The Pensions ‘Feelgood Fortnight’ – Evidence of a Coming Buy to Let Boom and Bust and Financial Instability

What’s the point of boosting the house purchase market, when there’s already a well publicised shortage of said houses?
Worse still, the buy to let market nearly always targets the lower end of the market, because this is where those desperate for housing, are also the ones least able to afford to buy their own.
So there’s a double whammy in the wind here. Not only will an already under supplied market see a reduction in the available stock, those who are able to look to buy from this limited pool of housing, will quickly see prices increasing at a rate that pushes them out of the buyer market and back into the rental market.
Is this really what the government are aspiring to? A farcade of majority home ownership, that is in fact just hiding a massive private rental market, with all of its uncertainty and exploitation, becoming the order of the day?
Well, if you are only interested in the headline figures and the BS statistics so beloved of the political classes these days, then reducing the social housing numbers, by hiding it in the private sector, is probably a move straight out of the manual for political spin.

andrew lainton's avatarDecisions, Decisions, Decisions

The flagship of the March 2014 Budget was the Pensions Reforms crafted by Liberal Pensions Minister Steve Webb and enthusiastically backed by the Chancellor.

Pensioners will soon be free to do what they like with their retirement savings after the chancellor promised to scrap compulsory annuities in a bombshell for the pensions industry. The move almost immediately wiped £5bn off the value of shares in the firms that provide annuities – and provoked fears of a fresh buy-to-let boom as pension pots are used to buy property as a retirement income.

Guardian 19/3/2014

The theory being that pensioners didn’t need to be nannied and could take what risks they wanted.

RBC Capital Markets warned:

“We expect the individual annuity market to shrink by 90 per cent . . . we forecast that only 10 per cent of customers will now buy an annuity.”

It was likley that the Chancellor was not unadverse to a…

View original post 698 more words

Why Pickles Redefinition of ‘Travellers’ Will Create a Far Worse Enforcement Problem

It won’t and it can’t work!

andrew lainton's avatarDecisions, Decisions, Decisions

Travellers Times

SoS Pickles has decreed that Gypsy and Traveller people will, in the very near future, have to prove that they ‘travel’ for two months every year in order to qualify to own or occupy a ‘traveller pitch’ (lower case t courtesy of CLG).

Okay Mr Pickles that really stings.  We know your feelings were hurt when the court identified that that you had discriminated against people according to their race and denied them timely justice.  But really?  Do so many communities in the UK need to experience an increase in un-authorised encampments, made up of people having to prove that they really, really are a Gypsy (oops sorry, I mean traveller) in order to qualify for Mr Pickles dubious beneficence?

According to Mr Pickles’ new definition most of the people currently living, in relative contentment, on Gypsy sites (publicly or privately owned) may not qualify to be there…

View original post 174 more words

Ministers – A Dozen Reasons Why Local Plans Take Geological Time

Very insightful analysis, that should be read by all those who continue to criticise the under resourced planning policy teams that are chasing DCLG’s constantly moving targets.

andrew lainton's avatarDecisions, Decisions, Decisions

A recap

Last week Keith Holland of PINS – (so well known for his indiscretion that one Essex Authority invited him to do a presentation to members just so they could film it and send it to Eric Pickles and say – look this is your real Green Belt policy) said:

I think ministers are losing patience with planning,” 

“They wonder ‘why is it taking so long for local plans to be put in place?’

They would appear to have lost patience already after Brandon Lewis in November last year quieter deliberately stressed that local plans are entirely optional.

The number of submitted plans is slowing to a crawl, and if the number of newly adopted plans each year is likely soon to be in single figures.  More plans have been published in draft (the only stat the DCLG mention in speeches) but not getting any further…

View original post 3,714 more words

The ‘spending power’ that’s no power at all

Copied from Local Government Chronicle online
Home News Finance Comment and analysis

The DCLG’s spending claims exemplify the culture
that has eroded public trust – 21 January, 2015 | By Tony Travers

The stand-off between central and local government over the scale of budget reductions in 2015-16 is further evidence of Department for Communities & Local Government ministers’ extraordinary world view.

Faced with cuts in cash spending every year, the department has resorted to epic creativity in its attempt to show council spending rising. How is it possible to show local authority spending going up when it is going down?

First, the government makes many of its comparisons on the basis not of the ‘spending power’ definition used for annual funding settlements but of ‘net revenue expenditure’, which helpfully includes a number of items such as ‘mandatory housing benefits’ where councils are merely acting as agents for Whitehall transfer payments. Housing benefit payments, all of which are sanctioned by central government regulations, have risen by a remarkable £3.7bn since 2009-10.

Second, ministers use a definition of spending which excludes some local/central service transfers but includes others. Schools’ funding is carefully removed from comparisons because the move of institutions into academy status reduces annual council spending.

On the other hand public health, which was passed to local government in 2013, is added in because it creates a helpful £2.5bn step-up in expenditure.

Treasury-sanctioned housing benefit cost increases and public health have, together, added £6.2bn to ‘council spending’ since 2009-10. And, bingo, this juicy sum just outweighs the cuts councils have had to make to the budgets they directly control.

Latterly, it has been decided to add part of the better care fund (worth £3.8bn) into council spending power for 2015-16, even though the money is also counted as NHS expenditure. This spectacular distortion is the root of the ‘1.8% vs 6% cuts’ debate which surrounded the recent local government spending settlement.

Using this method of boosting council spending, it would be possible notionally to add all health resources into council spending without reducing the NHS budget line by a penny.

Reason is dying. But it would be naïve of national politicians to imagine the creativity and double-counting explored above will disguise the true impacts of what has happened. Treating the electorate in this way is one of the destructive roots of the decline in trust in Westminster politics.

Tony Travers, director, Greater London Group, London School of Economics

Mr Brown uses old grievance to miss the point

At first, Mr Brown’s letter, in the recent edition of the Spalding Guardian, appeared to be in support of Chris Brewis and his ‘Crowland playhouse’ comments and my rebuttal letter regarding his totally artificial outrage.

However, upon further reading, Mr Brown is actually using his letter to revisit his dis-satisfaction with a complaint he made in May. At that time and in another letter, he complained about the response he received from a council officer, when he complained about a neighbour operating a hairdressing salon from home. Allegedly, the officer told him, ‘we don’t have the resources to investigate’. He also finished his complaint by referring to civil servants, an error he claims was him being flippant. I’m afraid I missed his flippancy in a Twitter response and assumed it to be his lack of understand that local government staff were not civil servants.

On the matter of the home based hairdressing salon, I’m pretty certain that what he claims to have been told, would not have been the whole story – our planning compliance officers are far more professional than that.

What the officer would have said was, that in principle, small businesses, operating from residential addresses, but not causing any issues for other residents, are viewed as acceptable. He would also have been told that it would require a certain level of evidence of actual disturbance to neighbours, before any investigation was carried out and that we did not have the resources to spend time collecting that evidence.

Finally, his letter in the Guardian was entitled, ‘This is why so many people are disillusioned’. I think it would have been far more accurate to say, ‘This is why Mr Brown is so disillusioned’, as his letter is clearly about him not getting his way, rather than anything to do with democratic representation.

Developers are the only ones being heard by DCLG

It doesn’t matter who the minister is at the time, when it comes to DCLG and planning policy, they apparently all have the same priority – developers and their wellbeing.
Although all of us with an interest in planning, have been shouting long and loud, about the shortcomings of the NPPF. However, what we didn’t really cotton on to initially, or at least not as far as I noticed, was a hand grenade with the pin already out, called viability.
It would be nice to think that the government’s rationale for introducing the viability trap, was to overcome developer sins of the past – greed.
You might recall that, in the lead up to the 2007 financial bubble burst, house prices were increasing at a ridiculous pace. Developers were keen to cash in on this lunacy and seemed ready to pay just about any price to get their hands on land. Of course, landowners, were equally keen to cash in, so pushed for the highest price they could get.
Now if you or I overpaid for something we bought and then expected somebody else to pick up the bill, because we couldn’t afford to use it, we’d be told tough luck mate, them’s the breaks. Developers overpaid for land that they then banked, confident that the only way was up when it came to house and therefore land prices.
However, in the case of the developers, they’ve found something else to cash in on – the government’s panic about the economy and their belief that house building will somehow save it. So instead of having to bite the bullet and take the hit in their pockets, the developers have convinced the government that nothing will get built, unless they can wriggle out of all of the requirement

PRESS RELEASE

Minister urged to protect future of rural affordable homes

Housing minister Brandon Lewis has been urged to protect small rural communities from Government proposals which could drastically cut the development of new affordable homes.

Community Lincs is backing the plea by its national body ACRE (Action with Communities in Rural England), which has written to the Minister to outline its objections.

The charity says the planned changes to policy will threaten the future of communities in the countryside, where house prices have risen by 82pc in the past 10 years.

The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) is consulting on its proposals to remove section 106 planning obligations, which deliver affordable housing, from sites of fewer than 10 homes.

ACRE, the national voice for England’s 38 rural community councils, says small-scale developers may simply stop building affordable homes if the changes go ahead.

The charity is calling on the Minister to exempt all sites in communities with a population under 3,000.

Community Lincs Chief Executive, Fiona White said: “Figures from DCLG show that in 2012/13, 66pc (1,905) of homes in settlements under 3,000 were delivered through Section 106 agreements.

“Clearly, the proposed changes would prevent a significant number of affordable homes being developed each year. This would have a profoundly damaging effect on small, rural communities – threatening their long-term sustainability.

“Affordable housing enables local people to remain in a community where they have families, schools and jobs. It allows people to return to communities where they grew up and it helps sustain local services, including schools, businesses and shops.

“If these changes go ahead, we expect to see developers only building housing at market prices to obtain the greatest profits. There is a major shortage of affordable homes across the UK and Government policies should ensure that more are built, not fewer.”

ACRE chief executive Janice Banks said: “We are calling on DCLG to make an exception for communities with a population under 3,000. This would give the Minister the opportunity to deliver a policy that works for the right reasons in the right communities whilst avoiding serious damage to affordable housing delivery in small, rural communities.”

Ms Banks said a cross-party bill, which would give local authorities the decision on the most appropriate threshold, was not the answer.

She said: “While we agree that DCLG’s proposals don’t take any local conditions into account, leaving the decision with local authorities will simply result in a postcode lottery. An exemption for small communities is the fairest solution.”

Issued: 22/09/2014

Media contact: Stuart Duckworth: 01529 301967

Notes to editors:

· Section 106 agreements – known as planning obligations – require developers to provide contributions – such as affordable homes or playgrounds, for example – to offset negative impacts caused by construction and development.

· Rural house prices have risen 82% in 10 years, faster than urban areas. (Simple Average House Price Sales, The Land Registry)

· In 2011, the average lower quartile house price was 8.3 times the average lower quartile earnings in predominantly rural areas. This compares with 7.1 in predominantly urban areas and 7.3 in England as a whole.

Gobshite Alert Minister Says Unemployment Caused by Moaning About Unemployment

andrew lainton's avatarDecisions, Decisions, Decisions

Daily Mail

Unemployed young people are being put off even trying to find work because of the ‘morally reprehensible’ doom and gloom spread about the jobs market by Labour, the employment minister has said.

Esther McVey said there are ‘more than enough’ businesses willing to give young people a chance.

But she said jobless youths are giving up before they even start to look for work because of the ‘relentless negativity’ about their prospects.

Miss McVey, 46, who previously said young people should be prepared to take lowly jobs in coffee shops if they want to get on in life, said jobseekers should be more optimistic about their chances.

She told the Mail: ‘For too long now, young people have been subjected to relentless negativity about the state of the workplace that is waiting for them when they finish their study, training or apprenticeship.

‘I meet with thousands of young…

View original post 55 more words

Leonora Rozee Slams Complications of Reformed Planning System

Spot on comments from somebody with a wealth of knowledge in the field. Time to learn some lessons from other European systems, including the use of zones. Even more crucial to the long term wellbeing of England, is a National Plan for England. Without a national plan, how are we ever going to understand where the best location for significant development should go, in order to rebalance the resource black hole that is London.

andrew lainton's avatarDecisions, Decisions, Decisions

A damning indictment from Leonora Rozee on how complicated the reforms of the planning system has become on Linked-In

We are rapidly reaching the stage where no-one will actually have any idea of what our English planning system is any more. (Have we already reached it?). The only sensible solution is a wholesale review from top to bottom of why we need a planning system and what it needs to comprise, with the result set out in a single Act supported by such regulations, policy and guidance as are necessary to enable all to understand it. We now have a complete mess as successive governments have fiddled and changed what is there without thinking through exactly what it is they are trying to achieve – other than the much expressed desire for a simpler system with increased community involvement! If this Government want to get rid of it completely, then be…

View original post 16 more words

On Being a Councillor

Tessa Coombes's avatarTessaCoombes

I seem to have had quite a few comments and discussions recently about politicians and planners, and several people have asked me why I became a politician, what it was like on planning committee and what I think of politicians now. So I thought I’d have a go at writing a blog about it!

I was a Bristol City Councillor between 1994 and 2002, representing first Southville Ward and then Knowle Ward, at a time when Labour controlled the council (with a pretty big majority when I first got elected). It was also a time of constant change, as after my first year we transitioned to being a Unitary Council, with the abolition of Avon County Council, operating with the same tight city boundaries as before, but taking on massive new functions including Education and Social Services, with massive new budgets. We also took a decision to remove the post…

View original post 1,164 more words

Yet another Tory showing his utter disdain for Local Government

Axe town hall exec’
Council bosses will be swept out of town halls under radical plans by ministers. Unelected chief execs on six-figure salaries would be replaced by elected council leaders – saving taxpayers millions. The idea was pushed by Tory MP Andrew Griffiths.

In the same week a DCLG minister tells councillors that they don’t deserve to be in the Local Government Pension Scheme, because they are no more than community volunteers, a Tory MP wants councillors to replace chief executives – unbelievable!