Could Planning Minister be Forced to Resign After Paying Political Consultant 37k from Expenses?

Times

MPs will today demand a watchdog investigation into a Conservative minister’s use of expenses, which has raised “serious questions”.

Brandon Lewis, the housing and planning minister, has paid Papagenos, a campaigns consultancy, £37,000 since 2010. He listed the duties carried out by the firm as “research briefing and other parliamentary associated assistance”.

Labour is calling on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) to investigate whether the Tory parliamentarian paid out taxpayer funds to Papagenos in order to carry out political

Who are this mysterious group, they appear only to have a blank facebook page.  The only trail I can find is Andrew Baxter a former area campaign director for the conservative party.

As he says

Andrew Baxter, an expert in helping individuals and organisations develop and implement winning campaigns. Whether it is a grassroots campaign at local level, a membership drive for a charity or a public relations campaign for a large company, I have the professional experience to provide a bespoke service that delivers results.

I provide a range of communication services, always tailored to the individual project. From copywriting for blogs, direct mail or newsletters to complex communications strategies, I offer a range of solutions to make your campaign succeed.

I suspect they were paid to endlessly tweet about the Sea Scouts and other Great Yarmouth events as no-one could do their day job with his attention to local trivia.  Many tweets appear when Brandon is ion meetings on on the media and dont appear to be timed.  Rule number 1 dont get caught.

This is of course a prohibited use of public funds.  Inbterms of rank hypocracy lets look at Brandons website

In 2009, the media exposed the excessive, unacceptable and possibly illegal claims made by some of the people we send to represent us in the House of Commons.

Like everyone else, I was angry and disgusted at the behaviour of some Members of Parliament at Westminster. It has taken a new generation of MP’s to end the cosy arrangements that allowed individuals to apparently profit from the taxpayer.

At the General Election in 2010, I made a “Clean Expenses Pledge”:

1. I will be completely open about all of my expenses and allowances. They will be regularly published for residents to inspect.
2. I will only claim expenses for costs I have incurred in doing my job as an MP (e.g. travel costs and office allowances). I will never claim for food, furniture or household goods.
3. I will not undertake work for lobbying companies.
4. I will never employ members of my family.

I welcomed the new rules that came into force for all elected MPs after the 2010 general election and I undertake to live by them. Expense details for all MPs from 2010 onwards are published in the by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. You can find details of my expense claims here.

This isnt the first time he has has been questioned on expenses.

MPs at the centre of a media storm for renting out their London homes while claiming public money to rent another property have defended their actions, saying they have little choice because of the new and inflexible expenses regime.

It follows an outcry after it emerged that 27 MPs had rented out their homes in London…

The communities minister Brandon Lewis claims expenses to rent a property in his Great Yarmouth constituency, while letting out the house he owns there.

The Tory MP, who was elected in May 2010, said he had decided to let his property instead of selling because it was in negative equity.

“It costs the taxpayer around £8,000 a year less because I claim rent for my constituency rather than in London,” he added.

The Commons speaker John Bercow has attempted to block the publication of further details of MPs’ landlords, which would reveal which other MPs are involved.

 

Why @vincecable Theory that ‘The Politicians Will Go For Gatwick Over Heathrow’ is Flawed

Politics Home

Heathrow expansion will not go ahead, even if it is recommended by the Government’s commission on airports, Vince Cable has predicted. speaking at an event in London last night hosted by London First and the Federation of Small Businesses, the Business Secretary speculated that cross-party political pressure would make Gatwick the more likely option to go ahead.

He said: “On the Davies report I will just make this controversial observation… I think if it recommends Heathrow I don’t think it will happen and the reason it won’t happen is because the Boris Johnson wing of the Tory party – which is quite a big wing I think, I’m not a member of it but I suspect it’s quite a big wing – and my party and I suspect substantial chunks of Chuka’s [Shadow Business Secretary Chuka Umunna] will oppose it vehemently because of the impact on London.

“We have got about three quarters of a million people who are already very seriously affected by Heathrow in a negative way; both noise and pollution.

“If it recommends Gatwick I suspect it will happen because only a 20th of the number of people are affected by it.”

This whole theory though is predicated on one assumption – the Heathrow option will lead to a net increase in noise to London residents.  If it is found not to then there is no environmental case for Gatwick over Heathrow, and no Economic case, as the CBA for the Heathrow options are much higher.

When the Davies Commission published its preliminary findings last Nov it did show a small new increase from the ‘Heathrow Hub’ options, a clever design to get two runways on the site of one (and in the longer term extend both runways). There was no clear justification of the noise assessment and many suspected it was a modelling error – it could not be right that landing planes further away from centres of London population could lead to a bet increase in noise.

So it has turned out.  The Heathrow Hub team have conducted new modelling reviewed and approved by the CAA noise team. 

Our recent submission on noise has been revised and then modelled by the Civil Aviation Authority’s noise team. New indicative flight paths, similar to those used by Heathrow Airport Ltd in their proposal have been modelled. The result is a dramatic reduction in the population impacted by aircraft noise. For example, according to the CAA modelling and using the Commission’s assumptions, the 2040 population inside the 55db Lden footprint falls by more than 300,000 when compared to today (even assuming population growth) and is approximately 15% lower than the equivalent HAL figure.

So if the Davies commission recommends Heathrow Hub, as is now looking near certain, and announces in a press release ‘300,000 people will experience less noise’ I dont think even Boris could dodge that.

The only serious obstacle to the Hub proposal was the possibility of burying the M25 to make space and whether this would be practical.  Heathrow Hub now say this isn’t necessary

We propose to move the motorway slightly to the west, passing under the extended runway. This provides an opportunity to improve traffic flows on this busy section of the motorway network. The new section of road would be built without any disruption to traffic, and brought into use with some overnight lane closures. The road would not need to be closed at any time.

Heathrow Hub is a no brainer, there are no longer any technical objections to it and it beats Gatwick hands down on surface access and transport costs.  Any politician, even Boris, rejecting the proposal on the basis of a made up environmental impact would swiftly find themselves in court regarding the SEA of the National Infrastructure Airports policy statement.  Boris would have to back down and knows this I think and so is already preparing how to spin it that as rejecting the HAL proposal for a close parallel runway and not building a new runway instead.

 

TCPA ‘We Need to Save the Planning System’

TCPA 

A leading campaigning group has today warned that consistent deregulation and demoralisation of the planning system is putting the very fabric of our towns, cites and the countryside at risk.

In a pre-election manifesto ‘Building the Future’ the Town & Country Planning Association (TCPA) argues that there is a real danger that the planning system, a vital national asset, essential to the maintenance and well-being of the country, will soon be lost.

 Kate Henderson, Chief Executive of the TCPA said:

“At its best, planning has proved to be a powerful tool to bring forward sustainable growth, and to deliver multiple benefits to our society including certainty and confidence for businesses, democratic rights for communities and protection for our environment, heritage and biodiversity.

“As we continue to battle with the nation’s housing crisis, good planning is needed as never before to plan for and create the homes and communities we desperately need.  However the planning system as we knew it is being continually undermined and devalued though significant reforms and deregulation.  Planning has lost all sense of the progressive social values that once lay at its core, and unless we are careful, is at risk of being destroyed altogether.” 

The TCPA’s position is simple: good planning makes better places.  The manifesto calls for action in the first 100 days of a new Government to restore the importance of planning as a key tool in delivering much needed new homes and communities.  This includes taking steps such as creating a new legally defined purpose for planning based on sustainable development, the updating and effective deployment of New Towns legislation, and changing the National Planning Policy Framework to place social justice, equality and climate change at the heart of planning decisions.  The manifesto additionally calls for better planning for cities, and stronger measures to ensure that councils work together to meet housing need.

 Kate Henderson added:

 “A new Government must act to restore the prominence of planning as an essential element to create the new homes, communities and infrastructure that the nation so desperately needs.  For the sake of our children and grandchildren, planning must be seen as a positive proactive force for good and must be placed at the centre of political debate.”

 

Yet Another London Green Belt Debate 17th March NLA

New London Architecture

New London Architecture event: can London afford the Green Belt?

We’re delighted to be co-hosting this event with the NLA on the land available in London, and where the Green Belt might come in.

Date: 17 March 2015
Time: 08:30-09:30
Location: NLA, The Building Centre, 26 Store Street, London WC1E 7BT

Housing & Transport

Green BeltHousing

Following on from our report released last year Delivering Change: building homes where we need them, this breakfast event co-hosted with New London Architecture asks: can London afford the Green Belt? We’ll be presenting our research on the topic, which will be followed by a critical debate with:

• Paul Cheshire, Professor Emeritus of Economic Geography, LSE
• Colin Wilson, Strategic Planning Manager, GLA
• Heather Cheesbrough, Assistant Director Strategic Planning, Regeneration and Economic Development, LB Hounslow
• Peter Bishop, Professor of Urban Design, The Bartlett School of Architecture (Needs to leave 09:15)
• Jonathan Seager, Head of Housing Policy, London First

Some of the questions we’ll be addressing include:

• Are areas of the Green Belt of the right quality and accessibility to support new communities? What sort of densities could it accommodate?
• What are the alternative options for London?
• How much brownfield land is still available in London and is this suitable for housing?

This event is hosted by the NLA and all enquiries should go through their website where you can register directly.

Why Building Lines Are Important

A Frank Gehry monstrosity in Prague. Another competitor for world’s worst architect, sadly given his early work, for worst architect in the world.

Ken Shuttleworth’s ‘Panel of Experts’ Didnt See Draft of Garden City Bashing Report

Yesterday we wondered why some notables and organisations – Shelter, CBT, RTPI, National Trust were lending their names to such an inaccurate report with totally different recommendations and policy from those organisations.  Now it becomes clear, they hadn’t.  Ken had used them without authorisation.

Toby Lloyd of Shelter in comments

Andrew – I didn’t see this report before publication, and am a little troubled to see that it is implying that I am one of its authors….. I went to a discussion in October on the topic, and approved the three quotes of mine in the report, but that’s it.

It’s not clear from the published report who the author actually is, and I will be asking FSF to explain this – but I can assure you it wasn’t me!

As we suspected this is a Ken Shuttleworth report with the frontispeice designed to give a false impression that the ‘Foundation’ is something that has any existence outside Make’s HQ.  Rather disreputable tactics.  I suspect today we will see the report unravel as those invited to the seminar

Tourists – Forget Venice – Come to the City Where Plastic Was Invented

Beyond Parody – a film in the spirit of ‘Balham Gateway to the South’ or Tele Salvalas’s films promoting Brum and Sheffield.

‘More Canals Than Venice’ includes many facts promoting Brum including that it was the city where plastic was invented and

Other facts in the film include Birmingham being the place where the cavity magnetron was invented… something found in every microwave oven

Despite being pointed as a ‘you tube hit’ – the link doesn’t even work, and is being sent by snailmail, perhaps the interweb wasn’t one of Brum’s inventions.

Labour Commits to Building a New Generation of Garden Cities – But Waters Down Lyons Review

Labour Press

Emma Reynolds, Labour’s Shadow Housing Minister, will tomorrow (Tuesday) warn that five more years of the Tories’ failed plan will see the housing crisis grow day after day. She will set out a plan for the next Labour government to recapture the post-war spirit of building new homes.

In the Annual Sir Frederic Osborn Lecture to the Town and Country Planning Association, Emma Reynolds will argue that only Labour has a comprehensive plan to tackle the housing crisis and restore the dream of home ownership for the next generation.

She will say that the Tory approach to housing has been characterised by five years of empty announcements and that the country doesn’t need more piecemeal gimmicks, half-baked schemes and a race to the bottom on standards, but a comprehensive plan to build the homes people need.

She will contrast the Tories’ failed approach with Labour’s better plan for working people, which will get 200,000 homes built a year by 2020.

Labour’s Shadow Housing Minister will point to new figures which show the threat of another five years of David Cameron. On current trends, if the Tory-led Government’s record is repeated until 2020:

·         Home ownership levels will fall to their lowest levels for 40 years with more than two in five people expected to rent.

·         Only one in five people under the age of 35 will own their own home, half of those who did so in 2010.

And she will outline Labour’s plan to tackle the housing crisis by:

·         Making tackling the housing crisis a national priority;

·         Giving local communities stronger powers to build the homes needed in the places people want to live;

·         Giving first time buyers priority access rights in new ‘Housing Growth Areas’;

·         Creating a major new role for local government in commissioning and delivering housing developments;

·         Building more affordable homes;

·         Increasing competition in the housing market and boosting small builders; and

·         Building a new generation of New Towns and Garden Cities.

On the Tories’ failing plan Emma Reynolds is expected to say:

“Over the past five years, David Cameron has presided over the lowest levels of house building in peace time since the 1920s.

“For a whole generation of young people and families the aspiration of buying their own home is becoming a distant dream. A record number of young people are still living at home with their parents in their twenties and thirties because they can’t get on the housing ladder.”

On five more years of the Tories and the prospect of a growing housing crisis Emma Reynolds is expected to say:

“After five years of empty announcements and failed initiatives the Tories are offering more of the same. But they can’t even say how their latest pie-in-the-sky scheme will work or how they will pay for the £8.6 billion cost of the supposed 20 per cent discounts that are on offer.

“Five more years of the Tories’ failed plan will see a growing housing gap, falling home ownership and unrealised aspiration for the next generation.”

Emma Reynolds will outline Labour’s better plan. She is expected to say:

“Labour has developed the first comprehensive plan for a generation to tackle the housing crisis. A Labour Government will get at least 200,000 homes built a year by 2020 but we won’t stop there.

“The next Labour Government will recapture the post-war spirit for building new homes and match that renewed ambition with a drive to build high quality homes and great places for new communities.

“While the Tories still believe, despite their failure over the past five years, that the housing crisis will be solved by the market alone, Labour is clear that to tackle the housing crisis there must be a much more active role for national and local government.

“Under Labour’s plan, local government will take a major new role in assembling land, delivering infrastructure and commissioning housing development. But to succeed, it will be a partnership with the private sector, attracting private investment and commissioning private developers to build the homes we need.

“Labour will also increase competition in the building industry, build more affordable homes and unleash a new programme of New Towns and Garden Cities.”

These are the Lyons Review recommendations – from Oct 14- though this is the first comprehensive statement of which of them would become party policy. It would appear to be a watering down of some key recommendations however:

• Gone is the statutory duty to ensure homes meeting need are built – something even the Treasury are considering.
• Gone is ‘use it or lose it’ powers
• Gone is the recommendation that adjoining councils could work together to produce a ‘Strategic Housing Market Plan’ (SHMP), what the ‘right to grow’ morphed into.  So Labour appear to be relaying solely on the weak duty to cooperate.
• Gone is the commitment to up to 500,000 homes in Garden Cities.
• Gone is the reform of HA funding streams.
• Gone is the very vague and undefined Lyons review proposal to ‘redline’ small sites (you already have outline consents)

Most disappointingly their is no political counter to the populist ;starter homes; initiative, a silly proposal that would increase house prices, as we have set out on this blog in detail, or HA right to buy, which either would increase the deficit and lead to the financial collapse of housing associations, but both proposals were populist. Labour appears not to have any populist counter, not even council house construction which because of housing benefit savings can pay for itself. Perhaps Labour are frit because of the Greens total cluster***k on the work they had commissioned on the funding of this.