conservativehome--2020-08-07--Nicholas Boys Smith: Quantity and quality – why the Planning White Paper is getting the big question

Nicholas Boys Smith: Quantity and quality – why the Planning White Paper is getting the big questions right

Nicholas Boys Smith is the Director of Create Streets .
I was a member of the taskforce feeding into the Government ’ s Planning for the Future consultation paper .
It is bolder and more radical than much of the work of Create Streets or the Building Better Building Beautiful Commission which have sought to be more incremental .
That undoubtedly brings risks .
Will the market ‘ turn off ’ as landowners and developers await the new normal ?
But the White Paper is getting three big things right .
Firstly , it accepts that the popular beauty and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matters .
It matters for the public acceptance of their creation – and for the lives that our children and children ’ s children will lead in them .
There ’ s a growing corpus of evidence that many of the components that make places beautiful ( such as walkable streets , ‘ gentle density ’ , and street trees ) also make them healthy , happy , and sustainable .
Far too few new places achieve this , less than a quarter in one recent study .
That must change with more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ books ’ for what ’ s acceptable .
Secondly , the White Paper is right that we need to create a more predictable level playing field .
There is a smoking gun if you want to understand why we don ’ t build enough homes in England .
It ’ s that our system operates on a uniquely discretionary case-by-case basis .
This creates greater uncertainty which has increased planning risk , pushed up the price of permissioned land , and acted as a rising barrier to entry .
It ’ s no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by small builders is declining ( 12 per cent and falling ) ; that only ten per cent of our homes are self-built versus a 50 per cent European average ; or that modular construction is struggling to gain a foothold .
Finally , the White Paper is right that we need to ‘ bring the democracy forward ’ and re-invent the ambition , depth , and breadth , with which councils engage publicly in the creation of local plans .
Creating shorter , more powerful and more visual local plans will help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reinvent their use of digital technology .
It does not stop there .
I suspect not many public sector planners read ConservativeHome but please spare a thought for them as well .
Most are well-meaning , hard-working , and under-paid .
This White Paper could be good for them too , as well as for the quantity and quality of the places we create .
One very experienced London official said to me last year : ‘ ” I was brainwashed into the world of thinking that development control is planning but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been marginalised.
” A process which has clearer , more map-based , and more visual local plans , and better digital engagement , would free up planners better to support the public and not just be development control officers on a depressing and needless treadmill treating ever planning application as if it was bespoke .
This would be good .
Implemented well , these proposals should help to move planning from a culture of fear to a culture of affirmation .
We are heirs to beautiful towns , set in incomparable countryside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that heritage to our successors , not depleted but enhanced .
Quantity matters .
But so does quality .
Some predictable voices came out very quickly criticising the report in blood-curdling terms .
Most appear not to have read it , not to understand the politics or economics of development or to be so wedded to the 1940s approach that they refuse to countenance change , even when it is palpably and desperately needed .
( To be fair , there are also some good questions emerging from the more thoughtful or less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the world ’ style critics ( some of whom are not just shouty journalists but working for organisations that claim to care about planning and design ) need to be able to answer these questions : • What is so different about how we live in England to most of the rest of the world that means we can not plan strategically but have to focus on every decision case-by case ?
• Why do they think that the UK housing market is so concentrated ?
Might it possibly have anything to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our chaotic planning system ?
• Why do they think there are so few self-builders in the UK ?
• The UK is a pretty entrepreneurial place : why is modular build struggling to take off ?
• Why should we not move to public engagement that is profoundly more digitally enabled ?
If they don ’ t have convincing answers to these questions which don ’ t involve the high-risk nature of our planning system ( and I have not seen any ) then I would politely urge them to roll their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detail rather than just shouting ‘ fire ’ from the smokeless rooftops .

Nicholas Boys Smith is the Director of Create Streets.
I was a member of the taskforce feeding into the Government’s Planning for the Future consultation paper. It is bolder and more radical than much of the work of Create Streets or the Building Better Building Beautiful Commission which have sought to be more incremental. That undoubtedly brings risks. Will the market ‘turn off’ as landowners and developers await the new normal? But the White Paper is getting three big things right.
Firstly, it accepts that the popular beauty and liveability of the new settlements we create matters. It matters for the public acceptance of their creation – and for the lives that our children and children’s children will lead in them. There’s a growing corpus of evidence that many of the components that make places beautiful (such as walkable streets, ‘gentle density’, and street trees) also make them healthy, happy, and sustainable. Far too few new places achieve this, less than a quarter in one recent study. That must change with more visual local plans setting popular ‘pattern books’ for what’s acceptable.
Secondly, the White Paper is right that we need to create a more predictable level playing field. There is a smoking gun if you want to understand why we don’t build enough homes in England. It’s that our system operates on a uniquely discretionary case-by-case basis. This creates greater uncertainty which has increased planning risk, pushed up the price of permissioned land, and acted as a rising barrier to entry. It’s no coincidence that the proportion of homes delivered by small builders is declining (12 per cent and falling); that only ten per cent of our homes are self-built versus a 50 per cent European average; or that modular construction is struggling to gain a foothold.
Finally, the White Paper is right that we need to ‘bring the democracy forward’ and re-invent the ambition, depth, and breadth, with which councils engage publicly in the creation of local plans. Creating shorter, more powerful and more visual local plans will help, but councils will also need to reinvent their use of digital technology.
It does not stop there. I suspect not many public sector planners read ConservativeHome but please spare a thought for them as well. Most are well-meaning, hard-working, and under-paid. This White Paper could be good for them too, as well as for the quantity and quality of the places we create. One very experienced London official said to me last year:
‘”I was brainwashed into the world of thinking that development control is planning but it isn’t. The plan-making exercise has been marginalised.”
A process which has clearer, more map-based, and more visual local plans, and better digital engagement, would free up planners better to support the public and not just be development control officers on a depressing and needless treadmill treating ever planning application as if it was bespoke. This would be good.
Implemented well, these proposals should help to move planning from a culture of fear to a culture of affirmation. We are heirs to beautiful towns, set in incomparable countryside. Our goal should be to pass that heritage to our successors, not depleted but enhanced. Quantity matters. But so does quality.
Some predictable voices came out very quickly criticising the report in blood-curdling terms. Most appear not to have read it, not to understand the politics or economics of development or to be so wedded to the 1940s approach that they refuse to countenance change, even when it is palpably and desperately needed. (To be fair, there are also some good questions emerging from the more thoughtful or less doctrinaire). But the ‘end of the world’ style critics (some of whom are not just shouty journalists but working for organisations that claim to care about planning and design) need to be able to answer these questions:
What is so different about how we live in England to most of the rest of the world that means we cannot plan strategically but have to focus on every decision case-by case?
Why do they think that the UK housing market is so concentrated? Might it possibly have anything to do with the near-unique way we run our chaotic planning system?
Why do they think there are so few self-builders in the UK?
The UK is a pretty entrepreneurial place: why is modular build struggling to take off?
Why should we not move to public engagement that is profoundly more digitally enabled?
If they don’t have convincing answers to these questions which don’t involve the high-risk nature of our planning system (and I have not seen any) then I would politely urge them to roll their sleeves up and help fill in the detail rather than just shouting ‘fire’ from the smokeless rooftops.


conservativehome--2020-08-08--Our survey. Almost 75 per cent of members predict a Conservative majority at the next General Electi

Our survey. Almost 75 per cent of members predict a Conservative majority at the next General Election.

While it seems a long way away – and the Government has many other things to worry about present – last month ConservativeHome asked its survey panel members what they think is the most likely outcome of the next General Election .
Out of 951 respondents , 74.24 per cent ( 706 ) answered a Conservative majority .
This was followed by 6.62 per cent ( 63 ) for a Labour majority ( and the same percentage for a Labour-led coalition ) , a minority Tory government at 5.47 per cent ( 52 ) , Tory-led coalition at 3.58 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government at 3.47 per cent ( 33 ) .
Although 75 per cent appears a rather confident estimate for the next General Election , it actually marks a slight shift from January this year , in which a bullish 92 per cent expected a Tory majority .
Obviously this was straight after Boris Johnson ’ s huge election victory in December last year , and a lot has changed , so it ’ s not all that surprising that the figure has dropped .
Even so , 75 per cent is no bad @ @ @ @ @

While it seems a long way away – and the Government has many other things to worry about present – last month ConservativeHome asked its survey panel members what they think is the most likely outcome of the next General Election.
Out of 951 respondents, 74.24 per cent (706) answered a Conservative majority. This was followed by 6.62 per cent (63) for a Labour majority (and the same percentage for a Labour-led coalition), a minority Tory government at 5.47 per cent (52), Tory-led coalition at 3.58 percent (34) and a minority Labour government at 3.47 per cent (33).
Although 75 per cent appears a rather confident estimate for the next General Election, it actually marks a slight shift from January this year, in which a bullish 92 per cent expected a Tory majority.
Obviously this was straight after Boris Johnson’s huge election victory in December last year, and a lot has changed, so it’s not all that surprising that the figure has dropped.
Even so, 75 per cent is no bad position to be in.


conservativehome--2020-08-09--Our survey. How Unionist are Conservative Party members?

In any given online discussion about Tory policy towards the Union , it is an iron law of the internet that someone will eventually pop up with a reminder that the official name of the Conservative Party is the Conservative and Unionist Party .
That ’ s true , of course , but it isn ’ t a determinist fact that a party ’ s name dictates what its members – or indeed its leadership – actually think .
Plenty of working people feel that Labour has become a parody rather than a fulfilment of its brand , for example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasingly complex , and subject to various ebbing and flowing events and tides of opinion .
Hence we sought in our most recent survey of Party members to gauge at least the headline calculation : how important is the maintenance of the Union ?
The good news for Unionists is that 55 per cent of respondents were unequivocal that the maintenance of the Union is of paramount political importance .
( It isn ’ t directly equivalent , but it is interesting to look back at the question we asked back in 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scotland to leave the Union , when the same share – 55 per cent – expressed varying degrees of concern about the damage such a separation would do . )
At the other end of the spectrum , only four per cent answered that maintaining the Union is “ not of political importance to me at all ” .
In the starkest terms , this is still very much a Unionist Party membership , therefore .
Between the two poles are some shades of grey , albeit still with a strong lean in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – seven per cent of those surveyed – felt that the Union is “ fairly unimportant to me , and less so than other political aims and objectives ” .
A much larger minority – over a third of respondents – answered that the Union is “ fairly important…but not as much as other political aims and objectives ” .
Together , that is 40 per cent who might in some circumstances be wobbly on the Union , were they forced into a choice .
The interesting question for Unionists and would-be separatists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Union for that subset of Tories , and what risk ( or chance , depending on your view ) is there of the two coming into conflict ?

In any given online discussion about Tory policy towards the Union, it is an iron law of the internet that someone will eventually pop up with a reminder that the official name of the Conservative Party is the Conservative and Unionist Party.
That’s true, of course, but it isn’t a determinist fact that a party’s name dictates what its members – or indeed its leadership – actually think. Plenty of working people feel that Labour has become a parody rather than a fulfilment of its brand, for example.
Conservative attitudes to the Union are increasingly complex, and subject to various ebbing and flowing events and tides of opinion. Hence we sought in our most recent survey of Party members to gauge at least the headline calculation: how important is the maintenance of the Union?
The good news for Unionists is that 55 per cent of respondents were unequivocal that the maintenance of the Union is of paramount political importance. (It isn’t directly equivalent, but it is interesting to look back at the question we asked back in 2017 about how Party members would feel were Scotland to leave the Union, when the same share – 55 per cent – expressed varying degrees of concern about the damage such a separation would do.)
At the other end of the spectrum, only four per cent answered that maintaining the Union is “not of political importance to me at all”.
In the starkest terms, this is still very much a Unionist Party membership, therefore.
Between the two poles are some shades of grey, albeit still with a strong lean in a pro-Union direction. A small minority – seven per cent of those surveyed – felt that the Union is “fairly unimportant to me, and less so than other political aims and objectives”. A much larger minority – over a third of respondents – answered that the Union is “fairly important…but not as much as other political aims and objectives”.
Together, that is 40 per cent who might in some circumstances be wobbly on the Union, were they forced into a choice.
The interesting question for Unionists and would-be separatists alike is what other political aims outweigh the Union for that subset of Tories, and what risk (or chance, depending on your view) is there of the two coming into conflict?


conservativehome--2020-08-10--With less than a month to reopen schools, Johnson needs Labour to back his message

Perhaps no one saw it coming , but the battle to reopen schools during the Coronavirus crisis has been one of the hardest for the Government .
This is partly as a result of the teaching unions , which have done everything they can to obstruct the plans , even telling schools not to engage with governmental proposals in June .
More recently the 450,000 member-strong National Education Union ( NEU ) has compiled a 25-page “ workplace checklist ” for schools , consisting of 200 demands .
The document has been criticised for being “ impossible ” to meet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the “ NEU needs to focus on finding solutions , not problems.
” Hear , hear .
With little under a month to go until schools are due to reopen , the extent to which Boris Johnson is concerned about the situation was obvious this weekend in his article for the Mail on Sunday .
He warned that keeping “ schools closed a moment longer than is absolutely necessary is socially intolerable , economically unsustainable and morally indefensible ” , adding that “ social justice demands ” their reopenings .
It was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour , spelling out the damage closures are doing , from socioeconomic to health implications .
While a recent YouGov poll found that 57 per cent of the British public thinks that schools should fully reopen over the summer holidays , a firm 25 per cent answered that they shouldn ’ t , and 18 per cent said “ not sure ” .
So Johnson is right to push the issue – today he is expected to visit a school , in which he will repeat his pledge that they must reopen , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drive from the Government .
In general , the problem the Government has is trying to emphasise encouraging statistics to the population , in regards to risk .
It has found it much easier to convey the dangers of the virus – and subsequent need to “ stay home ” – than the rationale for getting life back to normal .
In regards to schools , a lot of media coverage has focussed on a Lancet study , which said that without a proper track and trace programme , there could be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a worst case scenario assessment , yet it seems to have stuck in the nation ’ s mind , as have the predictions of scientists such as David King , formerly chief scientific adviser to the Government , who warned that “ we are nowhere near the point ” where school reopenings “ can be done safely ” .
This made several strong headlines , despite the fact King has been shown to oppose the Government generally .
The more in-depth evidence suggests that schools are one of the safest places to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children have extremely low risk of getting ill from Coronavirus ; a study of over 55,000 hospital patients found that only 0.8 per cent were under the age of 19 , and crucially they do not seem to transmit it in the same way as adults .
Research of Covid-19 in the French Alps showed that a child who tested positive for the virus did not give it to over 100 people they had contact with while having symptoms .
One reason Johnson has to feel particularly confident about school reopenings is extensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Paediatrics and Child Health across 100 institutions .
It showed that “ there is very little evidence ” of Coronavirus transmission where pupils have returned , and corroborated a separate review of 35 studies from around the world showing that children and schools only play a “ minor role ” in the spread of the disease .
Furthermore , there is the fact that many schools in Europe successfully reopened .
The UK was incredibly lucky in that it did not go first in this process , and thus could respond to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there had been mass outbreaks , you can bet that we would have heard about it .
That Europe has been successful in reopenings has largely been ignored in the media – and by the opposition .
Which brings us to one of Labour ’ s role in the schools crisis .
At the beginning of the pandemic , many people had hoped for a more united front between the two main parties in fighting the virus .
But Starmer has always schools as an opportunity to undermine the Government , recently telling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Coronavirus test-and-trace system in readiness for reopenings .
Kate Green , Labour ’ s Shadow Education Secretary , has already refused to say whether schools were safe , despite adding that it was “ essential ” for them to reopen – at a time when many parents and teachers need reassurances from all political sides .
Labour clearly thinks that this approach makes them look caring – extreme caution will always appear the most righteous route – and yet it ignores the evidence that schools can reopen safely , as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the long-term .
With the Government having published extensive guidelines to get schools open , alongside the increased data on children ’ s low transmission , there really should not be a delay in pressing ahead now .
And if Labour has objections , to echo Greening ’ s words , it must focus “ on finding solutions ” .
Surely that is not too much to ask .

Perhaps no one saw it coming, but the battle to reopen schools during the Coronavirus crisis has been one of the hardest for the Government. This is partly as a result of the teaching unions, which have done everything they can to obstruct the plans, even telling schools not to engage with governmental proposals in June.
More recently the 450,000 member-strong National Education Union (NEU) has compiled a 25-page “workplace checklist” for schools, consisting of 200 demands. The document has been criticised for being “impossible” to meet, with ex-Education Secretary Justine Greening saying that the “NEU needs to focus on finding solutions, not problems.” Hear, hear.
With little under a month to go until schools are due to reopen, the extent to which Boris Johnson is concerned about the situation was obvious this weekend in his article for the Mail on Sunday. He warned that keeping “schools closed a moment longer than is absolutely necessary is socially intolerable, economically unsustainable and morally indefensible”, adding that “social justice demands” their reopenings.
It was a dramatic plea to parents, and Labour, spelling out the damage closures are doing, from socioeconomic to health implications.
While a recent YouGov poll found that 57 per cent of the British public thinks that schools should fully reopen over the summer holidays, a firm 25 per cent answered that they shouldn’t, and 18 per cent said “not sure”. So Johnson is right to push the issue – today he is expected to visit a school, in which he will repeat his pledge that they must reopen, and there will also be a PR drive from the Government.
In general, the problem the Government has is trying to emphasise encouraging statistics to the population, in regards to risk. It has found it much easier to convey the dangers of the virus – and subsequent need to “stay home” – than the rationale for getting life back to normal.
In regards to schools, a lot of media coverage has focussed on a Lancet study, which said that without a proper track and trace programme, there could be a huge second wave of Covid-19. This was a worst case scenario assessment, yet it seems to have stuck in the nation’s mind, as have the predictions of scientists such as David King, formerly chief scientific adviser to the Government, who warned that “we are nowhere near the point” where school reopenings “can be done safely”. This made several strong headlines, despite the fact King has been shown to oppose the Government generally.
The more in-depth evidence suggests that schools are one of the safest places to reopen in society. Data indicates that children have extremely low risk of getting ill from Coronavirus; a study of over 55,000 hospital patients found that only 0.8 per cent were under the age of 19, and crucially they do not seem to transmit it in the same way as adults. Research of Covid-19 in the French Alps showed that a child who tested positive for the virus did not give it to over 100 people they had contact with while having symptoms.
One reason Johnson has to feel particularly confident about school reopenings is extensive research carried out by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health across 100 institutions. It showed that “there is very little evidence” of Coronavirus transmission where pupils have returned, and corroborated a separate review of 35 studies from around the world showing that children and schools only play a “minor role” in the spread of the disease.
Furthermore, there is the fact that many schools in Europe successfully reopened. The UK was incredibly lucky in that it did not go first in this process, and thus could respond to data coming from other countries; if there had been mass outbreaks, you can bet that we would have heard about it. That Europe has been successful in reopenings has largely been ignored in the media – and by the opposition.
Which brings us to one of Labour’s role in the schools crisis. At the beginning of the pandemic, many people had hoped for a more united front between the two main parties in fighting the virus. But Starmer has always schools as an opportunity to undermine the Government, recently telling ministers they have a month to fix the Coronavirus test-and-trace system in readiness for reopenings.
Kate Green, Labour’s Shadow Education Secretary, has already refused to say whether schools were safe, despite adding that it was “essential” for them to reopen – at a time when many parents and teachers need reassurances from all political sides. Labour clearly thinks that this approach makes them look caring – extreme caution will always appear the most righteous route – and yet it ignores the evidence that schools can reopen safely, as well as how devastating these closures will be in the long-term.
With the Government having published extensive guidelines to get schools open, alongside the increased data on children’s low transmission, there really should not be a delay in pressing ahead now. And if Labour has objections, to echo Greening’s words, it must focus “on finding solutions”. Surely that is not too much to ask.


conservativehome--2020-08-10--Neil O’Brien: Planning reform needs to be handled with care

The White Paper on planning is out .
Will it solve our housing crisis ?
Obviously , reforming planning can only be part of the solution .
For starters , half the issue is about demand , not just supply of new homes .
The government can shape demand : limiting immigration , using tax and credit policy to encourage funding to flow into businesses , not property speculation .
Likewise , declining homeownership reflects not just undersupply , but a choice to grow the rented sector with tax advantages .
Over the decade to 2016 we added 165,000 privately-owned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were transferred into the private rented sector .
So more homes were owned privately but by fewer people .
We could use tax to increase homeownership instead .
Even on the supply side , planning ’ s only part of the picture .
The Letwin Review highlighted how developers build out slowly to keep prices up .
Page 37 of the White Paper promises : “ we will explore further options to support faster build-out ” .
So this paper only covers one part of the housing picture .
But it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big ideas in it .
Most of them I like , but there are risks .
Making a local plan takes seven years on average , involving councils spending loads on consultants drawing up dozens of reports which no-one ever looks at again .
With plans up to 500 pages long and supporting documents up to ten times that , we can surely simplify .
The White Paper proposes a time limit on drawing up a plan ( 30 months ) and cutting the number of documents required .
Plans will be “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a good idea .
The risk is a backlash .
The paper notes that having all three of “ Strategic Environmental Assessment , Sustainability Appraisal , and Environmental Impact Assessment – can lead to duplication of effort and overly long reports which inhibit transparency and add unnecessary delays.
” But making things simpler without annoying conservation-minded voters will require care .
2 ) Simpler , more useful , developer contributions and ( maybe ) more benefit for the community .
At present “ Section 106 ” contributions made by developers are opaque @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toss over how much they ’ ll pay .
For builders , it ’ s like an Arabic carpet shop where you waste hours haggling just to find out the price .
But residents also lose out , because crazy rules constrain how funds for the community can be spent : so tightly , money is often returned to the developer .
The White Paper proposes replacing Section 106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy ( CIL ) – which only half of councils use – with a single , simpler levy .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25 per cent of revenues will stay in the parish they are raised in .
In principle , it ’ s great .
But the detail is key .
The paper is ambiguous about whether the new levy should raise more overall .
It should : my constituents are driven mad seeing developers making massive windfall profits while dumping onto taxpayers the cost of the necessary infrastructure for new homes .
The paper proposes setting a minimum amount of the levy to be spent on affordable housing .
I don ’ t agree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for themselves whether they want more social housing , or to spend more on new schools , bypasses or superfast broadband instead .
The paper ’ s lead option is to create a single , nationally-set levy , with one rate for the whole country .
Simple , but that would create big winners and losers .
The paper keeps open the option of a single levy , but councils still setting their own rate ( which sounds more sensible ) .
Extending the levy to homes created through change of use is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brownfield regeneration ?
Presently , councils spend ages and pots of cash working out how many homes they need to plan for .
Because of the difficult politics and risk of legal challenge , they hire a bunch of expensive consultants ( them again ) who basically take the ONS population forecast for the area , stick their finger in the air , do some magic , add and subtract a bit for various local factors and… often end up back where they started , around the ONS population forecast .
The White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will spit out a target number based on population growth , up-weighted for things like demand , but down-weighted for various local constraints like greenbelt .
It ’ s a bold move , as lots of councils and MPs will argue with whatever figures the national formula spits out for them .
The actual formula will be key to whether it succeeds or leads to a backlash : I ’ ve argued before for increasing the numbers in inner urban areas for environmental reasons and deliverability .
It might be wise to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ valve to let councils propose their own approaches : some will always have idiosyncratic factors which aren ’ t in the national formula .
The most novel idea in the paper , “ zoning ” , is the one that I ’ m most unsure about .
Zoning is common around the world , but means very different things in different countries .
Page 25 of the paper proposes a wide range of options .
The basic idea is that sites put in the local plan for development will be taken to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is unnecessary : they don ’ t refuse planning permission on sites they ’ ve put in their plans .
Some campaigners , in contrast , take this as signalling the start of a planning “ free for all ” .
But the paper is clear that councils will be able to set , for each site , outline controls over things like the heights and density of buildings .
My concern is that because it will be harder to say yes or no to a specific design , councils may feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules upfront to control development .
In my experience as a constituency MP , as much of the concern about new homes is driven by ( legitimate ) concerns about flooding , parking , traffic and construction as the actual new homes .
Limiting councils ’ discretion in some ways , but not in others , could lead to a lot of fuss for little real change .
The lead option in the paper creates a new middle category of “ renewal ” areas , where development is not approved or forbidden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things like densification .
Gentle densification can be good , but I ’ m sceptical such changes can be waved through in principle , rather than looking case by case .
There are some underplayed aspects of the paper .
It notes that 50 per cent of councils don ’ t have a plan , but doesn ’ t say much new about handling councils that won ’ t adopt one .
It ’ s silent on how large developers lock out small builders through opaque land optioning .
More than anything I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasons why voters oppose new development : that we build piecemeal , on the kind of infill sites on the edges of villages and towns that most annoy people .
That we combine some of the least dense cities in Europe and the most geographically unbalanced economy .
The housing problem can ’ t be solved in isolation , and we need a vision of where we are to build , not just a formula .
The White Paper is a radical document .
There are some great things in it , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of thought and careful handling .

Neil O’Brien is MP for Harborough.
The White Paper on planning is out. Will it solve our housing crisis?
Obviously, reforming planning can only be part of the solution.
For starters, half the issue is about demand, not just supply of new homes. The government can shape demand: limiting immigration, using tax and credit policy to encourage funding to flow into businesses, not property speculation.
Likewise, declining homeownership reflects not just undersupply, but a choice to grow the rented sector with tax advantages. Over the decade to 2016 we added 165,000 privately-owned homes a year. But 195,000 homes were transferred into the private rented sector. So more homes were owned privately but by fewer people. We could use tax to increase homeownership instead.
Even on the supply side, planning’s only part of the picture. The Letwin Review highlighted how developers build out slowly to keep prices up. Page 37 of the White Paper promises: “we will explore further options to support faster build-out”.
So this paper only covers one part of the housing picture.
But it’s still important, and there are four big ideas in it.
Most of them I like, but there are risks.
1) Faster, simpler plan making.
Making a local plan takes seven years on average, involving councils spending loads on consultants drawing up dozens of reports which no-one ever looks at again. With plans up to 500 pages long and supporting documents up to ten times that, we can surely simplify.
The White Paper proposes a time limit on drawing up a plan (30 months) and cutting the number of documents required. Plans will be “two thirds” shorter.
It’s a good idea. The risk is a backlash. The paper notes that having all three of “Strategic Environmental Assessment, Sustainability Appraisal, and Environmental Impact Assessment – can lead to duplication of effort and overly long reports which inhibit transparency and add unnecessary delays.” But making things simpler without annoying conservation-minded voters will require care.
2) Simpler, more useful, developer contributions and (maybe) more benefit for the community.
At present “Section 106” contributions made by developers are opaque, and developers spend yonks arguing the toss over how much they’ll pay. For builders, it’s like an Arabic carpet shop where you waste hours haggling just to find out the price.
But residents also lose out, because crazy rules constrain how funds for the community can be spent: so tightly, money is often returned to the developer.
The White Paper proposes replacing Section 106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) – which only half of councils use – with a single, simpler levy. A welcome part of the proposal is that 25 per cent of revenues will stay in the parish they are raised in.
In principle, it’s great. But the detail is key. The paper is ambiguous about whether the new levy should raise more overall. It should: my constituents are driven mad seeing developers making massive windfall profits while dumping onto taxpayers the cost of the necessary infrastructure for new homes.
The paper proposes setting a minimum amount of the levy to be spent on affordable housing. I don’t agree. Councils should be able to choose for themselves whether they want more social housing, or to spend more on new schools, bypasses or superfast broadband instead.
The paper’s lead option is to create a single, nationally-set levy, with one rate for the whole country. Simple, but that would create big winners and losers. The paper keeps open the option of a single levy, but councils still setting their own rate (which sounds more sensible).
Extending the levy to homes created through change of use is questionable: do we want to tax brownfield regeneration?
3) Simpler, faster assessment of need.
Presently, councils spend ages and pots of cash working out how many homes they need to plan for. Because of the difficult politics and risk of legal challenge, they hire a bunch of expensive consultants (them again) who basically take the ONS population forecast for the area, stick their finger in the air, do some magic, add and subtract a bit for various local factors and… often end up back where they started, around the ONS population forecast.
The White Paper proposes a more standardised formula which will spit out a target number based on population growth, up-weighted for things like demand, but down-weighted for various local constraints like greenbelt.
It’s a bold move, as lots of councils and MPs will argue with whatever figures the national formula spits out for them. The actual formula will be key to whether it succeeds or leads to a backlash: I’ve argued before for increasing the numbers in inner urban areas for environmental reasons and deliverability. It might be wise to have a bit of flexibility as a safety valve to let councils propose their own approaches: some will always have idiosyncratic factors which aren’t in the national formula.
4) Zoning.
The most novel idea in the paper, “zoning”, is the one that I’m most unsure about. Zoning is common around the world, but means very different things in different countries. Page 25 of the paper proposes a wide range of options.
The basic idea is that sites put in the local plan for development will be taken to have outline planning permission. Many councils say this is unnecessary: they don’t refuse planning permission on sites they’ve put in their plans.
Some campaigners, in contrast, take this as signalling the start of a planning “free for all”. But the paper is clear that councils will be able to set, for each site, outline controls over things like the heights and density of buildings.
My concern is that because it will be harder to say yes or no to a specific design, councils may feel they just have to set more prescriptive rules upfront to control development.
In my experience as a constituency MP, as much of the concern about new homes is driven by (legitimate) concerns about flooding, parking, traffic and construction as the actual new homes. Limiting councils’ discretion in some ways, but not in others, could lead to a lot of fuss for little real change.
The lead option in the paper creates a new middle category of “renewal” areas, where development is not approved or forbidden, but there is a statutory presumption for things like densification. Gentle densification can be good, but I’m sceptical such changes can be waved through in principle, rather than looking case by case.
There are some underplayed aspects of the paper. It notes that 50 per cent of councils don’t have a plan, but doesn’t say much new about handling councils that won’t adopt one. It’s silent on how large developers lock out small builders through opaque land optioning.
More than anything I would welcome more consideration of the underlying reasons why voters oppose new development: that we build piecemeal, on the kind of infill sites on the edges of villages and towns that most annoy people. That we combine some of the least dense cities in Europe and the most geographically unbalanced economy. The housing problem can’t be solved in isolation, and we need a vision of where we are to build, not just a formula.
The White Paper is a radical document. There are some great things in it, but it contains some ideas that need a lot of thought and careful handling.


conservativehome--2020-08-10--Robert Halfon: Here’s how ministers can make an apprenticeship guarantee a reality

As a new CSJ report on apprenticeships shows , apprenticeships change lives .
Combining a real job with training , apprentices earn while they learn .
They span a huge range of sectors – not just the important traditional heartlands of engineering and manufacturing , but finance , software design and the green economy , too .
The returns are extraordinary for all involved : apprentices go on to have excellent employment prospects , businesses benefit from new expertise , and every £1 invested in level three apprenticeships brings a £28 return to the economy .
Apprenticeships are about as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I was over the moon when the Prime Minister recently expressed his support for an apprenticeship guarantee – something I have been campaigning for over many years .
An ambitious interpretation is now needed : we should work towards being able to guarantee that any young person who wants an apprenticeship , and who has the right skills and qualifications to do one , can make it happen .
Of course , this will not be possible from day one , but I ’ d like to highlight a number of areas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
First , small businesses must be supported to take on apprentices .
The Chancellor took an historic and brave decision to protect businesses , particularly smaller ones , during lockdown .
Now we can bring those businesses together with the extraordinary talent of our young people to develop new growth opportunities .
There really is potential here : tens of thousands of small businesses want to set up apprenticeships but can not afford the training costs associated with this .
We don ’ t need to stimulate demand here – it already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it free , and the Government has the power to make this happen by supporting their training costs .
Second , ministers should use the levy as a strategic tool to close the skills deficit .
This means refocusing the levy pot so that it primarily is used on apprenticeships for 16 to 24-year-olds and those from disadvantaged backgrounds .
Third , the public sector should set a stronger example .
Apprentices in the NHS , and in other front-line services , did an incredible job during the pandemic .
Building on this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher public sector apprenticeship target than the existing 2.3 percent .
Public sector recruiters also have to be innovative in how they meet emerging needs by taking on apprentices , and we must hold them to account .
Moreover , public procurement contracts with big companies should be conditional on the number of apprentices they employ , particularly as we start to roll out the exciting flurry of new infrastructure projects that have been announced .
Fourth , we need more degree apprenticeships – my two favourite words in the English language .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as there are for other businesses and education institutions .
But there is also no better time to embrace a change that has been needed for some time .
As practically-focused programmes ( like the University of Essex ’ s collaboration with Edge Hotel School ) show , the best graduates for industry are those who have fused theory with practice .
Over the next decade , universities should work towards a target of 50 percent of their students undertaking degree-level apprenticeships .
A new round of the Degree Apprenticeship Development Fund @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But we must also make sure people know about apprenticeships and for this to happen , a more ambitious approach to careers advice is needed : proper enforcement of the Baker Clause , a UCAS-style system for Further Education , Skills and Apprenticeships , and more detailed destinations data .
Some will say that it won ’ t be possible to realise my ambition .
It is , of course , easier to point out the obstacles that lie in our path than it is to remove them .
But as Sir Nicholas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not impossible , there must be a way to do it.
” Ultimately , there is nothing inevitable about our current approach ; we crafted it and , with the right will , ambition and imagination , we can easily choose to rebuild it .
As the furlough scheme showed , we are perfectly capable of exercising all three .
Apprenticeships should be placed where they belong – right at the core of our approach to learning and training .
There are few better ways to climb the ladder of opportunity @

As a new CSJ report on apprenticeships shows, apprenticeships change lives. Combining a real job with training, apprentices earn while they learn.
They span a huge range of sectors – not just the important traditional heartlands of engineering and manufacturing, but finance, software design and the green economy, too.
The returns are extraordinary for all involved: apprentices go on to have excellent employment prospects, businesses benefit from new expertise, and every £1 invested in level three apprenticeships brings a £28 return to the economy. Apprenticeships are about as close to a win-win as it gets.
I was over the moon when the Prime Minister recently expressed his support for an apprenticeship guarantee – something I have been campaigning for over many years. An ambitious interpretation is now needed: we should work towards being able to guarantee that any young person who wants an apprenticeship, and who has the right skills and qualifications to do one, can make it happen.
Of course, this will not be possible from day one, but I’d like to highlight a number of areas that I think need the most attention.
First, small businesses must be supported to take on apprentices. The Chancellor took an historic and brave decision to protect businesses, particularly smaller ones, during lockdown. Now we can bring those businesses together with the extraordinary talent of our young people to develop new growth opportunities.
There really is potential here: tens of thousands of small businesses want to set up apprenticeships but cannot afford the training costs associated with this. We don’t need to stimulate demand here – it already exists. We just need to set it free, and the Government has the power to make this happen by supporting their training costs.
Second, ministers should use the levy as a strategic tool to close the skills deficit. This means refocusing the levy pot so that it primarily is used on apprenticeships for 16 to 24-year-olds and those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Third, the public sector should set a stronger example. Apprentices in the NHS, and in other front-line services, did an incredible job during the pandemic. Building on this fine legacy starts with setting a much higher public sector apprenticeship target than the existing 2.3 percent. Public sector recruiters also have to be innovative in how they meet emerging needs by taking on apprentices, and we must hold them to account.
Moreover, public procurement contracts with big companies should be conditional on the number of apprentices they employ, particularly as we start to roll out the exciting flurry of new infrastructure projects that have been announced.
Fourth, we need more degree apprenticeships – my two favourite words in the English language. There are tough times ahead for universities, as there are for other businesses and education institutions. But there is also no better time to embrace a change that has been needed for some time. As practically-focused programmes (like the University of Essex’s collaboration with Edge Hotel School) show, the best graduates for industry are those who have fused theory with practice.
Over the next decade, universities should work towards a target of 50 percent of their students undertaking degree-level apprenticeships. A new round of the Degree Apprenticeship Development Fund would create more programmes like these.
But we must also make sure people know about apprenticeships and for this to happen, a more ambitious approach to careers advice is needed: proper enforcement of the Baker Clause, a UCAS-style system for Further Education, Skills and Apprenticeships, and more detailed destinations data.
Some will say that it won’t be possible to realise my ambition. It is, of course, easier to point out the obstacles that lie in our path than it is to remove them. But as Sir Nicholas Winton once said: “If it’s not impossible, there must be a way to do it.”
Ultimately, there is nothing inevitable about our current approach; we crafted it and, with the right will, ambition and imagination, we can easily choose to rebuild it. As the furlough scheme showed, we are perfectly capable of exercising all three. Apprenticeships should be placed where they belong – right at the core of our approach to learning and training. There are few better ways to climb the ladder of opportunity.


conservativehome--2020-08-10--John Moss: Khan has failed to deliver on housing. The Government should switch to funding the London

John Moss: Khan has failed to deliver on housing. The Government should switch to funding the London boroughs instead.

Cllr John Moss is a councillor in Waltham Forest and a former Parliamentary Candidate .
Sadiq Khan has failed miserably to deliver on the building of new homes in London .
We are now three months beyond the point that his term of office was supposed to come to an end .
But he has not even begun to build half of the 116,000 new homes he promised to deliver at the beginning of his Mayoral term .
This despite getting a record grant from the Government of almost £5 billion to do so .
He now has his begging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money to keep these projects alive .
But why should the Government throw even more money at him when he has clearly failed ?
Instead , the Government should look to organisations that are actually delivering homes .
Councils and Housing Associations .
Councils in London have received more than £2.75 billion from Right to Buy sales since the scheme was re-invigorated in 2012 .
However , they have only built just under 10,000 replacement homes with this funding .
And the delivery rate is slowing , down to under 400 from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Councils were badly affected by George Osborne ’ s policy of cutting rents by one per cent a year announced in 2016 and this played a big role in councils shelving many of their plans .
But a bigger factor is that they are barred from funding more than 30 per cent of the construction cost from these receipts .
I argued with Gavin Barwell in 2016 that the effect of the rent cut could be offset by allowing councils to fund 50 per cent of the cost from RtB funds .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this is still a good idea .
In addition , the Government should give grants directly to councils .
Cut out the middleman Mayor .
These grants , together with the long-term , low-interest rate loans that councils can access , would comfortably cover the other 50 per cent of construction costs .
Specifically , for London , I would also remove the cash cap of £112,300 from Right to Buy discounts , but limit this to 50 per cent of value .
Against this , a stronger and stricter clawback policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of those sales .
However , this would potentially increase the number of sales in higher value locations and in doing so increase the funding available to build new , available homes where they are most needed .
The Government should also offer a similar deal to Housing Associations .
If they can build , give them the grants directly that they now have to apply for from the Mayor , and offer them the same long-term , low-interest rate loans that they currently give to councils through the Public Works Loan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another policy off this offer .
There have been valiant attempts to extend Right to Buy to Housing Associations , but these have fallen foul of Government accounting rules and a concerted effort to lobby against the change .
However , it remains a good thing to allow people who want to buy the home they live in , rather than forcing them to incur the cost of moving .
The Government could , as a condition of those loans , require HAs to offer a Right to Buy scheme of their choosing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a “ rent to buy ” scheme operating like a repayment mortgage .
In simple terms , tenants would be encouraged to overpay their rent by a small amount , say £100 a month .
This amount would be matched by the Government and the Housing Association and converted to an equity stake at the end of each year .
This , in turn , would reduce the amount of rent the tenant was liable for , so helping to increase the overpayment .
Overtime , the tenant transitions through shared ownership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Housing Association has , probably , got its money back and the Government has helped another household fulfil the dream of home ownership .
Cut out the middleman Mayor , go straight to the people who want to build , and help people who want to buy their home .
What ’ s not to like ?

Cllr John Moss is a councillor in Waltham Forest and a former Parliamentary Candidate.
Sadiq Khan has failed miserably to deliver on the building of new homes in London. We are now three months beyond the point that his term of office was supposed to come to an end. But he has not even begun to build half of the 116,000 new homes he promised to deliver at the beginning of his Mayoral term. This despite getting a record grant from the Government of almost £5 billion to do so.
He now has his begging bowl out again, asking for more money to keep these projects alive. But why should the Government throw even more money at him when he has clearly failed?
Instead, the Government should look to organisations that are actually delivering homes. Councils and Housing Associations.
Councils in London have received more than £2.75 billion from Right to Buy sales since the scheme was re-invigorated in 2012. However, they have only built just under 10,000 replacement homes with this funding. And the delivery rate is slowing, down to under 400 from a peak of nearly 900 in 2017/18. Councils were badly affected by George Osborne’s policy of cutting rents by one per cent a year announced in 2016 and this played a big role in councils shelving many of their plans. But a bigger factor is that they are barred from funding more than 30 per cent of the construction cost from these receipts.
I argued with Gavin Barwell in 2016 that the effect of the rent cut could be offset by allowing councils to fund 50 per cent of the cost from RtB funds. Even with the rent regime restored to sanity, this is still a good idea.
In addition, the Government should give grants directly to councils. Cut out the middleman Mayor. These grants, together with the long-term, low-interest rate loans that councils can access, would comfortably cover the other 50 per cent of construction costs.
Specifically, for London, I would also remove the cash cap of £112,300 from Right to Buy discounts, but limit this to 50 per cent of value. Against this, a stronger and stricter clawback policy would need to be included in the terms of those sales. However, this would potentially increase the number of sales in higher value locations and in doing so increase the funding available to build new, available homes where they are most needed.
The Government should also offer a similar deal to Housing Associations. If they can build, give them the grants directly that they now have to apply for from the Mayor, and offer them the same long-term, low-interest rate loans that they currently give to councils through the Public Works Loan Board.
The Government could then lever another policy off this offer.
There have been valiant attempts to extend Right to Buy to Housing Associations, but these have fallen foul of Government accounting rules and a concerted effort to lobby against the change. However, it remains a good thing to allow people who want to buy the home they live in, rather than forcing them to incur the cost of moving. The Government could, as a condition of those loans, require HAs to offer a Right to Buy scheme of their choosing.
One option that could be explored is a “rent to buy” scheme operating like a repayment mortgage. In simple terms, tenants would be encouraged to overpay their rent by a small amount, say £100 a month. This amount would be matched by the Government and the Housing Association and converted to an equity stake at the end of each year. This, in turn, would reduce the amount of rent the tenant was liable for, so helping to increase the overpayment. Overtime, the tenant transitions through shared ownership to being a full owner, the Housing Association has, probably, got its money back and the Government has helped another household fulfil the dream of home ownership.
Cut out the middleman Mayor, go straight to the people who want to build, and help people who want to buy their home. What’s not to like?


conservativehome--2020-08-11--Andy Street: The West Midlands is rising to the challenge of building a better future

Andy Street is Mayor of the West Midlands , and is a former Managing Director of John Lewis .
A few weeks ago , in the West Midlands , the Prime Minister sent out a clarion call to construction – with his plan to get Britain building .
Against the backdrop of Dudley College ’ s Advance II campus , the PM announced the fast-tracking of £5 billion of major projects that would help the nation build its way back to health .
The West Midlands was the perfect place to set out this plan – because we are already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better future , pioneering new technologies to create vital jobs and build more homes .
Weeks before , our region had set out its own long-term blueprint for recovery .
It requires significant investment from the Government – £3.2 billion over the next three years – covering everything from construction to the automotive sector and investing in skills .
Broadly in line with the £2.7 billion investment we have secured since 2017 , our ambitious blueprint reflects our economic success of recent years .
For the UK to fully recover , all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a stronger country with a more robust , balanced economy .
Our plan is an example of confident regional leadership setting out what it needs to bounce back .
Last week we saw the Government endorse that ambition .
The vital funding we need began to flow , with £66 million from the Government ’ s Get Britain Building fund , for a package of eight “ shovel ready ” schemes here .
Crucially , all eight projects will make an immediate difference by helping to create and secure jobs for local people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in our future , to cement the West Midlands ’ place as a global leader in green and clean technology , life sciences , transport of the future , and construction .
The schemes form part of our region ’ s blueprint for recovery , drawn up by the West Midlands Combined Authority and our constituent members .
With this extra money , we can get started on them straight away , creating thousands of jobs and generating further investment .
They also encapsulate what I have been trying to achieve as Mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foremost , before a spade hits the ground , they show how the people of the West Midlands have built a formidable team .
By working together as a region , our member boroughs of Birmingham , Coventry , Dudley , Sandwell , Solihull , Walsall and Wolverhampton always achieve far better results .
Our three Local Enterprise Partnerships authored the latest bids for Government money , backed to the hilt by our seven councils .
Where in the past competing local interests may have undermined each other , these latest schemes present @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is key to my role as mayor , bringing different councils , local enterprise partnerships , business groups and the teams behind individual schemes together to fashion a compelling , united pitch .
Second , these projects focus on the creation of high-quality jobs , which are so vital as we plot our economic recovery post Coronavirus .
We know a dynamic life sciences sector can play a key part in the economic future of the West Midlands .
An investment of £10 million will provide innovation spaces and research laboratories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our region ’ s role as a test bed for the new 5G network provides another opportunity , and investment will help small and medium sized business to develop ground-breaking 5G apps .
There is also investment to ensure the region reaps long-term job benefits from two major events on the horizon .
Coventry City of Culture will get £6 million to support various initiatives to make the most of the opportunities presented by next year ’ s celebrations – including the building of a new heritage park .
And we are ensuring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2022 extends across the region , with £3.9 million towards constructing improved facilities at the Ricoh Arena , again in Coventry .
Thirdly , these quick-turnaround schemes will significantly push forward my long-term transport plan for the region .
Following on from the rebuilding of Coventry and Wolverhampton stations , £15 million will help redevelop University Station in Edgbaston , which is one of the busiest stations in the West Midlands and will be a key gateway for visitors for the Commonwealth Games .
In the Black Country , a new Very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of transport which are both green , cheaper and quicker to deliver than traditional tram or rail .
More investment will see this technology transform public transport in Coventry .
Finally , and perhaps most tangibly , last week ’ s announcement recognises the West Midland ’ s achievements in house building and provides the investment needed to lay the foundations for a new era in home construction here .
Before Coronavirus hit , our region was building record numbers of homes , achieving results considerably above the national average .
At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brownfield first ” policy .
I make no bones about my belief in the need to always target brownfield sites when it comes to new developments , regenerating derelict areas to ease the pressure on our Green Belt and open spaces .
We have shown that this is a viable policy .
It removes contaminated eyesores , rejuvenates communities and protects the environment .
The exciting investment in the National Brownfield Institute at Wolverhampton will cement our position as a national leader in remediation and construction technology , ensuring we have the local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need .
With efforts now being made to speed up the planning process , the West Midlands stands ready to develop the technology and new skills needed to get Britain building .
As we continue to tackle the Coronavirus pandemic , we face significant challenges on the road to recovery , not least the threat of a fluctuating “ R rate ” and further lockdowns .
Yet construction – an industry used to stringent safety measures and better suited to social distancing – is a sector that can kickstart our economy .
By @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government has begun to deliver the investment we need .

Andy Street is Mayor of the West Midlands, and is a former Managing Director of John Lewis.
A few weeks ago, in the West Midlands, the Prime Minister sent out a clarion call to construction – with his plan to get Britain building. Against the backdrop of Dudley College’s Advance II campus, the PM announced the fast-tracking of £5 billion of major projects that would help the nation build its way back to health.
The West Midlands was the perfect place to set out this plan – because we are already rising to the challenge of building a better future, pioneering new technologies to create vital jobs and build more homes.
Weeks before, our region had set out its own long-term blueprint for recovery. It requires significant investment from the Government – £3.2 billion over the next three years – covering everything from construction to the automotive sector and investing in skills.
Broadly in line with the £2.7 billion investment we have secured since 2017, our ambitious blueprint reflects our economic success of recent years. For the UK to fully recover, all of its regions must recover too – creating a stronger country with a more robust, balanced economy. Our plan is an example of confident regional leadership setting out what it needs to bounce back.
Last week we saw the Government endorse that ambition. The vital funding we need began to flow, with £66 million from the Government’s Get Britain Building fund, for a package of eight “shovel ready” schemes here.
Crucially, all eight projects will make an immediate difference by helping to create and secure jobs for local people. This money is also an investment in our future, to cement the West Midlands’ place as a global leader in green and clean technology, life sciences, transport of the future, and construction.
The schemes form part of our region’s blueprint for recovery, drawn up by the West Midlands Combined Authority and our constituent members. With this extra money, we can get started on them straight away, creating thousands of jobs and generating further investment.
They also encapsulate what I have been trying to achieve as Mayor of the West Midlands.
First and foremost, before a spade hits the ground, they show how the people of the West Midlands have built a formidable team.
By working together as a region, our member boroughs of Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton always achieve far better results. Our three Local Enterprise Partnerships authored the latest bids for Government money, backed to the hilt by our seven councils. Where in the past competing local interests may have undermined each other, these latest schemes present a shared vision that will benefit all.
This is key to my role as mayor, bringing different councils, local enterprise partnerships, business groups and the teams behind individual schemes together to fashion a compelling, united pitch.
Second, these projects focus on the creation of high-quality jobs, which are so vital as we plot our economic recovery post Coronavirus.
We know a dynamic life sciences sector can play a key part in the economic future of the West Midlands. An investment of £10 million will provide innovation spaces and research laboratories at the Birmingham Health Innovation Campus. Our region’s role as a test bed for the new 5G network provides another opportunity, and investment will help small and medium sized business to develop ground-breaking 5G apps.
There is also investment to ensure the region reaps long-term job benefits from two major events on the horizon. Coventry City of Culture will get £6 million to support various initiatives to make the most of the opportunities presented by next year’s celebrations – including the building of a new heritage park. And we are ensuring the legacy of the Birmingham Commonwealth Games in 2022 extends across the region, with £3.9 million towards constructing improved facilities at the Ricoh Arena, again in Coventry.
Thirdly, these quick-turnaround schemes will significantly push forward my long-term transport plan for the region. Following on from the rebuilding of Coventry and Wolverhampton stations, £15 million will help redevelop University Station in Edgbaston, which is one of the busiest stations in the West Midlands and will be a key gateway for visitors for the Commonwealth Games.
In the Black Country, a new Very Light Rail Innovation Centre will develop modes of transport which are both green, cheaper and quicker to deliver than traditional tram or rail. More investment will see this technology transform public transport in Coventry.
Finally, and perhaps most tangibly, last week’s announcement recognises the West Midland’s achievements in house building and provides the investment needed to lay the foundations for a new era in home construction here.
Before Coronavirus hit, our region was building record numbers of homes, achieving results considerably above the national average. At the root of that success was our “brownfield first” policy.
I make no bones about my belief in the need to always target brownfield sites when it comes to new developments, regenerating derelict areas to ease the pressure on our Green Belt and open spaces. We have shown that this is a viable policy. It removes contaminated eyesores, rejuvenates communities and protects the environment.
The exciting investment in the National Brownfield Institute at Wolverhampton will cement our position as a national leader in remediation and construction technology, ensuring we have the local skilled workforce to build the homes we need.
With efforts now being made to speed up the planning process, the West Midlands stands ready to develop the technology and new skills needed to get Britain building.
As we continue to tackle the Coronavirus pandemic, we face significant challenges on the road to recovery, not least the threat of a fluctuating “R rate” and further lockdowns. Yet construction – an industry used to stringent safety measures and better suited to social distancing – is a sector that can kickstart our economy.
By backing these eight shovel-ready schemes, the Government has begun to deliver the investment we need.


conservativehome--2020-08-11--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Civil Service Commissioners – and more

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ The Commissioners form the Board of the Civil Service Commission and bring a range of experience of the private , public and voluntary sectors .
They bring an independent perspective to ensure a high performing Civil Service is well placed to meet the challenges of the future .
We are looking to build a diverse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drawn from a range of backgrounds .
Taking account of the backgrounds of the Commissioners whose term of office expired recently and those who will be standing down in the next period , we would ideally appoint at least four Commissioners who have considerable private sector experience.
” Home Office – Her Majesty ’ s Inspectorate of Constabulary and of Fire & Rescue Authorities “ HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services ( HMICFRS ) is an independent body that inspects and reports to the public on the efficiency and effectiveness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , fire and rescue authorities in England and national law enforcement agencies .
It aims to ensure that the public and their elected representatives can hold inspected organisations to account by monitoring trends , challenging practice and identifying areas for improvement , and making performance information accessible .
The principal role of HMICFRS is undertaking the all-force inspections of policing in England and Wales , and of all fire & rescue authorities in England ; providing the public with a clear , consistent and independent view of the quality of services in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee ( JNCC ) Framework Document provides the legal , administrative and financial framework within which the Joint Committee operates and the specific functions of the Committee and the Chair .
As Chair you will be responsible to the Defra Secretary of State for the leadership , direction and effectiveness of JNCC in line with strategies and plans agreed with Defra and the Devolved Administrations .
You will be the primary contact with Ministers for the Committee .
You will provide visible leadership and vision for JNCC , setting strategic and operational direction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Joint Committee , holding the executive to account.
” “ Environmental Standards Scotland will be established , initially , on a non-statutory basis from January 2021 .
It will transition to a statutory , independent body over the course of 2021 .
The Board will initially comprise of the Chair and two other members .
Once Environmental Standards Scotland becomes established as a statutory organisation , further board appointments are expected .
Members of the Board of Environmental Standards Scotland will shape how the Board performs its role , including by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; selecting environmental concerns for initial review and for detailed investigation ; resolving these through agreement with public authorities , where possible ; and , highlighting any significant issues to Ministers.
” Time : 8-10 days per month initially , ~4 per month thereafter .
“ This role is therefore an extraordinary opportunity for an individual who is passionate about the success of the BFI and the wider British film/screen industry , and who has a track record of board leadership , to support the next chapter of British film and the continued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ selected Board Chair will be expected to work alongside the recently appointed CEO in shaping and delivering an emerging vision for the sectors ’ recovery from Covid-19 , and long-term success thereafter .
To do so , the selected Board Chair must have achieved leadership stature in the film industry , business , a major charitable or cultural institution , or government.
” Time : Up to two days per month .
“ The Secretary of State for Digital , Culture , Media and Sport is seeking to appoint an outstanding individual to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fund .
Applications are welcomed from underrepresented groups to ensure the National Lottery Community Fund reflects the diverse society it serves .
The Fund is currently supporting communities across the UK to adjust to and recover from the coronavirus crisis .
It is also a time when the Fund has gone through a period of investment and development , making it well placed to deliver our ambitious plans to achieve the Fund ’ s purpose : supporting people and communities thrive .
The Fund has many of the building blocks in place to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and public life .
Our contribution is as varied as it is vital.
” Time : Up to two days per week .
“ Her Majesty ’ s Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service is supported by an inspectorate : Her Majesty ’ s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate ( HMCPSI ) .
The inspectorate provides independently assessed evidence about the operation , efficiency , and effectiveness of the public prosecutors ( the Crown Prosecution Service ( CPS ) and the Serious Fraud Office ( SFO ) ) .
The purpose of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow the public prosecutors to be held to account and to improve , thereby strengthening the public ’ s trust in the prosecution process .
Her Majesty ’ s Chief Inspector and the inspectorate may inspect other prosecuting authorities by invitation.
” “ The Commissioner operates as a corporation sole , sponsored by the Department for Education and is appointed by the Secretary of State for Education .
The Commissioner ’ s primary function is promoting and protecting the rights of children in England .
The legislative basis for the office of Children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Schedule 1 of the Children Act 2004 .
This establishes the independence of the office and the six year tenure of the post holder .
The legislation relating to the Children ’ s Commissioner is permissive , allowing significant flexibility for the Commissioner to determine how best to carry out his or her primary function of promoting and protecting children ’ s rights .
The Commissioner is not an Ombudsman and , in general , can not conduct investigations into the case of an individual child .
”

Eight years ago, the TaxPayers’ Alliance reported that “in the last year, five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories”.
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party, compared to less than a third for the Conservatives.
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts, over time, the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments. One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply don’t apply in the same number as Labour supporters.
To help remedy this, each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies, so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented.
– – – – – – – – – –
Civil Service Commission – Commissioners
“The Commissioners form the Board of the Civil Service Commission and bring a range of experience of the private, public and voluntary sectors. They bring an independent perspective to ensure a high performing Civil Service is well placed to meet the challenges of the future.
We are looking to build a diverse Board, with members whose experience is drawn from a range of backgrounds. Taking account of the backgrounds of the Commissioners whose term of office expired recently and those who will be standing down in the next period, we would ideally appoint at least four Commissioners who have considerable private sector experience.”
Time: 40 days a year on average
Remuneration: £400 per day
Closes: 14 August
– – – – – – – – – –
Home Office – Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and of Fire & Rescue Authorities
“HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) is an independent body that inspects and reports to the public on the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces in England and Wales, fire and rescue authorities in England and national law enforcement agencies. It aims to ensure that the public and their elected representatives can hold inspected organisations to account by monitoring trends, challenging practice and identifying areas for improvement, and making performance information accessible. The principal role of HMICFRS is undertaking the all-force inspections of policing in England and Wales, and of all fire & rescue authorities in England; providing the public with a clear, consistent and independent view of the quality of services in their local area.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: £175,000 per annum.
Closes: 17 August
– – – – – – – – – –
Joint Nature Conservation Committee – Chair
“Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Framework Document provides the legal, administrative and financial framework within which the Joint Committee operates and the specific functions of the Committee and the Chair. As Chair you will be responsible to the Defra Secretary of State for the leadership, direction and effectiveness of JNCC in line with strategies and plans agreed with Defra and the Devolved Administrations. You will be the primary contact with Ministers for the Committee. You will provide visible leadership and vision for JNCC, setting strategic and operational direction, ensuring good governance and, together with the Joint Committee, holding the executive to account.”
Time: 2.5 days per week.
Remuneration: £40,059 per annum.
Closes: 03 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Environmental Standards Scotland – Chair/Members
“Environmental Standards Scotland will be established, initially, on a non-statutory basis from January 2021. It will transition to a statutory, independent body over the course of 2021. The Board will initially comprise of the Chair and two other members. Once Environmental Standards Scotland becomes established as a statutory organisation, further board appointments are expected. Members of the Board of Environmental Standards Scotland will shape how the Board performs its role, including by exercising judgement on what information to monitor; selecting environmental concerns for initial review and for detailed investigation; resolving these through agreement with public authorities, where possible; and, highlighting any significant issues to Ministers.”
Time: 8-10 days per month initially, ~4 per month thereafter.
Remuneration: £300/£200 per diem.
Closes: 03 September
– – – – – – – – – –
British Film Institute (BFI) – Chair
“This role is therefore an extraordinary opportunity for an individual who is passionate about the success of the BFI and the wider British film/screen industry, and who has a track record of board leadership, to support the next chapter of British film and the continued success of the screen sectors. The selected Board Chair will be expected to work alongside the recently appointed CEO in shaping and delivering an emerging vision for the sectors’ recovery from Covid-19, and long-term success thereafter. To do so, the selected Board Chair must have achieved leadership stature in the film industry, business, a major charitable or cultural institution, or government.”
Time: Up to two days per month.
Remuneration: Expenses.
Closes: 05 September
– – – – – – – – – –
National Lottery Community Fund – Chair of the Board
“The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is seeking to appoint an outstanding individual to be Chair of the National Lottery Community Fund. Applications are welcomed from underrepresented groups to ensure the National Lottery Community Fund reflects the diverse society it serves. The Fund is currently supporting communities across the UK to adjust to and recover from the coronavirus crisis. It is also a time when the Fund has gone through a period of investment and development, making it well placed to deliver our ambitious plans to achieve the Fund’s purpose: supporting people and communities thrive. The Fund has many of the building blocks in place to add even greater value to civil society and public life. Our contribution is as varied as it is vital.”
Time: Up to two days per week.
Remuneration: £40,000 per annum plus expenses.
Closes: 07 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate – Chief Inspector
“Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service is supported by an inspectorate: Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI). The inspectorate provides independently assessed evidence about the operation, efficiency, and effectiveness of the public prosecutors (the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO)). The purpose of this is to provide the evidence needed to allow the public prosecutors to be held to account and to improve, thereby strengthening the public’s trust in the prosecution process. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector and the inspectorate may inspect other prosecuting authorities by invitation.”
Time: Full time.
Remuneration: £125,000 per annum.
Closes: 14 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for Education – Children’s Commissioner for England
“The Commissioner operates as a corporation sole, sponsored by the Department for Education and is appointed by the Secretary of State for Education. The Commissioner’s primary function is promoting and protecting the rights of children in England. The legislative basis for the office of Children’s Commissioner is in Part 1 and Schedule 1 of the Children Act 2004. This establishes the independence of the office and the six year tenure of the post holder. The legislation relating to the Children’s Commissioner is permissive, allowing significant flexibility for the Commissioner to determine how best to carry out his or her primary function of promoting and protecting children’s rights. The Commissioner is not an Ombudsman and, in general, cannot conduct investigations into the case of an individual child.”
Time: Full time.
Remuneration: £120-130,000 per annum.
Closes: 18 September


conservativehome--2020-08-11--Chris McGovern: The teaching unions must stop playing truant with the truth

Local authorities and academy trusts must ensure that schools re-open in at the start of next term , come what may .
The Prime Minister is right to insist that this is a ‘ national priority ’ .
In the interests of those millions of under-privileged children who are suffering most from the lockdown our government must stick to its guns .
Testing and tracing should not be regarded as the ‘ key to schools returning ’ as a group of scientists from London University are now claiming .
Children are more likely to be hit by lightning than to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group of scientists , based at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge , have made clear .
Nor is there any known case of pupil-to-teacher transmission .
The ‘ test and trace ’ warning over the re-opening of schools may apply to parents wishing to return to work but , mostly , it not it does not apply to to their offspring .
Children , especially those at nursery and at primary school , are much less likely to be infected or to infect others .
If they do contract the virus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as the London scientists at the centre of the latest scare admit : “ If infected , children typically have mild disease .
This comparative lack of severe disease changes the benefit-to-cost ratio associated with closing schools : most children will only get very mild disease , if infected , but at the cost of all children suffering as a consequence of school closure.
” We should not be keeping schools closed on the basis that it will allow mums and dads to go back to work and thereby , potentially , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus on educating parents any attendant risks that may be attendant on their return to work .
Amongst developed countries the UK has by far the highest proportion of young teachers .
Almost a third of primary school teachers ( 31 per cent ) are under the age of thirty compared to 13 per cent in other countries looked at by the OECD .
Our teaching workforce is in a much better position than most to return to school to do the job for which they are paid .
With the oldest generation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus , is all set to re-open schools in September .
Our teacher union bosses , sadly , seem determined to keep schools closed for as long as possible .
They claim a desire to get teachers back into the classroom but come up with reason after reason why this is not possible .
A few week ago , it emailed its members with what it described as ‘ strong advice ’ .
It told them : ‘ .
.
.
you should currently not engage with any planning based on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a newspaper investigation discovered that some teachers are using the lockdown to supplement their incomes by providing online private tuition .
If other unions adopted the same stance , especially those representing hospital staff , the entire country would be paralysed .
The National Education Union has even advised its members against providing on-line lessons and head teachers have been threatened with naming and shaming if they open their schools .
Back in 2015 David Cameron told the Conservative Party Conference that : “ Britain has the lowest social mobility in the developed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the salary you earn is more linked to what your father got paid than in any other major country .
I ’ m sorry , for us Conservatives , the party of aspiration , we can not accept that.
” The UK ’ s version of the comprehensive school system , with its selection by postcode , has contributed to the widening of social divisions .
Although there has been some improvement in recent years , our pupils lag behind those in more effectively run school systems such as Singapore , Taiwan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Vietnam and Estonia .
As if matters were not already bad enough , the closure of schools , although not total , has accentuated the social division within British education .
The provision of substantial and effective online tuition by dedicated teachers has been the norm for many children but not for around four million of the less well-off .
They are now heading ever more rapidly towards a social and employment scrapheap .
The closure of schools is further fracturing our already divided society .
We can not go on in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to home-school their children .
An equal right must be restored to that vast majority of parents who rely on state schooling .
Union bosses do not represent the majority of teachers and they need to understand that their political power game has been rumbled .
They need to stop playing truant with the truth about the potential impact of the coronavirus on schools and work for and not against the best interests of our children .

Chris McGovern is the Chairman of the Campaign for Real Education. He is a retired head teacher and a former advisor to the Policy Unit at 10 Downing Street.
Local authorities and academy trusts must ensure that schools re-open in at the start of next term, come what may. The Prime Minister is right to insist that this is a ‘national priority’. In the interests of those millions of under-privileged children who are suffering most from the lockdown our government must stick to its guns.
Testing and tracing should not be regarded as the ‘key to schools returning’ as a group of scientists from London University are now claiming. Children are more likely to be hit by lightning than to die of coronavirus, as an alternative group of scientists, based at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, have made clear. Nor is there any known case of pupil-to-teacher transmission.
The ‘test and trace’ warning over the re-opening of schools may apply to parents wishing to return to work but, mostly, it not it does not apply to to their offspring. Children, especially those at nursery and at primary school, are much less likely to be infected or to infect others. If they do contract the virus, the symptoms will almost certainly be mild, as the London scientists at the centre of the latest scare admit:
“If infected, children typically have mild disease. This comparative lack of severe disease changes the benefit-to-cost ratio associated with closing schools: most children will only get very mild disease, if infected, but at the cost of all children suffering as a consequence of school closure.”
We should not be keeping schools closed on the basis that it will allow mums and dads to go back to work and thereby, potentially, spread the virus. Our efforts should focus on educating parents any attendant risks that may be attendant on their return to work.
Amongst developed countries the UK has by far the highest proportion of young teachers. Almost a third of primary school teachers (31 per cent) are under the age of thirty compared to 13 per cent in other countries looked at by the OECD. Our teaching workforce is in a much better position than most to return to school to do the job for which they are paid. With the oldest generation teachers, Italy, hit hard by the virus, is all set to re-open schools in September.
Our teacher union bosses, sadly, seem determined to keep schools closed for as long as possible. They claim a desire to get teachers back into the classroom but come up with reason after reason why this is not possible. A few week ago, it emailed its members with what it described as ‘strong advice’. It told them: ‘. . . you should currently not engage with any planning based on a wider reopening of schools.’ Meanwhile, a newspaper investigation discovered that some teachers are using the lockdown to supplement their incomes by providing online private tuition.
If other unions adopted the same stance, especially those representing hospital staff, the entire country would be paralysed. The National Education Union has even advised its members against providing on-line lessons and head teachers have been threatened with naming and shaming if they open their schools.
Back in 2015 David Cameron told the Conservative Party Conference that:
“Britain has the lowest social mobility in the developed world.’ He added: ‘Here, the salary you earn is more linked to what your father got paid than in any other major country. I’m sorry, for us Conservatives, the party of aspiration, we cannot accept that.”
The UK’s version of the comprehensive school system, with its selection by postcode, has contributed to the widening of social divisions. Although there has been some improvement in recent years, our pupils lag behind those in more effectively run school systems such as Singapore, Taiwan, Japan and even poorer countries such as Vietnam and Estonia.
As if matters were not already bad enough, the closure of schools, although not total, has accentuated the social division within British education. The provision of substantial and effective online tuition by dedicated teachers has been the norm for many children but not for around four million of the less well-off. They are now heading ever more rapidly towards a social and employment scrapheap.
The closure of schools is further fracturing our already divided society.
We cannot go on in this manner. Parents have a legal right to home-school their children. An equal right must be restored to that vast majority of parents who rely on state schooling. Union bosses do not represent the majority of teachers and they need to understand that their political power game has been rumbled. They need to stop playing truant with the truth about the potential impact of the coronavirus on schools and work for and not against the best interests of our children.


conservativehome--2020-08-12--TONIGHT: ConservativeHome Live – in conversation with Matthew Elliott

There ’ s still time to register for your free ticket to take part in our next ConservativeHome Live interview @ @ @ @ @ 7pm tonight .
I ’ ll be speaking to Matthew Elliott – co-founder of the @ @ @ @ @ executive of Vote Leave , and one of the UK ’ s most successful political @ @ @ @ @ faultlines and flashpoints in British politics , the strategic challenges facing the Government and , @ @ @ @ @ of play on Brexit .
Given this morning ’ s dire economic data , and @ @ @ @ @ about further disruption to come , it will be particularly interesting to ask a leading @ @ @ @ @ steps in terms of tax , spending and the deficit .
As ever , audience @ @ @ @ @ to put their own questions to Matthew , too .
Thanks to the generous support @ @ @ @ @ , this event will be free to view – click here to sign up for @ @ @

There’s still time to register for your free ticket to take part in our next ConservativeHome Live interview, which takes place at 7pm tonight.
I’ll be speaking to Matthew Elliott – co-founder of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, chief executive of Vote Leave, and one of the UK’s most successful political strategists – about the emerging faultlines and flashpoints in British politics, the strategic challenges facing the Government and, of course, the state of play on Brexit. Given this morning’s dire economic data, and the Chancellor’s warning about further disruption to come, it will be particularly interesting to ask a leading fiscal hawk about the next steps in terms of tax, spending and the deficit.
As ever, audience members will also be able to put their own questions to Matthew, too.
Thanks to the generous support of our sponsor, Thorncliffe, this event will be free to view – click here to sign up for your ticket.


conservativehome--2020-08-12--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Civil Service Commissioners – and more