Derbyshire County Council announce plans to build homes

Just as the internet ink was drying on this BelperStuff post: Local Tory housing strategy in ruins Derbyshire County Council (DCC) announced that they planned to build houses, a direct response to the housing shortage and the inability of private developers to cater for the local and regional need.

Here is the link to that press statement: We'll be building homes

Hopefully I will be forgiven for pointing out that the DCC has a Labour majority so have no qualms in stepping in when the marketplace fails to deliver; in direct contrast to the pathetic response of the Tory controlled Amber Valley Borough Council (AVBC), a council that offers no solutions to the housing shortage that blights the lives of so many families. Over the years the Tory AVBC has boxed themselves into corner by rigorously applying the Thatcher doctrine of selling off council homes and other assets which used to provide the borough with much needed revenue. Prior to the setting up of what was to become Futures Homescape, the housing association which took over the role of provider of social housing, there was a concerted effort to rid the council of these assets. There were incentives to buy the council house you lived in or to vacate your council house and buy a private dwelling. This led to a decline in the number of houses available to those on lower incomes as sufficient replacement houses for those sold off were never built. We have to ask some fundamental questions and I would suggest these for a start:

1. What was the asset value of the council house stock prior to the right to buy legislation?
2. What then was the value of this stock as it passed into housing association ownership?
3. What was the ratio of revenues/cost of housing provision over this period?
4. What money has the council received in payment for handing over these assets?
5. What are the total sums involved in the right to buy discounts and monies handed over to those vacating council homes?

These are very basic questions to ask, not just to be critical of past and present governments but to provide a framework for discussion on how best to cater for housing in a society that is driven by home ownership whilst a growing number of citizens have no hope of ever becoming homeowners. This is why I welcome the initiative of the Labour councillors controlling the DCC; they recognise the need so just get on with the business of solving the problem. The spirit of '45 is alive and well and meets regularly in Matlock.

Contrast this DCC statement:

"This ambitious project aims to provide some much needed homes for the county, and generate income so we can fund vital local services".

with this from the AVBC:

" ....................Regrettably, however, despite the fact that there are many sites within the Borough that have been given planning approval by the Council, the Council has no powers to force developers to start building the houses, or influence the timeframe over which a site is developed.”

It should be said that individuals, many of them Labour supporters, have over the years benefited from the right to buy but we should realise that they were residents who had sufficient incomes to be granted a mortgage. The effect was that housing subsidies such as discounts and incentives were handed to the better off rather than those on inadequate incomes. It has been reported that a third of all council homes sold off under right to buy were in the hands of private landlords: see this Daily Mirror article from 2013 where these two comments stand out:

• There are five million people waiting for social housing in Britain and house building cannot keep up with demand.

• Meanwhile, the private rented sector has almost doubled in a decade and 8.5 million people are tenants – one in six households.

This massive shift of housing from public to private is a major tax burden as rent subsidies have ballooned over the past 3 decades, money paid out to private landlords for houses that used to be owned by councils. Whereas rent subsidies used to be an internal council cost, paid for by council revenues from the housing stock the current rental benefit is paid out to a private landlord. So this great Tory housing initiative has resulted in a situation where the state, be it national or local government, hands over vast amounts of cash to the private sector for the provision of homes that were sold to them at a discount rate. The stupidity of this beggars belief. I urge you to read the Daily Mirror article linked to above for further insights into who has gained from this absurd strategy.

Do you recall the graph of changes in UK housing provision in the BelperStuff post from December 15th ................. oh why not cut to the chase ...... here it is again:

Still no updated data past 2005 but the search goes on

It is evident that local authority housing played a crucial role in house building and that once cut by the Tories the promised increase in the private sector provision never took place. Obviously such a graph has to take account of economic cycles but the overriding fact is that we cannot rely on the marketplace to supply the homes that our society needs. This is realised by the DCC and that is why their initiative is so important.

The Daily Mirror article has prompted me to look once again at the original research done by BelperStuff on the distribution of the increased wealth of the UK, how the sums implicit in a growing GDP have drifted towards the already wealthy ......... here is that graph again:

It should be remembered that a random juxtaposition of data is unscientific but the fact that the decades that have seen an inexorable drift of wealth towards the wealthy have coincided with the very same decades there has been a relentless shift of ownership of assets and services from the public to private sectors. Two major shifts in the fabric of our nation ............ in my mind they are linked.

National Health Singers ........................ fight for the NHS

A member of BelperStuff editorial team sent me a link to the National Health Singers on YouTube. I don't often mention the NHS even though I am very supportive ............ this is just not my area of expertise (I can almost hear the comment, "well what is your area of expertise"?) Anyway, here are the National Health Singers:

This is the link for those who receive the blog via email

I don't think there is any need for me to add any words except for what is written beneath the video:

Published on 8 Dec 2015

'Yours' by the National Health Singers
download on iTunes now! https://geo.itunes.apple.com/us/album...

And on Amazon here:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B...

And Google Play:

https://play.google.com/store/music/a...


Proceeds will go to a number of UK medical charities.

The National Health Singers are a choir of NHS workers established in 2015 by junior doctors. We believe that every person has the right to NHS healthcare free at point of access and that right should never, ever be threatened.

Our message is simple:
Fight for the NHS
Fight for the junior doctors
Fight to keep the NHS Yours!

Please share our song and YOUR NHS stories and photos using #NHSYours

Contact your MP and raise your voice for your NHS!

www.nationalhealthsingers.co.uk

Follow us on Twitter @NHSsing2survive - post us your photos 'Whose NHS?' #NHSyours

Please Subscribe to our YouTube Channel

Credits:

Music & Lyrics by Clare Dove
Lyrics by Dr Sanju Arianayagam and Clare Dove
Musical direction and arrangement by Mark de Lisser
Produced by James Wallace
Film direction by William Walsh
@WilliamWalshIRL
Additional footage by Hannah Anketell @whatifnomad

Local Tory housing strategy in ruins

It gives me no joy to write this post because it means that the housing shortage in the borough of Amber Valley will continue ........ and become worse ........... for the foreseeable future. This is the inevitable conclusion following this statement: Amber Valley Borough Council has expressed regret at having to withdraw its Core Strategy from the public examination that was due to resume next week. The Tory leader of the AVBC, Alan Cox said, “I am deeply dismayed that such a decision had to be made at the eleventh hour, after so much effort and expenditure on the process by so many. Regrettably, however, despite the fact that there are many sites within the Borough that have been given planning approval by the Council, the Council has no powers to force developers to start building the houses, or influence the timeframe over which a site is developed.”

Take a look at this: Link to an article in the Derby Evening Telegraph Why am I not surprised that Councillor Cox makes no mention of the desperate housing shortage but opines instead about the green belt.

Oh yes local Tories, you should hang your heads in shame because the duty of a council is to look after the needs of those who live in the borough, to do whatever is in their power to facilitate the health and wellbeing of those that they represent ......... housing being of prime importance. What the local Tories should be aware of is how many new homes are needed, how many wait for years for the chance to buy or to rent at an affordable rate. This current impasse follows years of failure to sort out housing needs in the area, the failure to agree the core strategy being an inevitable result of withdrawing from the active provision of homes, relying instead on the fickleness of private investors and property developers to dictate housing strategy. Make no mistake about this, Cox's admission that the council, "has no powers to force developers to start building the houses" is an admission that the changes in local government provision of housing brought in by the Thatcher government in the 1980's has skewed the housing market so that it is now no longer in a developer's interest to build homes for the poor. By playing politics with the core strategy the AVBC Tories have loaded the plan with sites that limits profitability for investors to the point where the return on investment is minimal or does not cover the cost of finance.

The effects of privatisation. I will dig out more recent data and post an update - hopefully soon

In the pre-Thatcher years this would not have happened because a council had the power to raise the capital required to build homes, maisonettes and apartments ........... according to the needs of those living in the borough. Today, the council has no control, a situation made much. much worse because they have handed over any council homes not sold off under the right to buy legislation to a housing association ........... and Osborne has this year announced that right to buy will now apply to housing associations. So we have a deteriorating stock of social housing ....... developers reluctant to build "affordable" housing ............ and not even prepared to build homes for those in a position to buy them.

This is the folly of privatisation writ large and I have to repeat that it gives me no pleasure to point out the stupidity of Tory policy. The consequences are too serious, the adverse effect it has on our local society and economy highlights that playing fast and loose with people's lives because of an unproven faith in the primacy of market forces is simply unforgivable.

I will print here the Tory statement and the Labour response to enable you to make up your own mind:

Amber Valley Council Press Release

News Release

Council compelled to withdraw Core Strategy

Amber Valley Borough Council has expressed regret at having to withdraw its Core Strategy from the public examination that was due to resume next week.

The Council had believed that after many years, and considerable public consultation and heated debate about potential housing development sites, it was finally in a position to secure formal adoption of the Core Strategy.

The reason for the withdrawal is that, following discussions with relevant housing developers in the last two weeks, the Council can no longer be confident that the developers will deliver the previously predicted number of houses within the next five years on the sites proposed by the Council. Government policy requires the Council to show that enough homes will be built in the next five years to meet objectively assessed housing need.

Cllr Alan Cox, Leader of the Council, said:

“I am deeply dismayed that such a decision had to be made at the eleventh hour, after so much effort and expenditure on the process by so many. Regrettably, however, despite the fact that there are many sites within the Borough that have been given planning approval by the Council, the Council has no powers to force developers to start building the houses, or influence the timeframe over which a site is developed.”

He added:

“The Council remains fully committed to establishing an up-to-date Local Plan for Amber Valley, which will provide a robust set of policies and proposals to support housing and economic growth in the Borough, whilst at the same time safeguarding and enhancing the environment. It will not, however, be practical to achieve a demonstrable five year supply, through the identification of further sites for housing development, without re-visiting the overall strategy for housing growth.

“The process of reviewing the growth strategy and reaching a conclusion as to an alternative approach, including appropriate public consultation and engagement, will take at least 12 months.”

In addressing concerns about the implications of making decisions without an up-to-date Local Plan, particularly where the Council cannot show a five year land supply, Cllr Cox said:

“This does not mean that any development, whatever the impacts, will be acceptable. Neither does it mean that there would be no point in refusing a housing scheme because we wouldn’t stand a chance on appeal. National planning policy, and the objective of pursuing sustainable development, is a material consideration in planning decisions irrespective of the status of an area’s development plan and will enable the Council to continue to protect the Green Belt and other areas of environmental importance for heritage, landscape and other reasons.”

He added:

 “Levels of planning appeals upheld against an authority’s original determination remain constant at only one per cent of all planning decisions in England. There are several recent cases where development has been refused permission, even in the absence of an up-to-date Local Plan or five-year land supply, because it would conflict with national policy objectives.” 

AMBER VALLEY LABOUR GROUP PRESS RELEASE

LABOUR DEMAND COUNCIL LEADERS RESIGNATION AFTER TORY POLITICAL DECISION SPELLS DISASTER FOR AMBER VALLEY AS CORE STRATEGY IS WITHDRAWN AT LAST MINUTE

Cllr Chris Emmas-Williams, Labour shadow Deputy Leader has demanded the resignation of Amber Valley Borough Council Leader Cllr Alan Cox after the last minute withdrawal of the Council’s Core Strategy days before it was due to go before an Inspector

Cllr Emmas-Williams said ‘What a total mess the Tories have made once again in our Borough. This is the second time in two years that they have made disastrous decisions to the major planning vehicle for our next generation. When the plan was first presented the Inspector suspended the hearing because of their incompetence and now with the resumption of the hearings of the Amber Valley Local Plan Part 1 Core Strategy due to commence on Tuesday ( 15th December) next week they have had to be cancelled because the authority cannot now once again demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land. The Tories have buried their head in the sand, removing sites purely on political grounds and despite being told by the Labour opposition that the figures that they were using were unsound since last July they have ridiculed our stance. At the last working party group meeting in early November Labour members once again questioned the 5 year supply numbers as they had changed five times in the last two weeks and were told by the Tories that they could guarantee with 100% confidence that the figures were accurate.’

' We have returned back to the ‘smoke and mirrors’ game that ex Leader Cllr Bradford used which is disastrous for the planning process and despite the comments by Conservative Cllr Alan Cox the Borough is now at the mercy of planners and developers who will get applications approved on appeal due to their total incompetence. For that reason I am asking Cllr Alan Cox to consider his position as Leader of the Council, as well as Chair of Planning, because it is through his lack of judgement and blatant political interference in the process that our green spaces are at the mercy of aggressive developers.’

Local Plan Part 1 Core Strategy Submission (what is it)

The new Amber Valley Local Plan Part 1 Core Strategy, which sets out a spatial strategy and key planning policies for development in the Borough until 2028, was originally submitted to the Secretary of State on the 20th December 2013.

The Local Plan covers everything from new homes and jobs to retail and leisure facilities, transport and local services, energy and the environment. It aims to make sure the new homes, jobs and services required by communities are located in the most sustainable places. It will also deliver the infrastructure, facilities and other development needed to make this possible. In addition, it identifies strategic sites where the Council expects the most significant developments to take place.

If you want to read more:

............ you can go to the Amber Valley Labour Group website and whilst there take a look at Paul Jone's blog (the Labour leader on AVBC)

BelperStuff reaches 10,000 views today ............. a post for nerds and geeks

BelperStuff reaches 10,000 views today

This blog started on 23rd April 2015 .......... 226 days ago. The motivation to create BelperStuff was to supply a commentary for the national, borough and town council elections that were to be held on the 7th May ......... from a Labour Party perspective. Straight away there was an attempt to show how decisions made in Westminster affect local life and the format of viewing the world from the prism of a small town in Derbyshire emerged. It has astonished me that BelperStuff has achieved an average of 40 views per day.

There have been 75 posts which (yes I've taken my socks off so this is easy), which means that posts have averaged 133 views. Obviously it's not that simple as the front page of the blog can show a number of posts (today, as I write this, there are 7 on the front page) which can be read by merely scanning down. Posts read by this method do not show up in the statistics so the average views of posts is probably much higher.

Subjects dealt with have tended to follow what is in the news but often a few days after mainstream media headlines to give a bit more background information or to help publicise research that may be somewhat obscure (my favourite is the Berkeley College paper into the psychology of republican sympathisers - Is there a cure for conservatism). On some issues BelperStuff has been in the lead and I am thinking of King Street buses and local poverty statistics.

A feature of BelperStuff is that it does not just link to other people's work but also posts original research undertaken by the editorial team. This is very often the only way to understand the reality of life that is masked by the silky words of politicians and the distortions of a biased media.

Data snapshots

I have taken snapshots of the usage data that is provided to blog authors. This shows a strong following in the States, perhaps not so surprising but some of the other countries are unexpected. There were minimal views in Russia at first but a reference in a post to the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) resulted in 33 views in one day. I regret not making a tally of all the other countries where people have viewed the blog but the first list shows only the top ten. Missing are views such as 33 in China and even a couple in North Korea (amongst- easily - 30 other countries) but perhaps the saddest was the lone reader in Aruba, (a small island in the Caribbean just off the coast of Venezuela). I imagine this to be a holidaymaker who has had enough of the sunkissed beaches and cobalt blue seas but craves a bit of news about Belper Town Council. Sad if true. (If you are that person please post a comment and explain yourself).

Entry	Pageviews
United Kingdom	7912
United States	1047
Ireland	212
Russia	163
New Zealand	91
France	85
Portugal	53
Ukraine	48
Germany	39
Belgium	38

Other statistics available to a blogmeister are the most popular posts but here the list is limited to the top five. It is evident that specific posts about Belper gain the highest readership, perhaps not so surprising given the name of the blog:

Posts

Entry	Pageviews
Belper Town Council plan to ban buses from King St... 15 Jul 2015, 1 comment	447
Derwent Street developments - Town Council objecti... 23 May 2015	405
Belper Town Council once again object to new libra... 15 Sep 2015	396
Belper News - Bus ban vision to boost town centre 27 Jul 2015, 1 comment	367
Little oaks grow into big oaks 18 Sep 2015, 1 comment	243

Now some stuff for the real nerds

Watching the daily view count it is very apparent that European and UK readers are using Chrome whilst in the US there is a tendency towards Internet Explorer. The views by iPad, iPhone or Android devices seem to be evenly spread over the planet.

So, the next 10,000 ................ 

........... will be more of the same. Posts are restricted to at most 2 per week to avoid overburdening the readership as they are already assailed with stuff from right, left and centre. Left to my own choice BelperStuff would concentrate on the environment. public transport and poverty ........ global, national and local ................ but there are so many interesting topics that just keep cropping up. Perhaps it's for the best to just carry on in the same vein, after all, an average of 40 views a day to read the musings of an old fart like me is very gratifying.