Planning White Paper ignores accessible housing, Disability News Service reports

 "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.

“A lack of accessible and adaptable housing
is one factor in unnecessary moves
to costly care homes.” — Fleur Perry

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

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/governments-contempt-for-disabled-people-as-planning-white-paper-ignores-accessible-housing/

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?

             

Response to Rosi Sexton's bid to become Green Party Leader

9 August 2020 update. While Shahrar Ali has moved his position leftward since 2005, I have decided that Rosi Sexton's stance is not really inclusive as she reckons that campaigning against HS2 and nuclear power are fruitless and even counterproductive exercises that she would ditch were she to become Green Party Leader. That, to me, is not inclusive leadership on Rosi's part.

The election period for Green Party of England & Wales leadership, deputy leadership, Trade Union Liaison Officer, and other Green Party Executive positions is upon us and actually started on Monday, 3 August 2020, to conclude on 31 August 2020.

Further details about candidates for the various Green Party Executive can be viewed via their responses to a survey from Green Party Trade Union Group, with updated question about responses to Green Party 'Holistic Review' outcome that would delete the position of Trade Union Liaison Officer. For those survey responses, go to

ANSWERS FROM GREEN PARTY INTERNAL ELECTION CANDIDATES

---

An Hereford & South Hereford Green Party colleague has been the only Green Party of England & Wales member to draw my attention to Rosi Sexton's candidacy as prospective Green Party Leader.

Here is a long interview with Rosi Sexton, followed by a much shorter campaign video from Rosi.





I shall outline below a few points and include this posting's link reference as comment in the 'comment space' on Rosi's interview video.The early August deadline for voting in Green Party Executive Elections is fast approaching, and I can edit the below in the meantime.

Response to Rosi from Alan Wheatley

Hi, Rosi I have reached about the 47 minute mark in this video, and while I intend to get back to it later want to input a few points here.

Green Party in relation to Labour Party and 'Socialism'

One is that while I have been a Green Party of England & Wales (GPEW) member now since late 2005, I have also been a member of Green Left for almost the same length of time. Green Left members generally describe ourselves as 'eco-socialists' rather than 'socialists'.

Internal barriers to Green Party standing for inclusion

Another point is to ask you how you feel GPEW can be more inclusive in its internal workings? My previous experience experience as alternatively a GPEW Spokesperson on issues such as Disability, Social Security and Social Care is that it does not do nearly enough to address disability equality issues internally, and has becoming far too centralised and 'single issue' in its messaging under the 'Leadership' vs 'Principal Spokespersons' system.

Such lack of support for disabled volunteers tends to contribute to the 'twee' image and corporate mindset of GPEW. Advocate of neoliberal, workfarist welfare reforms David Freud -- now Lord Freud -- used portrayals of Lord Nelson and Winston Churchill as exemplary 'disabled people as achievers who don't stand in their own way'. Yet income and social class are major factors in turning an impairment into a disability.

A Hereford & South Herefordshire Green Party colleague has drawn my attention to your leadership candidacy in terms of boosting inclusion/inclusivity and portraying GPEW as 'more than a single issue' party.

'Target to Win' electioneering in relation to street campaigning

Re 'Target to Win', my experience is that its advocates generally take their authority from 'focus groups' and oppose 'meet the public' street stalls. Green Party outlook on Target to Win, as someone else has argued, has changed from being a 'method' to a 'philosophy'.

But I am beginning to like what you say about working with it.

Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group, by contrast to those who oppose street stalls, has grown and taken people on board through use of street stalls. We stood outside jobcentres and disability benefit assessment centres with loudhailer and placards as icebreakers for contact with a 'hard to reach group' where they felt most vulnerable, and they came to our meetings for support.

'Scientific method' vs Complementary Medicine and pro-compulsory vaccination?

You advocate 'scientific method', but that is too often used to 'debunk' complementary medicine -- including homoeopathy -- that has benefited me. Would your advocacy of 'scientific method' also make vaccination mandatory? 

You support nuclear power? I don't!

Though I will append further detail on my background, I close here with regard to my strongest objection to what I've heard about you, which is that you support nuclear power.

I believe that the dangers imposed by existing nuclear waste and the capital-intensive nature of nuclear power would prove intolerable burdens on society as things are.

I look forward to your feedback on the above.

Something of my background

I believe it takes all sorts to make Green Party of England & Wales truly inclusive, and so here is a little about me and my background.

For most of my time in GPEW I was a Londoner -- before moving to Hereford in 2017 --- and got to know Shahrar Ali (your opponent for Leader of Green Party role) quite well through campaigning together against the centralisation of GPEW that was heralded by the shift from 'Principal Spokespersons' to 'Leaders/Co-leaders', and also through his involvement in lobbying for and then his proofreading the Green Party to Labour's 2008 'welfare reform' green paper that Anne Gray of Haringey Green Party co-wrote.

I was a GPEW Spokesperson on Disability and then got that reframed to spokespersonships on Social Care and Social Security, through liasing with Policy Co-ordinators.

I found that GPEW had a shortfall on supporting disability access, and I could not address 'disability issues' sufficiently because of my own slow productivity compounded by my feeling that it would be hypocritical for me to speak out for the Green Party while it had issues to deal with itself about disability equality at Green Party HQ, for example.

My background has been as a disabled jobseeker, consistently lacking bargaining power against an increasingly cruel system that fails to implement the Social Model of Disability, and thus I respect the incisiveness you can put in from your council Social Care background. I have also been a member of Social Work Action Network (SWAN), and a supporter of Carer Watch, as well as activist-led Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group.

SWAN campaigns against the 'marketisation and managerialism' that began to take hold in social care under New Labour and brings together social work academics, students, practitioners and service users.Notably, SWAN countered Michael Gove's comments about Social Work training loading Social Work graduates with a load of idealistic left wing dogma about social inequality. That was when Gove was Secretary of State for Education, Children & Families in 2013. Later as Justice Secretary, he went on to making the courts even more unfair.

Since then things have got much worse, and the Department for Work & Pensions harasses vulnerable people to death through its disability benefit assessment retesting regime, despite coroners' pleas. Current Green Party Co-Leader and Spokesperson on Work & Pensions has spoken out about much of this in his Twitter feed so I've been told, and in the presence of John Pring of Disability News Service, but why is there a dearth of reference to it on the Green Party of England & Wales website?

Alan's brother Mark going red for babies charity Tommy's

Mark Wheatley writes:

Hi,

[On Saturday 4th of July], my friend James Clark and I are going to get ‘Shorn On the 4th July‘ for Tommy’s - a charity which helps to save babies lives ( www.tommys.org ).

James is going to sacrifice his marvellous beard and I am going to lose the ‘mop top’ which grew through lockdown via a full head shave from my twelve year old daughter. 

To add a little to my humiliation, my daughter - whose views on the world are more progressive than mine - also suggested dyeing the hair beforehand. 

So, at the moment I am Red (as you can see below). 

As you might imagine, this is an unusual feeling - possibly as surprising and unsettling for some of you as it is for me (sorry LibDems, I tried for Gold but lost that vote).

Might you ease my discomfort and help a good cause?

My target is looking achievable but if I can get to, or surpass, £1,250 there is the possibility of a full match funding of that amount to really deliver a good result for Tommy’s.
All donations are going to a great cause and will be massively appreciated!
My fundraising page is: https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.justgiving.com%2Ffundraising%2Fmark-wheatley13%3Futm_source%3DSharethis%26utm_medium%3Dfundraising%26utm_content%3Dmark-wheatley13%26utm_campaign%3Dpfp-email%26utm_term%3D8f975ad9a6d94dd9899e1199eb5f7eab&data=01%7C01%7C%7C7912462334e24c630c9608d81f423776%7C9fe658cdb3cd405685193222ffa96be8%7C1&sdata=7t1zHNWWysjELqfBiu4XRo0uUXtaCDURZ%2BHW3VBxv0c%3D&reserved=0.
I hope that you enjoy the rest of the day and a lovely weekend.
Thank you for considering this approach and very best wishes, in solidarity,
Mark Wheatley

Alan wishes Mark — and Tommy's — all the best through his encounter with Miri Scissors Hands.

Liberty petition against the Coronavirus Act

From: Martha Spurrier, Liberty <comms@liberty-human-rights.org.uk>Sent: 03 July 2020 14:53To: Subject: Scrap the Coronavirus Act
Dear _______
This weekend the lockdown is easing in most of England.
But while the end might appear to be in sight, the lockdown of our rights and freedoms has no firm time limit.
Exactly 100 days ago, the Government passed legislation – the Coronavirus Act – that was the most drastic reimagining of our civil liberties ever seen.
Since the start of the coronavirus outbreak people everywhere have shown they are willing to adapt to protect one another.
Liberty has always supported proportionate action to protect lives. But the Coronavirus Act has failed to uphold people’s rights while leaving the most marginalised worst affected.
This law harms human rights and puts our civil liberties in danger because the Act has no firm end date.
When this pandemic passes this law will still be on the statute books and some of its powers can be triggered at any time.
This means your civil liberties are in danger unless this law is scrapped.
Sign the petition to get rid of the Coronavirus Act and force the Government to instead focus on a response to the pandemic which protects human rights.
The Coronavirus Act was central to the Government’s pandemic response and was rushed through Parliament in just one day.
Some facts about the Act – and why it must be repealed:

• It gives the police broad new powers to detain anyone who could be infectious. But the Crown Prosecution Service has said that every single charge made under the Act has been wrong. 

• Our investigative journalism unit, Liberty Investigates, found that under regulations accompanying the Act, people of colour are 54 per cent more likely to be fined than white people. 

• It makes it legal for local councils to strip back social care. At least seven councils stopped providing even the most basic care services for disabled people in their areas.

• It threatens our right to protest.

• It failed to protect the most marginalised and the hostile environment has remained operational, even in the pandemic. 

• It allows the Government to suspend some elections. 

Remember, the Act has no firm end date. These powers could remain in place well beyond the pandemic.
But there is some hope. Thanks to Liberty and others, MPs can vote on whether to keep the Act or repeal it entirely. The Government will be reluctant to do this. But we must use this review as an opportunity to show how poor the Government’s response has been and why the Act must be repealed.
It is dangerous legislation that should never have been passed. The stranglehold on our civil liberties will remain until it’s scrapped.
Sign the petition to ask Government to get rid of the Coronavirus Act and focus on a response to the pandemic that protects our rights and freedoms.
Stay safe and stay well.

https://liberty.e-activist.com/page/63721/petition/1

Martha Spurrier
Director

See also
Liberty’s submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry: The Government’s response to Covid-19: Human rights implications  – June 2020



Alan notes: Unjust laws go hand in glove with racist policing, etc. Would those responsible for the publication of the murder victims in the Fryent Country Park murders really be able to say to the families of the victims: "We are sorry for your loss"?

Criminal Charges

Jacqueline Henry started this petition to Cressida Dick / IOPC

Formal criminal charges should be brought against the two Metropolitan police officers who allegedly took and distributed photographs of the two Fryent Country Park murder victims, Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman

As a family we were assured that every respect would be shown to our beloved girls, and this disgraceful breach of their duty cannot be punished with just a disciplinary or the loss of a job.

These police officers have allegedly fallen woefully short of the high standards of integrity and behaviour that the public should be able to expect from the police service. They should face formal criminal charges of Misconduct in Public Office and under the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. It is an offence for a police officer to exercise power or privileges improperly. Distributing photographic material of murder victims outside of the confidentiality of the formal murder investigation is a clear abuse of power amounting to criminal misconduct.

The family are struggling to come to terms with the loss of the two beautiful bright lights  that have been taken from us, and we have to pray and believe that we will receive justice for their murders....

Continue reading at

https://www.change.org/p/cressida-dick-criminal-charges-6a88b520-e872-4b7e-ae32-cb81f4c2cb80

Mark Wheatley — Shorn on the 4th of July, fundraising for babies' charity Tommy's

A word from my [half-]brother, Mark Wheatley, based in SE London, who is about twelve-and-a-half years younger than me and shares the same father:

Shorn on the 4th July

Hi,

I hope that you are enjoying the day and coping well in these strange times. 

My friends at the baby charity, Tommy’s (www.tommys.org) have allowed me the honour and humiliation, along with my pal James, of trialling an idea. Having respectively let our mop of hair/beard grow a bit wild during lockdown,  We have volunteered to get shaved. 

That means, on the 4th July, my twelve year old daughter will hone her, thus far untested, abilities as a hairdresser. 

Early on, she is going to dye my hair (colour suggestions are welcome - keenest on yellow, blue, red or green), take me out for a long walk, photograph the embarrassment for posterity then .... shave my head.

If you feel able and willing, I’d really appreciate your support. 

This is not a marathon effort of course but it will be suitably humiliating and anything you are able to donate will go to a great charity - one which saves babies lives across the world from their base in the City of London.

You can donate to my JustGiving page by clicking here: https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/mark-wheatley13?utm_source=Sharethis&utm_medium=fundraising&utm_content=mark-wheatley13&utm_campaign=pfp-email&utm_term=280a9c3bfbdd4290877c8b39922b4093.

Donating through JustGiving is simple, fast and totally secure. Once you donate, they'll send your money directly to Tommy's, the baby charity, so it's the most efficient way to give - saving time and cutting costs for the charity.

Thank you for considering this request (positively - my last sponsorship activity this year).

Very best wishes, as ever,

Mark 

P.S. if you know anyone who fancies joining me and James - new team members are most welcome.

How Mark's normal hairline will appear after 4 July 2020 remains to be seen. Our father's hairline in his 50s was less than Mark's without the aid of having hair shaved off for charity. You can see how my hairline appears these days in the sidebar of this Web Log.

Our father was a keen cricketer; I was in childhood but only played for the school 11 once. In adulthood, my physical activities largely revolve around walking an occasional Kundalini Yoga when Belmont Community Centre is open, with Alison Mann who runs classes now on Zoom.

More like our father, Mark loves rugby and has run the London Marathon and Half Marathon in previous years in very decent time for Tommy's


Alan Wheatley