Richard Foord gets Health Minister Andrew Stephenson to say “No plans for demolition” and to say:

“I fully recognise that the local community has invested in the building of the hospital in the first place, and therefore is a key stakeholder in its future. The ICB and NHS Property Services continue in ongoing dialogue with a range of community groups about potential future uses, and the community has been invited by the ICB to develop a business case for the future use of the property by the end of June 2024. Any future decisions on the future of Seaton Hospital will be taken following evaluation of that business case. I sincerely hope that a financially sustainable solution can be found locally and in the best interests of the people of Devon.” Andrew Stephenson

From Hansard transcript 

Richard Foord Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Defence) 

My aim during this Adjournment debate is to get a plain answer to one simple question: to whom does NHS Property Services answer? That is a crucial question, because the organisation is in possession of an estate of more than 2,700 properties with a value of more than £3 billion. The company is responsible for roughly 10% of all NHS facilities, yet there is a need for clarity on how it is overseen. I aim to unpack some of the key questions that need answering and outline some ways in which we can improve the situation we find ourselves in, specifically in relation to Seaton Community Hospital in my constituency.

What exactly is NHS Property Services? I had to answer this question myself several months ago, when I learned of plans by NHS Devon to hand back part of Seaton Community Hospital to NHS Property Services, from which NHS Devon had been renting the building. I had little idea why NHS Property Services was the nominal owner of a full wing at Seaton Hospital. That is in spite of the fact that the wing was funded entirely through donations raised by the local community before the hospital was built and opened in 1988.

NHS Property Services is a Government-owned company with one single shareholder, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. To me, that implies that Ministers are ultimately responsible for the oversight of that company, even though I accept that the day-to-day running of the organisation is delegated. Yet ask a Minister about this, as I have, and Members might hear a rather different story. Each Minister who I have asked questions of has simply said that they cannot get involved in the decision-making processes in NHS Property Services in any meaningful way. I can understand Ministers not wanting to tinker in operational decisions, but there are some principles at stake in relation to Seaton Hospital that means it is not just an operational matter. Surely a company should be accountable to its shareholders—how otherwise can the company and its board be held accountable for their actions?

That is the paradox: we have a company worth billions that is solely owned by the Government, yet Ministers protest that they can have almost nothing to do with it. Far from being entirely detached from Government, the framework within which NHS Property Services operates is set by the Department of Health and Social Care. When I talk to regional representatives from NHS Property Services, as I have several times, they make it plain to me—in what they say and what they do not—that they are bound by policies emanating from Whitehall. That affects everything from how the organisation was established to its current operating framework, including how much NHS Property Services charges as rent for spaces that it lets to local NHS organisations such as integrated care boards.

That is a key barrier in the fight to save Seaton Hospital as one single entity. The current £140 per square metre market rent puts the embattled wing far out of the price range of any local, community-based organisation that wants to take over the space and use it for the improvement of health and wellbeing in the Axe valley. That is a crazy price: it is well over double what one would have to pay for office space here in Westminster—and, trust me, real estate prices in Seaton should not be comparable with those in Westminster.

My concern is that, on the one hand, the rent is extortionate because it is based on a clinical rate, and yet, on the other hand, the property directors—the people charged with running NHS Property Services—have a background in infrastructure and estates and want to get the maximum income they can from the estate they are running, so they pay little heed to the health context.

I will talk a little about the health context to bring this Seaton Hospital case study to life. The chief medical officer, Sir Chris Whitty, in his annual report last October called “Health in an Ageing Society”, wrote specifically about the tendency of older people to retire and move to rural areas, and specifically to coastal areas such as Seaton. He said:

“We’ve really got to get serious about the areas of the country where ageing is happening very fast, and we’ve got to do it now. It’s possible to compress the period of time that people spend in ill health…because otherwise we will end up with large numbers of people leading much more dependent lives.”

The report recommends:

“Providing services and environments suitable for older adults in these areas” as an “absolute priority”. Sir Chris Whitty says that, specifically, we need policies to reduce disease, to reduce disability and to help people to exercise, eat well and stay fit.

That was the chief medical officer, and I will also refer to a report written just a couple of weeks ago by Beccy Baird from The King’s Fund. It calls for a radical refocusing of health and care, with primary care and community services at its core. The report says that

“progress has been hampered by an incorrect belief that moving care into the community will result in short-term cash savings. Other factors include a lack of data about primary and community services leading to a ‘cycle of invisibility’”, with

“urgent challenges such as A&E waiting times and planned care backlogs becoming the priority for politicians tempted by quick fixes instead of fundamental improvement.”

Sir Chris Whitty and Beccy Baird are up against some in the public sector who are tempted to treat all estate management matters as the same. The head of the National Audit Office, Gareth Davies, talked in Parliament in January about asset management being one of the

“main areas of financial opportunity” for the Government. I would caution the National Audit Office and NHS Property Services to read the Whitty and Baird reports, rather than simply seeking to divest all property in the NHS for as much as Property Services can get.

Seaton Hospital was transferred to NHS Property Services in 2017. The purpose of Property Services at that time was to centralise the holdings of various strategic health authorities and primary care trusts under one umbrella organisation. The aim was to remove the burden from local NHS organisations, and offer greater financial security by holding all those properties centrally. It was intended to provide better management of these important spaces, so as to ensure value for money and quality facilities, using economies of scale and of scope.

Fast forward to 2024, and it is clear that the model is broken. Rather than ensuring that our local health services get the space they need, we seem to be making perverse, false economies. The Government give money to integrated care boards only to have Government-owned NHS Property Services recoup a large portion of that money in rental fees for the buildings that ICBs use, at a rent set and advised by market rent auditors. This offers very little flexibility or security for our local NHS services, which, as in the case of Seaton Community Hospital, are left in a scenario in which the ICB is forced to cut services while still being lumbered with a bill for the space those services used to occupy. We lost the clinical beds we had at Seaton Hospital in 2017, and the space has since remained vacant. The only way to remove this item from the budget line is to turn over the space to NHS Property Services, which becomes liable for the amount charged in rent.

As hon. Members can see, this system is not only complex but incredibly backwards. The Government are effectively renting these buildings from themselves, despite the fact that many were previously directly owned by local health bodies. They are not even rented out at a fair price, despite the stated commitment to achieving fair market rates. These facilities are rented out as clinical spaces, even when they are not used for clinical purposes. This is based on an evaluation that must have been completely off the scale when it was made in 2016. Seaton Hospital was evaluated by the assessor Montagu Evans, and I do not know who it could possibly have talked to if it thinks that Seaton Hospital is worth £300,000 rent a year.

Why, we might ask, is the rent not adjusted to reflect the building’s current status? So far as I can gather, it is because the Government’s rental framework does not allow it. It places a huge roadblock in the way of community groups and hospital friends organisations that seek to convert such spaces into new settings aimed at providing non-clinical services of the sort to which Sir Chris Whitty and Beccy Baird were referring. Instead, the system seems analogous to a self-licking lollipop, or a dog blindly chasing its evasive tail without ever stopping to think why it cannot catch it.

During my many conversations with NHS Property Services in recent months, individual employees have sought to be helpful. However, they find themselves handcuffed by Government policy. They are unable to deviate from the Government’s framework, which, through the consolidated charging policy, first introduced in 2016, sets the rate that ICBs and, now, community organisations need to pay. The rate was introduced when Jeremy Hunt, who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer, was Health Secretary.

In effect, the Government own all NHS facilities and have the power to direct the arrangements under which they are rented out, including the wing of Seaton Community Hospital that was funded, in whole, by local villagers, townspeople and the Seaton and District Hospital League of Friends charity. What on paper might seem like a prudent way to manage NHS facilities, and to make sure that they are properly maintained, means in reality that, in places like Seaton, the community no longer has a stake or a say in how its local hospital is used.

That begs the question: who is in charge? The answer should be the Secretary of State and Ministers reporting to her, but given her Department’s attempts to point the finger at this operational body and to divest itself of responsibility, it seems that nobody is in charge. People are pointing in several directions, and I cannot identify exactly who is setting the market rate. Simply put, the Government have let go of the wheel, and are content to let the car spin out of control so that they do not have to take responsibility. That is not good enough.

Our NHS is the envy of the world and one of our country’s greatest achievements. When the great Liberal thinker William Beveridge conceived of a service that was free at the point of use all those years ago, it was revolutionary and re-shaped the way in which modern democracies have approach public health. We cannot allow it to be eroded because of the unwillingness of the Government to face up to the challenge. The mark of leadership is honesty and accountability. I would like to see that from Ministers. Rather than the Government saying, “This is an operational matter for NHS Property Services, not me,” I would much rather someone from this Conservative Government admitted that they know what the so-called market rent is, why it is charged at that rate, and why the community must pay if it wants to use that space. Better still, that community should be given a concessionary rate, in recognition that clinical activity is not going on in that wing of the building at this stage. The community ought to be able to hire the space for a much more affordable rent.

I have three questions for the Minister. First, is the Department for Health and Social Care responsible for setting the amount that NHS Property Services charges local NHS services such as ICBs to rent the space? Secondly, could the consolidated charging policy, which I understand sets out those prices, be changed by the Secretary of State or Ministers? Thirdly, if the answer to those questions is yes, why have I been told repeatedly that Ministers cannot, so they say, get involved in operational matters relating to NHS Property Services?

Many ICBs are struggling to balance the books—NHS Devon is no different in that respect—and are seeking to downsize the space that they rent to make ends meet. This situation is not specific to Seaton, although I think it is a good case study because of the way in which local people bought a brick and built the hospital themselves with many small donations. The situation facing our local community hospital strikes me as an illustration of why change is needed. I have been campaigning with the Seaton and District Hospital League of Friends charity, which supports Seaton Hospital, to change the charging policy, so that NHS Property Services can have flexibility on rental fees. I want the company to enable underused space in NHS facilities to be rented out to local community groups that want to invest in preventive health and community wellbeing, and that want to fulfil some of the vision that Sir Chris wrote about in his annual report last October.

Ultimately, I would like an affordable concessionary rate to be offered to Seaton and District Hospital League of Friends and the working group that works with them. That would be of benefit to rural and coastal communities such as Seaton. We need to know how to ensure accountability for the current arrangements, and I hope that there can be concessions for local communities, such as the one that I represent in the Axe valley. I look forward to the Minister’s responses to my questions, and I hope that he is willing to engage with me to enact meaningful change that will benefit communities and constituents, such as those in my Tiverton and Honiton constituency.

Andrew Stephenson Assistant Whip, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) 

I congratulate Richard Foord on securing the debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to set out the role of NHS Property Services. This subject is understandably of great interest to right hon. and hon. Members across the House.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the future of Seaton community hospital. I will come to that in the latter part of my speech, but let me say for the record that I completely understand his desire to protect a much-loved community health facility. As the Member of Parliament for Pendle, I successfully fought to keep open Pendle Community Hospital in Nelson, and in the neighbouring constituency of Ribble Valley, the new £7.8 million Clitheroe Community Hospital opened in May 2014, so I recognise the importance of community hospitals, not just in offering in-patient care, but in acting as a hub for other healthcare services. It will be most useful for me to first set out to the House why and how NHS Property Services came into being.

Under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, the coalition Government abolished primary care trusts and transferred their commissioning responsibilities to clinical commissioning groups. Their property interests transferred to either NHS trusts or NHS Property Services, which was established in 2013 for this purpose. That decision was made because it allowed commissioners to focus on providing care for patients, rather than managing property. NHS Property Services took ownership of nearly 3,500 local facilities, such as community hospitals, health centres, GP surgeries and care homes. In the past 10 years, NHS Property Services has reduced the size of that estate by a fifth, saving over half a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money, every penny of which has been reinvested into the NHS.

Richard Foord 

I understand the Minister’s point about reinvesting the proceeds from selling what might have been regarded as excess NHS property, but my concern relates to where that money goes. My understanding is that, following a sale, half the money might go back to the integrated care board, which would be Devon in this case. The problem with that situation is that it does not take account of the fact that local communities donated the money to build the infrastructure in the first place. That is certainly the case in the Axe valley with Seaton Community Hospital.

Andrew Stephenson

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I hope to provide reassurance in the latter part of my speech that the sale of Seaton Community Hospital is certainly not on the cards and is exceptionally unlikely. However, I appreciate that when property is sold, there is always tension between how much of that money will be reinvested in local communities—many of which have a stake in having created the facilities in the first place—and how much goes into the general NHS pot. The important point for me to land today is that all the money remains within the health services and none returns to the Treasury, so any sales of property from this portfolio are not a way for the Government to generate income, but simply a way of ensuring that the property estate is managed in the most effective fashion.

NHS Property Services was established as a limited company and is led by a board of executive and non-executive directors who are appointed for their property and healthcare expertise, including a departmental shareholder representative. The board’s directors all have the usual responsibilities relating to the proper governance of a limited company, with certain shareholder matters reserved, such as share issue or senior appointments. The board must work within the wider frameworks across Government, such as the Treasury’s guidance on managing public money, which rightly sets out the strict rules for delivering value for taxpayers’ money. The company therefore works with the Department to agree fiscal targets to work within, and is rightly held accountable for its use of public money. However, it is important to emphasise that my Department is not responsible for operational decisions, which are taken by the board and its executive management team.

One reason for the creation of NHS Property Services was to ensure that decisions could be taken without political interference. Although I appreciate that the hon. Member and others across the House may be of the view that my noble Friend Lord Markham, who has ministerial responsibility for NHS Property Services, can intervene to reduce the rents for unoccupied space at Seaton Community Hospital or similar facilities across the country, it would simply not be appropriate for him or any other Minister to intervene in any individual case.

The coalition Government established NHS Property Services through the cost recovery principle, which is the broad framework that the organisation works under. This means that it is funded through charging its costs to the occupiers of its buildings and the recipients of its services. As such, every pound it spends and does not recover is a pound that cannot be spent on delivering frontline care.

The Devon properties were transferred to NHS Property Services on the basis that their ongoing running costs would be funded through rents at market rate and service charges. This approach was taken to give real incentives to local commissioners to take the tough decisions on which properties were most suitable for delivering their clinical strategy, looking at areas as a whole and moving away from a situation whereby subsided property costs could lead to a less effective approach. I accept that that can sometimes lead to tensions about how reasonable charges are set, but the aim is that NHS bodies, and other voluntary and charitable organisations that wish to occupy NHS premises, must factor in the full cost of occupying and maintaining specialist facilities in their decision making.

I will now turn to the future of community hospitals in Devon, including Seaton Community Hospital. As the hon. Gentleman set out in his Adjournment debate in November, Seaton Hospital was part of a group of community hospitals that transferred to NHS Property Services in 2017, when large parts of Seaton Hospital and others in Devon were already vacant. The clinical commissioning group carried out a consultation on the model of community care and a new model of care was introduced, making it more integrated and more community based, with more people receiving care at home. That resulted in a significant reduction in the number of community hospital beds required across Devon. Since then, progress has been made to identify sustainable alternative healthcare uses for vacant spaces in community hospitals in Devon, such as Ottery St Mary and Axminster. In addition, NHS Property Services and Devon ICB have worked with the voluntary sector to support local initiatives in some properties, such as, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the Waffle café at Seaton Hospital.

I understand that Seaton Hospital and some other hospitals still have significant amounts of vacant space. Despite their best efforts, NHS Property Services’ commissioners have been unable to identify relevant services that could fill this gap. NHS Property Services has continued to manage the property, with the costs of the vacant space being charged to the ICB to ensure the costs attributed to the property are fully recovered, but recently the financial challenges facing Devon ICB have called the sustainability of that position into question and it has explored options for alleviating those costs. However, as I explained, simply seeking to pass those costs back to NHS Property Services would not result in the Department having any more money to spend on local healthcare services in Devon.

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the responsibility for decisions about where to locate clinical services in Devon is a matter for the ICB. It is not a matter for Ministers. However, NHS Property Services is working closely with local leaders to identify options that would help to mitigate the cost pressures arising due to Seaton Community Hospital not operating at full capacity. If, and only if, the ICB determines the property is wholly surplus to its requirements, NHS Property Services would have the responsibility for selling the asset, following Treasury guidelines, but it is important to stress that the site remains an operational site and NHS Property Services therefore has no plans to sell it.

As has been mentioned in the local media, the idea of partial demolition of the hospital has been floated. Again, there are no plans for that course of action, which would very much be a last resort in any event. I believe the site has now been listed as an asset of community value, which means that such a drastic step is exceedingly unlikely to be supported by the local planning authority or other local stakeholders.

Richard Foord 

It is true that the property has been registered as an asset of community value. To my mind that gives it a stay of execution, rather than that it is inevitable that it will be preserved intact. NHS Property Services talked through the very many options—I think 28 options—on the table for the vacant space at Seaton Hospital. One of that long list of options is indeed selling off the redundant ward, which could be demolished and used for houses. Did the Minister not know that?

Andrew Stephenson 

I know the idea of demolition has been floated in a meeting, but I have been assured that there are certainly no plans for demolition. As the hon. Gentleman will know, an asset of community value nomination was accepted by the local authority, and as an ACV nomination remains live for five years, it will expire in January 2029, although I am pretty sure that local community groups and others would campaign for that to be extended. It is certainly much more than a stay of execution. I hope that has provided suitable reassurance to the local community that the threat of demolition is exceedingly remote, because the local planning authority and other local stakeholders simply would not agree to the demolition of this much-valued community asset.

I fully recognise that the local community has invested in the building of the hospital in the first place, and therefore is a key stakeholder in its future. The ICB and NHS Property Services continue in ongoing dialogue with a range of community groups about potential future uses, and the community has been invited by the ICB to develop a business case for the future use of the property by the end of June 2024. Any future decisions on the future of Seaton Hospital will be taken following evaluation of that business case. I sincerely hope that a financially sustainable solution can be found locally and in the best interests of the people of Devon.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.

A leading building society is trialling a ban on new holiday-let mortgages in some popular tourist destinations.

Rupert Jones www.theguardian.com 

Campaigners say the move by Leeds building society could improve the situation for local residents currently struggling to buy or rent in parts of Norfolk and Yorkshire that have seen a surge in the number of properties turned into holiday rentals.

The announcement comes days after the government unveiled new rules for short-term holiday lets in England that aim to rein in a sector that has been described by some as “out of control”.

In recent years there has been growing concern about the number of properties being let out on a short-term basis, leading to local people being priced out of their communities. Platforms such as Airbnb have made it easy to do this as a potentially lucrative side hustle, while the tax treatment is more favourable than it is for buy to let. On top of that, the coronavirus pandemic and cost of living crisis have increased demand for domestic holidays and short breaks.

On Monday the government said it had listened to campaigners and announced two proposals applying to England. Planning permission will be required for future short-term lets (this will not apply to existing ones), while a mandatory national register will be set up to provide local authorities with information on short-term lets in their area.

Now, Leeds building society says it believes it is the first holiday let mortgage lender to restrict new lending. It has worked with North Norfolk District Council and North Yorkshire Council to set up a 12-month trial from the end of March, during which it will stop new loans for holiday homes in certain areas.

Everywhere in North Norfolk will be included, including the seaside towns of Cromer, Wells-next-the-Sea and Sheringham. The areas in North Yorkshire affected are Scarborough, Whitby, Filey, Saltburn, Leyburn and Richmond.

The relevant postcodes will be added to the building society’s systems to prevent any holiday let mortgage applications received in those areas from being approved. Existing holiday let borrowers are unaffected.

The Leeds estimates it is in the top 10 of the 40 or so lenders offering this type of mortgage. However, some lenders include them with with buy-to-let home loans. Holiday let mortgages are typically used to buy properties that will be let out for short periods (no longer than 31 days) rather than used for long-term lettings, which is where buy-to-let mortgages usually come in.

Ben Twomey, the chief executive of Generation Rent, says it is pleased that Leeds building society is “prioritising the necessity of homes over the luxury of holidays”.

Hundreds of permits that allow water companies to dump sewage into Britain’s rivers have not been updated by Government officials for decades with some remaining unchanged since the 1950s, i can reveal.

Lucie Heath inews.co.uk

An i analysis of permits obtained under Environment Information Requests (EIRs) found that some are lacking basic details such as how much sewage a treatment centre can handle before spilling into England’s waterways.

Others do not include limits on pollutants, such as phosphorus, which in high quantities can have a devasting impact on rivers.

i‘s investigation has identified almost 100 permits for active sites that have not been updated since 1989, when water companies in England were first privatised. Two permits date back to the 1950s during the era of rationing and the Suez crisis, while 24 are from the 1960s. Hundreds more have not been updated in at least a decade.

Campaigners have accused the Environment Agency (EA) watchdog, which is responsible for the permits, of “being asleep at the wheel” and have called for them to be urgently updated to include tougher restrictions for water firms.

The EA issues water companies in England with these documents setting out conditions on how they must treat wastewater before it is discharged into the environment.

The permits also outline when water companies can dump untreated sewage into bodies of water, something firms are allowed to do during periods of exceptional rainfall to prevent it from backing up into people’s homes.

They apply to the management of wastewater treatment plants, pumping stations and the pipes in their network through which they are allowed to spill sewage, known as combined sewer overflows (CSOs).

The EA said it regularly reviews the documents and will add new restrictions if deemed necessary, but experts have raised concerns over whether the oldest ones have been updated to reflect factors including population growth and climate change.

The watchdog has a duty to regularly scrutinise the permits issued to companies and to update them if needed.

Dr Ben Surridge, senior lecturer in environmental science at the University of Lancaster, said the documents are an essential tool for regulating water companies and their impact on the environment.

“Firstly it means that the water company has to invest in order to meet that permit and secondly it means you can monitor the effluent for compliance and ultimately there’s a legal route that you can go down with the water company if you’re monitoring suggests they’re not meeting that permit,” he said.

Modern permits can be over 30 pages long and include detailed information on things such as the volume of wastewater an asset, such as a pumping station, should be able to deal with before spilling sewage.

Permits for treatment plants can also include limits on the level of pollutants, such as phosphorus or ammoniacal nitrogen, that can be discharged into the environment. These pollutants can prove deadly to aquatic life if found in high quantities.

i‘s analysis found that some of the oldest are only one page long, have been typed on a typewriter, and contain very little in terms of restrictions.

Some of these old permits were for sites that have been responsible for a high number of sewage spills in recent years, raising questions over why they have not been updated with tougher restrictions.

One example includes Severn Trent’s permit for a CSO located in the village of Cromford, which lies on the edge of the Peak District in Derbyshire.

Severn Trent spilled sewage from that point 70 times – more than once a week on average – during 2022, but the permit for the site has not been updated since 1963 and contains no information around how much sewage is allowed to pass through the site before a spill occurs.

Geoff Tomb, a researcher from the campaign group Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, described the permit as “no more than an acknowledgement that spilling takes place at the site but without any permit restrictions”.

The permit issued for a storm overflow pipe in the village of Cromford, which hasn’t been updated since 1963

There is also concern that restrictions on discharging treated sewage are not stringent enough in Britain’s most protected areas, such as the Lake District.

One example includes the permit for the Troutbeck Wastewater Treatment Plant, that sits within the Lake Windermere catchment area, which hasn’t been updated since 1996.

The permit contains no limits on the level of pollutants, such as ammonia and phosphates, that can be discharged into the water from the treatment plant, meaning the local water company, United Utilities, is not required to test for these nutrients.

Matt Staniek, a conservationist and founder of the Save Windermere campaign, said the permit “is yet another example of the EA being asleep behind the wheel”.

“The absence of limits on the amount of nutrients coming from wastewater treatment works is, in today’s age with readily available technology, unacceptable and outdated,” he said.

Dr Surridge said there are many examples of wastewater treatment work permits that do not include limits on these pollutants.

He said the EA is only required to include these requirements on larger treatment works that are discharging treated effluent into sensitive bodies of water. Permits should be altered if the surrounding population increases or the water quality deteriorates, he said.

Dr Surridge said it was possible that the oldest permits were “still relevant”, but also that conditions had “changed significantly” over time.

He said there were questions over whether the EA was able to “review those permits regularly and ensure that they are appropriate, given the changes in our rivers and lakes, in our catchments, and the climate”.

The EA told i it regularly reviews permits and will update them “when they need to reflect more modern standards or in response to compliance issues”.

It said 12,000 storm overflow permits had been updated with stricter conditions since 2015. That would leave almost 2,500 storm overflow permits that haven’t been updated in the last nine years or for longer.

Mr Tomb said: “There are many old ones that aren’t fit for purpose. One of the reasons is the Environment Agency is drastically under-resourced and underfunded and as a result is not really fit for purpose. One of the things that goes on the back burner is automatic upgrading of older permits.”

The EA recently admitted it has not been able to check sewage permits “as frequently as we should” due to resourcing pressures. The omission came in a consultation on changes to charges for water quality permits and was first reported by ENDS Report.

“Not only are there too many sewer overflows with out of date permits, they are weak and rarely checked for compliance,” said Theo Thomas, Chief Executive of London Waterkeeper, which has voiced concerns over the permits issued to Thames Water.

Mr Thomas would like to see permits updated to include a limit on the number of sewage spills they can be responsible for per year, above which an asset would be branded “unsatisfactory” and improvement work be required.

An Environment Agency spokesperson said: “The fact a permit has not been updated does not necessarily mean it has been left unchecked. We regularly review our permit stock, but they are updated when they need to reflect more modern standards or in response to compliance issues.

“We are strengthening the way we regulate the water industry with 100% of storm overflows in England now monitored and more than 12,000 storm overflow permits updated with stricter conditions since 2015. Our ongoing work to modernise our permit stock will also ensure that all permits are fit for purpose.”

Green Party selects Cllr Ollie Davey parliamentary candidate

Ollie Davey is the new parliamentary candidate for the Green Party in the Exmouth and Exeter East constituency (Image: Mike Rosser)

Adam Manning www.exmouthjournal.co.uk

The Green Party has elected Olly Davey as their prospective parliamentary candidate for the new constituency of Exmouth and Exeter East.

The new constituency includes Exmouth, Budleigh Salterton, Woodbury, Topsham and East Exeter including and stretching north of the Countess Weir estate. Mr Davey has been a member of Exmouth Town Council and East Devon Council since May 2019.

Mr Davey was elected as the first Green mayor of Exmouth in May last year.

He is currently serving as the mayor of Exmouth and chair of East Devon District Council’s Strategic planning committee. Olly is also a musician, performing locally in a number of bands.

Olly stated: “I have agreed to stand for parliament because I want to ensure that there is a Green voice in the forthcoming election.

“Too often the environment and climate crisis are left out of the debate or given a token mention.

“I intend to make sure that they are right at the forefront of our thinking and influence everything that we aim to do.”

The other confirmed candidates for the Exmouth and Exeter East seat are David Reed (Conservative) and Paul Arnott (Liberal Democrats).

There has been a tenfold increase in holiday lets registered for business rates in England in the past five years, putting them beyond the reach of government plans to double council tax on the properties, according to an analysis of government data.

Emanuele Midolo www.thetimes.co.uk

The number of holiday lets skyrocketed from about 8,800 in 2017 to more than 89,000 in 2023 and now account for about 10 per cent of all second homes in England. According to the latest housing survey, there are more than 809,000 second homes in the country. Cornwall had the largest spike, from 1,000 registered holiday lets in 2017 to 10,397 in 2023. Devon also experienced a tenfold increase, from 757 in 2017 to 7,044 last year. Other hotspots are North Yorkshire, Norfolk and Cumbria.

Owners of such properties can register them as small businesses and pay business rates rather than council tax if they let them for a minimum of 70 days a year having made them available for 140 days. Many are eligible for business rates relief, which means they will pay neither council tax nor business rates.

The revelation comes as the government announced new rules this week to curb short-term holiday lets.

Meanwhile Leeds Building Society declared today that it is to begin a 12-month trial with North Norfolk district council and North Yorkshire council, two of the top-four locations for holiday lets in the country, to ban new loans for holiday let homes in those areas (existing mortgages won’t be affected). In 2022 the building society became the first national mortgage lender to stop funding purchases of second residential homes.

Wendy Fredericks, the councillor in charge of housing for North Norfolk district council, says: “In North Norfolk we have a really severe shortage of homes that people on local wages can afford. Increasing numbers of holiday lets reduce the number of rental homes available for year-round use by local people.”

The government already has plans for councils in England to charge double council tax on holiday homes from April 2025, with many local authorities in holiday hotspots announcing their intention to hike prices. Some fear, though, that the long lead-up to implementation has given owners the chance to evade this by switching to pay business rates.

This week Michael Gove, the housing secretary, went a step further by adding that he wants homeowners planning to rent out their properties through Airbnb and other short-term rental websites to apply for planning permission and sign up to a government registration scheme.

“Short-term lets play an important role in the UK’s thriving tourism sector, but in some areas too many local families and young people feel they are being shut out of the housing market and denied the opportunity to rent or buy in their own community,” a government source said of the measures.

The new rules reportedly do not apply to existing holiday lets, which the government said “will automatically be reclassified into the new use class and will not require a planning application”.

Laws in Scotland already require short-term lets to be licensed and from April local authorities there will be able to charge double council tax for second homes, including those used as holiday lets. In Wales local authorities can charge up to 300 per cent more council tax on second homes and holiday lets.

“Many people know about the council tax benefits, but there are also reliefs for capital gains tax, mortgage interest and pension contributions that can make running a holiday let more appealing from a tax point of view,” says Sean McCann, a chartered financial planner at the insurer NFU Mutual.

Many of these tax benefits are accessible to owners who make their UK properties available to let for at least 210 days a year and actually let them out for a minimum of 105 days.

“You can’t count days where it is occupied by the owner or their friends and relatives for no or a reduced rent,” McCann explains. “Similarly, you can’t include periods where it is rented out to the same person for more than 31 days.”

Owners of holiday let properties are also eligible to offset their mortgage interest against tax in full — unlike buy-to-let landlords, who can only claim 20 per cent tax relief.

They also qualify for rollover relief on capital gains tax, meaning that if the owner sells the property and makes a gain they can roll it over into the purchase of a new holiday let property.

Furthermore, profits are treated as earned income, so can be used to make pension contributions, which also attract tax relief.

However, lenders are increasingly reluctant to grant mortgages to owners of properties used as holiday lets. Aside from Leeds Building Society, Barclays has said it will not grant mortgages on properties used as holiday lets.

While the idea of a registration scheme for holiday lets has been well received, some have criticised planning requirements that could discourage owners from letting their properties altogether, resulting in leaving them empty or selling them off.

“We understand what the government is trying to achieve, identifying what properties are available and having a better control over the quality of those properties, of course we welcome that,” says Tanya Hasking, head of lettings at the estate agency John D Wood & Co. “But some of these proposals could spook landlords out of the market, ultimately damaging the very local communities the government is trying to protect.”

Ben Edgar-Spier, head of regulation and policy at the holiday let company Sykes Holiday Cottages, adds that there are 1.5 million empty properties in England, almost twice as many as second homes and short-term let properties combined.

“A report we commissioned from Oxford Economics shows that in 2021 short-term let linked activity contributed £27.7 billion to the UK economy, supporting 496,000 jobs, many in rural communities,” Edgar-Spier says. “The report also showed short-term lets have a negligible impact on house prices. And yet the sector is continually scapegoated for housing supply shortages.”