The Big Society and Localism: My thoughts

The government is widely endorsing the Big Society and the localism agenda as key principles to drive their policies forward. I admire many aspects of this but cannot help thinking that it is very disjointed and the relationship to place has been woefully underestimated. I argue that the government has so far been missing some of the point, is not radical like it proclaims and has been far too unilateral with geography in the projects that support localism. Ultimately I state that localism and schemes initiated to deliver it have potential to leave people out spatially and that this has a far more detrimental impact on our society and planning, outweighing the importance of putting people at the heart of decisions that localism aims to meet.

 

What do I read localism to be?

It was true to form that I first became aware of localism upon the release of the Conservative Party’s green paper ‘open source planning’ but only began to take it more seriously when the coalition government was elected. Localism is conveyed as a radical change to sideswipe the centralised state and provide less barriers to ‘the people’, who in the government’s mind should be at the forefront of decision making. I read for localism to be one of the more powerful tools in exhibiting the government’s Big Society agenda, again a pinnacle of Conservative policy prior to the election as a coalition in May 2010. By encouraging civic pride and responsibility, it is envisaged that local people will feel empowered to make change in their areas.

My initial perceptions

I am quite an unusual character in that I am quite unforgiving and hostile to this government’s attitudes to the built environment and always have been. This is despite supporting some of their work in other sectors and initiatives. I am a strong proponent of regional planning and have been sad to see it lost without a chance to let it breathe. There has been widespread criticism of that particular framework but it was only implemented for a small number of years as part of sectors that are well known for a rhetoric of slow progress (see Barker and Killian Pretty, among others). So how can it be commented on with such distaste? It comes as little surprise that I am finding localism rather difficult to interpret, but am a personality that is open to reconstruction on this matter.

I show a somewhat mixed reaction, but must stress that not all of it is negative. It is all too easy to start pinpointing the opposing argument; exhibiting a bullish personality and a vanguard of emotion. But even with a subject such as localism I cannot bring myself to respond in this way. The majority of  government policy does actually have meaningful elements to it, reflecting the aspirations of their creator.  I have tried to underpin those values instead of taking the lazy route towards nitpicking.

Unease but hope

At the moment there is more unease to be displayed than joy to endorse localism, but this is because I am holding back, wanting to (and willing to) understand more about the subject and its objectives. I feel that localism has been a mass of buzzwords launched too early in advance before government has convened most of the substance together, and that is worrying. Indeed most of the uncertainty does not stem from the continual pattern of frontloading that is taking place that others might transpire to state as their concern, such as the rapid but thwarted abolishment of the regional tier and frontloading of local government spending reductions. I admire cutting to the chase, being specific and going ahead with what you stated you would do. But in order to represent true grit and determination, there needs to be some dialogue of what happens, how are conflicts going to be mitigated and a transparent framework to evaluate success. With the localism agenda I see little thought on this, and a constant drizzle of policy introductions. While I would like concrete, all I see is blancmange – that is at least until we have a proper breakdown of localism’s powers, which are slowly creeping in. I see the ideas born out of localism and the big society to have a poor spatial understanding, with policies that are too simplified. For example the New Homes Bonus, intended to incentivise house building in areas of demand, will work extremely well in the South East and other areas with housing pressures. But this will be woeful in places with negative take up, causing a funding shortfall for local authorities who will receive little merit from the Bonus. I would endorse that if Localism is to provide these kinds of measures, there needs to be multiple versions to specify not just who but where will benefit from them.

Radical? Not quite!

 I find localism to be less radical than previously thought – take the whole concept of ‘decentralisation’ for example. Under the new localism based principles local communities would have obligatory powers to produce their own neighbourhood development plan, but the housing numbers still have to either match or be higher than any previously proposed under regional planning or the local plan. We also have environmental directives to consider from Brussels, which we have little enforcement of. Therefore I would argue that true ‘pure’ localism cannot be achieved, instead an uneven patchwork quilt of civic responsibility will be encouraged across the country.

Civic responsibility is something I find a virtue here, albeit with caution

Civic responsibility is a fundamental feature of society that has in part been lost. I treasure attempts to bring some of this back into the wider rhetoric on the street and at the local level. However, the reality put into practice is that our lifestyles do not always arrange well to being responsible, supporting others and working for nothing. It is something I personally advocate, but know many personalities who would not work with the concept. Having said that, I can imagine that the element to embrace civic responsibility will work well in certain places, but will be severely dictated by geography. Places including rural areas that still have community spirit and diverse urban neighbourhoods such as student areas with higher levels of volunteering rates could benefit from localism principles and the big society. But in places that are comparatively deprived and facing similar budget reductions, or rural areas that have lost their soul to poor attitudes and wrong decisions, localism is bound to be a struggle. The big society motive may be better in these areas to rally people together as part of a wider social welfare remit, but it will be particularly weak when applied to planning. Big society and localism will no doubt fuel the power relations of whoever has the greatest stake, and the greatest influence on development proposals. With the advent of neighbourhood plans, this is likely to get larger as the prospect of developer funded plans may become a reality.

But there surely will be a  rise of the third sector even during times of restraint and potential austerity

Overall, I see much potential for the third sector, despite their own financial pressures brought on by questionable times, to experience a rise of take up or interest in their work from local people as a result of localism. This is inevitable, no matter what the variety of opinion is on the matter, and is accentuated if protest goes unheeded.  If the government acts on its ideologies and mobilised campaigns to protect the built environment fail, then in certain places people will have no choice but to join such organisations to try and make their areas work once again. Furthermore, the voluntary sector can be a means with which to represent a stronger unified voice to inform the government on best ways forward. I can increasingly see the third sector starting to lean on the side of pressure groups as a result of localism; their bargaining power increased but the eventual decision not necessarily as decentralised as first imagined.

 Thanks for looking,

Chris

This article is written from a personal perspective.

NUS Disabled Students’ Personal Care Launch

On September 10th I will be in London to attend the National Union of Students Personal Care campaign launch and the report ‘Life not Numbers’ publication. Although details of Life not Numbers are embargoed until that date I can mention that the project seeks to recommend further changes and a reorganisation to the care packages available to disabled students. In the context of budgetry adjustments in education, local government and welfare Life not Numbers represents an important step forward in suggesting ways of providing care at value for money without detriment to students with a disability.

More soon.

Thanks for looking,

Chris

NUS Higher Education Coalition Budget Cuts Conference 29th June 2010

I went to this event to represent the NEC and tap into issues that may affect the NUS Disabled Students’ Campaign and University of Sheffield Union of Students. What took place was a majority verdict that a broader conversation had been outlined that pushes forward with a national demonstration and making a bigger and better activist base more advantageous, particularly to those less politically orientated. I would certainly advocate the latter as it can often be too crushing to be stuck in the political quagmire, even though it is necessary.

We spoke little on the effect of the budget cuts in the arena specific to disabled students, as the event covered ‘the student body’ in its entirety, although I would argue that a majority of channels that University funding goes towards will affect the students I represent at some point during higher education. We discussed at length the lists of such channels including:

• Student numbers
• Student support services
• Quality control & monitoring
• IT provision Courses
• Bursaries & Scholarships
• Estate Management & Rents
• Staff Costs

It was our role to decipher what was most likely to be cut, and why, and if there ‘channels’ that affected all or most of the others which one would it be? Overall a very valuable insight and at first, an appreciated clash of viewpoints and judgements (leading to a negotiation of compromise). The majority of the conference concerned workshops and speeches by NUS full time officers (Aaron Porter and Usman Ali), Student Union Sabbatical Officers (Liverpool Guild of Students), and the UCU.

One workshop of note was coping with cuts to the student experience, where three different Unions gave their perspective of forthcoming reductions in University spending. I listened to in the workshop, and later spoke to RUSU officers, about the proposed cutbacks at Reading University to disability support, among other services. An outcome of this conference has been to ask for more information about this case specific occasion, but am fully aware that this is likely to be a repeated issue nationwide as budgets are tightened and disabled students are affected. Kings College London also referred to a similar situation. One to note is that in instances where disability support is reduced financially, the effect on the student is not always that their support measures are cut, but instead are delayed. That is one importance difference to define and the conference helped in that respect.

Finally, something that could affect us is the clash between widening participation by increasing student numbers versus a financial reduction. Would we get into a situation where participation is proudly endorsed with more students yet the student experience is compromised and people graduate disenchanted? It is imperative that the government sticks with the internal statistics, percentages and goals for disabled students that come to university, regardless of the amount of places each year.

I did get a little cheesed off at times at the characters wandering around with petitions as the guest speakers took stand to voice their part and considered this insensitive. I too disappreciated the slightly robotic applause at times that appeared to be operated on a puppet string, But on the whole this was very engaging, both as a networking event (even though I remained mostly quiet and reserved) and as an opener of new opinion. It also made a case in hand that if Student Unions are to do a national demonstration about Higher Education funding, then they aught to do so effectively, organised in advance and a date set quickly for it to be successful. Mobilising the troops must commence.

The Budget difficulties over Disability Living Allowance (DLA)

Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is a lifeline for many people with an additional support need. It is not an employment related welfare provision, instead it is ‘assistance payment’ to help people with a disability continue their daily lives and cover the financial cost of extremities placed on them in the environment we live in. To many, it is a brilliant resource and I consider it to be one of the better items of public welfare support.

The recent Coalition Government ‘Emergency Budget’ announced greater measures of medical assessment for DLA claimants, and in a classic case of a clash of belief and political expression a lot of debate has come out of the woodwork as to the impact of this proposal. For me they have taken the wrong viewpoint to suggest that flouters are a drag on government spending, instead the so called ‘flouters’ are placing disadvantage (in many ways) on other DLA claimants. I read with much interest two articles in the Guardian by Anne Wollenberg (23 Jun 2010) and Rhydian Fon James (24 Jun 2010) covering this issue. Anne claims that DLA application is not easy, partially to which I agree. The forms are a mass sprawl of idiotic questions (for example, “if you regularly stumble or fall, how many times approximately have you done so in the past year?”), but the key issue I have is a method of a form itself. The majority of individuals are honest, but a form allows for exploitation, and equally not every claimant of DLA necessarily has to keep on the same level of payment and there is the opportunity to declare change of circumstances. But it can often be difficult to see this level of honesty among claimants.

To those who fear that an assessment will kill off chances of receiving DLA for hidden disabilities, I partly share your concern, but see my comments about the assessment professional. What the form also does is include questions that deliberately make claimants think to dramatise their situation, or at least you get the feeling that people must be heightening their case just to be listened. After all, with a high rejection rate, people will resort to advanced actions. I detest this about forms and questionnaires in general, in many fields of work. They are so badly formatted, judged and written. In the case of DLA this can mean that the ‘possibly deserving’ can be crowded out, the crafty can get through, and the noticeably deserved get through as well albeit sometimes not as highly as envisaged. I want to see this change. I want greater levels of DLA rates.

You cannot ignore the fraudulent applications, plus as I suspect more ‘geared’ applications, as they are a major injustice for other people with a disability as money is being taken ‘out of the pot’ for them by claimants who have either exaggerated their claim or have vastly improved health and support in other means that would comply with a lower rate of DLA payment. I’m not interested in the argument that it is affecting government spending, the theme the coalition has taken. I am purely discussing the effect one’s actions can have on other people because that is what I am passionate about in the concerns of my work. It is a case of biting the hands that feed you and really disheartens me. It does go on, and I’m sure you might read this and be sick of hearing about this kind of viewpoint, but I am sick of taking a blind eye to it. From experience it actually makes ‘striving for equality’ and ‘mobilising the non-disabled population’ more difficult if you profess the insignificance of flouting the system, as it incites more anger and against the minority of flouters, and in turn against disabled people in a lot of cases. It sadly is a revolving circle. This is not codswallop, I have seen it when working with the student body, working population alike.

With this into consideration a medical assessment should be appropriate for medium and higher rates of DLA, besides what have we got to hide? The only issue I concede to have is that certain people would be anxious to being assessed, but it comes as part and parcel of applying for support and needing to be consulted on the matter. I have spent a lot of time working on customer service principles, advisory services and counselling and the three combined would have to be in place at the assessment stage to support personal indifferences in making the appointment to be ‘examined’, ‘discussed’ and ‘briefed’.

The second article considers DWP monitoring into fraudulent applications, to which I have a degree of difficulty agreeing with, as it depends on how far the term ‘fraudulent’ extends, and I am unsure whether the DWP only includes in those figures people who aren’t disabled yet are claiming for DLA. “All for the sake of 15,500 fraudsters –who are likely to have been put on the lowest possible rates in any case – the entire caseload will be punished.” Firstly, the lowest rate is still a significant amount of money, again taking it from others in greater need of the DLA, others in the queue of applications who are delayed by that person dramatising their case.

Where this DLA situation comes in with the ‘marginalisation’ of disabled people is a tricky one, because I firmly believe that if you are applying for a financial support (in the same way as for a financial incentive, of which DLA is not one), you have to verify your position first. In a similar scenario, I strongly condemned the ease at which banks were able to lend out money to people without effective verification as to their financial standing before the recession took hold. I don’t believe in flinging money out without evidence based verification.

In an ideal scenario I would propose that added tiers be placed in the DLA system, rather than a simple ‘low, medium, high’ format, it should be done as ‘zones 1-5’. A new lower rate (zone 1) of a smaller financial quantity and regular assessments should be tied in to look at whether your support needs are maintained, advancing/progressing or in some cases improving. Additionally the existing lower rate would be retained as Zone 2 similar in financial value and more applicants be reassessed onto this rate where it is clear their means suit this level, and the medium and top rates increased in value (zones 3 and 4) but the criteria amended so that greater scrutiny is given before these grades can be selected for claimants. A new Zone 5 system for the very highest needs should be introduced to serve the existing claimants with high or sensitive support needs that the current DLA does not cater for fully, for example to cover the costs of a lack of social care. In my opinion, this system would still provide value for money and directing the support to those who need it the most, while reassessing claimants who have had a change in circumstances that means even the current low rate is a higher proportion of money to their needs arising from the costs of their condition.

I dismiss the idea that a set ‘rate’ of DLA continually is a right to people, but agree that a rate variable to need is. When the extremities of a condition ensures that a person cannot lead their life properly, it is a right to have the government on side to necessitate that life change financially. But it has to be appropriate to living within people’s means.

I would like to see greater clarification and legislation on what the Disability Living Allowance should be paid for, for example, but only in a proportion of a claimants payments. I see no problem in having to comply on certain basic rules for an allowance I am receiving from the state and not having to pay back. Surely this is an item of fairness?

The professional that should be an assessor should not be the computerised call centre operative. It should be an experienced person with background in both the medical and social model of disability. Regardless of your opinion on either, it is imperative they have clear knowledge of the two. I would detest a situation whereby DLA applicants are assessed in the robotic way that the likes of Student Finance England operate. Could the Disabled Students Allowance (DSA) assessment process, despite its sometimes lesss than savvy procedures, be carried over? I’ll leave that for you to decide.

There is little money left, aside from the age old debate of War and Trident scheme costs and the idea we could pull out of the Middle East tomorrow, and pay for things like this, which I don’t want to be entangled. I would ideally love to see DLA budgets remain at the same rate, but instead I have proclaimed these ideas to highlight that a redistribution of funds is needed instead and savings would only be made at the lower end of the claimant scale. It is unfair to directly hit those of greatest need. I do consider DLA as a welfare payment that can achieve savings, but that the rhetoric of ‘scroungers’ affecting the government financial bill is the wrong way forward. Instead I profess that it is they and a government ambiguity as to what DLA stands for who are spoiling the environment DLA brings to disabled people. I consider that the internal distribution of DLA funds should be changed to push funding towards those assessed in 2013-14 to be in the greatest need, and a new zonal system launched for claimants with slightly more stringent criteria. Even a DLA payment that is £10 above what a person’s needs (multiplied for many people in similar position) can be a substantial cost and instead of total withdrawal of state spending this should be redirected to higher zone claimant provision.

All I ask for is honesty – to downgrade when appropriate, upgrade when appropriate, and for a greater proportion of the allowance to be directed at given uses. I also ask for the government not to be unwise in determining who should be the assessor and what background they should have. In any case, they should be extremely aware of different disabilities and the environments forming the social and medical models of disability (pros and cons of either). I also ask the Government to be aware that it will be nigh on impossible without a high level of expertise in the assessment process to provide DLA in the correct amounts effectively.

Please appreciate that my post is not going to be for everybody to agree on, but in the interests of working to mobilise people to reduce prejudice it is hard to exercise that any financial welfare, DLA included, or indeed a financial contribution/payment in any industry should be given without a better method of verification.

Thanks for looking,

Chris

National Union of Students (NUS) Higher Education Cuts Conference 29th June 2010

Dear all,

I will be attending as a member of the NEC at the National Union of Students Conference on Higher Education Budget Cuts on 29th June. This will be held at the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham and I will report on outcomes after the event.

The Conference will hopefully establish a clearer agenda that NUS will take forward in protecting the interests of the student body when facing potential reductions of government spending, made clearer by a budget released 7 days earlier. I will be particularly interested to note any agenda around negotiating what would have to be forgiven and what would continue under a spending reduction. Recent comments by Universities and Science Minister David Willetts have fueled debates within the student body as to the positioning of the government on Universities and students, although I believe they have not always been fully understood.  I hope that a common ground will be established on the 29th rather than a mess or rabble between conflicting opinions, as this never works and goes around in circles.

Additionally I will be voicing concern around the interests of students at Sheffield University, and how the budget may affect Sheffield Union. Coverage of additional support needs and financial impacts of budget reductions there, should they come into limelight from the budget, will be from a point of view of a disability advocate rather than representing the politically autonomous NUS Disabled Students’ Campaign.

Thanks for looking,

Chris

Registration for the conference closes on Tuesday 15th June 2010 at 5pm, and places are limited, so please do be quick if this interests you. Registration is free of charge.

Lets slow down and think this through before joining a Theresa May equality bandwagon…

Hang on lets steady on with the Theresa May hate mail, the notion of going straight to facebook and vent your anger….The very rise of facebook had been a wonderful thing for petitions but I fear that a compulsive need to set up a page or group, regardless of how many members will now do absolutely nothing, because there are so many groups out there. Instead of verbally going for it, how weak is ‘venting your anger’ or ‘standing up for your rights’ on a page?

Here is my position on the issue.

 

I thought that if you are working representing a ‘body’ or ‘party’, personal judgement or judgment of the constituency should not figure, except for the voting process. A bit like me in planning, I could be for sake of argument strongly against gypsy sites or affordable housing in rural areas (Im not in reality), but in the interests of the planning system I cannot involve personal vote. A bit like working for NUS and promoting ways of reducing/keeping tuition fee cap when i personally believe in paying properly for university. That is my responsibility and Theresa May is also working in her Secretary of State responsibility. She has said she has changed and while I am sure many will be divisive on that viewpoint, apart from the voting record there is little grounds now that the role has been given to judge on those views while in the job as Secretary of State. If something happened tomorrow that reflected that voting record then fair play.Her voting record looks poor but I am equally annoyed when someone has the means to justify their case everyone is out to continually lambast them. Its the same when someone has a wonderful voting record but people still berate them because they are of the wrong party, the wrong class etc. The past government has on the whole been far more inclusive, I accept, but I believe anyone who is personally challenged on such an issue would be lost for words. It was ill informed to suggest the role of equalities minister but fair for home secretary for Theresa and her space-suit. We have to remember that her vote against the repeal of section 28 was undertaken in 2000 under the Hague government, a year after tory Shaun Woodward was sacked for wanting repeal of the section – that event on its own gives rise to the values of the conservatives at that time which were clearly wrong. Attitudes to equality were more taboo then, labour had only really began its more inclusive and diverse regime and there was a long way to go. Finally, please for goodness sake can we refer to ‘equality’ as equality and not merely ‘gay rights’, or ‘women’ individually, that is a problem with going off on a tirade on facebook, on twitter, in person. The sack Theresa May groups are a classic principle of this in that they have only been created on basis of her views of homosexuality. Clearly research is not properly undertaken before opinion is broadcast. Please remember that equal opportunities includes all at risk to injustice, otherwise you become exclusionary alike the insinutation to the MP you are trying to berate. Hypocritcal?

Thanks for looking,

Chris

What will the Coalition Government mean for Town Planning?

The full coalition government document can be found here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_187876.pdf

Good evening,

Its my first post for a few days, but I delayed posting on the Coalition Government and town planning reform before more information became available as to how far such change would extend and who would be leading it. As a planning student, I attended the RTPi Yorkshire Annual Development Control Conference in York yesterday which provided an insight into some of the viewpoints in planning to the coalition government’s intentions. We now know that Eric Pickles will be Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and a very vague responsibility of Planning policy for minister Greg Clark, and ‘planning’ for Bob Neill. Very inspiring.

In this post I will disect the main policy objectives for the planning system and note how I regard these changes. Initially though I will cover briefly the labour planning system. While there are many qualms about the system under the 13 year long previous Labour Government, I am also confident of the positives that era brought to planning reform.  Aspects of the Local Development Framework (LDF) process have worked, notably in the arenas of sustainability and economic development. Planning Policy Statements have been updated accordingly, some written without conviction but generally appreciating a modern spatial planning vision in line with the Royal Town Planning Institute, academic sources, local government and recommendations from NGOs being unsuccessfulTown Planning. Lets also note the importance of the Barker Reviews (Housing 2004 and Land Use Planning 2006) and the Killian-Pretty Review (2008) in facilitating improvements to economic development and the development control process respectively. While not a labour supporter on all issues I take allegiance to them on the built environment. I think they brought in sufficient reform and there was consensus in 1997 that planning applications were taking too long to process; by 2001/02 improvements started to emerge and now authorities generally reach a 75-80% target for meeting applications within 8 weeks. Yes, the Killian-Pretty Review outlined difficulties in the process (many) and yes, there may be funding/other implications to not meeting the given deadline but there needs to be that kind of an ‘incentive’ (almost) to ensure efficient procedures here. The list of suggestions by Barker and Killian/Pretty would be far longer if they had been commissioned in 1997 to look at improving the system.

And now for the proposed coalition changes:

The government says it will create Local Housing Trusts to develop ‘homes for local people’ where there is strong community backing (no more than 10% opposition in a local referendum.

Verdict: Nonsense, because there is an extremely high doubt over the definition of “local people”. It will be ‘local people’ that will be in the majority that dislike affordable housing, unless it is for their own benefit or family arena. Local Housing Trusts will have the ability to approve housing of most given types, I can just see a further prevalence of large housing in affluent areas enforcing affordable homes to the ‘pathetic end’ of housing sites in urban areas.

• It also states that all affordale housing delivered will qualify for a council tax incentive scheme with every new built affordable home earning the local authority 125% of council tax raised by that unit, for 6 years.

Verdict: Acceptable in principle, funding process required for the incentive. How would this work with the Local Housing Trusts system?

• The Local Planning Authority will lose the right to decide applications in respect of new schools. Planning applications to build new schools will be assessed by short planning inquiries followed by the decision by the Secretary of State for Education.

Verdict: Approve. We need better planned allocation of education places and new schools. Planning applications for schools should still be dealt taking note of the Local Planning Authority being a major material consideration. 

• An end to re-writing of Development Planning Documents (DPDs) that include the Core Strategy, Adopted Proposals Map etc by inspectors on independent examination. So long as they comply with national policy, developed fairly, and are equitable to neighbouring communities, they will be approved.

Verdict: Against. There have often been valid reasons to rewrite DPDs on the basis of soundness. They are being rewritten because of an unsound process; non-compliance with a policy, unfairly developed or because they are not equitable to neighbouring communities!

• If new local plans have not been completed within a prescribed period, a presumption in favour of sustainable development will automatically apply,  in accordance with national policy, making applications acceptable in line with this.

Verdict: Mostly agreed with but can understand the contentions. The speed of development plans has long been disputed. Most Local Development Frameworks have still not been finalised 6 years after the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 necessitated on their creation.  I can see problems in the appeal and planning law process with the principle of turning to national policy if the local authority meets the deadline. Using national objectives will obviously not specify planning to local issues and it may enforce the local planning authority to get their act together. But authorities in return will want the government to free up the system to allow them to do that.

• We will abolish the unelected Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC)

Verdict: disagree. I think we needed a separate (yes centralised) body that dealt with the more major applications for the likes of power generation, airports, roads and so forth. It would be wrong to turn this case backwards now and would clog up the workload of local authorities. We do not want a situation where the major applications, representing a minute proportion of planning applications crowd out the smaller applications that equally matter, especially when public service resources may be cut further.

Regional Planning

• Rapidly abolish Regional Spatial Strategies and Regional Development Agencies.

Verdict: Fair enough. Labour has taken hold of more councils than it hoped but generally most are Conservative controlled and this works in their favour. I have long been dubious about Regional Spatial Strategies particularly for housing allocation, but do not mind Regional Development Agencies

• More right to neighbourhoods to shape the places they live in.

Verdict: Incredibly dangerous. From an equal opportunities perspective this is worrying. We need a continuation of integrated planning, not giving those who are the loudest the power the judge.

• We will publish a consolidated national planning framework covering all forms of development. Planning Policy Statements will be slimmed back to one statement and guidance notes on each individual characteristic.

Verdict: I agree. I very much agree that we need a consolidated national planning framework, but I am slightly unsteady on the cutback of PPS’s – how long will that take and will there be any ambiguities in the transition period?

• Abolish the government office for London.

Verdict: I approve. This is a whirlwind subject and London should not warrant a separate identity. It already has much going for itself in the built environment to define itself from other areas.

• We will cut local government inspections and abolish the Comprehensive Area Assessment.

Verdict: disagree in the short term, prospects possible in the long term. I understand that the past government has been very target driven, planning included but given major shortfalls in certain cases (social care, fraud cases etc) I see no reason at the moment why we should scrap CAA.

• We will promote ‘home on the farm’ schemes that promote the conversion of farm buildings to affordable housing.

Verdict: Utterly impractical. This would go against strict local policies on development in the countryside, and would be an unsustainable location for affordable housing.

The full coalition government document can be found here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_187876.pdf

Blog Post – General Election: Where I stand for on each issue

What I stand for on May 6th 2010 General Election

Lincolnshire Fine Food and Wine Show, Cleethorpes April 24th-25th 2010

As part of my job at North East Lincolnshire Council I have been working this weekend at the Lincolnshire Fine Food and Wine Show, Meridian Park (Cleethorpes). This has been to promote the national ‘Love Food Hate Waste’ campaign which encourages for better use of leftover food, organisation in the kitchen and plenty of new recipe ideas. The message the campaign brings really does show that a lot of food does not need to be wasted, as it can be extremely versatile. Take milk that is going a bit smelly for example. This is not rancid milk, just ‘about to turn’ – I learned today from acclaimed chef Nigel Brown, who gave us a Love Food Hate Waste cookery demonstrations throughout the weekend, that such milk can be used effectively for making scones. It does not need to be newly bought milk – simple as that.

Also did you know that in the UK we waste approximately (every year):

• 770,000 tonnes of potatoes
• 660,000 tonnes of bread
• 310,000 tonnes of bananas
• 300,000 tonnes of chicken
• 260,000 tonnes of apples
• even 42,000 tonnes of pasta

Plus many more – combined we waste 5.3 million tonnes of food per year, and that is hard to swallow. Love Food hate waste encourages more creativity, financial savvyness (after all the average family loses £50 per week through food wastage  and fun in the kitchen, and the possibilities are extended so much more from your usual week of the same old meals.

Details of the Love Food Hate Waste campaign including handy recipes and advice can be found at www.lovefoodhatewaste.com

For the North East Lincolnshire Council press release, please go to http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/news/2010/apr/love-food-hate-waste/