"Government's 'contempt' for disabled people, as planing white paper ignores accessible housing" is top story at Disability News Service weekly uploads for Thursday, 13 August 2020
John Pring writes:
The government has been accused of “showing contempt” for disabled people after publishing an “utterly shameful” 84-page white paper on the future of the planning system without including a single mention of disabled people, disability or accessible housing.
The Planning for the Future document makes repeated references to the need for “beautiful new homes”, “beautiful places” and “beautiful buildings”, while ignoring the accessible housing crisis.
There is also no mention of wheelchair-users in the white paper, which looks only at England, even though successive Tory ministers have been repeatedly warned of the dire shortage of suitable wheelchair-accessible housing.
Robert Jenrick, the housing secretary, says in the white paper that the government wants to see “environmentally friendly homes that will not need to be expensively retrofitted in the future, homes with green spaces and new parks at close hand, where tree lined streets are the norm and where neighbours are not strangers”.The document talks about “tackling head on the shortage of beautiful, high quality homes and places where people want to live and work” and even highlights the importance of “our capacity to house the homeless and provide security and dignity”.
But nowhere does it mention disabled people and the need for accessible housing, and when it asks those taking part in a consultation* on the white paper for their “top three priorities for planning in your local area”, accessible housing is not included as one of the options.
Perhaps the Housing Secretary is a total stranger to the requirements of disabled people?
The closest the white paper comes to mentioning disabled people’s housing needs is in question 26 of the consultation, when it asks for “views on the potential impact of the proposals raised in this consultation on people with protected characteristics” under the Equality Act. [Alan notes: Question 26 is the final question in the 'consultation'!]
For more on this story, go to
The 'consultation' deadline is 29 October, and is sure to have input from paid staff of the profiteers. I append a list of the questions
See also
Book exposes harassment, abuse and neglect of benefit claimants in austerity years
which is also a new upload to Disability News Service reports from Thursday, 13 August 2020, and features the work of Kate Belgrave who — unlike the Housing Secretary — actually does listen to marginalised people severely affected by Government policies that advance profiteering over human rights.
Appendix: Questions in the 'Planning the Future' White Paper 'consultation'
Pillar One: Planning for Development
Questions
1. What three words do you associate most with the planning system in England?
2. Do you get involved with planning decisions in your local area?
[Yes / No]
2(a). If no, why not?
[Don’t know how to / It takes too long / It’s too complicated / I don’t care / Other – please specify]
3. Our proposals will make it much easier to access plans and contribute your views to planning decisions. How would you like to find out about plans and planning proposals in the future?
[Social media / Online news / Newspaper / By post / Other – please specify]
4. What are your top three priorities for planning in your local area?
[Building homes for young people / building homes for the homeless / Protection of green spaces / The environment, biodiversity and action on climate change / Increasing the affordability of housing / The design of new homes and places / Supporting the high street/ Supporting the local economy / More or better local infrastructure / Protection of existing heritage buildings or areas / Other – please specify]
Questions7(a).
Do you agree with our proposals to replace existing legal and policy tests for Local Plans with a consolidated test of “sustainable development”, which would include consideration of environmental impact?
[Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]7(b). How could strategic, cross-boundary issues be best planned for in the absence of a formal Duty to Cooperate?
Questions8(a). Do you agree that a standard method for establishing housing requirements (that takes into account constraints) should be introduced?[Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
8(b). Do you agree that affordability and the extent of existing urban areas are appropriate indicators of the quantity of development to be accommodated?
[Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
Questions
9(a). Do you agree that there should be automatic outline permission for areas for substantial development (Growth areas) with faster routes for detailed consent?[Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
9(b). Do you agree with our proposals above for the consent arrangements for Renewaland Protectedareas? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
9(c). Do you think there is a case for allowing new settlements to be brought forward under the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
Question10. Do you agree with our proposals to make decision-making faster and more certain?
[Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
Question11. Do you agree with our proposals for accessible, web -based Local Plans?
[Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
Question12. Do you agree with our proposals for a 30 month statutory timescale for the production of Local Plans? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
Questions13(a). Do you agree that Neighbourhood Plans should be retained in the reformed planning system? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
13(b). How can the neighbourhood planning process be developed to meet our objectives, such as in the use of digital tools and reflecting community preferences about design?
Question14 . Do you agree there should be a stronger emphasis on the build out of developments? And if so, what further measures would you support? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
Pillar Two: Planning for beautiful and sustainable places
Questions15. What do you think about the design of new development that has happened recently in your area?[Not sure or indifferent / Beautiful and/or well-designed / Ugly and/or poorly-designed / There hasn’t been any / Other – please specify]16. Sustainability is at the heart of our proposals. What is your priority for sustainability in your area?[Less reliance on cars / More green and open spaces / Energy efficiency of new buildings / More trees / Other – please specify]
Question17 . Do you agree with our proposals for improving the production and use of design guides and codes?[Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
Question18 . Do you agree that we should establish a new body to support design coding and building better places, and that each authority should have a chief officer for design and place- making?[Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
Question19 . Do you agree with our proposal to consider how design might be given greater emphasis in the strategic objectives for Homes England?[Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
Question20. Do you agree with our proposals for implementing a fast-track for beauty?[Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
Pillar Three: Planning for infrastructure and connected spaces
Question 21. When new development happens in your area, what is your priority for what comes with it?[More affordable housing / More or better infrastructure (such as transport, schools,health provision) / Design of new buildings / More shops and/or employment space / Green space / Don’t know / Other – please specify]
Questions 22(a). Should the Government replace the Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 planning obligations with a new consolidated Infrastructure Levy, which is charged as a fixed proportion of development value above a set threshold? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
22(b). Should the Infrastructure Levy rates be set nationally at a single rate, set nationally at an area-specific rate, or set locally?[Nationally at a single rate / Nationally at an area-specific rate / Locally]
22(c). Should the Infrastructure Levy aim to capture the same amount of value overall, or more value, to support greater i nvestment in infrastructure, affordable housing and local communities? [Same amount overall / More value / Less value / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
22(d). Should we allow local authorities to borrow against the Infrastructure Levy, to support infrastructure delivery in their area? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
Question 23. Do you agree that the scope of the reformed Infrastructure Levy should capture changes of use through permitt ed development rights?
[Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
Questions 24(a). Do you agree that we should aim to secure at least the same amount of affordable housing under t he Infrastructure Levy, and as much on-site affordable provision, as at present? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
24(b). Should affordable housing be secured as in-kind payment towards the Infrastructure Levy, or as a ‘right to purchase’ at discounted rates for local authorities? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
24(c). If an in-kind delivery approach is taken, should we mitigate against local authority overpayment risk? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.] 24(d). If an in-kind delivery approach is taken, are there additional steps that would need to be taken to support affordable housing quality? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
Question 25. Should local authorities have fewer restrictions over how they spend the Infrastructure Levy?[Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.] 25(a). If yes, should an affordable housing ‘ring-fence’ be developed? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
Question
26. Do you have any views on the potential impact of the proposals raised in this consultati on on people with protected characteristics as defined in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010?
No comments:
Post a Comment