Graham Knight

By Mark Pack | Published 4th March 2010 - 10:20 am

Good news: the Conservative MP for Mid-Sussex has more than halved the number of outside jobs he does in addition to being an MP.

Bad news: he’s still doing three, paying over £350,000 per year in total.

(Back in December 2005, he had seven outside jobs, but payment for them did not have to be disclosed.)

Certainly can’t be said the jobs are badly paid. They bring in for him over £220,000 which, allowing for tax, means a gross pay of over £350,000 (as his MP salary will have taken up tax allowances and put him in in the top tax band).

He gets that for working approaching a day and a half a week on average. Even in Mid-Sussex, that’s a pretty good rate of pay … but given how extremely busy many MPs are, there’s an obvious question about how he finds the time to do the outside jobs – or indeed whether it’s right for an MP to work on that scale and for that level of pay in addition to being an MP.

There certainly are benefits to MPs having outside knowledge and experience and that can extend to them fulfilling roles like trustee of a local charity. However, the number of hours and scale of pay in Nicholas Soames’s case are of quite another order.

He has had to repay £1,345.55 following the Legg inquiry and was one of the 19 Conservative MPs to have voted against MPs having to declare the details of their outside earnings in 2009.

Fitting the pattern identified by Mark Thompson that MPs in safer seats are more likely to have controversial expense claims, Nicholas Soames’s constituency has been in Conservative hands since 1910, though that is something Serena Tierney is working hard to change.

Note: Nicholas Soames’s pay and hours varies a little during the year, but during the second half of 2009 worked out at an annualised rate of £36,581.78 for Aegis, £25,894.22 for MMC and £100,000 for Intrepid Capital Partners. This is the net income he earns from the jobs, so the gross salary (the figure usually quoted when talking about salaries) is higher than this. On the basis that his income tax allowances are used up via his MP’s salary already, to receive that net income when paying 40% tax on it, the gross income has to be over £350,000. The number of hours was equivalent to annual total of 506 hours, or 10.5 hours a week for a 48 week working year.

Burgess Hill Town Council has agreed a draft town plan which outlines strategic priorities for the town, with the aim of promoting a positive future for Burgess Hill based on acceptance of some new housing but only on the basis of planned infrastructure development that will benefit all residents of the town.

See the separate page Future priorities for the development of Burgess Hill.

Local people have been stunned by the news that the Tories running Mid Sussex District Council, have given the Chief Executive a massive £16,000 pay hike.

The news came as the council announced a potential budget shortfall of £1.4m for next year and suggested that they may have to start laying off staff.

Serena Tierney, Liberal Democrat parliamentary spokesperson for Mid Sussex, said: “Since appointing him in 2004, the Tories have raised the Chief Executive’s basic salary by more than 50% to £138,000. On top of that he enjoys a generous benefits package.

“This latest increase simply cannot be justified at a time when hardworking ordinary council staff are being told that their jobs are under threat.”

What are the Tories cutting and when?

Graham Knight, Lib Dem leader on the District Council adds: “Clearly there’s a huge hole in the council’s budget and we want answers on how the Tories are going to plug that gap.”

One of the reasons for the deficit is the increase in car parking charges this year is emptying car parks and losing the Tory-run council vital revenue - as was forecast in our February 2009 FOCUS.

New figures show a big drop in the number of car parking tickets issued since the prices were hiked up - despite Lib Dem opposition warnings at the time that it was the wrong moment to be increasing charges. “It’s time that the Tories put their hands up and admitted that they’ve made a massive error of judgement on this issue.” says Burgess Hill councillor Heather Ross.

Mid Sussex District Council seems intent on imposing the bulk of the housing required under the government’s housing targets onto Burgess Hill without consultation or discussion with the Town Council – 3,800 or 82% of the identified houses are being proposed to be built to the north and north west of the town. This relates to just one of 49 sites considered by the council. The new houses would be on top of “windfall” housing sites which have not been specifically identified and could add several thousand additional houses to these totals in Burgess Hill over the period of the plan to 2026.

The Conservative Council is clearly hoping a change of government will mean it no longer has to meet the higher target of 17,100 homes imposed under the South East Plan and rather than share the strain of meeting even this lower target, it is proposing to dump the bulk of the new housing onto Burgess Hill. By meeting a target for five years supply of land for developers to build on, the Conservatives appear to be hoping to avoid making any hard choices, by dumping the bulk of these houses on Burgess Hill rather than sharing the strain.

All political parties on the Town Council have agreed to accept new housing in the town provided it is properly planned with the required investment in infrastructure, however massive growth to the north of the town alone would be lop sided, and given the Conservative council’s past record and current financial problems, it is questionable whether the council has the political will to ensure the necessary investment in infrastructure that will be needed for the town. Liberal Democrats want to protect the character of the town, and to ensure that new housing only comes with the required investment in infrastructure, to benefit existing, as well as new residents.

New housing sites can often occur when larger gardens or other small sites are redeveloped, these “windfall” housing sites provide several hundred new houses a year, yet our Conservative District Council has failed to ensure developers of these sites pay any contribution to local infrastructure. Normally new housing developments are required to contribute towards the cost of new community infrastructure (known as s106 contributions) to help pay for improvements to roads, schools, libraries, community facilities and social housing. Yet Mid Sussex currently excludes new developments of under 15 houses of having to contribute towards new social housing, and developments of five or less houses do not have to make any contribution to local infrastructure. This gives an incentive to developers to redevelop single back gardens such as Folders Lane with piece meal development that avoids them having to make any contribution – despite providing dwellings in this road alone which can house several hundred people – but making no contribution to the increased public facilities required.

The Council is currently consulting on a Development and Infrastructure Special Planning Document which could allow it to make changes, Liberal Democrats say it should stop giving developers a free ride and ensure the builders of all new houses have to contribute towards the cost of community infrastructure. A new Community Infrastructure Levy will enable local authorities to apply a levy to all new residential and commercial developments from next April which will help formalise the s106 procedures. The aim is to ensure the costs incurred in providing infrastructure to sustain a development will be subsidised by land owners who have benefitted from the uplift in the value of their land as a result of planning permission. Let’s hope Mid Sussex Conservatives get their act together and ensure all development of new houses contribute their fair share to local public infrastructure.

Why does it take ages for Mid Sussex District Council to implement its own council’s decisions. In July 2008 the Council agreed to use the powers available to it under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act, such as warnings and spot fines for those who allow dog fouling and loose dogs in public places, and issued a press release that it had now agreed to introduce these changes.

In the small print the 2008 press release actually went on to say these changes were a bit too revolutionary and it would only introduce them for the Bedelands Farm Nature Reserve and Leylands Park tip site as a pilot.

Now over a year later the Friends of Burgess Hill Green Circle are concerned at the amount of dog fouling on the reserve, and problems with loose dogs, including several attacks on sheep.

Why fourteen months later is this still with the council solicitors with no progress having been made on introducing these changes which would allow fines to be levied?

The Council also has powers available to it under the 1996 Dog Fouling Act to monitor dog fouling and take action under this act to initiate court proceedings against any offenders. In 2006/07 Crawley Borough Council was able to levy five fixed penalty notices for dog fouling yet this does not seem possible in Mid Sussex.

Most dog owners are responsible and ensure their dog is properly controlled and clean up after it, however a small minority ignore these messages and need the warning of potential fines to ensure they act appropriately.  This is particularly the case for areas such as Bedelands Farm Nature Reserve which needs to be carefully managed to ensure its popularity does not lead to reduced amenity as the reserve becomes more heavily used.  There is nothing more dispiriting than coming across a pile of dog pooh in the middle of the pathway or probably worse a dog poop bags carefully collected and then thrown in a tree by some careless dog owner.

Plans to redevelop Burgess Hill Town Centre are to be welcomed and could bring real benefits for local residents with better shops and housing in the town. Liberal Democrats have worked with the Conservatives and others on the Town Council to ensure the scheme provides the best possible benefits for Burgess Hill. However it is also important that the massive sums involved add up in the current financial environment.

Mid Sussex District Council employed Thornfield plc (http://www.thornfieldproperties.co.uk/caseStudy.php?case=19) to redevelop the town centre, much of it owned by the Council, and the scheme being put forward could provide a real boost . The “concept scheme” currently looks set for approval by the District Council and will be followed by consultation on the detailed proposals and a full planning application.

Concerns have been expressed that the District Council is putting all its eggs in one basket, and that the costs of setting up the strategic agreements have been at the expense of funding for other projects - although the cost of the redevelopment itself will be borne by the Thornfield Plc. However there are significant risks’ being taken on by the District Council, and given the Conservative administrations previous financial mismanagement, their track record does not inspire confidence.

The stakes are high – with a 250 year lease being given to Thornfield to manage a large chunk of the town centre based on an unpublished financial assessment, and on the basis of “suitable cost undertakings being received”. It remains to be seen whether these guarantees are forthcoming and it appears the District Council has no plan B.

All councillors on the Town Council have worked together to try and ensure that any redevelopment is in the interests of Burgess Hill, irrespective of the District Council’s Conservative administration who have not always been co-operative, and that the Council does not put commercial gain from its landholdings, before the needs of the town.

With the credit crunch many similar redevelopment schemes around the country have crashed – a Guardian report recently spoke of “hundreds” of so calling mixed use redevelopment schemes having been put on hold around the country, so to some extent fingers are crossed that the financial aspects of the plan will add up. The mixed use is the need to build flats and houses to subsidise the shopping development. In Burgess Hill it is important the right balance is struck between new shops and sustainable housing developments.

The landmark building at the head of Queen Elizabeth Avenue, upgraded library facilities, a new public square, a major expansion in shopping facilities, extra housing, and if the planners and developers will get it right, a decent multi-storey car park and proper public toilets could all bring real benefits.

Regretfully redevelopment of the station area has been withdrawn from the scheme, at least for the moment, awaiting proposals from Network Rail. A clear vision is needed for this area to provide a proper transport interchange that encourages people to use public transport.

Additionally the level of affordable housing must not be sacrificed in order to make the scheme more attractive to the developer rather than provide decent housing – unlike in Haywards Heath where the District Council seems to be prepared to relax its affordable housing criteria.

In Mid Sussex we’ve already seen road schemes scheduled to be paid for by developers cancelled in East Grinstead and delayed in Haywards Heath, so we need to be careful development rights are not signed over on ineffective terms.

Matters are not helped by the lack of information provided by the Conservative controlled Mid Sussex District Council, its web link seems largely to consist of information from 2006 when up to date information and meaningful consultation should be a priority (follow the link from their home page http://www.midsussex.gov.uk/page.cfm.

Yet the goal of a better town, with improved facilities, and a much expanded retail experience is well worth pursuing, and could be part of an integrated plan, which together with the thousands of new houses proposed for the town, gives us a truly 21st century Burgess Hill.