Author: johnredwood

Housing numbers for Wokingham

December 8, 2022 4 Comments

I am pleased to report the government has listened to the arguments I and other MPs put to allow more local decision taking on the crucial issue of how much housing development an area can accept and sustain. They have agreed to drop mandatory top down down targets, leaving local Planning authorities including Wokingham Borough free to make decisions about how much housing to include in a proper effective local plan. The government will issue guidance of how much housing they think is needed, but accept that this may need modifying in the light of local circumstances, local opinion  and environmental issues. They have also proposed ending the five year supply of land requirement where there is an up to date plan in place, and propose ways to encourage the build out of existing permissions instead of seeking more.

Below is the position as set out by the Secretary of State in a recent letter to me

 

THE LEVELLING UP AND REGENERATION BILL: PLANNING AND LOCAL
CONTROL IN ENGLAND
Since returning to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing, and Communities, I have listened
to the powerful representations made by colleagues about the ways the current planning system
is not working and must be improved. I recognise that at the heart of concerns is a principled
desire to make the system work better for our local communities and constituents. I fully agree
and share this goal.
Whatever we do at a national level, politics is always local and there is no area that
demonstrates this more than planning. Through reforms made by Conservative-led
governments since 2010, we have a locally-led planning system – for instance, by scrapping
policies like top-down regional targets that built nothing but resentment – and introducing
neighbourhood planning.
COMMUNITY CONTROL
Too often I hear from communities that they are not getting a proper say in protecting the
landscapes and natural environment they cherish, nor can they build the homes they want, in
the places that are most suitable, with the right access to public services. To address these
concerns, including those raised by members signing amendments NC21 and NC24 relating to
housing targets, 5-year land supply, and the presumption in favour of sustainable development,
I will consult on the following.
First, while I will retain a method for calculating local housing need figures, I will consult on
changes. I recognise that there is no truly ‘objective’ way of calculating how many homes are
needed in an area, but I do believe that the plan-making process for housing has to start with a
number. This number should, however, be an advisory starting point, a guide that is not
mandatory. It will be up to local authorities, working with their communities, to determine
how many homes can actually be built, taking into account what should be protected in each
area – be that our precious Green Belt or national parks, the character or an area, or heritage
assets. It will also be up to them to increase the proportion of affordable housing if they wish.
My changes will instruct the Planning Inspectorate that they should no longer override sensible
local decision making, which is sensitive to and reflects local constraints and concerns. Overall
this amounts to a rebalancing of the relationship between local councils and the Planning
Inspectorate, and will give local communities a greater say in what is built in their
neighbourhood. For example, when assessing a local plan, the following will have to be taken
into account:
• Genuine constraints: local planning authorities will be able to plan for fewer houses if
building is constrained by important factors such as national parks, heritage restrictions,
and areas of high flood risk.
• Green Belt: further clarifying our approach to date in the National Planning Policy
Framework and the Localism Act, we will be clear that local planning authorities are not
expected to review the Green Belt to deliver housing. This is in line with commitments
made by the Prime Minister in the Summer.
• Character: local authorities will not be expected to build developments at densities that
would be wholly out of character with existing areas or which would lead to a significant
change of character, for example, new blocks of high-rise flats which are entirely
inappropriate in a low-rise neighbourhood. While more homes are needed in many existing
urban areas, we must pursue ‘gentle densities’ as championed by the Building Better,

As the Prime Minister committed in the Summer, I will also review how the ‘soundness’ test
for reviewing plans at examination is operated by the Planning Inspectorate. I will ensure that
plans no longer have to be ‘justified’, meaning that there will be a lower bar for assessment,
and authorities will no longer have to provide disproportionate amounts of evidence to argue
their case.
The effect of these changes will be to make absolutely clear that Local Housing Need
should always be a starting point – but no more than that – and importantly, that areas
will not be expected to meet this need where they are subject to genuine constraints.
Inspectors will therefore be required to take a more reasonable approach to authorities that have
come forward with plans that take account of the concerns of the local community, by taking a
more pragmatic approach at examination which fully reflects this updated policy.
LOCAL PLANS
I want to change the system on the rolling five-year land supply. We will end the obligation on
local authorities to maintain a rolling five-year supply of land for housing where their plans are
up-to-date. Therefore for authorities with a local plan, or where authorities are benefitting from
transitional arrangements, the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the ‘tilted
balance’ will typically not apply in relation to issues affecting land supply. I also want to
consult on dropping the requirement for a 20% buffer to be added for both plan making and
decision making – which otherwise effectively means that local authorities need to identify six
years of supply rather than five. In addition, I want to recognise that some areas have
historically overdelivered on housing – but they are not rewarded for this. My plan will
therefore allow local planning authorities to take this into account when preparing a new local
plan, lowering the number of houses they need to plan for.
Places with existing plans will benefit from the changes above, as they will be free of five-year
land supply obligations provided that plan is up to date.
Communities will therefore have a much more powerful incentive to get involved in drawing
up local plans. Only four-in-ten local authorities have up to date local plans and I am
determined to change this. They can protect the important landscapes they cherish, direct
homes to the places they want, and adopt design codes to secure the houses they want to see.
Once a plan is in place, these changes mean that they will no longer be exposed to speculative
developments on which they have less of a say. To give further assurance to colleagues who
have signed amendment NC27 on community appeals, I will increase community protections
afforded by a neighbourhood plan against developer appeals – increasing those protections
from two years to five years. The power of local and neighbourhood plans will be enhanced by
the Bill; and this will be underpinned further through this commitment. Adopting a plan will
be the best form of community action – and protection.

BUILD OUT
I strongly agree with the intent of amendments NC 28, 29, and 30 that seek to ensure developers
build out the developments for which they already have planning permission. We need to hold
developers to account so that desperately needed new homes are built, and I already have a
significant package of measures in the Bill to do this, including public reporting and declining
new planning applications on a site if developers are failing to build out. I will consult on two
further measures:
i) on allowing local planning authorities to refuse planning applications from developers
who have built slowly in the past; and
ii) on making sure that local authorities who permission land are not punished under the
housing delivery test when it is developers who are not building.

l

Coal mines, fracked gas and keeping the lights on

December 8, 2022 219 Comments

The world currently relies on fossil fuels for 80% of its energy. All the time most UK people have a gas boiler, a diesel or petrol car, eat meat and rely on  products that need plastics, steel, ceramics, cement and other components  that need plenty of energy to produce we will help create CO 2. Our choice is do we use more of our own coal, oil and gas, or import more? If we import more that will entail more CO 2 being generated worldwide to fuel the transport of products. It will mean fewer well paid jobs in the UK and less tax revenue.

Importing more fossil fuel or fossil fuel using products  is a kind of self harm, not a policy which saves the planet. Transition to a carbon free future will occur at the pace the public dictates by all our choices on what to eat, how to heat and how to travel. It is a strange argument that we should not allow onshore gas in the UK yet it is fine to import it from the USA to keep us warm. It is odd some think we  can import coal to keep the lights on but should not produce specialist coal of our own.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury’s Reply to my Written Parliamentary Question

December 8, 2022 28 Comments

I am concerned about the decline in self employment and have been an opponent of the IR 35 tax treatments as amended in 2017 and 2021. I have asked what impact there has been. The figures they refer to did not seem to enlighten the issue. I have seen other figures suggesting there has been a fall of 700,000 to 4.3m in the  number self employed since 2020. I accept covid lockdowns will have had an impact on numbers,  but this also includes a period of tightening of rules to discourage self employed status. It is worrying, yet the Treasury says some of these people are still doing the same jobs under different tax arrangements. It would be good to have more informed data and analysis  as expanding self employment is an important part of building a flexible and faster growing economy. 

 

Treasury has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (92045):

Question:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many people have ceased to be self-employed since the introduction of the 2021 IR 35 rules. (92045)

Tabled on: 21 November 2022

Answer:
Victoria Atkins:

It is an anticipated outcome of the 2021 off-payroll working (IR35) reform that organisations and contractors will consider the best way for contractors to provide their services, while being compliant with tax legislation.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) publish data on trends in employment. Dataset A02 NSA provides quarterly estimates of the number of self-employed individuals over the age of 16 for the period sought. On 6 September ONS officials gave evidence to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee on changes in the number of individuals self-reporting as self-employed during the relevant period as a part of the committee’s UK Labour Supply Inquiry. That evidence stated that some part of the change in individuals self-reporting as self-employed is due to changes in how people classify themselves, without having changed the way they work.

The answer was submitted on 29 Nov 2022 at 07:58.

Innovation and productivity

December 7, 2022 151 Comments

In his speech to the CBI Annual Conference the Prime Minister called for more innovation and better productivity advances. He is right that innovation can accelerate growth, create more better paid jobs, and raise productivity. Waves of innovation in past decades have fuelled huge advances in living standards and pay.

The government needs to use its Brexit freedoms and its powers as an important buyer of goods and services in our economy to boost the ideas that will give us greater prosperity. A more productive economy is one with higher pay and with better service.

One of the ways to raise productivity is to concentrate more activity and people in the most productive areas. The suggestions below seek to tackle that:

  1. Pharmaceuticals and medicine.  Allow access to generic anonymised data about treatments and success rates in the  NHS to companies seeking to research new life saving and life enhancing treatments and medicines.  Amend the rules on the conduct of tests on new drugs and products to make them competitive with US ones, whilst ensuring strong safety protections.
  2. Energy. This is an area of high value added and well paid jobs. The government accepts that oil and gas are transition fuels which will continue  to provide the bulk of the UK’s energy this decade whilst the electrical revolution develops. It should therefore use its tax policies and licencing  powers to develop more of our domestic oil and gas. Home produced produces less CO2, sparing the CO 2 generated by long distance transport for imports. It also pays a lot more tax to the UK Exchequer instead of paying huge sums in tax away for foreign governments.
  3. High energy using industries like special steels and ceramics, where there can be high value added from design and specification. Suspend emissions trading which imposes a heavy extra cost on our industry making it difficult to compete against imports.
  4. Defence. Spend more of the growing and substantial defence budget on UK procurement. Encourage greater UK R and D in smart weaponry, communications and cyber.
  5. Nuclear. Pump prime the production of small modular nuclear reactor to gain type approval and licences, ready to mass produce for home and export markets.

Additional Government Support for the Homeless and those at risk of homelessness

December 6, 2022 0 Comments

I have received the letter below from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

The Government recognises the additional pressures people are facing with the cost of living and appreciates that some vulnerable households may find themselves at greater risk of homelessness, requiring additional support.

It has announced an additional £50 million that will be made available to local authorities in England in 2022/23 through a top-up to the Homelessness Prevention Grant. The additional funding will support local authorities to help prevent vulnerable households from becoming homeless.  The extra £50 million will build on the £316 million in funding already available to local authorities through the Homelessness Prevention Grant for 2022/23, bringing total spend through that grant to £366 million.

This winter, Wokingham Council will be receiving an additional £74, 884 and West Berkshire Council will receive an additional £42,344 which will top up the Homelessness Prevention Grant already in place.

 

 

Dear Colleague

Support for homelessness pressures over winter
The Government understands the pressures people are facing with the cost of living and has taken decisive action to support households. This includes the Energy Price Guarantee, to support households with their energy bills over the winter, and a further £37 billion of support for the cost of living this year. At Autumn Statement the Chancellor also unveiled £26 billion of support to protect the most vulnerable households in 2023/24.

We recognise that some vulnerable households may find themselves at risk of homelessness and may need additional support. We want to make sure councils are able to respond effectively to support households and prevent homelessness.

Homelessness Prevention Grant – Winter 2022 financial support

We are therefore announcing an additional £50 million that will be made available to local authorities in England in 2022/23 through a top-up to the Homelessness Prevention Grant. The additional funding will support local authorities to help prevent vulnerable households from becoming homeless. Local authorities will target this funding to those who need it most to manage local homelessness pressures.

The details of individual local authority allocations are attached at Annex A.

This additional £50 million investment builds on the £316 million in funding already available to local authorities through the Homelessness Prevention Grant for 2022/23, bringing total spend through that grant to £366 million. This is part of £2 billion of Government funding to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping over the next three years.

We remain committed to the manifesto commitments and this additional funding demonstrates our commitment to protect the most vulnerable in our society.

With every good wish,

Michael Gove MP
Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
Minister for Intergovernmental Relations

 

The Minister for Development and Africa’s Replies to my Written Parliamentary Questions

December 6, 2022 122 Comments

I will pursue these matters, as I am concerned about how much aid we give to multinational organisations to spend for us. Having a voice at the Board table in general discussion does not mean all the aid spent will be in ways and in places we would choose, and it does raise issues over accountability for such large sums of money. Given the need to control public spending better it makes little sense to trust international organisations to spend money for us. 

 

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (92049):

Question:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what unrestricted aid funding the Government provides to international organisations. (92049)

Tabled on: 21 November 2022

Answer:
Mr Andrew Mitchell:

In 2021 £4,277 million of UK Official Development Assistance (ODA) was delivered through core contributions to multilateral organisations. This was 37.4 per cent of the total UK ODA budget.

Multilateral organisations, including the United Nations, global health and education funds, the international financial institutions and the Commonwealth are essential partners in achieving the UK’s goals. The UK uses its voice on multilateral boards to ensure decisions align with UK priorities, including how and where their funds are spent.

The answer was submitted on 29 Nov 2022 at 16:00.

 

 

 

 

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (92050):

Question:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what steps the Government takes to assess the suitability and value for money of (a) projects organised by and (b) grants from international organisations. (92050)

Tabled on: 21 November 2022

Answer:
Mr Andrew Mitchell:

The suitability and value for money of international organisations receiving Official Development Assistance (ODA), including the projects they organise and grants they provide, is continually assessed through FCDO annual reviews and business cases, as set out in the Department’s Programme Operating Framework.

The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) independently scrutinises UK ODA to international organisations to assess value for money and impact, including recent ICAI reviews of tackling fraud in multilateral organisations and of the UK’s work with the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM). The UK is also a member of the Multilateral Organisation Performance Assessment Network (MOPAN), which carries out regular assessments of multilateral organisations.

The answer was submitted on 29 Nov 2022 at 16:01.

Top Public sector management could do better

December 5, 2022 172 Comments

I am always disappointed though not surprised by the very different approaches taken by Private sector company  Chief Executives and public sector ones when being interviewed about their organisations.

The company CEO s go on to explain how well their business is doing. They  explain their passion to serve their customers better, to keep prices down and to innovate. They can manage whatever circumstances  throws at them. If they are being interviewed because something has gone wrong, they apologise and tell us how it is now being put right and will not happen again. They  do not blame their shareholders for not supplying them  enough money or giving  them the wrong instructions.They do not say the Bank manager was to blame for being too mean.

In contrast public sector CEOs often come on to tell us their service cannot manage, to say the increases in the  cash they are sent are insufficient, to say they are unable to recruit the  people they have been asked to employ. They are rarely asked why they cannot run the service better or even what they are doing to try to improve it.

We need to encourage a can do approach amongst high paid public sector CEOs who need  to grab the quality and cost problems which bedevil too many public services.

Why does government cost so much?

December 4, 2022 163 Comments

The costs of running government have escalated whilst the crucial outputs of more and better service have  not risen as we would like. I will look at why in a number of  articles.

One of the reasons is the escalation of the overhead, with more and more management and administration being recruited. Two trends this century that have spurred this process are the moves to so called independent bodies to carry out what remain as government functions, and the overlay of an increasing  number of additional objectives to meeting service needs from net zero targets through diversity targets to behavioural requirements.  These may be desirable in themselves but can become a conflicting overload or impediment to service delivery if not well managed. Carbon reduction targets for example can conflict with the policy need to maintain national energy security and to have more contract gas and electricity at affordable prices from reliable domestic suppliers.  Wanting more legal migrants to fill jobs with a more diverse workforce can lead to greater pressures on social housing and NHS services as the population grows.

The danger of the new models of government are that you can end up with three different managements all running the same bit of service. If we take the  case of NHS England, the Ministers and officials in the Department of Health have a large paybill as if they were running the service, yet they are merely monitoring and supplying resource to the large management cadres of NHS England and the other  national Health quangos. These in turn seek to influence or control the management teams of the NHS Hospital and GP trusts that actually run the service day to day. So there are three public sector layers of senior management. The NHS then contracts in a lot of its needs from the private sector, so taxpayers also end up paying for the management of drug companies, staffing agencies, private care   and pharmacies who provide some of the service.

I have  no issue with sensible buying in and contracting out for drugs, catering services, cleaning and other matters that are well established under Labour and Conservative governments and where the result is better quality and value. I do have an issue with three or four layers of management within the public sector and the contractors, increasing the costs of dealing with each other and increasing the likelihood of blurred accountability.

The idea that a quango like NHS England is an independent body free of Ministerial involvement is not even accepted by its advocates. As soon as anything goes wrong the Minister is called in and is usually blamed. The Minister is rightly held to account in Parliament for the scale of resource , the aims of the service and the success or failure in using the resource well. Rarely does Parliament summon the CEO of the quango and hold her to blame for failure to use resources well, failure to manage staff well or failure to deliver sufficient quality and quantity of care. It is so much easier for all concerned to blame the Minister and blame a lack of money, which of course suits the Opposition in Parliament . As a result we do not get the alleged advantages of independent management, but we do get plenty of extra cost from pretending some of the time that we have this independence  and  that it is better than the people in the department doing the job.

The Immigration Minister’s Replies to my Written Parliamentary Questions

December 3, 2022 194 Comments

I find it bizarre that the government does not have an answer to this question which it can share with the rest of us. Given the high numbers of migrants welcomed into our country in recent years, it has taken considerable investment in social housing, primary and secondary schools, new surgeries and other capacity to accommodate them. The EU last decade suggested a figure of around 250,000 Euro for the set up and capital support costs for new arrivals, given the need for homes and good quality public services.

 

The Home Office has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (92052):

Question:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will make an estimate of the average capital cost of providing (a) housing, (b) school places, (c) health services and (d) transport capacity for a new migrant family. (92052)

Tabled on: 21 November 2022

This question was grouped with the following question(s) for answer:

  1. To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will make an estimate of the average cost to the public purse of providing (a) housing, (b) benefits and (c) public service capacity for a new migrant who takes a job below the average wage in their first year in the UK. (92051)
    Tabled on: 21 November 2022

Answer:
Robert Jenrick:

The Home Office does not hold this information.

The answer was submitted on 29 Nov 2022 at 15:46.

 

 

 

 

 

Meeting with Citizens Advice Bureau

December 2, 2022 0 Comments

I met the Chief of the local CAB today.

He briefed me on a survey they have done about the cost of living issues.

I explained I had done a lot on this. The decisions to uprate benefits and pensions by the full high inflation rate would help people, as did the direct cash support to deal with the immediate problem

I pointed out the Welfare Secretary of State is currently consulting on how more people with no job can be helped to take one of the 1.3 million jobs still available. I offered to bring any proposals they might have to the Minister’s attention.