Localism Bill and benefit cuts threatens our way of life

As more details emerge about the Localism Bill it is becoming clear that it has two key areas of change which will affect hundreds of thousands of people -

Planning and Housing

Sold by the Government as a means of bringing more power to local communities it will in fact result in the homelessness of council tenants who may lose their homes, or, find themselves trapped in one area due to the new rules which could result in council to only house "local" people.

Whilst some potential issues are evident from the Summary version provided by the Government a reading of the detailed Bill is required to fully understand the implications. It is here that I discovered that the Governments promise to protect existing Council tenants has not been stuck to. If tenants have a change of circumstances i.e a relative dies, or a young person leaves home, their tenancy will come under review. All council tenants now face a future of uncertainty.

At the same time benefit cuts are leaving up to 670,000 housing association tenants worse off, particularly the disabled. 

The changes to existing Planning regulations have caused such concern that even the National Trust has come forward with a petition against the proposals.

Key planning changes would significantly reduce the funds developers pay to councils as a levy to support local communities affected by their development.

Development will be assumed as having a "yes" outcome in planning rather than an existing emphasis on fair hearing and rejection on planning grounds.


The Government is planning to ask councils to identify public land to sell off - an asset lost forever, so developers can build - and they won't even have to pay for the land until their development is completed in some cases.

Why not build more council homes when councils are proven to be the best landlords for social housing?

Labour MPs and shadow ministers have opposed the Localism Bill. 

Whilst the Tories continue to be backed by their Coalition partners it is likely to steam ahead.

I plan to complete my assessment of the detail of the Bill and I will hold some public meetings to give people a chance to raise questions.

David Cameron - Not such a common man

As events unfold following the riots the actions of David Cameron and his followers is causing me deep concern.

The division in our society is growing and made worse by the changes to the law that will leave people homeless and penniless amid worsening economic conditions.

In Germany recent discoveries from historical records reveal that the driving force behind the SS and Gestapo was not Hitler but the German people themselves. They clamoured for a society that was "normal". Anyone, that did not fit the "normal" image was accused, judged and removed from society. Thousands of innocent Germans who were "fingered" by their neighbours and taken for interrogation by the Nazis and never came back.

We have not got that far yet - not quite.But when the Government starts forgetting that our fellow human beings, for all their failings are just that, then the unacceptable becomes justified.

Grantham Town Centre - Worth fighting for

I took a walk through Grantham Town Centre today. I usually go with shopping in mind but this was different. I wanted to look at our town as others/newcomers would see it. The most glaring issue was the number of empty shops. This is not news but the impact on the town, and the impression this leaves is serious.

There have been many comments made about why the town centre is failing and the recent debate organised by The Journal no doubt highlighted a few. I was on a pre booked holiday and could not attend.

My own view is that it boils down to:-

• Lack of investment
• Poor planning
• The greed of landlords/shop owners
• Excessive competition from the supermarkets, given prime sites sufficiently far away from the High Street as to be the equivalent of "out of town".

I am going to say something I know won't be popular with local businesses, but I really hope they will listen.

With stiff competition from the supermarkets some local businesses need to look at how they operate.

Do they have late night shopping? NO
Do they offer reliable access remaining open even when the town is a bit "quiet"? NO
Do the cafes stay open at "tea" time or are they closed?

I went through the town at 5pm today. Most of the shops were closed. All of the independent cafes were closed and the town felt deserted. The area around the Market Square development felt like a ghost town.


There are other concerns including the paralysis of the Charter Trustees who consider themselves little more than ceremonial. This body could be a representative voice for Grantham in the council putting forward ideas to the Policy groups. Instead the Mayor insists on pursuing a purely ceremonial and fund raising role.

It is going to be a challenge fighting for change in Grantham but I think Grantham is worth it. It has loads to offer with its attractive medieval street layout, mix of independent and national stores, theatre, cinema, historic market and historic buildings. Grantham can be great again.

It is going to take honest assessment and new initiatives to do it. Until we get that honest assessment from the councillors involved it will not happen.

Make rioters homeless is the public call - but is this a disturbing turn of events?

Public anger at the recent events in London and across England's cities is to be expected. Minority groups ran amok through our communities and in doing so left everyone unsettled. Those in communities directly affected suffered fear and loss. Suddenly our safe high street can no longer be taken for granted.


In response to the looting, fire bombing and damage to property the Local Government Association has announced that many local authorities have stated that council tenants who are rioters will be evicted. On the surface this may seem reasonable. After all, why should someone who is dependent on their community for their home, attack their community and still expect a roof over their head?

However tempting a solution such an idea may appear on the surface, just like the rioters, councillors and MPs need to be aware of the long term consequences of their actions.


A number of questions need to be considered. Firstly, council homes have only one named tenant. Are the threats of the politicians actually enforceable? What of the knock-on effect if they are? It is not unusual for anti-social behaviour to occur within a community on any given day. Are we saying that all people who commit anti-social behaviour any where, any time could be evicted? Even for one off events, when usually a pattern of behaviour is required? Or is this a special case? What about the families of those involved who may have nothing to do with the events that occured? Parents may be responsible but many teenagers take little heed of their parents. There are plenty of other influences the Government considers acceptable which affect the behaviour of young people - violent computer games being just one.

Punish those involved properly through the justice system, but making them homeless is another matter. Why only target those in social or rented housing? One law for the rich and another for the poor?Do politicians want to create this impression when people are acutely aware of the social exclusion of the poor?
If someone leaves council housing where do they go? Into private accommodation? How does shunting someone along, and possibly breaking up families, help?

One councillor was quoted as stating that, according to existing tenancy contracts, tenants cannot create a noise or a nuisance without risking loss of their tenancy. This is reasonable in a home environment but taken further and we open up a can of worms. Are we saying that people have no right to make a noise or create a nuisance? What about the right of civilians to protest? How many students or trade unionists marching in the streets of London recently to fight for their education, their pensions and their right to a decent income could be accused of "making a noise", or "being a nuisance"? How many of those live in social housing> Many social housing tenants are also public sector workers. Assumptions have been made that the rioters were all unemployed, council-tenant youths. How true is this?

Are we saying it is OK for the Government to act any way they want but it is not OK for civilians to protest?

Some rioters were opportunist looters but this was not the case for all. The multitude of CCTV cameras covered looters but also many who caused damage and then moved on.  For them this was not an act of greed or need, but an act of systematic defiance against society.

The media do not help. It appears that the violence of the rioters paid off and escalated as word got out. The level of media coverage given to recent peaceful street protests pales into insignificance when compared to that given to the rioters. The Fire Brigade Union have complained that they have had no coverage at all at their protests about the loss of fire services. Both ironic and worrying in the circumstances.

So, if public protest is ignored and more aggressive protest is illegal and could lead to homelessness, what voice do the poorer people of England have? Homeless and without a voice, what will they do next?

Riots - Government and rioters must accept responsibility

Dreadful news about the situation across the country. I worked in West Croydon for over 15 years, and drove through Ealing only the day before riots returning from a London break. It was heartbreaking to see Croydon on fire and deeply concerning to hear that residents were left to their own devices to evacuate their burning flats situated above a furniture store. They were lucky to escape with their lives. People who have very little have now lost everything they had.

It is understandable that some people feel disengaged with their community but the unacceptable behaviour, attacking home owners, terrorising by-standers and local residents, retailers, business people and even a public bus is criminal and the attack on local communities is unforgiveable.

Draconian Coalition Government cuts have led to a reduction in police officers and fire officers and fire engines. As our public services are struggling to cope, we can only hope that events do not escalate further and community leaders should examine the risk of such an occurance in our own community. The Government should recognise some responsibility for those who feel socially excluded and have "nothing to lose". Regardless, everyone involved in what looks like opportunist criminal attacks on other vulnerable people must carry their own personal responsibility for their actions and face the consequences for what they have done.