It need not be this way but one of the most disastrous weeks in the history of global medicine and global economics has ended with country after country retreating into their national silos. They are fighting their own individual battles against coronavirus and in their own way.

Gordon Brown  www.theguardian.com

Each country has, of course, its own distinctive health systems that it relies on, rightly values its own medical experts and the disease is at a different stage in each. But why is there, as yet, no internationally coordinated medical project – equivalent to the wartime Manhattan Project – mobilising all available global resources to discover a coronavirus vaccine and to fast-track a cure?

Why, as the disease engulfs more than 100 countries, has there been no consistent, coordinated global approach not just to tracking, testing and travel but to openly learning from each other about the relative merits of quarantine and social distancing? And why, when a world recession now threatens, is there not yet an attempt at a combined effort on the part of governments and central banks to deliver a global economic response?

Instead, ours is a divided, leaderless world and we are all suffering from the tendency to go it alone: an initial cover-up in Wuhan; China’s delayed reporting to the international community; the World Health Organization (WHO) meekly agreeing that the crisis was “moderate”; and even when on 30 January it apologised and declared an international emergency, still the world continued to receive confused travel advice.

It used to be said of the Bourbons that they would never learn by their mistakes. Centuries on, national leaders still seem unable to apply or even absorb the hard-earned lesson that crises teach us, from the Sars epidemic and Ebola epidemic to the financial meltdown: that global problems need global, not just local and national, responses.

In my first days as prime minister in 2007, the Labour government had to grapple, in quick succession, with an international terrorist incident, floods, a foot and mouth outbreak, avian flu and the first banking crash of the global financial crisis. “There are decades when nothing happens,” Lenin wrote, “And there are weeks when decades happen.” This succession of challenges taught me that governments will rapidly lose control of events unless they immediately pull out all the stops to get to the root of the problem, and then move with decisive and overwhelming force and resolve.

In October 2008, within days of the Lehman Brothers collapse, bankrupt banks, which had been running capitalism without capital, were nationalised and recapitalised. The lesson for today is as stark: you can cut interest rates and payroll taxes and focus your energies on dealing with the after-effects. But you will not succeed unless you can also build confidence that you have a clear-cut medical response to what is a global health emergency .

But the global financial crisis also taught me that while you need the analysis and advice of expert organisations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and now the WHO, you also need political leaders in every continent with the courage not just to lead but to work together. And the best way to do so is in a global forum – in 2008, this was the G20 leaders’ group – within which decisions can be agreed. These decisions will then carry authority and legitimacy.

But what depth of dialogue has there been today between the main global players – Presidents Xi, Trump, Moon of South Korea, and Prime Minister Conte of Italy – to benefit from each other’s insights on travel restrictions, lockdowns and social distancing? Take testing: while the UK is way ahead of Trump’s America, Britain had, up to 10 March, tested at less than half the rate of Italy and a just over a 10th the rate of South Korea. Slow to test patients who had not been in China, Italy or South Korea, perhaps we had something to learn from China’s decision to test even the most marginal cases? And the delays in testing sum up why fears are still growing for our safety: despite the brilliance of Britain’s medics, the government still seems behind the coronavirus curve.

Of course, the very idea of global collaboration – and the convening of what would be a “virtual” G20 – sits uneasily with the “America first”, “China first”, “India first” and “Russia first” populist nationalism that has been subdividing our world. Since the high point of cooperation in 2009, nationalists have been in the ascendant – building walls, closing borders, clamping down on immigrants and imposing tariffs. And what was first a protectionist nationalism has morphed into an aggressive us-versus-them unilateralism.

Our willingness to cooperate is becoming inversely related to our need to do so, and this insularity means we are fighting today’s pandemic with under-resourced international institutions, not least a WHO to which ever more responsibilities have been added without the financial means to discharge them. In fact, despite a number of laudable post-Ebola initiatives – including the new vaccine fund (Cepi) – we are $9bn short of the funding needed for medical R&D and contingency planning. Sadly leaders either panic, as now – or, until disaster hits, follow the course of least resistance: inattention and neglect.

What’s more, this us-versus-them nationalism has spawned a blame culture, with under-pressure governments holding everyone but themselves responsible for anything that goes wrong. And yet an ideology of “everyone for himself” will not work when the health of each of us depends so unavoidably on the health of all of us.

In the financial crisis, governments did come together – with globally coordinated interest rate cuts, fiscal stimuli, currency swaps and anti-protectionist deals. A decade on, rising nationalism will likely block central bank cooperation and an early easing of trade restrictions. Today, also, interest rates are currently so low that there is far less scope for monetary activism. The world’s central banks – for the last 10 years just about the only game in town – are increasingly exposed as emperors with few clothes.

I believe a concerted global, governmental response is still possible. Each country should commit to removing blockages in supply chains; be ready to ease tariffs (and certainly not add to them, as rushing at the Brexit deadline might do); extend credit, as the UK has rightly announced to businesses, including a moratorium on tax payments; and guarantee upfront financial support for workers sent home or on short time. And where countries cannot afford to do so, the IMF and World Bank should be asked, as in 2009, to step up.

But the economic shock we face today – a ruptured international supply chain and, soon, millions able to work only from home – demands innovative thinking that is more in tune with our digital age. An industrial policy, backed up by fiscal firepower, could accelerate the workplace revolution that is already under way: from making business decisions via teleconferencing to the provision of online education, health and other services. Thus allowing millions to continue to work, study, organise their lives and make a living from home.

Yet no individual initiative will substitute for a collective declaration that, working together, the world’s governments will do whatever it takes. Coronavirus will not be the last, nor the worst, pandemic. But if the Manhattan Project could bring people together in the 1940s to create the most lethal weapon in human history, surely we can come together, in the 21st century, to save both lives and the livelihood of millions. We may not be able to repeat Roosevelt’s New Deal-era promise that there is nothing to fear but fear itself, but confidence in the future can be regained only by bold international actions that build confidence today.

“Guided by the science”  (Owl has been discussing this with trusted friends knowledgeable in health matters). Here is a digest of that discussion.

Owl understands that computer models are being used to test and guide the most appropriate strategy to counter Coronavirus. Since this is a novel virus there is much we don’t know. These models, therefore, have to be built on a raft of assumptions. The truly scientific approach would be to make these assumptions openly available and to use the models to test the sensitivity of strategy formulation against the likely range of assumption uncertainty. This should highlight the critical assumptions, allowing debate to be focussed on the issues that really matter. Hopefully, robust strategies can be found that are sound against a range of uncertainties. Where this is not possible, decisions becomes a matter for political decision and judgement. Where the scientist has to be careful is when he/she has an underlying “agenda”. 

Yesterday (Saturday 14 March) both the Times and Guardian carried a number of letters from eminent scientists, clinicians  and epidemiologists calling for publication of these assumptions. There are official admissions (repeated on every BBC news bulletin) that the number of cases might be as high as 10,000. To have that many undetected i.e. mild or asymptomatic cases can surely only come from a radically different set of assumptions? On what evidence is this based and why is it being said?

The UK appears to be following a very different strategy to other nations. This short article discusses the central Herd immunity strategy.

Sarah Boseley  www.theguardian.com

Herd immunity is a phrase normally used when large numbers of children have been vaccinated against a disease like measles, reducing the chances that others will get it. As a tactic in fighting a pandemic for which there is no vaccine, it is novel – and some say alarming.

It relies on people getting the disease – in this case Covid-19 – and becoming immune as a result. Generally it is thought that those who recover will be immune, at least for now, so they won’t get it twice.

But allowing the population to build up immunity in this way – rather than through widespread testing, tracking down the contacts of every case and isolating them, as many other countries in Asia and Europe have chosen to do – could increase the risk to the most vulnerable: older people with underlying health problems.

To reach herd immunity, about 60% of the population would need to get ill and become immune, according to Sir Patrick Vallance, the government’s chief scientific adviser. Though it could need as much as 70% or more. Even scientists who understand the strategy are anxious. “I do worry that making plans that assume such a large proportion of the population will become infected (and hopefully recovered and immune) may not be the very best that we can do,” said Martin Hibberd, professor of emerging infectious disease at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

“Another strategy might be to try to contain [it] longer and perhaps long enough for a therapy to emerge that might allow some kind of treatment. This seems to be the strategy of countries such as Singapore. While this containment approach is clearly difficult (and may be impossible for many countries), it does seem a worthy goal; and those countries that can should aim to do.”

The government’s “nudge unit” seems to favour this strategy. Dr David Halpern, a psychologist who heads the Behavioural Insights Team, said on BBC News: “There’s going to be a point, assuming the epidemic flows and grows, as we think it probably will do, where you’ll want to cocoon, you’ll want to protect those at-risk groups so that they basically don’t catch the disease and by the time they come out of their cocooning, herd immunity’s been achieved in the rest of the population.”

But Anthony Costello, a paediatrician and former World Health Organization director, said that the UK government was out of kilter with other countries in looking to herd immunity as the answer. It could conflict with WHO policy, he said in a series of Twitter posts, which is to contain the virus by tracking and tracing all cases. He quoted Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the WHO director general, who said: “The idea that countries should shift from containment to mitigation is wrong and dangerous.”

Herd immunity might not even last, Costello said. “Does coronavirus cause strong herd immunity or is it like flu where new strains emerge each year needing repeat vaccines? We have much to learn about Co-V immune responses.” Vaccines, he said, were a much safer way of bringing it about.

It need not be this way

Gordon Brown, based on his experience of the banking crisis, writes: (full text on seperate post)

It need not be this way but one of the most disastrous weeks in the history of global medicine and global economics has ended with country after country retreating into their national silos. They are fighting their own individual battles against coronavirus and in their own way.

Each country has, of course, its own distinctive health systems that it relies on, rightly values its own medical experts and the disease is at a different stage in each. But why is there, as yet, no internationally coordinated medical project – equivalent to the wartime Manhattan Project – mobilising all available global resources to discover a coronavirus vaccine and to fast-track a cure?

Why, as the disease engulfs more than 100 countries, has there been no consistent, coordinated global approach not just to tracking, testing and travel but to openly learning from each other about the relative merits of quarantine and social distancing? And why, when a world recession now threatens, is there not yet an attempt at a combined effort on the part of governments and central banks to deliver a global economic response?

Instead, ours is a divided, leaderless world and we are all suffering from the tendency to go it alone: an initial cover-up in Wuhan; China’s delayed reporting to the international community; the World Health Organization (WHO) meekly agreeing that the crisis was “moderate”; and even when on 30 January it apologised and declared an international emergency, still the world continued to receive confused travel advice.

Postponement of English local elections for a year was announced in various media including: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51876269

Potential consequences, especially on smaller political parties are discussed here.

By Stephen Bush  www.newstatesman.com

The 2020 local and mayoral elections will be postponed until May of next year following advice from the Electoral Commission. The political consequences are unknowable because the economic and social consequences of the coronavirus outbreak are unknowable. The one thing we can say with certainty, from a political perspective, is that “things will be very different this time next year”. British politics and culture may well be forever changed, or at least changed for the foreseeable future by the events of the year to come.

But the important logistical change is that the 2021 local elections will be a contest of near-unprecedented scale for an off-year. Thanks to the combination of the Scottish and Welsh parliamentary elections, the metro-mayoral elections, the combined authority semi-rural mayoral elections, the police and crime commissioner elections,  essentially everyone in the United Kingdom will have a ballot of some kind – which to my knowledge has never happened before.

That will be a big logistical challenge for the new leaders of Labour and the Liberal Democrats, whoever emerges from those party’s contests. On the Labour side in particular, Keir Starmer’s inner circle believes that its number one priority, should he win, is not political but organisational – both to address and respond to the Equality and Human Right Commission’s report into anti-Semitism but also to get the party “match fit” again. Starmer’s allies are concerned that Labour has lost huge amounts of institutional memory, both over the past five years and in recent months, and think that unless the party is able to become vastly more professional and well-organised, nothing else they try to do will come off.

Next year was always going to be the first real test of the post-Corbyn party’s political appeal. The level of logistical challenge means that it is now going to be a real test of competence too.

“I cannot imagine any other country, democracy or dictatorship, where the centre would so obsessively micromanage its public sector. Britain is off the graph for centralisation. Its local government now has a mere 1.6% of GDP for its spending, against 6% in Germany, 12% in France and 15% in Sweden. In the eye of Whitehall, anything beyond London is now “regional”, never local.”

He’s right – but when the alternative is government by unelected quangos we are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea – Owl

Simon Jenkins  www.theguardian.com

Populism has arrived, blue in tooth and claw. Rishi Sunak’s budget, clearly dictated from 10 Downing Street, proposes a staggering £600bn of extra public spending over the current parliament, showing an enthusiasm for public spending not seen seen since postwar reconstruction in the 1950s. Apart from cash set aside for coronavirus, it is going not into people’s pockets but largely into state infrastructure. As it rises, it will carry one signature: Boris Johnson’s.

No one can complain that a chancellor should prepare to meet a pandemic trauma. Seeking relief for those unable to work makes sense. So does short-term aid to businesses suffering a collapse in demand. But the deeper interest in any budget lies in what it reveals of a government’s mind. Sunak’s budget had one message: that the British economy is in the ownership of central government, as not seen since denationalisation in the 1980s.

Sunak made almost no mention of the private sector, except for short-term fiscal relief. His economy was a public construct of hospitals, schools, colleges, roads, railways, research institutes – all supplied by the grace of London. I calculated that his speech gave away an extra £1.7m of taxpayers’ money every second: generosity on a Neronian scale. Small wonder Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn was left stumbling over how to object. He should just have smiled and said thank you.

Absent from the speech was any idea that the public sector belonged to anyone but Sunak. As for local government, there was to be no let-up in austerity. While “our” NHS is to roll in cash, local government’s share of the welfare state, social care and social services got nothing extra. There was no mention of old people or family support or youth clubs: chief victims of the 30% cut in local council spending since 2010. Downward pressure will continue on libraries, day centres, sports fields, drug rehabilitation and facilities for young people.

Central government can borrow and spend at will. Local government is allowed no such liberality for its services. There was no whisper from Sunak of a let-up in rate capping, no new sources of local revenue, no hope of council tax revaluation. If cuts continue, they are not central government’s responsibility. Blame your hapless, wasteful local council.

In contrast, Downing Street is splurge central. Anything the NHS asks for, says Sunak, be it “millions or billions”, it can have. He pledges to pay for 50m more surgery appointments. What other government on Earth would boast such implausible specificity? No such offer is made for local care visits, on which the NHS relies for backup. This is built-in unfairness and inefficiency.

At times Sunak sounded as if Johnson wanted to be everyone’s mayor. He wants to run everything. He is to allow a redevelopment at Darlington station, a village bypass in north Wales, hotel bedrooms for 6,000 rough sleepers. He announced £8m for new football fields, grants for new maths teachers and £25,000 for an art teacher in every school. This sounds like window dressing, a sort of blame-shedding for Tory austerity.

Sunak’s Father Christmas act continued. There is to be an astronomical billion pounds for tower block cladding. “Over a hundred” road junctions are to be improved. Fifty million potholes have been identified as needing repair. Has Sunak counted them? As a cultural uplift for poor Teessiders, rumour has it that Sunak is to send 750 of his brightest and best officials to live among them. This is like a Victorian missionary expedition.

I cannot imagine any other country, democracy or dictatorship, where the centre would so obsessively micromanage its public sector. Britain is off the graph for centralisation. Its local government now has a mere 1.6% of GDP for its spending, against 6% in Germany, 12% in France and 15% in Sweden. In the eye of Whitehall, anything beyond London is now “regional”, never local.

The new elected metro-mayors were carefully assigned “regions” not cities, lest they over-identify and go native. They depend not on accountable local taxes but on Treasury handouts. As Professor Tony Travers of LSE puts it: “Devolution means mayors are allowed an opportunity to talk to the Treasury about how to spend money.” They are Whitehall agents.

Central cash for locally run services – police, schools, transportation – increasingly relies on hypothecated hand-outs, on Whitehall decisions as to how they are to be spent. Capping and ring-fencing money for police numbers, or subject teachers or new roads, is not communal choice. It is not what most countries would regard as local democracy. It is subservience to central command and control to a single leader.

This is the new egocentric populism. It has virtues. It is non-ideological. Its macroeconomics has Keynesian features, buying new public projects in advance of tough times, albeit at the risk of “crowding out” the private sector. It is not partisan, witness on Wednesday as former Thatcherite Tories bayed support for a budget they would have damned had it come from a Labour chancellor. A fleeting piquant moment came with a still, small voice speaking up for old Tory caution. It was Theresa May, speaking truth to power.

Johnson’s populism is extreme. Not even Donald Trump tries to run the US this way. It is government more in the style of Orbán’s Hungary or Erdoğan’s Turkey, relying on seeking current votes by borrowing from future taxpayers. In doing so, Johnson is suppressing what should be the fountainhead of political freedom: local democracy. Who cares whether or not this is Toryism. It is wrong.

Two days after the budget, the Office for National Statistics announces that it intends to publish a series of articles on how to understand the data around the UK’s biggest economic issue.. These will use available evidence to discount or support the main arguments around the productivity puzzle or where gaps in the data exist.

Essential reading for the Great South West, Heart of the South West and anyone else planning to double our local economy in 20 years – Owl

Productivity measurement – how to understand the data around the UK’s biggest economic issue

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/labourproductivity/articles/productivitymeasurementhowtounderstandthedataaroundtheuksbiggesteconomicissue/2020-03-13

Introduction

In December 2019, the Royal Statistical Society announced that the UK Statistics of the Decade award had been awarded to the Office for National Statistics’s (ONS’s) labour productivity series. This series reveals that average annual growth in the decade after the 2008 economic downturn was only 0.3% a year, a period of weakness deeper and more prolonged than any seen in the UK since the 1890s. This weakness has implications for profits, wages, living standards, tax revenue and public services.

In response to the interest this has generated, the ONS is keen to contextualise its data and has commissioned a series of short “explainer” articles from expert academics, each providing a view on the measurement of productivity in the UK. These articles will explore where the data and methods are strong, where improvements are possible, and where the data support or do not support some of the main proposed explanations of the UK productivity puzzle.

Each article should provide a brief summary or assessment of a particular aspect relating to the measurement of productivity, drawing out where the available data provide evidence to discount or support the main arguments around the productivity puzzle or where data gaps exist. These articles, which will be published over the coming months, will provide an entry point for those looking to understand the main issues concerning the productivity puzzle.

We have planned a series of articles, including this one, on the following topics:

• Productivity measurement – how to understand the data around the UK’s biggest economic issue
• Measurement of productivity statistics, by Nick Oulton
• Measurement of output data used in productivity statistics, by Martin Weale
• Measurement of capital data used in productivity statistics, by Jonathan Haskel
• Measurement of labour market data used in productivity statistics, by Richard Heys and Stuart Newman
• How the production boundary influences productivity measurement, by Diane Coyle
• How management and uncertainty issues influence productivity measurement, by Paul Mizen

These articles take the enhanced set of productivity statistics now being published by the ONS to evaluate some of the different theories around the UK’s productivity puzzle, to provide clarity on the lessons emerging from these data.

The productivity puzzle

The productivity puzzle is now a firmly established part of the UK macroeconomic landscape. For five decades before the 2008 economic downturn, the average output each UK worker produced in an hour of work increased steadily by around 2% a year. In contrast, the productivity record since the economic downturn has been historically weak, enduring its slowest recovery from an economic downturn since the Second World War. While other countries have seen similar slowdowns, the UK’s productivity puzzle is deeper and more persistent than elsewhere.

The fall in productivity growth is even more perplexing because it comes at a time of apparently rampant technological innovation and the strongest labour market performance since the 1970s, with high levels of employment and low unemployment. At the Office for National Statistics (ONS), our role is to provide the best possible estimates of productivity growth to understand what is going on and perhaps assist policymakers in finding solutions. As productivity has become a bigger issue, we have invested more time and effort into detailed productivity statistics than ever before. We have established a new research centre, the Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence (ESCoE) in collaboration with the National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) and a network of universities to improve our methods and data, alongside investigating further the detailed, firm-level data that we collect in our surveys and from administrative sources.

These are the main headings under which the causal theories of the productivity puzzle can be grouped and will be examined:

Structural arguments eg Changes in financial regulation

Labour and managerial arguments eg Weak UK management practices

Measurement arguments eg is productivity growth already captured in GDP measures

Capital arguments eg Banks’ inability to lend against intangible assets

Innovation arguments eg A slowdown in the flow of ideas or new technologies

Uncertainty arguments eg Uncertainty caused by rapid technology change causing firms to delay capital investment

This statement is issued on behalf of County Councillors and sent to all Devon MP’s

Hilary Ackland (Exeter, Pinhoe and Mincinglake)

Marina Asvachin (Exeter, Wonford and St. Loyes)

Martin Shaw (Seaton and Colyton)

Claire Wright (Otter Valley) 

We are all  members of the Health and Adult Care Scrutiny Committee, but this statement is issued in our personal capacities. 

We are gravely concerned that the people of Devon are being excessively exposed to the threat of death through the coronavirus, because the Government is failing to introduce the social distancing measures needed to contain the epidemic.

The UK has fewer hospital beds, fewer Intensive Care Unit beds and fewer specialist respiratory beds than other European countries. In Devon we have more than our fair share of the elderly population who will be especially vulnerable to the epidemic.

A Government adviser, Dr David Halpern, has suggested that we can ‘cocoon’ the vulnerable while the epidemic runs through the rest of the population. This is false, because if there is a high level of contagion, the elderly will inevitably catch the virus too, and it is NOT true that the young and fit people are safe. In Italy, people of 20, 30 and 40 are also suffering life-threatening pneumonias, and hospitals are are leaving people over 60 to die because there is not enough specialist equipment (such as ventilators) to save all the victims.

It is estimated that we have four weeks before we are in the extreme situation currently faced in Italy. As Jeremy Hunt, chair of the Health Select Committee and former Health Secretary, has suggested, we should be using this time to introduce radical social distancing measures to protect our population. These have been shown to slow down and contain the epidemic in China and South Korea and they should be used here while we have the chance. 

If we can slow down the epidemic even for a few months, we have a better chance of restricting the severe cases to the numbers which the NHS can treat. Meanwhile, 

medical researchers may identify drugs which can help treat the worst cases, and a vaccine to protect against the virus.

Boris Johnson has said that many more families will lose loved ones. But his policy is unnecessarily condemning many people to die when the NHS becomes unable to cope. We cannot stand by and allow this to happen. Until we can vaccinate against this virus, we need to accept radical restrictions to our lives, in order to save lives. We call on our Devon MPs and Councils to press the Government to immediately change direction.

Martin Shaw

Independent East Devon Alliance County Councillor for Seaton & Colyton

Website: www.seatonmatters.org 

(Or at least what was written in his script). Owl was struck at the time by the reference to a truly national ambition to improve strategic highways in the South West – particularly the A417. 

Owl has found out that the A417 runs between Gloucester, Cirencester and Swindon and is used by many motorists travelling between London and the West Midlands as a shortcut between the M4 and the M5.

Technically, the Chancellor is correct.  Gloucester and Wiltshire are in the region of the South West but Owl thinks their “regional inequality” doesn’t compare to ours. The worry is he, and all his Whitehall chums, no doubt thinks they really have got inequality “done”. 

A mis-perception the Great South West could usefully work on?  

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/budget-speech-2020

And there’s more money for our roads too.

Today, I’m announcing the biggest ever investment in strategic roads and motorway – over £27bn of tarmac.

That will pay for work on over 20 connections to ports and airports, over 100 junctions, 4,000 miles of road.

I’m announcing new investment in local roads, alongside a new £2.5bn pothole fund – that’s £500m every single year; enough to fill, by the end of the Parliament, 50 million potholes.

The details of all the road schemes I’m funding will be published later today – and I thank my RHF the Transport Secretary for his efforts.

Our ambition is truly national.

The A417 in the South West.

The A428 in the East.

The A46 in the Midlands.

Unclogging Manchester’s arteries.

Freeing the traffic north of Newcastle.

And, something my North and Mid Wales colleagues will be particularly pleased to hear…

…we’re protecting beautiful villages in the Welsh Borders, as we finally build the Pant-Llanymynech bypass.

We promised to get Britain moving – and we’re getting it done.

And there’s one more road I want to mention.

It’s one of our most important regional arteries.

It is one of those totemic projects symbolising delay and obstruction.

Governments have been trying to fix it since the 1980s.

Every year, millions of cars crawl along it in traffic.

Ruining the backdrop to one of our most important historic landmarks.

To the many H & RHMs who have campaigned for this moment – I say this:

The A303 – this government’s going to get it done.

Owl wonders if there are any lessons here for EDDC.

Climate change, food production, energy and the built environment are among the issues that will be explored in a project looking at ways to make the Sid Vale more sustainable over the next 10 years.

Philippa Davies  www.sidmouthherald.co.uk

The Vision Group for Sidmouth is launching a project called Sidmouth 2020, focusing on positive actions that will benefit the local community in the coming years.

It will look at whether people need to reduce travel and imports, and become more resilient and self-sufficient.

Various public events are planned later in the year, including an evening in June focusing on biodiversity in gardens, parks and the countryside.

There will be an event in August, linked to the food festival at Kennaway House, celebrating local produce.

Later in the year there will be a session looking at the built environment, covering self-build, retrofitting and getting a good deal on renewable energy for the home.

Anyone interested in the project can find out more by visiting the Vision Group for Sidmouth website.

The housing secretary has announced a raft of new planning reforms to boost housebuilding. Lucie Heath explains the key policies

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/jenricks-planning-reforms-the-key-changes-at-a-glance-65419

Planning reforms

• Introduce new permitted development rights for building upwards on existing buildings by summer 2020
• Consult on potential permitted development rights to allow vacant buildings to be demolished and replaced with new homes
• New support for community and self-build housing schemes, including support finding plots of land
• Support the Oxford-Cambridge arc by setting up a new spatial framework for the area, setting out where housing will be delivered up to 2050, and create four development corporations across the region

Housing Delivery Test

• Review the formula for calculating local housing need to encourage more building in urban areas
• Require all local authorities to have an up-to-date local plan by 2023 or government will intervene
• Continue with plans to raise the Housing Delivery Test threshold to 75% in November 2020
• Reform the New Homes Bonus to ensure local authorities that build more homes have access to greater funding

Planning departments

• Implement new planning fee structure to better resource planning authorities and link funding to improved performance
• Provide automatic rebates of fees when planning applications are successful at appeal
• Expand the use of zoning tools to support development that is aimed at simplifying the process of granting planning permission for residential and commercial property
• Make it clearer who owns land by requiring greater transparency on land options
• Support local authorities to use compulsory purchase orders by introducing statutory timescales for decisions and ending the automatic right to public inquiry

Homeownership

• Continue with the proposed First Homes scheme, which offers eligible first-time buyers new homes at prices discounted by a third
• Form partnerships with developers and local authorities to be the frontrunners for delivering the first wave of new homes

Design

• Revise National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to encourage good design and placemaking throughout the planning process
• Respond to the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission and take forward recommendations calling for urban tree-planting and giving communities more influence over design
• Implement a new National Design Code to allow residents of communities to have more influence over design. Allow local areas to produce their own design codes for new development.

Climate and sustainability

• Review policy for building in areas at flood risk by assessing whether current NPPF protections are enough and whether further reform is needed
• Introduce Future Homes Standard in 2025, which will require up to 80% lower carbon emissions for new homes
• Create a new net zero carbon housing development in Toton in the East Midlands through a development corporation

DevelopmentGovt agency/department/organisationPlanningPolicy

Rishi Sunak’s first budget is not as generous as it seems and many Whitehall departments will still be worse off than they were before the spending squeeze began in 2010, according to Britain’s foremost economics thinktank. 

Owl also thinks that the measures relating to our region – A303 at Stonehenge and Plymouth centre make-over – may be re-announcements or confirmation of expectations.

Phillip Inman  www.theguardian.com

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said the chancellor made the budget sound more substantial than it was, while relying on previously announced spending plans.

Paul Johnson, director of the IFS, said Sunak delivered a timely and well-targeted government response to the coronavirus but warned voter “expectations may be disappointed” from the promised increase in public spending.

In an assessment published a day after the coordinated response to the coronavirus outbreak from the Treasury and the Bank of England, the IFS said much of the longer-term spending rise designed to level up Britain was from previously announced measures for the NHS, schools, defence and overseas aid. “There is relatively little here for other departments,” Johnson added.

In an indication that a decade of austerity has had lasting effects, the IFS said spending per person for most public services will remain well below 2010 levels, despite Sunak’s expansionary budget.

Outside of the Department of Health and Social Care, which has had a protected budget, spending per head will still be about 14% lower than it was before the past decade of cuts began.

The thinktank said the loss of EU funds spent in Britain would mean spending per person of about 19% lower. With health and social care included, spending per head returns to 2010 levels in 2025.

Johnson said austerity was over in some respects, but that a decade of cuts to Whitehall departments had taken its toll. “If austerity is a process and a direction, then it’s over. If it’s spending above where we were in 2010, it’s with us for a very long time. But my sense is austerity is a direction rather than a level,” he added.

Although broadly praising the chancellor’s response to Covid-19, the head of the IFS said many self-employed workers would not get the support they might need and groups who may not be entitled to benefits could quickly face hardship.

“Sunak will certainly want to monitor the effectiveness of the package and be ready to come back with more if necessary,” he added.

The IFS said the government’s plans for a spending spree on transport projects and other public works was “genuinely very big”, although cautioned that the scale of the increase meant it would be a significant challenge to ensure the money was well spent.

The thinktank said Britain was more vulnerable to changes in interest rates, inflation and growth as the government pumps up borrowing levels and adds to the national debt. Sunak said at the budget he would balance day-to-day public spending with tax receipts by 2023, under rules set by his predecessor, Sajid Javid, with £12bn of headroom to spare.

However, the forecasts were drawn up by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the government’s independent tax and spending watchdog, before it could take full account of the coronavirus outbreak. The IFS warned that a downgrade in UK growth of just 0.3% a year over three years would eliminate all of Sunak’s headroom.

Johnson said: “This doesn’t look consistent with George Osborne’s mantra that the government should fix the roof while the sun is shining.”

Analysis of the budget by the Resolution Foundation thinktank said the economic hit from weaker growth over the next five years, despite extra spending by the government, will be about £300 per household this year, rising to £575 per year by the middle of the parliament.

Sign up to the daily Business Today email or follow Guardian Business on Twitter at @BusinessDesk

“The budget does almost nothing to offset the considerable welfare cuts put in place by George Osborne in 2015,” said the thinktank.

Households with incomes just above the bottom 10th “will eventually be £2,900 a year worse off, on average, thanks to benefit and tax changes announced since 2015. With £900 of that yet to come as a result of welfare policies still being rolled out.”

It added: “These cuts mean the incomes of the poorest families have actually fallen over the past two years, and there is a risk that child poverty will reach record highs by the time of the 2024 election.”

Flights from Exeter to Manchester – feared lost after the collapse of Flybe – have been revived by airline Blue Islands.

eastdevonnews.co.uk 

The Channel Islands-based carrier says it has stepped in to provide multiple daily services for the popular route ‘to maintain essential regional connectivity’.

CEO Rob Veron said: “With 120,000 passengers flying between Exeter and Manchester in 2019, we have reacted quickly to maintain these vital connections which are essential for the economic and social wellbeing of the South West, following the sad closure of Flybe.

“We are pleased to complement Saturday’s announcement of the continuation of flights between Exeter and Jersey with our Exeter – Manchester services.

“We look forward to providing key UK regional infrastructure in this first phase of activity from Exeter Airport as we continue to sustainably develop our route network in key markets.”

Matt Roach, managing director at Exeter Airport, added: “With routes already secured to Jersey and now with the addition of multiple daily services from Exeter to Manchester, we are delighted that Blue Islands has been able to provide this key infrastructure to the South West, and so quickly after the disruptions which followed Flybe’s collapse last week.”

Blue Islands says it will establish a base – including engineering support – in Exeter for its ATR aircraft and crew to serve the route, which will operate multiple flights throughout the day from mid-April.

Blue Islands announced last week it will also maintain the connection between Exeter and Jersey with up to seven flights per week.

The former Flybe franchise partner has continued uninterrupted services as normal, including operating free flights to Birmingham and Exeter last week.

Simon Jupp, MP for East Devon, said: “Keeping Devon’s quickest connection with Manchester is great news for the South West.

“I’d like to thank Blue Islands for stepping in and providing this popular route to protect jobs and connectivity.”

Planning for the future www.parliament.uk

On 12 March 2020, the Budget was presented in the House of Commons.

• Read the Commons Library summary on the Budget 2020

The Government announced new housing measures in the budget, including  a new affordable homes programme, a building safety fund to remove unsafe cladding from buildings, funding to help rough sleepers and more.

Robert Jenrick (Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government) announced in the statement that the Government will release a ‘Planning’ White Paper in the Spring.

Robert Jenrick: “home ownership seems like a dream that is out of reach”

Mr Jenrick says “home is so much more than 4 walls and a roof” its about “security, a stake in society and about investing for our future.”

He said:

“This Government believes in supporting people who are working hard to own their own home and ensuring that young people and future generations have the same opportunities as those became before them.”

He went on to say that the Government has built over 1.5 million new homes over the last decade and that the proportion of young homeowners has increased.

However he said “a great deal more is required to be done” because people are “trapped” paying high rents and many are “struggling to save for a deposit” which makes home ownership seem like a “dream”.

He says that a Building Safety Bill and a Renters Reform Bill will be presented to Parliament.

In relation to recent flooding, Robert Jenrick concluded by saying:

“I am announcing today that I will be reviewing our policy to prevent the building in areas of high flood risk.

Given the recent devastation suffered by many of our communities, we’re putting in an extra £5.2 billion into flood defences.”

John Healey: “Treasury’s flawed thinking runs throughout”

John Healey (Shadow Secretary of State for Housing ) said that “this indeed is a follow-up to the budget and the Treasury’s flawed thinking runs throughout.”

He scrutinised the Government’s plans by saying:

“After nearly 10 years, still no plan to fix the country’s housing crisis.

“While the promise of the White Paper is a threat to give big developers a freer hand to do what they want, ignoring quality, affordability and sustainability.”

He agrees that planning needs reforming however “planning is not the major constraint on the new homes the country needs when 365,000 and only 213,000 were built.” As well as “6,200 new social homes were built last year when more than million people are on housing waiting lists.”

Mr Healey asked the Government:

• whether local areas will set targets for social housing targets and not just total housing targets?
• will new standards be set for greener zero carbon homes?
• how much extra funding will Government provide to “beef up” the capacity of council planning services?

He says the White Paper is a “red warning” as it can “strip local communities of the powers they have to say ‘no’ to big developers.”

In response to the Minister’s proposal to invest in building safety, Mr Healey asked “how many fire risk buildings will this new fund have to cover” and whether he’d guarantee that “no leaseholder would now have to pay the costs to make their buildings safe.”

The Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government released new building safety figures in the morning, which the Minister “hadn’t mentioned” in his statement.

In response to this Mr Healey said “nearly 3 years on from Grenfell 266 high rise blocks still have the same Grenfell style ACM cladding on the side”.

He also says the Department has not published the test results or numbers of those blocks with unsafe cladding.

Owl wonders if the whole viability of this particular beach management plan needs to be re-examined. Storm protection is an investment for the long term and can’t really be done on the cheap. (See Owl’s archive.)

Daniel Clark  www.devonlive.com 

Seafront glass sea wall ‘smashed with sledgehammer’

The temporary glass panel installed on Sidmouth seafront as a flood defence has been smashed by vandals, possibly with a sledgehammer.

The splash defence is part of Sidmouth and East Beach Management Plan that has been designed to try and protect the town from the elements and reduce the rate of erosion following several large cliff failures shown at Pennington Point and along East Cliff.

The glass wall on the seafront last weekend survived Storm Ciara, and bar two very small chips, was undamaged by Storm Dennis.

But it appears to have fallen victim to ‘Storm Vandal’ as on Wednesday morning, residents in the town woke up to find cracks running through the panel that had been formed from the pavement side.

An East Devon District Council spokesman said that their StreetScene team has inspected the panel and have concluded deliberate criminal damage has clearly been inflicted on the glass’s landward facing surface – possibly with a hammer or similar heavy instrument.

The preferred beach management scheme consists of adding a new rock groyne on East Beach and importing new shingle onto Sidmouth Beach, as well as raising the height of the splash wall by one metre.

Local residents had called the initial stone wall design ‘hideous’ and ‘an eyesore that would mean the picturesque view of the Esplanade would disappear’, and a result, East Devon District Council had been exploring the possible use of glass sections of sea defence.

But a council spokesman said that the new act of vandalism jeopardises the trial and has implications for the installation of a glass panel along the entire seafront to help protect Sidmouth from coastal flooding.

They added: “The council has contacted Flood Control International who installed the panel and we will be checking CCTV footage covering the site to try and identify the culprits. The damage has been reported to the police and we are awaiting a crime number. We will work with the Police and seek a prosecution if possible.

“The trial of the panel is due to finish at the end of April and so far the glass appeared to be holding up well, having weathered the impact of three major storms. In light of its robustness to date it is therefore disappointing and immensely frustrating that it has succumbed to this malicious and destructive act.

“This new act of vandalism jeopardises an important part of the Sidmouth Beach Management Scheme, and sadly has implications for the installation of a glass panel along the entire seafront to help protect Sidmouth from coastal flooding.

“If a glass panel is going to be subject to repeated damage by vandals, then it will not be sustainable. We will now have to consider very carefully, whether the use of glass panels to minimise the visual impact of the splash defence is a material option that the council can take forward.”

Cllr Stuart Hughes, who represents the Sidmouth area, said it was sad that vandals had felt the need to target the glass panel, and added that it would be a shame if a more aesthetically pleasing route for the sea wall couldn’t be taken forward under fears it would be a continual target for vandalism.

Posting on Twitter, he added: “The panel got through rough stormy #stormsciara and #Dennis but not so lucky last night from what looks like #StormVandal.”

East Devon’s MP Simon Jupp added: “This is deeply disappointing. If the panel was vandalised, I hope witnesses come forward and the vandal is caught. I hope the panel can be quickly replaced.”

Cllr Geoff Jung, portfolio holder for the environment at East Devon, said: “The test panel of glass may have provided a possible solution to the required protection for the Sidmouth and East Beach management plan that would have protected residents and properties from serious overtopping along the seafront. However we knew this would severely test the 39mm thick laminated glass from storm damage with millions of stones and pebbles being thrown at it, and we also were concerned that damage could come from vandalism.

“It is clear the panel was up to the task of resisting shingle and storms, but sadly failed to withstand vandalism. An initial inspection strongly suggests the glass was smashed by a heavy blunt object such as a sledge hammer.

“The funding for the whole scheme was already restrictive, and the glass panel solution, along the seafront may have overcome many residents’ concerns regarding a solid wall with floodgates. The vandalism of the panel now casts doubt on its use in the final scheme.

“With a number of localised cliff falls and the dropping of beach levels in recent weeks and now the vandalism to the glass panel, it has highlighted the urgency of delivering a protection scheme for Sidmouth. The biggest obstacle, though, is the required funding from government; the  funding gap is sadly still over a £1m for the scheme.”

Sidmouth seafront glass sea wall survives Storm Dennis (Image: Daniel Clark)

Ward member Cllr Denise Bickley added: “I am so disappointed that a few vandals have spoilt what could have been an innovative solution to the very serious wall issue, as the integrated glass panels could have looked very special. Potentially having to withdraw this idea due to vandalism is such a pity and unfortunately will say something about the town rather than about the glass itself.

“I sincerely hope the CCTV footage can identify the perpetrators of this act and we should all call it what it was – criminal damage to property, and not something to be bragged about. We should also remember that any type of wall of or sea defence could be damaged by vandalism, whatever it was constructed from.”

Plymouth – although it looks to Owl to be one of those “re-announcements”

In this spring Budget, the Treasury has finally confirmed allocations from the remainder of the fund – plus some extra – following the shortlist being announced in 2018.

The roughly £1.1bn for ‘shovel-ready projects’ including £51m for Plymouth, which also includes £36m for an iconic new Central Park cycling and walking bridge

How many times since the war has Plymouth’s bombed out centre been rebuilt – Owl has lost count?

(The keywords for government funding seem to be: Cities and Mayors)

Budget 2020: Mayoral authorities win big in transport

Dom Browne 11 March 2020 www.transport-network.co.uk 

The Government has unveiled £4.2bn for urban transport as part of its spring budget giveaways.

The cash will be released from 2022-23 as part of five-year funding settlements for eight mayoral combined authorities, however, some authorities will have to put in place an elected mayor to win their share of the cash.

‘Funding will be delivered through five-year, consolidated transport settlements agreed with central government and based on plans put forward by Mayors,’ Treasury officials said.

‘Following the approach that has worked for London, these settlements will be published once they have been agreed, providing transparency and accountability while giving mayors the flexibility and certainty to deliver their plans.’

West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, West Midlands, Liverpool City Region, Tyne and Wear, West of England, Sheffield City Region and Tees Valley, are all in line for the cash.

As a first step, the Government will open discussions with Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region and West Midlands ‘in the coming months’. 

The new West Yorkshire Combined Authority, Sheffield City Region, Tyne and Wear, West of England and Tees Valley will also receive settlements, ‘subject to putting in place appropriate governance to agree and deliver funding, including an elected Mayor for their city regions and transport networks’.

A new directly-elected West Yorkshire mayor has already been announced. 

The Treasury also outlined where it wants some of the cash go: ‘While it will be for elected Mayors to put forward ambitious plans, the Government would welcome the opportunity to support a range of schemes, such as the renewal of the Sheffield Supertram, the development of a modern, low-carbon metro network for West Yorkshire and tram-train pilots in Greater Manchester.’ 

Finally transformed cities?

The cash pot builds on the £1.7bn Transforming Cities Fund, which was first unveiled in the Autumn Budget 2017, and saw £840m go directly towards six combined authorities.

In this spring Budget, the Treasury has finally confirmed allocations from the remainder of the fund – plus some extra – following the shortlist being announced in 2018.

The roughly £1.1bn for ‘shovel-ready projects’ provides.

• £79m for Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole, including four new cycle freeways and new bus priority infrastructure
• £161m for Derby & Nottingham, including over £25m for bus rapid transit in Derby and over £10m for a new cycle route between Nottingham, Derby and East Midlands Airport
• £33m for Leicester, including £8m for the development of a sustainable transport corridor from St Margaret’s to Birstall
• £198m for the North East, including £95m for frequency and reliability improvements across the Tyne and Wear Metro system and to complement the government’s recent £337m investment in new rolling stock
• £51m for Plymouth, including £36m for an iconic new Central Park cycling and walking bridge
• £40m for Preston City Region, including £25m for a new station at Cottam Parkway on the Preston-Blackpool line
• £166m for Sheffield City Region, including a new Bus Rapid Transit link in Barnsley and a new tram stop on the Tram-Train line to Rotherham at Magna
• £57m for Southampton, including new Rapid Bus links
• £317m for West Yorkshire, including £39.9m for Halifax delivering a new bus station, improved rail station and other improvements to complement the revitalisation of the town centre and £30m for active and sustainable travel across Bradford

There will also be a further £117m for Portsmouth City Region, Norwich and Stoke-on-Trent ‘subject to further business case approval, which could fund a range of projects, including a multi-modal transport hub at Stoke-on-Trent station’.

The Government claimed in total around £800m of the cash was for cycling and buses ‘in line with its priorities’, suggesting this money forms part of the £5bn Boris Johnson pledged during the election.

The government is also investing £20m to develop the Midlands Rail Hub.

Green transport 

The Government also confirmed £500m over the next five years ‘to support the rollout of a fast-charging network for electric vehicles, ensuring that drivers will never be further than 30 miles from a rapid charging station’.

There will also be £403m for the Plug-in Car Grant, extending it to 2022-23 and £129.5m to extend the Plug-in Grants for ‘vans, taxis and motorcycles to 2022-23,’ the Treasury said.

In addition, the Budget announced the exemption of zero emission cars from the Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) ‘expensive car supplement’ and the publication of a call for evidence on VED, which will include how it can be further used to reduce vehicle emissions.

However, chancellor Rishi Sunak once again froze fuel duty.

Does Sidmouth have a new future as an extreme environmental testing laboratory?

The glass test panel installed on the sea front in mid-January has cracked within weeks. Doesn’t look fit for purpose to Owl, even if it is due to Sidmouth style vandalism. EDDC will have to go back to the drawing board.

Philippa Davies, Sidmouth Herald, 11 March 2020

Has ‘StormVandal’ caused this damage to Sidmouth’s glass test panel?

Sidmouth’s glass test panel, installed to test the material’s resistance to storm conditions, has been damaged.

But there are reports that the cracks running through the entire glass panel were not caused by the sea, but by human hands.

There is a clear impact mark on the top right of the panel, which at first glance appears to have been made by a stone flung against it by the waves.

But passers-by examining the panel on Wednesday morning (March 11) said it looked as if the impact had come from the pavement side, not the sea.

Local councillor Stuart Hughes posted on Twitter saying that the panel had withstood Storm Ciara and Storm Dennis, but not ‘StormVandal’.

The barrier was installed in mid-January as part of East Devon District Council’s beach management plan.

The idea was to test whether a glass panel could be used, instead of a solid wall, to reinforce Sidmouth’s sea defences.

It was due to stay in place until spring.

East Devon District Council has been asked for a comment but has not yet responded.

Owl listened to the budget speech (well mostly but got a bit bored with the repetition of the punch line). Here is what the Chancellor DID NOT say:

“I have read the prospectus drawn up by the Great South West. I have listened to my honourable friends for Devon East and Tiverton and Honiton. As a result I am announcing that the Government will give the Great South West £2M over three years so that it can draw up a plan to boost the local economy which the government will fund in full. That’s £40M for the region producing more houses, more jobs and boosting productivity.

Madam Speaker, this government is levelling up the regions getting the South West Done!”

(Owl assumes regular readers will know that the Great South West is not a rail franchise but the latest self-elected group to claim it can regenerate the region, given some cash to splash)

We will have to wait to see the small print, there might be something for the region in that. Otherwise we wait for the expected Devolution White Paper.

There is a silver lining, Devon with all its roads might get a decent share of the pothole fund.

Keep your fingers crossed – the A303 bottleneck at Stonehenge has been given yet another go ahead!

Villagers caught up in a coronavirus outbreak say that they are going “stir crazy” in isolation.

Harry Shukman, Countryside Correspondent The Times 11 March 2020

Churston Ferrers in south Devon is the unlikely location of two confirmed cases of the virus; one at the local grammar school and another in the church.

The county has been identified as a coronavirus hotspot, with 13 people testing positive for the virus even though it is ranked among the ten least populous in the country. It is matched with Kensington and Chelsea in London for cases, according to Public Health England (PHE), which said that the worst affected region was Hertfordshire, with 16 cases.

St Mary the Virgin church closed when a member of its 50-strong congregation tested positive on March 1. It is due to reopen on March 22 after a deep clean. Kim, a parishioner who declined to give her surname, said that she had attended a service with an infected worshipper, whom she said she did not know although they were believed to have recently returned from a holiday abroad. Kim is in self-isolation at home in the village but has not shown any symptoms.

Churston Ferrers Grammar School closed for a week when one of its pupils who returned from a holiday in northern Italy tested positive for the virus. It reopened on Monday. A “relatively small number” of pupils are in self-isolation and participating in classes via video link, David Lewis, the deputy head, said. He added that anxiety about the reopening was “understandable” but that it had been deep-cleaned according to PHE guidelines.

Villagers said they felt like they had lost a game of “Russian roulette” in having two cases of coronavirus.

Norman Sharan, 88, a novelist who lives opposite the church, said: “I am very worried. A lot of us are elderly here. We are being very careful. My wife and I have bought proper masks and hand gel and when we go to the shops we wear surgical gloves. We were a bit horrified that the school had a case.”

Maggie Miller, 66, who lives with her husband Bill, 70, said: “My husband is diabetic so we cannot risk going out. It’s like a nightmare.”

It is believed that people with diabetes have an increased risk of infection.

“We are not going out or seeing friends. We are just cycling around for exercise. It’s quite depressing,” Mrs Miller said. “We are all going stir crazy. At least we have each other. I have been ringing my friends who live alone to make sure they have some company.”

Owl has been sent the latest Update from the Dorset National Park Team. Had EDDC not been so besotted by the development lobby and thought strategically this would have been headed the East Devon and Dorset JOINT Team. Owl hopes that readers will be aware that the government is seriously considering following the Glover Landscape Review recommendation to create a new National Park combining the East Devon and Dorset AONB’s.

Last October the Ingham regime showed their lack of enthusiasm for breaking from the Tory past when the cabinet decided to do nothing to seize the initiative:

“Resolve to await the Governments response to the recommendations; and note that the Chilterns, the Cotswolds and the Dorset and East Devon AONBs are potential candidates for future designation as National Parks.”

History repeats itself. EDDC is in danger of missing the boat again by sticking its head in the sand as it did with the creation of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site. Dorset runs away with the prize.

Owl notes that the East Devon Alliance has a priority to Initiate discussions about new National Park with Dorset (inc AONBs).

EDDC’s reluctance to engage is odd considering its love of taking part in JOINT committees on pretty much any excuse.

Update on Dorset National Park

The Glover Review of Landscapes recommended that Dorset along with the Cotswolds and Chilterns be seriously evaluated as future National Parks by Natural England and the Government. The Government in its election manifesto said it would create new National Parks. We await the Government’s response to the Glover Review and news on how they intend to take forward their manifesto commitment.

Economic and Industrial strategies for rural areas. 

Dorset is an example of an area that has two complementary parts: the largely rural Dorset “county” and the adjacent BCP conurbation. Its Local Industrial Strategy can reflect and respect this complementarity. Rural areas can capitalise on their unique strengths. They can, for example, draw on their high quality natural environment and heritage to attract businesses and investment, develop expertise in high productivity and specialised manufacturing, farming and foods, creative and digital industries, and stimulate business interest and growth more generally in the green economy.

Communities and businesses would benefit from a National Park which would invest in and grow Dorset’s natural capital and ecosystem services (including high quality foods, clean water systems, and carbon capture in healthy soils and woodlands) and work with the Dorset Council and others to develop policies for sustainable development, transport, energy and tourism, while better conserving and enhancing our unique environment. A National Park would enable Dorset to capitalise on, without compromising, its environment while partnering with the Dorset LEP and the Dorset Council to deliver a thriving economic future.

Read a briefing on how Dorset’s environmental strengths should inform its economic and industrial strategy.