.
With rural house prices much higher than urban prices and rural wages much lower, the only way to make villages affordable is to build more housing association or council homes for rent.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tories-housing-bill-wreak-havoc-7488979
Rural broadband: still only sticking- plaster solutions
Will BT being “asked nicely” to let other providers share their network more make a difference?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35657210
Hard to say, especially as EDDC has decided to “go it alone” with rural broadband and try to provide its own service (if or when funded).
Will rural mobile “not spots” improve (a different matter, but still important) – some towns and villages still having no service or just 2G (unable to connect to internet)?
If you want answers to these questions get in touch (if you can from where you are) with EDDC Councillor Phil Twiss:
Email: ptwiss@eastdevon.gov.uk
Telephone: 01404 891327
Address: Swallowcliff, Beacon, Honiton, EX14 4TT
who is the councillor tasked with improving these services
Kerp those pictures of “the other East Devon” rolling in
Entries already in for our alternative “destruction of East Devon” photo competition – and what a tale they tell.
Keep them coming:
send to
eastdevonwatch@gmail.com
They can be anonymous, just let us know where and when taken
Entries close on 30 April 2016.
“Cornwall for change” (70 town and parish councils) campaigns to protect countryside
“A group of town and parish councils has launched a campaign to protect “the green fields of Cornwall”.
The group Cornwall for Change, representing 70 town and parish councils, said there was great concern about the way planning was being executed in the Duchy.
And their fight won support from the House of Lords late last week.
Campaigners said that Cornwall Council has already given permission for nearly 30,000 new homes, most of which are to be built on green fields around existing towns.
“This will increase traffic, have a big (bad) visual impact and make little or no benefit to locals who need genuinely affordable homes,” the organisers said.
“We need to make much smarter use of existing sites in and around Cornwall’s town centres so they can flourish once again.”
Orlando Kimber, spokesman for the umbrella group, said: “We are seeing 52,000 new homes planned, and all over the place they are being built on the green fields of Cornwall.
“Using brownfield sites would reduce the pressure on transport, and increase housing density in towns, which Cornwall Chamber of Commerce is in favour of.
“We recognise that Cornwall Council is under pressure with its budget, and we feel that whatever money it does have, it should spend wisely.”
He has previously called for an audit of brownfield sites in the Duchy, and gave the example of two suitable brownfield sites in Bodmin – the Walker Lines industrial estate and the MPG book factory, which is now acquired by Ocean Housing. …”
Another attempt to ignore local plans and neighbourhood plans!
Why does Owl think that the report on this public consultation that ends in April has already been written? And that it will make it even easier for developers to ruin the countryside and ride roughshod over local plans?
Because the whole point is “to reduce regulatory burdens” on said developers.
You can imagine the responses they will already have their spinners working on.
“The Government has issued a call for evidence as part of a ‘Rural Planning Review’ which it says will “look to reduce regulatory burdens in support of new homes, jobs and innovation”.
The review will examine – amongst other things – the rules for converting agricultural buildings to residential use.
The call for evidence has been published jointly by the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
It was promised at the launch of the Government’s Rural Productivity Plan last summer.
Environment Secretary Elizabeth Truss said rural areas had “huge potential”, adding that the Government’s plan would help “create thriving towns and villages, where families can turn disused agricultural buildings into new homes for the next generation and entrepreneurs can launch the latest cutting-edge start-up from an office with a stunning countryside view”.
Communities Secretary Greg Clark, added: “The need for new homes doesn’t stop where our cities end, it’s just as real in rural towns and villages that need new housebuilding to keep thriving.
“That’s why we are looking carefully at how our planning reforms can deliver this whilst at the same time ensuring local people have more control over planning and the Green Belt continues to be protected.”
The deadline for submitting evidence is 21 April 2016.
Another mega-expensive omnishambles: mobile phone “not spots”
Once again, we will put the final sentence first. By the way, LEP in the link is Lancashire Evening Post – not Local Enterprise Partnership! 600 masts planned, 15 completed, £9.1 m spent – £607,000 PER MAST.
<strong>“By December 2015, a couple of months ago, the project had cost £9.1m and only 15 masts [out of 600 promised] were live.”
A project to end the misery of mobile phone ‘not spots’ is an embarrassing flop, a Government minister has admitted. Just 15 masts have been put up by the £150m Mobile Infrastructure Project, unveiled by George Osborne back in 2011 – when 600 were promised.
Now Ed Vaizey, the digital economy minister, has told MPs criticising the tortuously slow progress of the scheme: “I am guilty as charged. “I do not think the programme has been a success – and I do not think ministers often say that about their programmes.”
During a Commons debate, Mr Vaizey agreed “mobile phones are essential to many people in their daily lives”. He added: “We set aside £150m. We talked about 600 sites. Our heart was in the right place.”
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has decided to wrap up the Mobile Infrastructure Project next month, at the end of its original three-year timescale.
The move threatens to leave a pledge to deliver mobile phone coverage to 60,000 more remote premises across the UK – out of 80,000 in known ‘not-spots’ – in tatters.
When the scheme got underway, in 2013, ministers promised it would “help connect rural communities, create local jobs and contribute to economic growth”.
The “infrastructure and media services company” Arqiva was appointed to deliver the project and the big four mobile network operators pledged to provide their services. The £150m fund was intended to pay for the infrastructure, while the mobile phone companies funded each site’s operating costs for a 20-year lifespan.
Mr Vaizey pointed to problems with the mobile phone companies, local planners and local residents to explain the project’s failure. One council, Wiltshire, spent so long arguing about the colour of a mast it missed the deadline for planning approval. The minister said: “We were dragging four operators with us, metaphorically kicking and screaming. “We have had communities campaigning against masts and putting concrete blocks in front of the base stations to prevent any further work.”
But, Mr Vaizey insisted, the spread of 4G technology was expected to cut the area of ‘not spots’ to as low as two per cent and that of partial ‘not spots’ to about 12 per cent.
Conservative backbencher John Glen, the MP for Salisbury, said: “The situation is extraordinarily frustrating.
“By December 2015, a couple of months ago, the project had cost £9.1m and only 15 masts were live.”
“South West MPs poised to rebel over rural funding settlement”
” … Under the provisional settlement announced in December, Cornwall Council will see its grant cut by £12 million in 2016/17, bringing its average spend per household down from £1,687 to £1,643. Devon will see its grant cut by £14 million, reducing spending per household from £1,402 to £1,363.
In contrast, despite a £15 million squeeze on Manchester’s grant, per household spend in the city will be £1,872. And over the next year the Greater London Authority will see its budget increase by £26 million. ”
Rural Services Network attacks government rural funding cuts
Remember that ALL MPs in the far south west, rural and urban, except Ben Bradshaw in Exeter, are Conservatives.
“THE Rural Services Network has told the government it must listen to MPs on the vital issue of rural funding.
The network issued the warning after MPs slammed a proposed financial settlement for local authorities as unfair.
The Rural Fair Share cross-party group of MPs and the Rural Services Network are both calling for £130m to be redistributed to rural councils. This is the amount campaigners say the government still owes rural local authorities after it agreed to alter its funding formula in 2012 and give greater weighting to sparsity.
Government ministers have proposed a much lower settlement. Campaigners say it unfair that urban residents receive 45% more in central government grant than their rural counterparts – despite paying £81 less in council tax per head of population.
The impact of the balance is exacerbated because it costs more to deliver public services in rural areas.
Network Chief executive Graham Biggs said already cash-strapped local rural councils would face the prospect of being forced to increase council tax much more than urban councils. Even then, they would still have to undertake swingeing service cuts, he said.
“The government must think again on this issue of fundamental unfairness.”
Proposed changes to the funding formula had been applied unevenly and at the last minute by the government, said Mr Biggs. Without any forewarning, they would have the effect of further penalising rural areas, he added.
The government has announced plans to increase the Rural Services Grant work for the most rural areas by an extra £20m in 2016-17. But Mr Biggs said a promised extra £50m by 2019/20 over and above the £15.5m paid in 2015/16 was “back-end loaded”.
The government had implied there was £20m extra funding in 2016/17 when, in fact it amounted to just a £4.5m increase to £20m compared to 2015/16.”
http://www.rsnonline.org.uk/services/listen-to-mps-on-rural-funding-government-told
“Rural homeowners told to wait for three years for ‘minimum’ broadband speeds”
“Ofcom said up to 1.5 million rural households will have to wait for two to three years before getting a basic internet service required for a ‘typical’ family home.
Ofcom argues that internet speeds of at least 10 megabits per second (Mbits/s) is the “minimum… required by the typical household” with multiple devices to get a good service to stream programmes and access websites.
Broadband speed tends to be slower in the countryside because homes are generally situated further away from internet exchanges than in towns and cities.
However, in a report, Ofcom warned that there are “about 1.5 million, or 48 per cent of, premises are unable to receive speeds above 10Mbit/s” in the British countryside. …
… Why is 10 mega bits per second a measure for good broadband?
The internet speed 10Mbits/s is seen as the minimum speed needed to watch iPlayer and Netflix in high definition, and make reliable Skype video calls.
Ofcom says: “Evidence suggests that those consumers with faster connections are more likely to rate their broadband experience good. In general, 10Mbit/s appears to be the tipping point beyond which most consumers rate their broadband experience as ‘good’. This continues to support our view that a minimum of 10Mbit/s is required by the typical household.”
Broadba(n)d and a question for Grant Shapps
For those of you, particularly in rural areas of East Devon, struggling with your poor internet connections, this will give you no pleasure:
“BT workers were caught mocking a report into the company’s poor broadband services when they failed to put the telephone down after calling up the report’s authors.”
The question for Grant Shapps:
If you routinely record your calls where are the tapes on the young Tory bullying issue?
The effect of the Local Plan on villages of East Devon
Excellent summary of the effect of the Local Plan on the district’s villages – including potential pitfalls if the Plan goes hopelessly wrong, given the risky “high growth” strategy that the Inspector has accepted:
Gardens: greenfield or brownfield – depends where you live
“The Planning Court has today begun hearing a case over whether some private residential gardens can be considered brownfield land.
The case of Dartford Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (CO/4129/2015) has implications for owners of residential gardens, and could potentially signal a return to so-called “garden grabbing”.
Dartford is seeking to quash a decision by a planning inspector, who found that only residential gardens “in built up areas” are greenfield land, whereas others, in the countryside, are previously developed land (also known as “brownfield”).
The Communities Secretary is resisting the challenge, relying on the same reasoning as the inspector.
Ashley Bowes of Cornerstone Barrristers who is representing Dartford BC, said ahead of the hearing that the Department for Communities and Local Government’s position was “surprising” given that the present Secretary of State, Greg Clark, in his role as Planning Minister in 2010, amended PPS3 “Housing” to exclude residential gardens from the definition of brownfield land.
Bowes added that the amendment was accompanied by a written ministerial statement to the House of Commons and a letter to all chief planning officers, explaining that local communities now had the power to stop “garden grabbing”.
He said: “This case has the potential to radically alter the status of private residential gardens in the countryside, from greenfield to brownfield, increasing their prospects for development. A good many people will be watching the outcome with interest.”
Conservative MPs say government has got rural funding wrong
“The Government “has got it wrong” on rural funding, Conservative MPs have admitted, as they continue their call for a fairer settlement for the South West.
MPs from across Devon and Cornwall have lambasted cuts to local authority budgets, warning that reforms to council funding could aggravate the urban-rural divide.
And they have urged ministers to “put it right” by increasing support and funding for rural communities while they have the Westcountry’s support.
The comments were made during Monday’s cross-party debate on local government funding, led by the Yorkshire MP Graham Stuart. The discussion follows last month’s funding settlements, during which Devon and Cornwall councils saw their budgets slashed. …”
East Devon Watch 