A group legal claim against South West Water alleging sewage pollution into coastal waters is harming businesses and individuals has been expanded across Devon and Cornwall.

Sandra Laville www.theguardian.com

Thousands more individuals could now join the first environmental community group legal action against a water company over the impact of sewage pollution.

Until now 1,400 people from Exmouth had joined the legal action but Leigh Day said on Wednesday it was being expanded to residents and businesses across Dawlish, Sidmouth, Teignmouth in Devon and Newquay and Penzance in Cornwall.

The claim argues failings by South West Water are wide and entrenched in many coastal towns across the Devon and Cornwall region, rather than just the Exmouth area.

Tina Naldrett, 62, a nurse from Dawlish, has joined the claim, after years in which she has seen the pollution at her beach get worse.

“When the sea is clear, and you can see your feet, the sun is on your back and you hear the gulls, it is free magic,” she said. “But more often I take friends into the water and we see sanitary products floating past, the plastic from tampons, actual effluent and the foam from effluent. It is getting worse.

“Water companies don’t own the sea. We are an island nation, the sea belongs to us all and for water companies to use the sea in this way feels immoral and ethically bankrupt.”

In 2024 South West Water discharged 544,429 hours of raw sewage into seas and coastal waters, including an overflow at Salcombe Regis that discharged for almost the whole year – making it the longest sewage release duration across all the storm overflow sites in England and Wales.

Last July Ofwat issued a £24m enforcement penalty against South West Water identifying systemic failings in the way it maintained and operated its wastewater treatment works and sewer networks dating back to at least 2017.

Spills of raw sewage via combined storm overflows are only allowed, and considered legal, if they take place after exceptional circumstances, such as extreme rainfall, when the system is at risk of being overwhelmed. But more than half of South West Water’s treatment plants were spilling regularly into the environment, Ofwat said.

The legal claim launched in 2024 has attracted more than 1,400 people from the Exmouth, Lympstone and Budleigh Salterton areas. They object to the repeated use of storm overflows to discharge raw sewage into the sea, triggering bathing alerts and beach closures and preventing people from using the coast.

Oliver Holland, who leads the claim, said the expansion of the legal action across Devon and Cornwall was an important step.

“South West Water has a track record of very poor environmental performance, and my clients allege this has badly impacted their lives and livelihoods. By outlining my clients’ claims and expanding in this way, we are ensuring anyone who feels they have been impacted by sewage pollution in Dawlish, Sidmouth, Teignmouth, or at Longrock beach or Fistral beach in Cornwall, has the opportunity to take action.”

South West Water has been contacted for comment.

Guardian readers respond to Polly Toynbee’s article on the government’s plans to overhaul local government (18th Feb)

www.theguardian.com

Polly Toynbee is correct to point out the foolishness of a massive local government reorganisation, given other priorities (Is No 10 seeking its own destruction? Why else would it botch its council plans and hand a victory to Farage?, 18 February).

What she does not mention is that this reorganisation will lead to a large increase in inequality. The district councils that are being abolished are rising from the ashes as town and parish councils and, unlike other councils, they can set their own precept and cannot be capped. The largest town councils have budgets of more than £5m and more than 124 parish councils have budgets of over £1m. These councils tend to be in the wealthier suburban and rural areas, and can protect their residents from austerity, unlike residents of large, disadvantaged urban areas.

If you live in an area with a parish council, you will have a good library, open spaces and playgrounds will be well maintained, and you will have a thriving youth club. If you do not, your library will have closed and your playground will be covered in glass where the teenagers drink on a Saturday night following the closure of their youth club.

The government is giving grants to disadvantaged areas, but they will revert to their previous state within a few years due to a lack of local government funding. Despite the warm words from the chancellor, the cuts continue.
David Kennedy
Menston, West Yorkshire

The government seems bent on replacing one broken system with another. Local authorities have two broad functions. One is to deliver services equitably, efficiently and economically. The other is to be the living, beating heart of the communities they serve, offering local leadership and advocacy. It is, of course, a question of balance. Councils need to be big enough to be efficient, but small enough to care. Governments do not seem to understand that.

Unitary councils are certainly more publicly relatable than the two-tier system. But in choosing a population baseplate of around 500,000, this government has made it clear that any concept of local responsiveness has been abandoned in favour of an ill-conceived search for savings. It is no better than planning on the back of a fag packet.

Two “super councils”, as proposed where I live, will simply be too large to be responsive to the needs of such a large and diverse range of towns and smaller population centres. Perversely, it will also be too small to justify a combined mayoral authority, because it is not an economic entity on its own. The proposals represent another centralising nail in the coffin of local government.

Of course, if you just want your bins collected, none of that matters. But as a former three-time council chief executive, I pray for another U-turn.
Bernard Quoroll
Guildford, Surrey

Why Labour is wasting energy on an unnecessary reform of local government is, as Polly Toynbee points out, puzzling. A cynic might suggest that the reason is something scarcely mentioned in the debate: larger authorities with fewer councillors representing local interests offer more scope for the kind of large-scale planning that is needed to take forward the government’s ambitious growth strategy.

Westminster finds local council opposition to new runways, roads, railways, housing estates, power stations and so on a nuisance. Maybe local government reorganisation is driven by a desire to weaken it.
Peter Taylor-Gooby
Canterbury

Polly Toynbee has hit the local government reorganisation nail on the head. As a senior county council officer, I went through the reorganisation in the 1990s. Far from creating a more rational system, it resulted in a hotchpotch of new authorities, some of which struggled to establish sound services, and a puzzling set of changes to county councils. The process took up huge amounts of time and money, and diverted attention from planning and delivering good services into sorting out thousands of details such as changed boundaries, contracts and responsibility for future liabilities (not unlike Brexit).

The adage that form should follow function seemed to be less important than working on the assumption that reorganisation was an easy panacea. Looking at exactly what needs doing and seeing how well you could do it through minimal organisational change makes more sense – less exciting, but the public needs good services, not political excitement.
Andrew Seber
Winchester

My district council, East Devon, is due to be abolished in the name of “efficiency” some 50 years after it was created from an efficiency bonfire of urban and rural councils. The district only consumes 7% of the tax it collects from me, so I see little scope for savings. All the local services it manages – maintaining electoral rolls, running elections, dealing with household waste, street cleaning, local planning, collecting council tax etc – are essential. The only certainty is that I will have fewer councillors to turn to.

There is no consensus on how district councils should be reorganised in Devon, and my fear is that rural areas will be cast adrift from the inherently more efficient urban ones. As for mayors, even Andy Burnham might struggle to make himself known in a county that is 70 miles wide and 70 miles deep, with little public transport.
David Daniel
Budleigh Salterton, Devon

High Court battle looms over NHS vaccination building

Bradley Gerrard, Local Democracy Reporter www.radioexe.co.uk

A High Court battle looks set to be sparked over a long-running dispute to retain an NHS drive-through vaccination centre.

The owners of Greendale Farm Shop have revealed that after losing an appeal over the issue at the Planning Inspectorate, they are now taking their fight to the next level.

A spokesperson for the firm confirmed that they did not agree with the outcome of the recent appeal on a legal basis, and so have just submitted a challenge in the High Court.

“The NHS wants to stay put and they have a lease on the building,” a spokesperson for Greendale said.

“We made our appeal to the Planning Inspectorate under four grounds and we don’t believe all of those have been made reference to in the decision notice.”

The saga has been rumbling on for years, with Greendale removing a chicken shed from the same site, and according to official documents, “a new larger structure was erected in the same place which permitted development rights did not permit”.

A 2023 planning application by Greendale sought to retain the building, but that was refused by East Devon District Council because it was outside the boundary where development was permitted and because it believed there was an “absence of a robust justification and evidence of need” for the site.

That decision was taken to the Planning Inspectorate, which sided with the council. East Devon subsequently issued an enforcement notice demanding the building and parking area be returned to agricultural use.

Greendale’s owners again took their plight to the government planning arbitrator in a bid to overturn the enforcement notice.

However, in a fresh decision issued late in January this year, the Planning Inspectorate upheld the enforcement notice, meaning it supported the council’s belief that the building has to be taken down.

The NHS Vaccination Centre has a drive-through provision, and is different to the much larger structure that also served as a vaccination centre during lockdown and which is on nearby Greendale Business Park land.

That larger building is no longer used by the NHS, but is occupied by an alternative health provider, and planning permission for that building has been previously approved.

East Devon states the reasons for its enforcement notice on the drive-through building are that it is “outside of any recognised development boundary”, even though it is just metres from the well-used Greendale Farm Shop and Cafe.

It is also virtually directly opposite Mud-Ventures play site, which was itself the subject of a Planning Inspectorate decision in its favour. In that case, the council also felt it was outside the area where development should occur, but the Planning Inspectorate felt the building was in keeping with others on the site and that Mud Ventures was unlikely to draw huge amounts of extra traffic given that people were likely to use more than one of Greendale’s services once there.

The council called the drive-through building “unjustified and unsustainable development in the countryside”, and that “its nature as a drive-thru vaccination centre means that people are likely to access the site via private car”, which is contrary to its policies linked to encouraging developments that can be accessed by public transport.

“It is not considered that there are material circumstances to outweigh the adverse impacts of development in this location which justify a departure from policy,” the council said in its enforcement notice.

“The environmental harm is considered to outweigh the social benefits that would be derived from the provision of a permanent building for the NHS to roll out their vaccination programme.”

The appellants had claimed that the enforcement notice was “defective”, and while the Planning Inspectorate stated he had “sympathy” with that suggestion, ultimately it found in favour of the council, albeit suggesting amendments to the enforcement notice.

The Planning Inspectorate agreed that while there were benefits to a vaccination centre, it had not been demonstrated that the service could not be better delivered elsewhere.

The documents also state that the NHS lease ends in March 2026, but it is not clear if that has been extended in the meantime.

Exmouth pollution mentioned again in a national newspaper. – Owl

“No family should go through this,” said Alice Clarke after her seven-year daughter, Willow, fell ill after swimming last summer at Carlyon Bay, Cornwall. Willow was ill for 12 days, vomiting, unable to keep food down and losing weight.

Adam Vaughan www.thetimes.com

The parasite cryptosporidium was eventually concluded to be the cause. “It was terrifying. Willow thought she was going to die,” said Clarke, a teaching assistant from Devon.

Willow, who recovered, was not alone in 2025. More than 1,200 people became sick after swimming in designated bathing waters across England last year, despite three quarters of those official swimming spots being rated “good” or “excellent”.

The figures, reported to the charity Surfers Against Sewage (SAS), showed Exmouth in Devon accounted for 192 cases of sickness after people had been in the water. Though the water quality was rated excellent when regulators undertook official tests during the summer, other research has found Exmouth can drop to poor during the winter months.

Hove Lawns in East Sussex and Polzeath in Cornwall also featured highly despite both being classed as excellent, having 103 and 102 sickness reports respectively.

Analysis by SAS of data from water company sewage spill maps suggests they dumped raw sewage into bathing waters across England for almost 125,000 hours last year despite dry conditions.

As the full maps only went online in late 2024, it is impossible to compare with previous years. However, demonstrating how wet it has been recently, sewage has already been spilled for 46,141 hours in 2026, less than two months into the year.

A “fountain of filth”, a temporary art installation featuring figures based on real people with cloudy water pouring from their mouths, has opened next to the Thames. Paid for by Channel 4 to promote its new fact-based water pollution drama Dirty Business, the fountain includes models based on the surfer Lizzie Cresswell and the Save Windermere campaigner Matt Staniek.

The Fountain of Filth JAMES VEYSEY/SHUTTERSTOCK

Cresswell, an SAS activist who said she had become ill several times after surfing, said she had done “lots of poses throwing up” for the 3D scan of her that was turned into the statue. “I’ve had eye infections, ear infections. It is horrific that we’re doing the things that we love doing and I’ve been sick multiple times.”

Staniek, who brought week 120 of his Greta Thunberg-style sewage strike to London on Monday, said: “It’s about bringing England’s largest lake into the fold and demonstrating to people that if it’s happening to Windermere in a Unesco World Heritage Site and a national park, then no river is safe from this.”

Jonathan Kneebone, director of the Glue Society art collective, who designed the fountain, said that the bronze-like statues of people were printed as hollow sections like “bits of macaroni”. The structure, on the Southbank in London, took three months to build but will be taken down in three days. “I love the fact that it feels like public art that should be here all the time,” Kneebone said.

Suzi Finlayson, a 47-year old swimmer from Bognor Regis, had travelled up to see the art installation. Like several other swimmers at the end of 2023, she fell ill at Aldwick beach in Sussex after swimming. She suffered a bacterial infection that reached one of her heart valves, requiring open heart surgery and leaving her reliant on weekly blood tests to this day.

“I’m still living with the consequences of that and something needs to be done about the public impact of what this sewage dumping is doing,” said Finlayson, who has reluctantly given up sea swimming.

Separately on Monday, Yorkshire Water was ordered by Derby crown court to pay a £733,333 fine for polluting a stream three times in less than 12 months. An Environment Agency investigation found several releases of untreated sewage had killed fish and insects along a waterway in Poolsbrook Country Park, near Chesterfield, during 2018 and 2019.

A spokesman for the industry body Water UK said: “Sewage spills are awful and we are working to end them as fast as we physically can. That’s why we are tripling investment over the next five years to halve spills from storm overflows and upgrade the capacity of 1,700 wastewater treatment works.”

The Times Clean it Up campaign is calling for better regulation and investment to safeguard the nation’s rivers and seas.

Did you watch it last night – available on catch-up! Starts by mentioning South West Water- Owl

How to respond

Owl is sceptical about the use of box ticking surveys and questionnaires. They seem designed to meet procedural requirements easily processed by computer, rather than gather genuine feedback. 

The issues surrounding the elimination of the tier of local government closest to residents with consequential dilution of elected representation are profound.

Ironically, the government claims it is removing a tier of local government, district councils, while, at the same time, planning to add another on top, the strategic mayoral authority. This form of devolution does not bring local decision making closer to people.

Owl will, therefore, be sending in a narrative response and not be completing the “survey”.

See this companion post describing the proposals.

The Consultation 

Nitty gritty (Taken from the gov.uk website)

This consultation will last for 7 weeks from 5 February 2026 to 23:59 on 26 March 2026. 

Enquiries:

For any enquiries about the consultation please contact:

lgrconsultationresponse@communities.gov.uk

How to respond:

You may respond by completing the online survey.

If you are responding in writing, please make it clear which proposal you are responding to. You can email your response to the questions in this consultation to lgrconsultationresponse@communities.gov.uk

Alternatively written responses should be sent to:

LGR Consultation
Fry Building 2NE
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

When replying please include your name and indicate in which council area your home or organisation address is located:

• Devon County Council
• Plymouth City Council
• Torbay Council
• outside the affected area

We would also like you to confirm whether you are replying as a named consultee, submitting an official response on behalf of an organisation that is not on the list of named consultees, or replying as an individual.

Using the online survey

Ticking the Boxes

What to expect if you use the online survey

The same set of questions are asked of each of the five proposals. You do not have to respond to all five but it is unclear how a nil response will be treated.

Each question requires you to select, on a six point scale, how strongly you agree or disagree with the question, viz: strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree, don’t know.

The questions ask do you agree/disagree:

• Q1 that the proposal suggests councils that are based on sensible geographies and economic areas?
• Q2 that the proposed councils will be able to deliver the outcomes they describe in the proposal?
• Q3 that the proposed councils are the right size to be efficient, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks? 
• Q4 that the proposed councils will deliver high quality, sustainable public services?
• Q5 that the proposal has been informed by local views and will meet local needs?
• Q6 that establishing the councils in this proposal will support devolution arrangements?
• Q7 that the proposal enables stronger community engagement and gives the opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment?

These questions are followed by a free text box to explain the answers you have provided to questions 1-7, referring to the question numbers as part of your answer. You may also use the box to provide any other comments you have on the proposal.

Proposals 3 to 5 involve boundary changes so each has an additional question followed by a free text box.

The additional question is: to what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal sets out a strong public services and financial sustainability justification for boundary change?

Owl gets to the heart of each proposal

Five proposals have been submitted to the government and are subject to consultation. Here is Owl’s summary of each.

(A companion post explains how to take part in the consultation.)

No 1 Devon County Council proposal

Arguably the simplest, Plymouth and Torbay are left alone and a third “Devon Unitary” created to include all existing districts and Exeter city. 

Points to note

• No of Unitaries – 3
• Population disparity. Devon Unitary would have a population of c. 850,000, Plymouth 275,000 and Torbay 140,000. Set against a government guideline  of 500,000, even Plymouth falls short of this; and Torbay falls well short indicating it may not be an efficient size for a unitary authority.
• Geography. It would seem administratively convenient to centre the Devon administration on County Hall in Exeter. But there is no disguising the remoteness of the unitary council based in Exeter from Tavistock, Ilfracombe, Tiverton, Axminster and Kingsbridge, compared with residents of Plymouth and Torbay whose council is central.

Nos 2 & 3 District council proposals

These two proposals are very similar, one is simply a minor tweak on the other. South Hams, Teignbridge and West Devon have broken away from the earlier consensus amongst district councils. The difference revolves around whether or not to make a modest increase in the size of Plymouth. The proposed expansion involves switching parts of four parishes, currently in South Hams but on the edge of Plymouth, to include them in what is called the “Plymouth Policy Area”. The purpose is to stop Plymouth expanding across the Dartmoor National Park boundary, maintaining clarity and coherence in planning authority responsibilities. See dotted line on map below:

This division amongst district councils illustrates just how divisive LGR has become. It would appear that only around 6,000 residents would be affected but it is obviously important to them.

Similar issues crop up in proposals 4 and 5.

The government really has stirred up a hornets’ nest.

Both proposals are derived from the very first 5:4:1 district proposals in which the geographic county is split into three unitary councils.

• Exeter and Northern Devon Unitary. [East Devon, Exeter, Mid Devon, North Devon, and Torridge].
• Torbay and Southern Devon Unitary. [ South Hams, Teignbridge, Torbay  and West Devon ]
• ​Plymouth unchanged in Proposal 2, or expanded, with consequential reductions in the South Hams in  Proposal 3

Points to note

• No of Unitaries – 3
• Population. These proposals create a more even balance of populations in each unitary: Exeter & northern Devon c 550,000; Torbay and Southern Devon c. 420,000; Plymouth remains at the lower end of the target population of c 275,000/280,000.
• Geography. Likely administrative centers to be Plymouth, Torbay and Exeter which still leaves parts of West, North and East Devon somewhat remote.

No 4 Exeter City Council and Plymouth City Council proposal

This is arguably the most radical proposal creating 4 unitaries, involving a lot of boundary changes. Three of these imply significant expansion of areas adjacent to Plymouth, Torbay and Exeter. These three areas would become compact “urban” unitaries with the rest of Devon lumped into a surrounding horseshoe of “Coast and Countryside”.

• Exeter: plus 15 parishes from within Teignbridge District Council, 28 parishes from within East Devon District Council and 6 parishes from within Mid-Devon District Council.
• Plymouth: plus 13 parishes from South Hams
• Torbay: plus 22 parishes from within Teignbridge District Council and South Hams District Council.
• Devon Coast and Countryside: The rest of Devon! 

See the Proposal 4 map:

Points to note

• No of Unitaries – 4
• Population division. This proposal quite clearly creates a division between Town and Country. The populations of the three urban unitaries range from c. 305,000 for expanded Plymouth, 260,000 for expanded Exeter to 232,000 for expanded Torbay. All fall short of the 500,000 target. The rural periphery, on the other hand, is far larger with a population of c. 455,000
• Geography. Fine for the urban unitaries centred on Plymouth, Torbay and Exeter. A nightmare for the rest.

No 5 Torbay’s proposal to be left alone

This insular proposal takes Exeter’s and Plymouth’s proposal (4 above) but says “no thank you” to the idea of adding 22 parishes to Torbay. Torbay proposes these parishes should be lobbed into the “Coast and Countryside” rump, making it an even greater nightmare to administer. 

Points to note

• No of Unitaries – 4
• Population division. This proposal returns Torbay to a population of c.140,000 which is really too small for an efficient unitary, smaller than East Devon. The “Coast and Countryside” rump is increased by about 100,000.
• Geography Even more of a nightmare for managing “Coast and Countryside” than in proposal 4 above.

You can find all the detailed cases made for each of these five proposals at: www.devonlgr.co.uk. 

The Government “Mission Statement”

So it’s all about growth. It does nothing to address impending bankruptcy and the ballooning costs of social care and provision for children with special educational needs. More importantly the centralisation it seeks, reducing your access to councillors and making councils more remote, is the antithesis of what most people think devolution means. – Owl

“Our ambition is to simplify local government, ending the two-tier system and establishing new single-tier unitary councils that are responsible for all local government services in an area. Our vision is clear: stronger local councils in charge of all local services, equipped to drive economic growth, improve local public services, and lead and empower their communities.

Strong local government will help grow the economy and drive up living standards – the government’s number one mission. With one council in charge, we will see quicker decisions to grow our towns and cities and connect people to opportunity. Reorganisation will speed up house building, get vital infrastructure projects moving, and attract new investment – with more people able to buy their own homes and access high-quality local jobs.

New unitary councils must support wider devolution structures. Our ambition is that all of England can access devolved powers by establishing Strategic Authorities – groups of councils working together over areas that people recognise and live and work in – to make the key decisions over strategic scale and to drive economic growth. Strategic Authorities use their powers over housing, planning, transport, energy, skills, employment support and more to deliver growth and opportunity to communities across the country. In the Devon, Plymouth and Torbay area, the Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority is already established, this does not include Plymouth. “

“Council tax is regressive and it was never designed to fund something as complex as adult social care or children’s services,” – Councillor James Buczkowski (Liberal Democrat, Cullompton), the cabinet member for finance.

Is Local Government Reorganisation dealing with this sort of thing? – Owl

Devon’s largest council looks set to hike council tax by the most it is allowed to do as it faces rising costs for its most vital services and looks to bolster its reserves.

Bradley Gerrard, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk

Devon County Council’s cabinet approved the budget proposal that will see the council ask to increase council tax by 4.99 per cent, taking a Band D property’s bill to £1,891.

That includes a 2 percentage point increase for adult social care, the department that is the biggest draw on the council’s cash at more than £395 million out of its more than £839 million service budget for the forthcoming financial year.

The budget proposals, which include adding £18 million into the council’s reserves, now have to go before full council next week to be ratified.

Councillor James Buczkowski (Liberal Democrat, Cullompton), the cabinet member for finance, said the council was only spending what it was getting in through income, and was not using reserves or borrowing to fund its day-to-day spending.

But Cllr Buczkowski said while he welcomed the government’s three-year funding settlement, which gives councils like his more visibility, there was an increasing reliance on council tax.

“Council tax is regressive and it was never designed to fund something as complex as adult social care or children’s services,” he said.

“The pressure is national in nature and should not be loaded onto local residents.”

He added: “If we don’t increase council tax, then the funding gap would fall on service reductions and that’s unfair.”

Cllr Buczkowski said the government has claimed Devon’s so-called ‘core’ funding is rising, but that rise assumes councils increase council tax by the most amount they are allowed to, and collect 100 per cent of it, which it is believed no council achieves. He said increase in funding from government was only around £900,000.

He noted the proposal to increase council tax by 4.99 per cent was “not taken lightly”.

Cllr Buczkowski said the plan was to put £18 million into reserves to help bolster its rainy day fund, a pot that has dwindled in recent years. The council had £222 million of reserves in March 2021 but this fell to £125 million at March 2024 and remains at a similar level now.

Devon has recently had a major boost as part of a national announcement whereby the government will pay off 90 per cent of its overspend on special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).

That is due to hit around £221 million in April, but Devon is expected to have about £194 million of that paid off.

Cllr Buczkowski was keen to stress the cash was clearing a deficit, and so did not mean the council now has more money to spend.

He added that £41.7 million that the council had been keeping to one side as part of the Safety Valve agreement – an initial mechanism aimed at helping councils rid themselves of SEND overspends but which has now been scrapped – will be moved into another reserves pot.

It is likely some or all of this cash could be required to pay off the 10 per cent of its SEND overspend that Westminster isn’t covering.

Once again, adult social services and children’s services make up the lion’s share of the day-to-day spending at County Hall. The pair are set to cost more than £660 million in the 2026/27 financial year, nearly four-fifths of the service budget.

Some senior Liberal democrat county councillors have urged the government to postpone plans to reorganise Devon’s council system following the U-turn on local elections.

Tony Gussin/Bradley Gerrard,www.northdevongazette.

On Monday (February 16) the government announced it had abandoned plans to delay 30 council elections in England, with Exeter among them, following advice this could be unlawful.

Now some councillors in Devon are urging the government to also consider its local government reorganisation plans that would see district and county councils scrapped in favour of larger unitary authorities.

In North Devon and Torridge, the proposal submitted to the government would see the creation of a ‘super council’ combining East Devon, Mid Devon, North Devon, Torridge and Exeter.

The government is meant to make a decision by this July and provisional elections for the new councils have been pencilled in for May 2027.

The original reason given for postponing elections of existing councils this year, with Exeter the nearest locally, was because it was felt councils would not be able to run elections this year and deal with the requirements of the restructuring.

Now some of Devon’s most senior Liberal Democrats have called for the restructure process to be delayed, with an urge for the decision to be taken sooner rather than later.

Councillor Paul Arnott, the deputy Devon County Council leader and cabinet member for the restructure process, said: “My ask of the government is to have a look at how local government reorganisation LGR has gone for you since December 2024 when you decided not just to attempt devolution, which is already a failure, but to go for total local government reorganisation.

“It has gone catastrophically, so please now consider a postponement.”

He said the intended timetable – with the government’s decision on how Devon should be organised set for July and interim elections for those new councils in May 2027 – was “neither realistic or sustainable.”

He added: “So my message to the government is to courteously ask they postpone the process, but to do so now and not change their minds at the 11th hour, like they have just done with this year’s local elections.”

Councillor Julian Brazil, the leader of Devon County Council, welcomed the fact the local elections would now be on but expressed “dismay at what is going on in government.”

He said: “I think it is a sorry state of affairs when the government is descending from chaos to farce, and they will forever be known as the hokey cokey government – in then out.

“It’s quite chaotic.”

Reform UK nationally challenged the government over its decision to postpone the 30 local elections, but ministers this week climbed down from that position.

The move means 13 seats out of Exeter’s 39 will be up for grabs. Labour holds eight of the seats being contested.

David Reed MP pays tribute to those who contacted him about election cancellation

Eh?  – Owl

David Reed MP, the Conservative member for Exmouth and Exeter East, said the initial decision to postpone the elections had “sparked significant concern locally”, with many voters contacting his office to say they were angry about losing their chance to vote.

“This is the right outcome,” Mr Reed said.

“Local people should never have their vote taken away, and I’m pleased that voters in Exeter will now get their say at the ballot box.

“I challenged ministers repeatedly to reverse this decision and allow these elections to go ahead, and I’m glad they have listened.

“The people of Exeter will now have the opportunity to vote, which is exactly how our democracy should work.”

Mr Reed also paid tribute to those who contacted his office during the period of uncertainty:

“This is a victory for everyone who wrote in, signed petitions, and spoke up,” he added.

“The strength of feeling across Exeter was clear. People care deeply about their democratic rights, and they were right to demand answers.”Extract from www.radioexe.co.uk

Exeter Observer’s view of the ON/OFF May election fiasco:

Secretary of State Steve Reed withdraws decision following legal advice in face of Reform UK High Court challenge, leaving city council leader Phil Bialyk facing electoral oblivion.

Monday 16 February 2026

Martin Redfern exeterobserver.org/

Exeter’s local elections are to go ahead as originally planned on Thursday 7 May after the government reversed their cancellation in the face of a High Court challenge brought by Reform UK.

Secretary of State Steve Reed has written to the leaders of the 30 affected councils – which were told their May elections would be cancelled three weeks ago – to tell them that he has instead “decided to withdraw his decision” following “recent legal advice”.

A High Court hearing had been due to take place on Thursday in response to a judicial review claim brought by Reform UK against Steve Reed’s decision. The government has now said it will pay Reform UK’s costs in bringing the claim.

Two-thirds of the affected local authorities – which Steve Reed had labelled “zombie councils” in an opinion piece for The Times just before cancelling their elections – are Labour-led.

Exeter City Council leader Phil Bialyk, who told last July’s city council meeting that he had no intention of asking to postpone democracy this year, then told January’s meeting that he would do so after all.

He subsequently sought to insist that the council would not be “suspending democracy” before green-lighting the elections cancellation the following day. He now claims that he welcomes the news the elections will go ahead.

The cancellation would have meant Labour retaining power in Exeter for two more years until the city council is dissolved in April 2028.

Eight Labour councillors, among them deputy leader Laura Wright, would have kept their seats in May instead of standing for re-election – and been paid £145,924 in allowances they would otherwise not have received had they lost their seats.

Phil Bialyk would also have carried on as council leader – a role in which he received more than £32,000 in allowances and expenses during 2024-25 – with the support of his local party.

Instead, now that the city council elections will take place as planned, Labour will have to defend these eight seats in May. As it currently has a majority of three, it has to win six or more of the thirteen seats which are up for election to stay in control of the council.

It looked very vulnerable in most of these seats before the elections were cancelled, after losing more than half of its support across Devon in the May 2025 county council elections and all the county hall seats it previously held in Exeter.

Its popularity had subsequently fallen further before it showed Exeter’s electors that it could not be trusted with democracy. Now it has to convince them that it can be trusted with their votes.

Exeter City Council leader Phil Bialyk hides behind flimsy CEO capacity claims to contrive local elections cancellation

The Exeter Observer has written at length on the events and briefings leading up to the decision taken by the City Council to request cancellation of the May elections. (See above reference)

Here are extracts describing the briefing given to Councillors

….These “reasons” are followed by a table summarising “the costs and resources required to deliver a local election”.

This shows that while Exeter’s May 2026 elections might have cost around £265,000 to deliver, almost all the costs involved would have been for services provided not by council officers but by external venues, temporary staff, logistics contractors, printers and the postal service.

So what this section of the report shows is that running local elections actually limits the council’s in-house capacity – the criterion for cancellation specified by the minister and repeated by the council monitoring officer in the report – to the tune of half a dozen council employees, none of whom are senior directors, for a few weeks each year.

The list of anticipated reorganisation tasks that follows – apparently intended to exaggerate their extent – fails to mention either that their substantive progression depends on the government’s decision on what form Devon’s new unitaries will take, which is months away, or that the staff of all eleven existing Devon councils will bear the brunt of the work when it comes.

The aggrandising report instead reads as if Exeter City Council expects to deliver local government reorganisation across all of Devon – yet also admits that a meeting with MHCLG in which “expectations will be clarified” has not yet taken place.

It only touches on the adverse impact of cancelling the elections on local democracy once, when it says: “Postponing elections could result in residents feeling disenfranchised by not being able to vote”.

Rather than seeing this as a decisive reason not to cancel, the report instead considers it a “risk” which it says, incoherently, “should be mitigated by clear communication to residents outlining if that is the view to be expressed to government, the reasons for the postponement and identified savings to be repurposed [sic].”

The chief executive simply does not seem to grasp that Exeter’s electors won’t only be “feeling” disenfranchised when they cannot vote in May – they will actually be disenfranchised.

When the city council convened on Tuesday 13 January, no-one present could have been in any doubt about the meeting’s real purpose. Yet Labour council members had remarkably little to say about the report’s flimsy claims – although Ruth Williams said she found it “completely balanced and fair”…..

This is then followed by a detailed account of the meeting in a similar vein [an entertaining read – Owl]

It is now being widely reported that Steve Reed, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, would be making £63 millions available to local authorities undergoing reorganisation to fund the reinstated elections.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has abandoned plans to postpone local elections for councils in May in yet another U-turn for the government. Source: Independent

Labour had initially announced plans to cancel elections in 30 areas this year, impacting 4.5 million people, in order to free up “capacity” to undertake an overhaul of council structures.

A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) spokesperson said: “Following legal advice, the Government has withdrawn its original decision to postpone 30 local elections in May.

“Providing certainty to councils about their local elections is now the most crucial thing and all local elections will now go ahead in May 2026.”

The news was welcomed by Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, who said “we took this Labour government to court and won.”

Government “clears the decks” ahead of reorganisation but is still scratching its head (if it has one) about a long term solution. – Owl

Chris Collman www.devonairradio.com

Devon County Council has welcomed the Government’s announcement that it will fund 90 per cent of local authorities’ historic Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) deficits.

The decision represents a significant step forward for children, young people and families, and will help stabilise SEND finances, allowing more of Devon’s own resources to be directed into improving support and outcomes for children.

Councillor James Buczkowski, our Cabinet Member for Finance, said:

“This is a very welcome announcement and a major step forward.

“It gives the council greater financial stability in SEND and allows us to focus more of our resources on improving frontline support for children and young people.”

The announcement comes after years of rising demand and costs in SEND services, during which councils have been required to manage increasing pressures within a funding system that has relied heavily on local council tax.

While we welcome the Government’s commitment on SEND deficits, the wider financial pressures remain, particularly in adult social care, children’s services and the cost of delivering services across a large and largely rural county.

Councillor Buczkowski added:

“For too long, councils have faced rising demand while the balance of funding has shifted away from national government and onto local taxpayers.

“Today’s decision (Monday 9 February) helps to relieve some of that pressure in SEND, and that is good news for families across Devon.

“We now need to work through the detail of the announcement, but this puts us in a stronger position to set a 2026 budget that is focused on supporting children and young people and protecting vital services.”

We will now assess the detailed implications of the Government’s announcement as part of its budget-setting process.

The draft 2026–27 budget will be considered by Cabinet on Tuesday 17 February, with Full Council asked to formally approve the budget on Tuesday 24 February.

BBC reports: Julian Brazil, the leader of the county council, said it was a relief but added that councils needed more money to deal with ongoing costs in providing services.

The government, which is due to publish its plans shortly for a reform of SEND services, said the deficits had “threatened [the] council’s sustainability”.

“Battle Hymn of the Empire” – Marsh Family adaptation of “Battle Hymn of the Republic” about Trump

The “Battle Hymn of the Republic” is an iconic American song, drawing on lots of roots and precursors, but pulled into its most famous shape by abolitionist Julia Ward Howe. During the American Civil War it became a signature marching song for the Union Army, linked to patriotism and faith, and has since become part of the canon of American national music. We do not attempt or treat it lightly, but our version reflects on how the first week of 2026 has already seen Trump’s troops advancing his domestic and foreign policy agendas. Every marching step is another step away from the principles and traditions embedded in the song: we have seen the transgression of international law in Venezuela, the murder of unarmed Americans in Minneapolis (and its defence by the administration), the US’s withdrawal from multiple international organisations, and explicit threats issued to other sovereign powers and polities, including Greenland.

Have thine eyes seen the glory of the coming of the Lord? – Owl

Letter to The Times 7 February:

Sir, In Devon we have our fair share of potholes. Rumour has it that this situation is helping our local police tackle drink-driving. If any vehicle is seen driving in a straight line, the driver is considered to be drunk.
David Lavender
Kingsbridge, Devon

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has just launched a consultation on the five proposals submitted by various councils and combinations of councils on how to abolish district councils in Devon.

Responses can be made by completing an online survey, or in writing sent by email or by post. Closing date is 23:59 on 26 March.

However, Owl finds things aren’t quite as simple as they might seem. 

Firstly, the proposals actually submitted last November differ somewhat from those discussed and reported by Owl during 2025.  For example, South Hams, West Devon and Teignbridge have now broken from an earlier consensus amongst the districts; and County has made significant changes to the composition of its 3 unitary proposal.

Secondly, the online survey appears to have to be completed for each of the five proposals and there are ten questions. [Owl will check this].

Thirdly, respondents, even in writing, have to  make clear where they are coming from and which proposal they are addressing.

Owl intends to take a few days digesting the related web pages and maybe stabbing a talon or two into the survey.

Meanwhile, the BBC has a good summary here

Worth reminding readers that the target population size for a unitary authority remains 500,000 and not even Plymouth comes near, let alone Torbay or Exeter.

With the councils in disarray, Owl’s view is that it is imperative that readers respond to this consultation and give their views. London based Ministers and the Mandarins of Whitehall have no real feel for the more remote parts of the country. They will see places like Devon as a quaint little place for a jolly holiday or even a second home. They need feedback from us who live and work here.

Owl’s attention was drawn to the apparent confusion over the applicant’s identity, see the last two paragraphs.

Developers are making a renewed bid for a 63-homes plan on land where a hedgerow was destroyed and efforts were made to protect mature trees from being cut down.

Bradley Gerrard, Local Democracy Reporter www.devonairradio.com

The prospect of homes on the site, based on land east of Sidmouth Road in Ottery St Mary, have previously proved controversial, but the location has become even more contentious after the unexpected removal of hedgerows and trees.

Back in December, Councillor Jess Bailey (Independent, Otter Valley) who represents the Ottery area on Devon County Council and East Devon District Council (EDDC), stood under one tree to prevent it being chopped down by contractors with chainsaws.

She also secured an emergency order to protect the remaining trees, and sought enforcement in relation to the hedgerow destruction.

A statement from the council, seen by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, states that it believes “hedgerow regulations have been breached in this case”.

“This is because the works that have been carried out have removed most of the previously unmanaged hedgerow along the western boundary,” it said.

“There are some remaining tree stumps present along the western boundary that may rejuvenate, however, large sections of the hedgerow have been damaged or removed and will not regenerate.”

It added the presence of gnawed hazel nut “provides confidence the area was used as a resting site for hazel dormouse” meaning the hedge would be “considered as important due to the presence of a Schedule 5 protected species”.

The email states the landowner had been given 14 days to explain their position, and that the council may, depending on the answer, consider a hedgerow replacement notice.

“But that could be subject to appeal and so we need to ensure we have all the facts before we decide on that,” the statement said.

Interestingly, the latest plans claim that it would be possible to “achieve a 9.66 per cent gain in habitat units and 12.73 per cent gain in hedgerow units, using the biodiversity metric” – suggesting the developer believes work can be carried out in conjunction with the prospective homes to help accommodate more flora and fauna.

This controversy about the scheme comes on top of the fact an application at this site has previously been rejected by EDDC.

The plan for up to 63 homes on the land was refused by East Devon’s planning committee in November 2023, and an appeal was subsequently dismissed by the government’s Planning Inspectorate in December 2024.

Part of East Devon’s reason for refusal related to the fact the site was an area of open fields, and the application included the “removal of a hedgebank to provide vehicular access and visibility splays [which] would have a harsh and harmful urbanising effect on the character and appearance of the area”.

“The resulting development would fail to respect the local distinctiveness or maintain the rural qualities evident in this landscape,” the decision stated.

The new proposal is an outline one, meaning that even if it is passed by the EDDC planning committee, a subsequent plan would be required to confirm details such as the layout of the development and design of the properties.

The new plans state the northern and eastern boundaries of the site are demarcated by hedgerow, while the western boundary is formed by Sidmouth Road. It adds that the site is currently being used sporadically and informally as agricultural grazing land.

The developer adds that across the road from the proposed site is a development of 45 homes.

Documents state the new plan proposes a mix of housing, ranging in size from two- to four-bedroom houses with gardens and associated parking.

“To reflect the character of the area, the proposed dwellings are two-storey and will be consistent in terms of mass and style with adjoining development,” the plans state.

“The scheme includes provision for 50 per cent affordable housing – equivalent to 31 units based on a scheme of 63 units.”

A spokesperson for the agent, XL Planning, said the firm did not wish to comment on the application.

The planning application form states the applicant as a Mr Davis of ALD Developments. Companies House data suggests that firm was dissolved in 2016, but has essentially been replaced by Proper Flap & Jack Investments. Both companies list an Adam Lloyd Davis as being linked to the company.

Proper Flap & Jack does not appear to have an official website.
 

Richard Foord Liberal Democrat, Honiton and Sidmouth

The Epstein files suggest that Lord Mandelson was prepared to lobby in the United States in 2009 for a policy position in contradiction to that of Her Majesty’s Government, in which he was then serving as Business Secretary. Will this revelation encourage the Government to find out whether Lord Mandelson lobbied against his Government while serving last year as British ambassador to the United States? Can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister find out whether this lobbying against British Government policy is revealed in US policy towards the UK?

Darren Jones Minister of State (Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister), Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Minister for Intergovernmental Relations

As I have informed the House today, the Cabinet Secretary is reviewing all documentation relating to Peter Mandelson’s time as a Minister in the last Labour Government to see what information is available today, and we will comply with any investigations that take place as a consequence. The hon. Member is right that any Minister acting against the collective decisions of Cabinet and against the Government is in breach of the rules. It is unacceptable behaviour, and if any Minister were to do that today, they would be quickly dismissed.

Source: US Department of Justice Release of Files Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 4:57 pm on 2 February 2026.

But don’t hold your breath.

Pippa Crerar on X yesterday reported that 

Gordon Brown says he has asked Cabinet Secretary to investigate disclosure of “confidential and market sensitive information” allegedly from Peter Mandelson to Jeffrey Epstein. 

Former PM says he first asked CS (Cabinet Secretary) to do this in September but biz department (Department for Business & Trade) found no records.

He has “now written to ask for a wider and more intensive enquiry to take place into the  wholly unacceptable disclosure of government papers and information during the period when the country was battling the global financial crisis.”

Read what Devon Leader Cllr Julian Brazil and Whimple and Rockbeare District Cllr Todd Olive have to say about Labour’s plans for moving to unitary authorities:

“It’s not devolution – it’s control freakery,”

“Stalin would be thrilled by the way we run our country; it’s so over-centralised. This in itself is a danger to democracy.”

Julian Brazil estimates that by the time this concludes it will have taken between 5 to 10 years and two-thirds of councillors will have lost their positions, leading to a professionalisation of local government, further diluting democracy.

On Exeter’s “go it alone” power grab Todd Olive said::

“They’ve cherry-picked major areas of growth around the airport and two new towns that will create [wealth for] Exeter unitary authority, but it will be a financial disaster for the rural and coastal authorities they’ll leave behind –they will be bankrupt within a year.”

Context

Labour wants to abolish District Councils, creating large consolidated unitary authorities with populations of around half a million or more. This will inevitably mean that residents will be represented by fewer councillors in larger electoral areas, all in the name of “devolution”.

District Councils in Devon typically spend around 7% of Council Tax. The essential localised services they provide such as: managing household waste, public spaces, council housing, addressing homelessness; managing public health issues; collecting council tax and administering relief; supporting local business, dealing with planning etc. will still have to continue at the same scale – so just how much of this 7% do the government think can be saved to offset the £50m estimate of making these changes in Devon? – Owl

The councillors up in arms against Labour’s £50m ‘Stalinist’ reforms

The Government calls it devolution. Opponents see a democratic deficit as power drifts further from local communities

Anna Tyzack www.telegraph.co.uk

Amid a roster of responsibilities that includes improving outcomes for vulnerable children and tackling the crumbling roads in one of England’s largest counties, Julian Brazil, the Liberal Democrat leader of Devon County Council, now finds himself forced to divert great swaths of his day to a matter so asinine that he’s not ruling out revolt.

Labour’s sweeping plans to tear up local government – reconfiguring some 63 local councils so that they fall into vast, unitary authorities – represent a demand he argues councils like his can ill afford.

“There’s a mood within councils – we’re fed up,” he says. “We’re trying to deliver children’s services and adult social care and the last thing we need is to spend hours and hours discussing something that could well be no better in the end. If enough councils go on strike, maybe the Government will listen?”

The Telegraph has been campaigning against the postponement of elections – a move which is meant to facilitate exactly these reconfigurations. Councillors across the country, meanwhile, are up in arms about the reforms themselves.

The English Devolution White Paper, originally launched by Angela Rayner, set out plans for a major reorganisation of local government, described by Labour as the “greatest transfer of power from Whitehall to the town hall in a generation”.

The postponement of local elections is designed to provide councils with the breathing space to implement these plans and has led to concerns about a democratic deficit in vast swaths of the country. And critics warn that the reforms themselves will result in a permanent blow to democracy. Larger unitary authorities will make councils more remote from the communities they serve, weakening the direct connection between residents and their elected representatives.

In June last year, the think tank Localis warned that shire areas in particular faced losing some 90 per cent of their councillors. “Local government will get less and less local,” said Steve Leach, emeritus professor of local government, De Montfort University. “And areas that have been used to their own elected council will be subsumed into meaningless conglomerates that will make no sense as units of local government and even less sense to local people.”

Added to this already worrying prospect, councillors are fearful over the cost of reorganisation, which is likely to spiral into the tens of millions (£50m in the case of Devon), as well as the fact that for many it feels like the mergers are being imposed from above. Ministers insist the process is locally led, yet the current legislative framework permits reorganisation to proceed without unanimous consent from all councils in an area.

Surrey is a good example. Surrey County Council, along with 11 district/borough councils are being replaced by two new unitary authorities, East Surrey and West Surrey. The Government set aside a proposal from nine of the eleven district councils for a three-way split, instead mandating a two-unitary model.

For Brazil, the pace at which councils are expected to reform feels particularly punitive. Eligible councils had to submit their proposed new footprints to the Government by November last year; the Government intends to have made a decision on the delineation of each region by summer recess this year (July), leaving areas a 20-month window to reorganise (the entire system is to be overhauled by the end of the current Parliament in 2029).

“There’s absolutely no way we’re going to get the timetable through,” Brazil complains. “It’s taking up an inordinate amount of time and money and they keep moving the goalposts. They’ve bitten off more than they can chew and they need to stop.”

“It’s not devolution – it’s control freakery,” Brazil says. “Stalin would be thrilled by the way we run our country; it’s so over-centralised. This in itself is a danger to democracy – a dangerous precedent was set.” Brazil was at the County Council Network’s recent conference and said he did not meet a single councillor in support of local government reorganisation.

For Todd Olive, a Lib Dem councillor in Devon, the drive toward huge, consolidated councils feels like a direct attack on political diversity. Opponents of reorganisation warn that creating large unitary authorities with populations of around half a million or more inevitably reduces the total number of council seats and expands electoral areas, trends that historically favour larger national parties and make it harder for smaller parties, independents and truly local voices to win representation.

Analysis by the Local Government Association’s Independent Group on the political and governance effects of reorganisation has warned that such changes are likely to diminish the influence of independent and smaller-party councillors, as fewer seats are contested across broader areas and party machines gain an advantage. “We’re suspicious this is about getting rid of the smaller-scale political campaigning we’re effective at as a party,” says Olive, “and creating super councils dominated by legacy authorities.”

Phoebe Sullivan – an opposition Conservative councillor in the Lib Dem-led Waverley Borough in the Conservative-led Surrey County Council – raises a related concern about representation, warning that as councils and electoral divisions grow larger, smaller communities risk being overlooked.

Even though Sullivan is broadly supportive of reorganisation in principle, she worries that villages are losing their distinct political voice. In her own patch, the villages of Witley and Milford in Surrey – previously a ward in their own right – have been subsumed into a much larger division now labelled “Godalming and Villages”, a change she fears could leave village priorities overshadowed by those of the town.

“Councillors are likely to be Godalming-focussed,” she says. “It’s all done by density; the more dense the population the more focus they get, but rural villages need a voice as well. Villages will be let down by local government reorganisation.”

Councillors elsewhere have taken issue with a group of Cathedral cities – including Exeter, Ipswich and Oxford – who they argue are attempting to expand their borders and influence. “It’s gerrymandering. A land grab. Nothing about delivering the best services to residents,” Brazil says.

Olive, who is a councillor for the villages of Whimple and Rockbeare on the fringes of Exeter, describes the city’s plans to swallow up villages as “a bit like parking tanks on our lawns”.

These councils could seize control of affluent outlying areas; Whimple and Rockbeare are home to Exeter airport and various business parks, which would all offer a boost to the city council’s revenue (via business rates) and to its status.

“We don’t want to be part of Exeter,” he says. “They’ve cherry-picked major areas of growth around the airport and two new towns that will create [wealth for] Exeter unitary authority, but it will be a financial disaster for the rural and coastal authorities they’ll leave behind – they will be bankrupt within a year. Those parts of Devon don’t have the growth points and economic centres that enable councils to do OK.”

Brazil and Olive fear that in Devon it won’t be senior management losing their jobs during the merger – but local councillors. Brazil estimates that by the time the restructuring is complete, two-thirds of councillors will have lost their positions, leading to a professionalisation of local government, further diluting democracy.

Olive, who is 27 and still living with his parents, says that he will not stand under the new system despite being passionate about local politics and the needs of communities – he can’t afford to. Already his council work takes up at least half the week; under the new system, where councillors will be overseeing much larger areas, it would be a full-time job. “It’s becoming inaccessible to people who aren’t independently wealthy. If only one type of person is standing, you lose all of the diversity,” he says.

Sullivan agrees that lack of diversity is an inherent problem in local government, which the threat of reorganisation is doing nothing to tackle. She’s 29 and works in the private sector; if her boss wasn’t flexible about her attending council meetings during the week, she wouldn’t be able to stand as a councillor. “Statistically, the system doesn’t entice or accommodate working professionals, mothers or young people,” she says.

Although she argues that it’s not all doom and gloom – the thinking behind the new system is that middlemen will be cut out, saving time and resources – “at the moment it’s just a lot of tangled-up admin”.

Still, if Labour genuinely intends to place power in the hands of “local people with skin in the game”, as Angela Rayner once put it, Brazil argues that the Government should allow those communities to manage their own local government reorganisation without central interference.

The “cliff edge approach” in particular is fraying Brazil’s nerves and he’s looking into ways to protest, without hurting residents. “We’ll deliver unitaries to you in five or 10 years but don’t give us a ridiculous timetable,” he fumes.

“They talk about devolution and then tell us how to do it. They can’t even run their own Government. It’s not the town halls that need reorganising – it’s Westminster.”