HP Source: Slummin’ it in sleaze

 

We Don’t Need This Fascist Groove Thing, 13^th August 2020; Slummin’ it in sleaze
 

‘Just a urchin livin’ under the street

I’m a hard case that’s tough to beat..’

 

Two weeks ago, the housing minister, Robert Jenrick, announced what he described as the he biggest shake-up of planning for decades.

His plans which purport to fast-track the construction of ‘beautiful’ homes across England have not been well received, comments such as, will ‘dilute’ democratic oversight, choke off affordable housing and lead to the creation of ‘slum’ dwellings have been cited by numerous commentators.

The white paper is aimed at replacing the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, which has acted as the basis for planning since it was passed by the Labour government of Clement Attlee.

Jenrick describe the current rules as a, ‘complex’ planning system has acted as a barrier to building the homes people need. ‘We will cut red tape, but not standards, placing a higher regard on quality, design and the environment than ever before. Planning decisions will be simple and transparent, with local democracy at the heart of the process. As we face the economic effects of the pandemic, now is the time for decisive action and a clear plan for jobs and growth.’

 

‘‘dilute’ democratic oversight, choke off affordable housing and lead to the creation of ‘slum’ dwellings’

 

It is no secret that the government is disliked by young voters and, in their manifesto, the government committed to building 300,000 new homes every year which they saw as a way of targeting a primary concern of many under-40s and city-dwelling voters shut out of the housing market, many of which vote Labour.

‘We are seeing a huge generation divide on housing,’ one Tory source said. ‘The under-40s may have half as much chance of owning a home. That is being directly addressed by the first homes programme but the broader point is this planning system has held back homes being built on land that is ready to be built on. And we know the main concerns which local people may have are about good design, environmentally friendly, buildings that fit into the architectural landscape, ones people are proud to own. We are not cutting any building standards.’

Under Jenrick’s proposals planning applications, based on pre-approved ‘design codes’, would get an automatic green light – eliminating a whole stage of local oversight within designated zones.

Land across England would be divided into three categories – for growth, renewal or protection – under what Jenrick described as ‘once in a generation’ changes to sweep away an outdated planning system and boost building.

New homes, hospitals, schools, shops and offices would be allowed automatically in ‘growth’ areas. In ‘renewal’ zones, largely urban and brownfield sites, proposals would be given ‘permission in principle’ subject to basic checks. Green belt and areas of outstanding natural beauty would be protected.

Changes out for consultation under the white paper also include:
 

• Requiring local housing plans to be developed and agreed in 30 months, down from the current seven years
• Extending the current exemption of small sites from having to make ‘section 106’ payments which are used to provide affordable housing.
• Ensuring that all new homes are carbon-neutral by 2050.

Whilst the proposals have found favour with many developers, they have been criticised by housing charities, planning officers and architects who warned of a new generation of fast and substandard housing

• The Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) condemned them as disruptive and rushed, saying 90% of planning applications are currently approved but there are up to 1m unbuilt permissions.
• Labour called it ‘a developers’ charter’ that will ‘set fire to important safeguards’.
• The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) described the proposals as ‘shameful’ and said they would do ‘almost nothing to guarantee the delivery of affordable, well-designed and sustainable homes’. ‘While they might help to ‘get Britain building’ – paired with the extension of permitted development rights last week – there’s every chance they could also lead to the development of the next generation of slum housing,’ said RIBA president Alan Jones.

 

The extension of the current exemption of small sites from having to make section 106 payments is described by the government as a way of helping smaller developers bounce back from the economic impact of the pandemic has been criticised by Shelter, the housing charity, who said social housing ‘could face extinction’ if the requirement for developers to build their fair share was removed.

‘Section 106 agreements between developers and councils are tragically one of the only ways we get social homes built these days, due to a lack of direct government investment,’ said its chief executive, Polly Neate. ‘So, it makes no sense to remove this route to genuinely affordable homes without a guaranteed alternative.’

One of my favourite quotes was from Hugh Ellis, director of policy at TCPA: ‘It’s about local democracy. When local people are walking down the street and come across a new development they didn’t know about, the answer will now be: ‘You should have been involved in the consultation eight years ago when the code was agreed. It’s diluting the democratic process. At the moment, people get two chances to be involved: once when the plan is made, and once when a planning application is submitted. Now they’ll only have a chance when the code is being prepared.’
 

‘Drawing to the ragged hole

And I ain’t got the power anymore

No, I ain’t got the power anymore..’

 

Another thought-provoking comment was from Zack Simons, a planning barrister at Landmark chamber, who said that ‘literally nothing’ trailed in Jenrick’s public statements could not already be achieved under the current planning system. ‘Promises of ‘radical reform’ can grab headlines. But remember that of more than 400,000 planning applications which are determined every year, over 80% are granted permission and under 0.5% are appealed to the Planning Inspectorate.’
 

‘This is just the government  ‘looking after their friends’’

 
Let’s now try and consider what the impact of the governments proposals will be. Remember that the real requirement is for houses that people can afford, it’s about giving people who are renting a chance to buy, this is predominantly the under-40s. They need the same opportunity afforded to older generations before house prices became silly.

I know several developers in London, these changes will no doubt benefit them, but I very much doubt they will benefit those not yet homeowners.

This is just the government  ‘looking after their friends’ as was signposted some weeks ago with Robert Jenrick’s attempt to deprive impoverished Tower Hamlets of £45m of such payments from Tory donor Richard Desmond’s £1bn development.

This ‘insider dealing’ by Jenrick is not dissimilar to the notorious 1972 John Poulson case in Newcastle (2). That caused the resignation of the home secretary, Reginald Maudling; it’s safe to say nothing of that sort will be forthcoming this time.

The first observation is that the proposals, take away from local councils, and those they represent, control over new buildings. Given that the SE is always the centre of property speculation, these changes will only add to this further accelerating the ‘race to the south’.  ‘Levelling up’ is obviously so last week.
 

‘these changes will only add to this further accelerating the ‘race to the south’’

 

It shouldn’t be recently published figures show that England north of the Wash is poorer per head than former East Germany and even the most depressed American states. Anything adding to the race south is not benefiting those new Tory voters occupying the former ‘red wall’

The current 1947 Town and Country Planning Act has enabled Britain to protect its rural land from haphazard development. This is clearly intended to end.

Johnson dismissal of local council involvement in planning as ‘nimbyism’, is typical of the man; a one-liner that lacks substance of any sort. In their place we have ‘zoning’ commissioners, once they have designated land as developable owners can legally do what they like.

There are various ideas to tax their profits to aid infrastructure and subsidise homes ‘for locals’, have been tried before, including by the Attlee government, and never worked as intended, examples include:
 

• Thatcher created Enterprise Zones in 1980 to kickstart regeneration with tax cuts and planning freedoms, resulting in a proliferation of out-of-town business parks and clusters of industrial sheds at motorway junctions, all built to the minimum standards.
• The policy was revived in 2011 to ignite development in areas like London’s Royal Dock, where it spawned a soulless Chinese-funded business park that still lies empty. A report last year concluded that the policy ‘failed to deliver’ the promised jobs boost.

 

These reforms go further, taking away the democratic right of people to exercise some control over their immediate surroundings, over the character and appearance of their neighbourhood.

When deregulation on the scale proposed by Jenrick was tried in Ireland and Spain it led the construction of tens of thousands of homes built in ill-conceived housing estates in far-flung locations, spurred on by a flood of cheap credit. Many were left unfinished and abandoned, haunting the landscape with ‘ghost estates’ when the property bubble burst.

Another issue with idea of zoning is how it is implemented, e.g. in New York City, there are 21 basic zoning districts, each having additional sub-categories for specific requirements, listed in the 4,300+ page-long Zoning Resolution.

Interpreting the finer points of these codes has become an industry keeping well-paid planning consultants in high demand. There is a dark history, too: exclusionary zoning has been one of the biggest drivers of racial segregation across America.

If we return to my original question, do these changes ensure an increase supply of housing that those in need of it can afford?

The only winners here are the developers who have land-banks for a million homes, and their executives who will, no doubt, be rewarded in multiple millions.
 

‘The only winners here are the developers who have land-banks for a million homes’

 

Section 106 compensation are weakened, leaving the question of who will pays for the schools, clinics, roads and transport their homes require?
 

‘Seein’ pretty things

Aint no walls..’

 

This is just another example of Johnson and his horde favouring centralism over local control, even though it was a disastrous failure in dealing with coronavirus.

With this latest example of centralism, the last word should goes to Michael Gove the third member of the ruling troika (Gove, Johnson, and Cummings) who, in a lecture this summer, championed the idea of ‘allowing communities to take back more control of policies that matter to them’. I assume his letter of resignation is still in the post.
 

And from slums to sleaze.

 

Last week the extent of No. 10s assault on the civil service was revealed in a survey of Tory cronies appointed to paid positions on supposedly ‘independent’ Whitehall departmental boards:
 

• 8 out of 13 this year were Tory party people, unlikely to provide ‘scrutinising of decisions and sharpening accountability’.
• A Times survey shows four of the five appointees to oversee Michael Gove’s cabinet office are Gove’s own former special advisers.

 

Commentators ask why people aren’t shocked and outraged?

The answer is simple, 80% of the electorate, perhaps more, either don’t know or don’t care, whereas the balance aren’t surprised.

Chris Wormald, the health department’s permanent secretary, is in-line to become the countries top civil servant, the fact that he is hardly covered in Covid-19 glory pales into insignificance when compared with his support for Brexit.

Not unlike the peerage for Claire Fox, the ex-Revolutionary Communist who still hasn’t apologised for once defending IRA atrocities.

This, however, isn’t my favourite of the newly created Johnson peers. That award goes to Alexander Lebedev owner of the Evening Standard, a Russian socialite whose Italian villa parties Johnson frequently attended and whose newspapers backed his every election; his father was a KGB agent!
 

‘1/3^rd of FTSE 100 CEOs who ‘cut’ their salaries by 20% during Covid-19 did no such thing’

 

Another report this week by the High Pay Centre showed that top CEO pay is 119 times median earnings. What concerned me more was the 1/3^rd of FTSE 100 CEOs who ‘cut’ their salaries by 20% during Covid-19 did no such thing.

Then there is test and trace outsourced to Serco, which was exposed by Richard Dobbs, a board director of the Office for National Statistics. Analysing all the data, he shows that less than 5% of tests for England are traced and isolated.

The Tories with an 80-seat majority effectively have absolute power. Next on the agenda must be the courts whose judicial review powers will be curtailed after they have the temerity to outlaw Johnson proroguing of parliament.

After Brexit, the Tories will be ‘sovereign’, free of any restraint from Brussels.

No 10 is seemingly infested with sleaze and cronyism. Being a Brexiter is the only currency worth anything.

Where has our democracy gone?
 

‘Well you better watch out

Well you better beware

Cause their comin’ from all sizes of the country, now you better beware…’

 

Notes:
 

1. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/when-is-permission-required
2. https://www.robert-williams.co.uk/images/PDF/poulsonaffair.pdf

 

A very different piece this week from Philip, but only in terms of its focus; the behaviour of this government remains odious, and in this article we see how it’s plans to tear up planning law strike at the very heart of this green and pleasant land.

If we were all told that in order to satiate the housing needs of our ever selling population we all needed to make sacrifices but unfortunately Mr Jenrick’s plans purely make the fat cats fatter and not only do nothing to address the need for social housing, but actually take the debate backwards.

If Jenrick delivers the slums of the future, his gov’nor is delivering the slimes of the present by stuffing the Lords with incredible candidates; in the literal sense of the word.

Lyrically, Philips munificence know no bounds this week – he’s dishing out points like a man with no arms – fully thirty points to be bagged this week, with socially distanced entries by nood on Monday please.

There are 3 pts for each artiste, and 3pts for each song as well as a couple of cheeky bonuses to be had.

First is ‘dirty, and uncompromising, 90s rock at its very best’ – a loosener with Guns N’Roses and ‘Paradise City’; next ‘a personal favourite of mine this album shows just what was to come’ – points for David Bowie and ‘Quicksand’ and a further 3 pts for naming the keyboard player on Hunky Dory*.

Next ‘recorded at the height of their addictions but is a perfect summation of their talents and shows why they are one of my all-time favourite acts’ bravo The Stooges and ‘Down on the Street’.

Last, but not least ‘we revisit it because it deserves to be revisited’ points for The Wipers and ‘Return of the Rat’; add an extra 3 for naming ‘the famous US early-90s band who covered it’. Enjoy – and these babies will help you stay cool!

*Rick Wakeman

**Nirvana
 

Philip Gilbert is a city-based corporate financier, and former investment banker.

Philip is a great believer in meritocracy, and in the belief that if you want something enough you can make it happen. These beliefs were formed in his formative years, of the late 1970s and 80s

 

Click on the link to see all Brexit Bulletins: