EDF says the problem is limited to 150 cubic metres where pipes and cables are due to be laid. Weak, poor quality cleanliness and not wide enough.
Is Owl reassured? No. But our Local Enterprise Partnership, with its top-heavy nuclear interest Board members, will no doubt be …
Source: Times Business News (pay wall)
Unfortunately, austerity cuts and HS2 (which has just been revealed is going through open-casr mining zones where big cracks are showing up) trump common sense …
“Pothole repairs and other local road improvements could be given a £400 million boost if Government funding mirrored rising income from fuel and motoring taxes, research shows.
The “radical new strategy” would help support the almost 30% increase in the number of vehicles on Britain’s roads since 2000, according to the Local Government Association (LGA).
The organisation, which represents more than 370 councils in England and Wales, wants the Government to match the increase in fuel and motoring tax income generated in the past 10 years in its funding for town halls.
This would mean an extra £418 million to improve local roads by fixing potholes, cutting congestion and protecting bus services, encouraging residents to use alternative transport where possible.”
“In England there are 200,000 homes that have been sitting empty for more than six months, according to new Government figures. This is equivalent to £43bn worth of housing stock.
In London alone there were 19,845 homes sitting vacant for over six months last year, property that is worth £9.4bn, taking into account average prices.
Kensington and Chelsea has the capital’s highest number of homes which are vacant for more than six months with 1,399 empty, up 8.5pc on last year, and 22.7pc higher than 10 years ago.
This is likely due to the buy-to-leave phenomenon, where wealthy buyers snap up homes as an investment, and leave them empty while waiting for its value to increase.
Communities secretary Sajid Javid downplayed the role of such foreign buyers in exacerbating the housing crisis, saying the problem “isn’t as bad as some people think”. A Savills’ report found that the majority of homes bought by people based overseas were being rented out, rather than left empty. …”
See post below this for a somewhat puzzling company (Wilson Planning and Architecture) which appears to talk like a big developer but seemingly performs as an architect for single dwellings.
Firstly, it does appear to be Torridge [where EDDC’s former planning supremo Kate Little was once in charge) the company is talking about:
“LAND WANTED THROUGHTOUT TORRIDGE FOR A DISTRICT WIDE PLANNING APPLICATION, WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT QUANTITY OF LAND BANKED ALREADY
We are actively seeking land sharing a common border with a village or town to assess the sites suitability for inclusion in a wider proposal to benefit the whole district. If you have land, email us the details and we’ll get back to you.”
(this has so far engendered at least 35 mostly less than supportive responses!)
Their earlier Facebook post (picked out by Andrew Lainton’s ‘Decisions, Decisions’ blog) seemed to imply that developers are now fully in charge in Devon, not planners, and that Local Plans are easily overcome, and indeed, the company has secured planning permission for individuals on contented sites.
They have many posts and tweets in similar vein on
https://www.facebook.com/WilsonPlanning1/
and
http://www.wilsonplanning.co.uk/
though some are more easy to understand than others.
For example on their home page they say:
“Having experience of working in the South West area for over twenty years, we have been able to build up significant and mutually respected relations with local authorities throughout the South West.”
but then it gets a bit confusing with the post we initially blogged:
“The land in our country and our district is irreplaceable. My [not sure who the ‘my’ is] proposal unites the land owners, puts differences aside and makes the actual most efficient use of the land humanly possible by collaboration. This proposal is for the good of each and every individual within the district. We have total flexibility whereas the local plan is rigid and doesn’t think on an actual district level, it’s fragmented and broken. Every single person should support this.”
to which a number of people have rightly responded on the lines “what on earth are you talking about?”!
Wilson Architecture and Planning appears to be in Bideford and seems to have started up in 2015 with George, Christopher and Paula Wilson (so presumably existed as some other entity prior to 2015 if they have been in business for over 20 years) though Christopher resigned in 2015 and was re-appointed again quite quickly:
Not a developer as such, then, but appears to think that developers are now (or should be? difficult to work out!) in charge of the county.
Elucidation appreciated!
Suddenly, as a bolt from the ( Tory bright) blue, Parish rediscovers his inner planning officer! Is there a new housing estate planned near his gaffe in Somerset? Or is he desperately seeking pre-election brownie points, aware that he has perhaps spent too much time on farmers and dualling the A303?
“ … when Parliament returns in September, I will be holding a debate on New Housing Design.
As a former Planning Officer at District Council level, I know just how terrified some communities are of new development. Not because they are NIMBYs. But because they have seen how previous developments in the last 50 years have left communities with homes totally unsuitable for their area.
The 2017 Conservative manifesto, for all its controversy, pledged to build “better homes which match the quality of those we have inherited from previous generations”. This is a must.”
http://www.devonlive.com/news/property/homebuilders-must-held-account-independent-322281
Source: Private Eye
Not sure which district council this is (Teignbridge, Torridge?) but one developer appears to believe s/he runs the district and possibly even the county. As the blogger (Andrew Lainton – Decisions, Decisions blog) says, the alleged author may well regret his or her early morning post!
The wild (south) west of planning!
“Dear colleagues,
It has been good to see so many of you this month at our Group Party conferences and at the National Conference of Children and Adult Services. We also ran the first module of the Next Generation leadership course. All this adds skills and knowledge to the many talents of our [Independent] members and enables us to discuss issues and craft better solutions. The regional meetings also start shortly in every area, so we shall soon be at a place nearer you to hear your views first hand. Thank you to those who made it to the recent information and development seminar on campaigning, either in person or online in the webinar.
English councils have taken a reduction of £16m in Government Grant funding from income tax, only partly offset by the 50 per cent retention of local business rates. 166 councils will be expected to pay the Government instead, further centralising money and power, exactly contrary to the agreed direction. The LGA is working hard on this in their Budget submission. 97 per cent of councils signed up to the four year agreement, but on the promise that 100 per cent of the business rates would be retained in local government, now a broken promise. If you are one of the 166 councils, have you passed a motion to seek a better deal? Please let us know.
It leaves us short of funds to run services and makes it hard to support more people with increased housing. We have called long and hard for powers and funds to build the houses people can afford. It is bizarre that councils can borrow to build a swimming pool or a hotel, but not for much needed housing, regardless of a sound business case.
Instead of lifting this cap, Theresa May has announced a £2bn fund for social and/or “affordable” housing. If you rely on the media it is unclear whether this is intended for affordable or social housing. For example, the Sky News headline refers to affordable housing while the Guardian headline refers to social housing. Whichever it is for, it is only available to some councils and then only through a bidding process, ratheru than just giving us the funds. Her calculation of 5,000 homes a year, is based on an £80,000 subsidy per dwelling, but in areas of greatest demand, where she says she wants to direct the funding, that will fall woefully short. In its budget submission, the Chartered Institute of Housing recommended an extra £1.5bn every year to build 28,000 homes.
Sadly, although genuine funds are always welcome, the fund announced by the PM will not tackle the problem. We cannot plug the housing gap while the “right to buy” continues to drain our resources. In many councils, these have almost doubled this year, each sale taking two thirds of the value out of the public purse and into central government and private hands. We have to start to limit these expensive donations to what we can afford.
We cannot flood the market to bring house prices down while demand is unrestricted. Anyone in the world can buy here, and they do. Like a foreign holiday home, the first sale brings money into the community, but after that sales are often passed from one absent owner to another and sometimes left empty – more a place to house funds, rather than people.
We cannot make housing affordable while rents spiral without restraint and “affordable” is not linked to income, but to 80 per cent of commercial value. Many people will obviously continue to struggle. A housing rent statement is expected to confirm the move back to a maximum of 1 per cent above the consumer price index.
Meanwhile, homelessness is rising. I visited EMMAUS which provides an en suite room, regular meals, a community and a job for 720 homeless people. But it uses Housing Benefit that is about to be swallowed up in Universal Credit, an issue colleagues and I have raised at all levels. Our Vice President, Lord Victor Adebowale, CE of Turning Point was on Twitter this week supporting the work of community enterprise.
Greg Clarke, one the most thoughtful of our Ministers, responded brilliantly to my question recently, pointing out that growth could be an empty target if it did not provide balanced communities with work and housing to match.
However, DCLG has a consultation out now about increasing the pressure on councils to give permissions for housing, regardless of local ability to provide jobs, services, infrastructure such as roads and schools, and regardless of land availability without damage to the environment. Our Group’s Deputy Chairman, Rachel Eburne, is on the LGA board for the Environment, Economy, Housing and Transport. She pointed out that the cross party board was unanimous in its objection to the centralised steamroller approach.
The LGA has sought powers to prevent land-banking that prevents houses being built, while councils are required to compensate by giving ever more permissions, making a mockery of a planning system which is prevented from planning ahead. DCLG has not chosen to put any pressure on the developers to get on with it, despite our calls to give councils the ability to step in. Also the viability studies remain obscure and enable developers to reject the much-needed contributions to affordable housing or infrastructure. We cannot just look at housing on its own. It must be linked to economics, environment, and sustainability.
Leader of the Independent Group
Vice Chair of the Local Government Association
Lincolnshire County Councillor and North Kesteven District Councillor”
These people are not feckless, work-shy or scroungers – they are trying hard to make ends meet:
“Low-income tenants are now spending an average of 28% of their wages on rent, up from 21% in the mid-1990s, new research indicates. They have been hit by substantial cuts to housing benefit, with government support expected to fall “further and further behind” the cost of housing, says the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Over the same period of time, the proportion of people renting homes privately has increased from 8% to 19%. Average private rents have gone up 33%.
“Renters are paying considerably more for their homes than 20 years ago,” says the IFS analysis, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
“In real terms, the median private rent paid in London was 53% higher in the mid-2010s than in the mid-1990s, while in the rest of the country, it was 29% higher. Those rises mainly occurred in the late 1990s and early 2000s (in London) or the early and mid-2000s (elsewhere).
“Meanwhile, social housing rents have been consistently growing in real terms since the mid-1990s. …”
“Pensioners will be visited via Skype instead of in person in a new trial by Essex County Council and Essex Care Limited. They will be given tablets to communicate with carers, who will talk to them over video link rather than visit them in person.”
Telegraph p8, Mirror p13, Mail p4
So this is the future? Care in the community – whose care, whose community?
“The number of elderly people becoming homeless in England has surged by 100 per cent in seven years, figures show.
People over the age of 60 are now twice as likely to register with local councils as homeless than they were seven years ago, with the figure having risen from 1,210 in 2009 to 2,420 last year.
While overall homelessness has increased in the same period, rising by 42 per cent from 41,790 to 59,260, government data shows the figure for elderly people has surged by more than double as much.
The data shows that among the homeless elderly population in 2016, more than half (61 per cent) were over the age of 65, and 21 per cent were over the age of 75. …”
Hunt tells GPs it’s up to them to them to find ways of squeezing in an extra hour of appointments into their day.
“Richard Vautrey, chair of the British Medical Association’s GP Committee, spoke out after Jeremy Hunt admitted “underinvestment” has made it “much harder” for patients to have one familiar GP.” …
… In his speech Mr Hunt promised £2.4billion for GPs by 2021, announced £20,000 ‘golden hellos’ for 200 rural GPs a year to boost numbers, and pledged a new state-backed scheme to cut soaring indemnity fees.
He also rebooted his pledge to ensure 5,000 more GPs by 2020 – despite numbers falling by 350 since he made it.
But he clashed with GPs by declaring he couldn’t solve the NHS crisis for them.
And he urged surgeries to find ways to “release between 45 and 60 minutes per GP per day” such as holding appointments online.
RCGP chair Prof Helen Stokes-Lampard warned GPs were “knackered”, “at the end of their tether” and facing “burnout”.
[Hunt continued]: “I’m sorry if that’s what you think. But let me be clear.
“I did not say when I was here before that we were going to solve these problems overnight.” He added: “You can make a big difference in your own practices.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/traditional-family-doctor-could-die-11333899
“New paper shows Government focus on meeting market demand is failing to provide homes people need
A new paper published today by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) argues that the Government’s continuing failure to prioritise genuine local housing needs over market demand will perpetuate the housing crisis while wasting precious countryside [1].
CPRE’s Needless Demand analyses the current method that councils use to plan for local housing and what is being built as a result. It finds that ‘housing need’ and ‘housing demand’ are being conflated in planning policy, with the result that sheer numbers matter more than type and tenure of housing.
CPRE had hoped that the Government’s new consultation on housing – Planning for the right homes in the right places, published last Thursday – would clearly distinguish between genuine local needs and market demand [2]. In calling for a standardised approach to identifying the needs of different social groups, the Government took some steps towards this.
Yet the general thrust of the Government’s plans was to argue that high-demand areas will have to accept more homes to improve the affordability of the housing market. CPRE sees this as neither building the right homes, nor building them in the right places. The likely result is profitable executive homes built on precious countryside in the south east, rather than building what communities across the country actually need. …”
So NOW see just why our Local Enterprise Partnership – where many past and present board members have and had nuclear and arms industry interests – is pouring money into Hinkley C.
“Scientists tell MPs government is using expensive power project to cross-subsidise military by maintaining nuclear skills
“The government is using the “extremely expensive” Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to cross-subsidise Britain’s nuclear weapon arsenal, according to senior scientists.
In evidence submitted to the influential public accounts committee (PAC), which is currently investigating the nuclear plant deal, scientists from Sussex University state that the costs of the Trident programme could be “unsupportable” without “an effective subsidy from electricity consumers to military nuclear infrastructure”. …
“What our research suggests is that British low-carbon energy strategies are more expensive than they need to be, in order to maintain UK military nuclear infrastructures,” said Stirling.
“And without assuming the continuation of an extremely expensive UK civil nuclear industry, it is likely that the costs of Trident would be significantly greater.”
The Hinkley Point project has been criticised for its huge cost. The French electricity company EDF is currently in the early stages of constructing the plant near Bridgwater, Somerset, in partnership with the China General Nuclear Power Group.
The government has agreed a minimum price of £92.50 per megawatt hour (MWh) for electricity produced by Hinkley Point, the first new-build nuclear power plant in the UK since 1995. Under this agreement, if the usual wholesale price is lower, the consumer pays the difference in price. The current wholesale electricity price is around £42 per MWh, so the electricity consumer would pay EDF an extra £50 per MWh.
Last month, the government agreed a “strike price” of £57.50 per MWh for offshore windfarms off Scotland and Yorkshire, far below the Hinkley guaranteed price.
This week, the Green MP Caroline Lucas asked the government about the Ministry of Defence and the business department discussing the “relevance of UK civil nuclear industry skills and supply chains to the maintaining of UK nuclear submarine and wider nuclear weapons capabilities”.
Harriett Baldwin, the defence procurement minister, answered that “it is fully understood that civil and defence sectors must work together to make sure resource is prioritised appropriately for the protection and prosperity of the United Kingdom”.
Johnstone said the decision-making process behind Hinkley raised questions about transparency and accountability, saying: “In this ever more networked world, both civil and military nuclear technologies are increasingly recognised as obsolete. Yet it seems UK policymaking is quietly trying to further entrench the two – in ways that have been escaping democratic accountability.”
At a hearing held by the PAC in parliament on Monday, senior civil servants defended the Hinkley deal after a National Audit Office report concluded that it was “risky and expensive”. …”
A comment on dementia tax from a Guardian comments
“There’s a huge unreported scandal in how many of the Tory cuts actually end up costing more than they save.
Social care cuts keep people in expensive and overloaded hospital beds longer, and lead to desperate attempts to scrape in money to pay for the damage like this.
Yesterday it was revealed that cuts to childcare and other cuts affecting the poorest families resulted in a large increase in the number of children taken into care: not only is this a disaster for those children and families, taking more children into care will cost much more than those cuts could ever save (and it was proven back in 2011 I think that cut schemes like SureStart pay for themselves).
The awful disability assessments system, which constantly makes target-driven mistakes and leaves people destitute, was shown long ago to cost more than it saves in payments. Somehow, this wasn’t a huge scandal.
And we see the same story across the board – council cuts lead to potholes, more accidents (some fatal), and compensation payments that cost more than was saved by not filling the potholes. Education cuts force small school maintenance tasks to be skipped resulting in expensive repairs further down the line. And so on.
And then just look at the Grenfell fire.
Result? We have a country suffering horribly from austerity – and just look at the national debt figures. It’s gone up under the Conservatives in about 7 years by about 50% more than it did under nearly twice as many years under Labour. Because poorly planned cuts cost, they don’t save.
The conservatives’ main policy, main reason for existing, has failed and backfired colossally. Why is no-one reporting on it? Why isn’t there a scandal and rebellion by conservatives furious that their own half baked short term policies are causing harm and pushing up the debt by increasing spending on other parts of the balance sheet?”
Grenadier is holding consultation events at Ocean in Queen’s Drive on October 21 and 25, between 9am and 5pm, and on November 1 between 5pm and 9pm.
It says the proposed scheme would provide training and changing facilities alongside an outdoor events space and eateries, and is expected to provide services throughout the year.
The initial plans have been called “uninspiring” and protestors note that the illustrations do not show the Queens Drive road diversion as described by EDDC.
To be offered only to the first 200 applicants. There are nearly 42,000 GPs. Say no more.
“Newly-qualified GPs are to be offered a one-off payment of £20,000 if they start their careers in areas that struggle to attract family doctors.
The £4m scheme, to be announced by Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, aims to boost the numbers of doctors in rural and coastal areas of England.
Mr Hunt said it will help “reduce the pressure” on practices in those areas.
The Royal College of GPs backed the plan, saying there was a “serious shortage” of family doctors.
The one-off payment will be offered to 200 GPs from 2018.
As of September 2016, there were 41,985 GPs in England.
Mr Hunt told the BBC: “What we’re looking to do is to reduce the pressure on those GP practices which are doing a very, very valiant job but can’t look after patients as well as they want to, because they’re finding it hard to recruit.”
The health secretary is due to speak at the Royal College of GPs’ annual conference in Liverpool, where he will offer something for those already in the profession too, by announcing plans for flexible working for older doctors – to encourage them to put off retirement.
He will also confirm plans for an overseas recruitment office which will aim to attract GPs from countries outside Europe to work in England. …”
Maybe because the cost of going to court outweighs the income from the fine? But the article says that clearing fly-tipping costs councils £50 million per year.
Councils (including ours) reduced the number of rubbish collection centres as austerity cuts. Time for a rethink?
“Councils have collected more than £750,000 from thousands of fly-tipping fines in the first year of a crackdown on illegal waste dumping, figures show.
Local authorities across England handed out more than 4,600 fixed penalty notices and collected at least £773,000 for the offence in the year after the Government gave them new powers to issue “on the spot” fines in May 2016.
But many have not used the powers, which allow councils to issue penalties of between £150-£400 to those caught in the act of fly-tipping instead of having to take them to court, a Freedom of Information request by the Press Association found.
Of 297 English councils who responded with figures, more than two fifths (43%) said they had not issued any fly-tipping notices between May 9, 2016 when the powers were first launched, and May 8 2017. …”
