For anyone who doesn't believe me that £5bn is sod all, it's a grand total of 7% of HS2.
Even if we ignore the spiralling cost of HS2, it's still an extraordinarily small amount of money to make a big speech about. Presumably it sounds large and is a vote winner.
The trick with all government numbers is to convert them to per person; I'm sure I'm not telling anyone here something they don't know!
So it's about £100 per head. So it's a moderately nice flatpack wardrobe per person.
Wasn't the ONE MILLION POUNDS thing fatally skewered by the first Austin Powers movie?
Another trick is to give yearly costs as per day, If you want to make it even lower quote it as per person per day.
You can do it the other way round of course. "One coffee a day from Costanero costs over 1000 pounds a year".
My favourite example of playing about with the perception of statistics is lengths make things sound big volumes make things sound small.
If you put every person on earth head to foot you would get to the moon and back over 17 times.
Everyone can on earth fit very easily into the grand canyon, with plenty of living space roughly one large detached house for every person.
Is that true? Jeez how big is the Grand Canyon?? Well of course you have just told me but well I never!!
Yes it is huge, it's 4.17 trillion cubic meters. That figure is so huge I sought a second source for the volume.
Wow!
Clearly you have never seen dawn rise over the Grand Canyon. Bucket list addition.
The problem with the Grand Canyon is that you've seen a million images of it before you get there. So you walk to the rim, and oh yeah, there it is. Meh.
Much more interesting to walk down to the bottom and back (not in a day, as they are very keen on reminding everyone).
Pitch black. A billion stars. Sliver of moon. Coyotes howling. Find a spot, wait for the sun to arrive.
You may have seen a picture. You ain't ever seen a theatrical reveal on that scale.
If Johnson can stop NIMBYism which I tend to find comes from the older generation, with housing but also rubbish about phone masts and other things, then he will have my respect.
It will indeed be interested to see how the tory shires react to planning relaxations. Can Johnson keep his coalition between them and the red wall towns together?
Have you got it on your bedroom wall to give the finger to and laugh at every morning?
It is pretty funny, especially looking back after he gave his 'BLM?! Never heard of it!' interview yesterday...
He simply made it clear that by supporting the anti-racism message of BLM - which is what it's known for tbf - he is not endorsing anything and everything which is said either by or in the name of the movement.
Perfectly reasonable position. Can't see the problem.
The problem is that political messages do not in practice have an independent ethereal existence like Platonic Forms - they rely on their messenger. Starmer - to give him his due here - has the political danger sense to realize that the messengers have already tarnished the message and will only continue to do so in the future, so he spun around 180 degrees and dashed out of that minefield as quickly as he dashed into it. You almost have to admire the shamelessness!
Corbyn, of course, would have charged forwards until he disappeared in a red mist...
I have no problem.whatsoever with somebody spirituality shopping from the core of the Black Lives Matter movement without taking on all the ephemera.
The Democrats need to gain the White House and 1 single Senator net to control the Senate effectively, since the Senator from Maine and Sanders do caucus plus the Vice President casts tie breaks.
If the Democrats win a majority in the Senate (by any means) and the White House one of their very first acts should be to admit Puerto Rico and New Columbia as the 51st and 52nd States of the USA.
Don’t like the result? Change the electorate!
Can the senate do that unilaterally? I’d assume the states might have a say?
No need to change the electorate. Puerto Ricans and DC residents are Americans they're just currently unrepresented in the Senate. It's not like anyone is suggesting non Americans get the vote.
Yes as far as I understand they can do that unilaterally.
Have you got it on your bedroom wall to give the finger to and laugh at every morning?
"UNDER THE MOON OF LOVE with my PRETTY LITTLE ANGEL EYES!"
I just happen to think it is one of the biggest publicity seeking goofs a politician has ever made. Sorry to all those who disagree with me if my making the point repeatedly upsets you, but that's how it is.
I was told I was the only person thinking this, but I was told BLM weren't anti Semitic marxists who want to defund the police a couple of days ago, and Sir Keir was having to distance himself from them for just those reasons yesterday. So when others back me up, I like to link to it
The suit, fair point. If I were a floating voter that might give me pause for thought.
But otherwise? Hardly. There is a small minority of the population whose instinctive reaction to seeing it is a genuine and profound unease - anger even - that the Labour leader is demeaning himself by "kneeling to the Black Man" but these are votes which would be hard for Labour to get in any event and it's arguable whether they even want them.
Of course I could be wrong about it being a small minority. In which case there is a problem - that Labour can't win elections without pandering to racism.
A polling organisation could settle the question very easily by asking a question such as (I'm sure it could be improved):
What is closest to your view of the meaning of the Black Lives Matter "taking a knee" gesture?
- Expressing support for an anti-racism message in response to events such as the killing of George Floyd
- Expressing support for defunding the police
I doubt there will be such a poll, because it is obvious to anyone without an unhealthy obsession that the first answer would get a huge majority.
(What's with the suit stuff by the way? I didn't even notice it!)
If Johnson can stop NIMBYism which I tend to find comes from the older generation, with housing but also rubbish about phone masts and other things, then he will have my respect.
It will indeed be interested to see how the tory shires react to planning relaxations. Can Johnson keep his coalition between them and the red wall towns together?
I'm personally of the view that for strategic importance, masts and housing should be able to be built as long as there is a need for it - local objections should be ignored.
Not sure that's super reliable - based only on Pillar I data and the changes are often from 0 to 1 or 2 cases, which doesn't really qualify as an uptick.
One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
Have you got it on your bedroom wall to give the finger to and laugh at every morning?
It is pretty funny, especially looking back after he gave his 'BLM?! Never heard of it!' interview yesterday...
He simply made it clear that by supporting the anti-racism message of BLM - which is what it's known for tbf - he is not endorsing anything and everything which is said either by or in the name of the movement.
Perfectly reasonable position. Can't see the problem.
The problem is that political messages do not in practice have an independent ethereal existence like Platonic Forms - they rely on their messenger. Starmer - to give him his due here - has the political danger sense to realize that the messengers have already tarnished the message and will only continue to do so in the future, so he spun around 180 degrees and dashed out of that minefield as quickly as he dashed into it. You almost have to admire the shamelessness!
Corbyn, of course, would have charged forwards until he disappeared in a red mist...
Jeremy would have been in Bristol sticking it to Colston. Conviction politician or protest politician - delete to taste.
One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
Is Ashworth speaking as shadow health minister or as a Leicester MP?
Both, I hope.
These are the other areas seeing an uptick of cases. I don't think our Track and Trace is up to it:
Sorry Foxy, huge respect for you, but that story is pants. Check out the actual cases and increases. Wiltshire had 7 in the last week, 9 the week before. Its garbage. Wilts also has had 500 cases for all its 500,000 people, so 1 in 1000 positive tests.
But perhaps an obligation for Councils to buy/build new homes to replace those that are sold over a certain period of time.
How can councils do that when they're complied to sell below market value ? RtB at market value is fairest for all.
Councils can do that from general funding they have as well as the capital they get from the sale.
Building can be done below market value too or else building companies wouldn't make a profit.
If it was 5-10% then sure, they could do that. But houses the discount starts at 35% and flats at 50%.
Again Councils have more income streams than just the sale of the home. They have Council Tax etc.
I think your policy of council homes keeping RTB but replaced like for like can work, but the numbers are clear that it needs external financing. Mismatching policies and their true costs rarely leads to good governance. Council tax rises are heavily limited and councils just dont have the budgets to do this.
Yes, the trauma of showing off the gear of common workers. It must be terrible for you to have to witness.
Come on, it's laughable, seeing Johnson posing in a hard hat, he's never done a hard day's work in his life, let alone manual labour.
It's telling that you laugh at him for wanting to stand by those for whom that is their daily work gear. That those who do wear it day in, day out voted for him in droves in December suggests the laugh is on you.
As we are seeing with Trump, getting people to vote for you once on the back of vacuous slogans is the easy bit. Lets see where we are when Johnson has been "delivering" for 4 years.
Have you got it on your bedroom wall to give the finger to and laugh at every morning?
It is pretty funny, especially looking back after he gave his 'BLM?! Never heard of it!' interview yesterday...
He simply made it clear that by supporting the anti-racism message of BLM - which is what it's known for tbf - he is not endorsing anything and everything which is said either by or in the name of the movement.
Perfectly reasonable position. Can't see the problem.
The problem is that political messages do not in practice have an independent ethereal existence like Platonic Forms - they rely on their messenger. Starmer - to give him his due here - has the political danger sense to realize that the messengers have already tarnished the message and will only continue to do so in the future, so he spun around 180 degrees and dashed out of that minefield as quickly as he dashed into it. You almost have to admire the shamelessness!
Corbyn, of course, would have charged forwards until he disappeared in a red mist...
Jeremy would have been in Bristol sticking it to Colston. Conviction politician or protest politician - delete to taste.
Starmer quite fancies being PM.
He will be a very stern test for whoever leads the tories into 2024.
Japan: no interference with civil liberties, 8 deaths per million.
UK: 3 months of house arrest, if not solitary confinement sometimes. 642 deaths per million.
"locking people up" and "house arrest" lol - Hyperbole much
Indeed. I actually give the UK govt credit on this front. France and Spain were much closer to actual house arrest and their numbers are of a similar scale of magnitude. The ability to spend time outdoors throughout was really beneficial for millions of us, and might not have been available under a different government.
One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
Have you got it on your bedroom wall to give the finger to and laugh at every morning?
It is pretty funny, especially looking back after he gave his 'BLM?! Never heard of it!' interview yesterday...
He simply made it clear that by supporting the anti-racism message of BLM - which is what it's known for tbf - he is not endorsing anything and everything which is said either by or in the name of the movement.
Perfectly reasonable position. Can't see the problem.
The problem is that political messages do not in practice have an independent ethereal existence like Platonic Forms - they rely on their messenger. Starmer - to give him his due here - has the political danger sense to realize that the messengers have already tarnished the message and will only continue to do so in the future, so he spun around 180 degrees and dashed out of that minefield as quickly as he dashed into it. You almost have to admire the shamelessness!
Corbyn, of course, would have charged forwards until he disappeared in a red mist...
Jeremy would have been in Bristol sticking it to Colston. Conviction politician or protest politician - delete to taste.
Starmer quite fancies being PM.
Jeremy would have spent this past weekend agreeing wholeheartedly with Maxine Peake and retweeting the BLM UK comments on “Palestine”.
They’ve come a long way in only a couple of months.
One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
Yes and no. Councils (I'm excluding parish councils from this) normally agree with the developer when granting planning permission that green space, play areas, and sometimes roads are explicitly NOT adopted in order to save the council money. They get full council tax but less new liabilities.
Whilst I sympathise with @Stocky it's not as simple as stating that the home owners "contractually agreed" to the fees.
The way it normally goes is that the sales person for the house builder tells the prospective resident that there will be a "small charge of £X per year to look after green areas" and it all sounds very reasonable. However within a few years this has increased to god-knows-what.
There is not normally the "right to manage" and thus no free-market pressure.
There is no right to see invoices to ensure the management company is accurately representing their costs.
There is no right to withhold the "management fee" if you believe it is unfair.
There is no right to challenge cost increases.
The management company can block the sale of the home if you are in arrears with any fees or charges.
I follow quite a few Facebook groups made up of residents caught in this "trap" and many of them think local councils should be forced to adopt them. I personally don't agree with this - I think that somebody ultimately has to pay, and the council has many more important things to be spending their money on, but there must be legislation to regulate management companies, and possibly a right to kick-out the company and to select a new one.
One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
Actually solicitors are not very good at pointing out the realities of the situation during the conveyancing process.
I know because I went through it myself. I was very informed and asked A LOT of questions and most of the answers were: "don't know, up to a judge to decide".
Most people, especially young people using Help to Buy, do not read the documentation or engage in the process at all. They do not know what they are buying.
Yes, the trauma of showing off the gear of common workers. It must be terrible for you to have to witness.
Come on, it's laughable, seeing Johnson posing in a hard hat, he's never done a hard day's work in his life, let alone manual labour.
It's telling that you laugh at him for wanting to stand by those for whom that is their daily work gear. That those who do wear it day in, day out voted for him in droves in December suggests the laugh is on you.
He doesn't want to stand by those people; he doesn't care if they live or die. It's laughable when the fat useless sack of shit wears them because he has never lifted anything heavier than Petronella Wyatt's ankles in his entire life.
This morning, the PM COULD have announced that a £1.3 billion shovel-ready project to create 2,200 jobs and 400 apprenticeships would be supported by Government. Jobs and apprenticeships created this summer, with many other jobs in steel and concrete fabrication saved from administration across the supply chain of the Red Wall seats.
All it required was a pump-priming of £35m by Govt. Payable in 2024-5.
Or govt. support equivalent to 150 yards of HS2 track.
Swansea Bay tidal lagoon is that project. Swansea unlocks Cardiff lagoon, the single largest renewables project on the planet. Cardiff will cost £7.5 billion. The same cost it will take just to abandon Hinkley C. The Hinkley C that required £34bn of taxpayer support to get it going.
Cardiff's zero carbon tidal power is an almost identical electricity ouput to Hinkley C. But requiring zero taxpayer money to get it going. It is entirely private sector funding. Yet the Government's "Value for Money" criteria will tell you Hinkley C is the better value for money.
If you want to see just how fucked up the civil service is, you will find no better example.
And no better example than Swansea Bay of how feeble the PMs ambitions were this morning. Don't mock him for standing by a pile of hard-hats. Mock him for not taking on the vested interest in the energy sector and its close tie up with the civil service that has stopped 2,600 more hard-hats being needed in construction from this summer.
One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
Yes and no. Councils (I'm excluding parish councils from this) normally agree with the developer when granting planning permission that green space, play areas, and sometimes roads are explicitly NOT adopted in order to save the council money. They get full council tax but less new liabilities.
Whilst I sympathise with @Stocky it's not as simple as stating that the home owners "contractually agreed" to the fees.
The way it normally goes is that the sales person for the house builder tells the prospective resident that there will be a "small charge of £X per year to look after green areas" and it all sounds very reasonable. However within a few years this has increased to god-knows-what.
There is not normally the "right to manage" and thus no free-market pressure.
There is no right to see invoices to ensure the management company is accurately representing their costs.
There is no right to withhold the "management fee" if you believe it is unfair.
There is no right to challenge cost increases.
The management company can block the sale of the home if you are in arrears with any fees or charges.
I follow quite a few Facebook groups made up of residents caught in this "trap" and many of them think local councils should be forced to adopt them. I personally don't agree with this - I think that somebody ultimately has to pay, and the council has many more important things to be spending their money on, but there must be legislation to regulate management companies, and possibly a right to kick-out the company and to select a new one.
I assume you mean these are freehold covenants. In which case you most certainly can challenge them!
I am not sure what you mean about preventing the sale. I've never seen this suggested as part of a freehold covenant.
You also can't withhold service charges under a lease, so I am not sure that comparison makes sense.
Not sure that's super reliable - based only on Pillar I data and the changes are often from 0 to 1 or 2 cases, which doesn't really qualify as an uptick.
The uptick in Leicester was in pillar 2 cases, but communication of these to local authorities is very poor, it certainly was in Leicester.
This morning, the PM COULD have announced that a £1.3 billion shovel-ready project to create 2,200 jobs and 400 apprenticeships would be supported by Government. Jobs and apprenticeships created this summer, with many other jobs in steel and concrete fabrication saved from administration across the supply chain of the Red Wall seats.
All it required was a pump-priming of £35m by Govt. Payable in 2024-5.
Or govt. support equivalent to 150 yards of HS2 track.
Swansea Bay tidal lagoon is that project. Swansea unlocks Cardiff lagoon, the single largest renewables project on the planet. Cardiff will cost £7.5 billion. The same cost it will take just to abandon Hinkley C. The Hinkley C that required £34bn of taxpayer support to get it going.
Cardiff's zero carbon tidal power is an almost identical electricity ouput to Hinkley C. But requiring zero taxpayer money to get it going. It is entirely private sector funding. Yet the Government's "Value for Money" criteria will tell you Hinkley C is the better value for money.
If you want to see just how fucked up the civil service is, you will find no better example.
And no better example than Swansea Bay of how feeble the PMs ambitions were this morning. Don't mock him for standing by a pile of hard-hats. Mock him for not taking on the vested interest in the energy sector and its close tie up with the civil service that has stopped 2,600 more hard-hats being needed in construction from this summer.
You're going to have to let this go. It's not going to happen.
I assume you mean these are freehold covenants. In which case you most certainly can challenge them!
I am not sure what you mean about preventing the sale. I've never seen this suggested as part of a freehold covenant.
You also can't withhold service charges under a lease, so I am not sure that comparison makes sense.
A few points here.
I know that you can't withhold service charges under a lease, however I mentioned it because the default action from the layman, when faced with a charge they believe is unfair, is simply not to pay it until they "get answers". If a freeholder does this, they risk losing their home.
Their operation is not simply regulated by covenants. For example my house has an entry under the proprietorship register that states the following:
RESTRICTION: No disposition of the registered estate (other than a charge) by the proprietor of the registered estate is to be registered without a certificate signed by (MANAGEMENT COMPANY) or their conveyancer that the provisions of clauses 42.6, 41.1 and 40.5 of the Transfer dated 1 June 2018 referred to in the Charges Register have been complied with.
This is not unusual. Basically the management company must consent to a sale.
One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
Sure - I agree with you as long as it is the county council (who get the council tax receipts) which adopts the areas - not the parish councils.
Absolute bollox, not everybody thinks like you thank God. UKIP-types do not constitute a majority.
Do you think we'll see him do it again?
He would regret doing it now, I think he thought everyone would do it so he better. I suspect he hopes the BLM movement goes away in the UK now as some of their views are interesting.
Calling it a "moment" (correcting himself from saying "movement") made it look that way
One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
Bear in mind that the common areas in the SUE are for use exclusively by the homeowners in the SUE. these are private facitities. If the county council were to adopt them then every parishioner in the county would be entitled to picnic on their green areas (as is the case with outer council common areas).
Not sure that's super reliable - based only on Pillar I data and the changes are often from 0 to 1 or 2 cases, which doesn't really qualify as an uptick.
The uptick in Leicester was in pillar 2 cases, but communication of these to local authorities is very poor, it certainly was in Leicester.
Absolutely - but those data are not published so can't have contributed to the Express figure I think.
One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
Bear in mind that the common areas in the SUE are for use exclusively by the homeowners in the SUE. these are private facitities. If the county council were to adopt them then every parishioner in the county would be entitled to picnic on their green areas (as is the case with outer council common areas).
Are you sure about that? In most new build estates with private land being managed, they are not for use exclusively by the homeowners. They are open to the public.
Have you got it on your bedroom wall to give the finger to and laugh at every morning?
It is pretty funny, especially looking back after he gave his 'BLM?! Never heard of it!' interview yesterday...
He simply made it clear that by supporting the anti-racism message of BLM - which is what it's known for tbf - he is not endorsing anything and everything which is said either by or in the name of the movement.
Perfectly reasonable position. Can't see the problem.
The problem is that political messages do not in practice have an independent ethereal existence like Platonic Forms - they rely on their messenger. Starmer - to give him his due here - has the political danger sense to realize that the messengers have already tarnished the message and will only continue to do so in the future, so he spun around 180 degrees and dashed out of that minefield as quickly as he dashed into it. You almost have to admire the shamelessness!
Corbyn, of course, would have charged forwards until he disappeared in a red mist...
Jeremy would have been in Bristol sticking it to Colston. Conviction politician or protest politician - delete to taste.
One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
Bear in mind that the common areas in the SUE are for use exclusively by the homeowners in the SUE. these are private facitities. If the county council were to adopt them then every parishioner in the county would be entitled to picnic on their green areas (as is the case with outer council common areas).
Are you sure about that? In most new build estates with private land being managed, they are not for use exclusively by the homeowners. They are open to the public.
SUEs are a special cohort of new-build estates. Common areas in new build estates are, I agree, in principle useable by everyone as the county council maintains (having adopted). SUEs are different. I think they are an awful concept and have caused a lot of tension in my parish.
The current tax system is a big obstacle to 'building the right homes in the right places'. Crazy stamp duty stops anyone round here moving to the right size of home. Meanwhile council tax is held down.
Net result: loads of pensioners living alone in 5+ bed houses. Council services cut beyond the bone.
Reading the header's title, "How Bernie Sanders complicates the betting on November’s US Senate elections", I had visions of Saunders refusing to look at any polling, then sticking a pin in the list of contenders whilst blindfold before placing his wagers
This morning, the PM COULD have announced that a £1.3 billion shovel-ready project to create 2,200 jobs and 400 apprenticeships would be supported by Government. Jobs and apprenticeships created this summer, with many other jobs in steel and concrete fabrication saved from administration across the supply chain of the Red Wall seats.
All it required was a pump-priming of £35m by Govt. Payable in 2024-5.
Or govt. support equivalent to 150 yards of HS2 track.
Swansea Bay tidal lagoon is that project. Swansea unlocks Cardiff lagoon, the single largest renewables project on the planet. Cardiff will cost £7.5 billion. The same cost it will take just to abandon Hinkley C. The Hinkley C that required £34bn of taxpayer support to get it going.
Cardiff's zero carbon tidal power is an almost identical electricity ouput to Hinkley C. But requiring zero taxpayer money to get it going. It is entirely private sector funding. Yet the Government's "Value for Money" criteria will tell you Hinkley C is the better value for money.
If you want to see just how fucked up the civil service is, you will find no better example.
And no better example than Swansea Bay of how feeble the PMs ambitions were this morning. Don't mock him for standing by a pile of hard-hats. Mock him for not taking on the vested interest in the energy sector and its close tie up with the civil service that has stopped 2,600 more hard-hats being needed in construction from this summer.
This morning, the PM COULD have announced that a £1.3 billion shovel-ready project to create 2,200 jobs and 400 apprenticeships would be supported by Government. Jobs and apprenticeships created this summer, with many other jobs in steel and concrete fabrication saved from administration across the supply chain of the Red Wall seats.
All it required was a pump-priming of £35m by Govt. Payable in 2024-5.
Or govt. support equivalent to 150 yards of HS2 track.
Swansea Bay tidal lagoon is that project. Swansea unlocks Cardiff lagoon, the single largest renewables project on the planet. Cardiff will cost £7.5 billion. The same cost it will take just to abandon Hinkley C. The Hinkley C that required £34bn of taxpayer support to get it going.
Cardiff's zero carbon tidal power is an almost identical electricity ouput to Hinkley C. But requiring zero taxpayer money to get it going. It is entirely private sector funding. Yet the Government's "Value for Money" criteria will tell you Hinkley C is the better value for money.
If you want to see just how fucked up the civil service is, you will find no better example.
And no better example than Swansea Bay of how feeble the PMs ambitions were this morning. Don't mock him for standing by a pile of hard-hats. Mock him for not taking on the vested interest in the energy sector and its close tie up with the civil service that has stopped 2,600 more hard-hats being needed in construction from this summer.
You're going to have to let this go. It's not going to happen.
Oh it is. The planning rights were proteced in perpetuity, by works on site yesterday. But it will happen with the Government having tried to prevent it at every turn, rather than the kudos it could have got from embracing it.
It was utterly shit politics from May. That utterly shit politics has been perpetuated now by Boris.
One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
Sure - I agree with you as long as it is the county council (who get the council tax receipts) which adopts the areas - not the parish councils.
Reasonable but don't parish councils get an element of the Council Tax? And I'm assuming these residents aren't getting a discount on the parish surcharge or whatever it is formally called.
One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
Bear in mind that the common areas in the SUE are for use exclusively by the homeowners in the SUE. these are private facitities. If the county council were to adopt them then every parishioner in the county would be entitled to picnic on their green areas (as is the case with outer council common areas).
Are you sure about that? In most new build estates with private land being managed, they are not for use exclusively by the homeowners. They are open to the public.
SUEs are a special cohort of new-build estates. Common areas in new build estates are, I agree, in principle useable by everyone as the county council maintains (having adopted). SUEs are different. I think they are an awful concept and have caused a lot of tension in my parish.
I feel you might be slightly misinformed. New build estates typically have green areas and play-areas NOT adopted by county or metropolitan councils, and yet they are still open to the public DESPITE not being adopted.
It is RARE for green areas to be adopted by councils on ANY new-build estate built within the last 10-15 years.
Japan: no interference with civil liberties, 8 deaths per million.
UK: 3 months of house arrest, if not solitary confinement sometimes. 642 deaths per million.
Deaths are caused by the virus, not the lockdown. The only way to have got figures that looked like Japan's would have been to adopt social distancing measures and mask wearing in January, but if we'd done that, idiots would have been saying it was "interference with civil liberties".
Have you got it on your bedroom wall to give the finger to and laugh at every morning?
It is pretty funny, especially looking back after he gave his 'BLM?! Never heard of it!' interview yesterday...
He simply made it clear that by supporting the anti-racism message of BLM - which is what it's known for tbf - he is not endorsing anything and everything which is said either by or in the name of the movement.
Perfectly reasonable position. Can't see the problem.
The problem is that political messages do not in practice have an independent ethereal existence like Platonic Forms - they rely on their messenger. Starmer - to give him his due here - has the political danger sense to realize that the messengers have already tarnished the message and will only continue to do so in the future, so he spun around 180 degrees and dashed out of that minefield as quickly as he dashed into it. You almost have to admire the shamelessness!
Corbyn, of course, would have charged forwards until he disappeared in a red mist...
Jeremy would have been in Bristol sticking it to Colston. Conviction politician or protest politician - delete to taste.
Starmer quite fancies being PM.
and a plurality of Britons prefer him to Johnson.
The problem for Starmer is the Labour brand. Regardless of the progress he has made on anti-Semitism and celebrating Armed Forces' Day etc, there is a very good chunk of their ex-voters who think that, if Labour is elected, it won't be Starmer's Labour that is running things but the likes of BLM. Once bitten, twice shy.
This morning, the PM COULD have announced that a £1.3 billion shovel-ready project to create 2,200 jobs and 400 apprenticeships would be supported by Government. Jobs and apprenticeships created this summer, with many other jobs in steel and concrete fabrication saved from administration across the supply chain of the Red Wall seats.
All it required was a pump-priming of £35m by Govt. Payable in 2024-5.
Or govt. support equivalent to 150 yards of HS2 track.
Swansea Bay tidal lagoon is that project. Swansea unlocks Cardiff lagoon, the single largest renewables project on the planet. Cardiff will cost £7.5 billion. The same cost it will take just to abandon Hinkley C. The Hinkley C that required £34bn of taxpayer support to get it going.
Cardiff's zero carbon tidal power is an almost identical electricity ouput to Hinkley C. But requiring zero taxpayer money to get it going. It is entirely private sector funding. Yet the Government's "Value for Money" criteria will tell you Hinkley C is the better value for money.
If you want to see just how fucked up the civil service is, you will find no better example.
And no better example than Swansea Bay of how feeble the PMs ambitions were this morning. Don't mock him for standing by a pile of hard-hats. Mock him for not taking on the vested interest in the energy sector and its close tie up with the civil service that has stopped 2,600 more hard-hats being needed in construction from this summer.
You're going to have to let this go. It's not going to happen.
Oh it is. The planning rights were proteced in perpetuity, by works on site yesterday. But it will happen with the Government having tried to prevent it at every turn, rather than the kudos it could have got from embracing it.
It was utterly shit politics from May. That utterly shit politics has been perpetuated now by Boris.
It is beyond bizarre that an island famous for its cool, wet climate, tidal range and coastal currents doesn’t have a single meaningful tidal power source while able to generate 30% of its electricity from solar panels.
It’s an absolutely epic fail of government strategic thinking.
One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
Sure - I agree with you as long as it is the county council (who get the council tax receipts) which adopts the areas - not the parish councils.
Reasonable but don't parish councils get an element of the Council Tax? And I'm assuming these residents aren't getting a discount on the parish surcharge or whatever it is formally called.
My parish council does very little apart from making the village look pretty, maintaining the village hall, and pressuring Newcastle City Council to do a better job. I'm surprised the residents in @Stocky 's parish thought it was appropriate to go through their course of action - they should have lobbied the County/City/Metropolitan Council.
Have you got it on your bedroom wall to give the finger to and laugh at every morning?
It is pretty funny, especially looking back after he gave his 'BLM?! Never heard of it!' interview yesterday...
He simply made it clear that by supporting the anti-racism message of BLM - which is what it's known for tbf - he is not endorsing anything and everything which is said either by or in the name of the movement.
Perfectly reasonable position. Can't see the problem.
The problem is that political messages do not in practice have an independent ethereal existence like Platonic Forms - they rely on their messenger. Starmer - to give him his due here - has the political danger sense to realize that the messengers have already tarnished the message and will only continue to do so in the future, so he spun around 180 degrees and dashed out of that minefield as quickly as he dashed into it. You almost have to admire the shamelessness!
Corbyn, of course, would have charged forwards until he disappeared in a red mist...
Jeremy would have been in Bristol sticking it to Colston. Conviction politician or protest politician - delete to taste.
Starmer quite fancies being PM.
and a plurality of Britons prefer him to Johnson.
The problem for Starmer is the Labour brand. Regardless of the progress he has made on anti-Semitism and celebrating Armed Forces' Day etc, there is a very good chunk of their ex-voters who think that, if Labour is elected, it won't be Starmer's Labour that is running things but the likes of BLM. Once bitten, twice shy.
This morning, the PM COULD have announced that a £1.3 billion shovel-ready project to create 2,200 jobs and 400 apprenticeships would be supported by Government. Jobs and apprenticeships created this summer, with many other jobs in steel and concrete fabrication saved from administration across the supply chain of the Red Wall seats.
All it required was a pump-priming of £35m by Govt. Payable in 2024-5.
Or govt. support equivalent to 150 yards of HS2 track.
Swansea Bay tidal lagoon is that project. Swansea unlocks Cardiff lagoon, the single largest renewables project on the planet. Cardiff will cost £7.5 billion. The same cost it will take just to abandon Hinkley C. The Hinkley C that required £34bn of taxpayer support to get it going.
Cardiff's zero carbon tidal power is an almost identical electricity ouput to Hinkley C. But requiring zero taxpayer money to get it going. It is entirely private sector funding. Yet the Government's "Value for Money" criteria will tell you Hinkley C is the better value for money.
If you want to see just how fucked up the civil service is, you will find no better example.
And no better example than Swansea Bay of how feeble the PMs ambitions were this morning. Don't mock him for standing by a pile of hard-hats. Mock him for not taking on the vested interest in the energy sector and its close tie up with the civil service that has stopped 2,600 more hard-hats being needed in construction from this summer.
Why do you blame the civil service? It is the incompetent Conservative politicians who take the decisions. Your Mr Rishi no less said so the other day.
This morning, the PM COULD have announced that a £1.3 billion shovel-ready project to create 2,200 jobs and 400 apprenticeships would be supported by Government. Jobs and apprenticeships created this summer, with many other jobs in steel and concrete fabrication saved from administration across the supply chain of the Red Wall seats.
All it required was a pump-priming of £35m by Govt. Payable in 2024-5.
Or govt. support equivalent to 150 yards of HS2 track.
Swansea Bay tidal lagoon is that project. Swansea unlocks Cardiff lagoon, the single largest renewables project on the planet. Cardiff will cost £7.5 billion. The same cost it will take just to abandon Hinkley C. The Hinkley C that required £34bn of taxpayer support to get it going.
Cardiff's zero carbon tidal power is an almost identical electricity ouput to Hinkley C. But requiring zero taxpayer money to get it going. It is entirely private sector funding. Yet the Government's "Value for Money" criteria will tell you Hinkley C is the better value for money.
If you want to see just how fucked up the civil service is, you will find no better example.
And no better example than Swansea Bay of how feeble the PMs ambitions were this morning. Don't mock him for standing by a pile of hard-hats. Mock him for not taking on the vested interest in the energy sector and its close tie up with the civil service that has stopped 2,600 more hard-hats being needed in construction from this summer.
You're going to have to let this go. It's not going to happen.
Oh it is. The planning rights were proteced in perpetuity, by works on site yesterday. But it will happen with the Government having tried to prevent it at every turn, rather than the kudos it could have got from embracing it.
It was utterly shit politics from May. That utterly shit politics has been perpetuated now by Boris.
Swansea born and bred, so hoping it does. Enormous boost for a city that really, really needs it.
Its city with potential. Fantastic industrial past and literary heritage of Thomas.
Only anyone who had never heard him do an actual live speech.
Remember that one he did in front of a backdrop of police last summer?
He unquestionably has charisma in that he draws and holds attention. He can entertain. Amuse. Cheer you up a bit. This is the essence of “Boris”. It wins elections but goes no further. He cannot inspire or move or educate or intellectually provoke. It’s impossible to imagine him making a speech which does any of this. And the reason he will never pull this off is because he is a vacuous, rather frivolous man. There is no gravitas there. No moral seriousness. No sincerity. There’s a void where all that stuff would usually reside. Seventeen (and a half) stones of mainly muscle he may be, yet he lacks weight. That’s the long and short of it.
This morning, the PM COULD have announced that a £1.3 billion shovel-ready project to create 2,200 jobs and 400 apprenticeships would be supported by Government. Jobs and apprenticeships created this summer, with many other jobs in steel and concrete fabrication saved from administration across the supply chain of the Red Wall seats.
All it required was a pump-priming of £35m by Govt. Payable in 2024-5.
Or govt. support equivalent to 150 yards of HS2 track.
Swansea Bay tidal lagoon is that project. Swansea unlocks Cardiff lagoon, the single largest renewables project on the planet. Cardiff will cost £7.5 billion. The same cost it will take just to abandon Hinkley C. The Hinkley C that required £34bn of taxpayer support to get it going.
Cardiff's zero carbon tidal power is an almost identical electricity ouput to Hinkley C. But requiring zero taxpayer money to get it going. It is entirely private sector funding. Yet the Government's "Value for Money" criteria will tell you Hinkley C is the better value for money.
If you want to see just how fucked up the civil service is, you will find no better example.
And no better example than Swansea Bay of how feeble the PMs ambitions were this morning. Don't mock him for standing by a pile of hard-hats. Mock him for not taking on the vested interest in the energy sector and its close tie up with the civil service that has stopped 2,600 more hard-hats being needed in construction from this summer.
Why do you blame the civil service? It is the incompetent Conservative politicians who take the decisions. Your Mr Rishi no less said so the other day.
To be strictly accurate, in this case the politicians have failed to take the necessary decisions.
One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
Bear in mind that the common areas in the SUE are for use exclusively by the homeowners in the SUE. these are private facitities. If the county council were to adopt them then every parishioner in the county would be entitled to picnic on their green areas (as is the case with outer council common areas).
Indeed that's reasonable. But when I lived on an estate like that it was not unusual to see people entering the estate to use the playground equipment and nobody would object.
I think it's reasonable to have the common areas adopted but of course if they are it would mean they're free for the whole public to use and be maintained to Council standards.
Frankly this is reasonable and adds a bit of karma to the whole system. The Council which outsourced it's obligations doesn't just gain new Council Tax but also new voters who can express their anger if they're being screwed over.
Plus for the management companies if they provide a great service at a cheap rate there'll be no desire to rock the boat. For those that take the piss the residents will be motivated to seek adoption.
One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
Bear in mind that the common areas in the SUE are for use exclusively by the homeowners in the SUE. these are private facitities. If the county council were to adopt them then every parishioner in the county would be entitled to picnic on their green areas (as is the case with outer council common areas).
Are you sure about that? In most new build estates with private land being managed, they are not for use exclusively by the homeowners. They are open to the public.
SUEs are a special cohort of new-build estates. Common areas in new build estates are, I agree, in principle useable by everyone as the county council maintains (having adopted). SUEs are different. I think they are an awful concept and have caused a lot of tension in my parish.
I feel you might be slightly misinformed. New build estates typically have green areas and play-areas NOT adopted by county or metropolitan councils, and yet they are still open to the public DESPITE not being adopted.
It is RARE for green areas to be adopted by councils on ANY new-build estate built within the last 10-15 years.
Ok - maybe I used the wrong word. Instead of "adopted" I should have said that the council is "obliged to maintain".
This morning, the PM COULD have announced that a £1.3 billion shovel-ready project to create 2,200 jobs and 400 apprenticeships would be supported by Government. Jobs and apprenticeships created this summer, with many other jobs in steel and concrete fabrication saved from administration across the supply chain of the Red Wall seats.
All it required was a pump-priming of £35m by Govt. Payable in 2024-5.
Or govt. support equivalent to 150 yards of HS2 track.
Swansea Bay tidal lagoon is that project. Swansea unlocks Cardiff lagoon, the single largest renewables project on the planet. Cardiff will cost £7.5 billion. The same cost it will take just to abandon Hinkley C. The Hinkley C that required £34bn of taxpayer support to get it going.
Cardiff's zero carbon tidal power is an almost identical electricity ouput to Hinkley C. But requiring zero taxpayer money to get it going. It is entirely private sector funding. Yet the Government's "Value for Money" criteria will tell you Hinkley C is the better value for money.
If you want to see just how fucked up the civil service is, you will find no better example.
And no better example than Swansea Bay of how feeble the PMs ambitions were this morning. Don't mock him for standing by a pile of hard-hats. Mock him for not taking on the vested interest in the energy sector and its close tie up with the civil service that has stopped 2,600 more hard-hats being needed in construction from this summer.
You're going to have to let this go. It's not going to happen.
Oh it is. The planning rights were proteced in perpetuity, by works on site yesterday. But it will happen with the Government having tried to prevent it at every turn, rather than the kudos it could have got from embracing it.
It was utterly shit politics from May. That utterly shit politics has been perpetuated now by Boris.
Japan: no interference with civil liberties, 8 deaths per million.
UK: 3 months of house arrest, if not solitary confinement sometimes. 642 deaths per million.
"locking people up" and "house arrest" lol - Hyperbole much
These people might want to take a look at the measures that were in place in many other countries. Only Sweeden and the USA come close to the amount of liberty afforded to Brits at the hight of the pandemic.
Millions of people were under actual house arrest, having to take a permit from the police to go for food and medicines.
One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
Bear in mind that the common areas in the SUE are for use exclusively by the homeowners in the SUE. these are private facitities. If the county council were to adopt them then every parishioner in the county would be entitled to picnic on their green areas (as is the case with outer council common areas).
Are you sure about that? In most new build estates with private land being managed, they are not for use exclusively by the homeowners. They are open to the public.
SUEs are a special cohort of new-build estates. Common areas in new build estates are, I agree, in principle useable by everyone as the county council maintains (having adopted). SUEs are different. I think they are an awful concept and have caused a lot of tension in my parish.
I feel you might be slightly misinformed. New build estates typically have green areas and play-areas NOT adopted by county or metropolitan councils, and yet they are still open to the public DESPITE not being adopted.
It is RARE for green areas to be adopted by councils on ANY new-build estate built within the last 10-15 years.
Ok - maybe I used the wrong word. Instead of "adopted" I should have said that the council is "obliged to maintain".
But that is also not accurate. I'll rephrase:
It is rare for green areas on new-build estates built within the last 10-15 years to be adopted OR maintained by county/city/metropolitan councils. The service is privatised and performed by the estate management company DESPITE the areas being open to the public.
This is the normal state of affairs around the country. It's "boring" because unless you buy a house on one of these estates you are unaffected. Quite a sneaky privatisation through the back-door really.
Like I said, I don't resent it. As far as I'm concerned somebody has to pay, and the council has much more pressing matters to address. It must be fair and regulated though, and at the moment it isn't.
This morning, the PM COULD have announced that a £1.3 billion shovel-ready project to create 2,200 jobs and 400 apprenticeships would be supported by Government. Jobs and apprenticeships created this summer, with many other jobs in steel and concrete fabrication saved from administration across the supply chain of the Red Wall seats.
All it required was a pump-priming of £35m by Govt. Payable in 2024-5.
Or govt. support equivalent to 150 yards of HS2 track.
Swansea Bay tidal lagoon is that project. Swansea unlocks Cardiff lagoon, the single largest renewables project on the planet. Cardiff will cost £7.5 billion. The same cost it will take just to abandon Hinkley C. The Hinkley C that required £34bn of taxpayer support to get it going.
Cardiff's zero carbon tidal power is an almost identical electricity ouput to Hinkley C. But requiring zero taxpayer money to get it going. It is entirely private sector funding. Yet the Government's "Value for Money" criteria will tell you Hinkley C is the better value for money.
If you want to see just how fucked up the civil service is, you will find no better example.
And no better example than Swansea Bay of how feeble the PMs ambitions were this morning. Don't mock him for standing by a pile of hard-hats. Mock him for not taking on the vested interest in the energy sector and its close tie up with the civil service that has stopped 2,600 more hard-hats being needed in construction from this summer.
You're going to have to let this go. It's not going to happen.
Oh it is. The planning rights were proteced in perpetuity, by works on site yesterday. But it will happen with the Government having tried to prevent it at every turn, rather than the kudos it could have got from embracing it.
It was utterly shit politics from May. That utterly shit politics has been perpetuated now by Boris.
It is beyond bizarre that an island famous for its cool, wet climate, tidal range and coastal currents doesn’t have a single meaningful tidal power source while able to generate 30% of its electricity from solar panels.
It’s an absolutely epic fail of government strategic thinking.
Most of the areas where tidal energy would currently work have strict environmental protection of one form or another (mostly EU defined, although that's not really relevant).
We need technology that works in deep tidal streams rather than using barrages.
There have been trials (eg Pentland Firth & Pembrokeshire) but they haven't been very successful.
One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
Gallowgate, this became a big issue in my parish. A housing estate was built on the fringe of our rural parish. It is called a "sustainable urban development" and has it`s own green spaces etc which, as you say, have to be maintained and paid for by the development rather than the county council.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
Can the Council "adopt" the green spaces etc?
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
Yes - they could - but this is the point isn`t it. When the county council agreed the permissions for these SUE estates to be built (Sustainable Urban Develpoments) the SUE bit means that they are "self-sustaining" financially. So the homeowners contractually agree at purchase that they are personally liable for the maintainance of common areas (usually through a management company) - which is of course pointed out by their solicitor during the conveyancing process.
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
It's dodgy those living there don't get a discount on their Council Tax do they?
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
Sure - I agree with you as long as it is the county council (who get the council tax receipts) which adopts the areas - not the parish councils.
Reasonable but don't parish councils get an element of the Council Tax? And I'm assuming these residents aren't getting a discount on the parish surcharge or whatever it is formally called.
My parish council does very little apart from making the village look pretty, maintaining the village hall, and pressuring Newcastle City Council to do a better job. I'm surprised the residents in @Stocky 's parish thought it was appropriate to go through their course of action - they should have lobbied the County/City/Metropolitan Council.
Comments
You may have seen a picture. You ain't ever seen a theatrical reveal on that scale.
Yes as far as I understand they can do that unilaterally.
What is closest to your view of the meaning of the Black Lives Matter "taking a knee" gesture?
- Expressing support for an anti-racism message in response to events such as the killing of George Floyd
- Expressing support for defunding the police
I doubt there will be such a poll, because it is obvious to anyone without an unhealthy obsession that the first answer would get a huge majority.
(What's with the suit stuff by the way? I didn't even notice it!)
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/06/26/the-lockdown-is-causing-so-many-deaths/#.Xvb4uRFDEOI
Japan: no interference with civil liberties, 8 deaths per million.
UK: 3 months of house arrest, if not solitary confinement sometimes.
642 deaths per million.
This became a big issue because some of the residents of the estate tried to get onto our parish council to force through a policy so that the cost of this maintainance was paid out of parish funds! Parishioners were furious. It didn`t happen and would, I believe, have been illegal as it would have meant paying parish council funds to some residents of the parish but not others.
The cheek, though, trying to transfer legal liabilites that they contractually agreed when they purchased their home into all of parishioners.
Starmer quite fancies being PM.
That often happens with roads in new developments doesn't it? Not sure the legality of other stuff.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1277932692269604864
The whole point of SUEs in the first place is that the county council hits it`s new homes target without incurring any pressure on their costs through having to maintain common areas (cut grass, prune trees etc) while taking in the additional council tax. Shouldn`t be allowed in my view.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1277929682369986560
But reassuring frankly that if the net has been thrown so wide as that, that it has demonstrated so few locations as it has.
They’ve come a long way in only a couple of months.
Whilst I sympathise with @Stocky it's not as simple as stating that the home owners "contractually agreed" to the fees.
The way it normally goes is that the sales person for the house builder tells the prospective resident that there will be a "small charge of £X per year to look after green areas" and it all sounds very reasonable. However within a few years this has increased to god-knows-what.
- There is not normally the "right to manage" and thus no free-market pressure.
- There is no right to see invoices to ensure the management company is accurately representing their costs.
- There is no right to withhold the "management fee" if you believe it is unfair.
- There is no right to challenge cost increases.
- The management company can block the sale of the home if you are in arrears with any fees or charges.
I follow quite a few Facebook groups made up of residents caught in this "trap" and many of them think local councils should be forced to adopt them. I personally don't agree with this - I think that somebody ultimately has to pay, and the council has many more important things to be spending their money on, but there must be legislation to regulate management companies, and possibly a right to kick-out the company and to select a new one.https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1277936315145818114
I think the residents are fair enough to seek to get the common areas adopted if that's what they want to vote for. Those living elsewhere paying the same Council Tax rates are getting more service.
I know because I went through it myself. I was very informed and asked A LOT of questions and most of the answers were: "don't know, up to a judge to decide".
Most people, especially young people using Help to Buy, do not read the documentation or engage in the process at all. They do not know what they are buying.
All it required was a pump-priming of £35m by Govt. Payable in 2024-5.
Or govt. support equivalent to 150 yards of HS2 track.
Swansea Bay tidal lagoon is that project. Swansea unlocks Cardiff lagoon, the single largest renewables project on the planet. Cardiff will cost £7.5 billion. The same cost it will take just to abandon Hinkley C. The Hinkley C that required £34bn of taxpayer support to get it going.
Cardiff's zero carbon tidal power is an almost identical electricity ouput to Hinkley C. But requiring zero taxpayer money to get it going. It is entirely private sector funding. Yet the Government's "Value for Money" criteria will tell you Hinkley C is the better value for money.
If you want to see just how fucked up the civil service is, you will find no better example.
And no better example than Swansea Bay of how feeble the PMs ambitions were this morning. Don't mock him for standing by a pile of hard-hats. Mock him for not taking on the vested interest in the energy sector and its close tie up with the civil service that has stopped 2,600 more hard-hats being needed in construction from this summer.
I am not sure what you mean about preventing the sale. I've never seen this suggested as part of a freehold covenant.
You also can't withhold service charges under a lease, so I am not sure that comparison makes sense.
eg there were no cases in Doncaster yesterday. It looks like nonsense.
So, how do we think the relaunch went?
I know that you can't withhold service charges under a lease, however I mentioned it because the default action from the layman, when faced with a charge they believe is unfair, is simply not to pay it until they "get answers". If a freeholder does this, they risk losing their home.
Their operation is not simply regulated by covenants. For example my house has an entry under the proprietorship register that states the following:
RESTRICTION: No disposition of the registered estate (other than a charge) by the proprietor of the registered estate is to be registered without a certificate signed by (MANAGEMENT COMPANY) or their conveyancer that the provisions of clauses 42.6, 41.1 and 40.5 of the Transfer dated 1 June 2018 referred to in the Charges Register have been complied with.
This is not unusual. Basically the management company must consent to a sale.
Even the media fanbois are getting rattled
More generally, I agree entirely that it's frustrating the PIllar 2 data are not clearly presented or shared - although you can see a high-level summary by region at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/895356/Weekly_COVID19_Surveillance_Report_w26.pdf it's really not very granular.
Net result: loads of pensioners living alone in 5+ bed houses. Council services cut beyond the bone.
It was utterly shit politics from May. That utterly shit politics has been perpetuated now by Boris.
He welcomed the appointment of Frost when it happened...
It is RARE for green areas to be adopted by councils on ANY new-build estate built within the last 10-15 years.
https://twitter.com/James1940/status/1277923145966592003?s=20
It’s an absolutely epic fail of government strategic thinking.
My parish council precept is £13 a year!
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1276942999277178881?s=19
Its city with potential. Fantastic industrial past and literary heritage of Thomas.
I think it's reasonable to have the common areas adopted but of course if they are it would mean they're free for the whole public to use and be maintained to Council standards.
Frankly this is reasonable and adds a bit of karma to the whole system. The Council which outsourced it's obligations doesn't just gain new Council Tax but also new voters who can express their anger if they're being screwed over.
Plus for the management companies if they provide a great service at a cheap rate there'll be no desire to rock the boat. For those that take the piss the residents will be motivated to seek adoption.
Once you have seen the man behind the curtain, you can't watch the show anymore.
Millions of people were under actual house arrest, having to take a permit from the police to go for food and medicines.
It is rare for green areas on new-build estates built within the last 10-15 years to be adopted OR maintained by county/city/metropolitan councils. The service is privatised and performed by the estate management company DESPITE the areas being open to the public.
This is the normal state of affairs around the country. It's "boring" because unless you buy a house on one of these estates you are unaffected. Quite a sneaky privatisation through the back-door really.
Like I said, I don't resent it. As far as I'm concerned somebody has to pay, and the council has much more pressing matters to address. It must be fair and regulated though, and at the moment it isn't.
I think I would rather take my chances with the virus. I might lose, but I am more likely to
win. With lockdown I lose every time.
We need technology that works in deep tidal streams rather than using barrages.
There have been trials (eg Pentland Firth & Pembrokeshire) but they haven't been very successful.
People are still working on it.