‘Secret Council’ has no idea who is affected by their own Government cuts.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation revealed that the cuts by slasher Sunak of £1040 per year to those on Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits will leave 5,500,000 families worse off whether they have children in those families or not.

Slasher Sunak’s supposedly generous 8p in the pound cut to the taper calculation for those people working to try and help their families whilst claiming benefit, still amounts to a 55p in the pound tax on low paid workers and their families.

Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that over 200,000 families with children will be disproportionately impacted and worryingly, 6 in 10 of all single-parent families in the UK will be severely impacted.

The Labour Party tell us that in the 140 constituencies with Wards that sit in the 10% of most deprived Wards nationally some 25% of families are negatively affected by the cuts in some shape or form and that this is the biggest reduction in living standards through the benefit system since the welfare state began. In Northumberland areas defined by the acronym LSOA have a number of wards in the lower category especially in Blyth Valley and Wansbeck constituencies, areas that have not seen many improvements in family incomes for decades.

With inflation expected to rise to 5% many families who believed they were immune to cuts will feel the pinch very badly indeed and those in multi-car families are already beginning to feel the strain from the Government's badly managed grasp of the energy markets.

We Know that Newbiggin by the Sea, Cowpen, Hirst and Cowpen/Kitty Brewster LSOA contain the highest number of families whose children will suffer most at this time but many areas which contain hidden poverty in Northumberland have residents who do not know where the next meal is coming from as this Government turns the nation into a series of modernised Charles Dickens novels. Yet the Council has no idea which children and families are affected.

It's been revealed in the mainstream press that the Government has done no research at all into who is affected, how the rise in energy costs will affect families and which children will suffer and definitely miss Christmas this year. Many Councils including Northumberland County Council have not managed to collect the data on children as the cuts to all forms of care bite Councils deeply and the lack of understanding regarding what is protected data and what isn’t is not understood at all by pressurised workers leaving data collection to simply slip by the wayside in fear of making a mistake. It's so bad nationally that the Doomsday book was more accurate than the locked away data sets by secret Councils like Northumberland who operate under massive serious financial constraints brought about by 11 years of Tory austerity cuts and can’t be blamed on Covid.

We're also aware that even though we have two Government Ministers among the four MP’s in the County their knowledge of this fiasco which will turn into a disaster for many very rapidly indeed is almost nil and we should see the portfolio holder for children's services Tory, Cllr. Guy Renner Thompson and his Community Services Partner Cllr Jeff Watson have their very handsome allowances frozen until they can truly say they know who needs help and can honestly say that they have had that help by the bucket load to offset the pain and suffering being piled on those who cannot defend themselves, the children of this County!

Fear of Women Displays More splits in Northumberland Conservatives as bullying rages on and on and on!

Another empty seat has been created on Northumberland’s single party cabinet as the factions move further apart and rub each other up in a similar fashion to the world’s tectonic plates.

Accusations have been leveled and support garnered on known Tory members social media sites praising and chinning up Cramlington Conservative stalwart Councillor Christine Dunbar who is reputed to have lodged complaints against another Conservative and accused aggressor of women political candidates, Paul Scott, whom we here at murky believe sits in the Peterservative and Jacksonist party, an ultra-right wing gang currently leaning on both the Leader, Glen Sanderson’s  shaky mob and the Cramlington squad to bring dark politics back to the fore in Northumberland County Council.

This episode shows that Northumberland Conservatives wish to take time back to the 1940’s, after the second world war when women who had played a fantastic part in the war effort were severed from their new jobs (which could have become careers) and forced back behind the kitchen sinks in case they showed that the high level of productivity they attained during that period was expected to be maintained by men! The fears of those men live on in the Tory Party locally as many of them are from a farming or masonic lodge backgrounds where old fashioned manly values are held tight.

The stories leaking from County Hall regarding bullying and intimidation are growing stronger and it's the public who sponsor this septic Council through tax and levy’s and they have not been told the truth about why the Council has failed to deliver Best Value for the last five years nor yet released a credible news item regarding the mass exodus of Directors of Advance Northumberland and the company model suddenly being changed when the HMRC jackboots began tramping towards their filing cabinets!

What a carry on!

https://realnorthumberlandmurky.blogspot.com/2021/04/paul-scott-who-works-for-ian-levy-mp-in.html

Still no plan in place for Northumberland’s Future after five years of Tory rule.

 

July 2017 BRIEFING​ ​NOTE and advice on removal of core strategy document in 2017 prepared for Tory Secret Cabinet

Ignoring this advice has caused untold angst for residents of New Hartley who did not have any protection in place when the Tories led them up the Garden Path!

 

 

Northumberland​ ​Local​ ​Plan​ ​Core​ ​Strategy 

 

● The​ ​Draft​ ​Core​ ​Strategy​ ​was​ ​submitted​ ​to​ ​Government​ ​in​ ​early​ ​April​ ​for​ ​independent examination​ ​with​ ​the​ ​hearing​ ​sessions​ ​currently​ ​scheduled​ ​to​ ​commence​ ​in​ ​late September​ ​2017.​ ​Further​ ​information​ ​from​ ​the​ ​Inspector​ ​is​ ​due​ ​in​ ​June​ ​and​ ​July​ ​on the​ ​timetabling​ ​and​ ​content​ ​of​ ​the​ ​hearing​ ​sessions. 

 

● Relatively​ ​minor​ ​“major​ ​modifications”​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy​ ​could​ ​be​ ​presented​ ​at​ ​the examination​ ​as​ ​suggested​ ​amendments​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Inspector​ ​to​ ​consider​ ​and,​ ​if​ ​found 

acceptable,​ ​would​ ​be​ ​subject​ ​to​ ​consultation​ ​as​ ​part​ ​of​ ​any​ ​other​ ​main​ ​modifications 

required​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Inspector.​ ​There​ ​may​ ​however​ ​be​ ​the​ ​need​ ​to​ ​request​ ​a​ ​delay​ ​in​ ​the 

examination​ ​process​ ​so​ ​that​ ​such​ ​amendments​ ​can​ ​be​ ​fully​ ​considered​ ​by​ ​the 

Council. 

 

● More​ ​fundamental​ ​modifications​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy,​ ​such​ ​as​ ​a​ ​reduction​ ​in​ ​the 

overall ​ ​housing​ ​numbers​ ​and​ ​removal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​proposed​ ​Green​ ​Belt​ ​deletions​ ​for 

example,​ ​could​ ​potentially​ ​be​ ​a​ ​change​ ​in​ ​the​ ​overall ​ ​strategic​ ​direction​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Plan 

requiring​ ​a​ ​withdrawal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Plan​ ​from​ ​the​ ​examination​ ​process. 

 

● Should​ ​withdrawal​ ​of​ ​Plan​ ​be​ ​required,​ ​a​ ​request​ ​would​ ​need​ ​to​ ​be​ ​made​ ​to 

Government​ ​for​ ​it​ ​to​ ​be​ ​withdrawn​ ​and​ ​advice​ ​sought​ ​on​ ​what​ ​stage​ ​the​ ​Plan​ ​would 

need​ ​to​ ​go​ ​back​ ​to​ ​e.g.​ ​re-publish​ ​under​ ​Regulation​ ​19​ ​(Pre-Submission​ ​Stage),​ ​or 

go​ ​further​ ​back​ ​to​ ​reconsult​ ​under​ ​Regulation​ ​18​ ​(Issues​ ​and​ ​Options​ ​Stage) 

 

Process​ ​for​ ​withdrawing​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy 

 

The​ ​Head​ ​of​ ​Planning​ ​Services​ ​has​ ​recently​ ​spoken​ ​to​ ​DCLG​ ​concerning​ ​the​ ​process​ ​for withdrawing​ ​a​ ​submitted​ ​Plan​ ​and​ ​the​ ​following​ ​advice​ ​has​ ​been​ ​received​ ​from​ ​DCLG’s​ ​legal 

team​ ​on​ ​two​ ​specific​ ​questions​ ​raised: 

 

(1)​ ​Can​ ​an​ ​LPA​ ​withdraw​ ​their​ ​plan​ ​once​ ​it​ ​has​ ​been​ ​submitted​ ​for​ ​examination? 

  

The​ ​short​ ​answer​ ​is​ ​yes​ ​–​ ​s.22​ ​PCPA​ ​2004​ ​allows​ ​an​ ​LDD​ ​to​ ​be​ ​withdrawn​ ​at​ ​any​ ​time​ ​before​ ​it​ ​is​ ​adopted. Worth​ ​being​ ​aware​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Localism​ ​Act​ ​2011​ ​repealed​ ​subsection​ ​(2)​ ​of​ ​s.22​ ​which​ ​only​ ​allowed​ ​an​ ​LPA to​ ​withdraw​ ​a​ ​DPD​ ​which​ ​had​ ​been​ ​submitted​ ​for​ ​examination​ ​if​ ​the​ ​examiner​ ​recommends​ ​withdrawal,​ ​or 

the​ ​SoS​ ​directs​ ​withdrawal. 

  

(2)​ ​Once​ ​the​ ​plan​ ​has​ ​been​ ​withdrawn,​ ​does​ ​the​ ​LPA​ ​effectively​ ​have​ ​to​ ​‘start​ ​again’​ ​at​ ​the​ ​Reg​ ​18 consultation​ ​stage? 

  

Once​ ​the​ ​LPA​ ​has​ ​withdrawn​ ​the​ ​plan,​ ​they​ ​are​ ​required​ ​(in​ ​accordance​ ​with​ ​Reg​ ​27​ ​of​ ​the​ ​2012​ ​Regs)​ ​to make​ ​available​ ​a​ ​statement​ ​of​ ​that​ ​fact​ ​at​ ​their​ ​offices​ ​and​ ​on​ ​their​ ​website,​ ​send​ ​notification​ ​to​ ​the​ ​general 

consultation​ ​bodies​ ​and​ ​remove​ ​al ​ ​the​ ​local​ ​plan​ ​documents​ ​from​ ​their​ ​website. 

  

The​ ​statutory​ ​provisions​ ​are​ ​silent​ ​as​ ​to​ ​the​ ​consequences​ ​of​ ​withdrawing​ ​a​ ​plan.​ ​PPG,​ ​at​ ​paragraph​ ​025, states​ ​“Following​ ​withdrawal​ ​of​ ​a​ ​Local​ ​Plan​ ​from​ ​examination​ ​a​ ​Local​ ​Planning​ ​Authority​ ​should​ ​consider 

whether​ ​to​ ​republish​ ​under​ ​regulation​ ​19​ ​or​ ​reconsult​ ​under​ ​regulation​ ​18​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Town​ ​and​ ​Country Planning​ ​(Local​ ​Planning)​ ​(England)​ ​Regulations​ ​2012​ ​and​ ​what​ ​matters​ ​this​ ​republication​ ​or​ ​reconsultation 

should​ ​address”. 

 

On​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​the​ ​above​ ​advice​ ​it​ ​is​ ​possible​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Council​ ​to​ ​withdraw​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy from​ ​examination​ ​to​ ​al ow​ ​for​ ​a​ ​review​ ​and​ ​further​ ​modifications​ ​to​ ​be​ ​made.​ ​Given​ ​that submission​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy​ ​for​ ​examination​ ​was​ ​endorsed​ ​by​ ​Ful ​ ​Council​ ​less​ ​than​ ​six months​ ​ago​ ​however,​ ​advice​ ​from​ ​Legal​ ​Services​ ​is​ ​that​ ​withdrawal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​document​ ​would similarly​ ​require​ ​Full ​ ​Council​ ​approval.​ ​To​ ​kickstart​ ​the​ ​withdrawal​ ​process​ ​a​ ​motion​ ​would be​ ​required,​ ​signed​ ​by​ ​at​ ​least​ ​9​ ​members,​ ​requesting​ ​the​ ​previous​ ​decision​ ​agreeing​ ​to submission​ ​of​ ​the​ ​document​ ​to​ ​Government​ ​for​ ​examination​ ​to​ ​be​ ​called​ ​back​ ​to​ ​Full  Council. 

 

Key​ ​Issues​ ​to​ ​Consider 

 

● There​ ​is​ ​a​ ​need​ ​for​ ​discussions​ ​with​ ​DCLG​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Planning​ ​Inspectorate​ ​on​ ​how​ ​to proceed​ ​should​ ​fundamental​ ​modifications​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy​ ​be​ ​sought,​ ​including a​ ​discussion​ ​on​ ​implications​ ​for​ ​potential​ ​Government​ ​intervention. 

 

● DCLG​ ​have​ ​offered​ ​a​ ​Ministerial​ ​visit​ ​to​ ​speak​ ​to​ ​the​ ​new​ ​Administration​ ​about​ ​the 

potential​ ​scenarios​ ​relating​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy​ ​but​ ​this​ ​would​ ​not​ ​be​ ​arranged​ ​until 

after​ ​the​ ​General​ ​Election​ ​on​ ​8th​ ​June.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​considered​ ​important​ ​that​ ​this​ ​discussion 

takes​ ​place​ ​at​ ​the​ ​earliest​ ​opportunity​ ​to​ ​inform​ ​future​ ​decisions​ ​on​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy. 

 

● The​ ​timing​ ​of​ ​any​ ​withdrawal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy​ ​is​ ​critical​ ​in​ ​terms​ ​of​ ​forthcoming 

public​ ​inquiries​ ​during​ ​June​ ​relating​ ​to​ ​Highthorn​ ​Surface​ ​Mine​ ​and​ ​a​ ​proposed 

Barratts​ ​housing​ ​site​ ​at​ ​New​ ​Hartley.​ ​Withdrawal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Plan​ ​during​ ​and/or​ ​prior​ ​to​ ​the 

end​ ​of​ ​these​ ​public​ ​inquiries​ ​would​ ​throw​ ​the​ ​inquiry​ ​processes​ ​into​ ​disarray,​ ​likely 

resulting​ ​in​ ​an​ ​adjournment​ ​of​ ​both​ ​inquiries​ ​and​ ​potential y​ ​weakening​ ​the​ ​Council’s 

position​ ​in​ ​both​ ​cases,​ ​particularly​ ​in​ ​relation​ ​to​ ​New​ ​Hartley​ ​where​ ​housing​ ​land 

supply​ ​issues​ ​are​ ​paramount​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Council’s​ ​defence​ ​of​ ​its​ ​refusal​ ​reasons. 

Tactical y​ ​it​ ​is​ ​therefore​ ​considered​ ​by​ ​Officers​ ​that​ ​any​ ​decision​ ​to​ ​withdraw​ ​the​ ​Core 

Strategy​ ​should​ ​not​ ​be​ ​taken​ ​until​ ​after​ ​both​ ​inquiries​ ​have​ ​finished​ ​(currently 

anticipated​ ​to​ ​be​ ​21st​ ​June)​ ​due​ ​to​ ​the​ ​complications​ ​this​ ​would​ ​otherwise​ ​present​ ​for 

the​ ​public​ ​inquiries.​ ​The​ ​Planning​ ​Inspectorate/Secretary​ ​of​ ​State​ ​would​ ​stil ​ ​have​ ​to 

have​ ​regard​ ​to​ ​any​ ​withdrawal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy​ ​in​ ​making​ ​their​ ​final​ ​decisions, 

and​ ​would​ ​possibly​ ​seek​ ​additional​ ​evidence​ ​from​ ​al ​ ​parties​ ​involved​ ​on​ ​the 

implications​ ​of​ ​the​ ​withdrawal​ ​to​ ​their​ ​respective​ ​cases,​ ​but​ ​this​ ​would​ ​be​ ​most​ ​likely 

dealt​ ​with​ ​through​ ​an​ ​exchange​ ​of​ ​written​ ​representations​ ​rather​ ​than​ ​re-opening​ ​the 

public​ ​inquiries. 

 

● It​ ​is​ ​important​ ​to​ ​establish​ ​the​ ​changes​ ​being​ ​sought​ ​by​ ​the​ ​new​ ​Administration​ ​in 

relation​ ​to​ ​the​ ​overal ​ ​housing​ ​figures,​ ​housing​ ​distribution​ ​across​ ​the​ ​County​ ​and​ ​the 

impacts​ ​on​ ​key​ ​strategic​ ​site​ ​al ocations​ ​including​ ​those​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Green​ ​Belt.​ ​This​ ​wil  

ultimately​ ​dictate​ ​how​ ​far​ ​back​ ​in​ ​the​ ​plan-preparation​ ​process​ ​we​ ​wil ​ ​need​ ​to​ ​go. 

Counsel​ ​advice,​ ​and​ ​advice​ ​from​ ​DCLG​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Planning​ ​Inspectorate,​ ​wil ​ ​need​ ​to 

be​ ​sought​ ​on​ ​procedural​ ​matters​ ​once​ ​the​ ​potential​ ​changes​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Plan​ ​are​ ​more 

clear. 

 

● Preferably,​ ​the​ ​level​ ​of​ ​change​ ​would​ ​be​ ​capable​ ​of​ ​being​ ​dealt​ ​with​ ​through​ ​a​ ​further Reg​ ​19​ ​stage​ ​which​ ​would​ ​involve​ ​approximately​ ​6​ ​-​ ​8​ ​months​ ​of​ ​work​ ​on​ ​revisions​ ​to the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy​ ​and​ ​the​ ​supporting​ ​evidence​ ​base​ ​plus​ ​time​ ​allowed​ ​for​ ​the Council’s​ ​internal​ ​approval​ ​processes​ ​resulting​ ​in​ ​an​ ​overall ​ ​9​ ​to​ ​12​ ​month​ ​delay. 

Likely​ ​costs​ ​involved​ ​in​ ​making​ ​modifications​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy,​ ​revisions​ ​to​ ​the 

supporting​ ​evidence​ ​base,​ ​carrying​ ​out​ ​the​ ​necessary​ ​consultation​ ​and​ ​providing 

additional​ ​staff​ ​resource​ ​to​ ​speed​ ​up​ ​the​ ​process​ ​is​ ​estimated​ ​at​ ​£350k 

 

● Alternatively,​ ​should​ ​the​ ​changes​ ​be​ ​so​ ​significant​ ​that​ ​they​ ​would​ ​effectively 

represent​ ​a​ ​new​ ​strategic​ ​direction​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Plan​ ​then​ ​going​ ​back​ ​to​ ​Reg​ ​18​ ​stage 

would​ ​be​ ​necessary.​ ​A​ ​current​ ​estimate​ ​of​ ​the​ ​amount​ ​of​ ​work​ ​required​ ​in​ ​preparing​ ​a 

new​ ​Plan,​ ​new​ ​evidence​ ​base​ ​and​ ​the​ ​numerous​ ​consultation​ ​stages​ ​that​ ​would​ ​be 

necessary​ ​would​ ​lead​ ​to​ ​at​ ​least​ ​a​ ​two​ ​year​ ​delay​ ​in​ ​re-submitting​ ​the​ ​Plan​ ​to 

Government​ ​and​ ​costs​ ​comfortably​ ​exceeding​ ​£500k 

 

● Withdrawal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy​ ​would​ ​leave​ ​the​ ​Council​ ​and​ ​local​ ​communities​ ​at 

risk​ ​of​ ​being​ ​disadvantaged​ ​by​ ​speculative/unplanned​ ​development​ ​whilst​ ​changes 

are​ ​made​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Plan.​ ​There​ ​is​ ​also​ ​an​ ​increased​ ​likelihood​ ​of​ ​significant​ ​planning 

appeals​ ​in​ ​cases​ ​where​ ​the​ ​Council​ ​seeks​ ​to​ ​resist​ ​development​ ​proposals​ ​on​ ​the 

basis​ ​of​ ​a​ ​Plan​ ​that​ ​is​ ​withdrawn​ ​and​ ​carries​ ​no​ ​weight​ ​in​ ​the​ ​interim​ ​period.​ ​It​ ​is 

therefore​ ​essential​ ​that,​ ​should​ ​the​ ​Plan​ ​be​ ​withdrawn,​ ​any​ ​time​ ​gap​ ​between 

withdrawal​ ​and​ ​resubmission​ ​to​ ​Government​ ​for​ ​examination​ ​is​ ​minimised. 

 

● A​ ​reduction​ ​in​ ​the​ ​overall ​ ​housing​ ​target​ ​figure​ ​from​ ​24,320​ ​to​ ​between​ ​19,000​ ​- 

21,000​ ​would​ ​still ​ ​allow​ ​the​ ​Council​ ​to​ ​present ​the​ ​Plan​ ​as​ ​a​ ​strategy​ ​for​ ​growth. 

There​ ​are​ ​two​ ​evidence-based​ ​scenarios​ ​carried​ ​out​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Council’s​ ​consultant 

Edge​ ​Analytics​ ​that​ ​would​ ​support​ ​this​ ​approach,​ ​albeit​ ​changes​ ​to​ ​the​ ​anticipated 

unemployment​ ​and​ ​commuting​ ​ratios​ ​for​ ​the​ ​County​ ​would​ ​be​ ​required.​ ​On​ ​a 

settlement-by-settlement​ ​basis​ ​this​ ​would​ ​still ​ ​represent​ ​growth​ ​but​ ​would​ ​result​ ​in 

some​ ​loss​ ​of​ ​working​ ​age​ ​population.​ ​This​ ​then​ ​reduces​ ​the​ ​demographic​ ​re-balance 

and​ ​would​ ​be​ ​likely​ ​to​ ​make​ ​the​ ​achievement​ ​of​ ​10,000​ ​new​ ​jobs​ ​much​ ​harder.​ ​The 

potential​ ​impact​ ​of​ ​a​ ​lower​ ​overal ​ ​housing​ ​figure​ ​on​ ​delivery​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Council’s 

Economic​ ​Strategy​ ​would​ ​therefore​ ​need​ ​to​ ​be​ ​considered. 

 

● A​ ​reduction​ ​in​ ​the​ ​proposed​ ​housing​ ​numbers​ ​would​ ​assist​ ​in​ ​overcoming​ ​existing 

opposition​ ​from​ ​many​ ​local​ ​communities​ ​and​ ​neighbouring​ ​authorities​ ​such​ ​as 

Newcastle​ ​and​ ​Gateshead​ ​who​ ​consider​ ​the​ ​current​ ​proposed​ ​level​ ​of​ ​housing 

growth​ ​to​ ​be​ ​too​ ​ambitious​ ​for​ ​Northumberland​ ​and​ ​potentially​ ​prejudicial​ ​to​ ​the 

success​ ​of​ ​their​ ​housing​ ​market​ ​areas.​ ​However,​ ​whereas​ ​the​ ​main​ ​volume 

housebuilders​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Home​ ​Builders​ ​Federation​ ​(HBF)​ ​are​ ​very​ ​supportive​ ​of​ ​the 

current​ ​version​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy,​ ​a​ ​reduction​ ​in​ ​the​ ​overall ​ ​housing​ ​numbers 

would​ ​inevitably​ ​result​ ​in​ ​significant​ ​challenge​ ​from​ ​the​ ​development​ ​industry​ ​at​ ​any 

future​ ​examination.