Rayner's housing dream dealt setback as planning approvals fall to 10-year low
Approvals for new homes fell to 242,610 in England last year, according to the Home Builders Federation (HBF) and data provider Glenigan, marking the lowest total since 2014.
Separate figures showed residential construction slumped at its fastest pace since early 2009 last month, according to S&P Global UK.
Development declined steeply for the fifth month in February and deep into contraction territory, according to the construction purchasing managers' index (PMI). S&P's measure of activity fell from 44.9 in January to 39.3 last month. Any figure below 50 signals contraction, meaning that the sector's slump in activity has worsened.
The findings are a blow for the Government, which has vowed to build 1.5m homes during this parliament.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
a day ago
- Telegraph
Why every Hong Konger in Britain lives in fear of China's mega embassy
A faded billboard near the Tower of London declares that a disused site behind high walls is set to become a 'new mixed use campus' with 'office, retail and leisure space'. That was the old plan for Royal Mint Court, where the coinage of the Realm was minted in buildings of 19th century grandeur for over 150 years until 1967. The new plan is for the People's Republic of China to transform this venerable location, beside the gleaming high rises of the City and directly opposite the Tower of London, into a gigantic new embassy. A final decision on whether to allow China to proceed will be taken by Angela Rayner, the Housing Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister, before Sept 9. Just how big China's new embassy would be is disclosed by the original planning application, rejected by Tower Hamlets Borough Council in 2022, but 'called-in' by Rayner for a definitive verdict. Royal Mint Court spans 5.2 acres and its fine Georgian buildings and their modern additions boast an internal area exceeding 563,000 sq ft (52,300 sq m) - approaching twice the floorspace of Westminster Abbey. If it goes ahead, China's new embassy would have a bigger site and a larger floor area than America's, which is built on 4.9 acres of Battersea. Not only would China's new mission be the biggest in London, it would be the largest of its kind anywhere in Europe: it would even have 30 per cent more floorspace than the Chinese embassy in Washington. There is simply no precedent for a diplomatic project of this scale on British soil. Plenty of concerns have been raised about the implications for national security but perhaps no-one has a better understanding of the potential dangers than people who are already bitterly familiar with the long reach of China. 'When I first heard of that I was really frightened to be honest,' says Chloe Cheung, a 20-year-old pro-democracy activist from Hong Kong. 'It's a really huge space in central London. Why would they need that?' Cheung left Hong Kong and moved to Britain with her family in 2020 after Beijing imposed a draconian National Security law on the territory. This bid to crush the pro-democracy movement caused over 150,000 of Hong Kong's people to seek refuge in Britain. Now some wonder whether they will always be safe. On Christmas Eve last year, Hong Kong's police published an arrest warrant accusing Cheung of 'incitement to secession' and 'collusion with a foreign country', and offering a bounty of HK$1 million (£95,000) for 'information on this wanted person'. That was not because of anything Cheung had done in Hong Kong: she was only 14 when she left. Instead she was targeted for having dared campaign for democracy in her old home while living in Britain and working here for the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong. 'It's because of what I did in this country: it's only because of that that I was given a bounty,' she explains. Cheung was subjected to the arrest warrant and bounty under Hong Kong's National Security law, which punishes anything the authorities might define as 'subversion' with life imprisonment. Most chillingly of all, Articles 37 and 38 say this law 'shall apply' to anyone living anywhere in the world, setting no limits on who might become a target of the Chinese authorities. Cheung fears this could help explain China's ambition to build a colossal new embassy in London. 'The location is not about us but the size is more about us,' she says. 'They want to have more space and more people to intimidate us, to do trans-national repression.' Her fears have been supported by Parliament's human rights committee, which on Aug 1 named China as a 'flagrant' perpetrator of 'trans-national repression', targeting Hong Kong's pro-democracy campaigners and other supposed opponents for threats, harassment and intimidation on British soil. While the latest version of the Diplomatic List names 139 Chinese diplomats based in London, the new embassy would include 225 residential flats, suggesting that China wants to increase its staffing by up to 60 per cent. Cheung is deeply disturbed by that possibility. 'They could have a huge surveillance office inside Royal Mint Court and the British cannot do anything because it will be their sovereignty, their embassy,' she says. 'And it's not just about giving them space: it's about giving them face. Giving them the biggest embassy in London is like saying 'you are the most important country'.' Already Cheung must vary her route every day and 'look over my shoulder before I get home to check no-one is following me'. Once, she says she was tailed through London by two men of Chinese appearance, who followed her into a restaurant where they simply stared at her, before disappearing into a nearby hotel. Every time she writes an article or speaks in public, she is inundated with 'sexual harassment and threatening messages' online. 'It has affected my mental health,' says Cheung. 'I have to be really cautious about meeting people.' 'The reality is that the Chinese are going to pursue you wherever you are. When I was placed on the bounty list they said they would chase us to the end of the world.' She adds: 'We thought that it was going to be safe if you move here, but if you are vocal against the Hong Kong or Chinese authorities, you are constantly being harassed. When people think the UK is a safe haven for activists, it's not necessarily the case for us from Hong Kong.' As for the new embassy, Cheung says it would 'make me feel a lot more endangered than right now…. it would imply that the British Government are less and less willing to stand up for our safety'. Last month, Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, and David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, jointly condemned the National Security law, saying: 'This Government will continue to stand with the people of Hong Kong, including those who have made the UK their home. We take the protection of their rights, freedoms and safety very seriously, and will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass, or harm their critics overseas.' But words like these are of limited reassurance to George* (not his real name), a 22-year-old student from Hong Kong studying at a British university. Having attended some campus demonstrations in favour of democracy in Hong Kong, he now feels compelled to hide his real identity from the Telegraph. 'We still think that the UK has free speech and the UK government and police won't allow the Chinese government to exercise trans-national repression over us,' he says. 'So far I feel safe to live here.' But if the new embassy is constructed, George says: 'That would definitely change the way that we feel. The Royal Mint is a huge place so there may be a danger that the Chinese can bring their agents inside.' He warns of a chilling effect on anyone campaigning for democracy. 'Every Hong Konger in the UK may be free in body, but their minds are still in fear of the Chinese government. If the embassy is built, that may make this fear become bigger and bigger.' And George is struck by the internal contradiction in the British Government's position. 'You can't in one press release say the Chinese government is harming democracy and freedom in the UK and then, in the next press release, say we're allowing them to build a big new embassy,' he says. In January, Cooper and Lammy publicly supported the new embassy on two conditions. China would have to relinquish the seven diplomatic premises it already has in London and consolidate everything in the new embassy. In addition, China would have to build a 'gated barrier or fence' to control public access to the forecourt of Royal Mint Court in order to reduce the risk of security incidents. This conditional backing showed that the Government was, in principle, content for the embassy plan to go ahead. Back in 2018, Boris Johnson, then Foreign Secretary, allowed China to buy the Royal Mint Court site for £255 million, a decision that began the project. But Royal Mint Court is next to the City of London, the biggest financial centre in Europe and the second most important in the world, representing the single most vital economic asset in the United Kingdom. The fibre-optic cables serving the City and transmitting countless transactions criss-cross the area around the proposed embassy: a secure BT telephone exchange is directly adjacent to the site. There is an irony in the fact that Angela Rayner is being asked to grant permission for this project not to a close ally but to a state described by Lammy in the House of Commons as a 'sophisticated and persistent threat'. But events this week suggest the British position may be changing. As Housing Secretary, Rayner has the final say and she has suddenly asked for further assurances. It turns out that plans for the new embassy submitted for her approval omit certain details for 'security reasons'. China aims to fill the imposing main building, completed in 1812, with reception rooms, offices and a banqueting hall. But a letter from Rayner's department - revealed by Luke de Pulford, the Director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China - states that the 'internal physical arrangements' in this plan have been 'greyed out' in the version she received. Plans for the basements of other buildings have also been concealed, along with the proposed layouts of the flats in the accommodation block. In total, Rayner's department has identified 52 redactions which appear to obscure key elements of what China proposes for all the main buildings on the embassy site. Redacting those details inevitably stirs suspicions that China intends to use secure underground facilities for espionage. Rayner has given the planning consultancy engaged by China's regime until August 20 to rectify these omissions. Her department's letter also discloses that China has not satisfied either of the conditions set by Lammy and Cooper. The plans do not include the new 'gated barrier or fence'. And Rayner has asked the Foreign Office for an 'update' on China's 'progress towards consolidation of accredited diplomatic premises', showing this has not been agreed. A Foreign Office spokesperson confirmed that the department would provide this update but declined any further comment. De Pulford describes the letter from Rayner's office as 'easily the most significant development' in the embassy saga, adding that it was possible that the British Government was 'looking for reasons to say no' and reject the scheme. However, the spokesperson of China's Embassy in London says the 'resubmitted planning application for the new Chinese Embassy project has taken into full consideration the UK's planning policy and guidance as well as views of all relevant parties.' The spokesperson adds: ' It is hoped that the UK side will consider and approve this planning application based on merits of the matter.' Step by step, China is steadily extending its influence in Britain, from providing the technology for renewable energy to investing in research with UK universities and preparing to export even greater numbers of electric vehicles. A grand new embassy would be a fitting symbol of how Beijing is steadily entrenching its position and advancing its interests. And part of China's plan, it seems, is to make it steadily harder for any British Government to provide people like Chloe Cheung with a safe refuge and the freedom to campaign for democracy in Hong Kong. Like its predecessors, the Government wants to build a beneficial relationship with Beijing while also upholding Britain's values - and this country's status as a place where even those who are abhorred by China's brutally authoritarian leaders can still be safe. But one day, the balancing act may become impossible and a choice will need to be made. If China is allowed to have the biggest embassy in London, a milestone may be passed. 'We have told them that our safety is at risk from this mega-embassy,' says Cheung. 'But if they still let it be built? If the UK government is walking backwards and the Chinese government is walking forwards?'
Telegraph
a day ago
- Telegraph
Rayner urged to approve 30-metre wind turbines in back gardens
Would you install a wind turbine in your back garden? Email money@ * Angela Rayner has been urged to allow homeowners to install wind turbines the size of Christ the Redeemer in their back garden. Current planning laws restrict small-scale wind turbines to 11.1 metres in height (36.4ft), but the MCS Foundation, the industry's accreditation body, wants the limit to be tripled. It is calling for turbines to reach heights of 30m (98ft) to allow more communities to harness renewable energy from wind. The request – branded 'outrageous' by Reform UK's Richard Tice – comes after the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) announced plans to make it easier for homeowners and businesses to install turbines. Under permitted development rights, only those with detached houses can install small-scale 11m machines on their property. But this could be opened up to millions more households if rules are loosened to include different types of housing. MCS said it welcomed the proposal but also wants the Government to increase the height restrictions to 30m and blade dimensions to 8m. Garry Felgate, chief executive of the foundation, said taller turbines would be 'unobtrusive'. He said: 'Thirty metres is just over the height of an average oak tree. 'Raising the maximum height restrictions at the same time as extending development rights could help many more rural communities harness renewable energy from wind. 'In particular, rural businesses, farmers and community energy groups could benefit from the lifting of restrictions. 'We also welcome the Government's plan to consult on extending small-scale wind's permitted development rights so that it is not only detached properties that can benefit, but a wider range of homes and businesses.' Decisions on planning regulation changes come under the remit of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), run by Ms Rayner. Permitted development rights allow homeowners to undertake building work without requiring planning permission. Richard Tice, deputy leader of Reform UK, said his party would 'not tolerate' the introduction of 30m turbines – the height of Rio de Janeiro's Christ the Redeemer. It is also the equivalent of seven double-decker buses, and 1.5 times the height of the Angel of the North. Mr Tice said: 'Allowing the tripling of wind turbine heights in residential areas is outrageous. This relentless net zero push will trash property values and turn our towns and villages into industrial eyesores.' Statistics show that 3,400 detached homes have a certified wind turbine in their garden. Installations have slumped significantly in the past decade, after the Tory government stopped paying homes for selling excess wind power to the grid in 2016. Last year, there were just four certified installations across England. DESNZ said evolutions in onshore wind turbine technology and increased demand for small-scale onshore wind turbines 'may allow for an update' to planning laws last reviewed in 2011. A public consultation on loosening the rules will be launched by the end of the year. MCS argued that permitted development rights already allow for mobile phone masts to reach 30m in non-protected areas and up to 25m in protected areas, such as national parks. The foundation oversees the standards scheme which certifies the quality of renewable energy appliances – such as solar panels, heat pumps and turbines – across UK homes. Sonya Bedford, of law firm Spencer West, said increasing the size of small-scale turbines would be a 'welcome change'. She said: 'It's certainly not a step too far. In practice, the turbines will likely only be deployed in rural areas as they will have a better chance of unimpeded wind. 'I would, however, welcome the permitted right for commercial premises, as industrial estates can often be good sites for a wind turbine.' The National Farmers Union (NFU) also believes relaxed height restrictions would help make a 'significant contribution to self-sufficiency in energy'. Small-scale wind turbines are currently hard to come by as manufacturers rarely build smaller models. But should height restrictions be increased, it is hoped that demand will increase. However, property developer Harry Fenner believes there is 'no serious appetite'. He told The Telegraph: 'Most homeowners and landowners I speak to want planning certainty and the ability to protect the character of their communities. 'They aren't queuing up to install a turbine the height of a 10-storey building next to the rose garden.' The debate over increased height limits for residential turbines comes amid Ed Miliband's push for a wind power revolution. The Energy Secretary wants to expand the country's onshore wind capacity from 15 gigawatts (GW) to 29GW by 2030, with thousands of turbines poised to be built across the countryside. An MHCLG spokesman said: 'Wind turbines larger than 11m in height require planning permission from councils, and we are clear that landscape and visual impact must be taken into account in planning decisions.'
The Guardian
3 days ago
- The Guardian
If mansion owners paid a fair council tax, local authorities wouldn't be in such a mess
At last a Labour government has found itself a wealth tax – or thinks it has. Its proposed adjustment to council tax in England is crude and possibly cruel, and does nothing to help with Rachel Reeves's 'missing £40bn'. It is designed merely to shift money from rich regions to poor ones, and thus correct an imbalance in Britain's regional wealth. As such it is overdue and welcome. British budgetary policy used to be classy. It was top hats and secrets and standing room only in parliament. Now it comprises a scruffy marathon of leaks, squeaks and denials. Lobbies form, rebels threaten and ministers pledge and unpledge. The local government secretary, Angela Rayner, has sought advice on a scheme to adjust the regional burden of council tax, unreformed since it replaced poll tax in 1993. The change is aimed at correcting its most severe defect: that poor people pay more in tax than in fairness they should, and rich people pay less. Government grants do not compensate councils accordingly. Thus at its crudest, the system means that a band H property in Hartlepool, County Durham, pays £3,000 a year more in council tax than a multimillion-pound townhouse in Westminster. On my own two-bedroom house in Wales, the basic council tax is £3,862. On my London house, many times its value, the tax going to the local borough is half that, just £1,850. Ever since this tax was introduced 30 years ago no government minister has dared order a national revaluation of properties, despite wild leaps in house prices. Nor has there been any widening of tax bands. A revaluation due in 2005 was ditched by the then local government secretary, David Miliband, who admitted it was done out of sheer fear. Keir Starmer has no excuse for letting this continue. He has a big majority. Local government finance is in chaos. Many councils face bankruptcy. Services are closing everywhere, especially discretionary ones such as youth clubs, childcare and museums. He is clearly minded to do something, but he appears terrified of radicalism. He simply wants to tilt central grants more towards poorer councils at the expense of rich ones, and leave the system the same. A study of the plan by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) suggests some bizarre consequences. The central government grant to local councils is to be reallocated through a morass of algorithms assessing local needs. Central grants would be slashed for 186 councils and increased for 161. Thirty councils would see their grants cut by more than 10% in the next three years, and some inner London boroughs by as much as 25%. The maths is beyond comprehension. The south-east does badly, which is to be expected. Yorkshire, Manchester and, for some reason, the East Midlands do well. Norwich, Crawley and indeed Enfield and Hillingdon also fare well. Suffolk and Leicestershire are losers, while Slough and Harlow are winners. Indeed, the more you look down the list, the more you wonder how officials worked it out, beavering away in their Whitehall attic. It seems suspiciously tilted to areas gained by Reform UK. The change would go some way to meeting Boris Johnson's bid to 'level up' regional Britain, though he did little levelling himself beyond inventing the phrase. He rightly drew attention to the fact that the UK's disparity in disposable income between rich and poor, south and north, is now statistically wider than that of any country in the EU. Regional poverty impedes productivity, investment and national growth. As for council tax, even when he was mayor of London, Johnson protested at the gap between what 'a Russian oligarch is paying on his stuccoed schloss in Kensington' and 'what such a gentleman might be asked to pay in Paris or New York'. At least if the oligarch had a second home in Cornwall or Wales, he might now be hit with a council tax surcharge that could reach up to £10,000 a year. In other words, Starmer and Rayner may be hoping to reverse some of the disparity between councils in rich and poor parts of the country. They will hardly be reversing it between rich and poor individuals. Taxpayers in rich areas may see their bills rise steeply, perhaps even by more than the normal limit of 5%. But that is the nearest this reform gets to a mansion tax. What Rayner appears to lack the guts to do is tackle the central unfairness built into the council tax. The time is surely overdue to revise the wildly out-of-date valuations of taxable properties, and the wildly limited range of bands by which the tax is assessed. It is absurd for the richest houses to be charged just three times the poorest. A two-bedroom flat should not be paying only a third of what a sumptuous palace pays. A clear basis for revaluation is outlined by the IFS. It should be adopted. The government is tinkering with a broken wheel. It is gesturing in the direction of levelling up, but merely by reforming a centralist device – a grant. It should dare to be leftwing and go for the jugular. Houses should be taxed for their proper value. If you cannot call it a mansion tax, call it what it is: a property tax. But make sure it's a proper one. Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist
