North Wales luxury hotel announces partnership with top UK chef
The owners of a North Wales luxury, five star country house hotel have announced a culinary partnership with one of the UK's most renowned chefs.
The partnership between Palé Hall Hotel, at Llandderfel, near Bala and Luke Selby, renowned executive chef at the double Michelin starred La Manoir aux Quat'Saisons at Great Milton, Oxford will be launched before the end of the year.
A Chef's Table experience and a series of exclusive dining events, highlighting Luke's culinary mastery, will feature prominently in the partnership. The vital link between local food producers, Welsh culinary heritage and the dishes will also be key ingredient.
Sign up for the North Wales Live newsletter sent twice daily to your inbox
Anthony and Donna Cooper-Barney, owners of Palé Hall, said: 'This partnership between Palé Hall Hotel and Luke Selby is an exciting venture that embodies our dedication to culinary excellence and outstanding hospitality.
'Together, we are committed to creating extraordinary dining experiences that resonate with our guests long after their visit. This collaboration promises to be a celebration of flavours, stories and the joy of sharing exceptional food in the enchanting setting of Palé Hall.
'In the dynamic landscape of fine dining, collaborations between exceptional culinary talents have the power to create extraordinary experiences. This collaboration is set to elevate our dining offerings, showcasing a shared commitment to excellence, sustainability and the celebration of seasonal flavours.
'Palé Hall Hotel is more than just a place for guests to stay; it is a sanctuary where culinary art and hospitality intertwine to create unforgettable memories. With its stunning architecture and picturesque surroundings, the hotel serves as an ideal setting for culinary exploration.
'Our mission has always been to provide an immersive experience that delights the senses. Partnering with Luke Selby promises to enhance that vision significantly.'
Celebrated for his innovative approach to British cuisine, Luke has made a name for himself at La Manoir aux Quat'Saisons with chef patron Raymond Blanc OBE. His focus on sourcing local and seasonal ingredients aligns perfectly with the ethos of Palé Hall.
'Together, we aim to craft a series of exclusive dining events that highlight Luke's culinary artistry, allowing guests to indulge in a specially curated menu designed to showcase the best of both our establishments,' added Mr and Mrs Cooper-Barney.
'One of the cornerstones of this collaboration will be the introduction of a chef's table experience. This unique setting will allow guests to dine intimately, enjoying a multi-course menu crafted by Luke while witnessing the culinary magic unfold right before their eyes.'
The chef's table will not only offer a closer look at the artistry involved in each dish but also create an interactive experience, they say, where diners can engage with Luke, learn about his inspirations and gain insights into the techniques that define his cooking style.
Surrounded by the "elegant ambiance of Palé Hall", guests will savour dishes that tell a story of place and time, all while indulging in the freshest ingredients sourced from local farms, renowned for the quality of Welsh produce.
'Each course will be a testament to Luke's signature style - meticulously prepared and beautifully presented, promising to tantalise the tastebuds and ignite the senses,' said Mr and Mrs Cooper-Barney.
'This collaboration will extend beyond the plate. We envision events that celebrate the rich culinary heritage of our region, where guests can connect with local producers and learn about the origins of the ingredients featured in their meals.
'By highlighting the connection between the land and the table, we aim to deepen the appreciation for the culinary arts while fostering a sense of community among our guests.'
Palé Hall is an award-winning Relais & Châteaux country house hotel and restaurant nestling on the edge of the stunning Eryri (Snowdonia) National Park.
Regarded as one of the UK's greenest hotels, Palé Hall has held a Green Michelin Star since 2021 for its commitment to sustainable practices, which include having its own clean, completely carbon-neutral source of electricity. It was one of the UK's first hotels to receive a Michelin Key Award, denoting a special place to stay, last year.
The hotel has 18 individually styled bedrooms and a three AA Rosette fine dining restaurant, where guests can dine in a most grand setting overlooking the hotel's 50-acre estate. Two of the bedrooms have suites named after past guests Queen Victoria and Winston Churchill.
Look for places near you
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
8 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EU is 'blocking Britain's bid to join Mediterranean trade zone' despite Keir Starmer's 'reset' with Brussels
The EU is unwilling to allow Britain to join a pan-European trade zone despite Sir Keir Starmer 's efforts to 'reset' the UK's relations with Brussels, it has emerged. The Government recently published a trade strategy that hailed membership of the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean Convention (PEM) as an 'opportunity' for the UK. Ministers said they would 'consider the benefits' of joining the PEM as part of efforts to boost British exports. The PEM allows for tariff-free trade of some goods from across dozens of countries in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. But, according to the Financial Times, the European Commission has made clear to Britain that it would not currently support UK membership of the PEM. EU officials said Brussels bosses had decided that the UK joining the PEM was not currently in the bloc's interests, the newspaper reported. The EU is said to fear it would increase the risk of products unfairly qualifying for low-tariff access to the bloc. It comes despite Sir Keir and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen recently striking a 'reset' deal following a UK-EU summit in London. The Government recently published a trade strategy that hailed membership of the PEM as an 'opportunity' for the UK The agreement, signed in May, covered fishing, trade, defence and energy and represented the biggest change in Britain's relations with the bloc since Brexit. Although the PEM is not exclusively an EU arrangement, trade experts said Britain would need EU co-operation to join because it would require a rewriting of the post-Brexit trade deal. Sam Lowe, trade lead at consultancy Flint Global, said: 'For it to be meaningful for the UK, the EU would need to agree to incorporate the PEM rules of origin into the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. 'This gives the EU de facto blocking powers.' David Henig, a former UK trade negotiator now at the ECIPE think-tank, said: 'The EU isn't united on the importance of the UK reset and issues like PEM can easily be caught up in this even though technically straightforward. 'The UK Government is going to have to work hard in London and Brussels to build momentum.' Although they have left the door open to joining the PEM, the Prime Minister has repeatedly ruled out rejoining the EU's single market or customs union. A Government spokesperson said: 'This Government has secured a new agreement with the EU to support British businesses and jobs and put more money in people's pockets. 'We have also published a new Trade Strategy setting out how we will boost trade further. 'We aren't going to provide a running commentary on our ongoing discussions with the EU.'
New Statesman
9 minutes ago
- New Statesman
From the archive: Reality: a charter for avoidance
Photo by Maurice Hibberd/Evening Standard/) In 1979 Mervyn King, later governor of the Bank of England from 2003 to 2013, argued that the British state was too dilapidated to deal with a modern economy. Labour had been complaisant, but the Tories resisted reform. 'In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.' It is hard to reconcile Benjamin Franklin's words with the experience of taxation in post-war Britain. Tax rates switch with bewildering frequency, and rarely do more than a few months go by without some kind of tinkering being done upon the system itself. Margaret Thatcher is basing her campaign upon the firm promise – one of the few she has made – that the immediate effect of her victory would be another – downward – shift in the rate of income tax. Indeed, Tory policy for the past few years has concentrated unflinchingly upon disseminating the myth that Britain is a heavily-overtaxed country. But at the same time the Tories have set themselves against any energetic attack on the real evils of our tax system: which are its astonishing complexity and incoherence, its lack of efficacy when dealing with company revenues, and its bias in favour of established, hereditary wealth. Not that it can be said that Labour has made, or credibly promised, any of the reforms that are urgently required. Whichever party policy is examined, uncertainty – even arbitrariness – seems likely to be the future of taxation in Britain. The system that we have is the product of innumerable ad hoc changes, few if any of which were based on any coherent view of the underlying structure they were supposed to improve. The state into which our system has drifted shows that further minor modifications to the status quo will not bring us any nearer to the objective of a reasonably efficient, fair and stable tax system. Yet no government which is concerned with the most efficient way of financing public spending, and which cares about how the tax burden is distributed, can afford to be without a coherent tax policy. Anyone analysing the system for the first time must view it in amazement – with its separate taxes on different kinds of income, each tax having its own rules and methods of administration. In addition to income tax, there are distinct and separately administered surcharges on employment income (in the form of national insurance contributions), on investment income (in the form of investment-income surcharge) and on self-employment income (in the form of special national insurance contributions for the self-employed). The methods of calculating liability differ in each case. At the lower end of the income scale, interaction between the tax system and the maze of different means-tested benefits can give rise to tax rates of well over 100 per cent on each marginal addition to income – the notorious 'poverty trap'. A good example of the unhappy effects of the ad hoc approach occurred last year, in Chancellor Healey's treatment of capital gains tax. Inflation means that real capital gains can be much less than nominal capital gains, but our system taxes nominal gains: the reverse of what a well-designed income tax should do. One remedy proposed was 'tapering relief', under which the tax rate would be lower the longer the asset had been held: another was index-linking, to ensure that tax would fall solely on real gains. Mr Healey rightly rejected 'tapering'' as economically absurd and administratively complicated. And he rejected indexation, on the proper grounds that it would be wrong to index-link capital gains without doing so for other forms of capital income, such as building-society interest. But he rejected the logic of his own argument, which was that if inflation created a problem (clearly it did) then indexation should be introduced across-the-board, And if it did not, there was no case for giving special treatment to capital gains. What the Chancellor actually did (and it scarcely fits with the image of a Chancellor 'making the pips squeak') was merely reduce the rate of capital gains tax: so that the first £1,000 of gain is exempt altogether, and gains up to £5,000 in a year pay a maximum average of only 12 per cent. The marginal rate then jumps to 50 per cent, before falling to 30 per cent on gains above £9,500. This is a curious rate schedule, to say the least. Its design has nothing to do with the incidence of inflation: it appears to be merely a device for buying time until the government can think of something more sensible to do, or until inflation disappears, or until people stop worrying about it. Such pragmatism, lacking any base in underlying principles, leads to complexity, excessive cost, and the loopholes and anomalies on which the tax avoidance industry thrives. It is this allegedly practical, but actually impractical, approach which has produced an accumulation of legislation like a patchwork quilt coming apart at the seams. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Although neither the Conservative manifesto nor the Labour one faces up to the issue, there certainly are reforms which could be instituted – at the cost of upsetting the status quo. But before looking at such proposals, it is necessary to describe the real, as against the imagined effect of taxes in Britain. The redistributive elements in the system rely largely on high tax rates on earned income, although variations in earnings are no longer (if they ever were) the major source of inequality. The main sources of wealth are inheritances and capital gains – including those from building-up and selling a business – and effective tax rates on income from capital are lower than on employment income, because those taxes are easier to avoid. The attempt to impose very high tax rates on earned income gives rise to a proliferation of fringe benefits which are not only a less efficient method of rewarding managers, but serve to increase the visibility of differentials. Employees might find it easier to accept that senior staff should receive larger salaries than that they should get longer holidays, more lavish working conditions, private medical insurance, special dining rooms and use of company cars. According to the Diamond Commission 94 per cent of senior managers in 1975 had personal use of a company car, and a system under which executives are twice as likely to get a free car than receive bonus payments is one which emphasises status rather than performance. The argument against the highest rates of tax on earned income is not that they discourage hard work (they may, though the evidence is limited). But they encourage inefficient forms of reward, and they do not achieve much redistribution. Consequently, they raise little revenue: reducing the top rate of tax on earned income to 60 per cent would cost about £250 million in a full year, much less than cutting the basic rate by one point. At the other end of the scale some five million people, nearly ten per cent of the population, are supported by supplementary benefits – with many others failing to claim the benefits to which they are entitled. Although this is a far cry from Beveridge's idea of national assistance as a final line of help for a handful of families, it can perhaps be said that concentrating help on recipients of supplementary benefit is a cost-effective form of income maintenance. The trouble is that it does not maintain the incomes of the low-paid, because those in work are not eligible for supplementary benefit. If the low-paid try to increase their earnings – by working over-time, or by changing jobs – they are apt to be little better off: this is where the combination of income tax, national insurance contributions and the withdrawal of means-tested benefits can produce marginal tax rates over 100 per cent. Income tax, national insurance contribution and Family Income Supplement alone imply a marginal rate of between 80 and 90 per cent, and at the beginning of last year there were 100,000 families getting Family Income Supplement, and there is a myriad of other means-tested benefits like rent and rates rebates. It is immensely difficult to calculate the implicit marginal tax rates which are produced, and if families could work them out (which is unlikely) many would be very depressed. There are a good many wage-earners who would be better-off if they could arrange to be sick, or unemployed, for a part – but only a part – of the tax year. (This does not apply to the long-term sick and unemployed, who are unjustly given lower rates of assistance than those whose misfortune is temporary.) The strange situation has two causes: first, sickness and unemployment benefits paid in lieu of taxed earnings are not themselves taxed; second, child benefits for those in work are less generous than those for people out of work. It is hardly likely that many people are able to contrive short periods of unemployment so as to maximise net income. But the fact that such anomalies exist – with their true nature being poorly understood – makes it easy to whip up resentment against 'scroungers', as the tabloid press has not hesitated to do, thus making it harder to persuade the average wage-earner to meet the cost of adequate benefits for those in need. Sickness and unemployment benefits could be taxed – thus providing revenue to improve benefits for the longterm unemployed – provided there were administrative reforms. Chiefly, this would require the abolition of 'cumulative withholding' in the PAYE system, so that any one payment could be specifically taxed, with any necessary adjustments being made after the annual tax peter, which all taxpayers would have to make. And rapid changes in mortgage interest over the past two years have meant that cumulative withholding has been effectively scrapped for many owner-occupiers: it should be extended to other taxpayers as soon as computers can make it feasible. If anyone is not convinced of the simplifications this would bring. I suggest a look at the leaflet entitled Autumn 1977 – Income Tax Changes for 1977-78 which was sent out last year with the notices of coding for 1978-79. See if you can understand page two, which is all about mortgage interest relief – a prize for the best solution. Some reforms have been made: from this month, child tax allowances and family allowances are replaced by a single child benefit, amounting to £4 per week for each child, with an additional £2 for the first child in some one-parent families. Further reductions in the gap between child support given to the employed and the unemployed could be given by making an extra payment for the first child, which could be financed by abolishing the married-man's tax allowance. But investment income, and the treatment of savings, produce anomalies more striking than anything in the mythology of 'scrounging'. A top rate of 98 per cent may give an impression of penal taxation, but it is misleading. It is, of course, silly to tax anything at 98 per cent, and in reality the government does not try to. For instance, the Bank of England has designed special government stocks for high-rate taxpayers which cuts their effective tax rate to about 50-60 per cent. Capital gains are taxed lightly in comparison with investment income – particularly after last year's Budget – and this gives scope for tax advisers to dream-up wondrous schemes for converting income into capital. Failure to index the system does increase the tax burden, but the practical outcome is one in which the rate varies enormously, virtually haphazardly, from person to person and from year to year. Three forms of personal saving receive especially favoured treatment: investment in owner-occupied housing; contributions to pension funds; and life-insurance premiums. This is on the whole advantageous to middle-class families, and the three items make up the bulk of personal savings, so that the institutions which hold them dominate the capital market. Pension funds and life-insurance companies own between them nearly half of the equity capital of British companies, and their behaviour is critical to the government's ability to borrow the money that it needs. Discrimination between different types of saving involves different rules for each kind of asset, which produces the complexity on which the investment-columns of the newspapers thrive, and makes the basis of avoidance devices. The consequence of failure to apply consistent treatment to savings and investment income is that much decision-making is dominated by tax considerations, both at the personal and the industrial level – where the financing package associated with a decision is often more critical than the basis profitability of the investment being examined. What is the rationale for a system in which mergers may take place essentially for tax reasonsL in which tax advisers are more Important than engineer and export managers, and there is an incentive for valuable time to be spent on socially pointless activities. The favours given to life-insurance companies, pension funds and owner-occupiers, though taken politically for granted, are very hard to justify. They happen to suit the life-style of middle-class people with predictable career-patterns, who remain largely immobile both geographically and occupationally. The sort of person who comes to mind, in fact, closely resembles the people who construct and control the tax system. He is a civil servant, living in (say) Wimbledon: able to stay without interruption in the same owner-occupied house; travel to work by train (zero-rated for VAT): look forward to a secure and inflation-proofed pension; able to put any spare cash into a life-insurance policy which will mature at the right moment to pay school fees, and thus secure a foothold in the system for a future generation. I have absolutely no wish to discriminate against civil servants living in Wimbledon, but neither can I think of a good reason for discriminating in their favour. Given the deficiencies of our economic performance – central so much campaign rhetoric – it is odd that we should offer incentives to people in the City so that they can think up dis-incentives which work against those who move around after employment (thus wishing to rent, rather than buy a home); who disagree with staid employers (thus placing low value on pension rights) and wish to exploit new business ideas, but cannot do so because any savings they may have are locked-up in life insurance. Here we come to the argument, which will be much rehearsed in the next few weeks, which says that only a big reduction in the tax burden can eliminate the worst distortions, and 'free the spirit of enterprise from the straitjacket of excessive taxation', etc. Although a cut in rates would reduce the magnitude of the problem – depending upon what sacrifice is made in essential services – there are two large difficulties in the argument. First, as the tables show, Britain simply is not highly taxed in comparison with many of those countries which are exhibited as examples of economic success. Despite the problems of comparison, the broad picture is clear. We bear less tax than Scandinavia, rather more than America and Japan, and about the same as the West European neighbours which out perform us. Secondly, many of the problems I have described derive from the weakness of the tax base, rather than the rates which are applied. We are taxing the wrong things, and failing to tax the right things. Only a virtual elimination of direct taxation would deal with this – and the point is important in terms of the present political argument, which often proposes a shift to indirect taxation. A small shift to indirect taxation would make no impact on the inadequacies of the present tax base: to make a large shift would be to abandon any pretence of progressive taxation. I believe the only way to deal with the problem is to have a uniform treatment of income from capital, through a progressive personal expenditure tax of the kind proposed by Nicholas Kaldor in 1955, and again by the Meade Committee last year. This has not been welcomed, or even much discussed by those British politicians who are most vehement about the evils of taxation: and what they perhaps care for as little as anything is the Meade finding that the whole system could be much simpler in operation than that we have at present. It would be based purely on cash flow, eliminating the distinction between income and capital on which most of the present-day opportunities for avoidance depend. An expenditure tax would be levied directly on individuals, and by choice of rate could be made as progressive as the government of the day desired. Taxable expenditure would be receipts of cash from all sources (whether tips, or sales of shares) minus cash deposited in 'registered assets' which would include practically all kinds of saving except current accounts. PAYE would continue to be deducted at source, and the majority of taxpayers would notice little administrative change. It might be argued that such a tax favours the rich, because only the rich can afford to save. But this forgets that the rich also dis-save, and that the system we have makes little impact on spending out of capital gains and inherited wealth. Indeed, capital taxes are largely ineffective at the moment: the high exemption level means that most of the wealth transferred between generations pays a very low average rate. Even since the introduction of Capital Transfer Tax (CTT) it remains easy for a couple who are well advised to pass on more than £100,000 tax-free. For this reason, gifts and bequests made to other people should be treated as part of taxable spending: resulting in an increase of the average fax on capital transfers, without the need for self-defeating marginal rates at the top. A good example of the weakness of CTT, and of the extent to which political debate on taxation is divorced from reality, occurs in the treatment of small businesses. There is a wide range of concessions, but most of them assist the founder of the business only at the end of his or her career. The problem with small business is not that it is crushed under transfer taxes, but rather that policy fails to find ways of encouraging new firms to arise and old ones to die in peace. There is little evidence that the dynasties motive is important to innovators (it is thought important by those who have inherited themselves) and some evidence that firms perform less well when the inheritors take them over. 'Small is beautiful' makes as mindless an axiom as 'big is beautiful', which ruled the sixties. Yet already, under Labour, the 1977 and '78 Budgets have produced inexplicable concessions for small business which the Tories will find it difficult to out-do. In one year these were so enormous that the size of a business liable to CTT increased eight-fold. This change was not announced by Mr Healey, and part of it could only be detected through the omission of certain words in the Finance Bill. The truth is that the decline of small business did not occur overnight, and it cannot be corrected through such huge concessions to the owners of established concerns. Indeed, an expenditure tax is more likely to do something for small-scale industrial innovation: by facilitating personal saving, and by reversing the trend towards 'institutionalisation' of the capital market. A stock item of political debate is the idea that British industry staggers under a vast tax burden. If the personal tax system is rather a shambles, the corporate tax system is chaos enclosed in mythology, with most industrial companies paying little, if any, tax. John Kay and I found that of 20 leading UK industrial concerns, 13 paid no mainstream corporation tax in 1977, and in total only £117 million of tax was paid compared with total reported profits in 1976 of £4,276 million. The 'temporary' stock relief of November 1974 has survived almost five years, with no sign of a permanent solution. Because nothing has been announced, companies are uncertain about their tax liability, and so we have a tax which raises scarcely any revenue but yet generates economic distortions. There appears to be a complete absence of ideas about what to do. In 1974, the corporate sector was threatened with financial bankruptcy because of inflation's effect on stocks: now it is intellectual bankruptcy. The most convincing alternative would be a 'cash flow corporation tax', which would be levied on the difference between receipts from sales and outlays made for current and capital inputs. Stock relief could be abolished, inflation accounting would be for tax purposes, and distinction between different types of finance would occupy less attention. I believe that such a tax, coupled with a progressive personal expenditure tax, would redress many injustices. It would represent the first serious attempt in this country to tax spending out of inherited wealth, and to lessen the transmission of privilege from one generation to the next. The effects on the economy would, I think, be restorative. Of course, there may be other solutions which can be put forward. But if any politician suggests that major reform is less than imperative, or that what is required is to 'lighten the burden', by some ad hoc juggling with the rates, he or she is avoiding one of the central problems of present political economy. [See also: Just raise tax] Related
Sky News
26 minutes ago
- Sky News
Just 25% of public think Sir Keir Starmer will win next election - with welfare row partly to blame
Only a quarter of British adults think Sir Keir Starmer will win the next general election, as the party's climbdown over welfare cuts affects its standing with the public. A fresh poll by Ipsos, shared with Sky News, also found 63% do not feel confident the government is running the country competently, similar to levels scored by previous Conservative administrations under Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak in July 2022 and February 2023, respectively. The survey of 1,080 adults aged 18-75 across Great Britain was conducted online between 27 and 30 June 2025, when Labour began making the first of its concessions, suggesting the party's turmoil over its own benefits overhaul is partly to blame. The prime minister was forced into an embarrassing climbdown on Tuesday night over his plans to slash welfare spending, after it became apparent he was in danger of losing the vote owing to a rebellion among his own MPs. The bill that was put to MPs for a vote was so watered down that the most controversial element - to tighten the eligibility criteria for personal independence payments (PIP) - was put on hold, pending a review into the assessment process by minister Stephen Timms that is due to report back in the autumn. The government was forced into a U-turn after Labour MPs signalled publicly and privately that the previous concession made at the weekend to protect existing claimants from the new rules would not be enough. While the bill passed its first parliamentary hurdle last night, with a majority of 75, 49 Labour MPs still voted against it - the largest rebellion in a prime minister's first year in office since 47 MPs voted against Tony Blair's Lone Parent benefit in 1997, according to Professor Phil Cowley from Queen Mary University. It left MPs to vote on only one element of the original plan - the cut to Universal Credit (UC) sickness benefits for new claimants from £97 a week to £50 from 2026/7. 2:21 An amendment brought by Labour MP Rachael Maskell, which aimed to prevent the bill progressing to the next stage, was defeated but 44 Labour MPs voted for it. The incident has raised questions about Sir Keir's authority just a year after the general election delivered him the first Labour landslide victory in decades. And on Wednesday, Downing Street insisted Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, was "not going anywhere" after her tearful appearance in the House of Commons during prime minister's questions sparked speculation about her political future. The Ipsos poll also found that two-thirds of British adults are not confident Labour has the right plans to change the way the benefits system works in the UK, including nearly half of 2024 Labour voters. Keiran Pedley, director of UK Politics at Ipsos, said: "Labour rows over welfare reform haven't just harmed the public's view on whether they can make the right changes in that policy area, they are raising wider questions about their ability to govern too. "The public is starting to doubt Labour's ability to govern competently and seriously at the same levels they did with Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak's governments. Labour will hope that this government doesn't end up going the same way."
