More and more people are ageing with no one to look after them in later life. These are the findings of a recent report released by the Office for National Statistics. This is, of course, the inevitable consequence of two demographic changes in Britain since the second world war: increased life expectancy and declining fertility. But it is also a reality that few are willing to face, and one for which our society is woefully unprepared.

Zeynep Gurtin www.theguardian.com 

The ONS report projects that by 2045 there will be a threefold increase in the number of women who reach the age of 80 without children. This is deeply concerning, since our society relies heavily on adult children to provide informal care for older people, and since there is already a staggering unmet care need among today’s older population. At present, 41% of those aged 80 and over are not receiving the help and support they need with at least one daily activity, a figure that is set to skyrocket unless we proactively change how we think about ageing, childlessness and care responsibilities.

One of the major problems in our current thinking is an implicit and pervasive gender bias. Not only does the burden of unpaid care work fall mostly on women’s shoulders – a fact that was thrust into the limelight with women’s plummeting productivity during lockdown – but it is also women who bear the brunt of criticism when their lives diverge from normative expectations. Jody Day, founder of Gateway Women – a global organisation supporting involuntarily childless women – notes that the ONS does not even collect data on men’s childlessness, “fuelling the sexist notion that this is exclusively a women’s issue”, when similar numbers of men are impacted.

She says: “There is an assumption that childless women have been selfish, left it too late, or prioritised their careers, and therefore the sense that it’s somehow their own fault if there is no one to look after them.” This, of course, is a stigmatising myth that is far from the truth. Childless women are not a uniform entity, and though some choose childfree living, many are “childless by circumstance” – meaning they wanted children but never had them. This may be either because they were not in a suitable relationship, or because their partners did not want any.

These women’s stories are a testament to the need to recognise the ways in which rising rates of childlessness are also tied to men’s preferences and lifestyles, and the changing nature of intimate relationships, at least as much as they are to women’s greater education and participation in the labour market.

While most people don’t consciously have children just to secure their care in old age, many do step up to the responsibility of caring for their parents when required: most of the 6.5 million informal carers in the UK are looking after a parent or a parent-in-law. Unsurprisingly, then, planning for old age becomes a stark practical consideration for those who are childless, with some walking the tightrope of caring for their elderly parents without a safety net in place for themselves. Jessica Hepburn, a fertility education campaigner, says: “I look after my 88-year old mother, and I am aware that I am not going to have that.” She says that for many on the infertility journey “it can be impossible to think about the future when you are in a paralysed present”.

It is, of course, not just childless people who may have to face old age without family to look after them. Adult children may be too far away, too busy, or too disconnected to care for their parents. Or they may have needs of their own that preclude them from becoming carers. Kirsty Woodard, who leads the Ageing Without Children consultancy, notes that although care services in the UK rely heavily on family carers, there are already more older people needing care than family available to provide it. She argues that the solution lies in designing robust care systems that do not rely on family input, but which cater to “the population we have now and will in the future, not one from the past”.

As the gap widens between our assumptions of informal family care and our demographic structures, we are sleepwalking faster and faster into a severe care crisis. Those ageing without children are 25% more likely to go into residential care – but our care homes are already undervalued, underfunded and struggling to cope, and it will be impossible for them to meet the rising demand. This reality is particularly poignant in the wake of the catastrophic impact of the coronavirus pandemic on Britain’s care homes.

The ONS report also highlights an issue that Ageing Well Without Children has been campaigning to raise awareness of for years – the need to plan ahead for the growing numbers of ageing childless people. As well as the infertile and the “childless by circumstance”, these issues also have a heavy impact on the LGBTQ community (of whom about 90% are ageing without children), and those living with disabilities (85% without children), creating further burdens for groups already facing disproportionate hardship and discrimination.

Adding her perspective as a psychotherapist, Jody Day says: “People do not want to think about ageing without children because in a society that does not value its elders, it touches on all of our deepest fears about being old, alone and vulnerable.” There is, unfortunately, no easy solution: this is a pressing issue that requires ideological, social and economic commitment. We urgently need to develop more positive models for ageing, and invest in formal care systems that are comprehensive and accessible to all who need them.

But first of all, we need to question the erroneous assumptions on which our current care provision is founded: that we can rely on informal and unpaid labour to look after society’s vulnerable members, and that women can and will continue to shoulder this burden.

• Zeynep Gurtin is a lecturer in the Institute for Women’s Health at UCL

The human rights watchdog for England and Wales has backed a grieving daughter’s court action against the health secretary, Matt Hancock, over his handling of the coronavirus pandemic in care homes.

Robert Booth www.theguardian.com

Cathy Gardner, who lost her father, Michael Gibson, to Covid-19 in a care home that accepted hospital discharges, is seeking a judicial review of policies that she alleges “failed to take into account the vulnerability of care home residents and staff to infection and death, the inadequacy of testing and PPE availability”.

The government denies acting illegally over care homes in England, where more than 15,000 people have died with confirmed or suspected Covid-19.

But the Equalities and Human Rights Commission said the case “raises potentially important issues of public interest and concern as to the way in which the rights of care home residents have been and will be protected during the current coronavirus pandemic”.

Gardner is a member of the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK group, which Boris Johnson this week declined to meet, having previously said he would. Johnson claimed he could not meet members because they were “in litigation against the government”. Aside from Gardner’s separate action, the group is sending pre-action letters to try to force a public inquiry, but denies this amounts to litigation.

“The bereaved families group isn’t backing down in its call for a public inquiry and I am not backing down in my call for a judicial review into policies I believe led to deaths in care homes,” Gardner said. ”I am delighted the EHRC have written to the court. This is a Human Rights Act case.”

The request for a judicial review of actions by Hancock, Public Health England and NHS England is being considered by a judge.

Arguments filed by Gardner claim decisions to prioritise NHS hospital capacity to deal with critically ill Covid-19 patients was “disproportionate, discriminatory and irrational”. She also alleges that the government breached the NHS Act 2006, which obliges the health secretary to take steps to protect the public in England “from disease or other dangers to health”.

The government strongly denies the claims and says it took extensive steps to protect staff and residents in care homes. It denies breaching obligations under the European convention on human rights to manage risks posed by the virus to care home staff and residents.

It said the convention must not be used to enforce an “impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities”.

 Civic Voice on: “What’s proposed? The key things you need to know”

Owl is posting this in the hope that it might help individuals and groups such as local amenity societies frame a response, however brief, to the two consultations:

Consultation on changes to the current system (including the housing affordability uplift algorithm) – closing 1 October, and:

Consultation on the White Paper “Planning for the Future” – closing 29 October

1. A new role for Local Plans 

There is a focus on Local Plans in the new system, but plans will have a new simplified role in identifying land for development and protection and setting clear parameters about what development can take place in those areas. Plans will be required to identify three types of land only:

• Growth areas will be suitable for ‘substantial development’ and will receive automatic outline planning permission on adoption of the Local Plan. This could include new settlements, urban extensions, urban regeneration sites.

• Renewal areas will be suitable for ‘development’ and there will be a statutory presumption in favour of development for the uses specified in the plan. This would cover existing built up areas and rural areas that are not allocated as Growth or Protected areas, where smaller scale development is appropriate. 

• Protected areas will be sites and areas that due to their environmental/cultural characteristics justify more stringent development controls e.g. Green Belt, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), Conservation Areas, Local Wildlife Sites, areas of significant flood risk and important areas of green space. 

Plans are to be stripped back to essential elements consisting of a web-based interactive map, key and accompanying text which specifies suitable development uses and parameters e.g. height, scale, density limits. Design codes and guides should be produced alongside the Local Plan to guide the form and appearance of development. 

The existing ‘tests of soundness’ for Local Plans will be scrapped and replaced with a single ‘sustainability test’.

2. Streamlined and faster development management process

For proposals that accord with the Local Plan, there will be a streamlined route to gaining planning permission. Essentially, the principle of development will have been agreed on adoption of the Local Plan with only specific outstanding matters to be considered later. Different routes are proposed for the three land allocations: 

• Growth areas will receive automatic outline planning permission through the Local Plan. Detailed planning permission could be secured by a reformed Reserved Matters application, a Local Development Order, or, for very large sites e.g. a new town, a Development Consent Order under the Nationally Significant Infrastructure regime.

• Renewal areas Planning permission would be secured through a new permission route which gives automatic consent if the scheme meets design/prior approval requirements (the ‘fast track to beauty’ proposes expanding permitted development rights to do this), a faster planning application process or a Local or Neighbourhood Development Order.

• Protected areas A standard planning application would be required in these areas. 

For proposals that are different to the adopted plan, a specific planning application would be required, although this is expected to be the exception rather than the rule. 

To incentivise local planning authorities to determine planning applications within the statutory time limits (8 or 13 weeks) the paper proposes automatically refunding the planning fee or, for some types of applications, automatically granting permission if there has not been a timely determination.

The paper also hints at a reduced role for planning committees in the determination of planning applications with ‘the delegation of detailed planning decisions to planning officers where the principle of development has been established, as detailed matters for consideration should be principally a matter for professional planning judgment.’ (Para. 2.39) Where applications are refused, applicants would be entitled to an automatic rebate of their planning application fee if they are successful at appeal, ‘to promote proper consideration of applications by planning committees’ (Para. 2.41).

3. Top-down housing figures

A new standard method for calculating housing figures for each Local Authority is proposed which would ensure enough land is released where affordability is worst but also factoring in land constraints e.g. Green Belt, flood risk etc. The new method would distribute the national 3 housebuilding target of 300,000 new homes annually and housing figures would be binding on Local Authorities removing any lengthy debates over the numbers at Local Plan examinations.

Given the proposed new Government set housing figures, the current ‘Duty to Co-operate’ test for local authorities would be abolished. 

An interim measure for amending the current method of calculating housing figures, for plans currently being prepared, is set out in the Government’s separate consultation, Changes to the current planning system. Lichfields have calculated the numbers for each Local Authority which is available here: https://lichfields.uk/grow-renew-protect-planning-for-the-future/how-many-homesthe-new-standard-method/ but it is important to note that this interim method is not exactly what is proposed in the White Paper as it does not yet factor in land constraints.

4. Greater use of digital technology 

The paper proposes ‘greater digitalisation of the planning application process to make it easier for applicants, especially those proposing smaller developments, to have certainty when they apply’ (Para. 2.39). It proposes integrating the validation of planning applications when they are submitted; having ‘data-rich’ planning registers so that information can be easily found; automating routine processes such as screening proposals against design guides and codes and requiring shorter and more standardised applications that are machine readable. For major development, besides the drawings and plans, a planning statement of no more than 50 pages will be required. Digital templates for planning notices, a greater standardisation of supporting technical information, and standard national conditions to cover common issues are also proposed.

For Local Plans, they will be interactive, fully digitised and map based rather than document based, designed with the end user in mind and accessible on different devices. The idea being that they are more visual, easily accessible and understandable, encouraging wider public engagement. It is envisaged that ‘new digital civic engagement process will be enabled, making it easier for people to understand what is being proposed where and how it will affect them’ (Para 2.45). The White Paper considers the use of digital civic engagement tools could be transformational in terms of increased community engagement with plans.

To support Local Authorities, a guide to the new system and a ‘model template’ for Local Plans will be published to support standardisation of plans across the country. A series of pilots are also proposed with Local Authorities working with tech companies (referred to as the ‘PropTech’ sector) to develop innovative ways to engage with their local communities. 

5. Streamlined Local Plan process

Local authorities will have 30 months to produce a new style stripped back local plan, with those that fail to do so ‘at risk of government intervention’. The shortened process will have five stages with ‘meaningful public engagement’ proposed at two stages (highlighted below in bold). However, the first time the local community will see any proposed plan is when it is submitted for examination:

• Stage 1 [6 months] – Call for sites/areas under the three categories with ‘best in class’ public engagement.

• Stage 2 [12 months] – Local authority prepares its Local Plan. 

• Stage 3 [6 weeks] – Local authority submits the plan for examination and publicises the plan for consultation with ‘best in class’ engagement. Responses will have a word limit and those seeking changes must explain how the plan should be changed and why.

• Stage 4 [9 months] – Planning inspector examines the plan against the sustainable development test and makes binding changes where necessary. All those that submitted comments on the plan would have a ‘right to be heard’.

• Stage 5 [6 weeks] – Local plan map, key and text are finalised and adopted. Alongside the new statutory timescale, there will be a requirement to review the Local Plan at least every five years. 

6. High quality design and a ‘fast track for beauty’ 

A National Model Design Code and revised Manual for Streets are due to be published later this year. These will build on the current National Design Guide, turning the broad principles of successful places into more specific standards.

To make design expectations more visual and predictable, there will be an expectation for local design guides and codes to be produced, with community involvement, to reflect local characteristics and ‘what is provably popular locally’ (Para. 3.7). These could be produced by Local Authorities alongside their Local Plans, neighbourhood plan groups or applicants bringing forward large developments. Only guides and codes that have involved the local community will have weight in the planning process. Where local guides and codes have not been produced, national guidance will be the default to guide decisions.

A ‘fast-track for beauty’ is proposed to ensure that development which accords with local design guides and codes has greater certainty of swift approval through the planning process. In growth areas, this will mean that a masterplan and site-specific design code will be required. In renewal areas, the paper proposes widening and changing the nature of permitted development so that it gives approval for ‘popular and replicable designs’ reviving the tradition of ‘pattern books’ (Para. 3.19). The focus of the new PD rights appears to be on redeveloping existing residential buildings to support ‘gentle intensification’ of towns and cities and a pilot programme is planned to test the concept.

A new expert body is proposed to help support Local Authorities as well as performing a wider monitoring and challenging role for the sector in building better places. A chief officer for design and placemaking should be appointed within each Local Authority, although there is no detail as to how this will be funded. 

7. Section 106 and CIL to be replaced by a national ‘Infrastructure Levy’

The existing system of developer contributions is to end. Section 106 agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) will be replaced with a nationally-set ‘Infrastructure Levy’ charged on the final development value. The levy will be paid at the point of occupation, leaving councils to pay for and deliver any infrastructure needed up front. Councils will be allowed to borrow against future levy receipts to fund this.

It also proposed to extend the Infrastructure Levy to capture some permitted development rights e.g. office to residential conversions and demolition and rebuild rights, and to also deliver affordable housing, which is currently secured through Section 106 agreements.

8. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

The White Paper acknowledges that the statutory protections of listed building consent and conservation area status have worked well. Despite this, it proposes to ‘review and update the planning framework for listed buildings and conservation areas to ensure their significance is conserved while allowing, where appropriate, sympathetic changes to support their continued use and address climate change’. Little detail on the new framework is provided but the focus appears to be on making it quicker and easier to adapt historic buildings for new uses and ensure they have the right energy efficiency measures to support the Government’s zero carbon objectives. The Government will explore whether there are ‘new and better ways of securing consent for routine works’ with the potential for ‘suitably experienced architectural specialists to have earned autonomy’ from routine consents. 

To accumulate power, a government with authoritarian tendencies must first destroy power. It must reduce rival centres of power – the judiciary, the civil service, academia, broadcasters, local government, civil society – to satellites of its own authority, controlled from the centre, deprived of independent action. But it must do this while claiming to act in the people’s name.

Boris Johnson’s complete lack of shame has long been one of his defining narcissistic traits. His willingness to betray family, friends and colleagues for short-term personal gain is common knowledge. In much the same way, his lack of competence – his inability to grasp basic details – has also been priced in to the equation, as no one on the Tory benches much cared. It was just Boris being Boris.

John Crace , the sketch www.theguardian.com 

But something has changed over the course of the summer. Johnson is no longer seen as a man with the winning touch. Quite the reverse, in fact. Many Conservatives are slowly waking up to the fact that he may be a liability. Many prime ministers have discovered that being in the top job requires a different skill and mindset to that of getting the top job.

The difference with Boris is that he shows no signs of being willing to learn how to adapt to the change. Rather, he appears to be getting worse and worse at being prime minister. Limitations that are increasingly being exposed in laziness, short-temperedness and forgetfulness.

Prime minister’s questions are often dismissed as a piece of performance theatre. Something only of interest to those inside the Westminster bubble. And there is some truth in that. But they also offer a window into a leader’s soul, revealing qualities such as empathy, wit, intelligence and humility.

And on all counts Boris is failing miserably: his inability to gauge not just the mood of the House of Commons but the nation also is borderline sociopathic. It is as if he is holed up in a bunker, surrounded by yes men – there are almost no women in Boris’s inner circle – telling him only the things he wants to hear.

By contrast, Keir Starmer is learning fast. His early outings at PMQs were never less than competent, but there was an awkwardness to them. As if he were working out how to play the role of a man who had been elected leader of the Labour party. But now we’re beginning to see the real man. His questions are just as focused, but there’s now an ability to think on his feet and to respond to the prime minister’s lies and disinformation with genuine incredulity, anger and – when needed – humour. At PMQs there’s only one person who looks fit to run the country and it’s not Boris.

Then it’s not as if the Labour leader hasn’t been spoiled for lines of attack on the prime minister, and predictably Starmer chose to go in on the exams chaos. Either Boris knew about the problem and chose to know nothing, or he didn’t know about it when he should have done. Simple question: which one was it? Just as predictably, Boris resorted to bullshit and bluster. Labour had never wanted children to go back to school in the first place. An outright lie, as Starmer had unequivocally given his support to students returning on several occasions in May and June.

After that, Johnson had a full-on meltdown. Even the few Tories in the chamber had the grace to look embarrassed. First Boris accused Keir of being anti-Brexit – as if having been a remainer meant you automatically wanted tens of thousands of people to die from the coronavirus and for the less well-off students to be downgraded in their A-level results. He then went on to accuse Starmer of being an IRA supporter.

 Keir Starmer reacts furiously after PM accuses him of IRA tolerance – video

This was too much both for the Labour leader and the Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle. In the past Hoyle has been reluctant to challenge Johnson when he goes off on a tangential mega-rant, but this time he was quick to rein him in.

Starmer looked understandably furious and reminded Boris that as director of public prosecutions he had pressed charges against many terrorists. He could also have pointed out that it hadn’t been him who had recently offered a peerage to Claire Fox, who defended the 1993 Warrington bombing when she was a member of the Revolutionary Communist party.

“If he was a decent man, he would apologise,” Starmer said. But Boris isn’t a decent man, so he didn’t. Instead he continued to rush on his run. There would be no extension to the furlough scheme because it would merely encourage people to hang around at home doing nothing. As if the prospect of being made unemployed was a lifestyle choice for millions of workers.

Starmer ended by asking why Johnson was now refusing to meet the families of those who had been bereaved by Covid-19, having promised to do so on TV just days earlier. Remind me, was this the 12th or 13th U-turn in the past six weeks? Now was the time for Boris’s sad face. Or failing that, serious face. But he can’t do either, so he just smirked a little. The reason he wasn’t going to see the bereaved wasn’t because he cared too little but because he cared too much. Their stories might make him unhappy. And besides, it would be inappropriate as the bereaved were in litigation with the government. They weren’t, but what’s one more lie among so many?

The meltdown precipitated by Starmer continued for the rest of PMQs. Boris seemed to have no idea there were a huge number of industries such as aviation, tourism and hospitality that weren’t going to return to normal anytime soon.

Nor did he know that Matt Hancock had just extended some local lockdowns at the very moment he was saying more people should be going back to work. One day, it might occur to Boris that some companies might not want to take a punt on their employees’ health by forcing them back before the workplace is properly secure. But today wasn’t that day.

Rather, it was the day for Boris’s carers to try to get him out the Commons before he did any more damage to either the country or the Tory party.

It was also a day for those watching PMQs to ask themselves what they had done to deserve a leader who is visibly falling apart week on week. There was never anything very clever about Boris: now there isn’t even anything funny. Of all the coronavirus joints, in all the towns in the world, he walks into ours.

Demand is “very strong”, prices are rising and the order book is a fifth fatter than a year ago, but a chairman of a housebuilder can always find something to grumble about. John Allan of Barratt Developments frets that many lenders aren’t offering 95% loan-to-value mortgages these days.

Nils Pratley www.theguardian.com 

Most observers might regard the banks’ relative restraint as sensible. After all, house prices are being pumped up in a recession – to record levels, the Nationwide tells us – by stamp duty holidays and the approach of restrictions from next spring on the Help to Buy scheme.

Allan, however, has a different take: “It is important that lenders and the government consider what further options are available to help potential first-time buyers who want to purchase their own home,” he says.

Is it really important, though? Maybe for housebuilders, who would prefer lovely trading conditions to continue indefinitely. But “further options” sounds suspiciously like the sector’s usual bleat for more subsidies.

Allan didn’t offer ideas, but elsewhere one can hear calls for the temporary stamp duty holiday on house purchases worth less than £500,000 in England and Northern Ireland to be made permanent. Or perhaps next spring’s trim for Help to Buy, which will place regional caps on eligibility, could be delayed?

On both scores, Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, would be silly to listen. The greatest chunk of the Treasury’s subsidies always sticks to the housebuilders, who really don’t need a leg-up. Yes, Barratt’s pre-tax profits in the 12 months to June fell 46% to £492m, but look at the financial ratios: operating profit margins of 14.4% and a return of capital employed of 15.6%.

Most companies in most other sectors would love those figures in good times. Barratt got them despite “unprecedented disruption” when sites were closed during lockdown. And its “cautious optimism” for the current year translates as confidence that returns will soon be back to plumper pre-lockdown levels.

The best way to help first-time buyers, one could say, would be for house prices to drift lower and for Barratt et al to accept healthy, as opposed to exceptional, margins. An over-indulged sector does not need more help.

Here is another article shedding a small dose of sunlight on secret dealing concerning property development.

Owl’s earlier post revealed that “Exeter City Council has convened an unelected board that meets in private, does not publish its discussions or decisions and is taking responsibility for major policies which will determine Exeter’s future.” and that both Ben Bradshaw MP and Simon Jupp MP were listed as board members. These two MPs are not listed as members in this article [Correction at 1153 Owl failed to notice them coming first as “The Right Honourables”. As has been pointed out to Owl, whilst Ben Bradshaw is a member of the Privy Council, Simon Jupp isn’t. The correspondent continued “If the Exeter group cannot even be accurate in listing their members properly………”] – Owl hope that this is correct since MPs should not be playing any part in secret planning deals. Despite what Karime Hassan says, Owl will be candid: lack of transparency damages reputations. 

Karime Hassan, Chief Executive Exeter City Council  says: “The effectiveness of the Place Board in confronting issues that need to be addressed so as to remove obstacles to delivery requires a level of candour and confidence for leaders to confide among each other in a constructive and positive tone. It is difficult to have such conversations in a public setting, quite simply leaders will not reveal things in public that they would in a more private setting. For understandable reputational reasons trust is generally a prerequisite for frank and candid conversations.”

Litchfields’ analysis shows that Exeter, under the new algorithm, would have to build 5,116 homes a year. No wonder so much pressure to continue with GESP from the “friends of developers” lobby.

Daniel Clark www.devonlive.com 

The people who will work together to ensure Exeter’s ambitious 2040 vision have been announced.

The Liveable Exeter Place Board has been formulated by Exeter City Council to help get buy in from the leading organisations within the city in ensuring that the aims and ambitious of Exeter can be met.

Initially set up to help drive the Liveable Exeter Garden City programme – which would see 12,000 homes built on the largely on brown field sites within the city – its aim would be to tackle the challenge of how to secure the funding and investment required as infrastructure costs are likely to be high, and build in such way that we deliver the quality outcomes captured in the Exeter Vision 2040 vision.

But the Board– which has brought together an impressive body of civic, community, business and national leadership focused on making Exeter a stronger city, guided by a long term vision for Exeter 2040 – now has new terms of reference for its work and will also look at how Exeter can be Net Zero Carbon by 2030 and will include references to the UNESCO City of Literature status and the role of culture in its work.

Chief Executive and Growth Director, Karime Hassan, told Tuesday night’s Exeter City Council executive meeting that the COVID-19 crisis and subsequent recovery planning has demonstrated the value in having such a vehicle in place for the city with the turn out from leaders across the city has been impressive.

He added: “The board will looks at how to build an inclusive and sustainable and healthy city, and includes lots of issues that are beyond the control of the city council and requires partners in the city to work together. The success won’t be building 12,000 homes, but delivering the community infrastructure and great neighbourhoods, that we address the congestion we see in the city, and that we deliver the net zero carbon agenda.

“We cannot achieve that on our own – we have to achieve it with our partners. Unless we have the coordination, then we won’t deliver the ambitious vision for the city.”

The Exeter Vision 2040 statement is a vision for the city, and includes Exeter being healthy and happy, that health, care and wellbeing services will be designed and delivered in partnership with the communities who use them, and there will be high quality and accessible built environment and green spaces, with great arts and cultural facilities, will encourage healthy and active lifestyles.

A comprehensive network of safe routes will ensure that most everyday journeys are made by walking and cycling is also part of the vision, as is access to world class education and training, meaningful high-quality employment and fair wages, to attract the best global talent, keeping more money in the local economy, and being a global leader in addressing social, economic and environmental challenges of climate change and urbanisation.

Mr Hassan added: “The Liveable Exeter Place Board provides a forum to collaborate across the city in pursuit of these outcomes. The Council’s convening power in bringing people together only goes so far, but it is a good start in shaping and influencing other organisations to work towards our collective ambitions for the city.

The Board will meet in private, although regular updates on the work will be provided to the scrutiny and executive committees, and any decisions they would make would be brought through the council’s existing governance systems.

Explaining why meetings would not be open to the public, Mr Hassan added: “The effectiveness of the Place Board in confronting issues that need to be addressed so as to remove obstacles to delivery requires a level of candour and confidence for leaders to confide among each other in a constructive and positive tone. It is difficult to have such conversations in a public setting, quite simply leaders will not reveal things in public that they would in a more private setting. For understandable reputational reasons trust is generally a prerequisite for frank and candid conversations.

“We have declared a climate emergency and we need to work at pace. Therefore whilst acknowledging members desire to have matters discussed in a public fashion, if the Board is to be able perform its role effectively, the Board must be allowed to work in the manner it determines appropriate.”

Cllr Phil Bialyk, leader of the council, added: “It provides a forum to discuss the challenges of the vision and how they can be overcome to realise the vision. Place board gives the leaders a chance to raise other issues which they believe require the support of others to overcome for the better of the city. This will deliver the aspirations for the city of Exeter.”

The executive on Tuesday night agreed to note the terms of reference and membership of the Liveable Exeter Place Board and that Cllr Bialyk would report back to the City Council, in whatever is the most appropriate form, matters arising from the Liveable Exeter Place Board and issues for consideration at the Liveable Exeter Place Board.

The members of the Board are:

• Sir Steve Smith, The Government’s International Education Champion and current VC of the University of Exeter (chairman)
• The Right Honourable Ben Bradshaw MP for Exeter (Labour)
• The Right Honourable Simon Jupp MP for East Devon (Conservative)
• Cllr Phil Bialyk Leader, Exeter City Council
• Cllr John Hart Leader, Devon County Council
• The Right Reverend Robert Atwell, Bishop of Exeter
• Shaun Sawyer, Chief Constable, Devon & Cornwall Police
• Suzanne Tracey, Chief Executive, Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust
• Lord Charles Courtenay, Earl of Devon
• Dinah Cox, Chair of Trustees, Devon Community Foundation
• John Laramy. Principal & Chief Executive, Exeter College
• Lee Elliot-Major, Professor of Social Mobility, University of Exeter
• Ian Cameron, Business Group Director, Met Office
• Claire Kennedy, Licensee and Curator, TEDxExeter
• Kalkidan Legesse, Social entrepreneur and Managing Director at Sancho’s
• Paul Crawford, Chief Executive Officer, LiveWest
• Steve Hindley, Chairman, Midas Group, & Great South West
• Glenn Woodcock, Director Oxygen House
• Charles Johnston, Executive Director of Property, Sport England
• Tony Rowe OBE, Chief Executive & Chairman, Exeter Rugby Club
• Julian Tagg, Chairman ECFC, Chairman City Community Trust
• Sarah Crown, Director of Literature’ Arts Council England
• Lady Lucy Studholme, Chair of Board of Trustees, Exeter Northcott Theatre
• Mike Watson, Managing Director – Stagecoach South West
• Mike Gallop, Western Route Director, Network Rail
• Matthew Golton, Interim Managing Director, GWR
• Matt Roach, Chairman Exeter Chamber of Commerce & MD Exeter International Airport
• Karime Hassan, Chief Executive & Growth Director, Exeter City Council
• University of Exeter – One place is being held for the University of Exeter’s new Vice-Chancellor Lisa Roberts

A data specialist recruited to the civil service following Dominic Cummings’ call for “weirdos and misfits” to work for the UK government was sacked recently after posting on social media that police should use live rounds against Black Lives Matter demonstrators, the Guardian can reveal.

The leader of Torbay Council has joined a call to delay a massive reorganisation of local government.

Planning reform

Whilst distracted by the White Paper Owl discovers another consultation on key ideas with earlier closing date. of 1st October. These include changes to the standard method for assessing local housing need – the inexplicable algorithm. Clearly, these ideas will be carried forward to the White Paper reforms and need to be challenged in both consulations.

Alongside the White Paper, the Government has also published [“sneaked in” under cover of the white paper – Owl] a “Changes to the current planning system” consultation which takes forward some of the ideas proposed in the White Paper in the short term, before the new system is implemented. This consultation closes on 1st October. 

From the introduction to “Changes to the current planning system”:

1. Since 2010 the Government has introduced planning reforms to improve the current system. In 2010 only 17% of local authorities had local plans in place and now 91% of local authorities have plans. Over 2,700 groups have started the neighbourhood planning process since 2012. We’ve delivered over 1.5 million new homes since 2010 including over 241,000 last year alone – that’s the highest level for over 30 years. And planning permissions for new homes have more than doubled since 2010. But this isn’t enough – we want to deliver the housing people need because happier, more rooted communities bring our country together.

2. Planning for the Future [White Paper – link above] sets out plans to undertake a fundamental reform of the planning system and explains that this would be accompanied by shorter-term measures. This consultation sets out proposals for measures to improve the effectiveness of the current system. The four main proposals are:

• changes to the standard method for assessing local housing need, which as well as being a proposal to change guidance in the short term has relevance to proposals for land supply reforms set out in Planning for the Future [the algorithm with its inexplicable affordability uplift  all based on idealised economic theory that breaks down where there is limitless demand (eg from second home owners and retirees from wealthier regions). Oh and don’t forget that large developers control the “build-out rate”  though below is the government’s solution: give small builders a free pass on building affordable houses – Owl];

• securing of First Homes, sold at a discount to market price for first time buyers, including key workers, through developer contributions in the short term until the transition to a new system [see earlier post on awkward details in this policy – Owl];

• temporarily lifting the small sites threshold below which developers do not need to contribute to affordable housing, to up to 40 or 50 units to support SME builders as the economy recovers from the impact of Covid-19 [so how do we get “affordable” housing? – Owl];

• extending the current Permission in Principle to major development so landowners and developers now have a fast route to secure the principle of development for housing on sites without having to work up detailed plans first. [Outline plans – haven’t they been doing this for years under the ancient regime in EDDC with disastrous results? Once given permission in principle what leverage can you have over developers when they, for example, come back to reduce the affordables? – Owl]

An Axminster auction house could be set to relocate to a vacant part of the Axminster Carpets factory.

Totally Locally Axminster is set to launch a new ‘Fiver Fest’ initiative in the drive to win support for the town’s hard pressed independent traders.

Chris Carson www.midweekherald.co.uk

Axminster is one of dozens of towns across the country joining the latest high profile national campaign, which will run from 10 to 24 October.

The local organising team is hoping for a string of good value offers to drive home the key message that if every adult spent £5 a week locally that they would otherwise have spent online or with national stores it would pump £1.8m a year into the Axminster economy.

Organsier Barrie Hedges, of the Archway Bookshop, said: “Many Axminster businesses were fighting to keep their heads above the water before coronavirus came along, so the imperative to support those who have come out the other side is a strong one.

“It needs only a small change in individual spending habits to bring about a big shift in fortunes for the town you care about.”

There was gloom in the town when the owners of the department store which previously operated Trinity House announced its closure last November. But the building was bought by Axminster Property and is undergoing a swift transition, with eight of its nine potential shop and business units now taken or under discussion.

The Lou La Belle boutique, which opened in the first restored unit in June, has quickly become a success, and The Crafty Hobbit gift and crafts shop is due to open next door in October..

Meanwhile, the popular Waffle Community House has announced its plans to take over the whole of the first floor with a much extended operation towards the end of the year.

Jane Rockett, of Axminster Printing, is one of the business people with confidence in the future of the town centre.

She said: “The massive turnaround that is underway with the restoration of Trinity House has brought a new sense of anticipation to Axminster.

“We now need to turn that into a greater belief in the town as a whole – and with it a bigger shopper footfall.”

Jane and brother Keith Rockett are prime examples of the spirit that exists amongst Axminster’s independent traders.

They kept their printing and stationery business going single handed through the early stages of the lockdown when there was no choice but to furlough staff and made home deliveries to those unable to collect.

The new Fiver Fest is open to any independent business in Axminster or the immediate area that sells to the public.

Each business will be provided free-of-charge with point-of-sale posters to promote their chosen fiver offers.

Traders are being asked to sign up by 18 September and can do so by emailing totallylocallyaxminster@gmail.com.

Buses are a lifeline for millions of people in our cities and city regions. Before Covid-19, buses transported more people than any other form of public transport and when our cities come back to life, buses will again be the main mode of transport for many citizens.

Nick Forbes www.thetimes.co.uk 

We in local government know that buses can be the difference in whether someone can take a job enrol on to a college course or degree programme, or access the public services that they rely on. And we know too that unless we do something about air quality in our cities, the public health impacts of carbon emissions will get worse and worse.

Last year in England, bus passengers took three times as many journeys as railway users. According to public transport watchdog Transport Focus, more than half of passengers say that a bus is the only means of transport available to them. But the buses they catch are ageing, environmentally damaging and expensive. Bus journeys in our core cities often cost more per mile than bus journeys in London, where the network is controlled by the elected mayor, not the private sector.

When it comes to government support for big infrastructure projects, some things fall into the “sexy” category: aircraft carriers, high speed railways, new runways. But we must not forget the need to get young people to college, key workers to work and shoppers to the high street, particularly as we transition from lockdown. That is why now is the time to get serious about bus infrastructure — from policy, to pricing, to the quality of service. Central government has never had a proper strategy for making life better for bus passengers outside London. We need root-and-branch reform.

Buses are the arteries of the local economies on which the government is basing its levelling up agenda. Ensuring that opportunity is open to all means providing links between people and places. And it is on this basis that the core cities want to put political allegiances aside to capitalise on the government’s stated intention of a national bus strategy for England. Our cities, connected to the towns and villages surrounding us, will be the engines of prosperity.

Although bus usage is higher than other forms of public transport, the number of local journeys has declined in many cities. Deregulation as far back as 1986 created a policy environment that prioritised the provider over the service user, meaning less profitable routes cannot be subsidised by more profitable ones.

If bus use fails to recover after this crisis our towns and cities will be less green, less connected and less prosperous. We want to fix this, but without the say-so from central government, which means reforming the deregulation of buses at the national level, our hands are tied.

In Newcastle we need to increase the price difference between car and bus journeys, to make the greener option more appealing. Some cities have already made these changes: in London a bus journey costs £1.50, but in Newcastle it can cost £3.60 or more. We need the powers to address this at a local level, rather than being handcuffed to regional or national strategies.

Even with Covid-19 restrictions, encouraging people to use the bus removes cars from the road. We can address air quality issues only if we can shift people away from cars and on to buses. A National Bus Strategy could help to accelerate our carbon emission reductions, reducing the health problems associated with highly-polluting vehicles. It could also boost productivity by reducing congestion, and provide access to education for people wanting to retrain.

Connecting people to cities is one way the UK can unleash its potential. That can start with buses. As the leader of Newcastle city council, I invite the prime minister — a self-confessed fan of buses — to Tyne and Wear to take a ride on the bus with me. He can hear directly from citizens about the need for a revolution to address the discrepancies in cost between core cities and London, and allow us to connect people with opportunities to work, study and play.

As the government’s emergency subsidies for the bus industry are scaled down, let’s take this opportunity to transform this life-enhancing, neglected policy area, once and for all.

Cllr Nick Forbes is the leader of Newcastle city council and an executive member of Core Cities UK

Let’s stop pretending that the railways were ever really privatised. When they were broken up into two main parts, the infrastructure and the operating companies, in the mid 1990s the idea was that they would be at the cutting edge of capitalism, subject to market forces and the discipline of the private sector.

Christian Wolmar , Thunderer www.thetimes.co.uk

In fact, within a few years Railtrack, the infrastructure company, failed as a result of the Hatfield accident and poor investment decisions, and had to be taken back in-house by the government. Now the train operators, which are being subsidised to the tune of £700 million a month, have been killed off by a combination of Covid-19 and misplaced government-inspired messaging about the potential risks faced by passengers.

Good riddance: the only surprise is that this structure lasted over 20 years. A service which is essential to the economy and therefore must be kept running whatever the circumstances cannot ever be properly privatised. The risk, ultimately, stays in the public sector.

Let’s stop pretending, too, that the railways can ever pay for themselves. They are like the roads and the buses, a social service, vital for our nation’s cohesion and economy. This new reality should inform the future structure of the industry. The separation of the infrastructure from operations created a massive bureaucracy and a fantastic workload for lawyers but did nothing for passengers. They were faced with an incomprehensible fares system which could not be sorted out because the operators would never agree to a change that could cost them revenue.

Now the government has an opportunity to sort out the mess. It controls the lot. The disparate parts need to be brought together so that the railway is no longer a mass of squabbling companies playing at capitalism. Passenger numbers are barely a quarter of what they were a year ago. This is disastrous from an economic point of view but unless the government wants to embark on an unpopular swathe of closures then the Treasury will simply have to cough up the money and support a simpler and cheaper system of fares.

The new railway needs to market itself differently, as a pleasant way to travel with seats and free wifi, at a price that people can afford. In the short term that will be costly, but that is the only way of attracting people back on to the rails.

Boris Johnson has declined to meet members of a campaign group representing families bereaved by coronavirus, despite appearing to promise to do so on live TV last week.

Jessica Elgot www.theguardian.com 

Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK, which says it represents 1,600 bereaved families, is campaigning for a rapid public inquiry into the government’s response to the pandemic and is taking legal action to force one, sending pre-action letters to the government.

Challenged live on Sky News last week about repeated requests from the group for a face-to-face meeting, the prime minister said he was “not aware” of their letters, but “of course” he would meet them.

The Guardian has seen a letter from the prime minister that now declines to meet the group’s representatives, saying it was “regrettably not possible”.

In the letter, signed by the prime minister, Johnson said he was “acutely conscious that a letter will be of little comfort against the grief and heartbreak that families have suffered”.

He said he would “of course meet members of the public and key workers who have been bereaved as a result of Covid-19” but said he could not offer condolences in person after every request to meet.

Johnson said he would announce an independent inquiry “at the appropriate time” but said all correspondence had to go through the government legal department because of the legal challenge mounted by the group.

The group’s founder, Jo Goodman, whose father, Stuart, died from Covid-19, said the prime minister had ignored five letters and had now done “a U-turn followed by a U-turn” by agreeing and then refusing a meeting.

She said the bereaved families understood that the prime minister could not meet every bereaved person, but said her group was one of the largest in the country.

“We think it’s critical the PM hears the experiences of families bereaved by Covid-19, many of whom can shed light on serious systemic and policy failings that contributed to the death of their loved ones: from deaths in care homes to inadequate protective equipment,” she said.

The group has called for an immediate public inquiry with a quick-reporting first phase, similar to the Lord Justice Taylor review set up after the Hillsborough disaster, where the first phase reported back in 11 weeks to allow fast changes to be rolled out in other football stadiums.

“If the prime minister had replied to our first letter back in June, a rapid review could be reporting right now: giving crucial lessons on how to save lives as the virus spikes again, as we’re seeing in locations in Europe and across the country,” Goodman said.

Johnson has committed in principle to an independent inquiry but has said now was not the “right moment to devote huge amounts of official time to an inquiry”.

Though there have been no further details about the inquiry, the government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, has advertised for an adviser to help prepare for the inquiry.

A Downing Street spokesperson said: “The prime minister has responded to Bereaved Families for Justice to express his sincere condolences to all families who have sadly lost loved ones to this terrible disease.

“He remains committed to meeting with members of the public and families of key workers who have been bereaved as a result of Covid-19. The prime minister is resolute in his determination to beat this virus and prevent further families from suffering such dreadful loss.”

England’s chief medical officer Chris Whitty is on resignation watch after disagreeing with the government over its drive to send workers back to the office.

Jonathon Read www.theneweuropean.co.uk 

The Telegraph reports that ministers are worried that if they push too hard the message for workers to return to towns and city centres it will result in Whitty resigning because of safety fears.

The government fears further damage to trust in their coronavirus response if Whitty was to resign, having previously said he believes social distancing will be needed for a considerable period of time.

He explained in July: “There are some things which we started right at the beginning, which absolutely have to continue for a prolonged period of time, washing hands, isolation, household isolation.

“And then we’ve added to that things like contact tracing, most recently face coverings.

“And these are issues of, and issues around distancing, which have been varied but the reality is distancing remains an important part of this mix and how it’s interpreted in different governments has evolved.

Chris Whitty says ‘under-investment’ in public health hampered coronavirus response

England’s chief medical officer has defended the actions taken over the coronavirus pandemic, blaming under-investment in public health for issues with the government response.

“But it has not gone away. So, all of those need to continue for a long period of time.”

A top health and safety expert earlier accused Johnson’s government of ‘bullying’ workers back into the office, pointing out there is no evidence it is safe to do so.

It comes as the prime minister headed up the first cabinet meeting since the summer recess, with the environment secretary revealing yesterday he has no idea when civil servants will return to departments, including his own.

“We don’t have a target other than to make sure that it is safe for people to return to work, and that does require, for instance, fewer work stations.”

A Department of Health source denied that Whitty could resign, calling the reports a “complete invention”.

“Chris is not threatening to resign, and hasn’t threatened to resign,” they added.

In June it was reported that Whitty and the chief scientific adviser Patrick Vallance refused to do a press conference with the prime minister after Dominic Cummings tried to explain his reasons for travelling to Durham during lockdown.

Matt Hancock has insisted that England’s system of tracing and testing suspected coronavirus carriers is in the “top tranche” internationally, despite widespread criticism of its performance.

Denis Campbell www.theguardian.com 

Looks to Owl as if the Green member of the cabinet isn’t too happy either. Remember that the cabinet had voted 7 to 1 to pull out of the GESP but somehow that motion never got to be debated at full council and they ended up with a fudge.

By Daniel Clark, local democracy reporter and Radio Exe news  www.radioexe.co.uk

 Lib Dem leader Luke Taylor is no longer in Mid Devon’s cabinet. 

They fell out with independents

The four Liberal Democrats members sacked from their cabinet roles in Mid Devon have hit back at the decision.

Councillors Graeme Barnell, Alex White, Luke Taylor, and Simon Clist have been replaced by Conservatives Richard Chesterton, Bob Evans, Andrew Moore and Colin Slade.

It follows a full council meeting where the Liberal Democrats put forward a rival amendment to one that the leader of the council, an independent, had outlined over the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan, a strategy involving Exeter, East Devon, Mid Devon and Teignbridge.

The Conservatives are the largest group on the council, but they’ve been frozen out of decision-making by an alliance of other councillors, including a cabinet of independents, Lib Dems and a Green. 

The leader of the council, Cllr Bob Deed, had proposed continuing a working relationship with Exeter and Teignbridge and to continue to prepare a revised joint strategic statutory plan, contrary to the rival amendment of the Lib Dems that would stop a boundary blind process while still communicating with other authorities in the area.

Cllr Deed’s amendment was eventually voted through 25 votes to 10, The following day, the four Liberal Democrat members on the seven-strong cabinet, were sacked.

Lib Dem Group leader Cllr Luke Taylor, said: “I am disappointed to have been removed from cabinet after we had given our support to Cllr Deed after the May 2019 elections. I am proud of the work we had done and knew cabinet was moving in the right direction.

“We had been supportive of changes to governance and in my own portfolio with the environment was pleased to have been progressing with more dual recycling bins in our communities and the addition of small electrical items being collected with recycling, however I wish the new coalition all the best going forward whilst the Liberal Democrat group will become sound opposition.”

Cllr Barnell said: “I too am disappointed by the Leader to take this decision, I had read every part of the GESP plans and had concerns from the outset. I knew our communities would be heavily impacted by GESP and could be lost forever. I did all I can to try and protect Mid Devon from mass building,” while Cllr White added: “As Liberal Democrats we did all we could for the benefit of Mid Devon and unfortunately the political ambitions of some has led to this. I hope the new Conservative led coalition will achieve on their promises made whilst in opposition.”

Cllr Clist added that he was ‘slightly bemused’ at his sacking, after he was told he was ‘innocent’, but that if one Lib Dem, goes they all go. He added: “I was willing to remain a Cabinet member and be part of a politically balanced Cabinet which would have been a great benefit to all of Mid Devon – however it appeared my position was already promised elsewhere.”

The cabinet, still led by independent Cllr Deed, now consists of three independents, four Conservatives, and one Green Party member, Cllr Elizabeth Wainwright –  but she’s tweeted in response to a comment about the new cabinet “Can’t be — none of them match how I feel and what I think after having come back from holiday to all this….”

Announcing the changes, Cllr Deed had said: “Everyone knows that, upon becoming leader, I had sought participation from across the Council to secure the best set of expertise and experience in cabinet roles. While the Conservatives did not feel able to take up this offer from the start, I am pleased that we now have the opportunity to welcome their skills into the Cabinet. I firmly believe that working alongside our neighbours and colleagues in the wider area is the right way to achieve the best outcomes for Mid Devon.”

The council consists currently of 17 Conservatives, 11 Liberal Democrats, nine Independents, and two Green Party councillors. Three seats are vacant following the deaths of Gerald Luxton and John Daw and the resignation of Irene Hill, with by-elections currently under the Coronavirus Act 2020 not allowed to take place until May 2021.

As a result of the decision of last week’s full council meeting, Mid Devon will now commit to prepare a revised joint strategic statutory plan, but should this prove not to be the most appropriate option in planning terms, consider a review of other options for further strategic and cross-boundary planning matters with willing participatory authorities in the Housing Market Area.

Officers will review and incorporate relevant elements of the GESP Draft Policies and Site Options consultation document and other supporting documentation and evidence that remain valid and jointly prepare necessary technical studies and evidence for the new strategic plan, including conducting a further call for sites process, align monitoring and share resources where there are planning and cost benefits for doing so.

The Council’s commitment to the delivery of high quality development at Culm Garden Village as part of the Garden Communities Programme has been reaffirmed.

New permitted development rights to add additional storeys to create dwellings and dwelling spaces, plus permitted rights to demolish and rebuild are now in force. Much press coverage so far has givens over simplified descriptions. Here is a more detailed account of what is and is not permitted and the various restrictions and prior approval required. – Owl 

The new permitted development rights will come into effect on 31st August 2020 and the changes to the Use Classes Order will come into effect on 1st September 2020.

www.hewitsons.com 

Permitted Development Rights for Additional Storeys to Dwellinghouses

The Town and County Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2020 will confer permanent permitted development rights to allow existing houses to be extended by way of the addition of up to 2 storeys. The rights apply to existing houses which are detached, semi-detached or in a terrace. They are subject to a maximum height limit of 18m, and where the house is in a terrace its height cannot be more than 3.5m higher than the next tallest house in the terrace. The rights only apply to houses built between 1 July 1948 and 28 October 2018 and do not apply in Conservation Areas. There is a requirement to obtain prior approval in relation to the impact on the amenity of neighbouring premises, the external appearance, and the impacts a taller building may have on air traffic and defence assets.

Permitted Development Rights for Additional Storeys to Create Dwellings

The above Order will also introduce a new Class AA and AB to Part 20 of the General Permitted Development Order to allow the construction of up to 2 additional storeys on free standing blocks and on buildings in a terrace that are in certain commercial uses (including A1, A2, A3 and B1(a)), and in mixed uses with an element of housing, to create additional self-contained homes. The rights are subject to a maximum height limit of 30m for detached buildings and 18m for terraces.

A new Class AC and AD to Part 20 to the General Permitted Development Order will allow up to 2 additional storeys to be constructed on existing houses which are detached or in a terrace to create new self-contained homes. The rights are subject to a maximum height limit for the newly extended building of 18m and it cannot be more than 3.5m higher than the next tallest house in the terrace.

These rights apply to houses and buildings built between 1 July 1948 and 5 March 2018 and they have to have been in one of the relevant uses or mixed uses on 5 March 2018. The rights will not apply in Conservation Areas or to listed buildings or scheduled monuments. There is a requirement to obtain prior approval in relation to the transport and highway impacts of the development, contamination and flooding risks, the external appearance, impact on amenity, the provision of adequate natural light in all habitable rooms of the new homes, noise impact from existing commercial uses, impact on surrounding businesses and the impact on air traffic and defence assets.

Permitted Development Rights for Demolition and Rebuild for Residential Use

The Town and County Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2020 will introduce a new Class ZA to the General Permitted Development Order conferring permanent permitted development rights to allow for the demolition of vacant and redundant free-standing buildings that fell within use class B1 and C3 on 12 March 2020, and their replacement with residential development. The rights apply to purpose-built residential blocks of flats only, and therefore do not apply to terraced buildings, detached dwellings or mixed-use buildings. The rights will also only apply to buildings constructed prior to 1 January 1990 that have been entirely vacant for at least 6 months prior to the application for prior approval. The development, consisting of both demolition and replacement build, must be completed within three years of the date of the grant of prior approval.

There are various limits placed on the scale of the development permitted, including that it must be within the footprint of the original building with a footprint of up to 1,000 sq m and with a maximum height of 18m. There is a requirement to obtain prior approval in relation to the transport and highway impacts of the development, contamination and flooding risks, the impact of noise from other premises on the future residents, design and external appearance of the new building, the adequacy of natural light in all habitable rooms of each new dwelling, the impact of the introduction of residential use into an area, and the impact of the development on the amenity of the new building and of neighbouring premises, impacts of noise from commercial premises, the impact on surrounding businesses, impact on heritage and archaeology, the method of demolition, plans for landscaping and the impact on air traffic and defence. The rights will not apply in Conservation Areas or to listed buildings or scheduled monuments.

Changes to Use Classes Order

The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020 will create a new broad “commercial, business and service” use class (Class E) which incorporates the previous shops (A1), financial and professional services (A2), restaurants and cafes (A3) and offices (B1) use class. Uses such as gyms, nurseries and health centres previously within use class D1 and D2, and other uses which are suitable for a town centre area, are also included in the new use class. A change of use within a single use class is not development for the purposes of the Town and County Planning Act 1990, and therefore the use of a building within this new use class will be able to change to another use, or mix of uses, within the use class without the need for planning permission. The Government’s hope is that, by bringing these uses together and allowing movement between them, they will give businesses greater freedom to adapt to changing circumstances and to respond more quickly to the needs of their communities.

The Regulations will also create a new “Learning and non-residential institutions” (F1) incorporating those uses within the former D1 Non-residential institutions use class, such as schools, libraries and art galleries. There will also be a “Local community” (F2) use class incorporating those uses from the former D2 use class which provide for group activities of a more physical nature such as swimming pools, skating rinks and areas for outdoor sports as well as shops servicing the essential needs of local communities. The former A4 drinking establishments and A5 hot food take away use classes have been removed and these uses are now sui generis, together with cinemas, concert, dance and bingo halls.

The new permitted development rights will come into effect on 31st August 2020 and the changes to the Use Classes Order will come into effect on 1st September 2020. The changes undoubtedly give rise to new development opportunities, although the scope of them will be curtailed by the various restrictions and prior approval requirements.

The Covid-19 symptom tracker app is showing a slow rise in symptoms reported across UK from about 27 August, though levels remain below those experienced throughout most of July. East Devon active cases are estimated at 33 compared to 29 on 21 August. – Owl

Nicola Davis www.theguardian.com /

As the daily tally of positive coronavirus tests in the UK reached the highest level on Sunday since 4 June, at 1,715 new cases, we take a look at whether this is a true rise in infections, and what it means.

Are cases really rising?

A quick glance at UK figures for positive coronavirus tests shows a clear upward trend since early July. On 5 July 516 new cases were reported, with a rolling seven-day average of just over 546 per day, while on 26 August 1,048 cases were reported, with a rolling seven-day average of just over 1,164 per day.

Some have suggested this rise is largely down to an increase in the number of people being tested. Indeed, 126,100 tests were processed on 5 July, compared with 186,500 on 26 August. But an analysis of the figures shows this only partly explains the rise.

As Prof Paul Hunter of the University of East Anglia points out, the proportion of tests returning positive – the positivity rate – appears to be rising. Over the first seven days in July, 232 tests were done for every positive case reported and in mid August only about 164 tests were done for every positive case – although in recent weeks this appears to have stabilised.

That, experts have said, suggests infections have truly been rising. The conclusion chimes with work from the Office for National Statistics that suggested an increase in the percentage of people testing positive in July – although again it seems this rise may have levelled off.

However, experts say the figures from Sunday should be viewed with caution. While on Monday 1,406 new cases were reported they say data for the next few days will be needed to put the number of new infections in context.

What about deaths?

While infections may have risen, the number of deaths from coronavirus remain low: the daily figure for UK deaths within 28 days of a positive test has not hit 20 or higher since 21 July.

Experts say there are a number of possible explanations for this, including an increase in the use of the life-saving drug dexamethasone, and that infections now seem to be more common among young people – older age is a risk factor for more severe Covid-19.

It is not yet clear if other factors, for example the virus becoming less deadly, could also be at play.

Why are infections rising?

Experts say as lockdown restrictions are eased, a rise in cases is expected. In the UK, restrictions have gradually been eased since mid-May, with social “bubbles” allowed from mid-June and pubs and restaurants allowed to reopen from early July.

“The key thing we have to do is get to balance, letting people get back to normal [while] keeping control of transmission,” said Prof Neil Ferguson, an epidemiologist at Imperial College London.

That, he added, meant local restrictions – as already seen in Leicester and Oldham – were likely to be a feature in more areas as outbreaks occurred.

How concerned should we be?

The increase in the positivity rate since July has led to concerns about further easing of lockdown – including encouraging employees to return to the workplace.

Christina Pagel, professor of operational research at University College London, said among the concerns were that few offices had windows that opened and many involved sharing lifts and bathrooms.

Ferguson added that a critical moment would be the opening up of schools, and that could lead to a rapid increase in cases of coronavirus.

While Ferguson said he did not want to be alarmist, there was no room for complacency. “We do need to make sure that our testing, tracing and response to outbreaks in workplaces and schools or wherever is up to scratch,” he said.

Prof Rowland Kao, an epidemiologist at the University of Edinburgh, agreed, noting “sparks” of coronavirus were to be expected. “How you respond is what matters,” he said.

• Additional reporting by Natalie Grover