Tory MP takes 'garden grabbing' debate to Commons
Government claims that councils have the power to turn down "garden grabbing" bids by developers will be challenged tomorrow by a Conservative MP.
Greg Clark, MP for Tunbridge Wells, will tell the Commons that ministers have effectively changed the law to make it increasingly difficult for councils to stop developers buying up houses with big gardens, knocking them down and then building blocks of flats on the site.
At least 22,000 new homes every year are built on land previously used as a garden.
Mr Clark is demanding a revision of planning laws to give councils the right to reject "garden grabs".
He has received advice from the Commons Library that builders can now appeal against any refusal of planning permission for garden developments "with every chance of success".
Ministers may also face pressure from their own backbenchers, since the debate is on a Commons motion that has already been signed by nearly 40 Labour MPs.
It was previously tabled as an Early Day Motion and attracted more than 170 signatures from MPs on all sides of the House.
Mr Clark is promoting a Bill to protect gardens from developers and will tell the Commons that the problem has arisen from policy changes that require councils to concentrate housebuilding on "brownfield" sites and to increase housing density.
He added that, bizarrely, leafy gardens are officially designated as brownfield for planning purposes.
Housing and Planning Minister Yvette Cooper has insisted that there has been no change of policy.
But her view has been challenged by the independent House of Commons Library.
It has told Mr Clark: "There is enough in the guidance to justify developers appealing any refusal of this type of application with every chance of success.
"In other words, I do think that the overall policy environment has changed in respect of developing on gardens."
Mr Clark will also accuse the Minister of trying to disguise the extent of garden grabbing by first denying that figures were available, then producing them under duress, but still resisting releasing regional breakdowns expected to show that the problem is far worse in the over-crowded south east of England.
Mr Clark is pressing for gardens to be removed from the definition of brownfield land.
Monday, 17 November 2008
Friday, 14 November 2008
Humiliation
Success for Post Office campaignersAlan Duncan has described the news that the Post Office has been re-awarded the contract for the Post Office Card Account as a “triumph” for campaigners.On Thursday, the Government caved into pressure and finally cancelled the procurement process they launched in 2006.Alan, the Shadow Secretary of State for Business, said the process has been “a humiliation for the Government and a deeply destabilising waste of time for everyone else.”
Monday, 3 November 2008
What it will cost us
George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, said a short-term spending increase of 1 per cent of gross domestic product would mean an increase in taxes in the medium term by the equivalent of almost 4p on income tax.
"That's not just a tax bombshell, it's a cruise missile aimed at the heart of recovery," Mr Osborne said in a speech to the London School of Economics.
The opposition party supported the "automatic stabilisers" of increased borrowing stemming directly from a recession. But Mr Osborne yesterday said monetary policy - lower interest rates - should be allowed to "do the heavy lifting in stimulating demand" rather than trying to boost it through the public purse. "Tackling recession with big spending does not work," he said.
"That's not just a tax bombshell, it's a cruise missile aimed at the heart of recovery," Mr Osborne said in a speech to the London School of Economics.
The opposition party supported the "automatic stabilisers" of increased borrowing stemming directly from a recession. But Mr Osborne yesterday said monetary policy - lower interest rates - should be allowed to "do the heavy lifting in stimulating demand" rather than trying to boost it through the public purse. "Tackling recession with big spending does not work," he said.
Saturday, 1 November 2008
SAS commander Quits
How much longer will this Government keep on making promise , our troops cannot survive on promises in to days war zones, yet hundreds of millions of pounds was spent on revamping the offices of the MOD worth chairs reputed to have cost thousands of pound each, on remberance Sunday, I hope the Govenment minister will think about this during the minutes silance.
the responcability is his
The SAS commander in Afghanistan has resigned amid fresh controversy over the standard of equipment available to British troops fighting the Taliban.
Reports claim Maj Sebastian Morley quit in disgust over the deaths of four of his soldiers when their lightly armoured Snatch Land Rover hit a mine.
In his resignation letter, Maj Morley was said to have blamed "chronic under-investment" in equipment by the MoD. .
the responcability is his
The SAS commander in Afghanistan has resigned amid fresh controversy over the standard of equipment available to British troops fighting the Taliban.
Reports claim Maj Sebastian Morley quit in disgust over the deaths of four of his soldiers when their lightly armoured Snatch Land Rover hit a mine.
In his resignation letter, Maj Morley was said to have blamed "chronic under-investment" in equipment by the MoD. .
Friday, 31 October 2008
Give with one hand, take with the other, so whats new
23 October 2008
British shipping holed with £33 million ‘ports tax’ from Gordon Brown
Retrospective taxes on British business undermines economy and confidence
Gordon Brown was attacked today for ‘blundering’ into a £33 million tax hike on British ports, forcing up the tax bills of struggling firms, undermining the economy and damaging British competitiveness. Local firms are now receiving massive backdated tax bills following changes to the way that ports are valued for business rates, with massive new bills being backdated to 2005. The higher bills are only now starting to hit the door mats of local firms in 55 ports across the country.
· Government changes to business rates: Up to this year, one combined business rate bill was paid by each port for all the firms within it. However, the Government’s Valuation Office Agency has decided, when Brown was Chancellor, that each individual firm is now a ‘separate occupation’ and must pay their own business rate bill. The Valuation Office Agency is an arm of HM Revenue & Customs and undertakes inspections for council tax and business rate revaluations. Yet rather than giving advance warning of future changes, it has retrospectively backdated the new tax bills for local firms to 2005. As a result, port businesses across the country have been hit with unexpected, massive bills, just as the economic downturn bites.
· £33 million ports tax: The Government has claimed that it has no idea of the additional tax that will be raised as a result, but has admitted that the changes have resulted in a £19 million net increase in rateable values. Conservatives have estimated this to be equivalent a £8 million a year increase on tax bills, and taking into account the backdating, represents a £33 million tax hit on British ports.
· No impact assessment, no consultation: Parliamentary Questions have revealed that that no impact assessment of the changes was undertaken by the Government, and no consultation of local firms took place. The Valuation Office Agency has arrogantly asserted that it is not their ‘job’ to make an assessment of the effect on the economy.
· Harmful effect on economy: It is feared that many shipping companies may switch their business to Zeebrugge or Rotterdam, finishing journeys by road or rail, and bypass British ports. Ken Kirk of port operations company Stanton Grove, has warned: “If no one actually takes a realistic view in government, they will see business being driven out of the country… We are heading into a recession in any case. This could see volumes collapse over the next few months.” This switching could lead to lower tax revenues across the economy.
· Unfair retrospective taxation: Being able to plan future cash flows is the key to the survival of firms. Yet this backdating contradicts the professed Government policy on retrospective taxation, which states that backdating should only take place where it is ‘fair’, ‘proportionate’, ‘necessary to protect revenue’ and ‘in the public interest’. Gordon Brown’s ports tax breaches each of these four tests.
In a speech today at the Northern Regeneration Summit, Shadow Minister for Local Government, Bob Neill MP, will attack the changes:
“At a time when small businesses are already struggling as a result of the economic downturn, the last thing they need is yet another unexpected tax increase from the Government. This is another Gordon Brown tax blunder, just like his 10p tax con.
“This ports tax will send an unwelcome shudder across the economy. The Government’s incompetent handling threatens to undermine confidence in the economy and damage British competitiveness.”
British shipping holed with £33 million ‘ports tax’ from Gordon Brown
Retrospective taxes on British business undermines economy and confidence
Gordon Brown was attacked today for ‘blundering’ into a £33 million tax hike on British ports, forcing up the tax bills of struggling firms, undermining the economy and damaging British competitiveness. Local firms are now receiving massive backdated tax bills following changes to the way that ports are valued for business rates, with massive new bills being backdated to 2005. The higher bills are only now starting to hit the door mats of local firms in 55 ports across the country.
· Government changes to business rates: Up to this year, one combined business rate bill was paid by each port for all the firms within it. However, the Government’s Valuation Office Agency has decided, when Brown was Chancellor, that each individual firm is now a ‘separate occupation’ and must pay their own business rate bill. The Valuation Office Agency is an arm of HM Revenue & Customs and undertakes inspections for council tax and business rate revaluations. Yet rather than giving advance warning of future changes, it has retrospectively backdated the new tax bills for local firms to 2005. As a result, port businesses across the country have been hit with unexpected, massive bills, just as the economic downturn bites.
· £33 million ports tax: The Government has claimed that it has no idea of the additional tax that will be raised as a result, but has admitted that the changes have resulted in a £19 million net increase in rateable values. Conservatives have estimated this to be equivalent a £8 million a year increase on tax bills, and taking into account the backdating, represents a £33 million tax hit on British ports.
· No impact assessment, no consultation: Parliamentary Questions have revealed that that no impact assessment of the changes was undertaken by the Government, and no consultation of local firms took place. The Valuation Office Agency has arrogantly asserted that it is not their ‘job’ to make an assessment of the effect on the economy.
· Harmful effect on economy: It is feared that many shipping companies may switch their business to Zeebrugge or Rotterdam, finishing journeys by road or rail, and bypass British ports. Ken Kirk of port operations company Stanton Grove, has warned: “If no one actually takes a realistic view in government, they will see business being driven out of the country… We are heading into a recession in any case. This could see volumes collapse over the next few months.” This switching could lead to lower tax revenues across the economy.
· Unfair retrospective taxation: Being able to plan future cash flows is the key to the survival of firms. Yet this backdating contradicts the professed Government policy on retrospective taxation, which states that backdating should only take place where it is ‘fair’, ‘proportionate’, ‘necessary to protect revenue’ and ‘in the public interest’. Gordon Brown’s ports tax breaches each of these four tests.
In a speech today at the Northern Regeneration Summit, Shadow Minister for Local Government, Bob Neill MP, will attack the changes:
“At a time when small businesses are already struggling as a result of the economic downturn, the last thing they need is yet another unexpected tax increase from the Government. This is another Gordon Brown tax blunder, just like his 10p tax con.
“This ports tax will send an unwelcome shudder across the economy. The Government’s incompetent handling threatens to undermine confidence in the economy and damage British competitiveness.”
Friday, 3 October 2008
Our Party Policy on Collections
"We want to make it easier for families to go green. Conservatives believe that decent rubbish collections are a vital frontline council service to help protect the local environment and public health.
"We reject Labour's army of bin bullies and bin taxes. That is why David Cameron has pledged that we will provide funding to allow all councils to introduce proper weekly rubbish collections, on top of recycling."
"We reject Labour's army of bin bullies and bin taxes. That is why David Cameron has pledged that we will provide funding to allow all councils to introduce proper weekly rubbish collections, on top of recycling."
Wednesday, 1 October 2008
From David Cameron
American soldiers start their rest and recuperation the day they arrive back home, our troops have to count the days they spend getting home.
We've got troops' families living in sub-standard homes; we've got soldiers going into harm's way without the equipment they need…
…we've got businesses in our country that instead of welcoming people in military uniform and honouring their service choose to turn them away and refuse them service.
That is all wrong and we are going to put it right.
We are going to stop sending young men to war without the equipment they need, we're going to stop treating our soldiers like second class citizens…
…we will do all it takes to keep our country safe and we will do all it takes to protect the heroes who risk everything for us.
And today there are a particular group of heroes that I have in mind.
They fought for us in the slit trenches of Burma…the jungles of Malaya…and the freezing cold of the Falklands.
Yesterday the courts ruled that gurkhas who want to come and live in Britain should be able to.
They risked their lives for us and now we must not turn our backs on them.
We've got troops' families living in sub-standard homes; we've got soldiers going into harm's way without the equipment they need…
…we've got businesses in our country that instead of welcoming people in military uniform and honouring their service choose to turn them away and refuse them service.
That is all wrong and we are going to put it right.
We are going to stop sending young men to war without the equipment they need, we're going to stop treating our soldiers like second class citizens…
…we will do all it takes to keep our country safe and we will do all it takes to protect the heroes who risk everything for us.
And today there are a particular group of heroes that I have in mind.
They fought for us in the slit trenches of Burma…the jungles of Malaya…and the freezing cold of the Falklands.
Yesterday the courts ruled that gurkhas who want to come and live in Britain should be able to.
They risked their lives for us and now we must not turn our backs on them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)