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

“Sleeping rough more comfortable than army exercises – Tory MP”

Where to start? Of course, sleeping rough for a TV programme is easy! A nice warm bed to return to (not to mention a nice MPs salary) AND a film crew to keep you safe! AND he forgets to say he did his TV programme in 1991!

“A Conservative MP and former army officer has said that sleeping rough is “a lot more comfortable” than military exercises, in a debate he led on tackling street homelessness.

Adam Holloway, the MP for Gravesham in Kent, told parliamentary colleagues in the Westminster Hall debate on Tuesday that if a person is “able-bodied and sound of mind” there are resources that make it possible to sleep rough.

He said begging was also part of the problem, allowing homeless people to make “quite a lot of money”.

Holloway, a supporter of the pro-Brexit campaign group Leave Means Leave, also said that a rise in street homelessness was driven by eastern European immigration, claiming that many migrants from that region preferred to sleep rough than pay for accommodation.

He said mental illness and drug addiction were “real ingrained problems” behind homelessness that needed to be tackled to solve the crisis.

Holloway, who told MPs he had spent a number of nights during the parliamentary recess in February sleeping on the streets as part of a television programme on street homelessness, said: “One observation I do have, if you are able-bodied and of sound mind there are all sorts of services – not quite 24 hours a day – that make it possible to sleep out.

“I’m 52, I was in the army; to be honest for me sleeping rough in central London is a lot more comfortable than going on exercise in the army.

“But if you’re mentally ill or you are old or you are personality disordered then it is a very different thing. Or if you’re drug addicted it is very difficult. We have to accept that some people are able to sleep rough because there are resources to do so.”

Holloway’s comments come after research revealed at least 78 homeless people died on the streets and in temporary accommodation this winter, bringing the number of recorded homeless deaths to more than 300 since 2013.”

Swire takes an indirect swipe at May with his oleaginous* support of Amber Rudd

* oleaginous = exaggeratedly and distastefully complimentary; obsequious.

And Swire at “the posher end of the Tory shires”. Perhaps that is where he belongs in future … just saying …

“… Not much of a Rudd support crowd was in attendance (it does not help her popularity with Tory MPs that her main backer is George Osborne, editor of London’s Evening Standard) but the posher end of the Tory shires was in attendance to prop up the former Cheltenham Ladies’ College bluestocking.

Sir Nicholas Soames (Con, Mid Sussex), gallant knight, shouted ‘well done’ at her. East Devon’s Sir Hugo Swire (Con) said ‘any attempt to lay blame at the door of the current Home Secretary is plainly absurd’. Laughter. Some took Sir Hugo’s remark for an attack on Mrs May. Hollingbery alert! Miss Rudd, in reply, hurriedly said the Windrush problem went back to 2005, when Labour was in power. …”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5649625/QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-humbling-Home-Secretary.html

Swire adores Rudd? Seems so …

Rudd’s statement on the Windrush scandal:

“… While Rudd had been on her feet, her parliamentary private secretary, Rachel Maclean, had been busy handing out a list of tame questions she would like Tory MPs to ask her. It hadn’t taken her long. Apart from four other Home Office ministers who had been instructed to turn up and were sitting miserable and stoney-faced beside her, there were fewer than 20 Conservative backbenchers in the Commons for this latest humiliation.

And even they were fairly muted in their support, with only Hugo Swire declaring his undying love. Shares in Rudd as the next prime minister have nosedived in the past week. Just about the only thing keeping her in post is the sense that if she goes, then May might fall with her. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/23/amber-rudd-windrush-caribbean-immigration-home-secretaries

“Ain’t too proud to beg”

Hot on the heels of this article:

“A donation box installed on Sidmouth seafront that has been removed for maintenance will not be reinstated as the repairs are ‘too costly’.

A Freedom of Information Request submitted to the council had revealed that so far the council has received less money in donations than the cost of installing the box itself. …

… The cost of the sign and its legs were £276, and the cost of the box was £125, and the amount collected to date is £165.75, the Freedom of Information Request reveals. …”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/sidmouth-donation-box-cliff-fall-1416667

comes this cartoon from the current Private Eye:

Don’t count your (productivity) Unicorns before they hatch!

From David Daniel:

“The “Joint Committee” (representatives from 23 organisations across Devon and Somerset – political balance rules do not apply) has just endorsed the final version of the HotSW Productivity Strategy.

But would you buy the proverbial second-hand car from an organisation that takes such a cavalier attitude to presenting facts and figures? Would you trust it to invest hundreds of millions of pounds of your taxes wisely? And, if you did, would you have any faith in its ability subsequently to deliver the goods?

Let’s start with the press release statement: “The Productivity Strategy aims to double productivity in the area over 20 years”. It does no such thing. The maximum claimed productivity gain in the strategy is to jump from a currently “assumed” 1.7% local annual productivity growth (probably nearer 1.5%) to 2.2%. No doubling here even if you accumulate the change over 20 years. For interest, historic average UK productivity growth rate is 2.0% and in the league table of LEPs, HotSW ranks 32nd out of 37 (London and South East dominate).

The 20 year timescale is a bit fuzzy as well. The introduction to the adopted strategy says: “Our ambition is simple – to double the size of the economy over 20 years.” In the consultation draft, however, it said: “Our ambition is simple – to double the economy in 18 years.” So which is it? On page 36 the Productivity Strategy is clearly marked (as it was in the consultation draft) 2018 to 2036, and none of the other numbers has changed. In my book that is 18 years, not 20!

Anyhow, what is being doubled is not productivity but the size of the economy (a combination of growth in both productivity and employment). Except the economy won’t be doubled using any of the combinations of growth in productivity and employment mentioned in the strategy, in either 18 or 20 years. The best on offer is a 3% compound growth. If that started instantaneously this year, and it obviously won’t, it would yield 70% growth in 18 years or 80% in 20 years. To double the economy, a compound growth rate of 3.94% (4%) would be required. Long term average UK growth rate is 2.6%.

It is proposed to achieve this 3% economic growth by “holding” employment growth to 0.8% per annum (add 2.2% productivity growth to 0.8% employment growth = 3%). We are effectively at full employment now. The Office for National Statistic population projections do show the South West population as a whole growing over this period at around 0.8% (0.76%) per annum. However, we have an ageing population and the annual increase of those classified as of working age is only 0.16% (16 to 64 for all genders). This will leave a shortfall of around 83,000 workers by the end of 18 years. Pension age is increasing to 66 by 2020 and to 67 between 2028 and 2028. Even if all 65 to 69 year olds are added to the work force they would not make up the shortfall. They would probably not be at the cutting edge of productivity either. So the plan can only work with major inward migration. This could be difficult in the post Brexit world.

Having ambition is one thing; plucking numbers out of the air and throwing them around without regard to the real world is quite another. There is no discussion of how long the transition from the slow to fast lane might take, delivery considerations come later. The hype assumes instantaneous change. How can anyone take this seriously?

Perhaps the members of HotSW and the Joint Committee believe they will all be long gone in 18 or 20 years and can’t be held to account. But what they have signed up to is so dramatic that failure will very soon become apparent. Brexit, surprisingly, might herald a refocussing of minds as suggested by Philip Aldrick, economics editor The Times, 20 March:
“….One theory doing the rounds is that the Treasury wants to know if its business support schemes are working. A crunch is coming. England’s 39 local enterprise partnerships, designed to boost growth, are funded largely with EU grants. For 2014 to 2020, they secured €6.51 billion of European Structural and Investment funds. Of that, €2.5 billion was allocated to “enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium enterprises”, about a tenth of which went to less developed regions.”

“After Brexit, now formally delayed until 2021 after yesterday’s transition deal, the money will no longer make the round trip via Brussels. It will come directly from Westminster, bringing with it more political accountability. If the money is not driving productivity, which it patently isn’t, the Treasury may decide the financial medicine could be administered more effectively.”

“Cambridge Analytica files spell out election tactics” – one of which was “persuade people NOT to vote”

The files were released by the UK’s Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

They detail some of the work undertaken by Cambridge Analytica and companies it has been linked with, including SCL Group, Global Science Research and Aggregate IQ.

“In one document, SCL said that encouraging people “not to vote” might be more effective than trying to motivate swing voters.

Describing its work in a Nigerian election, SCL Global said it had advised that “rather than trying to motivate swing voters to vote for our clients, a more effective strategy might be to persuade opposition voters not to vote at all”.

It said this had been achieved by “organising anti-election rallies on the day of polling in opposition strongholds” and using “local religious figures to maximise their appeal especially among the spiritual, rural communities”.

It boasted of devising a political graffiti campaign to create a youth “movement” in Trinidad and Tobago and of disseminating “campaign messages that, whilst ostensibly coming from the youth, were unattributable to any specific party”. It said as a result “a united youth movement was created”.
In Latvia, it said it had recognised that “unspoken ethnic tensions” were “at the heart of the election”.

“The locals secretly blamed the Russians for stealing their jobs… armed with this knowledge, SCL was able to reflect these real issues in its client’s messaging,” the document said.

The files spell out how SCL helped the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office “in strategic planning to counter violent jihadism” in Pakistan.

“I wouldn’t only recommend them, I’d work with them again in an instant,” wrote an official, whose name has been redacted.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43581892

“I don’t believe it!” – NHS Providers say we are short of at least 10,000 hospital beds and are treating our elderly shamefully!

“The NHS is more than 10,000 beds short of what it needs to look after older people properly, hospital leaders have said.

NHS Providers, which represents hospitals, said that it was impossible for waiting time targets to be met this year and warned that the government’s pretence that they would be met created a “toxic culture” similar to that which led to the Mid Staffordshire scandal.

This week Theresa May promised that a long-term plan for NHS budget rises would be agreed within months, and will be under pressure to agree increases of up to £20 billion over five years.

However, Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, said that “a nod and wink from the prime minister” was not enough for patients.

The NHS has not hit any of its main targets for more than two years. Chris Hopson, chief executive of NHS Providers, said: “The levels of performance expected and the savings demanded for next year are beyond reach. While we strongly welcome the prime minister’s commitment to increase long-term funding for the NHS, it makes no immediate difference to the tough task facing trusts for next year.”

Mr Hopson’s report estimates that 3.6 million patients will not be treated within four hours at A&E over the next year and 560,000 will be denied routine surgery within 18 weeks. He said that hospitals could make £3.3 billion in savings next year but that ministers had demanded 20 per cent more than this.

“This creates a toxic culture, based on pretence, where trusts are pressurised to sign up to targets they know they can’t deliver and then miss those targets as the year progresses,” his report said.

The NHS is probably somewhere between 10,000 to 15,000 beds short on a bed base of about 100,000.”

One hospital chief executive suggested that hospital overcrowding pointed to deep social problems. He said: “As a country we don’t look after old people well. We have too many people living by themselves in houses that are unsuitable . . . In the end they get really unwell and call 999.”

Source: The Times, pay wall

Committee promises to double the number of unicorns in Devon and Somerset

How will we know that this committee can or will double productivity in 20 years? They will tell us in 20 years time! How will we know if they are correct? Answers on a postcard …

From the press release:

“Representatives from 23 organisations across Devon and Somerset today agreed steps to drive up productivity at the first meeting of the Heart of the South West (HotSW) Joint Committee.

The inaugural meeting of the Joint Committee unanimously endorsed the Productivity Strategy that has been taking shape over the last two years and aims to double productivity over 20 years.

At the meeting in Plymouth City Council offices, the committee also voted unanimously to appoint Councillor David Fothergill, Leader of Somerset County Council, as the first Chair of the new committee and Councillor Paul Diviani, Leader of East Devon District Council, as the Vice Chair. …

… The Productivity Strategy aims to double productivity in the area over 20 years, focussing on themes including promoting business leadership, housing, connectivity, infrastructure, skills and training. It looks at growth, capitalising on the area’s distinctive assets and maximising the potential of digital technology. … [just as a large part of digital technology has gone into freefall!]

Somerset County Council is acting as the host of the HotSW Joint Committee and meeting agendas and further information including the full Productivity Strategy can be found here:

http://democracy.somerset.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=357

Our LEP enthuses about one of its big achievements

Millions of pounds given to the LEP, and the best grant story they can come up with is:

https://www.heartofswgrowthhub.co.uk/devon-business-refurbishes-premises-thanks-growth-hub-11-support/

If that is the best they can do, their hugely ambitious growth targets are going to be even more difficult than we previously thought.

A new council HQ? Oh, oh – this looks VERY familiar!

Owl has been doing some digging about how Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) tanked and has come up with some worrying information which resonates somewhat worryingly with our own area …

Remember that NCC built a new HQ and almost immediately had to attempt to buy its way out of debt by selling it and renting it back to themselves.

The new NCC HQ (One Angel Square) was originally going to cost £34 million, then £40 million, then £43 million, then £52 million, then £53 million. It was eventually delivered ‘under budget’!

But as costs rose, the size of the building was reduced by 20%. So effectively the cost doubled!

NCC built their new HQ to replace 12 existing buildings. Those 12 buildings were claimed to be costing £53,000 a week to run. It was later claimed that the new building would save £52,000 a week in running costs. Work that one out!

As soon as the new building opened, staff complained about the lack of space and the 20 minutes every morning sorting out their ‘hot desks’.

http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2017-10-12/53m-project-combines-12-council-offices-into-one-building/

Some FAQs from the early consultations:

Q4: Isn’t this just building up debt for the county when it can ill afford it?

A4: This is a spend to save scheme. The county council will continue to take
opportunities like these to invest in new infrastructure which will ultimately reduce the debt. By doing nothing the debt position will get worse than undertaking the new build.

Q5: How can the council afford to build a huge new office block on the one
hand but on the other hand plead poverty and cut services or turn off street
lights? Couldn’t this money have been better used to protect services?

A5: It is by taking this step that will help us protect services. By maintaining the status quo and spending increasing amounts of money to maintain and operate old buildings that are no longer fit for purpose the council would be forced to redirect costs from front line services. By taking these proactive decisions now and saving building operating costs in the future it will allow those savings to either reduce debt or be spent on front line services.

Q6: Surely there’s a less expensive solution. Why don’t you convert one of
your buildings – like JDH – so it can take more people? That would be a far
cheaper solution.

A6: The other options have all been professionally evaluated. By looking at all the costs and benefits of the different options a new build at the Angel Street came out as the best option.”

https://www.northampton.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/7116/statement-of-community-involvement-pdf
(page 149)

Which all looks just a bit too familiar…

Bailing out Northamptonshire County Council would be “a reward for failure”

More on that scandal – so easily replicated when a few arrogant, ignorant officers and councillors, whose majority gives them the belief they cannot ever be challenged or scrutinised, think they can get away with anything …..

“Northamptonshire county council (NCC), which declared effective bankruptcy last month, should be scrapped, a devastating inspectors’ report into widespread financial and management failures at the authority has recommended.

A government-appointed investigator’s report said the problems at the council were so deep-rooted that it was impossible to rescue it in its current form, and to do so “would be a reward for failure”. It recommends that ministers send in a team of external commissioners to take over the day-to-day running of the council until it can be broken up and replaced with two new smaller authorities.

The lead inspector, Max Caller, said NCC had ignored a growing financial crisis at the authority, which he said had been beset by poor management, lack of scrutiny and unrealistic budget-setting.

Explaining why he advised breaking up the council, Caller’s report says: “The problems faced by NCC are now so deep and ingrained that it is not possible to promote a recovery plan that could bring the council back to stability and safety in a reasonable timescale.”

He added: “To change the culture and organisational ethos and to restore balance, would, in the judgment of the inspection team, take of the order of five years and require a substantial one-off cash injection. Effectively, it would be a reward for failure.”

It was unlikely councillors and the officers had the strength of purpose to bring the council back into line, he said. “A way forward with a clean sheet, leaving all the history behind, is required.”

The council’s leader, Heather Smith, resigned after the report’s publication, telling the BBC that she blamed “vicious attacks by four local MPs”, adding “you cannot win” if the “machinery of government turns against you”.

Responding to the report, Northampton North MP Michael Ellis called the management of the authority a national scandal. All seven local Tory MPs criticised the council last month saying they had no confidence in its leadership [too little too late!).

The report rejected the council leadership’s claim that it had been disadvantaged by government funding cuts and underfunded given the pressure of a growing and elderly population. Similar councils had coped with these pressures and Northamptonshire “was not the most disadvantaged shire council”, the report says.

It excoriates the council’s disastrous attempt to restructure services by outsourcing them to private companies and charities, the so-called Next Generation programme. Poor design, chaotic management, and a lack of controls and oversight meant that budgeting was “an exercise of hope rather than expectation”, it says.

It drily notes that it was not clear whether the programme was still in existence.“It would appear to have been abandoned but that is not clear,” the report says.

The council had lost control of its budgeting in 2013 after a critical Ofsted report into its children’s services forced an expensive overhaul of child protection services, and never recovered, the report says. It said the council’s approach to financial management came across as “sloppy, lacking in rigour and without challenge”.

There was a lack of realism in business plans, and savings targets were frequently not met. Senior councillors and officials ignored or evaded criticism and challenge, it says, and budgets were set by without regard to need, demand or deliverability. “Living within budget constraints is not a part of the culture at NCC,” the report concludes.

Although financial officials had raised the alarm about the extent of NCC’s growing finanical problems as far back as 2015, this had been ignored by senior management and councillors. There was a culture in NCC where “overspending is acceptable and there are no sanctions for failure”, the report says.

The council had continually patched up financial holes with one-off uses of reserves, or by selling off assets and using the proceeds. The report concludes: “This is not budget management.”

By the end relationships with public sector partners such as the NHS has deteriorated so much that there is a “significant level of distrust that NCC will ever be able to deliver against its promises and undertakiings”.

It noted that the councils’ staff were not to blame for the fiasco. “NCC employs many good, hardworking, dedicated staff who are trying to deliver essential services to residents who need and value what is offered and available. The problems the council faces are not their fault.”

Last month the council issued a section 114 note – the local government equivalent to bankruptcy – because it said it could not set a balanced budget for 2018-19.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/15/scrap-northampton-county-council-inspectors-say

Damning report on culture at insolvent Tory council

Anyone interested in how a council can go bad should read this relatively brief and easy-to-read report on the shenanigans which went on at Northamptonshire County Council prior to its technical insolvency. It was SO bad the Inspector recommends doing away with it entirely and creating two separate unitary authorities for a fresh start.

Full report here:

Click to access Best_Value_Inspection_NCC.pdf

Owl particularly “enjoyed”:

Section 3.46 – 3.52 – the behaviour of the Chief Executive and senior officers)

Section 3.78 – 3.84 – scrutiny (lack of)

Section 3.90 – 3.100 (role and function of the Audit Committee)

and Section 4.5

“The council did not respond well, or in many cases even react, to external and internal criticism. Individual councillors appear to have been denied answers to questions that were entirely legitimate to ask and scrutiny arrangements were constrained by what was felt the executive would allow. When external agencies reported adverse findings these were not reported with an analysis of the issues and either a justification or an action led response to a relevant decision taking body. At its most extreme, the two KPMG ISA 260 reports, stating an adverse opinion on Value For Money matters were just reported to the Audit Committee without comment and the unprecedented KPMG Advisory Notice issued under the 2014 Act was reported to full council without any officer covering report giving advice on what the response was recommended to be.

and 4.11:

“It is not possible to establish what action the corporate management team took in the face of all these issues as those meetings that took place were not minuted.”

As reported in the area’s local paper:

“Max Caller, an independent inspector, was called in by local government secretary Sajid Javid after allegations of financial mismanagement. He was also tasked with seeing if the local authority was being run properly by bosses and the cabinet’s Conservative councillors. …

His report, published this morning, says the origins of the crisis was the Ofsted inspection into Children’s Services in 2013 that caused emergency money to be pumped in, which meant the local authority ‘lost tight budgetary control’.

What came next was a poor response to the financial pressures, Mr Caller says, in effect chasing a heavily flawed model championed by departed CEO Paul Blantern.

He said: “Instead of taking steps to regain control, the council was persuaded to adopt a ‘Next Generation’ model structure as the solution.

“There was not then, and has never been, any hard-edged business plan or justification to support these proposals. Yet councillors, who might well have dismissed these proposals for lack of content and justification in their professional lives, adopted them and authorised scarce resources in terms of people, time and money to develop them.

“This did not and could not address the regular budget overspends which were covered by one off non-recurring funding sources.”

When the use of capital receipts to fund transformation was introduced by central government, Mr Caller says this was seized on as a way of supporting revenue spend – by classing some expenditure as ‘transformative’.

However until this week, there had been no report to full council – or anywhere else – that set out the specific transformation that was to be achieved, on a project-by-project basis. This goes against the terms of use of the money.

Despite his criticism of bosses, Mr Caller makes a point of separating the acts of managers and leaders from frontline staff.

He says: “NCC employs many good, hardworking, dedicated staff who are trying to deliver essential services to residents who need and value what is offered and available. The problems the council faces are not their fault.”

https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/inspector-s-verdict-two-new-councils-should-be-created-in-northamptonshire-by-2020-all-others-should-be-abolished-1-8416675

“Audit committee calls for review of threshold for misconduct in public office offences”

Again, plenty Owl could might add here!

“The chair of a local authority’s audit and risk assurance committee has written to the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, and the Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, to express concern at the “extremely high threshold” for consideration of Misconduct in Public Office offences.

The letter sent by Cllr Liam Preece of Sandwell Metropolitan Borough came after the local authority had referred certain allegations about some elected members to the police.

However, the police – following a review of the evidence held by the council – reached a determination that there was insufficient evidence to meet the threshold for recording a crime.

Cllr Preece said that the audit and risk assurance committee had accepted the police’s decision, “but were ultimately concerned that there is an extremely high threshold for consideration of Misconduct in Public Office offences which in turn could lead to a lack of public confidence in the process”.

He added in the letter, which can be viewed here, that the committee hoped that the relevant guidance issued to police forces in relation to the threshold criteria for such offences could be reviewed.

“The Committee feel that in cases of multiple serious breaches of the code of conduct, the police should feel more justified to bring charges against elected members to restore and maintain public confidence,” Cllr Preece told the DPP.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=34242%3Aaudit-committee-calls-for-review-of-threshold-for-misconduct-in-public-office-offences&catid=59&Itemid=27

[Clinton Devon Estates] “Fence in Budleigh Salterton is branded ‘an abomination’ “


Picture: Sidmouth Herald

 

Owl says: check every word and letter of that do ument that promises ‘greater security’ for your what is left of your garden League of Friends – not to mention that of your building should the Hub not be successful …!

“A ‘substantial’ fence – around 6ft high and 100ft long – is causing uproar in Budleigh Salterton.

Residents are angry that it has gone up and a town councillor has described it as ‘an abomination’.

The fence has been erected by Clinton Devon Estates (CDE) on land that it owns and leases to the Budleigh Salterton Hospital League of Friends on an annual basis.

Running across the former Hospital Gardens opposite the new Community Health Hub in Boucher Road, it marks the boundary of the new hub garden and land that CDE has earmarked for development.

Last September, CDE had its outline application – for means of access, proposing two houses to be built on half of the land east of East Budleigh Road – rejected at appeal by East Devon District Council (EDDC).

Now, it appears, it may make a fresh application.

“We are in discussion with the league of friends to agree a more secure long-term lease to provide the hub with a generous, tranquil garden with mature trees on approximately half of the site,” said a CDE spokesperson.

“This will provide easy access for all ages using the hub, as well as an attractive outlook from the building itself.

“We have recently put up fencing to mark the boundary of the new hub garden and any proposals we may have in the future for the remainder of our land at Boucher Road will go through all the required processes and approvals.”

David Evans, chairman of Budleigh Salterton Hospital League of Friends, said: “There is no doubt that our local community will be very disappointed at the erection of a substantial dividing fence down the middle of the greatly-valued hospital garden.”

However, he said the new lease would give ‘greater security’ than before.

“Whilst the league of friends would ideally have preferred to have been able to make use of the whole garden, it has been able to secure long-term access to a valuable and useful green area for the benefit of many,” said Mr Evans.

Councillor Courtney Richards – speaking at a town council planning meeting on Monday – said his phone had been ‘buzzing’ with complaints about the fence.

“I don’t know if Clinton Devon are having a fit of pique, but they are really emphasising that ‘this is ours’,” he said. “There’s very little as a council we can do about it, which is a shame because it borders straight onto a piece of land that’s designated in the Neighbood Plan as an open green space.

“Frankly, I think it’s an abomination, but that’s Clinton Devon’s latest attempt to improve Budleigh Salterton – he said, with his tongue firmly in his cheek.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/fence-in-budleigh-salterton-is-branded-an-abomination-1-5398384%5B

Local Enterprise Partnership latest news: big on spin, small on detail

Judge for yourself:

https://mailchi.mp/heartofswlep/february-newsletter?e=60093e263e

Parish questions community bed closure figures – too little and far too late

Owl says: how come WE knew all this and FOUGHT it whereas Parish, seeing votes lee h away from him, only sees it when it is FAR too late?

Where was he last Saturday when hundreds of people protested bed cuts and underfunding?

THE PHRASES THAT HAVE COME FAR TOO LATE AND ARE FAR TOO LATE:

“situation reasonably good”
‘big concerns”
“figures not necessarily correct”
“overstretched”
“strong representation”
“being looked at”
“necessary resources”
“not convinced”
“a little bit worried”
“watching very carefully”

WHAT HE SAID:

“Devon MP has raised fears over the closure of beds in community hospitals across the county.

Speaking to Mid Devon District Council, Tiverton & Honiton MP Neil Parish said that although the situation in Tiverton was reasonably good, he had a “big concern” over the closure of beds in both Honiton and Seaton.

“I’m not happy with it because I don’t necessarily think they’ve got the correct figures,” he said.

“I also think that the acute hospital in Exeter the RD&E is also overstretched. The community hospitals have enough ability to be able to take that strain, and so I have been making very strong representations.”

Mr Parish said that decisions had been made by the Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), but that strong representation had been made.

He added: “Of course, the social care services and health are being looked at by the Government at the moment to be combined more than ever to be able to look after people longer in their own homes. I think it’s a really good idea, but you do need the necessary resources to be able to do it, and certainly, that’s what’s been happening in many areas.

“So far from what I’ve heard in Seaton, Axminster and Honiton areas are that it’s worked reasonably well and I think we need to keep a watching brief on that. I think whenever possible people want to stay in their own homes, but of course, there will be those who need hospital treatment and care. That’s where community hospitals come into the equation.”

The MP considered that care packages in his constituency were currently providing services well and he had been assured that there would be an improvement. He asked that incidents of care packages not being put in place satisfactorily in his constituency be reported to him so that he could make specific enquiries. He added that although he considered being cared for at home was the right thing for some patients; he was not convinced it would save money and that enough people were needed to undertake the work. With an ageing population it was essential to ensure that the resource was in place.

“My representations I’ve had in Honiton, Axminster and Seaton where hospital beds have gone so far seem to be getting those care packages in place reasonably quickly. What I’m a little bit worried about is that they’ve put a lot of resource in now to get it right and they don’t take it away later. Therefore I’m watching that very carefully.”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/questions-asked-over-figures-led-1175794

“Decline of local journalism threatens democracy, says May”

In East Devon we had two local newspaper publishers: “View from … ” titles – a campaigning newspaper which recently closed and Archant (Midweek Herald and Journal titles) which basically mostly prints press releases from EDDC and elsewhere almost verbatim and pads them with anodyne articles, often linked to advertisers.

It is left now to bloggers such as Owl and campaigning Facebook groups (such as Save our Sidmouth and Save Exmouth Seafront) to use local sources to root out the stories Archant chooses not to print. Local campaigning newspaper journalism in East Devon is therefore pretty much on its last legs.

“The decline of local journalism is a threat to democracy and is fuelling the rise in fake news, Theresa May said while launching a review into whether state intervention was needed to preserve national and local newspapers.

The investigation is set to examine the rise of low-quality “clickbait” news and whether more could be done by either the industry or government to undermine commercial incentives to produce such content.

Speaking in Manchester to mark 100 years since the Representation of the People Act, which extended the vote to all men over 21 and some women over the age of 30, May said advances in modern technology were having “a profound impact on one of the cornerstones of our public debate – our free press”.

The review will examine the supply chain for digital advertisers and whether content creators, rather than platforms, are getting enough of the revenue. May said the review would examine “whether industry or government-led solutions” were needed to help tackle the issue.

The prime minister, wearing a purple jacket and suffragette pin, called journalism “a huge force for good” but said its existence was under threat. “Good quality journalism provides us with the information and analysis we need to inform our viewpoints and conduct a genuine discussion,” she said. “But in recent years, especially in local journalism, we have seen falling circulations, a hollowing-out of local newsrooms and fears for the future sustainability of high-quality journalism.”

How technology disrupted the truth | Katharine Viner
May said that more than 200 local papers had closed since 2005, naming several in Greater Manchester including the Salford Advertiser, Trafford Advertiser and Wilmslow Express. About two-thirds of local authority areas do not have a daily local newspaper.

“This is dangerous for our democracy. When trusted and credible news sources decline, we can become vulnerable to news which is untrustworthy,” she said. “So to address this challenge to our public debate we will launch a review to examine the sustainability of our national and local press. It will look at the different business models for high-quality journalism.”

May said the review would consider whether “the creators of content are getting their fair share of the advertisement revenue” from the articles they produced. “Digital advertising is now one of the essential sources of revenue for newspapers, the review will analyse how that supply chain operates,” she said. “A free press is one of the foundations on which our democracy is built and it must be preserved.”

The culture minister, Matt Hancock, said the review would investigate the overall health of the news media, the range of news available and how the press was adapting to the new digital market, including the role of platforms like Facebook and Google.

In a statement after May’s speech, Hancock said the industry was facing “an uncertain future” and the review would ensure the UK did not lose a vibrant, independent and plural free press. Hancock said it would examine “clickbait” news to consider if action needed to be taken to reduce its commercial incentive.

The review would also examine how data created or owned by news publications was collected and distributed by online platforms.

David Dinsmore, chair of the News Media Association, said he welcomed the plans: “This review acknowledges the importance of journalism in a democratic society, the vital role that the press takes in holding the powerful to account and producing verified news which informs the public. Viable business models must be found that ensure a wide variety of media are able to have a long and healthy future.”

A panel of experts will be appointed to lead the review in the coming months, with a final report expected early 2019.”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/06/decline-of-local-journalism-threatens-democracy-says-may

Councillor planning conflicts ghost raises its head … in Torbay this time

Owl says: the story below the link seems disturbingly familiar:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9920971/If-I-cant-get-planning-nobody-will-says-Devon-councillor-and-planning-consultant.html

Unfortunately this government seems not to worry about any of these things.

“Opposition Liberal Democrats on Torbay Council have made a formal complaint about a Conservative councillor, claiming he shouldn’t be advertising his elected position on his business website.

Thomas Winfield is a director of a firm of chartered surveyors.

On the firm’s website it states that he has the “benefit” of being elected as a local councillor for Torbay, and that he is on the Torbay Planning Committee.

The Lib Dems say this is inappropriate, because of a perceived conflict of interest.

However, Mr Winfield has told the BBC that he works in finance for commercial lending, as opposed to planning work.

Mr Winfield called the Lib Dems “small minded” for making an issue of it.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-devon-42730712