Growing anger about anti driver measures

I was talking to a London plumber.His  invoices  for work include extra charges for parking, for ULEZ and for Congestion charge. It is a daily battle for him to get to a new job given the closure of so many streets and then to find an all day parking place. Protesters are still going out and putting boxes or other drapes over the London cameras to show their opposition without damaging these expensive spies prying into our lives. This site does not support law breaking protests.

This week Wokingham Borough has had to put  out a press release at our expense telling people not to argue with the workers carrying out another of their hated anti driver projects. Of course people should not shout at or threaten Council contractors. The need to say this shows just how much the Council misjudges the mood as it seeks to wind up all those of us who need a vehicle for work. Wasting £5.5 m of tax on a scheme which will cause delays and put people off driving to what were easily accessible local shops and a garage is a bad idea.

These cameos are part of a much bigger picture. Lib Dem and similar Councils show scorn and disdain for working people who need a car or van to get to work. They show no sympathy for  busy parents who need to drop children off at school so they can get to their job. These Councils consult and ignore. They revel in the misery they cause others. They explode with self righteousness if anyone argues back that they need to use a car or van. Yet despite this many of these preaching Councillors still rely on a gas boiler, go in fossil fuel cars and take jet planes to their holidays.

The collision of green demands by many in the governing class with the needs and pressures of daily life is becoming acute. Many of the green campaigners are hypocrites, flying  off to air conditioned hotels to hold forth again about the need to lower other people’s carbon footprints. If government press too far with their bans, their surveillance cameras, their schemes to fine people off the road with ultra low speed limits, special lanes and box junctions, they may find instead they become very unpopular. Going too far has already changed the Dutch government.

 

 

Dear Colleague letter – LONG TERM PLAN FOR HOUSING

13 February 2024

Dear Colleague,

Today, we are taking the next step in our long-term plan for housing, announcing a package of measures to ensure more homes get built where they are needed most – in our inner cities – helping protect the Green Belt and countryside.

We have a strong record of housing delivery. We are on track to meet the manifesto commitment to build one million homes this Parliament, and to have delivered over 2.5 million more homes since 2010. This includes almost 696,000 affordable homes, and supporting over 876,000 households into home ownership. Over this Parliament, we have delivered the highest number of new homes for over thirty years, with the greatest number of first-time buyers in a single year for two decades.

The changes we made to national planning policy in December were designed to support delivery by addressing legitimate concerns about weaknesses in the planning system, which in turn led to frustrations about the nature of development. That is why we moved to protect the Green Belt, clarify how housing targets should be set, safeguard the character of suburbs, and ensure urban authorities play their proper part in meeting housing need. The further targeted action we are announcing today builds on those changes by making it easier to pursue the right kind of development on brownfield land – because we want to see more new housing in the hearts of our cities, rather than the unnecessary tarmacking over of the countryside.
Brownfield development

Last summer, I used my speech setting out our Long-Term Plan for Housing to draw attention to the particularly poor record of housing delivery in London, where housing affordability challenges are most acute. Only 35,000 new homes were delivered in the capital last year, which amounts to just over half the 66,000 homes the Mayor of London’s own plan identifies as needed each year. That is why I urged the Mayor to take urgent action, and when he failed to do so, commissioned an independent review of the London Plan led by Christopher Katkowski KC.

This review, which we are publishing today, reveals the problems plaguing delivery in London – concluding that “the combined effect of the multiplicity of policies in the London Plan now works to frustrate rather than facilitate the delivery of new homes” and “four years into [the] ten-year [London Plan]…there has been an undersupply of more than 60,000 homes, more than a year of equivalent supply”. It recommends that to tackle this under delivery, a presumption in favour of brownfield development is introduced into the London Plan.

The Government intends to deliver the spirit of this recommendation – but believes it is important to tackle under delivery not just in London, but in our other major towns and cities that serve as engines of jobs and growth. We are therefore proposing to introduce a new ‘brownfield presumption’ in the twenty most populous cities and urban centres in the country, where housing delivery has dropped below expected levels. These twenty places, which include London, are the ones to which an ‘urban uplift’ already applies when determining the need for homes. This new presumption will make it easier to get permission to build on brownfield land where an authority is underdelivering, by raising the bar for refusing applications – ultimately helping more young families to find a home.

We also want to support brownfield development more widely, by making clear to every local authority in England that they need to be more flexible in approving planning applications on brownfield land. To make this happen, we are proposing a change to national planning policy that would require councils to give significant weight to the benefits of delivering as many homes as possible where there is a shortage of land for homes. This change would also tell councils that they need to be pragmatic in applying policies on the internal layout of developments – cutting through what can sometimes prove too complex a web of constraints that misses the prize of building new homes.

I want to note that neither proposed change affects the definition of previously developed land in national policy and so would not alter existing protections, including for residential gardens, nor amend other relevant policies on the character of suburban neighbourhoods. A consultation on these two proposals launches today, and will close on 26 March. Subject to that consultation, we will introduce these changes as soon as possible, through an update to the National Planning Policy Framework.

Permitted development rights

Complementing these changes on brownfield development, we are also helping developers overcome tiresome bureaucracy by slashing red tape that stops appropriate commercial buildings being turned into new homes. Following a consultation last year, the relevant secondary legislation will be laid in Parliament today to extend current Permitted Development Rights such that commercial buildings of any size will have the freedom to be converted into new homes – this means shops, offices, and other buildings all quickly repurposed, resulting in thousands of quality new homes by 2030.

In parallel, we are launching a further consultation on proposals to support millions of homeowners to extend their homes outwards and upwards, freeing new extensions or large loft conversions from the arduous process of receiving planning permission, while ensuring continuing protection for neighbours’ local amenity. Our proposals will also allow homeowners greater freedoms on installing heat pumps and Electric Vehicle charging points, ensuring these rights deliver what people want for their homes.

London delivery

These planning reforms are important, but our changes to policy come alongside additional funding too. We are announcing £50 million of investment to unlock new homes and improve the quality of life for existing residents through estate regeneration in London. Working closely with the London Borough of Camden, we are establishing a new Euston Housing Delivery Group to explore maximum regeneration and housing backed by £4 million. We are also announcing £125 million loan funding from the Home Building Fund Infrastructure Loans portfolio and Long-Term Fund for sites in East and South London which will unlock 8,000 new homes – and to help tackle undersupply in the medium-term, we are announcing our intention to legislate at the earliest opportunity to remove the current block on Homes England’s role in London.

Support for SMEs

It is right that we do what we can to unleash the capability of housebuilders across the housing sector. SME housebuilders play a vital role in our communities, and we are already backing them through our £1.5 billion Levelling Up Home Building Fund and £1 billion ENABLE Build guarantee programme. Today we are going further by expanding the ENABLE Build scheme to cover more lenders and increase the availability of SME finance to the sector. To support access to land for building, we will also introduce SME-only sales of Homes England land, with pilots starting this year in the Southeast and Midlands. We will also update the Community Infrastructure Levy guidance to discourage higher rates being charged on smaller sites, responding to feedback from the sector.

Public sector land

It is also crucial for Government to play its part to release more land directly. That is why we are working with the three main landowning departments – the Department for Transport, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Health and Social Care, as well as Homes England – which have pledged to set aside suitable unused or unwanted land for housing. So far departments have pledged to release Government owned land for at least 15,000 homes before March 2025, and we have set up a ministerial Taskforce to assure and accelerate delivery over the longer term.

Second staircases guidance

Finally, our focus is of course not just on building more but building safely. I have already announced my intent for second staircases in new buildings above 18 meters, and the associated transitional arrangements that will allow projects that are already underway to continue as planned. The Building Safety Regulator will publish detailed guidance to support a second staircase by the end of March, and this guidance will set out that the second staircase will not come with additional provisions such as evacuation lifts, providing housebuilders with the clarity they need to progress developments.

I would welcome your support as we take the next step in our long-term plan for housing that will ensure more safe, warm, affordable homes get built in the places that need them most.
With every good wish

RT HON MICHAEL GOVE MP

Secretary of State for Levelling up, Housing and Communities

Minister for Intergovernmental Relations

California Crossroads The Council fails to listen .

There is huge local anger about the decision to spend vast  sums on disrupting the California crossroads  junction which works fine.

Residents should not take it out on the workers undertaking the contract. They should continue with strong legal  protests against the Council. We told them well in advance not to mess with this junction. We told them not to waste an astonishing £5.5 million of taxpayers money. The  current MP for this part of the Borough disagrees with this scheme.

People are incensed by the Council’s costly anti driver agenda. People need to use vehicles to get to work, to take children to school, to do the weekly shop and to get to sport and leisure activities. It is heartless  of the Council to block roads, put in endless temporary traffic lights, and create more dangerous spaces where there once were clear roads and pavements. This long building project will do plenty of damage to local businesses who will lose customers over it.

Why does the Council hate us so much? Why do they delight in making busy lives more difficult?

The costs of net zero policies

Labour’s decision to abandon most of its planned £28 bn a year extra investment programme for net zero has served to highlight the costs of the policy. It should also lead Labour to ask how they could both afford and achieve their wish to accelerate the UK’s progress to net zero compared to very exacting existing government targets. Under Mr Sunak the government has been relaxing some of the requirements, recognising that for the policy to work it has to be undertaken at a pace that people will accept. Much of the investment needs to be made by individuals and by private companies, so it needs to be realistic. The faster the government wants to go the more subsidy and direct public spending it will need to bring it about.

Labour say they are still wedded to the idea of zero carbon electricity generation by 2030. How can this be?  That would require the closure and write off of all our gas power stations and the remaining coal ones. If Drax is staying it would require a carbon capture and storage scheme to be up and running at great cost for that facility. It would require a massive expansion of the grid to handle more interruptible power and the planned expansion of electric heating and vehicles. It would need a major further investment in wind and solar power. It would require big battery installations to store power, and probably some new pump storage schemes as well. No-one seriously  believes this can be done by 2030. Nor could be it be done for part of a planned  £28bn a year let alone without £28 bn a year.

Two of the big areas where net zero requires different conduct by individuals are  transport and heating. Labour’s faster progress would mean ripping out far more gas boilers far sooner, which most people show no wish to do. It would require a fast replacement of diesel and petrol vehicles with electric. It would require an end to many holidays abroad or a rapid roll out of synthetic fuels for all aeroplanes. It is time interviewers on main media asked these crucial questions of those who advocate faster moves to net zero. It is simply wrong to be told wind energy is cheaper than fossil fuel energy when the figures do not take into account the costs of back up power today from fossil fuel. Nor do they take into account the full costs of extra grid, the costs of battery and pump storage , the costs of smart meters and the costs of rolling out charger points and extra cable capacity into homes for a more comprehensive renewables system.

 

South East Lib and Lab Councils get some frosty answers to their survey

The South East Councils asked the public which cuts scenarios they were most concerned about. The public did  not express as much concern as the Councils probably hoped in a   number of areas.  On climate change 61% of Councillors wanted increased public transport but only 32% of the public did. Only 17% of the public wanted more EV charging points which are  now making their costly appearance more often.  46% of Councillors wanted more financial assistance for insulating homes but only 32% of the public. Only 14% said they plan to buy or drive an electric vehicle.

In area after area Councillors wanted a higher spending more interventionist model of local government whereas more of the public did not. The survey was a typical one with so many Labour and Lib Dem Councillors on the organisation. It was skewed to wanting more and bigger local government and more spending. There were no reported options to spend less, reduce the number of things Councils do,  to reduce executive and admin staffing levels, and to cut down the number of bogus consultations where Councils then ignore the findings if they do not like them. There was  no option to stop the aggressive spending on removing lanes, reducing flows at junctions, narrowing roads and making it very difficult to drive  to work or school.

The survey did capture people’s frustrations that local government makes important decisions about their lives but the people do not feel part of the process or empowered to stop bad decisions being made. Lib Dem Wokingham is an example of a Council which ignores public opinion after spending a lot on consultant designed schemes and on consultations. It specialises in spending  money on trying to get more people to abandon their cars as it follows its anti motorist agenda.

Pharmacy First Programme

Please find below the Dear Colleague that I have received from the Government concerning the Pharmacy First Programme.

 

ICB Name Number of community
pharmacies opted into
Pharmacy First as of
end of 28 January 2023
BUCKS, OXFORDSHIRE & BERKSHIRE
WEST ICB
246

The Green revolution hits a democratic barrier

The Green revolution is a top down revolution. It is invented and enforced by governments and big companies. Whilst a majority of people say they think climate change is an issue, a big majority do not rush to change their own lifestyles in line with the requests and requirements of big government and the green revolutionaries. Most people are happy with gas or oil boilers and or solid fuel fires to heat their homes, and most of us still have diesel or petrol vehicles. Meat eating is still popular and people like flying abroad for their holidays.

Governments have understood that it is easier to force big business to comply with their green agenda than it is to get the public to accept the current approved products and changed lifestyles of green transition. Car companies queue up to undermine their successful past investments in making petrol and diesel vehicles, and to condemn their past products. They do however expect large subsidies to help pay for the very costly investment in making batteries and electric alternatives, and now expect governments to force people to buy these products as not enough want to buy them from free choice. Electricity generators rush to put in wind turbines and solar farms so they can close their cost efficient and reliable gas and coal power stations, but expect priority rules for interruptible renewable power and price structures that favour the new investments. Steel companies plan expensive electric arc recycling works to replace steel production in blast furnaces, but they too need large subsidies to try to get the sums to work.

Governments and companies need to work on how they could create affordable reliable good products that help them in their aim of cutting CO 2. They are going to need much more buy in from consumers to achieve their ambitious targets.  Consumers are making it very clear they expect the products to be better and cheaper than they currently are. Government does not  have to subsidise or regulate to get people to buy mobile phones or to switch to on line shopping, as those changes area popular with customers at market prices without intervention. Sales of electric vehicles to individual buyers are struggling in many places without large subsidies. Hertz has recently announced difficulties in renting out EVs and decided to sell one third of its present EV fleet to get more in line with public demand.

Worse still for governments and political parties that are keen on the drive to net zero is the growing evidence that parties in government that  go too far in forcing unpopular net zero changes lose elections. The Netherlands government lost heavily in the last election because it was trying to cut down animal husbandry and meat eating faster than the public thought acceptable. President Macron’s party has had some bruising encounters with public opinion over the level of fossil fuel taxes and diesel prices. The original gilets jaunes protests were about energy taxes which forced a climb down. Recently Macron has had to stop further taxes on agricultural diesel in the face of angry farmers.

When across Europe and the UK fossil fuel energy prices soared, doing the governments’ work for them forcing less use, governments rightly saw the need to cushion people from the price impact  on this essential. Germany has given into pressure to delay the ending of new diesel and petrol cars. In the US Presidential Candidate Trump is ahead of President Biden in the polls , His  policy of withdrawing from the Paris climate change treaty and targets compared to Biden who wants to go further faster is clearly no barrier to his possible victory and may be helping him. Many people do not want to be told by government how to heat their homes, what car to buy, and where to have their holiday.

My intervention on NHS Dentistry: Recovery and Reform

My Intervention on NHS Dentistry: Recovery and Reform