Author: Ashley Mooney

The Local Plan Committee, of which I am a member, held its latest meeting last Thursday evening (17th September) in Clacton Town Hall (Princes Theatre). I counted 37 people in the public gallery, which may not sound many, but it was three times the number at the full council meeting in the same venue the previous week! The main subject was a discussion of the Housing Needs Study produced by Peter Brett Associates. I posted my letter to other members of the committee on this subject on this blog on September 7th.

First there were five submissions from members of the public, a maximum of three minutes each. Apparently members must submit a request in advance to be allowed to address the committee. The first three submissions were comments on the Local Plan, specifically objections to housing around Little Clacton. This was clearly not what the chairman or officers thought these public submissions were supposed to be about. Nonetheless, all submissions were heard in full and I am sure they will be properly captured by the Local Plan consultation exercise that is currently underway.

Apparently these submissions were intended to be specifically about the revised Housing Need Study. I have to say it was not at all clear to me how members of the public were supposed to know that. Anyway the next two submissions were very directly on the subject of that study. The first was from John Smith-Daye as a resident and then from Alan Eldret as a resident and also as Representative of Tendring Residents Lobby Group. Clearly they had both taken the trouble to read the report in detail and argued strongly that 597 dwellings pa, down from the original 705 dpa, was too many. They wanted a number of 497 dpa or lower.

Then the committee began their discussion and members were kind enough to compliment me on the letter that I had circulated, both on its clarity and for being circulated well in advance of the meeting. Moreover they wanted to support the suggestion that I had made. Extraordinary – I felt hugely gratified! After some to’ing and fro’ing that I had no part in the final motion, proposed by Cllr Jeff Bray (UKIP) and seconded by myself was:

“That the Local Plan Committee having considered the findings of the new ‘Objectively Assessed Housing Needs Study’ (July 2015) attached as Appendix A1a));

a) instructs Officers to go back to the authors of the above-mentioned study to investigate the matters raised by the Committee in respect of figures and assumptions in the study and to explore the possibility of revising its conclusions with a view to setting lower housing growth figures for Tendring, such that it is no greater than 479 dwellings per annum as detailed in Section 4.39 of the Appendix; and

b) notes that a further, more detailed assessment looking at the composition of future housing needs across particular groups in society, is underway.”

Clearly, this may not result in any change. However, the Local Plan will have to pass inspection and that will be difficult indeed whilst section 9.25 of this study gives a lower bound of 597 dpa and an upper bound of 705 dpa. This is the right process to be following and I am pleased that the committee has passed this motion.

In due course I will write my own submission to the consultation exercise that is underway. That will, of course, be posted here. If any of you wish to use all or part of that you are welcome and I would be flattered.

Last Tuesday 8^th September there was a meeting of the full TDC council in Clacton town hall. With three apologies for absence, I imagine that made 57 councillors attending.

With my interest in planning there were three elements that particularly caught my attention:

1:- Cllr Everett (UKIP) had submitted a motion to censure Cllr Stock (Con) “for ignoring the Local Plan Committee resolution to return the consultation to the Committee in the event of a significant decrease being identified in housing need”. This refers to the consultation document that was circulated for public comment, shortly before an updated housing needs assessment was received from PBA, the consultants employed by TDC. This did indeed reduce the housing requirement from 705 dwellings pa to 597 dwellings pa, a reduction that Cllr stock had described as significant. It turns out that the decision not to return the consultation document to the local plan committee was taken by a TDC officer – without any written record of the justification! The motion was defeated by the Conservative lead administration.

2:- Cllr Bray (UKIP) had submitted a motion that the council “makes available, free of charge . . . recordings of all future meetings of the Local Plan Committee and the Planning Committee” as currently happens for full council meetings. There was general agreement on all sides that this was a good thing to do. However, Cllr Stock (Con) proposed a motion that council officers be charged with investigating and producing a report on the technical feasibility and cost of doing this. That amendment was carried overwhelmingly, with myself being the only person to vote against. I support completely the free availability of recordings of these committee meetings and I see this improvement as completely inevitable. My vote was against the waste of council officers’ time in producing a report on the bleedin’ obvious.

3:- The Labour party have decided not to take up their seat on the local plan committee. Cllr Henderson (Lab) said the Labour group was required by the Widdecombe rules to give up two committee seats and this was one of the ones chosen. The council leader, Cllr Stock (Con), then proposed a motion that the seat remain empty, which prompted Cllr Stephenson (UKIP Group Leader) to propose an amendment that he take up the seat. TDC officers then explained that an amendment could not directly reverse the intention of the motion that it was amending. Whereupon I had my chance to speak up, proposing a motion that group leaders confer to see whether leaving the seat blank was indeed the best way forward. Planning is the biggest issue that I faced during the election and since, so it seemed to me to be not filling all the seats on this committee would be to let the residents of Tendring down. Cllr Stock (Con) indicated that he would accept the amendment, and it was accepted overwhelmingly on a show of hands. Whoever fills this seat, or not, the Conservatives will still have a majority on the Local Plan committee.

One final point, council meetings are open to the public. I did not note down the exact number of public attending, but it was about a dozen. Maybe TDC residents get what they need from the Gazette – and this blog of course!

I have today emailed the letter below to members of the Tendring Local Plan committee. I hope it will allow us to find a way forward that commands broad support:

To:         Councillors on the Local Plan Committee

Objectively Assessed Housing Needs Study:

I am writing in advance of the next Local Plan committee meeting on September 17^th to ask you to support a proposal to ask the TDC officers to go back to Peter Brett Associates, with a view to agreeing a lower figure than the 597pa that is in the options document currently out for consultation. I have asked Mr Guiver to make consideration of this request a specific agenda item. The result of that review would be considered by the Local Plan committee alongside the feedback from the consultation exercise.

I believe that the Objectively Assessed housing Needs Study carried out by PBA leaves a large amount of unexplained housing requirement. Indeed the report itself recognises this:

4.26 Tendring has a large Unattributable Population Change (UPC) adjustment. Here UPC was over 9,000 people negative over the 10 year (Census to Census) period. The Census reported many fewer people in the district than were expected. The impact on the projected housing need is around 200 new homes per year.

4.39 Unlike the other four districts, for Tendring there is a legitimate reason to query the SNPP 2012.

4.42 The only doubtful element in the projections relates to the Unattributable Population Change (UPC) in Tendring.

9.5 If we use an alternative projection that adjusts for the UPC, the demographically projected need for Tending falls from 705 to 479 dpa.

Uniquely, among the four districts covered by the PBA study, the population forecasts for Tendring has a large negative natural change offset by a huge positive net migration figure:

3.9

Change p.a.	Total population	Net migration	%	Natural change	%
Braintree	1,171	985	84%	186	16%
Chelmsford	1,108	628	57%	480	43%
Colchester	1,638	822	50%	816	50%
Tendring	1,068	1,737	163%	-669	-63%
HMA	4,986	4,172	84%	814	16%

The result of this is that the report gives alternative scenarios give wildly differing numbers. The 705 figure for Tendring ranges from 785 down to -230 (section 4.37).

The potential gains from agreeing a number around 500pa are large. I believe it would command broad support within the Local Plan committee, full council and the residents of Tendring. It would also put us within touching distance of having five years +20% demand covered by existing planning applications, which would allow us to refuse speculative planning applications while we go through the process of formally adopting the Local Plan.

I think agreeing a lower target would be entirely compatible with the overall figures in the consultation document. It would create a larger “overhead” that would be entirely beneficial as it would improve the chances of passing inspection. It would also give officers more leverage to ask for greater CIL contributions from developers, than if we are desperate for a smaller number of developments to go ahead.

Finally, Tendring has a poor record of providing new commercial premises over the last decade. Since 2007 I believe the only commercial developments in Tendring, other than barn conversion type properties, have been Lanswood, next to Beth Chatto, and Oakwood on Gorse Lane. The larger “overhead” would also allow land to be available for commercial development, which has to be essential in delivering the jobs that we all believe Tendring needs.

Kind regards,      Ashley Mooney

Cllr John Ashley Mooney

 

I am grateful again to Cllr Peter Cawthron for bringing this to my attention.

The migration numbers released by the Office for national Statistics (ONS) this week show that net migration in the year to March 2015 was up 94,000 at 330,000. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migration1/migration-statistics-quarterly-report/august-2015/stb-msqr-august-2015.html . So much for David Cameron’s repeated pledge to reduce net migration to the 10,000’s of thousands. And, the reported figure is certainly an underestimate of the true net migration number.

The net migration figure is a difference between the immigration figure of 636,000 and an emigration figure of 307,000. The difference is 329,000, not 330,000, but that is just a rounding effect. These are made up as follows:

Immigration                       Emigration

British                                         83,000                           132,000

Non-British, EU                      269,000                             86,000

Non-British, Non-EU             284,000                             88,000

What are we to make of these numbers ? Well . . . first we should be sceptical. As you may know the UK government does not keep track of those entering and leaving the UK. These migration numbers come from a thing called the International Passenger Survey (IPS), conducted by the ONS. The ONS website says that “The IPS conducts between 700,000 and 800,000 interviews a year of which over 250,000 are used to produce estimates of Overseas Travel and Tourism.”

Separately http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-391781 for 2014 the ONS reports 34.4m overseas visitors and 60.1m UK residents visiting abroad. This means some 189m entry/exit events in 2014. As a quick sense check, Heathrow handles some 75m movements per year. On annual movements of 160m pa a sample of 800,000 in the IPS would be 0.5%. Since 160m is likely to be low and 800,000 is the top bound, the figure is going to be <0.5%.

The survey asks passengers to complete a voluntary survey about their planned length of stay in the UK. A migrant is someone who plans to stay more than 12 months. Is it likely that those planning to overstay their visas are; A – keen to take part in the survey, and B – answer entirely truthfully?

We also have information on the number of National Insurance Numbers issued. In the year ending June 2015 we issued 917,000 NI numbers to foreign nationals. Or, as Nigel Farage tweeted this week, “Given that 192,000 from Romania/Bulgaria registered for NI in year period, how can believe ONS figure of 53,000 from same two countries?”

As well as those applying for NI numbers (ie those working in the taxed sector), immigration will also include dependents and those expecting to work in the black economy. The figure of 636,000 from the IPS seems certain to reflect an actual immigration figure of 1,000,000 or more.

Two things seem obvious to me:

1. We should keep track of the actual movements into and out of the UK. Transport for London tacks far more movements of its oyster card users, so the technology certainly exists.
2. The UK should decide the immigration policy for the UK, which is currently decided in Brussels. Yes – that involves leaving the EU.

The damage of not taking these steps is not only that we allow people to come here who we would otherwise choose to keep out, but we will refuse entry to those we would wish to let in. For instance, one action the government has taken to lower net migration is to toughen up the rules for students from outside the EU wishing to study at UK universities, damaging a sector where the UK is truly world class in the process.

This post is not directly relevant to St Paul’s ward or even to Clacton. It is just that I get irritated when I see something reported in a way that appears to pussy-foot around an issue the author is quite unnecessarily nervous of. I am greatful [again] to Cllr Peter Cawthron for pointing this one out. The ONS (Office for National Statistics) have just released the list of names given to newborn boys and girls in 2014, in England and Wales. The press release http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/baby-names–england-and-wales/2013/stb-baby-names-2013.html and subsequent reporting, such as in The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/most-popular-baby-names-2014-oliver-and-amelia-top-official-list-for-second-year-in-a-row-10458531.html has been that the two names are Amelia and Oliver.

That may be true in a narrow, literal sense, as Oliver does come in with 6,949 occurences. However, when you put together the spelling of Mohammed, with Muhammed and Mohammad as well, you get 7,445 occurences. Yes – You could add in the Oili’s and Olivier’s as well, but it doesn’t bridge the gap. ONS figures are here http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/baby-names–england-and-wales/2013/rtd-baby-names–boys–2013.xls

Mohammed has been the most popular name for baby boys for the last few years, and will be for years into the future. For those who feel uncomfortable with this . . .  Get used to it! For those not so encumbered . . . Enjoy! We have always been a mongrel race.

I had thought that this blog would be entirely focussed on purely local issues. However, the release of the ONS (Office for National Statistics) shows some surprising trends. And, employment is clearly a hugely important local issue. I am indebted to Cllr Peter Cawthron for his work in identifying and making comprehensible the points made here.

For those of you with the will to look into the detail the spreadsheet containing these figures is available here:- http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/august-2015/table-a01.xls .

The headlines show us that unemployment is up 25,000 and employment is down 63,000, comparing Apr-Jun 2015 with Jan-Mar 2014 (which is the standard year on year comparison). Clearly this is not what we would all wish for.

What is very interesting is the way the detail can be interpreted. The Guardian goes with the headline “UK unemployment rises as most new jobs go to citizens of other EU states”. It also states that “nearly 75% of employment growth was among non-UK nationals”, which is comparing Apr-Jun 2104 with Apr-Jun 2015. The article in full is here:- http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/12/uk-unemployment-labour-market-job-losses .

If you look into the change over the lifetime of the current Conservative administration (including the last coalition parliament) the ONS spreadsheet shows the following:

Employment Change, Apr-Jun 2010 – Apr-Jun 2015 (Thousands of people):

Total UK	1,841
Born in UK	741
Born outside UK	1,093

This is showing that 59.4% of the jobs created under the Conservatives have gone to people born outside the UK. Of the 1,093 thousand jobs going to people born outside the EU, 663 thousand went to people born in the EU and 431 thousand went to people born outside the EU.

This leaves open the question as to why unemployed Brits appear to be losing out in the jobs market. Are they not able to provide the skills required? Do they prefer to live on benefits? The UKIP policy of introducing a points based system would restrict the flow of low skilled labour into the UK, raising low skilled wages. That would presumably draw people off benefits as the balance between work and benefits shifts. This is particularly relevant for the residents of Tendring, where we do have a high number of low skilled unemployed, compared to the rest of the country. However, it does appear that there are issues around training and benefits as well. Do we train enough doctors? Is a cap of £18,200pa for a single person with no children too generous?

 

This is the first time that I have blogged on this subject. however, it was one that came up often during the election and Essex County council seem to regard this as a one-way “no brainer” to save money. It is not. There are definitely places where the lights need to be kept on, either through the night or for longer than currently.

UKIP members of TCD council are solidly behind this campaign and we do what we can within the council. However, lighting is an Essex CC responsibility so it will help if as many as possible can make their views heard. One way is to sign the Change.Org petition that can be found here: http://www.change.org/p/essex-county-council-turn-our-lights-on?utm_source=guides&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_created

I hope that as many as possible of you will feel able to sign.

 

The Local Plan committee met recently. The substantive outcome was that the existing draft of the local plan has been issued for consultation, with the full 12,000 house in it. That seems premature, as we will shortly have a revised estimate of the number of houses required. Given that in the period when the growth in population in Tendring was supposed to be plus 8,500, it actually turned out to be minus 500, it seems entirely possible that the requirement will be reduced. Also, the basis of the population estimates does seem rather odd. Any net addition to the population in Tendring was to come from people retiring from London. This does not support the draft plan’s extra starter homes for new families. It does all seem rather muddled.

Adding to the general confusion is the complaint that has been made against the Conservative councillor, Cllr Guglielmi. He is a director of Lawford Housing Enterprise which may create a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI in the jargon) that he ought to have declared. Failure to declare and register a DPI is a criminal offence and this complaint has been referred to Essex Police, who are investigating. Cllr Gugliemi was chairman of the Local Plan Committee and he stood down from that role at the meeting. Cllr Stock, another Conservative Country Club member, was immediately elected as chairman to replace Cllr Gugliemi. No surprises so far. Then Cllr Gugliemi is nominated and seconded by his Country Club colleagues to be vice-chairman. Inevitably, given the Country Club dominance on the committee, he is elected. In what way his actions bar him from being chairman but allow him to be vice-chairman, is beyond me.

Congratulations to Richard Everett on his successfully election as a councillor for the ward of Rush green last Thursday, 16th July. Turnout was 24.76% and the complete result was:

Samantha Atkinson, Labour	213
Richard Everett, UKIP	338
William hones, Independent	36
Danny Mayzes, Conservative	290

The seat became vacant with the resignation for family reasons of Len Sibbald, who had won the seat for UKIP back in May. It is good to see UKIP winning, even when the election is not on the same day as an election for our popular Westminster MP, Douglas Carswell. It continues Clacton’s rejection of the Conservative “Country Club” approach to local government.

I sit on the Local Plan committee and last Wednesday evening we had a briefing from council officers on this subject. They have certainly done a lot of work on this over several years and seem personally committed to delivering a plan for 12,000 houses to be built in Tendring over the net fifteen years. They even went so far as to explain that building houses on farmland is an environmentally friendly activity!

In summary; the rules of the game that we are being invited to play by, are that central government tells Tendring District Council how many houses to build and TDC decides where they are to be built. So much for the Conservative Party’s commitment to “Localism”. With a Conservative government in Westminster and a Conservative administration in Tendring , we have a fight on our hands.

I have a lot of learning to do, starting with where the “objectively assessed housing need” comes from. The rules stipulate that there must be an assessment done in line with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). There is no suggestion that the 12,000 homes are required for the residents of Tendring. Indeed, the officers at the briefing were clear that the birth/death balance in Tendring is forecast to be essentially flat over the next fifteen years. The population increase is all coming from people moving into the district, almost entirely from outer London. These homes are not for you, they are for London overspill.

There are essentially two options; either to generate a plan in line with the NPPF, or . . . Not! If we do not have a plan then developers can apply to build anywhere and Tendring would not receive the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) that is payable by a developer when a Local Plan is in place. I have asked the council officers how CIL is calculated and what it has amounted to over recent years and await their reply. If we do have a plan in place then developers can only apply to build in those areas designated for that purpose, and provided they meet the requirements of the Local Plan they have to be accepted.

Those in favour of having a local plan say that builders will only apply to build house they can sell and that the rate of applications in the past has been around half of the 800 houses per year figure (12,000 houses over 15 years) that a Local Plan will require. So, these wizards say – “Let’s play the game and have a plan for 12,000 houses, it’s never going to happen in practice”. With 350 homes about to start near Gorse Lane industrial Estate and Persimmon applying to build 900 houses on Jaywick lane, I’m not so sure.

One thing you can be sure of is where they will mostly be built. The Conservative administration in Tendring has packed the Local Plan committee with a cabal of “Country Club” members, representing wards in Frinton and the rural fringe of the district. They have a 10-4 majority on this committee. Do not expect new homes to have a view of Frinton Golf Club!

Members of the Local Plan committee can be found here http://democracy.tendringdc.gov.uk/akstendring/users/public/admin/main.pl?op=ListCommitteeDetails&keyid=26 You can rely on the UKIP members and Joy Broderick from Holland Residents Group to oppose these houses. As for the rest, they need persuading.

I will let you know how this progresses.

I am away over the next month. Please bear with me.