Proposals to speed up the implementation of District Heating Networks planned in East Devon’s West End have been unanimously approved.

East Devon District Council’s Planning Committee on Wednesday morning unanimously backed plans for a Local Development Order (LDO) for District Heating Networks.

The LDO will reduce the regulatory processes and delays associated with the submission of planning applications and facilitate faster implementation of the District Heating networks, councillors were told.

Already the Skypark Energy Centre provides hot water and heating to housing in Cranbrook and commercial buildings at Skypark as well as a private wire to the Lidl distribution centre, while the Monkerton Energy Centre is in the process of being commissioned and will provide hot water and heating to housing around Monkerton and Pinhoe and also commercial buildings at the Science Park.

Chris Rose, the council’s development manager, in his report to the meeting, said that this would enable further roll out of decentralised heating systems in East Devon’s West End and would assist in the delivery of the key aim of East Devon Council Plan 2020 – 2040 to achieve carbon neutrality by 2040.

He added: “Decentralised heating systems can provide significant carbon emission reduction compared to conventional heating systems and can therefor aid the transition to a low carbon economy.

“Despite the system currently being heated by mains gas there are overall energy system efficiencies with associated carbon benefits, for example heat recovery and a reduction in wasted heat. District Heating Networks benefit from economies of scale with one central boiler operating far more efficiently than individual boilers

“It is far more practical, cost saving and energy saving to install the DHN during the construction phase of development rather than trying to retrofit a system and as the network is enhanced and enlarged it enables greater economies of scale and therefor greater low carbon benefits.”

Approval of the LDO would eliminates the requirement to obtain planning permission to install certain infrastructure and would ‘speed up the process for the infrastructure to allow the transition to a low or zero carbon future’, Mr Rose added.

Recommending approval, Cllr Mike Howe said that the committee had two choices – either approve this and then try and force the companies using the DHN to use renewable energy, or install gas boilers in every single house. He said: “That would be wrong so this is a no brainer. This is not perfect but a step in the right direction,” adding that the current planning system could not demand any developer build zero carbon homes as the council has no policies calling for it.

Cllr Olly Davey added that he thought that the DHN could be compatible with moving to a low carbon future, and added: “Hopefully in the not too distant future the facility in Cranbrook will be switched over to low carbon, and when it does, every house will become low carbon.”

Councillors unanimously backed the LDO which grants Permitted Development rights for District Heating transmission and distribution networks for development such as the installation of pipes, cables and wires, heat exchange equipment, street furniture, and ancillary engineering works in the defined area of land around Cranbrook and Clyst Honiton in the West End of East Devon.

Development is not permitted by this Order where any above ground cabinets, buildings, structures or enclosures would be greater than 1 metre in height above ground level, any above ground cabinets, buildings, structures or enclosures would be greater than 2.5 cubic metres in external volume; or any pipework installed above ground and outside any enclosure is greater than 2 metres in length.

In a phase-one trial involving about 1,000 British volunteers, a University of Oxford vaccine appears to have stimulated the desired response from the immune system, The Times understands.

The subjects are understood to have shown encouraging levels of neutralising antibodies, thought to be important in protecting against viral infection, and there were no serious side-effects.

The results also indicated that another aspect of the immune system, known as T-cells, was mobilised. The researchers have yet to prove that this combined immune response is enough to protect against infection but if it had not been found it would have been a setback. “The Oxford team are very much still in the fight,” a source said.

For him now to be the chair of the Commons health and social care select committee that is responsible for advising on how to deal with the mess he left behind, and to set himself up in his article as some sort of people’s champion, is incredible. If he could let us all know how he manages to get a good night’s sleep with that legacy from his past, I’m sure millions of people, patients and staff, who are suffering the effects of his tenure as health secretary would benefit, as would the NHS, which could thereby probably save a fortune in prescriptions for antidepressants and sleeping pills.
John Westbrook
Manchester

• Jeremy Hunt writing in the Guardian? I’m speechless, and only slightly mollified by Alan Marsden’s letter on the opposite page citing Hunt, among others, as culpable.
Jeanette Hamilton
Buxton, Derbyshire

• Jeremy Hunt “welcomes” the fact that the prime minister has committed to finding a long-term solution to the crisis in social care. In the election campaign, Boris Johnson said he had a solution to social care, which is rather different. He also said he had an “oven-ready” deal with the EU. These statements were of a different order to “get Brexit done” – some sort of vague promise. Since he now says he is committed to finding a solution to social care, and we don’t yet have a deal with the EU, they were simply not true. Or, to put it more bluntly, they were lies.
Norman Gowar
London

• Jeremy Hunt has a short memory. He advocates introducing Andrew Dilnot’s proposal for a cap on care costs. But the Dilnot proposal is already on the statute book – see section 15 of the Care Act 2014, passed by parliament while Mr Hunt was the health secretary. All that is needed to bring it into force is a current minister’s signature.
Christopher Packer
London

• Jeremy Hunt is right that we need “a once-and-for-all fix” for the care crisis, but his suggested solutions will not provide the answer. The Dilnot cap on care costs does not address inequity – it would particularly benefit wealthier older people and their families. It wouldn’t provide extra resources to the underfunded care system. Instead it would substitute public funding for private funding while adding a new and complex system of means-testing. And it wouldn’t support the much-needed integration of care with health. For these reasons, and others including its cost, the Conservative government in which Mr Hunt served did not implement the Dilnot cap.

A better approach would be to agree a new vision for care that enables older and disabled people and their families to get the support they want, when and where they want it. Then we could debate how to fund it fairly, simply and sustainably.
Stephen Burke
Director, United for All Ages

Ending the crisis in social care has been a long-held ambition of those who enter Downing Street from whichever party – and was certainly one of mine as health secretary. But coronavirus has removed any possible excuse for the delay, as it has brutally exposed the fragility of the sector – alongside the bravery and service of those who work in it.

As we grasp the nettle of social care reform and prepare for a second wave, we must learn the lessons of recent months.

When the peak of the pandemic approached and NHS beds were desperately needed, vulnerable people were discharged from hospitals into care homes without proper testing. Other countries introduced restrictions on care home visitors at an early stage in the pandemic, and required people being discharged to care homes to either have a negative test result, or to be quarantined for 14 days in a separate facility. It is essential that we adopt examples of best practice.

But we also need to be honest about the underlying issues in the sector. When, as health secretary, I negotiated an extra £20bn for the NHS to go alongside a new 10-year plan, I argued strongly that the social care sector should also receive extra funding. I was told this would follow – but, two years on, we are still waiting.

It is very welcome that the prime minister has committed to finding a long-term solution. But if he is going to deliver a new deal, we should be clear about what that entails: first, a long-term solution that addresses inequity in the current system, such as Andrew Dilnot’s eminently sensible proposal for a cap on care costs, or free personal care as recommended by the Lords economic affairs committee. It is highly significant that this cross-party committee chaired by Lord Forsyth, a self-described Thatcherite, advocated an expansion of state responsibility.

But second, and equally important, is the need to increase annual funding available to local authorities. The Health Foundation estimates that demographic pressures and rises in the “national living wage” alone will add £4bn a year by the end of this parliament, and will require significantly more to address the sector’s long-term needs. An inquiry into social care by the health and social care committee, which I chair, aims to identify how much extra money the government must commit over the next five years in order to fix the gap in social care funding and reduce pressure on the NHS.

Our annual winter crisis arises because the wraparound care people need is not provided, so they end up in A&E and cannot be discharged from hospitals to social care. The head of the NHS, Simon Stevens, has acknowledged that the issue needs to be resolved within the next year. As he told our committee, not to do so would be “inconceivable”.

We have heard some harrowing evidence. Take Anna, a doctor in her 30s who is unable to practise because of a genetic condition that causes chronic severe pain. Dependent on social care, her life is structured around hourly payments for showering, dressing or preparing food. She lives in fear of a cut in her care hours.

Or Dorothy, who, in her 90s, lived in her own home before a series of emergency admissions to hospital. She wanted to return home but the care she needed was never put in place. An array of NHS and local authority officials dealt with her case – her daughter counted 101 people in total. But, as Dorothy said: “Everyone who is meant to have helped has done harm.” Because, despite all those brilliant professionals, there was never any co-ordination or teamwork. Dorothy spent seven months of her last year in hospital before her death.

Better integration of hospital and social care services could have given her those months at home. The division between the NHS and social care goes back to its founding when medical care was made “free” but social care was means-tested. Now, with more people living for longer with multiple health conditions, this distinction has become artificial and destructive.

As has another distinction, namely the stark divide between care workers and hospital staff. Social care workers describe feeling like “underdogs” and “Cinderellas”, demoralised to see shops offering generous discounts to NHS staff but not to them. One care worker described people tutting at her for wearing her uniform in the street between home visits. Social care workers need a proper career path and to be given the recognition they deserve. The introduction of care certificates marked an important start, but more needs to be done.

It is no surprise that annual staff turnover is 30% in social care, rising to more than 40% in the home care sector. When “cost per minute” is the basis for payments to home care staff, do we really expect our older people to be looked after with dignity and respect?

Britain spends a lower percentage of GDP on social care than countries such as Denmark, Norway or the Netherlands. We Conservatives always said the purpose of the painful measures taken in 2010 was short-term: to put the economy on its feet so we would be in a better position to increase funding for public services. We have delivered that for the NHS – now we must be as good as our word for social care. A once-and-for-all fix for this crisis cannot come too soon.

The vast majority of emissions cuts from electric cars will be wiped out by new road-building, a report says.

The government says vehicle emissions per mile will fall as zero-emissions cars take over Britain’s roads.

But the report says the 80% of the CO2 savings from clean cars will be negated by the £27bn planned roads programme.

It adds that if ministers want a “green recovery” the cash would be better spent on public transport, walking, cycling, and remote-working hubs.

And they point out that the electric cars will continue to increase local air pollution through particles eroding from brakes and tyres.

The calculations have been made by an environmental consultancy, Transport for Quality of Life, using data collected by Highways England.

The paper estimates that a third of the predicted increase in emissions would come from construction – including energy for making steel, concrete and asphalt.

A third would be created by increased vehicle speeds on faster roads.

And a further third would be caused by extra traffic generated by new roads stimulating more car-dependent housing, retail parks and business parks.

New roads, more traffic?

Its authors say history shows that building roads almost always generates more traffic.

The report says even with the government’s most optimistic estimate of the adoption rate for electric vehicles, emissions from trunk roads and motorways in England are not on track to meet “net zero“ by 2050.

A government spokesperson told BBC News the report is based on old data.

“This assessment is wholly incorrect and doesn’t take into account the benefits from the massive surge in electric vehicles,” he said.

“The Road Investment Strategy is consistent with our ambition to improve air quality and decarbonise transport.”

The report’s lead author, Lynn Sloman, said the electric car revolution would happen too slowly for transport to achieve the UK’s carbon-cutting goals.

“If we are to meet the legally-binding carbon budgets, we need to make big cuts in carbon emissions over the next decade,” she said.

“That will require faster adoption of electric cars – but it will also require us to reduce vehicle mileage by existing cars.

“Unfortunately, the Government’s £27 billion road programme will make things worse, not better.”

The government accepts that overall mileage should be cut.

But it says the impact of the new roads programme on emissions will be a fraction of the report’s predicted figure.

The AA president, Edmund King, supports some road-building. He told BBC News said: “We believe post-lockdown that more people will continue to work from home, drive less and cycle and walk more.

“But even with investment in broadband and active travel, we will still need road investment – particularly to overcome the congestion hotspots to help get our goods to market.”

‘Mindless’ building?

Ms Sloman, who works regularly as a consultant for the Department for Transport, responded: “More roads just mean more cars. Decades of road investment have not solved congestion.

“Sustained lobbying for more money for roads, leaving less for public transport, cycling and walking, is one of the reasons we now face a climate emergency. We can’t afford any more to indulge this Toad of Toad Hall model of mindless road-building.”

She also says the government can’t ignore the continuing air pollution that will be caused by particles from the brakes and tyres of electric cars.

This pollution could actually be increased if the fashion for heavy battery-powered SUVs continues.

Ms Sloman said: “This is an institutional problem. There are people in the Department for Transport and Highways England who have built their careers on big road building budgets, and they won’t easily give them up.

“But there are also some officials – and perhaps some politicians – who are starting to recognise that the climate emergency means we need a radically different approach to transport.”

The Department for Transport is currently consulting on a decarbonisation strategy, and will publish its plan later in the year.

Who he, Lewis? And the news

The look on Chris Grayling’s face said it all. The former minister had breezed into the first meeting of the newly convened Intelligence and Security Committee in the Macmillan Room in Portcullis House, fully expecting to be the only Tory name on the ballot paper.

But it turned out that Macmillan’s ghost hovered over proceedings as much as his portrait, as the day of the short knives produced a spectacular shock. Grayling was a picture of incredulity and puzzlement as he saw Julian Lewis’ candidacy in black and white next to his, before the swift realisation kicked in that he had been outmanoeuvred.

The ensuing secret ballot yielded the inevitable result: 5 votes for Lewis (his own, plus three Labour and one SNP vote), 4 for Grayling (himself, plus three Tory MPs). The election of the person who now oversees MI6, MI5 and other UK security agencies was itself a masterpiece of cloak and dagger politics, precision timing and superior intelligence gathering. The Tory whips were furious, and No.10 more furious still at this very British coup.

Grayling had made clear his own intention to be chair two days ago, but Lewis had left it until the day of the committee’s first meeting to inform its clerk that he was putting himself forward. There was no prior notice for the government, as unlike select committees, the ISC picks its own chairman from its own members.

It was a moment of which Lewis’s old friend John Bercow would have been proud. Just as Bercow became Commons Speaker on the back of Labour votes, the veteran Tory backbencher clinched the chairmanship of arguably the country’s most important parliamentary watchdog thanks to Opposition backing.

Lewis, 68, was undeniably better qualified to chair the ISC than Grayling. A former member of the committee from 2010 to 2015, a former defence select committee chairman and a former Naval reservist, he has long experience of security and intelligence issues. Even Grayling’s allies admit his closest involvement with security issues was when he was transport secretary (which does mean being on the emergency Cobra committee from time to time).

Lewis was so respected that he secured the nomination of the prime minister for the committee, which is unusual in parliament in that its entire membership requires the prior approval of No.10 in consultation with the leader of the Opposition. Although it is up to the Commons and Lords to then approve its membership, the sifting process – on grounds ostensibly of national security – makes it unique.‌

It is perhaps that prior approval that fuelled the strong sense of betrayal felt in Downing Street when the news came through. The decision to swiftly withdraw the whip from Lewis underscored the anger, with No.10 sources muttering that his “duplicity” had to be punished. Most embarrassingly of all, chief whip Mark Spencer had been caught cold on an issue where whipping was in theory not allowed – the statute that governs the ISC states expressly that the chair of the ISC is “chosen by its members”, not No.10.

Whips have been suggesting that Lewis had assured them he would vote for Grayling, only to renege on the promise. The MP may refuse to answer that charge if asked about it, but he and the Opposition members may have left no traces of collusion. The committee itself is shrouded in adherence to the Official Secrets Act, so the ironies are multiple.‌

Lewis is so idiosyncratic that he is the only one of 650 MPs in the Commons not to allow constituents to contact him by email, insisting instead that they use letter, fax or phone to do so. He is thought unlikely to have left an evidence trail of any plans for the committee chairmanship.

Lewis’s security experience attracted him to the Opposition members, but it was his “fierce independence” and “consensual” approach that was the clincher. And throughout his career the New Forest East MP has certainly been no leader’s poodle. He was among the hardcore Brexiteers who consistently voted against Theresa May’s Brexit deal, but he also voted against David Cameron’s bid to launch military action in Syria, and against the Lib-Con coalition increasing student tuition fees. Maverick is his middle name.

Yet Lewis also had early experience of pulling off audacious actions behind enemy lines. As a graduate research student, he managed to infiltrate the Labour party in the 1970s, helping ‘moderates’ recapture part of the Newham North East local constituency party where MP Reg Prentice was targeted by the Left. Ultimately, Prentice had the crucial vote that brought down James Callaghan and ushered in Margaret Thatcher’s 1979 victory.

There is little likelihood of Lewis crossing the floor to join Labour as Prentice did, but the stripping of the Tory whip means he is now as officially “independent” as an MP as much as he was figuratively. Some Conservative MPs are already speculating that the whole affair proves the need to axe Spencer as chief whip and perhaps move him in what is seen as a more likely reshuffle, possibly to Defra.

The decision by Johnson to remove the whip was also further evidence of his own ruthless approach to party management, last seen when former cabinet ministers like David Gauke and Philip Hammond were effectively booted out of the party over Brexit, despite their willingness to return to the fold.‌

The difficulty for No.10 now is just what next step to take. In theory it could take the “nuclear option” and oust Lewis from the committee by tabling a Commons motion of selection, replacing him with another Tory MP, and thereby allowing a fresh internal election of a new chairman of the ISC. A 90-minute debate would be needed, followed by a vote on the floor of the Commons.

The danger is that would lay bare just how party political the chairmanship would be, itself seen by even some of the PM’s allies as a move that could undermine the committee and its relationship with the intelligence agencies – all of which need to be protected from any charge of party politics in their scrutiny.

The government would have to act very quickly too, and it may be too late to get any motion on the Order Paper in time. Tomorrow morning the ISC meets to discuss when to publish the ‘Russia report’, believed to cover donations to the Tory party among other issues. It is likely that the committee will recommend very swift publication.

In the latest James Bond movies, the chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee is Gareth Mallory, played by Ralph Fiennes. Mallory goes on to replace Judi Dench as ’M”. Few would consider Lewis to be as dashing as Fiennes’s character and he would make an unlikely spy. But no matter what happens to him next, the spectre of high-handed incompetence is again haunting Boris Johnson’s government.