Proposal to build 170 homes on edge of Fleckney
They also said the new estate would include areas of green space, including allotments.A decision on the planning application is expected to be made later this year.Another planning application has been submitted for a further 170 homes on an adjacent field, off Leicester Road, which officers are considering.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Telegraph
An establishment stitch-up at the expense of consumers
The market reaction to the Supreme Court's intervention in the car finance mis-selling scandal tells you everything you need to know about this grubby saga. Shares in Lloyds Bank, the UK's biggest car finance provider through its Black Horse brand, jumped as much as 7.5pc when trading commenced on Monday morning, leaving it at the top of the FTSE 100 leaderboard. The share price of Close Brothers, a specialist lender that is disproportionately exposed to the car finance market, surged as much as 25pc having sunk to 30-year lows as the industry braced for PPI-sized payouts. Shares in Bank of Ireland and Barclays, both of which have car finance arms, rose 4.2pc and nearly 2pc respectively. Make no mistake about it, the Supreme Court's ruling is a serious let-off for the banks and other lenders that have a big presence in the car loans space. True, revised payout estimations of between £9bn and £18bn to customers who were mis-selling victims is not to be sniffed at. However, even the top end of the range is less than half the £44bn bill the sector was collectively thought to be facing before the Supreme Court decision. The lower end would be just a quarter. It is a massive result for an industry that fought this case tooth and nail. Anthony Coombs, a former Tory MP and now chairman of lender S&U, whose shares had tanked 33pc at one stage, described it as 'a victory for common sense'. I'm not so sure about that. I certainly share the concerns of many about the shameless ambulance-chasing law firms and claims management firms that have helped fuel Britain's compensation culture. Clearly, it means there is a high risk of people jumping on the bandwagon and lodging bogus claims that the banks then feel the need to recover through higher borrowing costs for all of us. But that's hardly a new phenomenon – there will always be a relatively small number of chancers looking to game the system wherever they can. I'm less inclined to celebrate what has the unmistakable feel of an establishment stitch-up at the expense of consumers. I have a natural aversion to the armies of highly-paid lobbyists who go into bat for big business, skewing what is already a massive power imbalance even further. Consumers already face a David-versus-Goliath battle to be treated fairly. In this case, the scare tactics employed were particularly shameless as industry campaigners sought to ensure the Supreme Court's ruling was as favourable as possible to the banking community. Even now, despite a significant legal climbdown, these same activists felt the need to take to the airwaves to issue fresh apocalyptic warnings. Stephen Haddrill, the director general of the Finance & Leasing Association, claimed the scheme could push up borrowing rates for car-buyers as if somehow large corporations have no choice but to always pass on any additional costs to their customers. The same arguments were rolled out after Covid when companies claimed they were lifting prices to offset their own cost increases and they were no more convincing back then – with research suggesting pandemic profiteering was rife among the biggest companies. As if that wasn't sufficiently disingenuous, John Phillipou, chairman of the Finance & Leasing Association, weighed in too, complaining that there was a risk of harm to Britain's 'investability'. Still, lobbying is what lobbyists do and at least they make no attempt to hide their true intentions. Moreover, Phillipou is only echoing our alarmist Chancellor, and it is surely far more outrageous that she sought to meddle in the outcome. Rachel Reeves has absolutely no business at all involving herself in such matters, while there is zero evidence to back up her suggestion that large-scale payouts represented a threat to growth. Yet, as with the wrong-headed ousting of the chairman of the competition watchdog, the Treasury will stop at nothing in its attempts to deflect blame for Britain's floundering economy from the Chancellor's job-wrecking tax raid. The reasons for the UK's lack of competitiveness are innumerable and too often they can be laid at the door of 11 Downing Street. Reeves's willingness to side with bank bosses instead of standing up for the little man is also disquieting. The job of the Supreme Court judges is to ignore the noise and correctly apply the law but ministers seem to have allowed themselves to be captured by the lobbying fraternity. Voters may see it as another betrayal from a party that has waged war on hard-working families with its tax blitz. As Liberal Democrat MP Bobby Dean rightly said, Government interventions like this set a bad precedent if the reason for intervening is that it might damage industry, 'because then almost every consumer redress case would fall'. Dean, who is a member of the powerful Treasury select committee that polices the City, regulators and the Treasury, points out that compensation schemes give consumers confidence to borrow and invest, 'if they know they will be protected when companies take advantage of them'. It is now down to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to restore the balance after it confirmed it will consult on a redress scheme for those still entitled to compensation. But that hardly inspires confidence. After all, this is the same FCA that was described in a damning report by MPs and Lords just last year, as 'incompetent at best, dishonest at worst'; its actions as 'slow and inadequate.' The chances of the watchdog suddenly showing some teeth seem slim.
The Sun
28 minutes ago
- The Sun
Arsenal and Liverpool's transfer plans rocked as Eberechi Eze and Marc Guehi look likely to stay at Crystal Palace
MARC GUEHI and Eberechi Eze could both end up STAYING at Crystal Palace this season. Liverpool, Newcastle and Spurs want England defender Guehi while Arsenal remain interested in Eze. 3 3 Although there is still a month left of the transfer window, it seems increasingly likely that both stars will remain at Selhurst Park. Palace have not received any firm offers for either player and are in no rush to sell. This is good news for the club's fans who are still reeling from their European heartbreak and the fact they look set to be demoted into the Conference League. Liverpool have been favourites to land centre-back Guehi and have been in talks with his representatives. The centre-back has just one year left of his contract but has not been pushing for a move. And the Premier League champions rate him at around £40million - £10m short of Palace's asking price. Spurs are still interested having failed with a £70m bid in January while Newcastle had three offers turned down a year ago. Toon have revived their interest this summer, but are still £10m below Palace's valuation. That mean, as SunSport revealed in May, Guehi could now run down the final year of his contract and leave on a free transfer, opening up a potential switch to Barcelona or Real Madrid. And the Eagles are increasingly confident of keeping him this summer. Crystal Palace legend Geoff Thomas slams Uefa for denying them a Europa League place 3 TRANSFER NEWS LIVE - KEEP UP WITH ALL THE LATEST FROM A BUSY SUMMER WINDOW Attacking midfielder Eze has been in line for a move to Arsenal and is keen to move to the Emirates. Yet the Gunners are not prepared to trigger his £68m release clause. With Palace not needing to sell financially, they are unlikely to lower their demands and Arsenal could look at other targets. The club's fans are still stunned at Uefa's decision to drop them into this season's Conference League despite qualifying for the Europa League after winning the FA Cup. Palace's appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) will be on Friday. They were demoted to the third-tier Conference League by Uefa's Club Financial Control Body in a multi-club ownership case.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Bank ‘must cut rates six times' over next year to boost ailing economy
Andrew Bailey must slash interest rates six times over the next year to bolster flagging growth, economists have warned. The Bank of England Governor and his colleagues on the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) are expected to cut borrowing costs from 4.25pc to 4pc this Thursday. But a growing cohort of economists predict Bank officials will be forced to go much further over the next 12 months. Six cuts would take the base rate to 2.75pc next year – the lowest level since late 2022. Peder Beck-Friis, an economist at Pimco, an investment company, said higher taxes, slower growth and the weakening jobs market will all push the Bank to cut rates further next year. 'While inflation has been surprisingly firm, we see good reasons to expect a slowdown. Regulatory price hikes, including in employment taxes, have pushed prices up, but wage growth is softening and the labour market is weakening,' he said. Companies are passing the £25bn increase in employers' National Insurance contributions on to customers, but 'once this tax shock fades, we expect inflation to ease, as seen in other developed countries'. 'We expect the Bank to accelerate rate cuts later this year, with the policy rate settling near 2.75pc next year,' he said. Michel Nies, from Citi, predicts rate cuts in August and November before an acceleration from December in the wake of 'very likely tax increases in the autumn Budget', taking the base rate to 2.75pc. He cites the weakening jobs market as the critical factor. The economy has lost 178,000 employees on payroll over the past year. Businesses in particular are taking a beating: 'The divergence between public and private sector employment growth continues to widen with the former still masking a sustained contraction in the latter,' Mr Nies said. Bruna Skarica, at Morgan Stanley, also expects cuts to 2.75pc because unemployment has risen to 4.7pc, the highest rate in four years. 'The build-up of slack in the labour market ... can only result in pay and price disinflation over time,' she said. 'The laws of economic gravity can be delayed, but not denied.' These economists remain in the minority, and even this week's anticipated rate cut will not be entirely uncontroversial. Policymakers are cutting interest rates even though inflation, at 3.6pc and rising, is well above its 2pc target. However, monetary policy takes as long as two years to feed through to consumer prices, meaning this week's rate decision will only fully pass through to inflation in mid-2027 - and will have little effect on the rise in living costs this year. Jack Meaning, a former Bank of England economist now at Barclays, forecasts a three-way split on the MPC. He anticipates that two policymakers will vote to hold rates, two for a double cut to 3.75pc, and the majority of five backing a move to 4pc. 'Despite these divergent views on both sides, we think the centre of the committee, and ultimately the decisive bloc, will continue on a gradual and careful quarterly rate cutting path, until it reaches 3.5pc in February 2026,' he said. The most recent three-way split came in May, when external MPC members Swati Dhingra and Alan Taylor voted for a half percentage point rate cut to 4pc.
