Daily Archives: 16 Jan 2016

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Jan 2016

Posted under

Ottery St Mary

So, what’s different about Straitgate Quarry to this one?

From an article in today’s Daily Telegraph about the omnishambles that is the Swansea Tidal Lagoon project:

“… But another battle was raging over the developers’ plans to create a huge “super-quarry” on the Lizard Peninsula in Cornwall, from which they hoped to ship 1.5 million tons a year of the stone needed to build the six-mile long breakwater round Swansea Bay.

A case brought on behalf of local protesters argued that the planning permission rushed through Cornwall Council last April had broken the law by failing to include an environmental assessment of the potential damage the quarry would do to a whole range of natural sites officially designated for special protection.

Although just before Christmas Mr Justice Dove in the High Court ruled that the permission had been given illegally, it is only now his judgment has been published we can see just how damning it was to the council’s conduct in every way.

It also emerges that the planning officer responsible had been involved in two earlier decisions where Cornwall approved applications for two highly controversial wind farms.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/12103688/Mad-Swansea-tidal-lagoon-scheme-heading-for-the-rocks.html

More information on the judge’s scathing commented is here:

Click to access CADS-JR-JUDGEMENT-PRESS-RELEASE-7.1.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Jan 2016

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing

Follow the money … housing benefit doesn’t go to the tenant, it goes to the landlord

“So, your plan is to bulldoze council ­estates where lots of people live, some of them renting, some owners.

What happens to them during the destruction and ­building phase and what happens afterwards?

You’re building fewer places to live in than were there before. How will it work?

… None of it makes sense unless you follow the money and try to work out who benefits from this ­madness. Not the country, not those on normal wages, not the poor and vulnerable.

Those who benefit are property developers and ­private landlords. Or to put it another way, Tory donors and Tory MPs as they hoover up all that housing benefit money.

Remember that next time your hear about the amount of benefit going to some hard-working person on low pay. She isn’t getting the housing benefit.

No, this wedge of taxpayers’ money is going into the pockets of private landlords.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-property-greed-wrecked-housing-7192291

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Jan 2016

Posted under

Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Scrutiny, Transparency

Vanity project creative accountancy starts at the top

“George Osborne avoided official channels and Department for Transport oversight to offer the London mayor, Boris Johnson, funding for the garden bridge scheme, parliament’s spending watchdog has found, warning the project may not have been approved if the normal processes had been followed. …

… Sir Amyas Morse, of the National Audit Office, said of the project: “It is important to note that the results would not in normal circumstances suggest a compelling value for money case … The department’s own quantitative analysis suggested that there may or may not be a net benefit and, especially once concerns over deliverability were taken account of, the project might well not have met the department’s normal threshold for allocating its finite funds. …

… Gareth Thomas, MP for Harrow West, on Friday called on Osborne to justify the use of public cash on a “vanity project”. He said: “At a time of deep public sector cuts, this money could have been spent on countless other projects where the business case has already been proved.” …

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/jan/16/garden-bridge-george-osborne-avoided-official-channels-mayor

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Jan 2016

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing

Cameron: Affordable Homes – 2 + 2 = ?

David Cameron asserted in Parliament this week that people needed only a £10,000 deposit to buy a new home now, so homes were affordable for people to buy on the “living wage”, “whereas he had needed £30,000 when he bought his first home – bet that wasn’t a starter home nor was he on a “living wage”!

However, today’s Telegraph has fact-checked this and found his maths somewhat disingenuous to say the least. No wonder the government can always seem to make 2 and 2 make anything but 4!:

” … The question put to Mr Cameron was if those on the national living wage would be able to afford a home.
Based on the current UK living wage of £8.25 an hour, an individual working 40 hours a week, 50 weeks of the year would earn £16,500 before tax.

A couple together would have a household income of £33,000, which based on a four-times salary multiple (a simplified measure) would enable them to borrow a maximum of £132,000 in a best case scenario, assuming they had a clean credit history, no other debts and minimal outgoing costs.

According to the Halifax House Price Index, the average house price across the UK is £208,000.

Taking a more conservative £180,000, with a 5pc deposit using a standard 95pc mortgage you would need to borrow £171,000 (the other £1,000 from the £10,000 would be needed for stamp duty).

To be lent that much, assuming all other elements are in order, would typically require an income of £42,750. Using regional average prices, that figure is £80,000 for London and £53,000 for the South East.

David Hollingworth, associate director of communications at London and Country Mortgages, said: “The scoring requirement is likely to be higher for those with a small deposit so applicants will need to be sure they can meet the affordability requirements and have a clean credit record.”

The other point to make is if £10,000 is all that you have been able to save, it is unlikely your salary will be high enough for a 95pc mortgage. The equity loan can of course help here, if there are new builds available in your price bracket. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/12100186/David-Camerons-10000-mortgage-deposit-claim-put-to-the-test.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Jan 2016

Posted under

Freedom of Information Act

There may be enough Tory MPs to scupper attempts to water down Freedom of Information Act

“Attempts to water down Freedom of Information laws would make it harder to hold the Government to account, a senior Tory MP has warned.

Jesse Norman, chairman of the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, is the latest Tory to speak out against David Cameron’s bid to change the FoI Act.

Speaking to the Mirror, Mr Norman said: “I think Government should be held to account and I don’t think any power that is unaccountable is legitimate.

“So I’m very tough on it. I’m a strong supporter of Freedom of Information.”

The MP also raised doubts about the Government’s ability to get the changes through Parliament, saying there were many Tory MPs ready to rebel.

He said: “I’d be quite surprised if anything much happened there. The Government has only got a majority of 12, and there are plenty of Conservatives who feel pretty strongly about the importance of it.”

David Cameron set up a review of the act in July, sparking fears he aimed to stop the public and journalists checking on the work of ministers and officials.

Commons leader Chris Grayling even suggested the Act was being misused by reporters to “generate stories.”

Tory MP David Davis, the former shadow Home Secretary, has joined forces with Labour deputy leader Tom Watson to campaign against any changes to the FoI Act.

He said recently that more than a dozen fellow Conservative MPs were ready to defeat the Government on the issue.

He said: “Whatever they come up with, we can find an appropriate response in one house or another.

“I think this is an eminently winnable campaign to protect what I think is the strongest constitutional legacy of the [Tony] Blair government.”

Mr Davis also hit out at the way the review panel had been stuffed with people opposed to the current FoI laws.

“They are all people who either for one reason or another express scepticism about FoI, or have themselves been embarrassed by its operation.

“There is a suspicion this is designed to cripple FoI either by increasing charges or by further restricting access to policy work or other areas,” he said.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-mp-warns-david-cameron-7188410