Planning Watch UK » England

Planning objection petition – River Lane, Leatherhead, Surrey

ccuffe — Mon, 16 May 2011 21:46:08 +0000

The residents of River Lane, Leatherhead, Surrey, are in a legal battle over the inappropriate use of Green Belt land.

There has been a temporary gypsy and traveller site on the land for the past 8 years, having been granted temporary planning permission twice, under the grounds that Mole Valley District Council had the legal obligation to find an alternative site. The council failed to do so, having done no research at all until November 2010, and are now allowing the gypsy families to apply for permanent planning permission.

The site has been deemed by the Government Planning Inspector as “inappropriate development in the Green Belt” and it is paramount that this development is rejected in order to stop this becoming an example for the allowance of future similar developments.

This has been an ongoing battle for the last 8 years and it is coming to a conclusion this year, so PLEASE can you sign the petition and preserve the green belt of River Lane.

THIS IS A SERIOUS PLANNING ISSUE. THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE OF PREJUDICE. IT IS A LEGAL ISSUE.

THE LAND IS DESIGNATED GREEN BELT AND IT HAS BEEN AGREED BY THE PLANNING INSPECTOR THAT THE CURRENT SITUATION IS “INAPPRORIATE DEVELOPMENT IN THE GREEN BELT.”

The petition can be found at the following address: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/riverlaneleatherhead/

If you have any questions do not hesitate to contact us at claracuffe@aol.com

Thank you so much for your support,

The residents of River Lane

Share and Enjoy:

Problems mount for Peverel and Solitaire

Editor — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 15:13:25 +0000

Peverel property management faces tenant rebellion over service

Excessive fees and poor service are some of the accusations residents level against Peverel. Now they are taking action

The Peverel tenants who are fighting back

Comments (26)

- Patrick Collinson
- The Guardian, Saturday 12 February 2011
- Article history

Tenants Frank Gadd and Bernard Allwork of Church Crookham, Hampshire. Photograph: Graham Turner for the GuardianThree years ago Frank Gadd saw a two-bed maisonette for sale near Fleet in Hampshire that seemed perfect for his retirement. Yes, it was small, but it was affordable and it was relatively new, so maintenance would be minimal.

“When I saw it, I thought what a lovely place to be in,” says Gadd, now 67. “But after just eight or nine months I felt I’d made a mistake. It was grim.”

It wasn’t the property that was a let-down. It was the huge service and maintenance charges Gadd was being forced to pay out of his modest pension. The bill hit £4,400 a year for a run of four maisonettes with no common parts. This year, after taking on the agents, he will pay just £200.

Gadd’s story is one of despair both at the lack of service and excessive costs for things such as buildings insurance. And his tale may not be unfamiliar to leaseholders and flat dwellers around the country.

His managing agent was a firm called Solitaire Property Management, which in 2008 became part of the Peverel group of companies. Peverel is one of Britain’s most controversial property companies. It owns or manages hundreds of thousands of properties across Britain, under brand names such as OM, Consort and Pembertons Property Management. It looks after 65,000 retirement homes, largely at McCarthy & Stone developments. It runs security company Cirrus, which installs CCTV and entry systems for flats, and Kingsborough, which organises buildings insurance.

Behind Peverel and a web of connected companies stands multimillionaire property tycoon Vincent Tchenguiz, whose flamboyant spending – before the credit crunch at least – was legendary.

Aside from the Rolls Royce (at one stage he reputedly owned five), he boasts a £10m-plus luxury yacht, called Veni, Vidi, Vici (I came, I saw, I conquered). His brother Robert also built a huge financial empire, much of it based on loans from Kaupthing Bank in Iceland.

As Iceland’s financial system collapsed in October 2008, many of the loans were called in, wiping out a large swathe of Robert Tchenguiz’s business empire, and also affecting Vincent.

But far from the yachts on the French Riviera, numerous tenants of properties around Britain ultimately controlled by Tchenguiz are furious at the charges they pay, and the service they receive.

One website alone, where tenants share stories about their treatment and what they can do about it, has received nearly 120,000 visitors over the past 16 months. The awkwardly named The Truth About OM Property Management (formerly Solitaire Property Management) & Peverel Group Companies, was set up in 2008 by a disgruntled Solitaire customer

When he spoke to Guardian Money it was on the basis that we only publish his first name: Adam. “I was fed up with being palmed off with various stories, services not being provided yet the fees kept going up. But it soon became apparent it wasn’t just me.”

The site is now peppered with allegations, although they are firmly rejected by Peverel. In a statement, it said: “Solitaire Property Management only became part of the Peverel Group in mid 2008. Given Solitaire’s poor history, immediate changes were made by Peverel to improve the company, including centralising customer service management and closing poorly organised regional offices … Since taking control of Solitaire we have made it our number one priority to make a fresh start with residents who felt they had been let down by Solitaire.”

But some leaseholders continue to press ahead with tribunal claims. In the coming months, a tribunal will hear a £2.6m claim for overcharging alleged by more than 300 leaseholders at the striking St George Wharf development on the river Thames. Residents of five blocks in Nottingham, called City Heights, set off fireworks to celebrate wresting control of their development from Peverel after a long legal battle. Across the city, residents at Weekday Cross have won £730,000 at a tribunal, although Peverel is appealing this.

Every tenant’s story is different, but there are a number of strands that feature regularly among complaints.

Service charges Residents, many of whom are on fixed incomes, talk of rampant charge inflation. In the Weekday Cross development, also in Nottingham, the service charge on a flat went up 75% in just two years.

Service provision Residents say they understand the need to pay service charges, but allege that services are not provided. Often it is the mundane details of daily life. In Gadd’s case, he claims the person supposed to cut the grass didn’t turn up for six months. In other instances it’s about critical repairs and security.

At Weekday Cross, residents allege promises were repeatedly made but not kept, and in August 2009 at a leasehold valuation tribunal, Solitaire/Peverel were ousted as managing agents.

Insurance costs Some residents claim they are overcharged for buildings insurance, which is usually arranged for Peverel by its sister company Kingsborough. Residents say premiums can be as much as double the rate on the open market, driven up by commissions of up to 40% earned by Kingsborough for arranging the policies. Peverel says it regularly tenders risks to the open market and is legally allowed to obtain commissions.

Transfer fees When the owner of a retirement home dies and the property is sold, a seller may be charged 2% of the value of the property. Peverel says the fees are passed on to the landlord, and it does not benefit. But often the landlord is a company called Fairhold, which although not part of the Peverel Group shares a common beneficial owner – the trustees of the Tchenguiz Family Trust.

Late charges Residents allege that accounts may be filed late, and that as a result, they are faced with “balancing” charges, sometimes years after the work has taken place.

Legal representation Individual residents complain that taking on the legal firepower of the Peverel Group is a daunting prospect. One individual says he was faced with nearly 1,000 pages of legal documentation sent just 72 hours before a tribunal, and stood alone against teams of lawyers and barristers acting for Peverel.

Peverel replies

We understand how important a person’s home is to them and for more than 25 years, we have taken great pride in our service to residents. We adhere rigidly to industry best practice, including The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and The Association of Residential Managing Agents standards. But as a market leader, we often bear the brunt of criticism for things that not only affect the whole property management industry, but are beyond our control.

Service charges are collected from residents so communal areas and grounds can be maintained, buildings insured and utility costs paid. The money residents pay goes into a development specific ‘trust’ account and is spent on their development alone.

Charges are dictated by the lease, a document drawn up by the developer. All charges should be explained by the buyer’s solicitor, but when they are not, the property manager is the resident’s first port of call.

That doesn’t stop us striving for better practice. For years we have lobbied for greater regulation to raise standards across a largely unregulated industry. Any business faces challenges as it grows, and when Solitaire Property Management (SPM) became part of the Peverel Group in mid 2008, it quickly became apparent it had a number of serious operational and customer service issues that would take time to resolve. Peverel took immediate steps. A three-year, £4m improvement plan was set in motion, customer service management was centralised, poorly organised regional offices closed and Solitaire’s entire senior operations team changed. One of the first actions taken by PPM was to introduce a formal customer complaints procedure for Solitaire. Some of these complaints went as far as tribunals. As part of our commitment to correct errors made under a previous management, we have accepted many of the rulings.

Since taking control of Solitaire we have made it our number one priority to make a fresh start with residents who felt they had been let down by Solitaire.

All properties formerly managed by SPM came under the control of our OM Property Management division on 6 January 2011. As we begin the final year of our improvement plan, we are confident former Solitaire customers are now seeing industry-leading standards of customer service, value for money and transparency.

Share and Enjoy:

Peverel Ownership Change

Editor — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 15:00:51 +0000

Tchenguiz forfeits £220m offshore companies

• Banks have control over web of property interests
• One firm, Peverel faces £2.6m claim for alleged overcharging

Simon Bowers
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 13 February 2011 19.01 GMT
Article history

Icelandic bank Kaupthing called in £1.8bn loan to Robert Tchenguiz, above. Photograph Micha Theiner/City AM / Rex FeaturesA complex offshore corporate structure created by Mayfair real estate tycoon Vincent Tchenguiz to hold Britain’s largest property maintenance and residential freeholds business, has been quietly surrendered to lending banks.

The freeholds and maintenance contracts are spread across the UK and include thousands of McCarthy & Stone retirement home developments as well as several luxury residential complexes on the banks of the Thames such as St George Wharf in Vauxhall, Charter Quay in Kingston-Upon-Thames and Putney Wharf Tower.

Tchenguiz effectively forfeited shares in a web of holding companies valued at more than £220m two years ago having pledged them, just months earlier, as collateral in an ill-fated attempt to stop Icelandic bank Kaupthing calling in a £1.8bn loan to his brother Robert.

Despite Vincent’s efforts, the loan to his brother continued to sink into negative equity and was called in as Kaupthing itself collapsed in October 2008. The collateral backing the Tchenguiz loan was later seized by the bank’s liquidators.

The assets underlying shares surrendered by Vincent Tchenguiz amount to a multibillion-pound property empire. It includes a portfolio of residential freeholds which earns hundreds of thousands in ground rents from tenants and leasehold transfer fees from those who sell.

Vincent has also effectively lost control of Peverel, a controversial group of companies which offers property maintenance, repairs and other additional services such as CCTV and buildings insurance.

Accounts filed by UK companies do not make clear that the property tycoon has lost control of holding company shares but the full picture is laid bare in court papers filed as part of a legal claim being brought by trustees to the Tchenguiz Family Trust (TFT) against Kaupthing.

As reported in Saturday’s Guardian Money, recent years have seen a groundswell of frustration among tenants, variously claiming unreasonable rises in service charges, buildings insurance charges and leasehold transfer fees.

Some disgruntled tenants claim Peverel companies have also failed to adequately carry out maintenance and repairs. A website, thetruthaboutsolitaire.co.uk, set up by angry tenants, has had almost 160,000 visitors in the last 16 months. Solitaire Property Management is part of Peverel.

Meanwhile, residents at St George Wharf, a 900-apartment luxury riverside development overlooking Parliament, have for years been in dispute with landlord companies, including Tchenguiz-linked firms, and Peverel group service companies. A claim for £2.6m in alleged overcharging, supported by more than 300 residents, is to go before the leasehold valuation tribunal in May.

Much anger has been directed at Vincent Tchenguiz as company accounts for relevant UK-registered businesses state that the ultimate controlling party is the TFT, where the property tycoon is an adviser and a beneficiary.

But court papers from an ongoing case reveal shares in 14 holding companies incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, and a further four UK firms, are under the control of receivers acting for Kaupthing.

Unfortunately for Kaupthing creditors, however, the shares may not hold the value they appeared to promise three years ago. The vast majority of assets within the complex web of companies are already pledged to other banks – Deutsche Bank, Bank of Scotland (now part of Lloyds Banking Group), Merrill Lynch, BayernLB and Allied Irish Banks (UK) – under pre-existing long-term senior loan agreements.

Moreover, these agreements contain so-called “change of control” clauses which give these banks the right to call in loans if Tchenguiz fails to keep control of the corporate structure. Receivers from Grant Thornton, appointed by Kaupthing, could therefore officially take control of the underlying businesses at will. They have not technically done so, however, for fear of triggering a chain of defaults which could leave the shares that Kaupthing took as security from Vincent Tchenguiz three years ago valueless.

According to court papers filed by TFT trustees, Kaupthing’s decision to appoint joint receivers over several companies’ shares has already triggered various events of default. The papers claim Vincent had repeatedly warned Kaupthing liquidators of “the ruinous impact of … the appointment of receivers … on Kaupthing’s security position.”

The document claims that, while negotiations are still ongoing, “in effect Merrill Lynch have, as a direct result of the events of default, assumed control of the underlying portfolio, [the parent company behind the Peverel group].”

The bank has converted the loan from a long-term agreement to an overdraft repayable on demand. A 1% additional default rate of interest is being charged, adding pressure on the group to maximise the earnings it can extract from tenants’ service charge contracts.

Similarly another big loan, arranged by Lloyds and advanced against part of the ground rents empire, has drifted into trouble. Lloyds, the taxpayer-backed bank, is charging a 1.75% additional default interest on the loan. According to court papers filed by TFT trustees, despite ongoing attempts to restructure the Lloyds loan, the bankers “in effect have … assumed control”.

Share and Enjoy:

Peverel ripping off more home owners – Daily Mail

Editor — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:20:56 +0000

Homeowners ripped off by managing agents charging sky-high fees

By Lauren Thompson
Last updated at 10:51 PM on 26th October 2010

A million homeowners in flats and retirement homes are being left at the mercy of managing agents who charge exorbitant service fees while providing poor maintenance.

These property owners are being exposed to a multi-million-pound rip-off by an unregulated industry.

They range from more vulnerable elderly residents in sheltered accommodation to wealthy businessmen in multi-million-pound riverside flats.

People power: Neil Healey successfully fought a two-year legal battle against Solitaire Property Management, now owned by Peverel, and got £156,000 in unfair service charges refunded to residents

Complaints include:

Overcharging.

Fees that rise inexplicably every year.

No explanation of what charges are for.

Managing agents using their own companies to provide hugely expensive insurance and maintenance services.

No regulation to protect people from shoddy practices.

Michelle Mitchell, of charity Age UK, says: ‘These companies have a free rein to ride roughshod over residents and hold them hostage to a range of unfair practices due to the sector’s lack of regulation.’

Some of the worst examples are seen in sheltered accommodation, where vulnerable older people can pay huge charges for wardens and alarm systems.

Age UK has serious concerns about managing agents failing to obtain competitive quotes and instead using subsidiaries of their own company to provide insurance and maintenance work. This, in turn, leads to unnecessarily high service charges.

More than two million people are thought to own leasehold properties, with just over half being those who bought former council homes under the Right to Buy scheme.

It can be difficult for residents, whether in sheltered accommodation or normal flats, to know if the same company runs their managing agent and the firms they use to provide services.

For example, the biggest player, Peverel Limited, owns dozens of managing agents, including OM Property Management, Solitaire Property Management and Pembertons Residential.

Peverel and its subsidiaries manage 200,000 leasehold properties across the country, from million-pound apartments in central London to modest retirement flats.

Peverel also owns Kingsborough Insurance Services, which arranges building and contents cover; Cirrus Communication Systems, which installs CCTV; and CarelineUK, which provides emergency alarms in retirement homes.

All of these are used to provide services in Peverel-managed properties — although Peverel says it carries out a ‘strict tendering process for all contracts’.

Residents have complained that insurance premiums, in particular, are kept artificially high because of large commission fees. For example, Kingsborough obtains buildings cover but only acts as a middleman bet-ween Peverel and Oval, the insurance broker.

In return, it adds commission fees of up to 33 per cent on insurance premiums and this cost is passed directly to residents.

A spokeswoman for Peverel says: ‘Kingsborough receives a commission from the insurer and Leasehold Valuation Tribunals have determined that this is reasonable.’

Residents at Stow Court in Cheltenham, a block of 44 flats managed by Solitaire (owned by Peverel), became so fed up with sky-high insurance that they got a quote from an independent broker to compare costs.

Solitaire had been charging them £7,057 per year — but similar cover could be obtained through local firm Lansdown Insurance Brokers for just £2,165 — saving a staggering £4,892.

A spokeswoman for Peverel says: ‘Oval compared the two premiums and found the alternative quotation provided substantially less cover. Oval was, however, able to reduce its premium to £4,062 — a 42 per cent reduction on the previous year.’

A group of angry residents have set up a website called The Truth About Solitaire (soon to be OM Property Management) & Peverel Group Companies (including Consensus Business Group Companies), which has a wealth of information for leaseholders wanting to take on their managing agent.

James Butler, of Landmark Leasehold Advisory Services, says: ‘Several pieces of legislation, including The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, make it a legal requirement for managing agents to openly tender contracts.

‘Sadly, some agents routinely flout the law by using firms owned by or linked to them to provide services. Ultimately, it is the residents who end up paying the increased costs.’
Charities such as Age UK have lobbied the Government for years to enforce regulation of managing agents and are confounded by the lack of protection for residents in leasehold properties.

Leaseholders can club together and boot out their managing agent under a process known as Right to Manage. The agent’s consent is not needed and there is no need for residents to prove mismanagement.’

It can be a lengthy and complicated process. Go to www.lease-advice.org for more information.

Bob Suvan and his neighbours exercised their Right to Manage a block of flats in Regent’s Park, central London. Mr Suvan was fed up with the way Peverel managed his three-bedroom flat and was being charged almost £5,000 per year in service charges.

So he set up a management company, BlocNet, and has reduced service charges in his building by 20 per cent. Find out more about leaseholds at www.thisismoney.co.uk/leasehold.

CASE STUDY

Neil Healey, 33, successfully fought a two-year legal battle against Solitaire Property Management, now owned by Peverel, and got £156,000 in unfair service charges refunded to residents.
Mr Healey (pictured) took the property giant to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT), the dispute resolution service, on behalf of 165 apartments at City Heights development in Mapperley, Nottingham.
He was fed up of Peverel’s poor management and service charges of £1,600 per year on his two-bedroom apartment, as well as extras.
Mr Healey says: ‘From the minute I moved in, I had problems.’
And from January 1, 2011, the entire estate will be managed by Mr Healey’s new company, Mapperley Property Management.
A spokeswoman for Peverel says: ‘The LVT related to service charges levied by Solitaire Property Management between March 2004 and March 2009. Solitaire became part of the Peverel Group in mid-2008.’

Share and Enjoy:

Government’s Heathrow Expansion Plans In Tatters As Judge Slams Runway Policy

Editor — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:22:39 +0000

The Government’s Heathrow policy is in tatters this morning after the High Court ruled that ministers’ decision to give a green light to the proposed third runway does not hold any weight. The judge dismissed the Government’s claims to the contrary as ‘untenable in law and common sense’.

If the Government wants to pursue its plans for Heathrow expansion it must now go back to square one and reconsider the entire case for the runway.

The implications of today’s ruling are profound, not just for Heathrow but for airport expansion plans across the UK. Lord Justice Carnwath ruled that the 2003 Air Transport White Paper – the foundation of expansion plans across the country – is obsolete because it is inconsistent with the Climate Change Act 2008.

The judge expressed real concern over the “hardship caused to the local community by uncertainty” over the third runway. The coalition which brought the successful legal challenge is now calling on the Government to end the uncertainty and scrap the runway plans once and for all.

The judge ruled that:

• If the Government decides to push ahead with the runway project it must now review the climate change implications of Heathrow expansion, the economic case for a third runway, and the issue of how additional passengers would get to a bigger airport.

• The Government’s entire aviation policy must now be reviewed to take into account the implications of the 2008 Climate Change Act. The judge found that “the claimants’ submissions add up, in my view, to a powerful demonstration of the potential significance of developments in climate change policy since the 2003 Air Transport White Paper. They are clearly matters which will need to be taken into account under the new Airports National Policy Statement.”(1)

• On the economic case for Heathrow expansion he would be ‘surprised’ if the recent tripling of the estimated cost to society of emitting carbon did not have ‘a significant effect’ on the economic case for the runway. The judge also said that “it makes no sense to treat the economic case as settled in 2003.”

• On the issue of surface access he said the claimants’ case – that there is no credible plan in place to transport millions of extra passengers to an expanded Heathrow – was ‘justified’. Significantly, he noted that the Government was “unable to provide a convincing answer” in court when it was pressed about over-crowding on the Piccadilly underground line that would result from construction of a third runway.

The judge is now inviting the Government to sign a legally binding undertaking that it will not base future aviation policy solely on its 2003 white paper. A further court hearing is expected to take place next month to examine the Government’s response to the judge’s request. At the same hearing the coalition will seek costs and fully expects to recover those costs from the Government.

Shaun Spiers, Chief Executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said:
“The Government said there could be no argument about the need for a third runway. This was undemocratic and it was wrong.

“We were forced to bring this legal case to give people the right to challenge the expansion of Heathrow. The High Court has now made clear that a fundamental review of aviation policy is needed. This not just a victory for people living around Heathrow or around other airports, it is a victory for everyone who wants a tranquil countryside and a democratic planning system.”

Cllr Ray Puddifoot speaking on behalf of the local councils said:
“This is a spectacular victory for our residents. The Government had been trying to close down debate on the true economic impact of a third runway by presenting it as a done deal.

“Today’s ruling has blown that position apart. The Government just did not want to have to take on board the real consequences of new climate change laws. The judge made it clear the figures just did not add up.

“If after this ministers are still intent on pressing ahead with expansion they will have to go back to the beginning and justify the whole economic case in public. Knowing what we now know about rising carbon costs this is an argument they cannot win.

“The third runway is effectively dead because it cannot survive the proper economic and environmental scrutiny which the Government tried to avoid. As local councils we call on the Prime Minister to do to the decent thing and bury this discredited policy.”
Geraldine Nicholson, Chair of NoTRAG, said:
“As local residents, we now demand that the Government drops all plans for a 3rd runway and sixth terminal at Heathrow so that we can cast off the 8 years of blight and start to rejuvenate our communities.”

Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said:
“This ruling leaves the Government’s Heathrow decision in tatters. Ministers will now have to go back to the drawing board and conduct a broad consultation on key issues where their case is extremely weak. The third runway was already on life support, but with this ruling it’s hard to even find a pulse. This shows that David Cameron and Nick Clegg backed the right horse when they pledged to scrap the third runway, and it makes any Conservative U-turn after the election all but politically impossible.”

David Nussbaum, CEO of WWF-UK, said:
“We are delighted with today’s judgement. It deals a body blow to the third runway, but more than that it makes it clear that the Government’s whole policy of airport expansion must be reviewed in order to bring it into line with the Climate Change Act.

“Today’s landmark ruling has implications that could resonate far wider than the aviation sector. For a judge to tell the Government that it cannot build huge pieces of carbon-intensive infrastructure without considering the long-term consequences is a resounding win in the fight to tackle climate change. It is also a further indication of the need for the UK to make a swift transition to a low carbon economy. WWF would now urge the Government to focus on green investment, encouraging alternative ways of connecting with people wherever possible, such as high speed rail and videoconferencing, rather than relying on carbon-heavy methods such as flying.”

HACAN Chair John Stewart said:
“This is an utterly damning verdict for the Government. It not only raises very serious concerns about a third runway at Heathrow, it also calls into question the Government’s entire aviation policy. This really could be the final nail in the coffin for a third runway.”

Martin Harper, the RSPB’s Head of Sustainable Development, said:
“Right from the start, we have argued that building a third runway at a time when we are battling to reduce our carbon emissions made no sense.

“Climate change threatens many species with extinction and we are already seeing its impacts with catastrophic declines in seabird numbers in parts of the North Sea.

“Concerns about climate change are at the heart of today’s judgement. The clear message from the High Court is that Government must now take those concerns into account.”

ENDS

NOTES TO EDITORS
1.) National Policy Statements (NPSs) are a key part of the new planning system that was established by the Planning Act 2008. They are strategic planning documents will set out the national need for major infrastructure developments such as power stations, ports, airports, roads and transmission lines. When an application is submitted for such a development above a certain threshold, there will be a presumption in favour of granting permission. The Government has said it intends to publish a draft Airports NPS next year.

2.) Six local authorities in West London (Hammersmith and Fulham, Hounslow, Hillingdon, Richmond upon Thames, Wandsworth and Windsor & Maidenhead) are claimants to the challenge, alongside the local residents group (NoTRAG) and the national campaigning group against airport expansion HACAN. WWF-UK, Campaign to Protect Rural England and Greenpeace are also claimants. Transport for London is an independent party supporting the claim. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is an expert witness. The challenge is also supported by Kensington and Chelsea and the Mayor of London. The local authorities are all members of the 2M Group which comprises 24 local councils opposed to Heathrow expansion with a combined population of 5 million.

3.) The legal challenge was launched in April 2009 and the case was heard in the High Court at a rolled-up hearing on the 23rd – 25th February 2010.

4.) In February 2007, Greenpeace won a Judicial Review against the Government’s energy review which backed a new generation of nuclear power stations. As a result the government was forced to re-run the public consultation.

5.) If a third runway at Heathrow airport were to be built, the airport would become the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide in the UK. Unrestrained airport expansion would make it impossible for the UK to play its part in tackling climate change. The Government has committed the UK to cuts of at least 80% in CO2 emissions by 2050. Research from the respected Tyndall Centre shows that if the industry is allowed to expand as predicted, aviation emissions alone would make it impossible to meet this target.

6.) Aviation has a number of high-altitude impacts that increase its total warming effect on the climate. The Committee on Climate Change has recently suggested that aviation has a Global Warming Potential of around two, meaning that its total warming effect is twice that of its CO2 emissions alone.

7.) In December 2009, the Committee on Climate Change published a report with recommendations of how the Government target to reduce aviation emissions to 2005 levels by 2050 could be met. The Committee recommended that aviation growth needs to be limited to around half of that planned in the White Paper, but warned that the target may need to be further tightened in the future.

8.) All the claimants are represented by Harrison Grant (solicitors) instructing Nigel Pleming QC of 39 Essex Street, Nathalie Lieven QC and David Forsdick of Landmark Chambers.

Share and Enjoy:

Companies House: Greenbelt Group Ltd – Status: Active – Proposal to Strike off

Editor — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:20:50 +0000

Greenbelt Group Ltd., face new threat, with Companies House public records now indicating that there is a proposal to strike off the company, presumed due to failure to file accounts.

Companies House records detailed below indicate that accounts should have been filed no later than 30th July 2009.

In a meeting attended by the Editor of Planning Watch UK, in a private capacity, with Neil Cameron of Tulloch Homes and Richard Hartland, Head of Planning, Highland Council, on Thursday last, Mr Middleton, Managing Director Greenbelt Group Ltd., continued to state that it was business as usual, giving no indication of the threat to the Greenbelt Group Ltd., company.

Thousands of home owners throughout the UK are tied to maintenance contracts with this company, put in place by developers and signed off by council planning authorites as “fit for purpose”, with both UK and Scottish Government continuing to refuse to put consumer protection regulations in place demanded by home owners.

Complaints have been made to Trading Standards, a number of Police Forces, numerous Members of Parliament, both MP’s and MSP’s and directly to the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing MSP.

In Scotland, the Scottish Government have indicated that they seem to think that the Maintenance industry concerned should regulate itself and the Office of Fair Trading continues to sit on the fence, despite receiving numerous complaints from many different areas of the UK.

Surely it is now time for MP’s and MSP’s to collectively take action to represent the electorate who have elected representataives to protect the interests of their communities?

Editor

Notes:

Fergus Ewing MSP – Scottish National Party

Fergus Ewing MSP – Scottish Government bio:

Fergus was first elected in 1999 as the MSP for Inverness East Nairn and Lochaber. He was re-elected in 2003 and again in the 2007 elections. Prior to being elected he ran his own law practice and developed SNP policy on small business as well as serving on the national executive of the SNP.

He is the son of Winnie, formerly the MSP for Highlands and Islands and MEP for Scotland, and brother of Annabelle, formerly MP for Perth.

His constituency is the second largest in Scotland, and is about 5 times larger than greater London which has around 90 MPs. Fergus campaigns on a wide variety of matters of vital importance to the area.
He seeks to represent everyone, irrespective of their own political views, and is keen to try to offer help to all constituents when they seek it.

***************************

Herald Scotland:

Closure looms for land firm over late accounts

West Myerton housing development where Greenbelt was contracted to maintain the open spaces

Exclusive – Chris Watt – Published on 7 Nov 2009

A controversial land management firm embroiled in thousands of disputes across Scotland has been threatened with closure, The Herald has learned.

Glasgow-based Greenbelt Group Ltd has been warned by Companies House that it will be struck off if it doesn’t produce its overdue accounts.

The firm failed to file records for 2006-07 by the July 2009 deadline, and it could now have its assets seized and handed to the state if it doesn’t comply. The registrar has formally proposed to strike off the firm, freezing its bank accounts and transferring all assets to the Crown.

Greenbelt managing director Alex Middleton said the outstanding documentation had been sent to Companies House, but he claimed that “it may have been delayed by the postal dispute”.

Sources close to the company told The Herald that Greenbelt had faced problems with its auditors, one of whom had resigned its position after disagreements over accounts.

However, Mr Middleton strenuously denied the difficulties, and insisted: “There is no question of the company being struck off.”

Greenbelt has been subject to thousands of complaints from councils, businesses and homeowners since it was incorporated in 1999, and a UK-wide campaign group now lists complaints from more than 130 housing estates.

The firm, originally established in the public sector by bodies including Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and Scottish Enterprise, was recently criticised for its work at the Black Cart Water, near Glasgow Airport, where it was paid £170,000 to maintain the area as a whooper swan reserve.

Greenbelt has since sold the SSSI to a local farmer at profit, without passing on grant money.

The firm has also been accused of failing homeowners who are tied into contracts for it to manage shared areas on housing estates. Aberdeenshire Council received so many complaints about work paid for but not completed that it wrote to developers urging them not to use Greenbelt.

Article website link

***********************************

Greenbelt Group Action

***********************************

Companies House Search:

Company Details – Name & Registered Office:
GREENBELT GROUP LIMITED
ABBOTSFORD HOUSE
ABBOTSFORD PLACE
GLASGOW
G5 9SS
Company No. SC192378

Status: Active – Proposal to Strike off
Date of Incorporation: 04/01/1999
Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
9305 – Other service activities
Accounting Reference Date: 30/09
Last Accounts Made Up To: 30/09/2007 (SMALL)
Next Accounts Due: 30/07/2009 OVERDUE
Last Return Made Up To: 01/02/2009
Next Return Due: 01/03/2010
Last Members List: 01/02/2009

Previous Names:
Date of change:
8/04/2003
THE GREENBELT GROUP OF COMPANIES LIMITED
10/05/1999
COMLAW NO. 495 LIMITED

**************

General Companies House Information:

You could be penalised up to £5000 if you fail to send us your Annual Accounts by the due date.

And if you are late filing your Annual Return as well, your company may be struck off and you could face a criminal charge.

Winding up a company
A company may be wound up voluntarily if it cannot pay its creditors. It may also be wound up by order of the court on the petition of a creditor. In either case, relevant documents need to be sent to Companies House.

The following guidance is provided to help you understand how to wind up a company and the legal requirements that you must adhere to.

Share and Enjoy:

Major new homes plan reconsidered – South West region of England

Editor — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:21:04 +0000

Some 29,623 homes would need to be built in the region annually

The government has announced it is to rethink controversial plans to build more than half a million new homes in the South West region of England.

The Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West (RSSSW) proposed 592,460 new homes to meet official predictions of housing needs for the next 20 years.

But the plans have met with significant opposition.

The government now says it wants to ensure the RSSSW is the “most sustainable way forward”.

Negative response

The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and the Government Office for the South West (GOSW) had hoped to sign off the plan by June of this year.

But in May the High Court ruled it had not considered “reasonable alternatives” to some proposals in the South East of England.

And officials have acknowledged they have been influenced by the “unprecedented level” of opposition.

Some 35,000 responses were received during the RSSSW public consultation – the majority negative.

A GOSW statement said it would now carry out a new appraisal to ensure the current blueprints “represent the most sustainable way forward for the region”.

‘Partial victory’

Chris Pope, co-chairman of the Dundry Residents Action Group, which campaigns against building on greenbelt land in North Somerset, said: “In some ways I view this as a partial victory.

“We’ve always questioned the government’s figures.

“Their expectations of population growth seem extortionately high.

“But from our point of view, the problem has not gone away.”

The results are not expected to come in before early next year.

Ministers will then have to decide whether to scale down the South West’s housing targets.

Link to original BBC article

Share and Enjoy:

High Court Legal battle against Heathrow expansion launched by Green Groups

Editor — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:29:50 +0000

Legal papers have been lodged at High Court by coalition representing millions

April 2009

Leading green groups, together with local councils and residents’ groups, today launched a legal challenge against the government’s controversial decision to expand Heathrow airport.

The thirteen organisations backing the challenge – representing millions of people – will argue that the consultation process was flawed and that the decision was irrational.

Lawyers representing the coalition argue that a third runway means that the UK risks breaching legal limits on noise and air pollution, that it will seriously undermine our climate change targets and that the costs of the project have not been properly assessed and will not benefit the economy.

Greenpeace, WWF-UK, RSPB and CPRE will claim that expanding Heathrow will massively increase carbon emissions and that this is completely incompatible with the urgent need to tackle climate change.

Lodging the documents at the High Court is the first step in a process which is expected to lead to a Judicial Review of the government’s decision on Heathrow.

If the challenge is successful, the decision would be quashed and the government would have to re-run the consultation. If the Court agrees that the decision was irrational then the government may also be forced to review its entire aviation policy, which supports expanding nearly thirty airports across the country.

Greenpeace Executive Director, John Sauven said:

“The government’s decision to expand Heathrow is completely at odds with the urgent need to slash emissions and stop runaway climate change. This is why we are launching a legal challenge.

“Brown and Hoon know that the sums on Heathrow don’t add up. That’s why, at the last minute, they knocked together a handful of half-baked proposals in an attempt to ‘green’ the runway.

“But however much the government try to dress this decision up, the simple fact is that this runway can not be built if it is serious about tackling climate change.”

David Norman, Director of Campaigns at WWF-UK said:

“The decision to allow a third runway at Heathrow blows the chances of setting the UK onto a low carbon pathway completely out of the water. If the targets set in the Climate Change Act are to be meaningful, the government must stop adopting policies that undermine them.

“Nor does it make sense financially – why expand a carbon intensive industry such as aviation, which will make it incredibly difficult and expensive for the UK to meet the government’s carbon targets – when there are green alternatives such as video conferencing and high speed rail available instead? Every other part of the economy will have to cover the carbon costs created by a third runway.”

Dr Mark Avery, the RSPB’s Director of Conservation, said:

“The RSPB believes climate change to be the biggest threat to life on Earth. We are already starting to see its impacts on wildlife here in the UK, including catastrophic declines among seabirds in parts of the North Sea.

“Against this backdrop, the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow is perverse. We are not opposed to flying, and indeed recognise that for many people international travel is a vital part of their life and work. But encouraging a massive increase in flights, just at the time when we need to reduce our emissions dramatically, shows a reckless disregard for the well-being of our planet, and our future.”

Shaun Spiers, Chief Executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England said:

“Britain’s aviation policy is badly out of date and lacks democratic legitimacy. It takes very little account of the urgency of climate change or the impact on people’s quality of life of ever more noisy flights and car journeys to airports.

“The decision on the third runway was stitched up behind closed doors, and the Government seems less and less prepared to subject its decisions on aviation to proper public scrutiny. Aviation policy has become so democratically challenged that a legal challenge is the only way for groups like us to influence it.”

ENDS

Contact details:

On behalf of green groups:

Greenpeace press office

T: 0207 865 8255

On behalf of all councils:

Emma Marsh, London Borough of Hillingdon

T: 01895 556064/ 07780 913334

E: emarsh@hillingdon.gov.uk

On behalf of local residents

Geraldine Nicholson

T: 07710 523369/ 01895 556903

Notes to Editors:

1.) Six local authorities in West London (Hammersmith and Fulham, Hounslow, Hillingdon, Kensington and Chelsea, Richmond upon Thames, Wandsworth and Windsor & Maidenhead) are claimants to the challenge, the local residents group (NOTrag) and the national campaigning group against airport expansion HACAN.

2.) In February 2007, Greenpeace won a Judicial Review against the government’s energy review, which backed a new generation of nuclear power stations. As a result the government was forced to run the public consultation for a second time.

3.) If a third runway at Heathrow airport goes ahead, the airport will become the single largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the UK. Unrestrained airport expansion will make it impossible for the UK to play its part in tackling climate change. The Government has committed the UK to cuts of at least 80% in CO2 emissions by 2050. Research from the respected Tyndall Centre shows that if the industry is allowed to expand as predicted, aviation alone would destroy any hope of hitting this target.

4.) Aviation emissions do more damage to the climate because they are released at altitude. Scientists multiply aviation emissions (which include other harmful gases not just CO2) by between 2 and 3 to calculate their increased climate impact – a phenomenon know as ‘radiative forcing’.

5.) The government has also set a new target to reduce aviation emissions to 2005 levels by 2050. Currently, the Department for Transport forecasts that aviation will emit 59.9 MtCO2 by 2050. This new target means that the industry must now halve their emissions to 37.5 MtCO2. The government argues that these reductions can be achieved by advances in technology that make aero planes more efficient. However, this is based entirely on data provided by the aviation industry and has not been subject to independent review and was not consulted on.

6.) Historically small increases in the efficiency of planes have been overwhelmed by an unrestrained growth in flights. There is no evidence to suggest that this will not be the case in the future if action is not taken to constrain expansion. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution found that the industry’s targets are ‘clearly aspirations rather than projections’ and there are some basic technological restraints that make major improvements impossible to imagine.

7.) The decision on Heathrow is underpinned by the government’s aviation policy, set out in the 2003 Aviation White Paper, which in principle supports airport expansion in the UK. The climate science has changed significantly since 2003, as has the policy context and law – notably the Climate Change Act 2008.

Share and Enjoy:

Feltham Gravel Pits Hounslow

Hounslow38 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:26:14 +0000

Plans to redevelop former gravel pits in Feltham and build up to 1,000 new homes on Green Belt land have received a mixed response from residents.

The results of a public consultation into the ambitious proposals for the Lower Feltham Lakes site, in Chertsey Road, have finally been released.

This story appeared 11th March 2009 in the Hounslow Chronicle

Story Continues

This is a Land Banking site of Green Belt and Nature Conservancy land which used to be a gravel pit. A company called Profitable Plots in Singapore bought the site in 2006. confusingly the company that offers the site now is called Profitable Group also based out of Singapore. Previously in marketing the site was called Concorde Village Hounslow but seems to have been renamed in this article to Lower Feltham Lakes. Profitable Group have chopped the site into 9000 plots and are offering the plots to investors in Asia and Canada. You can see the Singapore TV advert for the land plots here. In the advert they are estimating a 250% return in 3 years for investors.

Presumably this survey and press effort is designed either to influence the local authority in Hounslow or convince investors in Asia that progress is being made. There is nothing in the article about what the Hounslow Planning Authority thinks.

Share and Enjoy:

Affordable Homes – Beware the Hidden Cost of Management Charges

Editor — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:31:49 +0000

The benefit of buying in to the “affordable homes” schemes trumpeted by Government, Councils, Developers and Housing Associations is often stated, but the downside of the hidden cost of potentially fast rising management cost fees is never fully explained.

As with Land Management companies, the shock of rapidly rising bills is only discovered long after the happy purchase event.

The failure of consumer protection legislation is once more exampled in this excellent Guardian article written by Miles Brignall.

How soaring charges soured the dream of ‘affordable’ homes

Fighting mad – the shared equity tenants who have suffered more than their share of pain. Miles Brignall hears a salutary tale

m.brignall@guardian.co.uk

Shane Conway and his neighbours have seen service charges rocket. Photograph: Frank Baron/Guardian

If you have been thinking about buying one of those “shared equity” homes that are aimed at struggling first-time buyers, you may reconsider after reading Shane Conway’s story.

Six years ago, the corporate manager was one of seven tenants who bought shared-equity flats in a newly built scheme in Greenford, west London – lured in part by the government-promoted dream of owning his own “affordable home”.

Today these tenants are facing demands for £1,100 per household, on top of the £2,000 a year they pay in service charges, to cover overspending by the housing association that is supposed to look after their interests.

They say the dream of homeownership has turned into a nightmare, and they fear being stuck in flats no one wants to buy. They blame “appalling mismanagement” by Shepherd’s Bush Housing Association (SBHA), which owns and manages 5,000 homes.

Conway’s story is perhaps typical. It started in 2003 when, with his brother, he bought a 75% share in a two-bedroom flat then valued at £185,000.

“It was a brand-new and very smart apartment block being offered through the government’s shared ownership scheme,” says Conway. “We had all saved for our deposits, and this was our first step on the property ladder. The scheme was advertised as a means of affordable housing, and we all agreed a monthly service charge of £90 to pay for the upkeep of the block through the housing association, Bush Homes, which later became Shepherd’s Bush Housing Association.”

Within months of his moving in, it became clear that the building had problems. “The housing association had also put council flat tenants into the block and a minority of them quickly went about vandalising the premises. We endured graffiti, damage to walls and doors, young children running wild and a woman with mental health problems who slashed her arms and bled heavily in the corridors.”

As a result, Conway says, the service charges started rising steadily and within two years hit £160 per month, or almost £2,000 per year.

The residents felt this figure rather made a mockery of the “affordable housing” tag and, distinctly unimpressed with the service they were getting for such high fees, got together to fight the increases. They took Bush Homes to the Leaseholders Valuation Tribunal in 2006, arguing the charges were excessive. The tribunal found in their favour and was critical of the association, saying the higher charges were unjustifiable because Bush Homes could not produce details of, or vouchers for, any repairs carried out.

“The judges also said that the absence of all receipts was ‘suspicious’ and ordered the association to pay each of us a partial refund on the services charges we had paid, and to cap the service charges for a period of one year at £119 a month,” says Conway.

However, as soon as the year ended, SBHA raised its service charges again, this time to £167 per month. The final straw came last October, when SBHA demanded that the tenants pay £1,149 each on top of what they had already paid for 2007-08, because it had overspent for the last financial year. The group, who had bought all of, or part shares in, their affordable homes found themselves paying up to £3,153 year.

“The whole thing is incredible,” says Conway. “I have friends in South Kensington who aren’t paying this much in service charges. We are apparently being asked to pay for the housing association’s incompetence. We are perfectly willing to pay charges that are fair and reasonable, but these are absurd. We have asked them to justify the figures and they won’t. They have treated us with utter disdain. I would advise anyone else thinking of buying a shared equity home to think carefully.”

Fellow resident Allison Clancy says: “The charges have gone crazy at a time we can least afford it. I’ve just gone back to work after maternity leave, and the whole thing has been very stressful. We were supposed to have a meeting with the bodies concerned last week and they didn’t turn up. We’ve asked for information and they’ve ignored us. How can you deal with people who behave like this?”

A spokeswoman for SBHA blamed the big increases on the privately run management company, Ringley, that controls most of the costs associated with the service charge. She said there had been an emergency lift door replacement, and that the association had failed to include water charges.

“We recognise that a request for payments of between £800 and £1,000 for under-recovery of service charges in 2007/08 is unwelcome. We are pursuing Ringley for clarification and proof of the charges, but we have a legal duty to collect it and then refund if necessary,” a statement said. “SBHA arranged a meeting between residents and Ringley on 13 January, but Ringley didn’t attend as planned. SBHA will continue to pursue Ringley.”

It said that the service charge would return to previous levels next year, but offered no explanation as to why many of its charges had risen so much, or why it had not acted sooner to try to reduce the tenants’ costs. Ringley said it was unaware of the planned meeting and that the increase in charges reflects problems with car park gates. “The early service charge levels were based on projected day-to-day running costs. This did not allow for the cost of future major works projects. We have estimated that the external decorations, programmed for 2010, will cost in the order of £65,000. From 2005 we phased in reserve fund collection gradually,” it said. It added that someone in a privately-owned flat in the same block and of similar size to Conway’s is paying a £1,700 service charge this year – substantially less than the £3,153 he is paying for the year.

Conway is unimpressed. “They have been blaming Ringley for five years, and the excuse doesn’t wash any more. My contract is with them, but they have failed us. I would caution anyone thinking of buying a shared equity home to take a long look at the housing association and how it’s managed before signing up.”

Share and Enjoy:

Land management firm could be taken to tribunal after complaints

Editor — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:28:57 +0000

Dissatisfied north-east customers urged to sign up to campaign

By Gillian Bell – Press and Journal

Published: 13/02/2009

ANGRY: Carol Kidd, who lives on the Kirkstyle estate at Kemnay, has refused to pay Greenbelt charges

Article link and pictures

A land management company which has received complaints about poor service from people across the north-east could be taken to a tribunal.

Paula Hoogerbrugge, who has led a campaign against the Greenbelt Group, is appealing for others who are dissatisfied about the firm’s service to come forward and consider launching a test case against it.

It comes after the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) said contracts between land management companies and customers should be tested at the Lands Tribunal for Scotland.

Greenbelt Group is the largest land management company in Scotland with some 24,000 customers. Two other companies exist, Scottish Woodlands and Ethical Maintenance, which have around 1,000 customers in total. The companies buy open spaces on developments and charge developers, residents, or a combination of the two, for their upkeep. But because the companies own the land, it can prove very difficult for residents to switch to a competitor.

The OFT has been in discussions with Consumer Focus Scotland, which has offered to support a group of residents who want to change their land maintenance provider.

An OFT report released yesterday said the test of law was “desirable” and added: “The OFT cannot test the law, this needs to be done by a group of homeowners. But of course the costs, uncertainty and difficulty obtaining legal advice may be a deterrent to those seeking to take such a case so we are pleased to say that Consumer Focus Scotland has agreed to take on a role to help facilitate a test of the legislation.”

Mrs Hoogerbrugge, who runs the Greenbelt Group Action website, said she had received complaints about the company’s services from 15 of the 16 estates it maintains in Aberdeenshire.

She said it was “wonderful” that Consumer Focus Scotland has offered its support and appealed to dissatisfied residents to come forward through the website so they can mount a test case.

Carol Kidd, who lives on the Kirkstyle estate at Kemnay, has complained to Greenbelt about its “sporadic” service in the past and refused to pay its charges. She said Greenbelt were “modern-day cowboys”, adding: “It would be great if someone took them to the tribunal.”

Greenbelt managing director Alex Middleton said last night: “We broadly welcome the OFT report and its principle recommendation that Consumer Focus Scotland should support home owners in bringing forward a test case applying legislation which may allow owners to switch land maintenance company.

This is an avenue we have been pursuing with a small number of our customers and we believe the involvement of Consumer Focus Scotland will aid that process.

We are happy to cooperate with Consumer Focus Scotland and the Scottish Government in whatever way they feel is appropriate.”

Share and Enjoy:

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

Editor — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 12:02:51 +0000

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:

The Sun, £430m for UK councils’ PR

Teletext, £430m for council publicity

Daily Express, Town Hall spin doctors wasting £430m of our money on propaganda

BBC News Online, Council ‘spin budgets’ condemned

Daily Telegraph, Councils spend £1m each on spin and publicity

The Mirror, £430m bill to promote town halls

ConservativeHome, Mark Wallace: Councils spend £1 million each on PR

Hull Daily Mail, £4.5m spent by council on ‘propaganda’

Belfast Telegraph, Councils shell out £4m for publicity in a year

Liverpool Daily Post, £7.5m bill for council publicity

Birmingham Post, Taxpayers slam councils for millions spent on spin

Western Mail, Big council bill to make penny drop

Watford Observer, County council ‘spin’ budget revealed

Evening Standard, Councils spending £65m on public relations in year

Ealing Times, Ealing’s PR spend in top ten per cent

South Wales Echo, South Wales councils spent at total of £4.3m on publicity last year

Kent Messenger, Publicity costs reined in – but KCC still among the big spenders

St Alban’s & Harpenden Review, Council’s PR spend revealed

Boston Standard, Lincolnshire council named in top 10 publicity spenders

Brand Republic, Pressure group slams councils’ adspend

LocalGov.co.uk, Group slams councils £1M publicity bill

Politics.co.uk, Average council spends £1 million on advertising

Southern Daily Echo, Hampshire’s Councils £12m bill for publicity

Wigan Evening Post, Cost of council publicity has gone up 77%

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 whove 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 thats £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, lets 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. Weve already seen here the publicity our supporters can get when they write into their local papers.

2009 Action Days

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

In response to last weeks bulletin we have action days already booked for 2009. The dates and venues are:
Swanage 6 February and 30 April
Shipley 6 June
If youd 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 youd 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 Councils leader why theyre 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 Councils full council meeting inviting the TPA to come in and find savings in the council budget. Sadly, the motion failed Stokes councillors are clearly happy with politics as usual and higher taxes for all. You can read our blog on the debate and Gavins 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

www.taxpayersalliance.com

Share and Enjoy:

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

Editor — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:45:27 +0000

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.

Share and Enjoy:

Highland Housing Fair 2009 – Cancelled

Editor — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:36:02 +0000

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…

Housing fair faces delay of 12 months

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:

Human cost of Yorkshire floods – 2007

Editor — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:41:58 +0000

BBC Survey shows flood toll a year on

By Mike Chilvers
BBC News, South Yorkshire

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.

See full survey results

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.

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:

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

Editor — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 22:50:45 +0000

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 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:

House building targets warning – Professor Stephen Nickell

Editor — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:07:15 +0000

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:

Growth being led by developers, says campaigner

Editor — Sat, 31 May 2008 10:22:13 +0000

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

Nothing changes with Greenbelt Group…

Editor — Mon, 26 May 2008 10:39:27 +0000

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

By Staff Copy

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.”

The full article contains 480 words and appears in Pocklington Post newspaper.

Page 1 of 1

Last Updated: 23 May 2008 9:30 AM
Source: Pocklington Post
Location: Pocklington

Share and Enjoy:

Staffordshire residential home fiasco

Editor — Sun, 18 May 2008 17:30:18 +0000

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.

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.

Article by Fiona McEvoy on May 16, 2008

Share and Enjoy:

The true cost of Quangos to the UK Tax Payer

Editor — Sun, 18 May 2008 17:19:07 +0000

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:

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

Editor — Wed, 07 May 2008 12:58:13 +0000

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:

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

Editor — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:35:50 +0000

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: