Britain's £2.5BILLION newest town next to major motorway is unveiled in blueprint for 4,000 homes, new shops & hotel
The Elms Park development, located in the north of Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, was approved by local authorities yesterday.
5
5
5
Councils have given the go-ahead to the massive new town serving almost 9,000 people.
It will be situated on the outskirts of the Cotswolds, just off junction 10 of the M5, and will feature roughly 60 acres for employment land.
Tewkesbury Borough Council described the approval of the 4,115 homes as the "biggest decision" it had ever made.
And Cheltenham Borough Council also gave the development the green light, despite heavy opposition to the scheme from seven neighbouring villages.
The new town is set to take more than 20 years to be developed, with work expected to be completed in phases.
The plans include a 25-acre business park, a hotel, shops, cafes, new schools, healthcare facilities and a transport hub.
Proposals also include state-of-the-art sporting facilities, including an all-weather 3G pitch on site.
Elms Park Consortium, led by house builders Bloor Homes and Persimmon, claims that the project will create as many as 8,000 jobs in the area.
It estimates that the development will provide 1,000 affordable homes while generating up to £300m for the local economy each year.
The patch of land is outside the green belt and has been allocated for development in Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury's joint planning strategy.
Calling on councillors to approve the scheme, Rob White, agent for the applicant, said: "Approximately £25m will be spent on community infrastructure.
'It will contribute £300 million a year into the sub-regional economy, creating and supporting over 8,000 new jobs, with 30 apprenticeships a year during construction over 20 years.
"Over 4000 new homes will be built, providing for a new community of around 9,000 residents, many of whom will already be living in the area.
'Approximately £50 million pounds will be spent on providing new schools, including a secondary school and two primary schools on site.
'A sports hub containing new facilities for cricket, football, tennis, and an all-weather 3G pitch will be provided on site along with significant contributions to local rugby and hockey clubs.
'They are committed to bringing forward Elms Park as a well-designed, sustainable and healthy place where the new community can thrive.'
But locals are concerned that it will bring larger numbers of traffic and overwhelm public services in the area.
Cheltenham Civic Society raised concerns over the design of the development.
5
They highlighted potential risks with road safety, parking, flooding and pollution.
Also among the opposition is Gloucestershire police and crime commissioner Chris Nelson, who called for the plans to be postponed due to a lack of agreed funding for a new police station.
He added that the constabulary was considering legal action over the issue.
The councils released a joint statement on their websites confirming the decision yesterday.
Cllr Mike Collins, of Cheltenham Borough Council, and Cllr Sarah Hands, of Tewkesbury Borough Council, said: 'Elms Park is one of the largest schemes Tewkesbury Borough and Cheltenham Borough Councils have ever considered.
"It has been a long time in the making, having been included as a strategic allocation in the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy.
We're pleased that following careful consideration, the detail of this JCS allocation has been approved at both planning committees today after both detailed and thorough debate.
'Over the next 20 years, the project will provide over 4,000 much-needed new and affordable homes, community facilities and commercial floorspace.
"It will bring substantial economic benefits in the future whilst also being sensitive to its surroundings, including protecting and enhancing significant areas of valuable green space and biodiversity.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
14 hours ago
- BBC News
Gloucestershire Police chief pledges to tackle racism in force
Gloucestershire Police's temporary Chief Constable has acknowledged that racism still exists within the force. T/CC Maggie Blyth met the public at a community engagement forum in Gloucester on Thursday, and answered questions the force's concerns raised about racism, a lack of professionalism and worries over hate crimes, there was some praise for neighbourhood acting head of the force said she recognised the importance of responding to feedback in order to maintain public trust in the force to "protect and keep people safe". The forum, which was jointly hosted by the independent Community Legitimacy Panel (CLP) and Gloucestershire Police, was attended by dozens of people from across the county, and held at the Church of God of Prophecy on Melbourne Street of the questions posed was whether racism existed within the force - T/CC Blyth accepted that it did, based on conversations with colleagues, the National Black Police Association and members of the added while the force still has a long way to go, tackling racism remained "an absolute priority". Members of the public also claimed armed officers sometimes showed a "lack of respect" when responding to response, T/CC Blyth said she would work hard to ensure all force employees carried out their work with respect, empathy and of the people who attended the meeting praised the work of the Neighbourhood Policing Team for their efforts in building and maintaining "strong relationships with all communities". The panel, which included other senior officers, was also told how victims of hate crime often lack the confidence their report would be investigated.T/CC Blyth said she recognised people sometimes find it difficult to report crimes for a variety of reasons, but wanted to reassure any victim of hate crime they would be taken seriously. 'Words and actions' "It's so important for police services to listen to their communities, take on board any concerns they may have and positively respond with both words and actions to them," T/CC Blyth said. "If we don't, we will inevitably have a negative impact on levels of public trust and confidence in our service; in our ability to protect and keep people safe; to investigate any crimes people have had the misfortune of being victims of; and to act with the highest standards of professionalism and integrity."She was appointed to the role following the suspension of former Chief Constable Rod Hansen after allegations of gross misconduct.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- The Guardian
VIP contract introduced by Tory peer left government owed £24m
They were the lucrative deals that epitomised the 'VIP lane' set up by Boris Johnson's government during the Covid pandemic, which gave priority for personal protective equipment (PPE) contracts to people with political connections. Peter Gummer, a former PR boss who has been Tory peer Lord Chadlington since 1996, had smooth access at his fingertips. The erstwhile adviser to John Major has 'close personal friendships with many senior Conservative party politicians', he has said, and as president of the Witney constituency association in the Cotswolds is 'close friends' with its most notable MP: David Cameron. When the pandemic reached Britain early in 2020, Chadlington was a director and shareholder of a company registered in Jersey, majority-owned and run by David Sumner, a serial entrepreneur then based in Dubai. During the first lockdown, Chadlington embarked on an effort to introduce a Sumner company to supply PPE. He contacted Cameron first, texting him at 7.13am on 19 April 2020. Cameron texted back that his own close friend Andrew Feldman, whom he had appointed to the House of Lords when he was prime minister, was working for the government on PPE procurement. Chadlington then texted Feldman, who said to get in touch on his new Department of Health and Social Care email address. By 8.04am, less than an hour after his initial text to Cameron, Chadlington was emailing Feldman, copying in Sumner, to make a direct introduction. 'David,' Chadlington wrote, addressing Sumner. 'This is my friend Andrew Feldman. He can help you with PPE we discussed this morning. Drop me off chain. Peter.' Sumner then sent Feldman an offer to supply PPE. Feldman forwarded it to civil servants operating the VIP lane, telling them: 'An interesting offer from David Sumner who was introduced to me by Lord Chadlington.' A week later, the DHSC awarded Sumner's UK company – a small, loss-making healthcare staff agency, SG Recruitment – a £24m contract to supply coveralls. A month later the government gave the company a second contract, worth £26m, to supply hand sanitiser. The full story of how this £50m example of the government's VIP lane commissioning turned out is only becoming clearer now. It was far from a success. Despite the government contracts, SG Recruitment, later renamed, went into liquidation in December 2023. The liquidators have just issued their official report. It confirmed for the first time that the DHSC entirely rejected as 'unusable' the PPE supplied under the first contract, and has put in a claim for the full £24m. However, all the money has gone from the company. It went bust owing £1.1m in taxes to HMRC. The liquidators found that payments were made out of the company to connected businesses and 'unknown third parties', some apparently overseas. The main bank account was closed in December 2021. Sumner transferred ownership of the company in March 2023 to a woman the liquidators said they believed to be a Philippine national, whom they were unable to contact. The sum total of money found was in an overseas transfers account: £5. The parent company, Sumner Group Holdings (SGH), of which Chadlington was a director then chair, went into liquidation earlier, in 2022. Chadlington's lawyers told the Guardian in June 2023 that when he put the Sumner companies forward for PPE contracts, he was unaware they had financial difficulties. 'He had no information which gave rise to financial concerns regarding SGH and/or SGR in April 2020,' they said. But the Guardian has seen evidence that indicates Chadlington was made aware in January 2020 that some SGH creditors were pushing the company, and Sumner personally, to repay at least $18m, claiming that they were owed in total approximately $30m at that time. There is also publicly revealed evidence that the Sumner companies were under financial pressure before Chadlington made his introduction. SGH was put into liquidation by a consultant, Douglas Geertz, whose fees were never paid. A 2022 court judgment noted that SGH's chief operating officer told him in the summer of 2018: 'I regret that SGH finds itself in very challenging financial circumstances.' In December 2019 other creditors had sued another Sumner group company in the British Virgin Islands for £2m. A published court judgment noted that: 'Relations [with these creditors] deteriorated in late 2018 and collapsed completely in September 2019.' The £2m appears never to have been paid. SG Recruitment, the UK company, had made losses of £700,000, and was financially reliant on SGH, in the year before it was awarded the PPE contracts. Despite all this, Chadlington used his connections to contact senior Conservative figures from April 2020, including Matt Hancock, then the health secretary, promoting Sumner as a supplier of PPE. Chadlington encouraged Sumner to secure contracts, messaging him after the approach to Feldman with 'Brilliant. Keep going' and 'Excellent. Looks like you have an inside track.' Chadlington has twice been investigated by the House of Lords commissioner for standards for his approach to Feldman, under a section of the conduct code that says peers 'must not seek to profit from membership of the House'. Chadlington did not tell either investigation that he sent the email introducing Sumner to Feldman. He told the commissioner's second inquiry in August 2023: 'I did not facilitate an introduction.' He was cleared of any misconduct both times. Chadlington has now disclosed that email introduction and the text messages he exchanged with Cameron, Feldman, Hancock and Sumner, after he was asked to provide evidence to the Covid-19 public inquiry. It published the messages and his witness statement in May this year. Chaired by Heather Hallett, the inquiry is considering the VIP lane as part of its examination into how the government handled the pandemic. The Covid Bereaved Families for Justice (CBFFJ) group, which represents relatives of 7,500 people who died of Covid, is an inquiry core participant. The CBFFJ's lead lawyer, Pete Weatherby KC, has been very critical of the VIP lane and highlighted SG Recruitment as a key example. The inquiry is looking at how Chadlington's introduction affected the contracts being awarded, but not at whether the PPE was ultimately delivered. Johnson's government's operation of the VIP lane has been widely criticised for prioritising politically connected companies ever since its existence was leaked in October 2020. As the government frantically scrambled to fill depleted stockpiles, it spent £12bn on PPE in 2020-21, of which almost £9bn had to be written off because it was substandard, defective, past its use-by date or overpriced. The UK Anti-Corruption Coalition has pointed to evidence that VIP lane contracts cost £3.8bn, almost 30% of the total, and delivered more expensive and more unusable PPE than non-VIP contracts. Hancock and other ministers have defended the VIP lane, arguing that it enabled the government to prioritise credible offers. Chadlington was a director of SGH from 2018, then was appointed chair in April 2020, starting the role in June 2020, his lawyers said. In his statement to the Covid inquiry, Chadlington said that it was later, 'within a few months' of becoming chair, that he and his fellow SGH directors did become 'increasingly concerned' about the way the business was being run. 'We were concerned about unpaid wages and fees, contracts falling through, and increasingly vague and confusing responses from Mr Sumner and the management team to questions from the SGH board, as well as Mr Sumner's apparent overoptimism about the state of the business.' Despite this, as late as April 2021, Chadlington was enthusiastically supporting Sumner to bid for a further government PPE contract, telling a fellow director that Sumner was being asked to quote 'on a huge (and I mean huge!) contract' to supply gloves. That showed that the government 'have no doubts about our legitimacy', he wrote to the director. The same day he messaged Sumner, encouraging him to publicly market the company as a government supplier. Ultimately the company was accepted as a possible supplier of gloves, but no contracts were awarded. Chadlington has repeatedly said he did not personally benefit from the PPE contracts, telling the Lords commissioner's first inquiry in 2022: 'I received no commission, bonus or direct financial benefit from the two contracts awarded to SG Recruitment Limited.' The Guardian has seen SGH filings in Jersey showing that in the year after the award of the contracts, Chadlington was issued with 27.5m new shares in the company, which he appears not to have paid for. Chadlington's lawyers said the shares were not a bonus, they were 'growth shares' issued to him and the other non-executive directors after he became chair and reorganised the board. Three months after supporting Sumner to bid for the PPE gloves deal, in July 2021 Chadlington resigned from SGH. All the non-executive directors were owed fees, he has said, and they resigned at the same time. Chadlington was owed $100,000 director's fees when SGH went into liquidation, almost $350,000 in consultancy fees, and a $180,000 loan. Sumner, who is believed to be in the Philippines, replied to the Guardian's questions by email. He said the DHSC reduced the amount of hand sanitiser bought under the second contract, paying £16.6m rather than £26m, so £40.6m for the two contracts. Sumner said the company had the required commercial and regulatory experience to supply PPE and delivered in accordance with the contracts, and that profit margins were 'circa 15%', although he did not provide evidence for this. He did not answer questions about the payments made out of SG Recruitment, or the closing of its bank accounts in 2021, but said that all money was 'accounted for properly'. In relation to its liquidation, he said the company 'was sold to a third party' almost a year before, 'so it is very disappointing that the new owners had not made a success of the company'. He said he did not accept Chadlington's criticisms of his management. Of the SGH liquidation and questions about the $30m debts creditors were claiming, Sumner said: 'SGH Jersey was not a contracting party and so not relevant.' After Chadlington provided his messages to the Covid inquiry, the Lords standards commissioner has since opened a third inquiry. The possible conduct breaches are the same as previously, but also this time whether he failed to act on his 'personal honour'. That appears to be a question of whether he was not fully transparent with the two previous inquiries. Chadlington's lawyers responded to the Guardian's questions by saying that he did not act in any way improperly 'in connecting Mr Sumner with Lord Feldman'. They said it was up to the government, not Chadlington, to carry out due diligence on SG Recruitment. In relation to questions about his knowledge of SGH's financial position, and the $30m debts, when he introduced Sumner for government PPE contracts, the lawyers said: 'Our client understood that while the company had faced some cashflow issues, these were common to most startup businesses.' He only became concerned about SGH's viability later after he became chair, in particular by the beginning of 2021, they said. In his witness statement to the Covid inquiry, Chadlington said: 'While I was not involved in the awarding of contracts for PPE, I was proud that, by making the necessary introductions, I had played a very small role in helping the country during a national emergency.' A DHSC spokesperson said after Labour was elected to government, it has sought to recover money from PPE contracts that did not deliver. He did not answer questions about SG Recruitment, saying the DHSC cannot currently discuss specific companies. A spokesperson for the CBFFJ said: 'While our loved ones were dying, often without the PPE that could have protected them, the system enabled political insiders to use their connections to secure public contracts. It is devastating to learn that the PPE from one of SG Recruitment's contracts was rejected as unusable. This is exactly the kind of evidence the Covid inquiry should be examining. Bereaved families deserve answers. The public deserves answers. Justice means getting to the bottom of how this happened, who benefited, and who should be held accountable.'
Telegraph
2 days ago
- Telegraph
‘Why does anybody need to inherit £100m? I'm giving it all away'
Britain's 'it-wedding' this summer was a lavish affair: the celebrity-studded takeover of a Cotswolds hotel, a performance from Elton John and a guest list teeming with royals, athletes and other A-listers. Yet while there seemed to be no expense spared for the wedding of Eve Jobs and Harry Charles, reportedly a £5m affair, the daughter of Apple founder Steve will not be starting her married life with endowed riches. Steve Jobs, who died from pancreatic cancer in 2011, left his fortune to his wife, Laurene – making her at the time the 35th richest person in the world, worth $27.5bn. He purposefully excluded his children from his multibillion-dollar estate. Five years ago, Laurene told the New York Times: 'I'm not interested in legacy wealth building, and my children know that... Steve wasn't interested in that. If I live long enough, it ends with me.' Such is the mantra among many ultra high net worth individuals, who are choosing to cut off their kids so that they might make their own way in life. Relatives of Nicola Peltz, wife of Brooklyn Beckham, have reportedly accused his family of being 'tight with money' when it comes to their eldest. Daniel Craig, Sting, Nigella Lawson and Gordon Ramsay have also spoken out about passing down little cash to their offspring. For some, it's a point of principle – 'it's definitely not going to them, and that's not in a mean way; it's to not spoil them,' Ramsay said in a 2017 Telegraph interview. Others believe their money can be put to better use elsewhere. That's the case for entrepreneur and philanthropist Barrie Wells, 85. 'Why does anybody need £100m to be left to them? I think it's far better off being used for things in society,' he says. In 2008, Wells sold his insurance company Premierline for several million pounds, prompting a discussion with his two children about how the family finances were to be arranged. At that stage, Wells had been solely focused on building businesses from scratch – the idea of disseminating his wealth had never crossed his mind, he says. 'It really was a complete step change when I just thought, 'Why am I creating more and more businesses? Why don't I do something for society instead?'' An enthusiastic amateur runner, he set up the Barrie Wells Trust, a charity that has pumped millions into sponsoring athletes including Katarina Johnson-Thompson, Jessica Ennis-Hill and Keely Hodgkinson, and Box4Kids, which gives seriously ill children tickets to private boxes at major sports and entertainment venues. Wells does not harbour concerns about making sure there is enough wealth left over to pass on to his children, now 48 and 50 – a fact that they have come to accept. When he told them of his plans, his son looked at him 'long and hard for a while, and then he thought it was a good idea,' he says. 'I do things I want to do, and give it all away. They've seen me gradually giving the money away over the last 17 years and they're onside as well.' While there may not be a hefty sum awaiting them on his passing, he feels they have had plenty. 'I've provided them with an education, paid for driving lessons, bought their first car, [given a] deposit for their first house. They've had holidays all over the world with me; they've got access to my network of friends. How much more could I give them?' Bill Samuel is another who believes his wealth can do more today than passed on tomorrow. A member of the Foyles bookshop dynasty (he, along with his three sisters, were each gifted a 2pc share of the business), he has spent much of any would-be inheritance on memorable experiences with his three children, grandchildren and great-grandchild. The conversation first cropped up 20 years ago in discussion with his daughters. 'They said, 'Dad, we don't want money from you, we want memories of you'. And from that was born the idea of each year, taking one of them on a nice holiday.' They've since visited the Galapagos Islands, Borneo, Tanzania, Kenya, Sri Lanka and many more. 'It's enabled me to get to know my grandchildren rather better than I would have otherwise done, plus given us some fabulous memories.' Samuel, 84, is not against inheritance per se; after all, he has benefitted from it himself. ' Family businesses rely on inheritance, and I'm a very strong advocate of family businesses.' A qualified chartered accountant, he joined the board of Foyles, the bookshop founded by his grandfather, in the late 1990s after his aunt died. A necessary distinction, he believes, is that 'inheritance brings with it responsibility, rather than entitlement. And I think that that's the key to making inheritance acceptable'. His standpoint isn't unique. Among his peers, Samuel says, 'by and large there's no intention to leave large chunks of money to their children'. Prioritising giving now, while house prices remain high and taxes are on the rise, is a far better way of helping out than leaving cash that can only be accessed once you're gone. Of course, it can also be more tax-efficient to give away money during a lifetime, as estates are subject to inheritance tax at 40pc. The UK is currently in the midst of the great wealth transfer, with £7tn expected to pass between generations by 2050, and the wealthiest 10pc expected to net half a million apiece (with many receiving much more). In England and Wales, offspring have no legal right to family wealth because of 'testamentary freedom', which allows a testator to leave their estate to any beneficiary they choose in their will. However, children of the deceased can take up a case where they believe they have not received reasonable financial provision. Reasons for disinheriting a child vary – estrangement, financial spats and disagreements over lifestyle choices can be factors – and 'these disputes are on the increase,' says Mark Keenan, senior partner at law firm Mishcon de Reya. 'Undoubtedly the fact that we have more complicated family dynamics (second and third marriages) does increase the likelihood of disputes.' Another factor is Britain's ageing population, which means health may be wavering by the time of late-stage changes to wills. Keenan has previously represented clients such as Christine Gill, whose mother's will stipulated that the £2.4m family farm should be given to the RSPCA, ultimately winning the case on the basis that illness had affected her ability to comprehend its contents. 'We also see some cases where families of significant wealth prefer not to leave vast fortunes to their children outright or at all and tell them that so that their children are encouraged to find their own way in life,' says Keenan. 'We tend to see this more now perhaps because families have seen and experienced how sudden vast wealth can be a destabilising force for children.'
