Reference to East Devon!

andrewlainton.wordpress.com 

“I’m not in the business of advising NIMBY local, authorities but I will point out fatal flaws in the Planning White Paper.

The White Paper proposes to abolish the DTC and the forward looking 5YHLSS. It also proposes no formal requirement to examine alternative realistic plan options (as required by the SEA directive). It leaps directly from a call for proposals to a submission plan. New plans have to be in place within 30 months. The assumption being presumably no need as growth areas will be in place.

So what if you are the kind of authority like Wokingham or East Devon that wants to build far less. Easy just produce a sloppy, stupid, back of the envelope plan showing houjsing in the worst possible places. You will get masses of objections and the plan will fail at examination. Job done.

Thank you Planning White Paper for messing up zoning reform and incentivising the one thing we have too much of: bad plans.”

After the May 2019 elections the Conservatives lost overall control but did not form the administration. The Liberal Democrats are the next largest grouping. They appear to have entered a coalition with Independents and Greens, yet Mid Devon ended up with an Independent Leader.

He was the only one who voted against leaving GESP when the motion to leave was put to Cabinet (passed 7 to 1). He was the one who tabled an amended “fudge” motion when the leave motion was to have been debated at the full Council meeting.

Did this coalition have any Memorandum of Understanding or any formal arrangement? Is this another example of a LINO (leader in name only)? Anyone able to enlighten Owl?

Four Liberal Democrat cabinet members on Mid Devon District Council have left the ruling administration.

Daniel Clark www.devonlive.com

The changes, which will take effect from today, will see the addition of four Conservative members joining the current Independent and Green Party Councillors, while the four Liberal Democrats will leave the Cabinet.

It follows Wednesday night’s full council meeting where the Liberal Democrats put forward a rival amendment to one that the leader of the council had outlined over the future of the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan.

Cllrs Graeme Barnell, Alex White, Luke Taylor, and Simon Clist have left the cabinet, and been replaced by Conservatives Richard Chesterton, Bob Evans, Andrew Moore and Colin Slade.

Announcing the changes, the Leader of Mid Devon District Council, Cllr Bob Deed, said: “Everyone knows that, upon becoming Leader, I had sought participation from across the Council to secure the best set of expertise and experience in cabinet roles.

“While the Conservatives did not feel able to take up this offer from the start, I am pleased that we now have the opportunity to welcome their skills into the Cabinet.

“I firmly believe that working alongside our neighbours and colleagues in the wider area is the right way to achieve the best outcomes for Mid Devon.

“Collaboration across willing partners must be the starting point for effective Local Government and, following Wednesday’s Full Council meeting debating competing proposals from within the Cabinet, the four Liberal Democrats have now stood down.

“I thank them for their contribution during the last 15 months and look forward to continuing to deliver the best outcomes for Mid Devon, as we face the major challenges of potential planning changes, devolution, and post-EU transition, alongside our continued efforts to support our businesses and communities through COVID-19.”

The new cabinet makeup in full is:

• Cllr Bob Deed (Con) – Leader
• Cllr Bob Evans (Con) – Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Housing
• Cllr Andrew Moore (Con) – Cabinet Member for Finance
• Cllr Richard Chesterton (Con) – Cabinet Member for Planning & Economic Regeneration
• Cllr Colin Slade (Con) – Cabinet Member for Environment
• Cllr Dennis Knowles (Ind) – Cabinet Member for Community Wellbeing
• Cllr Elizabeth Wainwright (Grn) – Cabinet Member for Climate Change
• Cllr Nikki Woollatt (Ind) – Cabinet Member for the Working Environment and Support Services

The 42-strong council had been run by a coalition of the Independents and the Liberal Democrats, but today’s decision to replace the Liberal Democrats on the council throws that working relationship into doubt.

The council consists currently of 17 Conservatives, 11 Liberal Democrats, nine Independents, and two Green Party councillors.

Three seats are vacant following the deaths of Gerald Luxton and John Daw and the resignation of Irene Hill, with by-elections currently under the Coronavirus Act 2020 not allowed to take place until May 2021.

We have been here before when Sarah Randall – Johnson spent a fortune of our money fighting it. Exeter too small to stand alone; Devon too large and unwieldy. John Hart obviously still remembers this “Blue on Blue engagement” – Owl

www.bbc.co.uk 

Abolishing 213 smaller councils in England and replacing them with 25 new local authorities could save almost £3bn over five years, a report says.

The report for the County Councils Network says one body in each area would reduce complexity and give communities a single unified voice.

However, others argue bigger councils are unwieldy and undemocratic.

The government is expected to publish its own proposals on overhauling local government in the autumn.

Plans could include scrapping district and county councils in England in favour of fewer, larger authorities which control all services in their area.

County councils, including Surrey, North Yorkshire and Leicestershire, have developed or are already developing plans to replace county and district councils in their area with a single body.

In most of England, local government operates under a two-tier system, with both a county council and a district council providing services.

County councils’ responsibilities include education, social services and waste disposal.

Each county is subdivided into areas represented by district councils. These councils are responsible for rubbish collection, housing and planning.

Some parts of the country – usually cities or larger towns – are governed by unitary authorities which provide all local government services.

The report carried out by PriceWaterhouseCoopers argues that merging district and county councils in a mid-sized county area into single organisation could save £126m over five years and £2.94bn nationally.

However it also warns that creating two unitary authorities in one county would reduce the savings by two thirds.

Cllr David Williams, chairman of the County Councils Network, who commissioned the report, said there was a “compelling” financial case for creating more unitary authorities.

Speaking to the BBC, he said that in his county of Hertfordshire there are 11 local authorities. “That means there are 11 chief executives, 526 councillors, 10 planning teams – so there is an awful lot of complexity, and there is a lot of cost.”

The network also noted “speculation” that the government could set a population limit of 600,000 people for each unitary authority and argued that “splitting historic counties” would produce “a worse deal for local taxpayers”.

It also suggested that establishing more than one unitary authority in a county would mean splitting up children’s social services and adult social care departments, risking instability.

Some council leaders strongly oppose plans to abolish smaller councils.

Sharon Taylor, Labour leader of Stevenage Council, told the BBC her local county Hertfordshire, with its population of around 1.3 million, is “just too big” to be represented by one single council.

“That is centralising local services which seems entirely wrong,” she said, adding that Britain has the “least representation at local level of anywhere in Europe already”.

“That real democratic voice that people have at local level is really important to them,” she said.

Analysis by Alex Forsyth Political Correspondent:

Local government reform is no easy task.

While the leaders of larger county councils are advocating a shift to unitary authorities, several smaller district council leaders are opposed to the idea.

This includes Conservative council leaders, which could prove to be a political headache for government.

Despite that, ministers have signalled that they’re likely to advocate fewer, larger authorities – and possibly more elected mayors – when they publish a paper on devolving power in the autumn.

Giving councils more clout to make decisions on behalf of their local areas is, the government says, part of its attempt to ‘level up the country’.

But beyond any argument about reforming structures sits the question of finance. Councils in England have long argued budgets are so stretched that some services may become unsustainable.

The government has made more money available during the Covid pandemic and says it’s given councils more spending power.

But for social care services in particular the pressure is acute, and how to reform – and fund – that struggling sector still seems far from settled.

There is a graph circulating in the care home industry that should send chills down the spine of the health and social care secretary, Matt Hancock. It predicts, under a worst-case scenario, a plunge in the demand for care homes by the end of 2021 that would leave 180,000 beds empty.

Robert Booth, Analysis www.theguardian.com

The forecast by consultants Knight Frank is not good news based on a healthier aged population, but rather is based on fresh waves of coronavirus killing thousands more people in the community and in care homes, creating a flight from the sector.

It is pessimistic, but for care home bosses reeling from the first wave of the pandemic – which killed more than 17,000 of their customers – it does not seem impossible.

Short-term, it could have a serious impact on an NHS left to look after the infirm. Longer-term, it could seriously erode the UK’s capacity to look after its most vulnerable.

Occupancy levels in care homes have already fallen substantially. Unlike the NHS, which can afford to have wards standing half-empty, the care industry is likely to respond with closures.

The UK is largely reliant on privately owned care homes to look after its most frail and vulnerable people. Many are owned by private equity companies. The largest provider, HC-One, is ultimately owned by a Cayman Islands entity. Four Seasons Health Care, which fell into administration before the pandemic, is owned by a US private equity firm.

Occupancy matters. One network with normal occupancy of 92% fell to 70%. Another said its normal occupancy of almost 90% dropped to 79%. Custom has slowly started coming back as lockdown restrictions are lifted and Covid deaths in care homes dwindle, but not in big numbers.

Some councils sent fewer than half the number of people into care homes in the first week of June than they did in 2019, while private admissions were down across the board at just 35% of 2019 levels, according to the Care Quality Commission (CQC), the regulator for England.

In a recent report monitoring the health of the market, it concluded bluntly: “Covid-19 is having a significant impact on the financial viability of adult social care services.” A quarter of directors of adult social care now have concerns about the financial sustainability of most of their residential and nursing providers.

This financial vulnerability is partly what lies behind the CQC’s refusal to expose care homes to greater public scrutiny of their death tolls during this year’s crisis. It fears a “significant impact upon providers who are already facing serious financial pressures … reducing the overall availability and choice of care services”.

In other words, care homes that suffered the highest death tolls could go to the wall as consumers react. Not only might that be unfair if the homes did everything they were told by government guidance and still lost residents, but it could put public health at risk.

Without enough care homes, a greater strain would fall on the NHS in any future rise in infection and the capacity for emptying hospital wards to make way for Covid cases would be reduced. This is the immediate danger faced by Hancock.

The government has already put £1.6bn into council services including care homes through the pandemic and may need to do more in the months to come. There is cross-party consensus on the need for a long-promised reform of social care.

Since March 2017, the government has promised a green paper on shaking up the system at least seven times, but it never came. When he became prime minister in July 2019, Boris Johnson said he would “fix the crisis in social care once and for all”. With an ageing population and a virus in circulation which is 70 times more likely to kill voters aged 80-plus than the under-40s, he might wish his party had started sooner.

Campaign group issues ’pre-action’ letter warning of judicial review over controversial planning deregulation

By Joey Gardiner27 August 2020 www.bdonline.co.uk 

A campaign group has written to the government threatening legal action unless it suspends its introduction of new permitted development (PD) rights, which are due to come in to force next Monday.

Rights: Community: Action (RCA) asked law firm Leigh Day to write a “pre-action” letter to the government, informing it of its intention to launch a judicial review of the new planning rules.

The new permitted development rights, which were announced in July as part of the government’s radical shake-up of the planning system, give building owners the right in principle to extend houses upwards, and to demolish and rebuild commercial premises as housing without planning permission.

The group is also looking to take action over the shake-up of the use-classes order, which the government has said is necessary to help save high streets.

In the pre-action letter, Leigh Day said the potential claim would be made on the basis that the government had failed to take account of consultation responses to the policy, or its own expert advice. This included the independent review of permitted development rights that it commissioned from Dr Ben Clifford at UCL.

Clifford’s report, finally published on the same day as the new statutory instruments, found that only a small fraction homes created under permitted development rights met national space standards, and were in general of worse quality “in relation to a number of factors widely linked to the health, wellbeing and quality of life” of occupants.

Consultation responses to the proposed PD rights extension were largely negative, with the government’s summary admitting that less than a third of respondents were in favour of the proposed demolition and rebuilding PD right.

The letter also pointed out that the conclusion of the government’s Building Better Building Beautiful Commission was that existing permitted development rights had “inadvertently permissioned future slums”.

In addition, the letter said the fact that the government had not undertaken an environmental assessment of the statutory instruments granting the new rights or assessed the impact on protected groups under equalities rules provided grounds for legal challenge.

It also pointed out that the new regulations were laid before parliament on July 21, the day before the summer recess, and will come into force the day before it reconvenes. This means parliament has had no opportunity to debate “the most radical reforms to our planning system since the Second World War” before they come into effect, with potentially enormous consequences for the environment.

RCA has also instructed Paul Brown QC and Alex Shattock of Landmark Chambers to act for it on the matter.

Housing secretary Robert Jenrick said the changes were designed to deliver much-needed new homes and revitalise town centres across England by cutting out unnecessary bureaucracy.

Since the introduction of a series of change-of-use PD rights in 2013, including the right to convert offices into homes, official data shows that more than 60,000 homes have been created as permitted developments.

Permitted development rights have been blamed for the creation of tiny and poor-quality homes, including flats without windows, such as those proposed in this former industrial unit in Watford

However the existing rights, which allow developers to bypass usual planning processes, have been blamed by campaigners for the creation of a huge number of tiny and poor-quality homes, including flats without windows, such as those proposed in a former industrial unit in Watford (pictured.

The RIBA described the decision to introduce more PD rights as “disgraceful”, and joined forces with the Royal Town Planning Institute, the RICS and the Chartered Institute of Building to issue a strongly worded open letter to Jenrick criticising the move.

A spokesperson for the housing ministry, which does not tend to comment on ongoing legal cases, said: “The government has received the letter and will respond in due course.”

The NHS has a “hidden waiting list” of 15.3 million patients who need follow-up appointments for health problems, according to the first analysis of its kind.

Kat Lay, Health Correspondent www.thetimes.co.uk

The official waiting list, which stands at 3.9 million, shows how many patients are yet to have their first hospital appointment after a GP referral.

However, the total number who are on hospital books in England and need appointments is not collated centrally. A new calculation, based on freedom of information requests to NHS trusts and seen by The Times, puts the figure at 15.3 million.

Although the official waiting list, after initial referral by a GP, has remained at a fairly stable level throughout the pandemic, this has been mainly driven by fewer patients joining it. Long waits have increased, however, with the number of patients waiting more than a year standing at 50,536 in June, compared with 1,643 in January, before the pandemic hit.

The new data, which has been calculated by the healthcare technology company Medefer, backs up reports of patients struggling to get vital appointments and further demonstrates the health toll that the coronavirus is taking.

The Times reported last Saturday that more than a hundred MPs had written to Boris Johnson urging him to tackle a backlog in NHS cancer care that threatens to lead to thousands of deaths over the next decade.

Bahman Nedjat-Shokouhi, the chief executive of Medefer, said: “The official waiting list is the tip of the iceberg.

“However, almost four times the number of patients need appointments, as the official figures capture only the new referrals and not the patients who require ongoing care. We need a plan to deal with both groups to avoid patients coming to harm.”

Dr Nedjat-Shokouhi, who is also an NHS consultant, said there was a risk that, as waiting time targets applied only to initial referrals from GPs, patients needing follow-up appointments might become less of a priority. He described them as “the most easy group to delay care for”.

There is no suggestion that all 15.3 million patients are overdue an appointment. However, thousands of people have had NHS care postponed or cancelled this year as the health service focused on the pandemic.

The 15.3 million figure was calculated by asking NHS trusts how many patients who needed a follow-up appointment, but were not captured in the official waiting lists known as the “referral to treatment” pathway, were on their waiting lists. One trust in seven replied, and analysts extrapolated the national figure by weighting those trusts’ figures according to the proportion of national GP referrals they received.

In recent guidance, NHS England suggested that hospitals could move to a model called “patient-initiated follow-up”, where instead of being given a specific date to return, people with certain conditions could book a new appointment when they felt that they needed it.

One NHS consultant told The Times that he was concerned this could mean that patients with serious symptoms, but who did not want to bother the NHS, could slip through the net.

Responding to the new analysis, Miriam Deakin, the director of policy and strategy at NHS Providers, said: “It’s certainly a concern that many treatments had to be delayed at the height of the pandemic, and trust leaders are keenly aware of how disruptive and distressing this has been for patients. We also know that some patients chose, for a variety of reasons, not to come forward to seek treatment or advice during lockdown in particular, and referrals to trusts have dropped for a number of conditions.

“Trusts and frontline staff are working flat out to restore and extend routine services, and we’re seeing encouraging signs that many are making good progress. It’s really important people seek help when they need it.”

Exemplifying the change in volume of treatment during the pandemic, a study being published today in the journal Open Heart shows that the number of NHS patients presenting to cardiology services at one hospital in Scotland more than halved during the lockdown, and the number of heart attacks diagnosed fell by 40 per cent.

An NHS spokesman said: “This flawed and self-serving analysis from an organisation trying to advertise its own services says nothing about whether or not the appointments it refers to are actually ‘overdue’.

“Now that hospitals have managed the first wave of coronavirus, treating more than 108,000 people for Covid-19, local health services are continuing to expand their services for routine care, alongside substantially enhanced capacity being contracted from the independent sector.

Covid-19 death tolls at individual care homes are being kept secret by regulators in part to protect providers’ commercial interests before a possible second coronavirus surge, the Guardian can reveal.

Robert Booth www.theguardian.com 

England’s Care Quality Commission (CQC) and the Care Inspectorate in Scotland are refusing to make public which homes or providers recorded the most fatalities amid fears it could undermine the UK’s care system, which relies on private operators.

In response to freedom of information requests, the regulators said they were worried that the supply of beds and standards of care could be threatened if customers left badly affected operators.

The CQC and Care Inspectorate share home-by-home data with their respective governments – but both refused to make it public.

Residents’ families attacked the policy, with one bereaved daughter describing it as “ridiculous” and another relative saying deaths data could indicate a home’s preparedness for future outbreaks.

“Commercial interest when people’s lives are at stake shouldn’t even be a factor,” said Shirin Koohyar, who lost her father in April after he tested positive for Covid at a west London care home. “The patient is the important one here, not the corporation.”

June Findlater, whose 98-year-old father died from coronavirus at a care home near Glasgow, said: “I would be terrified of any relative going into a care home without that information, because it does speak volumes … There were care homes with no deaths and that’s not a coincidence. Regulators should absolutely be able to provide this information.”

There is growing evidence linking the way care homes operate with infection rates. Research last month showed coronavirus outbreaks were up to 20 times more likely in large care homes, while a study reported on Thursday by the Guardian, points to an association with occupancy and staff-to-resident ratios.

While data on Covid deaths at individual hospital trusts is published, information about fatalities at specific care homes has so far emerged only sporadically.

The highest confirmed death toll was 26 at Melbury Court, a Durham home operated by HC-One, the UK’s largest private provider, which recorded more than 1,000 deaths in total. Seventeen people died at Bupa’s Sunnyview House care home in Leeds.

Some of the largest providers have supplied aggregate figures for confirmed and suspected Covid fatalities. Four Seasons Health Care recorded 567 Covid deaths, and Care UK, which operates 123 homes, recorded 642 deaths. Bupa reported 266 confirmed cases, declining to reveal suspected deaths.

“It is surely only right that [residents and families] should receive information about the Covid status of the home to help inform their decision about where they live,” said Helen Wildbore, the director of the Residents & Relatives Association. She said it was distressing for residents and families to only hear about deaths in homes through other sources.

The regulators’ stance emerged after freedom of information requests were made by the Guardian. The CQC said release of home-by-home mortality figures would “likely prejudice the commercial interests of care providers” and “risks creating confusion as to the prevalence, spread or impact of the virus”.

UK care homes recorded 17,721 coronavirus deaths during the spring pandemic. With further outbreaks feared this winter and beyond, a worst-case scenario drawn up by the industry analyst Knight Frank forecasts a slump in demand that could leave providers with 180,000 empty beds by the end of 2021.

The 10 largest for-profit providers make up nearly a quarter of the supply of care home places. Along with smaller chains and private providers of one or two homes, they have seen occupancy rates fall and staff and equipment costs soar, leading to fears in government for the stability of the sector going into winter.

“Without understanding the size and occupancy of the home, the underlying health conditions of its residents and circumstances like local outbreaks, the data would not help judge providers’ response to the pandemic,” the CQC said.

It said the data could be used “in ways which could drive behaviour which is detrimental to the wellbeing of vulnerable people and to wider public health”, citing the possibility that families might remove loved ones from homes where there had been deaths, to others that they mistakenly perceived to be safer.

However, it said it was continually reviewing its position and has told operators it may disclose provider-level deaths data if they do not proactively “share appropriate information with families regarding outbreaks and deaths”.

Scotland’s Care Inspectorate said transparency would “substantially prejudice services commercially” and without information such as residents’ underlying health conditions it could cause confusion about the safety of homes and jeopardise the provision of beds.

Asked about the CQC’s concern over prejudicing providers’ commercial interests, Ivan Pointon, whose father died from Covid in a Bupa care home, said: “Perhaps they [homes] should if they haven’t done very well. Nobody has been held accountable for this and it is the business structure that has caused the problems – the policies and procedures.”

Debbie Ivanova, the deputy chief inspector for adult social care at the CQC, said: “We regularly share our data with the Department of Health and Social Care, other national and local partners, and researchers … This includes data on notifications of deaths by providers in individual care homes that is used to monitor, plan and respond to the pandemic.

“On its own, the number of deaths at a care home does not provide an assessment of quality or safety. Where we have concerns we will inspect and make our findings public. Where people are at risk we will take immediate action to protect them.”

“An old maxim holds that leaders be judged not by their brilliance but by the quality of those around them. Their “court” is their first line of defence against the daily bombardment of advice and pressure. Under Johnson that court is composed of a tiny group of cronies, inexperienced and clearly bereft of the talents of those he has dismissed. He is Henry VIII awaiting his Hilary Mantel.”

Simon Jenkins www.theguardian.com 

Boris Johnson has found a new role for Britain’s most endangered transport mode, the bus. He throws civil servants under it. After decapitating the Foreign Office and Cabinet Office, he has rid himself of Public Health England and those he regards as to blame for recent exam U-turns, Sally Collier of Ofqual and Jonathan Slater of the Department for Education. They have gone to save the skin of that Nureyev of U-turns, Gavin Williamson.

Mind-changing has become the leitmotif of Johnson’s government. Derision would greet him if he used Margaret Thatcher’s boast to a Tory conference: “The Johnson’s not for turning.” The Guardian has kept a tally of 11 U-turns, from lockdowns and quarantines to school exam results, key-worker visas and Huawei’s role in 5G.

There is nothing wrong in U-turns. As Keynes reputedly said: “When events change I change my mind.” In the case of coronavirus, Johnson’s apologists can plead that everything has been unexpected and events constantly in flux. Governments initially floundered across Europe. In such circumstances, a U-turn may be a disaster averted.

But almost a dozen U-turns looks like carelessness. Johnson’s constant reversion to “the science” has now left the political roadway piled with wreckage. When he is not pursued by viruses he is tormented by the Furies of the age, algorithms. Once he – or perhaps his amanuensis Dominic Cummings – adored them. Now they rank with civil servants in his demonology. His most spectacular U-turn, into total lockdown on 23 March, was ascribed to an Imperial College algorithm worthy of the KGB’s finest hackers. It told him that if he refused to U-turn, 500,000 Britons “might die”. Johnson is now said to be furious.

At this point the boundary between being informed by science and being scared witless becomes academic. The issue is whether science is “on top or on tap”. Do its often spurious certainties diminish political responsibility? In his explanation of his U-turn over school face masks, Williamson contrived both to blame the science and insist it was his decision. To the BBC on Wednesday, the education secretary cited the World Health Organization, “evidence” and “advice”. In reality his decision was led by a policy change in Scotland.

In the case of the A-levels fiasco, Johnson this week blamed another algorithm, this time a “mutant” one. Ministers were warned what would happen if they let a machine warp A-levels’ crooked timber of mankind. They ignored the warning and ordered the machine to avoid grade inflation. It obeyed.

A similarly “mutant” algorithm has apparently seized Johnson’s now obsessively centralised housing policy, threatening to build over miles of Tory countryside in the south-east. Lobbyists for the construction industry told the algorithm to follow the market, and again it obeyed.

These algorithms are no more “mutant” than civil servants. They are programmed to inform the powers that be on the fiendish job of running a modern country. They cannot be accused of conspiring to undermine the government of the day. At present they must struggle to infer the objectives of a leaderless government that constantly changes its mind. The only “mutation” just now is in the prime minister’s head.

The art of government is that of handling advice. Followers of the satirical television series, Yes, Minister, thought it showed how civil servants always got their way. It did not. It showed bureaucratic efficiency and elected politicians in perpetual tension, with the outcome a compromise, an equilibrium. But the result was ministers nowadays feeling they must surround themselves with inexperienced “special advisers”.

A loyal civil service is vital to good government, be it radical or conservative. I suspect a future coronavirus inquiry will conclude that senior officials found themselves squeezed out of a shouting match between government scientists and panicking politicians. NHS medics at first dictated policy, demanding ministers tell the public to “protect your NHS” – which ended up being at the expense of care homes and cancer patients. At risk of losing their jobs, civil servants stop telling truth to power. Policy wobbles and the steering wheels spin.

There is no alternative in democratic government to ministerial responsibility, to an iron chain linking the electorate to parliament and cabinet. A growing body of Tory backbenchers are reportedly worried at the lack of leadership implied by Johnson’s U-turns. The gossip is that a still sickly prime minister is showing little interest in decision-making and largely out of the loop. Trump-like, he craves nightly appearances on television where we see him dressed in worker’s garb, waffling to “the people” in some distant province.

An old maxim holds that leaders be judged not by their brilliance but by the quality of those around them. Their “court” is their first line of defence against the daily bombardment of advice and pressure. Under Johnson that court is composed of a tiny group of cronies, inexperienced and clearly bereft of the talents of those he has dismissed. He is Henry VIII awaiting his Hilary Mantel.

This matters because the decision about to face Britain is far more serious in the long-term than any virus. It is over how to agree frictionless dealings with our immediate trading neighbours in Europe. I am reliably told there is not a single person within the penumbra of Downing Street remotely up to the job of such negotiation.

• Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist

The prime minister’s habit of ignoring strategic challenges and leaving everything to the last minute is no way to run a country.

Editorial www.theguardian.com 

Boris Johnson’s government is too often caught unawares by events that were not only predictable but scheduled. The start of a new school term has been a feature of autumns for a lot longer than Gavin Williamson has been education secretary, yet arrangements for keeping classrooms safe from Covid-19 are still uncertain. Ministers cannot answer a question as simple as whether masks should be worn. As with the mess over exam results, guidance issued one day is contradicted the next.

The pattern is set by the prime minister. He deals in grand ambitions, not plans for their realisation. When things go wrong he shifts the blame, as he did on Wednesday when he suggested a “mutant algorithm”, and not ministerial incompetence, was at fault over the grading fiasco. The top civil servant at the education department is being ousted; the secretary of state responsible is not.

The problem is most extreme in relation to Brexit. Every stage of the UK’s uncoupling from the EU has been mapped out by treaty, including the expiry of transitional arrangements at the end of this year. By then, a free trade deal is supposed to have been negotiated and ratified. That is getting harder with each passing week. The impediment is British reluctance to recognise what is realistically available, or understand the imbalances of power in negotiations between a lone country and a continental trading bloc.

In June, the prime minister said he could see no reason why broad agreement might not be reached in July. But there was a reason, and he was it. Mr Johnson has not paid close attention, made choices or given his negotiators bandwidth for compromise.

The UK still demands pristine sovereignty, with no obligation to align its standards with EU markets, plus a right to subsidise domestic industries to a degree not permitted under Brussels rules. The EU will not grant privileged market access on those terms, because doing so would undermine its own industries. Eurosceptic hardliners say they would prefer no deal to any obligation to match continental standards.

Whether that is a bluff or not is a question that interests EU leaders less and less. They have other things to do. At the instigation of Germany, Brexit has been dropped from the agenda of a top-level European meeting next week on the grounds that there is nothing new to discuss. Mr Johnson knows what the options are – they range from close integration to something more distant, with tariffs and quotas – and he must choose.

But he doesn’t. Instead, the government still treats Brexit in the most superficial manner, as if the performance of readiness counts as the real thing. A report that Tony Abbott, a former Australian prime minister, might take on a senior trade advisory role is a case in point. Setting aside Mr Abbott’s notoriously rebarbative character, the appointment would be consistent with the myth, common among Brexit supporters, that trade deals are conjured into being by swaggering personalities.

The reality is that good outcomes in a trade deal are achieved by the application of time, attention to detail, experienced negotiators and a rational appraisal of the other side’s interests. The UK government is deficient on all those metrics.

As with the challenge of reopening schools, or grading exams never sat, the job does not get any easier with neglect. Leaving everything to the last minute, testing the fixity of deadlines, is a method that might have worked for Mr Johnson when he was a newspaper columnist, but it is no way to run a government. He operates one day at a time, stumbling from one problem to the next, with no sense of a strategic horizon. Such a man cannot safely settle the UK’s long-term relations with its neighbours. Nor, for that matter, should he be trusted with many other tasks required of a prime minister.

Mid Devon District Council has been asked to continue to prepare a revised joint strategic statutory plan following the death of the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan.

Daniel Clark www.devonlive.com

The Greater Exeter Strategic Plan was due to provide the overall strategy and level of housing and employment land required across Exeter, East Devon, Mid Devon and Teignbridge in the period to 2040.

But last Thursday, East Devon District Council voted to withdraw from the process, throwing the overall strategy into tatters.

Mid Devon councillors, when they met on Wednesday night, had also been recommended to withdraw from the process, but following East Devon’s decision, the cabinet recommendation had been superseded by events.

Wednesday’s meeting saw calls to send the matter back to cabinet to bring forward a new recommendation rejected, as was an amendment to explore with neighbouring planning authorities, options for cooperation in meeting joint planning objectives with a decision based on how to proceed made by full council within six months.

Councillors eventually backed an amendment put forward by the leader of council that Mid Devon should commit to prepare a revised joint strategic statutory plan and that should officers subsequently advise that it does not prove to be the most appropriate option in planning terms, then to consider a review of other options for further strategic and cross-boundary planning matters, and that officers should bring forward the preparation of the next Local Plan Review.

Putting forward his amendment, Cllr Bob Deed, the council leader, said: “It is very clear, GESP is dead. We will need to get on with discussions with the other councils formerly in GESP, and there is no justification for any delay past tonight.

Councillor Bob Deed, Leader of the Council, Party: Independent, Ward: Cadbury

“I was in favour of working together in GESP, but East Devon’s withdrawal means the site options document cannot go out to consultation due to the East Devon content of it. The GESP cannot now continue in the way envisaged due to the amended geographical area and the consideration has now moved on from whether to stay in GESP to a broader issue of how we want to go ahead with strategic planning and if we want to work with neighbouring councils.

“GESP was born out of opportunities to work and address cross-boundary spatial planning issues in a more meaningful way and reflective of the geographical travel to work area. Informal working together is no substitute for joint working with the neighbouring councils and continuing to plan jointly sends a clear message of commitment and engagement.”

“I will enter the discussions in good faith to see what can be done for the benefit of the people in Mid Devon along with a collaborative approach with the authorities to which we are bound.”

Cllr Bob Evans, the leader of the Conservative group, added: “GESP doesn’t exist anymore as in the papers as another authority chose to pull out. We need to go away and talk to our neighbours and come up with a plan as to how we take control of what happening in the area. This amendment gives us more of an opportunity. Is it GESP 2? I don’t know, but East Devon doesn’t want a GESP 2 and we don’t want a GESP 2, so that is not what we will get.”

But Cllr Luke Taylor, who had recommended that the council pull out of GESP, said that Cllr Deed’s proposal, which will still conduct a further call for sites process, ‘looked to create a new GESP’. He added: “It cannot be ruled out that if we remain in this ‘GESP’, that we might have to take more than our required number of housing. The criteria for the new GESP will continue with the original policies so the sites will remain and it could decimate the rural communities. I did originally support GESP but I won’t make that mistake again.”

Cllr Graeme Barnell added: “Members need to lead the process of renegotiating GESP, and we haven’t learnt if we allow officers to go ahead and form a reheated version. There were some major problems with GESP and we don’t want a reheated version of the same thing.”

Cllr Jo Norton added that the main message she was getting from her residents is they don’t see GESP as an opportunity but something opposed on them that they don’t have any say over, while Cllr Elizabeth Wainwright said that while there was some good stuff in GESP, the world has changed and it is just not suitable anymore.

She added: “COVID-19, climate change, and Brexit, are all threats to the opportunities this was supposed to give us. It feels wise to stop and say what the world we are now in, and what is the best plan to serve us? GESP is not fit for purpose anymore.”

Following councillors voting by 26 votes to 13 against sending the matter back to cabinet to make a recommendation, they then voted by 22 votes to 15 with one abstentions against Cllr Barnell’s amendment to explore with neighbouring planning authorities options for cooperation in meeting joint planning objectives, before voting by 25 votes to 10, with two abstentions, for Cllr Deed’s amendment.

Mid Devon will now commit to prepare a revised joint strategic statutory plan, but should this prove not to be the most appropriate option in planning terms, consider a review of other options for further strategic and cross-boundary planning matters with willing participatory authorities in the Housing Market Area.

Officers will review and incorporate relevant elements of the GESP Draft Policies and Site Options consultation document and other supporting documentation and evidence that remain valid and jointly prepare necessary technical studies and evidence for the new strategic plan, including conducting a further call for sites process, align monitoring and share resources where there are planning and cost benefits for doing so.

The Council’s commitment to the delivery of high quality development at Culm Garden Village as part of the Garden Communities Programme has been reaffirmed, and officers will be tasked to bring forward the preparation of the next Local Plan Review.

Mid Devon seem to have opened a “can of worms” by deciding to fudge the issue of withdrawing from GESP. (Usually the only way to re-can them is to get a bigger can).

Sadly, people find it so difficult to let go of bad ideas when so much human capital has been invested in them.

Mid Devon are doing this a time when Councils would be advised to spend all the effort they can muster on preparing to address the Government’s new planning proposals (to be followed by the new devolution ideas).

Having been decisive, we, in East Devon, are now interested spectators and can concentrate on the more immediate problems.

Background

At the 2019 election the Conservatives lost 11 seats and overall control of Mid Devon.

Current balance of power is Conservatives 18; Liberal Democrats 12; Independents 10; Greens 2.

Conservatives are in opposition against a coalition of the remaining 24 councillors. The Cabinet of eight is led by Councillor Bob Deed  (Ind) with four Liberal Democrats, two other Independents and a Green. 

Last night the full council discussed the recommendation from Cabinet to withdraw from GESP.

Report from Owl’s Correspondent who watched the debate on Zoom.

On August 6th  the cabinet of Mid Devon District Council discussed how they should proceed with GESP, as all four participating councils were tasked to do.

After much discussion , it was decided by a majority of 7-1 that the cabinet would recommend the following to full Council:

1. Withdraw from GESP 
2. Bring forward the preparation of the next Local Plan Review 
3. Enter into discussions with our former GESP partners on a new Joint Strategic Planning Framework that ensures responsibility for development site allocations and targets is retained with the Local Plan

The one dissenting voice came from the leader of the Council, Councillor Bob Deed, who is Mid Devon DC’s representative  on  GESP. 

Full council discussed their membership of the GESP on 26th August. 

Again much debating, where various councillors proclaimed that ”GESP is dead”, life and working practises have changed post Covid , Mid Devon could become a suburb of Exeter whilst traffic would clog the roads as people travelled to work in Exeter. Indeed there was much criticism of the whole plan being “Exetercentric”. More than one councillor expressed dismay that the plans for huge numbers of houses outlined in the GESP would destroy the character and heritage of existing market towns and villages which would effectively become dormitory towns for Exeter. Another councillor reported that she had been inundated with messages from residents concerned about the disproportionate number of houses proposed by GESP  in their area. 

Meanwhile the Leader, Bob Deed had put forward an amendment, set out below, which essentially proposed a “son of GESP” (his words), to keep cross border agreements in place, especially in the Housing Market.

The Amendment

1. Commit to prepare a revised joint strategic statutory plan; 

2. Should Officers subsequently advise that 1. proves not to be the most appropriate option in planning terms, consider a review of other options for further strategic and cross-boundary planning matters with willing participatory authorities in the Housing Market Area; 

3. Instruct officers to review and incorporate relevant elements of the GESP Draft Policies and Site Options consultation document and other supporting documentation and evidence that remain valid; 

4. Jointly prepare necessary technical studies and evidence for the new strategic plan, including conducting a further call for sites process, align monitoring and share resources where there are planning and cost benefits for doing so; 

5. Reaffirm the Council’s commitment to the delivery of high quality development at Culm Garden Village as part of the Garden Communities Programme and continue to work collaboratively as a group of Councils in the garden communities programme with Homes England; and 

6. Task Officers to prepare a further report on staff resources to prepare a revised joint strategic plan with resources to be provided equitably to the team through equalisation arrangements. 

7. Task Officers to bring forward the preparation of the next Local Plan Review.

 A vote on this amendment was carried by 25 – 10, with two abstentions.

In other words, the door is still open for Mid Devon District Council to form some kind of re-hashed GESP with the other two remaining councils, Exeter and Teignbridge. 

A second amendment submitted by Councillor Barnell that GESP could not go ahead following cabinet recommendation to withdraw, was not successful. 

(Isn’t this rebellion already happening? – Owl)

Conservative MPs angry that planning reforms could mean most new homes in suburbs and shires – and council will have less power to block

By Nigel MorrisAugust 27, 2020 inews.co.uk 

Boris Johnson is facing a fresh Conservative rebellion over proposed changes to planning laws, which party critics claim will accelerate housebuilding in the countryside.

Tory MPs, who return to Westminster next week following a chaotic summer of policy U-turns by the Government, are also angry that the moves threaten to impose rigid quotas of new homes on local areas.

“If you think A-levels were bad, wait until people get their heads round these reforms,” a former Cabinet minister told the Spectator magazine.

The Prime Minister has vowed to drive through the “most radical reforms to our planning system since the end of the Second World War” in an effort to increase the supply of affordable properties for first-time buyers.

However, he risks a Tory backlash over a proposed formula for determining how many houses are required in individual council areas.

Cities will ‘stagnate’

As part of the Government’s plans to build more than 300,000 homes a year, every local authority will be given an estimate – set by an algorithm – of the projected demand for new housing in their areas. They risk sanction if they fail to set aside enough land to set aside enough land to meet that target.

Neil O’Brien, the MP for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, has warned the suggested system would lead to a steep rise in numbers of new homes in Tory-controlled shires and suburbs while city centres in need of regeneration would see little change.

“It would be quite difficult to explain to Conservative voters why they should take more housing in their areas to allow large Labour-run cities nearby to continue to stagnate rather than regenerate,” he said.

The proposed reforms will limit the ability of local authorities to block projects, which will speed up the planning process. However, it will also set up conflicts with Conservative council leaders – and supporters – in areas that will be expected to accept the largest numbers of new developments.

MPs restless and dismayed

When the proposals were unveiled this month, the MP for the Cotswolds, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, argued that watering down councils’ power of veto could lead to sub-standard homes.

He said: “We have got to be really sure that we are not building slums of tomorrow by building today at low quality.”

With a majority of 80, a Government could normally afford to shrug off voices of complaint over moves designed to breathe new life into an economy ravaged by coronavirus.

But many Tory MPs are restless and dismayed over Downing Street’s handling of the pandemic, and have seen Mr Johnson order a succession of U-turns.

Many are already exercised over the over the state of post-Brexit trade negotiations with Brussels.

His plans for massive housebuilding threaten to put him on a fresh collision course with his backbenchers.

Rishi Sunak and archbishop drawn into Yorkshire dales housing row

Harriet Sherwood  www.theguardian.com

Plan to turn church school into affordable homes undone by requirement to accept top bid

A plan to convert a former church school in the Yorkshire dales into affordable housing has been scuppered by a legal requirement to accept the highest bid for the property in a row that has drawn in the chancellor of the exchequer and the archbishop of Canterbury.

Rishi Sunak has urged church leaders to reconsider the sale of Arkengarthdale Church of England primary school, and members of the community have demanded the intervention of Justin Welby.

But the diocese of Leeds and the parish vicar say their hands are legally tied, even though a C of E commission is investigating ways the church can help tackle the housing crisis – including by building affordable housing on its surplus land.

The school closed a year ago after the number of pupils fell to five, a consequence of a declining and ageing population.

The building’s owners, Swaledale with Arkengarthdale parochial church council (PCC), put it up for sale with an asking price of £185,000. The school was bought in 1933 for £325.

The Upper Dales Community Land Trust, a not-for-profit company that develops and manages homes and other community assets, put forward a plan to convert the single-storey building into three two-bedroom homes and one one-bedroom home. The proposal was backed by the parish council, Richmondshire district council and the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority.

The trust put in a bid for the property of £150,000 but found itself up against seven other interested parties that offered the asking price. Under charities law, the PCC was obliged to accept the highest bid.

“We went back to the trust and gave them the opportunity to raise their offer,” said Caroline Hewlett, the vicar of Swaledale. “We went round and round to see if we could sell it to them, but we had to keep to the law. We are legally bound to take the higher price.”

Stephen Stubbs, the trust’s chair and a former pupil at the school, said: “The church has taken a legal view but not considered its moral obligation to the people of Arkengarthdale. The school was bought through local people for the benefit of local people.

“The school building is the last chance to provide affordable housing to secure a more sustainable and brighter future for the community of Arkengarthdale.”

Sunak, the MP for Richmond, said he was disappointed by the sale to a higher bidder. In a letter to the PCC asking it to reconsider the trust’s offer, he said: “The trust’s mission to provide affordable homes for rent in the Yorkshire dales is an important one for the future sustainability of these rural communities which we are all proud to serve.”

Last year, Welby set up a commission on housing, church and community to identify ways the C of E could help tackle the housing crisis. It said the church had “a significant contribution to make in this area. We have land and resources that can be used to help meet the need for more affordable housing.”

According to Stubbs, “in this case, it appears his vision to encourage and actively help affordable housing to be created from [the church’s] estate is not borne out by reality as the exact opposite is happening, with his prophecy being sacrificed in the interests of short-term profit”.

On Wednesday, the trust released Lambeth Palace’s response to its call for Welby to step in, which said the archbishop was powerless to intervene in a diocese and parish matter.

The trust is now in the process of applying for charitable status with the Charity Commission in the hope of making it eligible to buy the school at below the asking price.

Dear “Minister”, we need to have a serious conversation about housing affordability in low wage areas, attractive to wealthy retirees, and the myth that developer-led “build, build, build” is a solution. Best wishes, Owl.

PS Are you reviewing the planning formula before or after consultation with the “plebs rustica”?

Steven Swinford, Deputy Political Editor www.thetimes.co.uk /

Ministers are reviewing an algorithm at the centre of planning reforms after a backlash from Tory MPs.

Under the changes to planning laws, local discretion over the rate of housebuilding will be removed and central government will “distribute” an annual target, at present 337,000 a year, between local councils that will be required to designate enough land to meet the target.

Analysis by Lichfields, a planning consultancy, has suggested that outside London much of the new housing will be concentrated in Conservative local authority areas in the suburbs and the shires, rather than in town centres.

The Spectator reported that the algorithm, which is under consultation, was likely to be changed. “At the top of the housing ministry there is an acceptance that a more refined formula is needed,” it said.

However, the government is retaining its central objective of building more homes in areas with the worst affordability. “It is delusional to think that the housing problem can be solved by developments in ‘Labour cities’ while leaving ‘Tory shires’ untouched,” the magazine said.

This means that there will be a significant rise in the number of homes in relatively affluent, predominantly Tory-controlled areas such as the shires.

The reforms have been met with opposition on all sides of the party. In London, Tory MPs are concerned that they will have to accept a huge increase in new homes in their constituencies, leading to concerns about quality.

Elsewhere Tory MPs argue that more homes need to be built in city and town centres, on brownfield sites rather than on greenfield sites.

This week Neil O’Brien, the Tory MP for Harborough, Leicestershire, raised concerns that under the government’s plans fewer houses would be built in many city centres, putting more pressure on suburbs and the countryside.

“Lots of our large cities have brownfield land and capacity to take more housing and it seems strange when planning to ‘level up’ to be levelling down their housing targets to rates even lower than they have been delivering,” he told The Times.

“It would be quite difficult to explain to Conservative voters why they should take more housing in their areas to allow large Labour-run cities near by to continue to stagnate rather than regenerate.”

According to Lichfields, new housing will be built predominantly in London and the southeast. The number built in London would nearly treble, to 93,532, and in the southeast would increase by 57 per cent to 61,000.

The increase in the East of England would be 52 per cent, the East Midlands 33 per cent, the West Midlands 25 per cent and the South West 41 per cent. The North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber would all have lower overall numbers of homes built than the present three-year average.

There are significant disparities within regions under the model. In Leicester new homes would fall by 32 per cent, compared with a rise of 70 per cent across the rest of Leicestershire. In Nottingham housebuilding would fall by 30 per cent, but for the rest of Nottinghamshire it would rise by 73 per cent. In Liverpool new homes would fall by 59 per cent.

Mr Johnson has promised to rejuvenate the economy with a “build, build, build” strategy. Councils are to be given up to three and half years to designate areas for growth, renewal or protection. Once agreed, however, local politicians will have little or no say over specific applications that fit the rules.

Ministers have insisted that local residents will be consulted about how land is designated. They are braced, however, for opposition from councils, especially Tory-controlled local authorities. Requirements for developers to provide affordable housing are to be relaxed.

Mr Johnson and his senior adviser Dominic Cummings have long railed against the planning system, which they argue puts Britain at a disadvantage against international competitors.

A spokesman for the ministry of housing said: “The Planning for the Future White Paper sets out longer term reforms which will bring forward a simpler, more transparent planning system with a much greater emphasis on good quality design and environmental standards.

“In addition, the consultation on changes to the current planning system sets out the elements we want to balance when determining local housing need, including meeting our target of delivering 300,000 homes, tackling affordability challenges in the places people most want to live and renewing and levelling up our towns and cities.”

Matthew Dresch www.mirror.co.uk 

Up to 30 teenagers have been linked to a coronavirus outbreak in Plymouth after returning home from a holiday in Zante.

At least 11 youngsters have tested positive following the trip to the Greek island, which is not on the UK quarantine list, Plymouth Live reports.

Some of the infected teens reportedly went out partying in the city over the weekend, potentially spreading the disease.

Plymouth City Council said the people who have tested positive have either shown no signs of Covid-19 or just minor symptoms, such as a sore throat.

The authority said as many as 30 young people around the ages of 18 and 19, mainly from Plymouth, could be linked to the outbreak after returning home last week.

The council and supporting partners are now ramping up reminders to stay safe and follow social distancing guidance over the Bank Holiday weekend – and self-quarantine depending on if you have travelled back to England from a holiday destination not on the approved travel corridor list.

The latest countries to be removed and added can be found on the UK Government website  here.

Plymouth City Council’s Director for Public Health, Ruth Harrell, said her team were working alongside national systems to contact and trace the young people thought to have been affected – who have been ‘really helpful and cooperative.’

“This deadly disease spreads,” she warned.

“We know that some of these young people had no symptoms, and so carried on as normal, including a night out in Plymouth’s bars and restaurants, until they became aware of the risk.

Greece is not on the UK’s quarantine list (Image: Getty Images)

“That means more people could be infected. While young people might have fairly mild symptoms, and sometimes none that you would notice, our big concern is that we know it can be very serious for people who have existing health problems or are older.

“We are in contact with all the pubs and bars across the city to remind them of their front line role in stopping the spread of this virus. They need to help us to protect the city.

“But it also needs everyone to help too. If you think you’ve been in contact with someone who has tested positive, you need to stay at home.

“If you get any symptoms, get tested as well as isolate. There’s no two ways round it.”

She said that whilst the city was still ‘below the point of triggering a lockdown’ – this incident ‘just goes to show how easily life can change.’

“We all need to remain vigilant, whatever age we are and take proper precautions,” she said.

Leader of Plymouth City Council Tudor Evans, said: “We cannot afford to be complacent. If you are going out you must follow the guidance.

“This is our wake up call.”

A small number of workers at a medical factory in Plymouth, which makes products critical in the fight against COVID-19, also tested positive for coronavirus this week.

Since this report about the overall case rise in Devon, reports have been coming in of up to 30 Plymouth school children having been infected on a Greek holiday (posted separately) – Owl

A spike in coronavirus cases across Devon which has seen the number of positive results more than triple in recent weeks is down to returning holidaymakers, the county’s Director of Public Health has said.

Daniel Clark www.devonlive.com

While the number of cases in Devon remain very low compared to the rest of the country and below the national average, the average number of cases being confirmed a day has risen from less than two at the start of August to six as of now.

The number of confirmed cases of coronavirus in the Devon County Council area in the last seven days has risen to 32, with clusters of three of more having been identified in Seaton, Teignmouth North and Bradninch, Silverton & Thorverton, as well as in Mutley in Plymouth and Wellswood in Torbay.

However, compared to the rest of the country, ‘rates still remain low’, Devon’s Director of Public Health, Dr Virginia Pearson, has said, adding the increase in numbers is largely due to Devon residents returning home from trips abroad, having contracted coronavirus infection while away on holiday.

They were picked up by the NHS Test and Trace programme on their return to the country, and all appropriate containment procedures, including self-isolation, have been followed, she added.

“These cases show how vital it is that we all remain extra vigilant when travelling at home or abroad,” says Dr Pearson.

“The NHS Test and Trace system has done its job here very well, and we’re confident that the risk of onward infection in the community is very low as a result of residents doing the right thing and taking the right actions quickly.

“What it does show is that people need to be extra careful when travelling abroad and must continue to respect social distancing, wash their hands regularly, avoid crowded areas and wear face coverings as directed.

“If people do fall ill with symptoms of COVID-19 while away they need to avoid contact with others as much as possible, be careful when travelling back from the airport, self-isolate immediately when back home and phone 111 for advice on testing.

“Fortunately, in this case, our international travellers have acted sensibly and followed this guidance.

“People should be aware of the risks associated with any travelling abroad and be careful on their return, and to be tested quickly if they feel ill.”

In the past week (August 19 to August 25), there have been five cases confirmed by specimen date in East Devon, eight in Exeter, nine in Mid Devon, two in North Devon, two in the South Hams, five in Teignbridge, one in Torridge, and none in West Devon, with a further ten cases in Torbay and sixteen in Plymouth – some of the latter are linked to the BD factory in Roborough.

Other recently-confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Devon are not connected, Dr Pearson, added, saying that in each case the necessary containment procedures have been quickly followed.

“We must remember, while not for one moment being complacent, that the rate of confirmed cases in Devon remains very low,” says Dr Pearson.

“That’s how we want it to stay. We will see numbers rise and fall, but we must all focus on what we can do to keep those numbers low. That means wear a face covering when in enclosed spaces (to protect others), keep a safe distance – 2 metres where possible, wash your hands with soap and water often and use hand sanitiser if handwashing is not possible, cover your mouth and nose with a tissue or your sleeve if you cough or sneeze, and do not touch your eyes, nose or mouth if your hands are not clean.”

While the number of cases across Devon has risen, the number of people in hospital has not increased. Just 16 people across the whole of the South West are currently in hospital having tested positive for coronavirus – not necessarily having been admitted because of it – with the numbers having fallen in the past week.

The latest figures available by hospital trust show that as of August 13 – when there were 15 people in the South West in hospital – just one of them was in Devon, with one patient in Torbay Hospital.

Following the cancellation of the scheduled Team Devon Local Outbreak Engagement Board that was provisionally due to be held today, which would have seen the rise in cases discussed, the Local Democracy Reporting Service had asked to speak to a member of the board, but no-one was available to speak. Devon County Council provided a statement that addressed the majority of the questions that would have been asked.

Devon’s householders have the chance to help the county become net-zero by joining Devon Climate Emergency’s (DCE) solar panel group-buying scheme.

eastdevon.gov.uk 

Devon’s householders have the chance to help the county become net-zero by joining Devon Climate Emergency’s (DCE) solar panel group-buying scheme.

DCE is made up of Devon’s principle public and private sector organisations, and they have joined forces to draw up a Carbon Plan, the county’s roadmap to carbon neutrality.

The DCE’s latest project is Solar Together and, with group buying experts iChoosr Ltd, they are offering homeowners the chance to buy high quality solar PV more cheaply than if they were buying alone.

Led by Devon County Council, the scheme is partnered by 10 of Devon’s planning authorities, who are all members of DCE’s Response Group (DCERG).

The scheme’s partners are East Devon, Mid Devon, North Devon, South Hams, Teignbridge and Torridge District Councils, West Devon Borough Council, Exeter City Council and Dartmoor and Exmoor National Park Authorities.

Solar Together is one of the ways the DCE is helping local people take a positive step to reduce their own carbon footprints.

Research by the University of Exeter shows that 19 per cent of all Devon’s carbon emissions are created by our homes, with more than half of those by grid-supplied electricity. Installing solar panels will reduce the amount of grid-supplied electricity needed for things like hot water, with a transfer to more eco-friendly solar energy.

This scheme follows four similar projects run across the country last year which promise to deliver over 1,300 installations, saving an estimated 28,000 tonnes of carbon emissions from being produced.

If you are interested, the first step is to register for free HERE – by registering, there is no obligation to install panels.

A ‘reverse’ auction involving pre-vetted suppliers will then take place this autumn and the winning bid will be the most cost-effective one for registered residents to then consider.

Registered households will then receive a recommendation, specifically tailored to the details they submitted in their registration.

If they accept the recommendation, the specifics of their installation will be confirmed with a technical survey and then a date can be set for installation.

Dr Phil Norrey, Chairman of the DCERG, said;

The DCE is committed to ensuring that Devon is net-zero by 2050 at the very latest.

To achieve this, changes will have to be made at all levels, by everyone and every organisation.

We will all have to take responsibility for our own carbon footprints, work together as a community and make the most of the opportunities that new technologies offer in areas including generating electricity sustainably.

Solar Together brings together these three key elements, and by investing in a solar PV system, you will be part of the solution and will own your own solar ‘power plant’ which will continue to help reduce emissions and save you money for at least the next two decades.

I would encourage any of our residents interested in cutting their energy bills and contributing to tackling climate change to register.”

Councillor Marianne Rixson, Portfolio Holder for Climate Change at East Devon District Council said:

I welcome this group-buying scheme for solar panels. Not only will it enable home owners to have high quality solar panels installed at a more affordable price but it will also help our district to achieve its carbon emission goals.”

Marie-Louise Abretti, iChoosr UK Solar Manager added

With residents of Devon looking for opportunities to reduce their carbon emissions and save on energy bills, the Solar Together group-buying scheme offers a straightforward way to make an informed decision and access a competitive offer from a trusted provider.”

To register, click HERE.

More speculation about the PM – Owl

Sean O’Grady www.independent.co.uk 

For his political enemies, in his own party as well as the opposition, it must be tempting to wonder if the brief, colourful and sometimes shocking Age of Johnson might soon be drawing to its close. With yet another U-turn, this time on face coverings, the return to schools in England could turn out to be as big a flop as the exam results fiasco, as the “world-beating” track and trace app or as embarrassing as various other faltering government initiatives in recent months (free school meals, NHS surcharge), it might indeed be difficult to see what use the Conservatives would have for Boris Johnson.

Johnson has already, lest we forget, spaffed a vast amount of political capital in the effort to save Dominic Cummings, and the prime minister has squandered goodwill at all levels of the Tory machine. Perhaps he’s outlived his usefulness now. Having won a general election (was it only eight months ago?) with a thumping majority, trounced Jeremy Corbyn and (sort of) got Brexit done, suddenly the dude Johnson looks more of a dud. He is surprisingly weak and vulnerable, unable to navigate out of the Covid-19 morass. The Tories have always been famously unsentimental about getting shot of failing leaders, no matter what their past achievements may be – May, IDS, Heath, even Thatcher were all publicly forced out. Michael Howard, back in 2005, was the last to go at a moment of his own choosing; before that you have to go back to Stanley Baldwin in 1937 to find a Tory leader who was entirely happy and content to retire, at peace with their successor, their party and its prospects.

It is always the next election that counts, and the Tories have lost too much ground in recent weeks to feel entirely comfortable with the current leadership. They’ve still got a modest lead, but it’s more thanks to lingering mistrust of Labour rather than confidence in the Conservatives. Keir Starmer’s personal ratings against Johnson look good. So too do Nicola Sturgeon’s in Scotland, where a different kind of political battle needs to be fought and won. Voters are more fickle these days too.

There are even some odd rumours circulating that Johnson himself may be contemplated soon standing down. He can sense where things are going. The fun’s stopped.

In the immediate term, parliament will be back soon, which will mean a resumption of plotting. The Tories have long been addicted to factionalism, and seem constantly on the search for some fresh channel through which to indulge their self destructive tendencies. What success they’ve enjoyed in their decade in power has been despite themselves. The modern Tory instinct for disloyalty is awesome.

That said, Johnson will probably be OK for a few months yet. The resignation of Ofqual boss Sally Collier and a last-chance warning for Gavin Williamson, as well as plans to reorganise the exams regulator, will probably get the critics off his back; and the science suggests that the schools won’t become centres for spreading the virus through communities. After all, all of the emergency local lockdowns happened while the schools were shut.

The longer term also looks relatively benign for Johnson. A general election need not be held until almost 2025; it is at least possible that Covid-19 and Brexit will be bad memories by then, and politics will look very different to today. The economy ought to be improving, if feebly, with luck buoyed by a global recovery.

It’s the medium term – the next six months to a year – that will be the most hazardous for the prime minister and his party. Brexit and a potential second wave of coronavirus, maybe combined with floods and flu will represent a quadruple whammy on an already sickly country. Imagine another national lockdown plus massive disruption from the loss of trade with Europe; the headlines would be of shortages and mass unemployment, evictions and collapsing public finances. Johnson’s enemies might consider it better timing to allow him to face his darkest hours (mostly of his own making) before they attempt to pick up whatever is left. He can then be left to write his memoirs, with whatever truths he chooses to embellish his tales.

Trials of the Oxford coronavirus vaccine may have gathered enough data to show whether it works and is safe by the end of the year – but it will then need to go through the regulatory process, scientists say.

Sarah Boseley www.theguardian.com

Prof Andrew Pollard, the director of the Oxford Vaccine Group, said it is “just possible” that there may be enough clinical trial data on Oxford University’s Covid-19 vaccine to put before the regulators this year.

Prof Chris Whitty, England’s chief medical officer, has said a vaccine may not be ready until next winter. Pollard suggested they were hoping to go faster.

“I think that Chris Whitty is quite rightly being cautious, that it could take as long as that to first of all demonstrate a vaccine works and is safe and then to go through the processes of regulators looking at that very carefully to make sure everything’s been done correctly,” Pollard told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

“But it is also just possible that, if the cases accrue rapidly in the clinical trials, that we could have that data to put before regulators this year, and then there would be a process that they go through in order to make a full assessment of the data.”

That could still mean the vaccine would not be approved this year. The timing is also dependent on trials in countries with high infection rates, so that a clear difference can be seen between those who get the vaccine and those who do not.

“Even with 1,000 people, eventually you’ll have enough information to know whether or not a vaccine works, but that could take years. So, having 20,000 people in our trials already means that that period of time will be shorter, but unfortunately I can’t quite predict the future about how many cases are going to occur.”

Pollard said he hoped that 50,000 people would be involved in the clinical trial for the Oxford University Covid-19 vaccine candidate.

But he stressed that the size of the trial “isn’t really the issue”. What is critical is the number of cases of infection.

“There are a number of trials that we’re running from Oxford here in the UK, in Brazil, and also in South Africa, and the combined size of those three trials together is around about 20,000 people, and AstraZeneca are moving forwards in their trials in the US, hoping to start enrolling 30,000 people.

“So within the trials of the vaccine that was developed here at Oxford University, we’d expect to have perhaps 50,000 or more people in the trials in total.”

He said they would want to have evidence that the vaccine actually works before going to any regulator, including in the US where Donald Trump has said he could seek emergency approval for a vaccine such as the Oxford one in October.

“Emergency use authorisations are well established by regulators both in the United States and in Europe; in fact, you may be aware just this week, the FDA [the US Food and Drug Administration] has granted emergency use authorisation for plasma therapy,” he said.

“So the process of going through emergency use authorisation in an emergency is well established but it still involves having carefully conducted data, just as we are collecting information about the vaccines in clinical trials that are conducted rigorously and evidence that it actually works.

“And so, for our suite of trials that we’re running from Oxford, we would expect to first of all have safety data and then evidence that the vaccine actually works.

“And before anything were to progress from there and of course it’d be AstraZeneca who would then take that forward to regulators.”

AstraZeneca, the pharmaceutical company that is Oxford’s partner in the vaccine development, is separately trialling a new drug that it hopes will prevent and treat Covid-19, with the first volunteers already receiving doses.

The company said the drug, known as AZD7442, is a combination of two monoclonal antibodies.

AstraZeneca said the trial, which will include up to 48 healthy volunteers in the UK aged 18 to 55, will be focused on safety, and the body’s reaction to the drug and how it processes it.

Sir Mene Pangalos, the executive vice-president of biopharmaceuticals research and development at AstraZeneca, said: “This trial is an important milestone in the development of our monoclonal antibody combination to prevent or treat Covid-19.

“This combination of antibodies, coupled to our proprietary half-life extension technology, has the potential to improve both the effectiveness and durability of use, in addition to reducing the likelihood of viral resistance.”

.”..The party that now governs Britain is a weird chimera – a limp Tory body, fired by the imported spirit of Ukip (latterly, the Brexit party), with Johnson’s head hosting Dominic Cummings’ brain. Its doctrine is also a hybrid. Tories who think about such things explain Downing Street’s plan in terms of leftward tilts on economics and rightward slants on nation, culture and identity. …”

Rafael Behr www.theguardian.com 

Tens of millions of people have already had a meal subsidised by the government. More will take advantage of Rishi Sunak’s “eat out to help out” policy before it ends next Monday. None of those diners is in doubt over the identity of their benefactor. The scheme has been marketed with the chancellor’s signature. His party gets a meagre portion of leftover credit.

Propping up restaurants with public debt is not typical Conservative economics, but the pandemic demanded ideological flex and Toryism is an elastic concept. That is the key to its historic success in winning and holding power. Sunak’s mastery of that adaptive method will serve his ambition well, and his ambition has an appetite.

The chancellor understands that leaders need personal brands and how failure to craft one for yourself risks having one imposed by your enemies. “Dishy Rishi” will be happy to join “Boris” in the club of politicians on first-name terms with the electorate. That connection buys a lot of support among Tory MPs, mindful of how shallow affection for their party can be, and how deep resentment of it can run.

Fifteen years have elapsed since David Cameron first identified a need to “decontaminate” the Tories. He succeeded to the extent that Britain has had a Conservative prime minister for the past decade. But winning has involved a cycle of brand laundry that has bleached the party’s identity to a faint pattern, barely distinct behind the character of its leader. Boris Johnson then dyed it the deepest shade of Brexit.

A few Tories balked. Most embraced the change with sincere zeal or went along with it as the best strategy to close down the threat from Nigel Farage. MPs who once muttered in private that Johnson was unfit to be prime minister queued to serve in his cabinet.

In electoral terms, the gamble paid out handsomely. Johnson won big and, with the aid of a vote-repellant Labour leader, captured places that once recoiled from the Tory touch.

The party that now governs Britain is a weird chimera – a limp Tory body, fired by the imported spirit of Ukip (latterly, the Brexit party), with Johnson’s head hosting Dominic Cummings’ brain. Its doctrine is also a hybrid. Tories who think about such things explain Downing Street’s plan in terms of leftward tilts on economics and rightward slants on nation, culture and identity. The aim is to lock in the allegiance of voters poached from Labour by spending on some things (the NHS and infrastructure), while clamping down on other things (crime and immigration).

That trajectory is not very different from the one Theresa May had in mind but failed to pursue for want of time and parliamentary bandwidth. Johnson has the Commons majority. His problem is money. While Sunak is happy to borrow in spades for a pandemic response, the chancellor and other previously frugal Tories are reaching the limit of their tolerance for a fiscal free-for-all.

Without a blank cheque for marginal constituencies, Downing Street will rely on the constant mining of culture-war grievances to persuade people that Johnson is on their side, while a cosmopolitan, London-centric, “woke” Labour party is not. That would be more effective if Keir Starmer responded symmetrically, launching himself into culture wars from a radical left trench, which he shows no sign of doing.

Meanwhile, Conservatives who are attached to the idea of being in a party with its own history and values, as distinct from a band of pro-Johnson political mercenaries, have another problem: Cummings. The prime minister has maverick tendencies but a recognisably Tory style and instincts. His chief adviser does not. Cummings is unsentimental about venerable institutions. He despises the rituals and hierarchies that make a party. His cold-blooded utilitarianism is essentially un-conservative: old structures are presumed obsolete; their preservation viewed as indulgence that slows progress.

Tory MPs liked that attitude in Brexit rhetoric, but sensible ones get nervous when it turns to kicking indiscriminately at pillars of state and society. War on Brussels is a given. Opening a second front against Whitehall and the BBC gets riskier. Picking fights with the military, letting it be known that Cummings can “sort out” the chief of defence staff, starts to look megalomaniac. Loosening planning controls threatens civil war in the Tory shires. Where are the limits? It was one thing for the Conservative party to dabble in recreational revolution, to lift sagging electoral spirits, but MPs are now worried about addiction and overdose.

There is a warning in the condition of the US Republican party, which this week adopted a policy platform of explicit, blind allegiance to Donald Trump. Nothing else.

Differences of culture and constitution diminish the comparison with American politics, yet there is a likeness in the way the Tories fell in thrall to a cult of incoherent nationalistic vandalism, called it renewal, and allowed their party to be hollowed out for use as a vessel to be filled with one man’s vanity. Last year Conservative MPs thought Johnson was their saviour. In time they may see him as a parasite.

They aren’t at that stage yet, not while the party is just about ahead in opinion polls. If that changes, the unravelling could be fast and messy. The one Tory ethic that persists through every ideological mutation is the will to power. Johnson delivered it, thus earning the right to mould what it means to be Conservative in his own image. But it is a thing without substance, a brittle shell around a void. It only looks solid in the hands of a winner.

• Rafael Behr is a Guardian columnist