Latest news with #SouthBank
BBC News
4 hours ago
- Sport
- BBC News
Send your pictures and stories of why you love Wolves
On Monday, we asked you to tell us why you fell in love with Wolves and some of your favourite moments supporting have already been getting in touch with your photos and stories and here is just a taste from Alex:"In 1990, I was five years old and I went to my first game: Wolves v Plymouth. I was on my dad's shoulders in the old South Bank. A huge old-fashioned terrace, one of only two stands. The stadium, like the club, was unloved and struggling. "I grew up in Wolverhampton and could see the ground from my house. As a city it was, and probably still is, in decline. It hasn't recovered from the loss of major manufacturing in the city. The city, like its football team, had little to be proud of in those days."That would change when a former bricklayer from the Black Country, bought for a pittance from our fierce local rivals, burst on the scene. Like many, I idolised Steve Bull. The word 'hero' doesn't cover it. He played how every fan wanted him to. Chased every lost cause, never pulled out of a challenge and scored for fun."Being a Wolves fan, you get used to modest success but it's ours. No tourist fans, VAR goes against us and the press barely pay attention. But it's our club. A one-club city."So join the conversation and send your best photos about why you love first visit to the stadium? A special kit? An amazing away trip?Send us your pictures and stories
BBC News
5 days ago
- Business
- BBC News
Public park opens as South Bank project continues in Leeds
A new public park has opened as work continues to redevelop the South Bank area of 1.5-acre (6,200 sq m) Central Park forms part of the Aire Park regeneration project, which aims to deliver more than 1,350 homes and eight acres (32,374 sq m) of green space, as well as commercial and retail complete, the development will feature play areas and woodland, as well as events spaces for markets and Pryor, Leeds City Council's deputy leader, said: "We want Leeds to be a city filled with places that are perfect for work, rest and play, and Aire Park's lawns and gardens will give people plenty of opportunity for doing all of that and more." The launch of Central Park follows the opening of a new green space in front of the Tetley are under way to extend the park behind the building - converting what is currently brownfield land into four acres of green space - as well as south of Crown Point Road. Developers hope to complete the Aire Park project by 2030, with plans to include 700 new trees and more than 100 varieties of design has seen collaboration between landscaping experts including Planit Leeds, Moortown and Palmers. Phillip Porter, Planit's principal landscape architect, said: "Aire Park is a unique project in the UK. "One that provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape a vast disused industrial part of a city and leave an unparalleled gift to current and future generations."Stephen Lindley, managing director of developer Vastint UK, said the project had already welcomed its first commercial said: "As the wider development and the park continues to grow, with the addition of its event space and play area, so too will its sense of community as Aire Park becomes a go-to destination within the city to work, meet and socialise, or simple relax and enjoy nature." Listen to highlights from West Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North.
BBC News
6 days ago
- BBC News
Thief destroys Middlesbrough school's van for autistic boy
A £50,000 minibus described as a "lifeline" for an autistic boy has been destroyed in a "heartless" attack, a charity North East Autism Society (NEAS) said its Mackenzie Thorpe Centre school in South Bank, Middlesbrough, had been targeted by a thief at 21:10 BST on 19 of a Ford Tourneo van had been stripped during the break-in, with the bonnet, parts of the engine and tyres stolen. Artist Mackenzie Thorpe, who the school is named after, said the van was used for a 12-year-old-boy with complex needs, and to see the centre targeted was "a betrayal of everything we stand for". He said: "This centre was built with love, to give vulnerable young people in our community the care, support, and education they deserve."Lives of children and their families have literally been transformed here."The Mackenzie Thorpe Centre provides specialist education and care for autistic and neurodivergent children and adults across the region. Engineers estimated the nine-seater van would either have to be written off or cost about £15,000 to repair, NEAS McEwan, interim principal of the school, said: "We are devastated. This vehicle was not just a means of transport, it was a lifeline for one of our community learners."She told BBC Radio Tees the van gave the boy access to education and helped him engage with the world in a way that met his individual needs, such as going on outings to local attractions, and activities including swimming and horse said she was "utterly shocked" when she saw the vehicle."The fact that this person had come through the fence and had been in our environment that we love and take pride cause harm in that way and disrupt our service is really disheartening," she said. Triple break-in The male suspect was caught on CCTV on 19 July at 21:10 cutting through a metal playground fence to enter the school, the charity said. Once inside, he can be seen breaking into the van and releasing the bonnet. He trigged an alarm, but disabled it before suspect was captured again on CCTV at 21:30, spending an hour stripping the front of the van. He then returned on 21 July at 22:10, the charity said, breaking through the repaired section of the fence to remove all four tyres from the is described as white, aged about 18 and wearing a camouflage coat and grey jogging Police has urged anyone with information to contact the force. Follow BBC Tees on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.
The Guardian
23-07-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Reform spent £350 on champagne at luxury lunch, election spending figures show
Reform UK footed the bill for a £350 bottle of champagne at a luxury lunch and a £989-a-night hotel with hundreds of pounds in room service, its election campaign spending data shows. Receipts submitted to the Electoral Commission show instances of high spending at top London venues in the first half of last year. During one £1,703 lunch at the Shard restaurant in May last year, about four diners enjoyed set-course meals, the £352 magnum of champagne, another £155 bottle of Veuve Clicquot, three 'girl in a glass' cocktails at £19.50 each, two £18 wines, a £24 gin and tonic, and an 18-year-old Glenfiddich whisky at £31. In another £1,367 bill from June 2024, Reform paid for a single night's £989 stay at Sea Containers, a hotel on London's South Bank, plus £99 on 'dinner liquor' and £205 on room service and the minibar. Asked whether members would be happy for their subscriptions to be spent on such luxury items, party sources said the expenses were not incurred by Farage, his chair David Bull, or any other senior party figures, but were racked up by someone who has now left the party. The spending data also shows that Reform was billed more than £200,000 in the run-up to the election for services provided by a company co-owned by Bull, who was then deputy leader. The invoices from Bull's company, Oak Hall Studios, also included consultancy fees of £8,000 for June during the election campaign including advice on strategy and campaigning and a monthly retainer of £1,000. 'Oak Hall Studios provided live-streaming services for the party and allowed us to reach millions of voters throughout the general election campaign. It is a private limited company with shareholders. Like any other business it has contractors, suppliers and expenses such as trucks and camera operators,' a Reform spokesperson said. Other items of national expenditure included a £1,000 invoice from a staff member for 'two weeks of contracted work campaigning in Boston and Skegness', Richard Tice's constituency and £1,500 for an apartment billed to his campaign manager. Reform said it had been properly accounted for and that 'while they relate to activity in a particular constituency, the individuals named were working for the central party campaign under the direction of Reform UK HQ, rather than for Richard Tice as a candidate'. 'Their activity supported national campaign infrastructure, media coordination, and message consistency, rather than localised electoral matters. Accordingly, the expenses were incurred by or on behalf of the party for the purposes of promoting the party more generally in the election, and not in connection with the election of a particular candidate.' The spokesperson added: 'Richard was the deputy leader at the time and required staff to attend to him as well. Any overlap was correctly apportioned in the returns. Likewise, Reform said a £258 bill for campaign staff accommodation costs at JGS Hotels in Clacton was properly apportioned as national spending. 'This accommodation cost relates to national campaign personnel engaged by the central party. It was incurred for Reform UK staff working across multiple locations, and not by or on behalf of Nigel Farage in his capacity as a candidate,' the party said. 'Nigel is the party leader and therefore staff are often required to be proximate to him. As such, it falls correctly within the national return. The cost was not incurred or authorised by the candidate or his agent, and there is no evidence of it being used to promote Nigel Farage specifically rather than the party more broadly nationally.' Reform spent much less than the two major parties during the election, with its spending matching the Liberal Democrats' at about £5.5m. The Conservatives spent £23m, while Labour outspent all the other parties by some distance on £30m.
Daily Mail
14-07-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Could newbuild tower blocks put YOU in line for a huge payout over 'right to light'? Legal experts say couple's £500k payout will encourage others to make compensation claims
A £500,000 win for a retired couple who sued over a 17-storey £35million office tower blocking their light will 'embolden' others to try to claw huge sums from developers who throw their homes into darkness, MailOnline can reveal today. Stephen and Jennifer Powell complained that the Arbor tower, part of the £2billion Bankside Yards development, 'substantially' reduced the natural light getting into their 6th floor apartment next door on London 's South Bank. The couple claimed they could never read in their bedroom without a light on. Bankside Yards is eventually set to consist of eight towers, including 'mega-structures' 50 storeys high - with Arbor being the first and so far only building completed between 2019 and September 2021. But developers ran into trouble when the Powells and their 7th floor neighbour Kevin Cooper sued, seeking an injunction to protect their rights of light and threatening the tower with potentially being torn down. Mr Justice Fancourt, ruling on the case at London's High Court, has now refused the neighbours an injunction - saying that more than £200million would be wasted in demolishing and rebuilding the tower, plus associated 'environmental damage'. But he went on to find that the couple's flat in the designer block Bankside Lofts was 'substantially affected' by their light being cut off. And he ordered the co-developer of the site, Ludgate House Ltd, to pay the Powells £500,000 in damages, plus £350,000 to Mr Cooper. Legal experts told MailOnline today that while it may not open the floodgates due to the costs involved, the ruling is potentially good news for homeowners with the means to fight developers. Caroline DeLaney, a partner at Stevens & Bolton LLP, said: 'The sheer cost of bringing a claim for an injunction means that few cases make it to court. 'This decision will not increase the risk of a building having to be cut back or demolished. 'It will, however, embolden claimants in the knowledge that they can potentially obtain a substantial share of the developer's profits'. The judge in Stephen and Jennifer Powell's case said parts of the two flats had been left with levels of light 'insufficient for the ordinary use and enjoyment of those rooms'. He added: 'I also conclude that there will, as a result, be a substantial adverse impact on the ordinary use and enjoyment of those flats.' Ludgate House Ltd had fought the claims, insisting the tower did not block enough light from the neighbouring trio's £1million-plus flats to give the owners a valid claim. And their lawyers said the couple could solve the issue of lower light levels causing them problems when reading in bed by simply turning a light on. They argued that 'the loss was not important because the room is a bedroom and any reading in bed would be done with the aid of artificial light'. They also protested that an injunction forcing them to demolish the Arbor tower would be 'a gross waste of money and resources'. The judge agreed with the latter argument, saying demolition 'could cost £15million to £20million and rebuilding of the whole block would cost around £225million'. Mr Justice Fancourt went on to say: 'The claimants say that an injunction is the right remedy to grant because the defendant has deliberately proceeded with its development in the face of the claimants' rights.' Neighbours felt the developers had gone on while 'knowing that there was probably an infringement, and taking the chance that it would be able to buy off the claimants and all those in an equivalent position', he added. The judge said: 'The claimants are people who say that they have a particular and strong attraction to the benefits of natural light directly from the sky, and are unwilling to see that light taken away from them as a fait accompli. 'The position was, I am sure, exacerbated by advertising the new development as having 'exceptional levels of natural light' that promote productivity and wellbeing.' But he added: 'There are strong arguments, in modern times, why over £200million of development costs should not be wasted. 'There would also be substantial harm done by a further, complex demolition contract and considerable environmental damage as a result. 'Apart from the financial interest of the developer, to which an order for demolition could be said to be oppressive in comparison with the degree of harm done to the claimants, there is a significant public interest that needs to be taken into account.' The judge went on to refuse to grant an injunction but awarded damages, saying the loss of light has had a 'substantial adverse effect' on the flats. He ruled: 'The damage is principally to the use and enjoyment of the flats, not to their exchange value - though the reduced use and enjoyment value may have some impact on the market value. 'Mr Cooper and Mr Powell both stressed that they did not want money, they wanted their light, so that they could enjoy fully the advantages that their flats offered. 'Despite the loss of light, the flats remain useable, attractive and valuable, but less enjoyable in terms of their good light. The claimants should be awarded damages in lieu of an injunction. 'I consider that sums that would reasonably have been negotiated and agreed in 2019 to compensate the claimants for their rights of light are £500,000 for the Powells and £350,000 for Mr Cooper. These are the damages that I will award in lieu of granting injunctive relief.' Neighbours, however, expressed astonishment at the ruling - saying they thought it set a precedent. One woman, who has owned her dual aspect flat for 12 years, told MailOnline: 'I was very surprised about the payout, particularly because I thought they had been turned down. 'I don't know either the Powells or Mr Cooper who were involved in the case 'The cheapest flat in here is worth £800,000. Some are very small, some are galleried. 'I have not yet spoken to other residents about it [the payout]. The right to light row goes back four or five years. 'I think it depends where you are relative to the building that has gone up. In my flat for example, they sent someone round to test in the very early days and decided no, in accordance with the light laws, I did not have a claim for compensation. 'They said the parameters were not sufficient, everybody got a letter saying they would come and measure [light levels] and see. 'I don't have issues with the lighting. My flat is such that I look at the building and also look the other way, I have got dual aspect. I have a bathroom looking that way, I don't feel at a disadvantage.' Asked whether a precedent has been set following the £500,000 and £350,000 payouts to the Powells and a resident called Kevin Cooper, she said: 'I must admit I hadn't thought of that but it does set a precedent. 'My bathroom is going to be compromised in terms of people looking in, not light, I kind of thought I could do transfers on the windows. 'At the moment I can have a bath with all the windows open on a nice night, I like that. I wonder if there will be compensation for that. 'It was a pretty ugly building that was there before, it was a data processing centre.' She stressed that instead of the standard reaction to more development, she was in fact happy about the buildings going up around Bankside Lofts. She noted: 'I am happy there is going to be a Mandarin Oriental, it's London, that's how it is. 'It is a fantastic place to live. It is amazing. I have lived here for 12 years and it has got better and better in that time.' What are rights to light? Rights to light ensure property owners are able to enjoy the light passing through someone else's land. They essentially entitle you to use another person's land in a certain way. Your right to light are thought of in relation to defined apertures, typically windows. If something reduces the light through that aperture to the extent it causes a nuisance, you may be entitled to take legal action. Rights to light are not rights to direct sunlight. Instead they entitle you to a minimum level of natural illumination. Stafford, who works on the reception, said the Powells right to light issue had been raging for nearly 8 years but claimed most residents are disinterested or don't have a claim as they are renters not homeowners in the block. He said: 'About 70/75 percent of the building is renters. The Powells don't live here. This has been going on for a good seven/eight years. 'There have not been complaints like the Powells from other tenants. They are all tenants, they don't know anything about it really.' One woman who was part of a Residents' Association which took a separate group of developers to the European Courts of Justice to stop a block of flats which would peer into her flat was shocked when MailOnline revealed the Powells and Mr Cooper had received a combined sum of £850,000 compensation over the light row. The woman, who lives on the other side of the building to the compensated couples, said: 'I'm shocked, I live here! I actually think that is outrageous. What's the compensation for? Losing light, not being able to read in bed? I mean, please! It is very odd. 'What do you plan to do with this money, do you plan to share it with your neighbours? Ha ha! 'If I lived that side would I go for it? I can imagine there could be some who will go for compensation, people are going to go 'oooh, I'll have some of that!' 'What intrigues me if there would be people that could apply it retrospectively. It is fascinating. 'You can imagine these laughable conversations about planning to get half a million compensation. It is totally ridiculous.' Her friend, who does not live in the building, added: 'How do you demonstrate that? Have they got some tools in there that say it should be x percentage brighter? 'Surely there is a side to this where you're moving into an area that's going to be developed? There is an expectation there. 'There is just a template set for this now isn't there. A precedent, it just takes a neighbour to take the same paperwork and everyone around London can do that now. 'If it's worked for a neighbour in there, it's going to work for someone else. Are they actually that bothered or are just going to take the money and complain about it. '£500,000, that is nuts. The light, and in bed, I mean what? I mean, natural reading light, seriously! 'Are they going to move house, are they going to buy a nice new reading lamp? If it was about noise pollution then ok, but come on.' One homeowner who lives on the same side as the compensated flats told MailOnline they were aware of the compensation payouts but were not seeking any themselves, despite a precedent being set by the Powells and Mr Cooper's payout. The woman, who did not want to be named, said: 'Yes it's a lot. We haven't been after any compensation. 'I don't know the people who have got compensation but my husband sent me the article about it. 'We've only just purchased, we haven't been here for the goings on. But we bought it knowing all this was here.' During the trial of the case, the court heard that Powells have lived in their 6th floor flat in the yellow ochre Bankside Lofts building on the south bank of the river for more than 20 years. They had moved in in 2002, whilst property finance professional Mr Cooper bought his 7th floor flat in 2021. In written arguments put before the court, their barrister Tim Calland told Mr Justice Fancourt: 'The Bankside Yards development will consist of eight towers, the tallest of which stretches to 50 storeys in height. 'The marketing material for Arbor describes it as a mega-structure and boasts of exceptional natural light. 'The claimants maintain that this will have been achieved - wrongfully - at the expense of their light. 'Light is not an unnecessary 'add on' to a dwelling. Light does not just give pleasure, but provides the very benefits of health, wellbeing and productivity which the defendants are using to advertise the development. 'That is the reason the claimants have brought their claims.' John McGhee KC, for Ludgate House Ltd, had told the judge: 'The flats remain useable and desirable and, on any view, valuable. 'In respect of the bedroom in Mr and Mrs Powell's flat, the reduction in light is primarily around the headboard of the bed.
