Transfer Process Begins

Yesterday's Napo bulletin confirms that a Staff Transfer Agreement is close to being concluded for CRC staff and as a consequence there is likely to be considerable anxiety and concern. As with the 2014 process, I suspect it would be beneficial and supportive if information was shared here. 

Probation Reunification 

Update – Staff assignment process underway. CRC members ballot to take place soon on National Transfer Agreement

Whilst Napo members have welcomed the announcement of the Government U-turn on the future of the Probation Service, your union has worked hard to try and tackle the many operational and HR challenges that have arisen following this decision.

A New Staff Transfer and Protections Agreement

Napo and our sister unions have almost concluded formal negotiations on a new Staff Transfer and Protections Agreement (STAP), and will be reporting the outcomes to our respective CRC members very soon. This process will also include the launch of a ballot for members currently employed by the Community Rehabilitation Companies on whether to accept the agreement. The ballot will only be open to members of a trade union and it’s never been so important for CRC staff to consider signing up to Napo membership.

Meanwhile, as part of the work to assist CRCs to exit their contracts next June and ensure sufficient lead in time for the Probation reunification process, a staff assignment scheme is now underway. Essentially, this will identify those current CRC staff whom it is expected will transfer to either:

• the National Probation Service (NPS), or
• a dynamic framework provider who will offer support services for Intervention and Programmes to be commissioned by the NPS.

CRCs have been asked to complete an indicative staff assignment by the end of September.

What this means for CRC staff

During or soon after the week commencing Tuesday 25 August 2020, CRC staff will receive a letter from their CRC Director. This will explain their indicative role assignment to the NPS or the dynamic framework.

If individual staff disagree with this indicative assignment, they will have 15 working days from the date of the letter to appeal.

What information is being used for role assignment?

Your CRC employer’s intranet has information on role assignment and the appeals process. It is important to note that the assignment process is not something that is negotiated with the Trade Unions so although HMPPS has shared it with us it is not something that was, or could be, agreed by Napo. Please see the paragraph below ‘Mechanism of Transfer’ which explains this in more detail. In summary the following will be used for staff assignment:

• HMPPS guidance – the updated HMPPS Role Assignment Guidance (August 2020) We have attached this for reference, CLICK HERE
• Your current substantive post - if a staff member is providing temporary cover in another role or on secondment, the role assignment will be based on your substantive post,
• Your job description

Support for Napo members involved in the assignment appeal process

It is likely that the majority of CRC staff will find the assignment process to be straightforward, but Napo will seek to support individual CRC members through any appeal process. If members wish to appeal they should do so within the timescale and contact their local Napo representative. We are requesting additional time from CRC employers for our Branch reps to engage in this work, which will be supported by our Napo National Officials where required.

Further material on the outcome of the national negotiations with HMPPS and planning for the CRC members ballot are currently being prepared. These will be the subject of a recommendation from Napo’s Probation Negotiating Committee who will meet soon and whose decision will be relayed to members as part of the ballot process.

The mechanism of transfer

The mechanism for transfer from a CRC to the NPS is a statutory staff transfer scheme as this is a reorganisation of public services involving a public sector employer. This is the same as the mechanism of transfer used for the TR project in 2014. The mechanism of transfer from a CRC to a Dynamic Framework provider is TUPE as no public sector employer is involved. This is a complex area of law but recent caselaw examples are the basis for the decision by HMPPS that this should be the case. The STAP will apply to all transfers but there will be a separate agreement for those staff transferring to the NPS (including those former CRC staff from Wales who transferred into the NPS last December). This includes harmonisation to NPS terms and conditions including NPS pay scales. Those transferring to the Dynamic Framework will have their CRC terms and conditions protected.

Maintaining your Napo membership

Irrespective of whether you eventually transfer to the NPS or a dynamic framework provider, it's vital that you make the switch for the payment of your Napo subscriptions by Direct Debit as the previous ‘Check Off’ arrangements carried out by your employer will cease at the date of transfer.

In order to assist the Napo membership team in managing our data base please do not delay in making that switch and consider doing so as soon as possible. You do not have to wait until your assignment is known, and you will also see that your subscriptions will reduce when you do so. Please click here to make that change!

Please look out for more information on Probation reunification and the many other issues that impact on your terms and conditions, and consider taking part in your local Napo Branch meeting.

Ian Lawrence General Secretary

Katie Lomas National Chair

--oo00oo--

Thanks go to the reader for forwarding the following from Interserve:-

20th August 2020

Dear colleague,

As you will be aware, as part of our transition process we need to understand which staff will go where in the new unified model, and in order to get this moving the Authority (the Ministry of Justice) have requested that we, along with all current CRC Providers, undertake a formal assignment process. This includes all directly employed and supply chain staff, and will determine which colleagues are likely to transfer either to the NPS or to a dynamic framework provider or those that are unlikely to transfer (for which a clear rationale will be provided).

We have been requested to complete the assignment activity by the end of September after which the Authority will work closely with us to finalise and conclude the assignment process. We anticipate this finalisation activity will take place during October.

The plan therefore is that over the next couple of months, we will work internally with each of the CRCs through the local senior managers to ensure assignment activity is undertaken according to the methodology set out by the Authority. When this is done, you will receive written confirmation of an indicative assignment outcome and at this point it will give you just that, the assignment outcome. We will be working with the Authority to understand details such as locations, line management etc as the next stage that follows on. I appreciate that for many staff, it is this layer of detail that will be of more significance that the indicative assignment outcome, but we need to work through the stages incrementally.

You will have a right of appeal against the indicative assignment outcome and details of the appeal process will be outlined in the outcome letter. Please note, although we undertake the assignment process ourselves using the Authority methodology and guidance, the Authority can still challenge our decisions, and therefore the final outcome of the assignment is conditional on there being no justifiable challenges by the Authority on the assignment of individuals. This is why it is termed an ‘indicative’ outcome at this stage. Should this be the case, we will get in touch with you promptly with a view to resolve the issue in an effective and timely manner.

Please be assured that throughout the process, we will work with you to address any concerns or queries you have. If you have any questions regarding this letter, then please contact Daniella Sinagoga via e mail. For any general queries please email HR Operations via email hr.operations@interserve.com

This is the beginning of a number of communications with you over the coming months on the transition and assignment process, and we are working through the various details to be able to share them with you properly and in a timely way as the changes progress.

Kind Regards

Kim Thornden-Edwards

Director of Justice
Interserve

Tsar Falls From Grace

Elevated from obscurity at Centre Point by Tony Blair, I've never been a fan of loud-mouthed Louise Casey and not at all sure what her successes have been during her many high-profile posts over subsequent years. Always ambitious, I hadn't even noticed she was one of Boris Johnson's cronies recently elevated to the Peerage following her return to being the homeless 'Tsar'. The government ''guff'' from May:-

A specialist taskforce has been created to lead the next phase of the government’s support for rough sleepers during the pandemic.

Spearheaded by Dame Louise Casey, the taskforce will work hand-in-hand with councils across the country on plans to ensure rough sleepers can move into long-term, safe accommodation once the immediate crisis is over – ensuring as few people as possible return to life on the streets.

The taskforce will also ensure the thousands of rough sleepers now in accommodation continue to receive the physical and mental health support they need over the coming weeks while they continue to self-isolate from the virus.

Over 90% of rough sleepers known to councils at the beginning of the crisis have now been offered accommodation where they can remain safe during the crisis – helping protect themselves and others from contracting the virus.

This has been backed by £3.2 million in targeted funding to help councils get as many people off the streets as possible, with a further £3.2 billion additional funding for councils to help them continue to respond to the pandemic and support their communities – including their vital work helping those sleeping rough.

Housing Secretary Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP said:

"By working closely with councils, charities, faith groups and health providers, we have offered accommodation to over 5,400 people who were sleeping rough at the beginning of the crisis: that’s over 90% of known rough sleepers. This national effort has potentially helped to protect thousands of lives.

As the country prepares for the next phase of the battle against coronavirus, Dame Louise Casey will spearhead a taskforce to provide us with expert advice and knowledge to put in place a long-term plan to stop as many vulnerable people as possible from returning to life on the streets."

Dame Louise Casey said:

"The storm of COVID-19 has affected us all in many, varied and sometimes deeply tragic ways - we know that it is a virus that does not discriminate. Due to the incredible efforts by people in local councils, charities, hotel staff and the public, many rough sleepers have been brought in and off the streets.

Much has been done, and there is much still to do. We have all had to respond to this crisis with a deep resolve but also innovation – in bringing people inside, there is now a real opportunity to address the health and social needs of these individuals and if we can stop them going back to the streets. This, like so much over the last few weeks, will take a huge national effort and I’m pleased to be able to be part of that."

--oo00oo--

We all know Boris is one for gesture politics rather than considered action and her appointment was probably just a bit of further 'window dressing' rather than part of any concerted effort to deliver on his stated aim last December of eliminating street homelessness.  

Anyway, Louise has suddenly thrown in the towel and nobody seems to know why. With absolutely no knowledge as to the reason, I simply invite readers to consider for one moment the likely outcome of a meeting of minds should she find herself in the same room as Dominic Cummings. For some reason I have this vision of her finding reason to give him a good slap. This from the Guardian:-

Fears over 'vacuum' as top UK homelessness adviser steps down
The government’s top adviser on homelessness has stepped down unexpectedly, sparking fears of a strategy vacuum as hundreds of thousands of tenants face possible eviction over rent arrears accrued during the coronavirus pandemic.

Dame Louise Casey told housing and campaign groups on Wednesday that she had stepped back from her role, which involved leading a specialist taskforce set up in May to prevent a return to widespread rough sleeping after thousands of people were helped off the streets in March and April.

After being awarded a crossbench peerage last month she said she now wanted to make her “contribution to public service” from the House of Lords, according to a note circulated to sector leaders. “This seemed like the right moment to step back, especially as the country looks to gear up to the ‘new normal’,” she wrote.

Jon Sparkes, the chief executive of charity Crisis, was informed by Casey of her decision. “We urge minsters not to leave a leadership vacuum. With the economic impact of the pandemic pushing more people into homelessness, we must redouble our efforts, otherwise we risk rates of rough sleeping rising with all the human misery this entails.”

Casey has not yet commented publicly on the move. One housing sector source said they understood she had been urging a different approach to the lifting of the evictions ban this weekend which would offer greater protection. But it is not known if this was a factor in her decision.

Charities and campaigners are bracing for the lifting of the ban, which they warn could lead to hundreds of thousands of people made homeless. Labour and charities including Shelter and Crisis are calling for it to be postponed. Crisis said it was taken by surprise by Casey’s move. It said the government’s strategy was to meet its target of ending rough sleeping by 2024 and it was unclear who would now lead that effort. “This is a deep concern,” said Matt Downie, the policy director at Crisis. “What we need now is coordinated action across government with the leadership and assertiveness of someone like Louise Casey.”

There are signs that rough sleeping is increasing again, in a trend that is likely to be exacerbated by rising unemployment as the recession bites. Figures from the homelessness charity Streetlink this week showed that alerts by members of the public about rough sleepers increased by 36% year on year between April and June 2020, reaching 16,976. Notifications were also higher than the previous quarter.

In February, Casey was appointed to review the government’s rough sleeping strategy before the impact of the pandemic became clear. Her role quickly morphed into crisis management. As well as helping arrange thousands of hotel and temporary accommodation spaces to get rough sleepers indoors, she was credited with securing an additional £105m for more permanent accommodation for those people to move into.

Nearly 15,000 people were helped under the government’s Everyone In initiative. Casey previously advised the Blair government on homelessness and in her latest role reported to Boris Johnson and the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick. Sources said it remained possible that she could take part in the original review of the government’s rough sleeping strategy if it restarted.

Jenrick said: “I would like to thank Dame Louise for her contribution at such a challenging time, which has led to so many rough sleepers being helped off the streets and kept safe from coronavirus. Her work leading the rough sleeping taskforce will ensure as many people as possible who have been brought in do not return to sleeping rough. Our plans for longer-term accommodation – 3,300 homes this year alone – and tailored support, backed by half a billion pounds of funding this year and next, will help us to meet our commitment to end rough sleeping once and for all.”

Official homelessness statistics published on Thursday showed there were nearly 5,000 tenants in England threatened with section 21 “no fault” evictions between January and the end of March before lockdown, a 25% increase on the previous three-month period.

Campaigners warned that many of these tenants, who were able to stay in their home throughout the pandemic after the government issued a temporary eviction ban on 18 March, will face having to leave their home when the ban ends on Sunday.

Section 21 enables private landlords to repossess their properties without having to establish fault on the part of the tenant, in some cases enabling them to re-let the property at a higher rent. It has been criticised for giving too much power to landlords. The government promised in 2019 to scrap it, but has not yet done so.

Polly Neate, the chief executive of Shelter, said: “Today’s figures show private renters were already badly affected by homelessness when the pandemic was just taking hold. Thousands more renters have since had their lives turned upside down as the country descends in economic free fall.”

Thangam Debbonaire, the shadow housing secretary, said: “These figures highlight the urgent need to extend the evictions ban, to avoid thousands more people being made homeless in the run-up to winter.”

Normal Rules Don't Apply

The exam result cock-up and humiliating u-turn whilst Boris is absent on holiday for the third time this year would seem to have all the usual hallmarks of Cummings at work - both the determination to use data and absence of any political nous. It's personification of the 'Cummings Doctrine' - either the normal rules rules don't apply, or they apply to other people. This as a reminder from 23rd May in Prospect Magazine:-

The Cummings doctrine: Normal rules do not apply

From drug-dealer dress to shutting down parliament, his contempt for the old ways helped him navigate the baffling and boring crisis of Brexit. But this time we really care—and No 10 will pay a price for his disdain

Too much time has been wasted on trying to decipher Dominic Cummings’s showy, research-strewn ramblings. He is not a puzzle to be solved intellectually, but psychoanalytically. And not an especially difficult puzzle either.

Contemptuous of just about every official and politician he has ever worked with, with only a partial exception for Michael Gove, he is a man with something to prove. Specifically, that he is right, that others are wrong, and that he is the biggest brain in the room.

The purported idea behind that notorious ad for assorted “misfits and weirdos” was to bypass a sclerotic civil service and bring the most brilliant scientists and economists into No 10. And yet in this avowedly open-minded appeal, Cummings presumed to tell the diverse new intellectual elite what exactly they should have been reading. He bandied around specific papers with clever-sounding names—“Computational rationality: A converging paradigm for intelligence in brains, minds, and machines” and “Early warning signals for critical transitions in a thermoacoustic system”—in a way that nobody would do unless they thought they knew it all already.

And since he’s been running the engine room of the Johnson government, he has been concerned to prove something beyond his brilliance: namely, his power. Incidents have ranged from displays of authority worthy of a petty gangster—such as contriving to have the former chancellor’s special adviser, Sonia Khan, marched out of No 10 by armed police—to more significant showdowns, such as manoeuvring her boss, Sajid Javid, out of the Treasury a few months later.

Although he himself pointedly refuses to join the political party that has put him in No 10, he drove an unprecedented purge of its ranks last autumn, withdrawing the whip from grandees like Kenneth Clarke who had been figures in it since before he was born.

Everything he has done in Downing Street, from the seismic (shutting down parliament) to the comic (dressing day-in day-out like a 1990s drug dealer) has served to underline one point: normal rules do not apply.

And so, when it comes to Covid-19, and the genuinely difficult problem of how to deal with a four-year old while caring for an infected wife and with every chance of getting sick himself, it is natural that Cummings should have felt entitled to improvise his own solution, without worrying about what the rules say. It’s in his character both to think he knows best, and to dismiss the law as an ass.

The first difficulty for him this time, though, is that this particular ass of a law is one he was involved in imposing. His second and even greater difficulty is that it was a law that has very directly affected every one of us, with many facing trying and difficult consequences, on a daily basis.

The river of raw anger on social media from people who have not been allowed to meet new grandchildren, hold the hands of the dying or attend funerals is of an entirely different character from the synthetic rage that frames the typical Westminster row.

In most political rows—and Cummings is quite right about this—the public see one set of clowns slinging mud at another and pay it very little mind. But when, much more rarely, they judge that their overlords are failing to follow their own rules we see the sort of genuine wrath which is not easily quelled, as with the great expenses crisis of 2009.

The flock of tweeting ministers arguing that it “isn’t a crime to care for your family” today reveals an administration betting everything on this being the ordinary sort of row that will blow over before long. So too, does Downing Street’s move to contradict the account of the Durham police force, which it is of course relying on to enforce the lockdown, about Cummings having been spoken to.

Why have they made this call? Why not either apologise, or let him go this morning and quietly bring him back in a few months? My suspicion is that the extraordinary tumult of Brexit, and the vindication in the December election of the Cummings strategy for navigating that, has persuaded the government as a whole to buy into his presumption about ordinary rules not applying. Here is the man who looked a bit wild, but got us through the last crisis, so let’s stand by him for the new crisis too.

It’s an understandable reaction, but one that badly misreads the mood. The substance of the last crisis was as boring as it was baffling. WTO trading terms, regulatory dis-alignment, limited customs checks within the island of Ireland: these are not things on which many of us could muster a view, still less any real passion, until they somehow got bound up with questions of identity, a binding Cummings cunningly helped to contrive.

Not being able to go and see your mum, however, now that is another question. We all care, and he has turned out not to care enough about that to throw his lot in with the rest of us. He may brazen this out, or—more likely—he may very soon be gone. Either way, however, the affair will have drawn a sharp line under the Johnson premiership’s honeymoon.

The posturing and institutional short-circuiting of the Brexit crisis is passing, and so is the license for anarchy it offered to Cummings and Johnson. We are instead into uniquely serious times. No 10 is in for a rude lesson in how the normal rules are back—and perhaps with special force.

--oo00oo--

Cummings has certainly made lots of enemies and there's evidence of the net closing in on him as reported in the Guardian at the weekend:- 

Dominic Cummings urged to release data to disprove claim of second lockdown trip

Dominic Cummings has been asked to hand over mobile phone and vehicle tracking data to disprove claims that he made a second lockdown trip to Durham at the height of the pandemic. The request was made by Nazir Afzal, the former chief prosecutor for north-west England, who is leading a campaign for a full investigation into Cummings’ movements during the lockdown.

It was prompted by allegations from Dave and Clare Edwards and two others, who told the Guardian and the Daily Mirror that they had seen someone whom they believed to be Cummings in woods south of Durham on 19 April, days after he returned to London following his now notorious 17-day trip to the north-east.

The prime minister’s chief aide has denied making a second visit and says he has phone data to prove he was in London on 19 April. Boris Johnson says he has seen this evidence, but Downing Street has refused to make it available and regards the matter as closed.

In separate letters to Cummings and his wife, Mary Wakefield, however, lawyers for Afzal say there is a public interest in settling the matter by verifying the true extent of their lockdown movements including over the weekend of 17-19 April.

Explaining the move, Afzal said: “All we ask, on behalf of the law-abiding public, is that Mr Cummings, who has regularly spoken about the importance of data, provide the data that will evidence his whereabouts and prove he was telling the whole truth in the Downing Street garden.

“We have written to Ms Wakefield too because she has yet to give an account of her whereabouts, which has become increasingly relevant as witnesses give their accounts. The public deserve the truth, nothing else.”

The letters request location data from the couple’s mobile phones for their first trip to the north-east and for the disputed weekend. They also ask for tracking data from the two Land Rover Discovery vehicles the family were seen using in April and May. The models Cummings used record all the vehicles’ movements and share the data with the manufacturer.

The letters also ask for the couple’s authorisation for police to check automatic number plate recognition records for the lockdown movements of the vehicles. Their authorisation is also requested for Land Rover and Google to release location data.

At his press conference in the Downing Street rose garden in May, Cummings said it was untrue to claim that he had returned to Durham on 19 April. He said: “Photos and data on my phone prove this to be false, and local CCTV, if it exists, would also prove that I’m telling the truth that I was in London on that day. I was not in Durham.”

The letter to Cummings from Afzal’s lawyers reads: 

“Having highlighted the importance of such evidence to the nation, you will no doubt agree that it is important that you ensure its provision, in light of the continuing controversy surrounding these matters. Because you expressly made reference to and relied upon phone and other camera-recorded data that you said would corroborate your account and would show that the contradictory witness accounts were ‘false’, any unwillingness now to produce that data would be highly significant.”

Durham police found that Cummings probably breached health protection rules by travelling to Barnard Castle on 12 April, but made no finding on his decision to leave London because the three-day investigation was confined to County Durham. Afzal, whose older brother died of Covid-19 on 8 April, and senior Labour figures have called on the Metropolitan police to investigate all Cumming’s alleged lockdown breaches.

Afzal’s letters also cite research that found a clear and lasting dip in public confidence in the government’s handling of the pandemic following the exposure of Cummings’ movements.

Life on Mars

Not from the 1970's, but here's a reminder of what things were like from 2006 as reported by the BBC following the dreadful Monckton case in London. I don't know how, but we seem to have missed it over the years:-

Life as a probation officer

The probation service has come under fire after a report found "collective failure" in the handling of two criminals who killed John Monckton. But what is it like working there?

One senior probation officer who did not want to be named gives his personal impression of the job. He has worked in the service for more than 20 years and is based in a rural county in the south of England.

"We write pre-sentence reports which advise courts on how they should sentence individuals. And we supervise people who are on court orders and people who are in prison. The courts don't always follow our proposals, but they do in about two-thirds of cases.

We are under increasing pressure to write what are called fast-delivery reports which I'm rather uncomfortable about. A standard report takes six to eight hours to write, from the time you get the file to signing it off. But the fast reports are about 90 minutes.

With supervision, there are requirements imposed on offenders such as keeping appointments and notifying a change of address. The purpose of supervision is to try to stop people from re-offending and reduce the risk to the public.

It entails an ongoing process of assessing individuals, assessing risks that they pose in terms of harm to other people, harm to themselves, harm to staff and the risk of them getting into trouble again. It requires all your skills in working with people to divert them in different directions. 

As well as this one-to-one contact, we also run structured programmes for people who have got into trouble, such as courses for people convicted of drink-driving, where we give them information and try and make them think differently.

The best practice is when you are allocated a prisoner and you see him periodically through his sentence - so when he comes out you are not confronted with someone you don't know. You have some sort of relationship with him. But this has happened less in recent years, for financial reasons, and there's deep concern about that.

It's a difficult job because you never see your successes. They don't come back. You only see failures because they re-offend. But it's an interesting job - because people are interesting, even troubled people. And there's satisfaction you're doing good work with people sometimes.

Very few offenders have two heads! I understand that perception, but they are just people. They are troubled and sometimes they're dangerous but they're people. You need your interpersonal skills to make the job not dangerous. If you rub a young man up the wrong way then he may react. But I've only been assaulted once, by a teenager high on drugs.

There has to be trust on both sides and there needs to be respect. Even if they have committed heinous crimes, you have to treat them with dignity because that's the starting point.

Most people that come into the profession are post-graduates but the two-year training course incorporates a degree as well. The course involves both academic work and on-the-job training. But there's significant pressure to erode our training and its future is uncertain. We are increasingly employing staff without that training, to fill the gaps.

The workforce is also becoming more feminised - about 60 or 70%, which is a concern because we try to offer model relationships and good behaviour to offenders and it's important we give them perspectives on both male and female officers.

Pay has been an issue but that is being reorganised and we hope it will reap benefits. Over the past 10 or 15 years pay levels have suffered and there has been bad press recently.

I feel deeply for the four officers who have been suspended over the Monckton report, with no support from the service. You would feel devastated if you had supervised one of these men, even without all the criticism.

By and large the probation service does extremely well in diverting people away from offending but you can't live people's lives for them and you can't control them 24-7. Less than one percent of people who have been categorised as presenting a high risk commit a further serious offence while under supervision.

One of Home Secretary Charles Clarke's aims is to reduce the prison population, quite rightly, but we are less happy with the concept of putting the probation service to market testing. People have enough on their plates without competing for their jobs.

We often work in partnership with the private sector on issues such as employment, education and tagging. But Mr Clarke is proposing to take our core business and give it to other organisations.

I would advocate more end-to-end sentence management. It's fairly simple - put in the money and say part of a probation officer's job must be to visit this person in prison. And I'd like to spend less time in front of a computer and more in front of the person I'm meant to be working with."

Figures from Napo:-

• 1,190 senior probation officers
• 4,980 probation officers
• 6,089 probation service officers
• Average start salary £21,324 (+ Ldn weighting £3,420)
• 175,000 offenders begin supervision annually
• The caseload on any given day is more than 200,000

A Perfect Avatar

As the government continues to shift the blame and prepare its defence of their disastrous handling of the pandemic by abolishing Public Health England, Boris Johnson can't even bother to try and look smart for the VJ75 commemoration service and justice still hasn't caught up with Dominic Cummings, I find some comfort and solace in learning yet more about the remarkable Captain Tom Moore.

History sometimes has a habit of throwing up exactly the right person at the right time and esteemed historian Dominic Sandbrook absolutely nailed it in my view by describing Tom Moore as 'the perfect avatar' in the brilliant ITV documentary of his life screened on Thursday. It's the sort of story absolutely made for TV and social history of this kind has never been done better whether it be BBC, ITV, Channel 4, 5 or 'Yesterday'. 

As Sandbrook put it, sometimes only a veteran 'time traveller' such as Tom is able to put momentous changes into some kind of context and bring some calm, reflective perspective to things. His extraordinary fund-raising success in aid of NHS charities clearly struck a chord with hundreds of thousands of people worldwide, but it's taken me some time to understand exactly why? It didn't seem to be fully explained by the timing or simply media exposure.

It's only by watching both ITV programmes, the second aired yesterday on his wartime exploits as part of the famously 'forgotten army' that his character and fascinating life story becomes clear. The glint in his eye; the wicked smile; the subtle hint at pleasures enjoyed in the midst of terror and 'unpleasantness' are just magical - it's precisely this that engaged the nation and beyond in the midst of these very challenging times I think. Tom, the 'perfect avatar' so reminds me of why just talking to people and learning about them is such a magical part of being a probation officer!       

Guest Blog 78

Call for NPS and CRC workers to take part in research study focused on probation staff attitudes

I’m a student at Bangor University in Wales currently studying for a MA degree in Criminology and Criminal Justice, with the hope of going into probation following completing the course. I am writing to you as Jim has kindly agreed to allow me to publish a ‘guest blog’ in an attempt to recruit participants for a study I’m conducting. 

My dissertation is based on the recently announced renationalisation of the probation service, and staff attitudes surrounding the early termination of CRC contracts and the prospect of further change. In order to answer my research questions, I have developed an online survey aimed at gathering the views and expectations of both NPS and CRC staff towards the forthcoming restructure.

The popularity of the blog meant that it was identified as a potential means of gathering respondents and I’m very grateful to Jim for allowing me to explore this avenue. The views and attitudes of probation staff are of course, essential to this study and I decided to focus on this following reading about the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms of 2014 and the unparalleled change and restructuring probation staff have endured in recent years. 

Essentially, I would like to find out whether probation workers agree with the NAPO general secretary Ian Lawrence’s belief that there is now, finally, a sense of ‘’certainty’’ over the future of the service. 

Perhaps unexpectedly I have found it incredibly difficult to find data on the attitudes of probation staff and wished to make a small contribution to this underrepresented field, and allow workers a chance to express their own views on the latest reforms. Therefore, the survey asks a mixture of open and closed questions and tries to allow sufficient space for respondents to elaborate on answers as much as they would like to. Responses are completely anonymous and no identifying questions are asked. 

Wherever you stand on Transforming Rehabilitation and the plans for renationalisation, I would be incredibly grateful if you could find the time (around 15 minutes) to complete the survey.

If you would be interested in participating, please follow the link - https://bangor.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/renationalising-probation and feel free to contact me at soud7c@bangor.ac.uk should you have any questions regarding the research.

Finally, thank you for taking the time to read my post and I wish you all the best in your careers,

Michael Murphy

Relief in Nottingham

Due to the prevailing climate of secrecy and fear, not much information leaks out of HMPPS nowadays, which makes the following contribution of particular interest as an indicator of mood and morale following recent Midlands personnel changes:- 

Anonymous tales from Sherwood Forest

A new era has dawned in the Forest as the last legacy of the nasty sheriff of Nottingham who ruled over the old Trust has been cut. After the Trust CEO and many of her mischief makers left the Castle under TR, so one member of the Senior Management Team was left to captain the HMPPS ship to new and uncharted seas. It failed and most importantly there are lessons for the good and the great at HMPPS high command to learn and act on.

Six difficult years later the captain has gone and many employees, past and present have reasons to be cheerful again. The captain has certainly left a legacy but not one that many probation staff would want or should have to endure again. Clearly a good leader and captain should lead, make a difference and take the crew with her or him. Sadly, and most disappointingly, like the Costa Concordia incident, the captain of a ship in trouble should stand up for his crew and take responsibility for the shortcomings and failings under their watch. 

It seems that leadership skills were certainly not a required element for an LDU head here. To misquote a sporting phrase; this was not a manager who had lost the dressing room, this was a manager who did not know where it was and was not able to engage and listen to his team members.

Rewind to an SFO and high profile murder and not unexpectedly, the Mr Teflon coat comes out. Blame front line staff for all shortcoming and be complicit in a misleading press statement (we now have more staff - oh but don't mention we don't have any extra POs than a year ago!!). No wonder staff in the LDU who already considered themselves vulnerable to the "LDU ethos" which had already driven staff to leave, now realised they really had no one covering their back. 

In an LDU which has a history of high workloads and staff recruitment, with a difficult working environment, so additional fear was ramped on top of everything else. Thankfully, it's over now but not without a significant casualty list of employees whose lives and careers have been damaged to varying degrees because of the poor leadership and command management of the LDU. This must not be allowed to happen again.

Good Luck With That

As thoughts turn from crisis management to designing a 'new normal' for prison and probation, the third or voluntary sector are clearly hoping to influence the direction of travel by the great Ship of State:-     

What does recovery look like?

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) Third Sector Task Force formally asked the Reducing Reoffending Third Sector Advisory Group Covid-19 Special Interest Group (RR3 SIG) to produce a think piece presenting the voluntary sector’s views on the recovery of voluntary services in the criminal justice system after the pandemic.

Clinks commissioned Russell Webster to co-ordinate the think piece on behalf of the RR3 SIG. The report is based on the views of the group’s members and those of organisations in their networks, as well as information gathered from Clinks’ engagement with over 850 people through 85 online events in the past few months. In this blog, Russell Webster summarises its main contents and you can read the piece in full here.

Key principles

The paper highlights six principles the voluntary sector sees as critical to responding to the challenges of Covid-19 and creating a fairer and more effective post-pandemic criminal justice system:

1. A full and equal partnership between the criminal justice voluntary sector and the MoJ and HMPPS, which enables all of us to act as critically constructive friends
2. Our belief in the importance of transparency on both sides
3. The importance that both the emergency responses to Covid-19 and the construction of a new normal within the criminal justice system reflect the detailed and continuing input of people with lived experience of that system
4. The importance of a holistic approach across government departments and sectors, particularly around issues relating to physical and mental health, employment, benefits and housing
5. Consistency across the prison estate and the national probation landscape. Voluntary organisations were concerned at the very different Covid-19 responses between apparently similar prisons and probation areas
6. Recovery is an opportunity to learn how to make the system work better for the men, women and children it works with.

Impact on the voluntary sector

Clinks and the RR3 SIG have already described in some detail the devastating impact of coronavirus and the associated lockdown on voluntary sector organisations working with people in contact with the justice system, with smaller and black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) charities disproportionately affected.

The voluntary sector has, however, responded to diverse challenges at every stage of the justice system via a wide range of adaptations and innovations. The document highlights a number of key challenges, responses and persisting barriers in six areas:

1. Safe working practices to protect workers, volunteers and service users from Covid-19
2. Work in prisons (including both group work and one-to-one work)
3. Work with the families of prisoners
4. Through the gate work
5. Work with people subject to probation supervision and community (including access to accommodation and employment)
6. Work with groups who are medically vulnerable and at particular risk from Covid-19.

Please refer to the report (pages 8-14) for full details of emerging best practice in these areas.

The RR3 SIG also raises the issue of the disproportionate impact of Covid-19 on people from BAME backgrounds in particular and notes its disappointment that this disproportionate impact was not mentioned in either the National Framework for Prison Regimes and Services nor the Probation Roadmap to Recovery and that there appears to be no equality impact assessment of either document. The group also highlights a number of other groups whose specific needs appear to be overlooked, including women; Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people; and care leavers (many of whom lack family members who are able to support or advocate for them).

In a separate paper, voluntary organisations have set out areas for action that HMPPS must take in order to address the challenges of BAME-led organisations as the criminal justice system recovery process continues. The RR3 has given its full support to the paper, in a letter to Dr Jo Farrar, Chief Executive of HMPPS. Read the paper and supporting letter here.

Putting service users first

The RR3 SIG argue strongly that input from people with lived experience of the criminal justice system is absolutely essential to successful recovery planning and that the prison system often actively obstructs contributions from people with lived experience.

The group suggest that MoJ/HMPPS could enable people in prison to be more active players in their resettlement planning by building on the emergency provisions to make in-cell communication a priority. Mainstreaming video visits, improving access to free/low cost family contact through technology and allowing secure internet access are all thought to be vital components of a more effective new normal.

The RR3 SIG argue that both overall prisoner wellbeing and equality issues should be on an equal footing with safety and security in the prison and probation roadmaps to recovery, and that this is not yet the case. The group also recommends that HMPPS considers rolling out programmes that foster better staff/prisoner relationships.

What next?

As well as writing the document, Clinks and other members of the RR3 SIG have presented the report to HMPPS and received a positive response from senior officials keen to benefit from the (unwanted) opportunity of coronavirus to develop a more effective and fairer criminal justice system.

--oo00oo--

Race and ethnicity: a critical moment 

Dear Dr Farrar, 

We have very much welcomed the public stance you have taken in championing issues of diversity in your leadership of HMPPS. We are therefore pleased to bring to your attention the excellent paper (attached) prepared by a small group of BAME led organisations in response to a request for assistance channelled through the RR3 special interest group on Covid 19. We hope you will agree that it makes a series of practical suggestions for how the recovery process in prisons and probation can meet its obligations to the people from minority communities who are so disproportionately disadvantaged in our current criminal justice system. 

We wanted to write to you as a group representing a much wider spectrum of the sector, however, to underline a key message from those specialist organisations. It’s a message that has been very prominent in the coverage of events both in the United States and here in recent weeks. 

It is that the task of eradicating discrimination based on race and ethnicity belongs to all of us. It requires leadership from those who hold power and influence now, not just those from minority communities who have for so long struggled to fill those positions or command that influence. 

You made your personal passion for equality very clear when you took up post. As tends to happen, events have intervened and we understand how the attention of HMPPS has been pulled in many directions over the last 6 months in particular. But events in the wider world convince us that we are at a critical moment on equality, charged with both opportunity and risk. 

So we ask you to act promptly and decisively on the advice that this particular report contains. The people whose views it represents have been disappointed on many occasions, and feel let down by their experience of communication with HMPPS in recent months. There is an opportunity to put that right by deeds rather than words, and inspire trust for the future. 

But we also hope that you will feel able to take practical and very visible action that demonstrates that HMPPS corporately is changing gear on equality in response to the outpouring of public anger and shame that we have witnessed. Your strategic plan made commitments to change the make up of the organisation you lead, and that is welcome. We are focussed on the people for whom you care, however, and the plan says much less about the discrimination that many of them are experiencing and have experienced for many years. They, and the organisations that know them best, are looking for evidence that they have been heard. We look forward to your response.

Yours,

Latest From Napo 219

Here is a slightly edited version of the latest mailout from Napo sent yesterday:-

Solidarity with all affected by the tragedy in Beirut

Some members will have been directly affected by the explosion in Beirut this week which has wreaked havoc on residents of Beirut and Lebanon as a whole. Napo would like to express its solidarity and condolences to all those affected by the tragedy and hope that the City and people of Lebanon can recover from the devastation.

Advice for members who have been shielding or have additional vulnerabilities to Covid-19

Government guidance on shielding and protecting people who are clinically extremely vulnerable from COVID -19 officially changed on the 1 August 2020. Napo advises that members who have been shielding should continue to be vigilant and continue to work from home wherever possible. ‘Shielded workers’ are those with health conditions that make them more likely to experience serious complications from a Covid-19 infection, so they have needed to follow more stringent guidance on social isolation.

The government decision to pause the guidance on shielding in Napo’s view is premature. Therefore, Napo has been in consultation with the employers to make sure that any individual who was previously shielding is not forced to come back to the workplace and staff should continue to work from home if they are able to do so. If any member of staff is considering returning to the workplace or is asked to come back into the office, your employer must provide you with an individual risk assessment so that this can be undertaken in a Covid secure way.

Napo advice is that all staff who are deemed to be at heightened risk e.g. clinically extremely vulnerable, in the vulnerable group and/or from a BAME background should formally request an individual risk assessment be undertaken before returning to the workplace. If you encounter any difficulty from the employer providing this essential protection please contact Napo at info@napo.org.uk and we can assist you and make sure that your health and safety is protected.

Exceptional Delivery Models (EDMs)

The OMiC implementation consultation has re-started following a pause due to the deployment of some project staff to frontline roles. The main focus of initial discussions has been the return to workplaces and the changes to EDMs for the prison OMUs. Napo health and safety reps in the local branch should be consulted on the OMU EDM and risk assessment as well as the EDM and risk assessment for any related functions that will involve Probation staff. Any members working in prisons should make sure EDMs and risk assessments have involved consultation with them and local health and safety reps and ask for a review if they haven’t.

The overarching advice remains the same for NPS staff working in prisons as for other workplaces, if you are able to work at home you should do so. There were examples as we moved into lockdown of some resistance to this in some prisons, if any members are experiencing difficulties in following this advice they should liaise with local reps to raise this first with the Head of Stakeholder Engagement and refer to Katie Lomas for escalation if this is not successful.

At the same time as discussing the return to workplaces we have also continued to raise issues about the OMiC model, workloads, lack of admin support and issues with the prison SPO role. We will be getting a full report back on the issues raised at our next meeting with the OMiC team.

Court Recovery Consultation

Siobhan Foreman is Napo’s lead for Court work. She is now meeting regularly with the NPS Lead Director for Courts.

Risk Assessments

Risk assessments should be in place for Courts, including the probation areas in the Court buildings. These should be live documents and can be reviewed at any time, especially with changes to circumstances or fresh concerns. Work is underway to determine maximum capacity for NPS staff returning to work in Courts.

Access to Court entrance and exit is varied and remains an ongoing issue for some NPS Court staff. We have been advised a working group has been set up to address this issue and discussions are ongoing between HMCTS (HM Court and Tribunal Service) & HMPPS. The barriers appear to be the unsuitability and footfall of some Court buildings, however, HMPPS are confident that the issue will be resolved over the coming months and 99% of NPS Court staff will have access to HMCTS staff entrance and exits.

Extended Working Hours/Recovery/ Court EDM

We are told that the HMCTS strategy regarding the backlog of cases will be launched very shortly. There is a significant backlog of cases and nearly every case is estimated to take 25% longer than previously due to Covid-19.

HMCTS will adopt a 4-Pillar approach by;

1. Use of Nightingale Courts which can be set up in other suitable establishments, following appropriate risk assessments.
2. Extended operating hours/staggered operating hours with overtime available and weekend working. It has been confirmed this will be on a strictly voluntary basis and payments will be on NNC terms. There is an acknowledgment that there are not enough Court staff to meet the need and discussions are ongoing about how to address this issue. Full consultation with unions regarding this will take place prior to decisions being made.
3. Extend use of IT, for example Cloud Video Platform for PSR interviews, remand courts etc.
4. Maximise use of Court estate. There are some Courts which are not being used to their full capacity or have been closed and work is ongoing to look at the suitability of opening Court rooms.

If you are a Napo member either managing or working in Courts and have any queries or concerns you would like Siobhan to raise at these meeting please email.

Napo AGM 2020 - Motions

Just a reminder that the deadline for the submission of motions to this year's AGM is noon on Wednesday 12 August 2020. All the information you need and forms etc. can be found HERE.

Napo HQ

A Fairy Tale

One thing all probation practitioners know without hesitation is that lack of settled accommodation is the single most serious problem faced by those under our supervision and therefore a major impediment to the prevention of further offending. 

Despite all the warm words and supposed initiatives, homelessness has been a growing problem for decades and with emergency Covid 19 measures in the process of ending the situation will visibly and disgracefully re-emerge on our streets. But we hear the shortage of housing generally is going to be urgently addressed with Boris Johnson's cunning plan to 'build, build, build' out of the pandemic. Just like magic, total reform of the planning system is going to deliver 'more homes, quicker, cheaper and more beautiful'. Who writes this shite and more importantly, who seriously believes it?

The Daily Telegraph is of course the favoured mouth piece of the Tory Party and it's worth quoting in full Robert Jenrick's fairy tale from last Saturday:-

Radical and necessary reforms to our planning system will get Britain building

We are introducing a simpler, faster, people-focused system to deliver the homes and places we need

During lockdown many readers will have spent more time at home than ever before; a home can be a haven, that provides financial security, roots in a community and a place that a family can call their own. But our country’s outdated and cumbersome planning system has contributed to a generational divide between those who own property and those who don’t. Half as many 16-34 year olds own their own homes, compared to those aged 35-64.

While house prices have soared since the Millennium, with England seeing an increase at one of the fastest rates in Europe, our complex and slow planning system has been a barrier to building homes which are affordable, where families want to raise children and build their lives.

It’s resulted in delays to vital infrastructure projects that come with new housing. Communities are missing out on new hospitals, new schools and improved roads and restrictions have left derelict buildings as eyesores and empty shops on our high streets, instead of helping them to adapt and evolve.

Local building plans were supposed to help councils and their residents deliver more homes in their area, yet they take on average seven years to agree in the form of lengthy and absurdly complex documents and accompanying policies understandable only to the lawyers who feast upon every word.

Under the current system, it takes an average of five years for a standard housing development to go through the planning system - before a spade is even in the ground. Seven years to make a plan, five years to get permission to build the houses and slow delivery of vital infrastructure.

This is why the Prime Minister has been clear that we need an ambitious response that matches the scale of the challenge in front of us. A once in a generation reform that lays the foundations for a better future. So this week I am bringing forward radical and necessary reforms to our planning system to get Britain building and drive our economic recovery.

We are introducing a simpler, faster, people-focused system to deliver the homes and places we need. Under the new process, through democratic local agreement, land will be designated in one of three categories: for growth, for renewal or for protection. Land designated for growth will empower development - new homes, hospitals, schools, shops and offices will be allowed automatically. People can get going.

Renewal areas will enable much quicker development with a 'permission in principle' approach to balance speed while ensuring appropriate checks are carried out. And protected land will be just that - our Green Belt, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and rich heritage – will be protected as the places, views and landscapes we cherish most and passed on to the next generation as set out in our manifesto.

Our reforms seek a more diverse and competitive housing industry, in which smaller builders can thrive alongside the big players and where planning permissions are turned into homes faster than they are today.

Creating a new planning system isn’t a task we undertake lightly, but it is both an overdue and a timely reform. Millions of jobs depend on the construction sector and in every economic recovery, it has played a crucial role. These reforms will create thousands of new jobs, from bricklayers to architects. We are cutting red tape, but not standards. We will be driven by outcomes, not process.

It is easy to see why so many people are wary of development, when streets of identikit, “anywheresville” housing has become the norm. This Government doesn’t want to just build houses. We want a society that has re-established powerful links between identity and place, between our unmatchable architectural heritage and the future, between community and purpose. Our reformed system places a higher regard on quality and design than ever before, and draws inspiration from the idea of design codes and pattern books that built Bath, Belgravia and Bournville.

John Ruskin said that we must build and when we do let us think that we build forever. That will be guiding principle as we set out the future of the planning system. New developments will be beautiful places, not just collections of buildings. Good design is the best antidote to local objections to building. We will build 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 provided for in law, where neighbours are not strangers.

We are moving away from notices on lampposts to an interactive, and accessible map-based online system – placing planning at the fingertips of people. The planning process will be brought into the 21st century. Communities will be reconnected to a planning process that is supposed to serve them, with residents more engaged over what happens in their areas.

While the current system excludes residents who don’t have the time to contribute to the lengthy and archaic planning process, local democracy and accountability will now be enhanced by technology and transparency.

Above all, these reforms will help us build the homes our country desperately needs by unlocking land and new opportunities. In so doing we will provide secure housing for the vulnerable, bridge the generational divide and recreate an ownership society, one in which millions more people can open their front door and say with pride, “welcome to my home”.

Robert Jenrick is the Housing Secretary

--oo00oo--

As with so much Tory propaganda it's just smoke and mirrors designed to grab a headline, based on grossly distorted facts and completely undeliverable aspirations - come to think of it just like the Transforming Rehabilitation fiasco of Chris Grayling or more recently the 'world-beating track and trace system' of Matt Hancock. Words are so cheap and bare-faced lies no longer seem to carry much in the way of risk. Somehow deregulating is going to increase citizen involvement in the planning process?   

The evidence shows that it's not delays in the planning system that prevent more homes being built at all. The truth of the matter is that the main reason is all the big house builders have vast swathes of land 'banked', planning approvals granted and in a capitalist world they only drip-feed new houses onto the market in such a way as to ensure steadily-rising prices. Despite all the usual bluff and bluster from Boris, he knows this perfectly well and of course the house builders are big donors to the Tory Party.

Talking of political donors, it will be recalled that Mr Jenrick has recently been in a spot of bother with his disgraceful and now unlawful London Docklands Westferry Printworks intervention that robbed Tower Hamlets citizens of £40million for public services, but handsomely lined the pocket of Tory donor Richard Desmond. For me this whole sordid episode goes to the real heart of the planning problem and that has its roots in the post-war settlement and the Town and Country Planning Act 1947.  

Essentially the post-war Labour government were determined to nationalise any 'betterment' that might accrue as a consequence of land increasing in value due to a change of use. A very simple and fair way of financing public services some would say, rather than allowing land owners to pocket large windfalls due to successful planning applications. But therein lies the dividing line between left and right; socialism and capitalism; Labour and Conservative. Sadly this aspect of the Act was revoked by a later Tory government and it's worth noting that the funding of public services has been problematic ever since. 

Rather alarmingly the Jenrick proposals are going to exacerbate the situation by removing the Local Authority's ability to extract some developer contribution via so-called Section 106 payments that until now have been a main source of funding for social housing. This from Inside Housing:-

Concerns for social rent as government unveils plans to scrap Section 106

Ministers intend to abolish Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy planning agreements and replace them with a new overarching Infrastructure Levy as part of the move to a zonal planning system.

Housing commentators raised concerns about what the changes will mean for delivering social rented homes, with details limited as Inside Housing went to press on Wednesday night.

Melanie Rees, head of policy at the Chartered Institute of Housing, said: “The big question in my mind is what this means for social rented homes. Robert Jenrick has talked about people not being able to buy a home, but the planning system is about more than that. We’d like real reassurance that there won’t be a negative impact on homes for genuinely affordable rent as a result of this, and that’s a bit of a concern at the moment.”

Kate Henderson, chief executive of the National Housing Federation, said: “Any alternative to Section 106 must ensure we can deliver more high-quality affordable homes to meet the huge demand across the country. Any new system must also enable the ’levelling up’ of communities that have already been left behind, such as rural communities or places with a struggling local economy.”

Section 106 planning agreements see developers deliver affordable homes in exchange for permission to build and are the biggest contribution to affordable housing supply. In 2018/19, the mechanism accounted for 49% of all affordable homes completed in England.

Housing secretary Robert Jenrick claimed that the “once-in-a-generation” reforms will make planning decisions “simple and transparent, with local democracy at the heart of the process”.

The Infrastructure Levy will be a fixed portion of the value of the development, above a set threshold, with revenues going towards local projects such as new roads, playgrounds and discounted homes for local first-time buyers. It will represent “a new simpler levy to replace the current system of developer contributions which often causes delay,” the government said in a press release.

But Hugh Ellis, policy director at the Town and Country Planning Association, agreed, adding: “For a national land tax to work it’s going to have to be very complicated and it’s going to be have to be graduated if it’s going to succeed.”

Richard Blyth, head of policy and practice at the Royal Town Planning Institute, said that a flat rate charge may be difficult to create because of differing land values across the country.

--oo00oo--

As with many of Boris Johnson's current Cabinet, the Housing Secretary may be of limited experience and ability but that doesn't mean his views haven't been coloured by his own planning woes. This from June in his local paper:- 

Robert Jenrick the secretary of state for housing who is currently embroiled in a row over a planning decision has some previous experience with planning matters, reports The Times newspaper. Conservative councillors on Westminster council gave planning permission for an enlargement of Jenrick’s townhouse despite officers recommending the application be refused because it would harm the appearance of the building and the conservation area.

The Times reports that Jenrick’s wife submitted a planning application to build a roof extension on their home in Vincent Square, SW1 in August 2014 two months after he had been elected as a Conservative MP. Two previous applications submitted by Jenrick himself had been refused. Planning officers were recommending refusal of this third application but Steve Summers a Tory councillor and a neighbour of Jenrick made an official request that a planning committee take the decision and not officers.

In November 2014 the three Conservative members of the planning committee — Richard Beddoe, Robert Rigby and Paul Church — voted to overturn the officers recommendation and approve the scheme. Ruth Bush, the single Labour member of the committee voted against the application. The Times states that Beddoe, who chaired the planning sub-committee, did not respond to a request for comment, while Rigby and Summers both referred the newspaper to the council’s press department.

A spokesperson for Westminster council told The Times that “planning committees are entitled to reach their own conclusions” weighing up various criteria and on this occasion disagreed with officers. A spokesperson for Jenrick said that a normal planning process was followed.

--oo00oo--

Make no mistake, despite all the warm words and rhetoric, these proposals are all about further deregulation allowing the big house builders even more of a strangle-hold over housing provision and hence greater profits. Just look at what has already been happening with Permitted Development Rights allowing unsuitable conversion of office accommodation to residential use, by-passing the normal LA planning process. We are indeed creating the new slums of the future, not the deluded vision of tree-lined boulevards of 'beautiful' houses. The experts clearly agree in a joint letter from four esteemed institutes of architects and town planners:-

Use of PDRs 

It is in this light that we share our concerns around the use of PDRs, which should not be considered unless subject to clear space, building and design standards. You will no doubt be aware of the comments of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, who concluded that PDRs had inadvertently created “future slums”. 

Automatic permissions for the conversion of office spaces to housing, without requirements relating to quality, size, sustainability and design, has led to spaces detrimental to the wellbeing of residents. We are concerned that further PDRs, including the ability to demolish and rebuild on existing sites — if implemented without significant safeguards—will lock in more unacceptable standard development, the consequences of which we will live with for generations or must rectify later at greater expense. We welcome the recent move, via a statutory instrument, to require natural light in homes created from office conversions.

However, this situation should never have arisen, and homes without windows, as well as other egregious example of such poor quality living conditions, must never be allowed to happen again. 

Our offer of help 

We have seen further announcements related to PDRs, including: 

• Extra storeys on residential building without the need for planning permission 
• Demolition of empty buildings if replaced with residential, without the need for planning permission 
• Further reforms to use class orders, to expand the commercial presences that can be repurposed to residential without planning permission 

We are concerned around how these PDRs will be implemented, and the potential impact on the quality of life of future residents and local communities. All PDRs must require minimum space, building and design standards, and should be implemented in such a way as to ensure they contribute towards affordable housing and community infrastructure. Having these safeguards does not mean delays in construction, it means that the homes built in the early 2020s will not become the social disasters of the 2030s. 

While we stand ready to advise on how to create the best possible outcomes under a PDR regime, we strongly urge proactive rather than reactive planning of this sort for the built environment. A longer term, more sustainable solution would look at interventions earlier in the building process, rather than retrofitting buildings that are fundamentally not suitable as housing. 

The creation of buildings which are properly suited to undergo various different uses during their lifetime would be preferable to the change of use of buildings which are not suited and which need proper conversion.

--oo00oo--

As with the probation 'reforms', these planning 'reforms' will not deliver the absurd claims; are a bad idea universally condemned by the experts; are driven by political ideology and will only reward big business and the usual friends of the Tory Party. But as this piece from the BBC highlights, it might yet all fall foul of the Tory faithful, typically residing as they do in the leafy suburbs and Shire Counties, all well-practised NIMBY's by nature who just might see some very unsavoury and unwelcome development in prospect in their back yard:-  

Robert Jenrick defends overhaul of England's 'outdated' planning system

Sweeping changes to the "outdated" planning system in England will make it easier to build much-needed new homes, the housing secretary has said. Robert Jenrick said local people would not be able to block developments in designated "growth" zones. The changes were needed to speed up the planning process, he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. But critics say they could lead to "bad-quality housing" and loss of local control over development.

The government says it wants reduce the number of planning cases that get overturned at appeal by creating a "clearer, rules-based system". Mr Jenrick told Today local people would get a "meaningful say" at the start of the planning process, when local plans are drawn up, but will not be able to block new schemes after that. He claimed local people "did not have a great deal of influence" over the current planning system and that few people engaged with it.

He told BBC Breakfast: "We have a major housing challenge but also a major economic challenge and a lot of people's jobs depend on this industry. We think our new system will still be democratic, it will still have local engagement, but it will be much faster and help us to meet the needs of the next generation."

Mr Jenrick also wants to change the way developers contribute to the cost of building affordable housing and new infrastructure in every new project. The government will introduce a national charge for developers - replacing the existing Section 106 agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy - to fund projects such as schools, roads and GP surgeries, and a fixed proportion of affordable homes in a development.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said: "This is a developers' charter, frankly, taking councils and communities out of it. And on affordable housing, which is the critical issue, it says nothing. In fact it removes the initiatives that were there for affordable housing."

Alan Jones, President of the Royal Institute of British Architects said: "While there's no doubt the planning system needs reform, these shameful proposals do almost nothing to guarantee the delivery of affordable, well-designed and sustainable homes." He said that taken together with moves to allow more commercial premises to be converted into homes without planning permission, "there's every chance they could also lead to the creation of the next generation of slum housing".

Mr Jenrick said such criticism was "complete nonsense", insisting that "design and quality" were central to the government's plans.

BBC Political Correspondent Jessica Parker said there was disquiet on the Conservative benches about the government's proposals, with one MP predicting "quite a battle" on the issue. Conservative MP Geoffrey Clifton Brown, told BBC Radio 4's The World at One: "Whilst I'm all in favour of building more houses, they need to be good quality houses, we've got to be really sure we're not building slums of tomorrow by building today at low quality."

But the Cotswolds MP added that people in areas like his now realised more homes needed to be built so "their children and their grandchildren" can get on the housing ladder.