Time to measure up

Any planning policy and system is all about trying to resolve the competing interests of individuals and organisations, in the context of history, addressing current and future social, economic and environmental needs. It’s a tricky balancing act. One person’s nightclub is another’s noisy nightmare.

In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher thought that the solution to our economic challenges lay in us taking in each other’s washing. Now, David Cameron thinks that allowing everyone to build a house extension or conservatory is the answer to the UK’s lack of economic growth.

David Cameron has announced that everyone should be allowed to build large extensions to their homes without planning permission. Currently, homeowners can build a single- storey 10ft extension if they live in a terraced property and one of 13ft if they live in a detached house – all without planning permission. These limits came about after previous consultations had determined that this was about the right balance between individual freedom and the point where neighbours might reasonably expect their views to be taken into account. After all, any extension of most homes will have some impact on neighbouring properties, like access to light and overlooking. One person’s light is another’s darkness.

Now, the Prime Minister has decided that the limits for building without planning permission should be doubled to 20ft and 26ft for a three-year period only. And

Eric Pickles – the Coalition Government’s Environment Secretary - has gone so far as to declare war on councils opposing his planning free-for-all by urging residents to sue if they are not allowed to build large extensions in their back gardens. In a provocative intervention, Mr Pickles said those whose plans were turned down should seek damages against their local authority.

However, a growing number of  Conservative councils – including the planning minister Nick Boles’s own Lincolnshire council – have criticised the move, saying it will blight communities, slash house prices and set neighbour against neighbour.

Before you reach a view about whether the policy is good or bad, I suggest that you and your neighbours get your tape measures out and plot out 26 foot single-storey extensions for everyone.

Boost badgers; cull the coalition!

Not satisfied with launching attacks on students, council services, ordinary working families and many more, David Cameron and Nick Clegg have now decided to wage war on badgers.

The government has issued a badger culling licence to a consortium of landowners in Gloucestershire and a second licence will be issued to farmers in Somerset within days.

You might think that this might be justified if bovine TB was to be eradicated, but when you learn that the objective is to reduce TB in cattle by just 16% over nine years in the immediate area, you soon realise that the scheme is complete madness.

There is a long-standing problem with bovine TB in the UK. But, there is a huge amount of contradictory evidence about whether badgers give TB to cattle or cattle give it to badgers. 

There is also no scientific evidence that culling badgers actually deals with the problem of TB in cattle; indeed a past trial shows it could actually make it worse. That was why the last Labour Government decided not to cull badgers, but to look for vaccination as a long term solution, as there is considerable scientific evidence that that policy would work. As a result, plans to begin culling in Wales were recently abandoned by the Welsh Assembly in favour of a vaccination policy.

Now, Lord Krebs, the government's most respected scientific adviser says that the coalition government’s scheme is crazy. Not believing that anyone with a hint of common sense, let alone a full understanding of the science, could possibly go ahead with these proposals, he went public with his views. "I would go down the vaccination and bio-security route rather than this crazy scheme that may deliver very small advantage, may deliver none.”

The cull is bad for farmers, bad for taxpayers, bad for wildlife and especially bad for badgers.

Time to clean up

In 1936, George Orwell walked in to Sheffield over Wincobank Hill – he was writing The Road to Wigan Pier. He noted of Sheffield “It seems to me, by daylight, one of the most appalling places I have ever seen.  In whichever direction you look, you see the same landscape of monstrous chimneys pouring forth smoke which is sometimes black and sometimes of a rosy tint said to be due to sulphur.  You can smell the sulphur in the air all the while.”

The Clean Air legislation and policies of the 1950s had a dramatic effect upon pollution levels across the city, but particularly in the east end. Mind you, until relatively recently, some of the remaining industrial activities in the Don Valley meant that building new homes in Attercliffe was not an option.

But, whilst air quality has generally improved, some parts of the city have increasingly suffered from air pollution mainly caused by traffic. The pollution levels breach national and European thresholds. It is estimated to account for up to 500 premature deaths per year in Sheffield, with health costs of around £160 million per year. It has short and long-term health impacts, particularly for respiratory and cardiovascular health, including increased admissions to hospital.

People in Tinsley have been particularly affected by pollution from the M1, where traffic levels have continued to rise. It is clear that no real improvements can be made without government action. However, it has recently announced that it intends to introduce traffic management arrangements on the M1, including use of the hard shoulder during peak times. There is a real danger that this could worsen the situation, unless traffic speeds are reduced.

With the support of local Councillors, I am again pressing Ministers to come clean (sic) about the action that the government intends to take to ensure that the EU targets are met. I’ll keep you advised of the response.

From the Poll Tax to the Pickles Tax

Millions of people around the country are facing rises in their council tax from April 2013 on the orders of Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

Eric Pickles has lectured councillors that they have a moral duty not to increase council tax bills, whilst he has been planning a £450 million council tax bombshell of his own. But this is a bombshell that is to be paid totally by people on low incomes.

In a desperate bid to get councils blamed for this latest stealth tax, Mr Pickles has told councils that they can choose who gets the tax rise. But, it’s rather like offering the falsely condemned man the choice of being hanged or be-headed.

Councils are forced to choose between increasing  council taxes on the working poor – over 740,000 working families currently benefit because their income is low - or those of the disabled or of families with young children. As pensioners are protected, others face a 16-25% cut. In the most cruel twist, those living in the least wealthy communities will get the biggest cut.

And, just as happened with the poll tax, councils will be forced to spend a fortune chasing people on low incomes for relatively small amounts of money they simply don't have.

When taken together with cuts in housing benefit and working families’ tax credits and education maintenance allowances, it is inevitable that many low income working families, who so far have continually managed to keep their heads just above water, will now lose the struggle. They won’t be waving, but drowning.

The Budget killed off Nick Clegg's claim that we are all in this together. But, to see big tax cuts for millionaires and significant tax increases for those on low incomes planned to come in on the very same day next April tells us everything we need to know about whose side the coalition is on.

Failing the assessment

In the early 1990s, the last Conservative government was desperate to massage the rapidly rising unemployment statistics. It facilitated an increase of more than 450,000 in the number of people claiming incapacity benefits and then abandoned them there.

That was completely unacceptable – for the economy, for the public purse, but most of all for the individuals who were given no help to get back into work. It is wrong to dismiss the future employment chances of all people who are currently too sick to work. We need to concentrate on what people can do and contribute. It is also important to separate out the vast majority whose ill health or disability prevents them from working at a particular time, from the small minority who decide not to work, but use incapability as a cover.

It was why the Labour government introduced a range of measures to address the issue - like the New Deal for Disabled People and Pathways to Work, as well as a Work Capability Assessment. That extra support led to a reduction of 350,000 individuals claiming inactive benefits.

However, the incoming coalition government, seeking to justify its welfare cuts’ policies, has decided to ‘blame the victims’. It introduced tightened criteria for the work capability assessment and has then mismanaged the implementation.

Nearly 18 months ago, the government’s own independent advisor made clear recommendations on necessary changes to the assessment criteria for mental health conditions. He followed those up, last November, with necessary changes for assessing individuals with fluctuating conditions. Despite promising to implement changes by May this year, the government has still failed to act.

Unsurprisingly, currently, 38% of appeals against the original assessments are successful. The waiting-time for appeals has doubled to normally 6 months and cost an additional £45m.

Just as bad, the Secretary of State Ian Duncan Smith originally claimed that 28% per cent of referrals to the Work Programme would be from people claiming employment support allowance. However, to date, just nine per cent have actually been in this category.

Nearly every organization and charity involved in working in the field is now up in arms. Some charitable providers of the Work Programme have already withdrawn, and others are being pushed towards bankruptcy.

By any assessment criteria, the government is failing badly.

Right issue – wrong solution

George Osborne has kept repeating his mantra “Cutting the deficit is our number one priority.” However, each and every month that he has been Chancellor, the deficit has increased.

Economic growth has stalled. All the economic forecasters have been busily cutting the prospects for the future. The balance of trade figures – the difference between our imports and exports - have massively worsened.

And, it’s going to get worse, as only 10% of the public expenditure cuts that Osborne has announced have so far been implemented. The rich are getting richer – partly due to the cut in the top rate of income tax that Osborne announced, and Nick Clegg supported, in the budget – and the poor, including all low-income working families, are bearing the brunt.

New housing starts have fallen to less than 100,000 – compared to the 250,000 annual starts that the Barker Review said was required. Homelessness is up, and rents keep rising.

We have just been through a major review of the planning framework, where the government was forced to back down on its proposals to allow developers free reign on the green belt and to build on playing fields. Now, this weekend ‘George Osborne invited developers on to the green belt yesterday and promised new fast-track planning laws to get Britain building its way back to prosperity.’

So, Osborne has finally recognized that we have a housing problem, but his ideological blinkers and policy mantra immediately has him reaching for the wrong solution.

There is no shortage of housing land with planning permission. It’s not a supply-side problem; it’s a lack of demand that’s the issue. Whilst ever ordinary families are concerned about their own economic prospects, they are unlikely to commit themselves to new financial commitments.

The developers are sitting on huge land banks, it is not planning that is the problem but the state of the economy and the effect on family finances. 

Building sustainable communities or promoting inequality and division?

This week, The Sheffield Star carried an editorial noting how ‘the city is one of the most divided cities in the UK in terms of wealth, health and equality of opportunities. Almost every indicator of life shows areas in the north and east of the city poorer than in the south and west.’

It called on all the decision-makers – private, public and third sector - to ‘successfully tackle those divisions that blight people’s lives and place them at a disadvantage to others purely because of where they happen to live.’

I agree with both the analysis and with the prescription that we need to address the inequalities between communities just a few miles apart. Most importantly, to build local sustainable communities will require positive action to ensure a variety and balance of housing tenures at a local level.

So, what then are we to do with the Policy Exchange report Ending expensive local tenancies, which promotes the view that all homes valued above a regional median owned by social landlords should be sold off and the proceeds be invested in new homes in areas with lower land values?

The simplest answer is ‘Put it in the bin’! It was clearly written by those who know the current cost of everything, but know nothing about value. It was a throw-back to Margaret Thatcher’s ‘There is no such thing as society’.

Unsurprisingly, as the headlines played well to the tabloid media, David Cameron voiced his support. Clearly, he hadn’t thought through the implications.

For me, the whole thrust of the report immediately brought to mind Shirley Porter’s unlawful gerrymandering plans to socially cleanse Westminster. Policy Exchange’s proposals would achieve the same result, not just for the whole of Central London but for a wide range of communities throughout England.

So, for example, Harrogate would become devoid of all social housing, with the proceeds invested in Bradford, some 20 miles away. I’m not convinced that the army of care assistants and cleaners who support the ageing population of Harrogate would be prepared to make the 80 minute each way bus journey from Bradford without a significant pay rise. Or, are they just meant to get on their bikes?

In Sheffield, it would almost certainly mean that Sheffield Homes and all other local housing associations would be required to sell the few remaining rented homes, when they became vacant, in most of Sheffield Hallam constituency, Wharncliffe Side and Worrall, Loxley, Nether Edge and Meadowhead. Beighton and Mosborough would not be unaffected. 

No Olympic delivery by the Housing Minister

When Housing Minister Grant Shapps gave evidence to the All-Party Communities and Local Government Select Committee which I chair on 13 September 2010, he said “Building more homes is the gold standard upon which we shall be judged. The idea is to get a system which delivers housing in this country.” [1]

However, whilst Britain’s athletes were delivering a record crop of gold medals last week, the latest house-building statistics show that the Housing Minister hasn’t even got his tracksuit off. He set his own target on which we should judge him. When Eddie the Eagle fell so far short of the achievements of other ski-jumpers, we could at least applaud his effort and determination. It is difficult to believe we should do the same for Mr Shapps.

New housing starts over the last year fell by another 10% to less than 99,000. There was another 10% drop in the last three months compared to the previous quarter. It was even worse for social housing, where housing association new building fell by 23%.

Further confirmation that we are heading for a housing crisis has been provided by other statistics published this week.

According to the latest Buy-to-Let Index[2], private sector rents hit a new record high in July, rising to £725 per month. Average rents rose by 1% compared to June, pushing annual rental inflation to 2.9%. What happened to the Housing Minister’s forecast that these would be falling as a result of the cuts in housing benefit? It is unsurprising that private rented tenant arrears rose for again, with 9.3% of rent late or unpaid. [For the record, this is significantly higher than any council or social housing provider achieves.]

Other government statistics[3] showed that homelessness is rising rapidly and that councils throughout the UK are increasing resources to assist families in preventing homelessness.

The Government’s policies are clearly failing. We need an alternative plan for jobs, homes and growth. Building new affordable homes would put unemployed building workers back to work, create jobs and apprenticeships for young people and provide a boost to the construction industry. When will it happen?

CLIVE BETTS MP [SHEFFIELD SOUTH EAST]

[1] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmcomloc/uc453-i/uc45301.htm

[2] http://www.lslps.co.uk/documents/buy_to_let_index_jul12.pdf

[3] http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/homelessnessprevention201112

The economy – it’s even worse than I thought

Since the brilliant opening event of the Olympics, it is clear that there has been a national mood swing as people have been captivated by the competitions, performances and venues. Even one national newspaper, which had been determined to deliver relentless reporting of bad news stories, realized it was out of synch with the national mood and was forced to celebrate the achievements. Although the men’s 100 metres was awesome, it was Jessica Ennis’s superb heptathlon gold medal that has proved the star of the show.

However, the contrast between the success of the Olympics and the dismal performance of the economy could not be greater. And, when the carnival has moved on and the current good mood has faded, it’s the harsh reality of the real economy that will become prominent – not just in the media, but for the prospects of most households and businesses.

Last month [see 23 July 2012 U-turn required below], I drew attention to the gloomy International Monetary Fund report, the significant increase in government borrowing and the unemployment statistics.

Now, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) has slashed its growth forecasts for this year and next year. Having previously expected zero growth this year, NIESR expects the economy to contract by 0.5 per cent and suggests that growth will be limited to 1.3 per cent next year, compared to its previous forecast of 2 per cent.

This means that George Osborne’s deficit-busting plans have been shot to pieces, with borrowing set to surge by £138.5 billion in 2012-13 as tax receipts fall. This is equivalent to a staggering 9 per cent of the UK’s Gross Domestic Product and far higher than the government claimed its plans would deliver.

NIESR said that if the Chancellor had not cut so fast and so deep – by delaying his fiscal consolidation plans for three years until 2014 - he would have saved the economy £239 billion over the next decade and staved off up to 200,000 job losses in the past two years.

The coalition government’s economic policies are disastrous and are causing long-term damage. A change of tack is still urgently required.

U-turn required

Three reports in the last few days have only sought to confirm that the government’s economic strategy is simply not working.

The International Monetary Fund, in its annual report, says that the government’s tax rises and spending cuts have cut economic growth by 2.5% and that the current economic policies risk causing permanent damage to the UK economy. Britain is one of only two of the G20 countries in a double-dip recession and with long-term employment rising.

Then, the IMF’s critique was confirmed, when it was revealed the following day, that UK government borrowing increased by £500 million in June compared to just 12 months ago. David Cameron keeps saying that his priority is to reduce UK government debt, but his policies are meaning that it keeps rising, month in month out.

With the double-dip recession and rising long-term unemployment leading to a bigger benefits bill, the Government has now borrowed £4.5 billion more in the year so far than in the same period last year. This is a rise of 11.7 per cent, compared to the 4.6 per cent fall predicted at the time of the Budget. And this borrowing of £42.9 billion is the highest amount ever recorded in the first three months of any financial year.

This all comes on top of the extra £150 billion the Government has already admitted it will have to borrow to pay for the costs of high unemployment and slow growth. Trying to raise taxes and cut spending too far and too fast has badly backfired and the Government’s pledge to balance the books by 2015 is now in tatters.

These reports were followed by the employment figures. Although the UK headline figures showed employment up and unemployment down – although this wasn’t the case in Yorkshire and Humberside where unemployment rose again – long-term unemployment is continuing to rise significantly. Older women are being hit the hardest, with a 41% increase in the last year alone.

This year, George Osborn has already made more u-turns than a car thief desperately trying to shake off the traffic cops. Unfortunately, he still shows no sign of making a u-trun on the change that really matters.

Unless he takes urgent action to boost the economy with a plan for boosting jobs and growth, he will end up borrowing billions more to pay for economic failure and cause long-term damage too.