Planning Watch UK Rotating Header Image

2008:

Tax Payers Alliance – Council Spending Uncovered: Councils spend average of £1 million a year on publicity

In December 2007, the TaxPayers’ Alliance produced the first ever examination of the growth of town hall spending on publicity over the last decade, which is itemised in the annual accounts of the 450-plus local authorities in the UK.  It found that councils had doubled their spending on publicity, creating a £450 million publicity machine, at the same time as doubling council tax.  A year later, in the midst of the economic crisis, the first paper in the new Council Spending Uncovered series updates the data for the last financial year.

The report, released today, shows that the average local authority spends almost £1 million (£971,985) on publicity. There are 6 local authorities spending more than £5 million on publicity and the 20 councils spending the most money on publicity accumulated an over £100 million bill. However, it’s not all bad news. At least 217 councils have decreased spending on publicity, collectively cutting over £25 million from their budgets and proving that councils can cut unnecessary spending. To read the full report, please click here.
The media coverage is coming in thick and fast, and so far includes:
Liverpool Daily Post, £7.5m bill for council publicity
St Alban’s & Harpenden Review, Council’s PR spend revealed
Boston Standard, Lincolnshire council named in top 10 publicity spenders
TPA spokesmen also appeared on BBC London, BBC Radio Humberside, BBC Radio Essex, ITV Central, ITV North East, BBC Radio Solent, Time FM and Town 102 FM
Gordon Brown responds to the TPA
You may remember TPA Campaign Manager Susie Squire’s ‘Ask the PM’ question, which was included in the bulletin a few weeks ago.
Thanks to all your votes, Gordon has answered – well, sort of. He posted this last night.
Susie is in the process of compiling a video response, but you may have noticed there are a few things he has neglected to mention. Yes, depsite that winning smile Gordon, you can’t get anything past us! Even by official estimates, our current debt stands at £633 billion. But, when you include such off balance-sheet costs as PFI debt created under Brown (£110 billion), the Nuclear Decomissioning bill (£73 billion), Public Sector Pensions (£1,071 billion) and Network Rail (£20 billion) our debt adds up to a whopping £1.9 trillion, or 129% of GDP.
Crucially, Mr Brown doesn’t answer Susie’s question. Ultimately, Britain’s economic picture, as shown by the above figures, is bad enough. But what about going forward? The picture is bleak. Alistair Darling announced in the recent pre Budget report that a gigantic £512 billion will be added to this our nation’s debt. This will amount to more money (taking into account RPI inflation) than we borrowed to win World War 1. This is terrifying, as it will double official debt to £1 trillion, and push up the cost of servicing our debt from £30.8 billion to £40 billion. The longer term implications of this are higher interest rates – markets will decide we are not such a safe economic bet any more, sterling will devalue further, and everyone will feel even worse off than they do now.
But the real question is: why all this borrowing in the first place? Because the other side of this equation is that public spending has gone through the roof under Brown. And if we constantly have to feed this government’s addiction to a big state and a bloated, costly public sector, we won’t ever be able to stop the steam train of debt.
A bittersweet victory for the ‘No’ campaign

It was announced this afternoon that the people of Greater Manchester voted in force against the proposed congestion charge, with the 53.2% (1,030,000) turnout voting overwhelmingly against this additional road tax.

No less than 79% of those who voted wanted to reject the charge, and no more than 28% voted ‘yes’ in one any local authority area. This landslide victory marks the death of the Manchester TIF bid and has hopefully discouraged other areas  -  not least the West Midlands councils -  from further pursuing this unpopular scheme.

Yet, though our congratulations go out to the ‘No’ campaign, it is worth noting that this is a very bittersweet victory with huge amounts already having been spent on a project that was disliked from its inception. Though families in Greater Manchester will no longer have to pay the hefty £1,200 per year that a congestion charge would mean, a startling £34million has already been spent consulting, debating, drawing-up and promoting the TIF bid according to the Drivers’ Alliance, all funded by ordinary taxpayers. It just makes it worse that the very residents who’ve paid for this road pricing ambition seem to have been dead against it from the start, and in the end this £34million bought  218,860 ‘yes’ votes – that’s £155 each.

This money has been frittered away by those with a blind commitment to the congestion charge, encouraged by those who stood to benefit. Perhaps, at this very moment the proponents of road charging are busy wondering how to bring its spectre back to life – with a different guise and new spin – and, if they manage a successful resuscitation, let’s hope our councils recognise it for what it is and remember this Manchester vote.

Letters to follow up our reports

As you will have seen in the papers, on the radio or local TV today, our report on local council publicity spending has hit the headlines. But we need your help to follow up our reports with short, sharp letters to your local paper making the points that councils spend and waste too much of our money. TPA activist Bruce Lawson emailed in a letter he got in the Shropshire Star to promote our Public Sector Rich List 2008. You can read his letter here. If you get any letters printed in your local paper, do let us know. We’ve already seen here the publicity our supporters can get when they write into their local papers.

2009 Action Days

We’re busy compiling a list of leafleting and petition days across the country for 2009. If you’d like us to have an action day in your area with other TPA supporters and campaigners, email our grassroots coordinator Tim Aker and we’ll organise an action day near you.

In response to last week’s bulletin we have action days already booked for 2009. The dates and venues are:
Swanage – 6 February and 30 April
Shipley – 6 June
If you’d like to come to these campaign days, please email Tim
.

Bristol and South West TPA branch established

Last Saturday our Bristol branch met to formally set up a branch to monitor Bristol council and, for the time being, other councils in the South West. If you’d like to get involved please email our organiser James Barlow. You can keep up with the campaign by visiting their blog.

A council is not a bank

We found this week that Lancashire County Council has been using taxpayers’ money to lend to other councils in the UK. Today TPA activist Steve Atkinson found through a Freedom of Information request that Cumbria County Council has £112 million deposited in foreign and domestic banks. You can ask Lancashire County Council’s leader why they’re lending to other councils instead of cutting tax here.

Stoke Council rejects TPA offer to find savings

TPA supporter and Stoke councillor Gavin Webb recently tabled a motion at Stoke Council’s full council meeting inviting the TPA to come in and find savings in the council budget. Sadly, the motion failed – Stoke’s councillors are clearly happy with politics as usual and higher taxes for all. You can read our blog on the debate and Gavin’s comments here.

Best of the blogs

Campaign: Leek TPA Action Day attracts attention
Campaign: The us and them Olympics

Better Government: Fiddling with Human Rights Law

Better Government: Ageing Britain

Burning our Money: Servicing The Government’s Debt

Non-job of the Week: Non-job of the week
Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

Manchester Congestion Charge – A bittersweet victory for the ‘No’ campaign

It was announced yesterday afternoon that the people of Greater Manchester voted in force against the proposed congestion charge, with the 53.2% (1,030,000) turnout voting overwhelmingly against this additional road tax.No less than 79% of those who voted wanted to reject the charge, and no more than 28% voted ‘yes’ in one any local authority area. This landslide victory marks the death of the Manchester TIF bid and has hopefully discouraged other areas  -  not least the West Midlands councils -  from further pursuing this unpopular scheme.

Yet, though our congratulations go out to the ‘No’ campaign, it is worth noting that this is a very bittersweet victory with huge amounts already having been spent on a project that was disliked from its inception. Though families in Greater Manchester will no longer have to pay the hefty £1,200 per year that a congestion charge would mean, a startling £34million has already been spent consulting, debating, drawing-up and promoting the TIF bid according to the Drivers’ Alliance, all funded by ordinary taxpayers. It just makes it worse that the very residents who’ve paid for this road pricing ambition seem to have been dead against it from the start, and in the end this £34million bought  218,860 ‘yes’ votes – that’s £155 each.

This money has been frittered away by those with a blind commitment to the congestion charge, encouraged by those who stood to benefit. Perhaps, at this very moment the proponents of road charging are busy wondering how to bring its spectre back to life – with a different guise and new spin – and, if they manage a successful resuscitation, let’s hope our councils recognise it for what it is and remember this Manchester vote.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

Green Energy Day

Renewables go from strength to strength.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

Green Energy Day

Renewables go from strength to strength.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

Scottish government urged to probe residents’ claims over factor

Firm ‘takes money for work it does not do’

Published: 01/08/2008

The Scottish Government has been asked to launch an investigation into north-east residents’ claims that a factor has taken money for work it has not adequately carried out.

Aberdeenshire councillor Martin Ford said he has been contacted by a “number of people” about the Greenbelt Group, which maintains open spaces in housing estates across the north-east.

A resident of the Redcloak estate at Stonehaven had claimed the company has not cut the grass there in more than seven months, despite having already been paid to do so.

The company disputes the time period, but admits there have been problems with a few of its contractors over the last three to four weeks.

Residents at an estate at Newmachar had also complained about the company halving the frequency of its visits.

In a letter to Community Safety Minister Fergus Ewing, Mr Ford said: “It appears that there is a widespread problem of poor or no grounds maintenance when the Greenbelt Group are responsible.

“This seems to be the case both when residents are paying on an annual basis and when the developer has paid a lump sum on completion of the development.”

The Liberal Democrat member for East Garioch added: “I have been a councillor for nine years and I have been aware of recurring problems involving the Greenbelt Group.

“I would ask you to look into the problems surrounding the operations of this company. I would also ask you to examine whether we can revert to the situation prior to 1992 where it was almost invariably the case that public open space passed to the local council.

“In my experience, the local council provides the only reliable and sustainable maintenance solution for public open space.”

Greenbelt’s managing director Alex Middleton said problems with contractors over the last three weeks have caused the company difficulties in the north-east.

He said: “Greenbelt has had problems in the north-east and are trying to resolve them as quickly as possible. We will take a look at the particular problems and value for money.

“We are committed to the sites in the north-east and are committed to giving a good service.”

Press and Journal article link

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

Gordon Banks MP backs Mike Marriott in Menstrie Land Maintenance Battle

Government backs residents in land row

By Nicola Findlay

Image related to story, see caption or article text

Gordon Banks MP has been supporting residents in their dispute with Greenbelt.

CAMPAIGNERS on a Menstrie housing estate have welcomed support from the Scottish Government in their bid to oust land management company Greenbelt.

Angry residents say the company is not doing its job properly and recently 251 of the estate’s 300 residents signed a petition to get rid of Greenbelt.

However, the petition was rejected by the firm who said it would carry on to maintain the land around the estate, as was agreed with developer Gladedale.

But an email from the Scottish Government has now been sent to a homeowner on an estate in Livingston, also managed by Greenbelt, stating that under the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 owners within an estate can “dismiss a manager and appoint another” without applying to a Lands Tribunal.

Mike Marriot, who is leading the Menstrie campaign, welcomed the support from the Scottish Government saying it proved the residents were well within their legal rights to submit their petition.

He said their ultimate goal was for Clackmannanshire Council to take over the maintenance of the land.

“We signed the petition in March and, since then, homeowners have been bombarded with letters and demands from Greenbelt Group, saying they don’t recognise this,” said Mike.

“We very much welcome the Scottish Government’s backing in this situation, and hope it will encourage both Gladedale and Greenbelt Group to see sense.”

The email also informed homeowners that Government guidance on the management of open spaces was republished last month and now no longer names Greenbelt Group as a suitable provider for the long-term care of open spaces in Scotland.

Gordon Banks MP has been supporting the residents in their dispute with Greenbelt and has been heading an All Party Working Group in Westminster looking at land management companies.

He said, “It is good news that the Scottish Executive confirmed that the action the residents took in their dispute with Greenbelt has been confirmed as the correct course of action.

“Up until now Greenbelt has tried to ignore the actions of the residents at Menstrie Mains and I hope that it will now take on board the strong legal footing on which the residents have based their campaign, and understand that they no longer want Greenbelt to supply land management services.

“I hope that both the Greenbelt and Gladedale can find a constructive way to bring this long standing problem to a solution which meets the aims and objectives of Menstrie residents.”

However, Greenbelt says that the information on the email from the Scottish Government is out-dated and that the Title Deeds Act is a complicated piece of legislation which residents do not necessarily understand the full implications of.

Managing director of Greenbelt, Alex Middleton, told the Advertiser that following the petition a circular was sent to all residents to give them help and guidance, and that Greenbelt has never purported to offer legal advice to residents but said they should seek independent legal advice.

He went on, “Greenbelt has never considered itself to be a manager of the land but, in fact, the owner of the land, which is a significant difference to what is being said by other parties.

“Soundbites have been taken from a very complicated piece of legislation which needs to be understood as a whole and is very technical.

“There is an agreement in place between ourselves and the developer and that will continue.

“We are obliged to manage and maintain the land and residents are obliged to contribute fully and equally.”

A spokesperson for Gladedale added, “We are aware of the issues between the residents and Greenbelt and are hopeful that an amicable solution can be reached between the two parties.”

Link to original article

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

Lack of maintenance for outdoor areas angers Aberdeen fee-paying householders

Residents hit out over grass-cutting frequency

Published: 30/07/2008

GROWING: Carol Kidd and son Calvin at a Kemnay path where the grass is sprouting. Kami Thomson

North-east residents claim they have paid an independent company thousands of pounds to maintain open spaces – but that work has not been done for “more than seven months”.

People at the Redcloak estate at Stonehaven are among thousands who are contractually obliged to pay Glasgow-based Greenbelt Group for services.

Last night, Greenbelt blamed contractors for the problem, saying it had explained issues to residents.

Householders at Newmachar have already complained that Greenbelt halved the frequency of its service, leaving them with “unkempt” public areas.

Ian Matthews, of Redcloak Park, Stonehaven, has paid Greenbelt an annual fee of around £90 to keep the open areas tidy.

Mr Matthews said there were around 100 houses on the estate, each of which paid a similar charge.

He claimed: “The residents of Redcloak have not had any maintenance at all this year.

“This lovely area has become an embarrassment. I have contacted them consistently since May but nobody ever gets back to me.”

Carol Kidd, who chairs the residents’ association at Kirkstyle Farm Estate, at Kemnay, claimed Greenbelt had not cut the grass there for more than six weeks.

“Even Place of Origin, which was opened by the Duke of Kent with great fanfare in 2006, has been allowed to go to ruin,” she added.

Mrs Kidd, of Wilson Place, said she contacted Greenbelt a number of weeks ago to ask why the work was not being done and received a letter blaming problems with the contractor, Inverness-based R. Sleigh Landscapes.

The contractor’s solicitor, Timothy Thomas, of Ledingham Chalmers, said Greenbelt owed his client, Henry Sleigh, a “very large sum”, thought to be about £100,000.

“We have been demanding payment for some months now and have been told by their solicitors that they have had cash-flow problems.

“They have said recently they are disputing some of the work done, but it is certainly not all.”

Greenbelt has now replaced Sleigh with another contractor, but the problems persist, according to Mrs Kidd. A number of other estates in the north-east are also thought to be having problems with Greenbelt, including at Provost Clemo Drive at Insch, the Hallforest estate at Kintore, Meadowlands at Westhill and Leddach Grange estate at Elrick.

People living in the Rosewell Park estate at Westhill and the Greenacres-Pitblae estate at Fraserburgh have also reported difficulties.

A website called Greenbelt Group Action has been set up by dissatisfied customers.

Greenbelt’s managing director Alex Middleton admitted one contractor had not been paid, but said it was because of a “performance issue, and it is quite right we should do that”.

“In one or two cases we have had problems with contractors and we have explained that to our customers,” he added.

He refused to offer the residents of Redcloak at Stonehaven a refund and said residents of Greenbelt-maintained estates were “contractually obliged” to pay.

“There is a need on one or two sites to improve,” he said, adding that it was a priority.

Mr Middleton seems to have his own particular unique definition of contractual law and frquently seems to demonstrate that he thinks his company can collect payments and not deliver the contracted services…
Editor

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

UK Government Eco-towns plan ‘may be unlawful’

House being built

Eco-towns of up to 20,000 people each are proposed

The government’s approach to delivering up to 10 eco-towns could be “unlawful”, councils have warned.

Ministers are to publish a planning policy statement to set out standards and potential locations in England.

But the Local Government Association said the proposals went against the principle of development through plans drawn up by local authorities.

This might show a wish to avoid “proper scrutiny”, it added. But the government said it “absolutely” disagreed.

‘Deeply flawed’

The eco-towns scheme aims to deliver settlements of 5,000 to 20,000 homes which are zero-carbon overall.

The government shortlisted 15 proposals for new settlements in April and has said up to 10 final approved bids will have to go through the planning process once they have been chosen later this year.

Lawyers John Steel QC and James Strachan, representing the LGA, said an existing planning policy statement covered the concept of providing housing in new settlements in an environmentally sustainable way.

‘ECO-TOWNS’ SHORTLIST
Bordon, Hampshire
Coltishall, Norfolk
Elsenham, Essex
Ford, West Sussex
Hanley Grange, Cambridgeshire
Imerys, nr St Austell, Cornwall
Leeds city region, West Yorkshire
Marston Vale and New Marston, Bedfordshire
Middle Quinton, Warwickshire
Pennbury, Leicestershire
Rossington, South Yorkshire
Rushcliffe, Nottinghamshire
Weston Otmoor, Oxfordshire
Source: Department of Communities and Local Government

There did not seem to be any justification for promoting eco-towns outside the existing rules, “other than the government’s wish to avoid the system due to the proper need for scrutiny, which takes time”, they added.

The LGA said the legal advice showed the government’s approach to eco-towns was “deeply flawed”.

Chairman Sir Simon Milton said the LGA was not opposed to the eco-towns as a way of meeting housing needs and combating climate change.

But he urged: “Ministers must talk to council leaders about adopting a new approach that will deliver development in places where councils and local people agree that eco-towns can work.

“Eco-towns must be delivered without bypassing the planning processes and ensure that new developments have good transport connections alongside the schools, health and leisure facilities which are needed to create places where people would want to live.”

Bidders for eco-towns at Manby, in Lincolnshire, and Curborough, Staffordshire, have pulled out, while part of a third bid at New Marston, in Bedfordshire, has also been withdrawn.

‘Stretching standards’

A Department for Communities and Local Government spokesman said: “We absolutely disagree with the LGA’s claims and believe this legal advice can only have been obtained on the basis of a misrepresentation of our policy.

“We have made it absolutely clear throughout that eco-towns will be different and will have higher environmental standards than a normal development and the applications will also have to be considered through the normal planning process.”

Shadow housing minister Grant Shapps said the legal advice would add weight to the argument that ministers had “effectively destroyed their own eco-town project”.

Liberal Democrat communities spokeswoman Julia Goldsworthy said: “What this government fails to understand is that centrally imposed solutions are doomed to failure.”

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

Highland Housing Fair 2009 – Cancelled

The worst kept secret of 2008 is now receiving press attention following continuing investigation by Planning Watch UK members.
At 9.05am Monday morning, Barrie Haycock, Planning Watch UK Chairman, contacted the Inverness Courier to make the newspaper aware of the latest turn of events following four years shambolic waste of tax payers money arising from the ego trips of those involved with the promotion of the Highland Housing Fair.
The action triggered frantic “pass the hot potato ” calls as Highland Council and Highland Housing Alliance frantically tried to put their “spin” on the latest twist of events, resulting in a statement being issued by beleagued Councillor Jean Urquhart, chairwoman of the Highland Housing Fair board, who finally admitted delaying the event was already looking like the most likely outcome, attempting to convince the enquiring reporter that the event would be delayed until 2010.
The news has since been reported on BBC websites, Moray Firth Radio and other media resources.
This latest twist of events was blamed on the “Credit Crunch” but it is thought that in reality there had been little financial support for the venture from Sponsors or firm sales of building plots concerned.
Susan Torrance, Chief Executive of Highland Housing Alliance had always claimed that the huge cost of promoting the event was adequatly covered by anticipated revenues from sponsors and sale of building plots, and public monies were not at risk.
It is thought that the organisers were so oblivious to reality that Event Insurance cover is unlikely to have been purchased leaving the huge investment of public monies totally exposed.
In November 2007, Mary Scanlon Conservative Party MSP forced Highland Council via a Freedom of Information request to reveal the extent of the costs incurred to date which were revealed to be around £1.92 Million and it is thought those costs have probably now increased to around £2.5 Million.
So the question is, will the event ever take place?
It was always claimed that the design expertise could influence developers in future years, but ignored the hard fact of life that major developers are only interested in maximising profitable return for any given parcel of land. Put simply, maximum build of the lowest cost box option to satisfy particular market end customer requirements.
The controlling factor will always be Government defined Building Regulations. Are they likely to change?
We don’t think that in the short term this is likely, so developers will continue to plough along regardless.
The irony is that not a single developer offered a suitable building site to Highland Housing Alliance for the event which demonstrates the importance that developers held for this proposed 100 odd unit development “passed off” as a Housing Fair.
All involved with the fiasco were forced to turn to a Green Wedge area of prime farmland and force through the planning consent. Tulloch Homes have been reported as profiting to the extent of £500,000 from the land transaction.
For the Fair to take place in 2010, building work would have to commence in the summer of 2009. Are developers likely to take a flyer on this given the downturn in the market?
We think highly unlikely, so just how are Highland Council and Highland Housing Alliance going to get out of this financial mess?
Watch this space…
By Lorna Paterson – Inverness Courier
Published: 22 July, 2008

The site of the Highland Housing Fair at Balvonie Braes.

THE controversial Highland Housing Fair is facing another major blow — it is set to be delayed for a year.

The exhibition of sustainable housing, billed as the first of its kind in Scotland, had been scheduled to take place in August 2009 at Balvonie Braes in Inverness.

However, it emerged yesterday that growing financial pressures and a downturn in the housing market meant the event will not now be staged until 2010.

Architects and developers from the south were briefed on the latest developments in Perth last week, while developers from the Highlands will be informed on Friday at a meeting in Inverness.The board will then meet to make a final decision although Councillor Jean Urquhart, chairwoman of the Highland Housing Fair board, admitted delaying the event was already looking like the most likely outcome.

She confirmed some developers involved with the project were facing financial difficulty and rather than putting pressure on them, the board would be making the recommendation to its partners.

In the worst case scenario she anticipates the delay to be for 12 months.

However, an on-line architects’ website said there were fears the project, led by Highland Housing Alliance, would lose momentum, particularly if it was postponed for more than a year.

Barrie Haycock, chairman of campaign group Planning Watch UK, while criticising organisers for not forecasting the impact of a declining housing market, also remained sceptical over whether the fair would now go-ahead.

For the event to take place in 2010, he said, the new homes would still need to be built next year, but with experts predicting it to be two years before the housing market recovers he sees this as unlikely. “It was obvious that any downturn in the housing market would put the project at risk,” he said.

He claimed it had collectively landed the tax payer with an enormous bill out of the rush to force it through the planning process.

Inverness MP Danny Alexander said it was a reminder of what impact the global credit crunch was having on the Highlands. “This is very disappointing,” he said. “The fair would have made a great contribution to the Highlands in terms of leading new ideas on how homes can be developed.

Councillor Urquhart (Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh) explained there had been no public announcement about the delay because it was still in consultation with developers and architects.

The housing fair, on an area of green-wedge land, will showcase the best in housing design, innovation and technology.

It has been dogged with controversy with allegations over the conduct of planning officers and unacceptable land deals playing their part but Councillor Urquhart stressed the event would go ahead.

“It makes me angry that people see this as some kind of trumped up nonsense that doesn’t need to happen. There is absolutely no suggestion this will be a cancellation,” she added.

l.paterson@inverness-courier.co.uk

Wilson’s Weekly Wrap

27 Jun 2008

Highland Housing – Fair?

On the surface, things seem to be going not too badly at the moment for the Highland Housing Fair, given the perverse local opposition encountered at the outset of the project and the high drop out rate of developers who found innovation and profit on a single house plot to be incompatible concepts. Down at the coalface, however, a number of the selected architects are finding the going considerably tougher.

Time is flying, and deadlines for Building Warrant applications, for example, are being missed due to the shifting economic times in which we live. Several of the projects are still without either client or developer, never mind a contractor, and with building work for most projects scheduled to be on site by late Autumn, some critical decisions need to be made at a more strategic level if we are not to see a half-constructed built landscape when the Fair opens its doors to the public next August.

A number of the project designs are predicated on imported components such as massive timber panels, now made infinitely more expensive by the £’s poor showing against the €uro and without significant alteration at this late stage, the houses may simply fail to emerge. Obviously the credit crunch was not on anyone’s radar when the idea of the Fair was first mooted, but life is not as it was a year ago and the project sponsors need to radically – and rapidly – revise the business plan if the Fair is to be a success.

In Finland, the first Housing Fairs were publicly-funded with small towns competing for the privilege to build: the model used here presumed that developers could be encouraged to innovate (without subsidy) and even profit from the construction of a single housing unit, a questionable approach anyway given the concept’s first outing in Scotland.

Now that the tectonic plates of banking have shifted inexorably to a position of financial denial to housing developers, the Fair’s initiators at government and public agency level need to dig deep into their pockets to make sure the project does not become an architectural disaster zone: should the project fail, there will be no second chance to learn from the experience. And, be assured, as the various previously-interested parties cover their tracks, it will be the architects that will end up carrying the can for their supposedly un-fundable designs. The reputational damage to the profession just doesn’t bear thinking about.

Wilson’s Weekly Wrap

http://www.architecturescotland.co.uk/news/685/Wilson’s_Weekly_Wrap.html

4 Jul 2008

Highland Housing Fair, Part Two

It’s not often I get to see such immediate impact from something I’ve written and in truth it was probably more serendipity than prescience on my part, but following my ‘warning light’ comments last week about next year’s Highland Housing Fair in Inverness, the organisers seem to have taken my advice to heart and moved with commendable rapidity to postpone the event by a year. This is far from being a bad thing – the number of developers unable to raise bank finance for their individual projects was reaching a dangerously high level and the people responsible for the Fair have made the only prudent move possible in the circumstances. Far better to delay than to fail ignominiously and in any case the reasons for the postponement can be readily understood by all. What developer was going to proceed – even had they been able to secure the necessary funding – with construction at current Inverness price levels when the bottom is dropping out of the housing market and likely to pummel the post-Housing Fair sales values?

That said, invoking Plan B can only be seen as a necessarily reactive move and the need for a well thought through Plan C is now pressing. With a shade more time on the delivery side of the project, the need to reduce construction costs without diminishing the design quality of the individual houses needs some real creative thinking. Consideration could, for example, be given to the implementation of a professional sponsorship programme focused on in-kind provision of materials and products for all of the houses planned for the site. Hardly complicated, it is one of the few routes to overall cost reduction that are available in the current economic climate, but it will require co-coordinated – and speedy – action rather than allowing the projects to individually stand or fall. 2010 is not that far away.


Highland Housing Fair Postponed for a Year

4 Jul 2008

steven.raeburn@carnyx.com

The Highland Housing Fair, billed as the first event of its kind in Scotland to showcase house designs of the future, has been unexpectedly postponed.

The event, scheduled to kick off in Inverness in a year’s time, was intended to be a showpiece event where over 50 conceptual, sustainable houses would be on display, will now take place in August 2010.

The downturn in the property market, the poor prospects for the resale of the homes to be constructed, and a lack of finance have been blamed for the postponement.

“A recommendation will be made to the Highland Housing Fair board to delay the Fair from August 2009 to August 2010, in recognition of the economic climate and the shortage of finance available to realise the ambitions of the developers who are committed to the project,” the organisers said in a statement.

“The recommendation will be made at the meeting of the Highland Housing Fair board which will take place in August 2008.”

It had been planned that the houses constructed for the fair would be available to buy, to become a “living community” once the fair ended.

Writing exclusively for architecturescotland.co.uk, Peter Wilson speculated that fear of the declining property market may have prompted the postponement.

“Far better to delay than to fail ignominiously and in any case the reasons for the postponement can be readily understood by all,” he writes.

“What developer was going to proceed – even had they been able to secure the necessary funding – with construction at current Inverness price levels when the bottom is dropping out of the housing market and likely to pummel the post-Housing Fair sales values?”

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

European funding for North Ayrshire jobs

Employment projects to benefit from new investment.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

European funding for North Ayrshire jobs

Employment projects to benefit from new investment.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

Construction Council to be established by CBI

The CBI has announced that it will be enhancing the role it undertakes on behalf of the construction industry.

Following discussions with the major construction companies, the CBI has agreed to set up a Construction Council chaired by John McDonough, chief executive of Carillion plc and vice chairman of the CBI’s Public Services Strategy Board.

The Council, which will represent contractors, house builders, civil engineers, component and product manufacturers, designers and support services, will begin its work in September.

The CBI’s director-general, Richard Lambert said: “The UK construction industry consists of over 250,000 firms, employing 2.1 million people in a wide variety of roles, and accounts for almost 9 per cent of GDP.

“Until now, this important industry has not had the single unified voice it deserves.

“The Construction Council will work closely with the major trade bodies to strengthen their efforts to represent the construction industry and ensure its concerns are clearly heard.”

John McDonough, who will lead the work of the new Council, added: “These are challenging times for the construction industry. While many companies continue to enjoy good markets in the UK and overseas, others, particularly those with exposure to the UK residential market, are facing challenging times.

“Setting up the new Construction Council is, therefore, particularly timely. The Council’s new strategic role at the heart of the CBI will enable the whole sector to benefit from the CBI’s unrivaled access at the highest levels in Whitehall, Westminster and Brussels.”
The Construction Council will be considering a broad range of issues including the economy, energy, land use planning, procurement, climate change and skills.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

Government Affordable Housing Targets at risk

Slowdown ‘risks housing targets’

Houses

The CIH said more people will need affordable homes as mortgages dry up

Concerns have been raised that the credit crunch could prevent government affordable housing targets being met.

The Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) called for “imaginative” measures to build 35,000 homes a year by 2015.

It said the Scottish Government should work with housing associations or councils to use homes or land started by private firms which are lying empty.

The communities minister said he was open to working with others to buy unsold privately built homes.

The CIH’s director in Scotland, Alan Ferguson, said the current financial climate made it harder for those building affordable homes to borrow the money needed for their developments.

He said this must lead to concerns that targets would not be met for affordable housing.

The housing association sector is in a very strong position to weather the credit crunch
Scottish Government spokesman

“As the credit crunch bites, we may also expect to see more people in need of an affordable solution as access to mortgages continue to dry up,” he said.

“At the same time we are seeing private housing developers struggling, leading to job losses and severely reduced building programmes.

“We believe it is time for the Scottish Government to promote some more imaginative solutions that will help deliver more affordable houses, assist first-time buyers and assist struggling private builders.”

Ministers have set a goal of increasing the rate of house building to 35,000 new homes a year by the middle of the next decade.

A Scottish Government spokesman said: “We welcome the CIH’s support for our efforts to improve the supply of affordable housing.

“The changes we have made to our subsidies to housing associations are essential if we are to achieve that objective at a time of great pressure on public expenditure.

“The housing association sector is in a very strong position to weather the credit crunch and the Scottish Government will continue to work with them in the meantime.”

Earlier, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon announced a £25m package to build new council homes.

Communities Minister Stewart Maxwell

Mr Maxwell said action was already being taken to increase social housing

Last month, she also revealed details of a range of housing measures, including a £250m boost for shared equity schemes that allow people to own part of a property.

The government also plans to launch a Homeowners Support Fund, providing £25m over the next two years to help those at risk of repossession.

Communities Minister Stewart Maxwell said the measures announced by the government showed it was taking action.

He stressed the importance of dealing with the underlying problem – the “under-supply” of housing – and said he would consider working with others agencies to buy unsold privately built homes.

The minister said: “I’m open to that suggestion.

“I think the issue here is housing associations and house builders have to get together and find out what is the most appropriate way forward bring forward projects which provide houses of the right type in the right place and at the right price.

“When that’s done we’ll certainly look at them and see whether that’s affordable and that’s the right thing to do.”

Link to original article

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

Human cost of Yorkshire floods – 2007

BBC Survey shows flood toll a year on

By Mike Chilvers
BBC News, South Yorkshire

Catcliffe near Rotherham during the 2007 floods

Much of the village of Catcliffe was left under water for several days

The human cost of last summer’s floods in South Yorkshire has been revealed in a survey of the worst-hit communities.

More than eight out of 10 of those who answered a BBC Yorkshire questionnaire said they suffered mental or physical ill health as a result of the floods.

More than a fifth (22%) were so traumatised they had taken medication.

And one in five said they were not insured for the damage caused to their property in the deluge which hit the area on 25 June 2007.

Thousands of people were forced to leave their homes as flood waters rose in towns and villages around Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield.

Last month, BBC Yorkshire carried out a survey in some of the worst-affected streets, selecting 2,000 addresses from areas known to have requested the most aid from the South Yorkshire Flood Disaster Relief Fund.

Of the 242 people who replied, 43% had been forced out of their homes for more than six months.

The average time away from their homes was nine months, but many more have yet to return to properties which are still awaiting repair.

Floods survey results graphic

Almost a third (32%) of those who replied to the survey said the strain of coping with the aftermath of the floods had had a detrimental effect on their family life and relationships.

The Downson family, of Hunt Lane in Bentley, near Doncaster, is still living in temporary rented accommodation because of delays to house repairs.

Mark Downson told the BBC his efforts to repair the property had been dogged by a catalogue of wrangles with his insurance company and builders.

He and his wife had suffered depression and the stress had taken its toll on his two sons, aged 15 and 10.

“They’re used to having their own space and we’ve lived in four different houses since the floods,” he said.

“I’ve seen their behaviour change – they’ve become more disobedient.

“If your home life’s not as it should be everything else becomes a problem, it wears you down.”

In total 84% of those who responded said their health had suffered to some degree, either mentally or physically.

Some 67% had suffered physical ill health, including chest infections, stomach upsets and skin complaints.

Meanwhile, 70% had seen a deterioration in their mental health, including 26% who said they had suffered significant problems.

Several families said their children had been left scared of heavy rain.

‘Very confused’

Mother-of-four Lyndsey Hamblett, whose family spent 10 months living in a caravan, moved back into her house in Toll Bar 11 weeks ago.

She said: “When it started raining badly again the other week, my two boys were running around with school rulers measuring the depth of the water in the garden.

“They remembered how quickly the water had risen in the floods and were saying: ‘We’ve only got two hours to get out of the house’.

“My youngest is only just three years old and when we moved back into the house she kept saying she wanted to go home to the caravan. She’s very confused because she can’t really remember living here.”

The survey also gives an insight into the financial impact of the deluge, with 20% of those who responded saying they were not insured, leaving them with hefty bills to replace damaged possessions.

The Association of British Insurers said: “The people who do not take out home contents insurance usually make that decision because they are on a tight budget.

“They are the ones who can least afford to replace stuff once it’s damaged.”

The majority who were insured have also been adversely affected as insurance companies raised premiums when they renewed their policies.

Flooded street in Catcliffe, South Yorkshire

Some residents in Catcliffe said the floods brought the community together

Before the floods, Pauline Warburton, of Bickerton Road, in the Hillsborough area of Sheffield, paid £250 for a policy with flood cover, but says she has now been asked to pay up to £900 without flood cover for a new policy.

Property values in many areas also dropped immediately after the flooding.

Jon and Andrea Smith, of Wombwell near Barnsley, told the BBC survey that two neighbouring houses which had been on the market at about £180,000 before the floods were re-valued at £130,000 to £140,000 in the immediate aftermath.

Despite their problems, 48% of the survey respondents said they had received a good or very good response from their insurance companies when they submitted their claims.

Amid the trauma of the flooding, the survey reveals a significant number of people felt the emergency brought communities and even families closer together.

One third (33%) said the experiences of last June had had a positive impact.

Michael Torr, who lives in Catcliffe near Rotherham, said before the floods he had not known his next door neighbours, but now they were best friends.

Both families had been forced to live in caravans during the clear-up, and since moving back into their homes they have taken their caravans on holiday together.

Mr Torr and about 10 other neighbours set up a flood wardens scheme to alert each other to imminent flooding.

He said: “People have got more pride now in Catcliffe.

“As much as I’d like to move for fear of flooding, I wouldn’t like to because of the neighbours.”

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

New laws to stop companies selling plots of agricultural land at inflated prices is demanded

MP demands end to ‘landbanking’

A Liberal Democrat MP is calling for the introduction of new laws to stop companies selling plots of agricultural land at inflated prices.

By Paul Lewis – BBC Radio 4′s Money Box

The land is sold on the hope that planning permission will be granted and the investors will make a big return.

Greg Mulholland, Liberal Democrat MP

Greg Mulholland has campaigned on landbanking for many years.

But Greg Mulholland wants legislation to end those schemes which are “obviously a scam”.

A government spokesman said a number of schemes had already been closed down under existing laws.

Recent action

Mr Mulholland, Liberal Democrat MP for Leeds North West, was speaking after the Financial Services Authority (FSA) declared the UK’s biggest landbanking scheme illegal.

It’s time the government woke up and took action
Greg Mulholland, Liberal Democrat MP

The FSA asked the High Court to wind up the company which ran it, UK Land Investments Limited (UKLI).

Mr Mulholland told Money Box on BBC Radio 4,

“I’m delighted that the Financial Services Authority has taken this action and is now homing in on other companies who are carrying out what is clearly an illegal as well as an immoral activity”

The FSA confirmed it was aware of 70 landbanking schemes that had sprung up since 2005.

A warning

Jonathan Phelan, head of retail enforcement at the FSA, said,

“Our action against UKLI, should serve as a warning to other companies that might be breaking the law in this way.”

But Greg Mulholland called for legislation to bring about “the end of landbanking which we have seen blight so many people’s lives over the last few years.

“It’s time the government woke up and took action so that by 2009 or 2010 we can look back and say… it can’t happen again in this country.”

Companies Investigation Branch has investigated a number of these cases
BERR spokesman

More than 4,500 people were persuaded by UKLI to invest £69m in small plots of land, none of which has been given planning permission.

They paid around £15,000 for each plot, some of which have been valued at a few hundred pounds.

Lee Manning, the joint administrator of UKLI and a partner with Deloitte, told the BBC,

“The company itself has very little net assets left.

“I would doubt if creditors would get more than a few pence in the pound.”

Crack down

A spokesman for the Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) said it was able to take action against such schemes under existing laws.

“Companies Investigation Branch has investigated a number of these cases and in many instances has brought proceedings to wind up the companies concerned.

“We will continue to crack down on companies which mislead the public in this way.

“Anyone approached by companies offering plots of land on the promise of future planning permission should be very wary and thoroughly question the information they are given.”


BBC Radio 4′s Money Box was broadcast on Saturday, 7 June 2008 at 1204 BST.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

House building targets warning – Professor Stephen Nickell

Ministers are “very unlikely” to achieve housing targets, the UK’s chief advisor on home building has warned.

Stephen Nickell
Fears housing chances are becoming social polarised.

Professor Stephen Nickell said that, unless conditions change, the target of three million new homes in England by 2020 will not be met.

To get to this target, the housing industry needs to be building 240,000 homes a year, a figure that few think they will achieve this year.

The industry is already behind in its construction targets.

Just over 200,000 new homes were built last year.

Priced out

Homebuilders have cut back new building this year as a lack of mortgage products and falling house prices have cut demand.

Mr Nickell, who heads the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit, believes that alongside the financial constraints local authorities are also holding up new house building.

The wealthier people in society can satisfy their housing demands, more or less, as they get richer
Professor Stephen Nickell

“Unless local authorities are given a strong incentive to allow house building in their locality, it seems to me very unlikely that we will hit the housing targets,” he said.

“And if you don’t keep building these houses the prices just keep going up relative to people’s incomes.”

Government figures published recently showed that new housing work was down 5% in the first quarter of this year compared with the same period in 2007.

The Home Builders Federation, which represents major house builders, said that new building work did not show any signs of picking up.

“Right now the credit crunch is stopping people from getting the finance that people need to buy homes,” said John Slaughter, director of external affairs at the Federation.

“Longer term we need a better business environment and less regulatory cost to get the industry moving.”

The big building companies are beginning to show the strain with rumours that they may have to raise new capital to survive.

The two giants of the industry, Taylor Wimpey and Barratt Developments, carry a total of more than £2.5 billion of debt.

That equates to more than double their combined market worth.

The financial pain being felt by the companies has already forced one of them, Persimmon, to put a halt on all new building projects.

Falling prices

Figures from the Nationwide this month showed a 2.5% drop in house prices in May, with some predicting a 20% drop by the end of 2008.

But despite falling house prices, Professor Nickell said the current situation seemed to be only benefiting the richer parts of society.

“The wealthier people in society can satisfy their housing demands, more or less, as they get richer. While the rest of us get squashed into smaller and smaller houses.” he said.

And he added that if present trends continue, things are looking bleak for the future of housing in England.

“If the present situation continues we will be less well housed than the majority of people in Europe, Australia or the United States,” he said.

Original Article

Stephen Nickell

Is currently Warden of Nuffield College, Oxford. He was an External Member of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee from 2000-2006 writing a number of pieces on the subject of the UK housing market. Until 2005 he was School Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, following this role from 1984-1998 as Professor of Economics and Director of the Institute of Economics and Statistics at the University of Oxford. He has also had earlier roles as an economist at the London School of Economics, in Paris and at the University of Princeton. He has been awarded a number of academic honours including Fellow of the British Academy and Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He has published widely in numerous branches of applied economics.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

Growth being led by developers, says campaigner

ASK Barrie Haycock why he decided to move to Inverness, he will tell you it is because he thought the Highland Capital was a good place to come to.

Growth being led by developers, says campaigner
By Calum Macleod – Inverness Courier

Four and a half years on, ask him if it is still a good place to come to and he hesitates.

“It’s difficult,” he said.

“It’s no better than other areas throughout the UK. The bottom line is that Inverness has the opportunity to learn from other areas and plan accordingly but no-one seems willing to do it.”

This apparent unwillingness to get to grips with the area’s planning deficiencies seems even more surprising to Barrie given the Highlands’ economic reliance on tourism.

“Tourists do not travel to see rows of soulless housing,” he pointed out.

For Barrie, who retired from a career in business at the age of 50, coming to the Highlands was an easy move to make as communications technology allowed his own public relations and allied services firm to operate from anywhere he chose.

He still enjoys getting out on the hills at the weekends and journeying to the unspoiled West Highlands, but soon learned that other parts of the region, not least Inverness itself, were going through what he describes as a quantum change.

To Barrie, Inverness’s rapid growth is being led by developers at the expense of community benefit and with little or no strategic planning or effective planning control “The emphasis in Inverness is on trying to build houses and then try and sort out the problems afterwards,” he said. “Exhibit A is the new trunk road with talk of bulldozing the new church at Inshes and compulsory purchase of properties. You would have thought they would have reserved the land, but that would be too easy.

“There is a growing view of many people in Inverness that the council should firmly get to grips with the situation and control planning so that development can take place in a properly thought out manner.

“Consultation is a joke. It’s a meaningless word in the planning process. Objections are rarely listened to and it’s the will of the developer that prevails over the will of the community.”

His awareness of discontent with the planning situation in Inverness was only heightened by his involvement with local community organisations.

Barrie is a founder member of the Milton of Leys local residents association, a member of Inverness Crime Prevention Panel and an Inverness South Community Councillor. More recently he has become involved with the Highlands and Islands Resilience Group, a disaster planning initiative designed to look at how threats such as pandemic influenza and terrorism could affect the Highlands.

These activities bring him into regular contact with a range of business owners, chamber of commerce members, police officers, community leaders, MPs, MSPs and Highland Council officials and local councillors.

A common topic of conversation has been concern at the way Highland Council is being run and its rapidly growing external debt problem which, by March this year, stood at a gross figure of 580 million.

The loss of prime farm land to residential housing with no meaningful infrastructure is another area of concern.

It was a prominent local councillor who initially suggested that a “Planning Watch” organisation was needed.

Barrie took up the suggestion and, as communities throughout Britain have similar issues to Inverness, widened the remit to create Planning Watch UK.

The organisation’s aims, objectives and interests are not confined to property matters. The regulation of the building industry, including land maintenance and property management companies, remains of prime importance.

“At present the new house build purchaser has been described by the National Consumer Council as having less consumer protection in law than when buying a kettle. This cannot continue and in general allows developers to make huge profits at the expense of the unsuspecting purchaser,” Barrie declared.

Nationally, Planning Watch UK members and contributors are working with MPs, MSPs and other organisations to introduce legislative changes to give houseowners the protection they need, just as locally the organisation wants to see more evidence of meaningful strategic planning.

Barrie Haycock, Planning Watch UK campaigner.

“The developer profit-driven process ignores the crucial requirement of infrastructure,” Barrie commented.

“Any future development must also look at education, health and transport services through to the massive number of jobs required to support the growing communities.”

Equally important are forward planning for roads, sewage and water supply and potential flood risk in certain areas. While there are plenty of bad examples of planning in Britain Telford in Shropshire or Scotland’s post-war New Towns there are also more positive designs which the Highlands could look to, such as Poundbury in Dorset. Designed by architect Leon Krier for landowner Prince Charles, this is an integrated community of shops, businesses and private and social housing and one which the planners of the Highlands would be advised to follow, Barrie suggested.

There are similar projects proposed for the Highlands, such as the “New Urbanist” community at Tornagrain, but for Barrie these being built are on too limited a scale and the principles which they adopt should be applied throughout the Highland region.

His work for Planning Watch UK and his other activities does take up a lot of his time and includes researching and studying local authority documents or fielding inquiries from journalists, but it is something he enjoys. “I don’t like to see people misled or ripped off and I have particular empathy and concerns for elderly people who are hung out to dry by the process. Who do they turn to for support?”

Barrie is scathing of a council which, he says, “would rather spend 300,000 on a fireworks display than care of the elderly.”

“The elderly are always the first to suffer when councils run into funding problems, yet the fat cat desk jockeys who decide the financial cuts continue to thrive,” he stated.

“This issue is constantly being raised by those who suffer and is a high priority for Planning Watch UK. Care of the elderly, young and disabled has to be of major importance but is so often put at the end of the bureaucrats’ list.”

Which is why Planning Watch UK highlights anything it regards as a waste of taxpayers’ money and wants to see local authority and government quango spending kept under strict financial control.

“A local example seems to be the bizarre reported redundancy payouts made to HIE members of staff, some of whom seem to have moved to highly paid new jobs some within Highland Council while collecting massive redundancy payments. This is an absolute disgrace!” he declared.

Barrie stood as an Independent candidate in the 2007 Highland Council election for Inverness South and came last, but reveals that he feels happier outside the political system.

“If you are part of the current system, you could very quickly get drowned under the current method of operation,” he said.

That system has been made even less effective, he believes, by the recent move to a party political council from one with a tradition of political independence and the creation of multi-member wards.

“The multi-councillor ward system isn’t working, full stop. None of the councillors can agree amongst themselves. End result: chaos,” Barrie said.

“Our councillors are paid salaries now, so there should be accountability all the way down from the chief executive to the most junior councillor.”

What is not so important, to Barrie at least, is the political hue of those councillors or even the MPs and MSPs.

“I’m apolitical,” Barrie stated.

“I don’t give a damn what party is in power as long as there are sensible policies from that party and I believe most people think the same.”

c.macleod@inverness-courier.co.uk

Related links

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

Nothing changes with Greenbelt Group…

Pocklington is a classic English market town situated at the foot of the Yorkshire Wolds, about 15 miles from the city of York, in the East Riding of Yorkshire.

FEE FEARS …Robin Southall at the Dawson Road recreational area, which is maintained by Greenbelt Group Ltd
Published Date: 22 May 2008

A RESIDENT says people living in a quiet estate has hit out at a firm charging thousands of pounds to maintain a small area of nearby land.
Robin Southall has spoken out about the small recreational area on the Dawson Road estate just off Londesborough Road in Market Weighton.

Residents pay a fee to Greenbelt Group Ltd to maintain green areas.

Mr Southall says that the gardeners turn up only occasionally and few improvements have been made to the site, including the children’s play area.

In addition, he is angry that the £85 annual cost he agreed to pay when he first moved there three years ago has rocketed, with his first annual bill costing almost £130.

The 28-year-old, who lives on Dawson Road with his girlfriend, said: “It was supposed to be a nice area when we moved in, something worth paying the annual management charge.

“But they’ve just dumped in the kids’ equipment and it’s not been looked after well.

“It seemed like an attractive proposition when we first moved here, but there is never anyone using it.

“Even if I had kids I wouldn’t let them on the equipment, some of it is broken and rusting.”

Mr Southall, who works for Phoenix Software in Pocklington, says he has written to the Scottish-based Greenbelt Group on a number of occasions, but said it either fails to reply or sends a very brief letter, often up to six months later.

He said that one woman on the estate launched a petition to lobby the firm for a better deal.

He said the most worrying aspect are the annual fees, fearing that the company could charge what it wants. There is also the issue of vandalism, with fears that repairs to the area would come out of the residents’ pockets.

“It’s getting to the point that the annual charge will work out to be about £20 a month, and for what?

“They must be making thousands of pounds. For that I’m sure people living around this area would cut the grass and make it look nice.”

Greenbelt Group has defended its actions, saying it will listen to the views of the residents and work with them.

However, they said that for an improved children’s play area, the residents could face a greater annual charge.

In addition, any vandalism inflicted on the area could also mean a hike in the fee to cover the costs.

A spokesman for the company said: “The land around the development is for the benefit of the residents and our duty is to keep it tidy and safe.

“We have done that since taking the site on a few years ago. The site has been well maintained and we are committed to doing this in the long term.

“We are more than willing to listen to the residents’ views.”

  • Last Updated: 23 May 2008 9:30 AM
  • Source: Pocklington Post
  • Location: Pocklington
Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

Red Cross plugs service gaps in Inverness, claims ambulance union

RED Cross volunteers are being used to plug gaps in ambulance service provision in Inverness and have been sent to 23 emergency calls — including road accidents and drug overdoses — since January, union officials claim.
By Hugh Ross – Inverness Courier

Front line crews working for the Scottish Ambulance Service (SAS) allege that the charity’s ambulances are covering up for a shortage of full-time vehicles and warn that although trained to administer medical treatment, Red Cross personnel are not qualified to deal with all 999 calls.

The SAS confirmed the Red Cross was sent to incidents but insisted the organisation was providing an additional, not a replacement, service.

David Forbes, Unison’s regional convener for the ambulance service, said the public had a right to know what was happening.

“When the ambulance service in the division has been really stretched the Red Cross comes in to help,” he said. “It has been used when the SAS has been short of crews and the Red Cross have been working in Inverness on and off for some time.

“Either the SAS will ring the Red Cross or it will call and ask if the ambulance service needs any help, and it has been out on the road responding to calls.

“The Red Cross would say it is a professional organisation but it offers nowhere near the same level of care as a properly trained ambulance crew.

“They are first responders. The Red Cross will be at a road traffic accident but it hasn’t got the level of skills, competency and comprehension that our members have. It has been used for drug overdoses and road accidents and is covering more than it should be.”

The allegations came as MSPs expressed concern about the running of the SAS during a debate at Holyrood yesterday. Labour’s health spokeswoman Margaret Curran said staffing shortages had left employees under serious strain and considering industrial action while Ross Finnie, for the Lib-Dems, said the public had serious misgivings about aspects of the service.

Health minister Nicola Sturgeon responded by promising to consider any evidence about problems with the SAS but ruled out an external inquiry.

Sam Kennedy, the SAS’s Inverness-based general manager for the North and West Division, denied the Red Cross was used to plug any gaps in the ambulance service locally.

“That is simply not true,” he said. “Red Cross volunteers attend local emergency calls so that they can provide immediate life-saving first aid until an ambulance arrives. Under the first responder scheme, Red Cross volunteers, particularly in rural areas, are notified of emergency calls received. These are people highly trained by the NHS.”

A Red Cross spokeswoman confirmed its volunteers could attend all types of emergencies after the charity signed a contract with the SAS in 2006.

“If we are the nearest asset to the incident we will get the call from the SAS,” she said. “We have a memorandum of agreement with the ambulance service but the union’s claims about plugging gaps is not the understanding we are working to.

“The incidents we are called out to are not specified and that could be road accidents but an SAS ambulance always attends the scene as well. We don’t have a list of incidents we wouldn’t attend and we are not sent instead of an ambulance.”

The Red Cross did contact the ambulance service to find out if its assistance was required, the spokeswoman added, but the charity was not paid for providing the service.

However, Highlands and Islands Conservative MSP Mary Scanlon was shocked to hear Red Cross volunteers had been used for emergencies.

“A paramedic is highly skilled, trained and experienced,” she said. “The Red Cross does a wonderful job in first aid but it is unfair to expect them have the level of training and experience that paramedics have.

“The Red Cross, which is a voluntary organisation, should not have to take on this responsibility and the public does not expect it to be answering 999 calls.”

h.ross@inverness-courier.co.uk

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

Staffordshire residential home fiasco

Golden oldies

The Express and Star reports that residents of a Staffordshire residential home deemed ‘not fit for purpose’ have been moved out to a luxury care home at a cost of £1,000-per-person-per-week.

Residential_home_2 Staffordshire County Council shied away from revealing just how many former residents of Billbrook House are now living in the £21million Sunrise Residential Village in Tettenhall, which can charge residents up to £50,000 per year, and their reluctance to release the numbers really just says it all.

Billbrook House was closed despite campaigners’ pleas, as the council insisted that they could not afford to keep it open, and yet so many private residential care homes potter along perfectly efficiently for years and years. We are left to wonder how Billbrook House got into such an unsalvageable state in the first place and why taxayers’ are having to shoulder these huge costs.

One thing is for sure, failing to maintain this residential home has certainly cost them dear, as the paper also reports that twenty residents have chosen to move to the 5* Wergs Road complex, with plasma TVs and silver service.

No-one resents these elderly people decent accommodation, let’s just make that clear, but this situation should have been foreseen by the council and more suitable provision should have been arranged. Must these people be moved again once a more inexpensive solution is found? Or will the council continue to pay these extortionate fees for as long as they have to?

This is just another costly muddle that could have been avoided by proper planning, but when planning isn’t paramount because costly mistakes have few consequences and the coffers can be boosted quite easily by the public purse, situations like this will arise time and time again.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

The true cost of Quangos to the UK Tax Payer

Quangos: The Unseen Government of the UK

The most comprehensive picture ever of the UK’s 1,162 Quangos

The TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA) presents the full list of the UK’s vast quango industry, a detailed run-down of the staff and cost of the 1,162 bodies, boards and agencies that make up Britain’s Unseen Government. It is now five years since the Parliamentary Select Committee on Public Administration recommended that the Government publish such a list, a recommendation that the Government has failed to fulfil. In the absence of an official list, the TPA has compiled one instead, providing the public with the most comprehensive information available on the organisations that increasingly spend their money and influence their lives without democratic oversight. The report can be found here (PDF).

Key Findings:

  • There are 1,162 quangos in the UK, running at a total cost to the taxpayer of £64 billion, equivalent to £2,550 per household.
  • Even under the Cabinet Office’s restrictive definition of quangos, the cost of these bodies has risen 50% in the last ten years.
  • UK quangos now employ an army of almost 700,000 bureaucrats.
  • Even the Government itself does not know the full extent of the unaccountable quango industry, which range from the massive e.g. Job Centre Plus (Staff: 70,042, Cost: £3.5 billion) and the Courts Service (Staff: 19,986, Cost: £704.8 million); to the bizarre e.g. the British Potato Council (Staff: 49); or the West Northants Development Corporation (Staff: 34, Cost: £15.3 million)
  • When the total number of quangos is added to the other government subsidiaries such as local authorities and NHS trusts, the total number of organisations controlled by the UK Government rises to 2,063, costing the taxpayer £257 billion and employing over 5.1 million people.

Ben Farrugia, author of the report and Policy Analyst at the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said:

“Government in the UK is now so large, diverse and complex that it is impossible for anyone to manage effectively, let alone by Ministers with no prior experience of management and little in-depth understanding of the work carried out by their departments. Government today tries to do too much, and consequently fails; the structure of government needs to change if we hope to see better value and significant improvements in our public services.”

The full report provides a full list of the quangos along with individual data on staff numbers, taxpayer funding and expenditure as well as national totals and can be found here (PDF).

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

Confidential government study seen by the BBC suggests hundreds of UK power substations and water treatment plants are potentially at risk from flooding

Another year gone by and little or nothing has been done by government to address the flooding problems

The following two BBC articles illustrate the extent of the problem:

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn has rejected claims by a committee of MPs that Britain’s flood preparations are in a “chaotic state”.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs committee said the UK is still not prepared for the sort of flooding which hit much of the country last summer.

And it warned an extra £800m pledged to improve readiness was not enough.

Mr Benn said the government was already taking action in many of the areas identified in the report.

More than 55,000 homes and businesses across central, northern and South West England were devastated by last year’s floods, which killed nine people and left an insurance bill of about £3bn.

‘Confused and chaotic’

In its report, the select committee said there had been a “total lack of awareness” about how vulnerable many parts of the country were to flooding before the downpours.

“The public will not forgive the government if it is not seen to be responding to the lessons learnt from the floods of last summer,” said Michael Jack, the committee’s chairman.

“Our report has shown how confused and chaotic was the infrastructure when it came to preventing and dealing with surface water flooding.”

The report said flood defence measures have been focused almost solely on river and coastal defences, with plans to cope with heavy rainfall in an “unclear and chaotic state”.

No organisation had responsibility for dealing with surface water at a local or national level, and when drains began to overflow it was hard to see who was responsible for the drainage system, the committee said.

Planning changes

Ministers had repeatedly suggested the £800m a year for flood management by 2010/2011 would allow the government to deal effectively with future crises, the committee said.

But the settlement for flood defences made under the Comprehensive Spending Review was “far less impressive under close analysis”, it added.

Mr Benn said he “welcomed” the committee’s report but said action was already being taken to improve readiness for another major incident.

Changes to the planning laws would make it more difficult for homeowners to “concrete over” their front gardens – which he said was one of the causes of surface water flooding.

“The truth is that if we concrete over, pave over, tarmac over ground in our towns and cities and it rains like that then the drains get overwhelmed and the select committee recognises that,” he told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme.

“And what we need to sort out – what we had already recognised – is clarity of responsibility for making sure that the bits of the surface water drainage system fit together.”

Spending ‘doubled’

The right of new developments to automatically connect to the public sewerage system was also being reviewed, he added.

And the environment agency had been given “overall responsibility” for dealing with flooding and there was now a “single chain of command”.

Walham electricity switching station had a close escape after last summer’s floods

He denied there was a shortage of funds for flood defences.

“We’ve doubled the spending on flood defence in the last ten years.

“We’re increasing it by about another two hundred million pounds a year by 2010-11.

“Last summer, the Association of British Insurers said we should be spending about £750m a year by 2010-11 – actually we’re going to be spending £800m – and that’s going to mean the environment agency has more money to spend on more flood defence schemes to protect more peoples’ homes.”

Meanwhile, a confidential government study seen by the BBC suggests hundreds of UK power substations and water treatment plants are potentially at risk from flooding.

The report warns that “there are likely to be hundreds of sites at the highest levels of criticality” and says that “the risks posed by natural hazards are already rising and are predicted to rise further”.

It concludes that it would “be imprudent to rest on the basis that events on the lines of those which happened last summer were so infrequent as to reply on a reactive response alone”.

Link to original article

Most homeowners hit by last summer’s floods remain unprepared for a repeat, an insurance company survey suggests.

Some 83% of residents of Gloucester, Tewkesbury, Hull, Sheffield and Rotherham believe there is nothing they can do to protect their homes.

Of 1,500 people surveyed for Norwich Union, 95% had not secured their properties ahead of the threat of further flooding this summer.

A total of 29% also were unaware that their homes were at risk again.

Yorkshire, Gloucestershire and Worcestershire were worst hit by last year’s floods, which the Association of British Insurers says led to 180,000 claims totalling about £3bn.

Mary Dhonau, chief executive of the National Flood Forum, said: “Having been flooded myself, I know what an awful experience it can be.

“The findings of this report have shocked me because there is so much more people can do than using the humble, not to mention ineffective, sandbag.

“As someone who has witnessed the huge benefits of flood-resilient repairs, I’m a huge advocate of taking measures to protect your home.

“Adapting or altering your home can significantly lessen both the practical and emotional impact of flood.

“Not only can damage to your personal possessions and furnishings be reduced, you could be back in your home quicker after a flood if you have to move out at all.”

Flood defences

Simon Black, head of flood mapping at Norwich Union who produced the survey, said: “We believe that everyone has a responsibility to help reduce the risk of flood damage.

“That includes the government, with continued investment in flood defences, and the homeowner.

“While home insurance will protect people from the majority of costs caused by flooding, no insurance policy can replace those significant personal belongings with sentimental value.

“Similarly, no policy will be able to spare families the inconvenience and stress of being forced from their homes while it is being dried out and repaired.”

Flood protection for houses includes flood boards for door frames in case of flash floods, one-way valves on water outlet pipes and water-resistant sealants around doors, window frames and on bricks and mortar.

Link to original article

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

OFT issues statement of objections against 112 construction companies alleged to have engaged in bid rigging activities

Following one of the largest ever Competition Act investigations, the OFT has today issued a Statement of Objections (SO) against 112 firms in the construction sector in England.

The OFT formally alleges that the construction companies named in the SO have engaged in bid rigging activities, and in particular cover pricing. Cover pricing describes a situation where one or more bidders collude with a competitor during a tender process to obtain a price or prices which are intended to be too high to win the contract. The tendering authority, for example a local council or other customer, is not made aware of the contacts between bidders, leaving it with a false impression of the level of competition and this may result in it paying inflated prices.

Cover pricing arrangements have previously been found by the OFT and the Competition Appeal Tribunal to be illegal and in breach of the Competition Act 1998 due to the restrictions on competition that arise. 

In addition, the SO formally alleges that a minority of the construction companies have variously entered into one or more arrangements whereby it was agreed that the successful tenderer would pay an agreed sum of money to the unsuccessful tenderer (known as a ‘compensation payment’). These more serious forms of bid rigging are usually facilitated by false invoices. 

The construction companies under investigation carry out general building work including construction of housing, as well as commercial and industrial construction both in the public and private sector. The SO allegations cover a diverse range of projects, including tenders for schools, universities and hospitals.

The OFT’s investigation originated from a specific complaint in the East Midlands in 2004, but it quickly became clear from the evidence that the practice of cover pricing was widespread. The SO’s formal allegations therefore cover neighbouring areas including Yorkshire and Humberside and also elsewhere in England. The OFT has also received evidence of cover pricing implicating many more companies on thousands of tender processes, but has focused its investigation on approximately 240 alleged infringements which are being pursued in the SO.

During the course of the investigation, the OFT carried out site visits at the premises of 57 firms. The OFT received 37 leniency applications in the investigation leading to this SO, and all other parties received an offer of a reduced financial penalty (see press notices 49/07 and 50/07), which led to over 40 further companies subsequently admitting participation in some bid rigging activities.

No assumption should be made at this stage that there has been an infringement of competition law by any of the companies named in the SO. The 112 parties concerned now have the opportunity to make written and oral representations which the OFT will take into account before making a final decision as to whether competition law has been infringed, and as to the appropriate amount of any penalties the OFT may decide to impose on each of the firms concerned.

John Fingleton, OFT Chief Executive, said:

‘Cartel activity of the type alleged today harms the economy by distorting competition and keeping prices artificially high. This investigation, together with the OFT’s previous decisions in the roofing sector, will hopefully send out a strong message to the construction industry about the seriousness with which we view suspected anti-competitive behaviour. Businesses have no excuses for not knowing and abiding by the law.’

NOTES

1. Under the Competition Act 1998 and Article 81 of the EC Treaty, cartels are prohibited. Any business found to be a member of a cartel could be fined up to 10 per cent of its worldwide turnover. In calculating financial penalties, the OFT takes into account a number of factors including seriousness of the infringement(s), turnover in the relevant market and any mitigating and/or aggravating factors. The basis of the OFT’s considerations are set out in the OFT’s guidance as to the appropriate amount of a penalty (pdf 145 kb).

2. An SO gives notice of a proposed infringement decision under the Competition Act 1998 to the parties involved. The parties then have the opportunity to make written and oral representations in response to the case set out by the OFT. Such representations will be considered by the OFT before any final decision is made.

3. The SO will not be published. In accordance with the OFT’s guidance on Involving third parties in Competition Act investigations (pdf 289 kb), any person who wishes to comment on the OFT’s provisional findings, and who is in a position to materially assist the OFT in testing its factual, legal or economic arguments, may request a non-confidential version of the statement of objections by contacting the OFT no later than 30 April 2008.

4. The OFT has previously found infringements of the Competition Act in relation to cover pricing and other bid rigging infringements in the roofing sector in five decisions between 2004 and 2006 (see press notices 46/04, 48/05, 126/05 and 34/06). Appeals of the first and last of these decisions to the Competition Appeal Tribunal confirmed the illegality of cover pricing (see press notices 36/05 and 32/07).

5. The OFT has also today published an information note to local authorities and other procuring entities on the implications for them of this announcement. Download the information note (pdf 49 kb).

6. Under the OFT’s leniency policy an undertaking may be granted immunity from penalties or a significant reduction in penalty in return for reporting certain categories of Competition Act infringement and assisting the OFT with its investigation.

7. Anyone who has information about cartels is asked to call the cartels hotline on 0800 085 1664 or email cartelshotline@oft.gsi.gov.uk. The OFT has a policy under which it will pay financial incentives of up to £100,000 in return for information which helps it to identify and take action against illegal cartels. Rewards will be paid only where information is accurate, verifiable and proves to be useful in the OFT’s anti-cartel enforcement work, and will be calculated according to a set formula and not subject to negotiation.

8. The SO has been issued to the following undertakings:

1. A. H. Willis & Sons Limited
2. ARG (Mansfield) Limited
3. Ackroyd & Abbott Limited together with its subsidiary Ackroyd & Abbott Construction Limited
4. Adam Eastwood & Sons Limited together with its controlling party the Sir John Eastwood Foundation
5. Admiral Construction Limited together with (for alleged infringements from 31 October 2003) its ultimate parent company A C Holdings Limited
6. Adonis Construction Limited
7. Allenbuild Limited and Bullock Construction Limited together with their ultimate parent company Renew Holdings plc
8. Apollo Property Services Group Limited formerly known as Apollo London Limited together with its former ultimate parent company Apollo Holdco Limited formerly known as Apollo Group Holdings Limited
9. Arthur M. Griffiths & Sons Limited
10. B & A Construction (Leicester) Limited
11. Baggaley & Jenkins Limited
12. Balfour Beatty Construction Limited, Balfour Beatty Refurbishment Limited, and Balfour Beatty Group Limited (for alleged infringements from 2000 onwards) and Mansell Construction Services Limited (for alleged infringements from 19 December 2003), together with their current ultimate parent company Balfour Beatty plc. For alleged infringements involving Mansell prior to 19 December 2003, Mansell and its former ultimate parent company Mansell plc
13.Ballast Nedam N.V. as the ultimate parent company of its dissolved subsidiary Ballast plc
14.Beaufort Construction (S-in-A) Limited together with its ultimate parent company Beaufort Holdings U.K. Limited
15.Bodill & Sons (Contractors) Limited
16.Bowmer & Kirkland Limited together with its subsidiaries B & K Building Services Limited and B & K Property Services Limited
17.Bramall Construction Limited and Frank Haslam Milan & Company Limited together with their current ultimate parent company Keepmoat Limited, formerly known as Keepmoat plc
18.C. J. Ellmore & Company Limited
19.Caddick Construction Limited together with its ultimate parent company Caddick Group plc
20.Carillion JM Limited
21.Chase Norton Construction Limited together with its ultimate parent company Chase Midland plc
22.Clegg Construction Limited together with its ultimate parent company Clegg Group Limited formerly known as D E Clegg Holdings Limited
23.Connaught Partnerships Limited together with its ultimate parent company Connaught plc
24.Crown Point Maintenance Group Limited as the ultimate parent company of its dissolved subsidiary Greenwood Building Contractors (Mansfield) Limited, for Greenwood’s alleged infringements after 11 June 2002
25.Davlyn Construction Limited
26.Derwent Valley Construction Limited together with its ultimate parent company Chevin Holdings Limited
27.Dukeries Building Company Limited together with its ultimate parent company Gavco 159 Limited
28.Durkan Pudelek Limited together with its ultimate parent company Durkan Holdings Limited
29.E. G. Carter & Company Limited
30.E. Manton Limited
31.E. Taylor & Sons (Southwell) Limited, trading as Carmalor Construction
32.F. Parkinson Limited together with its ultimate parent company Mowbray Holdings Limited
33.Francis Construction Limited together with its ultimate parent company Barrett Estates Services Limited
34.Frank Galliers Limited together with its former ultimate parent company Frank Galliers Holdings Limited
35.Frudd Construction Limited
36.GAJ Construction Limited together with its current ultimate parent company GAJ (Holdings) Limited
37.G Carter Construction Limited
38.G. F. Tomlinson Building Limited together with its ultimate parent company G. F. Tomlinson Group Limited
39.G G Middleton and Sons Limited
40.G. & J. Seddon Limited together with its ultimate parent company Seddon Group Limited
41.GMI Construction Group plc together with (for alleged infringements after 6 February 2005) its current ultimate parent company GMI Construction Holdings plc
42.Geo Houlton & Sons Limited together with its ultimate parent company Geo Houlton & Sons (Holdings) Limited
43.George Law Limited together with its ultimate parent company Bosworth & Wakeford Limited
44.Greswolde Construction Limited together with its ultimate parent company Mantisson Limited
45.Hall Construction Group Limited
46.Harlow & Milner Limited
47.Harold Adkin & Sons (Sutton-In-Ashfield) Limited
48.Harper Group Construction Limited and J. Harper & Sons (Leominster) Limited together with their ultimate parent company Harper Group plc
49.Haymills (Contractors) Limited together with (for alleged infringements prior to 26 May 2004) its former ultimate parent company Corringway Conclusions plc and (for alleged infringements after 26 May 2004) its current ultimate parent company Haymills Group Limited
50.Henry Boot Construction (UK) Limited together with its ultimate parent company Henry Boot plc
51.Herbert Baggaley Construction Limited together with its ultimate parent company Baggaley Group Limited
52.Hill Bros. (Nottingham) Limited
53.Hobson & Porter Limited
54.Holroyd Construction Limited together with (for alleged infringements prior to 30 March 2005) its former ultimate parent company Holderness Investments Limited and (for alleged infringements after 30 March 2005) its current ultimate parent company Holroyd Construction Group Limited
55.Interclass Public Limited Company together with its ultimate parent company Interclass Holdings Limited
56.Interserve Project Services Limited together with its ultimate parent company Interserve plc
57.Irwins Limited and Jack Lunn (Construction) Limited together with their ultimate parent company Jack Lunn (Holdings) Limited
58.J. Guest Limited
59.J H Hallam (Contracts) Limited together with its ultimate parent company J H Hallam (R & J) Limited
60.J. J. & A. R. Jackson Limited
61.J. J. McGinley Limited, together with its former ultimate parent company McGinley Holdings Limited
62.John Cawley Limited
63.John Sisk & Son Limited together with its ultimate parent company Sicon Limited
64.K. J. Bryan (Builders) Limited
65.Kier Regional Limited together with its ultimate parent company Kier Group plc
66.Lemmeleg Limited together with its ultimate parent company Rok plc
67.Lindum Construction Co. Limited and Lindum Homes Limited together with their ultimate parent company Lindum Group Limited
68.Linford Group Limited together with its ultimate parent company F. & E. V. Linford Limited
69.Loach Construction & Development Limited
70.Lotus Construction Limited
71.Milward Construction (Belper) Limited
72.Morgan Ashurt plc formerly known as Bluestone Plc together with its ultimate parent company Morgan Sindall plc
73.North Midland Construction plc
74.P D H Developments Limited (formerly trading as G. Hurst & Sons (Contractors) Limited) together with its ultimate parent company G. Hurst & Sons Limited
75.P. Casey & Co. Limited together with its current ultimate parent company The Casey Group Limited
76.P. Waller Limited
77.Pearce Construction (Midlands) Limited together with its former ultimate parent company Crest Nicholson plc
78.Peter Baines Limited
79.Phoenix Contracts (Leicester) Limited
80.Piper Construction Midlands Limited together with its ultimate parent company Piper Securities Holdings Limited
81.Propencity Group Limited together with its wholly owned subsidiary companies, ISG Jackson Limited, ISG Regions Limited formerly known as ISG Totty Limited, ISG Totty Building Limited and Propencity Limited
82.Quarmby Construction Company Limited together with its ultimate parent company St James Securities Holdings Limited
83.Quarmby Construction (Special Projects) Limited together with its ultimate parent company Justgrade Limited
84.R Durtnell & Sons Limited together with its ultimate parent company R Durtnell & Sons (Holdings) Limited
85.R. G. Carter Limited, R. G. Carter Building Limited and R. G. Carter Construction Limited together with their current ultimate parent company R. G. Carter Holdings Limited
86.Richardson Projects Limited
87.Robert Bruce Construction Limited
88.Robert Woodhead Limited together with its ultimate parent company Robert Woodhead Holdings Limited
89.Robinson & Sawdon Limited
90.Shaylor Construction Limited
91.Simons Construction Limited and Wrights Construction (Lincoln) Limited together with their ultimate parent company Simons Group Limited
92.Sol Construction Limited together with its ultimate parent company Barkbury Limited
93.Speller-Metcalfe Limited
94.Spicers (Builders) Limited
95.Stainforth Construction Limited
96.Strata Construction Limited (formerly trading as Weaver)
97.T. & C. Williams (Builders) Limited
98.T. Denman & Sons (Melton Mowbray) Limited
99.Thomas Fish & Sons Limited together with its ultimate parent company Fish Holdings Limited
100.Thomas Long & Sons Limited together with its ultimate parent company Radford Holdings Limited
101.Thomas Vale Construction Plc together with its ultimate parent company Thomas Vale Holdings Limited
102.Thorndyke Limited
103.Try Accord Limited and Galliford Try Construction Limited together with their ultimate parent company Galliford Try plc
104.W. R. Bloodworth & Sons Limited
105.Wiggett Bros & Co Limited
106.Wildgoose Construction Limited
107.William Sapcote and Sons Limited together with its ultimate parent company Sapcote Holdings Limited
108.William Woodsend Limited
109.Willmott Dixon Construction Limited together with its ultimate parent company Willmott Dixon Limited
110.Wright (Hull) Limited together with its ultimate parent company T. Wright & Son (Holdings) Limited
111.Wygar Construction Co Limited together with its ultimate parent company Wygar (Holdings) Limited
112.York House Construction Limited

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

Audit Scotland Auditors to probe Highland Housing Fair payout

Watchdog to assess council input
Press and Journal – Published: 02/04/2008

AUDITORS are to investigate the use of public money to establish the controversial Highland Housing Fair planned for former greenbelt at Balvonie Braes on the south side of Inverness.

The accounting watchdog Audit Scotland has asked the local auditor to assess Highland Council’s contribution to starting up the not-for-profit development company the Highland Housing Alliance (HHA), which is now deemed a private operation despite substantial funding from the public purse to establish an expo at which a fundamentally private housing development will be exhibited.

Prompted by public concern, including that of various Inverness councillors, SNP MSP Dave Thompson wrote to Audit Scotland requesting an investigation into the sale of land by construction giant Tulloch to the HHA.

Audit Scotland has said it is unable to audit the HHA because it is “not within its remit”. But it is able to instigate an audit of the council, which part-funded the project.

Mr Thompson told the Press and Journal: “I support the fair and wish it well, but I am pleased that my concerns over the land transactions have been taken seriously.

“Audit Scotland has contacted the council’s external auditors so that they are aware of our concerns, and they have been asked to establish the background and to assess whether there are any issues arising from the council’s involvement which require further investigation.

“Of course, the auditors will not consider planning-related matters and those issues reportedly under consideration by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO). But I very much look forward to hearing the outcome of their investigations."

A spokeswoman for Audit Scotland said: “An audit of HHA is not within our remit. However, we do audit Highland Council and have an interest in the council’s arrangements for monitoring how its money is used to support other organisations.

“With this in mind, in line with our routine procedures the correspondence has recently been passed to the council’s external auditors and they will seek to establish the background and assess whether there are any issues arising from the council’s involvement which require further investigation.”

She added: “The correspondence that we received refers to planning concerns and to consideration of issues by the SPSO. We have advised Mr Thompson that the auditors will not consider planning related matters and those issues reportedly under consideration by the SPSO.”

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

Tulloch Homes Land deal bonanza sparks outrage

TAXPAYERS handed an Inverness building firm a substantial profit when land on the outskirts of the city was sold to the organisers of next year’s Highland Housing Fair.

By Helen Paterson – Inverness Courier -Published: 22 January, 2008

It has emerged that Tulloch Homes purchased around 40 acres of agricultural land at Balvonie Braes for £850,000 and sold it — plus one extra acre — nine months later to the council-funded Highland Housing Alliance (HHA) for £1,350,000.

The developer was registered as the new owner of the land on 16th November 2006, two days after HHA lodged a planning application for the site on the southern edge of Inverness. It was transferred to HHA on 8th August, 2007.

The fair takes place in August 2009 and will showcase the best in housing design, innovation and technology. It has been dogged by controversy and the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman (SPSO) is currently investigating the conduct of Highland Council planning officials after an e-mail obtained by The Inverness Courier suggested they made up their minds about the planning application prior to the start of a public consultation exercise.

Now campaigners are calling for a full investigation.

"The whole affair is a public disgrace with no thought to the affect to the local community and, at the very least, the matter should be the subject of a full public inquiry," said Barrie Haycock, chairman of Planning Watch UK.

"Highland Council has driven a train through their own Local Plan and we have the unacceptable situation that Tulloch Homes has banked £500,000, as a direct consequence of the actions of the various factions involved."

The fair, the first of its kind in the UK, was due to take place in Smithon but the site was judged too small. More than 30 sites were then considered by HHA and developers approached before the site at Balvonie was chosen.

Although the land is designated as "green wedge", there was an indication made by the Reporter at the Inverness Local Plan Public Inquiry in 2004 that this could change in the future.

According to Susan Torrance, the alliance’s chief executive, Tulloch Homes started negotiations with the former land owner Derek Munro more than three years ago.

"I appreciate what it looks like, but it was not a matter of Tulloch making a quick buck," she said. "They had acquired the land and intended to hold onto it as long as it took to get it into the Local Plan. That is why they paid the money they did for it.

"This site was suggested to us by Tulloch very late on."

She said it would have been too risky for HHA to try and buy the land without planning permission, which was a condition of the sale. Developers were also unwilling to sell land zoned for housing, which she claimed would have cost the HHA between £4 million and £6 million.

Planning Watch UK chairman Barrie Haycock at the site of the Highland Housing Fair. Bobby Nelson

The price paid by HHA covers the 40-acre site as well as rights to services and an additional one acre, which will provide access. HHA will also contribute towards a new road linking Milton of Leys with the Inshes area.

"If I hand on heart thought we could have got a better deal for the site, I would have done that," Ms Torrance said. "It was the only option available to us."

A Tulloch spokesman stressed that missives of sale for the land were agreed long before HHA expressed an interest in the site, which the company had viewed as a long-term acquisition.

"Highland Council approached us the following year asking us to sell the site to them and after discussion we agreed to do so to assist them in their initiative," the spokesman explained. "The council simply could not have acquired housing land elsewhere so cheaply. The council received a real bargain and when the fair is complete the value will be several times more than the council paid for it."

But Tory MSP Mary Scanlon, who represents the Highlands and Islands, thinks the profit made by Tulloch Homes was "excessive" given the desperate need for cash elsewhere.

"Given that Highland Council has a debt of over £500 million, the profit within nine months for the housing fair land certainly does seem excessive. The payment for this land will simply add to the current debt, which is a burden on every council tax payer," she said.

The Highland Housing Alliance was set up in 2005 as a not-for-profit organisation to build more affordable and private homes. It is financed by the landbank fund, which is made up of monies from Highland Council and Communities Scotland.

One hundred homes will be built as part of the council-backed project, which will involve a month-long exhibition. It is expected to attract 30,000 visitors.

Timetable of events

14th November 2006: Highland Housing Alliance applies for planning permission for the site at Balvonie Braes.
16th November 2006: Tulloch Homes is registered as the new owner of the land, for which it paid £850,000.
21st November 2006: An e-mail written by Nicola Drummond, a planning department team leader with Highland Council, is sent to Colin MacKenzie, principal planner in the council’s planning and development service, saying the application, although contrary to the Local Plan, would "obviously" be approved.
30th January 2007: Planning permission is granted.
8th August 2007: Highland Housing Alliance is registered as the new owner of the land, having bought it for £1.35 million.

h.paterson@inverness-courier.co.uk

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr