A Story for our Times!

‘Dead end’ £50m motorway junction unused because developers didn’t add link road

Charlotte Lam www.mirror.co.uk

A new £50m motorway junction in remains unusued eight months after it was ‘finished’ – because it leads to a dead end.

The M49 junction at Avonmouth, Bristol, was mostly completed last year, but developers have not built a local road to access the junction and link it to a distribution park, reports Bristol Live.

The two-bridge junction has been dubbed “the most expensive dead end” after works first began on the multi-million-pound project in 2017.

The distribution park, which the M49 motorway is supposed to connect to, hosts some of the country’s major companies, including Amazon and Tesco. It also has a distribution centre for Royal Mail.

The new M49 junction cannot be used yet (Image: Highways England)

The South Gloucestershire Council told Bristol Live that developer Delta Properties was responsible for building the connecting road to the junction.

“We have been working to influence and help facilitate construction of the link road and have been in contact with both the landowner and major employers in the area, seeking to ensure that the link is constructed in a timely manner,” a council spokesperson said.

Highways England said it has been working with the council to “progress discussions” with the developer.

The route doesn’t actually reach its business park destination

Its South-West Programme Leader, Colin Bird, said Highways England completed main construction on time to “allow local developers to connect the junction”.

Former distribution park worker, James Long, told the BBC the unbuilt road was a disgrace, forcing “thousands” of lorries to find an alternative route.

Once the linking road is built and the phase is complete, the junction will connect Avonmouth and the Severnside Enterprise Area from the motorway network.

The Mirror has contacted Delta Properties for comment.

 

The Guardian view on scrapping Public Health England: not just wrong, but highly risky

“Research from the Health Foundation showed a reduction of almost 25% in public health spending per person between 2014-15 and 2019-20. PHE itself has an annual budget of just £300m – compared with the £10bn given to Serco, Sitel and other companies for test and trace, with very poor results.”

[From Margaret Thatcher onwards the private sector has been held up to be so much more efficient and cost effective than the public sector. This idea has become another Covid-19 casualty. – Owl]

Editorial www.theguardian.com

The government’s desire to pass the buck could put more lives in danger

The decision to scrap Public Health England in the middle of a pandemic that has claimed 65,000 British lives is cynical and wrong. Few will be persuaded by the attempts of the health secretary, Matt Hancock, to portray it as turning a crisis into an opportunity.

The opportunity here is purportedly to better serve the public as the country looks ahead to a significant coronavirus resurgence and a grim winter. In reality, it looks more like the chance to shift the blame for the government’s failures ahead of an inquiry and create the impression that it has fixed any problems that might need solving. As the head of the King’s Fund thinktank noted, PHE seems to have been found guilty without a trial. The move also encapsulates No 10’s fondness for rushing through ideas without consultation or proper scrutiny, and for creating centralised institutions that boost the private sector and are handed over to chums.

It is nonsense to suggest that this hasty reconfiguration will protect the public. Instead, it will cost money, time and attention that is desperately needed to deal with the pandemic, while demoralising staff who are currently employed in life-saving work, and in many cases exhausted by the demands of this crisis. They are unlikely to be impressed by Mr Hancock’s fulsome tribute to them.

As health thinktanks have noted, it is unclear what problem this rearrangement is meant to solve, or how it would solve it. No one is suggesting that PHE’s record is unblemished. There are important questions to be answered about its performance in the early stages of the crisis, including its watering down of guidelines on the use of personal protective equipment. But it is not a failing institution and its weaknesses reflect years of Conservative cuts. Its abolition has been compared to reorganising a fire brigade as it tries to put out a blaze, which is partially true; to be more accurate, the analogy should note that the fire service has already been weakened by having its budget slashed. Research from the Health Foundation showed a reduction of almost 25% in public health spending per person between 2014-15 and 2019-20. PHE itself has an annual budget of just £300m – compared with the £10bn given to Serco, Sitel and other companies for test and trace, with very poor results.

Even in the government’s own terms, this decision is absurd. Weeks after the prime minister launched a drive against obesity, warning that it seriously increased the risks from coronavirus, the new body is jettisoning responsibility for such issues. There is, as yet, no plan for dealing with them. The National Institute for Health Protection will focus solely on infectious diseases, pandemics and what Mr Hancock termed “external” health threats, such as biological weapons. The severing of crucial functions, with no clear plan for how they will be handled is the antithesis of joined-up government.

The sole advantage that could be gained is the ability to bring some much-needed accountability and scrutiny to the two recent initiatives that the new body will incorporate: NHS test and trace, and the Joint Biosecurity Centre. But the very manner of its creation dispels optimism on that score. It was announced to a Conservative thinktank. Its chair, appointed without any kind of open recruitment process, is Dido Harding, the Tory peer who has overseen the testing debacle – and whose Conservative MP husband sits on the board of a thinktank that has published articles advocating the scrapping of PHE and the replacement of the NHS with universal social insurance, though he has distanced himself from these views.

Responsibility for one of the world’s worst death rates lies not with PHE, but on the government’s shoulders. Its decision to abolish the body could have deadly consequences. We cannot afford another gamble with our lives.

 

Virus spreads faster when air is dry, researchers find

One more health benefit of living by the damp sea? – Owl

Bernard Lagan, Sydney www.thetimes.co.uk 

A study has found that during Sydney’s peak of coronavirus in March and April more people caught the virus on days when the air was dry. When the city’s air was more humid, fewer people contracted the virus.

The authors of the peer-reviewed study, published in Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, say that dry air increases the virus’s ability to spread. In Sydney a 1 per cent decrease in the amount of water in the air was associated with a 7.7 per cent increase in Covid-19 infections.

Michael Ward, an epidemiologist at the University of Sydney and co-author of the study, told Sydney Morning Herald: “Every time we look at it we find humidity is linked with cases. And we cannot really explain that any other way.”

The same trend has been found in a study of China’s Covid-19 outbreak and the coronaviruses that caused the Sars and Mers respiratory diseases.

The researchers gathered postcode data from 1,203 local infections between February and May and correlated it with readings from weather stations.

A study in China found that for each 1 per cent increase in relative humidity on a cold day, new Covid-19 infections fell by between 11 per cent and 22 per cent. Droplets shrink in dry air, which allows them to “get further down the respiratory tract”, Tony Cunningham, of the Centre for Virus Research in Sydney, said.

Philip Russo, president of the Australasian College for Infection Prevention and Control, said that “humidity and temperature also influence behaviour regarding crowding, indoor versus outdoor activity, ventilation etc”.

 

English councils facing £2bn ‘perfect storm’ may be forced to slash services – IFS

Councils in England face a £2bn “perfect storm” over the next few months and will be forced to cut services if the government does not meet the cost of soaring Covid-19 spending, the Institute for Fiscal Studies thinktank has warned.

Patrick Butler www.theguardian.com

Without additional financial support, councils “face a difficult choice between depleting their reserves to low and potentially risky levels or cutting spending on important local services”, the IFS said.

Although the government has so far provided £5.2bn in extra funds, councils expect to spend £4.4bn more than expected on the pandemic this year, as well as £2.8bn in losses from fees and charges, leaving them with a £2bn shortfall.

Even if the government offers additional support this year, the crisis facing local government is likely to continue into 2021-22 when collapsing council tax and business rates collection since lockdown start to feed into council budgets, it added.

David Phillips, an associate director at IFS, said: “Even if more funding or flexibilities are forthcoming this year, councils will still not be out of the Covid-19 woods.”

Although the simplest way of preventing cuts would be for ministers to provide more grant funding, they could also consider relaxing rules that prevent councils from borrowing money to fund day-to-day services, the IFS said. “This would help spread the pressure over several years and mean councils could avoid needing to make immediate cuts to balance their budgets.”

Although English councils collectively have around £3.3bn of available reserves, the amounts vary widely between authorities. The IFS estimates that around 40% of councils would still be unable to balance their books even if they spent all their reserves.

Cllr James Jamieson, chairman of the Local Government Association, which co-funded the study, called for the government to meet all extra cost pressures and income losses in full “so that councils aren’t faced with making tough decisions on in-year cuts to services to meet their legal duty to set a balanced budget”.

He added: “Councils need to be able to lead their communities out of this crisis and support recovery, but they cannot do this successfully and also address pressures in social care if they are having to focus on addressing budget cuts.”

A government spokesperson said: “We’re giving councils unprecedented support during the pandemic to tackle the pressures they have told us they’re facing. This includes £4.3bn funding, compensation for irrecoverable income losses, and a scheme allowing them to spread their tax deficits.”

This lapdog cabinet is the weakest in a century

“Johnson and Cummings rule from the Trump playbook. Its first page asserts that, if a leader has the power to do something he wishes, heedless of whether it is unprecedented, unsporting, unethical or merely cynical, then do it: consider most of the latest Lords elevations. The two men have no design for making Britain a better place; instead only for Brexit and their own survival, as evidenced by the unprecedented expenditure on opinion polling, to assist delivery of what seems popular.”

Max Hastings www.thetimes.co.uk 

Boris Johnson occupies Downing Street with a parliamentary majority of 80. Even if Sir Keir Starmer turns out to be Joan of Arc, there is little prospect of Labour displacing the Tories before 2024. Thus critics of this administration, rather than merely wringing our hands, should instead propose ways in which it might govern a little better.

Its gift for winning votes is proven. Johnson’s magic in enthusing his admirers is indisputable. Yet, outside election campaigns, telling the nation what it wants to hear — for instance assuring us, as the prime minister did last month, that it will all be over by Christmas — gets a government only so far.

He and his chief adviser have yet to show that making the country work is their thingy: witness the exam chaos; the intractably muddled planning reform proposals; that, after the fiascos of Covid-19 management, among major European nations Britain has by far the lowest proportion of its labour force back in offices and factories; and much else.

The cabinet cries out for reinforcement by some men and women competent to get stuff done. Pessimists claim that the talent is not out there. It seems mistaken, however, to idealise the parliaments of the past: remember all those Tory squires and Labour union hacks. Some of Tony Blair’s appointments were almost as embarrassing as Gavin Williamson: think of Geoff Hoon, though few people do.

Today there are men and women on the back benches, starting with Jeremy Hunt, Tom Tugendhat, Greg Clark, Edward Timpson and Stephen Hammond, who would make far more plausible ministers than those we have got. Their elevation depends, however, on Johnson, or perhaps Dominic Cummings, relaxing their marking of the loyalty exam all candidates are required to pass before being considered for admission to office.

In the summer of 1980, a year after Margaret Thatcher gained power, the tensions between “wets” and “dries” within her government were fare for headlines, occasional frenzies. Such grandees as Sir Ian Gilmour, Peter Walker, Francis Pym, Jim Prior and even Lord Carrington made little secret of their view that “the Lady” was potty.

John Major was throughout his premiership morbidly personally insecure. Though he and his foremost colleagues Michael Heseltine, Ken Clarke and Douglas Hurd were on the same side ideologically, he seemed fearful that all three were more substantial people than himself. The relationship between Tony Blair and his chancellor, Gordon Brown, was chronically difficult, latterly poisonous.

My point here is that friction and faction are commonplaces of government. Normal prime ministers feel obliged to work with colleagues whom they dislike, and who do not much care for them. Political parties embrace differing strands of opinion, sometimes about key aspects of policy. Leaders think it wise to give jobs to all but the most extreme dissenters, so that they may relieve themselves towards the outside of the tent, rather than the reverse.

Moreover, prime ministers must choose colleagues from a limited pool of remotely capable people. If they require office-holders to display blind fealty, they get compliant bunglers. Leaders who possess wisdom and self-confidence are willing to pay a price for talent, which includes knowing that their big beasts privately mock them, as was the fate of Harold Wilson at the hands of George Brown, Dick Crossman and Roy Jenkins.

A year into the Johnson government, the prime minister suffers few such embarrassments. It would be hard to identify a cabinet member who has got into the papers for abusing their leader behind his back. His is the most loyal administration of modern times.

Ah, you interject, this reflects our national crisis: ministers recognise that they must hang together, or separately. Yet throughout the 1982 Falklands conflict there were Tories who said privately that they thought the dispatch of the task force absurd. During the Second World War there were many moments when Winston Churchill’s colleagues, not to mention his commanders, confided to journalists their despair about the nation’s leader.

No, the present façade of solidarity is absolutely not the way normal government is. It has been brought about by the insistence of Johnson and Cummings upon fidelity to themselves, and to their interpretation of Brexit, as almost the sole qualification for office.

This is why today’s cabinet is the least impressive of the past century, granted the exceptions of the chancellor and Michael Gove. Power is monopolised by No 10 in a fashion unknown between 1940 and 1945, and indeed during the Thatcher era.

We are witnessing an attempt to impose upon Britain a presidential polity, wherein almost every key initiative derives from the prime minister’s unelected chief adviser. Who has ever before heard of a figure such as Cummings making a tour of military installations, such as he recently undertook, before overseeing reform of Britain’s defences?

From October, we are promised daily televised prime ministerial press conferences, further personalising the government and airbrushing into irrelevance Johnson’s stumblings at prime minister’s questions. If Alastair Campbell had created such a forum for Tony Blair, both men would have been accused of megalomania.

Frontbench unity is a fine thing, but not if a cabinet is unified in inadequacy. We should instead aspire to see Britain run by an administration that once more suffers from all the frailties Cummings abhors — argument, faction, leaks, rebellions, backstabbing, if only bigger beasts can be permitted to supplant the lapdogs in key jobs.

Months before Covid-19 struck, my wisest old friend said of Johnsonian governance: “We must never allow ourselves to be lulled into thinking that what is happening is normal; that it represents the usual give-and-take of democratic politics. It does not. It is strange and new and bad.”

Johnson and Cummings rule from the Trump playbook. Its first page asserts that, if a leader has the power to do something he wishes, heedless of whether it is unprecedented, unsporting, unethical or merely cynical, then do it: consider most of the latest Lords elevations. The two men have no design for making Britain a better place; instead only for Brexit and their own survival, as evidenced by the unprecedented expenditure on opinion polling, to assist delivery of what seems popular.

The British people should recognise that one-man rule is as damaging of our parliamentary system as are referendums. And Conservative MPs should demand that some of the ablest of their number are no longer excluded from office, merely because they are suspected of harbouring doubts about the emperor’s taste in tailoring.

Owl reflects on Thursday’s EDDC full council vote on GESP

Virtual meeting of the Council, Council – Thursday, 20th August, 2020 6.00 pm

This will be the first full council meeting since the New Regime took control. It will also be a key one. Under Agenda Item 9 is a list of Recommendations being put to the Council, including:

  • To notify our district partners that we are withdrawing from the GESP;
  • In that letter we offer assurance that we will fulfil our duty to co-operate in an ongoing and positive partnership; 
  • That this Council immediately begins the process to renew our local plan and that the Strategic Planning Committee meets as soon as possible to explore and define the processes involved.

The new spirit of cooperation and openness, introduced twelve weeks ago when Cllr Paul Arnott became Leader of the new Majority Group of Democratic Alliance and Independent Progressive councillors, has gone down well with residents. [Owl has many ears to the ground].

What residents sought when they removed the Conservative majority just over a year ago, amongst other things, were: a change in tone where people were listened to; elimination of “cronyism”; and a new direction. 

The first is becoming evident in debates. The last two of these were clearly on display when the Strategic Planning Committee boldly proposed the recommendation to pull out from the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP). (Mid Devon have become minded to do the same since).

Now we must hope that the full council will back that recommendation, bearing in mind that the Strategic Planning Committee is politically balanced and does reflect the full council (passed by 8 votes to 4).

Since the Strategic Planning Committee met, some of the government plans for the planning system have become clearer. Assuming there is no, to be hoped for, “Mother-of-all, screeching U-Turns” and these changes go ahead, the Government will have effectively ripped up any current “duty to co-operate” and have left local authorities precious little time to “zone” ALL their land or presumably see zoning imposed on them. (And Owl believes it would be very convenient for a central authority to focus on sites in a GESP that were still on the table).

It is impossible to do the two things together at the same time. EDDC simply cannot afford to waste any more effort on GESP. The past effort expended on GESP has been at the expense of reviewing the Local Plan which must form the basis of such a review. 

Owl understands that there are only a handful of areas pursuing the GESP “Strategic Planning” methodology most of which are more urbanised. If this methodology was such a suitable vehicle for rural planning it would be ubiquitous. So the Tory argument that this is the only way, for example, to get infrastructure projects cannot be true. Indeed, major road and rail projects in the South Western peninsula are not going to be taken because of GESP. 

Owl has already dealt with the “growth regardless” argument for carrying on. GESP is based on an unachievable high growth scenario and the numbers are but a “minimum” starting point.

Those Conservatives arguing that this is the best way and right time to consult communities are being disingenuous.

The form of “consultation” proposed is NOT a decision about which sites would be chosen, taking into account residents’ views, only a long “laundry list” of potential sites – any or all of which could be chosen whether resident consultees agreed or not. So “consultation” in this case is only the usual “tick box” exercise that is essentially meaningless.

Just to remind everyone, when Conservative Controlled EDDC councillors rejected the GESP in the autumn of 2018 they described it as just a “PR exercise” and “not fit for purpose”. Has anything really changed?

Add in Covid-19 and it should be clear to everyone that GESP is well and truly dead, having been overtaken by events.

Owl hopes that EDDC will hold a recorded vote so that each community can see which way their councillor or councillors voted.

 

Dido Harding to run agency replacing Public Health England

[According to Wikipedia: she is married to Conservative Party Member of Parliament John Penrose, who sits on the advisory board of think tank 1828 which calls for “the NHS to be replaced by an insurance system and for Public Health England to be scrapped.”] So the obvious choice -owl

Juliette Garside www.theguardian.com 

Dido Harding, a Conservative peer who heads up England’s widely criticised test-and-trace system, has been chosen to run a new institute to replace Public Health England, after the controversial decision to axe the agency.

Harding will be named as the chair of the National Institute for Health Protection, which will be charged with preventing future outbreaks of infectious diseases, despite the poor performance of NHS test and trace, which she has led since May.

Her appointment, which the health secretary, Matt Hancock, is due to confirm on Tuesday in a speech on the future of public health as a result of the pandemic, has sparked a row over yet another Tory politician being handed a senior role in the health system.

The government’s decision to scrap PHE was first reported on Sunday and prompted a chorus of criticism that Boris Johnson’s administration was trying to shift the blame for its own failings during the pandemic.

Lady Harding, 52, has been a Conservative member of the House of Lords since she was given a life peerage in 2014 by her friend David Cameron, the then prime minister. Harding, an ex-chief executive of the TalkTalk mobile phone company, is already the chair of the regulator NHS Improvement as well as the contact-tracing programme that is under fire for tracking down too few people who have tested positive for the virus.

“Given Dido Harding’s track record overseeing the set-up of England’s sub-par test-and-trace system, many people will be worried to hear that she may be given a pivotal new role in the NHS,” said the Liberal Democrat MP Munira Wilson, the party’s health, wellbeing and social care spokesperson.

“We need to have total transparency in how appointments of this kind are made, to ensure we get the best people for the job.

“Rather than focus on promoting yet another Tory insider, the government would do well to reflect on their handling of this pandemic and launch an independent inquiry to ensure we don’t repeat past mistakes.”

Labour has criticised the “huge holes in the contact-tracing system” in England, which is supposed to trace those who have been in contact with someone who has tested positive for Covid-19 and ask them to self-isolate. Test and trace has a £10bn budget and the private firms Serco and Sitel are centrally involved. However, it has only contacted 78% of people diagnosed with the virus, and 72% of their contacts, since its creation in May, the organisation’s latest performance figures show.

Harding will be named as the interim chair of the new institute – a merger between PHE and test and trace – and will steer it through its first few months as it seeks to improve the testing and tracing of people who may have coronavirus. Speaking in central London on Tuesday, Hancock will laud it as a combination of PHE’s expertise and test and trace’s capacity to track down large numbers of carriers and their contacts.

Dr Chaand Nagpaul, the leader of the British Medical Association, warned ministers that the new public health body should be free of any political influence that might hinder its work. “The BMA strongly believes that the nation’s public health medicine service should be truly public, [and] completely independent of political influence.

“It must be able to operate with full transparency in order to advise the government, inform the public and do its work, which is so vital to the health of the nation.”

Another Tory peer, Lord Prior – a former MP and ex-deputy chair of the Tory party – has been the chair of NHS England, which runs the health service, since 2018.

Meanwhile, the Guardian also understands that Duncan Selbie – PHE’s chief executive – will become an adviser to the Department of Health and Social Care after losing his job in a shake-up that has been heavily criticised by doctors and public health experts.

The Royal Society for Public Health has voiced its concern about the axing of PHE. “We question the timing of an announcement to scrap our national public health agency, in the midst of a global pandemic and before any public inquiry has started, let alone reported,” said Christina Marriott, its chief executive.

“We recognise that there have been some serious challenges in terms of our response to Covid-19, including the timing of the lockdown, the ongoing ineffectiveness of tier 2 track and trace and postcode-level data previously not being available to directors of public health,” she added.

 

Will Sidmouth be able to rid itself of vandalism?

Glass splash wall on Sidmouth seafront would need CCTV and vandalism deterrents

 

Contractors removing the panel of Sidmouth seafront in May. Picture: East Devon District Council

Contractors removing the panel of Sidmouth seafront in May. Picture: East Devon District Council

 

A temporary glass splash defence test panel, that was installed on the Sidmouth seafront, has passed almost undamaged.

The glass panel was installed on The Esplanade between the York Street and Fore Street junctions, to test whether glass could be used to reinforce Sidmouth’s sea defences on the line of the existing short wall.

It passed mostly unscathed, with the only damage being from vandalism.

Councillor Geoff Jung, the district council’s portfolio holder for coast, country and environment, said the test demonstrated the glass could be a viable option as long as it was not vandalised, so if this option of defence was used it would need to be complemented with CCTV or other vandalism deterrents.

He added: “To protect Sidmouth Town from flooding from the sea, along with other marine works including rock armour, and bringing new beach material from elsewhere and setting it on the beach to ‘recharge’ it, we need a one-metre high splash defence in place along the majority of The Esplanade in advance of forecasted large storms.

“There are many ways we could achieve this, such as glass panels, solid walls, large planted planters, community-operated temporary barriers, multiple flood gates, or any combination of these.

“This will help guide the detailed design stage, which would then be taken through the planning process.”

Cllr Jung added when the panel was removed, it was cleaned and examined for damage – the landward side was broken, and there was evidence of vandalism, through small dents.

The glass had not broken but the landward pane was damaged, although the middle laminate and seaward pane were not broken.

He said: “Overall, the glass fared extremely well given its positioning on the sea wall adjacent to the shingle beach.

“The seaward side had some very minor scuffing from the impact of shingle being thrown against it.“

The next phase of the Beach Management Plan is to hold a public exhibition – location and format to be confirmed given Covid-19 restrictions – where people can make comments on the various types of splash defence available, and, given funding constraints, give an indication of what their preference is for what method in which location.

[Not as intrusive as the proposal to increase the sea wall at Dawlish by 3.1m: www.devonlive.com /news/devon-news/dawlish-railway-plans-set-approval-4417200]

FOI exposes multiple bullying complaints at Honiton Town Council

More on the intriguing, and less than transparent, Parish Pump Politics of Honiton as information is eventually disclosed.  – Owl

Hannah Corfield honiton.nub.news 

A recent Freedom Of Information (FOI) request sent to East Devon District Council Monitoring Officer has revealed numerous complaints made about Honiton Town Council, a significant proportion of which cite bullying.

This year alone, of the eight complaints that were ‘formally progressed’ five ‘cited bullying’.

This evidence of bullying allegations made against Honiton Town Council contradicts previous statements made by leader of the council, John Zarczynski.

On multiple occasions Honiton Nub News has asked Cllr Zarczynski whether he is aware of any claims of bullying at town council, to which he has responded: “There is no bullying and I challenge anyone to bring me evidence that supports such claims.”

When asked about the FOI findings, he said: “I have never been made aware of any accusations of bullying. If anybody did make a complaint of bullying I would have acted on it straight away.”

However, according to the Information and Complaints Officer at East Devon District Council, Sara Harvey: “We have received 38 Code Complaints in total from 2017 – 2020.

“The numbers in relation to Code Complaints that were progressed are below:

2017 – 17 Complaints received of which 3 cited bullying
2018 – 2 Complaints received of which 1 cited bullying
2019 – 1 Complaint received but did not cite bullying
2020 – 8 Complaints received of which 5 cited bullying

“This does not include contacts that were received that were not formally progressed.”

The person behind the request for information is former town councillor, having resigned back in 2015, Luke Harvey-Ingram. He told Honiton Nub News: “I had a feeling that the Mayor was not being completely honest with regards to claims of bullying at Honiton Town Council (HTC) and I thought the only way to know the truth was to obtain the records using an FOI request.

“There seemed little point sending it directly to HTC, as it would have likely resulted in more legal expenditure, so I decided to go directly to East Devon District Council Monitoring Officer.

“They could not have been more helpful and really went above and beyond to provide the relevant information categorised for each year.

“All we want is for Honiton to be governed properly. Many of the items on the list of ‘projects in progress’ published recently have been in the pipeline for years.

“I don’t want to focus on the negative. A movement currently taking place within the town, Honiton Forward, seems to be a positive step in the right direction.

“The people involved are genuine and passionate about what’s best for the town and its residents.

“They have a plan to achieve the change we need to see and are proactive.”

 


No news, no shared space, no voice – the Tories are creating a cookie-cutter Britain

“Here, perhaps, is our hyper-individualised future, to be accompanied by a national soundtrack beamed out of the capital: no sense of place, no dependable local news, no spaces to gather – nowhere, indeed, to organise the kind of collective self-help that has recently been revealed as many communities’ last line of defence. In what looks set to be an age of disruption and disaster, we could not start from a worse place.”

John Harris www.theguardian.com 

Last week, as the government announced the reshaping of its dysfunctional test-and-trace operation, one of the biggest lessons of the pandemic was once again made plain. First, reports said that the current centralised, privatised call-centre operation was to be cut back; by Sunday, the chosen term was “wound down”. Expecting any clarity from the people in charge is clearly a mug’s game, but what looks definite is that getting flashpoints of infection under control is now to be fundamentally overseen by local councils. Reluctantly, it seems, ministers are starting to acknowledge that the anti-Covid effort – which is still too top-down – will only work effectively if it is rooted in communities.

The fact that whole swathes of basic administration are best handled at the local level is a banal insight that has eluded British governments for decades, and so it has proved again. For all that we are encouraged to think of the pandemic as a national issue, all outbreaks are essentially local – and like extreme weather events, they demand effective on-the-ground action and communication, and the kind of strong institutions that affirm people’s sense of place and solidarity. After a decade of cuts to local services, Covid-19 has cruelly highlighted the importance – and lack – of both. It has crystallised a question that goes beyond matters of politics and government into some of the most basic ways that places function: if the coronavirus has proved that doing things from the grassroots up is so crucial, why are so many aspects of our everyday lives being pushed in the opposite direction?

Last year, I wrote about drastic changes to local commercial radio, and the broadcasting giant Global getting rid of around 60 local breakfast and drivetime programmes, remodelling local news bulletins, and closing studios in places such as Chelmsford, Kendal, Lancaster, Norwich and Swindon. Now, the radio company Bauer is folding almost 50 local stations into a national radio network branded Greatest Hits that will carry programmes made in London. To meet the demands of licences, a smattering of non-national programming will continue, but will be regionally produced rather than falling to individual local stations. In the midst of an ongoing emergency that demands as many information outlets as possible – not least to advise about local lockdowns and what they entail – the gap between these moves and the most basic notions of social responsibility is obvious.

And this is only one small part of the story. A month ago, the BBC confirmed that it was cutting 450 jobs from its regional news operations. Weekly current affairs programmes will no longer be made in Nottingham, Salford, Tunbridge Wells, Southampton and Plymouth. Meanwhile, the demise of local newspapers continues apace. Reach, the UK’s largest publisher of local and regional news, is shedding hundreds of jobs. Last week, it announced the end of the Lichfield Mercury and the Sutton Coldfield Observer; in Wales, another company is shutting the weekly Glamorgan Gem, which publishes different editions across six communities. More than 245 British papers have closed in the last 15 years; in the US, the scale of extinction exceeds 1,800 titles.

There is an urgent conversation to be had about the demise of print publishing, and how to bring local journalism to new audiences: the recent arrival of dozens of local news websites – in places from Falmouth to Crewe – which trade under the brand of Nub News is encouraging, but there is still far too much scorched earth. Again, the pandemic throws everything into sharp relief. If social media is awash with misinformation – much of it local chatter – and national politicians have now decisively moved into the realm of Trumpian mendacity, then whatever guarantors of fact people can access are precious. Clearly, the demise of local media makes the search for truth even more difficult.

What is often missed in accounts of these changes is the way they dovetail with the process of austerity. First, crucial foundations of anywhere’s sense of place come under attack: librariesyouth clubscommunity centres. When local media closes, the capacity to present those changes to people and hold those responsible to account shrinks, often to nothing – something seen recently in the serious claims that nearly half of the UK’s leisure centres are in danger of closure, and the fact that such a jaw-dropping prospect seems to have barely sunk in. Something comparable applies to the newly accelerated decline of high streets, and our mounting jobs crisis. Even if big things happen, they increasingly appear as dull and unarguable as the weather.

Here and elsewhere, the 21st-century human condition is perhaps reducible to living far too quietly and fatalistically – something that came to mind when the government announced its proposed free-for-all on new housebuilding. Visit the new residential developments that now ring so many towns and cities, and you will see our increasingly rootless, anonymous, nondescript way of life frozen in bricks and mortar. The houses are sometimes nice enough, but these confounding tangles of avenues and crescents have little sign of any shared amenities aside from tiny play areas and the odd retail development. Quaint street-names, usually chosen to create the impression of a heritage that never existed, only further the sense of somehow being nowhere.

Now, as the decline of local journalism means that building proposals get far too little attention, the government wants to sideline the role of councils in the planning system. The promise is of a rapid building boom that will use design templates redolent of “Bath, Belgravia and Bournville” to deliver housing “that is beautiful and builds on local heritage and character”. But anyone who has watched what has happened to British housing will know what is surely coming: more and more Unplaces, in which community and collective purpose are beyond people’s grasp because the physical means to create and sustain them simply do not exist.

Ministers are set to get rid of section 106 agreements, the arcane-sounding provisions – named after part of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act – that often compel builders to include affordable housing in their developments, but also to make contributions to parks and public spaces, local education and community centres. Whatever small sense of shared experience and inclusion in the wider community that exists in new-build developments is frequently dependent on these things. But along with the community infrastructure levy, section 106 deals are to be replaced by a nationally determined charge for developers that is already the focus of alarm and scepticism. Given that their whole thrust is to speed up housebuilding and free developers from supposed red tape, it is not hard to see where these moves point: to places made up of cookie-cutter housing, and very little else.

Here, perhaps, is our hyper-individualised future, to be accompanied by a national soundtrack beamed out of the capital: no sense of place, no dependable local news, no spaces to gather – nowhere, indeed, to organise the kind of collective self-help that has recently been revealed as many communities’ last line of defence. In what looks set to be an age of disruption and disaster, we could not start from a worse place.

  • John Harris is a Guardian columnist

Halton, Cheshire, tops the COVID Symptom Study Watch List this week

covid.joinzoe.com /post/incidence-update-13-aug

Halton in Cheshire has moved to the top slot of the COVID Symptom Study Watch List this week, making it the one region to watch.

COVID Symptom Study Watch List

The COVID Symptom Study app’s Watch List has this week seen a number of new entrants, including the first area in Scotland, Dumfries and Galloway, Thurrock in Essex, and more regions in the North of England, St Helens, Middlesbrough, Blackpool and Lancashire. Meanwhile, Blackburn with Darwen has fallen from the top spot to sixth in the table while Halton in Cheshire has moved to the top slot, making it the one to watch.

The aim of the COVID Symptom Study app Watch List is to highlight key areas of concern so that attention can be focused on those areas. When an area of concern is highlighted, increased testing should take place there to help confirm if the situation needs further action such as a localised lockdown.

COVID Symptom Study Watch List for 13th August 2020

 

Data update

According to the latest COVID Symptom Study app figures, there are currently 1,434 daily new cases of COVID in the UK on average over the two weeks up to 08 August 2020 (excluding care homes). The latest figures were based on the data from 10,988 swab tests done between 26 July to 08 August. A full regional breakdown can be found here.

The latest prevalence figures estimate that 24,131 people currently have symptomatic COVID in the UK. The prevalence data again highlights that the amount of symptomatic COVID nationally has remained stable. The numbers are still higher in the North of England but the numbers have slightly decreased since last week. This figure does not include long-term COVID sufferers.

The COVID Symptom Study app’s prevalence estimate is lower, but still within the confidence bounds of the most recent and smaller ONS Infection survey last week with an estimated 28,300 people (95% credible interval: 18,900 to 40,800) in England during the one week period from the 27 July to 2 August 2020.

Tim Spector, Professor of Genetic Epidemiology at King’s College London, comments: 

“It’s encouraging to see that the numbers are coming down slightly across the UK and that the isolated outbreaks in the North of England appear to be well contained so far. This is further confirmation that we aren’t at the beginning of a second wave and rather, still trying to end the first. The figures also suggest that the outbreaks we are seeing in other countries such as Belgium, France and Spain aren’t having an effect here in the UK yet.

On top of this, the hot weather which caused concern by making many flock to crowded beaches and parks doesn’t seem to be having the predicted negative impact. Overall, we are pleasantly surprised by the figures this week which are back down to the early July levels and hope that the good news continues.”

Tories accused of quietly watering down law on farm antibiotics after Brexit

Tory ministers have been accused of quietly watering down farming laws after Brexit in a move that could make it easier to get a US trade deal.

Friends of the Earth raised the alarm over a change to how limits on antibiotics in farm animals will work after the transition period ends in December.

The EU sets ‘Maximum Residue Limits’, which control how much of a medicine, pesticide or other product is allowed to be present in an animal’s carcass.

Currently these EU limits are written into UK law.

But a little-noticed Brexit law, passed last year, said that in future the UK will set these limits behind closed doors – not in the letter of the law.

While the UK government has pledged it will keep all existing EU MRLs, it’s understood in future the UK will “set appropriate MRLs” of its own choosing.

Friends of the Earth warned the change could give “a blank slate to set new, weaker standards and water down our environmental protections”.

The current list includes an antibiotic called monensin, used in cows in the US but limited to 10 microgrammes per kilogram in beef fat here.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) insisted the limit on it will remain.

But Kierra Box of Friends of the Earth said: “Ministers keep saying that the UK standards we have now will remain, but this shows that promise just doesn’t wash.

“In fact, government have already deleted swathes of rules and restrictions, and are slipping through plans to set these ‘administratively’ in the future, which we know really means ‘behind closed doors’.

“Nobody who is across the detail of these plans has any faith that environmental standards are not at risk of being further weakened during trade negotiations with the US, Australia and wherever else we need to go, cap in hand.

“The simple fact is you can’t weaken protections that are already gone.”

Tory grandee and former Environment Secretary Lord Deben, formerly John Gummer, told the Mail there “does seem to an alteration of the current law.”

“The policy seems to be moving from complete prohibition to future decision-making by Ministers,” he said. “This is an extremely important issue for people’s health.”

Defra said the scientific method for establishing MRLs has not changed but accepted the UK could diverge from the EU in future.

An official said: “The legislative changes we have made will ensure that the UK can set appropriate MRLs and ensure that products for food-producing species can be made available on the UK market.

“Existing MRLs determined while we were in the EU will be retained.”

A Defra spokeswoman said: “We are absolutely committed to maintaining the stringent controls on the medicines that can be used for all animals, including food-producing ones, following the end of the Transition Period.

“This means the ban on Monensin as a growth promoter and other controlled substances will remain in place, helping to protect the health of people, animals and the environment.”

Ministers criticised over plan to scrap Public Health England

Senior doctors, hospital bosses and public health experts have accused ministers of scapegoating Public Health England for their own failings over Covid-19 by planning to axe the agency.

Denis Campbell www.theguardian.com

The government’s decision to scrap PHE and merge it into a new body charged with preventing future outbreaks of infectious diseases produced a chorus of criticism on Sunday.

Ministers are frustrated with PHE over the testing of samples of suspected coronavirus, tracing of contacts of those who have become infected, and the way it counts Covid-related deaths.

However, a succession of senior health figures have claimed the move, made while parliament is not sitting, is an attempt by Boris Johnson’s administration to shift the blame for its own failings during the pandemic.

They claimed that ministers were exaggerating PHE’s errors and importance in order to distract attention from the fact that they and not the agency made key mistakes in the early weeks of fighting a pandemic that has so far claimed more than 65,000 lives.

Prof Sir Simon Wessely, the president of the Royal Society of Medicine and a former adviser to the government, said: “PHE employs some of the best, brightest and most hardworking clinicians and experts we have. There are simply not enough of them, which can partly be explained by the steady reduction in funding over the last seven years.

“Perhaps we do need a more joined-up structure, but we should not scapegoat PHE for the failures in the system in which they are but one cog.”

Chris Hopson, chief executive of the hospital body NHS Providers, defended PHE and pointed out that the government’s underfunding of the agency, and the 25% cut since 2015 to the wider public health budget in England, had limited the UK’s ability to respond effectively to Covid-19.

He pointed out that PHE is an executive agency of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), unlike other health bodies such as NHS England and the Care Quality Commission. He said: “This gives ministers direct control of its activities. So whilst it might be convenient to seek to blame PHE’s leadership team, it is important that the government reflects on its responsibilities as well.”

Pointing the finger at the health secretary, Matt Hancock, and other ministers, Hopson added: “The government’s strategy in the early stages of the pandemic in key areas of PHE’s responsibility such as testing was flawed and confusing. Ministers, not PHE officials, were driving that strategy, directing the response and allocating resources accordingly.”

A senior figure at PHE, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Guardian: “It is just not right nor fair to pin all blame like this. We wouldn’t claim to have got everything right – who can? – but we don’t operate unilaterally from the chief medical officer or ministers. The issue that needs resolving is investment – [a] proper budget, [and] significant investment in public health labs/science.”

The Sunday Telegraph, which revealed the plan, said ministers intend to merge PHE with NHS Test and Trace, which is run by the private firm Serco, to form a new body called the National Institute for Health Protection.

Dr Chaand Nagpaul, chair of the British Medical Association’s ruling council, questioned the government’s wisdom: “We must absolutely not allow PHE and its staff to shoulder the blame for wider failings and government decisions. With more than 1,000 new UK cases of Covid-19 being recorded for the fifth day in a row, we must seriously question whether now is the right time for undertaking such a seemingly major restructure and detract from the very immediate need to respond to the pandemic.”

The businesswoman and former Talk Talk boss Baroness Harding, the head of NHS test and trace and of the regulator NHS Improvement, whose husband is the Conservative MP John Penrose, is tipped to run the new institute.

Dr Michael Head, a senior research fellow in global health at Southampton University, responded to that speculation, saying: “There are reports suggesting former telecoms executive Dido Harding will be given the role of overseeing the new institute, which makes about as much sense as [chief medical officer] Chris Whitty being appointed the Vodafone head of branding and corporate image.”

Prof John Ashton, a former regional director of public health, said: “You don’t do this in the middle of a crisis, and certainly not put Dido in charge when she has been such a disaster with test and trace.” NHS Test and Trace has been criticised for contributing to the recent increase in cases of coronavirus by tracing too few people who have tested positive and tracking down too few of their contacts, so that those involved can be told to isolate.

PHE’s potential abolition has been an open secret in Whitehall for months. Boris Johnson had the agency in mind when he referred in June to how parts of government had been “sluggish” in their response when the pandemic struck in March.

A spokesperson for the DHSC did not rebut the report that PHE will be scrapped. They simply said: “Public Health England has played an integral role in our national response to this unprecedented global pandemic.

“We have always been clear that we must learn the right lessons from this crisis to ensure that we are in the strongest possible position, both as we continue to deal with Covid-19 and to respond to any future public health threat.”

Flybe investors plan legal fight over 1p deal

Francesca Washtell www.thisismoney.co.uk

Former Flybe shareholders preparing legal action over claims they were misled about airline’s performance before it was sold in cut-price deal

  • Several dozen retail investors want a judge to decide if former directors put out inaccurate statements 
  • The shareholders’ investments were wiped out after they received just 1p per share when it was sold in early 2019 

Former Flybe shareholders are preparing legal action over claims they were misled about the airline’s performance before it was sold in a cut-price deal last year.

Several dozen retail investors want a judge to decide if former directors put out inaccurate statements and overstated how well the company was doing.

The shareholders’ investments were wiped out after they received just 1p per share when it was sold in early 2019 to a group called Connect Airways, which was led by Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin.

The budget airline’s stock had been trading at 16.4p per share, valuing it at £36m, the day before the rescue deal was announced.

But the 1p offer was 94 per cent lower than this and left the amount owed to shareholders at just £2.2m, even though the airline raised another £2.8m by selling assets.

Flybe had put itself up for sale in late 2018 after running into financial difficulties.

Connect bought Flybe, but the airline eventually went bust this year after the coronavirus crisis hit bookings and the Government refused to hand it a £100m bailout loan.

The former shareholders want to claim compensation and have hired a UK law firm to put together a case to see if they can take ex-directors including then-chairman Simon Laffin and chief executive Christine Ourmieres-Widener to court.

One investor, who did not wish to be named, lost £350,000 because of the rock-bottom sale price.

The investor said: ‘First, the impact this has had on me as an individual is irreversible. Life changing measures have had to be made including having to sell assets etc to survive. Mentally this has also been very challenging.’

Another investor said: ‘The use of language, often repeated by the board, to stimulate investment, maximise shareholder value and provide for a stable and positive future for the business, was influential in my decision to invest.’

A spokesman for the law firm said: ‘We are exploring the merits of a potential claim by shareholders against the former directors of Flybe for their alleged misconduct and mishandling of the company’s affairs. We are analysing the prospects of recovery and whether the board has insurance.

‘We will be considering the robustness of the sale process and seeking answers as to how confidential information surrounding terms of the takeover was leaked to the media, which resulted in Flybe having little to no opportunity to mitigate its position.

‘The directors could be potentially accountable for any failure to provide accurate and true statements and failing to act in the best interests of the company and shareholders.’

Laffin and Ourmieres-Widener declined to comment.

A Correspondent puts forward a more logical alternative for a Tipton Primary relocation

From a corespondent:

I have never understood why a new Primary School could not be accommodated within the village.

To me the logical solution is to build it broadly on the route of the old railway line and adjoining the Cricket Field.    The railway line does not flood, as far as I am aware, so all that is required is to extend its ‘footprint’ to accommodate the new school.

Immediately beside the school would then be the village hall, the public open space that is presently the cricket field, the tennis courts and a good quality play area.  Plus a car park, and footpath access, both north and south.

Financing the new building can at least be partly funded by selling both the sites currently in use.   The old school house would be quite valuable, and the newer ‘bungalow’ component can be developed as a nearby house has , by using ‘stilts’, etc.

It seems a shame to rip the heart out of the Tipton community by closing its school unnecessarily.  I doubt that it would have to be more than half the size of the one proposed by DCC.

A fine new school, sensitively designed, could be the centrepiece of a broader community development including a much-needed new clubhouse for the Cricket Club.

Homelessness guru can’t help building for Manchester’s rich

“Manchester’s Labour-run city council, led by Sir Richard Leese, which has control over planning decisions, says its starting point for negotiation on affordable housing is 20% on new schemes. However, developers often get consent for plans with 0%-3% affordable housing, or the equivalent in S106 payments.”

David Collins and Hannah Al-Othman www.thetimes.co.uk 

In Manchester one property developer rises above the rest when it comes to helping the homeless and regenerating the booming city centre.

Tim Heatley, co-founder of Capital & Centric, is investing half a billion pounds to build plush apartments and a hotel as part of the city’s property boom. A well-known figure, Heatley chairs the Greater Manchester Mayor’s Charity, set up by Andy Burnham, the mayor, which has raised £2m for charities tackling homelessness. Despite this good work, however, an investigation has revealed that Heatley’s company has big developments that provide no affordable housing — a trend that is becoming common.

Manchester, a Labour stronghold, is in the grip of a housing crisis, according to MPs, housing associations, homeless charities and campaigners. More than 15,000 people are on the waiting list for social housing in Greater Manchester. Just over 7,000 are in a “higher housing need band”. More than 5,500 people are homeless, says the anti-poverty charity Greater Together Manchester.

The shadow housing minister, Mike Aymesbury, a former director of a housing association who was once a Manchester councillor, said developers often “hide behind viability” when they fail to meet affordable housing obligations. By this, he means developers claim their schemes are not worth building unless the requirements are waived.

The government defines affordable homes as those rented at no more than 80% of the market rate or sold below market value. Developers must create such homes as part of their projects or pay the council to build them elsewhere.

Capital & Centric is building 881 flats at Crusader Mill, Kampus and Talbot Mill, some priced at more than £1m. None is “affordable”. Planning documents also show Crusader Mill and Kampus will make no “section 106” payments. Talbot Mill, with more than 200 high-end flats, will provide £50,000 in S106 payments. The money goes into a pot for the council to build affordable homes elsewhere.

Crusader Mill and a block of flats called Phoenix, part of the same project, will cost a total of £40m. Heatley and his business partner expect to make £8m-£10m in profit.

Manchester’s Labour-run city council, led by Sir Richard Leese, which has control over planning decisions, says its starting point for negotiation on affordable housing is 20% on new schemes. However, developers often get consent for plans with 0%-3% affordable housing, or the equivalent in S106 payments.

A council insider defended the policy, saying: “Developers will only put a spade in the ground if a project is viable. And although we negotiate strictly, if the finance of a development doesn’t stack up, then it doesn’t get built at all.”

Heatley, 40, has won awards for his regeneration projects, creating buildings with expensive architecture that are energy efficient with green space. A star of the BBC documentary series Manctopia, which starts this week, he is transforming the area behind Piccadilly station, where oral sex is on offer for £4.99.

“I realise I’m the chair of the Mayor’s Charity for homelessness and built no affordable houses,” he said last week. “But this is a national problem. Developers who want to build affordable homes are being priced out when purchasing the land or buildings. A developer who decides to build no affordable homes as part of a project can bid higher.

“If I make an assumption that a huge percentage of my projects will be affordable housing, I’d never be able to buy the land or buildings. It means all developers are battling against each other because there is no national policy on affordable housing in our city centres.”

The government proposes to phase out S106 and create a flat-rate tax on a development’s value, which would pay for schools, transport schemes and affordable housing — and remove the power of councils to make demands of, or concessions to, developers.

Heatley, who is working on a future development with 100% affordable housing, says the solution should be national. “If Manchester alone brought it in, all the developers would go to Leeds and Sheffield. Otherwise the good guys who are socially conscious will always be squeezed out by the other guys.”

Sports stars have joined developers to invest in city-centre apartment blocks. They include the footballer Vincent Kompany, who is building 75 flats with M4nchester Two. Kompany, who has spoken out on homelessness, has no affordable homes allowance in his block.

Manchester Life, owned jointly by Manchester City’s owner, Sheikh Mansour of Abu Dhabi, and the city council, has built more than 1,000 homes. Not one is classed as affordable and no S106 payments are being made.

Former England cricket star Andrew Flintoff is building a 23-storey block in Castlefield with 335 luxury flats. The developer is providing a cash contribution of £1.15m, equivalent to 5%, towards affordable housing elsewhere.

But many Mancunians are being priced out. “Now you have Media City, Salford is becoming a really desirable place,” said Christina Hughes, from Winton, Greater Manchester. She pays £670 a month to rent a three-bedroom semi-detached house with a garden. “I’m managing, but I couldn’t pay any more.”

A Manchester council spokesman said: “The city is committed to building 32,000 homes between 2015 and 2025, including 20% affordable and social homes — 6,400 properties — as part of the city-wide target for affordable housing.”

Burnham said: “If you look at what Tim Heatley does, he doesn’t sell buy to let. He does a massive amount of work in this city and I’m grateful to him for what he has done on homelessness.”

The mayor called for central government to subsidise councils and private developers who want to build affordable housing on brownfield sites.

“It’s the system which is at fault. It’s easy to point to Manchester City Council or one particular developer. The current system doesn’t give councils enough power to provide affordable homes.”

 

 

Hancock axes ‘failing’ Public Health England

Whilst Owl will shed no tears over the demise of Public Health England, a spin-off of the disastrous 2012 Lansley reforms of Health and Social Care, it must not become a convenient scapegoat for the ultimate Government responsibility for Covid-19 response failures. – Owl

By Christopher Hope, Chief Political Correspondent www.telegraph.co.uk

Public Health England (PHE) is to be scrapped and replaced by a new body specifically designed to protect the country against a pandemic by early next month, the Telegraph can disclose.

Health Secretary Matt Hancock will this week announce a merger of the pandemic response work of PHE with NHS Test and Trace into a new body, called the National Institute for Health Protection, modelled on Germany’s Robert Koch Institute.

The Health Secretary, who returns to work after a UK holiday this week, wants to give PHE’s replacement time to be set up before a feared surge in coronavirus cases this autumn.

It comes weeks after Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, complained that the country’s response to the pandemic had been sluggish, in remarks which were interpreted as a swipe at PHE.

A senior minister told the Telegraph: “We want to bring together the science and the scale in one new body so we can do all we can to stop a second coronavirus spike this autumn.

“The National Institute for Health Protection’s goal will be simple: to ensure that Britain is one of the best equipped countries in the world to fight the pandemic.”

The institute’s new chief executive will report both to ministers at the Department of Health and Social Care, and to Professor Chris Whitty, England’s Chief Medical Officer, giving ministers direct control over its response to pandemics.

Mr Hancock is seeking someone with experience of both health policy and the private sector to run it. Baroness Harding, the former chief executive of TalkTalk who heads up NHS Test and Trace, is tipped for the role.

The change will be “effective” within the next month but it will take until the spring to formally complete the organisational change of breaking up a large organisation.

A source said: “It will be in place by September.”

Sir Iain Duncan Smith, a former Tory Cabinet minister, welcomed the news, saying: “The one thing consistent about Public Health England is that almost everything it has touched has failed.”

The new institute – which will have tens of thousands of staff – will bring together the science expertise at PHE, which first published the genome of Covid-19, with the scale of NHS Test and Trace operation.

The model for the new institute is the Robert Koch Institute in Germany. The independent agency played a central role in the response to the Covid-19 pandemic, publishing daily situation reports that log new outbreaks, testing capacity and the current burden on the health system.

Approaches to tackling the crisis in South Korea have also provided evidence for Health officials in setting up the new body.

Over the next few months Test and Trace call centres will be wound down and replaced by local teams run by councils which are seen to be more effective and persistent at tracking down cases.

PHE’s work on tackling obesity will be handed over to local councils and family doctors, who are being encouraged increasingly to intervene to encourage fat people to lose weight.

In the medium term, the Health and Safety Executive, under its new chairman former Conservative MP Sarah Newton, will get a bigger role in assisting companies in getting more staff back to work.

PHE was originally set up in 2013 by then-Health secretary Jeremy Hunt as a result of an NHS shake-up organised by his predecessor Andrew Lansley.

The unprecedented challenge of the pandemic has exposed its weaknesses. Mr Hancock, who has been working on the overhaul for three months, had to take control of the Government’s testing strategy from PHE in March to scale up the numbers quickly.

One Government source said: “One of the many problems with PHE is that it has been spread too thin during the full pandemic.

“Instead of having an organisation that is constantly on alert for pandemics you have an organisation that has been concentrating on prevention of ill-health.”

There has also been a blame game in Whitehall with Health officials furious with PHE for counting all deaths from Covid-19, rather than just those within the first 28 days of contracting the virus, as in Scotland.

The body was also criticised for not having enough diagnostic testing capacity to properly track the progress of the epidemic in the early weeks of the outbreak.

Number 10 is understood to have become frustrated that PHE’s £190,000 a year chief executive Duncan Selbie, who is likely to be forced out under the changes, appeared reluctant to take a lead.

One source said he had rarely been seen in 10 Downing Street when the strategy was being set, despite the scale of the challenge facing the country, which the source said was “bizarre”.

However, in a statement to the Telegraph Mr Selbie said criticism of PHE over its handling of diagnostic testing was “based on a misunderstanding”.

He said: “The UK had no national diagnostic testing capabilities other than in the NHS at the outset of the pandemic. PHE does not do mass diagnostic testing.

“We operate national reference and research laboratories focussed on novel and dangerous pathogens, and it was never at any stage our role to set the national testing strategy for the coronavirus pandemic. This responsibility rested with DHSC.”

Asked if he saw merit in setting up a Centre for Disease Control (CDC) to tackle pandemics, Mr Selbie said: “PHE is already a dedicated CDC for infectious diseases and other hazards to health including chemicals and radiation. But we are not funded or scaled for a pandemic.

“PHE is currently working with the NHS and the Government to prepare for the challenges of the coming winter with an expanded flu vaccination programme and much improved data.

“The pandemic offers the opportunity to reset the balance between risk and investment and our focus is on getting this right.”

 

Planning Applications verified by EDDC week beginning 3 August

Planning Application, Thorne farm, Ottery St Mary. DCC tries to override Local and Neighbourhood Plans

Owl’s attention has been drawn, by local residents, to the planning application for a 210 space primary school and 150 new houses on Thorne Farm, adjacent to the King’s School in Ottery St Mary, submitted by Devon County Council (DCC) to EDDC  20/1504/MOUT.

DCC want to develop a part of the land they own in Ottery St Mary, outside the Built-Up Area Boundary (BUAB), to help fund the building of a new primary school on the same site, in place of the existing Tipton St John Primary. 

This is proving to be a deeply controversial application, strongly opposed by communities in both Ottery and Tipton. Currently there are  102 objections and 11 supporting comments. The Environment Agency is objecting because there is insufficient information to assess flood risk. Most of the development site is located within flood zone 1, however the northern boundary of the development encroaches into flood zone 3. (Somewhat ironic since the purpose of this application is to relieve flood risk elsewhere).

Well reasoned objections cover a wide range of planning issues.

District Councillors have yet to comment. 

In Owl’s eyes, however, the fundamental objection lies in the application being in direct conflict with both the Local Plan and the Ottery St Mary and West Hill Neighbourhood Plan.

For Owl this crosses a red line. 

It is also a good example, as Owl will explain, of the use and misuse of the consultation process.

The opportunity for communities to create Neighbourhood Plans (NPs) is pretty much all that is left of the much trumpeted 2011 Localism Act. There are already 18  “Made” NPs in EDDC, and Ottery is one. These are plans that have gone through the full consultation and examination process and been voted on by the community. It represents the culmination of an enormous amount of community effort and is not something to be dismissed by the wave of an administrator’s pen in DCC, as an irritating inconvenience.

There are also a further 22 in preparation. Will all their efforts be in vain?

Ottery neighbourhood plan consultation process 2017

Ottery NP consultation period ended at the end of 2017. Not only was the community consulted but interested public and private bodies were consulted twice. This included DCC.

DCC employed a property consultancy NP SW Ltd to submit their consultation response in which they mentioned that the County Council, as the Local Education Authority (LEA), had recently informally consulted on the opportunity to provide a new primary school that will replace the existing Tipton St John Primary School and provide additional capacity for the Ottery St Mary area on the County Council’s land at Thorne Farm, outside the BUAB. The proposed primary school will provide 210 places and 26 nursery places in Phase 1 with a further 210 school places planned for Phase 2. A school of this size requires a site of around 1.76 ha (4.35 acres). This, together with the skateboard park, will require just over half of the allocated site within the adopted Local Plan.

The Ottery NP sought to allocate more of this land outside the BUAB for future social and educational needs but, following the formal objection from DCC, the Inspector reduced the area. However the Inspector agreed that the land should be safeguarded for education or community use, with strong preference  given to meeting the educational needs of the Neighbourhood Plan Area under Policy NP 25.

At no time did DCC, in its consultation response, cite building outside the BUAB in order to finance the school nor did it seek to extend the BUAB to cover its land.

DCC Tipton St John Primary School Relocation Community Consultation Summary Report January 2020 

This is a very clever use of public consultation. To begin with the questionnaire asked very innocuous questions like “Do you agree with the proposals to relocate Tipton St. John Primary School outside flood zone 3?” A resounding yes, we agree. But then the questions became more controversial. Question 5 “Do you agree that there are no viable options available to enable the relocation of Tipton St. John Primary School?”62% disagree. As DCC’s report on the consultation acknowledges: “the final question regarding whether the relocation should be funded by development at Thorne Farm resulted in the most significant negative response. Whilst similar to the figures above, 62% either ‘disagreed’ ‘strongly disagree’ responses (55% of total responses) than the other questions (Sic).”

Despite this, DCC has still has gone ahead with this application. How can they do so with such a negative reaction? It’s our old friend “balance” (plus employing an expert consultant). 

DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL RESPONSE: It is fully recognised that the movement of the school from the centre of the village will be a loss for the Tipton community. However, this needs to be balanced against the benefits of the solution proposed which does ensure a sustainable future for the school in the new location, for it to retain its excellent staff and core values and to continue to serve the children and community of Tipton St John for many years to come.”

Of course we must not forget our other friend  “in the public interest” either.

DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL RESPONSE: We acknowledge that the site is not allocated for housing in the adopted East Devon Local Plan or the Ottery Neighbourhood Plan. This will be a matter for East Devon District Council to consider alongside other elements of the proposal when determining the planning application. The local planning authority may depart from development plan policy where material considerations indicate the plan should not be followed. The scope of what can constitute a material consideration is very wide, however, in general planning is concerned with land use in the public interest.

In the light of this. How do you think the public would fare with a public consultation on the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan”? 

[This is another example of the consequences of blurring the lines between education authority and developer – see Goodmores Farm]

Former builder used fake CVs to become an NHS boss and make £1million

“Jon Andrewes was appointed chairman of the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust (RCHT) ahead of 117 other candidates. 

No one on the high-powered panel, who conducted two interviews with Mr Andrewes, had any doubts they had chosen the right man for the job.”

[Read on – Owl]

Paul Bracchi www.dailymail.co.uk

His CV — experience aside — pointed to a man of considerable intellect and academic prowess; the letters after his name alone took up much of the alphabet… joint first-class honours and master of philosophy degrees from Bristol University… an MBA (Master of Business Administration) from Edinburgh… a PhD from Plymouth University… a diploma from the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants.

His ‘outwardly prestigious life’ was based on lies. Jon Andrewes, 67, pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud after he told ‘staggering lies’ about his academic qualifications and experience to win a string of top-level positions in the NHS

‘It is a privilege to have the opportunity to work with the communities in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly to provide outstanding health and social care services,’ he said in a statement shortly before taking up his duties in 2015. ‘I will listen and engage with patients, clinicians and the wider community to improve care for the people we serve.’

The RCHT has a budget of about £380 million and employs 5,000 staff at three hospitals.

It was the latest in a string of top-level positions Mr Andrewes held in the NHS. He also chaired the Torbay NHS Care Trust where he worked for the best part of a decade.

But Andrewes should never have got any of these jobs. For his qualifications were made up.

How a man who started life as a builder before gaining a diploma in social work — his only real academic achievement — rose to such prominence in the NHS on the back of fabricated credentials is a source of continuing embarrassment.

Andrewes, 67, was forced to quit claiming ill-health a year into his tenure at Cornish Trust, prosecuted for fraud and obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception and jailed for two years.

Only now, after the final chapter in the scandal unfolded this week, can the full story behind what the original trial judge at Exeter Crown Court called his ‘outwardly prestigious life’ — based on a ‘series of staggering lies’ — be revealed.

Those ‘lies’ helped him earn £1 million (before tax) in 12 years, not just from the NHS but also from a number of charities he ran; most of it has been spent. Any available assets (more than £96,000) were confiscated under the Proceeds of Crime Act two years ago.

‘He got away with it for a very long time’: The ex-builder rose to prominence in the NHS on the back of fabricated credentials and made £1million in 12 years. Jon Andrewes worked for the Royal Cornwall Trust.

But the Court of Appeal has now reversed this decision, arguing that Andrewes had given ‘full value’ for the salary and benefits he received — even though he had obtained the roles fraudulently — and should not be punished twice for the same crimes.

Which all rather begs the question: did he actually need any qualifications to do his job in the first place?

Andrewes has now been released from prison. His wife Penny has stood by him. They live in Devon.

Had the Court of Appeal not ruled in his favour, Andrewes would have had to relinquish the profits from the sale of their previous house, along with premium bonds in his name, an insurance payout for a Seat Leon car, and a barge he owns in Amsterdam; he would have also had to cash in a pension plan.

There are those, no doubt, who think he should have been made to repay every penny, considering he worked for the NHS.

Others, however, including former colleagues, believe he has already paid a heavy price; the sentence he received (some child sex offenders have spent not much longer behind bars) combined with the public humiliation is punishment enough, they say.

His motive, according to someone who used to work with him, was not simply financial but borne out of ‘frustration with people less able than himself getting promotions because he did not have the right piece of paper’.

Either way, the case highlights just how far lying on your CV can get you although few could have matched the sheer chutzpah of Jon Andrewes.

The key date in this cautionary tale for employers is 2004. That was the year Andrewes was made chief executive of St Margaret’s Hospice, a palliative care charity in Taunton, Somerset, on an initial salary of £75,000-a-year.

From our inquiries, based on information supplied to us by a former member of staff, we know that he was challenged during his interview about why his name was spelt differently (‘Andrewes’ and ‘Andrews’ and ‘Jon’ and ‘John’) on his birth certificate, passport and driving licence.

He said this was because he had been adopted, something we have been unable to verify.

In any event, copies of the documents with the different spellings circled were sent to the Criminal Records Bureau, part of the Home Office (now the Disclosure and Barring Service) which confirmed that Andrewes did not have a criminal record.

There was no suspicion Andrewes had invented his qualifications, which would have been more difficult to check quickly back then in the days before there was an array of companies offering specialist checking services.

So there was no reason not to make the appointment; a decision the hospice would come to bitterly regret with hindsight.

At the time, his application seemed hugely impressive.

And it was true that, after a spell as a builder, he had actually been legitimately employed in a number of senior management positions in the public and charity sectors after working as a social worker and probation officer in the Seventies and Eighties.

One of the groups was the national environmental regeneration charity Groundwork Trust.

‘He came across as very knowledgeable and competent,’ recalled David Shepperd, former head of legal services at Plymouth City Council, who liaised closely with Andrewes on a council-funded green project. ‘He was an affable, nice guy to deal with.’

Andrewes combined his job at the Groundwork Trust (1998-2004) with a voluntary role leading Brixham 21, a campaign credited with bringing millions of pounds of investment to the port near Torbay.

The Court of Appeal ruled this week that Andrewes can keep his earnings arguing that he had given ‘full value’ for the salary and benefits he received — even though he had obtained the roles fraudulently. Andrewes was also appointed chairman of the Torbay NHS Care Trust .

‘Under Jon’s leadership we achieved a hell of a lot for Brixham,’ said Chris Lomas, a former Liberal Democrat councillor.

‘He got things done. I always thought of him as a successful high-flying, high achiever. I don’t agree with anyone forging qualifications to get ahead of somebody else.

‘I suspect he got frustrated with people less able than himself getting promotions because he did not have the right piece of paper.’

This is precisely what happened, it seems, after Andrewes was installed as CEO of St Margaret’s, which he used as a springboard to launch his career in the NHS, taking up a string of influential, high-profile, non-executive roles he was able to carry out in conjunction with his responsibilities at the hospice.

He was appointed chairman of Torbay NHS Care Trust in 2007 before stepping down in 2015 to take up the same position at the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust.

Andrewes received a net income from the former of £62,156 and £33,687 from the latter. He was also paid an additional £20,000 for chairing, on a temporary basis, another Devon health partnership in 2013.

Total income from NHS during this period: £115,843.

Still there was no suspicion of the ‘staggering lies’ on his CV.

At St Margaret’s, he was ‘charming and personable,’ by all accounts, even though he had requested, rather loftily, that everyone address him as ‘Dr Andrewes’. Anyone who has a PhD is entitled to use that title.

‘He got away with it for a very long time,’ said the former member of staff. She compared Andrewes to Frank Abagnale, the legendary U.S. fraudster whose exploits were turned into the movie Catch Me If You Can.

That may seem like an exaggeration but Andrewes did more than just embellish his CV, he practically created a new identity, which was about to dramatically unravel.

Irregularities in the way grants from the Department of Health were obtained and spent on building projects at the hospice had led to an internal investigation at St Margaret’s which, eventually, resulted in two former members of staff pleading guilty to fraud last year.

During this process, clinical director Ann Lee discovered Jon Andrewes’s CV on computer records at St Margaret’s. Or should we say his three CVs.

Key dates and career details on his original CV for the chief executive’s job at St Margaret’s were significantly different from the CV he used to become chairman of Torbay NHS Care Trust, which was markedly different again from the CV he submitted to get the same position at the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust.

It was almost as if Jon Andrewes was three different people.

The discrepancies uncovered by Ann Lee, who has now taken over as chief executive at St Margaret’s, were brought to the attention of the police and the NHS anti- fraud team.

None of the universities Andrewes claimed to have received degrees from, they discovered, had any record of his attendance.

Much of his employment history had also been re-written so it included stints at the Home Office and HM Revenue & Customs in 1969 — when he would have been only 16.

‘It beggars belief that no due diligence was carried out when he was appointed to these roles in the NHS,’ says an NHS source.

Jon Andrewes announced he was retiring early from the NHS in 2016. The following year he was in the dock at Exeter Crown Court.

‘Your outwardly prestigious life was based upon a lie, and more accurately a series of staggering lies,’ the judge told him before passing sentence.

‘They were repeated lies about your education and employment background and your experience, lies by which you obtained responsible positions which you at least probably, if not certainly, would not otherwise obtained, positions in which honesty and integrity were essential qualities. Of course, because of your fraud, you received an income you should not have received.

‘Above all, what you did means that you were performing responsible roles which you should not have been performing and inevitably that causes real damage to the public’s confidence in the organisations which you deceived.’

On the Court of Appeal’s decision, a spokesperson from St Margaret’s Hospice, said: ‘We are disappointed that Mr Andrewes appeal has been upheld, but are pleased that this final hearing brings this matter to a close.

‘St Margaret’s Hospice has moved on and is focused on ensuring that our patients and their families across Somerset continue to receive compassionate end of life care and support when and where they need it most, particularly at this challenging time.

Jon Andrewes has now embarked on a new life running a curtains and blinds company in South Devon with wife Penny.

‘I’m sorry he doesn’t want to talk about this,’ she said when she answered the door of their bungalow. ‘I understand why you’ve come but, I’m sorry, we’ve been through enough.’

NHS Improvement, which appointed Andrewes, said ‘the range of checks necessary for these type of appointments’ had been expanded in the wake of the controversy.

Considering how easily he fooled his bosses, the question is: How many others like Jon Andrewes are still out there?