Queen’s speech: planning changes

“The main elements of the Neighbourhood Planning and Infrastructure Bill are to be:

Neighbourhood Planning: the Bill will “further strengthen neighbourhood planning and give even more power to local people”; it will also strengthen neighbourhood planning by making the local government duty to support groups more transparent and by improving the process for reviewing and updating plans.

Planning Conditions: the Bill will ensure that pre-commencement planning conditions are only imposed by local planning authorities where they are absolutely necessary –

“excessive pre-commencement planning conditions can slow down or stop the construction of homes after they have been given planning permission”; the legislation will “tackle the overuse, and in some cases, misuse of certain planning conditions, and thereby ensure that development, including new housing, can get underway without unnecessary delay”.

Compulsory Purchase: the legislation will make the compulsory purchase order process “clearer, fairer and faster” for all those involved; there will be reform of the context within which compensation is negotiated; the Government’s proposals, on which it has already consulted, would consolidate and clarify more than 100 years of conflicting statute and case law; “we would establish a clear, new statutory framework for agreeing compensation, based on the fundamental principle that compensation should be based on the market value of the land in the absence of the scheme underlying the compulsory purchase”.

National Infrastructure Commission: the Bill will establish the independent National Infrastructure Commission on a statutory basis; the Commission is to provide the Government with expert, independent advice on infrastructure issues “by setting out a clear, strategic vision on the future infrastructure that is needed to ensure the UK economy is fit for 2050”; measures will “unlock economic potential across the UK and ensure that growth and opportunities are distributed across the country, boosting productivity and competitiveness through high-quality infrastructure”.

Land Registry: The new legislation will enable the privatisation of Land Registry, which will “support the delivery of a modern, digitally-based land registration service that will benefit the Land Registry’s customers, such as people buying or selling their home”; it could also return a capital receipt to the Exchequer to help reduce national debt.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26998%3Afurther-changes-to-planning-system-in-prospect-following-queens-speech&catid=59&Itemid=27

When does private become public and public become private? A very fine line

Remember this post from 20 April 2016 when several of our local dignitaries enjoyed a very chummy night out at the opening of the Deer Park Hotel’s new Orangery?

Publicans and ex-publicans enjoy a jolly good night out …

image

Colin Brown, East Devon District Councillor for Dunkeswell, EDDC Development Management Committee and Licensing Enforcement Committee, of the Monkton Court Hotel, Honiton; director of Bell Vue Developments

Paul Diviani, Leader EDDC, Devon County Councillor and Local Enterprise Partnership board member and formerly of the Stockland Arms Hotel, Stockland

Jenny Wheatley-Brown, also of the Monkton Court Hotel, Honiton and Conservative candidate for district council seat (lost) at Seaton at the last election and also director of Bell Vue Developments

and

John O’Leary, EDDC Councillor, Licensing Enforcement Committee, with special responsibility for the Thelma Hulbert Gallery, Honiton and Town Councillor for Honiton St Pauls, also formerly of the Stockland Arms Hotel, Stockland

at The Deer Park Country House Hotel for the unveiling of it’s orangery.”

Well, it appears that all of them considered that they were being invited to this knees up in their private capacities, since none of them have declared the event in their “Hospitality and Gifts” expenses at EDDC.

What a very, very, very fine line our politicians tread.

So, if the Deer Park comes before either the Development Management Committee or the Licensing Committee in future Messrs Brown and O’Leary can sit on them with clear consciences.

And for your delectation, here is how the night was described by one attendee:

The building boasts floor-to-ceiling palatial arched windows and decadent chandeliers, and mosaic flooring with dapper decor throughout.  The lavish bash was held in Honiton last Friday (April 15).  Mike Arscott, sales and marketing director at Deer Park Hotel, said “The orangery launch party was an outstanding success.  “It was a genuine privilege to gather over 300 friends, colleagues and constructors together to celebrate the completion of our latest phase of development.  “I am extremely proud of the new facilities at Deer Park and look forward to welcoming many old and new faces back to see the beauty and style we have put back into this stunning country house.  The party wouldn’t have been a success without the support from our local suppliers. The madness of the cabaret acts and magic performers plus a simply spiffing fireworks display, will live long in all our memories.”

http://www.eastdevon24.co.uk/news/grand_orangery_unveiling_at_deer_park_is_a_success_1_4501090

Unfortunately, the “Gifts and Hospitality” page of the EDDC website appears to be offline at the moment, but when it is up and running again, you can access it here:

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/councillor-conduct/gifts-and-hospitality/

 

No bus improvements unless we get a Mayor (or they go nuclear perhaps!)

“Government plans to devolve responsibility for local bus services could mark the beginning of a new era for public transport in the South West.

The legislation, unveiled in today’s Queen’s speech, will lay the groundwork for local authorities taking control of franchising and timetabling of busses.

But while the new powers have been written into Cornwall’s devolution deal, it is unclear whether Devon and Somerset councils will get the same powers without electing a mayor.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Queen-s-speech-control-local-transport-questions/story-29290018-detail/story.html

Guess our LEP with its nuclear interests could always run Supacat nuclear buses …

“Universal broadband” – sure, that will be £3,500 please!

“A key announcement [in the Queen’s speech] for Devon and Cornwall was the inclusion of a Digital Economy Bill, which sets out plans for a universal service obligation on broadband. The Prime Minister said the legislation will guarantee “everyone” in Britain has access to “affordable high speed internet”.

However, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport confirmed that homes in some hard to reach rural areas will only be connected “on request”, and may be asked to cover installation costs above £3,500.

Tiverton and Honiton MP Neil Parish, who has repeatedly lobbied the Government over the provision of broadband in rural areas, has expressed concern about these qualifications.

“[I want to know] how we will get coverage to more rural areas. We’ve got problems in my constituency and across the Westcountry generally,” he said. “I will be pushing ministers for a better deal for rural areas.”

South West Devon MP Gary Streeter added that he is “confident” the measures will guarantee connectivity for 95% of households, but he “retains concerns” about how suppliers will reach the final 5%.

“[This is] is of immense importance to our region. We will have to continue to press the government on this,” he said.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Queen-s-speech-control-local-transport-questions/story-29290018-detail/story.html

Carter family company owns almost 20% of SW fishing quota, licence names small rubber dinghy as holder

It appears that the Greenpeace article says a nominated vessel holds the quota and that is the vessel punished for licence infringements by other boats listed with it, so companies make sure it is a very small vessel which is not worth much money and which rarely leaves port. This is a legal loophole that some companies exploit.

“Almost a fifth of all the fishing quota in the South West of England is controlled by a dinghy moored at Exmouth marina, according to an investigation by Greenpeace.

The environmentalists used the case of the five-metre Nina May to highlight how a handful of big companies control most of the UK’s fishing quota.

The investigation revealed that just three companies – including Interfish in Plymouth – own nearly two-thirds of England’s fishing quota.

Greenpeace said it spoke to Robin Carter, who runs F W S Carter Limited, which owns the Nina May along with 12 other, much larger vessels.

The WMN also contacted Mr Carter, who would not be interviewed over the phone but promised a face-to-face meeting next week.

According to the Greenpeace report, Mr Carter said that he transferred the Fixed Quota Allocation (FQA) licenses on to the tiny boat and then sends out his bigger boats to write off their catches against that allowance.

By doing that, his fishermen can essentially fish without risking being penalised on quota should they be caught breaking the rules, Greenpeace claimed.

Andy Wheeler from the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation was sceptical about “the way Greenpeace uses statistics”. “There are companies which own large amounts of quota because they own more boats than anyone else,” he said.

“For example, Dover sole is caught by beam trawlers, and most of the beam trawlers are owned by three companies.

“It’s not true that these companies own everything and no one else has anything.”

The research revealed how nearly two-thirds of England’s fishing rights have been snapped up by just three multi-million-pound fishing companies.

“Our investigation lays bare the true extent of the social and environmental injustice at the heart of our fishing industry,” Greenpeace UK head of oceans, Will McCallum, said. “As ministers are responsible for divvying up and doling out the UK’s fishing quota, this is a mess entirely of our government’s own making.

“Our fisheries minister should get on with sorting out the quota system so it works for our seas, fishers, and coastal communities.”

Local fishermen using small boats have long complained about the unfairness of the quota system. They make up the majority of England’s fishing fleet, but only have access to about 6% of the quota.

Plymouth based Johannes Jacob Colam owns 26% of all English FQA through his company Interfish Ltd and four of its subsidiaries.

Tomas Suchy, an Interfish worker, died in 2013 when a stack of frozen fish pallets fell on him. At Plymouth Crown Court in February this year the company admitted failing to ensure the health, safety and welfare of its employees in a prosecution brought by the Health and Safety Executive.

Another company, Andrew Marr International Ltd, controls 12% of all the English fishing quota, including 61% of the quota in Cornwall.

The third is a Dutch conglomerate, which was fined for a fishing offence in UK waters last year.

Maeve McClenaghan, who carried out the research for Greenpeace, said: “They are playing the game by the rules as they are set out. Some people might question whether the rules set out by the government are fair and helpful.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/xxx/story-29290087-detail/story.html

200,000 starter homes would destabilise markey say mortgage lenders

Mortgage lenders have warned that the government’s target of delivering 200,000 discounted first-time buyer homes by the end of this parliament is “too ambitious” and that the scheme could contribute to making the property market more unstable.

Under the starter homes initiative, the government plans to relax planning restrictions to encourage developers in England to build properties that will be sold at a 20% discount on their market rate to first-time buyers under the age of 40. In March 2015, it said it wanted to deliver 200,000 of these new homes by 2020, alongside 135,000 shared ownership properties.

The scheme has been controversial because it allows developers to replace homes built for affordable renting with homes costing up to £250,000 outside London and £450,000 in the capital, and for buyers to sell them on later at the open market rate.

AdvertisementHide
In its response to Mortgage lenders have warned that the government’s target of delivering 200,000 discounted first-time buyer homes by the end of this parliament is “too ambitious” and that the scheme could contribute to making the property market more unstable.

Under the starter homes initiative, the government plans to relax planning restrictions to encourage developers in England to build properties that will be sold at a 20% discount on their market rate to first-time buyers under the age of 40. In March 2015, it said it wanted to deliver 200,000 of these new homes by 2020, alongside 135,000 shared ownership properties.

The scheme has been controversial because it allows developers to replace homes built for affordable renting with homes costing up to £250,000 outside London and £450,000 in the capital, and for buyers to sell them on later at the open market rate.

In its response to the government’s technical consultation to the scheme, the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) said that if targets for starter homes and shared ownership properties were to be met, they would amount to 112,000 homes a year being built over the next three years – more than three-quarters of the total number of properties it was expecting to be delivered.

“We believe that it is highly unlikely that such a target could be achieved,” the CML said.

It said if targets for shared ownership and starter homes were both achieved, it would have a significant impact on the housing market. If buyers were only able to sell on properties at the discounted rate, this could affect their ability to move up the housing ladder, the CML said.

“To a large extent, the success of the scheme will depend on the ability of first-time buyers to build enough housing equity in a starter home to move up the property ladder. That will require property prices to be sustainable over the long term.”

Conversely, allowing them to sell them on quickly at the full market rate would also cause problems.

The CML said that to minimise the effect and to target those who most needed help, there should be a period of up to 10 years in which the property could not be sold on at full market value, with the discount tapering after the first three years.

“This would help avoid the potential for disruption to the market caused by buyers gaining a rapid uplift in equity in their homes, and wanting to sell their property to benefit from it.”

It added that banks and building societies that make up its membership had mixed views on how the discount scheme would work alongside other government initiatives such as the help-to buy-loan scheme, and that some firms may choose not to lend on starter homes if buyers were allowed to combine government incentives on one purchase.

“One concern is that this makes it more complicated for borrowers to understand the transaction and what their equitable interest and obligations are in the property. Some lenders believe this would make lending more risky,” it said.

“Firms are also concerned that the potential to combine incentives could deliver a larger increase in the value of the property over a relatively short period. That could boost demand and contribute to instability in property prices.”

The House of Lords recently voted for an amendment to the housing and planning bill, which would have seen the original discount reduced over 20 years. However, the Housing and Planning Act says only that the homes are “subject to any restrictions on sale or letting specified in regulations made by the secretary of state”.the government’s technical consultation to the scheme, the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) said that if targets for starter homes and shared ownership properties were to be met, they would amount to 112,000 homes a year being built over the next three years – more than three-quarters of the total number of properties it was expecting to be delivered.

“We believe that it is highly unlikely that such a target could be achieved,” the CML said.

It said if targets for shared ownership and starter homes were both achieved, it would have a significant impact on the housing market. If buyers were only able to sell on properties at the discounted rate, this could affect their ability to move up the housing ladder, the CML said.

“To a large extent, the success of the scheme will depend on the ability of first-time buyers to build enough housing equity in a starter home to move up the property ladder. That will require property prices to be sustainable over the long term.”

Conversely, allowing them to sell them on quickly at the full market rate would also cause problems.

The CML said that to minimise the effect and to target those who most needed help, there should be a period of up to 10 years in which the property could not be sold on at full market value, with the discount tapering after the first three years.

“This would help avoid the potential for disruption to the market caused by buyers gaining a rapid uplift in equity in their homes, and wanting to sell their property to benefit from it.”

It added that banks and building societies that make up its membership had mixed views on how the discount scheme would work alongside other government initiatives such as the help-to buy-loan scheme, and that some firms may choose not to lend on starter homes if buyers were allowed to combine government incentives on one purchase.

“One concern is that this makes it more complicated for borrowers to understand the transaction and what their equitable interest and obligations are in the property. Some lenders believe this would make lending more risky,” it said.

“Firms are also concerned that the potential to combine incentives could deliver a larger increase in the value of the property over a relatively short period. That could boost demand and contribute to instability in property prices.”

The House of Lords recently voted for an amendment to the housing and planning bill, which would have seen the original discount reduced over 20 years. However, the Housing and Planning Act says only that the homes are “subject to any restrictions on sale or letting specified in regulations made by the secretary of state”.

http://gu.com/p/4jbf8

Difficult times if you are young in Cranbrook

Cranbrook has three times the average number of 0-4 year olds compared to places with a similar population and above average numbers for ages 5-14 and double the average for 25-34 year olds.

There is little funding available for all these age groups, particularly teenagers. Residents are doing their best to provide appropriate activities with little financial or other help, though there seem to be many ” partnership” meetings which, as yet, have had little impact.

Source: current e-edition, Cranbrook Herald, page 16

Why is Babcock, the arms manufacturer involved in monitoring school attendance in Devon?

“Babcock International Group plc is a multinational corporation headquartered in the United Kingdom, which specialises in support services managing complex assets and infrastructure in safety- and mission-critical environments. Although the company has civil contracts, its main business is with public bodies, particularly the UK Ministry of Defence and Network Rail. The company has four operating divisions with overseas operations based in Africa, North America & Australia.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babcock_International

It has contracted to Devon County Council to monitor school attendance. Why – your guess is as good as Owl’s – perhaps it is a way od refining some sort of surveillance software!

The new partnership will deliver the following key services:

School Improvement; including
a dedicated school improvement advisory team,
curriculum support,
school data and assessment and school governor support;
Curriculum Enrichment; including digital media facilities, outdoor learning, school library and music services;

Inclusion Services and Learner Support: including educational psychology and Special Educational Needs;

Workforce Training and Development; including leadership, supporting and promoting continuous professional development and working with Newly Qualified Teachers;

Business Management and Resources; including finance, contracts, quality management, personnel and resources;

Alex Khan, Managing Director of Babcock’s Education and Training business said: “Being chosen by Devon County Council as provisional preferred bidder builds on our proven track record in delivering improved educational outcomes for all pupils and reducing overall costs for local authorities which is becoming an increasingly vital factor in the delivery of local services.

“We look forward to applying our unique educational management expertise and experience in Devon. Our approach is already delivering improved outcomes and reducing costs for our other local authority partnerships.””

https://www.babcockinternational.com/News/Babcock%20awarded%20Devon%20schools%20contract

The company sends threatening letters, mentioning fines of £2,500 and more to anyone whose child’s attendance has fallen before a bar that they and DCC sets, whatever the reason.

What is an arms manufacturer doing in education?

There is a change.org petition:

Babcock International is a weapon manufacturer operating around the globe. They are also contracted by Devon County Council to monitor and produce reports on school attendance.

After ten sessions (five days) of “unauthorised absence” they send this letter threatening a fine of up to £2500 and/or three months in prison.
The letter is sent to hundreds of parents each year, causing disproportionate distress for what, in many cases, is a single case of illness or forgetting to inform the school in time.

Children become worried that their mum or dad might go to prison. Parents worry their children might be taken into care, that they might lose their jobs, businesses, dignity and freedom.

The threat, and potential fine and imprisonment, disproportionately affects single parents and poor people, who are less able to pay a Fixed Penalty Notice within 21 days (after which it doubles).

I have personally supported a single mum who was working full-time, raising two children, starting a business and having to comfort her children who thought that Mum was going to prison.

Babcock’s business is in fear, not in children’s education.

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/devon-county-council-get-weapons-manufacturers-out-of-education

Something rotten in the state of Cornwall?

Another new Cornish protest group:

Cornwall for Change
Facebook Group

A non politically aligned group looking for a change of local government in Cornwall so that we have well-informed elected members working in a system that allows them to stand up for all who live here (Ethical Governance for One and All).”

which joins

Your Kids Future Cornwall
Facebook page

Highlighting the greed and political ineptitude that threatens our children’s Cornish Futures because of uncontrolled hyper-development.”

and It’s Our Cornwall
Facebook Page:

“It’s Our Cornwall is a site dedicated to safeguarding Cornwall’s environment and defending its Cornishness. It stems from the dismay and frustration felt at the suburbanisation of Cornwall that has steamrollered over us since the 1960s. Its aim is first to make people in Cornwall more aware of what’s happening to our land. Its second aim is to help campaigning groups see the bigger picture. Its third aim is to encourage communities to resist the future mapped out for us by the developers, aided and abetted by most of our elected ‘representatives’. Its fourth aim is to stimulate discussion on how best to organise this resistance.”

YOU NEED TO BE TALKING TO EACH OTHER PEOPLE! A CORNISH INDEPENDENT ALLIANCE COULD ACHIEVE EVEN MORE THAN INDIVIDUAL SMALL GROUPS. ALTHOUGH ITS ACRONYM WOULD BE CIA!

“Saving devolution from itself”

Post in Oxford University Political blog. This is specifically about the north of England but could be about anywhere where “devolution” is being rushed through at break-neck speed:

“From the beginning, it seems that both the term ‘devolution’ and the processes behind it – in contrast to the more bottom up approach in Scotland – have been conceived by and for Oxbridge politicians, local authorities and suited-and-booted business representatives. This has served to exclude and disengage the public, as the agenda is often seen and perceived as something remote from our daily lives. Indeed, it is fair to say that a lot of citizens have never even heard about the Northern Powerhouse, City Deals or devolution.

Like too many things in this country, these are policies conjured up in the corridors of Westminster, in local authorities’ offices, behind closed doors, or at exclusive events attended by the few. Imagine: attending the ‘Northern Powerhouse Conference’ held in February 2016, costing only £450: a real bargain for a programme which focussed only on business, with no inputs from civil society and third sector organisations, minority groups, or young voices.

Beyond this, the way in which City Deals have been put on the agenda seems only to reinforce the idea that devolution in the North has little to do with democracy, and more with the needs and wills of politicians. Indeed, none of the Deals that have been signed so far in Northern city regions such as Greater Manchester and Sheffield have been involved in any real process of consultation with the public from the outset. Of the elites, by the elites, for the elites, one would be tempted to dare say. …

… STOP TALKING TO EACH OTHER, START TALKING WITH EVERYONE ELSE

If we are truly devolving power to local people, where are the people? Charities and the third sector have been almost entirely excluded. Grassroots groups have been ignored. Minority groups, communities of colour, young people – not at the table.

From the beginning, there has been a politics of division and neglect – dividing rural voters from urban ones or squabbling between northern local authorities, or everyone from the political elite doing their best to either ignore outside voices or proclaim their own powerlessness in the face of Whitehall and Osborne.

This is not to say that local authorities in the North are to be ‘blamed and shamed’. They have been between a rock and hard place, with the government snapping at their heels, all the way through the process that led to City Deals, and in the end they did what they had to do: accept what was on offer, so as to avoid their cities and economies falling further behind the rest of the country.

However, at the end of the day, in order to work the new structures that will emerge from the Deals (including elected City Region mayors) will have to take root in the local communities, and have the people behind them—at the polls in local and city region elections; but also on a daily basis.

Local politics could, and should, play a key part in this, as an agent of change—but to achieve such a goal local authorities need to turn their attention not only to what the government wants, but also to their citizens’ voices. In many ways, last week’s local elections were a warning, shining light on how a continuing disconnect at local level could undermine the whole devolution agenda from within.

So we need more people involved, not because it is more just, or out of fairness, but because it is the only way to make sure the new processes actually function in the long term, and regional democracy – and the systems and communities it is supposed to improve – becomes a reality rather than a dream.

Changing the North can’t be done without the people who live and work there getting involved and participating in such a process. We need organizations and institutions to come together and imagine a new style of politics, one which is pluralist and inclusive, and trusts and empowers communities.

We need to engage young people, working people and communities of colour in new and exciting ways. The real ‘revolution’ of devolution as a means to achieve regional democracy ultimately rests in this, and not in the politics of catchphrases heralded by the Chancellor.”

Saving devolution from itself: Building regional democracy in the North of England

“Plans for a West of England devolution deal opened to South Gloucestershire residents for consultation”

DETAILS on a proposed West of England devolution deal, which includes South Gloucestershire, are being revealed so the public can have their say.

The newly negotiated deal with the Government, which also includes Bristol City, North Somerset and Bath and North East Somerset Councils, is yet to be accepted, with decisions to be taken by councillors of each area in council meetings.”

http://www.gazetteseries.co.uk/news/thornburynews/14498292.Plans_for_a_West_of_England_devolution_deal_opened_to_South_Gloucestershire_residents_for_consultation/

More pigs … more snouts … more troughs

The affairs are private but the money is public.

An MP in a Westminster love triangle charged taxpayers thousands of pounds for the luxury hotel where he had an affair with a journalist.

Angus MacNeil, a senior figure in the Scottish Nationalist Party, repeatedly claimed expenses for a room at the four-star Park Plaza near the House of Commons. His lover – 36-year-old Serena Cowdy – claims that she frequently spent the night there with him.

She is now having an affair with the 45-year-old’s fellow SNP MP Stewart Hosie.

Mr MacNeil, who like Mr Hosie has split from his wife, billed taxpayers for the hotel room while also letting his flat in the capital for more than £10,000 a year. …”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3595659/Love-tangle-MP-s-trysts-hotel-paid-taxpayer-Senior-SNP-figure-repeatedly-claimed-expenses-luxury-room-indulged-extra-marital-affair-lover.html

Pigs … snouts … troughs …

Extracts in today’s Guardian from:

Parliament Ltd by Martin Williams is published on 26 May by Hodder & Stoughton (rr £20

” … Since David Cameron became prime minister, the amount that MPs claim each year [for expenses] has risen by 43%. Total business costs and expenses rose from £79m in 2010/11, to £113m in 2014/15. Parliamentarians are claiming more and more on things such as air travel and rent.

Flight expenses have gone up 50%, now standing at more than £1m a year. Expenses for renting second homes have risen from £6.2m before, to £9.3m in 2014/15. As for the great transparency push? In fact, the data that Ipsa now publishes with great pride online would not, in itself, be enough to expose the worst abuses of the 2009 scandal. Many of those – the trick of “home flipping”, for instance – were only uncovered because the Telegraph got hold of the original, uncensored files.

Crucial details – such as the full names of every company that politicians have paid money to – are not included in Ipsa’s prized new database. There is one way around this: the original documents can sometimes be accessed by making a request under the Freedom of Information Act and waiting four weeks for Ipsa to respond. But, even then, the documents often arrive in your inbox redacted with black ink.

Although some MPs are happy with the new system, a great many resent the restrictions over what they can claim. “They get very touchy about things called taxis,” a Tory MP tells me. “MPs aren’t allowed taxis because it’s emotive. Ipsa aren’t interested in what’s fair – they’re only interested in the rules. MPs call it “I’m Paid Sod All”.’

An anonymous survey of MPs that Ipsa conducted in 2014 revealed some remarkable attitudes from a Parliament that is meant to have moved on from the expenses scandal. One MP called for a return to “paper-based claims”, saying: “I work 60/70 hours a week and resent being used as your unpaid data-entry clerk.” Another called for transparency to be curbed so that she could travel first class without the press finding out. “It’s very difficult to work in standard class,” she complained. “But if you go first … Ipsa still publishes it as first-class travel and the papers love ‘greedy MP’ stories … It really annoys me.”

With many other expenses curbed by Ipsa’s new rules, hotels are one of the few things remaining that MPs can really go to town on. In one year alone, they claimed more than £700,000. The vast majority of this bill was for places in London, rather than overseas travel. I visit one glitzy hotel, not far from the Houses of Parliament, where dozens of MPs choose to spend the night. Their bills are claimed on expenses and charged to the taxpayer. This is by no means the most luxurious hotel in the world, but guests get free access to a swimming pool, sauna, steam room and gym. There’s also a “paradise” spa, where you can get full beauty treatments.

One MP in particular has maxed his bills at this hotel: the Conservatives’ Andrew Bridgen. When his marriage broke down a few years ago, Bridgen ditched his Westminster flat and adopted the hotel as his new pad. One year, he stayed here for 45% of the time – a total of 165 nights. Inevitably, Bridgen racked up a huge bill, amounting to nearly £25,000. Then he claimed it back on expenses. This is the same Andrew Bridgen who proudly told me: “I used to earn £1m a year.” His bills have gone down somewhat lately, but he still frequents the place.

When I ask Bridgen if it is acceptable for MPs to claim £150 a night for hotels, I hit a nerve. “I mean, what do you want?” he snaps. “We could get some cardboard boxes and kip out on the bridge at Waterloo station. That would be handy, although we might look a bit of a mess when we arrive to work the next morning… Where do you want us to go?”

“Is it a nice hotel?” he laughs. “No, it’s bloody awful. I’d rather be at home.”

Bridgen sees nothing distasteful about the fact that he – and many of his colleagues – charge taxpayers for his second life in a hotel. He reckons it’s “cheaper than having a flat”, and adds: “I stay at the [hotel] because it’s a quick walk. When we finish late at night – [I can] just walk home.”

A close look at Ipsa’s files reveals that MPs claimed more than £156,000 on hotels in the first two months after the 2015 general election. Among them were two Tory MPs – Mike Wood and Andrew Turner – who enjoyed nights at London hotels owned by the Ritz-Carlton chain, together claiming more than £500 on expenses.

The Ritz-Carlton group owns three places in London, all of which describe themselves as “luxury” hotels: the Bulgari, the London Edition hotel and the Ritz hotel itself. In another case, the disgraced former Labour minister Eric Joyce racked up a £426 bill for two nights in a hotel in Glasgow, before he left Parliament in 2015. It was just 40 minutes’ drive from his own constituency.

The Hotel du Vin describes itself as a “luxury boutique hotel with that little bit more”, adding: ‘The most famous of Glasgow’s hotels has an enviable reputation for service and style, with 49 stunning bedrooms and suites, bistro, bar, cigar shack and whisky room.” Afterwards, Joyce kept hold of his receipt and tried to claim back part of it on expenses. He was rebuffed by Ipsa, who told him it did not fall under the scheme.

Most MPs don’t live their lives out of hotels. But that doesn’t mean their lifestyles aren’t still fuelled by taxpayer cash. Rents in London are notoriously expensive. In summer 2015, the average monthly rent in the capital hit £1,500. But MPs need to live somewhere convenient for work, and we shouldn’t expect it to come cheap. Still, if they already have a main home in the constituency, maybe a one-bedroom flat would be sufficient for weekdays. But no. Dozens treat the average as the bare minimum.

Using the Freedom of Information Act, I unearthed copies of some of the housing contracts that politicians have signed. At the top of the pile of big spenders are MPs such as Simon Danczuk, who has claimed £2,142 per month for rent. In a letter to Ipsa, he said this was “within my budget”. But it wasn’t him who was paying – it was the taxpayer.

Another MP, Ian Paisley Jr, used to claim £2,592 a month on rent, which you might think was enough. But in September 2015, he signed a new contract, worth £2,925 a month. Government minister George Freeman has been charging taxpayers £2,817 per month for his room in Bloomsbury. Meanwhile, his colleague in the Home Office, Karen Bradley, moved into a shared property in Little Venice, west London. She claimed the £2,167 monthly rent on expenses. One new Labour MP, Marie Rimmer, managed to fix up her accommodation before she was even elected. Documents suggest she was given the keys to her Westminster flat a month before the 2015 general election. Her set-up meant she would not miss a day of expenses. Indeed, one of Rimmer’s rent claims is dated for the very next day after the election.

If MPs’ rent claims aren’t excessive enough, it turns out that some of them are cashing in twice. Many own properties in London, but rent another place out on expenses, regardless. This allows them to operate a double-rent system: flat one is where the MP lives, with rent covered by expenses; flat two is the place they actually own, where they act as a landlord and rent it out to other people.

Research by Channel 4 News in 2015 found that at least 46 MPs had this kind of system in place – a move that one Labour backbencher described to me as “a new fiddle”. Channel 4 reported: “Our investigation found many of the MPs bought their London properties with the help of the taxpayer, when the previous expenses system allowed them to claim back mortgage payments. But when those claims were banned, following the expenses scandal, they switched to letting out their properties, in some cases for up to £3,000 a month. They then started claiming expenses for rent and hotels in the capital.”

Among those identified was Chris Bryant, the shadow leader of the House of Commons. He had already bought a penthouse in London back in 2005 and claimed around £1,000 a month in mortgage claims under the old system. But after the expenses scandal, he started renting the property out. It’s since been advertised by estate agents as having a private lift and a porter, with rent at about £3,000 a month. Meanwhile, Bryant moved into a new flat and claimed his own rent on expenses.

Gloriana is an opera by Benjamin Britten. Originally written to celebrate the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, it is now considered one of the composer’s finest operatic works. When it was performed at the Royal Opera House recently, the speaker of the House of Lords, Baroness D’Souza, decided to go. She was accompanied by the chairman of Russia’s Federation Council.

It was only later, when the Press Association made enquiries under an FOI request, that it was revealed the baroness had charged taxpayers £230 for her night at the opera. A chauffeur-driven Mercedes took D’Souza to the event in Covent Garden, just one mile from Parliament. The driver then sat outside for four hours waiting for the concert to finish, before taxiing her back to Parliament again. If she had caught the Tube, it would have cost £4.60.

The night at the opera was just one of a catalogue of D’Souza’s controversial expenses receipts that the Press Association had got hold of. Others included a £627 chauffeur bill to drive to the enthronement of Archbishop Justin Welby in 2013. She attended with John Bercow, the speaker of the House of Commons, but the pair took separate cars for the same trip. Bercow claimed an additional £525 for the journey.

Perhaps the most politically embarrassing small expense that politicians have claimed repeatedly is for poppies and wreaths. During the expenses scandal, Boris Johnson and ex-shadow chancellor Ed Balls were both exposed for claiming money to cover Remembrance Sunday wreaths. More recently, in 2015, Labour MP Sarah Champion was also caught claiming £17 for a poppy wreath.

And when they are talking anonymously, political insiders will happily defend such expenses claims. One senior special adviser says: “I spent a bloody fortune over the last couple of years on poppies … You’ll get a kicking if you’re not wearing a poppy – like in the press, or wherever. So you always have to make sure you’re wearing one. But then, you change your suit the next day and you forget. You’re getting on the tube in and you think: ‘Oh for fuck’s sake, I’ve left the poppy on the other suit.’ So you’ve got to go and buy another one. It’s not very much money, but over the course of bloody November, or whatever … it’s going to add up.”

Ridiculous claims are even filed by top government figures. Among the many receipts I uncovered was one from the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt. In 2014, he used his expenses to buy expensive designer glasses for his staff. Official work guidelines say that employers should contribute to the cost of spectacles, if staff need them to use a computer. But the health secretary filed claims on behalf of his staff covering the entire cost. Documents show that one of his staff visited Chandlers Opticians in Surrey and bought a £275 pair of glasses, which Hunt then billed to taxpayers. A second opticians’ bill for another staff member was also filed on Hunt’s expenses. This time, it covered a £25 eye test and a £180 pair of glasses.

It seems Hunt was fully aware that the expenses claim was being made. He told me: “In advance of submitting the claim, my office checked it specifically with Ipsa to ensure that everything was being done in the proper way – and we would contest any allegation to the contrary.”

It may have been within the rules, but the health secretary ducked my question: was it appropriate? Of course, Hunt was only following in the footsteps of his predecessor at the Department for Health, Andrew Lansley, who claimed £229 for prescription glasses and eye-test costs for an adviser in 2013.

Expenses claims such as this leave some insiders less than impressed. “When you employ staff in a business, you don’t pay for their f…ing glasses,” one ex-MP says. ‘Literally unbelievable!’

So what is the best way to police an expenses system? The dilemma may be familiar to any business manager: set up a system that relies on trust and some people will be untrustworthy (most of them, in this case); but go the other way and impose strict rules and they will play those rules. Tell them they can claim up to a maximum, and that maximum soon becomes a target to be aimed at.

Even the most cynical of us would probably agree that our democratic representatives should be held to a higher standard. This is not a business – it is parliament. Surely we can expect them to stick to the rules, and exercise some degree of personal judgment as well?”

http://gu.com/p/4jad9

NPPF stops councils from building affordable housing

“National Planning Policy Framework hinders their ability to build social and affordable housing, research has suggested.

Just 11% of those surveyed for a report on housing need published by the Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE) and the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) considered that the test would provide the numbers of homes needed.

The survey of council leaders, chief executives, heads of planning, heads of housing and heads of finance saw 96% of councils describe their need for affordable housing as “severe” or “moderate”.

Only a handful (7%) thought that starter homes would help address affordable housing.

The report, Homes for all: Ensuring councils can deliver the homes we need, called on the Government to put in place a housing strategy that would provide decent homes for everyone in society.

It also recommended that councils should not be forced to sell-off their social housing to fund the extension of Right to Buy. Some nine out of ten councils were worried that the extension of Right to Buy would lead to less housing available for social rent, it said.

The report also highlights examples of innovation in local government, including effective new models of housing delivery.

TCPA chief executive Kate Henderson said: “With 96% of councils describing their need for affordable homes as severe or moderate, and 89% worried that the extension of Right to Buy will lead to less affordable homes, it is clear that there is a real crisis.

“Councils are concerned that government policy is not enabling them to deliver genuinely affordable housing – we need to have a housing strategy that provides affordable homes to all people.”

Paul O’Brien, Chief Executive of APSE, said: “Our main message is we need Government to put in place a housing strategy for the nation that provides decent homes for all. Whilst efforts have been concentrated on so-called affordable homes this is often not the case and these homes remain out of reach for the vast majority of people.
“The situation is even worse for those dependent on social and genuinely affordable housing for rent. Current housing policy is in need of demolition. The time has come to start afresh by putting local authorities and new council homes at the heart of a new housing strategy.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26982%3Anational-planning-policy-framework-hinders-building-of-affordable-housing-councils&catid=63&Itemid=31

CPRE Court challenge to AONB development

The Court of Appeal has granted permission to appeal to campaigners seeking to challenge the grant of planning permission for a major development in an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB).

Lord Justice Lewison gave the go-ahead to CPRE Kent to challenge the decision of Mr Justice Mitting in the High Court in R (CPRE Kent) v Dover DC [2015] EWHC 3808.
The Court of Appeal judge gave permission for the appellant to pursue its argument that Dover District Council did not properly apply national policy protecting the Kent Downs AONB when it granted planning permission for up to 521 residential units and a 90-apartment retirement village in the Farthingloe valley.

Dover’s planning committee resolved to grant permission for the development despite criticisms in the officers’ report of its density and layout.

CPRE’s case is that on the facts of the case this failed to afford adequate protection to the AONB and/or that inadequate reasons were given for departing from officers’ recommendation.

CPRE Kent Chairman Christine Drury said: “This is great news – we have been determined to save this beautiful area of countryside. The harm to the AONB cannot be justified and we are heartened that the judge has agreed to our appeal on this important point.”

The appellant had sought permission on a second ground, relating to the lawfulness of a substantial payment for heritage improvements closer to Dover town centre at the Western Heights.

CPRE Kent has decided to renew its application for permission on that ground for oral reconsideration.

A Dover District Council spokesman said: “We are aware the Court of Appeal has granted permission to appeal on one of the two grounds CPRE sought leave to appeal on, and we will continue to defend our decision through the Court process.”
Francis Taylor Building’s Ned Westaway, instructed by Richard Buxton, is acting for the appellant.

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26976%3Acourt-of-appeal-agrees-to-hear-area-of-outstanding-natural-beauty-case&catid=63&Itemid=31

After refusing to lower voting age Cameron joins Tinder – to persuade young people to vote!

Oh, how he must wish he HAD lowered the voting age, as research shows young people overwhelmingly favour Bremain!

And how will he EVER live down joining a dating app to try to drum up support!

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/17/uk-prime-minister-david-cameron-signs-up-with-tinder.html

Next time developers tell you they are too poor to build affordable housing …

… show them this article:

“FTSE 100 climbs nearly 1% with Taylor Wimpey leading the way
Housebuilder pleases investors with news of new special dividend

Leading shares are heading higher again, helped by the continuing strength in the oil price and positive moves in the US and Asian markets, and shrugging off weaker than expected UK inflation figures.

Taylor Wimpey is topping the risers, up 11p at 195.9p after the housebuilder announced a special dividend amid a strong property market. The move means it plans to pay investors £1.3bn by the end of 2018, higher than the expected figure of around £1.1bn. Analysts at Canaccord Genuity said:

Ahead of its capital markets day today, the group has announced a very positive update to its dividend policy as well as stretching its medium-term financial objectives.

It has increased its ordinary dividend to around 5% of net assets to be paid through the cycle from 2017 and announced a special dividend of £300m to be paid in July 2017 (it had already announced £300m to be paid in July 2016). The group has also increased its medium-term financial targets, covering the period 2016 to 2018, given the strength of the market and the group’s performance. It now expects an average return on net operating assets of 30%, an average operating margin of around 22%.

Included in its financial targets it also targets a total of £1.3bn of dividends to be paid to shareholders over the period 2016-18. This clearly signals another special dividend in 2018. Consensus unlikely to move significantly at this point, although the low end may move up but the news on dividends should be well received and consensus dividend expectations will likely rise. Over the next 14 months the shares offer dividends per share of around 22.5p – which implies a yield of around 12%.

On trading the company said:

The UK new build housing market remains very positive across most of our geographies, with a healthy and controlled lending environment providing good accessibility to mortgages at competitive rates. Consumer demand and confidence remain high. In central London, the market continues to be stable.

This confidence has helped other housebuilders, with Barratt Developments up 15.5p at 553.5p and Persimmon putting on 57p to £20.37. …”

http://gu.com/p/4j96k