But in a letter to the Prime Minister, policy group Homes for Later Living warns that “the recovery drive will be running on empty if the Government doesn’t take urgent action to help the millions of people who want to downsize”.

The letter signed by John Tonkiss (McCarthy & Stone), Spencer J McCarthy (Churchill Retirement Living) and Mark Dickinson (Lifestory Group) sets out the social and economic benefits of building 30,000 new retirement properties a year.

It argues specialist retirement housing must be central to efforts to get the housing market restarted, while also helping ensure that vulnerable people are better protected against future pandemics.

Prioritising a proportion of new homes for an ageing population would stimulate transactions throughout the housing market, helping young families and first-time buyers move onto and up the ladder.

It would also generate savings to the NHS and social care services of £3,500 per person per year as people in specialist retirement properties are less likely to be admitted to hospital and require further care than people in mainstream housing.

This means that building 30,000 more retirement housing dwellings every year for the next 10 years would generate estimated savings across the NHS and social services of £1.4bn per year within a decade.

“Building more specialist retirement housing would be a win-win for the Government.

“It would unlock the housing market, helping older people, young families and first-time buyers. It would also assist with attempts to fix the social care crisis once and for all,” say the housing bosses.

“With the number of older people in England growing significantly, the time to act is now.

“The Government has given the housing market the green light to get moving again and we welcome this. But the risk is that the recovery drive will be running on empty if we don’t take urgent action to help the millions of people who actively want to downsize.”

To be fair to Jenrick, he denies none of this and, on legal advice, reversed his decision with lightning speed.

Ministers have resigned for less and have survived far worse. Jenrick’s boss, Boris Johnson, was lobbied by Desmond like mad and backed his scheme. He has since shown he regards sackings as nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with politics. Be loyal and you can do anything you like. In that at least, Johnson is consistent with his own behaviour. To sack Jenrick would be arrant hypocrisy. For Jenrick to go would be merely dignified.

The trouble with planning decisions is that they can seem arbitrary, which means merely matters of opinion. Possibly corrupting factors can always be at play. Jenrick’s Labour critics might reflect on an earlier Docklands development, in which a Labour cabinet minister overrode the grade-one listing of the finest historic docks in Europe, London Docks. He outrageously saw them demolished to favour a developer who also owned the (then) Labour-supporting Sun. The minister was Peter Shore, the docks were in Wapping, and the favour was to a certain Rupert Murdoch.

There is nothing new in the politics of property. Desmond and Jenrick might ask how the Vauxhall Tower got approved, or the Shard, or the Walkie Talkie, in many cases against strong local opposition. Centre Point was the result of a murky LCC deal over a roundabout. Conrad Hilton threatened Harold Macmillan that he would boycott London if prevented from breaking rules against towers around Hyde Park.

Civic vanity is the most potent of planning motives. At present not just London but Manchester, Leeds, Bristol, Middlesbrough and even Norwich are promised random luxury towers that bear no relation to historic setting or social planning, any more than they relieve local housing need. The London property market, in particular, is now chaotic, massively distorted by money laundering and its status as a depository of the world’s spare cash. I am all for a vigorous London economy, but not this way.

Though figures remain wild guesses, it is estimated that 5% of central London homes may now lie empty. Industry experts estimate one-third of high-end flats in central London go to overseas buyers. The Guardian found just 30 of 214 flats in Vauxhall’s Tower had anyone on the electoral roll. This is the market at which Desmond and Jenrick were aiming, either second-home pieds-à-terre or empty investments for overseas buyers. They are about profits, not homes. This is not planning but anti-planning.

Tower Hamlets council can hardly complain. It has accepted the projected Spire London just up Westferry Road from Desmond’s nine-tower scheme, planned to be 67 storeys of more than 800 luxury apartments. The key to the scheme’s approval was a £50m payment by the developer to the council. Desmond, anxious to avoid making such a payment himself, texted Jenrick to say “we don’t want to give Marxists loads of doe [sic] for nothing!” London developers call such sweeteners “legalised bribes”, as they do not go to individuals. After a decade of austerity, hard-pressed councils find it hard to say no. That Tower Hamlets resisted Desmond is the true measure of his project’s monstrosity.

Such banana-republic antics are why planning has always been layered. It begins with local democracy – now the last real discretion left to local people. Local decisions are no less vulnerable to corruption than national ones, but at least they are accountable locally.

Overseeing them is an appeal structure to a Whitehall inspectorate. But this is polluted by ever more intrusive centralised direction, typified by the Jenrick saga. In the case of London tall buildings, it is further complicated by the London mayor being able to overrule a borough decision, even if then overruled by a minister.

The bottom is now falling out of the luxury market. Prices are estimated to be 20% below the peak and declining fast. The huge Earls Court development in west London went belly-up. If the London Spire is also on hold, it may be that Desmond has been saved from a white elephant.

Either way, this affair has exposed the decay of Britain’s urban planning. Central and local government should long ago have called a halt to the reckless boom in foreign investment, one that had nothing to do with domestic housing supply. Absentee owners should have been stopped from building London properties and leaving them empty. If Jenrick really meant his decision was to get “more homes built”, he would have insisted Desmond ensured they were only for UK occupiers in perpetuity. He did not, as it would have wrecked profitability. So he can’t have meant it. Aesthetic and skyline control should have been established for historic centres.

Rumours are now that Jenrick – on the instructions of Dominic Cummings – is proposing to introduce centrally imposed commissions with no local control. It is recipe for planning by legal appeal. The best argument for Jenrick to go is perhaps not what he did, but what he is about to do.

• This article was amended on 26 June 2020 to remove “UK” from a headline reference to “the UK planning system”. Planning is a devolved function.

A council that has bet more than £1 billion of taxpayers’ cash on commercial property has secretly let a key tenant put off paying millions of pounds in rent because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Spelthorne council in Surrey is said to have agreed an 18-month rent deferral with WeWork, the troubled property management company, amounting to a £4.5 million short-term loss for the authority.

The deal is likely to add to fears that families across the country face higher council tax bills and reduced public services as local authorities’ multibillion-pound bets on commercial property turn sour.

Councils across the country have borrowed £6.6 billion since 2016 to buy shopping centres and office blocks to replace revenue lost by government cuts. Council finances, however, are now taking a hammering as tenants default on rent.

Wednesday night’s full council meeting saw councillors vote by 29 votes to 27 to change the constitution, following the nominations made by the ruling Democratic Alliance to appoint cabinet members to the committees.

The meeting heard that while there was nothing legally to preclude cabinet members from being appointed, successive administrations had previously chosen against ‘taking the risk’ and the council’s legal advisor had advised against it.

The constitution changes mean that the Democratic Alliance will need to nominate alternative appointments to replace of Cllrs Paul Millar and Jack Rowland on the Licensing & Enforcement committee, and for Cllrs Rowland, Paul Hayward, and Eilleen Wragg on the Planning Committee.

Cllr Wragg was due to be the chairman of the committee, and while Cllr Paul Arnott, leader of the Democratic Alliance said they had a Plan B, it would mean him having to appoint two working mothers of school age children and a key worker to the Planning Committee to fill the three vacant spots.

Putting forward his amendment, Cllr Ian Thomas, a former leader of the council, said it was straight forward and consistent with practice followed by recent administrations and to ensure serving members of cabinet are not eligible for appointment to the two committees.

He said that while there was no formal legal restriction, the advice is clear and unequivocal in judging the wisdom against such a move, and added: “The reason is perception. People believe they may lead a particular outcome, intentionally or unintentionally. The risk to the council is that this may be used in appeals or judicial review, and can avoid avoidable complaints to the council.

“I am deeply concerned the constitution does not offer adequate protection against an ill-advised move, and any appointment would be dangerously against the long standing advice.”

Cllr Ben Ingham, the previous leader of the council, added: “This issue is of grave concern and we have always avoiding taking this risk, whether it is low, medium or high. Last year the subject was broached and I discussed it and the advice that was not to appoint any portfolio holders to licensing or planning, so I would be reticent to take the risk when there is an alternative. Why would we want to take an unnecessary risk?”

Cllr Susie Bond added that it looked like Cllr Arnott ‘selective shopped around until he got the advice that he wanted’, adding: “Perception is key and by packing with regulatory committees with cabinet members is a move that will be widely interrupted as seeking to exert undue influence. The people of East Devon deserve open and transparent governance, not the equivalent of some Orwellian nightmare.”

Leader of the Conservative Group, Cllr Andrew Moulding, said that while it may be legally permissible, there will be a perception by the public that could open up additional risk for the council, adding: “There is no doubt that in time it will bring the council into disrepute and there will be regular conflicts of interest for portfolio holders.”

Cllr Philip Skinner raised his concerns over the ‘dangerous precedent’ and was worried about the portfolio holder for economy sitting on planning, saying: “They should be pushing the economic agenda but then are voting on those issues if these agendas are coming back through the planning process. I can see nothing but problems coming from this.”

Cllr Mike Howe, the previous chairman of the Development Management Committee, said having cabinet members sitting on quasi-judicial boards is not the best plan. He said: “It is a perception issue. The public perception is that cabinet will be controlling these committees, irrespective of whether they are, and that is the danger of what could happen.”

And two members of the cabinet – Cllrs Jess Bailey and Megan Armstrong – also added their concerns about the proposals, with Cllr Bailey saying: “The key question is, does the filling of committees in this way increase the risk of decisions being challenged, and I think it does, and the head of legal does advise against it.”

But Cllr Millar, portfolio holder for Democracy, called the amendment ‘stupid’, and said that there was no occasion when appointing cabinet members to committee had caused an issue anywhere in the country. He added: “This complies with the national guidelines and I urge you to vote against the amendment as it is rubbish and been brought by members who seek to undermine the new administration.”

Cllr Wragg said that four members of the executive sit on the planning committee at Teignbridge and there have been no problems whatsoever in the time they have been serving. She added: “There is nothing illegal about what is being proposed,” and questioned who would pay for the childcare or to compensate those with work commitments who cannot afford to sit in planning meetings all day.

Cllr Arnott said that the people who he had proposed were the people who were the best for the council and to serve the public interest. He said: “If this amendment passes, for planning, for there are no others available, we would have to put forward two working mothers of school age children and a full-time female worker in a key British industry. These are not retired gentlemen who can afford to spend all day on planning. The people put forward are the best for the council and the public interest is best served by them being on the planning committee.

“I have every confidence that if there is a perceived conflict of interest then they will simply recuse themselves. If the leader of strategic planning portfolio holder where on planning then there would be an interest. This is not a question of the Democratic Alliance not having the talent to serve on committees, but a committee that sits all day, is a very difficult thing for councillors of a certain age to do.”

And Cllr Hayward, the portfolio holder for economy and assets, said that he found the hypocrisy of some councillors staggering given the scandals that the Conservative Party have been embroiled in.

He said: “Some councillors have failed to disclose interests in the past, but they still sit on the committees, and I find the hypocrisy staggering. The opposition is judging the new administration by its own insidious standards. There is the housing minister embroiled in scandal after scandal of planning.”

Cllr Hayward also referred to the scandal involved the disgraced former councillor Graham Brown who was secretly filmed by the Daily Telegraph claiming he had access to all the right people for the right clients and said ‘”If I can’t get planning, nobody will.”

He was recorded as saying: “I don’t come cheap. If I’m turning a green field into a housing estate and I’m earning the developer two or three millions, then I’m not doing it for peanuts – especially if I’m the difference between winning and losing it.”

Cllr Hayward added: “He caused more harm to this council than anyone else in its history and the public perception of this council was dragged through the mud by a councillor who did not sit on planning.

“I don’t support the amendment as we have put the right people in the right roles for the benefit of East Devon. If we just stuck to tradition we’d still be washing our clothes on a rock by the river, but we don’t, we have washing machines now, and we have moved on.”

But councillors voted by 29 votes to 27, with one abstention, to amend the constitution to prohibit cabinet members from serving on either the planning or licensing committees.

Nominations for the councillors to replace those who were set to be appointed to the committees will be made subsequently by Cllr Arnott with delegated authority to officers to confirm them.

New figures reveal that holiday home owners received £71 million of coronavirus business grants paid out in Cornwall.

The Government provided cash to be paid to businesses which had been hit by the lockdown so that they could keep afloat.

It has previously been revealed that £50m went to holiday let owners but now updated figures show that they received much more than that.

Cornwall Councillor Cornelius Olivier has been highlighting the issue saying that it was “scanadlous” that so much of the money was going to holiday home owners.

Cornwall Council has been administering grants for businesses with funding provided by the Government – those grants are for either £10,000 or £25,000 subject to criteria set by the Government.

In information he received from Cornwall Council the Penzance East councillor said that by June 9 the council had paid out £177m in £10,000 grants to businesses.

Of that just under £71m went to “holiday let business premises” – and Cllr Olivier said that £42m of that went to people living outside of Cornwall.

The Labour councillor has been a longstanding campaigner against a loophole which allows holiday let owners avoid paying both council tax and business rates on their properties. By registering their holiday homes as businesses which have a rateable value less than that eligible to pay rates they avoid paying any tax or rates at all.

Cllr Olivier said that, of the money paid out to holiday home owners, £60m had gone to those which pay no council tax or rates – with £32m going to people outside the Duchy. 

The Penzance Central councillor, writing on his Facebook page, said: “It is scandalous that at a time when so many local businesses are struggling to survive and not getting the support they need, second homeowners who rent their properties out for a few months a year, (or less) as well as using it themselves and who receive a tax subsidy for doing so, are getting £10,000 to compensate them for their ‘financial hardship’.

“A second home is a combination of valuable investment, personal luxury and potential secondary income, they should not be treated as struggling local businesses in need of financial help.

“Even when ‘holiday let business premises’ are locally, or at least Cornish owned, I do not accept that ‘a holiday let’, unoccupied for a large part of the year, is a small local business in the normal sense of the word and that their owners are in desperate need of government financial support.

“A combination of the £10,000 grant and even a partial visitor season means that, regardless of the pandemic, this could be a bumper year financially for ‘holiday let business premises’.”

Cllr Olivier said that the issue further supported calls for the Government to close the loophole which allows holiday home owners to avoid paying council tax or business rates on their properties.

He said that he had written to his local MP Derek Thomas calling on him to help with getting the loophole closed and to help ensure more grants are available for businesses in Cornwall.

That, sadly, is what’s wrong with Flybe, too.

Until the early hours of 5 March, the Exeter-based airline was the biggest regional carrier in Europe.

You may recall that it connected the UK’s cities, great and small, with some ventures into “near Europe”: Amsterdam, Dusseldorf and Paris.

But Flybe slumped from a brief post-IPO market capitalisation of £250m to a machine that devoured cash from its rescuers – Virgin Atlantic, Stobart Air and US hedge fund Cyrus Capital – by the million, until they gave up the struggle and stumbled away.

Flybe briefly hit the headlines last week, when one of its Q400 aircraft was being prepared to leave Aberdeen airport but crumpled into an Embraer jet belonging to Loganair – its erstwhile partner turned foe.

“Haunting us from beyond the grave,” one Loganair insider said.

Then, just as all aviation eyes were on the mesmerising spectacle of a parade of ministers announcing that an announcement about the quarantine announcement was impending, they just couldn’t say when, Flybe popped up again.

In an interview with The Australian, Jonathan Peachey – adviser to Cyrus Capital – said: “We are doing everything we can to ensure that the business can emerge in some form from administration.”

Oh dear. It was awful for more than 2,000 Flybe staff when the airline collapsed, and dismal for the travellers who depended on it – especially at airports such as Belfast City and Southampton, where Flybe was the dominant carrier.

But reinventing the same airline would be as much of a failure as Laker Airways mark 2 and 3 turned out to be – the buccaneering Sir Freddie had two more goes at cheap-and-cheerful travel after Skytrain, but the magic had gone and the market had changed.

When the wretched coronavirus crisis eases and regional flying resumes, Flybe’s former rivals will pick up the profitable pieces. Loganair is already connecting Glasgow and Edinburgh with Southampton, and will shortly launch a link between Belfast City and Glasgow.

The previously lucrative links from Birmingham to Scotland’s two biggest cities may not be so profitable in an age of austerity and Zoom meetings – but easyJet will find out soon enough how much demand remains. And since Manchester airport has direct trains to the centres of both Edinburgh and Glasgow, the demise of these sub-200-mile routes is a reasonable outcome.

The triumvirate who tried to turn Flybe into Virgin Connect pumped £100m-plus into an airline that was haemorrhaging cash.

According to a leaked message to staff from Mark Anderson, the unfortunate chief executive at the time of the failure, all but £27m of the rescue fund “was gone before we even really started … we were in worse shape than even the shareholders thought we were”.

Flybe had the right kind of staff but the wrong kind of fleet (a muddle of unloved Q400s and ungainly Embraer jets), and a network that strayed dangerously beyond its potentially profitable UK core. Leeds Bradford to Dusseldorf and Cardiff to Milan were among the expensive aberrations.

Bereft of life, Flybe rests in peace. And that is where it should stay.

An alternative proposal would see a masterplan covering the town centre development created which would aim to deliver a more ambitious town centre, including a leisure centre and a hotel, but would take longer before development takes place and without the guarantee of being delivered or the funding for it.

Cllr Les Bayliss, Chairman of Cranbrook Town Council and Chairman of the Council’s Planning Committee said: “The discussions which are taking place include an identified supermarket provider but if the consortium’s proposals are not taken forward, that provider would fall away and there would be a need to wait for another to come forward. The situation is finely balanced and requires a significant decision to be made.

“There is a chance now to deliver a comprehensive and holistic town centre in the near future – or wait for another number of years before anything is delivered, if at all. Over the next few days and weeks the Town Council will be sharing more details about the two proposals, and residents are invited to comment and, most importantly, to vote in our Facebook poll.”

The proposal from the consortium of developers includes:

• A 2,500 square metres Morrisons supermarket with an additional 1,000 square metres of retail space on Tillhouse Road (around 10 to 12 shops);
• A town square
• A nursery
• Around 350 town centre homes
• Town hall with café, meeting spaces and around 15 rentable office units (including land and around one-third of the construction costs)
• Children’s centre, youth centre and library in a single building (including land and the construction costs to the Section 106 value)
• A skate park
• Land for extra care facilities delivered by Devon County Council
• Land for a “blue light” facility to house fire, police and ambulance services
• Opportunities to provide additional retail outlets

If this proposal is accepted by the Strategic Planning Committee, a planning application is expected to be submitted very soon with construction work going ahead within the year and the supermarket, shops and town square to be delivered during 2021.

Devon County Council have already put forward outline plans for a new community building for the town, which would include a Library, Children’s Centre with Public Health Nursing provision and a Youth Centre with outdoor recreational space.

Located just off Tillhouse Road and Cedar Close, the proposed building would house four of Devon County Council’s Service Providers for the community within the one building.

The Children’s Centre and Public Health Nursing would share facilities, the Youth Centre will provide indoor recreational spaces and external recreational space including a MUGA, while the library will also include a small café.

The other approach being considered by EDDC planning officers is to develop a “supplementary planning document” (SPD) for the town centre in Cranbrook – which is essentially a masterplan covering the town centre development.

It would include very similar facilities to those listed in the consortium’s proposal above as well as some workshops and light industrial units, a hotel, and possibly a leisure centre, although the final detailed plans have not been made public.

A Cranbrook town council spokesman said: “We have today launched a consultation for residents to state their preference relating to the development of the town centre in Cranbrook and the town council has been pressing for the delivery of the town centre for some considerable time.

“In short there is a choice between delivering a range of town centre facilities now. Or an alternative approach which seeks to deliver a more ambitious town centre at some undetermined time in the future without certainty over what can be delivered, how it’s going to be funded and how long it’s going to take.

“The masterplan proposal might deliver a more ambitious town centre, but we don’t know how long it would take EDDC to develop the town centre masterplan, there is no funding for those extra items and no timescale for delivery – it may take five years, possibly ten, or even longer and there is no guarantee that anything will be delivered at all. The consortium is not obligated to provide these extra facilities and the process would rely on take-up from other potential investors.”

The consultation can be accessed via https://www.cranbrooktowncouncil.gov.uk/town-centre-2, with the town council wanting to know the views of residents before they submit their response to EDDC.

The housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, is under pressure to resign after newly released documents indicated that he “insisted” a planning decision for a £1bn property development should be rushed through so a Tory donor’s company could reduce costs by £45m.